Preferred Alternative. The CONSULTANT will finalize the preferred alternative concept plan by incorporating comments received from the Public Hearing process as directed by the DEPARTMENT.
Preferred Alternative. Based on the direction of the CLT and feedback from the Council, we will refine the preferred charrette alternative plans by incorporating comments from the summary and review in a call. We will review markups and sketches with the CLT and establish a preferred direction that will be refined as the master pln.
Preferred Alternative. Following the screening process, the Engineer shall coordinate with Broadwater County and BOR to identify the preferred alternative. Following selection, the Engineer shall develop a schematic design showing the preferred improvements to the Silos Recreation Area and recommended phasing. The schematic design will be adequately detailed to gain Broadwater County and BOR review and approval, to meet future grant/other funding application requirements, and to establish the standards and references to be used in future design plans. Construction-ready drawings or specifications will not be prepared for the Master Plan Task Order.
Preferred Alternative. The alternative identified by the Authority to best balance the tradeoffs between potential environmental or community impacts and high-speed system performance and cost factors on an end-to- end basis. ROD. Record of Decision: The final step in the NEPA environmental process.
Preferred Alternative. Alternative 4B Preferred Alternative 4B is a variation of the rejected Alternative 4A but also includes a Managed Lane Connector Ramp, which would connect the proposed I-80 Managed Lanes in the median at the 80/50 Interchange. Like rejected Alternative 4A, preferred Alternative 4B will include a High Occupancy Toll (HOT 3+) managed lane which would allow multi-occupancy vehicles of 3+ people to use the lane for no charge, while single occupancy vehicles (SOV) and multi-occupancy vehicles of 2 people would pay a toll to use the lane. For both westbound and eastbound traffic, the HOT lanes would require a transition into the existing HOV 2+ lanes in the vicinity of I-80 at the Solano/Yolo County line, the I-5 / US 50 Interchange and the I-80/West El Camino Road Interchange. Preferred Alternative 4B includes all the improvements described in the “Scope of Work Shared with All Alternatives”, “HOT Lane Scope of Work”, and “Managed Lane Connector Ramp Scope of Work” sections. Hours of operation, access design consideration, and tolling methodology would be determined in the Concept of Operations, which will be conducted during the design phase. Median enforcement areas will also be identified in the design phase. Other Alternatives Considered but Rejected: Alternatives 2A through 7A Rejected Alternatives 2A through 6A differ primarily by type of managed lane proposed, while rejected Alternative 7A involves converting an existing lane to a managed lane. This section describes the unique aspects for each of these six alternatives resulting from the managed lane type, and all improvements in common are listed in the “Scope of Work Shared with All Alternatives” section. Alternative 2A Rejected Alternative 2A includes all improvements listed in the “Scope of Work Shared with All Alternatives” section and a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) managed lane which would allow multi-occupancy vehicles of 2+ people. This rejected alternative requires additional consideration of a signing strategy of both median overhead signs and median barrier mounted roadside signs. The HOV 2+ managed lane will be designed as a part-time contiguous managed lane. The hours of operation will be determined during the design phase. The design will not have a buffer separation from the adjacent general-purpose lanes with traffic free to enter and exit throughout its length. This will allow the managed lane to revert back to a general-purpose lane after the part-time HOV 2+ hours of operation. It is ...
Preferred Alternative. As a result of early comments from NCPC staff in NEPA scoping comments and in subsequent conversations with NCPC and SHPO, the design team developed Alternative 2 with the goal of minimizing or eliminating adverse indirect effects on historic properties (Attachment 2). Developed with input from the Chinese design team, this alternative responds to comments related to the potential adverse visual effect of the pagoda element of the National China Garden on historic properties. This alternative places the pagoda at a slightly higher elevation than the Alternative 1 and within the wooded area to the west of the existing clearing.
Preferred Alternative. Direct Effects USNA There will be direct adverse effects on the USNA as a result of Alternative 2. The direct adverse effects will be caused by the removal of a section of Meadow Road N.E. between Xxxxx Spring Road N.E, and Conifer Road N.E. and the removal of a section of Conifer Road N.E. between Xxxxx Spring Road N.E. and Meadow Road N.E. The two roads are part of the USNA Road System, which is a contributing element of the USNA. The removal of sections of Meadow Road and Conifer Road N.E. will alter the original planners’ conception and design, which was a singular statement, and will specifically alter two of the major circulatory routes the designers included for visitors to view and reach the Xxxxxxx Dwarf Conifer Collection, the Dogwood Collection, the Asian Collections, and the Xxxxxx Hill Overlook when heading east, and to view and reach the center of the USNA when heading west. The Road System is an aesthetic route, designed to follow the natural topography of the site and to highlight the scenic views and collections of the USNA. Since completion in 1958, there have been only small alterations to the system, all occurring at minor roads between 1980 and 1983, such as the removal of a short road with turnabout leading to the greenhouses, removal of a short road with turnabout to the east of the M Street entrance, removal of a short road leading off Beechwood Road near Ellipse Road, and the shortening of the northern road leading from the Kingman Lake Overlook (USDA 1980, 1983). Overall, the road system has retained its integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association. Other Historic Properties There will be no direct adverse effects on the other historic properties as a result of the Alternative 2 because there will be no physical alterations to those historic properties. Indirect Effects USNA There will be no indirect adverse effects to the visual resources and visual character (pages 8-9) of the USNA as a result of Alternative 2. Alternative 2 was developed as a result of direct communication with SHPO and NCPC staff and represents an effort to minimize or eliminate visual effects on elements within the USNA by placing the pagoda within the trees and to the west of its location in Alternative 1. The visual analysis (see earlier subsection) and accompanying visualizations (Attachment 4) demonstrate that the pagoda’s placement does not block the contributing Xxxxxx Xxxx Overlook element and is tucked into, and obscured by, the hi...
Preferred Alternative. FHWA screened the range of alternatives against criteria for purpose and need and technical criteria to identify reasonable alternatives for detailed study in the Draft EIS. Based on these screening criteria and subsequent detailed evaluations, FHWA has identified a Preferred Alternative. The preferred approach route to the proposed Knik Arm Bridge on the Mat-Su side is Point MacKenzie Road from the intersection with Burma Road south to the Port MacKenzie District and connecting to the Northern Access Alternative through the port district. FHWA chose this route because it would avoid wetlands, would not impact Port MacKenzie operations, and is favored by Mat-Su Borough and Port MacKenzie officials. The proposed Southern Alignment is the preferred route for the bridge to cross Knik Arm. The Southern Alignment, with its accompanying Below-the-Bluff Roadway on the Anchorage approach, would be the most technically feasible and practical alignment that would avoid the Cairn Point Trench (a submarine trough), would not impact military mission and operations at Elmendorf, and would minimize potential impacts to beluga whales that congregate in areas of Knik Arm further to the north. An 8,200-foot-long pier-supported bridge is preferred over a 14,000-foot-long bridge because a shorter bridge would require fewer piers, result in less construction noise and pile driving impacts that might adversely affect beluga whales and marine fishes, would require shorter in- water construction time, and would have substantially lower construction costs. The preferred Anchorage approach to the proposed bridge would be a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill, along either of the proposed Xxxxx or Xxxxxxxx Street alignments, to connect initially to the A-C Couplet, and ultimately to the Xxxxx-Xxxxxxx Couplet. All reasonable alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIS are under consideration and have been developed to a comparable level of detail. Final identification of a Recommended Alternative will not occur until the alternatives, impacts, written comments on the Draft EIS, and comments received at the public hearings have been fully evaluated and considered. The Recommended Alternative will be provided in the Final EIS.
Preferred Alternative. Much of the general management direction in Alternative A would continue, although some specific directions and actions occurring under current management would be altered or not pursued in this alternative. As in Alternatives B and C, clearer goals and objectives for increasing our knowledge of wildlife and habitat needs and relationships would be established. Public use monitoring would facilitate wildlife-dependent recreation, subsistence, and other traditional uses. Voluntary guidelines for public use of bear-concentration areas would be developed. These guidelines would replace use restrictions on special use permits issued to commercial users. Day-use-only restrictions could be proposed for some bear-concentration areas based on, on-going evaluation of the effectiveness of voluntary use guidelines in these areas. One bear- xxxxxxx area would be closed to snowmachine use by regulation. Seven public use cabins would be maintained, two additional cabins would be constructed, and cabins on newly acquired land would be managed for public use, if located on appropriate sites. Regulations would be adopted to restrict camping near public use cabins and administrative facilities. Food- storage containers, latrines, temporary electric fences, and other minor improvements could be provided if needed at popular camping areas to reduce impacts. The X’Xxxxxx River closure would be modified to allow a formal bear-viewing program combining agency-supervised use (allocated to the public by lottery) with guided use (offered to the public by qualified guides selected through a competitive process and operating under a Refuge special use permit). The Moderate Management category would be reduced by 30,946 acres; the acreage in Minimal Management would increase by an equivalent amount. The Special River Management category would be eliminated. Dated: October 13, 2004. Xxxxx X. Xxxxx, Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. [FR Doc. 04–23832 Filed 10–22–04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–M DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [CO–800–1120–PG–241A] Notice of Public Comment Deadline Extension; Correction AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior; Forest Service, Agriculture. ACTION: Notice; correction.
Preferred Alternative. On March 21, 2019, the PDT evaluated the alternatives under consideration and identified the Build (Preferred) Alternative as the Preferred Alternative (PA) for the SR-91 Improvement Project. As part of the evaluation, considerations were given to the project purpose and need; input from the public and government agencies; local, regional, state, and federal goals and policies; as well as environmental, social, and economic impacts. After reviewing these factors, seven evaluation criteria were established to compare the alternatives, as shown in Table 16. The PDT also determined a weight factor for each of the evaluation criteria based on the relative importance that was applied to the final score. The alternatives were then compared and ranked for their relative performance, and the scores were computed. Table 16: Alternative Evaluation Evaluation Criteria W(1) Performance Ranking Score No Build Build No Build Build 1 Improve Capacity EB from SR-57 to SR-55 3 1 2 3 6
