DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment Environmental Assessment United States Department of Agriculture Fontana Project Forest Service Cheoah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest April 2014 Graham County, North Carolina For Information Contact: Steverson Moffat 123 Woodland Drive, Murphy NC 28906 (828) 837-5152 ext 108 www.fs.usda.gov/nfsnc The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795- 3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Environmental Assessment Fontana Project Table of Contents Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... i Chapter 1 – Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Document Structure ..................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Description of the Project Area .................................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................................ 5 1.4 Proposed Alternatives ................................................................................................................................ 10 1.4.1 Alternative A ...................................................................................................................................... 10 1.4.2 Alternative B ...................................................................................................................................... 10 1.4.3 Alternative C ...................................................................................................................................... 14 1.5 Decision to be Made .................................................................................................................................. 14 1.6 Scoping ....................................................................................................................................................... 15 1.7 Issues to be Addressed in the Analysis ....................................................................................................... 15 1.8 Issues Not Addressed in the Analysis ......................................................................................................... 16 2. Comparison of Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 16 2.1 Alternatives Considered ............................................................................................................................. 16 2.1.1 Alternative A ...................................................................................................................................... 16 2.1.2 Alternative B ...................................................................................................................................... 16 2.1.3 Alternative C ...................................................................................................................................... 16 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................................................ 17 2.4 Design Criteria ........................................................................................................................................... 17 3 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................................... 19 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 19 3.2 Communities, Special Habitats, and Management Indicator Species (MIS) .............................................. 19 3.2.1 Botanical Communities, Special Habitats and MIS ............................................................................ 22 3.2.2 Aquatic Wildlife Communities, Special Habitats and MIS .................................................................. 27 3.2.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Communities, Special Habitats and MIS ............................................................. 34 3.2.4 Summary of Effects to All MIS, Communities, and Special Habitats .................................................. 41 3.3. Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species ...................................................................................... 42 3.3.1 Aquatic Proposed Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species ................................................... 42 3.3.2 Botanical Proposed, Endangered, Threatened Species ..................................................................... 42 3.3.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species ............................................... 42 3.4. Region 8 Sensitive Species......................................................................................................................... 42 3.4.1 Aquatic Sensitive Species ................................................................................................................... 42 3.4.2 Botanical Sensitive Species ................................................................................................................ 44 3.5. Forest Concern Species.............................................................................................................................. 56 3.5.1 Aquatic Forest Concern Species ......................................................................................................... 56 3.5.2 Botanical Resources ........................................................................................................................... 59 3.5.3 Wildlife Resources .............................................................................................................................. 66 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project 3.6 Summary of Effects Determinations for Forest Concern Species .............................................................. 87 3.7. Additional Habitats and Biological Issues ................................................................................................ 88 3.7.1 Invasive Species ................................................................................................................................. 88 3.7.2 North Carolina Significant Natural Heritage Areas ............................................................................ 94 3.8. Soil and Water Resources......................................................................................................................... 94 3.9 Air Resources ............................................................................................................................................. 97 3.10. Timber and Vegetation Management.................................................................................................... 98 3.11 Heritage Resources ............................................................................................................................... 100 3.12 Recreation Resources ............................................................................................................................ 101 3.13 Scenery .................................................................................................................................................. 103 3.14 Social and Economic Considerations ..................................................................................................... 105 3.15 Road Management ............................................................................................................................... 106 3.16 Climate Change ..................................................................................................................................... 106 4 Agencies and Persons Consulted .............................................................................................................. 109 4.1. List of Preparers ..................................................................................................................................... 109 4.2 Agencies and Persons Consulted ............................................................................................................. 109 4.3 Literature Cited ......................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biological Evaluation
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service March 2018 Biological Evaluation Prospect Hamby Project Tusquitee Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest Cherokee County, North Carolina For Additional Information Contact: Tusquitee Ranger District 123 Woodland Drive Murphy, North Carolina 28906 (828) 837-5152 2-1 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Proposed Action ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Species Considered ..................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 PROPOSED, ENDANGERED, and THREATENED SPECIES ................................................... 3 2.1 Aquatic Resources ...................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Botanical Resources ................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Wildlife Resources ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.4 Effects Determinations for Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species ........................... 14 3.0 SENSITIVE SPECIES ................................................................................................................. 14 3.1 Aquatic
    [Show full text]
  • Public Law 88-577, September 3, 1964) and Related Acts, the U.S
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MISCELLANEOUS FIELD STUDIES UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAP MF-1587-C PAMPHLET MINERAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL OF THE SNOWBIRD ROADLESS AREA GRAHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA By Frank G. Lesure, U.S. Geological Survey and Mark L. Chatman, U.S. Bureau of Mines 1983 Studies Related to Wilderness Under the provisions of the Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577, September 3, 1964) and related acts, the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Mines have been conducting mineral surveys of wilderness and primitive areas. Areas officially designated as "wilderness," "wild," or "canoe" when the act was passed were incorporated into the National Wilderness Preservation System, and some of them are presently being studied. The act provided that areas under consideration for wilderness designation should be studied for suitability for incorporation into the Wilderness System. The mineral surveys constitute one aspect of the suitability studies. The act directs that the results of such surveys are to be made available to the public and be submitted to the President and the Congress. This report discusses the results of a mineral survey of the Snowbird Roadless Area (08-061), Nantahala National Forest, Graham County, North Carolina. The area was classified as a further planning area during the Second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II) by the U.S. Forest Service, January 1979. MINERAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL SUMMARY STATEMENT The Snowbird Roadless Area includes 8490 acres of rugged wooded terrain in the Nantahala National Forest, Graham County, N. C. The area is underlain by folded metasedimentary rocks of the Great Smoky Group of Late Proterozoic age, and has a low potential for mineral resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service March 2014 Environmental Assessment Post-Harvest Vine Control Project Nantahala Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest Macon and Jackson Counties, North Carolina For Information Contact: Joan Brown 90 Sloan Road, Franklin, NC 28734 (828) 524-6441 ext 426 www.fs.usda.gov/nfsnc The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Table of Contents Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... i Chapter 1 – Introduction ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Huckleberry Knob Hike
    Huckleberry Knob – Nantahala National Forest, NC Length Difficulty Streams Views Solitude Camping 1.8 mls N/A Hiking Time: 1 hour and 10 minutes with 30 minutes of breaks Elev. Gain: 370 ft Parking: There is space for only a few cars at the Huckleberry Knob Trailhead. 35.31391, -83.99098 If this lot is full, overflow parking is available on the grassy shoulder of the Cherohala Skyway west of the entrance. By Trail Contributor: Zach Robbins Huckleberry Knob, at 5,580 feet, is the highest peak in the remote Unicoi Mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee. The bald summit is reached by an easy hike from the Cherohala Skyway. Suitable for all levels of hiking experience, the grassy bald provides fantastic 360° views of the Unicoi, Great Smoky, Cheoah, Snowbird, Nantahala, Valley River, Tusquitee, and Cohutta Mountain ranges of southwestern North Carolina, northeastern Georgia, and southeastern Tennessee. This is one of the finest viewpoints in the region, only rivaled by Gregory Bald, Rocky Top, and lookout towers on Shuckstack and Wesser Bald. This is a wonderful spot for a picnic or lazy backcountry camping. While in the area, consider including other nearby trails along the Cherohala Skyway for a full day of short hikes. Mile 0.0 – There is space for only a few cars at the Huckleberry Knob Trailhead. If this lot is full, overflow parking is available on the grassy shoulder of the Cherohala Skyway west of the entrance. The Huckleberry Knob Trail [419] follows a forest road track through beech and maple forests. Mile 0.4 – Follow the shoulder of Oak Knob through wide open grassy fields.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Diversity Report George Washington National Forest Draft EIS April 2011
    Appendix F - Species Diversity Report George Washington National Forest Draft EIS April 2011 U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southern Region Species Diversity Report George Washington National Forest April 2011 Appendix F - Species Diversity Report George Washington National Forest Draft EIS April 2011 Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... i 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5 2.0 Species Diversity..................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Ecosystem Context for Species ............................................................................................ 5 2.2 Identification and Screening of Species ............................................................................... 6 3.0 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................... 7 3.1 Threatened and Endangered Species List ............................................................................ 7 3.2 Threatened and Endangered Species Descriptions and Plan Components .......................... 8 3.2.1 Indiana Bat ........................................................................................................................ 8 3.2.2 Virginia Big-Eared Bat ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • New Species and Subspecies of the Trechus {Microtrechus) Nebulosus- Group from the Southern Appalachians (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechinae)
    ZOBODAT - www.zobodat.at Zoologisch-Botanische Datenbank/Zoological-Botanical Database Digitale Literatur/Digital Literature Zeitschrift/Journal: Zeitschrift der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Österreichischer Entomologen Jahr/Year: 2005 Band/Volume: 57 Autor(en)/Author(s): Donabauer Martin Artikel/Article: New Species of the Trechus (Microtrechus) nebulosus-group from the Southern Appalachians (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechinae). 65-92 ©Arbeitsgemeinschaft Österreichischer Entomologen, Wien, download unter www.biologiezentrum.at Z.Arb.Gem.Öst.Ent. 57 65-92 Wien, 12. 12. 2005 ISSN 0375-5223 New Species and Subspecies of the Trechus {Microtrechus) nebulosus- group from the Southern Appalachians (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechinae) Martin DONABAUER Abstract Ten new species and two new subspecies of the Trechus {Microtrechus) nebulosus-group BARR, 1962 are described from the southern Appalachians in North Carolina and Tennessee (USA): T. wayahbaldensis sp.n. (Wayah Bald), T. cIingmanensis sp.n. (Clingmans Dome), T. ramseyensis sp.n. (Ramsey Cascade, Great Smoky Mountains), T. thomasbarri sp.n. (Haoe Lead), T. snowbirdensis sp.n. (Joanna Bald), T. pseudonovaculosus sp.n. (Clingmans Dome), T. tobiasi sp.n. (Tusquitee Bald), T. haoeleadensis sp.n. (Haoe Lead), T. stefanschoedli sp.n. (Thunderhead Mountain), T. luculentus joannabaldensis ssp.n. (Joanna Bald), T. luculentus cheoahbaldensis ssp.n. (Cheoah Bald), T. cheoahensis sp.n. (Cheoah Bald). One former subspecies of T. luculentus BARR, 1962 is raised to species status: T. unicoi BARR, 1979 stat.n. The status of the insufficiently known T. stupkai BARR, 1979 (syn. of T. verus BARR, 1962?) is discussed. The aedeagi of all but two cave-dwelling species are figured. Key words: Carabidae, Trechinae, Trechini, Trechus, Microtrechus, Nearctic region, USA, North Carolina, Tennessee, Appalachians, taxonomy, new species, new subspecies.
    [Show full text]
  • Your Natural Dtination
    GrahamCountyTravel.com YOUR NATURAL DESTINATION See and experience Graham County by traveling one of our NATURAL ASSETS vannah a S scenic driving routes. You can find points along the way for Charleston dining, shopping and playing. Each loop is color coded, and Atlanta more information on the attractions can be found below. Use the 36 APPALACHIAN TRAIL ACCESS Natural Asset legend on the right side of the map to find your next Great Smoky Mountains AT STECOAH GAP great outdoor adventure. Charlotte National Park, TN 37 APPALACHIAN TRAIL AT Raleigh THREE DAM LOOP Great Smoky Mountains YELLOW CREEK RD. Richmond Drive time: 1 hour 10 minutes 38 CABLE COVE RECREATION AREA Distance: 47 miles National Park, NC 39 HAZEL CREEK VIEW The Three Dam Loop takes you near each of the three dams located in Graham County. The numbers below start at Robbinsville and go 40 FONTANA MARINA east counterclockwise following Hwys 143 and 28. 41 FONTANA HILTON–HIKER’S SHELTER 1 TUSKEEGEE MOTEL 2511 Fontana Rd, Robbinsville, NC 28771 • 828-479-8464 42 FONTANA DAM www.tuskeegeemotel.com 43 Eagle Creek APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL 2 OFF THE DEEP END 3156 Fontana Road, Robbinsville • 828-479-1251 44 BEE COVE TRAIL 3 THE HIKE INN 3204 Fontana Rd, Fontana Dam, NC 45 FONTANA LOOP TRAIL 28733 • 828-479-3677 • www.thehikeinn.com 6 7 4 JUNK ‘N’ STYLE GIFTS & ANTIQUES 49 Great Smoky Mountains 46 GUNTER CABIN 3690 Fontana Rd, Fontana Dam, NC 28733 Hazel Creek 828-479-4779 • www.junknstyle.com National Park, NC 47 FONTANA CAMPGROUND 5 51 Dtination YELLOW BRANCH POTTERY
    [Show full text]
  • National Program 304 – Crop Protection and Quarantine
    APPENDIX 1 National Program 304 – Crop Protection and Quarantine ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORT 2007 – 2012 Current Research Projects in National Program 304* SYSTEMATICS 1245-22000-262-00D SYSTEMATICS OF FLIES OF AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPORTANCE; Allen Norrbom (P), Sonja Jean Scheffer, and Norman E. Woodley; Beltsville, Maryland. 1245-22000-263-00D SYSTEMATICS OF BEETLES IMPORTANT TO AGRICULTURE, LANDSCAPE PLANTS, AND BIOLOGICAL CONTROL; Steven W. Lingafelter (P), Alexander Konstantinov, and Natalie Vandenberg; Washington, D.C. 1245-22000-264-00D SYSTEMATICS OF LEPIDOPTERA: INVASIVE SPECIES, PESTS, AND BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENTS; John W. Brown (P), Maria A. Solis, and Michael G. Pogue; Washington, D.C. 1245-22000-265-00D SYSTEMATICS OF PARASITIC AND HERBIVOROUS WASPS OF AGRICULTURAL IMPORTANCE; Robert R. Kula (P), Matthew Buffington, and Michael W. Gates; Washington, D.C. 1245-22000-266-00D MITE SYSTEMATICS AND ARTHROPOD DIAGNOSTICS WITH EMPHASIS ON INVASIVE SPECIES; Ronald Ochoa (P); Washington, D.C. 1245-22000-267-00D SYSTEMATICS OF HEMIPTERA AND RELATED GROUPS: PLANT PESTS, PREDATORS, AND DISEASE VECTORS; Thomas J. Henry (P), Stuart H. McKamey, and Gary L. Miller; Washington, D.C. INSECTS 0101-88888-040-00D OFFICE OF PEST MANAGEMENT; Sheryl Kunickis (P); Washington, D.C. 0212-22000-024-00D DISCOVERY, BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY OF NATURAL ENEMIES OF INSECT PESTS OF CROP AND URBAN AND NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS; Livy H. Williams III (P) and Kim Hoelmer; Montpellier, France. * Because of the nature of their research, many NP 304 projects contribute to multiple Problem Statements, so for the sake of clarity they have been grouped by focus area. For the sake of consistency, projects are listed and organized in Appendix 1 and 2 according to the ARS project number used to track projects in the Agency’s internal database.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina 2020
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina 2020 Hickory Nut Gorge Green Salamander (Aneides caryaensis) Photo by Austin Patton 2014 Compiled by Judith Ratcliffe, Zoologist North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina 2020 Compiled by Judith Ratcliffe, Zoologist North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate. The list is published periodically, generally every two years.
    [Show full text]
  • Background and General Information 2
    United States Department of National Program 304: Agriculture Agricultural Crop Protection and Research Service Quarantine National Program Staff August 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Background and General Information 2 Component I: Identification and Classification of Insects and Mites 5 Component II: Biology of Pests and Natural Enemies (Including Microbes) 8 Component III: Plant, Pest, and Natural Enemy Interactions and Ecology 17 Component IV: Postharvest, Pest Exclusion, and Quarantine Treatment 24 Component V: Pest Control Technologies 30 Component VI: Integrated Pest Management Systems and Areawide Suppression 41 Component VII: Weed Biology and Ecology 48 Component VIII: Chemical Control of Weeds 53 Component IX: Biological Control of Weeds 56 Component X: Weed Management Systems 64 APPENDIXES – Appendix 1: ARS National Program Assessment 70 Appendix 2: Documentation of NP 304 Accomplishments 73 NP 304 Accomplishment Report, 2001-2006 Page 2 BACKGROUND AND GENERAL INFORMATION THE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the intramural research agency for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and is one of four agencies that make up the Research, Education, and Economics mission area of the Department. ARS research comprises 21 National Programs and is conducted at 108 laboratories spread throughout the United States and overseas by over 2,200 full-time scientists within a total workforce of 8,000 ARS employees. The research in National Program 304, Crop Protection and Quarantine, is organized into 140 projects, conducted by 236 full-time scientists at 41 geographic locations. At $102.8 million, the fiscal year (FY) 2007 net research budget for National Program 304 represents almost 10 percent of ARS’s total FY 2007 net research budget of $1.12 billion.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Diversity Report
    GEORGE WASHINGTON NATIONAL FOREST APPENDIX F – SPECIES DIVERSITY REPORT APPENDIX F – SPECIES DIVERSITY REPORT George Washington National Forest April 2011 Updated February 2013 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT F - i APPENDIX F – SPECIES DIVERSITY REPORT GEORGE WASHINGTON NATIONAL FOREST This page left intentionally blank F - ii FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT GEORGE WASHINGTON NATIONAL FOREST APPENDIX F – SPECIES DIVERSITY REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………….1 2.0 Species Diversity………………………………………………………………………………………………1 2.1 Ecosystem Context for Species……………...……………………………………………………..…………1 2.2 Identification and Screening of Species……………………………………………………….……………2 3.0 Threatened and Endangered Species …………………………………………………………………3 3.1 Threatened and Endangered Species List…………..…………………………………………..…………3 3.2 Threatened and Endangered Species Descriptions and Needed Plan Components ………4 3.2.1 Indiana Bat………………………………………………………………………………………………...………4 3.2.2 Virginia Big-Eared Bat……………………………………………………………………………………….15 3.2.3 Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel..………………………………………………. …….18 3.2.4 James Spinymussel ………………………………………………………………………………………….22 3.2.5 Madison Cave Isopod……………………………………………………………………………….………..26 3.2.6 Shale Barren Rock Cress……………………………………………………………………………..…..…28 3.2.7 Smooth Cone Flower……………………………………………………………………………………..…..32 3.2.8 Virginia Sneezeweed……………………………………………………….……………………..……….…33 3.2.9 Swamp Pink ……………………………………………………………….……………………….……………36 3.2.10 Northeastern Bulrush…………………………………………………………………………..………..….37
    [Show full text]
  • Third Infantry Division Highway Corridor Study
    THIRD INFANTRY DIVISION HIGHWAY CORRIDOR STUDY Task 7 Study Alignments and Design Levels Draft Technical Memorandum 1. Executive Summary Section 1927 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA‐LU) (P.L. 109‐59) requires “a report that describes the steps and estimated funding necessary to designate and construct a route for the 3rd Infantry Division Highway,” extending from Savannah, Georgia to Knoxville, Tennessee, byy wa of Augusta, Georgia. The intent of this study is to develop planning level cost estimates for potential corridors connecting these urban areas. This information will be presented to Congress to fulfill the statutory language and present an overview of the steps necessary to construct such a corridor. The study is not intended to select an alternative for implementation; it will not necessarily lead to any further planning, design, right‐of‐way acquisition, or construction activities for any specific highway improvement. This technical memorandum recommends initial study corridors and design levels for the 3rd Infantry Division Highway corridors along with supporting justification and the rationale for the recommendations. Input from the Expert Working Group (EWG) was considered during the development of the Alignments and Design Levels. The EWG is a panel of area transportation officials and federal resource agencies that helps guide the project. The EWG serves as a sounding board to weigh technical options, examine issues from multiple perspectives and, by drawing upon its collective experience, help the team solve problems. Tasks 8‐9 in the study involve examining any corridors recommended for additional study in greater detail.
    [Show full text]