Project Alternatives Sample Clauses

Project Alternatives. This chapter gives a description of the Project details of the proposed Project, alternative options, designs and implementation strategies.  Chapter 5: Policy, Legal and Institutional Framework: This chapter outlines the overview of legislative framework, regulatory, international guidelines and conventions relevant to this project.  Chapter 6: Stakeholder Consultation: ‘This Chapter gives description of the objectives, methods used and summary of results of the public consultation activities.  Chapter 7: Environmental and Social impacts Assessment and mitigation measures: This chapter presents the analysis of beneficial and adverse impacts of the Project on the biophysical and human (social, cultural and economic) environments. The analysis covers anticipated impacts during the construction, operation phases and decommissioning phases and also describes the enhancement and mitigation measures proposed to enhance benefits or prevent, minimize, mitigate or compensate for adverse impacts as well as the estimated cost of mitigation.  Chapter 8: Environmental and Social Management and Monitoring Plan: This Chapter presents the Environmental and Social Management and Monitoring Plan prepared for the project.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3
Project Alternatives. CONSULTANT will provide an analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives to the preferred project that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the preferred project. CONSULTANT proposes to evaluate alternatives, developed in close cooperation with the County of Humboldt. The alternatives will include a road diet on Central Avenue not being included, maintaining one parameter wetlands, and a reduced scale alternative that would limit development to two story buildings. A No Project alternative, which will assume that the proposed project will not be rezoned, must be addressed. The EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative and, if that is the no-project alternative, the environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. CONSULTANT will address cumulative effects using the “full build out” method in which impacts are considered in the context of the anticipated development over their current planning period. Any reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative effects will be identified.
Sample 1Sample 2
Project Alternatives. This PA is intended to cover all build alternatives for the above-listed project types, as well as the no-build alternative. If one or more alternatives are not included in the list of project types above, VDOT and FHWA Virginia Division will coordinate to determine the applicability of the PA to that alternative(s). It may be that one alternative that is covered by the PA would effectively represent the worst-case for all of the alternatives, e.g., if one alternative has more congested conditions than the others. Project Types Not Covered by This PA: Examples of project types that are not specifically covered by this PA include but are not limited to: park and ride lots, parking garages, new intermodal transfer yards, tunnels, intersections that have more than four legs, and intersections with approach speeds less than 15 mph. If a project type is not covered by the PA, project-specific air quality modeling may be needed. For those project types and conditions where applicability of this PA is not certain, VDOT and FHWA Virginia Division will coordinate to determine its applicability. Discretionary Modeling of Projects Otherwise Covered by this PA: This PA does not preclude VDOT from conducting, at its discretion, project-specific modeling for CO for any project, even if the project would otherwise meet the criteria established in this agreement and therefore not require such modeling. Examples of such projects include (but are not limited to) ones for which an environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared and ones that may be considered higher profile, i.e., that involve or may involve a greater degree of public and/or stakeholder interest. Years of Analysis: This PA is based on modeling for a project opening year of 2015, so it covers projects of the types and conditions listed above whose opening year (year of completion) is 2015 or later.
Sample 1
Project Alternatives. The project alternatives crossing Tongass Narrows to provide access to Xxxxxxx Island are shown in Figure 3.
Sample 1
Project Alternatives. Summary of Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts
Sample 1
Project Alternatives. The Project prioritisation was undertaken during the conduct of the Feasibility Study (FS) in 2014 by a different consultant. This has been re-evaluated during the preparation of the Detailed Design Report. During FS conducted by a different consultant in 2014, all available investment proposals and other identified proposals were reviewed, in conjunction with AWSB, and the WSPs. Out of this process, a total of 68 project proposals in the satellite towns of Nairobi were identified and assessed. Based on a further analysis based on five main criteria; target area, overall water supply and sanitation situation, poverty reduction, cost efficiency and performance of the WSP, a total of 25 projects, dubbed “last mile investments” that build on existing investments (e.g. water sources available but no network) were prioritized for further studies and implementation. The Ruiru – Juja Water Supply Project (RJ01) is one of the two projects out of the 25 that have been selected for financing during the current first project phase. Alternative water supply projects within the project area were also assessed to ensure complementarity where possible and maximisation of benefits. All the relevant national and county policies, laws, regulations and institutions were reviewed and discussed to ensure total compliance with the governing laws and regulations as well as contributing towards achievement of the objectives of the operational policies. Liaison with the identified relevant institutions will further contribute towards the success of the proposed project. The identified national policies, laws and guidelines include: • Vision 2030; • Session Paper No.10 of 2014 on the National Environment Policy, 2014; • National Water Policy; • The Constitution of Kenya; • The Environment Management and Coordination Act, 1999 (and the amendments of 2015); • The Water Act, 2016; • The Public Health Act (Cap. 242); • Employment Act, 2007; • Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA); • The Occupational Safety and Health Act, 2007; • Land Act, 2012 and the 2016 Amendments; and • Kiambu County Water and Sanitation Services Act, 2015. Lenders’ environmental and social guidelines such as the KfW Sustainability Guidelines and World Bank Environmental and Social Framework were also reviewed and incorporated in the assessment to ensure that implementation of the proposed project is in conformity with their environmental and social requirements. In particular, an assessment based on the KfW guidelines ...
Sample 1
Project Alternatives. The purpose of this task is to have the CONSULTANT identify, develop, and compare alternatives before making recommendations to assist the CITY in deciding which alternative is preferred. CONSULTANT may need to review and analyze additional information provided by the CITY, verify previous assumptions, visit the RWF to confirm site conditions, conduct condition assessments (if deemed necessary) and perform additional analyses before making recommendations to the CITY. Condition assessments could include structural assessments of the facilities that may require confined space entry. CONSULTANT will be required to provide its own rescue services. CONSULTANT shall prepare reports documenting additional analyses such as hydraulics, and odor control. CONSULTANT will identify and develop alternatives for the Headworks Improvements and New Headworks parts of the PROJECT. CONSULTANT will then perform a triple bottom line business case analysis for all alternatives using a Class 5 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC) also prepared by CONSULTANT. The OPCCs will be prepared to a level of accuracy consistent with the standards of the AACE International. The CONSULTANT’s recommended alternatives will be documented in memorandum that is submitted and presented to the CITY.
Sample 1
Project Alternatives. This PA is intended to cover all build alternatives for the above-listed projects, as well as the no-build alternative. If one or more alternatives are not included in the list of project types above, STATE DOT and STATE Division of FHWA will coordinate to determine the applicability of the PA to that alternative(s). It may be that one alternative that is covered by the PA would effectively represent the worst-case for all of the alternatives, e.g., if one alternative has more congested conditions than the others. As appropriate and as both agencies agree, other agencies (such as the Regional EPA office or the STATE Air Agency) may be brought in to assist in the coordination. Project Types Not Covered by This PA: Examples of project types that are not specifically covered by this PA include but are not limited to: park and ride lots, parking garages, new intermodal transfer yards, tunnels, intersections that have more than four legs, and intersections with approach speeds less than 15 mph. If a project type is not covered by the PA, project-specific air quality modeling may be needed. For those project types and conditions where applicability of this PA is not certain, STATE DOT and STATE Division of FHWA will coordinate to determine the applicability. As appropriate and as both agencies agree, other agencies (such as the Regional EPA office or the STATE Air Agency) may be brought in to assist in the coordination. Years of Analysis: This PA covers projects of the types and conditions listed above whose opening year (year of completion) is 2015 or later.
Sample 1
Project Alternatives. ICF will draft a final project description and set of project alternatives for use in preparing the EIR in collaboration with County staff. ICF will prepare three alternatives to the project, including the no- project alternative. The no-project alternative will consist of a scenario in which the existing general plan is implemented without the proposed TGPA and ZOU. The other two alternatives will consist of variations of the project that meet most of the objectives of the project, are consistent with the general plan (or at least consistent with the general plan as it would be amended by the project in the case of zoning ordinance-based variations), and that would reduce one or more significant impacts of the project. As provided under CEQA, the alternatives will be examined at a lesser level of detail than the project itself. These alternatives are not intended to analyze the ZOU options (which are being analyzed as part of the project), but may include variations on those options.
Sample 1