DOCSLIB.ORG

I-29 - Exit 62 to Exit 73 INTERSTATE Corridor Study 29

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
I-29 - Exit 62 to Exit 73 INTERSTATE Corridor Study 29 July 2018 I-29 - Exit 62 to Exit 73 INTERSTATE Corridor Study 29 Project No: HP 5596 19 prepared for: South Dakota Department of Transportation 700 East Broadway Avenue Pierre, SD 57501 I-29 Exit 62 to Exit 73 Corridor Study Lincoln County, SD Project No: HP 5596 19 Prepared for: South Dakota Department of Transportation 700 East Broadway Avenue Pierre, SD 57501 Prepared by: Felsburg Holt and Ullevig 11422 Miracle Hills Drive, Suite 115 Omaha, NE 68154 402-445-4405 In Association with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Principal-in-Charge / Project Manager: Kyle Anderson, PE, PTOE Deputy Project Manager: Mark Meisinger, PE, PTOE FHU Reference No. 17-089 July 2018 The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant(s) from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, under the State Planning and Research Program, Section 505 [or Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(f)] of Title 23, U.S. Code. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT) provides services without regard to race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age or disability, according to the provisions contained in SDCL 20-13, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 1994. To request additional information on the SDDOT’s Title VI/Nondiscrimination policy or to file a discrimination complaint, please contact the Department’s Civil Rights Office at 605-773-3540. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1-1 1.1 Project Description and Location --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-1 1.2 Project Background --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-1 1.3 Purpose and Need for the Project -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-3 1.4 Stakeholder Involvement ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-3 1.5 Study Advisory Team ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-4 1.6 Study Process ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-4 1.7 Planning Context and Previous Studies -------------------------------------------------------------- 1-6 2.0 2017 EXISTING CONDITIONS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-1 2.1 Existing Facility and Roadway Network-------------------------------------------------------------- 2-1 2.2 Description of Existing Interchanges ----------------------------------------------------------------- 2-2 2.3 Existing Land Use ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2-3 2.4 2017 Existing Traffic Volumes -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-3 2.5 2017 Existing Operational Analysis ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-7 2.6 Crash History and Safety Analysis ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-12 2.7 Safety Hot Spot Analysis------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-20 2.8 Intelligent Transportation Systems ----------------------------------------------------------------- 2-25 2.9 Incident, Weather, and Special Event Analysis -------------------------------------------------- 2-26 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-1 3.1 Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3-1 3.2 Socioeconomic Considerations and Environmental Justice ------------------------------------ 3-4 3.3 Wetlands, Waters of the US, and Waters of the state ----------------------------------------- 3-12 3.4 Floodplain Management ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3-13 3.5 Water Quality -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-14 3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species and Other Protected Wildlife ----------------------- 3-15 3.7 Cultural Resources -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-18 3.8 Public Use Properties (Section 4(f) and 6(f)) ----------------------------------------------------- 3-20 3.9 Contaminated Materials Review -------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-21 3.10 Farmland -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-24 3.11 Airports and Heliports --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-25 4.0 2045 NO BUILD TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-1 4.1 2045 Daily Traffic Forecasting Methodology ------------------------------------------------------- 4-1 4.2 Annual Change in Traffic – Alternate Sources ----------------------------------------------------- 4-3 4.3 I-29/85th Street Interchange Justification Report Traffic ---------------------------------------- 4-7 4.4 Composite 2045 Daily Traffic -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-7 4.5 2045 Peak Hour Traffic Forecasts ------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-10 4.6 2045 No-Build Operational Analysis ---------------------------------------------------------------- 4-13 4.7 2045 No-Build with Highway 100 Operational Analysis --------------------------------------- 4-18 4.8 2017 Existing / 2045 No-Build Worst Case Summary ------------------------------------------ 4-22 5.0 INTERIM ANALYSIS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-1 5.1 Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5-1 5.2 Interim Analysis Methodology ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-1 5.3 Interim Analysis Results --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-2 6.0 I-29 MAINLINE SOLUTIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6-1 6.1 Identification of Solutions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6-1 Table of Contents Page i 6.2 Roadway Design Criteria -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6-2 6.3 2045 Build Operational Analysis----------------------------------------------------------------------- 6-2 6.4 2045 Build with Highway 100 Operational Analysis ---------------------------------------------- 6-8 6.5 Typical Cross Sections ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6-12 6.6 Pavement Replacement Needs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 6-16 6.7 Summary of Mainline and Ramp Needs ----------------------------------------------------------- 6-17 6.8 Potential Intelligent Transportation Systems Solutions --------------------------------------- 6-20 6.9 Predictive Method Crash Prediction --------------------------------------------------------------- 6-21 6.10 Construction Cost estimate --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6-22 7.0 EXIT 64 INTERCHANGE SOLUTIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7-1 7.1 Identification of Solutions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7-1 7.2 Roadway Design Criteria -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7-1 7.3 Alternatives Screening Process ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7-2 7.4 Interchange Alternatives Descriptions --------------------------------------------------------------- 7-5 7.5 2045 Build Alternatives Analysis -------------------------------------------------------------------- 7-10 7.6 Recommended Alternatives -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7-14 8.0 EXIT 71 INTERCHANGE SOLUTIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8-1 8.1 Identification of Solutions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8-1 8.2 Roadway Design Criteria -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8-1 8.3 Alternatives Screening Process ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8-2 8.4 Interchange Alternatives Descriptions --------------------------------------------------------------- 8-5 8.5 2045 Build Alternatives Analysis -------------------------------------------------------------------- 8-15 8.6 Recommended Alternatives -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8-23 9.0 EXIT 73 INTERCHANGE SOLUTIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9-1 9.1 Identification of Solutions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Table of Contents
    Table of Contents Introduction........................................................................................ 1 County Overview ............................................................................... 2 Population Trends & Demographic Profile .................................... 3 Population Trends in Pottawattamie County ....................................................... 3 Population Profile.............................................................................................. 5 Demographic Profile ......................................................................................... 7 Employment Profile ........................................................................................... 7 Projected Population & Employment ................................................................ 10 Roadways & Bridges ........................................................................ 12 Roadway Systems ............................................................................................ 12 Profile of County Roadways............................................................................. 14 Pavement Condition ........................................................................................ 16 Bridges in Pottawattamie County ..................................................................... 19 Traffic Trends in Pottawattamie County ........................................................... 21 Roadway Safety ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Top 10 Bridges by State.Xlsx
    Top 10 Most Traveled U.S. Structurally Deficient Bridges by State, 2015 2015 Year Daily State State County Type of Bridge Location Status in 2014 Status in 2013 Built Crossings Rank 1 Alabama Jefferson 1970 136,580 Urban Interstate I65 over U.S.11,RR&City Streets at I65 2nd Ave. to 2nd Ave.No Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 2 Alabama Mobile 1964 87,610 Urban Interstate I-10 WB & EB over Halls Mill Creek at 2.2 mi E US 90 Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 3 Alabama Jefferson 1972 77,385 Urban Interstate I-59/20 over US 31,RRs&City Streets at Bham Civic Center Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 4 Alabama Mobile 1966 73,630 Urban Interstate I-10 WB & EB over Southern Drain Canal at 3.3 mi E Jct SR 163 Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 5 Alabama Baldwin 1969 53,560 Rural Interstate I-10 over D Olive Stream at 1.5 mi E Jct US 90 & I-10 Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 6 Alabama Baldwin 1969 53,560 Rural Interstate I-10 over Joe S Branch at 0.2 mi E US 90 Not Deficient Not Deficient 7 Alabama Jefferson 1968 41,990 Urban Interstate I 59/20 over Arron Aronov Drive at I 59 & Arron Aronov Dr. Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 8 Alabama Mobile 1964 41,490 Rural Interstate I-10 over Warren Creek at 3.2 mi E Miss St Line Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 9 Alabama Jefferson 1936 39,620 Urban other principal arterial US 78 over Village Ck & Frisco RR at US 78 & Village Creek Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 10 Alabama Mobile 1967 37,980 Urban Interstate
    [Show full text]
  • South Dakota Line List: 04/03/2020 Beg Mile End Mile Tract Number Feature Use County Post Post ML-SD-HA-00020.000-ROW ROW Harding 285.69 286.08
    South Dakota Line List: 04/03/2020 Beg Mile End Mile Tract Number Feature Use County Post Post ML-SD-HA-00020.000-ROW ROW Harding 285.69 286.08 ML-SD-HA-00030.000-ROW ROW Harding 286.08 286.31 ML-SD-HA-00050.000-ROW ROW Harding 286.31 286.39 ML-SD-HA-00040.000-ROW ROW Harding 286.39 286.91 ML-SD-HA-00055.000-ROW ROW Harding 286.91 287.25 ML-SD-HA-00060.000-ROW ROW Harding 287.25 287.32 ML-SD-HA-00080.000-ROW ROW Harding 287.32 288.57 ML-SD-HA-00100.000-ROW ROW Harding 288.57 288.83 ML-SD-HA-00090.000-ROW ROW Harding 288.57 288.68 ML-SD-HA-00130.000-ROW ROW Harding 288.83 289.42 ML-SD-HA-00120.000-ROW ROW Harding 289.42 289.50 ML-SD-HA-00110.000-ROW ROW Harding 289.50 290.01 ML-SD-HA-00160.000-ROW ROW Harding 290.01 290.44 ML-SD-HA-00200.000-ROW ROW Harding 290.44 290.60 ML-SD-HA-00210.000-ROW ROW Harding 290.60 291.18 ML-SD-HA-00230.000-ROW ROW Harding 291.18 292.32 ML-SD-HA-00260.000-ROW ROW Harding 292.32 292.52 ML-SD-HA-00290.000-ROW ROW Harding 292.52 292.88 ML-SD-HA-00295.000-ROW ROW Harding 292.88 293.45 ML-SD-HA-00320.000-ROW ROW Harding 293.45 294.50 ML-SD-HA-00330.000-ROW ROW Harding 294.00 294.33 ML-SD-HA-00350.000-ROW ROW Harding 294.50 294.62 ML-SD-HA-00390.000-ROW ROW Harding 294.62 295.08 ML-SD-HA-00410.000-ROW ROW Harding 295.12 295.21 ML-SD-HA-00420.000-ROW ROW Harding 295.21 295.78 ML-SD-HA-00460.000-ROW ROW Harding 295.78 296.39 ML-SD-HA-00470.000-ROW ROW Harding 296.39 296.43 ML-SD-HA-00510.000-ROW ROW Harding 296.43 297.12 ML-SD-HA-00530.000-ROW ROW Harding 297.12 298.26 ML-SD-HA-00570.000-ROW ROW Harding 298.26 298.56
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 233/Monday, December 4, 2000
    Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Notices 75771 2 departures. No more than one slot DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION In notice document 00±29918 exemption time may be selected in any appearing in the issue of Wednesday, hour. In this round each carrier may Federal Aviation Administration November 22, 2000, under select one slot exemption time in each SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, in the first RTCA Future Flight Data Collection hour without regard to whether a slot is column, in the fifteenth line, the date Committee available in that hour. the FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or part, no later d. In the second and third rounds, Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the than should read ``March 15, 2001''. only carriers providing service to small Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. hub and nonhub airports may L. 92±463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: participate. Each carrier may select up is hereby given for the Future Flight Patrick Vaught, Program Manager, FAA/ to 2 slot exemption times, one arrival Data Collection Committee meeting to Airports District Office, 100 West Cross and one departure in each round. No be held January 11, 2000, starting at 9 Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208± carrier may select more than 4 a.m. This meeting will be held at RTCA, 2307, 601±664±9885. exemption slot times in rounds 2 and 3. 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite Issued in Jackson, Mississippi on 1020, Washington, DC, 20036. November 24, 2000. e. Beginning with the fourth round, The agenda will include: (1) Welcome all eligible carriers may participate.
    [Show full text]
  • 0253S04.45H Sb 89
    0253S04.45H SB 89 House _______________________________________________________ Amendment NO.____ Offered By _____________________________________ ___________________________________ 1 AMEND Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 89, Page 1, Section A, Line 3, by 2 inserting after all of said section and line the following: 3 4 "227.463. The portion of Interstate 29 from its intersection of Interstate 70/U.S. State 5 Highway 71/40 in Jackson County north to the bridge crossing over Nishnabotna River in Atchison 6 County, except for those portions of Interstate 29 previously designated as of August 28, 2019, shall 7 be designated the "Purple Heart Trail". Costs for such designation shall be paid by private 8 donations. 9 227.465. The portion of Interstate 55 from State Highway O in Pemiscot County to U.S. 10 Highway 40 in St. Louis City, except for those portions of Interstate 55 previously designated as of 11 August 28, 2019, shall be designated the "Purple Heart Trail". Costs for such designation shall be 12 paid by private donations. 13 227.466. The portion of Interstate 57 from the Missouri/Illinois state line in Mississippi 14 County continuing south to U.S. State Highway 60/State Highway AA in Scott County shall be 15 designated the "Purple Heart Trail". Costs for such designation shall be paid by private donations. 16 227.467. The portion of Interstate 64 from Interstate 70 from the city of Wentzville in St. 17 Charles County continuing east to Interstate 55 at the Missouri/Illinois state line in St. Louis City, 18 except for those portions of Interstate 64/US40/US61 previously designated as August 28, 2019, 19 shall be designated the "Purple Heart Trail".
    [Show full text]
  • Black Hills Resilient Landscapes Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
    United States Department of Black Hills Resilient Landscapes Project Agriculture Forest Service Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2018 USDA Forest Service Black Hills National Forest Commonly Used Acronyms AMZ Aquatic management zone NEPA National Environmental Policy Act BE Biological evaluation NFMA National Forest Management Act BHNF Black Hills National Forest NFS National Forest System BHRL Black Hills Resilient Landscapes Project NHPA National Historic Preservation Act BMP Best management practice NLEB Northern long-eared bat CDA Connected disturbed area NRHP National Register of Historic Places CMAI Culmination of mean annual increment OHV Off-highway vehicle CTA Commercial treatment area PA Programmatic agreement CWPP Community wildfire protection plan POL Products other than logs DEIS Draft environmental impact statement ROD Record of decision EPA Environmental Protection Agency ROS Recreation opportunity spectrum ESA Endangered Species Act SDGFP SD Department of Game, Fish and Parks FEIS Final environmental impact statement SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer FRCC Fire regime condition class SIO Scenic integrity objective FSH Forest Service handbook SOLC Species of local concern FSM Forest Service manual SS Structural stage GIS Geographic information system USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service HFRA Healthy Forest Restoration Act WCPH Watershed Conservation Practices hdbk. HUC Hydrologic unit code WUI Wildland-urban interface MA Management area MIS Management indicator species MVUM Motor vehicle use map In accordance
    [Show full text]
  • National Hazardous Materials Route Registry (March 31, 2021)
    32306 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Notices under which such actions were taken Resource Conservation and Recovery Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., are described in the Environmental Act (RCRA) [42 U.S.C. 6901–6992(k)]. ET., Monday through Friday, except for Assessment (EA) approved on December 10. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 Federal holidays. 17, 2020, in FHWA’s FONSI issued on Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 Legal Basis and Background May 26, 2021, and other documents in Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898, the project file. The EA, FONSI and Federal Actions to Address Paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) of section other project records are available by Environmental Justice in Minority 5112 of title 49 United States Code contacting FHWA or the Georgia Populations and Low Income (U.S.C.) permit States and Tribal Department of Transportation at the Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and governments to designate and limit addresses listed above. The EA and Enhancement of Cultural Resources; highway routes over which hazardous FONSI can also be reviewed and E.O. 13007 Indian Sacred Sites; E.O. materials (HM) may be transported, downloaded from the project website at 13287 Preserve America; E.O. 13175 provided the State or Tribal government https://majormobilityga.com/projects/ Consultation and Coordination with complies with standards prescribed by eastsideic/. Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 11514 the Secretary of Transportation (the This notice applies to all Federal Protection and Enhancement of Secretary) and meets publication agency decisions as of the issuance date Environmental Quality; E.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Road Construction Projects Set for Omaha-Council Bluffs Metro Area
    METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING AGENCY What's Happening March/April 2016 for Community Leaders Road construction projects set for Omaha-Council Bluffs Metro Area Get ready to adjust your travel time to work or errands and In late May, southbound traffic on I-29 shifts to northbound watch for more lane changes and closures. Several major road lanes with one lane southbound and two lanes northbound construction projects in MAPA’s Transportation Management and one northbound lane at the south cross-over. Starting in Area (TMA) of Douglas and Sarpy Counties and the City of late June, north and southbound traffic will both be in the new Council Bluffs are underway currently or will get underway northbound lanes with two lanes in each direction. during the summer and fall months. Other closures starting in late May along southbound I-29 Phase 3 of the Interstate 80/Interstate 680 Interchange bridge include the entrance ramp from US 275/Iowa Hwy 92 and the construction is happening right now in Douglas County. This exit loop ramp from I-80 westbound. That exit ramp closure involves building the east half of the bridge while keeping two becomes a full closure in late summer through November 2016. lanes of traffic open. I-80 westbound will shift south to new pavement within the The I and L Streets Collector-Distributor Road to Northbound West System Interchange just west of 24th Street during the I-680 is closed along with the I and L Street Loop Ramps to summer. US 275 and Iowa Hwy 92 and I-29 are expected to be I-80 Eastbound and I-680 Northbound.
    [Show full text]
  • I-90 Exit 396/I-29 Exit 84
    I-90/I-29 Interchange Justification Study Sioux Falls, South Dakota March 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . 1-2 ITEM 1 . 2 The existing interchanges and/or local roads and streets in the corridor can neither provide the necessary access nor be improved to satisfactorily accommodate the design year traffic demands while at the same time providing the access intended by the proposal. ITEM 2 . 6-17 The existing interchanges and/or local roads and streets in the corridor can neither provide the necessary access nor be improved to satisfactorily accommodate the design year traffic demands while at the same time providing the access intended by the proposal. ITEM 3 . 18-21 The proposed access point does not have a significant adverse impact on the safety and operation of the Interstate facility based on an analysis of current and future traffic. The operational analysis for existing conditions shall, particularly in urbanized areas, include an analysis of sections of Interstate to and including at least the first adjacent existing or proposed interchange on either side. Crossroads and other roads and streets shall be included in the analysis to the extent necessary to assure their ability to collect and distribute traffic to and from the interchange with new or revised access points. ITEM 4 . 22 The proposed access connects to a public road only and will provide for all traffic movements. Less than “full interchanges” for special purpose access for transit vehicles, or HOV’s or into park and ride lots may be considered on a case by case basis. The proposed access will be designated to meet or exceed current standards for Federal-aid projects on the Interstate system.
    [Show full text]
  • 571—91.1(481A) Duck Hunting
    IAC Ch 91, p.1 571—91.1(481A) Duck hunting. 91.1(1) Zone boundaries. The following zone boundaries apply in the time frames noted: a. For the 2020-2021 season, the north duck hunting zone is that part of Iowa north of a line beginning on the South Dakota-Iowa border at Interstate 29, southeast along Interstate 29 to State Highway 175, east to State Highway 37, southeast to State Highway 183, northeast to State Highway 141, east to U.S. Highway 30, and along U.S. Highway 30 to the Iowa-Illinois border. The Missouri River duck hunting zone is that part of Iowa west of Interstate 29 and south to the Iowa-Missouri border. The south duck hunting zone is the remainder of the state. b. For the fall 2021 through spring 2026 seasons, the north duck hunting zone is that part of Iowa north of a line beginning on the South Dakota-Iowa border at Interstate 29, southeast along Interstate 29 to State Highway 20 to the Iowa-Illinois border. The south duck hunting zone is that part of Iowa west of Interstate 29 and south of State Highway 92 east to the Iowa-Illinois border. The central duck hunting zone is the remainder of the state. 91.1(2) Season dates - north zone. a. For the 2020-2021 season. Special September teal season: September 1 through September 16. For all ducks: The first segment of the season will begin on the last Saturday in September and run for 7 days. The second segment of the season will open on the second Saturday in October and continue for 53 consecutive days.
    [Show full text]
  • I. NAME of OWNER, MANAGER, and PARTICIPANTS (ARSD 20:10:22:06 and 20:10:22:07)
    BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF SOUTH DAKOTA APPLICATION OF BLACK HILLS ) POWER, INC. FOR A 230 KV ) Docket EL 14-____ TRANSMISSION LINE AND ) ASSOCIATED SUBSTATION ) MODIFICATION FACILITY PERMIT ) Black Hills Power, Inc. (“Black Hills Power” or “Applicant”), a South Dakota corporation, submits this Application to the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to S.D.C.L. § 49-41B-11. In particular, Black Hills Power seeks authority from the Commission to construct the South Dakota portion of a 230 kV transmission line, which will run from northeastern Wyoming to the Rapid City area in South Dakota and associated modifications to the Lange Substation in Pennington County, South Dakota. In support, Applicant sets forth the following facts and circumstances justifying the granting of this Application and in satisfaction of the requirements set forth in S.D.C.L. § 49-41B-11; S.D.C.L. § 49-41B-22; A.R.S.D. 20:10:22:06 through 20:10:22:25; and A.R.S.D. 20:10:22:34 through 20:10:22:39. I. NAME OF OWNER, MANAGER, AND PARTICIPANTS (ARSD 20:10:22:06 and 20:10:22:07). The Teckla-Osage-Rapid City 230 kV transmission line and associated substation modifications (Project or Facility) are being constructed by Black Hills Power. Black Hills Power’s principal place of business is located at 409 Deadwood Ave., Rapid City, South Dakota, 57702. Black Hills Power is a corporation, incorporated on August 27, 1941 under the laws of South Dakota. It is a wholly owned, first tier subsidiary of Black Hills Corporation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Importance of Highways to U.S. Agriculture
    The Importance of Highways to U.S. Agriculture December 2020 United States Department of Agriculture NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Agriculture in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. Cover Credit: unitysphere via 123rf.com ii The Importance of Highways to U.S. Agriculture COVID-19 NOTE The development of this report coincided with the advent of the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic. This pandemic has had multiple impacts that could affect agricultural highway freight, including disruptions to supply chains, shifts in food production and consumption patterns, workforce impacts, and fluctuations in fuel taxes and other revenues. In addition, there have been wide-reaching changes in overall macroeconomic conditions in the United States and overseas, including changes in economic output and exchange rates. The trajectory and long-term consequences of these impacts are difficult to forecast, making it unclear whether and when “normal” conditions may resume. This introduces additional uncertainty into the analysis. It is also important to note that, at the time this report was prepared, the available data sources, estimates, and future projections were largely developed prior to the pandemic and do not reflect these impacts. The Importance of Highways to U.S. Agriculture iii Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
    [Show full text]