DOCSLIB.ORG

Technical Memo

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Technical Memo Technical Memo To Wes Ducey, SDOT Project Manager Lisa Reid, PE, PMP/SCJ Alliance From: Marni C Heffron, PE, PTOE/Heffron Transportation Inc. Date: April 17, 2019 Project: Magnolia Bridge Planning Study Subject Alternatives Analysis Summary 1. Executive Summary The existing Magnolia Bridge currently serves to connect to and from Magnolia, Smith Cove Park/Elliott Bay Marina, Terminal 91/Elliot Bay Businesses, and 15th Ave W. The bridge serves 17,000 ADT and 3 King County Metro bus lines serving an average of 3,000 riders each weekday. The bridge was constructed 90 years ago and has deteriorated. While SDOT continues to perform maintenance to maintain public safety, the age and condition of the bridge structure means there will continue to be deterioration. In 2006, following a 4-year planning study; however, over the last decade, funding has not been identified to advance this alternative beyond 30% design. This Magnolia Bridge Planning Study identified three Alternatives to the 2006 recommend In-Kind Replacement option. These Alternatives, along with the In-Kind Replacement option, have been analyzed and compared through a multi-criteria evaluation process. Focusing on the main connections into Magnolia and Smith Cove Park/Elliott Bay Marina, the Alternatives identified are: Alternative 1: a new Armory Way Bridge into Magnolia and a new Western Perimeter Road to Smith Cove Park/Elliott Bay Marina ($200M - $350M), Alternative 2: Improvements to the existing Dravus St connection into Magnolia and a new Western Perimeter Road to Smith Cove Park/Elliott Bay Marina ($190M – $350M), Alternative 3: Improvements to the existing Dravus St connection into Magnolia and a new Garfield St bridge to Smith Cove Park/Elliott Bay Marina ($210M - $360M), and Alternative 4: In-Kind Replacement of the existing Magnolia Bridge adjacent to its current location ($340M – $420M). Smith Tower 506 2nd Ave, Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98104 Office 206.739.5454 Fax 360.352.1509 scjalliance.com The multi-criteria evaluation processes focused on key metrics in five broad evaluation categories, including: Mobility and Connectivity including travel time modeling to key destinations served by the existing bridge based on estimated traffic growth in the Interbay corridor out to the year 2035; Environmental Impacts including impacts to existing land uses, sensitive areas, and natural hazards; Cost Estimates including planning-level cost estimates of construction, right-of-way, engineering, and administration; Implementation Characteristics including metrics that speak to aspects of the actual construction process and how each alternative may impact or benefit the traveling public; and Community Support including project-specific criteria related to the level of community support expressed by the public and stakeholders for each alternative during the MBPS outreach effort After considering the scores of the alternatives among all the comparison metrics and applying a sensitivity analysis to the metric weights, two options consistently performed best – Alternative 1 ($200-$350M) and Alternative 4 ($340-$420M). SDOT ♦ Magnolia Bridge Planning Study 2019-0417 | 2 of 40 2. Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................1 2. Table of Contents ...............................................................................................................................................3 3. Memo Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................5 3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................5 3.1.1. Project Background ............................................................................................................................5 3.1.2. Project Purpose & Goals .....................................................................................................................5 3.1.3. Evaluation Process ..............................................................................................................................6 4. Description of Alternatives .................................................................................................................................7 4.1. Alternative 1 - Armory Way Bridge ............................................................................................................8 4.2. Alternative 2 - Dravus Street Upgrade .......................................................................................................9 4.3. Alternative 3 - Lower Magnolia Bridge .................................................................................................... 10 4.4. Alternative 4 – In-Kind Replacement ....................................................................................................... 11 5. Analysis Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 12 5.1. Evaluation Criteria and Weighting ........................................................................................................... 12 5.2. Mobility and Connectivity ....................................................................................................................... 13 5.2.1. Vehicular Access (75%) .................................................................................................................... 14 5.2.2. Multimodal Mobility (25%) .............................................................................................................. 16 5.3. Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................................................ 17 5.3.1. Impacts to Adjacent Land Use (40%) ............................................................................................... 18 5.3.2. Impacts to Sensitive Areas (30%) .................................................................................................... 18 5.3.3. Impacts to Natural Hazards (30%) ................................................................................................... 18 5.3.4. Environmental Impact Analysis Results ........................................................................................... 18 5.4. Cost Estimate ........................................................................................................................................... 20 5.4.1. Preliminary Cost Estimate (100%) ................................................................................................... 20 5.5. Implementation Characteristics .............................................................................................................. 21 5.5.1. Construction Duration (40%) ........................................................................................................... 21 5.5.2. Construction Impacts (30%) ............................................................................................................ 22 5.5.3. Construction Phasing (30%) ............................................................................................................. 23 5.5.4. Implementation Characteristics Analysis Results ............................................................................ 24 SDOT ♦ Magnolia Bridge Planning Study 2019-0417 | 3 of 40 5.6. Community Support ................................................................................................................................ 24 5.6.1. Public Support (50%) ....................................................................................................................... 24 5.6.2. Stakeholder Support (50%) .............................................................................................................. 25 6. Alternatives Analysis Results ........................................................................................................................... 27 6.1. Analysis Results ....................................................................................................................................... 27 6.2. Weighted Scores ...................................................................................................................................... 28 6.3. Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 29 7. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................... 32 Appendices Appendix A – Purpose and Goals Appendix B – Component Analysis Appendix C – Travel Time Analysis Appendix D – Transit and Non-Motorized Analysis Appendix E – Cost Estimates Summary Memo Appendix F – Construction Duration and Impacts Summary Appendix G – Outreach Summary Report Appendix H – Alternatives Analysis Scoring Details SDOT ♦ Magnolia Bridge Planning Study 2019-0417 | 4 of 40 3. Memo Purpose The following memo memorializes the process, methodology, and results of the alternatives analysis conducted as a part of the Magnolia Bridge Planning Study (MBPS). The alternatives analysis represents the final step of the MBPS which was initiated in 2017. To support
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Burke Building 400 North 34Th Street | Seattle, WA
    THE Burke Building 400 North 34th Street | Seattle, WA NEIGHBORING TENANTS FOR LEASE LOCATION high-tech 6,185 sf Fremont companies include Adobe, Impinj, Suite 200 Seattle’s funky, creative neighborhood Google, and Tableau Software “Center of the Universe” LOCATED IN FREMONT, AN OASIS FOR TECH COMPANIES For leasing information, contact JEFF LOFTUS • Newly remodeled lobbies and restrooms • Professional Management with 206.248.7326 with showers on-site building engineers [email protected] • High Speed Internet (Comcast Cable, • Views of the Ship Canal Century Link, Accel Wireless) KEN HIRATA • Parking ratio of 2/1,000 206.296.9625 • Near Fremont Canal Park, Burke • Available now [email protected] Gilman Trail, unique local shops and distinctive eateries • $32.00 PSF, FS kiddermathews.com This information supplied herein is from sources we deem reliable. It is provided without any representation, warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied as to its accuracy. Prospective Buyer or Tenant should conduct an independent investigation and verification of all matters deemed to be material, including, but not limited to, statements of income and expenses. Consult your attorney, accountant, or other professional advisor. BurkeTHE Building PROXIMITY SEATTLE CBD 3 miles 10 minutes to AURORA BRIDGE downtown Seattle LAKE UNION FREMONT BRIDGE LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL N 34TH ST N 35TH ST THE BURKE BUILDING N 36TH ST JEFF LOFTUS KEN HIRATA kiddermathews.com 206.248.7326 | [email protected] 206.296.9625 | [email protected] 400 North 34th Street | Seattle, WA SHIP CANAL PARKING 2/1,000 spaces per 1,000 sf rentable area N 34TH ST SUITE 200 N 35TH ST BurkeTHE Building SECOND FLOOR SUITE 200 AVAILABLE NOW 6,185 sf JEFF LOFTUS | 206.248.7326 | [email protected] KEN HIRATA | 206.296.9625 | [email protected] This information supplied herein is from sources we deem reliable.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Qualifications Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project
    Submitted by: Kiewit Pacific Co. Statement of Qualifications Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project Specification No. PW10-0128F Submitted to: Purchasing Office, Tacoma Public Utilities 3628 South 35th Street, Tacoma, WA 98409 June 8, 2010 Tab No. 1 - General Company Information & Team Structure Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project Project TAB NO.1 - GENERAL COMPANY INFORMATION AND TEAM STRUCTURE Kiewit Pacific Co., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kiewit Infrastructure Group, Inc., will be the contracting party for this project, as indicated on Forms 3 and 4 in Tab No. 4 - Appendix C. As a wholly-owned subsidiary, none of the officers of Kiewit Pacific Co. (Kiewit) own stock. Incorporated on May 18, 1982, we can trace our history back to 1884, when Peter and Andrew Kiewit formed Kiewit Brothers, an Omaha masonry contracting partnership. Today, we are part of one of North America's largest and most respected construction and mining organizations. We take our place in the corporate structure of our parent company, Kiewit Infrastructure Group Inc., alongside Kiewit Construction Company and Kiewit Southern Co. Our affiliates and subsidiaries, as well as those of our parent company, operate from a network of offices throughout North America. We draw upon the Kiewit Corporation’s collective experience and personnel to assemble the strongest team possible for a given project. Therefore, work experience of such affiliates and subsidiaries is relevant in demonstrating our capabilities. For the Murray Morgan Bridge, we are supplementing our local talent with extensive moveable bridge expertise from our east coast operations, Kiewit Constructors, Inc. We are also utilizing our local subsidiary, General Construction Company (General), for mechanical and electrical expertise.
    [Show full text]
  • The Artists' View of Seattle
    WHERE DOES SEATTLE’S CREATIVE COMMUNITY GO FOR INSPIRATION? Allow us to introduce some of our city’s resident artists, who share with you, in their own words, some of their favorite places and why they choose to make Seattle their home. Known as one of the nation’s cultural centers, Seattle has more arts-related businesses and organizations per capita than any other metropolitan area in the United States, according to a recent study by Americans for the Arts. Our city pulses with the creative energies of thousands of artists who call this their home. In this guide, twenty-four painters, sculptors, writers, poets, dancers, photographers, glass artists, musicians, filmmakers, actors and more tell you about their favorite places and experiences. James Turrell’s Light Reign, Henry Art Gallery ©Lara Swimmer 2 3 BYRON AU YONG Composer WOULD YOU SHARE SOME SPECIAL CHILDHOOD MEMORIES ABOUT WHAT BROUGHT YOU TO SEATTLE? GROWING UP IN SEATTLE? I moved into my particular building because it’s across the street from Uptown I performed in musical theater as a kid at a venue in the Seattle Center. I was Espresso. One of the real draws of Seattle for me was the quality of the coffee, I nine years old, and I got paid! I did all kinds of shows, and I also performed with must say. the Civic Light Opera. I was also in the Northwest Boy Choir and we sang this Northwest Medley, and there was a song to Ivar’s restaurant in it. When I was HOW DOES BEING A NON-DRIVER IMPACT YOUR VIEW OF THE CITY? growing up, Ivar’s had spokespeople who were dressed up in clam costumes with My favorite part about walking is that you come across things that you would pass black leggings.
    [Show full text]
  • Questions for Seattle Mayoral Candidates – Magnolia Chamber of Commerce
    Questions for Seattle Mayoral Candidates – Magnolia Chamber of Commerce The Magnolia Chamber of Commerce believes that an educated, engaged electorate is one of the key aspects of a thriving community. To assist our members, the local business community, and Magnolia residents better understand our Seattle mayoral candidates, we are asking each candidate to please fill out the questionnaire covering topics important to the Magnolia neighborhood AND/OR be interviewed one-on-one by our executive director, relying on the techniques we have developed for our Chamber Chat series (see Chamber Chat interview with Councilmember Andrew Lewis) Each mayoral candidate will be asked the exact same questions. We will post your video and/or your written answers on our website and make available to our members via a special election newsletter that will go out before the primary election date. About the Magnolia Chamber of Commerce. The Magnolia Chamber represents just over 370 Magnolia businesses and family members. Our mission is to add to the vibrancy of our community by fostering connections between Magnolia’s businesses, residents, and community groups. Our purpose is to promote civic and commercial progress in our business districts and neighborhood. Learn more about the Magnolia Chamber by visiting https://discovermagnolia.org/ For questions and/or to set up a video interview, please contact Jason Thibeaux, Executive Director, Magnolia Chamber of Commerce. Seattle Mayoral Candidate Questions (these questions can be answered either by video with our Executive Director, Jason Thibeaux at 206-618-1589 or [email protected] and/or filled out and sent to the Magnolia Chamber, 3213 West Wheeler Street, #42, Seattle, WA 98199 Good Governance, Effective Leadership 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Baseline Or No Build Scenario
    Appendix A Alternatives Technical Report TRANSPORTATION 2040 Appendix A ALTERNATIVES TECHNICAL REPORT Contents 1. Process of designing the alternatives ...................................................................................1 a. Organizational structure b. Organizational process 2. The alternatives....................................................................................................................3 a. Introduction to the alternatives ......................................................................................3 b. The baseline alternative .................................................................................................3 c. Core strategies for all action alternatives.....................................................................15 d. Alternative 1.................................................................................................................18 e. Alternative 2.................................................................................................................27 f. Alternative 3.................................................................................................................32 g. Alternative 4.................................................................................................................39 h. Alternative 5.................................................................................................................46 i. Preferred Alternative (Constrained) ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sound Transit 2020 Progress Report: Seattle Area
    Expanding your transit choices 2020 Progress Report Seattle area Doubling your destinations within the next 5 years Seattle area residents: During the next five years, Sound Transit is dramatically changing how we all get around the region. From 2021 to 2024, we’ll more than double your Link light rail destinations, opening new service to Northgate, Bellevue, Lynnwood, Federal Way, Redmond and the Hilltop neighborhood in Tacoma. Also by 2024, we’ll launch new Stride bus rapid transit on I-405, SR 518, SR 522 and NE 145th, and open new parking and access improvements at Sounder stations. At the same time, we’re advancing other Link and Sounder projects described in this report, making it easier for you to get to work and home and to Seahawks games, college classes and Tacoma Dome concerts. This progress report is just one way for us to stay in touch. For more information, check out our website, subscribe to updates and get involved with the projects that interest you most. Peter Rogoff, Sound Transit CEO soundtransit.org/2020report More inside: pg. 2-6 Milestones we’re meeting to bring new transit to the Seattle area pg. 7 The system we’re building, including timelines for new service pg. 10-11 Tips for riding Sound Transit and where we can take you pg. 12-13 How we finance construction and operation of the expanded system At Sound Transit we are connecting more people to more places to make life better and create equitable opportunities for all. 1 More transit for the Seattle area Link light rail Shoreline Current service South/145th
    [Show full text]
  • SR 520 I-5 to Medina
    National Register of Historic Places Registration Form: William Parsons House NPS Form llHX)O OMB No. J024-0CnB (Rev. &-&tIl t. United States Department of the Interior National Park Service •• National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations of eligibility for individual properties or districts. See Instructions in Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms (National Register Bulletin 16). Complete each item by marking MXMinthe appropriate box or by entering the M requested information. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter MN/A for "not applicable." For functions, styles, materials, and areas of significance, enter only the categories and subcategories listed in the Instructions. For additional space use continuation sheets (Form to-900-a). Type all entries. 1. Name of Property historic name Parsons, William, House other names/site number Harvard Mansion 2. Location street & number 2706 Harvard Ave. E. o not for publication city, town Seattle o vicinity state Washington code WA county King code 033 zip code 98102 3. Classification Ownership of Property Category of Property Number of Resources within Property IZI private IZI building(s) Contributing Noncontributing o public-local o district 2.. buildings o public-State o site sites o public-Federal o structure structures o object objects 2 a Total Name of related multiple property listing: Number of contributing resources previously N/A listed in the National Register _0_ 4. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this "' ~'M'" 0''''0''' tor '~.b'of .,".".
    [Show full text]
  • Nick Licata Records, 1979-2015
    Nick Licata Records, 1979-2015 Overview of the Collection Creator Licata, Nick Title Nick Licata Records Dates 1979-2015 (inclusive) 1979 2015 1998-2015 (bulk) 1998 2015 Quantity 91.2 Cubic Feet, (227 boxes) 24,303 digital files, (6.46 ) Collection Number 4650-00 Summary Records of Seattle City Council Member Nick Licata. Repository Seattle Municipal Archives Seattle Municipal Archives Office of the City Clerk City of Seattle PO Box 94728 98124-4728 Seattle, WA Telephone: 206-233-7807 Fax: 206-386-9025 [email protected] Access Restrictions Conditions Governing Access note Records are open to the public. Languages English Biographical Note Nick Licata was elected to five terms on City Council, serving from 1998 to 2015. During his time in office, he chaired committees covering areas including parks, public safety, human services, and arts and culture. He served as Council President from 2006 to 2007. In his college years at Bowling Green State University, Licata was student body president and president of Students for a Democratic Society before earning a degree in political science in 1969. He then moved to Seattle to attend graduate school at the University of Washington, where he received a master's degree in sociology in 1973. Licata was a longtime activist in the community, helping to found the Coalition Against Redlining; Citizens for More Important Things, which campaigned against excessive public funding for sports stadiums, and Give Peace a Dance, a nuclear disarmament group. He was a founder of The Civic Foundation and the Friends of Westlake Park, and he was a member of the first board of directors for the Capitol Hill Housing Improvement Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Virtual Third Friday March 19, 2021 Sarah Martin
    Virtual Third Friday March 19, 2021 Sarah Martin SarahJacksonMartin.com Sunday Public Sail Friendship Sloop Amie June 2015 Wagner Floating Home, 2020 (Martin) Boat Shop, CWB, 2020 (Martin) City of Seattle Landmarks Program Nominated property must: 400 + designations since 1973 • Be at least 25 years old & Buildings, sites, vessels, street clocks • Meet at least 1 of 6 No floating buildings yet designated designation criteria & How to designate a landmark? • Possess integrity Prepare a nomination report Nomination hearing – Landmarks Preservation Board – April 21 Designation hearing – Landmarks Preservation Board – TBD Agreements – City staff & property owner Designating Ordinance – City Council Lake Union Bird’s Eye View, 1891, Library of Congress 1912 c. 1885 View of Lake Union, looking northwest. Lumber mill at right center built in 1882, later known as the Western Mill. Photo: Seattle Public Library Lake Union Dry Dock, view north toward Gas Plant. Photo: Paul Dorpat collection Houseboat colony at south base of Aurora Bridge, 1931, Seattle Municipal Archives Aerial Photograph of George Washington Memorial Bridge (Aurora Avenue), 1950, Seattle Public Library The Wagners Wagner floating home, 1970s, Wagner Family Collection Dick & Colleen Wagner with son Michael, ca. 1968, CWB Collection Dick Wagner, undated, Wagner Family Collection Dick Wagner’s proposal for the old gas plant on Lake Union, 1969, Floating Homes Association Newsletter, July 1969. Old Leschi Boathouse, 1912, UW Special Collections Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Nov. 18,
    [Show full text]
  • 2005 Annual Report the Magnolia Bridge, Also Known As the West Garfield Street Bridge, Was Built in 1929 When It Replaced an Earlier Wooden Trestle Bridge
    Greg Nickels, Mayor SDOTSDOT City of Seattle Seattle Department of Transportation Grace Crunican, Director Seattle Department of Transportation 2005 Annual Report The Magnolia Bridge, also known as the West Garfield Street Bridge, was built in 1929 when it replaced an earlier wooden trestle bridge. A landslide in1997 damaged the bracing between the support columns at the west end of the bridge. The Nisqually earthquake damaged the bridge again in 2001. The bridge has since been repaired, but needs replacement. Table of Contents A Word from Mayor Nickels _________________ 1 From the Director __________________________ 2 2005 Major Projects Status __________________ 3 Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Central Link Light Rail 2005 Major Projects Status __________________ 4 Fremont Bridge King Street Station Magnolia Bridge Replacement Mercer Corridor Project Monorail 2005 Major Projects Status __________________ 5 North Link Light Rail South Lake Union Streetcar Spokane Street Widening 2005 Major Projects Status __________________ 6 SR 519 Surface Street Improvements SR 520 2005 Major Projects Status __________________ 7 I-90 2005 Major Projects Map ____________________ 8 By the Numbers ___________________________ 9 2005 Capital Projects Status ________________ 10 Dollars Spent vs. Planned Spending 2005 Capital Projects Status _____________ 11-12 Detailed by Phase New in SDOT __________________________ 13-15 Seattle’s waterfront of the future as envisioned by citizens at public discussion meetings. Artwork courtesy of Scott Taylor & Allied Arts “We’re getting Seattle moving today as we’re shaping the city’s transportation system for a vibrant tomorrow.” Greg Nickels, Mayor 1 From the Director SDOTSDOT Our Vision A Vibrant Seattle Through Transportation Excellence Our Mission To deliver a safe, reliable, and efficient transportation system that enhances Seattle’s environment and economic vitality.
    [Show full text]
  • LAKE UNION Historical WALKING TOUR
    B HistoryLink.org Lake Union Walking Tour | Page 1 b Introduction: Lake Union the level of Lake Union. Two years later the waters of Salmon Bay were raised behind the his is a Cybertour of Seattle’s historic Chittenden Locks to the level of Lake Union. South Lake Union neighborhood, includ- Historical T As the Lake Washington Ship Canal’s ing the Cascade neighborhood and portions Walking tour Government Locks (now Hiram of the Denny Regrade. It was written Chittenden Locks) neared its 1917 and curated by Paula Becker with completion, the shores of Lake Union the assistance of Walt Crowley and sprouted dozens of boat yards. For Paul Dorpat. Map by Marie McCaffrey. most of the remaining years of the Preparation of this feature was under- twentieth century, Lake Union was written by Vulcan Inc., a Paul G. Allen one of the top wooden-boat building Company. This Cybertour begins at centers in the world, utilizing rot- Lake Union Park, then loosely follows resistant local Douglas fir for framing the course of the Westlake Streetcar, and Western Red Cedar for planking. with forays into the Cascade neighbor- During and after World War I, a hood and into the Seattle Center area. fleet of wooden vessels built locally for the war but never used was moored Seattle’s in the center of Lake Union. Before “Little Lake” completion of the George Washington ake Union is located just north of the Washington, Salmon Bay, and Puget Sound. Memorial Bridge (called Aurora Bridge) in L geographic center and downtown core A little more than six decades later, Mercer’s 1932, a number of tall-masted ships moored of the city of Seattle.
    [Show full text]
  • SR 520 I-5 to Medina
    SR 520, I-5 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project | Final EIS and Final Section 4(f) and 6(f) Evaluations 7. Effects Analysis This chapter provides a detailed analysis of how the Preferred Alternative would affect historic properties within the APE. This chapter applies the criteria of adverse effect to analyze how different aspects of the No Build Alternative and the Preferred Alternative would alter or diminish the integrity of historic properties. Application of Criteria of Adverse Effect Section 106 of the NHPA and the implementing regulations require federal agencies to take into account the effects that a proposed undertaking may have on historic properties in the APE. This analysis includes the application of criteria of effect as outlined in 36 CFR 800.5. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1), an adverse effect is found when an undertaking alters, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for listing in the NRHP in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. For historic properties, these can include the physical destruction or modification of all or part of a resource, as well as proximity effects, which are typically characterized as the introduction of audible, visual, and atmospheric elements that alter the qualities that make a property eligible for listing in the NRHP. Adverse effects may also include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time or be farther removed in distance (defined as “indirect” under NEPA), or may be cumulative.
    [Show full text]