The Geary corridor is among the most heavily-used transit corridors in San Francisco, connecting communities between the Outer Richmond and Downtown, over the entire six-mile length of the Geary Corridor. Over 50,000 daily transit riders rely on Geary bus service. San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) and San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency are proposing enhancements to improve the bus line's travel times,&nbsp; reliability, and rider comfort. &nbsp;The proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project would improve performance by establishing physically separated bus lanes, installing transit-optimized traffic signals, increasing bus frequencies, and building high quality stations.
&nbsp;
The Geary corridor is among the most heavily-used transit corridors in San Francisco, connecting communities between the Outer Richmond and Downtown, over the entire six-mile length of the Geary Corridor. Over 50,000 daily transit riders rely on Geary bus service. San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) and San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency are proposing enhancements to improve the bus line's travel times,&nbsp; reliability, and rider comfort. &nbsp;The proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project would improve performance by establishing physically separated bus lanes, installing transit-optimized traffic signals, increasing bus frequencies, and building high quality stations.
&nbsp;
The Geary corridor is among the most heavily-used transit corridors in San Francisco, connecting communities between the Outer Richmond and Downtown, over the entire six-mile length of the Geary Corridor. Over 50,000 daily transit riders rely on Geary bus service. San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) and San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency are proposing enhancements to improve the bus line's travel times,&nbsp; reliability, and rider comfort. &nbsp;The proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project would improve performance by establishing physically separated bus lanes, installing transit-optimized traffic signals, increasing bus frequencies, and building high quality stations.
&nbsp;
The Geary corridor is among the most heavily-used transit corridors in San Francisco, connecting communities between the Outer Richmond and Downtown, over the entire six-mile length of the Geary Corridor. Over 50,000 daily transit riders rely on Geary bus service. San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) and San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency are proposing enhancements to improve the bus line's travel times,&nbsp; reliability, and rider comfort. &nbsp;The proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project would improve performance by establishing physically separated bus lanes, installing transit-optimized traffic signals, increasing bus frequencies, and building high quality stations.
&nbsp;
The Geary corridor is among the most heavily-used transit corridors in San Francisco, connecting communities between the Outer Richmond and Downtown, over the entire six-mile length of the Geary Corridor. Over 50,000 daily transit riders rely on Geary bus service. San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) and San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency are proposing enhancements to improve the bus line's travel times,&nbsp; reliability, and rider comfort. &nbsp;The proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project would improve performance by establishing physically separated bus lanes, installing transit-optimized traffic signals, increasing bus frequencies, and building high quality stations.
&nbsp;
The Geary corridor is among the most heavily-used transit corridors in San Francisco, connecting communities between the Outer Richmond and Downtown, over the entire six-mile length of the Geary Corridor. Over 50,000 daily transit riders rely on Geary bus service. San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) and San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency are proposing enhancements to improve the bus line's travel times,&nbsp; reliability, and rider comfort. &nbsp;The proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project would improve performance by establishing physically separated bus lanes, installing transit-optimized traffic signals, increasing bus frequencies, and building high quality stations.
&nbsp;
The Geary corridor is among the most heavily-used transit corridors in San Francisco, connecting communities between the Outer Richmond and Downtown, over the entire six-mile length of the Geary Corridor. Over 50,000 daily transit riders rely on Geary bus service. San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) and San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency are proposing enhancements to improve the bus line's travel times,&nbsp; reliability, and rider comfort. &nbsp;The proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project would improve performance by establishing physically separated bus lanes, installing transit-optimized traffic signals, increasing bus frequencies, and building high quality stations.
&nbsp;
The Geary corridor is among the most heavily-used transit corridors in San Francisco, connecting communities between the Outer Richmond and Downtown, over the entire six-mile length of the Geary Corridor. Over 50,000 daily transit riders rely on Geary bus service. San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) and San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency are proposing enhancements to improve the bus line's travel times,&nbsp; reliability, and rider comfort. &nbsp;The proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project would improve performance by establishing physically separated bus lanes, installing transit-optimized traffic signals, increasing bus frequencies, and building high quality stations.
&nbsp;
A ROD was signed on 9/9/2016, and subsequently rescinded via a Federal Register notice on 10/11/2017. The project was paused from 10/11/2017 to 7/8/2020.
A ROD was signed on 9/9/2016, and subsequently rescinded via a Federal Register notice on 10/11/2017. The project was paused from 10/11/2017 to 7/8/2020.
A ROD was signed on 9/9/2016, and subsequently rescinded via a Federal Register notice on 10/11/2017. The project was paused from 10/11/2017 to 7/8/2020.
A ROD was signed on 9/9/2016, and subsequently rescinded via a Federal Register notice on 10/11/2017. The project was paused from 10/11/2017 to 7/8/2020.
A ROD was signed on 9/9/2016, and subsequently rescinded via a Federal Register notice on 10/11/2017. The project was paused from 10/11/2017 to 7/8/2020.
A ROD was signed on 9/9/2016, and subsequently rescinded via a Federal Register notice on 10/11/2017. The project was paused from 10/11/2017 to 7/8/2020.
A ROD was signed on 9/9/2016, and subsequently rescinded via a Federal Register notice on 10/11/2017. The project was paused from 10/11/2017 to 7/8/2020.
A ROD was signed on 9/9/2016, and subsequently rescinded via a Federal Register notice on 10/11/2017. The project was paused from 10/11/2017 to 7/8/2020.
A ROD was signed on 9/9/2016, and subsequently rescinded via a Federal Register notice on 10/11/2017. The project was paused from 10/11/2017 to 7/8/2020.
A ROD was signed on 9/9/2016, and subsequently rescinded via a Federal Register notice on 10/11/2017. The project was paused from 10/11/2017 to 7/8/2020.
A ROD was signed on 9/9/2016, and subsequently rescinded via a Federal Register notice on 10/11/2017. The project was paused from 10/11/2017 to 7/8/2020.
A ROD was signed on 9/9/2016, and subsequently rescinded via a Federal Register notice on 10/11/2017. The project was paused from 10/11/2017 to 7/8/2020.
A ROD was signed on 9/9/2016, and subsequently rescinded via a Federal Register notice on 10/11/2017. The project was paused from 10/11/2017 to 7/8/2020.
Prior to issuing a decision on whether or not to paritcipate in Plains &amp; Eastern project, it consulted with interested parties per section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.&nbsp;

&nbsp;
Prior to issuing a decision on whether or not to paritcipate in Plains &amp; Eastern project, it consulted with interested parties per section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.&nbsp;

&nbsp;
Prior to issuing a decision on whether or not to paritcipate in Plains &amp; Eastern project, it consulted with interested parties per section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.&nbsp;

&nbsp;
Section 404 - Memphis District. Nationwide Permit&nbsp;verification letter mailed to applicant on 8 September 2017.
Section 404 - Memphis District. Nationwide Permit&nbsp;verification letter mailed to applicant on 8 September 2017.
Section 404 - Memphis District. Nationwide Permit&nbsp;verification letter mailed to applicant on 8 September 2017.
Section 404 - Memphis District. Nationwide Permit&nbsp;verification letter mailed to applicant on 8 September 2017.
Army Corps Memphis District -&nbsp;Provided approved 408 permission letter on 7 September 2017.
Army Corps Memphis District -&nbsp;Provided approved 408 permission letter on 7 September 2017.
Army Corps Memphis District -&nbsp;Provided approved 408 permission letter on 7 September 2017.
Army Corps Memphis District -&nbsp;Provided approved 408 permission letter on 7 September 2017.
Army Corps Memphis District -&nbsp;Provided approved 408 permission letter on 7 September 2017.
Army Corps Little Rock District -&nbsp;Nationwide Permit verification letter anticipated by 31 October 2017.&nbsp;
Army Corps Little Rock District -&nbsp;Nationwide Permit verification letter anticipated by 31 October 2017.&nbsp;
Army Corps Little Rock District -&nbsp;Nationwide Permit verification letter anticipated by 31 October 2017.&nbsp;
Army Corps Little Rock District -&nbsp;Nationwide Permit verification letter anticipated by 31 October 2017.&nbsp;
Army Corps of Tulsa District -&nbsp;- Nationwide verification letter anticipated by 31 October 2017.&nbsp;
Army Corps of Tulsa District -&nbsp;- Nationwide verification letter anticipated by 31 October 2017.&nbsp;
Army Corps of Tulsa District -&nbsp;- Nationwide verification letter anticipated by 31 October 2017.&nbsp;
Army Corps of Tulsa District -&nbsp;- Nationwide verification letter anticipated by 31 October 2017.&nbsp;
Army Corps Little Rock District -&nbsp;Provided approved 408 permission letter on 9 May 2017.
Army Corps Little Rock District -&nbsp;Provided approved 408 permission letter on 9 May 2017.
Army Corps Little Rock District -&nbsp;Provided approved 408 permission letter on 9 May 2017.
Army Corps Little Rock District -&nbsp;Provided approved 408 permission letter on 9 May 2017.
Army Corps Little Rock District -&nbsp;Provided approved 408 permission letter on 9 May 2017.
Army Corps Tulsa&nbsp;District -&nbsp;Provided approved 408 permission letter on 13 September 2017.&nbsp;
Army Corps Tulsa&nbsp;District -&nbsp;Provided approved 408 permission letter on 13 September 2017.&nbsp;
Army Corps Tulsa&nbsp;District -&nbsp;Provided approved 408 permission letter on 13 September 2017.&nbsp;
Army Corps Tulsa&nbsp;District -&nbsp;Provided approved 408 permission letter on 13 September 2017.&nbsp;
Army Corps Tulsa&nbsp;District -&nbsp;Provided approved 408 permission letter on 13 September 2017.&nbsp;
404 Nationwide Permit
404 Nationwide Permit
404 Nationwide Permit
404 Nationwide Permit
Coast Guard Permit
Coast Guard Permit
Coast Guard Permit
Coast Guard Permit
Coast Guard Permit
Coast Guard Permit
Biological Opinion
Biological Opinion
Biological Opinion
Biological Opinion
Biological Opinion
Biological Opinion
Biological Opinion
Biological Opinion
404 Nationwide Permit
404 Nationwide Permit
404 Nationwide Permit
404 Nationwide Permit
The results of the service alternative analysis and the purpose and need will set the stage for Tier 1 Service Level environmental documentation. The timing of the Tier 1 Service Level environmental documentation (Draft EIS, Final EIS and Record of Decision) is dependent on the availability of funding. &nbsp;The Project will state 'paused,' for these deliverables on the timeline.&nbsp;
The results of the service alternative analysis and the purpose and need will set the stage for Tier 1 Service Level environmental documentation. The timing of the Tier 1 Service Level environmental documentation (Draft EIS, Final EIS and Record of Decision) is dependent on the availability of funding. &nbsp;The Project will state 'paused,' for these deliverables on the timeline.&nbsp;
The results of the service alternative analysis and the purpose and need will set the stage for Tier 1 Service Level environmental documentation. The timing of the Tier 1 Service Level environmental documentation (Draft EIS, Final EIS and Record of Decision) is dependent on the availability of funding. &nbsp;The Project will state 'paused,' for these deliverables on the timeline.&nbsp;
The results of the service alternative analysis and the purpose and need will set the stage for Tier 1 Service Level environmental documentation. The timing of the Tier 1 Service Level environmental documentation (Draft EIS, Final EIS and Record of Decision) is dependent on the availability of funding. &nbsp;The Project will state 'paused,' for these deliverables on the timeline.&nbsp;
The results of the service alternative analysis and the purpose and need will set the stage for Tier 1 Service Level environmental documentation. The timing of the Tier 1 Service Level environmental documentation (Draft EIS, Final EIS and Record of Decision) is dependent on the availability of funding. &nbsp;The Project will state 'paused,' for these deliverables on the timeline.&nbsp;
The results of the service alternative analysis and the purpose and need will set the stage for Tier 1 Service Level environmental documentation. The timing of the Tier 1 Service Level environmental documentation (Draft EIS, Final EIS and Record of Decision) is dependent on the availability of funding. &nbsp;The Project will state 'paused,' for these deliverables on the timeline.&nbsp;
The results of the service alternative analysis and the purpose and need will set the stage for Tier 1 Service Level environmental documentation. The timing of the Tier 1 Service Level environmental documentation (Draft EIS, Final EIS and Record of Decision) is dependent on the availability of funding. &nbsp;The Project will state 'paused,' for these deliverables on the timeline.&nbsp;
The results of the service alternative analysis and the purpose and need will set the stage for Tier 1 Service Level environmental documentation. The timing of the Tier 1 Service Level environmental documentation (Draft EIS, Final EIS and Record of Decision) is dependent on the availability of funding. &nbsp;The Project will state 'paused,' for these deliverables on the timeline.&nbsp;
The results of the service alternative analysis and the purpose and need will set the stage for Tier 1 Service Level environmental documentation. The timing of the Tier 1 Service Level environmental documentation (Draft EIS, Final EIS and Record of Decision) is dependent on the availability of funding. &nbsp;The Project will state 'paused,' for these deliverables on the timeline.&nbsp;
The results of the service alternative analysis and the purpose and need will set the stage for Tier 1 Service Level environmental documentation. The timing of the Tier 1 Service Level environmental documentation (Draft EIS, Final EIS and Record of Decision) is dependent on the availability of funding. &nbsp;The Project will state 'paused,' for these deliverables on the timeline.&nbsp;
The results of the service alternative analysis and the purpose and need will set the stage for Tier 1 Service Level environmental documentation. The timing of the Tier 1 Service Level environmental documentation (Draft EIS, Final EIS and Record of Decision) is dependent on the availability of funding. &nbsp;The Project will state 'paused,' for these deliverables on the timeline.&nbsp;
The Gateway Corridor project is a planned transitway approximately nine miles in length located in Ramsey and Washington Counties in the eastern part of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota. The project is located in a corridor generally parallel to&nbsp;Start Printed Page 13924Interstate 94 (I-94). The purpose is to provide improved public transportation between downtown Saint Paul with its east side neighborhoods and the suburban cities of Maplewood, Landfall, Oakdale, and Woodbury. Since the NOI was published, through the environmental review and locally preferred alternative decision-making process, the potential project length has been reduced by approximately three miles and the transit technologies under evaluation have been reduced from light rail transit, bus rapid transit (BRT), and managed lanes to only BRT. Both these changes have minimized the potential impact of the proposed action. Therefore, the FTA has decided to rescind the NOI for the EIS.
The Gateway Corridor project is a planned transitway approximately nine miles in length located in Ramsey and Washington Counties in the eastern part of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota. The project is located in a corridor generally parallel to&nbsp;Start Printed Page 13924Interstate 94 (I-94). The purpose is to provide improved public transportation between downtown Saint Paul with its east side neighborhoods and the suburban cities of Maplewood, Landfall, Oakdale, and Woodbury. Since the NOI was published, through the environmental review and locally preferred alternative decision-making process, the potential project length has been reduced by approximately three miles and the transit technologies under evaluation have been reduced from light rail transit, bus rapid transit (BRT), and managed lanes to only BRT. Both these changes have minimized the potential impact of the proposed action. Therefore, the FTA has decided to rescind the NOI for the EIS.
The Gateway Corridor project is a planned transitway approximately nine miles in length located in Ramsey and Washington Counties in the eastern part of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota. The project is located in a corridor generally parallel to&nbsp;Start Printed Page 13924Interstate 94 (I-94). The purpose is to provide improved public transportation between downtown Saint Paul with its east side neighborhoods and the suburban cities of Maplewood, Landfall, Oakdale, and Woodbury. Since the NOI was published, through the environmental review and locally preferred alternative decision-making process, the potential project length has been reduced by approximately three miles and the transit technologies under evaluation have been reduced from light rail transit, bus rapid transit (BRT), and managed lanes to only BRT. Both these changes have minimized the potential impact of the proposed action. Therefore, the FTA has decided to rescind the NOI for the EIS.
The Gateway Corridor project is a planned transitway approximately nine miles in length located in Ramsey and Washington Counties in the eastern part of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota. The project is located in a corridor generally parallel to&nbsp;Start Printed Page 13924Interstate 94 (I-94). The purpose is to provide improved public transportation between downtown Saint Paul with its east side neighborhoods and the suburban cities of Maplewood, Landfall, Oakdale, and Woodbury. Since the NOI was published, through the environmental review and locally preferred alternative decision-making process, the potential project length has been reduced by approximately three miles and the transit technologies under evaluation have been reduced from light rail transit, bus rapid transit (BRT), and managed lanes to only BRT. Both these changes have minimized the potential impact of the proposed action. Therefore, the FTA has decided to rescind the NOI for the EIS.
The Gateway Corridor project is a planned transitway approximately nine miles in length located in Ramsey and Washington Counties in the eastern part of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota. The project is located in a corridor generally parallel to&nbsp;Start Printed Page 13924Interstate 94 (I-94). The purpose is to provide improved public transportation between downtown Saint Paul with its east side neighborhoods and the suburban cities of Maplewood, Landfall, Oakdale, and Woodbury. Since the NOI was published, through the environmental review and locally preferred alternative decision-making process, the potential project length has been reduced by approximately three miles and the transit technologies under evaluation have been reduced from light rail transit, bus rapid transit (BRT), and managed lanes to only BRT. Both these changes have minimized the potential impact of the proposed action. Therefore, the FTA has decided to rescind the NOI for the EIS.
The Gateway Corridor project is a planned transitway approximately nine miles in length located in Ramsey and Washington Counties in the eastern part of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota. The project is located in a corridor generally parallel to&nbsp;Start Printed Page 13924Interstate 94 (I-94). The purpose is to provide improved public transportation between downtown Saint Paul with its east side neighborhoods and the suburban cities of Maplewood, Landfall, Oakdale, and Woodbury. Since the NOI was published, through the environmental review and locally preferred alternative decision-making process, the potential project length has been reduced by approximately three miles and the transit technologies under evaluation have been reduced from light rail transit, bus rapid transit (BRT), and managed lanes to only BRT. Both these changes have minimized the potential impact of the proposed action. Therefore, the FTA has decided to rescind the NOI for the EIS.
The Gateway Corridor project is a planned transitway approximately nine miles in length located in Ramsey and Washington Counties in the eastern part of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota. The project is located in a corridor generally parallel to&nbsp;Start Printed Page 13924Interstate 94 (I-94). The purpose is to provide improved public transportation between downtown Saint Paul with its east side neighborhoods and the suburban cities of Maplewood, Landfall, Oakdale, and Woodbury. Since the NOI was published, through the environmental review and locally preferred alternative decision-making process, the potential project length has been reduced by approximately three miles and the transit technologies under evaluation have been reduced from light rail transit, bus rapid transit (BRT), and managed lanes to only BRT. Both these changes have minimized the potential impact of the proposed action. Therefore, the FTA has decided to rescind the NOI for the EIS.
The Gateway Corridor project is a planned transitway approximately nine miles in length located in Ramsey and Washington Counties in the eastern part of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota. The project is located in a corridor generally parallel to&nbsp;Start Printed Page 13924Interstate 94 (I-94). The purpose is to provide improved public transportation between downtown Saint Paul with its east side neighborhoods and the suburban cities of Maplewood, Landfall, Oakdale, and Woodbury. Since the NOI was published, through the environmental review and locally preferred alternative decision-making process, the potential project length has been reduced by approximately three miles and the transit technologies under evaluation have been reduced from light rail transit, bus rapid transit (BRT), and managed lanes to only BRT. Both these changes have minimized the potential impact of the proposed action. Therefore, the FTA has decided to rescind the NOI for the EIS.
The County of San Bernardino would like to lease 90.71 acres of airport property for non-aeronautical land use.&nbsp; The property would be used for commercial use, a freight distribution center.
The County of San Bernardino would like to lease 90.71 acres of airport property for non-aeronautical land use.&nbsp; The property would be used for commercial use, a freight distribution center.
The County of San Bernardino would like to lease 90.71 acres of airport property for non-aeronautical land use.&nbsp; The property would be used for commercial use, a freight distribution center.
The County of San Bernardino would like to lease 90.71 acres of airport property for non-aeronautical land use.&nbsp; The property would be used for commercial use, a freight distribution center.
The County of San Bernardino would like to lease 90.71 acres of airport property for non-aeronautical land use.&nbsp; The property would be used for commercial use, a freight distribution center.
The County of San Bernardino would like to lease 90.71 acres of airport property for non-aeronautical land use.&nbsp; The property would be used for commercial use, a freight distribution center.
The County of San Bernardino would like to lease 90.71 acres of airport property for non-aeronautical land use.&nbsp; The property would be used for commercial use, a freight distribution center.
The County of San Bernardino would like to lease 90.71 acres of airport property for non-aeronautical land use.&nbsp; The property would be used for commercial use, a freight distribution center.
The County of San Bernardino would like to lease 90.71 acres of airport property for non-aeronautical land use.&nbsp; The property would be used for commercial use, a freight distribution center.
Section 106 consultation for the EA.
Section 106 consultation for the EA.
Section 106 consultation for the EA.
Section 7 consultation for EA.
Section 7 consultation for EA.
Section 7 consultation for EA.
Section 106 Consultation for the EA.
Section 106 Consultation for the EA.
Section 106 Consultation for the EA.
USACE coordination
USACE coordination
USACE coordination
USACE coordination
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed release of aeronautical land for non-aeronautical development at The Eastern Iowa Airport, Cedar Rapids, Iowa subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed release of aeronautical land for non-aeronautical development at The Eastern Iowa Airport, Cedar Rapids, Iowa subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed release of aeronautical land for non-aeronautical development at The Eastern Iowa Airport, Cedar Rapids, Iowa subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed release of aeronautical land for non-aeronautical development at The Eastern Iowa Airport, Cedar Rapids, Iowa subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed release of aeronautical land for non-aeronautical development at The Eastern Iowa Airport, Cedar Rapids, Iowa subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed release of aeronautical land for non-aeronautical development at The Eastern Iowa Airport, Cedar Rapids, Iowa subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed release of aeronautical land for non-aeronautical development at The Eastern Iowa Airport, Cedar Rapids, Iowa subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed release of aeronautical land for non-aeronautical development at The Eastern Iowa Airport, Cedar Rapids, Iowa subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed release of aeronautical land for non-aeronautical development at The Eastern Iowa Airport, Cedar Rapids, Iowa subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Le Mars Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Extend Runway 18 by 150-feet
• Construct new aircraft turnaround and remove existing turnaround
• Relocate existing Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL)
• Acquire approximately 61.8 acres of property to facilitate construction and control safety areas
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Le Mars Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Extend Runway 18 by 150-feet
• Construct new aircraft turnaround and remove existing turnaround
• Relocate existing Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL)
• Acquire approximately 61.8 acres of property to facilitate construction and control safety areas
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Le Mars Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Extend Runway 18 by 150-feet
• Construct new aircraft turnaround and remove existing turnaround
• Relocate existing Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL)
• Acquire approximately 61.8 acres of property to facilitate construction and control safety areas
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Le Mars Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Extend Runway 18 by 150-feet
• Construct new aircraft turnaround and remove existing turnaround
• Relocate existing Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL)
• Acquire approximately 61.8 acres of property to facilitate construction and control safety areas
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Le Mars Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Extend Runway 18 by 150-feet
• Construct new aircraft turnaround and remove existing turnaround
• Relocate existing Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL)
• Acquire approximately 61.8 acres of property to facilitate construction and control safety areas
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Le Mars Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Extend Runway 18 by 150-feet
• Construct new aircraft turnaround and remove existing turnaround
• Relocate existing Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL)
• Acquire approximately 61.8 acres of property to facilitate construction and control safety areas
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Le Mars Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Extend Runway 18 by 150-feet
• Construct new aircraft turnaround and remove existing turnaround
• Relocate existing Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL)
• Acquire approximately 61.8 acres of property to facilitate construction and control safety areas
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Le Mars Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Extend Runway 18 by 150-feet
• Construct new aircraft turnaround and remove existing turnaround
• Relocate existing Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL)
• Acquire approximately 61.8 acres of property to facilitate construction and control safety areas
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Le Mars Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Extend Runway 18 by 150-feet
• Construct new aircraft turnaround and remove existing turnaround
• Relocate existing Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL)
• Acquire approximately 61.8 acres of property to facilitate construction and control safety areas
Section 106 consultation for the EA
Section 106 consultation for the EA
Section 106 consultation for the EA
USACE coordination
USACE coordination
USACE coordination
USACE coordination
USACE coordination
FWS coordination
FWS coordination
FWS coordination
FWS coordination
Section 106 Consultation
Section 106 Consultation
Section 106 Consultation
USACE coordination
USACE coordination
USACE coordination
USACE coordination
USACE coordination
FWS coordination
FWS coordination
FWS coordination
FWS coordination
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Kingman Airport - Clyde Cessna Field subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Construct full-length parallel taxiway (4,300')
• Obstruction removal (8 acres of trees and lower power lines)
• Land acquisition (16 acres in fee simple for AWOS installation)
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Kingman Airport - Clyde Cessna Field subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Construct full-length parallel taxiway (4,300')
• Obstruction removal (8 acres of trees and lower power lines)
• Land acquisition (16 acres in fee simple for AWOS installation)
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Kingman Airport - Clyde Cessna Field subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Construct full-length parallel taxiway (4,300')
• Obstruction removal (8 acres of trees and lower power lines)
• Land acquisition (16 acres in fee simple for AWOS installation)
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Kingman Airport - Clyde Cessna Field subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Construct full-length parallel taxiway (4,300')
• Obstruction removal (8 acres of trees and lower power lines)
• Land acquisition (16 acres in fee simple for AWOS installation)
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Kingman Airport - Clyde Cessna Field subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Construct full-length parallel taxiway (4,300')
• Obstruction removal (8 acres of trees and lower power lines)
• Land acquisition (16 acres in fee simple for AWOS installation)
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Kingman Airport - Clyde Cessna Field subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Construct full-length parallel taxiway (4,300')
• Obstruction removal (8 acres of trees and lower power lines)
• Land acquisition (16 acres in fee simple for AWOS installation)
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Kingman Airport - Clyde Cessna Field subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Construct full-length parallel taxiway (4,300')
• Obstruction removal (8 acres of trees and lower power lines)
• Land acquisition (16 acres in fee simple for AWOS installation)
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Kingman Airport - Clyde Cessna Field subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Construct full-length parallel taxiway (4,300')
• Obstruction removal (8 acres of trees and lower power lines)
• Land acquisition (16 acres in fee simple for AWOS installation)
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Kingman Airport - Clyde Cessna Field subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Construct full-length parallel taxiway (4,300')
• Obstruction removal (8 acres of trees and lower power lines)
• Land acquisition (16 acres in fee simple for AWOS installation)
Section 106 Consultation for the EA

&nbsp;
Section 106 Consultation for the EA

&nbsp;
Section 106 Consultation for the EA

&nbsp;
USACE coordination
USACE coordination
USACE coordination
USACE coordination
USACE coordination
FWS coordination
FWS coordination
FWS coordination
FWS coordination
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Wayne Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Parallel Taxiway to Runway 18/36
• Partial Parallel Taxiway to Runway 23
• Taxilane Pavement Reconstruction
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Wayne Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Parallel Taxiway to Runway 18/36
• Partial Parallel Taxiway to Runway 23
• Taxilane Pavement Reconstruction
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Wayne Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Parallel Taxiway to Runway 18/36
• Partial Parallel Taxiway to Runway 23
• Taxilane Pavement Reconstruction
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Wayne Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Parallel Taxiway to Runway 18/36
• Partial Parallel Taxiway to Runway 23
• Taxilane Pavement Reconstruction
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Wayne Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Parallel Taxiway to Runway 18/36
• Partial Parallel Taxiway to Runway 23
• Taxilane Pavement Reconstruction
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Wayne Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Parallel Taxiway to Runway 18/36
• Partial Parallel Taxiway to Runway 23
• Taxilane Pavement Reconstruction
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Wayne Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Parallel Taxiway to Runway 18/36
• Partial Parallel Taxiway to Runway 23
• Taxilane Pavement Reconstruction
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Wayne Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Parallel Taxiway to Runway 18/36
• Partial Parallel Taxiway to Runway 23
• Taxilane Pavement Reconstruction
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Wayne Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;

The project includes:
• Parallel Taxiway to Runway 18/36
• Partial Parallel Taxiway to Runway 23
• Taxilane Pavement Reconstruction
Section 106 Consultation
Section 106 Consultation
Section 106 Consultation
USACE coordination
USACE coordination
USACE coordination
USACE coordination
USACE coordination
FWS coordination
FWS coordination
FWS coordination
FWS coordination
In March 2015, DOE and TVA requested the initiation of formal consultation and conference with the USFWS under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and submitted a Biological Assessment (BA) regarding the Applicant Proposed Project and its potential effects on listed species and designated critical habitat. DOE responded to USFWS’s request for additional information with a revised BA in May 2015. In July 2015, DOE submitted an addendum to the revised BA to address route variations based on public comments on the Draft EIS. The USFWS issued its Biological Opinion on November 20, 2015, which concluded formal consultation. The Biological Opinion is included as Appendix B of the MAP. The Biological Opinion concluded that implementation of the Applicant Proposed Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the affected species, but likely will result in incidental take of certain species and, therefore, includes an enforceable incidental take statement. DOE’s decision is conditioned on the Applicant complying with the incidental take statement and taking all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the selected alternative as required by USFWS in the Biological Opinion. These conditions are further described under the Mitigation section below in this ROD. DOE also acknowledges that re-initiation of formal ESA consultation may be required in accordance with 50 CFR 402.16.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;
In March 2015, DOE and TVA requested the initiation of formal consultation and conference with the USFWS under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and submitted a Biological Assessment (BA) regarding the Applicant Proposed Project and its potential effects on listed species and designated critical habitat. DOE responded to USFWS’s request for additional information with a revised BA in May 2015. In July 2015, DOE submitted an addendum to the revised BA to address route variations based on public comments on the Draft EIS. The USFWS issued its Biological Opinion on November 20, 2015, which concluded formal consultation. The Biological Opinion is included as Appendix B of the MAP. The Biological Opinion concluded that implementation of the Applicant Proposed Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the affected species, but likely will result in incidental take of certain species and, therefore, includes an enforceable incidental take statement. DOE’s decision is conditioned on the Applicant complying with the incidental take statement and taking all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the selected alternative as required by USFWS in the Biological Opinion. These conditions are further described under the Mitigation section below in this ROD. DOE also acknowledges that re-initiation of formal ESA consultation may be required in accordance with 50 CFR 402.16.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;
In March 2015, DOE and TVA requested the initiation of formal consultation and conference with the USFWS under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and submitted a Biological Assessment (BA) regarding the Applicant Proposed Project and its potential effects on listed species and designated critical habitat. DOE responded to USFWS’s request for additional information with a revised BA in May 2015. In July 2015, DOE submitted an addendum to the revised BA to address route variations based on public comments on the Draft EIS. The USFWS issued its Biological Opinion on November 20, 2015, which concluded formal consultation. The Biological Opinion is included as Appendix B of the MAP. The Biological Opinion concluded that implementation of the Applicant Proposed Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the affected species, but likely will result in incidental take of certain species and, therefore, includes an enforceable incidental take statement. DOE’s decision is conditioned on the Applicant complying with the incidental take statement and taking all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the selected alternative as required by USFWS in the Biological Opinion. These conditions are further described under the Mitigation section below in this ROD. DOE also acknowledges that re-initiation of formal ESA consultation may be required in accordance with 50 CFR 402.16.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;
In March 2015, DOE and TVA requested the initiation of formal consultation and conference with the USFWS under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and submitted a Biological Assessment (BA) regarding the Applicant Proposed Project and its potential effects on listed species and designated critical habitat. DOE responded to USFWS’s request for additional information with a revised BA in May 2015. In July 2015, DOE submitted an addendum to the revised BA to address route variations based on public comments on the Draft EIS. The USFWS issued its Biological Opinion on November 20, 2015, which concluded formal consultation. The Biological Opinion is included as Appendix B of the MAP. The Biological Opinion concluded that implementation of the Applicant Proposed Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the affected species, but likely will result in incidental take of certain species and, therefore, includes an enforceable incidental take statement. DOE’s decision is conditioned on the Applicant complying with the incidental take statement and taking all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the selected alternative as required by USFWS in the Biological Opinion. These conditions are further described under the Mitigation section below in this ROD. DOE also acknowledges that re-initiation of formal ESA consultation may be required in accordance with 50 CFR 402.16.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;
Review and conduct NEPA analysis on an Eagle Take Permit application for Phase 1 of the Chokecherry Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project
Review and conduct NEPA analysis on an Eagle Take Permit application for Phase 1 of the Chokecherry Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project
Review and conduct NEPA analysis on an Eagle Take Permit application for Phase 1 of the Chokecherry Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project
Review and conduct NEPA analysis on an Eagle Take Permit application for Phase 1 of the Chokecherry Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project
Review and conduct NEPA analysis on an Eagle Take Permit application for Phase 1 of the Chokecherry Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project
Review and conduct NEPA analysis on an Eagle Take Permit application for Phase 1 of the Chokecherry Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project
Review and conduct NEPA analysis on an Eagle Take Permit application for Phase 1 of the Chokecherry Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project
Review and conduct NEPA analysis on an Eagle Take Permit application for Phase 1 of the Chokecherry Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project
EIS for Chokecherry Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project&nbsp;
EIS for Chokecherry Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project&nbsp;
EIS for Chokecherry Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project&nbsp;
EIS for Chokecherry Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project&nbsp;
EIS for Chokecherry Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project&nbsp;
EIS for Chokecherry Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project&nbsp;
EIS for Chokecherry Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project&nbsp;
EIS for Chokecherry Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project&nbsp;
The Eagle Take Permit application for Phase 1 of the Chokecherry Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project is voluntary, and FWS is currently consulting with the applicant on the ideal timing for the permit, which will be issued after construction was initiated.
The Eagle Take Permit application for Phase 1 of the Chokecherry Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project is voluntary, and FWS is currently consulting with the applicant on the ideal timing for the permit, which will be issued after construction was initiated.
The Eagle Take Permit application for Phase 1 of the Chokecherry Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project is voluntary, and FWS is currently consulting with the applicant on the ideal timing for the permit, which will be issued after construction was initiated.
The Eagle Take Permit application for Phase 1 of the Chokecherry Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project is voluntary, and FWS is currently consulting with the applicant on the ideal timing for the permit, which will be issued after construction was initiated.
The Eagle Take Permit application for Phase 1 of the Chokecherry Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project is voluntary, and FWS is currently consulting with the applicant on the ideal timing for the permit, which will be issued after construction was initiated.
Review and edit the draft biological assessment (up to 30 days). Once FWS has a final biological assessment with complete information, FWS has up to 135 days to complete the biological opinion. We expect the consultation will be completed well under the full 135 days.
Review and edit the draft biological assessment (up to 30 days). Once FWS has a final biological assessment with complete information, FWS has up to 135 days to complete the biological opinion. We expect the consultation will be completed well under the full 135 days.
Review and edit the draft biological assessment (up to 30 days). Once FWS has a final biological assessment with complete information, FWS has up to 135 days to complete the biological opinion. We expect the consultation will be completed well under the full 135 days.
Review and edit the draft biological assessment (up to 30 days). Once FWS has a final biological assessment with complete information, FWS has up to 135 days to complete the biological opinion. We expect the consultation will be completed well under the full 135 days.
An Environmental Assessment for Infrastructure Components (EA1) and Decision Record (DR) on the Phase I Haul Road and Facilities, Road Rock Quarry and West Sinclair Rail Facility was signed by the Department of the Interior (DOI) Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management on Dec. 23, 2014.&nbsp; The decision was later amended in May 2016.&nbsp; This amendment provided management flexibility to issue multiple right-of-way grants as provided for by the CCSM ROD.&nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment for Infrastructure Components (EA1) and Decision Record (DR) on the Phase I Haul Road and Facilities, Road Rock Quarry and West Sinclair Rail Facility was signed by the Department of the Interior (DOI) Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management on Dec. 23, 2014.&nbsp; The decision was later amended in May 2016.&nbsp; This amendment provided management flexibility to issue multiple right-of-way grants as provided for by the CCSM ROD.&nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment for Infrastructure Components (EA1) and Decision Record (DR) on the Phase I Haul Road and Facilities, Road Rock Quarry and West Sinclair Rail Facility was signed by the Department of the Interior (DOI) Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management on Dec. 23, 2014.&nbsp; The decision was later amended in May 2016.&nbsp; This amendment provided management flexibility to issue multiple right-of-way grants as provided for by the CCSM ROD.&nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment for Infrastructure Components (EA1) and Decision Record (DR) on the Phase I Haul Road and Facilities, Road Rock Quarry and West Sinclair Rail Facility was signed by the Department of the Interior (DOI) Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management on Dec. 23, 2014.&nbsp; The decision was later amended in May 2016.&nbsp; This amendment provided management flexibility to issue multiple right-of-way grants as provided for by the CCSM ROD.&nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment for Infrastructure Components (EA1) and Decision Record (DR) on the Phase I Haul Road and Facilities, Road Rock Quarry and West Sinclair Rail Facility was signed by the Department of the Interior (DOI) Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management on Dec. 23, 2014.&nbsp; The decision was later amended in May 2016.&nbsp; This amendment provided management flexibility to issue multiple right-of-way grants as provided for by the CCSM ROD.&nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment for Infrastructure Components (EA1) and Decision Record (DR) on the Phase I Haul Road and Facilities, Road Rock Quarry and West Sinclair Rail Facility was signed by the Department of the Interior (DOI) Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management on Dec. 23, 2014.&nbsp; The decision was later amended in May 2016.&nbsp; This amendment provided management flexibility to issue multiple right-of-way grants as provided for by the CCSM ROD.&nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment for Infrastructure Components (EA1) and Decision Record (DR) on the Phase I Haul Road and Facilities, Road Rock Quarry and West Sinclair Rail Facility was signed by the Department of the Interior (DOI) Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management on Dec. 23, 2014.&nbsp; The decision was later amended in May 2016.&nbsp; This amendment provided management flexibility to issue multiple right-of-way grants as provided for by the CCSM ROD.&nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment for Infrastructure Components (EA1) and Decision Record (DR) on the Phase I Haul Road and Facilities, Road Rock Quarry and West Sinclair Rail Facility was signed by the Department of the Interior (DOI) Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management on Dec. 23, 2014.&nbsp; The decision was later amended in May 2016.&nbsp; This amendment provided management flexibility to issue multiple right-of-way grants as provided for by the CCSM ROD.&nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment for Infrastructure Components (EA1) and Decision Record (DR) on the Phase I Haul Road and Facilities, Road Rock Quarry and West Sinclair Rail Facility was signed by the Department of the Interior (DOI) Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management on Dec. 23, 2014.&nbsp; The decision was later amended in May 2016.&nbsp; This amendment provided management flexibility to issue multiple right-of-way grants as provided for by the CCSM ROD.&nbsp;
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released the Phase I Wind Turbine Development Draft Environmental Assessment (EA2) (first 500 wind turbines) and Draft Finding of No New Significant Impacts (FONNSI) in March 2016, prepared consistent with the tiering procedures outlined in the ROD for the CCSM Wind Energy Project. After reviewing public comments, the BLM completed the environmental analysis and signed a Decision Record approving the turbine development on January 17, 2017.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released the Phase I Wind Turbine Development Draft Environmental Assessment (EA2) (first 500 wind turbines) and Draft Finding of No New Significant Impacts (FONNSI) in March 2016, prepared consistent with the tiering procedures outlined in the ROD for the CCSM Wind Energy Project. After reviewing public comments, the BLM completed the environmental analysis and signed a Decision Record approving the turbine development on January 17, 2017.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released the Phase I Wind Turbine Development Draft Environmental Assessment (EA2) (first 500 wind turbines) and Draft Finding of No New Significant Impacts (FONNSI) in March 2016, prepared consistent with the tiering procedures outlined in the ROD for the CCSM Wind Energy Project. After reviewing public comments, the BLM completed the environmental analysis and signed a Decision Record approving the turbine development on January 17, 2017.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released the Phase I Wind Turbine Development Draft Environmental Assessment (EA2) (first 500 wind turbines) and Draft Finding of No New Significant Impacts (FONNSI) in March 2016, prepared consistent with the tiering procedures outlined in the ROD for the CCSM Wind Energy Project. After reviewing public comments, the BLM completed the environmental analysis and signed a Decision Record approving the turbine development on January 17, 2017.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released the Phase I Wind Turbine Development Draft Environmental Assessment (EA2) (first 500 wind turbines) and Draft Finding of No New Significant Impacts (FONNSI) in March 2016, prepared consistent with the tiering procedures outlined in the ROD for the CCSM Wind Energy Project. After reviewing public comments, the BLM completed the environmental analysis and signed a Decision Record approving the turbine development on January 17, 2017.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released the Phase I Wind Turbine Development Draft Environmental Assessment (EA2) (first 500 wind turbines) and Draft Finding of No New Significant Impacts (FONNSI) in March 2016, prepared consistent with the tiering procedures outlined in the ROD for the CCSM Wind Energy Project. After reviewing public comments, the BLM completed the environmental analysis and signed a Decision Record approving the turbine development on January 17, 2017.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released the Phase I Wind Turbine Development Draft Environmental Assessment (EA2) (first 500 wind turbines) and Draft Finding of No New Significant Impacts (FONNSI) in March 2016, prepared consistent with the tiering procedures outlined in the ROD for the CCSM Wind Energy Project. After reviewing public comments, the BLM completed the environmental analysis and signed a Decision Record approving the turbine development on January 17, 2017.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released the Phase I Wind Turbine Development Draft Environmental Assessment (EA2) (first 500 wind turbines) and Draft Finding of No New Significant Impacts (FONNSI) in March 2016, prepared consistent with the tiering procedures outlined in the ROD for the CCSM Wind Energy Project. After reviewing public comments, the BLM completed the environmental analysis and signed a Decision Record approving the turbine development on January 17, 2017.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released the Phase I Wind Turbine Development Draft Environmental Assessment (EA2) (first 500 wind turbines) and Draft Finding of No New Significant Impacts (FONNSI) in March 2016, prepared consistent with the tiering procedures outlined in the ROD for the CCSM Wind Energy Project. After reviewing public comments, the BLM completed the environmental analysis and signed a Decision Record approving the turbine development on January 17, 2017.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared for proposed land acquisition and obstruction removal at Georgetown County Airport (GGE) subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.&nbsp;
			
			The proposed project at the airport includes the following:
			• Land Acquisition of 2 parcels to allow for clearing approach to Runway 05
			• Acquisition of avigation easements from 8 parcels for clearing approach to Runway 05
			• Land acquisition of 4 parcels to allow for clearing approach to • Runway 23Acquisition of avigation easements from 10 parcels too allow clearing approach to Runway 23
			• Removal of obstructions within approach slopes and/or departure surface for Runway 05/23
An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared for proposed land acquisition and obstruction removal at Georgetown County Airport (GGE) subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.&nbsp;
			
			The proposed project at the airport includes the following:
			• Land Acquisition of 2 parcels to allow for clearing approach to Runway 05
			• Acquisition of avigation easements from 8 parcels for clearing approach to Runway 05
			• Land acquisition of 4 parcels to allow for clearing approach to • Runway 23Acquisition of avigation easements from 10 parcels too allow clearing approach to Runway 23
			• Removal of obstructions within approach slopes and/or departure surface for Runway 05/23
An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared for proposed land acquisition and obstruction removal at Georgetown County Airport (GGE) subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.&nbsp;
			
			The proposed project at the airport includes the following:
			• Land Acquisition of 2 parcels to allow for clearing approach to Runway 05
			• Acquisition of avigation easements from 8 parcels for clearing approach to Runway 05
			• Land acquisition of 4 parcels to allow for clearing approach to • Runway 23Acquisition of avigation easements from 10 parcels too allow clearing approach to Runway 23
			• Removal of obstructions within approach slopes and/or departure surface for Runway 05/23
An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared for proposed land acquisition and obstruction removal at Georgetown County Airport (GGE) subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.&nbsp;
			
			The proposed project at the airport includes the following:
			• Land Acquisition of 2 parcels to allow for clearing approach to Runway 05
			• Acquisition of avigation easements from 8 parcels for clearing approach to Runway 05
			• Land acquisition of 4 parcels to allow for clearing approach to • Runway 23Acquisition of avigation easements from 10 parcels too allow clearing approach to Runway 23
			• Removal of obstructions within approach slopes and/or departure surface for Runway 05/23
An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared for proposed land acquisition and obstruction removal at Georgetown County Airport (GGE) subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.&nbsp;
			
			The proposed project at the airport includes the following:
			• Land Acquisition of 2 parcels to allow for clearing approach to Runway 05
			• Acquisition of avigation easements from 8 parcels for clearing approach to Runway 05
			• Land acquisition of 4 parcels to allow for clearing approach to • Runway 23Acquisition of avigation easements from 10 parcels too allow clearing approach to Runway 23
			• Removal of obstructions within approach slopes and/or departure surface for Runway 05/23
An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared for proposed land acquisition and obstruction removal at Georgetown County Airport (GGE) subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.&nbsp;
			
			The proposed project at the airport includes the following:
			• Land Acquisition of 2 parcels to allow for clearing approach to Runway 05
			• Acquisition of avigation easements from 8 parcels for clearing approach to Runway 05
			• Land acquisition of 4 parcels to allow for clearing approach to • Runway 23Acquisition of avigation easements from 10 parcels too allow clearing approach to Runway 23
			• Removal of obstructions within approach slopes and/or departure surface for Runway 05/23
An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared for proposed land acquisition and obstruction removal at Georgetown County Airport (GGE) subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.&nbsp;
			
			The proposed project at the airport includes the following:
			• Land Acquisition of 2 parcels to allow for clearing approach to Runway 05
			• Acquisition of avigation easements from 8 parcels for clearing approach to Runway 05
			• Land acquisition of 4 parcels to allow for clearing approach to • Runway 23Acquisition of avigation easements from 10 parcels too allow clearing approach to Runway 23
			• Removal of obstructions within approach slopes and/or departure surface for Runway 05/23
An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared for proposed land acquisition and obstruction removal at Georgetown County Airport (GGE) subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.&nbsp;
			
			The proposed project at the airport includes the following:
			• Land Acquisition of 2 parcels to allow for clearing approach to Runway 05
			• Acquisition of avigation easements from 8 parcels for clearing approach to Runway 05
			• Land acquisition of 4 parcels to allow for clearing approach to • Runway 23Acquisition of avigation easements from 10 parcels too allow clearing approach to Runway 23
			• Removal of obstructions within approach slopes and/or departure surface for Runway 05/23
An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared for proposed land acquisition and obstruction removal at Georgetown County Airport (GGE) subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.&nbsp;
			
			The proposed project at the airport includes the following:
			• Land Acquisition of 2 parcels to allow for clearing approach to Runway 05
			• Acquisition of avigation easements from 8 parcels for clearing approach to Runway 05
			• Land acquisition of 4 parcels to allow for clearing approach to • Runway 23Acquisition of avigation easements from 10 parcels too allow clearing approach to Runway 23
			• Removal of obstructions within approach slopes and/or departure surface for Runway 05/23
S106 review
S106 review
S106 review
USACE Consultation.
USACE Consultation.
USACE Consultation.
USACE Consultation.
USACE Consultation.
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 106 consultation.
Section 106 consultation.
Section 106 consultation.
Section 7 consultation.
Section 7 consultation.
Section 7 consultation.
Section 7 consultation.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:&nbsp;Huntington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:&nbsp;Huntington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:&nbsp;Huntington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:&nbsp;Huntington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:&nbsp;Huntington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:&nbsp;Huntington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:&nbsp;Huntington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:&nbsp;Huntington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:&nbsp;Pittsburgh&nbsp;District

The Huntington District, USACE was notified by the FERC on 27 June, 2016 that Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are complete for the WB Xpress project.&nbsp; On 30 June, 2017 the Huntington District, USACE provided the FERC confirmation of compliance with the above federal laws to the Pittsburgh District and Norfolk District, USACE.&nbsp; Each District (Huntington, Pittsburgh and Norfolk District) expects to render a decision under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 on or before 14 August 2017 (45 days).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:&nbsp;Pittsburgh&nbsp;District

The Huntington District, USACE was notified by the FERC on 27 June, 2016 that Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are complete for the WB Xpress project.&nbsp; On 30 June, 2017 the Huntington District, USACE provided the FERC confirmation of compliance with the above federal laws to the Pittsburgh District and Norfolk District, USACE.&nbsp; Each District (Huntington, Pittsburgh and Norfolk District) expects to render a decision under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 on or before 14 August 2017 (45 days).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:&nbsp;Pittsburgh&nbsp;District

The Huntington District, USACE was notified by the FERC on 27 June, 2016 that Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are complete for the WB Xpress project.&nbsp; On 30 June, 2017 the Huntington District, USACE provided the FERC confirmation of compliance with the above federal laws to the Pittsburgh District and Norfolk District, USACE.&nbsp; Each District (Huntington, Pittsburgh and Norfolk District) expects to render a decision under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 on or before 14 August 2017 (45 days).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:&nbsp;Pittsburgh&nbsp;District

The Huntington District, USACE was notified by the FERC on 27 June, 2016 that Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are complete for the WB Xpress project.&nbsp; On 30 June, 2017 the Huntington District, USACE provided the FERC confirmation of compliance with the above federal laws to the Pittsburgh District and Norfolk District, USACE.&nbsp; Each District (Huntington, Pittsburgh and Norfolk District) expects to render a decision under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 on or before 14 August 2017 (45 days).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:&nbsp;Pittsburgh District

The Huntington District, USACE was notified by the FERC on 27 June, 2016 that Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are complete for the WB Xpress project.&nbsp; On 30 June, 2017 the Huntington District, USACE provided the FERC confirmation of compliance with the above federal laws to the Pittsburgh District and Norfolk District, USACE.&nbsp; Each District (Huntington, Pittsburgh and Norfolk District) expects to render a decision under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 on or before 14 August 2017 (45 days)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:&nbsp;Pittsburgh District

The Huntington District, USACE was notified by the FERC on 27 June, 2016 that Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are complete for the WB Xpress project.&nbsp; On 30 June, 2017 the Huntington District, USACE provided the FERC confirmation of compliance with the above federal laws to the Pittsburgh District and Norfolk District, USACE.&nbsp; Each District (Huntington, Pittsburgh and Norfolk District) expects to render a decision under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 on or before 14 August 2017 (45 days)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:&nbsp;Pittsburgh District

The Huntington District, USACE was notified by the FERC on 27 June, 2016 that Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are complete for the WB Xpress project.&nbsp; On 30 June, 2017 the Huntington District, USACE provided the FERC confirmation of compliance with the above federal laws to the Pittsburgh District and Norfolk District, USACE.&nbsp; Each District (Huntington, Pittsburgh and Norfolk District) expects to render a decision under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 on or before 14 August 2017 (45 days)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:&nbsp;Pittsburgh District

The Huntington District, USACE was notified by the FERC on 27 June, 2016 that Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are complete for the WB Xpress project.&nbsp; On 30 June, 2017 the Huntington District, USACE provided the FERC confirmation of compliance with the above federal laws to the Pittsburgh District and Norfolk District, USACE.&nbsp; Each District (Huntington, Pittsburgh and Norfolk District) expects to render a decision under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 on or before 14 August 2017 (45 days)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Norfolk&nbsp;District

The Norfolk District expects to render a decision under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 within 45 days of a complete application or PCN.&nbsp; Also,&nbsp; Norfolk District has not been notified by the FERC that Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are complete for the portion of the WB Xpress project in Virginia.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Norfolk&nbsp;District

The Norfolk District expects to render a decision under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 within 45 days of a complete application or PCN.&nbsp; Also,&nbsp; Norfolk District has not been notified by the FERC that Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are complete for the portion of the WB Xpress project in Virginia.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Norfolk&nbsp;District

The Norfolk District expects to render a decision under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 within 45 days of a complete application or PCN.&nbsp; Also,&nbsp; Norfolk District has not been notified by the FERC that Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are complete for the portion of the WB Xpress project in Virginia.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Norfolk&nbsp;District

The Norfolk District expects to render a decision under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 within 45 days of a complete application or PCN.&nbsp; Also,&nbsp; Norfolk District has not been notified by the FERC that Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are complete for the portion of the WB Xpress project in Virginia.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:&nbsp;Norfolk&nbsp;District

The Norfolk District expects to render a decision under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 within 45 days of a complete application or PCN.&nbsp; Also,&nbsp; Norfolk District has not been notified by the FERC that Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are complete for the portion of the WB Xpress project in Virginia.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:&nbsp;Norfolk&nbsp;District

The Norfolk District expects to render a decision under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 within 45 days of a complete application or PCN.&nbsp; Also,&nbsp; Norfolk District has not been notified by the FERC that Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are complete for the portion of the WB Xpress project in Virginia.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:&nbsp;Norfolk&nbsp;District

The Norfolk District expects to render a decision under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 within 45 days of a complete application or PCN.&nbsp; Also,&nbsp; Norfolk District has not been notified by the FERC that Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are complete for the portion of the WB Xpress project in Virginia.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:&nbsp;Norfolk&nbsp;District

The Norfolk District expects to render a decision under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 within 45 days of a complete application or PCN.&nbsp; Also,&nbsp; Norfolk District has not been notified by the FERC that Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are complete for the portion of the WB Xpress project in Virginia.
The Forest Service is participating as a cooperating agency on NEPA for the WB Xpress Project to provide expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal on National Forest System land.&nbsp; The agency will sign a record of decision based on the FERC environmental assessement and a special use permit to authorize construction, operation and maintenance on National Forest System land.

&nbsp;
The Forest Service is participating as a cooperating agency on NEPA for the WB Xpress Project to provide expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal on National Forest System land.&nbsp; The agency will sign a record of decision based on the FERC environmental assessement and a special use permit to authorize construction, operation and maintenance on National Forest System land.

&nbsp;
The Forest Service is participating as a cooperating agency on NEPA for the WB Xpress Project to provide expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal on National Forest System land.&nbsp; The agency will sign a record of decision based on the FERC environmental assessement and a special use permit to authorize construction, operation and maintenance on National Forest System land.

&nbsp;
The Forest Service is participating as a cooperating agency on NEPA for the WB Xpress Project to provide expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal on National Forest System land.&nbsp; The agency will sign a record of decision based on the FERC environmental assessement and a special use permit to authorize construction, operation and maintenance on National Forest System land.

&nbsp;
The Forest Service is participating as a cooperating agency on NEPA for the WB Xpress Project to provide expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal on National Forest System land.&nbsp; The agency will sign a record of decision based on the FERC environmental assessement and a special use permit to authorize construction, operation and maintenance on National Forest System land.

&nbsp;
The Reclamation ROD was finalized July 15 2017. The Reclamation license was issued July 6, 2017.
The Reclamation ROD was finalized July 15 2017. The Reclamation license was issued July 6, 2017.
The Reclamation ROD was finalized July 15 2017. The Reclamation license was issued July 6, 2017.
The Reclamation ROD was finalized July 15 2017. The Reclamation license was issued July 6, 2017.
The Reclamation ROD was finalized July 15 2017. The Reclamation license was issued July 6, 2017.
On March 2015, DOE and TVA requested the initiation of formal consultation and conference with the USFWS under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and submitted a Biological Assessment (BA) regarding the Applicant Proposed Project and its potential effects on listed species and designated critical habitat. DOE responded to USFWS’s request for additional information with a revised BA in May 2015. On July 2015, DOE submitted an addendum to the revised BA to address route variations based on public comments on the Draft EIS. The USFWS issued its Biological Opinion on November 20, 2015, which concluded formal consultation. The Biological Opinion is included as Appendix B of the MAP. The Biological Opinion concluded that implementation of the Applicant Proposed Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the affected species, but likely will result in incidental take of certain species and, therefore, includes an enforceable incidental take statement. DOE’s decision is conditioned on the Applicant complying with the incidental take statement and taking all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the selected alternative as required by USFWS in the Biological Opinion. These conditions are further described under the Mitigation section below in this ROD. DOE also acknowledges that re-initiation of formal ESA consultation may be required in accordance with 50 CFR 402.16.

On June 21, 2017, the Fish and Wildlife Service communicated that since the Army Corps of Engineers will comply with the terms of the Biological Opinion as prepared for the project on November 20, 2015 that the Corps has&nbsp;fulfilled their obligations under section 7 of the ESA with respect to the Plains and Eastern Clean Line Project.
On March 2015, DOE and TVA requested the initiation of formal consultation and conference with the USFWS under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and submitted a Biological Assessment (BA) regarding the Applicant Proposed Project and its potential effects on listed species and designated critical habitat. DOE responded to USFWS’s request for additional information with a revised BA in May 2015. On July 2015, DOE submitted an addendum to the revised BA to address route variations based on public comments on the Draft EIS. The USFWS issued its Biological Opinion on November 20, 2015, which concluded formal consultation. The Biological Opinion is included as Appendix B of the MAP. The Biological Opinion concluded that implementation of the Applicant Proposed Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the affected species, but likely will result in incidental take of certain species and, therefore, includes an enforceable incidental take statement. DOE’s decision is conditioned on the Applicant complying with the incidental take statement and taking all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the selected alternative as required by USFWS in the Biological Opinion. These conditions are further described under the Mitigation section below in this ROD. DOE also acknowledges that re-initiation of formal ESA consultation may be required in accordance with 50 CFR 402.16.

On June 21, 2017, the Fish and Wildlife Service communicated that since the Army Corps of Engineers will comply with the terms of the Biological Opinion as prepared for the project on November 20, 2015 that the Corps has&nbsp;fulfilled their obligations under section 7 of the ESA with respect to the Plains and Eastern Clean Line Project.
On March 2015, DOE and TVA requested the initiation of formal consultation and conference with the USFWS under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and submitted a Biological Assessment (BA) regarding the Applicant Proposed Project and its potential effects on listed species and designated critical habitat. DOE responded to USFWS’s request for additional information with a revised BA in May 2015. On July 2015, DOE submitted an addendum to the revised BA to address route variations based on public comments on the Draft EIS. The USFWS issued its Biological Opinion on November 20, 2015, which concluded formal consultation. The Biological Opinion is included as Appendix B of the MAP. The Biological Opinion concluded that implementation of the Applicant Proposed Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the affected species, but likely will result in incidental take of certain species and, therefore, includes an enforceable incidental take statement. DOE’s decision is conditioned on the Applicant complying with the incidental take statement and taking all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the selected alternative as required by USFWS in the Biological Opinion. These conditions are further described under the Mitigation section below in this ROD. DOE also acknowledges that re-initiation of formal ESA consultation may be required in accordance with 50 CFR 402.16.

On June 21, 2017, the Fish and Wildlife Service communicated that since the Army Corps of Engineers will comply with the terms of the Biological Opinion as prepared for the project on November 20, 2015 that the Corps has&nbsp;fulfilled their obligations under section 7 of the ESA with respect to the Plains and Eastern Clean Line Project.
On March 2015, DOE and TVA requested the initiation of formal consultation and conference with the USFWS under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and submitted a Biological Assessment (BA) regarding the Applicant Proposed Project and its potential effects on listed species and designated critical habitat. DOE responded to USFWS’s request for additional information with a revised BA in May 2015. On July 2015, DOE submitted an addendum to the revised BA to address route variations based on public comments on the Draft EIS. The USFWS issued its Biological Opinion on November 20, 2015, which concluded formal consultation. The Biological Opinion is included as Appendix B of the MAP. The Biological Opinion concluded that implementation of the Applicant Proposed Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the affected species, but likely will result in incidental take of certain species and, therefore, includes an enforceable incidental take statement. DOE’s decision is conditioned on the Applicant complying with the incidental take statement and taking all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the selected alternative as required by USFWS in the Biological Opinion. These conditions are further described under the Mitigation section below in this ROD. DOE also acknowledges that re-initiation of formal ESA consultation may be required in accordance with 50 CFR 402.16.

On June 21, 2017, the Fish and Wildlife Service communicated that since the Army Corps of Engineers will comply with the terms of the Biological Opinion as prepared for the project on November 20, 2015 that the Corps has&nbsp;fulfilled their obligations under section 7 of the ESA with respect to the Plains and Eastern Clean Line Project.
Section 10- Memphis District. NWP verification letter mailed to applicant on 8 September 2017.
Section 10- Memphis District. NWP verification letter mailed to applicant on 8 September 2017.
Section 10- Memphis District. NWP verification letter mailed to applicant on 8 September 2017.
Section 10- Memphis District. NWP verification letter mailed to applicant on 8 September 2017.
The proposed Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Facility includes two 2-bay standard Boeing B737-800/900 narrow body aircraft hangar bays (each 59,850 square feet), shop work space (61,579 square feet), administration office space (4,554 square feet), and support &amp; utilities space (8,618 square feet).
The proposed Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Facility includes two 2-bay standard Boeing B737-800/900 narrow body aircraft hangar bays (each 59,850 square feet), shop work space (61,579 square feet), administration office space (4,554 square feet), and support &amp; utilities space (8,618 square feet).
The proposed Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Facility includes two 2-bay standard Boeing B737-800/900 narrow body aircraft hangar bays (each 59,850 square feet), shop work space (61,579 square feet), administration office space (4,554 square feet), and support &amp; utilities space (8,618 square feet).
The proposed Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Facility includes two 2-bay standard Boeing B737-800/900 narrow body aircraft hangar bays (each 59,850 square feet), shop work space (61,579 square feet), administration office space (4,554 square feet), and support &amp; utilities space (8,618 square feet).
The proposed Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Facility includes two 2-bay standard Boeing B737-800/900 narrow body aircraft hangar bays (each 59,850 square feet), shop work space (61,579 square feet), administration office space (4,554 square feet), and support &amp; utilities space (8,618 square feet).
The proposed Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Facility includes two 2-bay standard Boeing B737-800/900 narrow body aircraft hangar bays (each 59,850 square feet), shop work space (61,579 square feet), administration office space (4,554 square feet), and support &amp; utilities space (8,618 square feet).
The proposed Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Facility includes two 2-bay standard Boeing B737-800/900 narrow body aircraft hangar bays (each 59,850 square feet), shop work space (61,579 square feet), administration office space (4,554 square feet), and support &amp; utilities space (8,618 square feet).
The proposed Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Facility includes two 2-bay standard Boeing B737-800/900 narrow body aircraft hangar bays (each 59,850 square feet), shop work space (61,579 square feet), administration office space (4,554 square feet), and support &amp; utilities space (8,618 square feet).
The proposed Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Facility includes two 2-bay standard Boeing B737-800/900 narrow body aircraft hangar bays (each 59,850 square feet), shop work space (61,579 square feet), administration office space (4,554 square feet), and support &amp; utilities space (8,618 square feet).
Section 106 consultation with the SHPO and 106 consulting parties.
Section 106 consultation with the SHPO and 106 consulting parties.
Section 106 consultation with the SHPO and 106 consulting parties.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Permit coordination with USACE.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Permit coordination with USACE.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Permit coordination with USACE.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Permit coordination with USACE.
Oak Leaf Energy Partners is proposing to lease approximately 10.6 acres from the Denver International Airport to develop and construct a community solar facility.
Oak Leaf Energy Partners is proposing to lease approximately 10.6 acres from the Denver International Airport to develop and construct a community solar facility.
Oak Leaf Energy Partners is proposing to lease approximately 10.6 acres from the Denver International Airport to develop and construct a community solar facility.
Oak Leaf Energy Partners is proposing to lease approximately 10.6 acres from the Denver International Airport to develop and construct a community solar facility.
Oak Leaf Energy Partners is proposing to lease approximately 10.6 acres from the Denver International Airport to develop and construct a community solar facility.
Oak Leaf Energy Partners is proposing to lease approximately 10.6 acres from the Denver International Airport to develop and construct a community solar facility.
Oak Leaf Energy Partners is proposing to lease approximately 10.6 acres from the Denver International Airport to develop and construct a community solar facility.
Oak Leaf Energy Partners is proposing to lease approximately 10.6 acres from the Denver International Airport to develop and construct a community solar facility.
Oak Leaf Energy Partners is proposing to lease approximately 10.6 acres from the Denver International Airport to develop and construct a community solar facility.
Section 106 consultation with the SHPO and consulting parties to reach concurrence.
Section 106 consultation with the SHPO and consulting parties to reach concurrence.
Section 106 consultation with the SHPO and consulting parties to reach concurrence.
Section 106 consultation with the SHPO and consulting parties to seek concurernce.&nbsp;
Section 106 consultation with the SHPO and consulting parties to seek concurernce.&nbsp;
Section 106 consultation with the SHPO and consulting parties to seek concurernce.&nbsp;
This project will evaluate solutions to address the long-term transportation needs along SR-248 between SR-224 and US-40 in the vicinity of Park City.
This project will evaluate solutions to address the long-term transportation needs along SR-248 between SR-224 and US-40 in the vicinity of Park City.
This project will evaluate solutions to address the long-term transportation needs along SR-248 between SR-224 and US-40 in the vicinity of Park City.
This project will evaluate solutions to address the long-term transportation needs along SR-248 between SR-224 and US-40 in the vicinity of Park City.
This project will evaluate solutions to address the long-term transportation needs along SR-248 between SR-224 and US-40 in the vicinity of Park City.
This project will evaluate solutions to address the long-term transportation needs along SR-248 between SR-224 and US-40 in the vicinity of Park City.
This project will evaluate solutions to address the long-term transportation needs along SR-248 between SR-224 and US-40 in the vicinity of Park City.
This project will evaluate solutions to address the long-term transportation needs along SR-248 between SR-224 and US-40 in the vicinity of Park City.
This project will evaluate solutions to address the long-term transportation needs along SR-248 between SR-224 and US-40 in the vicinity of Park City.
Environmental Assessment for Remove Obstructions and Relocate Runway Thresholds.
Environmental Assessment for Remove Obstructions and Relocate Runway Thresholds.
Environmental Assessment for Remove Obstructions and Relocate Runway Thresholds.
Environmental Assessment for Remove Obstructions and Relocate Runway Thresholds.
Environmental Assessment for Remove Obstructions and Relocate Runway Thresholds.
Environmental Assessment for Remove Obstructions and Relocate Runway Thresholds.
Environmental Assessment for Remove Obstructions and Relocate Runway Thresholds.
Environmental Assessment for Remove Obstructions and Relocate Runway Thresholds.
Environmental Assessment for Remove Obstructions and Relocate Runway Thresholds.
S106 consutlation with the SHPO and consulting parties.
S106 consutlation with the SHPO and consulting parties.
S106 consutlation with the SHPO and consulting parties.
Section 7 Consultaiton with FWS
Section 7 Consultaiton with FWS
Section 7 Consultaiton with FWS
Section 7 Consultaiton with FWS
Section 106 consultation with the SHPO and consulting parties.&nbsp;
Section 106 consultation with the SHPO and consulting parties.&nbsp;
Section 106 consultation with the SHPO and consulting parties.&nbsp;
Nationwide Permit with a preconstruction notice.
Nationwide Permit with a preconstruction notice.
Nationwide Permit with a preconstruction notice.
Nationwide Permit with a preconstruction notice.
ADOT, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to rehabilitate Virgin River Bridge #1.This bridge is an important element of I-15, which provides a vital link between the states of California, Nevada, Arizona and Utah. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws, regulations and policies, ADOT and FHWA are beginning work on an Environmental Assessment (EA), which will evaluate potential impacts of rehabilitation on the natural, cultural and human environment.
ADOT, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to rehabilitate Virgin River Bridge #1.This bridge is an important element of I-15, which provides a vital link between the states of California, Nevada, Arizona and Utah. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws, regulations and policies, ADOT and FHWA are beginning work on an Environmental Assessment (EA), which will evaluate potential impacts of rehabilitation on the natural, cultural and human environment.
ADOT, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to rehabilitate Virgin River Bridge #1.This bridge is an important element of I-15, which provides a vital link between the states of California, Nevada, Arizona and Utah. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws, regulations and policies, ADOT and FHWA are beginning work on an Environmental Assessment (EA), which will evaluate potential impacts of rehabilitation on the natural, cultural and human environment.
ADOT, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to rehabilitate Virgin River Bridge #1.This bridge is an important element of I-15, which provides a vital link between the states of California, Nevada, Arizona and Utah. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws, regulations and policies, ADOT and FHWA are beginning work on an Environmental Assessment (EA), which will evaluate potential impacts of rehabilitation on the natural, cultural and human environment.
ADOT, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to rehabilitate Virgin River Bridge #1.This bridge is an important element of I-15, which provides a vital link between the states of California, Nevada, Arizona and Utah. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws, regulations and policies, ADOT and FHWA are beginning work on an Environmental Assessment (EA), which will evaluate potential impacts of rehabilitation on the natural, cultural and human environment.
ADOT, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to rehabilitate Virgin River Bridge #1.This bridge is an important element of I-15, which provides a vital link between the states of California, Nevada, Arizona and Utah. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws, regulations and policies, ADOT and FHWA are beginning work on an Environmental Assessment (EA), which will evaluate potential impacts of rehabilitation on the natural, cultural and human environment.
ADOT, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to rehabilitate Virgin River Bridge #1.This bridge is an important element of I-15, which provides a vital link between the states of California, Nevada, Arizona and Utah. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws, regulations and policies, ADOT and FHWA are beginning work on an Environmental Assessment (EA), which will evaluate potential impacts of rehabilitation on the natural, cultural and human environment.
ADOT, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to rehabilitate Virgin River Bridge #1.This bridge is an important element of I-15, which provides a vital link between the states of California, Nevada, Arizona and Utah. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws, regulations and policies, ADOT and FHWA are beginning work on an Environmental Assessment (EA), which will evaluate potential impacts of rehabilitation on the natural, cultural and human environment.
ADOT, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to rehabilitate Virgin River Bridge #1.This bridge is an important element of I-15, which provides a vital link between the states of California, Nevada, Arizona and Utah. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws, regulations and policies, ADOT and FHWA are beginning work on an Environmental Assessment (EA), which will evaluate potential impacts of rehabilitation on the natural, cultural and human environment.
Improvements to 56th Ave in the vicinity of the Pena Blvd interchange.&nbsp; FAA will be a cooperating agency because a portion of the project falls within Denver International Airport ROW
Improvements to 56th Ave in the vicinity of the Pena Blvd interchange.&nbsp; FAA will be a cooperating agency because a portion of the project falls within Denver International Airport ROW
Improvements to 56th Ave in the vicinity of the Pena Blvd interchange.&nbsp; FAA will be a cooperating agency because a portion of the project falls within Denver International Airport ROW
Improvements to 56th Ave in the vicinity of the Pena Blvd interchange.&nbsp; FAA will be a cooperating agency because a portion of the project falls within Denver International Airport ROW
Improvements to 56th Ave in the vicinity of the Pena Blvd interchange.&nbsp; FAA will be a cooperating agency because a portion of the project falls within Denver International Airport ROW
Improvements to 56th Ave in the vicinity of the Pena Blvd interchange.&nbsp; FAA will be a cooperating agency because a portion of the project falls within Denver International Airport ROW
Improvements to 56th Ave in the vicinity of the Pena Blvd interchange.&nbsp; FAA will be a cooperating agency because a portion of the project falls within Denver International Airport ROW
Improvements to 56th Ave in the vicinity of the Pena Blvd interchange.&nbsp; FAA will be a cooperating agency because a portion of the project falls within Denver International Airport ROW
Improvements to 56th Ave in the vicinity of the Pena Blvd interchange.&nbsp; FAA will be a cooperating agency because a portion of the project falls within Denver International Airport ROW
The project proposed to replace the Upper Gassaway Bridge that carries WV 4 over the Elk River in the Town of Gassaway.&nbsp;
The project proposed to replace the Upper Gassaway Bridge that carries WV 4 over the Elk River in the Town of Gassaway.&nbsp;
The project proposed to replace the Upper Gassaway Bridge that carries WV 4 over the Elk River in the Town of Gassaway.&nbsp;
The project proposed to replace the Upper Gassaway Bridge that carries WV 4 over the Elk River in the Town of Gassaway.&nbsp;
The project proposed to replace the Upper Gassaway Bridge that carries WV 4 over the Elk River in the Town of Gassaway.&nbsp;
The project proposed to replace the Upper Gassaway Bridge that carries WV 4 over the Elk River in the Town of Gassaway.&nbsp;
The project proposed to replace the Upper Gassaway Bridge that carries WV 4 over the Elk River in the Town of Gassaway.&nbsp;
The project proposed to replace the Upper Gassaway Bridge that carries WV 4 over the Elk River in the Town of Gassaway.&nbsp;
The project proposed to replace the Upper Gassaway Bridge that carries WV 4 over the Elk River in the Town of Gassaway.&nbsp;
The Beaver to South Eisenhower Drive Project will construct a new roadway from US 19 and Airport Road to Interstate 64 at the South Eisenhower Drive interchange.&nbsp; A preliminary study completed in 2014 showed that construction of this roadway will reduce congestion and delays, improve level of service, and improve safety on nearby roadways and support transportation system continuity in the area.
The Beaver to South Eisenhower Drive Project will construct a new roadway from US 19 and Airport Road to Interstate 64 at the South Eisenhower Drive interchange.&nbsp; A preliminary study completed in 2014 showed that construction of this roadway will reduce congestion and delays, improve level of service, and improve safety on nearby roadways and support transportation system continuity in the area.
The Beaver to South Eisenhower Drive Project will construct a new roadway from US 19 and Airport Road to Interstate 64 at the South Eisenhower Drive interchange.&nbsp; A preliminary study completed in 2014 showed that construction of this roadway will reduce congestion and delays, improve level of service, and improve safety on nearby roadways and support transportation system continuity in the area.
The Beaver to South Eisenhower Drive Project will construct a new roadway from US 19 and Airport Road to Interstate 64 at the South Eisenhower Drive interchange.&nbsp; A preliminary study completed in 2014 showed that construction of this roadway will reduce congestion and delays, improve level of service, and improve safety on nearby roadways and support transportation system continuity in the area.
The Beaver to South Eisenhower Drive Project will construct a new roadway from US 19 and Airport Road to Interstate 64 at the South Eisenhower Drive interchange.&nbsp; A preliminary study completed in 2014 showed that construction of this roadway will reduce congestion and delays, improve level of service, and improve safety on nearby roadways and support transportation system continuity in the area.
The Beaver to South Eisenhower Drive Project will construct a new roadway from US 19 and Airport Road to Interstate 64 at the South Eisenhower Drive interchange.&nbsp; A preliminary study completed in 2014 showed that construction of this roadway will reduce congestion and delays, improve level of service, and improve safety on nearby roadways and support transportation system continuity in the area.
The Beaver to South Eisenhower Drive Project will construct a new roadway from US 19 and Airport Road to Interstate 64 at the South Eisenhower Drive interchange.&nbsp; A preliminary study completed in 2014 showed that construction of this roadway will reduce congestion and delays, improve level of service, and improve safety on nearby roadways and support transportation system continuity in the area.
The Beaver to South Eisenhower Drive Project will construct a new roadway from US 19 and Airport Road to Interstate 64 at the South Eisenhower Drive interchange.&nbsp; A preliminary study completed in 2014 showed that construction of this roadway will reduce congestion and delays, improve level of service, and improve safety on nearby roadways and support transportation system continuity in the area.
The Beaver to South Eisenhower Drive Project will construct a new roadway from US 19 and Airport Road to Interstate 64 at the South Eisenhower Drive interchange.&nbsp; A preliminary study completed in 2014 showed that construction of this roadway will reduce congestion and delays, improve level of service, and improve safety on nearby roadways and support transportation system continuity in the area.
The is not a permitting action but compliance with Executive Orders.&nbsp; Milestone dates indicate dates of publication of the Floodplain and wetlands assessment done through an Early Notice and Final Notice of an Activity in a Floodplain and Wetland as required pursuant to Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, respectively.&nbsp; Early Notice of "An Activity in a Floodplain and Wetland" was published in local newspapers on September 30, 2016 for a 15-day comment period.&nbsp; The Final Notice of "An Activity&nbsp;in a Floodplain or Wetland" was published with Final Environmental Impact Statement on June 16, 2017.&nbsp; An additional notice was published on July 14, 2017.&nbsp; The Notice to Proceed date below represents the date HUD issued and Authorization to Use Grant funds which allows for the project to proceed to final design and construction.
The is not a permitting action but compliance with Executive Orders.&nbsp; Milestone dates indicate dates of publication of the Floodplain and wetlands assessment done through an Early Notice and Final Notice of an Activity in a Floodplain and Wetland as required pursuant to Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, respectively.&nbsp; Early Notice of "An Activity in a Floodplain and Wetland" was published in local newspapers on September 30, 2016 for a 15-day comment period.&nbsp; The Final Notice of "An Activity&nbsp;in a Floodplain or Wetland" was published with Final Environmental Impact Statement on June 16, 2017.&nbsp; An additional notice was published on July 14, 2017.&nbsp; The Notice to Proceed date below represents the date HUD issued and Authorization to Use Grant funds which allows for the project to proceed to final design and construction.
The is not a permitting action but compliance with Executive Orders.&nbsp; Milestone dates indicate dates of publication of the Floodplain and wetlands assessment done through an Early Notice and Final Notice of an Activity in a Floodplain and Wetland as required pursuant to Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, respectively.&nbsp; Early Notice of "An Activity in a Floodplain and Wetland" was published in local newspapers on September 30, 2016 for a 15-day comment period.&nbsp; The Final Notice of "An Activity&nbsp;in a Floodplain or Wetland" was published with Final Environmental Impact Statement on June 16, 2017.&nbsp; An additional notice was published on July 14, 2017.&nbsp; The Notice to Proceed date below represents the date HUD issued and Authorization to Use Grant funds which allows for the project to proceed to final design and construction.
The is not a permitting action but compliance with Executive Orders.&nbsp; Milestone dates indicate dates of publication of the Floodplain and wetlands assessment done through an Early Notice and Final Notice of an Activity in a Floodplain and Wetland as required pursuant to Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, respectively.&nbsp; Early Notice of "An Activity in a Floodplain and Wetland" was published in local newspapers on September 30, 2016 for a 15-day comment period.&nbsp; The Final Notice of "An Activity&nbsp;in a Floodplain or Wetland" was published with Final Environmental Impact Statement on June 16, 2017.&nbsp; An additional notice was published on July 14, 2017.&nbsp; The Notice to Proceed date below represents the date HUD issued and Authorization to Use Grant funds which allows for the project to proceed to final design and construction.
The is not a permitting action but compliance with Executive Orders.&nbsp; Milestone dates indicate dates of publication of the Floodplain and wetlands assessment done through an Early Notice and Final Notice of an Activity in a Floodplain and Wetland as required pursuant to Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, respectively.&nbsp; Early Notice of "An Activity in a Floodplain and Wetland" was published in local newspapers on September 30, 2016 for a 15-day comment period.&nbsp; The Final Notice of "An Activity&nbsp;in a Floodplain or Wetland" was published with Final Environmental Impact Statement on June 16, 2017.&nbsp; An additional notice was published on July 14, 2017.&nbsp; The Notice to Proceed date below represents the date HUD issued and Authorization to Use Grant funds which allows for the project to proceed to final design and construction.
USACE consultation
USACE consultation
USACE consultation
USACE consultation
USACE consultation
Army Corps Little Rock District -&nbsp;Nationwide Permit verification letter anticipated by 31 October 2017.&nbsp;
Army Corps Little Rock District -&nbsp;Nationwide Permit verification letter anticipated by 31 October 2017.&nbsp;
Army Corps Little Rock District -&nbsp;Nationwide Permit verification letter anticipated by 31 October 2017.&nbsp;
Army Corps Little Rock District -&nbsp;Nationwide Permit verification letter anticipated by 31 October 2017.&nbsp;
Army Corps of Tulsa District -&nbsp;- Nationwide verification letter anticipated by 31 October 2017.&nbsp;
Army Corps of Tulsa District -&nbsp;- Nationwide verification letter anticipated by 31 October 2017.&nbsp;
Army Corps of Tulsa District -&nbsp;- Nationwide verification letter anticipated by 31 October 2017.&nbsp;
Army Corps of Tulsa District -&nbsp;- Nationwide verification letter anticipated by 31 October 2017.&nbsp;
Section 106 consultation.&nbsp;
Section 106 consultation.&nbsp;
Section 106 consultation.&nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for installation of a solar array facility near the approach to runway 19 North of Airport Rd. subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for installation of a solar array facility near the approach to runway 19 North of Airport Rd. subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for installation of a solar array facility near the approach to runway 19 North of Airport Rd. subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for installation of a solar array facility near the approach to runway 19 North of Airport Rd. subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for installation of a solar array facility near the approach to runway 19 North of Airport Rd. subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for installation of a solar array facility near the approach to runway 19 North of Airport Rd. subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for installation of a solar array facility near the approach to runway 19 North of Airport Rd. subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for installation of a solar array facility near the approach to runway 19 North of Airport Rd. subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for installation of a solar array facility near the approach to runway 19 North of Airport Rd. subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.
Section 106 consultation.
Section 106 consultation.
Section 106 consultation.
USACE coordination.
USACE coordination.
USACE coordination.
USACE coordination.
USACE coordination.
FWS coordination.
FWS coordination.
FWS coordination.
FWS coordination.
Section 106 tribal consultation.
Section 106 tribal consultation.
Section 106 tribal consultation.
Section 7 consultation with FWS.
Section 7 consultation with FWS.
Section 7 consultation with FWS.
Alternate contact: John M. Taylor&nbsp;&nbsp; john_m_taylor@fws.gov

This project is a covered activity under the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (WRMSHCP).&nbsp; Covered activities proceed through a streamlined Section 7 process.&nbsp; Once the project’s biological study is approved by the Lead Federal Agency (Caltrans District), the District initiates the Joint Project Review process (JPR) by submitting a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report (DBESP) to the Riverside Conservation Authority (RCA) who coordinates with the Wildlife Agencies (USFWS &amp; CFWS) to ensure the project is consistent with the WRMSHCP.&nbsp; If deemed consistent the RCA provides a Consistency Determination Letter to the District.&nbsp; Upon completion of the JPR process the District submits the approved biological study to USFWS to initiate the streamlined Section 7 process.&nbsp; USFWS will issue a Letter of Concurrence (LOC) or a streamlined BO to the District finalizing the consultation process.
Alternate contact: John M. Taylor&nbsp;&nbsp; john_m_taylor@fws.gov

This project is a covered activity under the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (WRMSHCP).&nbsp; Covered activities proceed through a streamlined Section 7 process.&nbsp; Once the project’s biological study is approved by the Lead Federal Agency (Caltrans District), the District initiates the Joint Project Review process (JPR) by submitting a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report (DBESP) to the Riverside Conservation Authority (RCA) who coordinates with the Wildlife Agencies (USFWS &amp; CFWS) to ensure the project is consistent with the WRMSHCP.&nbsp; If deemed consistent the RCA provides a Consistency Determination Letter to the District.&nbsp; Upon completion of the JPR process the District submits the approved biological study to USFWS to initiate the streamlined Section 7 process.&nbsp; USFWS will issue a Letter of Concurrence (LOC) or a streamlined BO to the District finalizing the consultation process.
Alternate contact: John M. Taylor&nbsp;&nbsp; john_m_taylor@fws.gov

This project is a covered activity under the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (WRMSHCP).&nbsp; Covered activities proceed through a streamlined Section 7 process.&nbsp; Once the project’s biological study is approved by the Lead Federal Agency (Caltrans District), the District initiates the Joint Project Review process (JPR) by submitting a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report (DBESP) to the Riverside Conservation Authority (RCA) who coordinates with the Wildlife Agencies (USFWS &amp; CFWS) to ensure the project is consistent with the WRMSHCP.&nbsp; If deemed consistent the RCA provides a Consistency Determination Letter to the District.&nbsp; Upon completion of the JPR process the District submits the approved biological study to USFWS to initiate the streamlined Section 7 process.&nbsp; USFWS will issue a Letter of Concurrence (LOC) or a streamlined BO to the District finalizing the consultation process.
Alternate contact: John M. Taylor&nbsp;&nbsp; john_m_taylor@fws.gov

This project is a covered activity under the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (WRMSHCP).&nbsp; Covered activities proceed through a streamlined Section 7 process.&nbsp; Once the project’s biological study is approved by the Lead Federal Agency (Caltrans District), the District initiates the Joint Project Review process (JPR) by submitting a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report (DBESP) to the Riverside Conservation Authority (RCA) who coordinates with the Wildlife Agencies (USFWS &amp; CFWS) to ensure the project is consistent with the WRMSHCP.&nbsp; If deemed consistent the RCA provides a Consistency Determination Letter to the District.&nbsp; Upon completion of the JPR process the District submits the approved biological study to USFWS to initiate the streamlined Section 7 process.&nbsp; USFWS will issue a Letter of Concurrence (LOC) or a streamlined BO to the District finalizing the consultation process.
Alternate contact: Natalie Lindquist&nbsp; natalie.lindquist@parks.ca.gov
Alternate contact: Natalie Lindquist&nbsp; natalie.lindquist@parks.ca.gov
Alternate contact: Natalie Lindquist&nbsp; natalie.lindquist@parks.ca.gov
BOEM&nbsp;anticipated informal&nbsp;ESA consultation&nbsp;with FWS, however FWS does has not received a request for consultation.
BOEM&nbsp;anticipated informal&nbsp;ESA consultation&nbsp;with FWS, however FWS does has not received a request for consultation.
BOEM&nbsp;anticipated informal&nbsp;ESA consultation&nbsp;with FWS, however FWS does has not received a request for consultation.
BOEM&nbsp;anticipated informal&nbsp;ESA consultation&nbsp;with FWS, however FWS does has not received a request for consultation.
Section 106 Consultation&nbsp;
Section 106 Consultation&nbsp;
Section 106 Consultation&nbsp;
Coordination with USFWS
Coordination with USFWS
Coordination with USFWS
Coordination with USFWS
Section 404 permit
Section 404 permit
Section 404 permit
Section 404 permit
Section 106 consultation with the SHPO
Section 106 consultation with the SHPO
Section 106 consultation with the SHPO
Coordination with USACE.
Coordination with USACE.
Coordination with USACE.
Coordination with USACE.
Section 106 consultation.
Section 106 consultation.
Section 106 consultation.
Coordination with USACE
Coordination with USACE
Coordination with USACE
Coordination with USACE
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in cooperation with the Tulare County Associations of Governments (TCAG), proposes to reconstruct the Caldwell Avenue Interchange on State Route 99 from post miles 36.1 to 36.8. The modifications to the interchange would improve traffic safety and operations.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in cooperation with the Tulare County Associations of Governments (TCAG), proposes to reconstruct the Caldwell Avenue Interchange on State Route 99 from post miles 36.1 to 36.8. The modifications to the interchange would improve traffic safety and operations.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in cooperation with the Tulare County Associations of Governments (TCAG), proposes to reconstruct the Caldwell Avenue Interchange on State Route 99 from post miles 36.1 to 36.8. The modifications to the interchange would improve traffic safety and operations.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in cooperation with the Tulare County Associations of Governments (TCAG), proposes to reconstruct the Caldwell Avenue Interchange on State Route 99 from post miles 36.1 to 36.8. The modifications to the interchange would improve traffic safety and operations.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in cooperation with the Tulare County Associations of Governments (TCAG), proposes to reconstruct the Caldwell Avenue Interchange on State Route 99 from post miles 36.1 to 36.8. The modifications to the interchange would improve traffic safety and operations.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in cooperation with the Tulare County Associations of Governments (TCAG), proposes to reconstruct the Caldwell Avenue Interchange on State Route 99 from post miles 36.1 to 36.8. The modifications to the interchange would improve traffic safety and operations.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in cooperation with the Tulare County Associations of Governments (TCAG), proposes to reconstruct the Caldwell Avenue Interchange on State Route 99 from post miles 36.1 to 36.8. The modifications to the interchange would improve traffic safety and operations.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in cooperation with the Tulare County Associations of Governments (TCAG), proposes to reconstruct the Caldwell Avenue Interchange on State Route 99 from post miles 36.1 to 36.8. The modifications to the interchange would improve traffic safety and operations.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in cooperation with the Tulare County Associations of Governments (TCAG), proposes to reconstruct the Caldwell Avenue Interchange on State Route 99 from post miles 36.1 to 36.8. The modifications to the interchange would improve traffic safety and operations.
The Boardman to Hemingway Project proposes&nbsp;transmission lines that would cross Navy property.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Navy&nbsp;is processing a Right of Way&nbsp;Authorization&nbsp;and complying with the National Environmental Policy Act and other required consultations to support this effort.&nbsp; Notice to proceed would likely be when a real estate easement would be completed.&nbsp; NHPA Section 106, Tribal Consultations, and Record of Decision&nbsp; competed.&nbsp; Dashboard updated Oct 1, 2019.
The Boardman to Hemingway Project proposes&nbsp;transmission lines that would cross Navy property.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Navy&nbsp;is processing a Right of Way&nbsp;Authorization&nbsp;and complying with the National Environmental Policy Act and other required consultations to support this effort.&nbsp; Notice to proceed would likely be when a real estate easement would be completed.&nbsp; NHPA Section 106, Tribal Consultations, and Record of Decision&nbsp; competed.&nbsp; Dashboard updated Oct 1, 2019.
The Boardman to Hemingway Project proposes&nbsp;transmission lines that would cross Navy property.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Navy&nbsp;is processing a Right of Way&nbsp;Authorization&nbsp;and complying with the National Environmental Policy Act and other required consultations to support this effort.&nbsp; Notice to proceed would likely be when a real estate easement would be completed.&nbsp; NHPA Section 106, Tribal Consultations, and Record of Decision&nbsp; competed.&nbsp; Dashboard updated Oct 1, 2019.
The Boardman to Hemingway Project proposes&nbsp;transmission lines that would cross Navy property.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Navy&nbsp;is processing a Right of Way&nbsp;Authorization&nbsp;and complying with the National Environmental Policy Act and other required consultations to support this effort.&nbsp; Notice to proceed would likely be when a real estate easement would be completed.&nbsp; NHPA Section 106, Tribal Consultations, and Record of Decision&nbsp; competed.&nbsp; Dashboard updated Oct 1, 2019.
The Boardman to Hemingway Project proposes&nbsp;transmission lines that would cross Navy property.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Navy&nbsp;is processing a Right of Way&nbsp;Authorization&nbsp;and complying with the National Environmental Policy Act and other required consultations to support this effort.&nbsp; Notice to proceed would likely be when a real estate easement would be completed.&nbsp; NHPA Section 106, Tribal Consultations, and Record of Decision&nbsp; competed.&nbsp; Dashboard updated Oct 1, 2019.
Coordination with USACE for development and submission of a Section 404 permit.
Coordination with USACE for development and submission of a Section 404 permit.
Coordination with USACE for development and submission of a Section 404 permit.
Coordination with USACE for development and submission of a Section 404 permit.
Coordination with USACE for development and submission of a Section 404 permit.
Final completion date for decision on application is unavailable.&nbsp; According to 18 C.F.R. § 3c.2(b), "The nature and time of any proposed action by the Commission are confidential and shall not be divulged to anyone outside of the Commission."
Final completion date for decision on application is unavailable.&nbsp; According to 18 C.F.R. § 3c.2(b), "The nature and time of any proposed action by the Commission are confidential and shall not be divulged to anyone outside of the Commission."
Final completion date for decision on application is unavailable.&nbsp; According to 18 C.F.R. § 3c.2(b), "The nature and time of any proposed action by the Commission are confidential and shall not be divulged to anyone outside of the Commission."
Final completion date for decision on application is unavailable.&nbsp; According to 18 C.F.R. § 3c.2(b), "The nature and time of any proposed action by the Commission are confidential and shall not be divulged to anyone outside of the Commission."
Final completion date for decision on application is unavailable.&nbsp; According to 18 C.F.R. § 3c.2(b), "The nature and time of any proposed action by the Commission are confidential and shall not be divulged to anyone outside of the Commission."
Cooperating agency issuing a record of decision and special use permit that&nbsp;would authorize&nbsp;Boardman to Hemingway transmission line to be constructed and operated on National Forest System lands.&nbsp; The special use permit will be issued following the proponents completion of a final Plan od Development.
Cooperating agency issuing a record of decision and special use permit that&nbsp;would authorize&nbsp;Boardman to Hemingway transmission line to be constructed and operated on National Forest System lands.&nbsp; The special use permit will be issued following the proponents completion of a final Plan od Development.
Cooperating agency issuing a record of decision and special use permit that&nbsp;would authorize&nbsp;Boardman to Hemingway transmission line to be constructed and operated on National Forest System lands.&nbsp; The special use permit will be issued following the proponents completion of a final Plan od Development.
Cooperating agency issuing a record of decision and special use permit that&nbsp;would authorize&nbsp;Boardman to Hemingway transmission line to be constructed and operated on National Forest System lands.&nbsp; The special use permit will be issued following the proponents completion of a final Plan od Development.
Cooperating agency issuing a record of decision and special use permit that&nbsp;would authorize&nbsp;Boardman to Hemingway transmission line to be constructed and operated on National Forest System lands.&nbsp; The special use permit will be issued following the proponents completion of a final Plan od Development.
Section 106 and tribal consultation concluded with Programmatic Agreement on September 7, 2017.&nbsp; Interested parties include the City of Hoboken, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.&nbsp; Programmatic Agreement sets protocols and mitigation measures for above ground historic sites and archaeological sites.&nbsp; The City of Hoboken and the Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma are&nbsp;also signatories&nbsp;to&nbsp;the Programmatic Agreement and will follow the protocols and mitigation measures for any future development phases of the delay and storage components of the project.
Section 106 and tribal consultation concluded with Programmatic Agreement on September 7, 2017.&nbsp; Interested parties include the City of Hoboken, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.&nbsp; Programmatic Agreement sets protocols and mitigation measures for above ground historic sites and archaeological sites.&nbsp; The City of Hoboken and the Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma are&nbsp;also signatories&nbsp;to&nbsp;the Programmatic Agreement and will follow the protocols and mitigation measures for any future development phases of the delay and storage components of the project.
Section 106 and tribal consultation concluded with Programmatic Agreement on September 7, 2017.&nbsp; Interested parties include the City of Hoboken, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.&nbsp; Programmatic Agreement sets protocols and mitigation measures for above ground historic sites and archaeological sites.&nbsp; The City of Hoboken and the Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma are&nbsp;also signatories&nbsp;to&nbsp;the Programmatic Agreement and will follow the protocols and mitigation measures for any future development phases of the delay and storage components of the project.
Section 106 tribal consulation on original scope concluded in March of 2016.&nbsp; However, Section&nbsp;106 consultation&nbsp; with the NY State Historic Preservation Office, NYC Landmark Preservation Commission,&nbsp;the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation&nbsp;and the for the revised preferred alternative is ongoing and&nbsp;a&nbsp;Programmatic Agreement (PA) has been drafted and undergoing discussion with interested parties..&nbsp; The DEIS identified comsulting parties to the PA.&nbsp; The PA was included in the final EIS and consultation with all interested partieis has been ongoing since before the publication of the FEIS.&nbsp; Several recommended changes have been made to address comments.&nbsp; Consultation on the PA is ongoing.&nbsp;
Section 106 tribal consulation on original scope concluded in March of 2016.&nbsp; However, Section&nbsp;106 consultation&nbsp; with the NY State Historic Preservation Office, NYC Landmark Preservation Commission,&nbsp;the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation&nbsp;and the for the revised preferred alternative is ongoing and&nbsp;a&nbsp;Programmatic Agreement (PA) has been drafted and undergoing discussion with interested parties..&nbsp; The DEIS identified comsulting parties to the PA.&nbsp; The PA was included in the final EIS and consultation with all interested partieis has been ongoing since before the publication of the FEIS.&nbsp; Several recommended changes have been made to address comments.&nbsp; Consultation on the PA is ongoing.&nbsp;
Section 106 tribal consulation on original scope concluded in March of 2016.&nbsp; However, Section&nbsp;106 consultation&nbsp; with the NY State Historic Preservation Office, NYC Landmark Preservation Commission,&nbsp;the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation&nbsp;and the for the revised preferred alternative is ongoing and&nbsp;a&nbsp;Programmatic Agreement (PA) has been drafted and undergoing discussion with interested parties..&nbsp; The DEIS identified comsulting parties to the PA.&nbsp; The PA was included in the final EIS and consultation with all interested partieis has been ongoing since before the publication of the FEIS.&nbsp; Several recommended changes have been made to address comments.&nbsp; Consultation on the PA is ongoing.&nbsp;
USACE Baltimore District

The Philadelphia and Baltimore Districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are processing applications for Department of the Army permits pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for construction activities in and under navigable waters of the United States, specifically the Delaware River, Delaware Canal, Lehigh River, Lehigh Canal, and the Susquehanna River.&nbsp; Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, discharges of dredged and/or fill material into other jurisdictional waters of the United States in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are eligible for authorization under the Pennsylvania State Programmatic General Permit.&nbsp; Jurisdictional waters in the State of New Jersey greater than 1,000 feet landward of the ordinary high water mark of the Delaware River are state-assumed waters for purposes of the Clean Water Act and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for issuing Section 404 authorization in these waters.

Note: The application was withdrawn per the applicant's request on 4 Jan 22.
USACE Baltimore District

The Philadelphia and Baltimore Districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are processing applications for Department of the Army permits pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for construction activities in and under navigable waters of the United States, specifically the Delaware River, Delaware Canal, Lehigh River, Lehigh Canal, and the Susquehanna River.&nbsp; Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, discharges of dredged and/or fill material into other jurisdictional waters of the United States in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are eligible for authorization under the Pennsylvania State Programmatic General Permit.&nbsp; Jurisdictional waters in the State of New Jersey greater than 1,000 feet landward of the ordinary high water mark of the Delaware River are state-assumed waters for purposes of the Clean Water Act and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for issuing Section 404 authorization in these waters.

Note: The application was withdrawn per the applicant's request on 4 Jan 22.
USACE Baltimore District

The Philadelphia and Baltimore Districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are processing applications for Department of the Army permits pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for construction activities in and under navigable waters of the United States, specifically the Delaware River, Delaware Canal, Lehigh River, Lehigh Canal, and the Susquehanna River.&nbsp; Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, discharges of dredged and/or fill material into other jurisdictional waters of the United States in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are eligible for authorization under the Pennsylvania State Programmatic General Permit.&nbsp; Jurisdictional waters in the State of New Jersey greater than 1,000 feet landward of the ordinary high water mark of the Delaware River are state-assumed waters for purposes of the Clean Water Act and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for issuing Section 404 authorization in these waters.

Note: The application was withdrawn per the applicant's request on 4 Jan 22.
USACE Baltimore District

The Philadelphia and Baltimore Districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are processing applications for Department of the Army permits pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for construction activities in and under navigable waters of the United States, specifically the Delaware River, Delaware Canal, Lehigh River, Lehigh Canal, and the Susquehanna River.&nbsp; Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, discharges of dredged and/or fill material into other jurisdictional waters of the United States in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are eligible for authorization under the Pennsylvania State Programmatic General Permit.&nbsp; Jurisdictional waters in the State of New Jersey greater than 1,000 feet landward of the ordinary high water mark of the Delaware River are state-assumed waters for purposes of the Clean Water Act and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for issuing Section 404 authorization in these waters.

Note: The application was withdrawn per the applicant's request on 4 Jan 22.
Final Completion Date:&nbsp; 135 days following receipt of sufficient information to initiate consultation.&nbsp;The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to initiate ESA consultation.
Final Completion Date:&nbsp; 135 days following receipt of sufficient information to initiate consultation.&nbsp;The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to initiate ESA consultation.
Final Completion Date:&nbsp; 135 days following receipt of sufficient information to initiate consultation.&nbsp;The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to initiate ESA consultation.
Final Completion Date:&nbsp; 135 days following receipt of sufficient information to initiate consultation.&nbsp;The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to initiate ESA consultation.
Bay State Wind (BSW) proposes&nbsp;to develop, build, operate, and own (through one or more affiliated special purpose entities) an utility-scale offshore wind farm with capacity up to 1,600 MW located 15-25 miles off the south coast of Massachusetts within a portion of BOEM Lease Area OCS-A 0500 (the “Project”).&nbsp; The Project may be developed in phases, and would consist of between 107 to 267 wind turbine generators, associated inter-array cabling, new onshore and offshore substations, export cables, a battery energy storage system, and onshore works for connection to the wholesale electric grid.

The proposed BSW Project will require a permit from the Corps’ New England District pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for the placement of structures and/or work in navigable waters of the United States, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.&nbsp; For purposes of the Dashboard, only the Corps Section 404 authority is listed since only a single permit decision, pursuant to both authorities, is required.
Bay State Wind (BSW) proposes&nbsp;to develop, build, operate, and own (through one or more affiliated special purpose entities) an utility-scale offshore wind farm with capacity up to 1,600 MW located 15-25 miles off the south coast of Massachusetts within a portion of BOEM Lease Area OCS-A 0500 (the “Project”).&nbsp; The Project may be developed in phases, and would consist of between 107 to 267 wind turbine generators, associated inter-array cabling, new onshore and offshore substations, export cables, a battery energy storage system, and onshore works for connection to the wholesale electric grid.

The proposed BSW Project will require a permit from the Corps’ New England District pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for the placement of structures and/or work in navigable waters of the United States, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.&nbsp; For purposes of the Dashboard, only the Corps Section 404 authority is listed since only a single permit decision, pursuant to both authorities, is required.
Bay State Wind (BSW) proposes&nbsp;to develop, build, operate, and own (through one or more affiliated special purpose entities) an utility-scale offshore wind farm with capacity up to 1,600 MW located 15-25 miles off the south coast of Massachusetts within a portion of BOEM Lease Area OCS-A 0500 (the “Project”).&nbsp; The Project may be developed in phases, and would consist of between 107 to 267 wind turbine generators, associated inter-array cabling, new onshore and offshore substations, export cables, a battery energy storage system, and onshore works for connection to the wholesale electric grid.

The proposed BSW Project will require a permit from the Corps’ New England District pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for the placement of structures and/or work in navigable waters of the United States, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.&nbsp; For purposes of the Dashboard, only the Corps Section 404 authority is listed since only a single permit decision, pursuant to both authorities, is required.
Bay State Wind (BSW) proposes&nbsp;to develop, build, operate, and own (through one or more affiliated special purpose entities) an utility-scale offshore wind farm with capacity up to 1,600 MW located 15-25 miles off the south coast of Massachusetts within a portion of BOEM Lease Area OCS-A 0500 (the “Project”).&nbsp; The Project may be developed in phases, and would consist of between 107 to 267 wind turbine generators, associated inter-array cabling, new onshore and offshore substations, export cables, a battery energy storage system, and onshore works for connection to the wholesale electric grid.

The proposed BSW Project will require a permit from the Corps’ New England District pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for the placement of structures and/or work in navigable waters of the United States, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.&nbsp; For purposes of the Dashboard, only the Corps Section 404 authority is listed since only a single permit decision, pursuant to both authorities, is required.
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Consultation 101(1)(5)(a) rulemaking and Letter of Authorization (LOA).

Agency: NOAA-NMFS

Marine mammals in agency's jurisdiction and in geographic area:&nbsp;Humpback whale,&nbsp;Beluga whale,&nbsp;Killer whale,&nbsp;Harbor porpoise, and Harbor seal.
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Consultation 101(1)(5)(a) rulemaking and Letter of Authorization (LOA).

Agency: NOAA-NMFS

Marine mammals in agency's jurisdiction and in geographic area:&nbsp;Humpback whale,&nbsp;Beluga whale,&nbsp;Killer whale,&nbsp;Harbor porpoise, and Harbor seal.
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Consultation 101(1)(5)(a) rulemaking and Letter of Authorization (LOA).

Agency: NOAA-NMFS

Marine mammals in agency's jurisdiction and in geographic area:&nbsp;Humpback whale,&nbsp;Beluga whale,&nbsp;Killer whale,&nbsp;Harbor porpoise, and Harbor seal.
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Consultation 101(1)(5)(a) rulemaking and Letter of Authorization (LOA).

Agency: NOAA-NMFS

Marine mammals in agency's jurisdiction and in geographic area:&nbsp;Humpback whale,&nbsp;Beluga whale,&nbsp;Killer whale,&nbsp;Harbor porpoise, and Harbor seal.
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Consultation 101(1)(5)(a) rulemaking and Letter of Authorization (LOA).

Agency: NOAA-NMFS

Marine mammals in agency's jurisdiction and in geographic area:&nbsp;Humpback whale,&nbsp;Beluga whale,&nbsp;Killer whale,&nbsp;Harbor porpoise, and Harbor seal.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Section 305 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Consultation.&nbsp;

Final Completion Date: 30 days* following FERC's issuance of Final EIS.
*The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation and presumes FERC includes a response to any EFH Conservation Recommendations in the FEIS.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Section 305 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Consultation.&nbsp;

Final Completion Date: 30 days* following FERC's issuance of Final EIS.
*The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation and presumes FERC includes a response to any EFH Conservation Recommendations in the FEIS.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Section 305 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Consultation.&nbsp;

Final Completion Date: 30 days* following FERC's issuance of Final EIS.
*The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation and presumes FERC includes a response to any EFH Conservation Recommendations in the FEIS.
USACE Philadelphia District

The Philadelphia and Baltimore Districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are processing applications for Department of the Army permits pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for construction activities in and under navigable waters of the United States, specifically the Delaware River, Delaware Canal, Lehigh River, Lehigh Canal, and the Susquehanna River.&nbsp; Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, discharges of dredged and/or fill material into other jurisdictional waters of the United States in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are eligible for authorization under the Pennsylvania State Programmatic General Permit.&nbsp; Jurisdictional waters in the State of New Jersey greater than 1,000 feet landward of the ordinary high water mark of the Delaware River are state-assumed waters for purposes of the Clean Water Act and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for issuing Section 404 authorization in these waters.

Note: The application was withdrawn per the applicant's request on 22 Dec 21.

&nbsp;
USACE Philadelphia District

The Philadelphia and Baltimore Districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are processing applications for Department of the Army permits pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for construction activities in and under navigable waters of the United States, specifically the Delaware River, Delaware Canal, Lehigh River, Lehigh Canal, and the Susquehanna River.&nbsp; Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, discharges of dredged and/or fill material into other jurisdictional waters of the United States in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are eligible for authorization under the Pennsylvania State Programmatic General Permit.&nbsp; Jurisdictional waters in the State of New Jersey greater than 1,000 feet landward of the ordinary high water mark of the Delaware River are state-assumed waters for purposes of the Clean Water Act and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for issuing Section 404 authorization in these waters.

Note: The application was withdrawn per the applicant's request on 22 Dec 21.

&nbsp;
USACE Philadelphia District

The Philadelphia and Baltimore Districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are processing applications for Department of the Army permits pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for construction activities in and under navigable waters of the United States, specifically the Delaware River, Delaware Canal, Lehigh River, Lehigh Canal, and the Susquehanna River.&nbsp; Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, discharges of dredged and/or fill material into other jurisdictional waters of the United States in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are eligible for authorization under the Pennsylvania State Programmatic General Permit.&nbsp; Jurisdictional waters in the State of New Jersey greater than 1,000 feet landward of the ordinary high water mark of the Delaware River are state-assumed waters for purposes of the Clean Water Act and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for issuing Section 404 authorization in these waters.

Note: The application was withdrawn per the applicant's request on 22 Dec 21.

&nbsp;
USACE Philadelphia District

The Philadelphia and Baltimore Districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are processing applications for Department of the Army permits pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for construction activities in and under navigable waters of the United States, specifically the Delaware River, Delaware Canal, Lehigh River, Lehigh Canal, and the Susquehanna River.&nbsp; Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, discharges of dredged and/or fill material into other jurisdictional waters of the United States in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are eligible for authorization under the Pennsylvania State Programmatic General Permit.&nbsp; Jurisdictional waters in the State of New Jersey greater than 1,000 feet landward of the ordinary high water mark of the Delaware River are state-assumed waters for purposes of the Clean Water Act and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for issuing Section 404 authorization in these waters.

Note: The application was withdrawn per the applicant's request on 22 Dec 21.

&nbsp;
Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation.

Final Completion Date:&nbsp;135 days* following the Consultation Initiation Date.
*The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to initiate formal ESA consultation.
Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation.

Final Completion Date:&nbsp;135 days* following the Consultation Initiation Date.
*The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to initiate formal ESA consultation.
Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation.

Final Completion Date:&nbsp;135 days* following the Consultation Initiation Date.
*The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to initiate formal ESA consultation.
Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation.

Final Completion Date:&nbsp;135 days* following the Consultation Initiation Date.
*The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to initiate formal ESA consultation.
ESA Section 7 Consultation
ESA Section 7 Consultation
ESA Section 7 Consultation
ESA Section 7 Consultation
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all Federal agencies to work to conserve endangered and threatened species and to use their authorities to further the purposes of the Act. Section 7 of the Act, called "Interagency Cooperation," is the mechanism by which Federal agencies ensure the actions they take, including those they fund or authorize, do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species.

Generally, the USFWS manages land and freshwater species while NMFS manages marine species, including anadromous salmon. However, the USFWS has responsibility for some marine animals such as nesting sea turtles, walrus, polar bears, sea otters, and manatees.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all Federal agencies to work to conserve endangered and threatened species and to use their authorities to further the purposes of the Act. Section 7 of the Act, called "Interagency Cooperation," is the mechanism by which Federal agencies ensure the actions they take, including those they fund or authorize, do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species.

Generally, the USFWS manages land and freshwater species while NMFS manages marine species, including anadromous salmon. However, the USFWS has responsibility for some marine animals such as nesting sea turtles, walrus, polar bears, sea otters, and manatees.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all Federal agencies to work to conserve endangered and threatened species and to use their authorities to further the purposes of the Act. Section 7 of the Act, called "Interagency Cooperation," is the mechanism by which Federal agencies ensure the actions they take, including those they fund or authorize, do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species.

Generally, the USFWS manages land and freshwater species while NMFS manages marine species, including anadromous salmon. However, the USFWS has responsibility for some marine animals such as nesting sea turtles, walrus, polar bears, sea otters, and manatees.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all Federal agencies to work to conserve endangered and threatened species and to use their authorities to further the purposes of the Act. Section 7 of the Act, called "Interagency Cooperation," is the mechanism by which Federal agencies ensure the actions they take, including those they fund or authorize, do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species.

Generally, the USFWS manages land and freshwater species while NMFS manages marine species, including anadromous salmon. However, the USFWS has responsibility for some marine animals such as nesting sea turtles, walrus, polar bears, sea otters, and manatees.
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Consultation 101(1)(5)(A) reulmaking and Letter of Authorization (LOA)

The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the "take" of marine mammals in U.S. waters by U.S. citizens. &nbsp;However, the MMPA allows, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographic region. “Take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. &nbsp;NMFS may issue an incidental take authorization if, after public comment, they find the taking will &nbsp;have no more than a "negligible impact" on those marine mammal species or stocks, and not have an "unmitigable adverse impact" on the availability of the species or stock for "subsistence" uses. Incidental take authorizations prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on a species or stock and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and other areas of similar significance.
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Consultation 101(1)(5)(A) reulmaking and Letter of Authorization (LOA)

The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the "take" of marine mammals in U.S. waters by U.S. citizens. &nbsp;However, the MMPA allows, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographic region. “Take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. &nbsp;NMFS may issue an incidental take authorization if, after public comment, they find the taking will &nbsp;have no more than a "negligible impact" on those marine mammal species or stocks, and not have an "unmitigable adverse impact" on the availability of the species or stock for "subsistence" uses. Incidental take authorizations prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on a species or stock and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and other areas of similar significance.
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Consultation 101(1)(5)(A) reulmaking and Letter of Authorization (LOA)

The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the "take" of marine mammals in U.S. waters by U.S. citizens. &nbsp;However, the MMPA allows, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographic region. “Take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. &nbsp;NMFS may issue an incidental take authorization if, after public comment, they find the taking will &nbsp;have no more than a "negligible impact" on those marine mammal species or stocks, and not have an "unmitigable adverse impact" on the availability of the species or stock for "subsistence" uses. Incidental take authorizations prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on a species or stock and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and other areas of similar significance.
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Consultation 101(1)(5)(A) reulmaking and Letter of Authorization (LOA)

The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the "take" of marine mammals in U.S. waters by U.S. citizens. &nbsp;However, the MMPA allows, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographic region. “Take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. &nbsp;NMFS may issue an incidental take authorization if, after public comment, they find the taking will &nbsp;have no more than a "negligible impact" on those marine mammal species or stocks, and not have an "unmitigable adverse impact" on the availability of the species or stock for "subsistence" uses. Incidental take authorizations prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on a species or stock and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and other areas of similar significance.
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Consultation 101(1)(5)(A) reulmaking and Letter of Authorization (LOA)

The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the "take" of marine mammals in U.S. waters by U.S. citizens. &nbsp;However, the MMPA allows, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographic region. “Take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. &nbsp;NMFS may issue an incidental take authorization if, after public comment, they find the taking will &nbsp;have no more than a "negligible impact" on those marine mammal species or stocks, and not have an "unmitigable adverse impact" on the availability of the species or stock for "subsistence" uses. Incidental take authorizations prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on a species or stock and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and other areas of similar significance.
Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 7 informal consultation.
Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 7 informal consultation.
Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 7 informal consultation.
As directed by section 20201 of the Budget Act, NMFS will issue a waiver of the requirements under Sections 101(a) and 102(a) of the&nbsp;MMPA for the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, the Mid-Breton Sound Sediment Diversion, and Calcasieu Ship Channel Salinity Control Measures projects.
As directed by section 20201 of the Budget Act, NMFS will issue a waiver of the requirements under Sections 101(a) and 102(a) of the&nbsp;MMPA for the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, the Mid-Breton Sound Sediment Diversion, and Calcasieu Ship Channel Salinity Control Measures projects.
As directed by section 20201 of the Budget Act, NMFS will issue a waiver of the requirements under Sections 101(a) and 102(a) of the&nbsp;MMPA for the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, the Mid-Breton Sound Sediment Diversion, and Calcasieu Ship Channel Salinity Control Measures projects.
As directed by section 20201 of the Budget Act, NMFS will issue a waiver of the requirements under Sections 101(a) and 102(a) of the&nbsp;MMPA for the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, the Mid-Breton Sound Sediment Diversion, and Calcasieu Ship Channel Salinity Control Measures projects.
As directed by section 20201 of the Budget Act, NMFS will issue a waiver of the requirements under Sections 101(a) and 102(a) of the&nbsp;MMPA for the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, the Mid-Breton Sound Sediment Diversion, and Calcasieu Ship Channel Salinity Control Measures projects.
Washington City in cooperation with UDOT are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to evaulate the need for an interchange on Interstate-15 between Mileposts 11 and 12 in Washington City.&nbsp; An Environmental Assessment was initiated in 2017 and during the scoping process it was determined that an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared.
Washington City in cooperation with UDOT are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to evaulate the need for an interchange on Interstate-15 between Mileposts 11 and 12 in Washington City.&nbsp; An Environmental Assessment was initiated in 2017 and during the scoping process it was determined that an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared.
Washington City in cooperation with UDOT are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to evaulate the need for an interchange on Interstate-15 between Mileposts 11 and 12 in Washington City.&nbsp; An Environmental Assessment was initiated in 2017 and during the scoping process it was determined that an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared.
Washington City in cooperation with UDOT are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to evaulate the need for an interchange on Interstate-15 between Mileposts 11 and 12 in Washington City.&nbsp; An Environmental Assessment was initiated in 2017 and during the scoping process it was determined that an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared.
Washington City in cooperation with UDOT are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to evaulate the need for an interchange on Interstate-15 between Mileposts 11 and 12 in Washington City.&nbsp; An Environmental Assessment was initiated in 2017 and during the scoping process it was determined that an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared.
Washington City in cooperation with UDOT are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to evaulate the need for an interchange on Interstate-15 between Mileposts 11 and 12 in Washington City.&nbsp; An Environmental Assessment was initiated in 2017 and during the scoping process it was determined that an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared.
Washington City in cooperation with UDOT are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to evaulate the need for an interchange on Interstate-15 between Mileposts 11 and 12 in Washington City.&nbsp; An Environmental Assessment was initiated in 2017 and during the scoping process it was determined that an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared.
Washington City in cooperation with UDOT are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to evaulate the need for an interchange on Interstate-15 between Mileposts 11 and 12 in Washington City.&nbsp; An Environmental Assessment was initiated in 2017 and during the scoping process it was determined that an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared.
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is preparing the Parley’s Interchange Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the short- and long-term needs of the I-80/I-215 eastside interchange. The purpose of the study is to improve safety, reduce congestion, increase regional mobility and update the current design of the interchange.
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is preparing the Parley’s Interchange Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the short- and long-term needs of the I-80/I-215 eastside interchange. The purpose of the study is to improve safety, reduce congestion, increase regional mobility and update the current design of the interchange.
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is preparing the Parley’s Interchange Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the short- and long-term needs of the I-80/I-215 eastside interchange. The purpose of the study is to improve safety, reduce congestion, increase regional mobility and update the current design of the interchange.
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is preparing the Parley’s Interchange Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the short- and long-term needs of the I-80/I-215 eastside interchange. The purpose of the study is to improve safety, reduce congestion, increase regional mobility and update the current design of the interchange.
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is preparing the Parley’s Interchange Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the short- and long-term needs of the I-80/I-215 eastside interchange. The purpose of the study is to improve safety, reduce congestion, increase regional mobility and update the current design of the interchange.
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is preparing the Parley’s Interchange Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the short- and long-term needs of the I-80/I-215 eastside interchange. The purpose of the study is to improve safety, reduce congestion, increase regional mobility and update the current design of the interchange.
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is preparing the Parley’s Interchange Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the short- and long-term needs of the I-80/I-215 eastside interchange. The purpose of the study is to improve safety, reduce congestion, increase regional mobility and update the current design of the interchange.
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is preparing the Parley’s Interchange Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the short- and long-term needs of the I-80/I-215 eastside interchange. The purpose of the study is to improve safety, reduce congestion, increase regional mobility and update the current design of the interchange.
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is preparing the Parley’s Interchange Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the short- and long-term needs of the I-80/I-215 eastside interchange. The purpose of the study is to improve safety, reduce congestion, increase regional mobility and update the current design of the interchange.
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is preparing the Parley’s Interchange Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the short- and long-term needs of the I-80/I-215 eastside interchange. The purpose of the study is to improve safety, reduce congestion, increase regional mobility and update the current design of the interchange.
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is preparing the Parley’s Interchange Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the short- and long-term needs of the I-80/I-215 eastside interchange. The purpose of the study is to improve safety, reduce congestion, increase regional mobility and update the current design of the interchange.
Concurrence on Determination of Effect and Finding of Eligibility: No Adverse Effect.
Concurrence on Determination of Effect and Finding of Eligibility: No Adverse Effect.
Concurrence on Determination of Effect and Finding of Eligibility: No Adverse Effect.
This proposed action is to meet projected traffic demands and improve public safety for a 6-mile stretch of SR-30 between SR-23 and 1000 West in Logan, Cache County.
This proposed action is to meet projected traffic demands and improve public safety for a 6-mile stretch of SR-30 between SR-23 and 1000 West in Logan, Cache County.
This proposed action is to meet projected traffic demands and improve public safety for a 6-mile stretch of SR-30 between SR-23 and 1000 West in Logan, Cache County.
This proposed action is to meet projected traffic demands and improve public safety for a 6-mile stretch of SR-30 between SR-23 and 1000 West in Logan, Cache County.
This proposed action is to meet projected traffic demands and improve public safety for a 6-mile stretch of SR-30 between SR-23 and 1000 West in Logan, Cache County.
This proposed action is to meet projected traffic demands and improve public safety for a 6-mile stretch of SR-30 between SR-23 and 1000 West in Logan, Cache County.
This proposed action is to meet projected traffic demands and improve public safety for a 6-mile stretch of SR-30 between SR-23 and 1000 West in Logan, Cache County.
This proposed action is to meet projected traffic demands and improve public safety for a 6-mile stretch of SR-30 between SR-23 and 1000 West in Logan, Cache County.
Informal consultation for Not Likely To Adversely Affect determination.
Informal consultation for Not Likely To Adversely Affect determination.
Informal consultation for Not Likely To Adversely Affect determination.
Concurrence on Determination of Effect and Finding of Eligibility: No Adverse Effect.
Concurrence on Determination of Effect and Finding of Eligibility: No Adverse Effect.
Concurrence on Determination of Effect and Finding of Eligibility: No Adverse Effect.
Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation. *The initiation and final completion dates are contingent upon NMFS receiving what it concludes is adequate information to initiate ESA consultation.

ESA-listed species exist throughout the area affected by the wind farm and associated transmission line. &nbsp;The proposed action will adversely affect these resources, therefore formal ESA Section 7 consultation is required.
Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation. *The initiation and final completion dates are contingent upon NMFS receiving what it concludes is adequate information to initiate ESA consultation.

ESA-listed species exist throughout the area affected by the wind farm and associated transmission line. &nbsp;The proposed action will adversely affect these resources, therefore formal ESA Section 7 consultation is required.
Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation. *The initiation and final completion dates are contingent upon NMFS receiving what it concludes is adequate information to initiate ESA consultation.

ESA-listed species exist throughout the area affected by the wind farm and associated transmission line. &nbsp;The proposed action will adversely affect these resources, therefore formal ESA Section 7 consultation is required.
Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation. *The initiation and final completion dates are contingent upon NMFS receiving what it concludes is adequate information to initiate ESA consultation.

ESA-listed species exist throughout the area affected by the wind farm and associated transmission line. &nbsp;The proposed action will adversely affect these resources, therefore formal ESA Section 7 consultation is required.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) designated under MSA exists throughout the area affected by the proposed wind farm and associated transmission lines. The proposed action will adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required under the MSA. Based on anticipated impacts to EFH, expanded consultation would be required.

The NMFS Essential Fish Habitat Response will be provided within 60 days of NMFS determination that all information necessary to initiate EFH consultation has been provided. The final completion date is contingent upon when NMFS receives what it concludes is a complete EFH assessment.&nbsp;Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project. NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH assessment.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) designated under MSA exists throughout the area affected by the proposed wind farm and associated transmission lines. The proposed action will adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required under the MSA. Based on anticipated impacts to EFH, expanded consultation would be required.

The NMFS Essential Fish Habitat Response will be provided within 60 days of NMFS determination that all information necessary to initiate EFH consultation has been provided. The final completion date is contingent upon when NMFS receives what it concludes is a complete EFH assessment.&nbsp;Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project. NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH assessment.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) designated under MSA exists throughout the area affected by the proposed wind farm and associated transmission lines. The proposed action will adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required under the MSA. Based on anticipated impacts to EFH, expanded consultation would be required.

The NMFS Essential Fish Habitat Response will be provided within 60 days of NMFS determination that all information necessary to initiate EFH consultation has been provided. The final completion date is contingent upon when NMFS receives what it concludes is a complete EFH assessment.&nbsp;Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project. NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH assessment.
MMPA sec 101(a)(5)(A) incidental take authorization.&nbsp;Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a rule and subsequent letter of authorization.&nbsp;

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization.
MMPA sec 101(a)(5)(A) incidental take authorization.&nbsp;Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a rule and subsequent letter of authorization.&nbsp;

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization.
MMPA sec 101(a)(5)(A) incidental take authorization.&nbsp;Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a rule and subsequent letter of authorization.&nbsp;

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization.
MMPA sec 101(a)(5)(A) incidental take authorization.&nbsp;Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a rule and subsequent letter of authorization.&nbsp;

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization.
MMPA sec 101(a)(5)(A) incidental take authorization.&nbsp;Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a rule and subsequent letter of authorization.&nbsp;

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization.
Final Completion Date: Issuance of Conservation Recommendations is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information, including an EFH Assessment, to initiate EFH consultation. Issuance of Conservation Recommendation anticipated 60 days following receiving suffcient information to intitiate EFH consultation.&nbsp;
Final Completion Date: Issuance of Conservation Recommendations is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information, including an EFH Assessment, to initiate EFH consultation. Issuance of Conservation Recommendation anticipated 60 days following receiving suffcient information to intitiate EFH consultation.&nbsp;
Final Completion Date: Issuance of Conservation Recommendations is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information, including an EFH Assessment, to initiate EFH consultation. Issuance of Conservation Recommendation anticipated 60 days following receiving suffcient information to intitiate EFH consultation.&nbsp;
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation.
Federal agencies are required to consult with the Secretary of Commerce with respect to any action authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken, by such agency that may adversely affect essential fish habitat identified under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA).&nbsp;An EFH consultation&nbsp;allows NOAA Fisheries to coordinate directly with BOEM to conserve and enhance fish habitats.
Federal agencies are required to consult with the Secretary of Commerce with respect to any action authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken, by such agency that may adversely affect essential fish habitat identified under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA).&nbsp;An EFH consultation&nbsp;allows NOAA Fisheries to coordinate directly with BOEM to conserve and enhance fish habitats.
Federal agencies are required to consult with the Secretary of Commerce with respect to any action authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken, by such agency that may adversely affect essential fish habitat identified under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA).&nbsp;An EFH consultation&nbsp;allows NOAA Fisheries to coordinate directly with BOEM to conserve and enhance fish habitats.
The ESA Biological Opinion will be completed together with the NMFS Essential Fish Habitat Response in a single document. *The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving what it concludes is adequate information to initiate ESA and MSA consultation.
The ESA Biological Opinion will be completed together with the NMFS Essential Fish Habitat Response in a single document. *The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving what it concludes is adequate information to initiate ESA and MSA consultation.
The ESA Biological Opinion will be completed together with the NMFS Essential Fish Habitat Response in a single document. *The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving what it concludes is adequate information to initiate ESA and MSA consultation.
The ESA Biological Opinion will be completed together with the NMFS Essential Fish Habitat Response in a single document. *The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving what it concludes is adequate information to initiate ESA and MSA consultation.
MMPA sec 101(a)(5) incidental take authorization.&nbsp;
MMPA sec 101(a)(5) incidental take authorization.&nbsp;
MMPA sec 101(a)(5) incidental take authorization.&nbsp;
MMPA sec 101(a)(5) incidental take authorization.&nbsp;
MMPA sec 101(a)(5) incidental take authorization.&nbsp;
The NMFS Essential Fish Habitat Response will be completed together with the ESA Biological Opinion in a single document. *The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving what it concludes is adequate information to initiate ESA and MSA/EFH consultation.
The NMFS Essential Fish Habitat Response will be completed together with the ESA Biological Opinion in a single document. *The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving what it concludes is adequate information to initiate ESA and MSA/EFH consultation.
The NMFS Essential Fish Habitat Response will be completed together with the ESA Biological Opinion in a single document. *The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving what it concludes is adequate information to initiate ESA and MSA/EFH consultation.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any project or action they take might affect an ESA-listed species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction, or might affect such species’ critical habitat.&nbsp; ESA-listed species and critical habitat exist throughout much of the area affected by the proposed Mid-Barataria project. The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any project or action they take might affect an ESA-listed species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction, or might affect such species’ critical habitat.&nbsp; ESA-listed species and critical habitat exist throughout much of the area affected by the proposed Mid-Barataria project. The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any project or action they take might affect an ESA-listed species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction, or might affect such species’ critical habitat.&nbsp; ESA-listed species and critical habitat exist throughout much of the area affected by the proposed Mid-Barataria project. The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any project or action they take might affect an ESA-listed species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction, or might affect such species’ critical habitat.&nbsp; ESA-listed species and critical habitat exist throughout much of the area affected by the proposed Mid-Barataria project. The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH exists throughout the area affected by the proposed Mid-Barataria project. The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH exists throughout the area affected by the proposed Mid-Barataria project. The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH exists throughout the area affected by the proposed Mid-Barataria project. The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation.
Issuance of Conservation Recommendations is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information, including an EFH Assessment, to initiate EFH consultation.
Issuance of Conservation Recommendations is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information, including an EFH Assessment, to initiate EFH consultation.
Issuance of Conservation Recommendations is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information, including an EFH Assessment, to initiate EFH consultation.
The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to initiate formal ESA consultation.&nbsp;Final biological opinion will be issued 135 days following NMFS’ receipt of sufficient information to initiate formal consultation.&nbsp;
The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to initiate formal ESA consultation.&nbsp;Final biological opinion will be issued 135 days following NMFS’ receipt of sufficient information to initiate formal consultation.&nbsp;
The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to initiate formal ESA consultation.&nbsp;Final biological opinion will be issued 135 days following NMFS’ receipt of sufficient information to initiate formal consultation.&nbsp;
The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to initiate formal ESA consultation.&nbsp;Final biological opinion will be issued 135 days following NMFS’ receipt of sufficient information to initiate formal consultation.&nbsp;
UDOT is preparing an environmental assessment to evaluate a range of potential alternatives that may include construction of a new I-15 northbound collector-distributor road with on/off ramp modificiations.
UDOT is preparing an environmental assessment to evaluate a range of potential alternatives that may include construction of a new I-15 northbound collector-distributor road with on/off ramp modificiations.
UDOT is preparing an environmental assessment to evaluate a range of potential alternatives that may include construction of a new I-15 northbound collector-distributor road with on/off ramp modificiations.
UDOT is preparing an environmental assessment to evaluate a range of potential alternatives that may include construction of a new I-15 northbound collector-distributor road with on/off ramp modificiations.
UDOT is preparing an environmental assessment to evaluate a range of potential alternatives that may include construction of a new I-15 northbound collector-distributor road with on/off ramp modificiations.
UDOT is preparing an environmental assessment to evaluate a range of potential alternatives that may include construction of a new I-15 northbound collector-distributor road with on/off ramp modificiations.
UDOT is preparing an environmental assessment to evaluate a range of potential alternatives that may include construction of a new I-15 northbound collector-distributor road with on/off ramp modificiations.
UDOT is preparing an environmental assessment to evaluate a range of potential alternatives that may include construction of a new I-15 northbound collector-distributor road with on/off ramp modificiations.
UDOT is preparing an environmental assessment to evaluate a range of potential alternatives that may include construction of a new I-15 northbound collector-distributor road with on/off ramp modificiations.
Development and execution of the Memorandum of Agreement for Adverse Effect.
Development and execution of the Memorandum of Agreement for Adverse Effect.
Development and execution of the Memorandum of Agreement for Adverse Effect.
UDOT is preparing an Environmental Assessment to evaluate potential alternatives to alleviate traffic congestion within the potential study area of I-215 SB; 4100 South to 4700 South in Taylorsville City.
UDOT is preparing an Environmental Assessment to evaluate potential alternatives to alleviate traffic congestion within the potential study area of I-215 SB; 4100 South to 4700 South in Taylorsville City.
UDOT is preparing an Environmental Assessment to evaluate potential alternatives to alleviate traffic congestion within the potential study area of I-215 SB; 4100 South to 4700 South in Taylorsville City.
UDOT is preparing an Environmental Assessment to evaluate potential alternatives to alleviate traffic congestion within the potential study area of I-215 SB; 4100 South to 4700 South in Taylorsville City.
UDOT is preparing an Environmental Assessment to evaluate potential alternatives to alleviate traffic congestion within the potential study area of I-215 SB; 4100 South to 4700 South in Taylorsville City.
UDOT is preparing an Environmental Assessment to evaluate potential alternatives to alleviate traffic congestion within the potential study area of I-215 SB; 4100 South to 4700 South in Taylorsville City.
UDOT is preparing an Environmental Assessment to evaluate potential alternatives to alleviate traffic congestion within the potential study area of I-215 SB; 4100 South to 4700 South in Taylorsville City.
UDOT is preparing an Environmental Assessment to evaluate potential alternatives to alleviate traffic congestion within the potential study area of I-215 SB; 4100 South to 4700 South in Taylorsville City.
UDOT is preparing an Environmental Assessment to evaluate potential alternatives to alleviate traffic congestion within the potential study area of I-215 SB; 4100 South to 4700 South in Taylorsville City.
Concurrence on Determination of Effect and Finding of Eligibility: No Adverse Effect.
Concurrence on Determination of Effect and Finding of Eligibility: No Adverse Effect.
Concurrence on Determination of Effect and Finding of Eligibility: No Adverse Effect.
UDOT will prepare an EIS for proposed improvements to SR-210, a two-lane roadway, in Little Cottonwood Canyon in Salt Lake County, Utah. The proposed project study area extends from the intersection of SR-210 and SR-190/Fort Union Boulevard in Cottonwood Heights, Utah to the terminus of SR-210 in the town of Alta, Utah. Transportation improvements are needed to address congestion, improve safety for all users, and enhance the availability of public transportation options in the canyon.&nbsp; To address these needs, UDOT is proposing to make operational improvements, introduce demand-management measures, and support efforts by transit providers to implement increased transit service in the project study area.Due to the wide variety of comments received during the initial scoping period and the complexity of the transportation challenges in the canyon, UDOT has adjusted the study approach in order to identify and evaluate reasonable and practical solutions that will address immediate needs in the study area. The EIS will focus on mobility and safety to address traffic congestion at key intersections, parking at trailheads, and avalanche mitigation and identify solutions that can be implemented to address these immediate needs. A revised Notice of Intent is anticipated to be issued in Winter 2019 and will be followed by a revised public scoping period.
UDOT will prepare an EIS for proposed improvements to SR-210, a two-lane roadway, in Little Cottonwood Canyon in Salt Lake County, Utah. The proposed project study area extends from the intersection of SR-210 and SR-190/Fort Union Boulevard in Cottonwood Heights, Utah to the terminus of SR-210 in the town of Alta, Utah. Transportation improvements are needed to address congestion, improve safety for all users, and enhance the availability of public transportation options in the canyon.&nbsp; To address these needs, UDOT is proposing to make operational improvements, introduce demand-management measures, and support efforts by transit providers to implement increased transit service in the project study area.Due to the wide variety of comments received during the initial scoping period and the complexity of the transportation challenges in the canyon, UDOT has adjusted the study approach in order to identify and evaluate reasonable and practical solutions that will address immediate needs in the study area. The EIS will focus on mobility and safety to address traffic congestion at key intersections, parking at trailheads, and avalanche mitigation and identify solutions that can be implemented to address these immediate needs. A revised Notice of Intent is anticipated to be issued in Winter 2019 and will be followed by a revised public scoping period.
UDOT will prepare an EIS for proposed improvements to SR-210, a two-lane roadway, in Little Cottonwood Canyon in Salt Lake County, Utah. The proposed project study area extends from the intersection of SR-210 and SR-190/Fort Union Boulevard in Cottonwood Heights, Utah to the terminus of SR-210 in the town of Alta, Utah. Transportation improvements are needed to address congestion, improve safety for all users, and enhance the availability of public transportation options in the canyon.&nbsp; To address these needs, UDOT is proposing to make operational improvements, introduce demand-management measures, and support efforts by transit providers to implement increased transit service in the project study area.Due to the wide variety of comments received during the initial scoping period and the complexity of the transportation challenges in the canyon, UDOT has adjusted the study approach in order to identify and evaluate reasonable and practical solutions that will address immediate needs in the study area. The EIS will focus on mobility and safety to address traffic congestion at key intersections, parking at trailheads, and avalanche mitigation and identify solutions that can be implemented to address these immediate needs. A revised Notice of Intent is anticipated to be issued in Winter 2019 and will be followed by a revised public scoping period.
UDOT will prepare an EIS for proposed improvements to SR-210, a two-lane roadway, in Little Cottonwood Canyon in Salt Lake County, Utah. The proposed project study area extends from the intersection of SR-210 and SR-190/Fort Union Boulevard in Cottonwood Heights, Utah to the terminus of SR-210 in the town of Alta, Utah. Transportation improvements are needed to address congestion, improve safety for all users, and enhance the availability of public transportation options in the canyon.&nbsp; To address these needs, UDOT is proposing to make operational improvements, introduce demand-management measures, and support efforts by transit providers to implement increased transit service in the project study area.Due to the wide variety of comments received during the initial scoping period and the complexity of the transportation challenges in the canyon, UDOT has adjusted the study approach in order to identify and evaluate reasonable and practical solutions that will address immediate needs in the study area. The EIS will focus on mobility and safety to address traffic congestion at key intersections, parking at trailheads, and avalanche mitigation and identify solutions that can be implemented to address these immediate needs. A revised Notice of Intent is anticipated to be issued in Winter 2019 and will be followed by a revised public scoping period.
UDOT will prepare an EIS for proposed improvements to SR-210, a two-lane roadway, in Little Cottonwood Canyon in Salt Lake County, Utah. The proposed project study area extends from the intersection of SR-210 and SR-190/Fort Union Boulevard in Cottonwood Heights, Utah to the terminus of SR-210 in the town of Alta, Utah. Transportation improvements are needed to address congestion, improve safety for all users, and enhance the availability of public transportation options in the canyon.&nbsp; To address these needs, UDOT is proposing to make operational improvements, introduce demand-management measures, and support efforts by transit providers to implement increased transit service in the project study area.Due to the wide variety of comments received during the initial scoping period and the complexity of the transportation challenges in the canyon, UDOT has adjusted the study approach in order to identify and evaluate reasonable and practical solutions that will address immediate needs in the study area. The EIS will focus on mobility and safety to address traffic congestion at key intersections, parking at trailheads, and avalanche mitigation and identify solutions that can be implemented to address these immediate needs. A revised Notice of Intent is anticipated to be issued in Winter 2019 and will be followed by a revised public scoping period.
UDOT will prepare an EIS for proposed improvements to SR-210, a two-lane roadway, in Little Cottonwood Canyon in Salt Lake County, Utah. The proposed project study area extends from the intersection of SR-210 and SR-190/Fort Union Boulevard in Cottonwood Heights, Utah to the terminus of SR-210 in the town of Alta, Utah. Transportation improvements are needed to address congestion, improve safety for all users, and enhance the availability of public transportation options in the canyon.&nbsp; To address these needs, UDOT is proposing to make operational improvements, introduce demand-management measures, and support efforts by transit providers to implement increased transit service in the project study area.Due to the wide variety of comments received during the initial scoping period and the complexity of the transportation challenges in the canyon, UDOT has adjusted the study approach in order to identify and evaluate reasonable and practical solutions that will address immediate needs in the study area. The EIS will focus on mobility and safety to address traffic congestion at key intersections, parking at trailheads, and avalanche mitigation and identify solutions that can be implemented to address these immediate needs. A revised Notice of Intent is anticipated to be issued in Winter 2019 and will be followed by a revised public scoping period.
UDOT will prepare an EIS for proposed improvements to SR-210, a two-lane roadway, in Little Cottonwood Canyon in Salt Lake County, Utah. The proposed project study area extends from the intersection of SR-210 and SR-190/Fort Union Boulevard in Cottonwood Heights, Utah to the terminus of SR-210 in the town of Alta, Utah. Transportation improvements are needed to address congestion, improve safety for all users, and enhance the availability of public transportation options in the canyon.&nbsp; To address these needs, UDOT is proposing to make operational improvements, introduce demand-management measures, and support efforts by transit providers to implement increased transit service in the project study area.Due to the wide variety of comments received during the initial scoping period and the complexity of the transportation challenges in the canyon, UDOT has adjusted the study approach in order to identify and evaluate reasonable and practical solutions that will address immediate needs in the study area. The EIS will focus on mobility and safety to address traffic congestion at key intersections, parking at trailheads, and avalanche mitigation and identify solutions that can be implemented to address these immediate needs. A revised Notice of Intent is anticipated to be issued in Winter 2019 and will be followed by a revised public scoping period.
UDOT will prepare an EIS for proposed improvements to SR-210, a two-lane roadway, in Little Cottonwood Canyon in Salt Lake County, Utah. The proposed project study area extends from the intersection of SR-210 and SR-190/Fort Union Boulevard in Cottonwood Heights, Utah to the terminus of SR-210 in the town of Alta, Utah. Transportation improvements are needed to address congestion, improve safety for all users, and enhance the availability of public transportation options in the canyon.&nbsp; To address these needs, UDOT is proposing to make operational improvements, introduce demand-management measures, and support efforts by transit providers to implement increased transit service in the project study area.Due to the wide variety of comments received during the initial scoping period and the complexity of the transportation challenges in the canyon, UDOT has adjusted the study approach in order to identify and evaluate reasonable and practical solutions that will address immediate needs in the study area. The EIS will focus on mobility and safety to address traffic congestion at key intersections, parking at trailheads, and avalanche mitigation and identify solutions that can be implemented to address these immediate needs. A revised Notice of Intent is anticipated to be issued in Winter 2019 and will be followed by a revised public scoping period.
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and Payson City are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that evaluates the interchange at Main Street (SR-115) and I-15.
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and Payson City are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that evaluates the interchange at Main Street (SR-115) and I-15.
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and Payson City are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that evaluates the interchange at Main Street (SR-115) and I-15.
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and Payson City are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that evaluates the interchange at Main Street (SR-115) and I-15.
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and Payson City are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that evaluates the interchange at Main Street (SR-115) and I-15.
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and Payson City are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that evaluates the interchange at Main Street (SR-115) and I-15.
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and Payson City are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that evaluates the interchange at Main Street (SR-115) and I-15.
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and Payson City are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that evaluates the interchange at Main Street (SR-115) and I-15.
Informal consultation for determination of Not Likely to Adversely Affect.
Informal consultation for determination of Not Likely to Adversely Affect.
Informal consultation for determination of Not Likely to Adversely Affect.
Concurrence on Determination of Effect and Finding of Eligibility: No Adverse Effect.
Concurrence on Determination of Effect and Finding of Eligibility: No Adverse Effect.
Concurrence on Determination of Effect and Finding of Eligibility: No Adverse Effect.
Washington County, Washington City, and Hurricane City, in cooperation with the UDOT, are preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the need for extending 5300 West from State Route 9 in Hurricane City, near the DMV and the Fairgrounds, to Washington Dam Road in Washington City.
Washington County, Washington City, and Hurricane City, in cooperation with the UDOT, are preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the need for extending 5300 West from State Route 9 in Hurricane City, near the DMV and the Fairgrounds, to Washington Dam Road in Washington City.
Washington County, Washington City, and Hurricane City, in cooperation with the UDOT, are preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the need for extending 5300 West from State Route 9 in Hurricane City, near the DMV and the Fairgrounds, to Washington Dam Road in Washington City.
Washington County, Washington City, and Hurricane City, in cooperation with the UDOT, are preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the need for extending 5300 West from State Route 9 in Hurricane City, near the DMV and the Fairgrounds, to Washington Dam Road in Washington City.
Washington County, Washington City, and Hurricane City, in cooperation with the UDOT, are preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the need for extending 5300 West from State Route 9 in Hurricane City, near the DMV and the Fairgrounds, to Washington Dam Road in Washington City.
Washington County, Washington City, and Hurricane City, in cooperation with the UDOT, are preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the need for extending 5300 West from State Route 9 in Hurricane City, near the DMV and the Fairgrounds, to Washington Dam Road in Washington City.
Washington County, Washington City, and Hurricane City, in cooperation with the UDOT, are preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the need for extending 5300 West from State Route 9 in Hurricane City, near the DMV and the Fairgrounds, to Washington Dam Road in Washington City.
Washington County, Washington City, and Hurricane City, in cooperation with the UDOT, are preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the need for extending 5300 West from State Route 9 in Hurricane City, near the DMV and the Fairgrounds, to Washington Dam Road in Washington City.
Washington County, Washington City, and Hurricane City, in cooperation with the UDOT, are preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the need for extending 5300 West from State Route 9 in Hurricane City, near the DMV and the Fairgrounds, to Washington Dam Road in Washington City.
Finding of No Historic Properties Affected processed under the Second Amended Programmatic Agreement among the FHWA, the Utah SHPO, the ACHP, the USACE Sacramento District, and the UDOT Regarding Section 106 Implementation for Federal-Aid Transportation Projects in the State of Utah.
Finding of No Historic Properties Affected processed under the Second Amended Programmatic Agreement among the FHWA, the Utah SHPO, the ACHP, the USACE Sacramento District, and the UDOT Regarding Section 106 Implementation for Federal-Aid Transportation Projects in the State of Utah.
Finding of No Historic Properties Affected processed under the Second Amended Programmatic Agreement among the FHWA, the Utah SHPO, the ACHP, the USACE Sacramento District, and the UDOT Regarding Section 106 Implementation for Federal-Aid Transportation Projects in the State of Utah.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands for (description of facility). If the BLM&nbsp;offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands for (description of facility). If the BLM&nbsp;offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands for (description of facility). If the BLM&nbsp;offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands for (description of facility). If the BLM&nbsp;offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands for (description of facility). If the BLM&nbsp;offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands for (description of facility). If the BLM&nbsp;offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands for (description of facility). If the BLM&nbsp;offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
Formal consultation for determination of Likely to Adversely Affect.
Formal consultation for determination of Likely to Adversely Affect.
Formal consultation for determination of Likely to Adversely Affect.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all Federal agencies to work to conserve endangered and threatened species and to use their authorities to further the purposes of the Act. Section 7 of the Act, called "Interagency Cooperation," is the mechanism by which Federal agencies ensure the actions they take, including those they fund or authorize, do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all Federal agencies to work to conserve endangered and threatened species and to use their authorities to further the purposes of the Act. Section 7 of the Act, called "Interagency Cooperation," is the mechanism by which Federal agencies ensure the actions they take, including those they fund or authorize, do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all Federal agencies to work to conserve endangered and threatened species and to use their authorities to further the purposes of the Act. Section 7 of the Act, called "Interagency Cooperation," is the mechanism by which Federal agencies ensure the actions they take, including those they fund or authorize, do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species.
FWS worked closely with the BLM Rock Springs Office throughout the consultation process, and on December 10, 2018, issued&nbsp;its biological opinion addressing adverse effects to listed species in the Colorado and Platte River basins due to depletions, and also concluded informal consultation on grizzly bear and yellow cuckoo at this&nbsp;project by concurring that the project is not likely to adversely affect these species.&nbsp;&nbsp;
FWS worked closely with the BLM Rock Springs Office throughout the consultation process, and on December 10, 2018, issued&nbsp;its biological opinion addressing adverse effects to listed species in the Colorado and Platte River basins due to depletions, and also concluded informal consultation on grizzly bear and yellow cuckoo at this&nbsp;project by concurring that the project is not likely to adversely affect these species.&nbsp;&nbsp;
FWS worked closely with the BLM Rock Springs Office throughout the consultation process, and on December 10, 2018, issued&nbsp;its biological opinion addressing adverse effects to listed species in the Colorado and Platte River basins due to depletions, and also concluded informal consultation on grizzly bear and yellow cuckoo at this&nbsp;project by concurring that the project is not likely to adversely affect these species.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The BLM will issue the ROW after a Decision Record is completed for EA-3 and the Fish and Wildlife Service can issue a letter of concurrence based on the Eagle Conservation Plan (ECP) and Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy (BBCS).
The BLM will issue the ROW after a Decision Record is completed for EA-3 and the Fish and Wildlife Service can issue a letter of concurrence based on the Eagle Conservation Plan (ECP) and Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy (BBCS).
The BLM will issue the ROW after a Decision Record is completed for EA-3 and the Fish and Wildlife Service can issue a letter of concurrence based on the Eagle Conservation Plan (ECP) and Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy (BBCS).
The BLM will issue the ROW after a Decision Record is completed for EA-3 and the Fish and Wildlife Service can issue a letter of concurrence based on the Eagle Conservation Plan (ECP) and Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy (BBCS).
The BLM will issue the ROW after a Decision Record is completed for EA-3 and the Fish and Wildlife Service can issue a letter of concurrence based on the Eagle Conservation Plan (ECP) and Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy (BBCS).
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
The Portland District is reviewing a Department of Army individual&nbsp;permission pursuant to 33 USC Section 408 for potential adverse impacts to the Coos Bay Federally Authorized Navigation Channel. Those features, include:&nbsp;the pile dike field,&nbsp;pipeline construction under the navigation channel, slip and access channel, marine offloading facility, dredging&nbsp;in the Coos Bay Federal Navigation Channel, dredged material disposal management and&nbsp;temporary dredge material disposal pipe placement in the Federal Navigation Channel. This work is associated with Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The USACE Action remains paused on the Dashboard while the applicant determines next steps for obtaining a Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification and Coastal Zone Management Act consistency concurrence. Schedule unknown.

On June 10, 2021, Jordan Cove Liquefied Natural Gas' Section 408 permission was suspended as the applicant has paused the project for an undetermined length of time.

On December 20, 2021, the quarterly update email regarding the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project was sent out, in that email, FERC explained that on December 16, 2021, the Commission issued an order vacating the Natural Gas Act (NGA) section 3 authorization for the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal issued in Docket No.&nbsp;CP17‑495-000 and the NGA section 7 authorization for the Pacific Connector Pipeline issued in Docket No.&nbsp;CP17‑494-000.&nbsp; Per section 385.713 of the Commission’s regulations, parties had 30 days to file for rehearing of the order.&nbsp; FERC also informed USACE that once the rehearing period passed or any rehearing request was processed, FERC would request any agency updates to the Permitting Dashboard (Dashboard). No parties filed requests for rehearing and the Commission action is now considered final. 



&nbsp;

&nbsp;
The Portland District is reviewing a Department of Army individual&nbsp;permission pursuant to 33 USC Section 408 for potential adverse impacts to the Coos Bay Federally Authorized Navigation Channel. Those features, include:&nbsp;the pile dike field,&nbsp;pipeline construction under the navigation channel, slip and access channel, marine offloading facility, dredging&nbsp;in the Coos Bay Federal Navigation Channel, dredged material disposal management and&nbsp;temporary dredge material disposal pipe placement in the Federal Navigation Channel. This work is associated with Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The USACE Action remains paused on the Dashboard while the applicant determines next steps for obtaining a Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification and Coastal Zone Management Act consistency concurrence. Schedule unknown.

On June 10, 2021, Jordan Cove Liquefied Natural Gas' Section 408 permission was suspended as the applicant has paused the project for an undetermined length of time.

On December 20, 2021, the quarterly update email regarding the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project was sent out, in that email, FERC explained that on December 16, 2021, the Commission issued an order vacating the Natural Gas Act (NGA) section 3 authorization for the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal issued in Docket No.&nbsp;CP17‑495-000 and the NGA section 7 authorization for the Pacific Connector Pipeline issued in Docket No.&nbsp;CP17‑494-000.&nbsp; Per section 385.713 of the Commission’s regulations, parties had 30 days to file for rehearing of the order.&nbsp; FERC also informed USACE that once the rehearing period passed or any rehearing request was processed, FERC would request any agency updates to the Permitting Dashboard (Dashboard). No parties filed requests for rehearing and the Commission action is now considered final. 



&nbsp;

&nbsp;
The Portland District is reviewing a Department of Army individual&nbsp;permission pursuant to 33 USC Section 408 for potential adverse impacts to the Coos Bay Federally Authorized Navigation Channel. Those features, include:&nbsp;the pile dike field,&nbsp;pipeline construction under the navigation channel, slip and access channel, marine offloading facility, dredging&nbsp;in the Coos Bay Federal Navigation Channel, dredged material disposal management and&nbsp;temporary dredge material disposal pipe placement in the Federal Navigation Channel. This work is associated with Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The USACE Action remains paused on the Dashboard while the applicant determines next steps for obtaining a Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification and Coastal Zone Management Act consistency concurrence. Schedule unknown.

On June 10, 2021, Jordan Cove Liquefied Natural Gas' Section 408 permission was suspended as the applicant has paused the project for an undetermined length of time.

On December 20, 2021, the quarterly update email regarding the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project was sent out, in that email, FERC explained that on December 16, 2021, the Commission issued an order vacating the Natural Gas Act (NGA) section 3 authorization for the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal issued in Docket No.&nbsp;CP17‑495-000 and the NGA section 7 authorization for the Pacific Connector Pipeline issued in Docket No.&nbsp;CP17‑494-000.&nbsp; Per section 385.713 of the Commission’s regulations, parties had 30 days to file for rehearing of the order.&nbsp; FERC also informed USACE that once the rehearing period passed or any rehearing request was processed, FERC would request any agency updates to the Permitting Dashboard (Dashboard). No parties filed requests for rehearing and the Commission action is now considered final. 



&nbsp;

&nbsp;
The Portland District is reviewing a Department of Army individual&nbsp;permission pursuant to 33 USC Section 408 for potential adverse impacts to the Coos Bay Federally Authorized Navigation Channel. Those features, include:&nbsp;the pile dike field,&nbsp;pipeline construction under the navigation channel, slip and access channel, marine offloading facility, dredging&nbsp;in the Coos Bay Federal Navigation Channel, dredged material disposal management and&nbsp;temporary dredge material disposal pipe placement in the Federal Navigation Channel. This work is associated with Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The USACE Action remains paused on the Dashboard while the applicant determines next steps for obtaining a Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification and Coastal Zone Management Act consistency concurrence. Schedule unknown.

On June 10, 2021, Jordan Cove Liquefied Natural Gas' Section 408 permission was suspended as the applicant has paused the project for an undetermined length of time.

On December 20, 2021, the quarterly update email regarding the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project was sent out, in that email, FERC explained that on December 16, 2021, the Commission issued an order vacating the Natural Gas Act (NGA) section 3 authorization for the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal issued in Docket No.&nbsp;CP17‑495-000 and the NGA section 7 authorization for the Pacific Connector Pipeline issued in Docket No.&nbsp;CP17‑494-000.&nbsp; Per section 385.713 of the Commission’s regulations, parties had 30 days to file for rehearing of the order.&nbsp; FERC also informed USACE that once the rehearing period passed or any rehearing request was processed, FERC would request any agency updates to the Permitting Dashboard (Dashboard). No parties filed requests for rehearing and the Commission action is now considered final. 



&nbsp;

&nbsp;
The Portland District is reviewing a Department of Army individual&nbsp;permission pursuant to 33 USC Section 408 for potential adverse impacts to the Coos Bay Federally Authorized Navigation Channel. Those features, include:&nbsp;the pile dike field,&nbsp;pipeline construction under the navigation channel, slip and access channel, marine offloading facility, dredging&nbsp;in the Coos Bay Federal Navigation Channel, dredged material disposal management and&nbsp;temporary dredge material disposal pipe placement in the Federal Navigation Channel. This work is associated with Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The USACE Action remains paused on the Dashboard while the applicant determines next steps for obtaining a Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification and Coastal Zone Management Act consistency concurrence. Schedule unknown.

On June 10, 2021, Jordan Cove Liquefied Natural Gas' Section 408 permission was suspended as the applicant has paused the project for an undetermined length of time.

On December 20, 2021, the quarterly update email regarding the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project was sent out, in that email, FERC explained that on December 16, 2021, the Commission issued an order vacating the Natural Gas Act (NGA) section 3 authorization for the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal issued in Docket No.&nbsp;CP17‑495-000 and the NGA section 7 authorization for the Pacific Connector Pipeline issued in Docket No.&nbsp;CP17‑494-000.&nbsp; Per section 385.713 of the Commission’s regulations, parties had 30 days to file for rehearing of the order.&nbsp; FERC also informed USACE that once the rehearing period passed or any rehearing request was processed, FERC would request any agency updates to the Permitting Dashboard (Dashboard). No parties filed requests for rehearing and the Commission action is now considered final. 



&nbsp;

&nbsp;
The&nbsp;applicant is proposing to discharge fill material into 36.97 acres of ephemeral drainages for the construction of a 690 megawatt alternating current (MWac) solar facility located on 7,079 acres of Federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).The proposed project would be constructed using methods consisting of 65% mowing and 35% traditional (e.g. grading). The proposed discharge of fill material into waters of the United States within those areas identified for mowing would occur as a result of engineering to divert flow along the western edge of Area B and along a small portion of the upper edge of Area A, as shown on the enclosed figures. Some discharge is anticipated within the West Tributary of the California Wash that is located within the project area due to installation of rip-rap and/or soil cement. The discharge would likely be constructed with backhoes, small bulldozers and dump-trucks.The applicant has proposed to utilize Best Management Practices to limit discharge and erosion into waters of the United States. A collector channel/berm and detention basin are proposed to capture runoff from Area B and meter outflow onto the West Tributary (west of Area B). Earthern and/or concrete berms and detention basins are proposed to be installed to prevent flooding on site within some of the 100 year flood plain channels associated with the California Wash. Berm hieght is not expected to exceed 3 feet. The channel/berms are proposed to be lined with an erosion-resistant material, such as soil, cement, or rip-rap.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The&nbsp;applicant is proposing to discharge fill material into 36.97 acres of ephemeral drainages for the construction of a 690 megawatt alternating current (MWac) solar facility located on 7,079 acres of Federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).The proposed project would be constructed using methods consisting of 65% mowing and 35% traditional (e.g. grading). The proposed discharge of fill material into waters of the United States within those areas identified for mowing would occur as a result of engineering to divert flow along the western edge of Area B and along a small portion of the upper edge of Area A, as shown on the enclosed figures. Some discharge is anticipated within the West Tributary of the California Wash that is located within the project area due to installation of rip-rap and/or soil cement. The discharge would likely be constructed with backhoes, small bulldozers and dump-trucks.The applicant has proposed to utilize Best Management Practices to limit discharge and erosion into waters of the United States. A collector channel/berm and detention basin are proposed to capture runoff from Area B and meter outflow onto the West Tributary (west of Area B). Earthern and/or concrete berms and detention basins are proposed to be installed to prevent flooding on site within some of the 100 year flood plain channels associated with the California Wash. Berm hieght is not expected to exceed 3 feet. The channel/berms are proposed to be lined with an erosion-resistant material, such as soil, cement, or rip-rap.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The&nbsp;applicant is proposing to discharge fill material into 36.97 acres of ephemeral drainages for the construction of a 690 megawatt alternating current (MWac) solar facility located on 7,079 acres of Federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).The proposed project would be constructed using methods consisting of 65% mowing and 35% traditional (e.g. grading). The proposed discharge of fill material into waters of the United States within those areas identified for mowing would occur as a result of engineering to divert flow along the western edge of Area B and along a small portion of the upper edge of Area A, as shown on the enclosed figures. Some discharge is anticipated within the West Tributary of the California Wash that is located within the project area due to installation of rip-rap and/or soil cement. The discharge would likely be constructed with backhoes, small bulldozers and dump-trucks.The applicant has proposed to utilize Best Management Practices to limit discharge and erosion into waters of the United States. A collector channel/berm and detention basin are proposed to capture runoff from Area B and meter outflow onto the West Tributary (west of Area B). Earthern and/or concrete berms and detention basins are proposed to be installed to prevent flooding on site within some of the 100 year flood plain channels associated with the California Wash. Berm hieght is not expected to exceed 3 feet. The channel/berms are proposed to be lined with an erosion-resistant material, such as soil, cement, or rip-rap.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The&nbsp;applicant is proposing to discharge fill material into 36.97 acres of ephemeral drainages for the construction of a 690 megawatt alternating current (MWac) solar facility located on 7,079 acres of Federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).The proposed project would be constructed using methods consisting of 65% mowing and 35% traditional (e.g. grading). The proposed discharge of fill material into waters of the United States within those areas identified for mowing would occur as a result of engineering to divert flow along the western edge of Area B and along a small portion of the upper edge of Area A, as shown on the enclosed figures. Some discharge is anticipated within the West Tributary of the California Wash that is located within the project area due to installation of rip-rap and/or soil cement. The discharge would likely be constructed with backhoes, small bulldozers and dump-trucks.The applicant has proposed to utilize Best Management Practices to limit discharge and erosion into waters of the United States. A collector channel/berm and detention basin are proposed to capture runoff from Area B and meter outflow onto the West Tributary (west of Area B). Earthern and/or concrete berms and detention basins are proposed to be installed to prevent flooding on site within some of the 100 year flood plain channels associated with the California Wash. Berm hieght is not expected to exceed 3 feet. The channel/berms are proposed to be lined with an erosion-resistant material, such as soil, cement, or rip-rap.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Convert the existing five lane arterial section of US-62 between State Route 43 and the Nimishillen Creek/Railroad underpass which includes numerous at-grade intersections and driveways to a four lane divided limited access section approximately one mile in length, while the existing US-62 Eastbound lanes would be utilized as a frontage road for the properties on the South side of the freeway. In Plain Township, Stark County, Ohio.
Convert the existing five lane arterial section of US-62 between State Route 43 and the Nimishillen Creek/Railroad underpass which includes numerous at-grade intersections and driveways to a four lane divided limited access section approximately one mile in length, while the existing US-62 Eastbound lanes would be utilized as a frontage road for the properties on the South side of the freeway. In Plain Township, Stark County, Ohio.
Convert the existing five lane arterial section of US-62 between State Route 43 and the Nimishillen Creek/Railroad underpass which includes numerous at-grade intersections and driveways to a four lane divided limited access section approximately one mile in length, while the existing US-62 Eastbound lanes would be utilized as a frontage road for the properties on the South side of the freeway. In Plain Township, Stark County, Ohio.
Convert the existing five lane arterial section of US-62 between State Route 43 and the Nimishillen Creek/Railroad underpass which includes numerous at-grade intersections and driveways to a four lane divided limited access section approximately one mile in length, while the existing US-62 Eastbound lanes would be utilized as a frontage road for the properties on the South side of the freeway. In Plain Township, Stark County, Ohio.
Convert the existing five lane arterial section of US-62 between State Route 43 and the Nimishillen Creek/Railroad underpass which includes numerous at-grade intersections and driveways to a four lane divided limited access section approximately one mile in length, while the existing US-62 Eastbound lanes would be utilized as a frontage road for the properties on the South side of the freeway. In Plain Township, Stark County, Ohio.
Convert the existing five lane arterial section of US-62 between State Route 43 and the Nimishillen Creek/Railroad underpass which includes numerous at-grade intersections and driveways to a four lane divided limited access section approximately one mile in length, while the existing US-62 Eastbound lanes would be utilized as a frontage road for the properties on the South side of the freeway. In Plain Township, Stark County, Ohio.
Convert the existing five lane arterial section of US-62 between State Route 43 and the Nimishillen Creek/Railroad underpass which includes numerous at-grade intersections and driveways to a four lane divided limited access section approximately one mile in length, while the existing US-62 Eastbound lanes would be utilized as a frontage road for the properties on the South side of the freeway. In Plain Township, Stark County, Ohio.
Convert the existing five lane arterial section of US-62 between State Route 43 and the Nimishillen Creek/Railroad underpass which includes numerous at-grade intersections and driveways to a four lane divided limited access section approximately one mile in length, while the existing US-62 Eastbound lanes would be utilized as a frontage road for the properties on the South side of the freeway. In Plain Township, Stark County, Ohio.
Convert the existing five lane arterial section of US-62 between State Route 43 and the Nimishillen Creek/Railroad underpass which includes numerous at-grade intersections and driveways to a four lane divided limited access section approximately one mile in length, while the existing US-62 Eastbound lanes would be utilized as a frontage road for the properties on the South side of the freeway. In Plain Township, Stark County, Ohio.
Commission staff developed a Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the applicable agencies and federally recognized tribes.&nbsp; On June 1, 2020, Commission staff circulated the final PA for signatures.&nbsp; The Alaska State Historic Preservation Office signed the final PA on June 4, 2020.&nbsp;&nbsp;The final PA was executed with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s signature on June 24, 2020.
Commission staff developed a Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the applicable agencies and federally recognized tribes.&nbsp; On June 1, 2020, Commission staff circulated the final PA for signatures.&nbsp; The Alaska State Historic Preservation Office signed the final PA on June 4, 2020.&nbsp;&nbsp;The final PA was executed with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s signature on June 24, 2020.
Commission staff developed a Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the applicable agencies and federally recognized tribes.&nbsp; On June 1, 2020, Commission staff circulated the final PA for signatures.&nbsp; The Alaska State Historic Preservation Office signed the final PA on June 4, 2020.&nbsp;&nbsp;The final PA was executed with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s signature on June 24, 2020.
Commission staff developed a Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the applicable agencies and federally recognized tribes.&nbsp; On June 25, 2020, Commission staff circulated the final PA for signatures.&nbsp; The Oregon State Historic Preservation Office signed the final PA on July 16, 2020.&nbsp; The final PA was executed with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s signature on July 17, 2020.&nbsp;
Commission staff developed a Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the applicable agencies and federally recognized tribes.&nbsp; On June 25, 2020, Commission staff circulated the final PA for signatures.&nbsp; The Oregon State Historic Preservation Office signed the final PA on July 16, 2020.&nbsp; The final PA was executed with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s signature on July 17, 2020.&nbsp;
Commission staff developed a Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the applicable agencies and federally recognized tribes.&nbsp; On June 25, 2020, Commission staff circulated the final PA for signatures.&nbsp; The Oregon State Historic Preservation Office signed the final PA on July 16, 2020.&nbsp; The final PA was executed with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s signature on July 17, 2020.&nbsp;
On December 16, 2021, the Commission issued an order vacating the certificate authorization for the PennEast Pipeline.&nbsp;
On December 16, 2021, the Commission issued an order vacating the certificate authorization for the PennEast Pipeline.&nbsp;
On December 16, 2021, the Commission issued an order vacating the certificate authorization for the PennEast Pipeline.&nbsp;
Section 106 consultation will be complete when the Commission issues its decision on the application.&nbsp; FERC staff believes it has received all information necessary to make a effect recommendation to the Commission.&nbsp; However,&nbsp;it is ultimately up to the Commission to issue a decision on section 106.&nbsp;
Section 106 consultation will be complete when the Commission issues its decision on the application.&nbsp; FERC staff believes it has received all information necessary to make a effect recommendation to the Commission.&nbsp; However,&nbsp;it is ultimately up to the Commission to issue a decision on section 106.&nbsp;
Section 106 consultation will be complete when the Commission issues its decision on the application.&nbsp; FERC staff believes it has received all information necessary to make a effect recommendation to the Commission.&nbsp; However,&nbsp;it is ultimately up to the Commission to issue a decision on section 106.&nbsp;
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters; and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters; and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters; and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters; and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters; and issuance of a final EIS.
A final Commission decision is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application, receipt of responses to any recommendations in a DEIS that are due before the end of the DEIS comment period, receipt of an applicable PHMSA letter, receipt of an applicable&nbsp;DoD letter, and issuance of a Final EIS.
A final Commission decision is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application, receipt of responses to any recommendations in a DEIS that are due before the end of the DEIS comment period, receipt of an applicable PHMSA letter, receipt of an applicable&nbsp;DoD letter, and issuance of a Final EIS.
A final Commission decision is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application, receipt of responses to any recommendations in a DEIS that are due before the end of the DEIS comment period, receipt of an applicable PHMSA letter, receipt of an applicable&nbsp;DoD letter, and issuance of a Final EIS.
A final Commission decision is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application, receipt of responses to any recommendations in a DEIS that are due before the end of the DEIS comment period, receipt of an applicable PHMSA letter, receipt of an applicable&nbsp;DoD letter, and issuance of a Final EIS.
A final Commission decision is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application, receipt of responses to any recommendations in a DEIS that are due before the end of the DEIS comment period, receipt of an applicable PHMSA letter, receipt of an applicable&nbsp;DoD letter, and issuance of a Final EIS.
A final Commission decision is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application, receipt of responses to any recommendations in a DEIS that are due before the end of the DEIS comment period, receipt of an applicable PHMSA letter, receipt of an applicable&nbsp;DoD letter, and issuance of a Final EIS.
A final Commission decision is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application, receipt of responses to any recommendations in a DEIS that are due before the end of the DEIS comment period, receipt of an applicable PHMSA letter, receipt of an applicable&nbsp;DoD letter, and issuance of a Final EIS.
A final Commission decision is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application, receipt of responses to any recommendations in a DEIS that are due before the end of the DEIS comment period, receipt of an applicable PHMSA letter, receipt of an applicable&nbsp;DoD letter, and issuance of a Final EIS.
A final Commission decision is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application, receipt of responses to any recommendations in a DEIS that are due before the end of the DEIS comment period, receipt of an applicable PHMSA letter, receipt of an applicable&nbsp;DoD letter, and issuance of a Final EIS.
A final Commission decision is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application, receipt of responses to any recommendations in a DEIS that are due before the end of the DEIS comment period, receipt of an applicable PHMSA letter, receipt of an applicable&nbsp;DoD letter, and issuance of a Final EIS.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrent with its decision on the Natural Gas Act Application.&nbsp;&nbsp;A Record of Decision is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application, receipt of responses to any recommendations in a DEIS that are due before the end of the DEIS comment period, and receipt of an applicable Coast Guard Letter of Recommendation.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrent with its decision on the Natural Gas Act Application.&nbsp;&nbsp;A Record of Decision is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application, receipt of responses to any recommendations in a DEIS that are due before the end of the DEIS comment period, and receipt of an applicable Coast Guard Letter of Recommendation.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrent with its decision on the Natural Gas Act Application.&nbsp;&nbsp;A Record of Decision is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application, receipt of responses to any recommendations in a DEIS that are due before the end of the DEIS comment period, and receipt of an applicable Coast Guard Letter of Recommendation.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrent with its decision on the Natural Gas Act Application.&nbsp;&nbsp;A Record of Decision is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application, receipt of responses to any recommendations in a DEIS that are due before the end of the DEIS comment period, and receipt of an applicable Coast Guard Letter of Recommendation.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrent with its decision on the Natural Gas Act Application.&nbsp;&nbsp;A Record of Decision is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application, receipt of responses to any recommendations in a DEIS that are due before the end of the DEIS comment period, and receipt of an applicable Coast Guard Letter of Recommendation.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrent with its decision on the Natural Gas Act Application.&nbsp;&nbsp;A Record of Decision is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application, receipt of responses to any recommendations in a DEIS that are due before the end of the DEIS comment period, and receipt of an applicable Coast Guard Letter of Recommendation.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrent with its decision on the Natural Gas Act Application.&nbsp;&nbsp;A Record of Decision is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application, receipt of responses to any recommendations in a DEIS that are due before the end of the DEIS comment period, and receipt of an applicable Coast Guard Letter of Recommendation.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrent with its decision on the Natural Gas Act Application.&nbsp;&nbsp;A Record of Decision is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application, receipt of responses to any recommendations in a DEIS that are due before the end of the DEIS comment period, and receipt of an applicable Coast Guard Letter of Recommendation.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters; and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters; and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters; and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters; and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters; and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters; and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters; and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters; and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters; and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters; and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission's final order on a license application serves as the Record of Decision.
The Commission's final order on a license application serves as the Record of Decision.
The Commission's final order on a license application serves as the Record of Decision.
The Commission's final order on a license application serves as the Record of Decision.
The Commission's final order on a license application serves as the Record of Decision.
The Commission's final order on a license application serves as the Record of Decision.
The Commission's final order on a license application serves as the Record of Decision.
The Commission's final order on a license application serves as the Record of Decision.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
A final Commission decision is dependent on the&nbsp;resolution of consultation under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
A final Commission decision is dependent on the&nbsp;resolution of consultation under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
A final Commission decision is dependent on the&nbsp;resolution of consultation under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
A final Commission decision is dependent on the&nbsp;resolution of consultation under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
A final Commission decision is dependent on the&nbsp;resolution of consultation under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
ESA Coordination for Indiana Bat &amp; Northern Long Eared Bat with&nbsp;the US Fish &amp; Wildlife Service and Ohio Department of Natural Resources&nbsp;resulted in a&nbsp;May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect (MANLAA) determination.
ESA Coordination for Indiana Bat &amp; Northern Long Eared Bat with&nbsp;the US Fish &amp; Wildlife Service and Ohio Department of Natural Resources&nbsp;resulted in a&nbsp;May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect (MANLAA) determination.
ESA Coordination for Indiana Bat &amp; Northern Long Eared Bat with&nbsp;the US Fish &amp; Wildlife Service and Ohio Department of Natural Resources&nbsp;resulted in a&nbsp;May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect (MANLAA) determination.
PCN Likely
PCN Likely
PCN Likely
PCN Likely
DOE has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, Sections 3(a) and 3(c), for the permitting of natural gas exports from the United States. The application under Section 3(a) is before DOE and tied to the NEPA review at FERC.
DOE has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, Sections 3(a) and 3(c), for the permitting of natural gas exports from the United States. The application under Section 3(a) is before DOE and tied to the NEPA review at FERC.
DOE has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, Sections 3(a) and 3(c), for the permitting of natural gas exports from the United States. The application under Section 3(a) is before DOE and tied to the NEPA review at FERC.
DOE has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, Sections 3(a) and 3(c), for the permitting of natural gas exports from the United States. The application under Section 3(a) is before DOE and tied to the NEPA review at FERC.
DOE has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, Sections 3(a) and 3(c), for the permitting of natural gas exports from the United States. The application under Section 3(a) is before DOE and tied to the NEPA review at FERC.
DOE has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, Sections 3(a) and 3(c), for the permitting of natural gas exports from the United States. The application under Section 3(a) is before DOE and tied to the NEPA review at FERC.
DOE has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, Sections 3(a) and 3(c), for the permitting of natural gas exports from the United States. The application under Section 3(a) is before DOE and tied to the NEPA review at FERC.
DOE has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, Sections 3(a) and 3(c), for the permitting of natural gas exports from the United States. The application under Section 3(a) is before DOE and tied to the NEPA review at FERC.
DOE has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, Sections 3(a) and 3(c), for the permitting of natural gas exports from the United States. The application under Section 3(a) is before DOE and tied to the NEPA review at FERC.
DOE has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, Sections 3(a) and 3(c), for the permitting of natural gas exports from the United States. The application under Section 3(a) is before DOE and tied to the NEPA review at FERC.
The U.S. Coast Guard has compiled a&nbsp;list of 31 Navigational determined waterways that may require&nbsp;Coast Guard Bridge permits within the proposed project corridor.&nbsp; Crossings requiring an individual Coast Guard Bridge permit at each waterway could consist of (1)&nbsp;an Aerial Pipeline Crossing, (2)&nbsp;Temporary bridge/trestle used during construction, and (3)&nbsp;Permanent Maintenance Access Bridge.&nbsp; Therefore, the U.S. Coast Guard has identified and required six individual bridge permit applications.

In accordance with FAST-41, the Coast Guard expects to render a permit decision within 90 days of FERC issuing a ROD.&nbsp; This decision is dependent upon receiving from the applicant a complete permit application(s), to include all materials listed in the Coast Guard Bridge Permit Application Guide such as plan sheets, NEPA documentation, WQC, CZM, and other applicable requirements.&nbsp; The Coast Guard also cannot issue a permit until the State of Alaska issues a Section 401 Water Quality Certification, or waives the requirement of such certification.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The U.S. Coast Guard has compiled a&nbsp;list of 31 Navigational determined waterways that may require&nbsp;Coast Guard Bridge permits within the proposed project corridor.&nbsp; Crossings requiring an individual Coast Guard Bridge permit at each waterway could consist of (1)&nbsp;an Aerial Pipeline Crossing, (2)&nbsp;Temporary bridge/trestle used during construction, and (3)&nbsp;Permanent Maintenance Access Bridge.&nbsp; Therefore, the U.S. Coast Guard has identified and required six individual bridge permit applications.

In accordance with FAST-41, the Coast Guard expects to render a permit decision within 90 days of FERC issuing a ROD.&nbsp; This decision is dependent upon receiving from the applicant a complete permit application(s), to include all materials listed in the Coast Guard Bridge Permit Application Guide such as plan sheets, NEPA documentation, WQC, CZM, and other applicable requirements.&nbsp; The Coast Guard also cannot issue a permit until the State of Alaska issues a Section 401 Water Quality Certification, or waives the requirement of such certification.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The U.S. Coast Guard has compiled a&nbsp;list of 31 Navigational determined waterways that may require&nbsp;Coast Guard Bridge permits within the proposed project corridor.&nbsp; Crossings requiring an individual Coast Guard Bridge permit at each waterway could consist of (1)&nbsp;an Aerial Pipeline Crossing, (2)&nbsp;Temporary bridge/trestle used during construction, and (3)&nbsp;Permanent Maintenance Access Bridge.&nbsp; Therefore, the U.S. Coast Guard has identified and required six individual bridge permit applications.

In accordance with FAST-41, the Coast Guard expects to render a permit decision within 90 days of FERC issuing a ROD.&nbsp; This decision is dependent upon receiving from the applicant a complete permit application(s), to include all materials listed in the Coast Guard Bridge Permit Application Guide such as plan sheets, NEPA documentation, WQC, CZM, and other applicable requirements.&nbsp; The Coast Guard also cannot issue a permit until the State of Alaska issues a Section 401 Water Quality Certification, or waives the requirement of such certification.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The U.S. Coast Guard has compiled a&nbsp;list of 31 Navigational determined waterways that may require&nbsp;Coast Guard Bridge permits within the proposed project corridor.&nbsp; Crossings requiring an individual Coast Guard Bridge permit at each waterway could consist of (1)&nbsp;an Aerial Pipeline Crossing, (2)&nbsp;Temporary bridge/trestle used during construction, and (3)&nbsp;Permanent Maintenance Access Bridge.&nbsp; Therefore, the U.S. Coast Guard has identified and required six individual bridge permit applications.

In accordance with FAST-41, the Coast Guard expects to render a permit decision within 90 days of FERC issuing a ROD.&nbsp; This decision is dependent upon receiving from the applicant a complete permit application(s), to include all materials listed in the Coast Guard Bridge Permit Application Guide such as plan sheets, NEPA documentation, WQC, CZM, and other applicable requirements.&nbsp; The Coast Guard also cannot issue a permit until the State of Alaska issues a Section 401 Water Quality Certification, or waives the requirement of such certification.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The U.S. Coast Guard has compiled a&nbsp;list of 31 Navigational determined waterways that may require&nbsp;Coast Guard Bridge permits within the proposed project corridor.&nbsp; Crossings requiring an individual Coast Guard Bridge permit at each waterway could consist of (1)&nbsp;an Aerial Pipeline Crossing, (2)&nbsp;Temporary bridge/trestle used during construction, and (3)&nbsp;Permanent Maintenance Access Bridge.&nbsp; Therefore, the U.S. Coast Guard has identified and required six individual bridge permit applications.

In accordance with FAST-41, the Coast Guard expects to render a permit decision within 90 days of FERC issuing a ROD.&nbsp; This decision is dependent upon receiving from the applicant a complete permit application(s), to include all materials listed in the Coast Guard Bridge Permit Application Guide such as plan sheets, NEPA documentation, WQC, CZM, and other applicable requirements.&nbsp; The Coast Guard also cannot issue a permit until the State of Alaska issues a Section 401 Water Quality Certification, or waives the requirement of such certification.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The U.S. Coast Guard has compiled a&nbsp;list of 31 Navigational determined waterways that may require&nbsp;Coast Guard Bridge permits within the proposed project corridor.&nbsp; Crossings requiring an individual Coast Guard Bridge permit at each waterway could consist of (1)&nbsp;an Aerial Pipeline Crossing, (2)&nbsp;Temporary bridge/trestle used during construction, and (3)&nbsp;Permanent Maintenance Access Bridge.&nbsp; Therefore, the U.S. Coast Guard has identified and required six individual bridge permit applications.

In accordance with FAST-41, the Coast Guard expects to render a permit decision within 90 days of FERC issuing a ROD.&nbsp; This decision is dependent upon receiving from the applicant a complete permit application(s), to include all materials listed in the Coast Guard Bridge Permit Application Guide such as plan sheets, NEPA documentation, WQC, CZM, and other applicable requirements.&nbsp; The Coast Guard also cannot issue a permit until the State of Alaska issues a Section 401 Water Quality Certification, or waives the requirement of such certification.&nbsp;&nbsp;
NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to analyzing the environmental impact of major Federal Actions. This approach ensures integration of natural and social sciences in any planning and decision-making that may have an impact on the environment. In furtherance of these policies, NEPA also requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed EIS on any major Federal action that may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIS must analyze any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or mitigated, alternatives including the Proposed Action, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. In 1979, the Council on Environmental Quality established uniform procedures for implementing NEPA. These regulations (40 CFR § 1500–1508) provide for the use of the NEPA process to identify and assess the alternatives to proposed actions that avoid and minimize adverse effects on the human environment. The USDOI regulations implementing NEPA are at 43 CFR Part 46.All of BOEM’s cooperating Federal agencies—including BSEE, EPA, USACE, NMFS, and USFWS—are also bound by NEPA.
NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to analyzing the environmental impact of major Federal Actions. This approach ensures integration of natural and social sciences in any planning and decision-making that may have an impact on the environment. In furtherance of these policies, NEPA also requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed EIS on any major Federal action that may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIS must analyze any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or mitigated, alternatives including the Proposed Action, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. In 1979, the Council on Environmental Quality established uniform procedures for implementing NEPA. These regulations (40 CFR § 1500–1508) provide for the use of the NEPA process to identify and assess the alternatives to proposed actions that avoid and minimize adverse effects on the human environment. The USDOI regulations implementing NEPA are at 43 CFR Part 46.All of BOEM’s cooperating Federal agencies—including BSEE, EPA, USACE, NMFS, and USFWS—are also bound by NEPA.
NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to analyzing the environmental impact of major Federal Actions. This approach ensures integration of natural and social sciences in any planning and decision-making that may have an impact on the environment. In furtherance of these policies, NEPA also requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed EIS on any major Federal action that may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIS must analyze any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or mitigated, alternatives including the Proposed Action, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. In 1979, the Council on Environmental Quality established uniform procedures for implementing NEPA. These regulations (40 CFR § 1500–1508) provide for the use of the NEPA process to identify and assess the alternatives to proposed actions that avoid and minimize adverse effects on the human environment. The USDOI regulations implementing NEPA are at 43 CFR Part 46.All of BOEM’s cooperating Federal agencies—including BSEE, EPA, USACE, NMFS, and USFWS—are also bound by NEPA.
NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to analyzing the environmental impact of major Federal Actions. This approach ensures integration of natural and social sciences in any planning and decision-making that may have an impact on the environment. In furtherance of these policies, NEPA also requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed EIS on any major Federal action that may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIS must analyze any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or mitigated, alternatives including the Proposed Action, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. In 1979, the Council on Environmental Quality established uniform procedures for implementing NEPA. These regulations (40 CFR § 1500–1508) provide for the use of the NEPA process to identify and assess the alternatives to proposed actions that avoid and minimize adverse effects on the human environment. The USDOI regulations implementing NEPA are at 43 CFR Part 46.All of BOEM’s cooperating Federal agencies—including BSEE, EPA, USACE, NMFS, and USFWS—are also bound by NEPA.
NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to analyzing the environmental impact of major Federal Actions. This approach ensures integration of natural and social sciences in any planning and decision-making that may have an impact on the environment. In furtherance of these policies, NEPA also requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed EIS on any major Federal action that may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIS must analyze any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or mitigated, alternatives including the Proposed Action, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. In 1979, the Council on Environmental Quality established uniform procedures for implementing NEPA. These regulations (40 CFR § 1500–1508) provide for the use of the NEPA process to identify and assess the alternatives to proposed actions that avoid and minimize adverse effects on the human environment. The USDOI regulations implementing NEPA are at 43 CFR Part 46.All of BOEM’s cooperating Federal agencies—including BSEE, EPA, USACE, NMFS, and USFWS—are also bound by NEPA.
NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to analyzing the environmental impact of major Federal Actions. This approach ensures integration of natural and social sciences in any planning and decision-making that may have an impact on the environment. In furtherance of these policies, NEPA also requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed EIS on any major Federal action that may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIS must analyze any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or mitigated, alternatives including the Proposed Action, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. In 1979, the Council on Environmental Quality established uniform procedures for implementing NEPA. These regulations (40 CFR § 1500–1508) provide for the use of the NEPA process to identify and assess the alternatives to proposed actions that avoid and minimize adverse effects on the human environment. The USDOI regulations implementing NEPA are at 43 CFR Part 46.All of BOEM’s cooperating Federal agencies—including BSEE, EPA, USACE, NMFS, and USFWS—are also bound by NEPA.
NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to analyzing the environmental impact of major Federal Actions. This approach ensures integration of natural and social sciences in any planning and decision-making that may have an impact on the environment. In furtherance of these policies, NEPA also requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed EIS on any major Federal action that may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIS must analyze any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or mitigated, alternatives including the Proposed Action, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. In 1979, the Council on Environmental Quality established uniform procedures for implementing NEPA. These regulations (40 CFR § 1500–1508) provide for the use of the NEPA process to identify and assess the alternatives to proposed actions that avoid and minimize adverse effects on the human environment. The USDOI regulations implementing NEPA are at 43 CFR Part 46.All of BOEM’s cooperating Federal agencies—including BSEE, EPA, USACE, NMFS, and USFWS—are also bound by NEPA.
NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to analyzing the environmental impact of major Federal Actions. This approach ensures integration of natural and social sciences in any planning and decision-making that may have an impact on the environment. In furtherance of these policies, NEPA also requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed EIS on any major Federal action that may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIS must analyze any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or mitigated, alternatives including the Proposed Action, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. In 1979, the Council on Environmental Quality established uniform procedures for implementing NEPA. These regulations (40 CFR § 1500–1508) provide for the use of the NEPA process to identify and assess the alternatives to proposed actions that avoid and minimize adverse effects on the human environment. The USDOI regulations implementing NEPA are at 43 CFR Part 46.All of BOEM’s cooperating Federal agencies—including BSEE, EPA, USACE, NMFS, and USFWS—are also bound by NEPA.
NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to analyzing the environmental impact of major Federal Actions. This approach ensures integration of natural and social sciences in any planning and decision-making that may have an impact on the environment. In furtherance of these policies, NEPA also requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed EIS on any major Federal action that may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIS must analyze any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or mitigated, alternatives including the Proposed Action, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. In 1979, the Council on Environmental Quality established uniform procedures for implementing NEPA. These regulations (40 CFR § 1500–1508) provide for the use of the NEPA process to identify and assess the alternatives to proposed actions that avoid and minimize adverse effects on the human environment. The USDOI regulations implementing NEPA are at 43 CFR Part 46.All of BOEM’s cooperating Federal agencies—including BSEE, EPA, USACE, NMFS, and USFWS—are also bound by NEPA.
NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to analyzing the environmental impact of major Federal Actions. This approach ensures integration of natural and social sciences in any planning and decision-making that may have an impact on the environment. In furtherance of these policies, NEPA also requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed EIS on any major Federal action that may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIS must analyze any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or mitigated, alternatives including the Proposed Action, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. In 1979, the Council on Environmental Quality established uniform procedures for implementing NEPA. These regulations (40 CFR § 1500–1508) provide for the use of the NEPA process to identify and assess the alternatives to proposed actions that avoid and minimize adverse effects on the human environment. The USDOI regulations implementing NEPA are at 43 CFR Part 46.All of BOEM’s cooperating Federal agencies—including BSEE, EPA, USACE, NMFS, and USFWS—are also bound by NEPA.
NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to analyzing the environmental impact of major Federal Actions. This approach ensures integration of natural and social sciences in any planning and decision-making that may have an impact on the environment. In furtherance of these policies, NEPA also requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed EIS on any major Federal action that may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIS must analyze any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or mitigated, alternatives including the Proposed Action, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. In 1979, the Council on Environmental Quality established uniform procedures for implementing NEPA. These regulations (40 CFR § 1500–1508) provide for the use of the NEPA process to identify and assess the alternatives to proposed actions that avoid and minimize adverse effects on the human environment. The USDOI regulations implementing NEPA are at 43 CFR Part 46.All of BOEM’s cooperating Federal agencies—including BSEE, EPA, USACE, NMFS, and USFWS—are also bound by NEPA.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

Oil Spill Response Plan

Pause Text: On 3/10/2020, BSEE met with the project sponsor. The project sponsor had not yet completed much work on the Request for Additional Information that was issued in July of 2019.&nbsp; Therefore, BSEE identified they were unable to determine a timeline for action completion, as the project sponsor did not have a potential date for additional information submission. BSEE requested the "Authorization and Certification" action be placed in "paused" status.&nbsp;

On 12/04/2020, the project sponsor provided additional information to BSEE. BSEE determined the submission wasn't sufficient to deem the application complete. In August 2021, BSEE confirmed the project sponsor has yet provide a sufficient response.

The only remaining Federal action for this project is BSEE "authorization and certification," which cannot occur until the project sponsor submits, and BSEE approves, an oil spill response plan (OSRP). The project sponsor has not yet submitted a complete OSRP for BSEE review, and has requested a suspension of lease operations (SOO) to provide more time to submit a complete OSRP. BSEE anticipates making a decision on the SOO request by the end of December, 2021. Because BSEE could grant an SOO that extends as many as 2 years, BSEE is revising the completion dates for "Completed Application Received" and "Issuance of Decision"&nbsp;from 12/26/2021 to 12/26/2023. BOEM will revise the completion dates if the term of any SOO is different from that represented.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

Oil Spill Response Plan

Pause Text: On 3/10/2020, BSEE met with the project sponsor. The project sponsor had not yet completed much work on the Request for Additional Information that was issued in July of 2019.&nbsp; Therefore, BSEE identified they were unable to determine a timeline for action completion, as the project sponsor did not have a potential date for additional information submission. BSEE requested the "Authorization and Certification" action be placed in "paused" status.&nbsp;

On 12/04/2020, the project sponsor provided additional information to BSEE. BSEE determined the submission wasn't sufficient to deem the application complete. In August 2021, BSEE confirmed the project sponsor has yet provide a sufficient response.

The only remaining Federal action for this project is BSEE "authorization and certification," which cannot occur until the project sponsor submits, and BSEE approves, an oil spill response plan (OSRP). The project sponsor has not yet submitted a complete OSRP for BSEE review, and has requested a suspension of lease operations (SOO) to provide more time to submit a complete OSRP. BSEE anticipates making a decision on the SOO request by the end of December, 2021. Because BSEE could grant an SOO that extends as many as 2 years, BSEE is revising the completion dates for "Completed Application Received" and "Issuance of Decision"&nbsp;from 12/26/2021 to 12/26/2023. BOEM will revise the completion dates if the term of any SOO is different from that represented.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

Oil Spill Response Plan

Pause Text: On 3/10/2020, BSEE met with the project sponsor. The project sponsor had not yet completed much work on the Request for Additional Information that was issued in July of 2019.&nbsp; Therefore, BSEE identified they were unable to determine a timeline for action completion, as the project sponsor did not have a potential date for additional information submission. BSEE requested the "Authorization and Certification" action be placed in "paused" status.&nbsp;

On 12/04/2020, the project sponsor provided additional information to BSEE. BSEE determined the submission wasn't sufficient to deem the application complete. In August 2021, BSEE confirmed the project sponsor has yet provide a sufficient response.

The only remaining Federal action for this project is BSEE "authorization and certification," which cannot occur until the project sponsor submits, and BSEE approves, an oil spill response plan (OSRP). The project sponsor has not yet submitted a complete OSRP for BSEE review, and has requested a suspension of lease operations (SOO) to provide more time to submit a complete OSRP. BSEE anticipates making a decision on the SOO request by the end of December, 2021. Because BSEE could grant an SOO that extends as many as 2 years, BSEE is revising the completion dates for "Completed Application Received" and "Issuance of Decision"&nbsp;from 12/26/2021 to 12/26/2023. BOEM will revise the completion dates if the term of any SOO is different from that represented.
Milestone dates are dependent upon compliance with, but not limitied to, Section 7 of ESA, Section 106 NHPA, Section 401 WQC, CUP, Section 408 permission, and if required, receipt of USACE approved mitigation plan.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Milestone dates are dependent upon compliance with, but not limitied to, Section 7 of ESA, Section 106 NHPA, Section 401 WQC, CUP, Section 408 permission, and if required, receipt of USACE approved mitigation plan.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Milestone dates are dependent upon compliance with, but not limitied to, Section 7 of ESA, Section 106 NHPA, Section 401 WQC, CUP, Section 408 permission, and if required, receipt of USACE approved mitigation plan.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Milestone dates are dependent upon compliance with, but not limitied to, Section 7 of ESA, Section 106 NHPA, Section 401 WQC, CUP, Section 408 permission, and if required, receipt of USACE approved mitigation plan.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Long-term ROW grant for operation and maintenance of the project issued on Jan. 31, 2018
Long-term ROW grant for operation and maintenance of the project issued on Jan. 31, 2018
Long-term ROW grant for operation and maintenance of the project issued on Jan. 31, 2018
Long-term ROW grant for operation and maintenance of the project issued on Jan. 31, 2018
Long-term ROW grant for operation and maintenance of the project issued on Jan. 31, 2018
On August 24, 2018, FERC staff issued a request for concurrence with its endangered species determination; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service submitted&nbsp;its letter of concurrence&nbsp;to FERC on September 11, 2018.
On August 24, 2018, FERC staff issued a request for concurrence with its endangered species determination; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service submitted&nbsp;its letter of concurrence&nbsp;to FERC on September 11, 2018.
On August 24, 2018, FERC staff issued a request for concurrence with its endangered species determination; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service submitted&nbsp;its letter of concurrence&nbsp;to FERC on September 11, 2018.
Milestone&nbsp;dates are&nbsp;dependent upon compliance of, but not limited to, Section 7 of ESA, Section 106 of NHPA, Section 401 WQC, CUP, FEIS, and signed ROD.
Milestone&nbsp;dates are&nbsp;dependent upon compliance of, but not limited to, Section 7 of ESA, Section 106 of NHPA, Section 401 WQC, CUP, FEIS, and signed ROD.
Milestone&nbsp;dates are&nbsp;dependent upon compliance of, but not limited to, Section 7 of ESA, Section 106 of NHPA, Section 401 WQC, CUP, FEIS, and signed ROD.
Milestone&nbsp;dates are&nbsp;dependent upon compliance of, but not limited to, Section 7 of ESA, Section 106 of NHPA, Section 401 WQC, CUP, FEIS, and signed ROD.
Milestone&nbsp;dates are&nbsp;dependent upon compliance of, but not limited to, Section 7 of ESA, Section 106 of NHPA, Section 401 WQC, CUP, FEIS, and signed ROD.
The State of New Jersey as a HUD grantee is the Responsible Entity for the purpose of NEPA, and is the lead agency for completing the Environmental Impact Statement.&nbsp; The Record of Decision was approved Septmber 7, 2017 finalizing the NEPA EIS process.&nbsp; The ROD was published for additional comment simultaneous to the Request for Release of Funds to Housing and Urban Development which invoked an additional 15-day comment period that concluded on September 25, 2017.
The State of New Jersey as a HUD grantee is the Responsible Entity for the purpose of NEPA, and is the lead agency for completing the Environmental Impact Statement.&nbsp; The Record of Decision was approved Septmber 7, 2017 finalizing the NEPA EIS process.&nbsp; The ROD was published for additional comment simultaneous to the Request for Release of Funds to Housing and Urban Development which invoked an additional 15-day comment period that concluded on September 25, 2017.
The State of New Jersey as a HUD grantee is the Responsible Entity for the purpose of NEPA, and is the lead agency for completing the Environmental Impact Statement.&nbsp; The Record of Decision was approved Septmber 7, 2017 finalizing the NEPA EIS process.&nbsp; The ROD was published for additional comment simultaneous to the Request for Release of Funds to Housing and Urban Development which invoked an additional 15-day comment period that concluded on September 25, 2017.
The State of New Jersey as a HUD grantee is the Responsible Entity for the purpose of NEPA, and is the lead agency for completing the Environmental Impact Statement.&nbsp; The Record of Decision was approved Septmber 7, 2017 finalizing the NEPA EIS process.&nbsp; The ROD was published for additional comment simultaneous to the Request for Release of Funds to Housing and Urban Development which invoked an additional 15-day comment period that concluded on September 25, 2017.
The State of New Jersey as a HUD grantee is the Responsible Entity for the purpose of NEPA, and is the lead agency for completing the Environmental Impact Statement.&nbsp; The Record of Decision was approved Septmber 7, 2017 finalizing the NEPA EIS process.&nbsp; The ROD was published for additional comment simultaneous to the Request for Release of Funds to Housing and Urban Development which invoked an additional 15-day comment period that concluded on September 25, 2017.
The State of New Jersey as a HUD grantee is the Responsible Entity for the purpose of NEPA, and is the lead agency for completing the Environmental Impact Statement.&nbsp; The Record of Decision was approved Septmber 7, 2017 finalizing the NEPA EIS process.&nbsp; The ROD was published for additional comment simultaneous to the Request for Release of Funds to Housing and Urban Development which invoked an additional 15-day comment period that concluded on September 25, 2017.
The State of New Jersey as a HUD grantee is the Responsible Entity for the purpose of NEPA, and is the lead agency for completing the Environmental Impact Statement.&nbsp; The Record of Decision was approved Septmber 7, 2017 finalizing the NEPA EIS process.&nbsp; The ROD was published for additional comment simultaneous to the Request for Release of Funds to Housing and Urban Development which invoked an additional 15-day comment period that concluded on September 25, 2017.
The State of New Jersey as a HUD grantee is the Responsible Entity for the purpose of NEPA, and is the lead agency for completing the Environmental Impact Statement.&nbsp; The Record of Decision was approved Septmber 7, 2017 finalizing the NEPA EIS process.&nbsp; The ROD was published for additional comment simultaneous to the Request for Release of Funds to Housing and Urban Development which invoked an additional 15-day comment period that concluded on September 25, 2017.
(ESCR) is a comprehensive urban water management project designed to reduce the risk of floods from coastal storm surges and/or flooding from high-intensity rainfall events. The&nbsp;Proposed Project would&nbsp;be located in&nbsp;the Borough of Manhattan, NY (the Project Area). The purpose of the Proposed Project&nbsp;is to address&nbsp;coastal flooding vulnerability in a manner that reduces the flooding risk while enhancing waterfront open spaces and access to the waterfront. The&nbsp;principal objectives of the Proposed Project are as follows: (1) provide a reliable coastal flood protection system against the design storm event for the protected area; (2) improve access to, and enhance open space resources along the waterfront, including East River Park and Stuyvesant Cove Park; (3) respond quickly to the urgent need for flood protection and resiliency, particularly for communities that have a large concentration of residents in affordable and public housing units along the proposed project area; and (4) achieve implementation milestones and comply with the conditions attached to funding allocations as established by HUD, including scheduling milestones.&nbsp;

Completion date below is associated with the issuance of the Record of Decision.&nbsp; There are additional HUD requirements to be satisfied before project funds can be released.&nbsp; HUD requires the publication of the ROD with a 15-day comment period to meet HUD's public participation&nbsp;requirements.&nbsp; Upon close of the 15-day comment period, NYC will request the Release of Funds from HUD.&nbsp; HUD will have an additional 15 day comment period in which to accept objections related to the EIS.&nbsp; The Authorization to Use Grant Funds can be issued upon the conclusion of the HUD comment period if there were no valid issues raised.
(ESCR) is a comprehensive urban water management project designed to reduce the risk of floods from coastal storm surges and/or flooding from high-intensity rainfall events. The&nbsp;Proposed Project would&nbsp;be located in&nbsp;the Borough of Manhattan, NY (the Project Area). The purpose of the Proposed Project&nbsp;is to address&nbsp;coastal flooding vulnerability in a manner that reduces the flooding risk while enhancing waterfront open spaces and access to the waterfront. The&nbsp;principal objectives of the Proposed Project are as follows: (1) provide a reliable coastal flood protection system against the design storm event for the protected area; (2) improve access to, and enhance open space resources along the waterfront, including East River Park and Stuyvesant Cove Park; (3) respond quickly to the urgent need for flood protection and resiliency, particularly for communities that have a large concentration of residents in affordable and public housing units along the proposed project area; and (4) achieve implementation milestones and comply with the conditions attached to funding allocations as established by HUD, including scheduling milestones.&nbsp;

Completion date below is associated with the issuance of the Record of Decision.&nbsp; There are additional HUD requirements to be satisfied before project funds can be released.&nbsp; HUD requires the publication of the ROD with a 15-day comment period to meet HUD's public participation&nbsp;requirements.&nbsp; Upon close of the 15-day comment period, NYC will request the Release of Funds from HUD.&nbsp; HUD will have an additional 15 day comment period in which to accept objections related to the EIS.&nbsp; The Authorization to Use Grant Funds can be issued upon the conclusion of the HUD comment period if there were no valid issues raised.
(ESCR) is a comprehensive urban water management project designed to reduce the risk of floods from coastal storm surges and/or flooding from high-intensity rainfall events. The&nbsp;Proposed Project would&nbsp;be located in&nbsp;the Borough of Manhattan, NY (the Project Area). The purpose of the Proposed Project&nbsp;is to address&nbsp;coastal flooding vulnerability in a manner that reduces the flooding risk while enhancing waterfront open spaces and access to the waterfront. The&nbsp;principal objectives of the Proposed Project are as follows: (1) provide a reliable coastal flood protection system against the design storm event for the protected area; (2) improve access to, and enhance open space resources along the waterfront, including East River Park and Stuyvesant Cove Park; (3) respond quickly to the urgent need for flood protection and resiliency, particularly for communities that have a large concentration of residents in affordable and public housing units along the proposed project area; and (4) achieve implementation milestones and comply with the conditions attached to funding allocations as established by HUD, including scheduling milestones.&nbsp;

Completion date below is associated with the issuance of the Record of Decision.&nbsp; There are additional HUD requirements to be satisfied before project funds can be released.&nbsp; HUD requires the publication of the ROD with a 15-day comment period to meet HUD's public participation&nbsp;requirements.&nbsp; Upon close of the 15-day comment period, NYC will request the Release of Funds from HUD.&nbsp; HUD will have an additional 15 day comment period in which to accept objections related to the EIS.&nbsp; The Authorization to Use Grant Funds can be issued upon the conclusion of the HUD comment period if there were no valid issues raised.
(ESCR) is a comprehensive urban water management project designed to reduce the risk of floods from coastal storm surges and/or flooding from high-intensity rainfall events. The&nbsp;Proposed Project would&nbsp;be located in&nbsp;the Borough of Manhattan, NY (the Project Area). The purpose of the Proposed Project&nbsp;is to address&nbsp;coastal flooding vulnerability in a manner that reduces the flooding risk while enhancing waterfront open spaces and access to the waterfront. The&nbsp;principal objectives of the Proposed Project are as follows: (1) provide a reliable coastal flood protection system against the design storm event for the protected area; (2) improve access to, and enhance open space resources along the waterfront, including East River Park and Stuyvesant Cove Park; (3) respond quickly to the urgent need for flood protection and resiliency, particularly for communities that have a large concentration of residents in affordable and public housing units along the proposed project area; and (4) achieve implementation milestones and comply with the conditions attached to funding allocations as established by HUD, including scheduling milestones.&nbsp;

Completion date below is associated with the issuance of the Record of Decision.&nbsp; There are additional HUD requirements to be satisfied before project funds can be released.&nbsp; HUD requires the publication of the ROD with a 15-day comment period to meet HUD's public participation&nbsp;requirements.&nbsp; Upon close of the 15-day comment period, NYC will request the Release of Funds from HUD.&nbsp; HUD will have an additional 15 day comment period in which to accept objections related to the EIS.&nbsp; The Authorization to Use Grant Funds can be issued upon the conclusion of the HUD comment period if there were no valid issues raised.
(ESCR) is a comprehensive urban water management project designed to reduce the risk of floods from coastal storm surges and/or flooding from high-intensity rainfall events. The&nbsp;Proposed Project would&nbsp;be located in&nbsp;the Borough of Manhattan, NY (the Project Area). The purpose of the Proposed Project&nbsp;is to address&nbsp;coastal flooding vulnerability in a manner that reduces the flooding risk while enhancing waterfront open spaces and access to the waterfront. The&nbsp;principal objectives of the Proposed Project are as follows: (1) provide a reliable coastal flood protection system against the design storm event for the protected area; (2) improve access to, and enhance open space resources along the waterfront, including East River Park and Stuyvesant Cove Park; (3) respond quickly to the urgent need for flood protection and resiliency, particularly for communities that have a large concentration of residents in affordable and public housing units along the proposed project area; and (4) achieve implementation milestones and comply with the conditions attached to funding allocations as established by HUD, including scheduling milestones.&nbsp;

Completion date below is associated with the issuance of the Record of Decision.&nbsp; There are additional HUD requirements to be satisfied before project funds can be released.&nbsp; HUD requires the publication of the ROD with a 15-day comment period to meet HUD's public participation&nbsp;requirements.&nbsp; Upon close of the 15-day comment period, NYC will request the Release of Funds from HUD.&nbsp; HUD will have an additional 15 day comment period in which to accept objections related to the EIS.&nbsp; The Authorization to Use Grant Funds can be issued upon the conclusion of the HUD comment period if there were no valid issues raised.
(ESCR) is a comprehensive urban water management project designed to reduce the risk of floods from coastal storm surges and/or flooding from high-intensity rainfall events. The&nbsp;Proposed Project would&nbsp;be located in&nbsp;the Borough of Manhattan, NY (the Project Area). The purpose of the Proposed Project&nbsp;is to address&nbsp;coastal flooding vulnerability in a manner that reduces the flooding risk while enhancing waterfront open spaces and access to the waterfront. The&nbsp;principal objectives of the Proposed Project are as follows: (1) provide a reliable coastal flood protection system against the design storm event for the protected area; (2) improve access to, and enhance open space resources along the waterfront, including East River Park and Stuyvesant Cove Park; (3) respond quickly to the urgent need for flood protection and resiliency, particularly for communities that have a large concentration of residents in affordable and public housing units along the proposed project area; and (4) achieve implementation milestones and comply with the conditions attached to funding allocations as established by HUD, including scheduling milestones.&nbsp;

Completion date below is associated with the issuance of the Record of Decision.&nbsp; There are additional HUD requirements to be satisfied before project funds can be released.&nbsp; HUD requires the publication of the ROD with a 15-day comment period to meet HUD's public participation&nbsp;requirements.&nbsp; Upon close of the 15-day comment period, NYC will request the Release of Funds from HUD.&nbsp; HUD will have an additional 15 day comment period in which to accept objections related to the EIS.&nbsp; The Authorization to Use Grant Funds can be issued upon the conclusion of the HUD comment period if there were no valid issues raised.
(ESCR) is a comprehensive urban water management project designed to reduce the risk of floods from coastal storm surges and/or flooding from high-intensity rainfall events. The&nbsp;Proposed Project would&nbsp;be located in&nbsp;the Borough of Manhattan, NY (the Project Area). The purpose of the Proposed Project&nbsp;is to address&nbsp;coastal flooding vulnerability in a manner that reduces the flooding risk while enhancing waterfront open spaces and access to the waterfront. The&nbsp;principal objectives of the Proposed Project are as follows: (1) provide a reliable coastal flood protection system against the design storm event for the protected area; (2) improve access to, and enhance open space resources along the waterfront, including East River Park and Stuyvesant Cove Park; (3) respond quickly to the urgent need for flood protection and resiliency, particularly for communities that have a large concentration of residents in affordable and public housing units along the proposed project area; and (4) achieve implementation milestones and comply with the conditions attached to funding allocations as established by HUD, including scheduling milestones.&nbsp;

Completion date below is associated with the issuance of the Record of Decision.&nbsp; There are additional HUD requirements to be satisfied before project funds can be released.&nbsp; HUD requires the publication of the ROD with a 15-day comment period to meet HUD's public participation&nbsp;requirements.&nbsp; Upon close of the 15-day comment period, NYC will request the Release of Funds from HUD.&nbsp; HUD will have an additional 15 day comment period in which to accept objections related to the EIS.&nbsp; The Authorization to Use Grant Funds can be issued upon the conclusion of the HUD comment period if there were no valid issues raised.
(ESCR) is a comprehensive urban water management project designed to reduce the risk of floods from coastal storm surges and/or flooding from high-intensity rainfall events. The&nbsp;Proposed Project would&nbsp;be located in&nbsp;the Borough of Manhattan, NY (the Project Area). The purpose of the Proposed Project&nbsp;is to address&nbsp;coastal flooding vulnerability in a manner that reduces the flooding risk while enhancing waterfront open spaces and access to the waterfront. The&nbsp;principal objectives of the Proposed Project are as follows: (1) provide a reliable coastal flood protection system against the design storm event for the protected area; (2) improve access to, and enhance open space resources along the waterfront, including East River Park and Stuyvesant Cove Park; (3) respond quickly to the urgent need for flood protection and resiliency, particularly for communities that have a large concentration of residents in affordable and public housing units along the proposed project area; and (4) achieve implementation milestones and comply with the conditions attached to funding allocations as established by HUD, including scheduling milestones.&nbsp;

Completion date below is associated with the issuance of the Record of Decision.&nbsp; There are additional HUD requirements to be satisfied before project funds can be released.&nbsp; HUD requires the publication of the ROD with a 15-day comment period to meet HUD's public participation&nbsp;requirements.&nbsp; Upon close of the 15-day comment period, NYC will request the Release of Funds from HUD.&nbsp; HUD will have an additional 15 day comment period in which to accept objections related to the EIS.&nbsp; The Authorization to Use Grant Funds can be issued upon the conclusion of the HUD comment period if there were no valid issues raised.
Planned activity is to issue a use authorization 90 days after receipt of the Construction Plan of Development (POD). Development of the Construction POD by the project sponsor is dependent upon coordination with project partners and several other factors. It is still early in development, and the Construction POD is not expected before late 2022.
Planned activity is to issue a use authorization 90 days after receipt of the Construction Plan of Development (POD). Development of the Construction POD by the project sponsor is dependent upon coordination with project partners and several other factors. It is still early in development, and the Construction POD is not expected before late 2022.
Planned activity is to issue a use authorization 90 days after receipt of the Construction Plan of Development (POD). Development of the Construction POD by the project sponsor is dependent upon coordination with project partners and several other factors. It is still early in development, and the Construction POD is not expected before late 2022.
Planned activity is to issue a use authorization 90 days after receipt of the Construction Plan of Development (POD). Development of the Construction POD by the project sponsor is dependent upon coordination with project partners and several other factors. It is still early in development, and the Construction POD is not expected before late 2022.
Planned activity is to issue a use authorization 90 days after receipt of the Construction Plan of Development (POD). Development of the Construction POD by the project sponsor is dependent upon coordination with project partners and several other factors. It is still early in development, and the Construction POD is not expected before late 2022.
Corps Huntington District (LRH)To date, a Section 404 permit application has not been submitted.&nbsp; The Corps is working with the project sponsor to coordinate information needs to support the Section 404 permit evaluation process.&nbsp; The target end date&nbsp;presumes a complete Section 404 permit application will be submitted by November 21, 2022,&nbsp;and a Section 408 permission and/or compliance determination will be granted by the Corps on approximately&nbsp;December 22, 2023.&nbsp; This project&nbsp;timeline will be revised once&nbsp;the Corps receives a complete Section 404 permit application (or a pre-construction notification) and has a better understanding of the type of review that will be required (e.g. standard individual permit versus general permit).
Corps Huntington District (LRH)To date, a Section 404 permit application has not been submitted.&nbsp; The Corps is working with the project sponsor to coordinate information needs to support the Section 404 permit evaluation process.&nbsp; The target end date&nbsp;presumes a complete Section 404 permit application will be submitted by November 21, 2022,&nbsp;and a Section 408 permission and/or compliance determination will be granted by the Corps on approximately&nbsp;December 22, 2023.&nbsp; This project&nbsp;timeline will be revised once&nbsp;the Corps receives a complete Section 404 permit application (or a pre-construction notification) and has a better understanding of the type of review that will be required (e.g. standard individual permit versus general permit).
Corps Huntington District (LRH)To date, a Section 404 permit application has not been submitted.&nbsp; The Corps is working with the project sponsor to coordinate information needs to support the Section 404 permit evaluation process.&nbsp; The target end date&nbsp;presumes a complete Section 404 permit application will be submitted by November 21, 2022,&nbsp;and a Section 408 permission and/or compliance determination will be granted by the Corps on approximately&nbsp;December 22, 2023.&nbsp; This project&nbsp;timeline will be revised once&nbsp;the Corps receives a complete Section 404 permit application (or a pre-construction notification) and has a better understanding of the type of review that will be required (e.g. standard individual permit versus general permit).
Corps Huntington District (LRH)To date, a Section 404 permit application has not been submitted.&nbsp; The Corps is working with the project sponsor to coordinate information needs to support the Section 404 permit evaluation process.&nbsp; The target end date&nbsp;presumes a complete Section 404 permit application will be submitted by November 21, 2022,&nbsp;and a Section 408 permission and/or compliance determination will be granted by the Corps on approximately&nbsp;December 22, 2023.&nbsp; This project&nbsp;timeline will be revised once&nbsp;the Corps receives a complete Section 404 permit application (or a pre-construction notification) and has a better understanding of the type of review that will be required (e.g. standard individual permit versus general permit).
BLM issued its Draft EIS in August; FWS received a complete and sufficient Biological Assessment on October 25, 2018 and anticipated concluding consultation within the 135 days provided by statute; however, due to a lapse in appropriations the government was shut down for 35 days.&nbsp; FWS anticipates concluding consultation by April 15, 2019, which allows for the entire 135 days provided by statute.&nbsp; FWS concluded ESA Consultation with issuance of a Biological Opinion on April 12, 2019.
BLM issued its Draft EIS in August; FWS received a complete and sufficient Biological Assessment on October 25, 2018 and anticipated concluding consultation within the 135 days provided by statute; however, due to a lapse in appropriations the government was shut down for 35 days.&nbsp; FWS anticipates concluding consultation by April 15, 2019, which allows for the entire 135 days provided by statute.&nbsp; FWS concluded ESA Consultation with issuance of a Biological Opinion on April 12, 2019.
BLM issued its Draft EIS in August; FWS received a complete and sufficient Biological Assessment on October 25, 2018 and anticipated concluding consultation within the 135 days provided by statute; however, due to a lapse in appropriations the government was shut down for 35 days.&nbsp; FWS anticipates concluding consultation by April 15, 2019, which allows for the entire 135 days provided by statute.&nbsp; FWS concluded ESA Consultation with issuance of a Biological Opinion on April 12, 2019.
FWS met with Alaska LNG twice in 2017 to discuss eagle protection permits.&nbsp; To date, we have provided guidance on avoidance, minimization, NEPA, and the permit application process; however, FWSreceived a permit application on 1/22/20..
FWS met with Alaska LNG twice in 2017 to discuss eagle protection permits.&nbsp; To date, we have provided guidance on avoidance, minimization, NEPA, and the permit application process; however, FWSreceived a permit application on 1/22/20..
FWS met with Alaska LNG twice in 2017 to discuss eagle protection permits.&nbsp; To date, we have provided guidance on avoidance, minimization, NEPA, and the permit application process; however, FWSreceived a permit application on 1/22/20..
FWS met with Alaska LNG twice in 2017 to discuss eagle protection permits.&nbsp; To date, we have provided guidance on avoidance, minimization, NEPA, and the permit application process; however, FWSreceived a permit application on 1/22/20..
FWS met with Alaska LNG twice in 2017 to discuss eagle protection permits.&nbsp; To date, we have provided guidance on avoidance, minimization, NEPA, and the permit application process; however, FWSreceived a permit application on 1/22/20..
Two additional milestones are tracked for this project.&nbsp; The first is "Issuance of an updated Notice of Intent (NOI)"&nbsp; The milestone details is "Supplemental NOI submitted to Federal Register on April 27, 2017."&nbsp; The completion date is 4/27/2017.&nbsp; The second is "EIS Schedule/Kickoff Meeting" which has a completion date of 4/4/2017.
Two additional milestones are tracked for this project.&nbsp; The first is "Issuance of an updated Notice of Intent (NOI)"&nbsp; The milestone details is "Supplemental NOI submitted to Federal Register on April 27, 2017."&nbsp; The completion date is 4/27/2017.&nbsp; The second is "EIS Schedule/Kickoff Meeting" which has a completion date of 4/4/2017.
Two additional milestones are tracked for this project.&nbsp; The first is "Issuance of an updated Notice of Intent (NOI)"&nbsp; The milestone details is "Supplemental NOI submitted to Federal Register on April 27, 2017."&nbsp; The completion date is 4/27/2017.&nbsp; The second is "EIS Schedule/Kickoff Meeting" which has a completion date of 4/4/2017.
Two additional milestones are tracked for this project.&nbsp; The first is "Issuance of an updated Notice of Intent (NOI)"&nbsp; The milestone details is "Supplemental NOI submitted to Federal Register on April 27, 2017."&nbsp; The completion date is 4/27/2017.&nbsp; The second is "EIS Schedule/Kickoff Meeting" which has a completion date of 4/4/2017.
Two additional milestones are tracked for this project.&nbsp; The first is "Issuance of an updated Notice of Intent (NOI)"&nbsp; The milestone details is "Supplemental NOI submitted to Federal Register on April 27, 2017."&nbsp; The completion date is 4/27/2017.&nbsp; The second is "EIS Schedule/Kickoff Meeting" which has a completion date of 4/4/2017.
Two additional milestones are tracked for this project.&nbsp; The first is "Issuance of an updated Notice of Intent (NOI)"&nbsp; The milestone details is "Supplemental NOI submitted to Federal Register on April 27, 2017."&nbsp; The completion date is 4/27/2017.&nbsp; The second is "EIS Schedule/Kickoff Meeting" which has a completion date of 4/4/2017.
Two additional milestones are tracked for this project.&nbsp; The first is "Issuance of an updated Notice of Intent (NOI)"&nbsp; The milestone details is "Supplemental NOI submitted to Federal Register on April 27, 2017."&nbsp; The completion date is 4/27/2017.&nbsp; The second is "EIS Schedule/Kickoff Meeting" which has a completion date of 4/4/2017.
Two additional milestones are tracked for this project.&nbsp; The first is "Issuance of an updated Notice of Intent (NOI)"&nbsp; The milestone details is "Supplemental NOI submitted to Federal Register on April 27, 2017."&nbsp; The completion date is 4/27/2017.&nbsp; The second is "EIS Schedule/Kickoff Meeting" which has a completion date of 4/4/2017.
Two additional milestones are tracked for this project.&nbsp; The first is "Issuance of an updated Notice of Intent (NOI)"&nbsp; The milestone details is "Supplemental NOI submitted to Federal Register on April 27, 2017."&nbsp; The completion date is 4/27/2017.&nbsp; The second is "EIS Schedule/Kickoff Meeting" which has a completion date of 4/4/2017.
Two additional milestones are tracked for this project.&nbsp; The first is "Issuance of an updated Notice of Intent (NOI)"&nbsp; The milestone details is "Supplemental NOI submitted to Federal Register on April 27, 2017."&nbsp; The completion date is 4/27/2017.&nbsp; The second is "EIS Schedule/Kickoff Meeting" which has a completion date of 4/4/2017.
Two additional milestones are tracked for this project.&nbsp; The first is "Issuance of an updated Notice of Intent (NOI)"&nbsp; The milestone details is "Supplemental NOI submitted to Federal Register on April 27, 2017."&nbsp; The completion date is 4/27/2017.&nbsp; The second is "EIS Schedule/Kickoff Meeting" which has a completion date of 4/4/2017.
The US Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District is reviewing an application for an individual standard permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, which requires Department of Army authorization for the&nbsp;discharge of dredged and fill material, and work&nbsp;in “waters of the U.S.”&nbsp;&nbsp;




In accordance with the Energy Policy Act, the Alaska District expects to render a permit decision within 90 days of FERC completing its FEIS.&nbsp; This decision is dependent upon receiving documentation of compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act (Essential Fish Habitat) from FERC.&nbsp; This decision is also dependent upon receiving from the applicant a complete application, information on alternatives, and a mitigation plan as outlined in 33 CFR 332 at least 120 days prior to June 24, 2020. &nbsp;The Corps also cannot issue a permit until the State of Alaska and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issue Section 401 Water Quality Certifications, or waive the requirement of such certifications.
The US Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District is reviewing an application for an individual standard permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, which requires Department of Army authorization for the&nbsp;discharge of dredged and fill material, and work&nbsp;in “waters of the U.S.”&nbsp;&nbsp;




In accordance with the Energy Policy Act, the Alaska District expects to render a permit decision within 90 days of FERC completing its FEIS.&nbsp; This decision is dependent upon receiving documentation of compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act (Essential Fish Habitat) from FERC.&nbsp; This decision is also dependent upon receiving from the applicant a complete application, information on alternatives, and a mitigation plan as outlined in 33 CFR 332 at least 120 days prior to June 24, 2020. &nbsp;The Corps also cannot issue a permit until the State of Alaska and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issue Section 401 Water Quality Certifications, or waive the requirement of such certifications.
The US Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District is reviewing an application for an individual standard permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, which requires Department of Army authorization for the&nbsp;discharge of dredged and fill material, and work&nbsp;in “waters of the U.S.”&nbsp;&nbsp;




In accordance with the Energy Policy Act, the Alaska District expects to render a permit decision within 90 days of FERC completing its FEIS.&nbsp; This decision is dependent upon receiving documentation of compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act (Essential Fish Habitat) from FERC.&nbsp; This decision is also dependent upon receiving from the applicant a complete application, information on alternatives, and a mitigation plan as outlined in 33 CFR 332 at least 120 days prior to June 24, 2020. &nbsp;The Corps also cannot issue a permit until the State of Alaska and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issue Section 401 Water Quality Certifications, or waive the requirement of such certifications.
The US Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District is reviewing an application for an individual standard permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, which requires Department of Army authorization for the&nbsp;discharge of dredged and fill material, and work&nbsp;in “waters of the U.S.”&nbsp;&nbsp;




In accordance with the Energy Policy Act, the Alaska District expects to render a permit decision within 90 days of FERC completing its FEIS.&nbsp; This decision is dependent upon receiving documentation of compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act (Essential Fish Habitat) from FERC.&nbsp; This decision is also dependent upon receiving from the applicant a complete application, information on alternatives, and a mitigation plan as outlined in 33 CFR 332 at least 120 days prior to June 24, 2020. &nbsp;The Corps also cannot issue a permit until the State of Alaska and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issue Section 401 Water Quality Certifications, or waive the requirement of such certifications.
The Portland District is reviewing a Department of the Army individual permit application pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the construction of structures and work in navigable waters of the U.S. and the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands, respectively.&nbsp; The review is associated with the construction of a liquefied natural gas export terminal, pipeline,&nbsp;and appurtenant features. This work is associated with Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project.

On June 10, 2021, the Jordan Cove Liquefied Natural Gas' application for Regulatory Permits was withdrawn as the applicant has paused the project for an undetermined length of time.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Portland District is reviewing a Department of the Army individual permit application pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the construction of structures and work in navigable waters of the U.S. and the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands, respectively.&nbsp; The review is associated with the construction of a liquefied natural gas export terminal, pipeline,&nbsp;and appurtenant features. This work is associated with Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project.

On June 10, 2021, the Jordan Cove Liquefied Natural Gas' application for Regulatory Permits was withdrawn as the applicant has paused the project for an undetermined length of time.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Portland District is reviewing a Department of the Army individual permit application pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the construction of structures and work in navigable waters of the U.S. and the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands, respectively.&nbsp; The review is associated with the construction of a liquefied natural gas export terminal, pipeline,&nbsp;and appurtenant features. This work is associated with Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project.

On June 10, 2021, the Jordan Cove Liquefied Natural Gas' application for Regulatory Permits was withdrawn as the applicant has paused the project for an undetermined length of time.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Portland District is reviewing a Department of the Army individual permit application pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the construction of structures and work in navigable waters of the U.S. and the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands, respectively.&nbsp; The review is associated with the construction of a liquefied natural gas export terminal, pipeline,&nbsp;and appurtenant features. This work is associated with Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project.

On June 10, 2021, the Jordan Cove Liquefied Natural Gas' application for Regulatory Permits was withdrawn as the applicant has paused the project for an undetermined length of time.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Project was down scoped to a Categorical Exclusion. An Environmental Assessment will not be prepared.
Project was down scoped to a Categorical Exclusion. An Environmental Assessment will not be prepared.
Project was down scoped to a Categorical Exclusion. An Environmental Assessment will not be prepared.
Project was down scoped to a Categorical Exclusion. An Environmental Assessment will not be prepared.
Project was down scoped to a Categorical Exclusion. An Environmental Assessment will not be prepared.
Project was down scoped to a Categorical Exclusion. An Environmental Assessment will not be prepared.
Project was down scoped to a Categorical Exclusion. An Environmental Assessment will not be prepared.
Project was down scoped to a Categorical Exclusion. An Environmental Assessment will not be prepared.
Project was down scoped to a Categorical Exclusion. An Environmental Assessment will not be prepared.
Project will utilize the 404 permit for the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan.
Project will utilize the 404 permit for the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan.
Project will utilize the 404 permit for the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan.
Project will utilize the 404 permit for the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan.
Formal consultation request for vernal pool fairy shrimp.
Formal consultation request for vernal pool fairy shrimp.
Formal consultation request for vernal pool fairy shrimp.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes the Tulare Interchange project. &nbsp;The purpose of the proposed interchange is to relieve traffic congestion by improving local access to and from State Route 99 in the south part of the City of Tulare and improving east- west circulation. This project would also enhance traffic safety and provide sufficient vertical clearance between the Paige Avenue overcrossing and State Route 99 (if the Paige Avenue overcrossing is reconstructed). The need for the project is to relieve traffic congestion, enhance safety and provide sufficient clearance.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes the Tulare Interchange project. &nbsp;The purpose of the proposed interchange is to relieve traffic congestion by improving local access to and from State Route 99 in the south part of the City of Tulare and improving east- west circulation. This project would also enhance traffic safety and provide sufficient vertical clearance between the Paige Avenue overcrossing and State Route 99 (if the Paige Avenue overcrossing is reconstructed). The need for the project is to relieve traffic congestion, enhance safety and provide sufficient clearance.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes the Tulare Interchange project. &nbsp;The purpose of the proposed interchange is to relieve traffic congestion by improving local access to and from State Route 99 in the south part of the City of Tulare and improving east- west circulation. This project would also enhance traffic safety and provide sufficient vertical clearance between the Paige Avenue overcrossing and State Route 99 (if the Paige Avenue overcrossing is reconstructed). The need for the project is to relieve traffic congestion, enhance safety and provide sufficient clearance.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes the Tulare Interchange project. &nbsp;The purpose of the proposed interchange is to relieve traffic congestion by improving local access to and from State Route 99 in the south part of the City of Tulare and improving east- west circulation. This project would also enhance traffic safety and provide sufficient vertical clearance between the Paige Avenue overcrossing and State Route 99 (if the Paige Avenue overcrossing is reconstructed). The need for the project is to relieve traffic congestion, enhance safety and provide sufficient clearance.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes the Tulare Interchange project. &nbsp;The purpose of the proposed interchange is to relieve traffic congestion by improving local access to and from State Route 99 in the south part of the City of Tulare and improving east- west circulation. This project would also enhance traffic safety and provide sufficient vertical clearance between the Paige Avenue overcrossing and State Route 99 (if the Paige Avenue overcrossing is reconstructed). The need for the project is to relieve traffic congestion, enhance safety and provide sufficient clearance.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes the Tulare Interchange project. &nbsp;The purpose of the proposed interchange is to relieve traffic congestion by improving local access to and from State Route 99 in the south part of the City of Tulare and improving east- west circulation. This project would also enhance traffic safety and provide sufficient vertical clearance between the Paige Avenue overcrossing and State Route 99 (if the Paige Avenue overcrossing is reconstructed). The need for the project is to relieve traffic congestion, enhance safety and provide sufficient clearance.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes the Tulare Interchange project. &nbsp;The purpose of the proposed interchange is to relieve traffic congestion by improving local access to and from State Route 99 in the south part of the City of Tulare and improving east- west circulation. This project would also enhance traffic safety and provide sufficient vertical clearance between the Paige Avenue overcrossing and State Route 99 (if the Paige Avenue overcrossing is reconstructed). The need for the project is to relieve traffic congestion, enhance safety and provide sufficient clearance.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes the Tulare Interchange project. &nbsp;The purpose of the proposed interchange is to relieve traffic congestion by improving local access to and from State Route 99 in the south part of the City of Tulare and improving east- west circulation. This project would also enhance traffic safety and provide sufficient vertical clearance between the Paige Avenue overcrossing and State Route 99 (if the Paige Avenue overcrossing is reconstructed). The need for the project is to relieve traffic congestion, enhance safety and provide sufficient clearance.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes the Tulare Interchange project. &nbsp;The purpose of the proposed interchange is to relieve traffic congestion by improving local access to and from State Route 99 in the south part of the City of Tulare and improving east- west circulation. This project would also enhance traffic safety and provide sufficient vertical clearance between the Paige Avenue overcrossing and State Route 99 (if the Paige Avenue overcrossing is reconstructed). The need for the project is to relieve traffic congestion, enhance safety and provide sufficient clearance.
The Philadelphia District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are processing applications for authorizations pursuant to&nbsp; 33 USC 408 (Section 408) of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899,&nbsp; Alterations to USACE Projects. Authorizations are required for the PennEast pipeline crossings at Beltzville and Francis E. Walter Reservoirs. Modifications to the USACE projects include:F.E. Walter Reservoir: Crossing of the 36" PennEast Pipeline approximately 2.8 miles upstream of the dam. Pipeline will be trenched to a depth 5 feet below ground surface.Beltzville Reservoir: Horizontal directional drill boring pad on USACE property extending&nbsp;6,100 feet, approximately 120 feet below the reservoir, and approximately 5 miles upstream of the dam. Exit bore pad is off USACE property.Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Philadelphia District.
The Philadelphia District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are processing applications for authorizations pursuant to&nbsp; 33 USC 408 (Section 408) of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899,&nbsp; Alterations to USACE Projects. Authorizations are required for the PennEast pipeline crossings at Beltzville and Francis E. Walter Reservoirs. Modifications to the USACE projects include:F.E. Walter Reservoir: Crossing of the 36" PennEast Pipeline approximately 2.8 miles upstream of the dam. Pipeline will be trenched to a depth 5 feet below ground surface.Beltzville Reservoir: Horizontal directional drill boring pad on USACE property extending&nbsp;6,100 feet, approximately 120 feet below the reservoir, and approximately 5 miles upstream of the dam. Exit bore pad is off USACE property.Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Philadelphia District.
The Philadelphia District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are processing applications for authorizations pursuant to&nbsp; 33 USC 408 (Section 408) of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899,&nbsp; Alterations to USACE Projects. Authorizations are required for the PennEast pipeline crossings at Beltzville and Francis E. Walter Reservoirs. Modifications to the USACE projects include:F.E. Walter Reservoir: Crossing of the 36" PennEast Pipeline approximately 2.8 miles upstream of the dam. Pipeline will be trenched to a depth 5 feet below ground surface.Beltzville Reservoir: Horizontal directional drill boring pad on USACE property extending&nbsp;6,100 feet, approximately 120 feet below the reservoir, and approximately 5 miles upstream of the dam. Exit bore pad is off USACE property.Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Philadelphia District.
The Philadelphia District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are processing applications for authorizations pursuant to&nbsp; 33 USC 408 (Section 408) of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899,&nbsp; Alterations to USACE Projects. Authorizations are required for the PennEast pipeline crossings at Beltzville and Francis E. Walter Reservoirs. Modifications to the USACE projects include:F.E. Walter Reservoir: Crossing of the 36" PennEast Pipeline approximately 2.8 miles upstream of the dam. Pipeline will be trenched to a depth 5 feet below ground surface.Beltzville Reservoir: Horizontal directional drill boring pad on USACE property extending&nbsp;6,100 feet, approximately 120 feet below the reservoir, and approximately 5 miles upstream of the dam. Exit bore pad is off USACE property.Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Philadelphia District.
The Philadelphia District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are processing applications for authorizations pursuant to&nbsp; 33 USC 408 (Section 408) of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899,&nbsp; Alterations to USACE Projects. Authorizations are required for the PennEast pipeline crossings at Beltzville and Francis E. Walter Reservoirs. Modifications to the USACE projects include:F.E. Walter Reservoir: Crossing of the 36" PennEast Pipeline approximately 2.8 miles upstream of the dam. Pipeline will be trenched to a depth 5 feet below ground surface.Beltzville Reservoir: Horizontal directional drill boring pad on USACE property extending&nbsp;6,100 feet, approximately 120 feet below the reservoir, and approximately 5 miles upstream of the dam. Exit bore pad is off USACE property.Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Philadelphia District.
Regional Water Quality Control Board Responsibilities:

401 Water Quality Certification jurisdiction and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

Provide input during NEPA process.
Regional Water Quality Control Board Responsibilities:

401 Water Quality Certification jurisdiction and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

Provide input during NEPA process.
Regional Water Quality Control Board Responsibilities:

401 Water Quality Certification jurisdiction and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

Provide input during NEPA process.
Regional Water Quality Control Board Responsibilities:

401 Water Quality Certification jurisdiction and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

Provide input during NEPA process.
Regional Water Quality Control Board Responsibilities:

401 Water Quality Certification jurisdiction and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

Provide input during NEPA process.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City Transit (MTA NYCT) is proposing a change to the approved Canarsie Tunnel Project. The Project includes rehabilitation, resiliency, state of good repair and capacity improvement activities related to the Canarsie Tunnel, which is located in New York under the East River and connects Manhattan and Brooklyn. The purpose of the proposed change is to provide transportation alternatives, known as the Alternative Service Plan (ASP), to the greatest number of diverted L train riders while the Canarsie Tunnel is undergoing rehabilitation. The Tunnel was damaged during Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and needs to be repaired in a safe and expeditious manner to minimize risk of unexpected structural failure and service disruptions. At the time of FTA’s previous environmental review, the Project included a preliminary concept of a service plan to provide transportation alternatives. The ASP has been refined and FTA and MTA NYCT have prepared a Supplemental Environmental Assessment to present the potential environmental impacts of the proposed ASP.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City Transit (MTA NYCT) is proposing a change to the approved Canarsie Tunnel Project. The Project includes rehabilitation, resiliency, state of good repair and capacity improvement activities related to the Canarsie Tunnel, which is located in New York under the East River and connects Manhattan and Brooklyn. The purpose of the proposed change is to provide transportation alternatives, known as the Alternative Service Plan (ASP), to the greatest number of diverted L train riders while the Canarsie Tunnel is undergoing rehabilitation. The Tunnel was damaged during Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and needs to be repaired in a safe and expeditious manner to minimize risk of unexpected structural failure and service disruptions. At the time of FTA’s previous environmental review, the Project included a preliminary concept of a service plan to provide transportation alternatives. The ASP has been refined and FTA and MTA NYCT have prepared a Supplemental Environmental Assessment to present the potential environmental impacts of the proposed ASP.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City Transit (MTA NYCT) is proposing a change to the approved Canarsie Tunnel Project. The Project includes rehabilitation, resiliency, state of good repair and capacity improvement activities related to the Canarsie Tunnel, which is located in New York under the East River and connects Manhattan and Brooklyn. The purpose of the proposed change is to provide transportation alternatives, known as the Alternative Service Plan (ASP), to the greatest number of diverted L train riders while the Canarsie Tunnel is undergoing rehabilitation. The Tunnel was damaged during Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and needs to be repaired in a safe and expeditious manner to minimize risk of unexpected structural failure and service disruptions. At the time of FTA’s previous environmental review, the Project included a preliminary concept of a service plan to provide transportation alternatives. The ASP has been refined and FTA and MTA NYCT have prepared a Supplemental Environmental Assessment to present the potential environmental impacts of the proposed ASP.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City Transit (MTA NYCT) is proposing a change to the approved Canarsie Tunnel Project. The Project includes rehabilitation, resiliency, state of good repair and capacity improvement activities related to the Canarsie Tunnel, which is located in New York under the East River and connects Manhattan and Brooklyn. The purpose of the proposed change is to provide transportation alternatives, known as the Alternative Service Plan (ASP), to the greatest number of diverted L train riders while the Canarsie Tunnel is undergoing rehabilitation. The Tunnel was damaged during Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and needs to be repaired in a safe and expeditious manner to minimize risk of unexpected structural failure and service disruptions. At the time of FTA’s previous environmental review, the Project included a preliminary concept of a service plan to provide transportation alternatives. The ASP has been refined and FTA and MTA NYCT have prepared a Supplemental Environmental Assessment to present the potential environmental impacts of the proposed ASP.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City Transit (MTA NYCT) is proposing a change to the approved Canarsie Tunnel Project. The Project includes rehabilitation, resiliency, state of good repair and capacity improvement activities related to the Canarsie Tunnel, which is located in New York under the East River and connects Manhattan and Brooklyn. The purpose of the proposed change is to provide transportation alternatives, known as the Alternative Service Plan (ASP), to the greatest number of diverted L train riders while the Canarsie Tunnel is undergoing rehabilitation. The Tunnel was damaged during Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and needs to be repaired in a safe and expeditious manner to minimize risk of unexpected structural failure and service disruptions. At the time of FTA’s previous environmental review, the Project included a preliminary concept of a service plan to provide transportation alternatives. The ASP has been refined and FTA and MTA NYCT have prepared a Supplemental Environmental Assessment to present the potential environmental impacts of the proposed ASP.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City Transit (MTA NYCT) is proposing a change to the approved Canarsie Tunnel Project. The Project includes rehabilitation, resiliency, state of good repair and capacity improvement activities related to the Canarsie Tunnel, which is located in New York under the East River and connects Manhattan and Brooklyn. The purpose of the proposed change is to provide transportation alternatives, known as the Alternative Service Plan (ASP), to the greatest number of diverted L train riders while the Canarsie Tunnel is undergoing rehabilitation. The Tunnel was damaged during Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and needs to be repaired in a safe and expeditious manner to minimize risk of unexpected structural failure and service disruptions. At the time of FTA’s previous environmental review, the Project included a preliminary concept of a service plan to provide transportation alternatives. The ASP has been refined and FTA and MTA NYCT have prepared a Supplemental Environmental Assessment to present the potential environmental impacts of the proposed ASP.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City Transit (MTA NYCT) is proposing a change to the approved Canarsie Tunnel Project. The Project includes rehabilitation, resiliency, state of good repair and capacity improvement activities related to the Canarsie Tunnel, which is located in New York under the East River and connects Manhattan and Brooklyn. The purpose of the proposed change is to provide transportation alternatives, known as the Alternative Service Plan (ASP), to the greatest number of diverted L train riders while the Canarsie Tunnel is undergoing rehabilitation. The Tunnel was damaged during Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and needs to be repaired in a safe and expeditious manner to minimize risk of unexpected structural failure and service disruptions. At the time of FTA’s previous environmental review, the Project included a preliminary concept of a service plan to provide transportation alternatives. The ASP has been refined and FTA and MTA NYCT have prepared a Supplemental Environmental Assessment to present the potential environmental impacts of the proposed ASP.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City Transit (MTA NYCT) is proposing a change to the approved Canarsie Tunnel Project. The Project includes rehabilitation, resiliency, state of good repair and capacity improvement activities related to the Canarsie Tunnel, which is located in New York under the East River and connects Manhattan and Brooklyn. The purpose of the proposed change is to provide transportation alternatives, known as the Alternative Service Plan (ASP), to the greatest number of diverted L train riders while the Canarsie Tunnel is undergoing rehabilitation. The Tunnel was damaged during Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and needs to be repaired in a safe and expeditious manner to minimize risk of unexpected structural failure and service disruptions. At the time of FTA’s previous environmental review, the Project included a preliminary concept of a service plan to provide transportation alternatives. The ASP has been refined and FTA and MTA NYCT have prepared a Supplemental Environmental Assessment to present the potential environmental impacts of the proposed ASP.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City Transit (MTA NYCT) is proposing a change to the approved Canarsie Tunnel Project. The Project includes rehabilitation, resiliency, state of good repair and capacity improvement activities related to the Canarsie Tunnel, which is located in New York under the East River and connects Manhattan and Brooklyn. The purpose of the proposed change is to provide transportation alternatives, known as the Alternative Service Plan (ASP), to the greatest number of diverted L train riders while the Canarsie Tunnel is undergoing rehabilitation. The Tunnel was damaged during Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and needs to be repaired in a safe and expeditious manner to minimize risk of unexpected structural failure and service disruptions. At the time of FTA’s previous environmental review, the Project included a preliminary concept of a service plan to provide transportation alternatives. The ASP has been refined and FTA and MTA NYCT have prepared a Supplemental Environmental Assessment to present the potential environmental impacts of the proposed ASP.
The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) proposes to create light rail service between the existing Lindbergh and Avondale Stations. This service would connect the major job destinations of the US Centers for Disease Control and Emory University &amp; Hospital to the MARTA rail system. The Clifton Corridor is the largest employment center not served by the MARTA rail system or other high capacity mode of transportation. Currently, significant volumes of trips travel through the Clifton Corridor as well as on connecting roadways; therefore, high-capacity transit service could help accommodate the high trip volumes within an already constrained roadway network.
The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) proposes to create light rail service between the existing Lindbergh and Avondale Stations. This service would connect the major job destinations of the US Centers for Disease Control and Emory University &amp; Hospital to the MARTA rail system. The Clifton Corridor is the largest employment center not served by the MARTA rail system or other high capacity mode of transportation. Currently, significant volumes of trips travel through the Clifton Corridor as well as on connecting roadways; therefore, high-capacity transit service could help accommodate the high trip volumes within an already constrained roadway network.
The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) proposes to create light rail service between the existing Lindbergh and Avondale Stations. This service would connect the major job destinations of the US Centers for Disease Control and Emory University &amp; Hospital to the MARTA rail system. The Clifton Corridor is the largest employment center not served by the MARTA rail system or other high capacity mode of transportation. Currently, significant volumes of trips travel through the Clifton Corridor as well as on connecting roadways; therefore, high-capacity transit service could help accommodate the high trip volumes within an already constrained roadway network.
The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) proposes to create light rail service between the existing Lindbergh and Avondale Stations. This service would connect the major job destinations of the US Centers for Disease Control and Emory University &amp; Hospital to the MARTA rail system. The Clifton Corridor is the largest employment center not served by the MARTA rail system or other high capacity mode of transportation. Currently, significant volumes of trips travel through the Clifton Corridor as well as on connecting roadways; therefore, high-capacity transit service could help accommodate the high trip volumes within an already constrained roadway network.
The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) proposes to create light rail service between the existing Lindbergh and Avondale Stations. This service would connect the major job destinations of the US Centers for Disease Control and Emory University &amp; Hospital to the MARTA rail system. The Clifton Corridor is the largest employment center not served by the MARTA rail system or other high capacity mode of transportation. Currently, significant volumes of trips travel through the Clifton Corridor as well as on connecting roadways; therefore, high-capacity transit service could help accommodate the high trip volumes within an already constrained roadway network.
The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) proposes to create light rail service between the existing Lindbergh and Avondale Stations. This service would connect the major job destinations of the US Centers for Disease Control and Emory University &amp; Hospital to the MARTA rail system. The Clifton Corridor is the largest employment center not served by the MARTA rail system or other high capacity mode of transportation. Currently, significant volumes of trips travel through the Clifton Corridor as well as on connecting roadways; therefore, high-capacity transit service could help accommodate the high trip volumes within an already constrained roadway network.
The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) proposes to create light rail service between the existing Lindbergh and Avondale Stations. This service would connect the major job destinations of the US Centers for Disease Control and Emory University &amp; Hospital to the MARTA rail system. The Clifton Corridor is the largest employment center not served by the MARTA rail system or other high capacity mode of transportation. Currently, significant volumes of trips travel through the Clifton Corridor as well as on connecting roadways; therefore, high-capacity transit service could help accommodate the high trip volumes within an already constrained roadway network.
The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) proposes to create light rail service between the existing Lindbergh and Avondale Stations. This service would connect the major job destinations of the US Centers for Disease Control and Emory University &amp; Hospital to the MARTA rail system. The Clifton Corridor is the largest employment center not served by the MARTA rail system or other high capacity mode of transportation. Currently, significant volumes of trips travel through the Clifton Corridor as well as on connecting roadways; therefore, high-capacity transit service could help accommodate the high trip volumes within an already constrained roadway network.
GoTriangle is proposing to refine the design of the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit (D-O LRT) Project, located in Durham and Orange Counties, North Carolina. This Supplemental Environmental Assessment (Supplemental EA) evaluates proposed refinements to the D-O LRT Project design since the Amended Record of Decision (Amended ROD) was issued December 2016.
GoTriangle is proposing to refine the design of the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit (D-O LRT) Project, located in Durham and Orange Counties, North Carolina. This Supplemental Environmental Assessment (Supplemental EA) evaluates proposed refinements to the D-O LRT Project design since the Amended Record of Decision (Amended ROD) was issued December 2016.
GoTriangle is proposing to refine the design of the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit (D-O LRT) Project, located in Durham and Orange Counties, North Carolina. This Supplemental Environmental Assessment (Supplemental EA) evaluates proposed refinements to the D-O LRT Project design since the Amended Record of Decision (Amended ROD) was issued December 2016.
GoTriangle is proposing to refine the design of the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit (D-O LRT) Project, located in Durham and Orange Counties, North Carolina. This Supplemental Environmental Assessment (Supplemental EA) evaluates proposed refinements to the D-O LRT Project design since the Amended Record of Decision (Amended ROD) was issued December 2016.
GoTriangle is proposing to refine the design of the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit (D-O LRT) Project, located in Durham and Orange Counties, North Carolina. This Supplemental Environmental Assessment (Supplemental EA) evaluates proposed refinements to the D-O LRT Project design since the Amended Record of Decision (Amended ROD) was issued December 2016.
GoTriangle is proposing to refine the design of the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit (D-O LRT) Project, located in Durham and Orange Counties, North Carolina. This Supplemental Environmental Assessment (Supplemental EA) evaluates proposed refinements to the D-O LRT Project design since the Amended Record of Decision (Amended ROD) was issued December 2016.
GoTriangle is proposing to refine the design of the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit (D-O LRT) Project, located in Durham and Orange Counties, North Carolina. This Supplemental Environmental Assessment (Supplemental EA) evaluates proposed refinements to the D-O LRT Project design since the Amended Record of Decision (Amended ROD) was issued December 2016.
GoTriangle is proposing to refine the design of the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit (D-O LRT) Project, located in Durham and Orange Counties, North Carolina. This Supplemental Environmental Assessment (Supplemental EA) evaluates proposed refinements to the D-O LRT Project design since the Amended Record of Decision (Amended ROD) was issued December 2016.
GoTriangle is proposing to refine the design of the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit (D-O LRT) Project, located in Durham and Orange Counties, North Carolina. This Supplemental Environmental Assessment (Supplemental EA) evaluates proposed refinements to the D-O LRT Project design since the Amended Record of Decision (Amended ROD) was issued December 2016.
A NEPA FONSI was adopted for the project in June 2011(Caltrans 2011). Since the NEPA document was adopted, it has been noted that additional project improvements and refinements are needed that were not included in the adopted NEPA document.This Supplemental EA focuses on impacts that would result from proposed changes to the approved project since adoption of the FONSI in 2011. The “approved project” refers to the original project adopted in June 2011; “proposed project” refers to the new proposed changes to the project. In addition, the project sponsor is now SBCTA instead of the City of San Bernardino.
A NEPA FONSI was adopted for the project in June 2011(Caltrans 2011). Since the NEPA document was adopted, it has been noted that additional project improvements and refinements are needed that were not included in the adopted NEPA document.This Supplemental EA focuses on impacts that would result from proposed changes to the approved project since adoption of the FONSI in 2011. The “approved project” refers to the original project adopted in June 2011; “proposed project” refers to the new proposed changes to the project. In addition, the project sponsor is now SBCTA instead of the City of San Bernardino.
A NEPA FONSI was adopted for the project in June 2011(Caltrans 2011). Since the NEPA document was adopted, it has been noted that additional project improvements and refinements are needed that were not included in the adopted NEPA document.This Supplemental EA focuses on impacts that would result from proposed changes to the approved project since adoption of the FONSI in 2011. The “approved project” refers to the original project adopted in June 2011; “proposed project” refers to the new proposed changes to the project. In addition, the project sponsor is now SBCTA instead of the City of San Bernardino.
A NEPA FONSI was adopted for the project in June 2011(Caltrans 2011). Since the NEPA document was adopted, it has been noted that additional project improvements and refinements are needed that were not included in the adopted NEPA document.This Supplemental EA focuses on impacts that would result from proposed changes to the approved project since adoption of the FONSI in 2011. The “approved project” refers to the original project adopted in June 2011; “proposed project” refers to the new proposed changes to the project. In addition, the project sponsor is now SBCTA instead of the City of San Bernardino.
A NEPA FONSI was adopted for the project in June 2011(Caltrans 2011). Since the NEPA document was adopted, it has been noted that additional project improvements and refinements are needed that were not included in the adopted NEPA document.This Supplemental EA focuses on impacts that would result from proposed changes to the approved project since adoption of the FONSI in 2011. The “approved project” refers to the original project adopted in June 2011; “proposed project” refers to the new proposed changes to the project. In addition, the project sponsor is now SBCTA instead of the City of San Bernardino.
A NEPA FONSI was adopted for the project in June 2011(Caltrans 2011). Since the NEPA document was adopted, it has been noted that additional project improvements and refinements are needed that were not included in the adopted NEPA document.This Supplemental EA focuses on impacts that would result from proposed changes to the approved project since adoption of the FONSI in 2011. The “approved project” refers to the original project adopted in June 2011; “proposed project” refers to the new proposed changes to the project. In addition, the project sponsor is now SBCTA instead of the City of San Bernardino.
A NEPA FONSI was adopted for the project in June 2011(Caltrans 2011). Since the NEPA document was adopted, it has been noted that additional project improvements and refinements are needed that were not included in the adopted NEPA document.This Supplemental EA focuses on impacts that would result from proposed changes to the approved project since adoption of the FONSI in 2011. The “approved project” refers to the original project adopted in June 2011; “proposed project” refers to the new proposed changes to the project. In addition, the project sponsor is now SBCTA instead of the City of San Bernardino.
A NEPA FONSI was adopted for the project in June 2011(Caltrans 2011). Since the NEPA document was adopted, it has been noted that additional project improvements and refinements are needed that were not included in the adopted NEPA document.This Supplemental EA focuses on impacts that would result from proposed changes to the approved project since adoption of the FONSI in 2011. The “approved project” refers to the original project adopted in June 2011; “proposed project” refers to the new proposed changes to the project. In addition, the project sponsor is now SBCTA instead of the City of San Bernardino.
A NEPA FONSI was adopted for the project in June 2011(Caltrans 2011). Since the NEPA document was adopted, it has been noted that additional project improvements and refinements are needed that were not included in the adopted NEPA document.This Supplemental EA focuses on impacts that would result from proposed changes to the approved project since adoption of the FONSI in 2011. The “approved project” refers to the original project adopted in June 2011; “proposed project” refers to the new proposed changes to the project. In addition, the project sponsor is now SBCTA instead of the City of San Bernardino.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters; and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters; and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters; and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters; and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters; and issuance of a final EIS.
The proposed project may affect pallid sturgeion, however, it cannot be determined at this time whether those impacts would result in a "likely" or "not likely to adversely affect" situtation. &nbsp;Further consultation with the Louisiana Ecological Services Office is therefore necessary.&nbsp; The target date for final completion is 135 days after all information (a complete consultation package) is received.&nbsp;&nbsp;Conclusion of ESA consultation is dependent on FWS receiving a complete BA.
The proposed project may affect pallid sturgeion, however, it cannot be determined at this time whether those impacts would result in a "likely" or "not likely to adversely affect" situtation. &nbsp;Further consultation with the Louisiana Ecological Services Office is therefore necessary.&nbsp; The target date for final completion is 135 days after all information (a complete consultation package) is received.&nbsp;&nbsp;Conclusion of ESA consultation is dependent on FWS receiving a complete BA.
The proposed project may affect pallid sturgeion, however, it cannot be determined at this time whether those impacts would result in a "likely" or "not likely to adversely affect" situtation. &nbsp;Further consultation with the Louisiana Ecological Services Office is therefore necessary.&nbsp; The target date for final completion is 135 days after all information (a complete consultation package) is received.&nbsp;&nbsp;Conclusion of ESA consultation is dependent on FWS receiving a complete BA.
The proposed project may affect pallid sturgeion, however, it cannot be determined at this time whether those impacts would result in a "likely" or "not likely to adversely affect" situtation. &nbsp;Further consultation with the Louisiana Ecological Services Office is therefore necessary.&nbsp; The target date for final completion is 135 days after all information (a complete consultation package) is received.&nbsp;&nbsp;Conclusion of ESA consultation is dependent on FWS receiving a complete BA.
Department of Army authorization is required from the USACE New Orleans District&nbsp;pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Department of Army authorization is required from the USACE New Orleans District&nbsp;pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Department of Army authorization is required from the USACE New Orleans District&nbsp;pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Department of Army authorization is required from the USACE New Orleans District&nbsp;pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The Mojave desert tortoise occurs in the proposed project area; therefore, BLM is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act to address any potential project effects on the desert tortoise or its habitat.&nbsp; FWS detemined that it had received a complete consultation package on June 25, 2019 and has 135 days to complete its biological opinion.&nbsp; &nbsp;
The Mojave desert tortoise occurs in the proposed project area; therefore, BLM is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act to address any potential project effects on the desert tortoise or its habitat.&nbsp; FWS detemined that it had received a complete consultation package on June 25, 2019 and has 135 days to complete its biological opinion.&nbsp; &nbsp;
The Mojave desert tortoise occurs in the proposed project area; therefore, BLM is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act to address any potential project effects on the desert tortoise or its habitat.&nbsp; FWS detemined that it had received a complete consultation package on June 25, 2019 and has 135 days to complete its biological opinion.&nbsp; &nbsp;
The Mojave desert tortoise occurs in the proposed project area; therefore, BLM is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act to address any potential project effects on the desert tortoise or its habitat.&nbsp; FWS detemined that it had received a complete consultation package on June 25, 2019 and has 135 days to complete its biological opinion.&nbsp; &nbsp;
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Las&nbsp;Vegas Field Office intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and land use plan amendment to the 1998 Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the proposed Gemini Solar Project in Clark County, Nevada.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Las&nbsp;Vegas Field Office intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and land use plan amendment to the 1998 Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the proposed Gemini Solar Project in Clark County, Nevada.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Las&nbsp;Vegas Field Office intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and land use plan amendment to the 1998 Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the proposed Gemini Solar Project in Clark County, Nevada.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Las&nbsp;Vegas Field Office intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and land use plan amendment to the 1998 Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the proposed Gemini Solar Project in Clark County, Nevada.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Las&nbsp;Vegas Field Office intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and land use plan amendment to the 1998 Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the proposed Gemini Solar Project in Clark County, Nevada.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Las&nbsp;Vegas Field Office intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and land use plan amendment to the 1998 Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the proposed Gemini Solar Project in Clark County, Nevada.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Las&nbsp;Vegas Field Office intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and land use plan amendment to the 1998 Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the proposed Gemini Solar Project in Clark County, Nevada.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Las&nbsp;Vegas Field Office intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and land use plan amendment to the 1998 Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the proposed Gemini Solar Project in Clark County, Nevada.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Las&nbsp;Vegas Field Office intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and land use plan amendment to the 1998 Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the proposed Gemini Solar Project in Clark County, Nevada.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Las&nbsp;Vegas Field Office intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and land use plan amendment to the 1998 Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the proposed Gemini Solar Project in Clark County, Nevada.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Las&nbsp;Vegas Field Office intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and land use plan amendment to the 1998 Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the proposed Gemini Solar Project in Clark County, Nevada.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
USACE Jacksonville District

Project Number:&nbsp; SAJ-2009-02417 (SP-MLC)

Florida Power and Light proposes to impact approximately 1,000 acres of jurisdictional wetlands for the construction two nuclear reactors and their appurtenant structures, an eastern and western transmission line route, construction of additional access roads, a reclaimed water treatment facility, reclaimed and potable water pipelines, radial collector wells and associated pipelines, bridges, expansion of an existing boat basin, and construction of a bridge over the L-31E canal.
USACE Jacksonville District

Project Number:&nbsp; SAJ-2009-02417 (SP-MLC)

Florida Power and Light proposes to impact approximately 1,000 acres of jurisdictional wetlands for the construction two nuclear reactors and their appurtenant structures, an eastern and western transmission line route, construction of additional access roads, a reclaimed water treatment facility, reclaimed and potable water pipelines, radial collector wells and associated pipelines, bridges, expansion of an existing boat basin, and construction of a bridge over the L-31E canal.
USACE Jacksonville District

Project Number:&nbsp; SAJ-2009-02417 (SP-MLC)

Florida Power and Light proposes to impact approximately 1,000 acres of jurisdictional wetlands for the construction two nuclear reactors and their appurtenant structures, an eastern and western transmission line route, construction of additional access roads, a reclaimed water treatment facility, reclaimed and potable water pipelines, radial collector wells and associated pipelines, bridges, expansion of an existing boat basin, and construction of a bridge over the L-31E canal.
USACE Jacksonville District

Project Number:&nbsp; SAJ-2009-02417 (SP-MLC)

Florida Power and Light proposes to impact approximately 1,000 acres of jurisdictional wetlands for the construction two nuclear reactors and their appurtenant structures, an eastern and western transmission line route, construction of additional access roads, a reclaimed water treatment facility, reclaimed and potable water pipelines, radial collector wells and associated pipelines, bridges, expansion of an existing boat basin, and construction of a bridge over the L-31E canal.
On 14 November 2019, the Project Sponsor confirmed they will not be requesting Corps Regulatory review for authorization to impact waters of the United States.&nbsp; The Project Sponsor has determined through evaluation of their project proposal and use of their delineation that no jurisdictional waters would be impacted by the project as designed.&nbsp; The Project Sponsor worked diligently with Corps Regulatory over the last year and a half to ensure the Regulatory program was fully understood as they refined their project to avoid impacts to waters of the United States.&nbsp; This work included a site visit by Corps staff and multiple email and phone conversations.
On 14 November 2019, the Project Sponsor confirmed they will not be requesting Corps Regulatory review for authorization to impact waters of the United States.&nbsp; The Project Sponsor has determined through evaluation of their project proposal and use of their delineation that no jurisdictional waters would be impacted by the project as designed.&nbsp; The Project Sponsor worked diligently with Corps Regulatory over the last year and a half to ensure the Regulatory program was fully understood as they refined their project to avoid impacts to waters of the United States.&nbsp; This work included a site visit by Corps staff and multiple email and phone conversations.
On 14 November 2019, the Project Sponsor confirmed they will not be requesting Corps Regulatory review for authorization to impact waters of the United States.&nbsp; The Project Sponsor has determined through evaluation of their project proposal and use of their delineation that no jurisdictional waters would be impacted by the project as designed.&nbsp; The Project Sponsor worked diligently with Corps Regulatory over the last year and a half to ensure the Regulatory program was fully understood as they refined their project to avoid impacts to waters of the United States.&nbsp; This work included a site visit by Corps staff and multiple email and phone conversations.
On 14 November 2019, the Project Sponsor confirmed they will not be requesting Corps Regulatory review for authorization to impact waters of the United States.&nbsp; The Project Sponsor has determined through evaluation of their project proposal and use of their delineation that no jurisdictional waters would be impacted by the project as designed.&nbsp; The Project Sponsor worked diligently with Corps Regulatory over the last year and a half to ensure the Regulatory program was fully understood as they refined their project to avoid impacts to waters of the United States.&nbsp; This work included a site visit by Corps staff and multiple email and phone conversations.
Maryland Parkway High Capacity Transit corridor is&nbsp;an 8.7‐milelong project that will replace the existing local Route 109 service with an enhanced transit system that will provide speed and service quality improvements within the corridor and significantly increase transit ridership. The project alignment extends from the Las Vegas Medical District through Downtown Las Vegas and the Bonneville Transit Center, along Maryland Parkway to Sunrise Hospital, The Boulevard Mall, the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV), to McCarran International Airport.
Maryland Parkway High Capacity Transit corridor is&nbsp;an 8.7‐milelong project that will replace the existing local Route 109 service with an enhanced transit system that will provide speed and service quality improvements within the corridor and significantly increase transit ridership. The project alignment extends from the Las Vegas Medical District through Downtown Las Vegas and the Bonneville Transit Center, along Maryland Parkway to Sunrise Hospital, The Boulevard Mall, the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV), to McCarran International Airport.
Maryland Parkway High Capacity Transit corridor is&nbsp;an 8.7‐milelong project that will replace the existing local Route 109 service with an enhanced transit system that will provide speed and service quality improvements within the corridor and significantly increase transit ridership. The project alignment extends from the Las Vegas Medical District through Downtown Las Vegas and the Bonneville Transit Center, along Maryland Parkway to Sunrise Hospital, The Boulevard Mall, the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV), to McCarran International Airport.
Maryland Parkway High Capacity Transit corridor is&nbsp;an 8.7‐milelong project that will replace the existing local Route 109 service with an enhanced transit system that will provide speed and service quality improvements within the corridor and significantly increase transit ridership. The project alignment extends from the Las Vegas Medical District through Downtown Las Vegas and the Bonneville Transit Center, along Maryland Parkway to Sunrise Hospital, The Boulevard Mall, the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV), to McCarran International Airport.
Maryland Parkway High Capacity Transit corridor is&nbsp;an 8.7‐milelong project that will replace the existing local Route 109 service with an enhanced transit system that will provide speed and service quality improvements within the corridor and significantly increase transit ridership. The project alignment extends from the Las Vegas Medical District through Downtown Las Vegas and the Bonneville Transit Center, along Maryland Parkway to Sunrise Hospital, The Boulevard Mall, the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV), to McCarran International Airport.
Maryland Parkway High Capacity Transit corridor is&nbsp;an 8.7‐milelong project that will replace the existing local Route 109 service with an enhanced transit system that will provide speed and service quality improvements within the corridor and significantly increase transit ridership. The project alignment extends from the Las Vegas Medical District through Downtown Las Vegas and the Bonneville Transit Center, along Maryland Parkway to Sunrise Hospital, The Boulevard Mall, the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV), to McCarran International Airport.
Maryland Parkway High Capacity Transit corridor is&nbsp;an 8.7‐milelong project that will replace the existing local Route 109 service with an enhanced transit system that will provide speed and service quality improvements within the corridor and significantly increase transit ridership. The project alignment extends from the Las Vegas Medical District through Downtown Las Vegas and the Bonneville Transit Center, along Maryland Parkway to Sunrise Hospital, The Boulevard Mall, the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV), to McCarran International Airport.
Maryland Parkway High Capacity Transit corridor is&nbsp;an 8.7‐milelong project that will replace the existing local Route 109 service with an enhanced transit system that will provide speed and service quality improvements within the corridor and significantly increase transit ridership. The project alignment extends from the Las Vegas Medical District through Downtown Las Vegas and the Bonneville Transit Center, along Maryland Parkway to Sunrise Hospital, The Boulevard Mall, the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV), to McCarran International Airport.
Maryland Parkway High Capacity Transit corridor is&nbsp;an 8.7‐milelong project that will replace the existing local Route 109 service with an enhanced transit system that will provide speed and service quality improvements within the corridor and significantly increase transit ridership. The project alignment extends from the Las Vegas Medical District through Downtown Las Vegas and the Bonneville Transit Center, along Maryland Parkway to Sunrise Hospital, The Boulevard Mall, the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV), to McCarran International Airport.
Formal consultation requested for desert tortoise and desert tortoise critical habitat.No Effect on Mohave tui chub, CA condor, and Arroyo toad.
Formal consultation requested for desert tortoise and desert tortoise critical habitat.No Effect on Mohave tui chub, CA condor, and Arroyo toad.
Formal consultation requested for desert tortoise and desert tortoise critical habitat.No Effect on Mohave tui chub, CA condor, and Arroyo toad.
The project crosses Portland and Walla District Regulatory areas of responsibility (AOR); Portland is designated as the lead District for coordination, but each district is responsible for permit decision(s) in its AOR.&nbsp; To date, applications have not been submitted.&nbsp; The target end date presumes complete applications will be submitted by August 1, 2022.&nbsp; This project timeline will be revised once either&nbsp;district receives a complete application and determines the type of review that will be required, e.g. standard individual permit or general permit(s).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Districts will also require BLM's documentation of compliance&nbsp;with Section 7 ESA and Section 106 of the NHPA.
The project crosses Portland and Walla District Regulatory areas of responsibility (AOR); Portland is designated as the lead District for coordination, but each district is responsible for permit decision(s) in its AOR.&nbsp; To date, applications have not been submitted.&nbsp; The target end date presumes complete applications will be submitted by August 1, 2022.&nbsp; This project timeline will be revised once either&nbsp;district receives a complete application and determines the type of review that will be required, e.g. standard individual permit or general permit(s).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Districts will also require BLM's documentation of compliance&nbsp;with Section 7 ESA and Section 106 of the NHPA.
The project crosses Portland and Walla District Regulatory areas of responsibility (AOR); Portland is designated as the lead District for coordination, but each district is responsible for permit decision(s) in its AOR.&nbsp; To date, applications have not been submitted.&nbsp; The target end date presumes complete applications will be submitted by August 1, 2022.&nbsp; This project timeline will be revised once either&nbsp;district receives a complete application and determines the type of review that will be required, e.g. standard individual permit or general permit(s).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Districts will also require BLM's documentation of compliance&nbsp;with Section 7 ESA and Section 106 of the NHPA.
The project crosses Portland and Walla District Regulatory areas of responsibility (AOR); Portland is designated as the lead District for coordination, but each district is responsible for permit decision(s) in its AOR.&nbsp; To date, applications have not been submitted.&nbsp; The target end date presumes complete applications will be submitted by August 1, 2022.&nbsp; This project timeline will be revised once either&nbsp;district receives a complete application and determines the type of review that will be required, e.g. standard individual permit or general permit(s).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Districts will also require BLM's documentation of compliance&nbsp;with Section 7 ESA and Section 106 of the NHPA.
The Mobile District is reviewing a Department of Army individual permit application pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of fill material into 35.6 acres of wetlands and 1.06 acres of open water; dredging of approximately 200,000 cubic yards of material from the Mississippi Sound; and the creation of approximately 50 acres of wetlands in open waters associated with Gulf LNG Liquefaction Project.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Mobile District is reviewing a Department of Army individual permit application pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of fill material into 35.6 acres of wetlands and 1.06 acres of open water; dredging of approximately 200,000 cubic yards of material from the Mississippi Sound; and the creation of approximately 50 acres of wetlands in open waters associated with Gulf LNG Liquefaction Project.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Mobile District is reviewing a Department of Army individual permit application pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of fill material into 35.6 acres of wetlands and 1.06 acres of open water; dredging of approximately 200,000 cubic yards of material from the Mississippi Sound; and the creation of approximately 50 acres of wetlands in open waters associated with Gulf LNG Liquefaction Project.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Mobile District is reviewing a Department of Army individual permit application pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of fill material into 35.6 acres of wetlands and 1.06 acres of open water; dredging of approximately 200,000 cubic yards of material from the Mississippi Sound; and the creation of approximately 50 acres of wetlands in open waters associated with Gulf LNG Liquefaction Project.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Rock Island U.S. Army Corps of Engineers received Section 404 and Section 10 pre-construction notifications for the Cardinal-Hickory Creek Transmission Line and the regulated activities were verified under a Nationwide Permit 12 (Utility Line Activities) on November 20, 2019.
The Rock Island U.S. Army Corps of Engineers received Section 404 and Section 10 pre-construction notifications for the Cardinal-Hickory Creek Transmission Line and the regulated activities were verified under a Nationwide Permit 12 (Utility Line Activities) on November 20, 2019.
The Rock Island U.S. Army Corps of Engineers received Section 404 and Section 10 pre-construction notifications for the Cardinal-Hickory Creek Transmission Line and the regulated activities were verified under a Nationwide Permit 12 (Utility Line Activities) on November 20, 2019.
The Rock Island U.S. Army Corps of Engineers received Section 404 and Section 10 pre-construction notifications for the Cardinal-Hickory Creek Transmission Line and the regulated activities were verified under a Nationwide Permit 12 (Utility Line Activities) on November 20, 2019.
FWS received a complete and sufficient Biological Assessment on November 3, 2018 and anticipated concluding consultation within the 135 days provided by statute; however, due to a lapse in appropriations the governement was shut down for 35 days.&nbsp; FWS concluded&nbsp;consultation with the issuance of a Biological Opinion on April 22, 2019.
FWS received a complete and sufficient Biological Assessment on November 3, 2018 and anticipated concluding consultation within the 135 days provided by statute; however, due to a lapse in appropriations the governement was shut down for 35 days.&nbsp; FWS concluded&nbsp;consultation with the issuance of a Biological Opinion on April 22, 2019.
FWS received a complete and sufficient Biological Assessment on November 3, 2018 and anticipated concluding consultation within the 135 days provided by statute; however, due to a lapse in appropriations the governement was shut down for 35 days.&nbsp; FWS concluded&nbsp;consultation with the issuance of a Biological Opinion on April 22, 2019.
FWS received a complete and sufficient Biological Assessment on November 3, 2018 and anticipated concluding consultation within the 135 days provided by statute; however, due to a lapse in appropriations the governement was shut down for 35 days.&nbsp; FWS concluded&nbsp;consultation with the issuance of a Biological Opinion on April 22, 2019.
The St. Paul District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers received two Section 404 pre-construction notifications for the Cardinal-Hickory Creek Transmission Line and the regulated activities were verified under the Utility Regional General Permit on December 20, 2019.
The St. Paul District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers received two Section 404 pre-construction notifications for the Cardinal-Hickory Creek Transmission Line and the regulated activities were verified under the Utility Regional General Permit on December 20, 2019.
The St. Paul District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers received two Section 404 pre-construction notifications for the Cardinal-Hickory Creek Transmission Line and the regulated activities were verified under the Utility Regional General Permit on December 20, 2019.
The St. Paul District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers received two Section 404 pre-construction notifications for the Cardinal-Hickory Creek Transmission Line and the regulated activities were verified under the Utility Regional General Permit on December 20, 2019.
The BLM is the lead federal agency for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA.&nbsp;The Section 106 process seeks to accommodate historic preservation concerns with the needs of federal undertakings through consultation among the agency official and other parties with an interest in the effects of the undertaking on historic properties (36 CFR 800.1 and 36 CFR 800.2). The Programmatic Agreement is the&nbsp;legally binding document which identifies the terms and conditions agreed upon to provide for the phased approach to fulfill requirements of Section 106. The Programmatic Agreement was completed, and signed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, dated Feb. 3, 2017.
The BLM is the lead federal agency for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA.&nbsp;The Section 106 process seeks to accommodate historic preservation concerns with the needs of federal undertakings through consultation among the agency official and other parties with an interest in the effects of the undertaking on historic properties (36 CFR 800.1 and 36 CFR 800.2). The Programmatic Agreement is the&nbsp;legally binding document which identifies the terms and conditions agreed upon to provide for the phased approach to fulfill requirements of Section 106. The Programmatic Agreement was completed, and signed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, dated Feb. 3, 2017.
The BLM is the lead federal agency for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA.&nbsp;The Section 106 process seeks to accommodate historic preservation concerns with the needs of federal undertakings through consultation among the agency official and other parties with an interest in the effects of the undertaking on historic properties (36 CFR 800.1 and 36 CFR 800.2). The Programmatic Agreement is the&nbsp;legally binding document which identifies the terms and conditions agreed upon to provide for the phased approach to fulfill requirements of Section 106. The Programmatic Agreement was completed, and signed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, dated Feb. 3, 2017.
A meeting is scheduled with the cooperating and participating agencies on 9/12/2018 to discuss, among other things, the permitting timeline. The permitting timeline will be developed in coordination with these agencies.
A meeting is scheduled with the cooperating and participating agencies on 9/12/2018 to discuss, among other things, the permitting timeline. The permitting timeline will be developed in coordination with these agencies.
A meeting is scheduled with the cooperating and participating agencies on 9/12/2018 to discuss, among other things, the permitting timeline. The permitting timeline will be developed in coordination with these agencies.
A meeting is scheduled with the cooperating and participating agencies on 9/12/2018 to discuss, among other things, the permitting timeline. The permitting timeline will be developed in coordination with these agencies.
A meeting is scheduled with the cooperating and participating agencies on 9/12/2018 to discuss, among other things, the permitting timeline. The permitting timeline will be developed in coordination with these agencies.
A meeting is scheduled with the cooperating and participating agencies on 9/12/2018 to discuss, among other things, the permitting timeline. The permitting timeline will be developed in coordination with these agencies.
A meeting is scheduled with the cooperating and participating agencies on 9/12/2018 to discuss, among other things, the permitting timeline. The permitting timeline will be developed in coordination with these agencies.
A meeting is scheduled with the cooperating and participating agencies on 9/12/2018 to discuss, among other things, the permitting timeline. The permitting timeline will be developed in coordination with these agencies.
A meeting is scheduled with the cooperating and participating agencies on 9/12/2018 to discuss, among other things, the permitting timeline. The permitting timeline will be developed in coordination with these agencies.
A meeting is scheduled with the cooperating and participating agencies on 9/12/2018 to discuss, among other things, the permitting timeline. The permitting timeline will be developed in coordination with these agencies.
A meeting is scheduled with the cooperating and participating agencies on 9/12/2018 to discuss, among other things, the permitting timeline. The permitting timeline will be developed in coordination with these agencies.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM),&nbsp; the United States Forest Service (Forest Service), and the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) are cooperating agencies with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in the development of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 - 4370e) analysis for a proposed natural gas pipeline and liquefied natural gas export terminal.

On 5/5/2006 BLM received a completed application from Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline to&nbsp;construct an approximately 232 mile,&nbsp; 36-inch diameter pipeline to transport up to 1,200,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas from an interconnection with existing, interstate natural gas transmission pipelines at Malin, Oregon, to the proposed Jordan Cove LNG facility at Coos Bay, Oregon, where the gas would be liquefied for export to free trade and non-free trade countries. The Pipeline would cross an estimated 41 miles over Federal lands administered by the BLM in the Coos Bay, Roseburg, Medford and Lakeview Districts; approximately 30 miles over Federal lands administered by the Forest Service in the Rogue River, Umpqua, and Winema National Forests; and less than a mile over land and facilities administered by Reclamation’s Klamath Basin Area Office.

BLM is the lead for federal Rights of Way and Temporary Use Permit required by MLA, which may require an amendment to the Resource Management Plan.&nbsp; BLM will issue the Right of Way 90 days following the Joint Federal Decision.

If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM),&nbsp; the United States Forest Service (Forest Service), and the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) are cooperating agencies with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in the development of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 - 4370e) analysis for a proposed natural gas pipeline and liquefied natural gas export terminal.

On 5/5/2006 BLM received a completed application from Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline to&nbsp;construct an approximately 232 mile,&nbsp; 36-inch diameter pipeline to transport up to 1,200,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas from an interconnection with existing, interstate natural gas transmission pipelines at Malin, Oregon, to the proposed Jordan Cove LNG facility at Coos Bay, Oregon, where the gas would be liquefied for export to free trade and non-free trade countries. The Pipeline would cross an estimated 41 miles over Federal lands administered by the BLM in the Coos Bay, Roseburg, Medford and Lakeview Districts; approximately 30 miles over Federal lands administered by the Forest Service in the Rogue River, Umpqua, and Winema National Forests; and less than a mile over land and facilities administered by Reclamation’s Klamath Basin Area Office.

BLM is the lead for federal Rights of Way and Temporary Use Permit required by MLA, which may require an amendment to the Resource Management Plan.&nbsp; BLM will issue the Right of Way 90 days following the Joint Federal Decision.

If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM),&nbsp; the United States Forest Service (Forest Service), and the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) are cooperating agencies with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in the development of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 - 4370e) analysis for a proposed natural gas pipeline and liquefied natural gas export terminal.

On 5/5/2006 BLM received a completed application from Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline to&nbsp;construct an approximately 232 mile,&nbsp; 36-inch diameter pipeline to transport up to 1,200,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas from an interconnection with existing, interstate natural gas transmission pipelines at Malin, Oregon, to the proposed Jordan Cove LNG facility at Coos Bay, Oregon, where the gas would be liquefied for export to free trade and non-free trade countries. The Pipeline would cross an estimated 41 miles over Federal lands administered by the BLM in the Coos Bay, Roseburg, Medford and Lakeview Districts; approximately 30 miles over Federal lands administered by the Forest Service in the Rogue River, Umpqua, and Winema National Forests; and less than a mile over land and facilities administered by Reclamation’s Klamath Basin Area Office.

BLM is the lead for federal Rights of Way and Temporary Use Permit required by MLA, which may require an amendment to the Resource Management Plan.&nbsp; BLM will issue the Right of Way 90 days following the Joint Federal Decision.

If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM),&nbsp; the United States Forest Service (Forest Service), and the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) are cooperating agencies with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in the development of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 - 4370e) analysis for a proposed natural gas pipeline and liquefied natural gas export terminal.

On 5/5/2006 BLM received a completed application from Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline to&nbsp;construct an approximately 232 mile,&nbsp; 36-inch diameter pipeline to transport up to 1,200,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas from an interconnection with existing, interstate natural gas transmission pipelines at Malin, Oregon, to the proposed Jordan Cove LNG facility at Coos Bay, Oregon, where the gas would be liquefied for export to free trade and non-free trade countries. The Pipeline would cross an estimated 41 miles over Federal lands administered by the BLM in the Coos Bay, Roseburg, Medford and Lakeview Districts; approximately 30 miles over Federal lands administered by the Forest Service in the Rogue River, Umpqua, and Winema National Forests; and less than a mile over land and facilities administered by Reclamation’s Klamath Basin Area Office.

BLM is the lead for federal Rights of Way and Temporary Use Permit required by MLA, which may require an amendment to the Resource Management Plan.&nbsp; BLM will issue the Right of Way 90 days following the Joint Federal Decision.

If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM),&nbsp; the United States Forest Service (Forest Service), and the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) are cooperating agencies with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in the development of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 - 4370e) analysis for a proposed natural gas pipeline and liquefied natural gas export terminal.

On 5/5/2006 BLM received a completed application from Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline to&nbsp;construct an approximately 232 mile,&nbsp; 36-inch diameter pipeline to transport up to 1,200,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas from an interconnection with existing, interstate natural gas transmission pipelines at Malin, Oregon, to the proposed Jordan Cove LNG facility at Coos Bay, Oregon, where the gas would be liquefied for export to free trade and non-free trade countries. The Pipeline would cross an estimated 41 miles over Federal lands administered by the BLM in the Coos Bay, Roseburg, Medford and Lakeview Districts; approximately 30 miles over Federal lands administered by the Forest Service in the Rogue River, Umpqua, and Winema National Forests; and less than a mile over land and facilities administered by Reclamation’s Klamath Basin Area Office.

BLM is the lead for federal Rights of Way and Temporary Use Permit required by MLA, which may require an amendment to the Resource Management Plan.&nbsp; BLM will issue the Right of Way 90 days following the Joint Federal Decision.

If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM),&nbsp; the United States Forest Service (Forest Service), and the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) are cooperating agencies with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in the development of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 - 4370e) analysis for a proposed natural gas pipeline and liquefied natural gas export terminal.

On 5/5/2006 BLM received a completed application from Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline to&nbsp;construct an approximately 232 mile,&nbsp; 36-inch diameter pipeline to transport up to 1,200,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas from an interconnection with existing, interstate natural gas transmission pipelines at Malin, Oregon, to the proposed Jordan Cove LNG facility at Coos Bay, Oregon, where the gas would be liquefied for export to free trade and non-free trade countries. The Pipeline would cross an estimated 41 miles over Federal lands administered by the BLM in the Coos Bay, Roseburg, Medford and Lakeview Districts; approximately 30 miles over Federal lands administered by the Forest Service in the Rogue River, Umpqua, and Winema National Forests; and less than a mile over land and facilities administered by Reclamation’s Klamath Basin Area Office.

BLM is the lead for federal Rights of Way and Temporary Use Permit required by MLA, which may require an amendment to the Resource Management Plan.&nbsp; BLM will issue the Right of Way 90 days following the Joint Federal Decision.

If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM),&nbsp; the United States Forest Service (Forest Service), and the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) are cooperating agencies with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in the development of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 - 4370e) analysis for a proposed natural gas pipeline and liquefied natural gas export terminal.

On 5/5/2006 BLM received a completed application from Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline to&nbsp;construct an approximately 232 mile,&nbsp; 36-inch diameter pipeline to transport up to 1,200,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas from an interconnection with existing, interstate natural gas transmission pipelines at Malin, Oregon, to the proposed Jordan Cove LNG facility at Coos Bay, Oregon, where the gas would be liquefied for export to free trade and non-free trade countries. The Pipeline would cross an estimated 41 miles over Federal lands administered by the BLM in the Coos Bay, Roseburg, Medford and Lakeview Districts; approximately 30 miles over Federal lands administered by the Forest Service in the Rogue River, Umpqua, and Winema National Forests; and less than a mile over land and facilities administered by Reclamation’s Klamath Basin Area Office.

BLM is the lead for federal Rights of Way and Temporary Use Permit required by MLA, which may require an amendment to the Resource Management Plan.&nbsp; BLM will issue the Right of Way 90 days following the Joint Federal Decision.

If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;
DOI has intervenor status for this proposal and anticipates using the FERC NEPA documentation, to the extent possible,&nbsp;to render render a decision and issue it's authorizations 90 days after FERC issues it's license.&nbsp; DOI will continue to consult with FERC on the development of the NEPA document, however, if additional review is needed for the DOI decisions, the Permitting Timetable will be updated accordingly.&nbsp;&nbsp;
DOI has intervenor status for this proposal and anticipates using the FERC NEPA documentation, to the extent possible,&nbsp;to render render a decision and issue it's authorizations 90 days after FERC issues it's license.&nbsp; DOI will continue to consult with FERC on the development of the NEPA document, however, if additional review is needed for the DOI decisions, the Permitting Timetable will be updated accordingly.&nbsp;&nbsp;
DOI has intervenor status for this proposal and anticipates using the FERC NEPA documentation, to the extent possible,&nbsp;to render render a decision and issue it's authorizations 90 days after FERC issues it's license.&nbsp; DOI will continue to consult with FERC on the development of the NEPA document, however, if additional review is needed for the DOI decisions, the Permitting Timetable will be updated accordingly.&nbsp;&nbsp;
DOI has intervenor status for this proposal and anticipates using the FERC NEPA documentation, to the extent possible,&nbsp;to render render a decision and issue it's authorizations 90 days after FERC issues it's license.&nbsp; DOI will continue to consult with FERC on the development of the NEPA document, however, if additional review is needed for the DOI decisions, the Permitting Timetable will be updated accordingly.&nbsp;&nbsp;
DOI has intervenor status for this proposal and anticipates using the FERC NEPA documentation, to the extent possible,&nbsp;to render render a decision and issue it's authorizations 90 days after FERC issues it's license.&nbsp; DOI will continue to consult with FERC on the development of the NEPA document, however, if additional review is needed for the DOI decisions, the Permitting Timetable will be updated accordingly.&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the potential impacts of Charlotte Douglas International Airport's (CLT) proposal to construct:Fourth Parallel Runway 1-19 (including End-Around Taxiways)Concourse B and Ramp ExpansionConcourse C and Ramp ExpansionDaily North Parking GarageThe CLT EIS will evaluate the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that may result from the Proposed Project. The FAA expects to complete the EIS in 2020.To ensure the Airport continues to meet current and future demand, the City of Charlotte Aviation Department (the Project Sponsor) has plans to implement airport improvements at CLT, proposed for construction by 2028, as recommended in its Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan/Master Plan Update and documented on the CLT Airport Layout Plan (ALP).
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the potential impacts of Charlotte Douglas International Airport's (CLT) proposal to construct:Fourth Parallel Runway 1-19 (including End-Around Taxiways)Concourse B and Ramp ExpansionConcourse C and Ramp ExpansionDaily North Parking GarageThe CLT EIS will evaluate the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that may result from the Proposed Project. The FAA expects to complete the EIS in 2020.To ensure the Airport continues to meet current and future demand, the City of Charlotte Aviation Department (the Project Sponsor) has plans to implement airport improvements at CLT, proposed for construction by 2028, as recommended in its Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan/Master Plan Update and documented on the CLT Airport Layout Plan (ALP).
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the potential impacts of Charlotte Douglas International Airport's (CLT) proposal to construct:Fourth Parallel Runway 1-19 (including End-Around Taxiways)Concourse B and Ramp ExpansionConcourse C and Ramp ExpansionDaily North Parking GarageThe CLT EIS will evaluate the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that may result from the Proposed Project. The FAA expects to complete the EIS in 2020.To ensure the Airport continues to meet current and future demand, the City of Charlotte Aviation Department (the Project Sponsor) has plans to implement airport improvements at CLT, proposed for construction by 2028, as recommended in its Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan/Master Plan Update and documented on the CLT Airport Layout Plan (ALP).
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the potential impacts of Charlotte Douglas International Airport's (CLT) proposal to construct:Fourth Parallel Runway 1-19 (including End-Around Taxiways)Concourse B and Ramp ExpansionConcourse C and Ramp ExpansionDaily North Parking GarageThe CLT EIS will evaluate the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that may result from the Proposed Project. The FAA expects to complete the EIS in 2020.To ensure the Airport continues to meet current and future demand, the City of Charlotte Aviation Department (the Project Sponsor) has plans to implement airport improvements at CLT, proposed for construction by 2028, as recommended in its Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan/Master Plan Update and documented on the CLT Airport Layout Plan (ALP).
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the potential impacts of Charlotte Douglas International Airport's (CLT) proposal to construct:Fourth Parallel Runway 1-19 (including End-Around Taxiways)Concourse B and Ramp ExpansionConcourse C and Ramp ExpansionDaily North Parking GarageThe CLT EIS will evaluate the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that may result from the Proposed Project. The FAA expects to complete the EIS in 2020.To ensure the Airport continues to meet current and future demand, the City of Charlotte Aviation Department (the Project Sponsor) has plans to implement airport improvements at CLT, proposed for construction by 2028, as recommended in its Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan/Master Plan Update and documented on the CLT Airport Layout Plan (ALP).
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the potential impacts of Charlotte Douglas International Airport's (CLT) proposal to construct:Fourth Parallel Runway 1-19 (including End-Around Taxiways)Concourse B and Ramp ExpansionConcourse C and Ramp ExpansionDaily North Parking GarageThe CLT EIS will evaluate the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that may result from the Proposed Project. The FAA expects to complete the EIS in 2020.To ensure the Airport continues to meet current and future demand, the City of Charlotte Aviation Department (the Project Sponsor) has plans to implement airport improvements at CLT, proposed for construction by 2028, as recommended in its Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan/Master Plan Update and documented on the CLT Airport Layout Plan (ALP).
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the potential impacts of Charlotte Douglas International Airport's (CLT) proposal to construct:Fourth Parallel Runway 1-19 (including End-Around Taxiways)Concourse B and Ramp ExpansionConcourse C and Ramp ExpansionDaily North Parking GarageThe CLT EIS will evaluate the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that may result from the Proposed Project. The FAA expects to complete the EIS in 2020.To ensure the Airport continues to meet current and future demand, the City of Charlotte Aviation Department (the Project Sponsor) has plans to implement airport improvements at CLT, proposed for construction by 2028, as recommended in its Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan/Master Plan Update and documented on the CLT Airport Layout Plan (ALP).
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the potential impacts of Charlotte Douglas International Airport's (CLT) proposal to construct:Fourth Parallel Runway 1-19 (including End-Around Taxiways)Concourse B and Ramp ExpansionConcourse C and Ramp ExpansionDaily North Parking GarageThe CLT EIS will evaluate the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that may result from the Proposed Project. The FAA expects to complete the EIS in 2020.To ensure the Airport continues to meet current and future demand, the City of Charlotte Aviation Department (the Project Sponsor) has plans to implement airport improvements at CLT, proposed for construction by 2028, as recommended in its Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan/Master Plan Update and documented on the CLT Airport Layout Plan (ALP).
The EIS will assess the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Airfield Safety Enhancement Project at Tucson International Airport that includes the following components:&nbsp; Construct a new center parallel taxiway and connecting taxiway system; a replacement Runway 11R-29L (proposed to be 11,000 feet long by 150 feet wide); acquisition of land for the runway object free area, taxiway object free area, runway safety area, and runway protection zone from U.S. Air Force Plant 44.&nbsp; This land acquisition also includes relocation of various military installation assets to locations elsewhere on Plant 44; and installation of navigational aids and development and/or modification of associated arrival and departure procedures.&nbsp; This proposed project also includes the release of airport land from federal obligations between the former East Hughes Access Road and newly constructed Aerospace Parkway.&nbsp; A portion of this land would be sold at fair market value to the U.S. Air Force on behalf of the National Guard Bureau in support of the 162nd Wing at Arizona Air National Guard Base for a Munitions Storage Area and access road.
The EIS will assess the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Airfield Safety Enhancement Project at Tucson International Airport that includes the following components:&nbsp; Construct a new center parallel taxiway and connecting taxiway system; a replacement Runway 11R-29L (proposed to be 11,000 feet long by 150 feet wide); acquisition of land for the runway object free area, taxiway object free area, runway safety area, and runway protection zone from U.S. Air Force Plant 44.&nbsp; This land acquisition also includes relocation of various military installation assets to locations elsewhere on Plant 44; and installation of navigational aids and development and/or modification of associated arrival and departure procedures.&nbsp; This proposed project also includes the release of airport land from federal obligations between the former East Hughes Access Road and newly constructed Aerospace Parkway.&nbsp; A portion of this land would be sold at fair market value to the U.S. Air Force on behalf of the National Guard Bureau in support of the 162nd Wing at Arizona Air National Guard Base for a Munitions Storage Area and access road.
The EIS will assess the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Airfield Safety Enhancement Project at Tucson International Airport that includes the following components:&nbsp; Construct a new center parallel taxiway and connecting taxiway system; a replacement Runway 11R-29L (proposed to be 11,000 feet long by 150 feet wide); acquisition of land for the runway object free area, taxiway object free area, runway safety area, and runway protection zone from U.S. Air Force Plant 44.&nbsp; This land acquisition also includes relocation of various military installation assets to locations elsewhere on Plant 44; and installation of navigational aids and development and/or modification of associated arrival and departure procedures.&nbsp; This proposed project also includes the release of airport land from federal obligations between the former East Hughes Access Road and newly constructed Aerospace Parkway.&nbsp; A portion of this land would be sold at fair market value to the U.S. Air Force on behalf of the National Guard Bureau in support of the 162nd Wing at Arizona Air National Guard Base for a Munitions Storage Area and access road.
The EIS will assess the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Airfield Safety Enhancement Project at Tucson International Airport that includes the following components:&nbsp; Construct a new center parallel taxiway and connecting taxiway system; a replacement Runway 11R-29L (proposed to be 11,000 feet long by 150 feet wide); acquisition of land for the runway object free area, taxiway object free area, runway safety area, and runway protection zone from U.S. Air Force Plant 44.&nbsp; This land acquisition also includes relocation of various military installation assets to locations elsewhere on Plant 44; and installation of navigational aids and development and/or modification of associated arrival and departure procedures.&nbsp; This proposed project also includes the release of airport land from federal obligations between the former East Hughes Access Road and newly constructed Aerospace Parkway.&nbsp; A portion of this land would be sold at fair market value to the U.S. Air Force on behalf of the National Guard Bureau in support of the 162nd Wing at Arizona Air National Guard Base for a Munitions Storage Area and access road.
The EIS will assess the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Airfield Safety Enhancement Project at Tucson International Airport that includes the following components:&nbsp; Construct a new center parallel taxiway and connecting taxiway system; a replacement Runway 11R-29L (proposed to be 11,000 feet long by 150 feet wide); acquisition of land for the runway object free area, taxiway object free area, runway safety area, and runway protection zone from U.S. Air Force Plant 44.&nbsp; This land acquisition also includes relocation of various military installation assets to locations elsewhere on Plant 44; and installation of navigational aids and development and/or modification of associated arrival and departure procedures.&nbsp; This proposed project also includes the release of airport land from federal obligations between the former East Hughes Access Road and newly constructed Aerospace Parkway.&nbsp; A portion of this land would be sold at fair market value to the U.S. Air Force on behalf of the National Guard Bureau in support of the 162nd Wing at Arizona Air National Guard Base for a Munitions Storage Area and access road.
The EIS will assess the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Airfield Safety Enhancement Project at Tucson International Airport that includes the following components:&nbsp; Construct a new center parallel taxiway and connecting taxiway system; a replacement Runway 11R-29L (proposed to be 11,000 feet long by 150 feet wide); acquisition of land for the runway object free area, taxiway object free area, runway safety area, and runway protection zone from U.S. Air Force Plant 44.&nbsp; This land acquisition also includes relocation of various military installation assets to locations elsewhere on Plant 44; and installation of navigational aids and development and/or modification of associated arrival and departure procedures.&nbsp; This proposed project also includes the release of airport land from federal obligations between the former East Hughes Access Road and newly constructed Aerospace Parkway.&nbsp; A portion of this land would be sold at fair market value to the U.S. Air Force on behalf of the National Guard Bureau in support of the 162nd Wing at Arizona Air National Guard Base for a Munitions Storage Area and access road.
The EIS will assess the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Airfield Safety Enhancement Project at Tucson International Airport that includes the following components:&nbsp; Construct a new center parallel taxiway and connecting taxiway system; a replacement Runway 11R-29L (proposed to be 11,000 feet long by 150 feet wide); acquisition of land for the runway object free area, taxiway object free area, runway safety area, and runway protection zone from U.S. Air Force Plant 44.&nbsp; This land acquisition also includes relocation of various military installation assets to locations elsewhere on Plant 44; and installation of navigational aids and development and/or modification of associated arrival and departure procedures.&nbsp; This proposed project also includes the release of airport land from federal obligations between the former East Hughes Access Road and newly constructed Aerospace Parkway.&nbsp; A portion of this land would be sold at fair market value to the U.S. Air Force on behalf of the National Guard Bureau in support of the 162nd Wing at Arizona Air National Guard Base for a Munitions Storage Area and access road.
The EIS will assess the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Airfield Safety Enhancement Project at Tucson International Airport that includes the following components:&nbsp; Construct a new center parallel taxiway and connecting taxiway system; a replacement Runway 11R-29L (proposed to be 11,000 feet long by 150 feet wide); acquisition of land for the runway object free area, taxiway object free area, runway safety area, and runway protection zone from U.S. Air Force Plant 44.&nbsp; This land acquisition also includes relocation of various military installation assets to locations elsewhere on Plant 44; and installation of navigational aids and development and/or modification of associated arrival and departure procedures.&nbsp; This proposed project also includes the release of airport land from federal obligations between the former East Hughes Access Road and newly constructed Aerospace Parkway.&nbsp; A portion of this land would be sold at fair market value to the U.S. Air Force on behalf of the National Guard Bureau in support of the 162nd Wing at Arizona Air National Guard Base for a Munitions Storage Area and access road.
North Landside Development includes&nbsp;pavement rehabilitation, reconfiguration of existing aircraft parking apron, new taxilanes, corporate hangar construction, airfield fuel facility, parking facilities, additional apron, grading, utility extensions, land trade, and wetland mitigation.
North Landside Development includes&nbsp;pavement rehabilitation, reconfiguration of existing aircraft parking apron, new taxilanes, corporate hangar construction, airfield fuel facility, parking facilities, additional apron, grading, utility extensions, land trade, and wetland mitigation.
North Landside Development includes&nbsp;pavement rehabilitation, reconfiguration of existing aircraft parking apron, new taxilanes, corporate hangar construction, airfield fuel facility, parking facilities, additional apron, grading, utility extensions, land trade, and wetland mitigation.
North Landside Development includes&nbsp;pavement rehabilitation, reconfiguration of existing aircraft parking apron, new taxilanes, corporate hangar construction, airfield fuel facility, parking facilities, additional apron, grading, utility extensions, land trade, and wetland mitigation.
North Landside Development includes&nbsp;pavement rehabilitation, reconfiguration of existing aircraft parking apron, new taxilanes, corporate hangar construction, airfield fuel facility, parking facilities, additional apron, grading, utility extensions, land trade, and wetland mitigation.
North Landside Development includes&nbsp;pavement rehabilitation, reconfiguration of existing aircraft parking apron, new taxilanes, corporate hangar construction, airfield fuel facility, parking facilities, additional apron, grading, utility extensions, land trade, and wetland mitigation.
North Landside Development includes&nbsp;pavement rehabilitation, reconfiguration of existing aircraft parking apron, new taxilanes, corporate hangar construction, airfield fuel facility, parking facilities, additional apron, grading, utility extensions, land trade, and wetland mitigation.
North Landside Development includes&nbsp;pavement rehabilitation, reconfiguration of existing aircraft parking apron, new taxilanes, corporate hangar construction, airfield fuel facility, parking facilities, additional apron, grading, utility extensions, land trade, and wetland mitigation.
North Landside Development includes&nbsp;pavement rehabilitation, reconfiguration of existing aircraft parking apron, new taxilanes, corporate hangar construction, airfield fuel facility, parking facilities, additional apron, grading, utility extensions, land trade, and wetland mitigation.
Plains Pipeline, L.P. filed a right-of-way application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Bakersfield Office&nbsp;on January 9, 2018,&nbsp;for the replacement and abandonment&nbsp;of existing oil pipelines 901 and 903. The project spans multiple local, State and Federal jurisdictions. The proposed project consists of installation and operation of approximately 123.4&nbsp;miles of replacement pipelines 901R and 903R, supporting access roads, valves, and pump stations.&nbsp;

A Standard Individual Permit (SIP)&nbsp;application was submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers&nbsp;on October 5, 2020&nbsp;to replace the original Nation Wide Permit (NWP)&nbsp;12 Per-Construction Notification(PCN) application while the project was in paused status.
Plains Pipeline, L.P. filed a right-of-way application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Bakersfield Office&nbsp;on January 9, 2018,&nbsp;for the replacement and abandonment&nbsp;of existing oil pipelines 901 and 903. The project spans multiple local, State and Federal jurisdictions. The proposed project consists of installation and operation of approximately 123.4&nbsp;miles of replacement pipelines 901R and 903R, supporting access roads, valves, and pump stations.&nbsp;

A Standard Individual Permit (SIP)&nbsp;application was submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers&nbsp;on October 5, 2020&nbsp;to replace the original Nation Wide Permit (NWP)&nbsp;12 Per-Construction Notification(PCN) application while the project was in paused status.
Plains Pipeline, L.P. filed a right-of-way application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Bakersfield Office&nbsp;on January 9, 2018,&nbsp;for the replacement and abandonment&nbsp;of existing oil pipelines 901 and 903. The project spans multiple local, State and Federal jurisdictions. The proposed project consists of installation and operation of approximately 123.4&nbsp;miles of replacement pipelines 901R and 903R, supporting access roads, valves, and pump stations.&nbsp;

A Standard Individual Permit (SIP)&nbsp;application was submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers&nbsp;on October 5, 2020&nbsp;to replace the original Nation Wide Permit (NWP)&nbsp;12 Per-Construction Notification(PCN) application while the project was in paused status.
Plains Pipeline, L.P. filed a right-of-way application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Bakersfield Office&nbsp;on January 9, 2018,&nbsp;for the replacement and abandonment&nbsp;of existing oil pipelines 901 and 903. The project spans multiple local, State and Federal jurisdictions. The proposed project consists of installation and operation of approximately 123.4&nbsp;miles of replacement pipelines 901R and 903R, supporting access roads, valves, and pump stations.&nbsp;

A Standard Individual Permit (SIP)&nbsp;application was submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers&nbsp;on October 5, 2020&nbsp;to replace the original Nation Wide Permit (NWP)&nbsp;12 Per-Construction Notification(PCN) application while the project was in paused status.
Plains Pipeline, L.P. filed a right-of-way application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Bakersfield Office&nbsp;on January 9, 2018,&nbsp;for the replacement and abandonment&nbsp;of existing oil pipelines 901 and 903. The project spans multiple local, State and Federal jurisdictions. The proposed project consists of installation and operation of approximately 123.4&nbsp;miles of replacement pipelines 901R and 903R, supporting access roads, valves, and pump stations.&nbsp;

A Standard Individual Permit (SIP)&nbsp;application was submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers&nbsp;on October 5, 2020&nbsp;to replace the original Nation Wide Permit (NWP)&nbsp;12 Per-Construction Notification(PCN) application while the project was in paused status.
Plains Pipeline, L.P. filed a right-of-way application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Bakersfield Office&nbsp;on January 9, 2018,&nbsp;for the replacement and abandonment&nbsp;of existing oil pipelines 901 and 903. The project spans multiple local, State and Federal jurisdictions. The proposed project consists of installation and operation of approximately 123.4&nbsp;miles of replacement pipelines 901R and 903R, supporting access roads, valves, and pump stations.&nbsp;

A Standard Individual Permit (SIP)&nbsp;application was submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers&nbsp;on October 5, 2020&nbsp;to replace the original Nation Wide Permit (NWP)&nbsp;12 Per-Construction Notification(PCN) application while the project was in paused status.
Plains Pipeline, L.P. filed a right-of-way application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Bakersfield Office&nbsp;on January 9, 2018,&nbsp;for the replacement and abandonment&nbsp;of existing oil pipelines 901 and 903. The project spans multiple local, State and Federal jurisdictions. The proposed project consists of installation and operation of approximately 123.4&nbsp;miles of replacement pipelines 901R and 903R, supporting access roads, valves, and pump stations.&nbsp;

A Standard Individual Permit (SIP)&nbsp;application was submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers&nbsp;on October 5, 2020&nbsp;to replace the original Nation Wide Permit (NWP)&nbsp;12 Per-Construction Notification(PCN) application while the project was in paused status.
Plains Pipeline, L.P. filed a right-of-way application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Bakersfield Office&nbsp;on January 9, 2018,&nbsp;for the replacement and abandonment&nbsp;of existing oil pipelines 901 and 903. The project spans multiple local, State and Federal jurisdictions. The proposed project consists of installation and operation of approximately 123.4&nbsp;miles of replacement pipelines 901R and 903R, supporting access roads, valves, and pump stations.&nbsp;

A Standard Individual Permit (SIP)&nbsp;application was submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers&nbsp;on October 5, 2020&nbsp;to replace the original Nation Wide Permit (NWP)&nbsp;12 Per-Construction Notification(PCN) application while the project was in paused status.
Plains Pipeline, L.P. filed a right-of-way application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Bakersfield Office&nbsp;on January 9, 2018,&nbsp;for the replacement and abandonment&nbsp;of existing oil pipelines 901 and 903. The project spans multiple local, State and Federal jurisdictions. The proposed project consists of installation and operation of approximately 123.4&nbsp;miles of replacement pipelines 901R and 903R, supporting access roads, valves, and pump stations.&nbsp;

A Standard Individual Permit (SIP)&nbsp;application was submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers&nbsp;on October 5, 2020&nbsp;to replace the original Nation Wide Permit (NWP)&nbsp;12 Per-Construction Notification(PCN) application while the project was in paused status.
Plains Pipeline, L.P. filed a right-of-way application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Bakersfield Office&nbsp;on January 9, 2018,&nbsp;for the replacement and abandonment&nbsp;of existing oil pipelines 901 and 903. The project spans multiple local, State and Federal jurisdictions. The proposed project consists of installation and operation of approximately 123.4&nbsp;miles of replacement pipelines 901R and 903R, supporting access roads, valves, and pump stations.&nbsp;

A Standard Individual Permit (SIP)&nbsp;application was submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers&nbsp;on October 5, 2020&nbsp;to replace the original Nation Wide Permit (NWP)&nbsp;12 Per-Construction Notification(PCN) application while the project was in paused status.
Plains Pipeline, L.P. filed a right-of-way application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Bakersfield Office&nbsp;on January 9, 2018,&nbsp;for the replacement and abandonment&nbsp;of existing oil pipelines 901 and 903. The project spans multiple local, State and Federal jurisdictions. The proposed project consists of installation and operation of approximately 123.4&nbsp;miles of replacement pipelines 901R and 903R, supporting access roads, valves, and pump stations.&nbsp;

A Standard Individual Permit (SIP)&nbsp;application was submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers&nbsp;on October 5, 2020&nbsp;to replace the original Nation Wide Permit (NWP)&nbsp;12 Per-Construction Notification(PCN) application while the project was in paused status.
DOE has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, Sections 3(a) and 3(c), for the permitting of natural gas exports from the United States.&nbsp;The application under Section 3(a) is before DOE and tied to the NEPA review at FERC.&nbsp;
DOE has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, Sections 3(a) and 3(c), for the permitting of natural gas exports from the United States.&nbsp;The application under Section 3(a) is before DOE and tied to the NEPA review at FERC.&nbsp;
DOE has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, Sections 3(a) and 3(c), for the permitting of natural gas exports from the United States.&nbsp;The application under Section 3(a) is before DOE and tied to the NEPA review at FERC.&nbsp;
DOE has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, Sections 3(a) and 3(c), for the permitting of natural gas exports from the United States.&nbsp;The application under Section 3(a) is before DOE and tied to the NEPA review at FERC.&nbsp;
DOE has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, Sections 3(a) and 3(c), for the permitting of natural gas exports from the United States.&nbsp;The application under Section 3(a) is before DOE and tied to the NEPA review at FERC.&nbsp;
Seven listed species and /or their habitats are found in the project area.&nbsp; FWS received a request for ESA consultation on July 11, 2019.&nbsp; On July 31, 2019, FWS requested additional information on the proposed Alaska LNG project description before it can begin formal consultation. On 2/3/20, FWS determined it had a complete consultation initiation package and started formal consultation. FWS will deliver a BO to FERC NLT 6/17/20, which is 135 days from Milestone 2.
Seven listed species and /or their habitats are found in the project area.&nbsp; FWS received a request for ESA consultation on July 11, 2019.&nbsp; On July 31, 2019, FWS requested additional information on the proposed Alaska LNG project description before it can begin formal consultation. On 2/3/20, FWS determined it had a complete consultation initiation package and started formal consultation. FWS will deliver a BO to FERC NLT 6/17/20, which is 135 days from Milestone 2.
Seven listed species and /or their habitats are found in the project area.&nbsp; FWS received a request for ESA consultation on July 11, 2019.&nbsp; On July 31, 2019, FWS requested additional information on the proposed Alaska LNG project description before it can begin formal consultation. On 2/3/20, FWS determined it had a complete consultation initiation package and started formal consultation. FWS will deliver a BO to FERC NLT 6/17/20, which is 135 days from Milestone 2.
Seven listed species and /or their habitats are found in the project area.&nbsp; FWS received a request for ESA consultation on July 11, 2019.&nbsp; On July 31, 2019, FWS requested additional information on the proposed Alaska LNG project description before it can begin formal consultation. On 2/3/20, FWS determined it had a complete consultation initiation package and started formal consultation. FWS will deliver a BO to FERC NLT 6/17/20, which is 135 days from Milestone 2.
Section 408 review is required to grant permission for alteration of L-31N and 8.5 SMA Levees due to the Turkey Point Power Plant in southern Miami-Dade County.BACKGROUND: Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) received Site Certification for an expansion project at the Turkey Point Power Plant in southern Miami-Dade County. The new facilities includes 88 miles of new transmission corridors. A portion of the West Consesnsu Corridor will be located adjacent to the L-31N canal, 8.5SMA Seepage Canal Levees and the 8.5 SMA Perimeter Levee and approximately 7.5 miles of the proposed transmission corridor project will impact these levees. The proposed improvements include construction of access road and fill pads for installation of transmission line structures. Existing undesirable vegetation will be removed, and the new road and structure pads will be constructed to meet levee earthwork requirements.
Section 408 review is required to grant permission for alteration of L-31N and 8.5 SMA Levees due to the Turkey Point Power Plant in southern Miami-Dade County.BACKGROUND: Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) received Site Certification for an expansion project at the Turkey Point Power Plant in southern Miami-Dade County. The new facilities includes 88 miles of new transmission corridors. A portion of the West Consesnsu Corridor will be located adjacent to the L-31N canal, 8.5SMA Seepage Canal Levees and the 8.5 SMA Perimeter Levee and approximately 7.5 miles of the proposed transmission corridor project will impact these levees. The proposed improvements include construction of access road and fill pads for installation of transmission line structures. Existing undesirable vegetation will be removed, and the new road and structure pads will be constructed to meet levee earthwork requirements.
Section 408 review is required to grant permission for alteration of L-31N and 8.5 SMA Levees due to the Turkey Point Power Plant in southern Miami-Dade County.BACKGROUND: Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) received Site Certification for an expansion project at the Turkey Point Power Plant in southern Miami-Dade County. The new facilities includes 88 miles of new transmission corridors. A portion of the West Consesnsu Corridor will be located adjacent to the L-31N canal, 8.5SMA Seepage Canal Levees and the 8.5 SMA Perimeter Levee and approximately 7.5 miles of the proposed transmission corridor project will impact these levees. The proposed improvements include construction of access road and fill pads for installation of transmission line structures. Existing undesirable vegetation will be removed, and the new road and structure pads will be constructed to meet levee earthwork requirements.
Section 408 review is required to grant permission for alteration of L-31N and 8.5 SMA Levees due to the Turkey Point Power Plant in southern Miami-Dade County.BACKGROUND: Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) received Site Certification for an expansion project at the Turkey Point Power Plant in southern Miami-Dade County. The new facilities includes 88 miles of new transmission corridors. A portion of the West Consesnsu Corridor will be located adjacent to the L-31N canal, 8.5SMA Seepage Canal Levees and the 8.5 SMA Perimeter Levee and approximately 7.5 miles of the proposed transmission corridor project will impact these levees. The proposed improvements include construction of access road and fill pads for installation of transmission line structures. Existing undesirable vegetation will be removed, and the new road and structure pads will be constructed to meet levee earthwork requirements.
Section 408 review is required to grant permission for alteration of L-31N and 8.5 SMA Levees due to the Turkey Point Power Plant in southern Miami-Dade County.BACKGROUND: Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) received Site Certification for an expansion project at the Turkey Point Power Plant in southern Miami-Dade County. The new facilities includes 88 miles of new transmission corridors. A portion of the West Consesnsu Corridor will be located adjacent to the L-31N canal, 8.5SMA Seepage Canal Levees and the 8.5 SMA Perimeter Levee and approximately 7.5 miles of the proposed transmission corridor project will impact these levees. The proposed improvements include construction of access road and fill pads for installation of transmission line structures. Existing undesirable vegetation will be removed, and the new road and structure pads will be constructed to meet levee earthwork requirements.
This was originally a KY lead project named&nbsp;Future I-69 Bridge over the Ohio River Between Henderson and Evansville near US-41 Bridges (2-1088).

The purpose of the project will be to develop a financially feasible solution to the project’s identified needs. At this time, the anticipated primary purpose of this project will be to:
• Provide cross-river system linkage and connectivity between I-69 in Indiana and I-69 in Kentucky that is compatible
with the National I-69 Corridor.
• Develop a solution to address long-term cross-river mobility.
• Provide a cross-river connection that reduces traffic congestion and delay.
• Improve safety for cross-river traffic.

&nbsp;
This was originally a KY lead project named&nbsp;Future I-69 Bridge over the Ohio River Between Henderson and Evansville near US-41 Bridges (2-1088).

The purpose of the project will be to develop a financially feasible solution to the project’s identified needs. At this time, the anticipated primary purpose of this project will be to:
• Provide cross-river system linkage and connectivity between I-69 in Indiana and I-69 in Kentucky that is compatible
with the National I-69 Corridor.
• Develop a solution to address long-term cross-river mobility.
• Provide a cross-river connection that reduces traffic congestion and delay.
• Improve safety for cross-river traffic.

&nbsp;
This was originally a KY lead project named&nbsp;Future I-69 Bridge over the Ohio River Between Henderson and Evansville near US-41 Bridges (2-1088).

The purpose of the project will be to develop a financially feasible solution to the project’s identified needs. At this time, the anticipated primary purpose of this project will be to:
• Provide cross-river system linkage and connectivity between I-69 in Indiana and I-69 in Kentucky that is compatible
with the National I-69 Corridor.
• Develop a solution to address long-term cross-river mobility.
• Provide a cross-river connection that reduces traffic congestion and delay.
• Improve safety for cross-river traffic.

&nbsp;
This was originally a KY lead project named&nbsp;Future I-69 Bridge over the Ohio River Between Henderson and Evansville near US-41 Bridges (2-1088).

The purpose of the project will be to develop a financially feasible solution to the project’s identified needs. At this time, the anticipated primary purpose of this project will be to:
• Provide cross-river system linkage and connectivity between I-69 in Indiana and I-69 in Kentucky that is compatible
with the National I-69 Corridor.
• Develop a solution to address long-term cross-river mobility.
• Provide a cross-river connection that reduces traffic congestion and delay.
• Improve safety for cross-river traffic.

&nbsp;
This was originally a KY lead project named&nbsp;Future I-69 Bridge over the Ohio River Between Henderson and Evansville near US-41 Bridges (2-1088).

The purpose of the project will be to develop a financially feasible solution to the project’s identified needs. At this time, the anticipated primary purpose of this project will be to:
• Provide cross-river system linkage and connectivity between I-69 in Indiana and I-69 in Kentucky that is compatible
with the National I-69 Corridor.
• Develop a solution to address long-term cross-river mobility.
• Provide a cross-river connection that reduces traffic congestion and delay.
• Improve safety for cross-river traffic.

&nbsp;
This was originally a KY lead project named&nbsp;Future I-69 Bridge over the Ohio River Between Henderson and Evansville near US-41 Bridges (2-1088).

The purpose of the project will be to develop a financially feasible solution to the project’s identified needs. At this time, the anticipated primary purpose of this project will be to:
• Provide cross-river system linkage and connectivity between I-69 in Indiana and I-69 in Kentucky that is compatible
with the National I-69 Corridor.
• Develop a solution to address long-term cross-river mobility.
• Provide a cross-river connection that reduces traffic congestion and delay.
• Improve safety for cross-river traffic.

&nbsp;
This was originally a KY lead project named&nbsp;Future I-69 Bridge over the Ohio River Between Henderson and Evansville near US-41 Bridges (2-1088).

The purpose of the project will be to develop a financially feasible solution to the project’s identified needs. At this time, the anticipated primary purpose of this project will be to:
• Provide cross-river system linkage and connectivity between I-69 in Indiana and I-69 in Kentucky that is compatible
with the National I-69 Corridor.
• Develop a solution to address long-term cross-river mobility.
• Provide a cross-river connection that reduces traffic congestion and delay.
• Improve safety for cross-river traffic.

&nbsp;
This was originally a KY lead project named&nbsp;Future I-69 Bridge over the Ohio River Between Henderson and Evansville near US-41 Bridges (2-1088).

The purpose of the project will be to develop a financially feasible solution to the project’s identified needs. At this time, the anticipated primary purpose of this project will be to:
• Provide cross-river system linkage and connectivity between I-69 in Indiana and I-69 in Kentucky that is compatible
with the National I-69 Corridor.
• Develop a solution to address long-term cross-river mobility.
• Provide a cross-river connection that reduces traffic congestion and delay.
• Improve safety for cross-river traffic.

&nbsp;
This was originally a KY lead project named&nbsp;Future I-69 Bridge over the Ohio River Between Henderson and Evansville near US-41 Bridges (2-1088).

The purpose of the project will be to develop a financially feasible solution to the project’s identified needs. At this time, the anticipated primary purpose of this project will be to:
• Provide cross-river system linkage and connectivity between I-69 in Indiana and I-69 in Kentucky that is compatible
with the National I-69 Corridor.
• Develop a solution to address long-term cross-river mobility.
• Provide a cross-river connection that reduces traffic congestion and delay.
• Improve safety for cross-river traffic.

&nbsp;
This was originally a KY lead project named&nbsp;Future I-69 Bridge over the Ohio River Between Henderson and Evansville near US-41 Bridges (2-1088).

The purpose of the project will be to develop a financially feasible solution to the project’s identified needs. At this time, the anticipated primary purpose of this project will be to:
• Provide cross-river system linkage and connectivity between I-69 in Indiana and I-69 in Kentucky that is compatible
with the National I-69 Corridor.
• Develop a solution to address long-term cross-river mobility.
• Provide a cross-river connection that reduces traffic congestion and delay.
• Improve safety for cross-river traffic.

&nbsp;
This was originally a KY lead project named&nbsp;Future I-69 Bridge over the Ohio River Between Henderson and Evansville near US-41 Bridges (2-1088).

The purpose of the project will be to develop a financially feasible solution to the project’s identified needs. At this time, the anticipated primary purpose of this project will be to:
• Provide cross-river system linkage and connectivity between I-69 in Indiana and I-69 in Kentucky that is compatible
with the National I-69 Corridor.
• Develop a solution to address long-term cross-river mobility.
• Provide a cross-river connection that reduces traffic congestion and delay.
• Improve safety for cross-river traffic.

&nbsp;
The Reno Spaghetti Bowl was originally constructed between 1969 and 1971 for a metropolitan population of about 130,000 people. The current population of Washoe County has increased to approximately 420,000 people, with a forecasted growth rate exceeding state and national averages. As the existing Reno Spaghetti Bowl nears its design capacity, the proposed project is to provide necessary NEPA and design studies to determine appropriate measures to reconstruct the interchange to accommodate the future travel demands.&nbsp;

FHWA and NDOT are preparing an EIS for the Interstate 80/Interstate 580/US Route 395&nbsp;
(I‐80/I‐580/US 395) interchange, referred to as the Reno Spaghetti Bowl, located in Washoe County, Nevada. The study area is:&nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐80 Western Limit: Keystone Avenue
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐80 Eastern Limit: McCarran Boulevard East
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐580/US 395 Northern Limit: Parr Boulevard/Dandini Boulevard
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐580/US 395 Southern Limit: Meadowood Mall Way

&nbsp;
The Reno Spaghetti Bowl was originally constructed between 1969 and 1971 for a metropolitan population of about 130,000 people. The current population of Washoe County has increased to approximately 420,000 people, with a forecasted growth rate exceeding state and national averages. As the existing Reno Spaghetti Bowl nears its design capacity, the proposed project is to provide necessary NEPA and design studies to determine appropriate measures to reconstruct the interchange to accommodate the future travel demands.&nbsp;

FHWA and NDOT are preparing an EIS for the Interstate 80/Interstate 580/US Route 395&nbsp;
(I‐80/I‐580/US 395) interchange, referred to as the Reno Spaghetti Bowl, located in Washoe County, Nevada. The study area is:&nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐80 Western Limit: Keystone Avenue
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐80 Eastern Limit: McCarran Boulevard East
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐580/US 395 Northern Limit: Parr Boulevard/Dandini Boulevard
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐580/US 395 Southern Limit: Meadowood Mall Way

&nbsp;
The Reno Spaghetti Bowl was originally constructed between 1969 and 1971 for a metropolitan population of about 130,000 people. The current population of Washoe County has increased to approximately 420,000 people, with a forecasted growth rate exceeding state and national averages. As the existing Reno Spaghetti Bowl nears its design capacity, the proposed project is to provide necessary NEPA and design studies to determine appropriate measures to reconstruct the interchange to accommodate the future travel demands.&nbsp;

FHWA and NDOT are preparing an EIS for the Interstate 80/Interstate 580/US Route 395&nbsp;
(I‐80/I‐580/US 395) interchange, referred to as the Reno Spaghetti Bowl, located in Washoe County, Nevada. The study area is:&nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐80 Western Limit: Keystone Avenue
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐80 Eastern Limit: McCarran Boulevard East
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐580/US 395 Northern Limit: Parr Boulevard/Dandini Boulevard
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐580/US 395 Southern Limit: Meadowood Mall Way

&nbsp;
The Reno Spaghetti Bowl was originally constructed between 1969 and 1971 for a metropolitan population of about 130,000 people. The current population of Washoe County has increased to approximately 420,000 people, with a forecasted growth rate exceeding state and national averages. As the existing Reno Spaghetti Bowl nears its design capacity, the proposed project is to provide necessary NEPA and design studies to determine appropriate measures to reconstruct the interchange to accommodate the future travel demands.&nbsp;

FHWA and NDOT are preparing an EIS for the Interstate 80/Interstate 580/US Route 395&nbsp;
(I‐80/I‐580/US 395) interchange, referred to as the Reno Spaghetti Bowl, located in Washoe County, Nevada. The study area is:&nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐80 Western Limit: Keystone Avenue
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐80 Eastern Limit: McCarran Boulevard East
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐580/US 395 Northern Limit: Parr Boulevard/Dandini Boulevard
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐580/US 395 Southern Limit: Meadowood Mall Way

&nbsp;
The Reno Spaghetti Bowl was originally constructed between 1969 and 1971 for a metropolitan population of about 130,000 people. The current population of Washoe County has increased to approximately 420,000 people, with a forecasted growth rate exceeding state and national averages. As the existing Reno Spaghetti Bowl nears its design capacity, the proposed project is to provide necessary NEPA and design studies to determine appropriate measures to reconstruct the interchange to accommodate the future travel demands.&nbsp;

FHWA and NDOT are preparing an EIS for the Interstate 80/Interstate 580/US Route 395&nbsp;
(I‐80/I‐580/US 395) interchange, referred to as the Reno Spaghetti Bowl, located in Washoe County, Nevada. The study area is:&nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐80 Western Limit: Keystone Avenue
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐80 Eastern Limit: McCarran Boulevard East
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐580/US 395 Northern Limit: Parr Boulevard/Dandini Boulevard
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐580/US 395 Southern Limit: Meadowood Mall Way

&nbsp;
The Reno Spaghetti Bowl was originally constructed between 1969 and 1971 for a metropolitan population of about 130,000 people. The current population of Washoe County has increased to approximately 420,000 people, with a forecasted growth rate exceeding state and national averages. As the existing Reno Spaghetti Bowl nears its design capacity, the proposed project is to provide necessary NEPA and design studies to determine appropriate measures to reconstruct the interchange to accommodate the future travel demands.&nbsp;

FHWA and NDOT are preparing an EIS for the Interstate 80/Interstate 580/US Route 395&nbsp;
(I‐80/I‐580/US 395) interchange, referred to as the Reno Spaghetti Bowl, located in Washoe County, Nevada. The study area is:&nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐80 Western Limit: Keystone Avenue
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐80 Eastern Limit: McCarran Boulevard East
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐580/US 395 Northern Limit: Parr Boulevard/Dandini Boulevard
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐580/US 395 Southern Limit: Meadowood Mall Way

&nbsp;
The Reno Spaghetti Bowl was originally constructed between 1969 and 1971 for a metropolitan population of about 130,000 people. The current population of Washoe County has increased to approximately 420,000 people, with a forecasted growth rate exceeding state and national averages. As the existing Reno Spaghetti Bowl nears its design capacity, the proposed project is to provide necessary NEPA and design studies to determine appropriate measures to reconstruct the interchange to accommodate the future travel demands.&nbsp;

FHWA and NDOT are preparing an EIS for the Interstate 80/Interstate 580/US Route 395&nbsp;
(I‐80/I‐580/US 395) interchange, referred to as the Reno Spaghetti Bowl, located in Washoe County, Nevada. The study area is:&nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐80 Western Limit: Keystone Avenue
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐80 Eastern Limit: McCarran Boulevard East
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐580/US 395 Northern Limit: Parr Boulevard/Dandini Boulevard
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐580/US 395 Southern Limit: Meadowood Mall Way

&nbsp;
The Reno Spaghetti Bowl was originally constructed between 1969 and 1971 for a metropolitan population of about 130,000 people. The current population of Washoe County has increased to approximately 420,000 people, with a forecasted growth rate exceeding state and national averages. As the existing Reno Spaghetti Bowl nears its design capacity, the proposed project is to provide necessary NEPA and design studies to determine appropriate measures to reconstruct the interchange to accommodate the future travel demands.&nbsp;

FHWA and NDOT are preparing an EIS for the Interstate 80/Interstate 580/US Route 395&nbsp;
(I‐80/I‐580/US 395) interchange, referred to as the Reno Spaghetti Bowl, located in Washoe County, Nevada. The study area is:&nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐80 Western Limit: Keystone Avenue
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐80 Eastern Limit: McCarran Boulevard East
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐580/US 395 Northern Limit: Parr Boulevard/Dandini Boulevard
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐580/US 395 Southern Limit: Meadowood Mall Way

&nbsp;
The Reno Spaghetti Bowl was originally constructed between 1969 and 1971 for a metropolitan population of about 130,000 people. The current population of Washoe County has increased to approximately 420,000 people, with a forecasted growth rate exceeding state and national averages. As the existing Reno Spaghetti Bowl nears its design capacity, the proposed project is to provide necessary NEPA and design studies to determine appropriate measures to reconstruct the interchange to accommodate the future travel demands.&nbsp;

FHWA and NDOT are preparing an EIS for the Interstate 80/Interstate 580/US Route 395&nbsp;
(I‐80/I‐580/US 395) interchange, referred to as the Reno Spaghetti Bowl, located in Washoe County, Nevada. The study area is:&nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐80 Western Limit: Keystone Avenue
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐80 Eastern Limit: McCarran Boulevard East
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐580/US 395 Northern Limit: Parr Boulevard/Dandini Boulevard
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐580/US 395 Southern Limit: Meadowood Mall Way

&nbsp;
The Reno Spaghetti Bowl was originally constructed between 1969 and 1971 for a metropolitan population of about 130,000 people. The current population of Washoe County has increased to approximately 420,000 people, with a forecasted growth rate exceeding state and national averages. As the existing Reno Spaghetti Bowl nears its design capacity, the proposed project is to provide necessary NEPA and design studies to determine appropriate measures to reconstruct the interchange to accommodate the future travel demands.&nbsp;

FHWA and NDOT are preparing an EIS for the Interstate 80/Interstate 580/US Route 395&nbsp;
(I‐80/I‐580/US 395) interchange, referred to as the Reno Spaghetti Bowl, located in Washoe County, Nevada. The study area is:&nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐80 Western Limit: Keystone Avenue
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐80 Eastern Limit: McCarran Boulevard East
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐580/US 395 Northern Limit: Parr Boulevard/Dandini Boulevard
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐580/US 395 Southern Limit: Meadowood Mall Way

&nbsp;
The Reno Spaghetti Bowl was originally constructed between 1969 and 1971 for a metropolitan population of about 130,000 people. The current population of Washoe County has increased to approximately 420,000 people, with a forecasted growth rate exceeding state and national averages. As the existing Reno Spaghetti Bowl nears its design capacity, the proposed project is to provide necessary NEPA and design studies to determine appropriate measures to reconstruct the interchange to accommodate the future travel demands.&nbsp;

FHWA and NDOT are preparing an EIS for the Interstate 80/Interstate 580/US Route 395&nbsp;
(I‐80/I‐580/US 395) interchange, referred to as the Reno Spaghetti Bowl, located in Washoe County, Nevada. The study area is:&nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐80 Western Limit: Keystone Avenue
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐80 Eastern Limit: McCarran Boulevard East
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐580/US 395 Northern Limit: Parr Boulevard/Dandini Boulevard
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I‐580/US 395 Southern Limit: Meadowood Mall Way

&nbsp;
The City of Savannah, in partnership with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), has been leading a multi-year planning and design effort (known locally as “Project DeRenne”) to study and develop feasible solutions to inadequate mobility and congestion along DeRenne Avenue, a major arterial roadway that serves as a critical east-west connection within the City of Savannah and Chatham County. The proposed projects consist of a new location roadway (West DeRenne/Hampstead Connector) and operational improvements along West DeRenne and East DeRenne avenues in Savannah, Georgia from I-516 to Truman Parkway.
The City of Savannah, in partnership with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), has been leading a multi-year planning and design effort (known locally as “Project DeRenne”) to study and develop feasible solutions to inadequate mobility and congestion along DeRenne Avenue, a major arterial roadway that serves as a critical east-west connection within the City of Savannah and Chatham County. The proposed projects consist of a new location roadway (West DeRenne/Hampstead Connector) and operational improvements along West DeRenne and East DeRenne avenues in Savannah, Georgia from I-516 to Truman Parkway.
The City of Savannah, in partnership with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), has been leading a multi-year planning and design effort (known locally as “Project DeRenne”) to study and develop feasible solutions to inadequate mobility and congestion along DeRenne Avenue, a major arterial roadway that serves as a critical east-west connection within the City of Savannah and Chatham County. The proposed projects consist of a new location roadway (West DeRenne/Hampstead Connector) and operational improvements along West DeRenne and East DeRenne avenues in Savannah, Georgia from I-516 to Truman Parkway.
The City of Savannah, in partnership with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), has been leading a multi-year planning and design effort (known locally as “Project DeRenne”) to study and develop feasible solutions to inadequate mobility and congestion along DeRenne Avenue, a major arterial roadway that serves as a critical east-west connection within the City of Savannah and Chatham County. The proposed projects consist of a new location roadway (West DeRenne/Hampstead Connector) and operational improvements along West DeRenne and East DeRenne avenues in Savannah, Georgia from I-516 to Truman Parkway.
The City of Savannah, in partnership with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), has been leading a multi-year planning and design effort (known locally as “Project DeRenne”) to study and develop feasible solutions to inadequate mobility and congestion along DeRenne Avenue, a major arterial roadway that serves as a critical east-west connection within the City of Savannah and Chatham County. The proposed projects consist of a new location roadway (West DeRenne/Hampstead Connector) and operational improvements along West DeRenne and East DeRenne avenues in Savannah, Georgia from I-516 to Truman Parkway.
The City of Savannah, in partnership with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), has been leading a multi-year planning and design effort (known locally as “Project DeRenne”) to study and develop feasible solutions to inadequate mobility and congestion along DeRenne Avenue, a major arterial roadway that serves as a critical east-west connection within the City of Savannah and Chatham County. The proposed projects consist of a new location roadway (West DeRenne/Hampstead Connector) and operational improvements along West DeRenne and East DeRenne avenues in Savannah, Georgia from I-516 to Truman Parkway.
The City of Savannah, in partnership with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), has been leading a multi-year planning and design effort (known locally as “Project DeRenne”) to study and develop feasible solutions to inadequate mobility and congestion along DeRenne Avenue, a major arterial roadway that serves as a critical east-west connection within the City of Savannah and Chatham County. The proposed projects consist of a new location roadway (West DeRenne/Hampstead Connector) and operational improvements along West DeRenne and East DeRenne avenues in Savannah, Georgia from I-516 to Truman Parkway.
The City of Savannah, in partnership with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), has been leading a multi-year planning and design effort (known locally as “Project DeRenne”) to study and develop feasible solutions to inadequate mobility and congestion along DeRenne Avenue, a major arterial roadway that serves as a critical east-west connection within the City of Savannah and Chatham County. The proposed projects consist of a new location roadway (West DeRenne/Hampstead Connector) and operational improvements along West DeRenne and East DeRenne avenues in Savannah, Georgia from I-516 to Truman Parkway.
The City of Savannah, in partnership with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), has been leading a multi-year planning and design effort (known locally as “Project DeRenne”) to study and develop feasible solutions to inadequate mobility and congestion along DeRenne Avenue, a major arterial roadway that serves as a critical east-west connection within the City of Savannah and Chatham County. The proposed projects consist of a new location roadway (West DeRenne/Hampstead Connector) and operational improvements along West DeRenne and East DeRenne avenues in Savannah, Georgia from I-516 to Truman Parkway.
The City of Savannah, in partnership with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), has been leading a multi-year planning and design effort (known locally as “Project DeRenne”) to study and develop feasible solutions to inadequate mobility and congestion along DeRenne Avenue, a major arterial roadway that serves as a critical east-west connection within the City of Savannah and Chatham County. The proposed projects consist of a new location roadway (West DeRenne/Hampstead Connector) and operational improvements along West DeRenne and East DeRenne avenues in Savannah, Georgia from I-516 to Truman Parkway.
The City of Savannah, in partnership with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), has been leading a multi-year planning and design effort (known locally as “Project DeRenne”) to study and develop feasible solutions to inadequate mobility and congestion along DeRenne Avenue, a major arterial roadway that serves as a critical east-west connection within the City of Savannah and Chatham County. The proposed projects consist of a new location roadway (West DeRenne/Hampstead Connector) and operational improvements along West DeRenne and East DeRenne avenues in Savannah, Georgia from I-516 to Truman Parkway.
Section 408 authorization (33 U.S.C. Part 408) is necessary&nbsp;as the proposed tunnel alignment would cross under a federally authorized navigation channel in the Anacostia River and adjacent levees. The Baltimore District of the US Army Corps of Engineers will commence its formal review of the project sponsor's request for Section 408 authorization upon receipt of a Joint Application for Permit.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Section 408 authorization (33 U.S.C. Part 408) is necessary&nbsp;as the proposed tunnel alignment would cross under a federally authorized navigation channel in the Anacostia River and adjacent levees. The Baltimore District of the US Army Corps of Engineers will commence its formal review of the project sponsor's request for Section 408 authorization upon receipt of a Joint Application for Permit.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Section 408 authorization (33 U.S.C. Part 408) is necessary&nbsp;as the proposed tunnel alignment would cross under a federally authorized navigation channel in the Anacostia River and adjacent levees. The Baltimore District of the US Army Corps of Engineers will commence its formal review of the project sponsor's request for Section 408 authorization upon receipt of a Joint Application for Permit.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Section 408 authorization (33 U.S.C. Part 408) is necessary&nbsp;as the proposed tunnel alignment would cross under a federally authorized navigation channel in the Anacostia River and adjacent levees. The Baltimore District of the US Army Corps of Engineers will commence its formal review of the project sponsor's request for Section 408 authorization upon receipt of a Joint Application for Permit.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Section 408 authorization (33 U.S.C. Part 408) is necessary&nbsp;as the proposed tunnel alignment would cross under a federally authorized navigation channel in the Anacostia River and adjacent levees. The Baltimore District of the US Army Corps of Engineers will commence its formal review of the project sponsor's request for Section 408 authorization upon receipt of a Joint Application for Permit.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
A Department of the Army permit is required for The Boring Company's Washington to Baltimore Loop Tunnel Project pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. Part 403).&nbsp; The reason for this is the twin tunnels would cross approximately 65 feet under the Anacostia River, a navigable water of&nbsp;the United States and construction activities in, over or under navigable waters require Section 10 authorization.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Baltimore District of the Corps will be responsible for processing a permit application for this project.&nbsp;The project may qualify for expedited processing under the Maryland State Programmatic General Permit but a determination cannot be made until a permit application is received and reviewed by the district.&nbsp; Based upon currently available information, construction of this project is not expected to result in discharges of dredged of fill material into jurisdictional waters of the United States and as such authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Part 1344) would not be required.&nbsp;It should be noted that a Department of the Army permit is only necessary for the crossing under the Anacostia River; other aspects of the presently proposed project would not be within Department of the Army jurisdiction and would not require authorization.
A Department of the Army permit is required for The Boring Company's Washington to Baltimore Loop Tunnel Project pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. Part 403).&nbsp; The reason for this is the twin tunnels would cross approximately 65 feet under the Anacostia River, a navigable water of&nbsp;the United States and construction activities in, over or under navigable waters require Section 10 authorization.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Baltimore District of the Corps will be responsible for processing a permit application for this project.&nbsp;The project may qualify for expedited processing under the Maryland State Programmatic General Permit but a determination cannot be made until a permit application is received and reviewed by the district.&nbsp; Based upon currently available information, construction of this project is not expected to result in discharges of dredged of fill material into jurisdictional waters of the United States and as such authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Part 1344) would not be required.&nbsp;It should be noted that a Department of the Army permit is only necessary for the crossing under the Anacostia River; other aspects of the presently proposed project would not be within Department of the Army jurisdiction and would not require authorization.
A Department of the Army permit is required for The Boring Company's Washington to Baltimore Loop Tunnel Project pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. Part 403).&nbsp; The reason for this is the twin tunnels would cross approximately 65 feet under the Anacostia River, a navigable water of&nbsp;the United States and construction activities in, over or under navigable waters require Section 10 authorization.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Baltimore District of the Corps will be responsible for processing a permit application for this project.&nbsp;The project may qualify for expedited processing under the Maryland State Programmatic General Permit but a determination cannot be made until a permit application is received and reviewed by the district.&nbsp; Based upon currently available information, construction of this project is not expected to result in discharges of dredged of fill material into jurisdictional waters of the United States and as such authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Part 1344) would not be required.&nbsp;It should be noted that a Department of the Army permit is only necessary for the crossing under the Anacostia River; other aspects of the presently proposed project would not be within Department of the Army jurisdiction and would not require authorization.
A Department of the Army permit is required for The Boring Company's Washington to Baltimore Loop Tunnel Project pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. Part 403).&nbsp; The reason for this is the twin tunnels would cross approximately 65 feet under the Anacostia River, a navigable water of&nbsp;the United States and construction activities in, over or under navigable waters require Section 10 authorization.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Baltimore District of the Corps will be responsible for processing a permit application for this project.&nbsp;The project may qualify for expedited processing under the Maryland State Programmatic General Permit but a determination cannot be made until a permit application is received and reviewed by the district.&nbsp; Based upon currently available information, construction of this project is not expected to result in discharges of dredged of fill material into jurisdictional waters of the United States and as such authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Part 1344) would not be required.&nbsp;It should be noted that a Department of the Army permit is only necessary for the crossing under the Anacostia River; other aspects of the presently proposed project would not be within Department of the Army jurisdiction and would not require authorization.
Issue Right of Way&nbsp;for each of two underground pipeline&nbsp;projects: (1) the Riley Ridge Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Pipeline Project (WYW-167867) and (2) the Bairoil to Natrona CO2 Pipeline Project (WYW-168290).&nbsp; Issuance of the Rigts of Way is dependent on the BLM ROD.
Issue Right of Way&nbsp;for each of two underground pipeline&nbsp;projects: (1) the Riley Ridge Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Pipeline Project (WYW-167867) and (2) the Bairoil to Natrona CO2 Pipeline Project (WYW-168290).&nbsp; Issuance of the Rigts of Way is dependent on the BLM ROD.
Issue Right of Way&nbsp;for each of two underground pipeline&nbsp;projects: (1) the Riley Ridge Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Pipeline Project (WYW-167867) and (2) the Bairoil to Natrona CO2 Pipeline Project (WYW-168290).&nbsp; Issuance of the Rigts of Way is dependent on the BLM ROD.
Issue Right of Way&nbsp;for each of two underground pipeline&nbsp;projects: (1) the Riley Ridge Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Pipeline Project (WYW-167867) and (2) the Bairoil to Natrona CO2 Pipeline Project (WYW-168290).&nbsp; Issuance of the Rigts of Way is dependent on the BLM ROD.
Issue Right of Way&nbsp;for each of two underground pipeline&nbsp;projects: (1) the Riley Ridge Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Pipeline Project (WYW-167867) and (2) the Bairoil to Natrona CO2 Pipeline Project (WYW-168290).&nbsp; Issuance of the Rigts of Way is dependent on the BLM ROD.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) and the Santee-Lynches Regional Council of Governments (SLRCOG), will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal to provide a truck route in the vicinity of the City of Bishopville in Lee County, South Carolina, from US 15 near I-20, southwest of the City, to the junction of US 15 and Bethune Highway (SC 341), northeast of the City.&nbsp; The project study area is generally defined by the area bordered by US 15 / I-20 Interchange to the southwest, US 15 just north of Bethune Highway (SC 341) to the northeast, the intersection of Pinchum Sly Road (S-15) and Camden Highway (SC 34) to the northwest and the intersection of Wisacky Highway (SC 341) and Mac Stuckey Lane (local road) to the southeast.&nbsp;US 15 (N. Main Street) through downtown Bishopville is currently a two-lane roadway with a raised median and on-street parking. On average, over 700 large commercial trucks travel through downtown daily. The purpose of the project is to address the existing and future truck traffic traveling through downtown Bishopville. &nbsp;The EIS for the proposed project will consider the No-build Alternative as well as build alternatives within the identified project study area that would meet the purpose and need of the project. The EIS will promote informed decision making in the development of a solution to address truck traffic through the downtown area.&nbsp; This EIS will also evaluate options which may enhance the economic development of the area.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) and the Santee-Lynches Regional Council of Governments (SLRCOG), will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal to provide a truck route in the vicinity of the City of Bishopville in Lee County, South Carolina, from US 15 near I-20, southwest of the City, to the junction of US 15 and Bethune Highway (SC 341), northeast of the City.&nbsp; The project study area is generally defined by the area bordered by US 15 / I-20 Interchange to the southwest, US 15 just north of Bethune Highway (SC 341) to the northeast, the intersection of Pinchum Sly Road (S-15) and Camden Highway (SC 34) to the northwest and the intersection of Wisacky Highway (SC 341) and Mac Stuckey Lane (local road) to the southeast.&nbsp;US 15 (N. Main Street) through downtown Bishopville is currently a two-lane roadway with a raised median and on-street parking. On average, over 700 large commercial trucks travel through downtown daily. The purpose of the project is to address the existing and future truck traffic traveling through downtown Bishopville. &nbsp;The EIS for the proposed project will consider the No-build Alternative as well as build alternatives within the identified project study area that would meet the purpose and need of the project. The EIS will promote informed decision making in the development of a solution to address truck traffic through the downtown area.&nbsp; This EIS will also evaluate options which may enhance the economic development of the area.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) and the Santee-Lynches Regional Council of Governments (SLRCOG), will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal to provide a truck route in the vicinity of the City of Bishopville in Lee County, South Carolina, from US 15 near I-20, southwest of the City, to the junction of US 15 and Bethune Highway (SC 341), northeast of the City.&nbsp; The project study area is generally defined by the area bordered by US 15 / I-20 Interchange to the southwest, US 15 just north of Bethune Highway (SC 341) to the northeast, the intersection of Pinchum Sly Road (S-15) and Camden Highway (SC 34) to the northwest and the intersection of Wisacky Highway (SC 341) and Mac Stuckey Lane (local road) to the southeast.&nbsp;US 15 (N. Main Street) through downtown Bishopville is currently a two-lane roadway with a raised median and on-street parking. On average, over 700 large commercial trucks travel through downtown daily. The purpose of the project is to address the existing and future truck traffic traveling through downtown Bishopville. &nbsp;The EIS for the proposed project will consider the No-build Alternative as well as build alternatives within the identified project study area that would meet the purpose and need of the project. The EIS will promote informed decision making in the development of a solution to address truck traffic through the downtown area.&nbsp; This EIS will also evaluate options which may enhance the economic development of the area.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) and the Santee-Lynches Regional Council of Governments (SLRCOG), will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal to provide a truck route in the vicinity of the City of Bishopville in Lee County, South Carolina, from US 15 near I-20, southwest of the City, to the junction of US 15 and Bethune Highway (SC 341), northeast of the City.&nbsp; The project study area is generally defined by the area bordered by US 15 / I-20 Interchange to the southwest, US 15 just north of Bethune Highway (SC 341) to the northeast, the intersection of Pinchum Sly Road (S-15) and Camden Highway (SC 34) to the northwest and the intersection of Wisacky Highway (SC 341) and Mac Stuckey Lane (local road) to the southeast.&nbsp;US 15 (N. Main Street) through downtown Bishopville is currently a two-lane roadway with a raised median and on-street parking. On average, over 700 large commercial trucks travel through downtown daily. The purpose of the project is to address the existing and future truck traffic traveling through downtown Bishopville. &nbsp;The EIS for the proposed project will consider the No-build Alternative as well as build alternatives within the identified project study area that would meet the purpose and need of the project. The EIS will promote informed decision making in the development of a solution to address truck traffic through the downtown area.&nbsp; This EIS will also evaluate options which may enhance the economic development of the area.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) and the Santee-Lynches Regional Council of Governments (SLRCOG), will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal to provide a truck route in the vicinity of the City of Bishopville in Lee County, South Carolina, from US 15 near I-20, southwest of the City, to the junction of US 15 and Bethune Highway (SC 341), northeast of the City.&nbsp; The project study area is generally defined by the area bordered by US 15 / I-20 Interchange to the southwest, US 15 just north of Bethune Highway (SC 341) to the northeast, the intersection of Pinchum Sly Road (S-15) and Camden Highway (SC 34) to the northwest and the intersection of Wisacky Highway (SC 341) and Mac Stuckey Lane (local road) to the southeast.&nbsp;US 15 (N. Main Street) through downtown Bishopville is currently a two-lane roadway with a raised median and on-street parking. On average, over 700 large commercial trucks travel through downtown daily. The purpose of the project is to address the existing and future truck traffic traveling through downtown Bishopville. &nbsp;The EIS for the proposed project will consider the No-build Alternative as well as build alternatives within the identified project study area that would meet the purpose and need of the project. The EIS will promote informed decision making in the development of a solution to address truck traffic through the downtown area.&nbsp; This EIS will also evaluate options which may enhance the economic development of the area.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) and the Santee-Lynches Regional Council of Governments (SLRCOG), will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal to provide a truck route in the vicinity of the City of Bishopville in Lee County, South Carolina, from US 15 near I-20, southwest of the City, to the junction of US 15 and Bethune Highway (SC 341), northeast of the City.&nbsp; The project study area is generally defined by the area bordered by US 15 / I-20 Interchange to the southwest, US 15 just north of Bethune Highway (SC 341) to the northeast, the intersection of Pinchum Sly Road (S-15) and Camden Highway (SC 34) to the northwest and the intersection of Wisacky Highway (SC 341) and Mac Stuckey Lane (local road) to the southeast.&nbsp;US 15 (N. Main Street) through downtown Bishopville is currently a two-lane roadway with a raised median and on-street parking. On average, over 700 large commercial trucks travel through downtown daily. The purpose of the project is to address the existing and future truck traffic traveling through downtown Bishopville. &nbsp;The EIS for the proposed project will consider the No-build Alternative as well as build alternatives within the identified project study area that would meet the purpose and need of the project. The EIS will promote informed decision making in the development of a solution to address truck traffic through the downtown area.&nbsp; This EIS will also evaluate options which may enhance the economic development of the area.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) and the Santee-Lynches Regional Council of Governments (SLRCOG), will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal to provide a truck route in the vicinity of the City of Bishopville in Lee County, South Carolina, from US 15 near I-20, southwest of the City, to the junction of US 15 and Bethune Highway (SC 341), northeast of the City.&nbsp; The project study area is generally defined by the area bordered by US 15 / I-20 Interchange to the southwest, US 15 just north of Bethune Highway (SC 341) to the northeast, the intersection of Pinchum Sly Road (S-15) and Camden Highway (SC 34) to the northwest and the intersection of Wisacky Highway (SC 341) and Mac Stuckey Lane (local road) to the southeast.&nbsp;US 15 (N. Main Street) through downtown Bishopville is currently a two-lane roadway with a raised median and on-street parking. On average, over 700 large commercial trucks travel through downtown daily. The purpose of the project is to address the existing and future truck traffic traveling through downtown Bishopville. &nbsp;The EIS for the proposed project will consider the No-build Alternative as well as build alternatives within the identified project study area that would meet the purpose and need of the project. The EIS will promote informed decision making in the development of a solution to address truck traffic through the downtown area.&nbsp; This EIS will also evaluate options which may enhance the economic development of the area.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) and the Santee-Lynches Regional Council of Governments (SLRCOG), will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal to provide a truck route in the vicinity of the City of Bishopville in Lee County, South Carolina, from US 15 near I-20, southwest of the City, to the junction of US 15 and Bethune Highway (SC 341), northeast of the City.&nbsp; The project study area is generally defined by the area bordered by US 15 / I-20 Interchange to the southwest, US 15 just north of Bethune Highway (SC 341) to the northeast, the intersection of Pinchum Sly Road (S-15) and Camden Highway (SC 34) to the northwest and the intersection of Wisacky Highway (SC 341) and Mac Stuckey Lane (local road) to the southeast.&nbsp;US 15 (N. Main Street) through downtown Bishopville is currently a two-lane roadway with a raised median and on-street parking. On average, over 700 large commercial trucks travel through downtown daily. The purpose of the project is to address the existing and future truck traffic traveling through downtown Bishopville. &nbsp;The EIS for the proposed project will consider the No-build Alternative as well as build alternatives within the identified project study area that would meet the purpose and need of the project. The EIS will promote informed decision making in the development of a solution to address truck traffic through the downtown area.&nbsp; This EIS will also evaluate options which may enhance the economic development of the area.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) and the Santee-Lynches Regional Council of Governments (SLRCOG), will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal to provide a truck route in the vicinity of the City of Bishopville in Lee County, South Carolina, from US 15 near I-20, southwest of the City, to the junction of US 15 and Bethune Highway (SC 341), northeast of the City.&nbsp; The project study area is generally defined by the area bordered by US 15 / I-20 Interchange to the southwest, US 15 just north of Bethune Highway (SC 341) to the northeast, the intersection of Pinchum Sly Road (S-15) and Camden Highway (SC 34) to the northwest and the intersection of Wisacky Highway (SC 341) and Mac Stuckey Lane (local road) to the southeast.&nbsp;US 15 (N. Main Street) through downtown Bishopville is currently a two-lane roadway with a raised median and on-street parking. On average, over 700 large commercial trucks travel through downtown daily. The purpose of the project is to address the existing and future truck traffic traveling through downtown Bishopville. &nbsp;The EIS for the proposed project will consider the No-build Alternative as well as build alternatives within the identified project study area that would meet the purpose and need of the project. The EIS will promote informed decision making in the development of a solution to address truck traffic through the downtown area.&nbsp; This EIS will also evaluate options which may enhance the economic development of the area.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) and the Santee-Lynches Regional Council of Governments (SLRCOG), will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal to provide a truck route in the vicinity of the City of Bishopville in Lee County, South Carolina, from US 15 near I-20, southwest of the City, to the junction of US 15 and Bethune Highway (SC 341), northeast of the City.&nbsp; The project study area is generally defined by the area bordered by US 15 / I-20 Interchange to the southwest, US 15 just north of Bethune Highway (SC 341) to the northeast, the intersection of Pinchum Sly Road (S-15) and Camden Highway (SC 34) to the northwest and the intersection of Wisacky Highway (SC 341) and Mac Stuckey Lane (local road) to the southeast.&nbsp;US 15 (N. Main Street) through downtown Bishopville is currently a two-lane roadway with a raised median and on-street parking. On average, over 700 large commercial trucks travel through downtown daily. The purpose of the project is to address the existing and future truck traffic traveling through downtown Bishopville. &nbsp;The EIS for the proposed project will consider the No-build Alternative as well as build alternatives within the identified project study area that would meet the purpose and need of the project. The EIS will promote informed decision making in the development of a solution to address truck traffic through the downtown area.&nbsp; This EIS will also evaluate options which may enhance the economic development of the area.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) and the Santee-Lynches Regional Council of Governments (SLRCOG), will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal to provide a truck route in the vicinity of the City of Bishopville in Lee County, South Carolina, from US 15 near I-20, southwest of the City, to the junction of US 15 and Bethune Highway (SC 341), northeast of the City.&nbsp; The project study area is generally defined by the area bordered by US 15 / I-20 Interchange to the southwest, US 15 just north of Bethune Highway (SC 341) to the northeast, the intersection of Pinchum Sly Road (S-15) and Camden Highway (SC 34) to the northwest and the intersection of Wisacky Highway (SC 341) and Mac Stuckey Lane (local road) to the southeast.&nbsp;US 15 (N. Main Street) through downtown Bishopville is currently a two-lane roadway with a raised median and on-street parking. On average, over 700 large commercial trucks travel through downtown daily. The purpose of the project is to address the existing and future truck traffic traveling through downtown Bishopville. &nbsp;The EIS for the proposed project will consider the No-build Alternative as well as build alternatives within the identified project study area that would meet the purpose and need of the project. The EIS will promote informed decision making in the development of a solution to address truck traffic through the downtown area.&nbsp; This EIS will also evaluate options which may enhance the economic development of the area.
The Hunts Point Peninsula is home to the Hunts Point Food Distribution Center, the largest food distribution facility in the nation. The food products arrive at the market via tractor trailers, single unit trucks, and rail.The needs for the project are to improve access to and from the Hunts Point Peninsula and the Hunts Point Food Distribution Center/commercial establishments; to address the existing nonstandard geometric features of the Bruckner/Sheridan Expressways Interchange to improve operations; and to address infrastructure deficiencies on the Bruckner Expressway viaduct and ramps and truss bridge carrying westbound Bruckner Expressway and Bruckner Boulevard over Amtrak. The purpose of the project is to provide improved access between the Hunts Point Peninsula and the Sheridan and Bruckner Expressways for automobiles and trucks traveling to and from the commercial businesses located on the peninsula.
The Hunts Point Peninsula is home to the Hunts Point Food Distribution Center, the largest food distribution facility in the nation. The food products arrive at the market via tractor trailers, single unit trucks, and rail.The needs for the project are to improve access to and from the Hunts Point Peninsula and the Hunts Point Food Distribution Center/commercial establishments; to address the existing nonstandard geometric features of the Bruckner/Sheridan Expressways Interchange to improve operations; and to address infrastructure deficiencies on the Bruckner Expressway viaduct and ramps and truss bridge carrying westbound Bruckner Expressway and Bruckner Boulevard over Amtrak. The purpose of the project is to provide improved access between the Hunts Point Peninsula and the Sheridan and Bruckner Expressways for automobiles and trucks traveling to and from the commercial businesses located on the peninsula.
The Hunts Point Peninsula is home to the Hunts Point Food Distribution Center, the largest food distribution facility in the nation. The food products arrive at the market via tractor trailers, single unit trucks, and rail.The needs for the project are to improve access to and from the Hunts Point Peninsula and the Hunts Point Food Distribution Center/commercial establishments; to address the existing nonstandard geometric features of the Bruckner/Sheridan Expressways Interchange to improve operations; and to address infrastructure deficiencies on the Bruckner Expressway viaduct and ramps and truss bridge carrying westbound Bruckner Expressway and Bruckner Boulevard over Amtrak. The purpose of the project is to provide improved access between the Hunts Point Peninsula and the Sheridan and Bruckner Expressways for automobiles and trucks traveling to and from the commercial businesses located on the peninsula.
The Hunts Point Peninsula is home to the Hunts Point Food Distribution Center, the largest food distribution facility in the nation. The food products arrive at the market via tractor trailers, single unit trucks, and rail.The needs for the project are to improve access to and from the Hunts Point Peninsula and the Hunts Point Food Distribution Center/commercial establishments; to address the existing nonstandard geometric features of the Bruckner/Sheridan Expressways Interchange to improve operations; and to address infrastructure deficiencies on the Bruckner Expressway viaduct and ramps and truss bridge carrying westbound Bruckner Expressway and Bruckner Boulevard over Amtrak. The purpose of the project is to provide improved access between the Hunts Point Peninsula and the Sheridan and Bruckner Expressways for automobiles and trucks traveling to and from the commercial businesses located on the peninsula.
The Hunts Point Peninsula is home to the Hunts Point Food Distribution Center, the largest food distribution facility in the nation. The food products arrive at the market via tractor trailers, single unit trucks, and rail.The needs for the project are to improve access to and from the Hunts Point Peninsula and the Hunts Point Food Distribution Center/commercial establishments; to address the existing nonstandard geometric features of the Bruckner/Sheridan Expressways Interchange to improve operations; and to address infrastructure deficiencies on the Bruckner Expressway viaduct and ramps and truss bridge carrying westbound Bruckner Expressway and Bruckner Boulevard over Amtrak. The purpose of the project is to provide improved access between the Hunts Point Peninsula and the Sheridan and Bruckner Expressways for automobiles and trucks traveling to and from the commercial businesses located on the peninsula.
The Hunts Point Peninsula is home to the Hunts Point Food Distribution Center, the largest food distribution facility in the nation. The food products arrive at the market via tractor trailers, single unit trucks, and rail.The needs for the project are to improve access to and from the Hunts Point Peninsula and the Hunts Point Food Distribution Center/commercial establishments; to address the existing nonstandard geometric features of the Bruckner/Sheridan Expressways Interchange to improve operations; and to address infrastructure deficiencies on the Bruckner Expressway viaduct and ramps and truss bridge carrying westbound Bruckner Expressway and Bruckner Boulevard over Amtrak. The purpose of the project is to provide improved access between the Hunts Point Peninsula and the Sheridan and Bruckner Expressways for automobiles and trucks traveling to and from the commercial businesses located on the peninsula.
The Hunts Point Peninsula is home to the Hunts Point Food Distribution Center, the largest food distribution facility in the nation. The food products arrive at the market via tractor trailers, single unit trucks, and rail.The needs for the project are to improve access to and from the Hunts Point Peninsula and the Hunts Point Food Distribution Center/commercial establishments; to address the existing nonstandard geometric features of the Bruckner/Sheridan Expressways Interchange to improve operations; and to address infrastructure deficiencies on the Bruckner Expressway viaduct and ramps and truss bridge carrying westbound Bruckner Expressway and Bruckner Boulevard over Amtrak. The purpose of the project is to provide improved access between the Hunts Point Peninsula and the Sheridan and Bruckner Expressways for automobiles and trucks traveling to and from the commercial businesses located on the peninsula.
The Hunts Point Peninsula is home to the Hunts Point Food Distribution Center, the largest food distribution facility in the nation. The food products arrive at the market via tractor trailers, single unit trucks, and rail.The needs for the project are to improve access to and from the Hunts Point Peninsula and the Hunts Point Food Distribution Center/commercial establishments; to address the existing nonstandard geometric features of the Bruckner/Sheridan Expressways Interchange to improve operations; and to address infrastructure deficiencies on the Bruckner Expressway viaduct and ramps and truss bridge carrying westbound Bruckner Expressway and Bruckner Boulevard over Amtrak. The purpose of the project is to provide improved access between the Hunts Point Peninsula and the Sheridan and Bruckner Expressways for automobiles and trucks traveling to and from the commercial businesses located on the peninsula.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Section 401 State Water Quality Certification
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Section 401 State Water Quality Certification
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Section 401 State Water Quality Certification
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Section 401 State Water Quality Certification
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Section 401 State Water Quality Certification
Illinois State Endangered Species Act consultation and Biological Opinion: Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Illinois State Endangered Species Act consultation and Biological Opinion: Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Illinois State Endangered Species Act consultation and Biological Opinion: Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Illinois State Endangered Species Act consultation and Biological Opinion: Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Illinois State Endangered Species Act consultation and Biological Opinion: Illinois Department of Natural Resources
This milestone will be paused until the proponent submits an updated Cultural survey report, biological assessment, project description and proposed action. These items were to be submitted&nbsp;no later than October 2019. We anticipate receiving these components between mid- January 2020 and March 2020.

**Update January 8, 2021: Milestone will remain on pause until a final report is submitted.&nbsp;
This milestone will be paused until the proponent submits an updated Cultural survey report, biological assessment, project description and proposed action. These items were to be submitted&nbsp;no later than October 2019. We anticipate receiving these components between mid- January 2020 and March 2020.

**Update January 8, 2021: Milestone will remain on pause until a final report is submitted.&nbsp;
This milestone will be paused until the proponent submits an updated Cultural survey report, biological assessment, project description and proposed action. These items were to be submitted&nbsp;no later than October 2019. We anticipate receiving these components between mid- January 2020 and March 2020.

**Update January 8, 2021: Milestone will remain on pause until a final report is submitted.&nbsp;
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the lead Federal agency for responding to an application for a right-of-way across federal lands under Mineral Leasing Act. The BLM right-of-way grant would include Forest Service traversed lands and Fish and Wildlife Service traversed lands.&nbsp;If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.

Plan of Development(POD) is a dependency. Waiting for POD submittal to deem application complete.

&nbsp;

This milestone will be paused until the proponent submits an updated Cultural survey report, biological assessment, project description and proposed action. These items were to be submitted&nbsp;no later than October 2019. We anticipate receiving these components between mid- January 2020 and March 2020.&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the lead Federal agency for responding to an application for a right-of-way across federal lands under Mineral Leasing Act. The BLM right-of-way grant would include Forest Service traversed lands and Fish and Wildlife Service traversed lands.&nbsp;If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.

Plan of Development(POD) is a dependency. Waiting for POD submittal to deem application complete.

&nbsp;

This milestone will be paused until the proponent submits an updated Cultural survey report, biological assessment, project description and proposed action. These items were to be submitted&nbsp;no later than October 2019. We anticipate receiving these components between mid- January 2020 and March 2020.&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the lead Federal agency for responding to an application for a right-of-way across federal lands under Mineral Leasing Act. The BLM right-of-way grant would include Forest Service traversed lands and Fish and Wildlife Service traversed lands.&nbsp;If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.

Plan of Development(POD) is a dependency. Waiting for POD submittal to deem application complete.

&nbsp;

This milestone will be paused until the proponent submits an updated Cultural survey report, biological assessment, project description and proposed action. These items were to be submitted&nbsp;no later than October 2019. We anticipate receiving these components between mid- January 2020 and March 2020.&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the lead Federal agency for responding to an application for a right-of-way across federal lands under Mineral Leasing Act. The BLM right-of-way grant would include Forest Service traversed lands and Fish and Wildlife Service traversed lands.&nbsp;If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.

Plan of Development(POD) is a dependency. Waiting for POD submittal to deem application complete.

&nbsp;

This milestone will be paused until the proponent submits an updated Cultural survey report, biological assessment, project description and proposed action. These items were to be submitted&nbsp;no later than October 2019. We anticipate receiving these components between mid- January 2020 and March 2020.&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the lead Federal agency for responding to an application for a right-of-way across federal lands under Mineral Leasing Act. The BLM right-of-way grant would include Forest Service traversed lands and Fish and Wildlife Service traversed lands.&nbsp;If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.

Plan of Development(POD) is a dependency. Waiting for POD submittal to deem application complete.

&nbsp;

This milestone will be paused until the proponent submits an updated Cultural survey report, biological assessment, project description and proposed action. These items were to be submitted&nbsp;no later than October 2019. We anticipate receiving these components between mid- January 2020 and March 2020.&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;
The endangered Gaviota&nbsp;tarplant,&nbsp; San Joaquin wooly threads,&nbsp;California jewel flower, Kem mallow, Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment of the California tiger salamander and its critical habitat, blunt-nosed leopard lizard,&nbsp;southwestern willow flycatcher&nbsp;and its critical habitat, least Bell's&nbsp;vireo&nbsp;and its critical habitat, California condor,&nbsp;tidewater goby&nbsp;and its critical habitat, San Joaquin kit fox, Nelson's antelope squirrel, giant kangaroo rat, Tipton kangaroo rat, and arroyo toad&nbsp;and its critical habitat, as well as the threatened Kem primrose sphinx moth&nbsp;and California red-legged frog&nbsp;and its critical habitat occur in the project area; therefore consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act will be necessary.&nbsp;&nbsp;FWS received a a request to initiate consultation on July 2, 2019 and on August 1, 2019 requested additonal information needed to complete consultation.
The endangered Gaviota&nbsp;tarplant,&nbsp; San Joaquin wooly threads,&nbsp;California jewel flower, Kem mallow, Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment of the California tiger salamander and its critical habitat, blunt-nosed leopard lizard,&nbsp;southwestern willow flycatcher&nbsp;and its critical habitat, least Bell's&nbsp;vireo&nbsp;and its critical habitat, California condor,&nbsp;tidewater goby&nbsp;and its critical habitat, San Joaquin kit fox, Nelson's antelope squirrel, giant kangaroo rat, Tipton kangaroo rat, and arroyo toad&nbsp;and its critical habitat, as well as the threatened Kem primrose sphinx moth&nbsp;and California red-legged frog&nbsp;and its critical habitat occur in the project area; therefore consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act will be necessary.&nbsp;&nbsp;FWS received a a request to initiate consultation on July 2, 2019 and on August 1, 2019 requested additonal information needed to complete consultation.
The endangered Gaviota&nbsp;tarplant,&nbsp; San Joaquin wooly threads,&nbsp;California jewel flower, Kem mallow, Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment of the California tiger salamander and its critical habitat, blunt-nosed leopard lizard,&nbsp;southwestern willow flycatcher&nbsp;and its critical habitat, least Bell's&nbsp;vireo&nbsp;and its critical habitat, California condor,&nbsp;tidewater goby&nbsp;and its critical habitat, San Joaquin kit fox, Nelson's antelope squirrel, giant kangaroo rat, Tipton kangaroo rat, and arroyo toad&nbsp;and its critical habitat, as well as the threatened Kem primrose sphinx moth&nbsp;and California red-legged frog&nbsp;and its critical habitat occur in the project area; therefore consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act will be necessary.&nbsp;&nbsp;FWS received a a request to initiate consultation on July 2, 2019 and on August 1, 2019 requested additonal information needed to complete consultation.
The endangered Gaviota&nbsp;tarplant,&nbsp; San Joaquin wooly threads,&nbsp;California jewel flower, Kem mallow, Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment of the California tiger salamander and its critical habitat, blunt-nosed leopard lizard,&nbsp;southwestern willow flycatcher&nbsp;and its critical habitat, least Bell's&nbsp;vireo&nbsp;and its critical habitat, California condor,&nbsp;tidewater goby&nbsp;and its critical habitat, San Joaquin kit fox, Nelson's antelope squirrel, giant kangaroo rat, Tipton kangaroo rat, and arroyo toad&nbsp;and its critical habitat, as well as the threatened Kem primrose sphinx moth&nbsp;and California red-legged frog&nbsp;and its critical habitat occur in the project area; therefore consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act will be necessary.&nbsp;&nbsp;FWS received a a request to initiate consultation on July 2, 2019 and on August 1, 2019 requested additonal information needed to complete consultation.
Outgrant (easement) from Army Corps of Engineers Rock Island District Real Estate.

Additional Points of Contact:

Susan Monson, Realty Specialist 

Rock Island District Real Estate Section

Susan.C.Monson@usace.army.mil

&nbsp;

Steve Stickle, Supervisory Realty Specialist

Rock Island District Real Estate Section

steven.w.stickle@usace.army.mil 

&nbsp;
Outgrant (easement) from Army Corps of Engineers Rock Island District Real Estate.

Additional Points of Contact:

Susan Monson, Realty Specialist 

Rock Island District Real Estate Section

Susan.C.Monson@usace.army.mil

&nbsp;

Steve Stickle, Supervisory Realty Specialist

Rock Island District Real Estate Section

steven.w.stickle@usace.army.mil 

&nbsp;
Outgrant (easement) from Army Corps of Engineers Rock Island District Real Estate.

Additional Points of Contact:

Susan Monson, Realty Specialist 

Rock Island District Real Estate Section

Susan.C.Monson@usace.army.mil

&nbsp;

Steve Stickle, Supervisory Realty Specialist

Rock Island District Real Estate Section

steven.w.stickle@usace.army.mil 

&nbsp;
The proposed South Fork Wind Farm and South Fork Export Cable project requires a permit from the Corps pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for the placement of structures and/or work in navigable waters of the United States, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.&nbsp; The Corps has decided that the New York District will be responsible for permit issuance for the entire project.

Update: The USACE New England District, in coordination with the New York District, has determined the best&nbsp;approach&nbsp;to evaluate&nbsp;this project is to allow one district to conduct the entire review. New York District will serve as the USACE Section 10/404 lead and decision-maker. The New England District action&nbsp;on the&nbsp;dashboard is no longer required and has been marked&nbsp;"canceled”.
The proposed South Fork Wind Farm and South Fork Export Cable project requires a permit from the Corps pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for the placement of structures and/or work in navigable waters of the United States, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.&nbsp; The Corps has decided that the New York District will be responsible for permit issuance for the entire project.

Update: The USACE New England District, in coordination with the New York District, has determined the best&nbsp;approach&nbsp;to evaluate&nbsp;this project is to allow one district to conduct the entire review. New York District will serve as the USACE Section 10/404 lead and decision-maker. The New England District action&nbsp;on the&nbsp;dashboard is no longer required and has been marked&nbsp;"canceled”.
The proposed South Fork Wind Farm and South Fork Export Cable project requires a permit from the Corps pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for the placement of structures and/or work in navigable waters of the United States, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.&nbsp; The Corps has decided that the New York District will be responsible for permit issuance for the entire project.

Update: The USACE New England District, in coordination with the New York District, has determined the best&nbsp;approach&nbsp;to evaluate&nbsp;this project is to allow one district to conduct the entire review. New York District will serve as the USACE Section 10/404 lead and decision-maker. The New England District action&nbsp;on the&nbsp;dashboard is no longer required and has been marked&nbsp;"canceled”.
The proposed South Fork Wind Farm and South Fork Export Cable project requires a permit from the Corps pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for the placement of structures and/or work in navigable waters of the United States, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.&nbsp; The Corps has decided that the New York District will be responsible for permit issuance for the entire project.

Update: The USACE New England District, in coordination with the New York District, has determined the best&nbsp;approach&nbsp;to evaluate&nbsp;this project is to allow one district to conduct the entire review. New York District will serve as the USACE Section 10/404 lead and decision-maker. The New England District action&nbsp;on the&nbsp;dashboard is no longer required and has been marked&nbsp;"canceled”.
The proposed South Fork Wind Farm and South Fork Export Cable project requires a permit from the Corps' New York District pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for the placement of structures and/or work in navigable waters of the United States, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.
The proposed South Fork Wind Farm and South Fork Export Cable project requires a permit from the Corps' New York District pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for the placement of structures and/or work in navigable waters of the United States, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.
The proposed South Fork Wind Farm and South Fork Export Cable project requires a permit from the Corps' New York District pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for the placement of structures and/or work in navigable waters of the United States, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.
The proposed South Fork Wind Farm and South Fork Export Cable project requires a permit from the Corps' New York District pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for the placement of structures and/or work in navigable waters of the United States, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.
Install a perimeter fence for the airfield.&nbsp; The fence will be designed to exclude targeted wildlife such as the desert tortoise
Install a perimeter fence for the airfield.&nbsp; The fence will be designed to exclude targeted wildlife such as the desert tortoise
Install a perimeter fence for the airfield.&nbsp; The fence will be designed to exclude targeted wildlife such as the desert tortoise
Install a perimeter fence for the airfield.&nbsp; The fence will be designed to exclude targeted wildlife such as the desert tortoise
Install a perimeter fence for the airfield.&nbsp; The fence will be designed to exclude targeted wildlife such as the desert tortoise
Install a perimeter fence for the airfield.&nbsp; The fence will be designed to exclude targeted wildlife such as the desert tortoise
Install a perimeter fence for the airfield.&nbsp; The fence will be designed to exclude targeted wildlife such as the desert tortoise
Install a perimeter fence for the airfield.&nbsp; The fence will be designed to exclude targeted wildlife such as the desert tortoise
Install a perimeter fence for the airfield.&nbsp; The fence will be designed to exclude targeted wildlife such as the desert tortoise
EA for tree obstructions, taxiway relocations
EA for tree obstructions, taxiway relocations
EA for tree obstructions, taxiway relocations
EA for tree obstructions, taxiway relocations
EA for tree obstructions, taxiway relocations
EA for tree obstructions, taxiway relocations
EA for tree obstructions, taxiway relocations
EA for tree obstructions, taxiway relocations
EA for tree obstructions, taxiway relocations
Clearing the 20:1 approach on both Runway Ends
Clearing the 20:1 approach on both Runway Ends
Clearing the 20:1 approach on both Runway Ends
Clearing the 20:1 approach on both Runway Ends
Clearing the 20:1 approach on both Runway Ends
Clearing the 20:1 approach on both Runway Ends
Clearing the 20:1 approach on both Runway Ends
Clearing the 20:1 approach on both Runway Ends
Clearing the 20:1 approach on both Runway Ends
EA for runway &amp; taxiway extension
EA for runway &amp; taxiway extension
EA for runway &amp; taxiway extension
EA for runway &amp; taxiway extension
EA for runway &amp; taxiway extension
EA for runway &amp; taxiway extension
EA for runway &amp; taxiway extension
EA for runway &amp; taxiway extension
EA for runway &amp; taxiway extension
Approximately 85 acres of trees were cleared without environmental clearance for a new runway.&nbsp; This EA analyzes those 85 acres already cleared as cumulative impacts as well as an additional ten acres to be cleared.
Approximately 85 acres of trees were cleared without environmental clearance for a new runway.&nbsp; This EA analyzes those 85 acres already cleared as cumulative impacts as well as an additional ten acres to be cleared.
Approximately 85 acres of trees were cleared without environmental clearance for a new runway.&nbsp; This EA analyzes those 85 acres already cleared as cumulative impacts as well as an additional ten acres to be cleared.
Approximately 85 acres of trees were cleared without environmental clearance for a new runway.&nbsp; This EA analyzes those 85 acres already cleared as cumulative impacts as well as an additional ten acres to be cleared.
Approximately 85 acres of trees were cleared without environmental clearance for a new runway.&nbsp; This EA analyzes those 85 acres already cleared as cumulative impacts as well as an additional ten acres to be cleared.
Approximately 85 acres of trees were cleared without environmental clearance for a new runway.&nbsp; This EA analyzes those 85 acres already cleared as cumulative impacts as well as an additional ten acres to be cleared.
Approximately 85 acres of trees were cleared without environmental clearance for a new runway.&nbsp; This EA analyzes those 85 acres already cleared as cumulative impacts as well as an additional ten acres to be cleared.
Approximately 85 acres of trees were cleared without environmental clearance for a new runway.&nbsp; This EA analyzes those 85 acres already cleared as cumulative impacts as well as an additional ten acres to be cleared.
Approximately 85 acres of trees were cleared without environmental clearance for a new runway.&nbsp; This EA analyzes those 85 acres already cleared as cumulative impacts as well as an additional ten acres to be cleared.
Relocation of a section of service road, to bring the road alignment outside of the Runway Service Area
Relocation of a section of service road, to bring the road alignment outside of the Runway Service Area
Relocation of a section of service road, to bring the road alignment outside of the Runway Service Area
Relocation of a section of service road, to bring the road alignment outside of the Runway Service Area
Relocation of a section of service road, to bring the road alignment outside of the Runway Service Area
Relocation of a section of service road, to bring the road alignment outside of the Runway Service Area
Relocation of a section of service road, to bring the road alignment outside of the Runway Service Area
Relocation of a section of service road, to bring the road alignment outside of the Runway Service Area
Relocation of a section of service road, to bring the road alignment outside of the Runway Service Area
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for construction of a single passenger terminal located on the site of existing terminal A subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for construction of a single passenger terminal located on the site of existing terminal A subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for construction of a single passenger terminal located on the site of existing terminal A subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for construction of a single passenger terminal located on the site of existing terminal A subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for construction of a single passenger terminal located on the site of existing terminal A subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for construction of a single passenger terminal located on the site of existing terminal A subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for construction of a single passenger terminal located on the site of existing terminal A subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for construction of a single passenger terminal located on the site of existing terminal A subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for construction of a single passenger terminal located on the site of existing terminal A subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.
Obstruction removal.
Obstruction removal.
Obstruction removal.
Obstruction removal.
Obstruction removal.
Obstruction removal.
Obstruction removal.
Obstruction removal.
Obstruction removal.
1.Relocate Runway 14/32 to the northeast and extend to the southeast,including all necessary grading, clearing, and runway lighting.2. Construct cross-field taxiway to serve new Runway 14 end.3. Convert existing Runway 14/32 to a partial parallel taxiway and construct othertaxiways as needed to support the relocated runway, including taxiway lighting and/or reflectors4. Extend Runway 04/22 to the northeast and add necessary lighting and taxiwayconnectors.5. Realign 30th Street North around the new Runway 14/32 runway protectionzone to reconnect with Neal Avenue North.6. Construct a connector road.7. Establish non-precision instrument approach procedures to all four runwayends.8. Remove approximately 20 acres of trees.&nbsp;
1.Relocate Runway 14/32 to the northeast and extend to the southeast,including all necessary grading, clearing, and runway lighting.2. Construct cross-field taxiway to serve new Runway 14 end.3. Convert existing Runway 14/32 to a partial parallel taxiway and construct othertaxiways as needed to support the relocated runway, including taxiway lighting and/or reflectors4. Extend Runway 04/22 to the northeast and add necessary lighting and taxiwayconnectors.5. Realign 30th Street North around the new Runway 14/32 runway protectionzone to reconnect with Neal Avenue North.6. Construct a connector road.7. Establish non-precision instrument approach procedures to all four runwayends.8. Remove approximately 20 acres of trees.&nbsp;
1.Relocate Runway 14/32 to the northeast and extend to the southeast,including all necessary grading, clearing, and runway lighting.2. Construct cross-field taxiway to serve new Runway 14 end.3. Convert existing Runway 14/32 to a partial parallel taxiway and construct othertaxiways as needed to support the relocated runway, including taxiway lighting and/or reflectors4. Extend Runway 04/22 to the northeast and add necessary lighting and taxiwayconnectors.5. Realign 30th Street North around the new Runway 14/32 runway protectionzone to reconnect with Neal Avenue North.6. Construct a connector road.7. Establish non-precision instrument approach procedures to all four runwayends.8. Remove approximately 20 acres of trees.&nbsp;
1.Relocate Runway 14/32 to the northeast and extend to the southeast,including all necessary grading, clearing, and runway lighting.2. Construct cross-field taxiway to serve new Runway 14 end.3. Convert existing Runway 14/32 to a partial parallel taxiway and construct othertaxiways as needed to support the relocated runway, including taxiway lighting and/or reflectors4. Extend Runway 04/22 to the northeast and add necessary lighting and taxiwayconnectors.5. Realign 30th Street North around the new Runway 14/32 runway protectionzone to reconnect with Neal Avenue North.6. Construct a connector road.7. Establish non-precision instrument approach procedures to all four runwayends.8. Remove approximately 20 acres of trees.&nbsp;
1.Relocate Runway 14/32 to the northeast and extend to the southeast,including all necessary grading, clearing, and runway lighting.2. Construct cross-field taxiway to serve new Runway 14 end.3. Convert existing Runway 14/32 to a partial parallel taxiway and construct othertaxiways as needed to support the relocated runway, including taxiway lighting and/or reflectors4. Extend Runway 04/22 to the northeast and add necessary lighting and taxiwayconnectors.5. Realign 30th Street North around the new Runway 14/32 runway protectionzone to reconnect with Neal Avenue North.6. Construct a connector road.7. Establish non-precision instrument approach procedures to all four runwayends.8. Remove approximately 20 acres of trees.&nbsp;
1.Relocate Runway 14/32 to the northeast and extend to the southeast,including all necessary grading, clearing, and runway lighting.2. Construct cross-field taxiway to serve new Runway 14 end.3. Convert existing Runway 14/32 to a partial parallel taxiway and construct othertaxiways as needed to support the relocated runway, including taxiway lighting and/or reflectors4. Extend Runway 04/22 to the northeast and add necessary lighting and taxiwayconnectors.5. Realign 30th Street North around the new Runway 14/32 runway protectionzone to reconnect with Neal Avenue North.6. Construct a connector road.7. Establish non-precision instrument approach procedures to all four runwayends.8. Remove approximately 20 acres of trees.&nbsp;
1.Relocate Runway 14/32 to the northeast and extend to the southeast,including all necessary grading, clearing, and runway lighting.2. Construct cross-field taxiway to serve new Runway 14 end.3. Convert existing Runway 14/32 to a partial parallel taxiway and construct othertaxiways as needed to support the relocated runway, including taxiway lighting and/or reflectors4. Extend Runway 04/22 to the northeast and add necessary lighting and taxiwayconnectors.5. Realign 30th Street North around the new Runway 14/32 runway protectionzone to reconnect with Neal Avenue North.6. Construct a connector road.7. Establish non-precision instrument approach procedures to all four runwayends.8. Remove approximately 20 acres of trees.&nbsp;
1.Relocate Runway 14/32 to the northeast and extend to the southeast,including all necessary grading, clearing, and runway lighting.2. Construct cross-field taxiway to serve new Runway 14 end.3. Convert existing Runway 14/32 to a partial parallel taxiway and construct othertaxiways as needed to support the relocated runway, including taxiway lighting and/or reflectors4. Extend Runway 04/22 to the northeast and add necessary lighting and taxiwayconnectors.5. Realign 30th Street North around the new Runway 14/32 runway protectionzone to reconnect with Neal Avenue North.6. Construct a connector road.7. Establish non-precision instrument approach procedures to all four runwayends.8. Remove approximately 20 acres of trees.&nbsp;
1.Relocate Runway 14/32 to the northeast and extend to the southeast,including all necessary grading, clearing, and runway lighting.2. Construct cross-field taxiway to serve new Runway 14 end.3. Convert existing Runway 14/32 to a partial parallel taxiway and construct othertaxiways as needed to support the relocated runway, including taxiway lighting and/or reflectors4. Extend Runway 04/22 to the northeast and add necessary lighting and taxiwayconnectors.5. Realign 30th Street North around the new Runway 14/32 runway protectionzone to reconnect with Neal Avenue North.6. Construct a connector road.7. Establish non-precision instrument approach procedures to all four runwayends.8. Remove approximately 20 acres of trees.&nbsp;
DOI has intervenor status for this proposal and anticipates using the FERC NEPA documentation, to the extent possible,&nbsp;to render render a decision and issue it's authorizations 90 days after FERC issues it's license.&nbsp; DOI will continue to consult with FERC on the development of the NEPA document, however, if additional review is needed for the DOI decisions, the Permitting Timetable will be updated accordingly.
DOI has intervenor status for this proposal and anticipates using the FERC NEPA documentation, to the extent possible,&nbsp;to render render a decision and issue it's authorizations 90 days after FERC issues it's license.&nbsp; DOI will continue to consult with FERC on the development of the NEPA document, however, if additional review is needed for the DOI decisions, the Permitting Timetable will be updated accordingly.
DOI has intervenor status for this proposal and anticipates using the FERC NEPA documentation, to the extent possible,&nbsp;to render render a decision and issue it's authorizations 90 days after FERC issues it's license.&nbsp; DOI will continue to consult with FERC on the development of the NEPA document, however, if additional review is needed for the DOI decisions, the Permitting Timetable will be updated accordingly.
DOI has intervenor status for this proposal and anticipates using the FERC NEPA documentation, to the extent possible,&nbsp;to render render a decision and issue it's authorizations 90 days after FERC issues it's license.&nbsp; DOI will continue to consult with FERC on the development of the NEPA document, however, if additional review is needed for the DOI decisions, the Permitting Timetable will be updated accordingly.
DOI has intervenor status for this proposal and anticipates using the FERC NEPA documentation, to the extent possible,&nbsp;to render render a decision and issue it's authorizations 90 days after FERC issues it's license.&nbsp; DOI will continue to consult with FERC on the development of the NEPA document, however, if additional review is needed for the DOI decisions, the Permitting Timetable will be updated accordingly.
EA for Runway Taxiway separation
EA for Runway Taxiway separation
EA for Runway Taxiway separation
EA for Runway Taxiway separation
EA for Runway Taxiway separation
EA for Runway Taxiway separation
EA for Runway Taxiway separation
EA for Runway Taxiway separation
EA for Runway Taxiway separation
This environmental assessment will evaluate any potential environmental impacts related to the obstruction removal of off-airport trees in the approaches to Runway 13-31.
This environmental assessment will evaluate any potential environmental impacts related to the obstruction removal of off-airport trees in the approaches to Runway 13-31.
This environmental assessment will evaluate any potential environmental impacts related to the obstruction removal of off-airport trees in the approaches to Runway 13-31.
This environmental assessment will evaluate any potential environmental impacts related to the obstruction removal of off-airport trees in the approaches to Runway 13-31.
This environmental assessment will evaluate any potential environmental impacts related to the obstruction removal of off-airport trees in the approaches to Runway 13-31.
This environmental assessment will evaluate any potential environmental impacts related to the obstruction removal of off-airport trees in the approaches to Runway 13-31.
This environmental assessment will evaluate any potential environmental impacts related to the obstruction removal of off-airport trees in the approaches to Runway 13-31.
This environmental assessment will evaluate any potential environmental impacts related to the obstruction removal of off-airport trees in the approaches to Runway 13-31.
This environmental assessment will evaluate any potential environmental impacts related to the obstruction removal of off-airport trees in the approaches to Runway 13-31.
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), as the lead agency proposes to construct State Highway (SH) 68, a new non-toll facility from Interstate Highway (I)-2/U.S. Highway (US) 83 to I-69C/US 281, located in eastern Hidalgo County. The proposed project would begin at&nbsp;I-2/US 83 and travel north then west to connect to I-69C/US 281. The proposed project is described in the 2015–2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)
and the 2017-2020 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), as a proposed
four-lane divided rural highway facility with future mainlanes and overpasses.&nbsp;
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), as the lead agency proposes to construct State Highway (SH) 68, a new non-toll facility from Interstate Highway (I)-2/U.S. Highway (US) 83 to I-69C/US 281, located in eastern Hidalgo County. The proposed project would begin at&nbsp;I-2/US 83 and travel north then west to connect to I-69C/US 281. The proposed project is described in the 2015–2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)
and the 2017-2020 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), as a proposed
four-lane divided rural highway facility with future mainlanes and overpasses.&nbsp;
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), as the lead agency proposes to construct State Highway (SH) 68, a new non-toll facility from Interstate Highway (I)-2/U.S. Highway (US) 83 to I-69C/US 281, located in eastern Hidalgo County. The proposed project would begin at&nbsp;I-2/US 83 and travel north then west to connect to I-69C/US 281. The proposed project is described in the 2015–2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)
and the 2017-2020 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), as a proposed
four-lane divided rural highway facility with future mainlanes and overpasses.&nbsp;
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), as the lead agency proposes to construct State Highway (SH) 68, a new non-toll facility from Interstate Highway (I)-2/U.S. Highway (US) 83 to I-69C/US 281, located in eastern Hidalgo County. The proposed project would begin at&nbsp;I-2/US 83 and travel north then west to connect to I-69C/US 281. The proposed project is described in the 2015–2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)
and the 2017-2020 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), as a proposed
four-lane divided rural highway facility with future mainlanes and overpasses.&nbsp;
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), as the lead agency proposes to construct State Highway (SH) 68, a new non-toll facility from Interstate Highway (I)-2/U.S. Highway (US) 83 to I-69C/US 281, located in eastern Hidalgo County. The proposed project would begin at&nbsp;I-2/US 83 and travel north then west to connect to I-69C/US 281. The proposed project is described in the 2015–2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)
and the 2017-2020 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), as a proposed
four-lane divided rural highway facility with future mainlanes and overpasses.&nbsp;
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), as the lead agency proposes to construct State Highway (SH) 68, a new non-toll facility from Interstate Highway (I)-2/U.S. Highway (US) 83 to I-69C/US 281, located in eastern Hidalgo County. The proposed project would begin at&nbsp;I-2/US 83 and travel north then west to connect to I-69C/US 281. The proposed project is described in the 2015–2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)
and the 2017-2020 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), as a proposed
four-lane divided rural highway facility with future mainlanes and overpasses.&nbsp;
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), as the lead agency proposes to construct State Highway (SH) 68, a new non-toll facility from Interstate Highway (I)-2/U.S. Highway (US) 83 to I-69C/US 281, located in eastern Hidalgo County. The proposed project would begin at&nbsp;I-2/US 83 and travel north then west to connect to I-69C/US 281. The proposed project is described in the 2015–2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)
and the 2017-2020 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), as a proposed
four-lane divided rural highway facility with future mainlanes and overpasses.&nbsp;
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), as the lead agency proposes to construct State Highway (SH) 68, a new non-toll facility from Interstate Highway (I)-2/U.S. Highway (US) 83 to I-69C/US 281, located in eastern Hidalgo County. The proposed project would begin at&nbsp;I-2/US 83 and travel north then west to connect to I-69C/US 281. The proposed project is described in the 2015–2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)
and the 2017-2020 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), as a proposed
four-lane divided rural highway facility with future mainlanes and overpasses.&nbsp;
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), as the lead agency proposes to construct State Highway (SH) 68, a new non-toll facility from Interstate Highway (I)-2/U.S. Highway (US) 83 to I-69C/US 281, located in eastern Hidalgo County. The proposed project would begin at&nbsp;I-2/US 83 and travel north then west to connect to I-69C/US 281. The proposed project is described in the 2015–2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)
and the 2017-2020 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), as a proposed
four-lane divided rural highway facility with future mainlanes and overpasses.&nbsp;
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), as the lead agency proposes to construct State Highway (SH) 68, a new non-toll facility from Interstate Highway (I)-2/U.S. Highway (US) 83 to I-69C/US 281, located in eastern Hidalgo County. The proposed project would begin at&nbsp;I-2/US 83 and travel north then west to connect to I-69C/US 281. The proposed project is described in the 2015–2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)
and the 2017-2020 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), as a proposed
four-lane divided rural highway facility with future mainlanes and overpasses.&nbsp;
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), as the lead agency proposes to construct State Highway (SH) 68, a new non-toll facility from Interstate Highway (I)-2/U.S. Highway (US) 83 to I-69C/US 281, located in eastern Hidalgo County. The proposed project would begin at&nbsp;I-2/US 83 and travel north then west to connect to I-69C/US 281. The proposed project is described in the 2015–2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)
and the 2017-2020 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), as a proposed
four-lane divided rural highway facility with future mainlanes and overpasses.&nbsp;
USFWS Consultation/Conferencing with USFWS and NOAA/NMFS under the Endangered Species Act.
USFWS Consultation/Conferencing with USFWS and NOAA/NMFS under the Endangered Species Act.
USFWS Consultation/Conferencing with USFWS and NOAA/NMFS under the Endangered Species Act.
USFWS Consultation/Conferencing with USFWS and NOAA/NMFS under the Endangered Species Act.
The Towns of Derry and Londonderry (the Towns) and the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), are advancing an updated environmental study for the I-93 Exit 4A Project (Project). The Project consists of a new diamond interchange on I-93 in the Town of Londonderry, approximately one mile north of Exit 4. The new diamond interchange would provide access to the east side of I-93. A 1-mile connector roadway would be built on new alignment from the interchange to Folsom Road, near the intersection of North High Street and Madden Road, in the Town of Derry. Folsom Road, and subsequently Tsienneto Road, would be upgraded, and the intersections would be improved. In total, the Proposed Project corridor from I-93 to the intersection of Tsienneto Road and NH Route 102/Chester Road would be 3.2 miles. The purpose of the Project is to reduce congestion and improve safety along NH 102, from I-93 easterly through downtown Derry and to promote economic vitality in the Derry/Londonderry area.
The Towns of Derry and Londonderry (the Towns) and the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), are advancing an updated environmental study for the I-93 Exit 4A Project (Project). The Project consists of a new diamond interchange on I-93 in the Town of Londonderry, approximately one mile north of Exit 4. The new diamond interchange would provide access to the east side of I-93. A 1-mile connector roadway would be built on new alignment from the interchange to Folsom Road, near the intersection of North High Street and Madden Road, in the Town of Derry. Folsom Road, and subsequently Tsienneto Road, would be upgraded, and the intersections would be improved. In total, the Proposed Project corridor from I-93 to the intersection of Tsienneto Road and NH Route 102/Chester Road would be 3.2 miles. The purpose of the Project is to reduce congestion and improve safety along NH 102, from I-93 easterly through downtown Derry and to promote economic vitality in the Derry/Londonderry area.
The Towns of Derry and Londonderry (the Towns) and the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), are advancing an updated environmental study for the I-93 Exit 4A Project (Project). The Project consists of a new diamond interchange on I-93 in the Town of Londonderry, approximately one mile north of Exit 4. The new diamond interchange would provide access to the east side of I-93. A 1-mile connector roadway would be built on new alignment from the interchange to Folsom Road, near the intersection of North High Street and Madden Road, in the Town of Derry. Folsom Road, and subsequently Tsienneto Road, would be upgraded, and the intersections would be improved. In total, the Proposed Project corridor from I-93 to the intersection of Tsienneto Road and NH Route 102/Chester Road would be 3.2 miles. The purpose of the Project is to reduce congestion and improve safety along NH 102, from I-93 easterly through downtown Derry and to promote economic vitality in the Derry/Londonderry area.
The Towns of Derry and Londonderry (the Towns) and the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), are advancing an updated environmental study for the I-93 Exit 4A Project (Project). The Project consists of a new diamond interchange on I-93 in the Town of Londonderry, approximately one mile north of Exit 4. The new diamond interchange would provide access to the east side of I-93. A 1-mile connector roadway would be built on new alignment from the interchange to Folsom Road, near the intersection of North High Street and Madden Road, in the Town of Derry. Folsom Road, and subsequently Tsienneto Road, would be upgraded, and the intersections would be improved. In total, the Proposed Project corridor from I-93 to the intersection of Tsienneto Road and NH Route 102/Chester Road would be 3.2 miles. The purpose of the Project is to reduce congestion and improve safety along NH 102, from I-93 easterly through downtown Derry and to promote economic vitality in the Derry/Londonderry area.
The Towns of Derry and Londonderry (the Towns) and the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), are advancing an updated environmental study for the I-93 Exit 4A Project (Project). The Project consists of a new diamond interchange on I-93 in the Town of Londonderry, approximately one mile north of Exit 4. The new diamond interchange would provide access to the east side of I-93. A 1-mile connector roadway would be built on new alignment from the interchange to Folsom Road, near the intersection of North High Street and Madden Road, in the Town of Derry. Folsom Road, and subsequently Tsienneto Road, would be upgraded, and the intersections would be improved. In total, the Proposed Project corridor from I-93 to the intersection of Tsienneto Road and NH Route 102/Chester Road would be 3.2 miles. The purpose of the Project is to reduce congestion and improve safety along NH 102, from I-93 easterly through downtown Derry and to promote economic vitality in the Derry/Londonderry area.
The Towns of Derry and Londonderry (the Towns) and the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), are advancing an updated environmental study for the I-93 Exit 4A Project (Project). The Project consists of a new diamond interchange on I-93 in the Town of Londonderry, approximately one mile north of Exit 4. The new diamond interchange would provide access to the east side of I-93. A 1-mile connector roadway would be built on new alignment from the interchange to Folsom Road, near the intersection of North High Street and Madden Road, in the Town of Derry. Folsom Road, and subsequently Tsienneto Road, would be upgraded, and the intersections would be improved. In total, the Proposed Project corridor from I-93 to the intersection of Tsienneto Road and NH Route 102/Chester Road would be 3.2 miles. The purpose of the Project is to reduce congestion and improve safety along NH 102, from I-93 easterly through downtown Derry and to promote economic vitality in the Derry/Londonderry area.
The Towns of Derry and Londonderry (the Towns) and the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), are advancing an updated environmental study for the I-93 Exit 4A Project (Project). The Project consists of a new diamond interchange on I-93 in the Town of Londonderry, approximately one mile north of Exit 4. The new diamond interchange would provide access to the east side of I-93. A 1-mile connector roadway would be built on new alignment from the interchange to Folsom Road, near the intersection of North High Street and Madden Road, in the Town of Derry. Folsom Road, and subsequently Tsienneto Road, would be upgraded, and the intersections would be improved. In total, the Proposed Project corridor from I-93 to the intersection of Tsienneto Road and NH Route 102/Chester Road would be 3.2 miles. The purpose of the Project is to reduce congestion and improve safety along NH 102, from I-93 easterly through downtown Derry and to promote economic vitality in the Derry/Londonderry area.
The Towns of Derry and Londonderry (the Towns) and the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), are advancing an updated environmental study for the I-93 Exit 4A Project (Project). The Project consists of a new diamond interchange on I-93 in the Town of Londonderry, approximately one mile north of Exit 4. The new diamond interchange would provide access to the east side of I-93. A 1-mile connector roadway would be built on new alignment from the interchange to Folsom Road, near the intersection of North High Street and Madden Road, in the Town of Derry. Folsom Road, and subsequently Tsienneto Road, would be upgraded, and the intersections would be improved. In total, the Proposed Project corridor from I-93 to the intersection of Tsienneto Road and NH Route 102/Chester Road would be 3.2 miles. The purpose of the Project is to reduce congestion and improve safety along NH 102, from I-93 easterly through downtown Derry and to promote economic vitality in the Derry/Londonderry area.
The Towns of Derry and Londonderry (the Towns) and the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), are advancing an updated environmental study for the I-93 Exit 4A Project (Project). The Project consists of a new diamond interchange on I-93 in the Town of Londonderry, approximately one mile north of Exit 4. The new diamond interchange would provide access to the east side of I-93. A 1-mile connector roadway would be built on new alignment from the interchange to Folsom Road, near the intersection of North High Street and Madden Road, in the Town of Derry. Folsom Road, and subsequently Tsienneto Road, would be upgraded, and the intersections would be improved. In total, the Proposed Project corridor from I-93 to the intersection of Tsienneto Road and NH Route 102/Chester Road would be 3.2 miles. The purpose of the Project is to reduce congestion and improve safety along NH 102, from I-93 easterly through downtown Derry and to promote economic vitality in the Derry/Londonderry area.
The Towns of Derry and Londonderry (the Towns) and the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), are advancing an updated environmental study for the I-93 Exit 4A Project (Project). The Project consists of a new diamond interchange on I-93 in the Town of Londonderry, approximately one mile north of Exit 4. The new diamond interchange would provide access to the east side of I-93. A 1-mile connector roadway would be built on new alignment from the interchange to Folsom Road, near the intersection of North High Street and Madden Road, in the Town of Derry. Folsom Road, and subsequently Tsienneto Road, would be upgraded, and the intersections would be improved. In total, the Proposed Project corridor from I-93 to the intersection of Tsienneto Road and NH Route 102/Chester Road would be 3.2 miles. The purpose of the Project is to reduce congestion and improve safety along NH 102, from I-93 easterly through downtown Derry and to promote economic vitality in the Derry/Londonderry area.
The Towns of Derry and Londonderry (the Towns) and the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), are advancing an updated environmental study for the I-93 Exit 4A Project (Project). The Project consists of a new diamond interchange on I-93 in the Town of Londonderry, approximately one mile north of Exit 4. The new diamond interchange would provide access to the east side of I-93. A 1-mile connector roadway would be built on new alignment from the interchange to Folsom Road, near the intersection of North High Street and Madden Road, in the Town of Derry. Folsom Road, and subsequently Tsienneto Road, would be upgraded, and the intersections would be improved. In total, the Proposed Project corridor from I-93 to the intersection of Tsienneto Road and NH Route 102/Chester Road would be 3.2 miles. The purpose of the Project is to reduce congestion and improve safety along NH 102, from I-93 easterly through downtown Derry and to promote economic vitality in the Derry/Londonderry area.
Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) is investigating the need to rehabilitate, reconstruct, or replace Interstate 84 (I-84) through Hartford: The I-84 Hartford Project.&nbsp;The I-84 Hartford Project corridor is approximately three miles in length and encompasses the interchanges and elevated bridge sections of the highway from as far west as Hamilton Street to the I-91 Interchange on the east.

The purpose of the I-84 Hartford Project is to address structural deficiencies, improve traffic operations and safety, and improve mobility on the I-84 mainline and its interchanges between Flatbrush Avenue and I-91 in Hartford.&nbsp;A high-level planning study was completed in 2010.&nbsp;Scoping started in&nbsp;December 2014 under the assumption that the class of action would be an EA. The Section 6002 Agency Coordination Process was followed. After initial studies of anticipated resource impacts, the FHWA and the CTDOT determined it appropriate to develop an EIS.&nbsp;
Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) is investigating the need to rehabilitate, reconstruct, or replace Interstate 84 (I-84) through Hartford: The I-84 Hartford Project.&nbsp;The I-84 Hartford Project corridor is approximately three miles in length and encompasses the interchanges and elevated bridge sections of the highway from as far west as Hamilton Street to the I-91 Interchange on the east.

The purpose of the I-84 Hartford Project is to address structural deficiencies, improve traffic operations and safety, and improve mobility on the I-84 mainline and its interchanges between Flatbrush Avenue and I-91 in Hartford.&nbsp;A high-level planning study was completed in 2010.&nbsp;Scoping started in&nbsp;December 2014 under the assumption that the class of action would be an EA. The Section 6002 Agency Coordination Process was followed. After initial studies of anticipated resource impacts, the FHWA and the CTDOT determined it appropriate to develop an EIS.&nbsp;
Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) is investigating the need to rehabilitate, reconstruct, or replace Interstate 84 (I-84) through Hartford: The I-84 Hartford Project.&nbsp;The I-84 Hartford Project corridor is approximately three miles in length and encompasses the interchanges and elevated bridge sections of the highway from as far west as Hamilton Street to the I-91 Interchange on the east.

The purpose of the I-84 Hartford Project is to address structural deficiencies, improve traffic operations and safety, and improve mobility on the I-84 mainline and its interchanges between Flatbrush Avenue and I-91 in Hartford.&nbsp;A high-level planning study was completed in 2010.&nbsp;Scoping started in&nbsp;December 2014 under the assumption that the class of action would be an EA. The Section 6002 Agency Coordination Process was followed. After initial studies of anticipated resource impacts, the FHWA and the CTDOT determined it appropriate to develop an EIS.&nbsp;
Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) is investigating the need to rehabilitate, reconstruct, or replace Interstate 84 (I-84) through Hartford: The I-84 Hartford Project.&nbsp;The I-84 Hartford Project corridor is approximately three miles in length and encompasses the interchanges and elevated bridge sections of the highway from as far west as Hamilton Street to the I-91 Interchange on the east.

The purpose of the I-84 Hartford Project is to address structural deficiencies, improve traffic operations and safety, and improve mobility on the I-84 mainline and its interchanges between Flatbrush Avenue and I-91 in Hartford.&nbsp;A high-level planning study was completed in 2010.&nbsp;Scoping started in&nbsp;December 2014 under the assumption that the class of action would be an EA. The Section 6002 Agency Coordination Process was followed. After initial studies of anticipated resource impacts, the FHWA and the CTDOT determined it appropriate to develop an EIS.&nbsp;
Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) is investigating the need to rehabilitate, reconstruct, or replace Interstate 84 (I-84) through Hartford: The I-84 Hartford Project.&nbsp;The I-84 Hartford Project corridor is approximately three miles in length and encompasses the interchanges and elevated bridge sections of the highway from as far west as Hamilton Street to the I-91 Interchange on the east.

The purpose of the I-84 Hartford Project is to address structural deficiencies, improve traffic operations and safety, and improve mobility on the I-84 mainline and its interchanges between Flatbrush Avenue and I-91 in Hartford.&nbsp;A high-level planning study was completed in 2010.&nbsp;Scoping started in&nbsp;December 2014 under the assumption that the class of action would be an EA. The Section 6002 Agency Coordination Process was followed. After initial studies of anticipated resource impacts, the FHWA and the CTDOT determined it appropriate to develop an EIS.&nbsp;
Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) is investigating the need to rehabilitate, reconstruct, or replace Interstate 84 (I-84) through Hartford: The I-84 Hartford Project.&nbsp;The I-84 Hartford Project corridor is approximately three miles in length and encompasses the interchanges and elevated bridge sections of the highway from as far west as Hamilton Street to the I-91 Interchange on the east.

The purpose of the I-84 Hartford Project is to address structural deficiencies, improve traffic operations and safety, and improve mobility on the I-84 mainline and its interchanges between Flatbrush Avenue and I-91 in Hartford.&nbsp;A high-level planning study was completed in 2010.&nbsp;Scoping started in&nbsp;December 2014 under the assumption that the class of action would be an EA. The Section 6002 Agency Coordination Process was followed. After initial studies of anticipated resource impacts, the FHWA and the CTDOT determined it appropriate to develop an EIS.&nbsp;
Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) is investigating the need to rehabilitate, reconstruct, or replace Interstate 84 (I-84) through Hartford: The I-84 Hartford Project.&nbsp;The I-84 Hartford Project corridor is approximately three miles in length and encompasses the interchanges and elevated bridge sections of the highway from as far west as Hamilton Street to the I-91 Interchange on the east.

The purpose of the I-84 Hartford Project is to address structural deficiencies, improve traffic operations and safety, and improve mobility on the I-84 mainline and its interchanges between Flatbrush Avenue and I-91 in Hartford.&nbsp;A high-level planning study was completed in 2010.&nbsp;Scoping started in&nbsp;December 2014 under the assumption that the class of action would be an EA. The Section 6002 Agency Coordination Process was followed. After initial studies of anticipated resource impacts, the FHWA and the CTDOT determined it appropriate to develop an EIS.&nbsp;
Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) is investigating the need to rehabilitate, reconstruct, or replace Interstate 84 (I-84) through Hartford: The I-84 Hartford Project.&nbsp;The I-84 Hartford Project corridor is approximately three miles in length and encompasses the interchanges and elevated bridge sections of the highway from as far west as Hamilton Street to the I-91 Interchange on the east.

The purpose of the I-84 Hartford Project is to address structural deficiencies, improve traffic operations and safety, and improve mobility on the I-84 mainline and its interchanges between Flatbrush Avenue and I-91 in Hartford.&nbsp;A high-level planning study was completed in 2010.&nbsp;Scoping started in&nbsp;December 2014 under the assumption that the class of action would be an EA. The Section 6002 Agency Coordination Process was followed. After initial studies of anticipated resource impacts, the FHWA and the CTDOT determined it appropriate to develop an EIS.&nbsp;
Reinitiation of Consultation to Amend the Informal Section 7 Consultation. Caltrans&nbsp;requested to recalculate the estimated impacts and the resulting amount of project-related conservation in the subject informal consultation.&nbsp;Our informal consultation concluded that the project was not likely to adversely affect the vireo, least tern, and plover. Updating the project description with the acreage impact estimates in Table 1 more accurately reflects the permanent and temporary impacts to suitable habitat for the vireo, and the resulting amount of conservation according to CM 14. Since the actual impacts to vireo habitat will be less than estimated in our May 2, 2019, letter, these project modifications are not anticipated to result in effects beyond those already analyzed. In addition, although the overall amount of habitat conservation for the vireo has been reduced, the conservation will be implemented in the same manner and ratio as originally analyzed in our May 2, 2019, letter.Based on the information provided and the conservation measures that have been incorporated into the proposed project description, we concur with your determination that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the vireo, plover and tern. Therefore, the interagency consultation requirements of section 7 of the Act have been satisfied and the informal consultation (FWS-LA-08B0786-19I0726) has been amended with this updated information. Although our concurrence ends informal consultation, obligations under section 7 of the Act will be reconsidered if new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered or&nbsp;or this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this assessment.
Reinitiation of Consultation to Amend the Informal Section 7 Consultation. Caltrans&nbsp;requested to recalculate the estimated impacts and the resulting amount of project-related conservation in the subject informal consultation.&nbsp;Our informal consultation concluded that the project was not likely to adversely affect the vireo, least tern, and plover. Updating the project description with the acreage impact estimates in Table 1 more accurately reflects the permanent and temporary impacts to suitable habitat for the vireo, and the resulting amount of conservation according to CM 14. Since the actual impacts to vireo habitat will be less than estimated in our May 2, 2019, letter, these project modifications are not anticipated to result in effects beyond those already analyzed. In addition, although the overall amount of habitat conservation for the vireo has been reduced, the conservation will be implemented in the same manner and ratio as originally analyzed in our May 2, 2019, letter.Based on the information provided and the conservation measures that have been incorporated into the proposed project description, we concur with your determination that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the vireo, plover and tern. Therefore, the interagency consultation requirements of section 7 of the Act have been satisfied and the informal consultation (FWS-LA-08B0786-19I0726) has been amended with this updated information. Although our concurrence ends informal consultation, obligations under section 7 of the Act will be reconsidered if new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered or&nbsp;or this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this assessment.
Reinitiation of Consultation to Amend the Informal Section 7 Consultation. Caltrans&nbsp;requested to recalculate the estimated impacts and the resulting amount of project-related conservation in the subject informal consultation.&nbsp;Our informal consultation concluded that the project was not likely to adversely affect the vireo, least tern, and plover. Updating the project description with the acreage impact estimates in Table 1 more accurately reflects the permanent and temporary impacts to suitable habitat for the vireo, and the resulting amount of conservation according to CM 14. Since the actual impacts to vireo habitat will be less than estimated in our May 2, 2019, letter, these project modifications are not anticipated to result in effects beyond those already analyzed. In addition, although the overall amount of habitat conservation for the vireo has been reduced, the conservation will be implemented in the same manner and ratio as originally analyzed in our May 2, 2019, letter.Based on the information provided and the conservation measures that have been incorporated into the proposed project description, we concur with your determination that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the vireo, plover and tern. Therefore, the interagency consultation requirements of section 7 of the Act have been satisfied and the informal consultation (FWS-LA-08B0786-19I0726) has been amended with this updated information. Although our concurrence ends informal consultation, obligations under section 7 of the Act will be reconsidered if new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered or&nbsp;or this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this assessment.
Based on conservation measures committed to by Caltrans, we concur with your determination that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; vireo), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; flycatcher), and Braunton's milk-vetch (Astragalus brauntonii; milk-vetch); the federally threatened Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae; sucker) and thread-leaved Brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia; brodiaea); and designated critical habitat for the sucker and milk-vetch.
Based on conservation measures committed to by Caltrans, we concur with your determination that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; vireo), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; flycatcher), and Braunton's milk-vetch (Astragalus brauntonii; milk-vetch); the federally threatened Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae; sucker) and thread-leaved Brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia; brodiaea); and designated critical habitat for the sucker and milk-vetch.
Based on conservation measures committed to by Caltrans, we concur with your determination that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; vireo), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; flycatcher), and Braunton's milk-vetch (Astragalus brauntonii; milk-vetch); the federally threatened Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae; sucker) and thread-leaved Brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia; brodiaea); and designated critical habitat for the sucker and milk-vetch.
The 2017 LOC was for the Phase II Cultural Excavations and was for the Giant Garter Snake.
The 2017 LOC was for the Phase II Cultural Excavations and was for the Giant Garter Snake.
The 2017 LOC was for the Phase II Cultural Excavations and was for the Giant Garter Snake.
The&nbsp;findings concluded that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Central California tiger salamander and San Joaquin kit fox, and may affect, and is likely to adversely affect the giant garter snake.
The&nbsp;findings concluded that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Central California tiger salamander and San Joaquin kit fox, and may affect, and is likely to adversely affect the giant garter snake.
The&nbsp;findings concluded that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Central California tiger salamander and San Joaquin kit fox, and may affect, and is likely to adversely affect the giant garter snake.
LOC Received California Central Valley Steelhead and Chinook Salmon
LOC Received California Central Valley Steelhead and Chinook Salmon
LOC Received California Central Valley Steelhead and Chinook Salmon
EA for runway &amp; taxiway extension
EA for runway &amp; taxiway extension
EA for runway &amp; taxiway extension
EA for runway &amp; taxiway extension
EA for runway &amp; taxiway extension
EA for runway &amp; taxiway extension
EA for runway &amp; taxiway extension
EA for runway &amp; taxiway extension
EA for runway &amp; taxiway extension
Construction and operation of a 252 room hotel including guest rooms, conference rooms, fitness center, and dining facilities is being considered by the Port Authority of NY&amp;NJ.&nbsp; It would be located between Terminals B and C and situated atop a pedestrian connector linking Terminals B and C. A developer for the hotel has not been selected at this time. The proposed hotel was recommended in the Report to Governor Cuomo from the Airport Advisory Panel: Guiding Principles for a Comprehensive Master Plan, dated July 2015.
Construction and operation of a 252 room hotel including guest rooms, conference rooms, fitness center, and dining facilities is being considered by the Port Authority of NY&amp;NJ.&nbsp; It would be located between Terminals B and C and situated atop a pedestrian connector linking Terminals B and C. A developer for the hotel has not been selected at this time. The proposed hotel was recommended in the Report to Governor Cuomo from the Airport Advisory Panel: Guiding Principles for a Comprehensive Master Plan, dated July 2015.
Construction and operation of a 252 room hotel including guest rooms, conference rooms, fitness center, and dining facilities is being considered by the Port Authority of NY&amp;NJ.&nbsp; It would be located between Terminals B and C and situated atop a pedestrian connector linking Terminals B and C. A developer for the hotel has not been selected at this time. The proposed hotel was recommended in the Report to Governor Cuomo from the Airport Advisory Panel: Guiding Principles for a Comprehensive Master Plan, dated July 2015.
Construction and operation of a 252 room hotel including guest rooms, conference rooms, fitness center, and dining facilities is being considered by the Port Authority of NY&amp;NJ.&nbsp; It would be located between Terminals B and C and situated atop a pedestrian connector linking Terminals B and C. A developer for the hotel has not been selected at this time. The proposed hotel was recommended in the Report to Governor Cuomo from the Airport Advisory Panel: Guiding Principles for a Comprehensive Master Plan, dated July 2015.
Construction and operation of a 252 room hotel including guest rooms, conference rooms, fitness center, and dining facilities is being considered by the Port Authority of NY&amp;NJ.&nbsp; It would be located between Terminals B and C and situated atop a pedestrian connector linking Terminals B and C. A developer for the hotel has not been selected at this time. The proposed hotel was recommended in the Report to Governor Cuomo from the Airport Advisory Panel: Guiding Principles for a Comprehensive Master Plan, dated July 2015.
Construction and operation of a 252 room hotel including guest rooms, conference rooms, fitness center, and dining facilities is being considered by the Port Authority of NY&amp;NJ.&nbsp; It would be located between Terminals B and C and situated atop a pedestrian connector linking Terminals B and C. A developer for the hotel has not been selected at this time. The proposed hotel was recommended in the Report to Governor Cuomo from the Airport Advisory Panel: Guiding Principles for a Comprehensive Master Plan, dated July 2015.
Construction and operation of a 252 room hotel including guest rooms, conference rooms, fitness center, and dining facilities is being considered by the Port Authority of NY&amp;NJ.&nbsp; It would be located between Terminals B and C and situated atop a pedestrian connector linking Terminals B and C. A developer for the hotel has not been selected at this time. The proposed hotel was recommended in the Report to Governor Cuomo from the Airport Advisory Panel: Guiding Principles for a Comprehensive Master Plan, dated July 2015.
Construction and operation of a 252 room hotel including guest rooms, conference rooms, fitness center, and dining facilities is being considered by the Port Authority of NY&amp;NJ.&nbsp; It would be located between Terminals B and C and situated atop a pedestrian connector linking Terminals B and C. A developer for the hotel has not been selected at this time. The proposed hotel was recommended in the Report to Governor Cuomo from the Airport Advisory Panel: Guiding Principles for a Comprehensive Master Plan, dated July 2015.
Construction and operation of a 252 room hotel including guest rooms, conference rooms, fitness center, and dining facilities is being considered by the Port Authority of NY&amp;NJ.&nbsp; It would be located between Terminals B and C and situated atop a pedestrian connector linking Terminals B and C. A developer for the hotel has not been selected at this time. The proposed hotel was recommended in the Report to Governor Cuomo from the Airport Advisory Panel: Guiding Principles for a Comprehensive Master Plan, dated July 2015.
Reconstruct runway, taxiways and aprons.&nbsp; Replace existing and install new airport lighting.&nbsp; Construct riprap protection against flooding.
Reconstruct runway, taxiways and aprons.&nbsp; Replace existing and install new airport lighting.&nbsp; Construct riprap protection against flooding.
Reconstruct runway, taxiways and aprons.&nbsp; Replace existing and install new airport lighting.&nbsp; Construct riprap protection against flooding.
Reconstruct runway, taxiways and aprons.&nbsp; Replace existing and install new airport lighting.&nbsp; Construct riprap protection against flooding.
Reconstruct runway, taxiways and aprons.&nbsp; Replace existing and install new airport lighting.&nbsp; Construct riprap protection against flooding.
Reconstruct runway, taxiways and aprons.&nbsp; Replace existing and install new airport lighting.&nbsp; Construct riprap protection against flooding.
Reconstruct runway, taxiways and aprons.&nbsp; Replace existing and install new airport lighting.&nbsp; Construct riprap protection against flooding.
Reconstruct runway, taxiways and aprons.&nbsp; Replace existing and install new airport lighting.&nbsp; Construct riprap protection against flooding.
Reconstruct runway, taxiways and aprons.&nbsp; Replace existing and install new airport lighting.&nbsp; Construct riprap protection against flooding.
The project involves the widening and re-grading of Runway 8-26, RSA re-grading, Taxiway A relocation, and apron improvements to meet FAA design standards. The existing 3,881 ft. Runway 8-26 will be widened from 50 ft. to 60 ft.&nbsp; The existing Taxiway A will be relocated, as a partial parallel taxiway, to meet the FAA required separation distance.
The project involves the widening and re-grading of Runway 8-26, RSA re-grading, Taxiway A relocation, and apron improvements to meet FAA design standards. The existing 3,881 ft. Runway 8-26 will be widened from 50 ft. to 60 ft.&nbsp; The existing Taxiway A will be relocated, as a partial parallel taxiway, to meet the FAA required separation distance.
The project involves the widening and re-grading of Runway 8-26, RSA re-grading, Taxiway A relocation, and apron improvements to meet FAA design standards. The existing 3,881 ft. Runway 8-26 will be widened from 50 ft. to 60 ft.&nbsp; The existing Taxiway A will be relocated, as a partial parallel taxiway, to meet the FAA required separation distance.
The project involves the widening and re-grading of Runway 8-26, RSA re-grading, Taxiway A relocation, and apron improvements to meet FAA design standards. The existing 3,881 ft. Runway 8-26 will be widened from 50 ft. to 60 ft.&nbsp; The existing Taxiway A will be relocated, as a partial parallel taxiway, to meet the FAA required separation distance.
The project involves the widening and re-grading of Runway 8-26, RSA re-grading, Taxiway A relocation, and apron improvements to meet FAA design standards. The existing 3,881 ft. Runway 8-26 will be widened from 50 ft. to 60 ft.&nbsp; The existing Taxiway A will be relocated, as a partial parallel taxiway, to meet the FAA required separation distance.
The project involves the widening and re-grading of Runway 8-26, RSA re-grading, Taxiway A relocation, and apron improvements to meet FAA design standards. The existing 3,881 ft. Runway 8-26 will be widened from 50 ft. to 60 ft.&nbsp; The existing Taxiway A will be relocated, as a partial parallel taxiway, to meet the FAA required separation distance.
The project involves the widening and re-grading of Runway 8-26, RSA re-grading, Taxiway A relocation, and apron improvements to meet FAA design standards. The existing 3,881 ft. Runway 8-26 will be widened from 50 ft. to 60 ft.&nbsp; The existing Taxiway A will be relocated, as a partial parallel taxiway, to meet the FAA required separation distance.
The project involves the widening and re-grading of Runway 8-26, RSA re-grading, Taxiway A relocation, and apron improvements to meet FAA design standards. The existing 3,881 ft. Runway 8-26 will be widened from 50 ft. to 60 ft.&nbsp; The existing Taxiway A will be relocated, as a partial parallel taxiway, to meet the FAA required separation distance.
The project involves the widening and re-grading of Runway 8-26, RSA re-grading, Taxiway A relocation, and apron improvements to meet FAA design standards. The existing 3,881 ft. Runway 8-26 will be widened from 50 ft. to 60 ft.&nbsp; The existing Taxiway A will be relocated, as a partial parallel taxiway, to meet the FAA required separation distance.
Existing: two- 10-ft lanes and two 4-ft sidewalks. The bridge superstructure will be replaced to accommodate two 12-ft travel lanes, two 2-ft shoulders, and two 8-ft sidewalks. The existing spandrel columns at piers would be replaced with a wider box beam superstructure and rails. &nbsp;Existing abutments would be replaced and retaining wall at the abutments would be repaired. &nbsp;Approaches would be widened.
Existing: two- 10-ft lanes and two 4-ft sidewalks. The bridge superstructure will be replaced to accommodate two 12-ft travel lanes, two 2-ft shoulders, and two 8-ft sidewalks. The existing spandrel columns at piers would be replaced with a wider box beam superstructure and rails. &nbsp;Existing abutments would be replaced and retaining wall at the abutments would be repaired. &nbsp;Approaches would be widened.
Existing: two- 10-ft lanes and two 4-ft sidewalks. The bridge superstructure will be replaced to accommodate two 12-ft travel lanes, two 2-ft shoulders, and two 8-ft sidewalks. The existing spandrel columns at piers would be replaced with a wider box beam superstructure and rails. &nbsp;Existing abutments would be replaced and retaining wall at the abutments would be repaired. &nbsp;Approaches would be widened.
Existing: two- 10-ft lanes and two 4-ft sidewalks. The bridge superstructure will be replaced to accommodate two 12-ft travel lanes, two 2-ft shoulders, and two 8-ft sidewalks. The existing spandrel columns at piers would be replaced with a wider box beam superstructure and rails. &nbsp;Existing abutments would be replaced and retaining wall at the abutments would be repaired. &nbsp;Approaches would be widened.
Existing: two- 10-ft lanes and two 4-ft sidewalks. The bridge superstructure will be replaced to accommodate two 12-ft travel lanes, two 2-ft shoulders, and two 8-ft sidewalks. The existing spandrel columns at piers would be replaced with a wider box beam superstructure and rails. &nbsp;Existing abutments would be replaced and retaining wall at the abutments would be repaired. &nbsp;Approaches would be widened.
Existing: two- 10-ft lanes and two 4-ft sidewalks. The bridge superstructure will be replaced to accommodate two 12-ft travel lanes, two 2-ft shoulders, and two 8-ft sidewalks. The existing spandrel columns at piers would be replaced with a wider box beam superstructure and rails. &nbsp;Existing abutments would be replaced and retaining wall at the abutments would be repaired. &nbsp;Approaches would be widened.
Existing: two- 10-ft lanes and two 4-ft sidewalks. The bridge superstructure will be replaced to accommodate two 12-ft travel lanes, two 2-ft shoulders, and two 8-ft sidewalks. The existing spandrel columns at piers would be replaced with a wider box beam superstructure and rails. &nbsp;Existing abutments would be replaced and retaining wall at the abutments would be repaired. &nbsp;Approaches would be widened.
Existing: two- 10-ft lanes and two 4-ft sidewalks. The bridge superstructure will be replaced to accommodate two 12-ft travel lanes, two 2-ft shoulders, and two 8-ft sidewalks. The existing spandrel columns at piers would be replaced with a wider box beam superstructure and rails. &nbsp;Existing abutments would be replaced and retaining wall at the abutments would be repaired. &nbsp;Approaches would be widened.
Existing: two- 10-ft lanes and two 4-ft sidewalks. The bridge superstructure will be replaced to accommodate two 12-ft travel lanes, two 2-ft shoulders, and two 8-ft sidewalks. The existing spandrel columns at piers would be replaced with a wider box beam superstructure and rails. &nbsp;Existing abutments would be replaced and retaining wall at the abutments would be repaired. &nbsp;Approaches would be widened.
Release of airport property for the development of a 70 unit planned retirement community
Release of airport property for the development of a 70 unit planned retirement community
Release of airport property for the development of a 70 unit planned retirement community
Release of airport property for the development of a 70 unit planned retirement community
Release of airport property for the development of a 70 unit planned retirement community
Release of airport property for the development of a 70 unit planned retirement community
Release of airport property for the development of a 70 unit planned retirement community
Release of airport property for the development of a 70 unit planned retirement community
Release of airport property for the development of a 70 unit planned retirement community
The project is necessary because the existing taxiway is at an angle to the runway rather than parallel. This violates specific FAA airport design safety standards. The project will correct the non-compliant configuration by making the last 1,000 feet of taxiway parallel to the runway, providing a holding apron, and providing a connector taxiway that connects to the end of the runway at a 90-degree angle. The project thus replaces the current angled taxiway adjoining Runway 8-26 with a parallel taxiway separated from the runway. The project will involve installation of 2.29 acres of new pavement, removal of 1.99 acres of existing pavement in an area to be restored to mown grass Runway SafetyAreas (RSA), and will retain and reconstruct 0.68 acres of pavement.
The project is necessary because the existing taxiway is at an angle to the runway rather than parallel. This violates specific FAA airport design safety standards. The project will correct the non-compliant configuration by making the last 1,000 feet of taxiway parallel to the runway, providing a holding apron, and providing a connector taxiway that connects to the end of the runway at a 90-degree angle. The project thus replaces the current angled taxiway adjoining Runway 8-26 with a parallel taxiway separated from the runway. The project will involve installation of 2.29 acres of new pavement, removal of 1.99 acres of existing pavement in an area to be restored to mown grass Runway SafetyAreas (RSA), and will retain and reconstruct 0.68 acres of pavement.
The project is necessary because the existing taxiway is at an angle to the runway rather than parallel. This violates specific FAA airport design safety standards. The project will correct the non-compliant configuration by making the last 1,000 feet of taxiway parallel to the runway, providing a holding apron, and providing a connector taxiway that connects to the end of the runway at a 90-degree angle. The project thus replaces the current angled taxiway adjoining Runway 8-26 with a parallel taxiway separated from the runway. The project will involve installation of 2.29 acres of new pavement, removal of 1.99 acres of existing pavement in an area to be restored to mown grass Runway SafetyAreas (RSA), and will retain and reconstruct 0.68 acres of pavement.
The project is necessary because the existing taxiway is at an angle to the runway rather than parallel. This violates specific FAA airport design safety standards. The project will correct the non-compliant configuration by making the last 1,000 feet of taxiway parallel to the runway, providing a holding apron, and providing a connector taxiway that connects to the end of the runway at a 90-degree angle. The project thus replaces the current angled taxiway adjoining Runway 8-26 with a parallel taxiway separated from the runway. The project will involve installation of 2.29 acres of new pavement, removal of 1.99 acres of existing pavement in an area to be restored to mown grass Runway SafetyAreas (RSA), and will retain and reconstruct 0.68 acres of pavement.
The project is necessary because the existing taxiway is at an angle to the runway rather than parallel. This violates specific FAA airport design safety standards. The project will correct the non-compliant configuration by making the last 1,000 feet of taxiway parallel to the runway, providing a holding apron, and providing a connector taxiway that connects to the end of the runway at a 90-degree angle. The project thus replaces the current angled taxiway adjoining Runway 8-26 with a parallel taxiway separated from the runway. The project will involve installation of 2.29 acres of new pavement, removal of 1.99 acres of existing pavement in an area to be restored to mown grass Runway SafetyAreas (RSA), and will retain and reconstruct 0.68 acres of pavement.
The project is necessary because the existing taxiway is at an angle to the runway rather than parallel. This violates specific FAA airport design safety standards. The project will correct the non-compliant configuration by making the last 1,000 feet of taxiway parallel to the runway, providing a holding apron, and providing a connector taxiway that connects to the end of the runway at a 90-degree angle. The project thus replaces the current angled taxiway adjoining Runway 8-26 with a parallel taxiway separated from the runway. The project will involve installation of 2.29 acres of new pavement, removal of 1.99 acres of existing pavement in an area to be restored to mown grass Runway SafetyAreas (RSA), and will retain and reconstruct 0.68 acres of pavement.
The project is necessary because the existing taxiway is at an angle to the runway rather than parallel. This violates specific FAA airport design safety standards. The project will correct the non-compliant configuration by making the last 1,000 feet of taxiway parallel to the runway, providing a holding apron, and providing a connector taxiway that connects to the end of the runway at a 90-degree angle. The project thus replaces the current angled taxiway adjoining Runway 8-26 with a parallel taxiway separated from the runway. The project will involve installation of 2.29 acres of new pavement, removal of 1.99 acres of existing pavement in an area to be restored to mown grass Runway SafetyAreas (RSA), and will retain and reconstruct 0.68 acres of pavement.
The project is necessary because the existing taxiway is at an angle to the runway rather than parallel. This violates specific FAA airport design safety standards. The project will correct the non-compliant configuration by making the last 1,000 feet of taxiway parallel to the runway, providing a holding apron, and providing a connector taxiway that connects to the end of the runway at a 90-degree angle. The project thus replaces the current angled taxiway adjoining Runway 8-26 with a parallel taxiway separated from the runway. The project will involve installation of 2.29 acres of new pavement, removal of 1.99 acres of existing pavement in an area to be restored to mown grass Runway SafetyAreas (RSA), and will retain and reconstruct 0.68 acres of pavement.
The project is necessary because the existing taxiway is at an angle to the runway rather than parallel. This violates specific FAA airport design safety standards. The project will correct the non-compliant configuration by making the last 1,000 feet of taxiway parallel to the runway, providing a holding apron, and providing a connector taxiway that connects to the end of the runway at a 90-degree angle. The project thus replaces the current angled taxiway adjoining Runway 8-26 with a parallel taxiway separated from the runway. The project will involve installation of 2.29 acres of new pavement, removal of 1.99 acres of existing pavement in an area to be restored to mown grass Runway SafetyAreas (RSA), and will retain and reconstruct 0.68 acres of pavement.
The proposed project would rehabilitate and improve the Toksook Bay Airport and access road to extend the service life of the facilities. The proposed work would include the following:


	Rehabilitate the existing runway (RW) 16-34
	Rehabilitate the existing taxiway (TW)
	Extend and/or widen the Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Taxiway Safety Area (TSA) to meet B-II safety area standards
	Extend the runway protection zones (RPZs)
	Rehabilitate and widen the existing airport access road
	Construct a new, heated, single bay snow removal equipment building (SREB), including associated electrical work, fuel lines, and fuel storage
	Geotechnical investigation drilling (Figure 2)
	Install new lighting on TW and RW 16-34
	Improve, replace, or extend culverts
	Apply dust palliative to apron, RW, TW, and access road
The proposed project would rehabilitate and improve the Toksook Bay Airport and access road to extend the service life of the facilities. The proposed work would include the following:


	Rehabilitate the existing runway (RW) 16-34
	Rehabilitate the existing taxiway (TW)
	Extend and/or widen the Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Taxiway Safety Area (TSA) to meet B-II safety area standards
	Extend the runway protection zones (RPZs)
	Rehabilitate and widen the existing airport access road
	Construct a new, heated, single bay snow removal equipment building (SREB), including associated electrical work, fuel lines, and fuel storage
	Geotechnical investigation drilling (Figure 2)
	Install new lighting on TW and RW 16-34
	Improve, replace, or extend culverts
	Apply dust palliative to apron, RW, TW, and access road
The proposed project would rehabilitate and improve the Toksook Bay Airport and access road to extend the service life of the facilities. The proposed work would include the following:


	Rehabilitate the existing runway (RW) 16-34
	Rehabilitate the existing taxiway (TW)
	Extend and/or widen the Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Taxiway Safety Area (TSA) to meet B-II safety area standards
	Extend the runway protection zones (RPZs)
	Rehabilitate and widen the existing airport access road
	Construct a new, heated, single bay snow removal equipment building (SREB), including associated electrical work, fuel lines, and fuel storage
	Geotechnical investigation drilling (Figure 2)
	Install new lighting on TW and RW 16-34
	Improve, replace, or extend culverts
	Apply dust palliative to apron, RW, TW, and access road
The proposed project would rehabilitate and improve the Toksook Bay Airport and access road to extend the service life of the facilities. The proposed work would include the following:


	Rehabilitate the existing runway (RW) 16-34
	Rehabilitate the existing taxiway (TW)
	Extend and/or widen the Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Taxiway Safety Area (TSA) to meet B-II safety area standards
	Extend the runway protection zones (RPZs)
	Rehabilitate and widen the existing airport access road
	Construct a new, heated, single bay snow removal equipment building (SREB), including associated electrical work, fuel lines, and fuel storage
	Geotechnical investigation drilling (Figure 2)
	Install new lighting on TW and RW 16-34
	Improve, replace, or extend culverts
	Apply dust palliative to apron, RW, TW, and access road
The proposed project would rehabilitate and improve the Toksook Bay Airport and access road to extend the service life of the facilities. The proposed work would include the following:


	Rehabilitate the existing runway (RW) 16-34
	Rehabilitate the existing taxiway (TW)
	Extend and/or widen the Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Taxiway Safety Area (TSA) to meet B-II safety area standards
	Extend the runway protection zones (RPZs)
	Rehabilitate and widen the existing airport access road
	Construct a new, heated, single bay snow removal equipment building (SREB), including associated electrical work, fuel lines, and fuel storage
	Geotechnical investigation drilling (Figure 2)
	Install new lighting on TW and RW 16-34
	Improve, replace, or extend culverts
	Apply dust palliative to apron, RW, TW, and access road
The proposed project would rehabilitate and improve the Toksook Bay Airport and access road to extend the service life of the facilities. The proposed work would include the following:


	Rehabilitate the existing runway (RW) 16-34
	Rehabilitate the existing taxiway (TW)
	Extend and/or widen the Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Taxiway Safety Area (TSA) to meet B-II safety area standards
	Extend the runway protection zones (RPZs)
	Rehabilitate and widen the existing airport access road
	Construct a new, heated, single bay snow removal equipment building (SREB), including associated electrical work, fuel lines, and fuel storage
	Geotechnical investigation drilling (Figure 2)
	Install new lighting on TW and RW 16-34
	Improve, replace, or extend culverts
	Apply dust palliative to apron, RW, TW, and access road
The proposed project would rehabilitate and improve the Toksook Bay Airport and access road to extend the service life of the facilities. The proposed work would include the following:


	Rehabilitate the existing runway (RW) 16-34
	Rehabilitate the existing taxiway (TW)
	Extend and/or widen the Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Taxiway Safety Area (TSA) to meet B-II safety area standards
	Extend the runway protection zones (RPZs)
	Rehabilitate and widen the existing airport access road
	Construct a new, heated, single bay snow removal equipment building (SREB), including associated electrical work, fuel lines, and fuel storage
	Geotechnical investigation drilling (Figure 2)
	Install new lighting on TW and RW 16-34
	Improve, replace, or extend culverts
	Apply dust palliative to apron, RW, TW, and access road
The proposed project would rehabilitate and improve the Toksook Bay Airport and access road to extend the service life of the facilities. The proposed work would include the following:


	Rehabilitate the existing runway (RW) 16-34
	Rehabilitate the existing taxiway (TW)
	Extend and/or widen the Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Taxiway Safety Area (TSA) to meet B-II safety area standards
	Extend the runway protection zones (RPZs)
	Rehabilitate and widen the existing airport access road
	Construct a new, heated, single bay snow removal equipment building (SREB), including associated electrical work, fuel lines, and fuel storage
	Geotechnical investigation drilling (Figure 2)
	Install new lighting on TW and RW 16-34
	Improve, replace, or extend culverts
	Apply dust palliative to apron, RW, TW, and access road
The proposed project would rehabilitate and improve the Toksook Bay Airport and access road to extend the service life of the facilities. The proposed work would include the following:


	Rehabilitate the existing runway (RW) 16-34
	Rehabilitate the existing taxiway (TW)
	Extend and/or widen the Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Taxiway Safety Area (TSA) to meet B-II safety area standards
	Extend the runway protection zones (RPZs)
	Rehabilitate and widen the existing airport access road
	Construct a new, heated, single bay snow removal equipment building (SREB), including associated electrical work, fuel lines, and fuel storage
	Geotechnical investigation drilling (Figure 2)
	Install new lighting on TW and RW 16-34
	Improve, replace, or extend culverts
	Apply dust palliative to apron, RW, TW, and access road
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve mobility&nbsp;by increasing capacity and reducing traffic congestion.&nbsp;This project will also create a pedestrian friendly&nbsp;corridor with safe access to businesses and schools.The proposed project would widen the existing roadway from 4-6 lanes with grade separations, the addition of sidewalks and drainage improvements.
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve mobility&nbsp;by increasing capacity and reducing traffic congestion.&nbsp;This project will also create a pedestrian friendly&nbsp;corridor with safe access to businesses and schools.The proposed project would widen the existing roadway from 4-6 lanes with grade separations, the addition of sidewalks and drainage improvements.
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve mobility&nbsp;by increasing capacity and reducing traffic congestion.&nbsp;This project will also create a pedestrian friendly&nbsp;corridor with safe access to businesses and schools.The proposed project would widen the existing roadway from 4-6 lanes with grade separations, the addition of sidewalks and drainage improvements.
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve mobility&nbsp;by increasing capacity and reducing traffic congestion.&nbsp;This project will also create a pedestrian friendly&nbsp;corridor with safe access to businesses and schools.The proposed project would widen the existing roadway from 4-6 lanes with grade separations, the addition of sidewalks and drainage improvements.
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve mobility&nbsp;by increasing capacity and reducing traffic congestion.&nbsp;This project will also create a pedestrian friendly&nbsp;corridor with safe access to businesses and schools.The proposed project would widen the existing roadway from 4-6 lanes with grade separations, the addition of sidewalks and drainage improvements.
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve mobility&nbsp;by increasing capacity and reducing traffic congestion.&nbsp;This project will also create a pedestrian friendly&nbsp;corridor with safe access to businesses and schools.The proposed project would widen the existing roadway from 4-6 lanes with grade separations, the addition of sidewalks and drainage improvements.
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve mobility&nbsp;by increasing capacity and reducing traffic congestion.&nbsp;This project will also create a pedestrian friendly&nbsp;corridor with safe access to businesses and schools.The proposed project would widen the existing roadway from 4-6 lanes with grade separations, the addition of sidewalks and drainage improvements.
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve mobility&nbsp;by increasing capacity and reducing traffic congestion.&nbsp;This project will also create a pedestrian friendly&nbsp;corridor with safe access to businesses and schools.The proposed project would widen the existing roadway from 4-6 lanes with grade separations, the addition of sidewalks and drainage improvements.
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve mobility&nbsp;by increasing capacity and reducing traffic congestion.&nbsp;This project will also create a pedestrian friendly&nbsp;corridor with safe access to businesses and schools.The proposed project would widen the existing roadway from 4-6 lanes with grade separations, the addition of sidewalks and drainage improvements.
The purpose of the proposed project, being advanced by NJ Transit, is to enhance the resiliency of the electricity supply to the NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak infrastructure that serves key commuter markets in New York and New Jersey to minimize public transportation service disruptions.&nbsp; The region's public transportation infrastructure is vulnerable to power outages due to the nature of the existing centralized power distribution system and the intensity and frequency of severe weather events. &nbsp;The proposed microgrid will be a state-of-the-art electric power generating facility that will be scaled to provide emergency power for NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak service operating between New York's Penn Station and northeastern New Jersey as well as other transit service.&nbsp; It is anticipated that the new facility will be able to generate approximately 104 megawatts (MW) of electricity.&nbsp; Natural gas-fired generation was identified as the most cost-effective choice to serve the identified traction power loads (i.e., the power needed to operate trains).&nbsp;&nbsp; Clean-burning natural gas will provide fuel for the combustion turbines and/or engines. The proposed project also includes new transmission lines from the new facility to existing substations and to a new proposed substation. A no action alternative, which contemplates roadway and transit facility improvements (other than the proposed project) planned for and programmed to be implemented by the year 2021 (the proposed projects completion year), will be defined to serve as a baseline for comparison to the build alternative options.&nbsp; A project site for the approximate 104 MW power plant was identified in Kearny, Hudson County, New Jersey based on site screening analyses.
The purpose of the proposed project, being advanced by NJ Transit, is to enhance the resiliency of the electricity supply to the NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak infrastructure that serves key commuter markets in New York and New Jersey to minimize public transportation service disruptions.&nbsp; The region's public transportation infrastructure is vulnerable to power outages due to the nature of the existing centralized power distribution system and the intensity and frequency of severe weather events. &nbsp;The proposed microgrid will be a state-of-the-art electric power generating facility that will be scaled to provide emergency power for NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak service operating between New York's Penn Station and northeastern New Jersey as well as other transit service.&nbsp; It is anticipated that the new facility will be able to generate approximately 104 megawatts (MW) of electricity.&nbsp; Natural gas-fired generation was identified as the most cost-effective choice to serve the identified traction power loads (i.e., the power needed to operate trains).&nbsp;&nbsp; Clean-burning natural gas will provide fuel for the combustion turbines and/or engines. The proposed project also includes new transmission lines from the new facility to existing substations and to a new proposed substation. A no action alternative, which contemplates roadway and transit facility improvements (other than the proposed project) planned for and programmed to be implemented by the year 2021 (the proposed projects completion year), will be defined to serve as a baseline for comparison to the build alternative options.&nbsp; A project site for the approximate 104 MW power plant was identified in Kearny, Hudson County, New Jersey based on site screening analyses.
The purpose of the proposed project, being advanced by NJ Transit, is to enhance the resiliency of the electricity supply to the NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak infrastructure that serves key commuter markets in New York and New Jersey to minimize public transportation service disruptions.&nbsp; The region's public transportation infrastructure is vulnerable to power outages due to the nature of the existing centralized power distribution system and the intensity and frequency of severe weather events. &nbsp;The proposed microgrid will be a state-of-the-art electric power generating facility that will be scaled to provide emergency power for NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak service operating between New York's Penn Station and northeastern New Jersey as well as other transit service.&nbsp; It is anticipated that the new facility will be able to generate approximately 104 megawatts (MW) of electricity.&nbsp; Natural gas-fired generation was identified as the most cost-effective choice to serve the identified traction power loads (i.e., the power needed to operate trains).&nbsp;&nbsp; Clean-burning natural gas will provide fuel for the combustion turbines and/or engines. The proposed project also includes new transmission lines from the new facility to existing substations and to a new proposed substation. A no action alternative, which contemplates roadway and transit facility improvements (other than the proposed project) planned for and programmed to be implemented by the year 2021 (the proposed projects completion year), will be defined to serve as a baseline for comparison to the build alternative options.&nbsp; A project site for the approximate 104 MW power plant was identified in Kearny, Hudson County, New Jersey based on site screening analyses.
The purpose of the proposed project, being advanced by NJ Transit, is to enhance the resiliency of the electricity supply to the NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak infrastructure that serves key commuter markets in New York and New Jersey to minimize public transportation service disruptions.&nbsp; The region's public transportation infrastructure is vulnerable to power outages due to the nature of the existing centralized power distribution system and the intensity and frequency of severe weather events. &nbsp;The proposed microgrid will be a state-of-the-art electric power generating facility that will be scaled to provide emergency power for NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak service operating between New York's Penn Station and northeastern New Jersey as well as other transit service.&nbsp; It is anticipated that the new facility will be able to generate approximately 104 megawatts (MW) of electricity.&nbsp; Natural gas-fired generation was identified as the most cost-effective choice to serve the identified traction power loads (i.e., the power needed to operate trains).&nbsp;&nbsp; Clean-burning natural gas will provide fuel for the combustion turbines and/or engines. The proposed project also includes new transmission lines from the new facility to existing substations and to a new proposed substation. A no action alternative, which contemplates roadway and transit facility improvements (other than the proposed project) planned for and programmed to be implemented by the year 2021 (the proposed projects completion year), will be defined to serve as a baseline for comparison to the build alternative options.&nbsp; A project site for the approximate 104 MW power plant was identified in Kearny, Hudson County, New Jersey based on site screening analyses.
The purpose of the proposed project, being advanced by NJ Transit, is to enhance the resiliency of the electricity supply to the NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak infrastructure that serves key commuter markets in New York and New Jersey to minimize public transportation service disruptions.&nbsp; The region's public transportation infrastructure is vulnerable to power outages due to the nature of the existing centralized power distribution system and the intensity and frequency of severe weather events. &nbsp;The proposed microgrid will be a state-of-the-art electric power generating facility that will be scaled to provide emergency power for NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak service operating between New York's Penn Station and northeastern New Jersey as well as other transit service.&nbsp; It is anticipated that the new facility will be able to generate approximately 104 megawatts (MW) of electricity.&nbsp; Natural gas-fired generation was identified as the most cost-effective choice to serve the identified traction power loads (i.e., the power needed to operate trains).&nbsp;&nbsp; Clean-burning natural gas will provide fuel for the combustion turbines and/or engines. The proposed project also includes new transmission lines from the new facility to existing substations and to a new proposed substation. A no action alternative, which contemplates roadway and transit facility improvements (other than the proposed project) planned for and programmed to be implemented by the year 2021 (the proposed projects completion year), will be defined to serve as a baseline for comparison to the build alternative options.&nbsp; A project site for the approximate 104 MW power plant was identified in Kearny, Hudson County, New Jersey based on site screening analyses.
The purpose of the proposed project, being advanced by NJ Transit, is to enhance the resiliency of the electricity supply to the NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak infrastructure that serves key commuter markets in New York and New Jersey to minimize public transportation service disruptions.&nbsp; The region's public transportation infrastructure is vulnerable to power outages due to the nature of the existing centralized power distribution system and the intensity and frequency of severe weather events. &nbsp;The proposed microgrid will be a state-of-the-art electric power generating facility that will be scaled to provide emergency power for NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak service operating between New York's Penn Station and northeastern New Jersey as well as other transit service.&nbsp; It is anticipated that the new facility will be able to generate approximately 104 megawatts (MW) of electricity.&nbsp; Natural gas-fired generation was identified as the most cost-effective choice to serve the identified traction power loads (i.e., the power needed to operate trains).&nbsp;&nbsp; Clean-burning natural gas will provide fuel for the combustion turbines and/or engines. The proposed project also includes new transmission lines from the new facility to existing substations and to a new proposed substation. A no action alternative, which contemplates roadway and transit facility improvements (other than the proposed project) planned for and programmed to be implemented by the year 2021 (the proposed projects completion year), will be defined to serve as a baseline for comparison to the build alternative options.&nbsp; A project site for the approximate 104 MW power plant was identified in Kearny, Hudson County, New Jersey based on site screening analyses.
The purpose of the proposed project, being advanced by NJ Transit, is to enhance the resiliency of the electricity supply to the NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak infrastructure that serves key commuter markets in New York and New Jersey to minimize public transportation service disruptions.&nbsp; The region's public transportation infrastructure is vulnerable to power outages due to the nature of the existing centralized power distribution system and the intensity and frequency of severe weather events. &nbsp;The proposed microgrid will be a state-of-the-art electric power generating facility that will be scaled to provide emergency power for NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak service operating between New York's Penn Station and northeastern New Jersey as well as other transit service.&nbsp; It is anticipated that the new facility will be able to generate approximately 104 megawatts (MW) of electricity.&nbsp; Natural gas-fired generation was identified as the most cost-effective choice to serve the identified traction power loads (i.e., the power needed to operate trains).&nbsp;&nbsp; Clean-burning natural gas will provide fuel for the combustion turbines and/or engines. The proposed project also includes new transmission lines from the new facility to existing substations and to a new proposed substation. A no action alternative, which contemplates roadway and transit facility improvements (other than the proposed project) planned for and programmed to be implemented by the year 2021 (the proposed projects completion year), will be defined to serve as a baseline for comparison to the build alternative options.&nbsp; A project site for the approximate 104 MW power plant was identified in Kearny, Hudson County, New Jersey based on site screening analyses.
The purpose of the proposed project, being advanced by NJ Transit, is to enhance the resiliency of the electricity supply to the NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak infrastructure that serves key commuter markets in New York and New Jersey to minimize public transportation service disruptions.&nbsp; The region's public transportation infrastructure is vulnerable to power outages due to the nature of the existing centralized power distribution system and the intensity and frequency of severe weather events. &nbsp;The proposed microgrid will be a state-of-the-art electric power generating facility that will be scaled to provide emergency power for NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak service operating between New York's Penn Station and northeastern New Jersey as well as other transit service.&nbsp; It is anticipated that the new facility will be able to generate approximately 104 megawatts (MW) of electricity.&nbsp; Natural gas-fired generation was identified as the most cost-effective choice to serve the identified traction power loads (i.e., the power needed to operate trains).&nbsp;&nbsp; Clean-burning natural gas will provide fuel for the combustion turbines and/or engines. The proposed project also includes new transmission lines from the new facility to existing substations and to a new proposed substation. A no action alternative, which contemplates roadway and transit facility improvements (other than the proposed project) planned for and programmed to be implemented by the year 2021 (the proposed projects completion year), will be defined to serve as a baseline for comparison to the build alternative options.&nbsp; A project site for the approximate 104 MW power plant was identified in Kearny, Hudson County, New Jersey based on site screening analyses.
The purpose of the proposed project, being advanced by NJ Transit, is to enhance the resiliency of the electricity supply to the NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak infrastructure that serves key commuter markets in New York and New Jersey to minimize public transportation service disruptions.&nbsp; The region's public transportation infrastructure is vulnerable to power outages due to the nature of the existing centralized power distribution system and the intensity and frequency of severe weather events. &nbsp;The proposed microgrid will be a state-of-the-art electric power generating facility that will be scaled to provide emergency power for NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak service operating between New York's Penn Station and northeastern New Jersey as well as other transit service.&nbsp; It is anticipated that the new facility will be able to generate approximately 104 megawatts (MW) of electricity.&nbsp; Natural gas-fired generation was identified as the most cost-effective choice to serve the identified traction power loads (i.e., the power needed to operate trains).&nbsp;&nbsp; Clean-burning natural gas will provide fuel for the combustion turbines and/or engines. The proposed project also includes new transmission lines from the new facility to existing substations and to a new proposed substation. A no action alternative, which contemplates roadway and transit facility improvements (other than the proposed project) planned for and programmed to be implemented by the year 2021 (the proposed projects completion year), will be defined to serve as a baseline for comparison to the build alternative options.&nbsp; A project site for the approximate 104 MW power plant was identified in Kearny, Hudson County, New Jersey based on site screening analyses.
The purpose of the proposed project, being advanced by NJ Transit, is to enhance the resiliency of the electricity supply to the NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak infrastructure that serves key commuter markets in New York and New Jersey to minimize public transportation service disruptions.&nbsp; The region's public transportation infrastructure is vulnerable to power outages due to the nature of the existing centralized power distribution system and the intensity and frequency of severe weather events. &nbsp;The proposed microgrid will be a state-of-the-art electric power generating facility that will be scaled to provide emergency power for NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak service operating between New York's Penn Station and northeastern New Jersey as well as other transit service.&nbsp; It is anticipated that the new facility will be able to generate approximately 104 megawatts (MW) of electricity.&nbsp; Natural gas-fired generation was identified as the most cost-effective choice to serve the identified traction power loads (i.e., the power needed to operate trains).&nbsp;&nbsp; Clean-burning natural gas will provide fuel for the combustion turbines and/or engines. The proposed project also includes new transmission lines from the new facility to existing substations and to a new proposed substation. A no action alternative, which contemplates roadway and transit facility improvements (other than the proposed project) planned for and programmed to be implemented by the year 2021 (the proposed projects completion year), will be defined to serve as a baseline for comparison to the build alternative options.&nbsp; A project site for the approximate 104 MW power plant was identified in Kearny, Hudson County, New Jersey based on site screening analyses.
The purpose of the proposed project, being advanced by NJ Transit, is to enhance the resiliency of the electricity supply to the NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak infrastructure that serves key commuter markets in New York and New Jersey to minimize public transportation service disruptions.&nbsp; The region's public transportation infrastructure is vulnerable to power outages due to the nature of the existing centralized power distribution system and the intensity and frequency of severe weather events. &nbsp;The proposed microgrid will be a state-of-the-art electric power generating facility that will be scaled to provide emergency power for NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak service operating between New York's Penn Station and northeastern New Jersey as well as other transit service.&nbsp; It is anticipated that the new facility will be able to generate approximately 104 megawatts (MW) of electricity.&nbsp; Natural gas-fired generation was identified as the most cost-effective choice to serve the identified traction power loads (i.e., the power needed to operate trains).&nbsp;&nbsp; Clean-burning natural gas will provide fuel for the combustion turbines and/or engines. The proposed project also includes new transmission lines from the new facility to existing substations and to a new proposed substation. A no action alternative, which contemplates roadway and transit facility improvements (other than the proposed project) planned for and programmed to be implemented by the year 2021 (the proposed projects completion year), will be defined to serve as a baseline for comparison to the build alternative options.&nbsp; A project site for the approximate 104 MW power plant was identified in Kearny, Hudson County, New Jersey based on site screening analyses.
USACE Individual Permit Applications - Coordination with USACE
USACE Individual Permit Applications - Coordination with USACE
USACE Individual Permit Applications - Coordination with USACE
USACE Individual Permit Applications - Coordination with USACE
USACE Individual Permit Applications - Coordination with USACE
NJ TRANSIT proposes to proposes to construct the Northern Branch Corridor Project, a light-rail transit improvement in northeastern Hudson and southeastern Bergen Counties, New Jersey, through the restoration of passenger rail service on an existing freight rail line. The project consists of one alignment that would extend the existing light rail service from the current Hudson-Bergen Light Rail terminus at Tonnelle Avenue in Hudson County north to a new terminus at Englewood Hospital in Bergen County. The purpose of the project is to improve mobility within Hudson and Bergen Counties, alleviate some traffic congestion, and support continued economic growth by connecting Jersey City in Hudson County to Englewood in Bergen County.
NJ TRANSIT proposes to proposes to construct the Northern Branch Corridor Project, a light-rail transit improvement in northeastern Hudson and southeastern Bergen Counties, New Jersey, through the restoration of passenger rail service on an existing freight rail line. The project consists of one alignment that would extend the existing light rail service from the current Hudson-Bergen Light Rail terminus at Tonnelle Avenue in Hudson County north to a new terminus at Englewood Hospital in Bergen County. The purpose of the project is to improve mobility within Hudson and Bergen Counties, alleviate some traffic congestion, and support continued economic growth by connecting Jersey City in Hudson County to Englewood in Bergen County.
NJ TRANSIT proposes to proposes to construct the Northern Branch Corridor Project, a light-rail transit improvement in northeastern Hudson and southeastern Bergen Counties, New Jersey, through the restoration of passenger rail service on an existing freight rail line. The project consists of one alignment that would extend the existing light rail service from the current Hudson-Bergen Light Rail terminus at Tonnelle Avenue in Hudson County north to a new terminus at Englewood Hospital in Bergen County. The purpose of the project is to improve mobility within Hudson and Bergen Counties, alleviate some traffic congestion, and support continued economic growth by connecting Jersey City in Hudson County to Englewood in Bergen County.
NJ TRANSIT proposes to proposes to construct the Northern Branch Corridor Project, a light-rail transit improvement in northeastern Hudson and southeastern Bergen Counties, New Jersey, through the restoration of passenger rail service on an existing freight rail line. The project consists of one alignment that would extend the existing light rail service from the current Hudson-Bergen Light Rail terminus at Tonnelle Avenue in Hudson County north to a new terminus at Englewood Hospital in Bergen County. The purpose of the project is to improve mobility within Hudson and Bergen Counties, alleviate some traffic congestion, and support continued economic growth by connecting Jersey City in Hudson County to Englewood in Bergen County.
NJ TRANSIT proposes to proposes to construct the Northern Branch Corridor Project, a light-rail transit improvement in northeastern Hudson and southeastern Bergen Counties, New Jersey, through the restoration of passenger rail service on an existing freight rail line. The project consists of one alignment that would extend the existing light rail service from the current Hudson-Bergen Light Rail terminus at Tonnelle Avenue in Hudson County north to a new terminus at Englewood Hospital in Bergen County. The purpose of the project is to improve mobility within Hudson and Bergen Counties, alleviate some traffic congestion, and support continued economic growth by connecting Jersey City in Hudson County to Englewood in Bergen County.
NJ TRANSIT proposes to proposes to construct the Northern Branch Corridor Project, a light-rail transit improvement in northeastern Hudson and southeastern Bergen Counties, New Jersey, through the restoration of passenger rail service on an existing freight rail line. The project consists of one alignment that would extend the existing light rail service from the current Hudson-Bergen Light Rail terminus at Tonnelle Avenue in Hudson County north to a new terminus at Englewood Hospital in Bergen County. The purpose of the project is to improve mobility within Hudson and Bergen Counties, alleviate some traffic congestion, and support continued economic growth by connecting Jersey City in Hudson County to Englewood in Bergen County.
NJ TRANSIT proposes to proposes to construct the Northern Branch Corridor Project, a light-rail transit improvement in northeastern Hudson and southeastern Bergen Counties, New Jersey, through the restoration of passenger rail service on an existing freight rail line. The project consists of one alignment that would extend the existing light rail service from the current Hudson-Bergen Light Rail terminus at Tonnelle Avenue in Hudson County north to a new terminus at Englewood Hospital in Bergen County. The purpose of the project is to improve mobility within Hudson and Bergen Counties, alleviate some traffic congestion, and support continued economic growth by connecting Jersey City in Hudson County to Englewood in Bergen County.
NJ TRANSIT proposes to proposes to construct the Northern Branch Corridor Project, a light-rail transit improvement in northeastern Hudson and southeastern Bergen Counties, New Jersey, through the restoration of passenger rail service on an existing freight rail line. The project consists of one alignment that would extend the existing light rail service from the current Hudson-Bergen Light Rail terminus at Tonnelle Avenue in Hudson County north to a new terminus at Englewood Hospital in Bergen County. The purpose of the project is to improve mobility within Hudson and Bergen Counties, alleviate some traffic congestion, and support continued economic growth by connecting Jersey City in Hudson County to Englewood in Bergen County.
Consultation with the SHPO/THPO
Consultation with the SHPO/THPO
Consultation with the SHPO/THPO
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) initiated the King of Prussia Rail Project to evaluate an extension of the Norristown High Speed Line (NHSL) to the King of Prussia area. The NHSL currently provides service between the 69th Street Transportation Center and Norristown Transportation Center, serving the Main Line area in Delaware and Montgomery Counties, and connecting to Center City Philadelphia. While the transit system is expansive, a rail connection to the King of Prussia area is missing. Travel to King of Prussia currently occurs by bus or vehicle. Frequent traffic congestion can cause unreliable travel times, hinder transit ridership, and limit growth. The King of Prussia Rail Project will evaluate various alternatives for a new rail connection between the existing NHSL and destinations in King of Prussia.
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) initiated the King of Prussia Rail Project to evaluate an extension of the Norristown High Speed Line (NHSL) to the King of Prussia area. The NHSL currently provides service between the 69th Street Transportation Center and Norristown Transportation Center, serving the Main Line area in Delaware and Montgomery Counties, and connecting to Center City Philadelphia. While the transit system is expansive, a rail connection to the King of Prussia area is missing. Travel to King of Prussia currently occurs by bus or vehicle. Frequent traffic congestion can cause unreliable travel times, hinder transit ridership, and limit growth. The King of Prussia Rail Project will evaluate various alternatives for a new rail connection between the existing NHSL and destinations in King of Prussia.
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) initiated the King of Prussia Rail Project to evaluate an extension of the Norristown High Speed Line (NHSL) to the King of Prussia area. The NHSL currently provides service between the 69th Street Transportation Center and Norristown Transportation Center, serving the Main Line area in Delaware and Montgomery Counties, and connecting to Center City Philadelphia. While the transit system is expansive, a rail connection to the King of Prussia area is missing. Travel to King of Prussia currently occurs by bus or vehicle. Frequent traffic congestion can cause unreliable travel times, hinder transit ridership, and limit growth. The King of Prussia Rail Project will evaluate various alternatives for a new rail connection between the existing NHSL and destinations in King of Prussia.
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) initiated the King of Prussia Rail Project to evaluate an extension of the Norristown High Speed Line (NHSL) to the King of Prussia area. The NHSL currently provides service between the 69th Street Transportation Center and Norristown Transportation Center, serving the Main Line area in Delaware and Montgomery Counties, and connecting to Center City Philadelphia. While the transit system is expansive, a rail connection to the King of Prussia area is missing. Travel to King of Prussia currently occurs by bus or vehicle. Frequent traffic congestion can cause unreliable travel times, hinder transit ridership, and limit growth. The King of Prussia Rail Project will evaluate various alternatives for a new rail connection between the existing NHSL and destinations in King of Prussia.
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) initiated the King of Prussia Rail Project to evaluate an extension of the Norristown High Speed Line (NHSL) to the King of Prussia area. The NHSL currently provides service between the 69th Street Transportation Center and Norristown Transportation Center, serving the Main Line area in Delaware and Montgomery Counties, and connecting to Center City Philadelphia. While the transit system is expansive, a rail connection to the King of Prussia area is missing. Travel to King of Prussia currently occurs by bus or vehicle. Frequent traffic congestion can cause unreliable travel times, hinder transit ridership, and limit growth. The King of Prussia Rail Project will evaluate various alternatives for a new rail connection between the existing NHSL and destinations in King of Prussia.
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) initiated the King of Prussia Rail Project to evaluate an extension of the Norristown High Speed Line (NHSL) to the King of Prussia area. The NHSL currently provides service between the 69th Street Transportation Center and Norristown Transportation Center, serving the Main Line area in Delaware and Montgomery Counties, and connecting to Center City Philadelphia. While the transit system is expansive, a rail connection to the King of Prussia area is missing. Travel to King of Prussia currently occurs by bus or vehicle. Frequent traffic congestion can cause unreliable travel times, hinder transit ridership, and limit growth. The King of Prussia Rail Project will evaluate various alternatives for a new rail connection between the existing NHSL and destinations in King of Prussia.
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) initiated the King of Prussia Rail Project to evaluate an extension of the Norristown High Speed Line (NHSL) to the King of Prussia area. The NHSL currently provides service between the 69th Street Transportation Center and Norristown Transportation Center, serving the Main Line area in Delaware and Montgomery Counties, and connecting to Center City Philadelphia. While the transit system is expansive, a rail connection to the King of Prussia area is missing. Travel to King of Prussia currently occurs by bus or vehicle. Frequent traffic congestion can cause unreliable travel times, hinder transit ridership, and limit growth. The King of Prussia Rail Project will evaluate various alternatives for a new rail connection between the existing NHSL and destinations in King of Prussia.
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) initiated the King of Prussia Rail Project to evaluate an extension of the Norristown High Speed Line (NHSL) to the King of Prussia area. The NHSL currently provides service between the 69th Street Transportation Center and Norristown Transportation Center, serving the Main Line area in Delaware and Montgomery Counties, and connecting to Center City Philadelphia. While the transit system is expansive, a rail connection to the King of Prussia area is missing. Travel to King of Prussia currently occurs by bus or vehicle. Frequent traffic congestion can cause unreliable travel times, hinder transit ridership, and limit growth. The King of Prussia Rail Project will evaluate various alternatives for a new rail connection between the existing NHSL and destinations in King of Prussia.
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) initiated the King of Prussia Rail Project to evaluate an extension of the Norristown High Speed Line (NHSL) to the King of Prussia area. The NHSL currently provides service between the 69th Street Transportation Center and Norristown Transportation Center, serving the Main Line area in Delaware and Montgomery Counties, and connecting to Center City Philadelphia. While the transit system is expansive, a rail connection to the King of Prussia area is missing. Travel to King of Prussia currently occurs by bus or vehicle. Frequent traffic congestion can cause unreliable travel times, hinder transit ridership, and limit growth. The King of Prussia Rail Project will evaluate various alternatives for a new rail connection between the existing NHSL and destinations in King of Prussia.
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) initiated the King of Prussia Rail Project to evaluate an extension of the Norristown High Speed Line (NHSL) to the King of Prussia area. The NHSL currently provides service between the 69th Street Transportation Center and Norristown Transportation Center, serving the Main Line area in Delaware and Montgomery Counties, and connecting to Center City Philadelphia. While the transit system is expansive, a rail connection to the King of Prussia area is missing. Travel to King of Prussia currently occurs by bus or vehicle. Frequent traffic congestion can cause unreliable travel times, hinder transit ridership, and limit growth. The King of Prussia Rail Project will evaluate various alternatives for a new rail connection between the existing NHSL and destinations in King of Prussia.
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) initiated the King of Prussia Rail Project to evaluate an extension of the Norristown High Speed Line (NHSL) to the King of Prussia area. The NHSL currently provides service between the 69th Street Transportation Center and Norristown Transportation Center, serving the Main Line area in Delaware and Montgomery Counties, and connecting to Center City Philadelphia. While the transit system is expansive, a rail connection to the King of Prussia area is missing. Travel to King of Prussia currently occurs by bus or vehicle. Frequent traffic congestion can cause unreliable travel times, hinder transit ridership, and limit growth. The King of Prussia Rail Project will evaluate various alternatives for a new rail connection between the existing NHSL and destinations in King of Prussia.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Bloomfield Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;The proposed project at the airport includes the following:• Land Acquisition (25 acres in fee, 14 acres in easement) for Runway 18/36 approach and departure protection• Drain and fill ponds on existing airport property to eliminate hazardous wildlife attractants&nbsp;• Construct approximately 12,500 linear feet of fencing to delineate and prevent intrusion onto airport property
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Bloomfield Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;The proposed project at the airport includes the following:• Land Acquisition (25 acres in fee, 14 acres in easement) for Runway 18/36 approach and departure protection• Drain and fill ponds on existing airport property to eliminate hazardous wildlife attractants&nbsp;• Construct approximately 12,500 linear feet of fencing to delineate and prevent intrusion onto airport property
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Bloomfield Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;The proposed project at the airport includes the following:• Land Acquisition (25 acres in fee, 14 acres in easement) for Runway 18/36 approach and departure protection• Drain and fill ponds on existing airport property to eliminate hazardous wildlife attractants&nbsp;• Construct approximately 12,500 linear feet of fencing to delineate and prevent intrusion onto airport property
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Bloomfield Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;The proposed project at the airport includes the following:• Land Acquisition (25 acres in fee, 14 acres in easement) for Runway 18/36 approach and departure protection• Drain and fill ponds on existing airport property to eliminate hazardous wildlife attractants&nbsp;• Construct approximately 12,500 linear feet of fencing to delineate and prevent intrusion onto airport property
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Bloomfield Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;The proposed project at the airport includes the following:• Land Acquisition (25 acres in fee, 14 acres in easement) for Runway 18/36 approach and departure protection• Drain and fill ponds on existing airport property to eliminate hazardous wildlife attractants&nbsp;• Construct approximately 12,500 linear feet of fencing to delineate and prevent intrusion onto airport property
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Bloomfield Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;The proposed project at the airport includes the following:• Land Acquisition (25 acres in fee, 14 acres in easement) for Runway 18/36 approach and departure protection• Drain and fill ponds on existing airport property to eliminate hazardous wildlife attractants&nbsp;• Construct approximately 12,500 linear feet of fencing to delineate and prevent intrusion onto airport property
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Bloomfield Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;The proposed project at the airport includes the following:• Land Acquisition (25 acres in fee, 14 acres in easement) for Runway 18/36 approach and departure protection• Drain and fill ponds on existing airport property to eliminate hazardous wildlife attractants&nbsp;• Construct approximately 12,500 linear feet of fencing to delineate and prevent intrusion onto airport property
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Bloomfield Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;The proposed project at the airport includes the following:• Land Acquisition (25 acres in fee, 14 acres in easement) for Runway 18/36 approach and departure protection• Drain and fill ponds on existing airport property to eliminate hazardous wildlife attractants&nbsp;• Construct approximately 12,500 linear feet of fencing to delineate and prevent intrusion onto airport property
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed development at the Bloomfield Municipal Airport subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;The proposed project at the airport includes the following:• Land Acquisition (25 acres in fee, 14 acres in easement) for Runway 18/36 approach and departure protection• Drain and fill ponds on existing airport property to eliminate hazardous wildlife attractants&nbsp;• Construct approximately 12,500 linear feet of fencing to delineate and prevent intrusion onto airport property
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) initiated the King of Prussia Rail Project to evaluate an extension of the Norristown High Speed Line (NHSL) to the King of Prussia area. The NHSL currently provides service between the 69th Street Transportation Center and Norristown Transportation Center, serving the Main Line area in Delaware and Montgomery Counties, and connecting to Center City Philadelphia. While the transit system is expansive, a rail connection to the King of Prussia area is missing. Travel to King of Prussia currently occurs by bus or vehicle. Frequent traffic congestion can cause unreliable travel times, hinder transit ridership, and limit growth. The King of Prussia Rail Project will evaluate various alternatives for a new rail connection between the existing NHSL and destinations in King of Prussia.
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) initiated the King of Prussia Rail Project to evaluate an extension of the Norristown High Speed Line (NHSL) to the King of Prussia area. The NHSL currently provides service between the 69th Street Transportation Center and Norristown Transportation Center, serving the Main Line area in Delaware and Montgomery Counties, and connecting to Center City Philadelphia. While the transit system is expansive, a rail connection to the King of Prussia area is missing. Travel to King of Prussia currently occurs by bus or vehicle. Frequent traffic congestion can cause unreliable travel times, hinder transit ridership, and limit growth. The King of Prussia Rail Project will evaluate various alternatives for a new rail connection between the existing NHSL and destinations in King of Prussia.
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) initiated the King of Prussia Rail Project to evaluate an extension of the Norristown High Speed Line (NHSL) to the King of Prussia area. The NHSL currently provides service between the 69th Street Transportation Center and Norristown Transportation Center, serving the Main Line area in Delaware and Montgomery Counties, and connecting to Center City Philadelphia. While the transit system is expansive, a rail connection to the King of Prussia area is missing. Travel to King of Prussia currently occurs by bus or vehicle. Frequent traffic congestion can cause unreliable travel times, hinder transit ridership, and limit growth. The King of Prussia Rail Project will evaluate various alternatives for a new rail connection between the existing NHSL and destinations in King of Prussia.
Section 106 consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act.
Section 106 consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act.
Section 106 consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act.
NWP 14
NWP 14
NWP 14
NWP 14
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential&nbsp; impacts of the proposed airport improvements. The improvements include removing trees in the Runway 14-32

approaches and transitional surfaces, grading imrpovements of the Runway 14 RSA, and fancing construction.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential&nbsp; impacts of the proposed airport improvements. The improvements include removing trees in the Runway 14-32

approaches and transitional surfaces, grading imrpovements of the Runway 14 RSA, and fancing construction.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential&nbsp; impacts of the proposed airport improvements. The improvements include removing trees in the Runway 14-32

approaches and transitional surfaces, grading imrpovements of the Runway 14 RSA, and fancing construction.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential&nbsp; impacts of the proposed airport improvements. The improvements include removing trees in the Runway 14-32

approaches and transitional surfaces, grading imrpovements of the Runway 14 RSA, and fancing construction.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential&nbsp; impacts of the proposed airport improvements. The improvements include removing trees in the Runway 14-32

approaches and transitional surfaces, grading imrpovements of the Runway 14 RSA, and fancing construction.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential&nbsp; impacts of the proposed airport improvements. The improvements include removing trees in the Runway 14-32

approaches and transitional surfaces, grading imrpovements of the Runway 14 RSA, and fancing construction.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential&nbsp; impacts of the proposed airport improvements. The improvements include removing trees in the Runway 14-32

approaches and transitional surfaces, grading imrpovements of the Runway 14 RSA, and fancing construction.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential&nbsp; impacts of the proposed airport improvements. The improvements include removing trees in the Runway 14-32

approaches and transitional surfaces, grading imrpovements of the Runway 14 RSA, and fancing construction.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential&nbsp; impacts of the proposed airport improvements. The improvements include removing trees in the Runway 14-32

approaches and transitional surfaces, grading imrpovements of the Runway 14 RSA, and fancing construction.
NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to analyzing the environmental impact of major Federal Actions. This approach ensures integration of natural and social sciences in any planning and decision-making that may have an impact on the environment. In furtherance of these policies, NEPA also requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed EIS on any major Federal action that may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIS must analyze any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or mitigated, alternatives including the Proposed Action, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. In 1979, the Council on Environmental Quality established uniform procedures for implementing NEPA. These regulations (40 CFR § 1500–1508) provide for the use of the NEPA process to identify and assess the alternatives to proposed actions that avoid and minimize adverse effects on the human environment. The USDOI regulations implementing NEPA are at 43 CFR Part 46.
NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to analyzing the environmental impact of major Federal Actions. This approach ensures integration of natural and social sciences in any planning and decision-making that may have an impact on the environment. In furtherance of these policies, NEPA also requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed EIS on any major Federal action that may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIS must analyze any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or mitigated, alternatives including the Proposed Action, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. In 1979, the Council on Environmental Quality established uniform procedures for implementing NEPA. These regulations (40 CFR § 1500–1508) provide for the use of the NEPA process to identify and assess the alternatives to proposed actions that avoid and minimize adverse effects on the human environment. The USDOI regulations implementing NEPA are at 43 CFR Part 46.
NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to analyzing the environmental impact of major Federal Actions. This approach ensures integration of natural and social sciences in any planning and decision-making that may have an impact on the environment. In furtherance of these policies, NEPA also requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed EIS on any major Federal action that may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIS must analyze any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or mitigated, alternatives including the Proposed Action, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. In 1979, the Council on Environmental Quality established uniform procedures for implementing NEPA. These regulations (40 CFR § 1500–1508) provide for the use of the NEPA process to identify and assess the alternatives to proposed actions that avoid and minimize adverse effects on the human environment. The USDOI regulations implementing NEPA are at 43 CFR Part 46.
NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to analyzing the environmental impact of major Federal Actions. This approach ensures integration of natural and social sciences in any planning and decision-making that may have an impact on the environment. In furtherance of these policies, NEPA also requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed EIS on any major Federal action that may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIS must analyze any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or mitigated, alternatives including the Proposed Action, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. In 1979, the Council on Environmental Quality established uniform procedures for implementing NEPA. These regulations (40 CFR § 1500–1508) provide for the use of the NEPA process to identify and assess the alternatives to proposed actions that avoid and minimize adverse effects on the human environment. The USDOI regulations implementing NEPA are at 43 CFR Part 46.
NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to analyzing the environmental impact of major Federal Actions. This approach ensures integration of natural and social sciences in any planning and decision-making that may have an impact on the environment. In furtherance of these policies, NEPA also requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed EIS on any major Federal action that may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIS must analyze any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or mitigated, alternatives including the Proposed Action, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. In 1979, the Council on Environmental Quality established uniform procedures for implementing NEPA. These regulations (40 CFR § 1500–1508) provide for the use of the NEPA process to identify and assess the alternatives to proposed actions that avoid and minimize adverse effects on the human environment. The USDOI regulations implementing NEPA are at 43 CFR Part 46.
NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to analyzing the environmental impact of major Federal Actions. This approach ensures integration of natural and social sciences in any planning and decision-making that may have an impact on the environment. In furtherance of these policies, NEPA also requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed EIS on any major Federal action that may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIS must analyze any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or mitigated, alternatives including the Proposed Action, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. In 1979, the Council on Environmental Quality established uniform procedures for implementing NEPA. These regulations (40 CFR § 1500–1508) provide for the use of the NEPA process to identify and assess the alternatives to proposed actions that avoid and minimize adverse effects on the human environment. The USDOI regulations implementing NEPA are at 43 CFR Part 46.
NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to analyzing the environmental impact of major Federal Actions. This approach ensures integration of natural and social sciences in any planning and decision-making that may have an impact on the environment. In furtherance of these policies, NEPA also requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed EIS on any major Federal action that may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIS must analyze any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or mitigated, alternatives including the Proposed Action, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. In 1979, the Council on Environmental Quality established uniform procedures for implementing NEPA. These regulations (40 CFR § 1500–1508) provide for the use of the NEPA process to identify and assess the alternatives to proposed actions that avoid and minimize adverse effects on the human environment. The USDOI regulations implementing NEPA are at 43 CFR Part 46.
NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to analyzing the environmental impact of major Federal Actions. This approach ensures integration of natural and social sciences in any planning and decision-making that may have an impact on the environment. In furtherance of these policies, NEPA also requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed EIS on any major Federal action that may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIS must analyze any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or mitigated, alternatives including the Proposed Action, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. In 1979, the Council on Environmental Quality established uniform procedures for implementing NEPA. These regulations (40 CFR § 1500–1508) provide for the use of the NEPA process to identify and assess the alternatives to proposed actions that avoid and minimize adverse effects on the human environment. The USDOI regulations implementing NEPA are at 43 CFR Part 46.
Before a renewable energy facility can be constructed, a lessee or applicant must submit a construction and operations plan (COP) for BOEM’s review and approval. Once submitted, BOEM conducts environmental and technical reviews of the COP and decides whether to approve, approve with modification, or disapprove the COP. Guidance on information requirements for COPs can be found at:&nbsp; https://www.boem.gov/COP-Guidelines/. On March 19, 2019, Bay State Wind submitted a COP for Lease OCS-A 0500.&nbsp;
Before a renewable energy facility can be constructed, a lessee or applicant must submit a construction and operations plan (COP) for BOEM’s review and approval. Once submitted, BOEM conducts environmental and technical reviews of the COP and decides whether to approve, approve with modification, or disapprove the COP. Guidance on information requirements for COPs can be found at:&nbsp; https://www.boem.gov/COP-Guidelines/. On March 19, 2019, Bay State Wind submitted a COP for Lease OCS-A 0500.&nbsp;
Before a renewable energy facility can be constructed, a lessee or applicant must submit a construction and operations plan (COP) for BOEM’s review and approval. Once submitted, BOEM conducts environmental and technical reviews of the COP and decides whether to approve, approve with modification, or disapprove the COP. Guidance on information requirements for COPs can be found at:&nbsp; https://www.boem.gov/COP-Guidelines/. On March 19, 2019, Bay State Wind submitted a COP for Lease OCS-A 0500.&nbsp;
Before a renewable energy facility can be constructed, a lessee or applicant must submit a construction and operations plan (COP) for BOEM’s review and approval. Once submitted, BOEM conducts environmental and technical reviews of the COP and decides whether to approve, approve with modification, or disapprove the COP. Guidance on information requirements for COPs can be found at:&nbsp; https://www.boem.gov/COP-Guidelines/. On March 19, 2019, Bay State Wind submitted a COP for Lease OCS-A 0500.&nbsp;
Before a renewable energy facility can be constructed, a lessee or applicant must submit a construction and operations plan (COP) for BOEM’s review and approval. Once submitted, BOEM conducts environmental and technical reviews of the COP and decides whether to approve, approve with modification, or disapprove the COP. Guidance on information requirements for COPs can be found at:&nbsp; https://www.boem.gov/COP-Guidelines/. On March 19, 2019, Bay State Wind submitted a COP for Lease OCS-A 0500.&nbsp;
The proposed Hilcorp Alaska LLC Liberty Development project requires Federal Action (i.e., a permit) under three U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulatory authorities, in addition to Section 4(f) of OCSLA, which addresses construction of artificial islands on the seabed to the seaward limit of the outer continental shelf. USACE jurisdiction over an artificial island in OCS on “lands” under mineral lease from MMS (now BOEM) is limited to the evaluation of impacts to navigation and national security, 33 CFR 322.5 (f).&nbsp;

Section 404 (b) of the Clean Water Act contains the guidelines for specification of disposal sites for dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (33 USC §§ 1344, 1362) (pipeline in territorial sea, gravel material site in wetlands, VSMs and gravel pads supporting pipeline construction in wetlands). In summary, dredge or fill material shall not be permitted if it violates any applicable State water quality standard; violates any applicable toxic effluent standard; jeopardizes the continued existence of species listed as threatened or endangered; or violates any marine sanctuary protection requirements.

Section 10 of the RHA (commonly referred to as the Rivers and Harbors Act) addresses the construction or modification of structures in navigable waters, or the accomplishment of any other work affecting the course, location, condition, or physical capacity of navigable waters (33 USC §§ 403).

Section 10 of the RHA would also apply to the construction of the pipeline in water on the OCS and in territorial seas.&nbsp;

BOEM issued their final Record of Decision on October 22, 2018.&nbsp; The Alaska District issued their final&nbsp;Record of Decision on February&nbsp;8, 2019.&nbsp;

&nbsp;The signed permit was received on April 30, 2019 and countersigned on May 1, 2019.&nbsp;
The proposed Hilcorp Alaska LLC Liberty Development project requires Federal Action (i.e., a permit) under three U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulatory authorities, in addition to Section 4(f) of OCSLA, which addresses construction of artificial islands on the seabed to the seaward limit of the outer continental shelf. USACE jurisdiction over an artificial island in OCS on “lands” under mineral lease from MMS (now BOEM) is limited to the evaluation of impacts to navigation and national security, 33 CFR 322.5 (f).&nbsp;

Section 404 (b) of the Clean Water Act contains the guidelines for specification of disposal sites for dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (33 USC §§ 1344, 1362) (pipeline in territorial sea, gravel material site in wetlands, VSMs and gravel pads supporting pipeline construction in wetlands). In summary, dredge or fill material shall not be permitted if it violates any applicable State water quality standard; violates any applicable toxic effluent standard; jeopardizes the continued existence of species listed as threatened or endangered; or violates any marine sanctuary protection requirements.

Section 10 of the RHA (commonly referred to as the Rivers and Harbors Act) addresses the construction or modification of structures in navigable waters, or the accomplishment of any other work affecting the course, location, condition, or physical capacity of navigable waters (33 USC §§ 403).

Section 10 of the RHA would also apply to the construction of the pipeline in water on the OCS and in territorial seas.&nbsp;

BOEM issued their final Record of Decision on October 22, 2018.&nbsp; The Alaska District issued their final&nbsp;Record of Decision on February&nbsp;8, 2019.&nbsp;

&nbsp;The signed permit was received on April 30, 2019 and countersigned on May 1, 2019.&nbsp;
The proposed Hilcorp Alaska LLC Liberty Development project requires Federal Action (i.e., a permit) under three U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulatory authorities, in addition to Section 4(f) of OCSLA, which addresses construction of artificial islands on the seabed to the seaward limit of the outer continental shelf. USACE jurisdiction over an artificial island in OCS on “lands” under mineral lease from MMS (now BOEM) is limited to the evaluation of impacts to navigation and national security, 33 CFR 322.5 (f).&nbsp;

Section 404 (b) of the Clean Water Act contains the guidelines for specification of disposal sites for dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (33 USC §§ 1344, 1362) (pipeline in territorial sea, gravel material site in wetlands, VSMs and gravel pads supporting pipeline construction in wetlands). In summary, dredge or fill material shall not be permitted if it violates any applicable State water quality standard; violates any applicable toxic effluent standard; jeopardizes the continued existence of species listed as threatened or endangered; or violates any marine sanctuary protection requirements.

Section 10 of the RHA (commonly referred to as the Rivers and Harbors Act) addresses the construction or modification of structures in navigable waters, or the accomplishment of any other work affecting the course, location, condition, or physical capacity of navigable waters (33 USC §§ 403).

Section 10 of the RHA would also apply to the construction of the pipeline in water on the OCS and in territorial seas.&nbsp;

BOEM issued their final Record of Decision on October 22, 2018.&nbsp; The Alaska District issued their final&nbsp;Record of Decision on February&nbsp;8, 2019.&nbsp;

&nbsp;The signed permit was received on April 30, 2019 and countersigned on May 1, 2019.&nbsp;
The proposed Hilcorp Alaska LLC Liberty Development project requires Federal Action (i.e., a permit) under three U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulatory authorities, in addition to Section 4(f) of OCSLA, which addresses construction of artificial islands on the seabed to the seaward limit of the outer continental shelf. USACE jurisdiction over an artificial island in OCS on “lands” under mineral lease from MMS (now BOEM) is limited to the evaluation of impacts to navigation and national security, 33 CFR 322.5 (f).&nbsp;

Section 404 (b) of the Clean Water Act contains the guidelines for specification of disposal sites for dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (33 USC §§ 1344, 1362) (pipeline in territorial sea, gravel material site in wetlands, VSMs and gravel pads supporting pipeline construction in wetlands). In summary, dredge or fill material shall not be permitted if it violates any applicable State water quality standard; violates any applicable toxic effluent standard; jeopardizes the continued existence of species listed as threatened or endangered; or violates any marine sanctuary protection requirements.

Section 10 of the RHA (commonly referred to as the Rivers and Harbors Act) addresses the construction or modification of structures in navigable waters, or the accomplishment of any other work affecting the course, location, condition, or physical capacity of navigable waters (33 USC §§ 403).

Section 10 of the RHA would also apply to the construction of the pipeline in water on the OCS and in territorial seas.&nbsp;

BOEM issued their final Record of Decision on October 22, 2018.&nbsp; The Alaska District issued their final&nbsp;Record of Decision on February&nbsp;8, 2019.&nbsp;

&nbsp;The signed permit was received on April 30, 2019 and countersigned on May 1, 2019.&nbsp;
East-West Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is Milwaukee County’s propose 9-mile, regional, modern transit service connecting major employment, education and recreation destinations through downtown Milwaukee, Milwaukee’s Near West Side, Marquette University, Wauwatosa and the Milwaukee Regional Medical Center. BRT would provide improved access to the region’s most vital, most traveled and most congested corridor.
East-West Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is Milwaukee County’s propose 9-mile, regional, modern transit service connecting major employment, education and recreation destinations through downtown Milwaukee, Milwaukee’s Near West Side, Marquette University, Wauwatosa and the Milwaukee Regional Medical Center. BRT would provide improved access to the region’s most vital, most traveled and most congested corridor.
East-West Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is Milwaukee County’s propose 9-mile, regional, modern transit service connecting major employment, education and recreation destinations through downtown Milwaukee, Milwaukee’s Near West Side, Marquette University, Wauwatosa and the Milwaukee Regional Medical Center. BRT would provide improved access to the region’s most vital, most traveled and most congested corridor.
East-West Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is Milwaukee County’s propose 9-mile, regional, modern transit service connecting major employment, education and recreation destinations through downtown Milwaukee, Milwaukee’s Near West Side, Marquette University, Wauwatosa and the Milwaukee Regional Medical Center. BRT would provide improved access to the region’s most vital, most traveled and most congested corridor.
East-West Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is Milwaukee County’s propose 9-mile, regional, modern transit service connecting major employment, education and recreation destinations through downtown Milwaukee, Milwaukee’s Near West Side, Marquette University, Wauwatosa and the Milwaukee Regional Medical Center. BRT would provide improved access to the region’s most vital, most traveled and most congested corridor.
East-West Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is Milwaukee County’s propose 9-mile, regional, modern transit service connecting major employment, education and recreation destinations through downtown Milwaukee, Milwaukee’s Near West Side, Marquette University, Wauwatosa and the Milwaukee Regional Medical Center. BRT would provide improved access to the region’s most vital, most traveled and most congested corridor.
East-West Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is Milwaukee County’s propose 9-mile, regional, modern transit service connecting major employment, education and recreation destinations through downtown Milwaukee, Milwaukee’s Near West Side, Marquette University, Wauwatosa and the Milwaukee Regional Medical Center. BRT would provide improved access to the region’s most vital, most traveled and most congested corridor.
East-West Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is Milwaukee County’s propose 9-mile, regional, modern transit service connecting major employment, education and recreation destinations through downtown Milwaukee, Milwaukee’s Near West Side, Marquette University, Wauwatosa and the Milwaukee Regional Medical Center. BRT would provide improved access to the region’s most vital, most traveled and most congested corridor.
East-West Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is Milwaukee County’s propose 9-mile, regional, modern transit service connecting major employment, education and recreation destinations through downtown Milwaukee, Milwaukee’s Near West Side, Marquette University, Wauwatosa and the Milwaukee Regional Medical Center. BRT would provide improved access to the region’s most vital, most traveled and most congested corridor.
404 NON-Reporting
404 NON-Reporting
404 NON-Reporting
404 NON-Reporting
The South Shore Line (SSL) is a 90-mile electrically powered commuter rail line that operates from South Bend International Airport in South Bend, Indiana, to Millennium Station in downtown Chicago, Illinois. Currently, the SSL commuter line operates for 17 miles on a double-track right-of-way from 115th Street in Chicago to Gary, Indiana. From Gary to South Bend (approximately 59 miles), the railroad is mostly single track, except for one 6.5-mile section of double track and three separate passing sidings that total 2.2 miles. Most of the SSL commuter line shares trackage with the Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad (CSS) freight service. The SSL commuter line borders and provides train service through the Indiana Dunes State Park and the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. For approximately 2 miles in Michigan City, Indiana, the railroad track is embedded within 10th Street and 11th Street, and trains operate within roadway ROW alongside automobiles. The current track configuration within the roadways in Michigan City, coupled with a stretch of 36 at-grade crossing conflicts within 3 miles, present safety issues for commuters, motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists.Present SSL weekday commuter service includes 19 inbound trains and 20 outbound trains that serve Chicago. The SSL links northwest Indiana to centers of commerce such as the Chicago Central Business District. Currently, nearly 70 percent of daily SSL commuter trips are work-related. SSL commuters frequently experience delays and long travel times because of the limited capacity of the single track for the majority of the corridor. Existing capacity is already constrained, with future increases in ridership expected to compound problems.
The South Shore Line (SSL) is a 90-mile electrically powered commuter rail line that operates from South Bend International Airport in South Bend, Indiana, to Millennium Station in downtown Chicago, Illinois. Currently, the SSL commuter line operates for 17 miles on a double-track right-of-way from 115th Street in Chicago to Gary, Indiana. From Gary to South Bend (approximately 59 miles), the railroad is mostly single track, except for one 6.5-mile section of double track and three separate passing sidings that total 2.2 miles. Most of the SSL commuter line shares trackage with the Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad (CSS) freight service. The SSL commuter line borders and provides train service through the Indiana Dunes State Park and the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. For approximately 2 miles in Michigan City, Indiana, the railroad track is embedded within 10th Street and 11th Street, and trains operate within roadway ROW alongside automobiles. The current track configuration within the roadways in Michigan City, coupled with a stretch of 36 at-grade crossing conflicts within 3 miles, present safety issues for commuters, motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists.Present SSL weekday commuter service includes 19 inbound trains and 20 outbound trains that serve Chicago. The SSL links northwest Indiana to centers of commerce such as the Chicago Central Business District. Currently, nearly 70 percent of daily SSL commuter trips are work-related. SSL commuters frequently experience delays and long travel times because of the limited capacity of the single track for the majority of the corridor. Existing capacity is already constrained, with future increases in ridership expected to compound problems.
The South Shore Line (SSL) is a 90-mile electrically powered commuter rail line that operates from South Bend International Airport in South Bend, Indiana, to Millennium Station in downtown Chicago, Illinois. Currently, the SSL commuter line operates for 17 miles on a double-track right-of-way from 115th Street in Chicago to Gary, Indiana. From Gary to South Bend (approximately 59 miles), the railroad is mostly single track, except for one 6.5-mile section of double track and three separate passing sidings that total 2.2 miles. Most of the SSL commuter line shares trackage with the Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad (CSS) freight service. The SSL commuter line borders and provides train service through the Indiana Dunes State Park and the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. For approximately 2 miles in Michigan City, Indiana, the railroad track is embedded within 10th Street and 11th Street, and trains operate within roadway ROW alongside automobiles. The current track configuration within the roadways in Michigan City, coupled with a stretch of 36 at-grade crossing conflicts within 3 miles, present safety issues for commuters, motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists.Present SSL weekday commuter service includes 19 inbound trains and 20 outbound trains that serve Chicago. The SSL links northwest Indiana to centers of commerce such as the Chicago Central Business District. Currently, nearly 70 percent of daily SSL commuter trips are work-related. SSL commuters frequently experience delays and long travel times because of the limited capacity of the single track for the majority of the corridor. Existing capacity is already constrained, with future increases in ridership expected to compound problems.
The South Shore Line (SSL) is a 90-mile electrically powered commuter rail line that operates from South Bend International Airport in South Bend, Indiana, to Millennium Station in downtown Chicago, Illinois. Currently, the SSL commuter line operates for 17 miles on a double-track right-of-way from 115th Street in Chicago to Gary, Indiana. From Gary to South Bend (approximately 59 miles), the railroad is mostly single track, except for one 6.5-mile section of double track and three separate passing sidings that total 2.2 miles. Most of the SSL commuter line shares trackage with the Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad (CSS) freight service. The SSL commuter line borders and provides train service through the Indiana Dunes State Park and the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. For approximately 2 miles in Michigan City, Indiana, the railroad track is embedded within 10th Street and 11th Street, and trains operate within roadway ROW alongside automobiles. The current track configuration within the roadways in Michigan City, coupled with a stretch of 36 at-grade crossing conflicts within 3 miles, present safety issues for commuters, motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists.Present SSL weekday commuter service includes 19 inbound trains and 20 outbound trains that serve Chicago. The SSL links northwest Indiana to centers of commerce such as the Chicago Central Business District. Currently, nearly 70 percent of daily SSL commuter trips are work-related. SSL commuters frequently experience delays and long travel times because of the limited capacity of the single track for the majority of the corridor. Existing capacity is already constrained, with future increases in ridership expected to compound problems.
The South Shore Line (SSL) is a 90-mile electrically powered commuter rail line that operates from South Bend International Airport in South Bend, Indiana, to Millennium Station in downtown Chicago, Illinois. Currently, the SSL commuter line operates for 17 miles on a double-track right-of-way from 115th Street in Chicago to Gary, Indiana. From Gary to South Bend (approximately 59 miles), the railroad is mostly single track, except for one 6.5-mile section of double track and three separate passing sidings that total 2.2 miles. Most of the SSL commuter line shares trackage with the Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad (CSS) freight service. The SSL commuter line borders and provides train service through the Indiana Dunes State Park and the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. For approximately 2 miles in Michigan City, Indiana, the railroad track is embedded within 10th Street and 11th Street, and trains operate within roadway ROW alongside automobiles. The current track configuration within the roadways in Michigan City, coupled with a stretch of 36 at-grade crossing conflicts within 3 miles, present safety issues for commuters, motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists.Present SSL weekday commuter service includes 19 inbound trains and 20 outbound trains that serve Chicago. The SSL links northwest Indiana to centers of commerce such as the Chicago Central Business District. Currently, nearly 70 percent of daily SSL commuter trips are work-related. SSL commuters frequently experience delays and long travel times because of the limited capacity of the single track for the majority of the corridor. Existing capacity is already constrained, with future increases in ridership expected to compound problems.
The South Shore Line (SSL) is a 90-mile electrically powered commuter rail line that operates from South Bend International Airport in South Bend, Indiana, to Millennium Station in downtown Chicago, Illinois. Currently, the SSL commuter line operates for 17 miles on a double-track right-of-way from 115th Street in Chicago to Gary, Indiana. From Gary to South Bend (approximately 59 miles), the railroad is mostly single track, except for one 6.5-mile section of double track and three separate passing sidings that total 2.2 miles. Most of the SSL commuter line shares trackage with the Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad (CSS) freight service. The SSL commuter line borders and provides train service through the Indiana Dunes State Park and the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. For approximately 2 miles in Michigan City, Indiana, the railroad track is embedded within 10th Street and 11th Street, and trains operate within roadway ROW alongside automobiles. The current track configuration within the roadways in Michigan City, coupled with a stretch of 36 at-grade crossing conflicts within 3 miles, present safety issues for commuters, motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists.Present SSL weekday commuter service includes 19 inbound trains and 20 outbound trains that serve Chicago. The SSL links northwest Indiana to centers of commerce such as the Chicago Central Business District. Currently, nearly 70 percent of daily SSL commuter trips are work-related. SSL commuters frequently experience delays and long travel times because of the limited capacity of the single track for the majority of the corridor. Existing capacity is already constrained, with future increases in ridership expected to compound problems.
The South Shore Line (SSL) is a 90-mile electrically powered commuter rail line that operates from South Bend International Airport in South Bend, Indiana, to Millennium Station in downtown Chicago, Illinois. Currently, the SSL commuter line operates for 17 miles on a double-track right-of-way from 115th Street in Chicago to Gary, Indiana. From Gary to South Bend (approximately 59 miles), the railroad is mostly single track, except for one 6.5-mile section of double track and three separate passing sidings that total 2.2 miles. Most of the SSL commuter line shares trackage with the Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad (CSS) freight service. The SSL commuter line borders and provides train service through the Indiana Dunes State Park and the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. For approximately 2 miles in Michigan City, Indiana, the railroad track is embedded within 10th Street and 11th Street, and trains operate within roadway ROW alongside automobiles. The current track configuration within the roadways in Michigan City, coupled with a stretch of 36 at-grade crossing conflicts within 3 miles, present safety issues for commuters, motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists.Present SSL weekday commuter service includes 19 inbound trains and 20 outbound trains that serve Chicago. The SSL links northwest Indiana to centers of commerce such as the Chicago Central Business District. Currently, nearly 70 percent of daily SSL commuter trips are work-related. SSL commuters frequently experience delays and long travel times because of the limited capacity of the single track for the majority of the corridor. Existing capacity is already constrained, with future increases in ridership expected to compound problems.
The South Shore Line (SSL) is a 90-mile electrically powered commuter rail line that operates from South Bend International Airport in South Bend, Indiana, to Millennium Station in downtown Chicago, Illinois. Currently, the SSL commuter line operates for 17 miles on a double-track right-of-way from 115th Street in Chicago to Gary, Indiana. From Gary to South Bend (approximately 59 miles), the railroad is mostly single track, except for one 6.5-mile section of double track and three separate passing sidings that total 2.2 miles. Most of the SSL commuter line shares trackage with the Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad (CSS) freight service. The SSL commuter line borders and provides train service through the Indiana Dunes State Park and the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. For approximately 2 miles in Michigan City, Indiana, the railroad track is embedded within 10th Street and 11th Street, and trains operate within roadway ROW alongside automobiles. The current track configuration within the roadways in Michigan City, coupled with a stretch of 36 at-grade crossing conflicts within 3 miles, present safety issues for commuters, motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists.Present SSL weekday commuter service includes 19 inbound trains and 20 outbound trains that serve Chicago. The SSL links northwest Indiana to centers of commerce such as the Chicago Central Business District. Currently, nearly 70 percent of daily SSL commuter trips are work-related. SSL commuters frequently experience delays and long travel times because of the limited capacity of the single track for the majority of the corridor. Existing capacity is already constrained, with future increases in ridership expected to compound problems.
The South Shore Line (SSL) is a 90-mile electrically powered commuter rail line that operates from South Bend International Airport in South Bend, Indiana, to Millennium Station in downtown Chicago, Illinois. Currently, the SSL commuter line operates for 17 miles on a double-track right-of-way from 115th Street in Chicago to Gary, Indiana. From Gary to South Bend (approximately 59 miles), the railroad is mostly single track, except for one 6.5-mile section of double track and three separate passing sidings that total 2.2 miles. Most of the SSL commuter line shares trackage with the Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad (CSS) freight service. The SSL commuter line borders and provides train service through the Indiana Dunes State Park and the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. For approximately 2 miles in Michigan City, Indiana, the railroad track is embedded within 10th Street and 11th Street, and trains operate within roadway ROW alongside automobiles. The current track configuration within the roadways in Michigan City, coupled with a stretch of 36 at-grade crossing conflicts within 3 miles, present safety issues for commuters, motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists.Present SSL weekday commuter service includes 19 inbound trains and 20 outbound trains that serve Chicago. The SSL links northwest Indiana to centers of commerce such as the Chicago Central Business District. Currently, nearly 70 percent of daily SSL commuter trips are work-related. SSL commuters frequently experience delays and long travel times because of the limited capacity of the single track for the majority of the corridor. Existing capacity is already constrained, with future increases in ridership expected to compound problems.
Information consultation between project sponsor and USFWS. USFWS contributed to project scoping and provided guidance and review of surveys and associated reports. Informal consultation kicked of on 6/15/2016. Measures to avoid &nbsp;or minimize harm resulted from a meeting on 2/7/2017.
Information consultation between project sponsor and USFWS. USFWS contributed to project scoping and provided guidance and review of surveys and associated reports. Informal consultation kicked of on 6/15/2016. Measures to avoid &nbsp;or minimize harm resulted from a meeting on 2/7/2017.
Information consultation between project sponsor and USFWS. USFWS contributed to project scoping and provided guidance and review of surveys and associated reports. Informal consultation kicked of on 6/15/2016. Measures to avoid &nbsp;or minimize harm resulted from a meeting on 2/7/2017.
Information consultation between project sponsor and USFWS. USFWS contributed to project scoping and provided guidance and review of surveys and associated reports. Informal consultation kicked of on 6/15/2016. Measures to avoid &nbsp;or minimize harm resulted from a meeting on 2/7/2017.
Preparation of Environmental Assessment.
Preparation of Environmental Assessment.
Preparation of Environmental Assessment.
Preparation of Environmental Assessment.
Preparation of Environmental Assessment.
Preparation of Environmental Assessment.
Preparation of Environmental Assessment.
Preparation of Environmental Assessment.
Preparation of Environmental Assessment.
Section 106 Compliance
Section 106 Compliance
Section 106 Compliance
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 12, in cooperation with theOrange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), proposes to improve the local interchange atInterstate 605 (I-605) and Katella Avenue. The project is located within the limits of the City ofLos Alamitos, in Orange County, on I-605 from PM 1.1 to 1.6. The I-605/Katella AvenueInterchange is located approximately 1.3 miles north of the I-405/I-605 junction, andapproximately 5 miles south of State Route 91 (SR-91). Within the vicinity of the proposedproject, I-605 has four general purpose lanes in each direction and one high occupancy vehicle(HOV) lane in each direction. From the I-405 interchange to Katella Avenue, there is an auxiliarylane in each direction and a sound barrier along the northbound right shoulder. The purpose ofthe proposed project is to improve interchange traffic operations, and improve pedestrian andbicycle facilities within the project limits.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 12, in cooperation with theOrange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), proposes to improve the local interchange atInterstate 605 (I-605) and Katella Avenue. The project is located within the limits of the City ofLos Alamitos, in Orange County, on I-605 from PM 1.1 to 1.6. The I-605/Katella AvenueInterchange is located approximately 1.3 miles north of the I-405/I-605 junction, andapproximately 5 miles south of State Route 91 (SR-91). Within the vicinity of the proposedproject, I-605 has four general purpose lanes in each direction and one high occupancy vehicle(HOV) lane in each direction. From the I-405 interchange to Katella Avenue, there is an auxiliarylane in each direction and a sound barrier along the northbound right shoulder. The purpose ofthe proposed project is to improve interchange traffic operations, and improve pedestrian andbicycle facilities within the project limits.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 12, in cooperation with theOrange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), proposes to improve the local interchange atInterstate 605 (I-605) and Katella Avenue. The project is located within the limits of the City ofLos Alamitos, in Orange County, on I-605 from PM 1.1 to 1.6. The I-605/Katella AvenueInterchange is located approximately 1.3 miles north of the I-405/I-605 junction, andapproximately 5 miles south of State Route 91 (SR-91). Within the vicinity of the proposedproject, I-605 has four general purpose lanes in each direction and one high occupancy vehicle(HOV) lane in each direction. From the I-405 interchange to Katella Avenue, there is an auxiliarylane in each direction and a sound barrier along the northbound right shoulder. The purpose ofthe proposed project is to improve interchange traffic operations, and improve pedestrian andbicycle facilities within the project limits.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 12, in cooperation with theOrange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), proposes to improve the local interchange atInterstate 605 (I-605) and Katella Avenue. The project is located within the limits of the City ofLos Alamitos, in Orange County, on I-605 from PM 1.1 to 1.6. The I-605/Katella AvenueInterchange is located approximately 1.3 miles north of the I-405/I-605 junction, andapproximately 5 miles south of State Route 91 (SR-91). Within the vicinity of the proposedproject, I-605 has four general purpose lanes in each direction and one high occupancy vehicle(HOV) lane in each direction. From the I-405 interchange to Katella Avenue, there is an auxiliarylane in each direction and a sound barrier along the northbound right shoulder. The purpose ofthe proposed project is to improve interchange traffic operations, and improve pedestrian andbicycle facilities within the project limits.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 12, in cooperation with theOrange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), proposes to improve the local interchange atInterstate 605 (I-605) and Katella Avenue. The project is located within the limits of the City ofLos Alamitos, in Orange County, on I-605 from PM 1.1 to 1.6. The I-605/Katella AvenueInterchange is located approximately 1.3 miles north of the I-405/I-605 junction, andapproximately 5 miles south of State Route 91 (SR-91). Within the vicinity of the proposedproject, I-605 has four general purpose lanes in each direction and one high occupancy vehicle(HOV) lane in each direction. From the I-405 interchange to Katella Avenue, there is an auxiliarylane in each direction and a sound barrier along the northbound right shoulder. The purpose ofthe proposed project is to improve interchange traffic operations, and improve pedestrian andbicycle facilities within the project limits.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 12, in cooperation with theOrange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), proposes to improve the local interchange atInterstate 605 (I-605) and Katella Avenue. The project is located within the limits of the City ofLos Alamitos, in Orange County, on I-605 from PM 1.1 to 1.6. The I-605/Katella AvenueInterchange is located approximately 1.3 miles north of the I-405/I-605 junction, andapproximately 5 miles south of State Route 91 (SR-91). Within the vicinity of the proposedproject, I-605 has four general purpose lanes in each direction and one high occupancy vehicle(HOV) lane in each direction. From the I-405 interchange to Katella Avenue, there is an auxiliarylane in each direction and a sound barrier along the northbound right shoulder. The purpose ofthe proposed project is to improve interchange traffic operations, and improve pedestrian andbicycle facilities within the project limits.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 12, in cooperation with theOrange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), proposes to improve the local interchange atInterstate 605 (I-605) and Katella Avenue. The project is located within the limits of the City ofLos Alamitos, in Orange County, on I-605 from PM 1.1 to 1.6. The I-605/Katella AvenueInterchange is located approximately 1.3 miles north of the I-405/I-605 junction, andapproximately 5 miles south of State Route 91 (SR-91). Within the vicinity of the proposedproject, I-605 has four general purpose lanes in each direction and one high occupancy vehicle(HOV) lane in each direction. From the I-405 interchange to Katella Avenue, there is an auxiliarylane in each direction and a sound barrier along the northbound right shoulder. The purpose ofthe proposed project is to improve interchange traffic operations, and improve pedestrian andbicycle facilities within the project limits.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 12, in cooperation with theOrange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), proposes to improve the local interchange atInterstate 605 (I-605) and Katella Avenue. The project is located within the limits of the City ofLos Alamitos, in Orange County, on I-605 from PM 1.1 to 1.6. The I-605/Katella AvenueInterchange is located approximately 1.3 miles north of the I-405/I-605 junction, andapproximately 5 miles south of State Route 91 (SR-91). Within the vicinity of the proposedproject, I-605 has four general purpose lanes in each direction and one high occupancy vehicle(HOV) lane in each direction. From the I-405 interchange to Katella Avenue, there is an auxiliarylane in each direction and a sound barrier along the northbound right shoulder. The purpose ofthe proposed project is to improve interchange traffic operations, and improve pedestrian andbicycle facilities within the project limits.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 12, in cooperation with theOrange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), proposes to improve the local interchange atInterstate 605 (I-605) and Katella Avenue. The project is located within the limits of the City ofLos Alamitos, in Orange County, on I-605 from PM 1.1 to 1.6. The I-605/Katella AvenueInterchange is located approximately 1.3 miles north of the I-405/I-605 junction, andapproximately 5 miles south of State Route 91 (SR-91). Within the vicinity of the proposedproject, I-605 has four general purpose lanes in each direction and one high occupancy vehicle(HOV) lane in each direction. From the I-405 interchange to Katella Avenue, there is an auxiliarylane in each direction and a sound barrier along the northbound right shoulder. The purpose ofthe proposed project is to improve interchange traffic operations, and improve pedestrian andbicycle facilities within the project limits.
The D2 Project is the future second DART light rail alignment through downtown Dallas. The D2 Project will increase system capacity, provide operational flexibility and serve new markets. It is a critical element of sustaining the DART system into the future by adding core capacity to the network.
The D2 Project is the future second DART light rail alignment through downtown Dallas. The D2 Project will increase system capacity, provide operational flexibility and serve new markets. It is a critical element of sustaining the DART system into the future by adding core capacity to the network.
The D2 Project is the future second DART light rail alignment through downtown Dallas. The D2 Project will increase system capacity, provide operational flexibility and serve new markets. It is a critical element of sustaining the DART system into the future by adding core capacity to the network.
The D2 Project is the future second DART light rail alignment through downtown Dallas. The D2 Project will increase system capacity, provide operational flexibility and serve new markets. It is a critical element of sustaining the DART system into the future by adding core capacity to the network.
The D2 Project is the future second DART light rail alignment through downtown Dallas. The D2 Project will increase system capacity, provide operational flexibility and serve new markets. It is a critical element of sustaining the DART system into the future by adding core capacity to the network.
The D2 Project is the future second DART light rail alignment through downtown Dallas. The D2 Project will increase system capacity, provide operational flexibility and serve new markets. It is a critical element of sustaining the DART system into the future by adding core capacity to the network.
The D2 Project is the future second DART light rail alignment through downtown Dallas. The D2 Project will increase system capacity, provide operational flexibility and serve new markets. It is a critical element of sustaining the DART system into the future by adding core capacity to the network.
The D2 Project is the future second DART light rail alignment through downtown Dallas. The D2 Project will increase system capacity, provide operational flexibility and serve new markets. It is a critical element of sustaining the DART system into the future by adding core capacity to the network.
The D2 Project is the future second DART light rail alignment through downtown Dallas. The D2 Project will increase system capacity, provide operational flexibility and serve new markets. It is a critical element of sustaining the DART system into the future by adding core capacity to the network.
The D2 Project is the future second DART light rail alignment through downtown Dallas. The D2 Project will increase system capacity, provide operational flexibility and serve new markets. It is a critical element of sustaining the DART system into the future by adding core capacity to the network.
The D2 Project is the future second DART light rail alignment through downtown Dallas. The D2 Project will increase system capacity, provide operational flexibility and serve new markets. It is a critical element of sustaining the DART system into the future by adding core capacity to the network.
As part of the Alternate Service Plan developed by MTA New York City Transit for the Canarsie Tunnel Project, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District expects to receive and process a Joint Application for Permit for a proposed temporary ferry landing to extend into the East River from the existing Empire Pier waterward of North 5th and North 6th Streets in North Williamsburg, Brooklyn.&nbsp; The purpose of the proposed work would be to facilitate operation of a temporary ferry service between North Williamsburg and Stuyvesant Cove in Manhattan.It should be noted that work associated with other elements of the Canarsie Tunnel Project and associated Alternate Service Plan are not within Department of the Army jurisdiction and will not require authorization.
As part of the Alternate Service Plan developed by MTA New York City Transit for the Canarsie Tunnel Project, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District expects to receive and process a Joint Application for Permit for a proposed temporary ferry landing to extend into the East River from the existing Empire Pier waterward of North 5th and North 6th Streets in North Williamsburg, Brooklyn.&nbsp; The purpose of the proposed work would be to facilitate operation of a temporary ferry service between North Williamsburg and Stuyvesant Cove in Manhattan.It should be noted that work associated with other elements of the Canarsie Tunnel Project and associated Alternate Service Plan are not within Department of the Army jurisdiction and will not require authorization.
As part of the Alternate Service Plan developed by MTA New York City Transit for the Canarsie Tunnel Project, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District expects to receive and process a Joint Application for Permit for a proposed temporary ferry landing to extend into the East River from the existing Empire Pier waterward of North 5th and North 6th Streets in North Williamsburg, Brooklyn.&nbsp; The purpose of the proposed work would be to facilitate operation of a temporary ferry service between North Williamsburg and Stuyvesant Cove in Manhattan.It should be noted that work associated with other elements of the Canarsie Tunnel Project and associated Alternate Service Plan are not within Department of the Army jurisdiction and will not require authorization.
As part of the Alternate Service Plan developed by MTA New York City Transit for the Canarsie Tunnel Project, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District expects to receive and process a Joint Application for Permit for a proposed temporary ferry landing to extend into the East River from the existing Empire Pier waterward of North 5th and North 6th Streets in North Williamsburg, Brooklyn.&nbsp; The purpose of the proposed work would be to facilitate operation of a temporary ferry service between North Williamsburg and Stuyvesant Cove in Manhattan.It should be noted that work associated with other elements of the Canarsie Tunnel Project and associated Alternate Service Plan are not within Department of the Army jurisdiction and will not require authorization.
The West Valley Connector BRT Project (the project) is a proposed 33.5-mile-long transit improvement project that would connect the cities of Pomona, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, and Fontana. The purpose of the proposed project is to improve corridor mobility and transit efficiency in the San Bernardino Valley from the City of Pomona to the City of Fontana with an enhanced, state-of-the-art BRT system. The proposed project would address the growing traffic congestion and travel demands of the one million people that would be added to the area by 2030. The proposed transit route would begin at the Pomona Metrolink Transit Center station and terminate near the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center at Sierra Avenue and Marygold Avenue. The proposed project includes a combination of side- and center-running BRT stations with 3.5 miles of dedicated bus-only lanes and mixed-flow lanes. The proposed project includes up to 60 station platforms at 33 locations/major intersections and associated improvements, spaced 0.5 to 1 mile apart to facilitate higher operating speeds.
The West Valley Connector BRT Project (the project) is a proposed 33.5-mile-long transit improvement project that would connect the cities of Pomona, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, and Fontana. The purpose of the proposed project is to improve corridor mobility and transit efficiency in the San Bernardino Valley from the City of Pomona to the City of Fontana with an enhanced, state-of-the-art BRT system. The proposed project would address the growing traffic congestion and travel demands of the one million people that would be added to the area by 2030. The proposed transit route would begin at the Pomona Metrolink Transit Center station and terminate near the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center at Sierra Avenue and Marygold Avenue. The proposed project includes a combination of side- and center-running BRT stations with 3.5 miles of dedicated bus-only lanes and mixed-flow lanes. The proposed project includes up to 60 station platforms at 33 locations/major intersections and associated improvements, spaced 0.5 to 1 mile apart to facilitate higher operating speeds.
The West Valley Connector BRT Project (the project) is a proposed 33.5-mile-long transit improvement project that would connect the cities of Pomona, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, and Fontana. The purpose of the proposed project is to improve corridor mobility and transit efficiency in the San Bernardino Valley from the City of Pomona to the City of Fontana with an enhanced, state-of-the-art BRT system. The proposed project would address the growing traffic congestion and travel demands of the one million people that would be added to the area by 2030. The proposed transit route would begin at the Pomona Metrolink Transit Center station and terminate near the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center at Sierra Avenue and Marygold Avenue. The proposed project includes a combination of side- and center-running BRT stations with 3.5 miles of dedicated bus-only lanes and mixed-flow lanes. The proposed project includes up to 60 station platforms at 33 locations/major intersections and associated improvements, spaced 0.5 to 1 mile apart to facilitate higher operating speeds.
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority proposes an approximately 6.7-mile transit corridor project to improve north-south mobility in the eastern San Fernando Valley in Southern California, offering additional transit options and increasing access to transit near the corridor.&nbsp; The proposed Project would extend along Van Nuys Boulevard from the Metro Orange Line (located just north of Oxnard Street) in the south in the City of Los Angeles to San Fernando Road where it proceeds to the City of San Fernando and the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station in the north. The following alternatives are under consideration: No Build; Transportation Systems Management; Build Alternative 1- Curb Running Bus Rapid Transit (BRT); Build Alternative 2- Median Running BRT; Build Alternative 3- Median Running Tram; Build Alternative 4-Light Rail Transit. For Alternatives 3 and 4, a new maintenance facility would be needed to store and maintain the light rail/tram cars. Three candidate locations have been identified for the facility.
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority proposes an approximately 6.7-mile transit corridor project to improve north-south mobility in the eastern San Fernando Valley in Southern California, offering additional transit options and increasing access to transit near the corridor.&nbsp; The proposed Project would extend along Van Nuys Boulevard from the Metro Orange Line (located just north of Oxnard Street) in the south in the City of Los Angeles to San Fernando Road where it proceeds to the City of San Fernando and the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station in the north. The following alternatives are under consideration: No Build; Transportation Systems Management; Build Alternative 1- Curb Running Bus Rapid Transit (BRT); Build Alternative 2- Median Running BRT; Build Alternative 3- Median Running Tram; Build Alternative 4-Light Rail Transit. For Alternatives 3 and 4, a new maintenance facility would be needed to store and maintain the light rail/tram cars. Three candidate locations have been identified for the facility.
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority proposes an approximately 6.7-mile transit corridor project to improve north-south mobility in the eastern San Fernando Valley in Southern California, offering additional transit options and increasing access to transit near the corridor.&nbsp; The proposed Project would extend along Van Nuys Boulevard from the Metro Orange Line (located just north of Oxnard Street) in the south in the City of Los Angeles to San Fernando Road where it proceeds to the City of San Fernando and the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station in the north. The following alternatives are under consideration: No Build; Transportation Systems Management; Build Alternative 1- Curb Running Bus Rapid Transit (BRT); Build Alternative 2- Median Running BRT; Build Alternative 3- Median Running Tram; Build Alternative 4-Light Rail Transit. For Alternatives 3 and 4, a new maintenance facility would be needed to store and maintain the light rail/tram cars. Three candidate locations have been identified for the facility.
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority proposes an approximately 6.7-mile transit corridor project to improve north-south mobility in the eastern San Fernando Valley in Southern California, offering additional transit options and increasing access to transit near the corridor.&nbsp; The proposed Project would extend along Van Nuys Boulevard from the Metro Orange Line (located just north of Oxnard Street) in the south in the City of Los Angeles to San Fernando Road where it proceeds to the City of San Fernando and the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station in the north. The following alternatives are under consideration: No Build; Transportation Systems Management; Build Alternative 1- Curb Running Bus Rapid Transit (BRT); Build Alternative 2- Median Running BRT; Build Alternative 3- Median Running Tram; Build Alternative 4-Light Rail Transit. For Alternatives 3 and 4, a new maintenance facility would be needed to store and maintain the light rail/tram cars. Three candidate locations have been identified for the facility.
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority proposes an approximately 6.7-mile transit corridor project to improve north-south mobility in the eastern San Fernando Valley in Southern California, offering additional transit options and increasing access to transit near the corridor.&nbsp; The proposed Project would extend along Van Nuys Boulevard from the Metro Orange Line (located just north of Oxnard Street) in the south in the City of Los Angeles to San Fernando Road where it proceeds to the City of San Fernando and the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station in the north. The following alternatives are under consideration: No Build; Transportation Systems Management; Build Alternative 1- Curb Running Bus Rapid Transit (BRT); Build Alternative 2- Median Running BRT; Build Alternative 3- Median Running Tram; Build Alternative 4-Light Rail Transit. For Alternatives 3 and 4, a new maintenance facility would be needed to store and maintain the light rail/tram cars. Three candidate locations have been identified for the facility.
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority proposes an approximately 6.7-mile transit corridor project to improve north-south mobility in the eastern San Fernando Valley in Southern California, offering additional transit options and increasing access to transit near the corridor.&nbsp; The proposed Project would extend along Van Nuys Boulevard from the Metro Orange Line (located just north of Oxnard Street) in the south in the City of Los Angeles to San Fernando Road where it proceeds to the City of San Fernando and the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station in the north. The following alternatives are under consideration: No Build; Transportation Systems Management; Build Alternative 1- Curb Running Bus Rapid Transit (BRT); Build Alternative 2- Median Running BRT; Build Alternative 3- Median Running Tram; Build Alternative 4-Light Rail Transit. For Alternatives 3 and 4, a new maintenance facility would be needed to store and maintain the light rail/tram cars. Three candidate locations have been identified for the facility.
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority proposes an approximately 6.7-mile transit corridor project to improve north-south mobility in the eastern San Fernando Valley in Southern California, offering additional transit options and increasing access to transit near the corridor.&nbsp; The proposed Project would extend along Van Nuys Boulevard from the Metro Orange Line (located just north of Oxnard Street) in the south in the City of Los Angeles to San Fernando Road where it proceeds to the City of San Fernando and the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station in the north. The following alternatives are under consideration: No Build; Transportation Systems Management; Build Alternative 1- Curb Running Bus Rapid Transit (BRT); Build Alternative 2- Median Running BRT; Build Alternative 3- Median Running Tram; Build Alternative 4-Light Rail Transit. For Alternatives 3 and 4, a new maintenance facility would be needed to store and maintain the light rail/tram cars. Three candidate locations have been identified for the facility.
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority proposes an approximately 6.7-mile transit corridor project to improve north-south mobility in the eastern San Fernando Valley in Southern California, offering additional transit options and increasing access to transit near the corridor.&nbsp; The proposed Project would extend along Van Nuys Boulevard from the Metro Orange Line (located just north of Oxnard Street) in the south in the City of Los Angeles to San Fernando Road where it proceeds to the City of San Fernando and the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station in the north. The following alternatives are under consideration: No Build; Transportation Systems Management; Build Alternative 1- Curb Running Bus Rapid Transit (BRT); Build Alternative 2- Median Running BRT; Build Alternative 3- Median Running Tram; Build Alternative 4-Light Rail Transit. For Alternatives 3 and 4, a new maintenance facility would be needed to store and maintain the light rail/tram cars. Three candidate locations have been identified for the facility.
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority proposes an approximately 6.7-mile transit corridor project to improve north-south mobility in the eastern San Fernando Valley in Southern California, offering additional transit options and increasing access to transit near the corridor.&nbsp; The proposed Project would extend along Van Nuys Boulevard from the Metro Orange Line (located just north of Oxnard Street) in the south in the City of Los Angeles to San Fernando Road where it proceeds to the City of San Fernando and the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station in the north. The following alternatives are under consideration: No Build; Transportation Systems Management; Build Alternative 1- Curb Running Bus Rapid Transit (BRT); Build Alternative 2- Median Running BRT; Build Alternative 3- Median Running Tram; Build Alternative 4-Light Rail Transit. For Alternatives 3 and 4, a new maintenance facility would be needed to store and maintain the light rail/tram cars. Three candidate locations have been identified for the facility.
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority proposes an approximately 6.7-mile transit corridor project to improve north-south mobility in the eastern San Fernando Valley in Southern California, offering additional transit options and increasing access to transit near the corridor.&nbsp; The proposed Project would extend along Van Nuys Boulevard from the Metro Orange Line (located just north of Oxnard Street) in the south in the City of Los Angeles to San Fernando Road where it proceeds to the City of San Fernando and the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station in the north. The following alternatives are under consideration: No Build; Transportation Systems Management; Build Alternative 1- Curb Running Bus Rapid Transit (BRT); Build Alternative 2- Median Running BRT; Build Alternative 3- Median Running Tram; Build Alternative 4-Light Rail Transit. For Alternatives 3 and 4, a new maintenance facility would be needed to store and maintain the light rail/tram cars. Three candidate locations have been identified for the facility.
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority proposes an approximately 6.7-mile transit corridor project to improve north-south mobility in the eastern San Fernando Valley in Southern California, offering additional transit options and increasing access to transit near the corridor.&nbsp; The proposed Project would extend along Van Nuys Boulevard from the Metro Orange Line (located just north of Oxnard Street) in the south in the City of Los Angeles to San Fernando Road where it proceeds to the City of San Fernando and the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station in the north. The following alternatives are under consideration: No Build; Transportation Systems Management; Build Alternative 1- Curb Running Bus Rapid Transit (BRT); Build Alternative 2- Median Running BRT; Build Alternative 3- Median Running Tram; Build Alternative 4-Light Rail Transit. For Alternatives 3 and 4, a new maintenance facility would be needed to store and maintain the light rail/tram cars. Three candidate locations have been identified for the facility.
The Southwest Corridor Light Rail Project is a proposed 12-mile light rail line serving SW Portland, Tigard, Tualatin and the surrounding communities. In addition to light rail, it includes bicycle, pedestrian and roadway projects to improve access to light rail stations. It is part of a broader Southwest Corridor Plan that identifies an array of investment strategies to help improve safety and quality of life and contribute to the success of local land use and development aspirations in the area.
The Southwest Corridor Light Rail Project is a proposed 12-mile light rail line serving SW Portland, Tigard, Tualatin and the surrounding communities. In addition to light rail, it includes bicycle, pedestrian and roadway projects to improve access to light rail stations. It is part of a broader Southwest Corridor Plan that identifies an array of investment strategies to help improve safety and quality of life and contribute to the success of local land use and development aspirations in the area.
The Southwest Corridor Light Rail Project is a proposed 12-mile light rail line serving SW Portland, Tigard, Tualatin and the surrounding communities. In addition to light rail, it includes bicycle, pedestrian and roadway projects to improve access to light rail stations. It is part of a broader Southwest Corridor Plan that identifies an array of investment strategies to help improve safety and quality of life and contribute to the success of local land use and development aspirations in the area.
The Southwest Corridor Light Rail Project is a proposed 12-mile light rail line serving SW Portland, Tigard, Tualatin and the surrounding communities. In addition to light rail, it includes bicycle, pedestrian and roadway projects to improve access to light rail stations. It is part of a broader Southwest Corridor Plan that identifies an array of investment strategies to help improve safety and quality of life and contribute to the success of local land use and development aspirations in the area.
The Southwest Corridor Light Rail Project is a proposed 12-mile light rail line serving SW Portland, Tigard, Tualatin and the surrounding communities. In addition to light rail, it includes bicycle, pedestrian and roadway projects to improve access to light rail stations. It is part of a broader Southwest Corridor Plan that identifies an array of investment strategies to help improve safety and quality of life and contribute to the success of local land use and development aspirations in the area.
The Southwest Corridor Light Rail Project is a proposed 12-mile light rail line serving SW Portland, Tigard, Tualatin and the surrounding communities. In addition to light rail, it includes bicycle, pedestrian and roadway projects to improve access to light rail stations. It is part of a broader Southwest Corridor Plan that identifies an array of investment strategies to help improve safety and quality of life and contribute to the success of local land use and development aspirations in the area.
The Southwest Corridor Light Rail Project is a proposed 12-mile light rail line serving SW Portland, Tigard, Tualatin and the surrounding communities. In addition to light rail, it includes bicycle, pedestrian and roadway projects to improve access to light rail stations. It is part of a broader Southwest Corridor Plan that identifies an array of investment strategies to help improve safety and quality of life and contribute to the success of local land use and development aspirations in the area.
The Southwest Corridor Light Rail Project is a proposed 12-mile light rail line serving SW Portland, Tigard, Tualatin and the surrounding communities. In addition to light rail, it includes bicycle, pedestrian and roadway projects to improve access to light rail stations. It is part of a broader Southwest Corridor Plan that identifies an array of investment strategies to help improve safety and quality of life and contribute to the success of local land use and development aspirations in the area.
The Southwest Corridor Light Rail Project is a proposed 12-mile light rail line serving SW Portland, Tigard, Tualatin and the surrounding communities. In addition to light rail, it includes bicycle, pedestrian and roadway projects to improve access to light rail stations. It is part of a broader Southwest Corridor Plan that identifies an array of investment strategies to help improve safety and quality of life and contribute to the success of local land use and development aspirations in the area.
The Southwest Corridor Light Rail Project is a proposed 12-mile light rail line serving SW Portland, Tigard, Tualatin and the surrounding communities. In addition to light rail, it includes bicycle, pedestrian and roadway projects to improve access to light rail stations. It is part of a broader Southwest Corridor Plan that identifies an array of investment strategies to help improve safety and quality of life and contribute to the success of local land use and development aspirations in the area.
The Southwest Corridor Light Rail Project is a proposed 12-mile light rail line serving SW Portland, Tigard, Tualatin and the surrounding communities. In addition to light rail, it includes bicycle, pedestrian and roadway projects to improve access to light rail stations. It is part of a broader Southwest Corridor Plan that identifies an array of investment strategies to help improve safety and quality of life and contribute to the success of local land use and development aspirations in the area.
To date, a Section 408 application/request has not been submitted. The Corps is currently working with the project sponsor to coordinate information needs to support the Section 408 evaluation process.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Section 408 review process will be conducted in accordance with the Policy and Procedural Guidance for Processing Requests to Alter US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects Pursuant to 33 USC 408 (Engineer Circular (EC) No. 1165-2-220).
To date, a Section 408 application/request has not been submitted. The Corps is currently working with the project sponsor to coordinate information needs to support the Section 408 evaluation process.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Section 408 review process will be conducted in accordance with the Policy and Procedural Guidance for Processing Requests to Alter US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects Pursuant to 33 USC 408 (Engineer Circular (EC) No. 1165-2-220).
To date, a Section 408 application/request has not been submitted. The Corps is currently working with the project sponsor to coordinate information needs to support the Section 408 evaluation process.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Section 408 review process will be conducted in accordance with the Policy and Procedural Guidance for Processing Requests to Alter US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects Pursuant to 33 USC 408 (Engineer Circular (EC) No. 1165-2-220).
To date, a Section 408 application/request has not been submitted. The Corps is currently working with the project sponsor to coordinate information needs to support the Section 408 evaluation process.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Section 408 review process will be conducted in accordance with the Policy and Procedural Guidance for Processing Requests to Alter US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects Pursuant to 33 USC 408 (Engineer Circular (EC) No. 1165-2-220).
To date, a Section 408 application/request has not been submitted. The Corps is currently working with the project sponsor to coordinate information needs to support the Section 408 evaluation process.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Section 408 review process will be conducted in accordance with the Policy and Procedural Guidance for Processing Requests to Alter US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects Pursuant to 33 USC 408 (Engineer Circular (EC) No. 1165-2-220).
FWS completed ESA consultation with the issuance of a Biological Opinion on June 23, 2017.&nbsp; The BO&nbsp;analyzed the effects of the project on American crocodile and its critical habitat, &nbsp;eastern indigo snake, Everglade snail kite, Florida panther, red knot, and wood stork.
FWS completed ESA consultation with the issuance of a Biological Opinion on June 23, 2017.&nbsp; The BO&nbsp;analyzed the effects of the project on American crocodile and its critical habitat, &nbsp;eastern indigo snake, Everglade snail kite, Florida panther, red knot, and wood stork.
FWS completed ESA consultation with the issuance of a Biological Opinion on June 23, 2017.&nbsp; The BO&nbsp;analyzed the effects of the project on American crocodile and its critical habitat, &nbsp;eastern indigo snake, Everglade snail kite, Florida panther, red knot, and wood stork.
Awaiting State, Local, or Tribal Government Action - A State, local or tribal government action or decision is necessary for a Federal agency to proceed. Lacking Financing - A project applicant temporarily loses financing critical to the project or lacks sufficient financing to continue to permit or review process.FTA and MARTA rescinded the March 31, 2015 NOI for EIS in a Federal Register Publicationn dated July 24, 2019 for the EIS for GA 400 Transit Initiative in Fulton Co. Georgia.&nbsp; Therefore the EIS is canceled.
Awaiting State, Local, or Tribal Government Action - A State, local or tribal government action or decision is necessary for a Federal agency to proceed. Lacking Financing - A project applicant temporarily loses financing critical to the project or lacks sufficient financing to continue to permit or review process.FTA and MARTA rescinded the March 31, 2015 NOI for EIS in a Federal Register Publicationn dated July 24, 2019 for the EIS for GA 400 Transit Initiative in Fulton Co. Georgia.&nbsp; Therefore the EIS is canceled.
Awaiting State, Local, or Tribal Government Action - A State, local or tribal government action or decision is necessary for a Federal agency to proceed. Lacking Financing - A project applicant temporarily loses financing critical to the project or lacks sufficient financing to continue to permit or review process.FTA and MARTA rescinded the March 31, 2015 NOI for EIS in a Federal Register Publicationn dated July 24, 2019 for the EIS for GA 400 Transit Initiative in Fulton Co. Georgia.&nbsp; Therefore the EIS is canceled.
Awaiting State, Local, or Tribal Government Action - A State, local or tribal government action or decision is necessary for a Federal agency to proceed. Lacking Financing - A project applicant temporarily loses financing critical to the project or lacks sufficient financing to continue to permit or review process.FTA and MARTA rescinded the March 31, 2015 NOI for EIS in a Federal Register Publicationn dated July 24, 2019 for the EIS for GA 400 Transit Initiative in Fulton Co. Georgia.&nbsp; Therefore the EIS is canceled.
Awaiting State, Local, or Tribal Government Action - A State, local or tribal government action or decision is necessary for a Federal agency to proceed. Lacking Financing - A project applicant temporarily loses financing critical to the project or lacks sufficient financing to continue to permit or review process.FTA and MARTA rescinded the March 31, 2015 NOI for EIS in a Federal Register Publicationn dated July 24, 2019 for the EIS for GA 400 Transit Initiative in Fulton Co. Georgia.&nbsp; Therefore the EIS is canceled.
Awaiting State, Local, or Tribal Government Action - A State, local or tribal government action or decision is necessary for a Federal agency to proceed. Lacking Financing - A project applicant temporarily loses financing critical to the project or lacks sufficient financing to continue to permit or review process.FTA and MARTA rescinded the March 31, 2015 NOI for EIS in a Federal Register Publicationn dated July 24, 2019 for the EIS for GA 400 Transit Initiative in Fulton Co. Georgia.&nbsp; Therefore the EIS is canceled.
Awaiting State, Local, or Tribal Government Action - A State, local or tribal government action or decision is necessary for a Federal agency to proceed. Lacking Financing - A project applicant temporarily loses financing critical to the project or lacks sufficient financing to continue to permit or review process.FTA and MARTA rescinded the March 31, 2015 NOI for EIS in a Federal Register Publicationn dated July 24, 2019 for the EIS for GA 400 Transit Initiative in Fulton Co. Georgia.&nbsp; Therefore the EIS is canceled.
Awaiting State, Local, or Tribal Government Action - A State, local or tribal government action or decision is necessary for a Federal agency to proceed. Lacking Financing - A project applicant temporarily loses financing critical to the project or lacks sufficient financing to continue to permit or review process.FTA and MARTA rescinded the March 31, 2015 NOI for EIS in a Federal Register Publicationn dated July 24, 2019 for the EIS for GA 400 Transit Initiative in Fulton Co. Georgia.&nbsp; Therefore the EIS is canceled.
The Capitol Expressway Transit Improvement Project will transform Capitol Expressway into a multi-modal boulevard offering bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail transit, and safe connections to the regional&nbsp;transit system. The project is multi-phased and&nbsp;Phase 2 will extend light rail from the existing Alum Rock Light Rail Station to the Eastridge Transit Center. Light rail will operate primarily in the center of Capitol Expressway with elevated track structures crossing Capitol Avenue, Story Road, and Tully Road. The Eastridge extension will include three stations: Story, Ocala, and Eastridge.
The Capitol Expressway Transit Improvement Project will transform Capitol Expressway into a multi-modal boulevard offering bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail transit, and safe connections to the regional&nbsp;transit system. The project is multi-phased and&nbsp;Phase 2 will extend light rail from the existing Alum Rock Light Rail Station to the Eastridge Transit Center. Light rail will operate primarily in the center of Capitol Expressway with elevated track structures crossing Capitol Avenue, Story Road, and Tully Road. The Eastridge extension will include three stations: Story, Ocala, and Eastridge.
The Capitol Expressway Transit Improvement Project will transform Capitol Expressway into a multi-modal boulevard offering bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail transit, and safe connections to the regional&nbsp;transit system. The project is multi-phased and&nbsp;Phase 2 will extend light rail from the existing Alum Rock Light Rail Station to the Eastridge Transit Center. Light rail will operate primarily in the center of Capitol Expressway with elevated track structures crossing Capitol Avenue, Story Road, and Tully Road. The Eastridge extension will include three stations: Story, Ocala, and Eastridge.
The Capitol Expressway Transit Improvement Project will transform Capitol Expressway into a multi-modal boulevard offering bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail transit, and safe connections to the regional&nbsp;transit system. The project is multi-phased and&nbsp;Phase 2 will extend light rail from the existing Alum Rock Light Rail Station to the Eastridge Transit Center. Light rail will operate primarily in the center of Capitol Expressway with elevated track structures crossing Capitol Avenue, Story Road, and Tully Road. The Eastridge extension will include three stations: Story, Ocala, and Eastridge.
The Capitol Expressway Transit Improvement Project will transform Capitol Expressway into a multi-modal boulevard offering bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail transit, and safe connections to the regional&nbsp;transit system. The project is multi-phased and&nbsp;Phase 2 will extend light rail from the existing Alum Rock Light Rail Station to the Eastridge Transit Center. Light rail will operate primarily in the center of Capitol Expressway with elevated track structures crossing Capitol Avenue, Story Road, and Tully Road. The Eastridge extension will include three stations: Story, Ocala, and Eastridge.
The Capitol Expressway Transit Improvement Project will transform Capitol Expressway into a multi-modal boulevard offering bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail transit, and safe connections to the regional&nbsp;transit system. The project is multi-phased and&nbsp;Phase 2 will extend light rail from the existing Alum Rock Light Rail Station to the Eastridge Transit Center. Light rail will operate primarily in the center of Capitol Expressway with elevated track structures crossing Capitol Avenue, Story Road, and Tully Road. The Eastridge extension will include three stations: Story, Ocala, and Eastridge.
The Capitol Expressway Transit Improvement Project will transform Capitol Expressway into a multi-modal boulevard offering bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail transit, and safe connections to the regional&nbsp;transit system. The project is multi-phased and&nbsp;Phase 2 will extend light rail from the existing Alum Rock Light Rail Station to the Eastridge Transit Center. Light rail will operate primarily in the center of Capitol Expressway with elevated track structures crossing Capitol Avenue, Story Road, and Tully Road. The Eastridge extension will include three stations: Story, Ocala, and Eastridge.
The Capitol Expressway Transit Improvement Project will transform Capitol Expressway into a multi-modal boulevard offering bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail transit, and safe connections to the regional&nbsp;transit system. The project is multi-phased and&nbsp;Phase 2 will extend light rail from the existing Alum Rock Light Rail Station to the Eastridge Transit Center. Light rail will operate primarily in the center of Capitol Expressway with elevated track structures crossing Capitol Avenue, Story Road, and Tully Road. The Eastridge extension will include three stations: Story, Ocala, and Eastridge.
The FTA in cooperation with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) issued a notice in the Federal Register on May 21, 2020, to advise the public that the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project in eastern Los Angeles County, California is being rescinded. Following the publication of the NOI, LACMTA reevaluated its funding sources and has identified that the Project can be funded through state and local sources. Thus, LACMTA is not seeking federal funding from FTA at this time, and FTA is rescinding the May 29, 2019 NOI.

&nbsp;
The FTA in cooperation with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) issued a notice in the Federal Register on May 21, 2020, to advise the public that the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project in eastern Los Angeles County, California is being rescinded. Following the publication of the NOI, LACMTA reevaluated its funding sources and has identified that the Project can be funded through state and local sources. Thus, LACMTA is not seeking federal funding from FTA at this time, and FTA is rescinding the May 29, 2019 NOI.

&nbsp;
The FTA in cooperation with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) issued a notice in the Federal Register on May 21, 2020, to advise the public that the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project in eastern Los Angeles County, California is being rescinded. Following the publication of the NOI, LACMTA reevaluated its funding sources and has identified that the Project can be funded through state and local sources. Thus, LACMTA is not seeking federal funding from FTA at this time, and FTA is rescinding the May 29, 2019 NOI.

&nbsp;
The FTA in cooperation with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) issued a notice in the Federal Register on May 21, 2020, to advise the public that the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project in eastern Los Angeles County, California is being rescinded. Following the publication of the NOI, LACMTA reevaluated its funding sources and has identified that the Project can be funded through state and local sources. Thus, LACMTA is not seeking federal funding from FTA at this time, and FTA is rescinding the May 29, 2019 NOI.

&nbsp;
The FTA in cooperation with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) issued a notice in the Federal Register on May 21, 2020, to advise the public that the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project in eastern Los Angeles County, California is being rescinded. Following the publication of the NOI, LACMTA reevaluated its funding sources and has identified that the Project can be funded through state and local sources. Thus, LACMTA is not seeking federal funding from FTA at this time, and FTA is rescinding the May 29, 2019 NOI.

&nbsp;
The FTA in cooperation with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) issued a notice in the Federal Register on May 21, 2020, to advise the public that the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project in eastern Los Angeles County, California is being rescinded. Following the publication of the NOI, LACMTA reevaluated its funding sources and has identified that the Project can be funded through state and local sources. Thus, LACMTA is not seeking federal funding from FTA at this time, and FTA is rescinding the May 29, 2019 NOI.

&nbsp;
The FTA in cooperation with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) issued a notice in the Federal Register on May 21, 2020, to advise the public that the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project in eastern Los Angeles County, California is being rescinded. Following the publication of the NOI, LACMTA reevaluated its funding sources and has identified that the Project can be funded through state and local sources. Thus, LACMTA is not seeking federal funding from FTA at this time, and FTA is rescinding the May 29, 2019 NOI.

&nbsp;
The FTA in cooperation with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) issued a notice in the Federal Register on May 21, 2020, to advise the public that the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project in eastern Los Angeles County, California is being rescinded. Following the publication of the NOI, LACMTA reevaluated its funding sources and has identified that the Project can be funded through state and local sources. Thus, LACMTA is not seeking federal funding from FTA at this time, and FTA is rescinding the May 29, 2019 NOI.

&nbsp;
The FTA in cooperation with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) issued a notice in the Federal Register on May 21, 2020, to advise the public that the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project in eastern Los Angeles County, California is being rescinded. Following the publication of the NOI, LACMTA reevaluated its funding sources and has identified that the Project can be funded through state and local sources. Thus, LACMTA is not seeking federal funding from FTA at this time, and FTA is rescinding the May 29, 2019 NOI.

&nbsp;
The FTA in cooperation with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) issued a notice in the Federal Register on May 21, 2020, to advise the public that the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project in eastern Los Angeles County, California is being rescinded. Following the publication of the NOI, LACMTA reevaluated its funding sources and has identified that the Project can be funded through state and local sources. Thus, LACMTA is not seeking federal funding from FTA at this time, and FTA is rescinding the May 29, 2019 NOI.

&nbsp;
The FTA in cooperation with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) issued a notice in the Federal Register on May 21, 2020, to advise the public that the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project in eastern Los Angeles County, California is being rescinded. Following the publication of the NOI, LACMTA reevaluated its funding sources and has identified that the Project can be funded through state and local sources. Thus, LACMTA is not seeking federal funding from FTA at this time, and FTA is rescinding the May 29, 2019 NOI.

&nbsp;
The City of Coachella, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), proposes the construction of a new interchange at State Route 86 (SR-86) and Avenue 50, approximately 1.1 miles north of the existing Avenue 52 intersection and 1.95 miles south of the existing Dillon Road interchange. The proposed project would convert portion of SR-86 from existing expressway to freeway with a new overcrossing structure and access ramps, which would accommodate traffic for existing and planned development in the area. The project would also improve safety and traffic operations by enhancing level of service (LOS) on the adjacent SR-86/Dillon Road interchange and SR-86/Avenue 52 intersection.The proposed improvements include realignment and widening of Avenue 50 from the existing two-lane roadway to a six-lane major arterial, and realignment of Tyler Street on both the east and west side of SR-86. The project would also improve public safety and mobility by constructing another new bridge spanning over Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (CVSC), replacing the existing low water crossing, and eliminating flood-related hazards during inclement weather events.
The City of Coachella, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), proposes the construction of a new interchange at State Route 86 (SR-86) and Avenue 50, approximately 1.1 miles north of the existing Avenue 52 intersection and 1.95 miles south of the existing Dillon Road interchange. The proposed project would convert portion of SR-86 from existing expressway to freeway with a new overcrossing structure and access ramps, which would accommodate traffic for existing and planned development in the area. The project would also improve safety and traffic operations by enhancing level of service (LOS) on the adjacent SR-86/Dillon Road interchange and SR-86/Avenue 52 intersection.The proposed improvements include realignment and widening of Avenue 50 from the existing two-lane roadway to a six-lane major arterial, and realignment of Tyler Street on both the east and west side of SR-86. The project would also improve public safety and mobility by constructing another new bridge spanning over Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (CVSC), replacing the existing low water crossing, and eliminating flood-related hazards during inclement weather events.
The City of Coachella, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), proposes the construction of a new interchange at State Route 86 (SR-86) and Avenue 50, approximately 1.1 miles north of the existing Avenue 52 intersection and 1.95 miles south of the existing Dillon Road interchange. The proposed project would convert portion of SR-86 from existing expressway to freeway with a new overcrossing structure and access ramps, which would accommodate traffic for existing and planned development in the area. The project would also improve safety and traffic operations by enhancing level of service (LOS) on the adjacent SR-86/Dillon Road interchange and SR-86/Avenue 52 intersection.The proposed improvements include realignment and widening of Avenue 50 from the existing two-lane roadway to a six-lane major arterial, and realignment of Tyler Street on both the east and west side of SR-86. The project would also improve public safety and mobility by constructing another new bridge spanning over Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (CVSC), replacing the existing low water crossing, and eliminating flood-related hazards during inclement weather events.
The City of Coachella, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), proposes the construction of a new interchange at State Route 86 (SR-86) and Avenue 50, approximately 1.1 miles north of the existing Avenue 52 intersection and 1.95 miles south of the existing Dillon Road interchange. The proposed project would convert portion of SR-86 from existing expressway to freeway with a new overcrossing structure and access ramps, which would accommodate traffic for existing and planned development in the area. The project would also improve safety and traffic operations by enhancing level of service (LOS) on the adjacent SR-86/Dillon Road interchange and SR-86/Avenue 52 intersection.The proposed improvements include realignment and widening of Avenue 50 from the existing two-lane roadway to a six-lane major arterial, and realignment of Tyler Street on both the east and west side of SR-86. The project would also improve public safety and mobility by constructing another new bridge spanning over Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (CVSC), replacing the existing low water crossing, and eliminating flood-related hazards during inclement weather events.
The City of Coachella, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), proposes the construction of a new interchange at State Route 86 (SR-86) and Avenue 50, approximately 1.1 miles north of the existing Avenue 52 intersection and 1.95 miles south of the existing Dillon Road interchange. The proposed project would convert portion of SR-86 from existing expressway to freeway with a new overcrossing structure and access ramps, which would accommodate traffic for existing and planned development in the area. The project would also improve safety and traffic operations by enhancing level of service (LOS) on the adjacent SR-86/Dillon Road interchange and SR-86/Avenue 52 intersection.The proposed improvements include realignment and widening of Avenue 50 from the existing two-lane roadway to a six-lane major arterial, and realignment of Tyler Street on both the east and west side of SR-86. The project would also improve public safety and mobility by constructing another new bridge spanning over Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (CVSC), replacing the existing low water crossing, and eliminating flood-related hazards during inclement weather events.
The City of Coachella, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), proposes the construction of a new interchange at State Route 86 (SR-86) and Avenue 50, approximately 1.1 miles north of the existing Avenue 52 intersection and 1.95 miles south of the existing Dillon Road interchange. The proposed project would convert portion of SR-86 from existing expressway to freeway with a new overcrossing structure and access ramps, which would accommodate traffic for existing and planned development in the area. The project would also improve safety and traffic operations by enhancing level of service (LOS) on the adjacent SR-86/Dillon Road interchange and SR-86/Avenue 52 intersection.The proposed improvements include realignment and widening of Avenue 50 from the existing two-lane roadway to a six-lane major arterial, and realignment of Tyler Street on both the east and west side of SR-86. The project would also improve public safety and mobility by constructing another new bridge spanning over Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (CVSC), replacing the existing low water crossing, and eliminating flood-related hazards during inclement weather events.
The City of Coachella, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), proposes the construction of a new interchange at State Route 86 (SR-86) and Avenue 50, approximately 1.1 miles north of the existing Avenue 52 intersection and 1.95 miles south of the existing Dillon Road interchange. The proposed project would convert portion of SR-86 from existing expressway to freeway with a new overcrossing structure and access ramps, which would accommodate traffic for existing and planned development in the area. The project would also improve safety and traffic operations by enhancing level of service (LOS) on the adjacent SR-86/Dillon Road interchange and SR-86/Avenue 52 intersection.The proposed improvements include realignment and widening of Avenue 50 from the existing two-lane roadway to a six-lane major arterial, and realignment of Tyler Street on both the east and west side of SR-86. The project would also improve public safety and mobility by constructing another new bridge spanning over Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (CVSC), replacing the existing low water crossing, and eliminating flood-related hazards during inclement weather events.
The City of Coachella, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), proposes the construction of a new interchange at State Route 86 (SR-86) and Avenue 50, approximately 1.1 miles north of the existing Avenue 52 intersection and 1.95 miles south of the existing Dillon Road interchange. The proposed project would convert portion of SR-86 from existing expressway to freeway with a new overcrossing structure and access ramps, which would accommodate traffic for existing and planned development in the area. The project would also improve safety and traffic operations by enhancing level of service (LOS) on the adjacent SR-86/Dillon Road interchange and SR-86/Avenue 52 intersection.The proposed improvements include realignment and widening of Avenue 50 from the existing two-lane roadway to a six-lane major arterial, and realignment of Tyler Street on both the east and west side of SR-86. The project would also improve public safety and mobility by constructing another new bridge spanning over Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (CVSC), replacing the existing low water crossing, and eliminating flood-related hazards during inclement weather events.
The City of Coachella, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), proposes the construction of a new interchange at State Route 86 (SR-86) and Avenue 50, approximately 1.1 miles north of the existing Avenue 52 intersection and 1.95 miles south of the existing Dillon Road interchange. The proposed project would convert portion of SR-86 from existing expressway to freeway with a new overcrossing structure and access ramps, which would accommodate traffic for existing and planned development in the area. The project would also improve safety and traffic operations by enhancing level of service (LOS) on the adjacent SR-86/Dillon Road interchange and SR-86/Avenue 52 intersection.The proposed improvements include realignment and widening of Avenue 50 from the existing two-lane roadway to a six-lane major arterial, and realignment of Tyler Street on both the east and west side of SR-86. The project would also improve public safety and mobility by constructing another new bridge spanning over Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (CVSC), replacing the existing low water crossing, and eliminating flood-related hazards during inclement weather events.
he Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) are&nbsp;preparing&nbsp;an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Green Line to the Airport Project in Sacramento County, California. &nbsp;The project consists of an extension of the existing Green Line light rail service from the existing terminus of the Green Line at Township 9 (at North 7th Street and Richards Boulevard near Downtown Sacramento) to the Sacramento International Airport. &nbsp;The proposed project would provide new transit service and related infrastructure in the City of Sacramento, serving communities such as the River District and the South and North Natomas communities, as well as linking these areas better to the larger Sacramento region. &nbsp;The EIS will evaluate alternatives to the proposed action, including the No Build Alternative and possible minimum operable segments.
he Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) are&nbsp;preparing&nbsp;an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Green Line to the Airport Project in Sacramento County, California. &nbsp;The project consists of an extension of the existing Green Line light rail service from the existing terminus of the Green Line at Township 9 (at North 7th Street and Richards Boulevard near Downtown Sacramento) to the Sacramento International Airport. &nbsp;The proposed project would provide new transit service and related infrastructure in the City of Sacramento, serving communities such as the River District and the South and North Natomas communities, as well as linking these areas better to the larger Sacramento region. &nbsp;The EIS will evaluate alternatives to the proposed action, including the No Build Alternative and possible minimum operable segments.
he Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) are&nbsp;preparing&nbsp;an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Green Line to the Airport Project in Sacramento County, California. &nbsp;The project consists of an extension of the existing Green Line light rail service from the existing terminus of the Green Line at Township 9 (at North 7th Street and Richards Boulevard near Downtown Sacramento) to the Sacramento International Airport. &nbsp;The proposed project would provide new transit service and related infrastructure in the City of Sacramento, serving communities such as the River District and the South and North Natomas communities, as well as linking these areas better to the larger Sacramento region. &nbsp;The EIS will evaluate alternatives to the proposed action, including the No Build Alternative and possible minimum operable segments.
he Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) are&nbsp;preparing&nbsp;an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Green Line to the Airport Project in Sacramento County, California. &nbsp;The project consists of an extension of the existing Green Line light rail service from the existing terminus of the Green Line at Township 9 (at North 7th Street and Richards Boulevard near Downtown Sacramento) to the Sacramento International Airport. &nbsp;The proposed project would provide new transit service and related infrastructure in the City of Sacramento, serving communities such as the River District and the South and North Natomas communities, as well as linking these areas better to the larger Sacramento region. &nbsp;The EIS will evaluate alternatives to the proposed action, including the No Build Alternative and possible minimum operable segments.
he Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) are&nbsp;preparing&nbsp;an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Green Line to the Airport Project in Sacramento County, California. &nbsp;The project consists of an extension of the existing Green Line light rail service from the existing terminus of the Green Line at Township 9 (at North 7th Street and Richards Boulevard near Downtown Sacramento) to the Sacramento International Airport. &nbsp;The proposed project would provide new transit service and related infrastructure in the City of Sacramento, serving communities such as the River District and the South and North Natomas communities, as well as linking these areas better to the larger Sacramento region. &nbsp;The EIS will evaluate alternatives to the proposed action, including the No Build Alternative and possible minimum operable segments.
he Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) are&nbsp;preparing&nbsp;an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Green Line to the Airport Project in Sacramento County, California. &nbsp;The project consists of an extension of the existing Green Line light rail service from the existing terminus of the Green Line at Township 9 (at North 7th Street and Richards Boulevard near Downtown Sacramento) to the Sacramento International Airport. &nbsp;The proposed project would provide new transit service and related infrastructure in the City of Sacramento, serving communities such as the River District and the South and North Natomas communities, as well as linking these areas better to the larger Sacramento region. &nbsp;The EIS will evaluate alternatives to the proposed action, including the No Build Alternative and possible minimum operable segments.
he Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) are&nbsp;preparing&nbsp;an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Green Line to the Airport Project in Sacramento County, California. &nbsp;The project consists of an extension of the existing Green Line light rail service from the existing terminus of the Green Line at Township 9 (at North 7th Street and Richards Boulevard near Downtown Sacramento) to the Sacramento International Airport. &nbsp;The proposed project would provide new transit service and related infrastructure in the City of Sacramento, serving communities such as the River District and the South and North Natomas communities, as well as linking these areas better to the larger Sacramento region. &nbsp;The EIS will evaluate alternatives to the proposed action, including the No Build Alternative and possible minimum operable segments.
he Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) are&nbsp;preparing&nbsp;an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Green Line to the Airport Project in Sacramento County, California. &nbsp;The project consists of an extension of the existing Green Line light rail service from the existing terminus of the Green Line at Township 9 (at North 7th Street and Richards Boulevard near Downtown Sacramento) to the Sacramento International Airport. &nbsp;The proposed project would provide new transit service and related infrastructure in the City of Sacramento, serving communities such as the River District and the South and North Natomas communities, as well as linking these areas better to the larger Sacramento region. &nbsp;The EIS will evaluate alternatives to the proposed action, including the No Build Alternative and possible minimum operable segments.
he Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) are&nbsp;preparing&nbsp;an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Green Line to the Airport Project in Sacramento County, California. &nbsp;The project consists of an extension of the existing Green Line light rail service from the existing terminus of the Green Line at Township 9 (at North 7th Street and Richards Boulevard near Downtown Sacramento) to the Sacramento International Airport. &nbsp;The proposed project would provide new transit service and related infrastructure in the City of Sacramento, serving communities such as the River District and the South and North Natomas communities, as well as linking these areas better to the larger Sacramento region. &nbsp;The EIS will evaluate alternatives to the proposed action, including the No Build Alternative and possible minimum operable segments.
he Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) are&nbsp;preparing&nbsp;an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Green Line to the Airport Project in Sacramento County, California. &nbsp;The project consists of an extension of the existing Green Line light rail service from the existing terminus of the Green Line at Township 9 (at North 7th Street and Richards Boulevard near Downtown Sacramento) to the Sacramento International Airport. &nbsp;The proposed project would provide new transit service and related infrastructure in the City of Sacramento, serving communities such as the River District and the South and North Natomas communities, as well as linking these areas better to the larger Sacramento region. &nbsp;The EIS will evaluate alternatives to the proposed action, including the No Build Alternative and possible minimum operable segments.
he Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) are&nbsp;preparing&nbsp;an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Green Line to the Airport Project in Sacramento County, California. &nbsp;The project consists of an extension of the existing Green Line light rail service from the existing terminus of the Green Line at Township 9 (at North 7th Street and Richards Boulevard near Downtown Sacramento) to the Sacramento International Airport. &nbsp;The proposed project would provide new transit service and related infrastructure in the City of Sacramento, serving communities such as the River District and the South and North Natomas communities, as well as linking these areas better to the larger Sacramento region. &nbsp;The EIS will evaluate alternatives to the proposed action, including the No Build Alternative and possible minimum operable segments.
Coordination pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act occurs from 4/30/2017 until the USACE issues its Record of Decision.
Coordination pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act occurs from 4/30/2017 until the USACE issues its Record of Decision.
The date of issuance of the record of decision and Combined License was April 25, 2018 (83 FR 18091).&nbsp; The NRC’s Commission issued its final decision on the uncontested hearing, which serves as the record of decision in this proceeding. They further determined that the application for the Combined Operating Licenses filed by&nbsp;Florida Power and Light&nbsp;meets the applicable standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission’s regulations have been met.
The date of issuance of the record of decision and Combined License was April 25, 2018 (83 FR 18091).&nbsp; The NRC’s Commission issued its final decision on the uncontested hearing, which serves as the record of decision in this proceeding. They further determined that the application for the Combined Operating Licenses filed by&nbsp;Florida Power and Light&nbsp;meets the applicable standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission’s regulations have been met.
The date of issuance of the record of decision and Combined License was April 25, 2018 (83 FR 18091).&nbsp; The NRC’s Commission issued its final decision on the uncontested hearing, which serves as the record of decision in this proceeding. They further determined that the application for the Combined Operating Licenses filed by&nbsp;Florida Power and Light&nbsp;meets the applicable standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission’s regulations have been met.
The date of issuance of the record of decision and Combined License was April 25, 2018 (83 FR 18091).&nbsp; The NRC’s Commission issued its final decision on the uncontested hearing, which serves as the record of decision in this proceeding. They further determined that the application for the Combined Operating Licenses filed by&nbsp;Florida Power and Light&nbsp;meets the applicable standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission’s regulations have been met.
The date of issuance of the record of decision and Combined License was April 25, 2018 (83 FR 18091).&nbsp; The NRC’s Commission issued its final decision on the uncontested hearing, which serves as the record of decision in this proceeding. They further determined that the application for the Combined Operating Licenses filed by&nbsp;Florida Power and Light&nbsp;meets the applicable standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission’s regulations have been met.
The Project is a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend approximately 20 miles and connect downtown Los Angeles to southeast Los Angeles County, serving the cities and communities of Arts District, Little Tokyo, Los Angeles, unincorporated Florence-Graham community of Los Angeles County, Vernon, Huntington Park, Bell, Cudahy, South Gate, Downey, Paramount, Bellflower, Cerritos, and Artesia.
The Project is a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend approximately 20 miles and connect downtown Los Angeles to southeast Los Angeles County, serving the cities and communities of Arts District, Little Tokyo, Los Angeles, unincorporated Florence-Graham community of Los Angeles County, Vernon, Huntington Park, Bell, Cudahy, South Gate, Downey, Paramount, Bellflower, Cerritos, and Artesia.
The Project is a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend approximately 20 miles and connect downtown Los Angeles to southeast Los Angeles County, serving the cities and communities of Arts District, Little Tokyo, Los Angeles, unincorporated Florence-Graham community of Los Angeles County, Vernon, Huntington Park, Bell, Cudahy, South Gate, Downey, Paramount, Bellflower, Cerritos, and Artesia.
The Project is a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend approximately 20 miles and connect downtown Los Angeles to southeast Los Angeles County, serving the cities and communities of Arts District, Little Tokyo, Los Angeles, unincorporated Florence-Graham community of Los Angeles County, Vernon, Huntington Park, Bell, Cudahy, South Gate, Downey, Paramount, Bellflower, Cerritos, and Artesia.
The Project is a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend approximately 20 miles and connect downtown Los Angeles to southeast Los Angeles County, serving the cities and communities of Arts District, Little Tokyo, Los Angeles, unincorporated Florence-Graham community of Los Angeles County, Vernon, Huntington Park, Bell, Cudahy, South Gate, Downey, Paramount, Bellflower, Cerritos, and Artesia.
The Project is a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend approximately 20 miles and connect downtown Los Angeles to southeast Los Angeles County, serving the cities and communities of Arts District, Little Tokyo, Los Angeles, unincorporated Florence-Graham community of Los Angeles County, Vernon, Huntington Park, Bell, Cudahy, South Gate, Downey, Paramount, Bellflower, Cerritos, and Artesia.
The Project is a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend approximately 20 miles and connect downtown Los Angeles to southeast Los Angeles County, serving the cities and communities of Arts District, Little Tokyo, Los Angeles, unincorporated Florence-Graham community of Los Angeles County, Vernon, Huntington Park, Bell, Cudahy, South Gate, Downey, Paramount, Bellflower, Cerritos, and Artesia.
The Project is a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend approximately 20 miles and connect downtown Los Angeles to southeast Los Angeles County, serving the cities and communities of Arts District, Little Tokyo, Los Angeles, unincorporated Florence-Graham community of Los Angeles County, Vernon, Huntington Park, Bell, Cudahy, South Gate, Downey, Paramount, Bellflower, Cerritos, and Artesia.
The Project is a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend approximately 20 miles and connect downtown Los Angeles to southeast Los Angeles County, serving the cities and communities of Arts District, Little Tokyo, Los Angeles, unincorporated Florence-Graham community of Los Angeles County, Vernon, Huntington Park, Bell, Cudahy, South Gate, Downey, Paramount, Bellflower, Cerritos, and Artesia.
The Project is a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend approximately 20 miles and connect downtown Los Angeles to southeast Los Angeles County, serving the cities and communities of Arts District, Little Tokyo, Los Angeles, unincorporated Florence-Graham community of Los Angeles County, Vernon, Huntington Park, Bell, Cudahy, South Gate, Downey, Paramount, Bellflower, Cerritos, and Artesia.
The Project is a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend approximately 20 miles and connect downtown Los Angeles to southeast Los Angeles County, serving the cities and communities of Arts District, Little Tokyo, Los Angeles, unincorporated Florence-Graham community of Los Angeles County, Vernon, Huntington Park, Bell, Cudahy, South Gate, Downey, Paramount, Bellflower, Cerritos, and Artesia.
The Project is a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend approximately 20 miles and connect downtown Los Angeles to southeast Los Angeles County, serving the cities and communities of Arts District, Little Tokyo, Los Angeles, unincorporated Florence-Graham community of Los Angeles County, Vernon, Huntington Park, Bell, Cudahy, South Gate, Downey, Paramount, Bellflower, Cerritos, and Artesia.
The Project is a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend approximately 20 miles and connect downtown Los Angeles to southeast Los Angeles County, serving the cities and communities of Arts District, Little Tokyo, Los Angeles, unincorporated Florence-Graham community of Los Angeles County, Vernon, Huntington Park, Bell, Cudahy, South Gate, Downey, Paramount, Bellflower, Cerritos, and Artesia.
The Project is a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend approximately 20 miles and connect downtown Los Angeles to southeast Los Angeles County, serving the cities and communities of Arts District, Little Tokyo, Los Angeles, unincorporated Florence-Graham community of Los Angeles County, Vernon, Huntington Park, Bell, Cudahy, South Gate, Downey, Paramount, Bellflower, Cerritos, and Artesia.
On June 30, 2021, FRA issued a combined Final EIS and ROD (FEIS/ROD) in accordance with 49 USC § 304a(b). The FEIS and ROD were combined because the FEIS did not make substantial changes to the proposed actions that are relevant to environmental safety concerns, and there were no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns.&nbsp;

In the FEIS/ROD, FRA identified the Greenfield Corridor Alternative as the Preferred Corridor Alternative. The Greenfield Corridor Alternative is a 274-mile route that connects Charlotte, NC (Charlotte Gateway Station), and Atlanta, GA (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport – H-JAIA), and generally follows a new dedicated alignment between the Charlotte Douglas International Airport and northeast Atlanta. A future Tier II study will define the specific alignment for the Greenfield Corridor Alternative, including the final approaches into Atlanta and Charlotte. GDOT and FRA assume the Greenfield Corridor Alternative could use either diesel or electric propulsion technology (for more information on the potential impacts of the Greenfield Corridor Alternative and mitigation for those impacts, see Section 3.3.2 of the FEIS/ROD).

For more information on the Atlanta to Charlotte project, please visit&nbsp;GDOT's project website.
On June 30, 2021, FRA issued a combined Final EIS and ROD (FEIS/ROD) in accordance with 49 USC § 304a(b). The FEIS and ROD were combined because the FEIS did not make substantial changes to the proposed actions that are relevant to environmental safety concerns, and there were no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns.&nbsp;

In the FEIS/ROD, FRA identified the Greenfield Corridor Alternative as the Preferred Corridor Alternative. The Greenfield Corridor Alternative is a 274-mile route that connects Charlotte, NC (Charlotte Gateway Station), and Atlanta, GA (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport – H-JAIA), and generally follows a new dedicated alignment between the Charlotte Douglas International Airport and northeast Atlanta. A future Tier II study will define the specific alignment for the Greenfield Corridor Alternative, including the final approaches into Atlanta and Charlotte. GDOT and FRA assume the Greenfield Corridor Alternative could use either diesel or electric propulsion technology (for more information on the potential impacts of the Greenfield Corridor Alternative and mitigation for those impacts, see Section 3.3.2 of the FEIS/ROD).

For more information on the Atlanta to Charlotte project, please visit&nbsp;GDOT's project website.
On June 30, 2021, FRA issued a combined Final EIS and ROD (FEIS/ROD) in accordance with 49 USC § 304a(b). The FEIS and ROD were combined because the FEIS did not make substantial changes to the proposed actions that are relevant to environmental safety concerns, and there were no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns.&nbsp;

In the FEIS/ROD, FRA identified the Greenfield Corridor Alternative as the Preferred Corridor Alternative. The Greenfield Corridor Alternative is a 274-mile route that connects Charlotte, NC (Charlotte Gateway Station), and Atlanta, GA (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport – H-JAIA), and generally follows a new dedicated alignment between the Charlotte Douglas International Airport and northeast Atlanta. A future Tier II study will define the specific alignment for the Greenfield Corridor Alternative, including the final approaches into Atlanta and Charlotte. GDOT and FRA assume the Greenfield Corridor Alternative could use either diesel or electric propulsion technology (for more information on the potential impacts of the Greenfield Corridor Alternative and mitigation for those impacts, see Section 3.3.2 of the FEIS/ROD).

For more information on the Atlanta to Charlotte project, please visit&nbsp;GDOT's project website.
On June 30, 2021, FRA issued a combined Final EIS and ROD (FEIS/ROD) in accordance with 49 USC § 304a(b). The FEIS and ROD were combined because the FEIS did not make substantial changes to the proposed actions that are relevant to environmental safety concerns, and there were no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns.&nbsp;

In the FEIS/ROD, FRA identified the Greenfield Corridor Alternative as the Preferred Corridor Alternative. The Greenfield Corridor Alternative is a 274-mile route that connects Charlotte, NC (Charlotte Gateway Station), and Atlanta, GA (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport – H-JAIA), and generally follows a new dedicated alignment between the Charlotte Douglas International Airport and northeast Atlanta. A future Tier II study will define the specific alignment for the Greenfield Corridor Alternative, including the final approaches into Atlanta and Charlotte. GDOT and FRA assume the Greenfield Corridor Alternative could use either diesel or electric propulsion technology (for more information on the potential impacts of the Greenfield Corridor Alternative and mitigation for those impacts, see Section 3.3.2 of the FEIS/ROD).

For more information on the Atlanta to Charlotte project, please visit&nbsp;GDOT's project website.
On June 30, 2021, FRA issued a combined Final EIS and ROD (FEIS/ROD) in accordance with 49 USC § 304a(b). The FEIS and ROD were combined because the FEIS did not make substantial changes to the proposed actions that are relevant to environmental safety concerns, and there were no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns.&nbsp;

In the FEIS/ROD, FRA identified the Greenfield Corridor Alternative as the Preferred Corridor Alternative. The Greenfield Corridor Alternative is a 274-mile route that connects Charlotte, NC (Charlotte Gateway Station), and Atlanta, GA (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport – H-JAIA), and generally follows a new dedicated alignment between the Charlotte Douglas International Airport and northeast Atlanta. A future Tier II study will define the specific alignment for the Greenfield Corridor Alternative, including the final approaches into Atlanta and Charlotte. GDOT and FRA assume the Greenfield Corridor Alternative could use either diesel or electric propulsion technology (for more information on the potential impacts of the Greenfield Corridor Alternative and mitigation for those impacts, see Section 3.3.2 of the FEIS/ROD).

For more information on the Atlanta to Charlotte project, please visit&nbsp;GDOT's project website.
On June 30, 2021, FRA issued a combined Final EIS and ROD (FEIS/ROD) in accordance with 49 USC § 304a(b). The FEIS and ROD were combined because the FEIS did not make substantial changes to the proposed actions that are relevant to environmental safety concerns, and there were no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns.&nbsp;

In the FEIS/ROD, FRA identified the Greenfield Corridor Alternative as the Preferred Corridor Alternative. The Greenfield Corridor Alternative is a 274-mile route that connects Charlotte, NC (Charlotte Gateway Station), and Atlanta, GA (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport – H-JAIA), and generally follows a new dedicated alignment between the Charlotte Douglas International Airport and northeast Atlanta. A future Tier II study will define the specific alignment for the Greenfield Corridor Alternative, including the final approaches into Atlanta and Charlotte. GDOT and FRA assume the Greenfield Corridor Alternative could use either diesel or electric propulsion technology (for more information on the potential impacts of the Greenfield Corridor Alternative and mitigation for those impacts, see Section 3.3.2 of the FEIS/ROD).

For more information on the Atlanta to Charlotte project, please visit&nbsp;GDOT's project website.
On June 30, 2021, FRA issued a combined Final EIS and ROD (FEIS/ROD) in accordance with 49 USC § 304a(b). The FEIS and ROD were combined because the FEIS did not make substantial changes to the proposed actions that are relevant to environmental safety concerns, and there were no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns.&nbsp;

In the FEIS/ROD, FRA identified the Greenfield Corridor Alternative as the Preferred Corridor Alternative. The Greenfield Corridor Alternative is a 274-mile route that connects Charlotte, NC (Charlotte Gateway Station), and Atlanta, GA (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport – H-JAIA), and generally follows a new dedicated alignment between the Charlotte Douglas International Airport and northeast Atlanta. A future Tier II study will define the specific alignment for the Greenfield Corridor Alternative, including the final approaches into Atlanta and Charlotte. GDOT and FRA assume the Greenfield Corridor Alternative could use either diesel or electric propulsion technology (for more information on the potential impacts of the Greenfield Corridor Alternative and mitigation for those impacts, see Section 3.3.2 of the FEIS/ROD).

For more information on the Atlanta to Charlotte project, please visit&nbsp;GDOT's project website.
On June 30, 2021, FRA issued a combined Final EIS and ROD (FEIS/ROD) in accordance with 49 USC § 304a(b). The FEIS and ROD were combined because the FEIS did not make substantial changes to the proposed actions that are relevant to environmental safety concerns, and there were no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns.&nbsp;

In the FEIS/ROD, FRA identified the Greenfield Corridor Alternative as the Preferred Corridor Alternative. The Greenfield Corridor Alternative is a 274-mile route that connects Charlotte, NC (Charlotte Gateway Station), and Atlanta, GA (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport – H-JAIA), and generally follows a new dedicated alignment between the Charlotte Douglas International Airport and northeast Atlanta. A future Tier II study will define the specific alignment for the Greenfield Corridor Alternative, including the final approaches into Atlanta and Charlotte. GDOT and FRA assume the Greenfield Corridor Alternative could use either diesel or electric propulsion technology (for more information on the potential impacts of the Greenfield Corridor Alternative and mitigation for those impacts, see Section 3.3.2 of the FEIS/ROD).

For more information on the Atlanta to Charlotte project, please visit&nbsp;GDOT's project website.
On June 30, 2021, FRA issued a combined Final EIS and ROD (FEIS/ROD) in accordance with 49 USC § 304a(b). The FEIS and ROD were combined because the FEIS did not make substantial changes to the proposed actions that are relevant to environmental safety concerns, and there were no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns.&nbsp;

In the FEIS/ROD, FRA identified the Greenfield Corridor Alternative as the Preferred Corridor Alternative. The Greenfield Corridor Alternative is a 274-mile route that connects Charlotte, NC (Charlotte Gateway Station), and Atlanta, GA (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport – H-JAIA), and generally follows a new dedicated alignment between the Charlotte Douglas International Airport and northeast Atlanta. A future Tier II study will define the specific alignment for the Greenfield Corridor Alternative, including the final approaches into Atlanta and Charlotte. GDOT and FRA assume the Greenfield Corridor Alternative could use either diesel or electric propulsion technology (for more information on the potential impacts of the Greenfield Corridor Alternative and mitigation for those impacts, see Section 3.3.2 of the FEIS/ROD).

For more information on the Atlanta to Charlotte project, please visit&nbsp;GDOT's project website.
On June 30, 2021, FRA issued a combined Final EIS and ROD (FEIS/ROD) in accordance with 49 USC § 304a(b). The FEIS and ROD were combined because the FEIS did not make substantial changes to the proposed actions that are relevant to environmental safety concerns, and there were no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns.&nbsp;

In the FEIS/ROD, FRA identified the Greenfield Corridor Alternative as the Preferred Corridor Alternative. The Greenfield Corridor Alternative is a 274-mile route that connects Charlotte, NC (Charlotte Gateway Station), and Atlanta, GA (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport – H-JAIA), and generally follows a new dedicated alignment between the Charlotte Douglas International Airport and northeast Atlanta. A future Tier II study will define the specific alignment for the Greenfield Corridor Alternative, including the final approaches into Atlanta and Charlotte. GDOT and FRA assume the Greenfield Corridor Alternative could use either diesel or electric propulsion technology (for more information on the potential impacts of the Greenfield Corridor Alternative and mitigation for those impacts, see Section 3.3.2 of the FEIS/ROD).

For more information on the Atlanta to Charlotte project, please visit&nbsp;GDOT's project website.
On June 30, 2021, FRA issued a combined Final EIS and ROD (FEIS/ROD) in accordance with 49 USC § 304a(b). The FEIS and ROD were combined because the FEIS did not make substantial changes to the proposed actions that are relevant to environmental safety concerns, and there were no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns.&nbsp;

In the FEIS/ROD, FRA identified the Greenfield Corridor Alternative as the Preferred Corridor Alternative. The Greenfield Corridor Alternative is a 274-mile route that connects Charlotte, NC (Charlotte Gateway Station), and Atlanta, GA (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport – H-JAIA), and generally follows a new dedicated alignment between the Charlotte Douglas International Airport and northeast Atlanta. A future Tier II study will define the specific alignment for the Greenfield Corridor Alternative, including the final approaches into Atlanta and Charlotte. GDOT and FRA assume the Greenfield Corridor Alternative could use either diesel or electric propulsion technology (for more information on the potential impacts of the Greenfield Corridor Alternative and mitigation for those impacts, see Section 3.3.2 of the FEIS/ROD).

For more information on the Atlanta to Charlotte project, please visit&nbsp;GDOT's project website.
On February 3, 2020, FRA issued the combined Final EIS and Record of Decesion (ROD) for the Port Bienville Railroad Project, and it was published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2020. The combined Final EIS and ROD does not include substantial changes to the proposed action in terms of environmental or safety concerns, nor are there significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns of the proposed action or its impacts.&nbsp;

In accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation Guidance and pursuant to Section 1211 of Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, the combined Final EIS and ROD includes the identification of the Preferred Alternative and a list of commitments for mitigation measures for the Preferred Alternative (included in Section 2.5 of the ROD).&nbsp;

The Preferred Alternative is approximately 24 miles long and would begin in the northern section of the Study Area in Nicholson, MS. It would continue southwest along the existing Norfolk Southern rail line (Segment 11), then leave the existing rail south of Texas Flat Road and continue in an easterly direction (along Segment 10b). It would turn to the southeast (along Segment 9) and then travel south (along Segment 8a and Segment 7). The alignment continues in a southerly direction along the southern option “C” and ties into the existing Port Bienville Railroad.

This project is funded for by FRA for Preliminary Engineering/NEPA.&nbsp; Construction funding for this project has yet to be identified.

The project sponsor is the Mississippi Department of Transportation and the point of contact is Adam Johnson (ajohnson@mdot.ms.gov).

Cooperating agencies include the US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Surface Transportation Board.

In addition, pertinent information including the project's NEPA documentation and decisions are found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0798.
On February 3, 2020, FRA issued the combined Final EIS and Record of Decesion (ROD) for the Port Bienville Railroad Project, and it was published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2020. The combined Final EIS and ROD does not include substantial changes to the proposed action in terms of environmental or safety concerns, nor are there significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns of the proposed action or its impacts.&nbsp;

In accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation Guidance and pursuant to Section 1211 of Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, the combined Final EIS and ROD includes the identification of the Preferred Alternative and a list of commitments for mitigation measures for the Preferred Alternative (included in Section 2.5 of the ROD).&nbsp;

The Preferred Alternative is approximately 24 miles long and would begin in the northern section of the Study Area in Nicholson, MS. It would continue southwest along the existing Norfolk Southern rail line (Segment 11), then leave the existing rail south of Texas Flat Road and continue in an easterly direction (along Segment 10b). It would turn to the southeast (along Segment 9) and then travel south (along Segment 8a and Segment 7). The alignment continues in a southerly direction along the southern option “C” and ties into the existing Port Bienville Railroad.

This project is funded for by FRA for Preliminary Engineering/NEPA.&nbsp; Construction funding for this project has yet to be identified.

The project sponsor is the Mississippi Department of Transportation and the point of contact is Adam Johnson (ajohnson@mdot.ms.gov).

Cooperating agencies include the US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Surface Transportation Board.

In addition, pertinent information including the project's NEPA documentation and decisions are found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0798.
On February 3, 2020, FRA issued the combined Final EIS and Record of Decesion (ROD) for the Port Bienville Railroad Project, and it was published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2020. The combined Final EIS and ROD does not include substantial changes to the proposed action in terms of environmental or safety concerns, nor are there significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns of the proposed action or its impacts.&nbsp;

In accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation Guidance and pursuant to Section 1211 of Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, the combined Final EIS and ROD includes the identification of the Preferred Alternative and a list of commitments for mitigation measures for the Preferred Alternative (included in Section 2.5 of the ROD).&nbsp;

The Preferred Alternative is approximately 24 miles long and would begin in the northern section of the Study Area in Nicholson, MS. It would continue southwest along the existing Norfolk Southern rail line (Segment 11), then leave the existing rail south of Texas Flat Road and continue in an easterly direction (along Segment 10b). It would turn to the southeast (along Segment 9) and then travel south (along Segment 8a and Segment 7). The alignment continues in a southerly direction along the southern option “C” and ties into the existing Port Bienville Railroad.

This project is funded for by FRA for Preliminary Engineering/NEPA.&nbsp; Construction funding for this project has yet to be identified.

The project sponsor is the Mississippi Department of Transportation and the point of contact is Adam Johnson (ajohnson@mdot.ms.gov).

Cooperating agencies include the US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Surface Transportation Board.

In addition, pertinent information including the project's NEPA documentation and decisions are found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0798.
On February 3, 2020, FRA issued the combined Final EIS and Record of Decesion (ROD) for the Port Bienville Railroad Project, and it was published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2020. The combined Final EIS and ROD does not include substantial changes to the proposed action in terms of environmental or safety concerns, nor are there significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns of the proposed action or its impacts.&nbsp;

In accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation Guidance and pursuant to Section 1211 of Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, the combined Final EIS and ROD includes the identification of the Preferred Alternative and a list of commitments for mitigation measures for the Preferred Alternative (included in Section 2.5 of the ROD).&nbsp;

The Preferred Alternative is approximately 24 miles long and would begin in the northern section of the Study Area in Nicholson, MS. It would continue southwest along the existing Norfolk Southern rail line (Segment 11), then leave the existing rail south of Texas Flat Road and continue in an easterly direction (along Segment 10b). It would turn to the southeast (along Segment 9) and then travel south (along Segment 8a and Segment 7). The alignment continues in a southerly direction along the southern option “C” and ties into the existing Port Bienville Railroad.

This project is funded for by FRA for Preliminary Engineering/NEPA.&nbsp; Construction funding for this project has yet to be identified.

The project sponsor is the Mississippi Department of Transportation and the point of contact is Adam Johnson (ajohnson@mdot.ms.gov).

Cooperating agencies include the US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Surface Transportation Board.

In addition, pertinent information including the project's NEPA documentation and decisions are found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0798.
On February 3, 2020, FRA issued the combined Final EIS and Record of Decesion (ROD) for the Port Bienville Railroad Project, and it was published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2020. The combined Final EIS and ROD does not include substantial changes to the proposed action in terms of environmental or safety concerns, nor are there significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns of the proposed action or its impacts.&nbsp;

In accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation Guidance and pursuant to Section 1211 of Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, the combined Final EIS and ROD includes the identification of the Preferred Alternative and a list of commitments for mitigation measures for the Preferred Alternative (included in Section 2.5 of the ROD).&nbsp;

The Preferred Alternative is approximately 24 miles long and would begin in the northern section of the Study Area in Nicholson, MS. It would continue southwest along the existing Norfolk Southern rail line (Segment 11), then leave the existing rail south of Texas Flat Road and continue in an easterly direction (along Segment 10b). It would turn to the southeast (along Segment 9) and then travel south (along Segment 8a and Segment 7). The alignment continues in a southerly direction along the southern option “C” and ties into the existing Port Bienville Railroad.

This project is funded for by FRA for Preliminary Engineering/NEPA.&nbsp; Construction funding for this project has yet to be identified.

The project sponsor is the Mississippi Department of Transportation and the point of contact is Adam Johnson (ajohnson@mdot.ms.gov).

Cooperating agencies include the US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Surface Transportation Board.

In addition, pertinent information including the project's NEPA documentation and decisions are found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0798.
On February 3, 2020, FRA issued the combined Final EIS and Record of Decesion (ROD) for the Port Bienville Railroad Project, and it was published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2020. The combined Final EIS and ROD does not include substantial changes to the proposed action in terms of environmental or safety concerns, nor are there significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns of the proposed action or its impacts.&nbsp;

In accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation Guidance and pursuant to Section 1211 of Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, the combined Final EIS and ROD includes the identification of the Preferred Alternative and a list of commitments for mitigation measures for the Preferred Alternative (included in Section 2.5 of the ROD).&nbsp;

The Preferred Alternative is approximately 24 miles long and would begin in the northern section of the Study Area in Nicholson, MS. It would continue southwest along the existing Norfolk Southern rail line (Segment 11), then leave the existing rail south of Texas Flat Road and continue in an easterly direction (along Segment 10b). It would turn to the southeast (along Segment 9) and then travel south (along Segment 8a and Segment 7). The alignment continues in a southerly direction along the southern option “C” and ties into the existing Port Bienville Railroad.

This project is funded for by FRA for Preliminary Engineering/NEPA.&nbsp; Construction funding for this project has yet to be identified.

The project sponsor is the Mississippi Department of Transportation and the point of contact is Adam Johnson (ajohnson@mdot.ms.gov).

Cooperating agencies include the US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Surface Transportation Board.

In addition, pertinent information including the project's NEPA documentation and decisions are found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0798.
On February 3, 2020, FRA issued the combined Final EIS and Record of Decesion (ROD) for the Port Bienville Railroad Project, and it was published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2020. The combined Final EIS and ROD does not include substantial changes to the proposed action in terms of environmental or safety concerns, nor are there significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns of the proposed action or its impacts.&nbsp;

In accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation Guidance and pursuant to Section 1211 of Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, the combined Final EIS and ROD includes the identification of the Preferred Alternative and a list of commitments for mitigation measures for the Preferred Alternative (included in Section 2.5 of the ROD).&nbsp;

The Preferred Alternative is approximately 24 miles long and would begin in the northern section of the Study Area in Nicholson, MS. It would continue southwest along the existing Norfolk Southern rail line (Segment 11), then leave the existing rail south of Texas Flat Road and continue in an easterly direction (along Segment 10b). It would turn to the southeast (along Segment 9) and then travel south (along Segment 8a and Segment 7). The alignment continues in a southerly direction along the southern option “C” and ties into the existing Port Bienville Railroad.

This project is funded for by FRA for Preliminary Engineering/NEPA.&nbsp; Construction funding for this project has yet to be identified.

The project sponsor is the Mississippi Department of Transportation and the point of contact is Adam Johnson (ajohnson@mdot.ms.gov).

Cooperating agencies include the US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Surface Transportation Board.

In addition, pertinent information including the project's NEPA documentation and decisions are found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0798.
On February 3, 2020, FRA issued the combined Final EIS and Record of Decesion (ROD) for the Port Bienville Railroad Project, and it was published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2020. The combined Final EIS and ROD does not include substantial changes to the proposed action in terms of environmental or safety concerns, nor are there significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns of the proposed action or its impacts.&nbsp;

In accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation Guidance and pursuant to Section 1211 of Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, the combined Final EIS and ROD includes the identification of the Preferred Alternative and a list of commitments for mitigation measures for the Preferred Alternative (included in Section 2.5 of the ROD).&nbsp;

The Preferred Alternative is approximately 24 miles long and would begin in the northern section of the Study Area in Nicholson, MS. It would continue southwest along the existing Norfolk Southern rail line (Segment 11), then leave the existing rail south of Texas Flat Road and continue in an easterly direction (along Segment 10b). It would turn to the southeast (along Segment 9) and then travel south (along Segment 8a and Segment 7). The alignment continues in a southerly direction along the southern option “C” and ties into the existing Port Bienville Railroad.

This project is funded for by FRA for Preliminary Engineering/NEPA.&nbsp; Construction funding for this project has yet to be identified.

The project sponsor is the Mississippi Department of Transportation and the point of contact is Adam Johnson (ajohnson@mdot.ms.gov).

Cooperating agencies include the US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Surface Transportation Board.

In addition, pertinent information including the project's NEPA documentation and decisions are found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0798.
FRA, in cooperation with&nbsp;the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), is preparing a Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)&nbsp;to evaluate proposed system improvements to intercity passenger rail services along the 463-mile Empire Corridor, connecting Pennsylvania (Penn) Station in New York City with Niagara Falls Station in Niagara Falls, New York.&nbsp; FRA anticipates publishing the Tier I Final EIS in&nbsp;2019.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0679.

Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration.
FRA, in cooperation with&nbsp;the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), is preparing a Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)&nbsp;to evaluate proposed system improvements to intercity passenger rail services along the 463-mile Empire Corridor, connecting Pennsylvania (Penn) Station in New York City with Niagara Falls Station in Niagara Falls, New York.&nbsp; FRA anticipates publishing the Tier I Final EIS in&nbsp;2019.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0679.

Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration.
FRA, in cooperation with&nbsp;the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), is preparing a Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)&nbsp;to evaluate proposed system improvements to intercity passenger rail services along the 463-mile Empire Corridor, connecting Pennsylvania (Penn) Station in New York City with Niagara Falls Station in Niagara Falls, New York.&nbsp; FRA anticipates publishing the Tier I Final EIS in&nbsp;2019.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0679.

Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration.
FRA, in cooperation with&nbsp;the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), is preparing a Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)&nbsp;to evaluate proposed system improvements to intercity passenger rail services along the 463-mile Empire Corridor, connecting Pennsylvania (Penn) Station in New York City with Niagara Falls Station in Niagara Falls, New York.&nbsp; FRA anticipates publishing the Tier I Final EIS in&nbsp;2019.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0679.

Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration.
FRA, in cooperation with&nbsp;the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), is preparing a Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)&nbsp;to evaluate proposed system improvements to intercity passenger rail services along the 463-mile Empire Corridor, connecting Pennsylvania (Penn) Station in New York City with Niagara Falls Station in Niagara Falls, New York.&nbsp; FRA anticipates publishing the Tier I Final EIS in&nbsp;2019.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0679.

Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration.
FRA, in cooperation with&nbsp;the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), is preparing a Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)&nbsp;to evaluate proposed system improvements to intercity passenger rail services along the 463-mile Empire Corridor, connecting Pennsylvania (Penn) Station in New York City with Niagara Falls Station in Niagara Falls, New York.&nbsp; FRA anticipates publishing the Tier I Final EIS in&nbsp;2019.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0679.

Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration.
FRA, in cooperation with&nbsp;the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), is preparing a Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)&nbsp;to evaluate proposed system improvements to intercity passenger rail services along the 463-mile Empire Corridor, connecting Pennsylvania (Penn) Station in New York City with Niagara Falls Station in Niagara Falls, New York.&nbsp; FRA anticipates publishing the Tier I Final EIS in&nbsp;2019.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0679.

Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration.
FRA, in cooperation with&nbsp;the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), is preparing a Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)&nbsp;to evaluate proposed system improvements to intercity passenger rail services along the 463-mile Empire Corridor, connecting Pennsylvania (Penn) Station in New York City with Niagara Falls Station in Niagara Falls, New York.&nbsp; FRA anticipates publishing the Tier I Final EIS in&nbsp;2019.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0679.

Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration.
FRA, in cooperation with&nbsp;the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), is preparing a Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)&nbsp;to evaluate proposed system improvements to intercity passenger rail services along the 463-mile Empire Corridor, connecting Pennsylvania (Penn) Station in New York City with Niagara Falls Station in Niagara Falls, New York.&nbsp; FRA anticipates publishing the Tier I Final EIS in&nbsp;2019.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0679.

Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration.
FRA, in cooperation with&nbsp;the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), is preparing a Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)&nbsp;to evaluate proposed system improvements to intercity passenger rail services along the 463-mile Empire Corridor, connecting Pennsylvania (Penn) Station in New York City with Niagara Falls Station in Niagara Falls, New York.&nbsp; FRA anticipates publishing the Tier I Final EIS in&nbsp;2019.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0679.

Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration.
FRA, in cooperation with&nbsp;the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), is preparing a Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)&nbsp;to evaluate proposed system improvements to intercity passenger rail services along the 463-mile Empire Corridor, connecting Pennsylvania (Penn) Station in New York City with Niagara Falls Station in Niagara Falls, New York.&nbsp; FRA anticipates publishing the Tier I Final EIS in&nbsp;2019.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0679.

Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has prepared a joint Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Record of Decisions (ROD) to evaluate options for improved Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail service. The Project examined the approximately 130-mile segment (Oregon Segment) of the federally designated Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC). The Oregon Segment of the PNWRC corridor runs from the Eugene-Springfield urban area to the Washington state line at the Columbia River in Portland, Oregon. Alternative 1, which is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative, would provide improved passenger rail service to meet future intercity travel demand, improve rail facilities, reduce journey times and improve connections with regional public transit services. This environmental review will help ODOT and FRA make decisions such as selecting the general rail alignment and communities where stations would be located and determining service characteristics, such as the number of daily trips, travel time objectives, and the technologies to be used. In September 2011, a $4.2‑million High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program competitive grant from FRA helped fund this planning and service-level environmental analysis project.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has prepared a joint Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Record of Decisions (ROD) to evaluate options for improved Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail service. The Project examined the approximately 130-mile segment (Oregon Segment) of the federally designated Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC). The Oregon Segment of the PNWRC corridor runs from the Eugene-Springfield urban area to the Washington state line at the Columbia River in Portland, Oregon. Alternative 1, which is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative, would provide improved passenger rail service to meet future intercity travel demand, improve rail facilities, reduce journey times and improve connections with regional public transit services. This environmental review will help ODOT and FRA make decisions such as selecting the general rail alignment and communities where stations would be located and determining service characteristics, such as the number of daily trips, travel time objectives, and the technologies to be used. In September 2011, a $4.2‑million High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program competitive grant from FRA helped fund this planning and service-level environmental analysis project.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has prepared a joint Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Record of Decisions (ROD) to evaluate options for improved Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail service. The Project examined the approximately 130-mile segment (Oregon Segment) of the federally designated Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC). The Oregon Segment of the PNWRC corridor runs from the Eugene-Springfield urban area to the Washington state line at the Columbia River in Portland, Oregon. Alternative 1, which is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative, would provide improved passenger rail service to meet future intercity travel demand, improve rail facilities, reduce journey times and improve connections with regional public transit services. This environmental review will help ODOT and FRA make decisions such as selecting the general rail alignment and communities where stations would be located and determining service characteristics, such as the number of daily trips, travel time objectives, and the technologies to be used. In September 2011, a $4.2‑million High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program competitive grant from FRA helped fund this planning and service-level environmental analysis project.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has prepared a joint Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Record of Decisions (ROD) to evaluate options for improved Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail service. The Project examined the approximately 130-mile segment (Oregon Segment) of the federally designated Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC). The Oregon Segment of the PNWRC corridor runs from the Eugene-Springfield urban area to the Washington state line at the Columbia River in Portland, Oregon. Alternative 1, which is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative, would provide improved passenger rail service to meet future intercity travel demand, improve rail facilities, reduce journey times and improve connections with regional public transit services. This environmental review will help ODOT and FRA make decisions such as selecting the general rail alignment and communities where stations would be located and determining service characteristics, such as the number of daily trips, travel time objectives, and the technologies to be used. In September 2011, a $4.2‑million High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program competitive grant from FRA helped fund this planning and service-level environmental analysis project.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has prepared a joint Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Record of Decisions (ROD) to evaluate options for improved Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail service. The Project examined the approximately 130-mile segment (Oregon Segment) of the federally designated Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC). The Oregon Segment of the PNWRC corridor runs from the Eugene-Springfield urban area to the Washington state line at the Columbia River in Portland, Oregon. Alternative 1, which is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative, would provide improved passenger rail service to meet future intercity travel demand, improve rail facilities, reduce journey times and improve connections with regional public transit services. This environmental review will help ODOT and FRA make decisions such as selecting the general rail alignment and communities where stations would be located and determining service characteristics, such as the number of daily trips, travel time objectives, and the technologies to be used. In September 2011, a $4.2‑million High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program competitive grant from FRA helped fund this planning and service-level environmental analysis project.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has prepared a joint Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Record of Decisions (ROD) to evaluate options for improved Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail service. The Project examined the approximately 130-mile segment (Oregon Segment) of the federally designated Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC). The Oregon Segment of the PNWRC corridor runs from the Eugene-Springfield urban area to the Washington state line at the Columbia River in Portland, Oregon. Alternative 1, which is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative, would provide improved passenger rail service to meet future intercity travel demand, improve rail facilities, reduce journey times and improve connections with regional public transit services. This environmental review will help ODOT and FRA make decisions such as selecting the general rail alignment and communities where stations would be located and determining service characteristics, such as the number of daily trips, travel time objectives, and the technologies to be used. In September 2011, a $4.2‑million High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program competitive grant from FRA helped fund this planning and service-level environmental analysis project.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has prepared a joint Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Record of Decisions (ROD) to evaluate options for improved Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail service. The Project examined the approximately 130-mile segment (Oregon Segment) of the federally designated Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC). The Oregon Segment of the PNWRC corridor runs from the Eugene-Springfield urban area to the Washington state line at the Columbia River in Portland, Oregon. Alternative 1, which is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative, would provide improved passenger rail service to meet future intercity travel demand, improve rail facilities, reduce journey times and improve connections with regional public transit services. This environmental review will help ODOT and FRA make decisions such as selecting the general rail alignment and communities where stations would be located and determining service characteristics, such as the number of daily trips, travel time objectives, and the technologies to be used. In September 2011, a $4.2‑million High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program competitive grant from FRA helped fund this planning and service-level environmental analysis project.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has prepared a joint Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Record of Decisions (ROD) to evaluate options for improved Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail service. The Project examined the approximately 130-mile segment (Oregon Segment) of the federally designated Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC). The Oregon Segment of the PNWRC corridor runs from the Eugene-Springfield urban area to the Washington state line at the Columbia River in Portland, Oregon. Alternative 1, which is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative, would provide improved passenger rail service to meet future intercity travel demand, improve rail facilities, reduce journey times and improve connections with regional public transit services. This environmental review will help ODOT and FRA make decisions such as selecting the general rail alignment and communities where stations would be located and determining service characteristics, such as the number of daily trips, travel time objectives, and the technologies to be used. In September 2011, a $4.2‑million High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program competitive grant from FRA helped fund this planning and service-level environmental analysis project.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has prepared a joint Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Record of Decisions (ROD) to evaluate options for improved Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail service. The Project examined the approximately 130-mile segment (Oregon Segment) of the federally designated Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC). The Oregon Segment of the PNWRC corridor runs from the Eugene-Springfield urban area to the Washington state line at the Columbia River in Portland, Oregon. Alternative 1, which is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative, would provide improved passenger rail service to meet future intercity travel demand, improve rail facilities, reduce journey times and improve connections with regional public transit services. This environmental review will help ODOT and FRA make decisions such as selecting the general rail alignment and communities where stations would be located and determining service characteristics, such as the number of daily trips, travel time objectives, and the technologies to be used. In September 2011, a $4.2‑million High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program competitive grant from FRA helped fund this planning and service-level environmental analysis project.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has prepared a joint Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Record of Decisions (ROD) to evaluate options for improved Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail service. The Project examined the approximately 130-mile segment (Oregon Segment) of the federally designated Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC). The Oregon Segment of the PNWRC corridor runs from the Eugene-Springfield urban area to the Washington state line at the Columbia River in Portland, Oregon. Alternative 1, which is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative, would provide improved passenger rail service to meet future intercity travel demand, improve rail facilities, reduce journey times and improve connections with regional public transit services. This environmental review will help ODOT and FRA make decisions such as selecting the general rail alignment and communities where stations would be located and determining service characteristics, such as the number of daily trips, travel time objectives, and the technologies to be used. In September 2011, a $4.2‑million High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program competitive grant from FRA helped fund this planning and service-level environmental analysis project.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has prepared a joint Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Record of Decisions (ROD) to evaluate options for improved Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail service. The Project examined the approximately 130-mile segment (Oregon Segment) of the federally designated Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC). The Oregon Segment of the PNWRC corridor runs from the Eugene-Springfield urban area to the Washington state line at the Columbia River in Portland, Oregon. Alternative 1, which is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative, would provide improved passenger rail service to meet future intercity travel demand, improve rail facilities, reduce journey times and improve connections with regional public transit services. This environmental review will help ODOT and FRA make decisions such as selecting the general rail alignment and communities where stations would be located and determining service characteristics, such as the number of daily trips, travel time objectives, and the technologies to be used. In September 2011, a $4.2‑million High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program competitive grant from FRA helped fund this planning and service-level environmental analysis project.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2020, a Notice&nbsp;to advise the public that FRA is rescinding the Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Dallas – Fort Worth Core Express - Passenger Service from Dallas to Fort Worth. FRA is rescinding the NOI for this project’s EIS due to project scope changes proposed by the State sponsor.

This new service project primarily benefits Core Express passenger rail. The project is located primarily in new transportation ROW and extends for 10-50 miles. The project will create new intercity passenger rail service connecting Dallas and Fort Worth, while providing a key&nbsp;linkage to the existing and developing Texas high-performance passenger rail system.&nbsp; Specifically, the project will provide a link between the proposed high-speed rail service between Dallas and Houston on the east end and passenger rail services linking Oklahoma City and South Texas metropolitan areas via the Metroplex.&nbsp;

FRA approved the alternative analysis in June 2017. The NEPA process is currently on hold until additional funding is identified.

The project sponsor is the Texas Department of Transportation and the point of contact is Chad Coburn (chad.coburn@txdot.gov).

Cooperating agencies include the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Transit Administration.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0715.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2020, a Notice&nbsp;to advise the public that FRA is rescinding the Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Dallas – Fort Worth Core Express - Passenger Service from Dallas to Fort Worth. FRA is rescinding the NOI for this project’s EIS due to project scope changes proposed by the State sponsor.

This new service project primarily benefits Core Express passenger rail. The project is located primarily in new transportation ROW and extends for 10-50 miles. The project will create new intercity passenger rail service connecting Dallas and Fort Worth, while providing a key&nbsp;linkage to the existing and developing Texas high-performance passenger rail system.&nbsp; Specifically, the project will provide a link between the proposed high-speed rail service between Dallas and Houston on the east end and passenger rail services linking Oklahoma City and South Texas metropolitan areas via the Metroplex.&nbsp;

FRA approved the alternative analysis in June 2017. The NEPA process is currently on hold until additional funding is identified.

The project sponsor is the Texas Department of Transportation and the point of contact is Chad Coburn (chad.coburn@txdot.gov).

Cooperating agencies include the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Transit Administration.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0715.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2020, a Notice&nbsp;to advise the public that FRA is rescinding the Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Dallas – Fort Worth Core Express - Passenger Service from Dallas to Fort Worth. FRA is rescinding the NOI for this project’s EIS due to project scope changes proposed by the State sponsor.

This new service project primarily benefits Core Express passenger rail. The project is located primarily in new transportation ROW and extends for 10-50 miles. The project will create new intercity passenger rail service connecting Dallas and Fort Worth, while providing a key&nbsp;linkage to the existing and developing Texas high-performance passenger rail system.&nbsp; Specifically, the project will provide a link between the proposed high-speed rail service between Dallas and Houston on the east end and passenger rail services linking Oklahoma City and South Texas metropolitan areas via the Metroplex.&nbsp;

FRA approved the alternative analysis in June 2017. The NEPA process is currently on hold until additional funding is identified.

The project sponsor is the Texas Department of Transportation and the point of contact is Chad Coburn (chad.coburn@txdot.gov).

Cooperating agencies include the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Transit Administration.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0715.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2020, a Notice&nbsp;to advise the public that FRA is rescinding the Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Dallas – Fort Worth Core Express - Passenger Service from Dallas to Fort Worth. FRA is rescinding the NOI for this project’s EIS due to project scope changes proposed by the State sponsor.

This new service project primarily benefits Core Express passenger rail. The project is located primarily in new transportation ROW and extends for 10-50 miles. The project will create new intercity passenger rail service connecting Dallas and Fort Worth, while providing a key&nbsp;linkage to the existing and developing Texas high-performance passenger rail system.&nbsp; Specifically, the project will provide a link between the proposed high-speed rail service between Dallas and Houston on the east end and passenger rail services linking Oklahoma City and South Texas metropolitan areas via the Metroplex.&nbsp;

FRA approved the alternative analysis in June 2017. The NEPA process is currently on hold until additional funding is identified.

The project sponsor is the Texas Department of Transportation and the point of contact is Chad Coburn (chad.coburn@txdot.gov).

Cooperating agencies include the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Transit Administration.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0715.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2020, a Notice&nbsp;to advise the public that FRA is rescinding the Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Dallas – Fort Worth Core Express - Passenger Service from Dallas to Fort Worth. FRA is rescinding the NOI for this project’s EIS due to project scope changes proposed by the State sponsor.

This new service project primarily benefits Core Express passenger rail. The project is located primarily in new transportation ROW and extends for 10-50 miles. The project will create new intercity passenger rail service connecting Dallas and Fort Worth, while providing a key&nbsp;linkage to the existing and developing Texas high-performance passenger rail system.&nbsp; Specifically, the project will provide a link between the proposed high-speed rail service between Dallas and Houston on the east end and passenger rail services linking Oklahoma City and South Texas metropolitan areas via the Metroplex.&nbsp;

FRA approved the alternative analysis in June 2017. The NEPA process is currently on hold until additional funding is identified.

The project sponsor is the Texas Department of Transportation and the point of contact is Chad Coburn (chad.coburn@txdot.gov).

Cooperating agencies include the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Transit Administration.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0715.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2020, a Notice&nbsp;to advise the public that FRA is rescinding the Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Dallas – Fort Worth Core Express - Passenger Service from Dallas to Fort Worth. FRA is rescinding the NOI for this project’s EIS due to project scope changes proposed by the State sponsor.

This new service project primarily benefits Core Express passenger rail. The project is located primarily in new transportation ROW and extends for 10-50 miles. The project will create new intercity passenger rail service connecting Dallas and Fort Worth, while providing a key&nbsp;linkage to the existing and developing Texas high-performance passenger rail system.&nbsp; Specifically, the project will provide a link between the proposed high-speed rail service between Dallas and Houston on the east end and passenger rail services linking Oklahoma City and South Texas metropolitan areas via the Metroplex.&nbsp;

FRA approved the alternative analysis in June 2017. The NEPA process is currently on hold until additional funding is identified.

The project sponsor is the Texas Department of Transportation and the point of contact is Chad Coburn (chad.coburn@txdot.gov).

Cooperating agencies include the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Transit Administration.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0715.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2020, a Notice&nbsp;to advise the public that FRA is rescinding the Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Dallas – Fort Worth Core Express - Passenger Service from Dallas to Fort Worth. FRA is rescinding the NOI for this project’s EIS due to project scope changes proposed by the State sponsor.

This new service project primarily benefits Core Express passenger rail. The project is located primarily in new transportation ROW and extends for 10-50 miles. The project will create new intercity passenger rail service connecting Dallas and Fort Worth, while providing a key&nbsp;linkage to the existing and developing Texas high-performance passenger rail system.&nbsp; Specifically, the project will provide a link between the proposed high-speed rail service between Dallas and Houston on the east end and passenger rail services linking Oklahoma City and South Texas metropolitan areas via the Metroplex.&nbsp;

FRA approved the alternative analysis in June 2017. The NEPA process is currently on hold until additional funding is identified.

The project sponsor is the Texas Department of Transportation and the point of contact is Chad Coburn (chad.coburn@txdot.gov).

Cooperating agencies include the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Transit Administration.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0715.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2020, a Notice&nbsp;to advise the public that FRA is rescinding the Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Dallas – Fort Worth Core Express - Passenger Service from Dallas to Fort Worth. FRA is rescinding the NOI for this project’s EIS due to project scope changes proposed by the State sponsor.

This new service project primarily benefits Core Express passenger rail. The project is located primarily in new transportation ROW and extends for 10-50 miles. The project will create new intercity passenger rail service connecting Dallas and Fort Worth, while providing a key&nbsp;linkage to the existing and developing Texas high-performance passenger rail system.&nbsp; Specifically, the project will provide a link between the proposed high-speed rail service between Dallas and Houston on the east end and passenger rail services linking Oklahoma City and South Texas metropolitan areas via the Metroplex.&nbsp;

FRA approved the alternative analysis in June 2017. The NEPA process is currently on hold until additional funding is identified.

The project sponsor is the Texas Department of Transportation and the point of contact is Chad Coburn (chad.coburn@txdot.gov).

Cooperating agencies include the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Transit Administration.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0715.
On September 8, 2017, FRA published in the Federal Register the Tier II Draft EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Tier II Draft EIS also addresses compliance under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, and Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.&nbsp;
On September 8, 2017, FRA published in the Federal Register the Tier II Draft EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Tier II Draft EIS also addresses compliance under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, and Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.&nbsp;
On September 8, 2017, FRA published in the Federal Register the Tier II Draft EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Tier II Draft EIS also addresses compliance under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, and Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.&nbsp;
On September 8, 2017, FRA published in the Federal Register the Tier II Draft EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Tier II Draft EIS also addresses compliance under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, and Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.&nbsp;
On September 8, 2017, FRA published in the Federal Register the Tier II Draft EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Tier II Draft EIS also addresses compliance under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, and Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.&nbsp;
On September 8, 2017, FRA published in the Federal Register the Tier II Draft EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Tier II Draft EIS also addresses compliance under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, and Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.&nbsp;
On September 8, 2017, FRA published in the Federal Register the Tier II Draft EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Tier II Draft EIS also addresses compliance under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, and Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.&nbsp;
On September 8, 2017, FRA published in the Federal Register the Tier II Draft EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Tier II Draft EIS also addresses compliance under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, and Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.&nbsp;
10/06/2020:&nbsp; FRA is presently working with the Project Proponents to refine the Preferred Alternative's design.

The Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (USRC) in coordination with Amtrak is proposing to expand and modernize Washington Union Station, the National Capital Region’s principal intermodal transportation hub. The purpose of the Washington Union Station Expansion Project (the Project) is to support current and future long-term growth in rail service and operational needs; achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and emergency egress requirements; facilitate intermodal travel; provide a positive customer experience; enhance integration with the adjacent businesses, neighborhoods, and planned land uses; sustain the Station’s economic viability; and support continued preservation and use of the historic station building. The Project is needed to improve rail capacity, reliability, safety, efficiency, accessibility, and security, for both current and future long-term railroad operations at this historic station.

FRA released the&nbsp;Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation&nbsp;for comment from agencies and the public on June 4, 2020.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0866
10/06/2020:&nbsp; FRA is presently working with the Project Proponents to refine the Preferred Alternative's design.

The Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (USRC) in coordination with Amtrak is proposing to expand and modernize Washington Union Station, the National Capital Region’s principal intermodal transportation hub. The purpose of the Washington Union Station Expansion Project (the Project) is to support current and future long-term growth in rail service and operational needs; achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and emergency egress requirements; facilitate intermodal travel; provide a positive customer experience; enhance integration with the adjacent businesses, neighborhoods, and planned land uses; sustain the Station’s economic viability; and support continued preservation and use of the historic station building. The Project is needed to improve rail capacity, reliability, safety, efficiency, accessibility, and security, for both current and future long-term railroad operations at this historic station.

FRA released the&nbsp;Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation&nbsp;for comment from agencies and the public on June 4, 2020.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0866
10/06/2020:&nbsp; FRA is presently working with the Project Proponents to refine the Preferred Alternative's design.

The Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (USRC) in coordination with Amtrak is proposing to expand and modernize Washington Union Station, the National Capital Region’s principal intermodal transportation hub. The purpose of the Washington Union Station Expansion Project (the Project) is to support current and future long-term growth in rail service and operational needs; achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and emergency egress requirements; facilitate intermodal travel; provide a positive customer experience; enhance integration with the adjacent businesses, neighborhoods, and planned land uses; sustain the Station’s economic viability; and support continued preservation and use of the historic station building. The Project is needed to improve rail capacity, reliability, safety, efficiency, accessibility, and security, for both current and future long-term railroad operations at this historic station.

FRA released the&nbsp;Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation&nbsp;for comment from agencies and the public on June 4, 2020.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0866
10/06/2020:&nbsp; FRA is presently working with the Project Proponents to refine the Preferred Alternative's design.

The Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (USRC) in coordination with Amtrak is proposing to expand and modernize Washington Union Station, the National Capital Region’s principal intermodal transportation hub. The purpose of the Washington Union Station Expansion Project (the Project) is to support current and future long-term growth in rail service and operational needs; achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and emergency egress requirements; facilitate intermodal travel; provide a positive customer experience; enhance integration with the adjacent businesses, neighborhoods, and planned land uses; sustain the Station’s economic viability; and support continued preservation and use of the historic station building. The Project is needed to improve rail capacity, reliability, safety, efficiency, accessibility, and security, for both current and future long-term railroad operations at this historic station.

FRA released the&nbsp;Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation&nbsp;for comment from agencies and the public on June 4, 2020.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0866
10/06/2020:&nbsp; FRA is presently working with the Project Proponents to refine the Preferred Alternative's design.

The Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (USRC) in coordination with Amtrak is proposing to expand and modernize Washington Union Station, the National Capital Region’s principal intermodal transportation hub. The purpose of the Washington Union Station Expansion Project (the Project) is to support current and future long-term growth in rail service and operational needs; achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and emergency egress requirements; facilitate intermodal travel; provide a positive customer experience; enhance integration with the adjacent businesses, neighborhoods, and planned land uses; sustain the Station’s economic viability; and support continued preservation and use of the historic station building. The Project is needed to improve rail capacity, reliability, safety, efficiency, accessibility, and security, for both current and future long-term railroad operations at this historic station.

FRA released the&nbsp;Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation&nbsp;for comment from agencies and the public on June 4, 2020.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0866
10/06/2020:&nbsp; FRA is presently working with the Project Proponents to refine the Preferred Alternative's design.

The Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (USRC) in coordination with Amtrak is proposing to expand and modernize Washington Union Station, the National Capital Region’s principal intermodal transportation hub. The purpose of the Washington Union Station Expansion Project (the Project) is to support current and future long-term growth in rail service and operational needs; achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and emergency egress requirements; facilitate intermodal travel; provide a positive customer experience; enhance integration with the adjacent businesses, neighborhoods, and planned land uses; sustain the Station’s economic viability; and support continued preservation and use of the historic station building. The Project is needed to improve rail capacity, reliability, safety, efficiency, accessibility, and security, for both current and future long-term railroad operations at this historic station.

FRA released the&nbsp;Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation&nbsp;for comment from agencies and the public on June 4, 2020.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0866
10/06/2020:&nbsp; FRA is presently working with the Project Proponents to refine the Preferred Alternative's design.

The Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (USRC) in coordination with Amtrak is proposing to expand and modernize Washington Union Station, the National Capital Region’s principal intermodal transportation hub. The purpose of the Washington Union Station Expansion Project (the Project) is to support current and future long-term growth in rail service and operational needs; achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and emergency egress requirements; facilitate intermodal travel; provide a positive customer experience; enhance integration with the adjacent businesses, neighborhoods, and planned land uses; sustain the Station’s economic viability; and support continued preservation and use of the historic station building. The Project is needed to improve rail capacity, reliability, safety, efficiency, accessibility, and security, for both current and future long-term railroad operations at this historic station.

FRA released the&nbsp;Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation&nbsp;for comment from agencies and the public on June 4, 2020.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0866
10/06/2020:&nbsp; FRA is presently working with the Project Proponents to refine the Preferred Alternative's design.

The Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (USRC) in coordination with Amtrak is proposing to expand and modernize Washington Union Station, the National Capital Region’s principal intermodal transportation hub. The purpose of the Washington Union Station Expansion Project (the Project) is to support current and future long-term growth in rail service and operational needs; achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and emergency egress requirements; facilitate intermodal travel; provide a positive customer experience; enhance integration with the adjacent businesses, neighborhoods, and planned land uses; sustain the Station’s economic viability; and support continued preservation and use of the historic station building. The Project is needed to improve rail capacity, reliability, safety, efficiency, accessibility, and security, for both current and future long-term railroad operations at this historic station.

FRA released the&nbsp;Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation&nbsp;for comment from agencies and the public on June 4, 2020.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0866
10/06/2020:&nbsp; FRA is presently working with the Project Proponents to refine the Preferred Alternative's design.

The Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (USRC) in coordination with Amtrak is proposing to expand and modernize Washington Union Station, the National Capital Region’s principal intermodal transportation hub. The purpose of the Washington Union Station Expansion Project (the Project) is to support current and future long-term growth in rail service and operational needs; achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and emergency egress requirements; facilitate intermodal travel; provide a positive customer experience; enhance integration with the adjacent businesses, neighborhoods, and planned land uses; sustain the Station’s economic viability; and support continued preservation and use of the historic station building. The Project is needed to improve rail capacity, reliability, safety, efficiency, accessibility, and security, for both current and future long-term railroad operations at this historic station.

FRA released the&nbsp;Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation&nbsp;for comment from agencies and the public on June 4, 2020.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0866
10/06/2020:&nbsp; FRA is presently working with the Project Proponents to refine the Preferred Alternative's design.

The Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (USRC) in coordination with Amtrak is proposing to expand and modernize Washington Union Station, the National Capital Region’s principal intermodal transportation hub. The purpose of the Washington Union Station Expansion Project (the Project) is to support current and future long-term growth in rail service and operational needs; achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and emergency egress requirements; facilitate intermodal travel; provide a positive customer experience; enhance integration with the adjacent businesses, neighborhoods, and planned land uses; sustain the Station’s economic viability; and support continued preservation and use of the historic station building. The Project is needed to improve rail capacity, reliability, safety, efficiency, accessibility, and security, for both current and future long-term railroad operations at this historic station.

FRA released the&nbsp;Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation&nbsp;for comment from agencies and the public on June 4, 2020.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0866
10/06/2020:&nbsp; FRA is presently working with the Project Proponents to refine the Preferred Alternative's design.

The Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (USRC) in coordination with Amtrak is proposing to expand and modernize Washington Union Station, the National Capital Region’s principal intermodal transportation hub. The purpose of the Washington Union Station Expansion Project (the Project) is to support current and future long-term growth in rail service and operational needs; achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and emergency egress requirements; facilitate intermodal travel; provide a positive customer experience; enhance integration with the adjacent businesses, neighborhoods, and planned land uses; sustain the Station’s economic viability; and support continued preservation and use of the historic station building. The Project is needed to improve rail capacity, reliability, safety, efficiency, accessibility, and security, for both current and future long-term railroad operations at this historic station.

FRA released the&nbsp;Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation&nbsp;for comment from agencies and the public on June 4, 2020.

In addition, pertinent information can be found at the project's FRA webpage,&nbsp;https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0866
10/06/2020:&nbsp; FRA is presently working with the Project Proponents to refine the Preferred Alternative's design.
10/06/2020:&nbsp; FRA is presently working with the Project Proponents to refine the Preferred Alternative's design.
10/06/2020:&nbsp; FRA is presently working with the Project Proponents to refine the Preferred Alternative's design.
Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, FRA developed a&nbsp;Programmatic Agreement for the Project in consultation with the Texas Historical Commission (THC), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, United States Army Corps of Engineers, TCRR, and other Consulting Parties.&nbsp;

The Programmatic Agreement establishes the process that governs FRA’s compliance with Section 106 after approval of the Project because FRA will not be able to fully determine effects to historic properties prior to issuing a Record of Decision. FRA has provided Consulting Parties with an opportunity to review and comment on the draft Programmatic Agreement prior to the release of the Final EIS. 

FRA is also providing the public an opportunity to review the Programmatic Agreement, appended to the Final EIS as&nbsp;Appendix L&nbsp;and also at the link below:


	Programmatic Agreement&nbsp;
Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, FRA developed a&nbsp;Programmatic Agreement for the Project in consultation with the Texas Historical Commission (THC), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, United States Army Corps of Engineers, TCRR, and other Consulting Parties.&nbsp;

The Programmatic Agreement establishes the process that governs FRA’s compliance with Section 106 after approval of the Project because FRA will not be able to fully determine effects to historic properties prior to issuing a Record of Decision. FRA has provided Consulting Parties with an opportunity to review and comment on the draft Programmatic Agreement prior to the release of the Final EIS. 

FRA is also providing the public an opportunity to review the Programmatic Agreement, appended to the Final EIS as&nbsp;Appendix L&nbsp;and also at the link below:


	Programmatic Agreement&nbsp;
Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, FRA developed a&nbsp;Programmatic Agreement for the Project in consultation with the Texas Historical Commission (THC), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, United States Army Corps of Engineers, TCRR, and other Consulting Parties.&nbsp;

The Programmatic Agreement establishes the process that governs FRA’s compliance with Section 106 after approval of the Project because FRA will not be able to fully determine effects to historic properties prior to issuing a Record of Decision. FRA has provided Consulting Parties with an opportunity to review and comment on the draft Programmatic Agreement prior to the release of the Final EIS. 

FRA is also providing the public an opportunity to review the Programmatic Agreement, appended to the Final EIS as&nbsp;Appendix L&nbsp;and also at the link below:


	Programmatic Agreement&nbsp;
The project involves the&nbsp;relocation of the New Orleans and Gulf Coast (NOGC) Railway&nbsp;that serves Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes in the New Orleans region of Southeast&nbsp;Louisiana. &nbsp;The NOGC currently&nbsp;interchanges with the Union Pacific&nbsp;Railroad&nbsp;(UPRR)&nbsp;in&nbsp;Westwego,&nbsp;Louisiana. &nbsp;The UPRR and NOGC alignment is&nbsp;located through a series of residential, commercial and industrial areas. There are&nbsp;approximately 280 public and private highway-rail at-grade crossings along its entire length&nbsp;within both the Westwego and Belle Chasse Subdivisions. Approximately 120 of the existing at-grade&nbsp;crossings are located in the study area. &nbsp;The purpose of the project is to improve saftey and mobility by reducing the number of at-grade rail crossings in densely populated areas of Jefferson Parish and Plaquemines Parish.
This project is funded for Preliminary Engineering/NEPA.&nbsp; Construction funding for this project has yet to be identified.
The project sponsor is the New Orleans Regional Planning Commission and the point of contact is Karen Parsons (kparsons@norpc.org).
Cooperating agencies include the US Coast Guard and the US Navy.
The project involves the&nbsp;relocation of the New Orleans and Gulf Coast (NOGC) Railway&nbsp;that serves Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes in the New Orleans region of Southeast&nbsp;Louisiana. &nbsp;The NOGC currently&nbsp;interchanges with the Union Pacific&nbsp;Railroad&nbsp;(UPRR)&nbsp;in&nbsp;Westwego,&nbsp;Louisiana. &nbsp;The UPRR and NOGC alignment is&nbsp;located through a series of residential, commercial and industrial areas. There are&nbsp;approximately 280 public and private highway-rail at-grade crossings along its entire length&nbsp;within both the Westwego and Belle Chasse Subdivisions. Approximately 120 of the existing at-grade&nbsp;crossings are located in the study area. &nbsp;The purpose of the project is to improve saftey and mobility by reducing the number of at-grade rail crossings in densely populated areas of Jefferson Parish and Plaquemines Parish.
This project is funded for Preliminary Engineering/NEPA.&nbsp; Construction funding for this project has yet to be identified.
The project sponsor is the New Orleans Regional Planning Commission and the point of contact is Karen Parsons (kparsons@norpc.org).
Cooperating agencies include the US Coast Guard and the US Navy.
The project involves the&nbsp;relocation of the New Orleans and Gulf Coast (NOGC) Railway&nbsp;that serves Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes in the New Orleans region of Southeast&nbsp;Louisiana. &nbsp;The NOGC currently&nbsp;interchanges with the Union Pacific&nbsp;Railroad&nbsp;(UPRR)&nbsp;in&nbsp;Westwego,&nbsp;Louisiana. &nbsp;The UPRR and NOGC alignment is&nbsp;located through a series of residential, commercial and industrial areas. There are&nbsp;approximately 280 public and private highway-rail at-grade crossings along its entire length&nbsp;within both the Westwego and Belle Chasse Subdivisions. Approximately 120 of the existing at-grade&nbsp;crossings are located in the study area. &nbsp;The purpose of the project is to improve saftey and mobility by reducing the number of at-grade rail crossings in densely populated areas of Jefferson Parish and Plaquemines Parish.
This project is funded for Preliminary Engineering/NEPA.&nbsp; Construction funding for this project has yet to be identified.
The project sponsor is the New Orleans Regional Planning Commission and the point of contact is Karen Parsons (kparsons@norpc.org).
Cooperating agencies include the US Coast Guard and the US Navy.
The project involves the&nbsp;relocation of the New Orleans and Gulf Coast (NOGC) Railway&nbsp;that serves Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes in the New Orleans region of Southeast&nbsp;Louisiana. &nbsp;The NOGC currently&nbsp;interchanges with the Union Pacific&nbsp;Railroad&nbsp;(UPRR)&nbsp;in&nbsp;Westwego,&nbsp;Louisiana. &nbsp;The UPRR and NOGC alignment is&nbsp;located through a series of residential, commercial and industrial areas. There are&nbsp;approximately 280 public and private highway-rail at-grade crossings along its entire length&nbsp;within both the Westwego and Belle Chasse Subdivisions. Approximately 120 of the existing at-grade&nbsp;crossings are located in the study area. &nbsp;The purpose of the project is to improve saftey and mobility by reducing the number of at-grade rail crossings in densely populated areas of Jefferson Parish and Plaquemines Parish.
This project is funded for Preliminary Engineering/NEPA.&nbsp; Construction funding for this project has yet to be identified.
The project sponsor is the New Orleans Regional Planning Commission and the point of contact is Karen Parsons (kparsons@norpc.org).
Cooperating agencies include the US Coast Guard and the US Navy.
The project involves the&nbsp;relocation of the New Orleans and Gulf Coast (NOGC) Railway&nbsp;that serves Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes in the New Orleans region of Southeast&nbsp;Louisiana. &nbsp;The NOGC currently&nbsp;interchanges with the Union Pacific&nbsp;Railroad&nbsp;(UPRR)&nbsp;in&nbsp;Westwego,&nbsp;Louisiana. &nbsp;The UPRR and NOGC alignment is&nbsp;located through a series of residential, commercial and industrial areas. There are&nbsp;approximately 280 public and private highway-rail at-grade crossings along its entire length&nbsp;within both the Westwego and Belle Chasse Subdivisions. Approximately 120 of the existing at-grade&nbsp;crossings are located in the study area. &nbsp;The purpose of the project is to improve saftey and mobility by reducing the number of at-grade rail crossings in densely populated areas of Jefferson Parish and Plaquemines Parish.
This project is funded for Preliminary Engineering/NEPA.&nbsp; Construction funding for this project has yet to be identified.
The project sponsor is the New Orleans Regional Planning Commission and the point of contact is Karen Parsons (kparsons@norpc.org).
Cooperating agencies include the US Coast Guard and the US Navy.
The project involves the&nbsp;relocation of the New Orleans and Gulf Coast (NOGC) Railway&nbsp;that serves Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes in the New Orleans region of Southeast&nbsp;Louisiana. &nbsp;The NOGC currently&nbsp;interchanges with the Union Pacific&nbsp;Railroad&nbsp;(UPRR)&nbsp;in&nbsp;Westwego,&nbsp;Louisiana. &nbsp;The UPRR and NOGC alignment is&nbsp;located through a series of residential, commercial and industrial areas. There are&nbsp;approximately 280 public and private highway-rail at-grade crossings along its entire length&nbsp;within both the Westwego and Belle Chasse Subdivisions. Approximately 120 of the existing at-grade&nbsp;crossings are located in the study area. &nbsp;The purpose of the project is to improve saftey and mobility by reducing the number of at-grade rail crossings in densely populated areas of Jefferson Parish and Plaquemines Parish.
This project is funded for Preliminary Engineering/NEPA.&nbsp; Construction funding for this project has yet to be identified.
The project sponsor is the New Orleans Regional Planning Commission and the point of contact is Karen Parsons (kparsons@norpc.org).
Cooperating agencies include the US Coast Guard and the US Navy.
The project involves the&nbsp;relocation of the New Orleans and Gulf Coast (NOGC) Railway&nbsp;that serves Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes in the New Orleans region of Southeast&nbsp;Louisiana. &nbsp;The NOGC currently&nbsp;interchanges with the Union Pacific&nbsp;Railroad&nbsp;(UPRR)&nbsp;in&nbsp;Westwego,&nbsp;Louisiana. &nbsp;The UPRR and NOGC alignment is&nbsp;located through a series of residential, commercial and industrial areas. There are&nbsp;approximately 280 public and private highway-rail at-grade crossings along its entire length&nbsp;within both the Westwego and Belle Chasse Subdivisions. Approximately 120 of the existing at-grade&nbsp;crossings are located in the study area. &nbsp;The purpose of the project is to improve saftey and mobility by reducing the number of at-grade rail crossings in densely populated areas of Jefferson Parish and Plaquemines Parish.
This project is funded for Preliminary Engineering/NEPA.&nbsp; Construction funding for this project has yet to be identified.
The project sponsor is the New Orleans Regional Planning Commission and the point of contact is Karen Parsons (kparsons@norpc.org).
Cooperating agencies include the US Coast Guard and the US Navy.
The project involves the&nbsp;relocation of the New Orleans and Gulf Coast (NOGC) Railway&nbsp;that serves Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes in the New Orleans region of Southeast&nbsp;Louisiana. &nbsp;The NOGC currently&nbsp;interchanges with the Union Pacific&nbsp;Railroad&nbsp;(UPRR)&nbsp;in&nbsp;Westwego,&nbsp;Louisiana. &nbsp;The UPRR and NOGC alignment is&nbsp;located through a series of residential, commercial and industrial areas. There are&nbsp;approximately 280 public and private highway-rail at-grade crossings along its entire length&nbsp;within both the Westwego and Belle Chasse Subdivisions. Approximately 120 of the existing at-grade&nbsp;crossings are located in the study area. &nbsp;The purpose of the project is to improve saftey and mobility by reducing the number of at-grade rail crossings in densely populated areas of Jefferson Parish and Plaquemines Parish.
This project is funded for Preliminary Engineering/NEPA.&nbsp; Construction funding for this project has yet to be identified.
The project sponsor is the New Orleans Regional Planning Commission and the point of contact is Karen Parsons (kparsons@norpc.org).
Cooperating agencies include the US Coast Guard and the US Navy.
The project involves the&nbsp;relocation of the New Orleans and Gulf Coast (NOGC) Railway&nbsp;that serves Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes in the New Orleans region of Southeast&nbsp;Louisiana. &nbsp;The NOGC currently&nbsp;interchanges with the Union Pacific&nbsp;Railroad&nbsp;(UPRR)&nbsp;in&nbsp;Westwego,&nbsp;Louisiana. &nbsp;The UPRR and NOGC alignment is&nbsp;located through a series of residential, commercial and industrial areas. There are&nbsp;approximately 280 public and private highway-rail at-grade crossings along its entire length&nbsp;within both the Westwego and Belle Chasse Subdivisions. Approximately 120 of the existing at-grade&nbsp;crossings are located in the study area. &nbsp;The purpose of the project is to improve saftey and mobility by reducing the number of at-grade rail crossings in densely populated areas of Jefferson Parish and Plaquemines Parish.
This project is funded for Preliminary Engineering/NEPA.&nbsp; Construction funding for this project has yet to be identified.
The project sponsor is the New Orleans Regional Planning Commission and the point of contact is Karen Parsons (kparsons@norpc.org).
Cooperating agencies include the US Coast Guard and the US Navy.
(8/25/2021) FRA has paused the project to&nbsp;review&nbsp;project elements and to determine the next steps.

The Federal Railroad Administration&nbsp;(FRA) released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, and Draft Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) on January 15, 2021.&nbsp;The DEIS, Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, and the Draft PA can be viewed below. For additional information on where the DEIS can be viewed, please visit the&nbsp;SCMAGLEV Project website.&nbsp;

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., FRA, as lead federal agency, and the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), the project sponsor, are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed superconducting maglev system between Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC (the Project). The effort stems from the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, in which Congress authorized funding to study maglev transportation projects. FRA and MDOT developed screening criteria to examine potential alternatives for further study.&nbsp;

FRA is embarking on a detailed study of alternatives, incorporating field work, engineering and environmental screening criteria, submitted comments, and public feedback. The Project’s website (linked below) contains an updated project schedule. In addition, stakeholders can find pertinent information&nbsp;at the project's FRA webpage, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P1068.

Cooperating Agencies: Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Transit Administration, National Capital Planning Commission, National Park Service, Surface Transportation Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Security Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
(8/25/2021) FRA has paused the project to&nbsp;review&nbsp;project elements and to determine the next steps.

The Federal Railroad Administration&nbsp;(FRA) released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, and Draft Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) on January 15, 2021.&nbsp;The DEIS, Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, and the Draft PA can be viewed below. For additional information on where the DEIS can be viewed, please visit the&nbsp;SCMAGLEV Project website.&nbsp;

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., FRA, as lead federal agency, and the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), the project sponsor, are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed superconducting maglev system between Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC (the Project). The effort stems from the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, in which Congress authorized funding to study maglev transportation projects. FRA and MDOT developed screening criteria to examine potential alternatives for further study.&nbsp;

FRA is embarking on a detailed study of alternatives, incorporating field work, engineering and environmental screening criteria, submitted comments, and public feedback. The Project’s website (linked below) contains an updated project schedule. In addition, stakeholders can find pertinent information&nbsp;at the project's FRA webpage, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P1068.

Cooperating Agencies: Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Transit Administration, National Capital Planning Commission, National Park Service, Surface Transportation Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Security Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
(8/25/2021) FRA has paused the project to&nbsp;review&nbsp;project elements and to determine the next steps.

The Federal Railroad Administration&nbsp;(FRA) released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, and Draft Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) on January 15, 2021.&nbsp;The DEIS, Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, and the Draft PA can be viewed below. For additional information on where the DEIS can be viewed, please visit the&nbsp;SCMAGLEV Project website.&nbsp;

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., FRA, as lead federal agency, and the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), the project sponsor, are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed superconducting maglev system between Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC (the Project). The effort stems from the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, in which Congress authorized funding to study maglev transportation projects. FRA and MDOT developed screening criteria to examine potential alternatives for further study.&nbsp;

FRA is embarking on a detailed study of alternatives, incorporating field work, engineering and environmental screening criteria, submitted comments, and public feedback. The Project’s website (linked below) contains an updated project schedule. In addition, stakeholders can find pertinent information&nbsp;at the project's FRA webpage, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P1068.

Cooperating Agencies: Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Transit Administration, National Capital Planning Commission, National Park Service, Surface Transportation Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Security Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
(8/25/2021) FRA has paused the project to&nbsp;review&nbsp;project elements and to determine the next steps.

The Federal Railroad Administration&nbsp;(FRA) released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, and Draft Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) on January 15, 2021.&nbsp;The DEIS, Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, and the Draft PA can be viewed below. For additional information on where the DEIS can be viewed, please visit the&nbsp;SCMAGLEV Project website.&nbsp;

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., FRA, as lead federal agency, and the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), the project sponsor, are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed superconducting maglev system between Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC (the Project). The effort stems from the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, in which Congress authorized funding to study maglev transportation projects. FRA and MDOT developed screening criteria to examine potential alternatives for further study.&nbsp;

FRA is embarking on a detailed study of alternatives, incorporating field work, engineering and environmental screening criteria, submitted comments, and public feedback. The Project’s website (linked below) contains an updated project schedule. In addition, stakeholders can find pertinent information&nbsp;at the project's FRA webpage, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P1068.

Cooperating Agencies: Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Transit Administration, National Capital Planning Commission, National Park Service, Surface Transportation Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Security Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
(8/25/2021) FRA has paused the project to&nbsp;review&nbsp;project elements and to determine the next steps.

The Federal Railroad Administration&nbsp;(FRA) released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, and Draft Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) on January 15, 2021.&nbsp;The DEIS, Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, and the Draft PA can be viewed below. For additional information on where the DEIS can be viewed, please visit the&nbsp;SCMAGLEV Project website.&nbsp;

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., FRA, as lead federal agency, and the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), the project sponsor, are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed superconducting maglev system between Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC (the Project). The effort stems from the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, in which Congress authorized funding to study maglev transportation projects. FRA and MDOT developed screening criteria to examine potential alternatives for further study.&nbsp;

FRA is embarking on a detailed study of alternatives, incorporating field work, engineering and environmental screening criteria, submitted comments, and public feedback. The Project’s website (linked below) contains an updated project schedule. In addition, stakeholders can find pertinent information&nbsp;at the project's FRA webpage, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P1068.

Cooperating Agencies: Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Transit Administration, National Capital Planning Commission, National Park Service, Surface Transportation Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Security Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
(8/25/2021) FRA has paused the project to&nbsp;review&nbsp;project elements and to determine the next steps.

The Federal Railroad Administration&nbsp;(FRA) released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, and Draft Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) on January 15, 2021.&nbsp;The DEIS, Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, and the Draft PA can be viewed below. For additional information on where the DEIS can be viewed, please visit the&nbsp;SCMAGLEV Project website.&nbsp;

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., FRA, as lead federal agency, and the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), the project sponsor, are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed superconducting maglev system between Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC (the Project). The effort stems from the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, in which Congress authorized funding to study maglev transportation projects. FRA and MDOT developed screening criteria to examine potential alternatives for further study.&nbsp;

FRA is embarking on a detailed study of alternatives, incorporating field work, engineering and environmental screening criteria, submitted comments, and public feedback. The Project’s website (linked below) contains an updated project schedule. In addition, stakeholders can find pertinent information&nbsp;at the project's FRA webpage, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P1068.

Cooperating Agencies: Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Transit Administration, National Capital Planning Commission, National Park Service, Surface Transportation Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Security Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
(8/25/2021) FRA has paused the project to&nbsp;review&nbsp;project elements and to determine the next steps.

The Federal Railroad Administration&nbsp;(FRA) released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, and Draft Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) on January 15, 2021.&nbsp;The DEIS, Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, and the Draft PA can be viewed below. For additional information on where the DEIS can be viewed, please visit the&nbsp;SCMAGLEV Project website.&nbsp;

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., FRA, as lead federal agency, and the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), the project sponsor, are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed superconducting maglev system between Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC (the Project). The effort stems from the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, in which Congress authorized funding to study maglev transportation projects. FRA and MDOT developed screening criteria to examine potential alternatives for further study.&nbsp;

FRA is embarking on a detailed study of alternatives, incorporating field work, engineering and environmental screening criteria, submitted comments, and public feedback. The Project’s website (linked below) contains an updated project schedule. In addition, stakeholders can find pertinent information&nbsp;at the project's FRA webpage, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P1068.

Cooperating Agencies: Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Transit Administration, National Capital Planning Commission, National Park Service, Surface Transportation Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Security Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
(8/25/2021) FRA has paused the project to&nbsp;review&nbsp;project elements and to determine the next steps.

The Federal Railroad Administration&nbsp;(FRA) released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, and Draft Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) on January 15, 2021.&nbsp;The DEIS, Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, and the Draft PA can be viewed below. For additional information on where the DEIS can be viewed, please visit the&nbsp;SCMAGLEV Project website.&nbsp;

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., FRA, as lead federal agency, and the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), the project sponsor, are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed superconducting maglev system between Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC (the Project). The effort stems from the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, in which Congress authorized funding to study maglev transportation projects. FRA and MDOT developed screening criteria to examine potential alternatives for further study.&nbsp;

FRA is embarking on a detailed study of alternatives, incorporating field work, engineering and environmental screening criteria, submitted comments, and public feedback. The Project’s website (linked below) contains an updated project schedule. In addition, stakeholders can find pertinent information&nbsp;at the project's FRA webpage, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P1068.

Cooperating Agencies: Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Transit Administration, National Capital Planning Commission, National Park Service, Surface Transportation Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Security Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
(8/25/2021) FRA has paused the project to&nbsp;review&nbsp;project elements and to determine the next steps.

The Federal Railroad Administration&nbsp;(FRA) released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, and Draft Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) on January 15, 2021.&nbsp;The DEIS, Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, and the Draft PA can be viewed below. For additional information on where the DEIS can be viewed, please visit the&nbsp;SCMAGLEV Project website.&nbsp;

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., FRA, as lead federal agency, and the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), the project sponsor, are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed superconducting maglev system between Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC (the Project). The effort stems from the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, in which Congress authorized funding to study maglev transportation projects. FRA and MDOT developed screening criteria to examine potential alternatives for further study.&nbsp;

FRA is embarking on a detailed study of alternatives, incorporating field work, engineering and environmental screening criteria, submitted comments, and public feedback. The Project’s website (linked below) contains an updated project schedule. In addition, stakeholders can find pertinent information&nbsp;at the project's FRA webpage, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P1068.

Cooperating Agencies: Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Transit Administration, National Capital Planning Commission, National Park Service, Surface Transportation Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Security Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
(8/25/2021) FRA has paused the project to&nbsp;review&nbsp;project elements and to determine the next steps.

The Federal Railroad Administration&nbsp;(FRA) released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, and Draft Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) on January 15, 2021.&nbsp;The DEIS, Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, and the Draft PA can be viewed below. For additional information on where the DEIS can be viewed, please visit the&nbsp;SCMAGLEV Project website.&nbsp;

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., FRA, as lead federal agency, and the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), the project sponsor, are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed superconducting maglev system between Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC (the Project). The effort stems from the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, in which Congress authorized funding to study maglev transportation projects. FRA and MDOT developed screening criteria to examine potential alternatives for further study.&nbsp;

FRA is embarking on a detailed study of alternatives, incorporating field work, engineering and environmental screening criteria, submitted comments, and public feedback. The Project’s website (linked below) contains an updated project schedule. In addition, stakeholders can find pertinent information&nbsp;at the project's FRA webpage, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P1068.

Cooperating Agencies: Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Transit Administration, National Capital Planning Commission, National Park Service, Surface Transportation Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Security Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
(8/25/2021) FRA has paused the project to&nbsp;review&nbsp;project elements and to determine the next steps.

The Federal Railroad Administration&nbsp;(FRA) released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, and Draft Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) on January 15, 2021.&nbsp;The DEIS, Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, and the Draft PA can be viewed below. For additional information on where the DEIS can be viewed, please visit the&nbsp;SCMAGLEV Project website.&nbsp;

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., FRA, as lead federal agency, and the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), the project sponsor, are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed superconducting maglev system between Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC (the Project). The effort stems from the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, in which Congress authorized funding to study maglev transportation projects. FRA and MDOT developed screening criteria to examine potential alternatives for further study.&nbsp;

FRA is embarking on a detailed study of alternatives, incorporating field work, engineering and environmental screening criteria, submitted comments, and public feedback. The Project’s website (linked below) contains an updated project schedule. In addition, stakeholders can find pertinent information&nbsp;at the project's FRA webpage, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P1068.

Cooperating Agencies: Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Transit Administration, National Capital Planning Commission, National Park Service, Surface Transportation Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Security Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
(8/25/2021) FRA has paused the project to&nbsp;review&nbsp;project elements and to determine the next steps.
(8/25/2021) FRA has paused the project to&nbsp;review&nbsp;project elements and to determine the next steps.
(8/25/2021) FRA has paused the project to&nbsp;review&nbsp;project elements and to determine the next steps.
Development of information to support a future decision to fund and implement a major investment in a passenger rail corridor in the Coachella Valley.&nbsp; Includes an environmental review to satisfy NEPA requirements (Service NEPA) and a Service Development Plan.&nbsp;
Development of information to support a future decision to fund and implement a major investment in a passenger rail corridor in the Coachella Valley.&nbsp; Includes an environmental review to satisfy NEPA requirements (Service NEPA) and a Service Development Plan.&nbsp;
Development of information to support a future decision to fund and implement a major investment in a passenger rail corridor in the Coachella Valley.&nbsp; Includes an environmental review to satisfy NEPA requirements (Service NEPA) and a Service Development Plan.&nbsp;
Development of information to support a future decision to fund and implement a major investment in a passenger rail corridor in the Coachella Valley.&nbsp; Includes an environmental review to satisfy NEPA requirements (Service NEPA) and a Service Development Plan.&nbsp;
Development of information to support a future decision to fund and implement a major investment in a passenger rail corridor in the Coachella Valley.&nbsp; Includes an environmental review to satisfy NEPA requirements (Service NEPA) and a Service Development Plan.&nbsp;
Development of information to support a future decision to fund and implement a major investment in a passenger rail corridor in the Coachella Valley.&nbsp; Includes an environmental review to satisfy NEPA requirements (Service NEPA) and a Service Development Plan.&nbsp;
Development of information to support a future decision to fund and implement a major investment in a passenger rail corridor in the Coachella Valley.&nbsp; Includes an environmental review to satisfy NEPA requirements (Service NEPA) and a Service Development Plan.&nbsp;
Development of information to support a future decision to fund and implement a major investment in a passenger rail corridor in the Coachella Valley.&nbsp; Includes an environmental review to satisfy NEPA requirements (Service NEPA) and a Service Development Plan.&nbsp;
Development of information to support a future decision to fund and implement a major investment in a passenger rail corridor in the Coachella Valley.&nbsp; Includes an environmental review to satisfy NEPA requirements (Service NEPA) and a Service Development Plan.&nbsp;
Development of information to support a future decision to fund and implement a major investment in a passenger rail corridor in the Coachella Valley.&nbsp; Includes an environmental review to satisfy NEPA requirements (Service NEPA) and a Service Development Plan.&nbsp;
Development of information to support a future decision to fund and implement a major investment in a passenger rail corridor in the Coachella Valley.&nbsp; Includes an environmental review to satisfy NEPA requirements (Service NEPA) and a Service Development Plan.&nbsp;
The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) is launching an effort to improve and expand the existing Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) rail service between Stockton and San Jose, California, as well as extension of the rail service to Modesto and Merced, California. The ACEforward&nbsp;program will strive to reduce travel time by at least 10 percent, and increase reliability of the existing ACE rail service. In the near term, ACEforward&nbsp;aims to increase existing service from 4 daily round trips to a proposed 6 daily round trips, extend to Modesto in Stanislaus County, implement safety and grade crossings improvements, and add track in key locations. ACEforward&nbsp;is also planning longer-term improvements to increase service to at least 10 daily round trips, provide weekend service, and extend to Merced.
The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) is launching an effort to improve and expand the existing Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) rail service between Stockton and San Jose, California, as well as extension of the rail service to Modesto and Merced, California. The ACEforward&nbsp;program will strive to reduce travel time by at least 10 percent, and increase reliability of the existing ACE rail service. In the near term, ACEforward&nbsp;aims to increase existing service from 4 daily round trips to a proposed 6 daily round trips, extend to Modesto in Stanislaus County, implement safety and grade crossings improvements, and add track in key locations. ACEforward&nbsp;is also planning longer-term improvements to increase service to at least 10 daily round trips, provide weekend service, and extend to Merced.
The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) is launching an effort to improve and expand the existing Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) rail service between Stockton and San Jose, California, as well as extension of the rail service to Modesto and Merced, California. The ACEforward&nbsp;program will strive to reduce travel time by at least 10 percent, and increase reliability of the existing ACE rail service. In the near term, ACEforward&nbsp;aims to increase existing service from 4 daily round trips to a proposed 6 daily round trips, extend to Modesto in Stanislaus County, implement safety and grade crossings improvements, and add track in key locations. ACEforward&nbsp;is also planning longer-term improvements to increase service to at least 10 daily round trips, provide weekend service, and extend to Merced.
The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) is launching an effort to improve and expand the existing Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) rail service between Stockton and San Jose, California, as well as extension of the rail service to Modesto and Merced, California. The ACEforward&nbsp;program will strive to reduce travel time by at least 10 percent, and increase reliability of the existing ACE rail service. In the near term, ACEforward&nbsp;aims to increase existing service from 4 daily round trips to a proposed 6 daily round trips, extend to Modesto in Stanislaus County, implement safety and grade crossings improvements, and add track in key locations. ACEforward&nbsp;is also planning longer-term improvements to increase service to at least 10 daily round trips, provide weekend service, and extend to Merced.
The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) is launching an effort to improve and expand the existing Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) rail service between Stockton and San Jose, California, as well as extension of the rail service to Modesto and Merced, California. The ACEforward&nbsp;program will strive to reduce travel time by at least 10 percent, and increase reliability of the existing ACE rail service. In the near term, ACEforward&nbsp;aims to increase existing service from 4 daily round trips to a proposed 6 daily round trips, extend to Modesto in Stanislaus County, implement safety and grade crossings improvements, and add track in key locations. ACEforward&nbsp;is also planning longer-term improvements to increase service to at least 10 daily round trips, provide weekend service, and extend to Merced.
The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) is launching an effort to improve and expand the existing Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) rail service between Stockton and San Jose, California, as well as extension of the rail service to Modesto and Merced, California. The ACEforward&nbsp;program will strive to reduce travel time by at least 10 percent, and increase reliability of the existing ACE rail service. In the near term, ACEforward&nbsp;aims to increase existing service from 4 daily round trips to a proposed 6 daily round trips, extend to Modesto in Stanislaus County, implement safety and grade crossings improvements, and add track in key locations. ACEforward&nbsp;is also planning longer-term improvements to increase service to at least 10 daily round trips, provide weekend service, and extend to Merced.
The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) is launching an effort to improve and expand the existing Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) rail service between Stockton and San Jose, California, as well as extension of the rail service to Modesto and Merced, California. The ACEforward&nbsp;program will strive to reduce travel time by at least 10 percent, and increase reliability of the existing ACE rail service. In the near term, ACEforward&nbsp;aims to increase existing service from 4 daily round trips to a proposed 6 daily round trips, extend to Modesto in Stanislaus County, implement safety and grade crossings improvements, and add track in key locations. ACEforward&nbsp;is also planning longer-term improvements to increase service to at least 10 daily round trips, provide weekend service, and extend to Merced.
The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) is launching an effort to improve and expand the existing Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) rail service between Stockton and San Jose, California, as well as extension of the rail service to Modesto and Merced, California. The ACEforward&nbsp;program will strive to reduce travel time by at least 10 percent, and increase reliability of the existing ACE rail service. In the near term, ACEforward&nbsp;aims to increase existing service from 4 daily round trips to a proposed 6 daily round trips, extend to Modesto in Stanislaus County, implement safety and grade crossings improvements, and add track in key locations. ACEforward&nbsp;is also planning longer-term improvements to increase service to at least 10 daily round trips, provide weekend service, and extend to Merced.
&nbsp;Construction of a full-service intermodal facility in Cedar Rapids.&nbsp; Co-location of truckload consolidation, warehousing services, intermodal container facilities, and multi-modal transfer services at a single 75 acre site.&nbsp; Alliant Energy Transportation (AET) to provide remaining 45% match.&nbsp;
&nbsp;Construction of a full-service intermodal facility in Cedar Rapids.&nbsp; Co-location of truckload consolidation, warehousing services, intermodal container facilities, and multi-modal transfer services at a single 75 acre site.&nbsp; Alliant Energy Transportation (AET) to provide remaining 45% match.&nbsp;
&nbsp;Construction of a full-service intermodal facility in Cedar Rapids.&nbsp; Co-location of truckload consolidation, warehousing services, intermodal container facilities, and multi-modal transfer services at a single 75 acre site.&nbsp; Alliant Energy Transportation (AET) to provide remaining 45% match.&nbsp;
&nbsp;Construction of a full-service intermodal facility in Cedar Rapids.&nbsp; Co-location of truckload consolidation, warehousing services, intermodal container facilities, and multi-modal transfer services at a single 75 acre site.&nbsp; Alliant Energy Transportation (AET) to provide remaining 45% match.&nbsp;
&nbsp;Construction of a full-service intermodal facility in Cedar Rapids.&nbsp; Co-location of truckload consolidation, warehousing services, intermodal container facilities, and multi-modal transfer services at a single 75 acre site.&nbsp; Alliant Energy Transportation (AET) to provide remaining 45% match.&nbsp;
&nbsp;Construction of a full-service intermodal facility in Cedar Rapids.&nbsp; Co-location of truckload consolidation, warehousing services, intermodal container facilities, and multi-modal transfer services at a single 75 acre site.&nbsp; Alliant Energy Transportation (AET) to provide remaining 45% match.&nbsp;
&nbsp;Construction of a full-service intermodal facility in Cedar Rapids.&nbsp; Co-location of truckload consolidation, warehousing services, intermodal container facilities, and multi-modal transfer services at a single 75 acre site.&nbsp; Alliant Energy Transportation (AET) to provide remaining 45% match.&nbsp;
&nbsp;Construction of a full-service intermodal facility in Cedar Rapids.&nbsp; Co-location of truckload consolidation, warehousing services, intermodal container facilities, and multi-modal transfer services at a single 75 acre site.&nbsp; Alliant Energy Transportation (AET) to provide remaining 45% match.&nbsp;
&nbsp;Construction of a full-service intermodal facility in Cedar Rapids.&nbsp; Co-location of truckload consolidation, warehousing services, intermodal container facilities, and multi-modal transfer services at a single 75 acre site.&nbsp; Alliant Energy Transportation (AET) to provide remaining 45% match.&nbsp;
Section 106 consultation for project impacts.Concurrence on Determination of Effect and Finding of Eligibility: No Adverse Effect.
Section 106 consultation for project impacts.Concurrence on Determination of Effect and Finding of Eligibility: No Adverse Effect.
Section 106 consultation for project impacts.Concurrence on Determination of Effect and Finding of Eligibility: No Adverse Effect.
Concurrence on Determination of Effect and Finding of Eligibility: No Adverse Effect.
Concurrence on Determination of Effect and Finding of Eligibility: No Adverse Effect.
Concurrence on Determination of Effect and Finding of Eligibility: No Adverse Effect.
Consultation with SHPO and consulting parties in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requirements.
Consultation with SHPO and consulting parties in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requirements.
Consultation with SHPO and consulting parties in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requirements.
The Fosston Municipal Airport Authority has identified the need to expand and reconfigure airside facilities available at the airport for corporate GA aircraft storage, including taxilanes, and aprons. In addition to the expansion/reconfiguration, the airport will also investigate and work to mitigate unnecessary hazards imposed by the wetlands within the proposed work area.
The Fosston Municipal Airport Authority has identified the need to expand and reconfigure airside facilities available at the airport for corporate GA aircraft storage, including taxilanes, and aprons. In addition to the expansion/reconfiguration, the airport will also investigate and work to mitigate unnecessary hazards imposed by the wetlands within the proposed work area.
The Fosston Municipal Airport Authority has identified the need to expand and reconfigure airside facilities available at the airport for corporate GA aircraft storage, including taxilanes, and aprons. In addition to the expansion/reconfiguration, the airport will also investigate and work to mitigate unnecessary hazards imposed by the wetlands within the proposed work area.
The Fosston Municipal Airport Authority has identified the need to expand and reconfigure airside facilities available at the airport for corporate GA aircraft storage, including taxilanes, and aprons. In addition to the expansion/reconfiguration, the airport will also investigate and work to mitigate unnecessary hazards imposed by the wetlands within the proposed work area.
The Fosston Municipal Airport Authority has identified the need to expand and reconfigure airside facilities available at the airport for corporate GA aircraft storage, including taxilanes, and aprons. In addition to the expansion/reconfiguration, the airport will also investigate and work to mitigate unnecessary hazards imposed by the wetlands within the proposed work area.
The Fosston Municipal Airport Authority has identified the need to expand and reconfigure airside facilities available at the airport for corporate GA aircraft storage, including taxilanes, and aprons. In addition to the expansion/reconfiguration, the airport will also investigate and work to mitigate unnecessary hazards imposed by the wetlands within the proposed work area.
The Fosston Municipal Airport Authority has identified the need to expand and reconfigure airside facilities available at the airport for corporate GA aircraft storage, including taxilanes, and aprons. In addition to the expansion/reconfiguration, the airport will also investigate and work to mitigate unnecessary hazards imposed by the wetlands within the proposed work area.
The Fosston Municipal Airport Authority has identified the need to expand and reconfigure airside facilities available at the airport for corporate GA aircraft storage, including taxilanes, and aprons. In addition to the expansion/reconfiguration, the airport will also investigate and work to mitigate unnecessary hazards imposed by the wetlands within the proposed work area.
The Fosston Municipal Airport Authority has identified the need to expand and reconfigure airside facilities available at the airport for corporate GA aircraft storage, including taxilanes, and aprons. In addition to the expansion/reconfiguration, the airport will also investigate and work to mitigate unnecessary hazards imposed by the wetlands within the proposed work area.
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to safely and efficiently accommodate the critical aircraft (or grouping of aircraft with similar characteristics) currently using and forecast to use EKS.&nbsp; To accomplish this, improvements must be made to facilities at the airport to address a forecasted change in the critical aircraft at the facility documented in the 2018 Master Plan Update (from B-II to C-III).&nbsp; Airport modifications and improvements must be made in accordance with the FAA’s recommended design standards and guidance to ensure federal funding participation.
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to safely and efficiently accommodate the critical aircraft (or grouping of aircraft with similar characteristics) currently using and forecast to use EKS.&nbsp; To accomplish this, improvements must be made to facilities at the airport to address a forecasted change in the critical aircraft at the facility documented in the 2018 Master Plan Update (from B-II to C-III).&nbsp; Airport modifications and improvements must be made in accordance with the FAA’s recommended design standards and guidance to ensure federal funding participation.
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to safely and efficiently accommodate the critical aircraft (or grouping of aircraft with similar characteristics) currently using and forecast to use EKS.&nbsp; To accomplish this, improvements must be made to facilities at the airport to address a forecasted change in the critical aircraft at the facility documented in the 2018 Master Plan Update (from B-II to C-III).&nbsp; Airport modifications and improvements must be made in accordance with the FAA’s recommended design standards and guidance to ensure federal funding participation.
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to safely and efficiently accommodate the critical aircraft (or grouping of aircraft with similar characteristics) currently using and forecast to use EKS.&nbsp; To accomplish this, improvements must be made to facilities at the airport to address a forecasted change in the critical aircraft at the facility documented in the 2018 Master Plan Update (from B-II to C-III).&nbsp; Airport modifications and improvements must be made in accordance with the FAA’s recommended design standards and guidance to ensure federal funding participation.
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to safely and efficiently accommodate the critical aircraft (or grouping of aircraft with similar characteristics) currently using and forecast to use EKS.&nbsp; To accomplish this, improvements must be made to facilities at the airport to address a forecasted change in the critical aircraft at the facility documented in the 2018 Master Plan Update (from B-II to C-III).&nbsp; Airport modifications and improvements must be made in accordance with the FAA’s recommended design standards and guidance to ensure federal funding participation.
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to safely and efficiently accommodate the critical aircraft (or grouping of aircraft with similar characteristics) currently using and forecast to use EKS.&nbsp; To accomplish this, improvements must be made to facilities at the airport to address a forecasted change in the critical aircraft at the facility documented in the 2018 Master Plan Update (from B-II to C-III).&nbsp; Airport modifications and improvements must be made in accordance with the FAA’s recommended design standards and guidance to ensure federal funding participation.
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to safely and efficiently accommodate the critical aircraft (or grouping of aircraft with similar characteristics) currently using and forecast to use EKS.&nbsp; To accomplish this, improvements must be made to facilities at the airport to address a forecasted change in the critical aircraft at the facility documented in the 2018 Master Plan Update (from B-II to C-III).&nbsp; Airport modifications and improvements must be made in accordance with the FAA’s recommended design standards and guidance to ensure federal funding participation.
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to safely and efficiently accommodate the critical aircraft (or grouping of aircraft with similar characteristics) currently using and forecast to use EKS.&nbsp; To accomplish this, improvements must be made to facilities at the airport to address a forecasted change in the critical aircraft at the facility documented in the 2018 Master Plan Update (from B-II to C-III).&nbsp; Airport modifications and improvements must be made in accordance with the FAA’s recommended design standards and guidance to ensure federal funding participation.
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to safely and efficiently accommodate the critical aircraft (or grouping of aircraft with similar characteristics) currently using and forecast to use EKS.&nbsp; To accomplish this, improvements must be made to facilities at the airport to address a forecasted change in the critical aircraft at the facility documented in the 2018 Master Plan Update (from B-II to C-III).&nbsp; Airport modifications and improvements must be made in accordance with the FAA’s recommended design standards and guidance to ensure federal funding participation.
An updated COP was submitted which changed the lease boundaries and the turbine layout to address navigational safety issues raised by the commercial fishing industry, and legally assigned the lease to a new entity, Deepwater Wind South Fork, LLC. &nbsp;Prior to the lease assignment, the lease was held by Deepwater New England, LLC. The updated COP, lease assignment, and BOEM’s development of a more robust cumulative-impact analysis for offshore wind projects moving forward necessitated additional interagency coordination in developing the FAST-41 CPP and permitting timetable.
An updated COP was submitted which changed the lease boundaries and the turbine layout to address navigational safety issues raised by the commercial fishing industry, and legally assigned the lease to a new entity, Deepwater Wind South Fork, LLC. &nbsp;Prior to the lease assignment, the lease was held by Deepwater New England, LLC. The updated COP, lease assignment, and BOEM’s development of a more robust cumulative-impact analysis for offshore wind projects moving forward necessitated additional interagency coordination in developing the FAST-41 CPP and permitting timetable.
An updated COP was submitted which changed the lease boundaries and the turbine layout to address navigational safety issues raised by the commercial fishing industry, and legally assigned the lease to a new entity, Deepwater Wind South Fork, LLC. &nbsp;Prior to the lease assignment, the lease was held by Deepwater New England, LLC. The updated COP, lease assignment, and BOEM’s development of a more robust cumulative-impact analysis for offshore wind projects moving forward necessitated additional interagency coordination in developing the FAST-41 CPP and permitting timetable.
An updated COP was submitted which changed the lease boundaries and the turbine layout to address navigational safety issues raised by the commercial fishing industry, and legally assigned the lease to a new entity, Deepwater Wind South Fork, LLC. &nbsp;Prior to the lease assignment, the lease was held by Deepwater New England, LLC. The updated COP, lease assignment, and BOEM’s development of a more robust cumulative-impact analysis for offshore wind projects moving forward necessitated additional interagency coordination in developing the FAST-41 CPP and permitting timetable.
An updated COP was submitted which changed the lease boundaries and the turbine layout to address navigational safety issues raised by the commercial fishing industry, and legally assigned the lease to a new entity, Deepwater Wind South Fork, LLC. &nbsp;Prior to the lease assignment, the lease was held by Deepwater New England, LLC. The updated COP, lease assignment, and BOEM’s development of a more robust cumulative-impact analysis for offshore wind projects moving forward necessitated additional interagency coordination in developing the FAST-41 CPP and permitting timetable.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore areas affected by the South Fork Project and associated transmission system. The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore areas affected by the South Fork Project and associated transmission system. The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore areas affected by the South Fork Project and associated transmission system. The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may&nbsp; affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species &nbsp;occur in the action area for the South Fork project. The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may&nbsp; affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species &nbsp;occur in the action area for the South Fork project. The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may&nbsp; affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species &nbsp;occur in the action area for the South Fork project. The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may&nbsp; affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species &nbsp;occur in the action area for the South Fork project. The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS OPR that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be an incidental harassment authorization (IHA).
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS OPR that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be an incidental harassment authorization (IHA).
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS OPR that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be an incidental harassment authorization (IHA).
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS OPR that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be an incidental harassment authorization (IHA).
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS OPR that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be an incidental harassment authorization (IHA).
Prior to contstruction, the project sponsor&nbsp;must obtain a California Department of Fish and Wildlife Lake and Streambed Alteration Program Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement [reference: State of California's Fish and Wildlife, Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code, Chapter 6: Fish and Wildlife Protection and Conservation]
Prior to contstruction, the project sponsor&nbsp;must obtain a California Department of Fish and Wildlife Lake and Streambed Alteration Program Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement [reference: State of California's Fish and Wildlife, Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code, Chapter 6: Fish and Wildlife Protection and Conservation]
Prior to contstruction, the project sponsor&nbsp;must obtain a California Department of Fish and Wildlife Lake and Streambed Alteration Program Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement [reference: State of California's Fish and Wildlife, Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code, Chapter 6: Fish and Wildlife Protection and Conservation]
Prior to contstruction, the project sponsor&nbsp;must obtain a California Department of Fish and Wildlife Lake and Streambed Alteration Program Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement [reference: State of California's Fish and Wildlife, Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code, Chapter 6: Fish and Wildlife Protection and Conservation]
Prior to contstruction, the project sponsor&nbsp;must obtain a California Department of Fish and Wildlife Lake and Streambed Alteration Program Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement [reference: State of California's Fish and Wildlife, Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code, Chapter 6: Fish and Wildlife Protection and Conservation]
Engineering and environmental analysis to support improved passenger rail service on the Pacific Surfliner Corridor between LA and San Luis Obispo.
Engineering and environmental analysis to support improved passenger rail service on the Pacific Surfliner Corridor between LA and San Luis Obispo.
Engineering and environmental analysis to support improved passenger rail service on the Pacific Surfliner Corridor between LA and San Luis Obispo.
Engineering and environmental analysis to support improved passenger rail service on the Pacific Surfliner Corridor between LA and San Luis Obispo.
Engineering and environmental analysis to support improved passenger rail service on the Pacific Surfliner Corridor between LA and San Luis Obispo.
Engineering and environmental analysis to support improved passenger rail service on the Pacific Surfliner Corridor between LA and San Luis Obispo.
Engineering and environmental analysis to support improved passenger rail service on the Pacific Surfliner Corridor between LA and San Luis Obispo.
Engineering and environmental analysis to support improved passenger rail service on the Pacific Surfliner Corridor between LA and San Luis Obispo.
There are 48 known historic properties in the study area for Alternative 1, including the five existing rail stations. The study area for Alternative 2 includes 33 known historic properties. Impacts associated with these properties would depend on the need for acquisitions and future design. In general, historic properties adjacent to the existing, active UPRR alignment are not expected to be adversely affected, because the impacts to these historic properties, which are already adjacent to an active rail line, would likely be negligible.
There are 48 known historic properties in the study area for Alternative 1, including the five existing rail stations. The study area for Alternative 2 includes 33 known historic properties. Impacts associated with these properties would depend on the need for acquisitions and future design. In general, historic properties adjacent to the existing, active UPRR alignment are not expected to be adversely affected, because the impacts to these historic properties, which are already adjacent to an active rail line, would likely be negligible.
There are 48 known historic properties in the study area for Alternative 1, including the five existing rail stations. The study area for Alternative 2 includes 33 known historic properties. Impacts associated with these properties would depend on the need for acquisitions and future design. In general, historic properties adjacent to the existing, active UPRR alignment are not expected to be adversely affected, because the impacts to these historic properties, which are already adjacent to an active rail line, would likely be negligible.
Finalizing MOA.
Finalizing MOA.
Finalizing MOA.
The Sponsor recently completed a Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for the Airport, which was approved by the MAC Board in October 2017. The key planning objectives for the LTCP were to:•Better align airfield infrastructure to match existing and forecasted activity levels (right-size the airfield);•Preserve and improve operational capabilities for the current family of aircraft using the facility; and•Enhance safety by simplifying the runway and taxiway layout.Information from the recently completed LTCP will be used, as applicable, along with other additional data to be collected and developed as deemed necessary. Project components to be covered as part of the environmental documentation include the following:•Decommission Runway 14R/32L and convert to parallel taxiway•Convert portions of Runway 14L/34R blast pads to usable runway•Reduce length of Runway 06R/24L (turf) to clear Taxiways D &amp; F from the RSA•Establish LNAV approach to Runway 32R•Various taxiway improvements and removals•Expand the FBO apron•Develop airport land for non-aeronautical use along 63rd Avenue North (work related to this project component will be broken out separately in the fee estimate to allow for a la carte addition or removal)
The Sponsor recently completed a Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for the Airport, which was approved by the MAC Board in October 2017. The key planning objectives for the LTCP were to:•Better align airfield infrastructure to match existing and forecasted activity levels (right-size the airfield);•Preserve and improve operational capabilities for the current family of aircraft using the facility; and•Enhance safety by simplifying the runway and taxiway layout.Information from the recently completed LTCP will be used, as applicable, along with other additional data to be collected and developed as deemed necessary. Project components to be covered as part of the environmental documentation include the following:•Decommission Runway 14R/32L and convert to parallel taxiway•Convert portions of Runway 14L/34R blast pads to usable runway•Reduce length of Runway 06R/24L (turf) to clear Taxiways D &amp; F from the RSA•Establish LNAV approach to Runway 32R•Various taxiway improvements and removals•Expand the FBO apron•Develop airport land for non-aeronautical use along 63rd Avenue North (work related to this project component will be broken out separately in the fee estimate to allow for a la carte addition or removal)
The Sponsor recently completed a Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for the Airport, which was approved by the MAC Board in October 2017. The key planning objectives for the LTCP were to:•Better align airfield infrastructure to match existing and forecasted activity levels (right-size the airfield);•Preserve and improve operational capabilities for the current family of aircraft using the facility; and•Enhance safety by simplifying the runway and taxiway layout.Information from the recently completed LTCP will be used, as applicable, along with other additional data to be collected and developed as deemed necessary. Project components to be covered as part of the environmental documentation include the following:•Decommission Runway 14R/32L and convert to parallel taxiway•Convert portions of Runway 14L/34R blast pads to usable runway•Reduce length of Runway 06R/24L (turf) to clear Taxiways D &amp; F from the RSA•Establish LNAV approach to Runway 32R•Various taxiway improvements and removals•Expand the FBO apron•Develop airport land for non-aeronautical use along 63rd Avenue North (work related to this project component will be broken out separately in the fee estimate to allow for a la carte addition or removal)
The Sponsor recently completed a Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for the Airport, which was approved by the MAC Board in October 2017. The key planning objectives for the LTCP were to:•Better align airfield infrastructure to match existing and forecasted activity levels (right-size the airfield);•Preserve and improve operational capabilities for the current family of aircraft using the facility; and•Enhance safety by simplifying the runway and taxiway layout.Information from the recently completed LTCP will be used, as applicable, along with other additional data to be collected and developed as deemed necessary. Project components to be covered as part of the environmental documentation include the following:•Decommission Runway 14R/32L and convert to parallel taxiway•Convert portions of Runway 14L/34R blast pads to usable runway•Reduce length of Runway 06R/24L (turf) to clear Taxiways D &amp; F from the RSA•Establish LNAV approach to Runway 32R•Various taxiway improvements and removals•Expand the FBO apron•Develop airport land for non-aeronautical use along 63rd Avenue North (work related to this project component will be broken out separately in the fee estimate to allow for a la carte addition or removal)
The Sponsor recently completed a Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for the Airport, which was approved by the MAC Board in October 2017. The key planning objectives for the LTCP were to:•Better align airfield infrastructure to match existing and forecasted activity levels (right-size the airfield);•Preserve and improve operational capabilities for the current family of aircraft using the facility; and•Enhance safety by simplifying the runway and taxiway layout.Information from the recently completed LTCP will be used, as applicable, along with other additional data to be collected and developed as deemed necessary. Project components to be covered as part of the environmental documentation include the following:•Decommission Runway 14R/32L and convert to parallel taxiway•Convert portions of Runway 14L/34R blast pads to usable runway•Reduce length of Runway 06R/24L (turf) to clear Taxiways D &amp; F from the RSA•Establish LNAV approach to Runway 32R•Various taxiway improvements and removals•Expand the FBO apron•Develop airport land for non-aeronautical use along 63rd Avenue North (work related to this project component will be broken out separately in the fee estimate to allow for a la carte addition or removal)
The Sponsor recently completed a Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for the Airport, which was approved by the MAC Board in October 2017. The key planning objectives for the LTCP were to:•Better align airfield infrastructure to match existing and forecasted activity levels (right-size the airfield);•Preserve and improve operational capabilities for the current family of aircraft using the facility; and•Enhance safety by simplifying the runway and taxiway layout.Information from the recently completed LTCP will be used, as applicable, along with other additional data to be collected and developed as deemed necessary. Project components to be covered as part of the environmental documentation include the following:•Decommission Runway 14R/32L and convert to parallel taxiway•Convert portions of Runway 14L/34R blast pads to usable runway•Reduce length of Runway 06R/24L (turf) to clear Taxiways D &amp; F from the RSA•Establish LNAV approach to Runway 32R•Various taxiway improvements and removals•Expand the FBO apron•Develop airport land for non-aeronautical use along 63rd Avenue North (work related to this project component will be broken out separately in the fee estimate to allow for a la carte addition or removal)
The Sponsor recently completed a Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for the Airport, which was approved by the MAC Board in October 2017. The key planning objectives for the LTCP were to:•Better align airfield infrastructure to match existing and forecasted activity levels (right-size the airfield);•Preserve and improve operational capabilities for the current family of aircraft using the facility; and•Enhance safety by simplifying the runway and taxiway layout.Information from the recently completed LTCP will be used, as applicable, along with other additional data to be collected and developed as deemed necessary. Project components to be covered as part of the environmental documentation include the following:•Decommission Runway 14R/32L and convert to parallel taxiway•Convert portions of Runway 14L/34R blast pads to usable runway•Reduce length of Runway 06R/24L (turf) to clear Taxiways D &amp; F from the RSA•Establish LNAV approach to Runway 32R•Various taxiway improvements and removals•Expand the FBO apron•Develop airport land for non-aeronautical use along 63rd Avenue North (work related to this project component will be broken out separately in the fee estimate to allow for a la carte addition or removal)
The Sponsor recently completed a Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for the Airport, which was approved by the MAC Board in October 2017. The key planning objectives for the LTCP were to:•Better align airfield infrastructure to match existing and forecasted activity levels (right-size the airfield);•Preserve and improve operational capabilities for the current family of aircraft using the facility; and•Enhance safety by simplifying the runway and taxiway layout.Information from the recently completed LTCP will be used, as applicable, along with other additional data to be collected and developed as deemed necessary. Project components to be covered as part of the environmental documentation include the following:•Decommission Runway 14R/32L and convert to parallel taxiway•Convert portions of Runway 14L/34R blast pads to usable runway•Reduce length of Runway 06R/24L (turf) to clear Taxiways D &amp; F from the RSA•Establish LNAV approach to Runway 32R•Various taxiway improvements and removals•Expand the FBO apron•Develop airport land for non-aeronautical use along 63rd Avenue North (work related to this project component will be broken out separately in the fee estimate to allow for a la carte addition or removal)
The Sponsor recently completed a Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for the Airport, which was approved by the MAC Board in October 2017. The key planning objectives for the LTCP were to:•Better align airfield infrastructure to match existing and forecasted activity levels (right-size the airfield);•Preserve and improve operational capabilities for the current family of aircraft using the facility; and•Enhance safety by simplifying the runway and taxiway layout.Information from the recently completed LTCP will be used, as applicable, along with other additional data to be collected and developed as deemed necessary. Project components to be covered as part of the environmental documentation include the following:•Decommission Runway 14R/32L and convert to parallel taxiway•Convert portions of Runway 14L/34R blast pads to usable runway•Reduce length of Runway 06R/24L (turf) to clear Taxiways D &amp; F from the RSA•Establish LNAV approach to Runway 32R•Various taxiway improvements and removals•Expand the FBO apron•Develop airport land for non-aeronautical use along 63rd Avenue North (work related to this project component will be broken out separately in the fee estimate to allow for a la carte addition or removal)
Construction of two additional hangars (16,800 sf each), with associated apron expansion (21,000 sf), and access roads and parking areas construction.
Construction of two additional hangars (16,800 sf each), with associated apron expansion (21,000 sf), and access roads and parking areas construction.
Construction of two additional hangars (16,800 sf each), with associated apron expansion (21,000 sf), and access roads and parking areas construction.
Construction of two additional hangars (16,800 sf each), with associated apron expansion (21,000 sf), and access roads and parking areas construction.
Construction of two additional hangars (16,800 sf each), with associated apron expansion (21,000 sf), and access roads and parking areas construction.
Construction of two additional hangars (16,800 sf each), with associated apron expansion (21,000 sf), and access roads and parking areas construction.
Construction of two additional hangars (16,800 sf each), with associated apron expansion (21,000 sf), and access roads and parking areas construction.
Construction of two additional hangars (16,800 sf each), with associated apron expansion (21,000 sf), and access roads and parking areas construction.
Construction of two additional hangars (16,800 sf each), with associated apron expansion (21,000 sf), and access roads and parking areas construction.
Replace RW 13L-31R asphalt pavement with concrete, widen the runway from 150ft to 200ft, and improve and widen selected taxiway fillets to meet ADG VI standards; Realign Taxiways U and V and associated intersections; construct a new High-Speed Taxiway; associates, electrical, lighting, signage, drainage, and markings
Replace RW 13L-31R asphalt pavement with concrete, widen the runway from 150ft to 200ft, and improve and widen selected taxiway fillets to meet ADG VI standards; Realign Taxiways U and V and associated intersections; construct a new High-Speed Taxiway; associates, electrical, lighting, signage, drainage, and markings
Replace RW 13L-31R asphalt pavement with concrete, widen the runway from 150ft to 200ft, and improve and widen selected taxiway fillets to meet ADG VI standards; Realign Taxiways U and V and associated intersections; construct a new High-Speed Taxiway; associates, electrical, lighting, signage, drainage, and markings
Replace RW 13L-31R asphalt pavement with concrete, widen the runway from 150ft to 200ft, and improve and widen selected taxiway fillets to meet ADG VI standards; Realign Taxiways U and V and associated intersections; construct a new High-Speed Taxiway; associates, electrical, lighting, signage, drainage, and markings
Replace RW 13L-31R asphalt pavement with concrete, widen the runway from 150ft to 200ft, and improve and widen selected taxiway fillets to meet ADG VI standards; Realign Taxiways U and V and associated intersections; construct a new High-Speed Taxiway; associates, electrical, lighting, signage, drainage, and markings
Replace RW 13L-31R asphalt pavement with concrete, widen the runway from 150ft to 200ft, and improve and widen selected taxiway fillets to meet ADG VI standards; Realign Taxiways U and V and associated intersections; construct a new High-Speed Taxiway; associates, electrical, lighting, signage, drainage, and markings
Replace RW 13L-31R asphalt pavement with concrete, widen the runway from 150ft to 200ft, and improve and widen selected taxiway fillets to meet ADG VI standards; Realign Taxiways U and V and associated intersections; construct a new High-Speed Taxiway; associates, electrical, lighting, signage, drainage, and markings
Replace RW 13L-31R asphalt pavement with concrete, widen the runway from 150ft to 200ft, and improve and widen selected taxiway fillets to meet ADG VI standards; Realign Taxiways U and V and associated intersections; construct a new High-Speed Taxiway; associates, electrical, lighting, signage, drainage, and markings
Replace RW 13L-31R asphalt pavement with concrete, widen the runway from 150ft to 200ft, and improve and widen selected taxiway fillets to meet ADG VI standards; Realign Taxiways U and V and associated intersections; construct a new High-Speed Taxiway; associates, electrical, lighting, signage, drainage, and markings
Environmental Assessment for the airport's 5 year CIP.
Environmental Assessment for the airport's 5 year CIP.
Environmental Assessment for the airport's 5 year CIP.
Environmental Assessment for the airport's 5 year CIP.
Environmental Assessment for the airport's 5 year CIP.
Environmental Assessment for the airport's 5 year CIP.
Environmental Assessment for the airport's 5 year CIP.
Environmental Assessment for the airport's 5 year CIP.
Environmental Assessment for the airport's 5 year CIP.
The Alaska Department of Public Transportation &amp; Public Facilities (DOT&amp;PF) is proposing to expand the existing Airport Field Maintenance (AFM) Storage Yard located on the south side of Lake Hood Drive and the west side of Helio Place at the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (TSAIA). The AFM Storage Yard expansion would be utilized as a storage yard for Airport operations primarily to store supplemental and backup equipment, materials for ongoing operations, and as a temporary laydown area for construction projects and for temporary materials stockpiling. The expansion would require approximately 16 acres of ground disturbance which includes 7.7 acres wetlands impacts (fill).
The Alaska Department of Public Transportation &amp; Public Facilities (DOT&amp;PF) is proposing to expand the existing Airport Field Maintenance (AFM) Storage Yard located on the south side of Lake Hood Drive and the west side of Helio Place at the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (TSAIA). The AFM Storage Yard expansion would be utilized as a storage yard for Airport operations primarily to store supplemental and backup equipment, materials for ongoing operations, and as a temporary laydown area for construction projects and for temporary materials stockpiling. The expansion would require approximately 16 acres of ground disturbance which includes 7.7 acres wetlands impacts (fill).
The Alaska Department of Public Transportation &amp; Public Facilities (DOT&amp;PF) is proposing to expand the existing Airport Field Maintenance (AFM) Storage Yard located on the south side of Lake Hood Drive and the west side of Helio Place at the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (TSAIA). The AFM Storage Yard expansion would be utilized as a storage yard for Airport operations primarily to store supplemental and backup equipment, materials for ongoing operations, and as a temporary laydown area for construction projects and for temporary materials stockpiling. The expansion would require approximately 16 acres of ground disturbance which includes 7.7 acres wetlands impacts (fill).
The Alaska Department of Public Transportation &amp; Public Facilities (DOT&amp;PF) is proposing to expand the existing Airport Field Maintenance (AFM) Storage Yard located on the south side of Lake Hood Drive and the west side of Helio Place at the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (TSAIA). The AFM Storage Yard expansion would be utilized as a storage yard for Airport operations primarily to store supplemental and backup equipment, materials for ongoing operations, and as a temporary laydown area for construction projects and for temporary materials stockpiling. The expansion would require approximately 16 acres of ground disturbance which includes 7.7 acres wetlands impacts (fill).
The Alaska Department of Public Transportation &amp; Public Facilities (DOT&amp;PF) is proposing to expand the existing Airport Field Maintenance (AFM) Storage Yard located on the south side of Lake Hood Drive and the west side of Helio Place at the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (TSAIA). The AFM Storage Yard expansion would be utilized as a storage yard for Airport operations primarily to store supplemental and backup equipment, materials for ongoing operations, and as a temporary laydown area for construction projects and for temporary materials stockpiling. The expansion would require approximately 16 acres of ground disturbance which includes 7.7 acres wetlands impacts (fill).
The Alaska Department of Public Transportation &amp; Public Facilities (DOT&amp;PF) is proposing to expand the existing Airport Field Maintenance (AFM) Storage Yard located on the south side of Lake Hood Drive and the west side of Helio Place at the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (TSAIA). The AFM Storage Yard expansion would be utilized as a storage yard for Airport operations primarily to store supplemental and backup equipment, materials for ongoing operations, and as a temporary laydown area for construction projects and for temporary materials stockpiling. The expansion would require approximately 16 acres of ground disturbance which includes 7.7 acres wetlands impacts (fill).
The Alaska Department of Public Transportation &amp; Public Facilities (DOT&amp;PF) is proposing to expand the existing Airport Field Maintenance (AFM) Storage Yard located on the south side of Lake Hood Drive and the west side of Helio Place at the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (TSAIA). The AFM Storage Yard expansion would be utilized as a storage yard for Airport operations primarily to store supplemental and backup equipment, materials for ongoing operations, and as a temporary laydown area for construction projects and for temporary materials stockpiling. The expansion would require approximately 16 acres of ground disturbance which includes 7.7 acres wetlands impacts (fill).
The Alaska Department of Public Transportation &amp; Public Facilities (DOT&amp;PF) is proposing to expand the existing Airport Field Maintenance (AFM) Storage Yard located on the south side of Lake Hood Drive and the west side of Helio Place at the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (TSAIA). The AFM Storage Yard expansion would be utilized as a storage yard for Airport operations primarily to store supplemental and backup equipment, materials for ongoing operations, and as a temporary laydown area for construction projects and for temporary materials stockpiling. The expansion would require approximately 16 acres of ground disturbance which includes 7.7 acres wetlands impacts (fill).
The Alaska Department of Public Transportation &amp; Public Facilities (DOT&amp;PF) is proposing to expand the existing Airport Field Maintenance (AFM) Storage Yard located on the south side of Lake Hood Drive and the west side of Helio Place at the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (TSAIA). The AFM Storage Yard expansion would be utilized as a storage yard for Airport operations primarily to store supplemental and backup equipment, materials for ongoing operations, and as a temporary laydown area for construction projects and for temporary materials stockpiling. The expansion would require approximately 16 acres of ground disturbance which includes 7.7 acres wetlands impacts (fill).
The FAA issued a FONSI/ROD for the introduction of commercial service in 2012.&nbsp; The two airlines that proposed service never acted on the proposal.&nbsp;&nbsp; Three airlines with different equipment, activity and stage lengths have proposed service and we expect to issue the draft Supplemental EA at the end of September, 2018.
The FAA issued a FONSI/ROD for the introduction of commercial service in 2012.&nbsp; The two airlines that proposed service never acted on the proposal.&nbsp;&nbsp; Three airlines with different equipment, activity and stage lengths have proposed service and we expect to issue the draft Supplemental EA at the end of September, 2018.
The FAA issued a FONSI/ROD for the introduction of commercial service in 2012.&nbsp; The two airlines that proposed service never acted on the proposal.&nbsp;&nbsp; Three airlines with different equipment, activity and stage lengths have proposed service and we expect to issue the draft Supplemental EA at the end of September, 2018.
The FAA issued a FONSI/ROD for the introduction of commercial service in 2012.&nbsp; The two airlines that proposed service never acted on the proposal.&nbsp;&nbsp; Three airlines with different equipment, activity and stage lengths have proposed service and we expect to issue the draft Supplemental EA at the end of September, 2018.
The FAA issued a FONSI/ROD for the introduction of commercial service in 2012.&nbsp; The two airlines that proposed service never acted on the proposal.&nbsp;&nbsp; Three airlines with different equipment, activity and stage lengths have proposed service and we expect to issue the draft Supplemental EA at the end of September, 2018.
The FAA issued a FONSI/ROD for the introduction of commercial service in 2012.&nbsp; The two airlines that proposed service never acted on the proposal.&nbsp;&nbsp; Three airlines with different equipment, activity and stage lengths have proposed service and we expect to issue the draft Supplemental EA at the end of September, 2018.
The FAA issued a FONSI/ROD for the introduction of commercial service in 2012.&nbsp; The two airlines that proposed service never acted on the proposal.&nbsp;&nbsp; Three airlines with different equipment, activity and stage lengths have proposed service and we expect to issue the draft Supplemental EA at the end of September, 2018.
The FAA issued a FONSI/ROD for the introduction of commercial service in 2012.&nbsp; The two airlines that proposed service never acted on the proposal.&nbsp;&nbsp; Three airlines with different equipment, activity and stage lengths have proposed service and we expect to issue the draft Supplemental EA at the end of September, 2018.
The FAA issued a FONSI/ROD for the introduction of commercial service in 2012.&nbsp; The two airlines that proposed service never acted on the proposal.&nbsp;&nbsp; Three airlines with different equipment, activity and stage lengths have proposed service and we expect to issue the draft Supplemental EA at the end of September, 2018.
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities proposes to construct a new taxiway and complete apron repair on airport property.&nbsp;
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities proposes to construct a new taxiway and complete apron repair on airport property.&nbsp;
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities proposes to construct a new taxiway and complete apron repair on airport property.&nbsp;
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities proposes to construct a new taxiway and complete apron repair on airport property.&nbsp;
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities proposes to construct a new taxiway and complete apron repair on airport property.&nbsp;
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities proposes to construct a new taxiway and complete apron repair on airport property.&nbsp;
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities proposes to construct a new taxiway and complete apron repair on airport property.&nbsp;
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities proposes to construct a new taxiway and complete apron repair on airport property.&nbsp;
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities proposes to construct a new taxiway and complete apron repair on airport property.&nbsp;
In compliance with the Section 106 PA, TxDOT historians determined project activities will not affect historic properties. In compliance with the Antiquities Code of Texas and the MOU, TxDOT historians determined project activities have no potential for adverse effects. Individual project coordination with SHPO is not required. Roadway extension project. NEGATIVE SURVEY.&nbsp; No historic properties in APE, therefore the project will have not affect.
In compliance with the Section 106 PA, TxDOT historians determined project activities will not affect historic properties. In compliance with the Antiquities Code of Texas and the MOU, TxDOT historians determined project activities have no potential for adverse effects. Individual project coordination with SHPO is not required. Roadway extension project. NEGATIVE SURVEY.&nbsp; No historic properties in APE, therefore the project will have not affect.
In compliance with the Section 106 PA, TxDOT historians determined project activities will not affect historic properties. In compliance with the Antiquities Code of Texas and the MOU, TxDOT historians determined project activities have no potential for adverse effects. Individual project coordination with SHPO is not required. Roadway extension project. NEGATIVE SURVEY.&nbsp; No historic properties in APE, therefore the project will have not affect.
The proposed project involves the following elements: Construct approximately 2.2 miles Sky Train from Terminal 3 to the Rental Car Center; construct a West Ground Transportation Center Sky Train Station (WGTC), including a platform, and a parking garage; construct a platform on the third level of the RCC for Sky Train; construct interim surface roads to accommodate the WGTC Sky Train station and parking facility; construct an electrical substation to power the train; construct a propulsion facility; and expand the Sky Train Maintenance Facility to accommodate additional train cars.
The proposed project involves the following elements: Construct approximately 2.2 miles Sky Train from Terminal 3 to the Rental Car Center; construct a West Ground Transportation Center Sky Train Station (WGTC), including a platform, and a parking garage; construct a platform on the third level of the RCC for Sky Train; construct interim surface roads to accommodate the WGTC Sky Train station and parking facility; construct an electrical substation to power the train; construct a propulsion facility; and expand the Sky Train Maintenance Facility to accommodate additional train cars.
The proposed project involves the following elements: Construct approximately 2.2 miles Sky Train from Terminal 3 to the Rental Car Center; construct a West Ground Transportation Center Sky Train Station (WGTC), including a platform, and a parking garage; construct a platform on the third level of the RCC for Sky Train; construct interim surface roads to accommodate the WGTC Sky Train station and parking facility; construct an electrical substation to power the train; construct a propulsion facility; and expand the Sky Train Maintenance Facility to accommodate additional train cars.
The proposed project involves the following elements: Construct approximately 2.2 miles Sky Train from Terminal 3 to the Rental Car Center; construct a West Ground Transportation Center Sky Train Station (WGTC), including a platform, and a parking garage; construct a platform on the third level of the RCC for Sky Train; construct interim surface roads to accommodate the WGTC Sky Train station and parking facility; construct an electrical substation to power the train; construct a propulsion facility; and expand the Sky Train Maintenance Facility to accommodate additional train cars.
The proposed project involves the following elements: Construct approximately 2.2 miles Sky Train from Terminal 3 to the Rental Car Center; construct a West Ground Transportation Center Sky Train Station (WGTC), including a platform, and a parking garage; construct a platform on the third level of the RCC for Sky Train; construct interim surface roads to accommodate the WGTC Sky Train station and parking facility; construct an electrical substation to power the train; construct a propulsion facility; and expand the Sky Train Maintenance Facility to accommodate additional train cars.
The proposed project involves the following elements: Construct approximately 2.2 miles Sky Train from Terminal 3 to the Rental Car Center; construct a West Ground Transportation Center Sky Train Station (WGTC), including a platform, and a parking garage; construct a platform on the third level of the RCC for Sky Train; construct interim surface roads to accommodate the WGTC Sky Train station and parking facility; construct an electrical substation to power the train; construct a propulsion facility; and expand the Sky Train Maintenance Facility to accommodate additional train cars.
The proposed project involves the following elements: Construct approximately 2.2 miles Sky Train from Terminal 3 to the Rental Car Center; construct a West Ground Transportation Center Sky Train Station (WGTC), including a platform, and a parking garage; construct a platform on the third level of the RCC for Sky Train; construct interim surface roads to accommodate the WGTC Sky Train station and parking facility; construct an electrical substation to power the train; construct a propulsion facility; and expand the Sky Train Maintenance Facility to accommodate additional train cars.
The proposed project involves the following elements: Construct approximately 2.2 miles Sky Train from Terminal 3 to the Rental Car Center; construct a West Ground Transportation Center Sky Train Station (WGTC), including a platform, and a parking garage; construct a platform on the third level of the RCC for Sky Train; construct interim surface roads to accommodate the WGTC Sky Train station and parking facility; construct an electrical substation to power the train; construct a propulsion facility; and expand the Sky Train Maintenance Facility to accommodate additional train cars.
The proposed project involves the following elements: Construct approximately 2.2 miles Sky Train from Terminal 3 to the Rental Car Center; construct a West Ground Transportation Center Sky Train Station (WGTC), including a platform, and a parking garage; construct a platform on the third level of the RCC for Sky Train; construct interim surface roads to accommodate the WGTC Sky Train station and parking facility; construct an electrical substation to power the train; construct a propulsion facility; and expand the Sky Train Maintenance Facility to accommodate additional train cars.
added for reporting purpose
added for reporting purpose
added for reporting purpose
Project initiated before this was a requirement
Project initiated before this was a requirement
Project initiated before this was a requirement
Awaiting funding, project on pause since 2017.
Awaiting funding, project on pause since 2017.
Awaiting funding, project on pause since 2017.
FRA is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Project pursuant to NEPA and has coordinated the NEPA process with consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.&nbsp; FRA, along with the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office and the New York State Historic Preservation Office, as the result of the Section 106 consultation process, has determined that it is appropriate to enter into a Programmatic Agreement. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has elected to participate in the consultation process and is a signatory to the Programmatic Agreement.&nbsp; Other agencies who have elected to participate in the consultation process as an invited signatory to the Programmatic Agreement include the Federal Transit Administration and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
FRA is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Project pursuant to NEPA and has coordinated the NEPA process with consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.&nbsp; FRA, along with the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office and the New York State Historic Preservation Office, as the result of the Section 106 consultation process, has determined that it is appropriate to enter into a Programmatic Agreement. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has elected to participate in the consultation process and is a signatory to the Programmatic Agreement.&nbsp; Other agencies who have elected to participate in the consultation process as an invited signatory to the Programmatic Agreement include the Federal Transit Administration and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
FRA is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Project pursuant to NEPA and has coordinated the NEPA process with consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.&nbsp; FRA, along with the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office and the New York State Historic Preservation Office, as the result of the Section 106 consultation process, has determined that it is appropriate to enter into a Programmatic Agreement. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has elected to participate in the consultation process and is a signatory to the Programmatic Agreement.&nbsp; Other agencies who have elected to participate in the consultation process as an invited signatory to the Programmatic Agreement include the Federal Transit Administration and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
added per reporting requirement
added per reporting requirement
added per reporting requirement
to be rescinded
to be rescinded
to be rescinded
A Department of the Army permit is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for construction activities in, over and under navigable waters of the United States and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for discharges of dredged or fill material in conjunction with the Vineyard Wind Project.
A Department of the Army permit is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for construction activities in, over and under navigable waters of the United States and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for discharges of dredged or fill material in conjunction with the Vineyard Wind Project.
A Department of the Army permit is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for construction activities in, over and under navigable waters of the United States and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for discharges of dredged or fill material in conjunction with the Vineyard Wind Project.
A Department of the Army permit is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for construction activities in, over and under navigable waters of the United States and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for discharges of dredged or fill material in conjunction with the Vineyard Wind Project.
EA for Runway Extension and other airport development
EA for Runway Extension and other airport development
EA for Runway Extension and other airport development
EA for Runway Extension and other airport development
EA for Runway Extension and other airport development
EA for Runway Extension and other airport development
EA for Runway Extension and other airport development
EA for Runway Extension and other airport development
EA for Runway Extension and other airport development
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for replacement of the passenger terminal building subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.&nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for replacement of the passenger terminal building subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.&nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for replacement of the passenger terminal building subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.&nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for replacement of the passenger terminal building subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.&nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for replacement of the passenger terminal building subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.&nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for replacement of the passenger terminal building subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.&nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for replacement of the passenger terminal building subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.&nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for replacement of the passenger terminal building subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.&nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for replacement of the passenger terminal building subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.&nbsp;
The Fort Worth Alliance Airport (AFW) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to facilitate the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) review and consideration of “West Side Air Cargo Development”, which is a Developer-Led connection to the future Taxiway P extension and related operations.
The Fort Worth Alliance Airport (AFW) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to facilitate the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) review and consideration of “West Side Air Cargo Development”, which is a Developer-Led connection to the future Taxiway P extension and related operations.
The Fort Worth Alliance Airport (AFW) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to facilitate the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) review and consideration of “West Side Air Cargo Development”, which is a Developer-Led connection to the future Taxiway P extension and related operations.
The Fort Worth Alliance Airport (AFW) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to facilitate the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) review and consideration of “West Side Air Cargo Development”, which is a Developer-Led connection to the future Taxiway P extension and related operations.
The Fort Worth Alliance Airport (AFW) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to facilitate the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) review and consideration of “West Side Air Cargo Development”, which is a Developer-Led connection to the future Taxiway P extension and related operations.
The Fort Worth Alliance Airport (AFW) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to facilitate the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) review and consideration of “West Side Air Cargo Development”, which is a Developer-Led connection to the future Taxiway P extension and related operations.
The Fort Worth Alliance Airport (AFW) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to facilitate the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) review and consideration of “West Side Air Cargo Development”, which is a Developer-Led connection to the future Taxiway P extension and related operations.
The Fort Worth Alliance Airport (AFW) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to facilitate the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) review and consideration of “West Side Air Cargo Development”, which is a Developer-Led connection to the future Taxiway P extension and related operations.
The Fort Worth Alliance Airport (AFW) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to facilitate the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) review and consideration of “West Side Air Cargo Development”, which is a Developer-Led connection to the future Taxiway P extension and related operations.
The proposed Project will be completed in two development phases, and include the demolition, reconstruction and rehabilitation of multiple buildings and associated infrastructure located on parcels on the west side of State Highway (SH) 360 between SH 183 and Trinity Boulevard in Fort Worth, Texas on DFW Airport property.
The proposed Project will be completed in two development phases, and include the demolition, reconstruction and rehabilitation of multiple buildings and associated infrastructure located on parcels on the west side of State Highway (SH) 360 between SH 183 and Trinity Boulevard in Fort Worth, Texas on DFW Airport property.
The proposed Project will be completed in two development phases, and include the demolition, reconstruction and rehabilitation of multiple buildings and associated infrastructure located on parcels on the west side of State Highway (SH) 360 between SH 183 and Trinity Boulevard in Fort Worth, Texas on DFW Airport property.
The proposed Project will be completed in two development phases, and include the demolition, reconstruction and rehabilitation of multiple buildings and associated infrastructure located on parcels on the west side of State Highway (SH) 360 between SH 183 and Trinity Boulevard in Fort Worth, Texas on DFW Airport property.
The proposed Project will be completed in two development phases, and include the demolition, reconstruction and rehabilitation of multiple buildings and associated infrastructure located on parcels on the west side of State Highway (SH) 360 between SH 183 and Trinity Boulevard in Fort Worth, Texas on DFW Airport property.
The proposed Project will be completed in two development phases, and include the demolition, reconstruction and rehabilitation of multiple buildings and associated infrastructure located on parcels on the west side of State Highway (SH) 360 between SH 183 and Trinity Boulevard in Fort Worth, Texas on DFW Airport property.
The proposed Project will be completed in two development phases, and include the demolition, reconstruction and rehabilitation of multiple buildings and associated infrastructure located on parcels on the west side of State Highway (SH) 360 between SH 183 and Trinity Boulevard in Fort Worth, Texas on DFW Airport property.
The proposed Project will be completed in two development phases, and include the demolition, reconstruction and rehabilitation of multiple buildings and associated infrastructure located on parcels on the west side of State Highway (SH) 360 between SH 183 and Trinity Boulevard in Fort Worth, Texas on DFW Airport property.
The proposed Project will be completed in two development phases, and include the demolition, reconstruction and rehabilitation of multiple buildings and associated infrastructure located on parcels on the west side of State Highway (SH) 360 between SH 183 and Trinity Boulevard in Fort Worth, Texas on DFW Airport property.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering actions requested by the Friedman Memorial Airport Authority (FMAA) to correct the non-standard conditions related to identified obstructions to airspace nearest the Runway 31 End (southern end of the Airport). Penetrations in the 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 Approach Surface and Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A Departure Surface (herein after “Approach and Departure Surfaces”) consists of approximately 200 trees (primarily cottonwoods). The Friedman Airport Layout Plan (ALP) illustrates the known obstructions that are individual trees or groups of trees. Any tree that penetrates the Approach and/or Departure Surfaces, or that have the potential to penetrate these surfaces will be removed under the Proposed Action after the acquisition of the land. The Proposed Action will ultimately transfer the ownership/control of the Runway 31’s Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) to the Airport; enhance the operational safety utilization of the Runway; and, protect the Airport’s instrument approaches.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering actions requested by the Friedman Memorial Airport Authority (FMAA) to correct the non-standard conditions related to identified obstructions to airspace nearest the Runway 31 End (southern end of the Airport). Penetrations in the 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 Approach Surface and Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A Departure Surface (herein after “Approach and Departure Surfaces”) consists of approximately 200 trees (primarily cottonwoods). The Friedman Airport Layout Plan (ALP) illustrates the known obstructions that are individual trees or groups of trees. Any tree that penetrates the Approach and/or Departure Surfaces, or that have the potential to penetrate these surfaces will be removed under the Proposed Action after the acquisition of the land. The Proposed Action will ultimately transfer the ownership/control of the Runway 31’s Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) to the Airport; enhance the operational safety utilization of the Runway; and, protect the Airport’s instrument approaches.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering actions requested by the Friedman Memorial Airport Authority (FMAA) to correct the non-standard conditions related to identified obstructions to airspace nearest the Runway 31 End (southern end of the Airport). Penetrations in the 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 Approach Surface and Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A Departure Surface (herein after “Approach and Departure Surfaces”) consists of approximately 200 trees (primarily cottonwoods). The Friedman Airport Layout Plan (ALP) illustrates the known obstructions that are individual trees or groups of trees. Any tree that penetrates the Approach and/or Departure Surfaces, or that have the potential to penetrate these surfaces will be removed under the Proposed Action after the acquisition of the land. The Proposed Action will ultimately transfer the ownership/control of the Runway 31’s Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) to the Airport; enhance the operational safety utilization of the Runway; and, protect the Airport’s instrument approaches.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering actions requested by the Friedman Memorial Airport Authority (FMAA) to correct the non-standard conditions related to identified obstructions to airspace nearest the Runway 31 End (southern end of the Airport). Penetrations in the 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 Approach Surface and Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A Departure Surface (herein after “Approach and Departure Surfaces”) consists of approximately 200 trees (primarily cottonwoods). The Friedman Airport Layout Plan (ALP) illustrates the known obstructions that are individual trees or groups of trees. Any tree that penetrates the Approach and/or Departure Surfaces, or that have the potential to penetrate these surfaces will be removed under the Proposed Action after the acquisition of the land. The Proposed Action will ultimately transfer the ownership/control of the Runway 31’s Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) to the Airport; enhance the operational safety utilization of the Runway; and, protect the Airport’s instrument approaches.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering actions requested by the Friedman Memorial Airport Authority (FMAA) to correct the non-standard conditions related to identified obstructions to airspace nearest the Runway 31 End (southern end of the Airport). Penetrations in the 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 Approach Surface and Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A Departure Surface (herein after “Approach and Departure Surfaces”) consists of approximately 200 trees (primarily cottonwoods). The Friedman Airport Layout Plan (ALP) illustrates the known obstructions that are individual trees or groups of trees. Any tree that penetrates the Approach and/or Departure Surfaces, or that have the potential to penetrate these surfaces will be removed under the Proposed Action after the acquisition of the land. The Proposed Action will ultimately transfer the ownership/control of the Runway 31’s Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) to the Airport; enhance the operational safety utilization of the Runway; and, protect the Airport’s instrument approaches.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering actions requested by the Friedman Memorial Airport Authority (FMAA) to correct the non-standard conditions related to identified obstructions to airspace nearest the Runway 31 End (southern end of the Airport). Penetrations in the 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 Approach Surface and Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A Departure Surface (herein after “Approach and Departure Surfaces”) consists of approximately 200 trees (primarily cottonwoods). The Friedman Airport Layout Plan (ALP) illustrates the known obstructions that are individual trees or groups of trees. Any tree that penetrates the Approach and/or Departure Surfaces, or that have the potential to penetrate these surfaces will be removed under the Proposed Action after the acquisition of the land. The Proposed Action will ultimately transfer the ownership/control of the Runway 31’s Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) to the Airport; enhance the operational safety utilization of the Runway; and, protect the Airport’s instrument approaches.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering actions requested by the Friedman Memorial Airport Authority (FMAA) to correct the non-standard conditions related to identified obstructions to airspace nearest the Runway 31 End (southern end of the Airport). Penetrations in the 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 Approach Surface and Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A Departure Surface (herein after “Approach and Departure Surfaces”) consists of approximately 200 trees (primarily cottonwoods). The Friedman Airport Layout Plan (ALP) illustrates the known obstructions that are individual trees or groups of trees. Any tree that penetrates the Approach and/or Departure Surfaces, or that have the potential to penetrate these surfaces will be removed under the Proposed Action after the acquisition of the land. The Proposed Action will ultimately transfer the ownership/control of the Runway 31’s Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) to the Airport; enhance the operational safety utilization of the Runway; and, protect the Airport’s instrument approaches.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering actions requested by the Friedman Memorial Airport Authority (FMAA) to correct the non-standard conditions related to identified obstructions to airspace nearest the Runway 31 End (southern end of the Airport). Penetrations in the 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 Approach Surface and Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A Departure Surface (herein after “Approach and Departure Surfaces”) consists of approximately 200 trees (primarily cottonwoods). The Friedman Airport Layout Plan (ALP) illustrates the known obstructions that are individual trees or groups of trees. Any tree that penetrates the Approach and/or Departure Surfaces, or that have the potential to penetrate these surfaces will be removed under the Proposed Action after the acquisition of the land. The Proposed Action will ultimately transfer the ownership/control of the Runway 31’s Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) to the Airport; enhance the operational safety utilization of the Runway; and, protect the Airport’s instrument approaches.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering actions requested by the Friedman Memorial Airport Authority (FMAA) to correct the non-standard conditions related to identified obstructions to airspace nearest the Runway 31 End (southern end of the Airport). Penetrations in the 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 Approach Surface and Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A Departure Surface (herein after “Approach and Departure Surfaces”) consists of approximately 200 trees (primarily cottonwoods). The Friedman Airport Layout Plan (ALP) illustrates the known obstructions that are individual trees or groups of trees. Any tree that penetrates the Approach and/or Departure Surfaces, or that have the potential to penetrate these surfaces will be removed under the Proposed Action after the acquisition of the land. The Proposed Action will ultimately transfer the ownership/control of the Runway 31’s Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) to the Airport; enhance the operational safety utilization of the Runway; and, protect the Airport’s instrument approaches.
EA for proposed projects identified in five year CIP.&nbsp; This includes rehabilitation and reconfiguration of RW 11/29, construction of a parallel taxiway, 5-23 and 11/29 as well as hangar development and flooding analysis.
EA for proposed projects identified in five year CIP.&nbsp; This includes rehabilitation and reconfiguration of RW 11/29, construction of a parallel taxiway, 5-23 and 11/29 as well as hangar development and flooding analysis.
EA for proposed projects identified in five year CIP.&nbsp; This includes rehabilitation and reconfiguration of RW 11/29, construction of a parallel taxiway, 5-23 and 11/29 as well as hangar development and flooding analysis.
EA for proposed projects identified in five year CIP.&nbsp; This includes Runway 5-23 Overlay, Taxiway Lighting and Property Acquisition for RPZ.
EA for proposed projects identified in five year CIP.&nbsp; This includes Runway 5-23 Overlay, Taxiway Lighting and Property Acquisition for RPZ.
EA for proposed projects identified in five year CIP.&nbsp; This includes Runway 5-23 Overlay, Taxiway Lighting and Property Acquisition for RPZ.
EA for proposed projects identified in five year CIP.&nbsp; This includes Runway 5-23 Overlay, Taxiway Lighting and Property Acquisition for RPZ.
EA for proposed projects identified in five year CIP.&nbsp; This includes Runway 5-23 Overlay, Taxiway Lighting and Property Acquisition for RPZ.
EA for proposed projects identified in five year CIP.&nbsp; This includes Runway 5-23 Overlay, Taxiway Lighting and Property Acquisition for RPZ.
EA for proposed projects identified in five year CIP.&nbsp; This includes Runway 5-23 Overlay, Taxiway Lighting and Property Acquisition for RPZ.
EA for proposed projects identified in five year CIP.&nbsp; This includes Runway 5-23 Overlay, Taxiway Lighting and Property Acquisition for RPZ.
EA for proposed projects identified in five year CIP.&nbsp; This includes Runway 5-23 Overlay, Taxiway Lighting and Property Acquisition for RPZ.
Construction of two new cargo processing facilities with space for up to three Group VI aircraft, including pavement, parking and roadway work; relocation and consolidation of existing cargo operations to the proposed new cargo area; realignment and reconstruction of Taxiways CA and CB to meet ADG VI standards, including marking and lighting.
Construction of two new cargo processing facilities with space for up to three Group VI aircraft, including pavement, parking and roadway work; relocation and consolidation of existing cargo operations to the proposed new cargo area; realignment and reconstruction of Taxiways CA and CB to meet ADG VI standards, including marking and lighting.
Construction of two new cargo processing facilities with space for up to three Group VI aircraft, including pavement, parking and roadway work; relocation and consolidation of existing cargo operations to the proposed new cargo area; realignment and reconstruction of Taxiways CA and CB to meet ADG VI standards, including marking and lighting.
Construction of two new cargo processing facilities with space for up to three Group VI aircraft, including pavement, parking and roadway work; relocation and consolidation of existing cargo operations to the proposed new cargo area; realignment and reconstruction of Taxiways CA and CB to meet ADG VI standards, including marking and lighting.
Construction of two new cargo processing facilities with space for up to three Group VI aircraft, including pavement, parking and roadway work; relocation and consolidation of existing cargo operations to the proposed new cargo area; realignment and reconstruction of Taxiways CA and CB to meet ADG VI standards, including marking and lighting.
Construction of two new cargo processing facilities with space for up to three Group VI aircraft, including pavement, parking and roadway work; relocation and consolidation of existing cargo operations to the proposed new cargo area; realignment and reconstruction of Taxiways CA and CB to meet ADG VI standards, including marking and lighting.
Construction of two new cargo processing facilities with space for up to three Group VI aircraft, including pavement, parking and roadway work; relocation and consolidation of existing cargo operations to the proposed new cargo area; realignment and reconstruction of Taxiways CA and CB to meet ADG VI standards, including marking and lighting.
Construction of two new cargo processing facilities with space for up to three Group VI aircraft, including pavement, parking and roadway work; relocation and consolidation of existing cargo operations to the proposed new cargo area; realignment and reconstruction of Taxiways CA and CB to meet ADG VI standards, including marking and lighting.
Construction of two new cargo processing facilities with space for up to three Group VI aircraft, including pavement, parking and roadway work; relocation and consolidation of existing cargo operations to the proposed new cargo area; realignment and reconstruction of Taxiways CA and CB to meet ADG VI standards, including marking and lighting.
State of AlaskaSection 106 Historic Preservation Act Consultation&nbsp;
State of AlaskaSection 106 Historic Preservation Act Consultation&nbsp;
State of AlaskaSection 106 Historic Preservation Act Consultation&nbsp;
Update:&nbsp;The NM Unit EIS was un-paused on 4/15/2020 after engineering and project funding issues were addressed. The project had been paused since 7/3/2019 due to multiple design changes from the action proponent. Reclamation coordinated with our Joint Lead Agency (New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission) prior to un-pausing of the project. The project sponsor was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting. Due to the limited time remaining, there is not an opportunity to make up time in the schedule. The agency CERPO is aware of the pause/un-pause of this project.

On July 3, 2019, the Action Proponent modified the proposed action. The&nbsp;permitting timetable for the&nbsp;EIS and&nbsp;Section 106 Review&nbsp;was designated as "paused" to reassess the potential impacts of the changes. Reclamation is working closely with the Action Proponent and work is continuing on the EIS during the reassessment of the revised proposed action
Update:&nbsp;The NM Unit EIS was un-paused on 4/15/2020 after engineering and project funding issues were addressed. The project had been paused since 7/3/2019 due to multiple design changes from the action proponent. Reclamation coordinated with our Joint Lead Agency (New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission) prior to un-pausing of the project. The project sponsor was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting. Due to the limited time remaining, there is not an opportunity to make up time in the schedule. The agency CERPO is aware of the pause/un-pause of this project.

On July 3, 2019, the Action Proponent modified the proposed action. The&nbsp;permitting timetable for the&nbsp;EIS and&nbsp;Section 106 Review&nbsp;was designated as "paused" to reassess the potential impacts of the changes. Reclamation is working closely with the Action Proponent and work is continuing on the EIS during the reassessment of the revised proposed action
Update:&nbsp;The NM Unit EIS was un-paused on 4/15/2020 after engineering and project funding issues were addressed. The project had been paused since 7/3/2019 due to multiple design changes from the action proponent. Reclamation coordinated with our Joint Lead Agency (New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission) prior to un-pausing of the project. The project sponsor was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting. Due to the limited time remaining, there is not an opportunity to make up time in the schedule. The agency CERPO is aware of the pause/un-pause of this project.

On July 3, 2019, the Action Proponent modified the proposed action. The&nbsp;permitting timetable for the&nbsp;EIS and&nbsp;Section 106 Review&nbsp;was designated as "paused" to reassess the potential impacts of the changes. Reclamation is working closely with the Action Proponent and work is continuing on the EIS during the reassessment of the revised proposed action
Update:&nbsp;The NM Unit EIS was un-paused on 4/15/2020 after engineering and project funding issues were addressed. The project had been paused since 7/3/2019 due to multiple design changes from the action proponent. Reclamation coordinated with our Joint Lead Agency (New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission) prior to un-pausing of the project. The project sponsor was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting. Due to the limited time remaining, there is not an opportunity to make up time in the schedule. The agency CERPO is aware of the pause/un-pause of this project.

On July 3, 2019, the Action Proponent modified the proposed action. The&nbsp;permitting timetable for the&nbsp;EIS and&nbsp;Section 106 Review&nbsp;was designated as "paused" to reassess the potential impacts of the changes. Reclamation is working closely with the Action Proponent and work is continuing on the EIS during the reassessment of the revised proposed action
Update:&nbsp;The NM Unit EIS was un-paused on 4/15/2020 after engineering and project funding issues were addressed. The project had been paused since 7/3/2019 due to multiple design changes from the action proponent. Reclamation coordinated with our Joint Lead Agency (New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission) prior to un-pausing of the project. The project sponsor was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting. Due to the limited time remaining, there is not an opportunity to make up time in the schedule. The agency CERPO is aware of the pause/un-pause of this project.

On July 3, 2019, the Action Proponent modified the proposed action. The&nbsp;permitting timetable for the&nbsp;EIS and&nbsp;Section 106 Review&nbsp;was designated as "paused" to reassess the potential impacts of the changes. Reclamation is working closely with the Action Proponent and work is continuing on the EIS during the reassessment of the revised proposed action
Update:&nbsp;The NM Unit EIS was un-paused on 4/15/2020 after engineering and project funding issues were addressed. The project had been paused since 7/3/2019 due to multiple design changes from the action proponent. Reclamation coordinated with our Joint Lead Agency (New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission) prior to un-pausing of the project. The project sponsor was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting. Due to the limited time remaining, there is not an opportunity to make up time in the schedule. The agency CERPO is aware of the pause/un-pause of this project.

On July 3, 2019, the Action Proponent modified the proposed action. The&nbsp;permitting timetable for the&nbsp;EIS and&nbsp;Section 106 Review&nbsp;was designated as "paused" to reassess the potential impacts of the changes. Reclamation is working closely with the Action Proponent and work is continuing on the EIS during the reassessment of the revised proposed action
Update:&nbsp;The NM Unit EIS was un-paused on 4/15/2020 after engineering and project funding issues were addressed. The project had been paused since 7/3/2019 due to multiple design changes from the action proponent. Reclamation coordinated with our Joint Lead Agency (New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission) prior to un-pausing of the project. The project sponsor was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting. Due to the limited time remaining, there is not an opportunity to make up time in the schedule. The agency CERPO is aware of the pause/un-pause of this project.

On July 3, 2019, the Action Proponent modified the proposed action. The&nbsp;permitting timetable for the&nbsp;EIS and&nbsp;Section 106 Review&nbsp;was designated as "paused" to reassess the potential impacts of the changes. Reclamation is working closely with the Action Proponent and work is continuing on the EIS during the reassessment of the revised proposed action
Update:&nbsp;The NM Unit EIS was un-paused on 4/15/2020 after engineering and project funding issues were addressed. The project had been paused since 7/3/2019 due to multiple design changes from the action proponent. Reclamation coordinated with our Joint Lead Agency (New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission) prior to un-pausing of the project. The project sponsor was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting. Due to the limited time remaining, there is not an opportunity to make up time in the schedule. The agency CERPO is aware of the pause/un-pause of this project.

On July 3, 2019, the Action Proponent modified the proposed action. The&nbsp;permitting timetable for the&nbsp;EIS and&nbsp;Section 106 Review&nbsp;was designated as "paused" to reassess the potential impacts of the changes. Reclamation is working closely with the Action Proponent and work is continuing on the EIS during the reassessment of the revised proposed action
Update:&nbsp;The NM Unit EIS was un-paused on 4/15/2020 after engineering and project funding issues were addressed. The project had been paused since 7/3/2019 due to multiple design changes from the action proponent. Reclamation coordinated with our Joint Lead Agency (New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission) prior to un-pausing of the project. The project sponsor was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting. Due to the limited time remaining, there is not an opportunity to make up time in the schedule. The agency CERPO is aware of the pause/un-pause of this project.

On July 3, 2019, the Action Proponent modified the proposed action. The&nbsp;permitting timetable for the&nbsp;EIS and&nbsp;Section 106 Review&nbsp;was designated as "paused" to reassess the potential impacts of the changes. Reclamation is working closely with the Action Proponent and work is continuing on the EIS during the reassessment of the revised proposed action
Update:&nbsp;The NM Unit EIS was un-paused on 4/15/2020 after engineering and project funding issues were addressed. The project had been paused since 7/3/2019 due to multiple design changes from the action proponent. Reclamation coordinated with our Joint Lead Agency (New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission) prior to un-pausing of the project. The project sponsor was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting. Due to the limited time remaining, there is not an opportunity to make up time in the schedule. The agency CERPO is aware of the pause/un-pause of this project.

On July 3, 2019, the Action Proponent modified the proposed action. The&nbsp;permitting timetable for the&nbsp;EIS and&nbsp;Section 106 Review&nbsp;was designated as "paused" to reassess the potential impacts of the changes. Reclamation is working closely with the Action Proponent and work is continuing on the EIS during the reassessment of the revised proposed action
Update:&nbsp;The NM Unit EIS was un-paused on 4/15/2020 after engineering and project funding issues were addressed. The project had been paused since 7/3/2019 due to multiple design changes from the action proponent. Reclamation coordinated with our Joint Lead Agency (New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission) prior to un-pausing of the project. The project sponsor was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting. Due to the limited time remaining, there is not an opportunity to make up time in the schedule. The agency CERPO is aware of the pause/un-pause of this project.

On July 3, 2019, the Action Proponent modified the proposed action. The&nbsp;permitting timetable for the&nbsp;EIS and&nbsp;Section 106 Review&nbsp;was designated as "paused" to reassess the potential impacts of the changes. Reclamation is working closely with the Action Proponent and work is continuing on the EIS during the reassessment of the revised proposed action
This action milestone is dependent on the applicant's timely submittal of the Section 408 application and its completeness.
This action milestone is dependent on the applicant's timely submittal of the Section 408 application and its completeness.
This action milestone is dependent on the applicant's timely submittal of the Section 408 application and its completeness.
This action milestone is dependent on the applicant's timely submittal of the Section 408 application and its completeness.
This action milestone is dependent on the applicant's timely submittal of the Section 408 application and its completeness.
This action&nbsp;pertains to&nbsp;informal consultation with the UFWS, as required under Sec. 7 of the Endangered Species Act.&nbsp;
This action&nbsp;pertains to&nbsp;informal consultation with the UFWS, as required under Sec. 7 of the Endangered Species Act.&nbsp;
This action&nbsp;pertains to&nbsp;informal consultation with the UFWS, as required under Sec. 7 of the Endangered Species Act.&nbsp;
This action&nbsp;pertains to&nbsp;informal consultation with the UFWS, as required under Sec. 7 of the Endangered Species Act.&nbsp;
The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, owner of Bob Hope Hollywood Burbank Airport (BUR), is proposing to construct a replacement airline passenger terminal, aircraft parking apron, and related actions.&nbsp;This project will enhance airport safety.&nbsp;BUR’s existing terminal is located within the airport’s designated object free areas (OFA) and penetrates the airport’s primary surface (as outlined in 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace).&nbsp;The replacement terminal will address these issues.
The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, owner of Bob Hope Hollywood Burbank Airport (BUR), is proposing to construct a replacement airline passenger terminal, aircraft parking apron, and related actions.&nbsp;This project will enhance airport safety.&nbsp;BUR’s existing terminal is located within the airport’s designated object free areas (OFA) and penetrates the airport’s primary surface (as outlined in 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace).&nbsp;The replacement terminal will address these issues.
The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, owner of Bob Hope Hollywood Burbank Airport (BUR), is proposing to construct a replacement airline passenger terminal, aircraft parking apron, and related actions.&nbsp;This project will enhance airport safety.&nbsp;BUR’s existing terminal is located within the airport’s designated object free areas (OFA) and penetrates the airport’s primary surface (as outlined in 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace).&nbsp;The replacement terminal will address these issues.
The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, owner of Bob Hope Hollywood Burbank Airport (BUR), is proposing to construct a replacement airline passenger terminal, aircraft parking apron, and related actions.&nbsp;This project will enhance airport safety.&nbsp;BUR’s existing terminal is located within the airport’s designated object free areas (OFA) and penetrates the airport’s primary surface (as outlined in 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace).&nbsp;The replacement terminal will address these issues.
The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, owner of Bob Hope Hollywood Burbank Airport (BUR), is proposing to construct a replacement airline passenger terminal, aircraft parking apron, and related actions.&nbsp;This project will enhance airport safety.&nbsp;BUR’s existing terminal is located within the airport’s designated object free areas (OFA) and penetrates the airport’s primary surface (as outlined in 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace).&nbsp;The replacement terminal will address these issues.
The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, owner of Bob Hope Hollywood Burbank Airport (BUR), is proposing to construct a replacement airline passenger terminal, aircraft parking apron, and related actions.&nbsp;This project will enhance airport safety.&nbsp;BUR’s existing terminal is located within the airport’s designated object free areas (OFA) and penetrates the airport’s primary surface (as outlined in 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace).&nbsp;The replacement terminal will address these issues.
The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, owner of Bob Hope Hollywood Burbank Airport (BUR), is proposing to construct a replacement airline passenger terminal, aircraft parking apron, and related actions.&nbsp;This project will enhance airport safety.&nbsp;BUR’s existing terminal is located within the airport’s designated object free areas (OFA) and penetrates the airport’s primary surface (as outlined in 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace).&nbsp;The replacement terminal will address these issues.
The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, owner of Bob Hope Hollywood Burbank Airport (BUR), is proposing to construct a replacement airline passenger terminal, aircraft parking apron, and related actions.&nbsp;This project will enhance airport safety.&nbsp;BUR’s existing terminal is located within the airport’s designated object free areas (OFA) and penetrates the airport’s primary surface (as outlined in 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace).&nbsp;The replacement terminal will address these issues.
The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, owner of Bob Hope Hollywood Burbank Airport (BUR), is proposing to construct a replacement airline passenger terminal, aircraft parking apron, and related actions.&nbsp;This project will enhance airport safety.&nbsp;BUR’s existing terminal is located within the airport’s designated object free areas (OFA) and penetrates the airport’s primary surface (as outlined in 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace).&nbsp;The replacement terminal will address these issues.
The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, owner of Bob Hope Hollywood Burbank Airport (BUR), is proposing to construct a replacement airline passenger terminal, aircraft parking apron, and related actions.&nbsp;This project will enhance airport safety.&nbsp;BUR’s existing terminal is located within the airport’s designated object free areas (OFA) and penetrates the airport’s primary surface (as outlined in 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace).&nbsp;The replacement terminal will address these issues.
The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, owner of Bob Hope Hollywood Burbank Airport (BUR), is proposing to construct a replacement airline passenger terminal, aircraft parking apron, and related actions.&nbsp;This project will enhance airport safety.&nbsp;BUR’s existing terminal is located within the airport’s designated object free areas (OFA) and penetrates the airport’s primary surface (as outlined in 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace).&nbsp;The replacement terminal will address these issues.
Update: 4/27/2020-The NM Unit EIS was un-paused on 4/15/2020 after engineering and project funding issues were addressed. The project had been paused since 7/3/2019 due to multiple design changes from the action proponent. Reclamation coordinated with our Joint Lead Agency (New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission) prior to un-pausing of the project. The project sponsor was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting. Due to the limited time remaining, there is not an opportunity to make up time in the schedule. The agency CERPO is aware of the pause/un-pause of this project.

Project features changed summer 2018. FWS awaiting Biological Assessment.

On April 26 the FWS cancelled this action per&nbsp;BOR's 4/23 FR Termination notice for&nbsp;the project.
Update: 4/27/2020-The NM Unit EIS was un-paused on 4/15/2020 after engineering and project funding issues were addressed. The project had been paused since 7/3/2019 due to multiple design changes from the action proponent. Reclamation coordinated with our Joint Lead Agency (New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission) prior to un-pausing of the project. The project sponsor was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting. Due to the limited time remaining, there is not an opportunity to make up time in the schedule. The agency CERPO is aware of the pause/un-pause of this project.

Project features changed summer 2018. FWS awaiting Biological Assessment.

On April 26 the FWS cancelled this action per&nbsp;BOR's 4/23 FR Termination notice for&nbsp;the project.
Update: 4/27/2020-The NM Unit EIS was un-paused on 4/15/2020 after engineering and project funding issues were addressed. The project had been paused since 7/3/2019 due to multiple design changes from the action proponent. Reclamation coordinated with our Joint Lead Agency (New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission) prior to un-pausing of the project. The project sponsor was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting. Due to the limited time remaining, there is not an opportunity to make up time in the schedule. The agency CERPO is aware of the pause/un-pause of this project.

Project features changed summer 2018. FWS awaiting Biological Assessment.

On April 26 the FWS cancelled this action per&nbsp;BOR's 4/23 FR Termination notice for&nbsp;the project.
Update: 4/27/2020-The NM Unit EIS was un-paused on 4/15/2020 after engineering and project funding issues were addressed. The project had been paused since 7/3/2019 due to multiple design changes from the action proponent. Reclamation coordinated with our Joint Lead Agency (New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission) prior to un-pausing of the project. The project sponsor was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting. Due to the limited time remaining, there is not an opportunity to make up time in the schedule. The agency CERPO is aware of the pause/un-pause of this project.

Project features changed summer 2018. FWS awaiting Biological Assessment.

On April 26 the FWS cancelled this action per&nbsp;BOR's 4/23 FR Termination notice for&nbsp;the project.
FRN Cancellation notice: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-04-23/pdf/2021-08511.pdf
FRN Cancellation notice: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-04-23/pdf/2021-08511.pdf
FRN Cancellation notice: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-04-23/pdf/2021-08511.pdf
Updates 4/27/2020-The NM Unit EIS was un-paused on 4/15/2020 after engineering and project funding issues were addressed. The project had been paused since 7/3/2019 due to multiple design changes from the action proponent. Reclamation coordinated with our Joint Lead Agency (New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission) prior to un-pausing of the project. The project sponsor was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting. Due to the limited time remaining, there is not an opportunity to make up time in the schedule. The agency CERPO is aware of the pause/un-pause of this project.

FWCA Review will be integrated with the EIS.
Updates 4/27/2020-The NM Unit EIS was un-paused on 4/15/2020 after engineering and project funding issues were addressed. The project had been paused since 7/3/2019 due to multiple design changes from the action proponent. Reclamation coordinated with our Joint Lead Agency (New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission) prior to un-pausing of the project. The project sponsor was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting. Due to the limited time remaining, there is not an opportunity to make up time in the schedule. The agency CERPO is aware of the pause/un-pause of this project.

FWCA Review will be integrated with the EIS.
The Albuquerque District has&nbsp;determined that a Corps 404 permit is not required and informed the applicant via letter of this determination on 28 OCT 2019.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Albuquerque District has&nbsp;determined that a Corps 404 permit is not required and informed the applicant via letter of this determination on 28 OCT 2019.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Albuquerque District has&nbsp;determined that a Corps 404 permit is not required and informed the applicant via letter of this determination on 28 OCT 2019.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Albuquerque District has&nbsp;determined that a Corps 404 permit is not required and informed the applicant via letter of this determination on 28 OCT 2019.&nbsp;&nbsp;
A Record of Decision is dependent on the&nbsp;completion of the&nbsp;NEPA process, any required consultations, and permit actions.
A Record of Decision is dependent on the&nbsp;completion of the&nbsp;NEPA process, any required consultations, and permit actions.
A Record of Decision is dependent on the&nbsp;completion of the&nbsp;NEPA process, any required consultations, and permit actions.
A Record of Decision is dependent on the&nbsp;completion of the&nbsp;NEPA process, any required consultations, and permit actions.
A Record of Decision is dependent on the&nbsp;completion of the&nbsp;NEPA process, any required consultations, and permit actions.
A Record of Decision is dependent on the&nbsp;completion of the&nbsp;NEPA process, any required consultations, and permit actions.
A Record of Decision is dependent on the&nbsp;completion of the&nbsp;NEPA process, any required consultations, and permit actions.
A Record of Decision is dependent on the&nbsp;completion of the&nbsp;NEPA process, any required consultations, and permit actions.
A Record of Decision is dependent on the&nbsp;completion of the&nbsp;NEPA process, any required consultations, and permit actions.
A Record of Decision is dependent on the&nbsp;completion of the&nbsp;NEPA process, any required consultations, and permit actions.
A Record of Decision is dependent on the&nbsp;completion of the&nbsp;NEPA process, any required consultations, and permit actions.
Coos Bay Estuary supports a rich diversity of biological resources. Eelgrass supports an important community in Coos Bay. Of particular importance is the use of eelgrass beds as a nursery area by commercially important fishery organisms including salmon and Dungeness crab.&nbsp; ESA-listed species (under USFWS jurisdiction) within Coos Bay include marbled murrelet, spotted owl, and western snowy plover.
Coos Bay Estuary supports a rich diversity of biological resources. Eelgrass supports an important community in Coos Bay. Of particular importance is the use of eelgrass beds as a nursery area by commercially important fishery organisms including salmon and Dungeness crab.&nbsp; ESA-listed species (under USFWS jurisdiction) within Coos Bay include marbled murrelet, spotted owl, and western snowy plover.
Coos Bay Estuary supports a rich diversity of biological resources. Eelgrass supports an important community in Coos Bay. Of particular importance is the use of eelgrass beds as a nursery area by commercially important fishery organisms including salmon and Dungeness crab.&nbsp; ESA-listed species (under USFWS jurisdiction) within Coos Bay include marbled murrelet, spotted owl, and western snowy plover.
Coos Bay Estuary supports a rich diversity of biological resources. Eelgrass supports an important community in Coos Bay. Of particular importance is the use of eelgrass beds as a nursery area by commercially important fishery organisms including salmon and Dungeness crab.&nbsp; ESA-listed species (under USFWS jurisdiction) within Coos Bay include marbled murrelet, spotted owl, and western snowy plover.
Concurrence on Determination of Effect and Finding of Eligibility: No Adverse Effect.
Concurrence on Determination of Effect and Finding of Eligibility: No Adverse Effect.
Concurrence on Determination of Effect and Finding of Eligibility: No Adverse Effect.
FAA conducts Section 106 consultation for undertakings that could affect properties listed in or are eligible for National Register of Historic Places
FAA conducts Section 106 consultation for undertakings that could affect properties listed in or are eligible for National Register of Historic Places
FAA conducts Section 106 consultation for undertakings that could affect properties listed in or are eligible for National Register of Historic Places
Section 404 permitting for project impacts.
Section 404 permitting for project impacts.
Section 404 permitting for project impacts.
Section 404 permitting for project impacts.
Section 404 permitting for project impacts.
Section 404 permitting for project impacts.
Section 404 permitting for project impacts.
Section 404 permitting for project impacts.
Section 7 consultation for project impacts. Determination of No Effect processed under the Memorandum of Agreement between UDOT, FHWA Utah Division, and the USFWS Utah Field Office for Streamlining of Informal Section 7 Consultation, therefore a Letter of Concurrence is not required.
Section 7 consultation for project impacts. Determination of No Effect processed under the Memorandum of Agreement between UDOT, FHWA Utah Division, and the USFWS Utah Field Office for Streamlining of Informal Section 7 Consultation, therefore a Letter of Concurrence is not required.
Section 7 consultation for project impacts. Determination of No Effect processed under the Memorandum of Agreement between UDOT, FHWA Utah Division, and the USFWS Utah Field Office for Streamlining of Informal Section 7 Consultation, therefore a Letter of Concurrence is not required.
Section 7 consultation for project impacts. Determination of No Effect processed under the Memorandum of Agreement between UDOT, FHWA Utah Division, and the USFWS Utah Field Office for Streamlining of Informal Section 7 Consultation, therefore a Letter of Concurrence is not required.
Section 7 consultation for project impacts. Determination of No Effect processed under the Memorandum of Agreement between UDOT, FHWA Utah Division, and the USFWS Utah Field Office for Streamlining of Informal Section 7 Consultation, therefore a Letter of Concurrence is not required.
Section 7 consultation for project impacts. Determination of No Effect processed under the Memorandum of Agreement between UDOT, FHWA Utah Division, and the USFWS Utah Field Office for Streamlining of Informal Section 7 Consultation, therefore a Letter of Concurrence is not required.
Section 7 consultation for project impacts. Determination of No Effect processed under the Memorandum of Agreement between UDOT, FHWA Utah Division, and the USFWS Utah Field Office for Streamlining of Informal Section 7 Consultation, therefore a Letter of Concurrence is not required.
Section 7 consultation for project impacts. Determination of No Effect processed under the Memorandum of Agreement between UDOT, FHWA Utah Division, and the USFWS Utah Field Office for Streamlining of Informal Section 7 Consultation, therefore a Letter of Concurrence is not required.
Section 7 consultation for project impacts. Determination of No Effect processed under the Memorandum of Agreement between UDOT, FHWA Utah Division, and the USFWS Utah Field Office for Streamlining of Informal Section 7 Consultation, therefore a Letter of Concurrence is not required.
Section 7 consultation for project impacts. Determination of No Effect processed under the Memorandum of Agreement between UDOT, FHWA Utah Division, and the USFWS Utah Field Office for Streamlining of Informal Section 7 Consultation, therefore a Letter of Concurrence is not required. &nbsp;
Section 7 consultation for project impacts. Determination of No Effect processed under the Memorandum of Agreement between UDOT, FHWA Utah Division, and the USFWS Utah Field Office for Streamlining of Informal Section 7 Consultation, therefore a Letter of Concurrence is not required. &nbsp;
Section 7 consultation for project impacts. Determination of No Effect processed under the Memorandum of Agreement between UDOT, FHWA Utah Division, and the USFWS Utah Field Office for Streamlining of Informal Section 7 Consultation, therefore a Letter of Concurrence is not required. &nbsp;
Section 7 consultation for project impacts. Determination of No Effect processed under the Memorandum of Agreement between UDOT, FHWA Utah Division, and the USFWS Utah Field Office for Streamlining of Informal Section 7 Consultation, therefore a Letter of Concurrence is not required.
Section 7 consultation for project impacts. Determination of No Effect processed under the Memorandum of Agreement between UDOT, FHWA Utah Division, and the USFWS Utah Field Office for Streamlining of Informal Section 7 Consultation, therefore a Letter of Concurrence is not required.