DOCSLIB.ORG

Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts I-66-ITB-Widening-EA_Cover_ALL.pdf 5 11/4/16 10:33 AM Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts November 2016 Prepared in support of the Environmental Assessment for Transform Interstate 66: Inside the Capital Beltway, Eastbound Widening State Project Number: 0066-96A-417, P101, R201, C501; UPC: 108424 Federal Project Number: NHPP-066-1(356) From: Exit 67 (Route 267) Dulles Connector Road To: Exit 71 (Route 237) Fairfax Drive Fairfax and Arlington Counties, Virginia Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 HISTORY OF I-66 ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PROJECT HISTORY ................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD FOR DETAILED STUDY ..................................... 3 1.3.1 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................. 3 1.3.2 Build Alternative ................................................................................................................... 4 2. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Regulatory Context ............................................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Indirect Effects ...................................................................................................................... 6 2.1.3 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................................. 9 3. INDIRECT EFFECT ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 10 3.1 STEP 1: SCOPING ..................................................................................................................... 10 3.2 STEP 2: IDENTIFY STUDY AREA DIRECTION AND GOALS ........................................... 11 3.2.1 Study Areas ......................................................................................................................... 11 3.2.2 Directions and Goals ........................................................................................................... 17 3.3 STEP 3: INVENTORY OF SENSITIVE RESOURCES IN THE STUDY AREA ................... 35 3.3.1 Socioeconomic Resources ................................................................................................... 35 3.3.2 Natural Resources ............................................................................................................... 37 3.3.3 Historic Resources .............................................................................................................. 61 3.4 STEP 4: IDENTIFY IMPACT CAUSING ACTIVITIES OF THE BUILD ALTERNATIVES 61 3.5 STEP 5: IDENTIFY INDIRECT EFFECTS FOR ANALYSIS ................................................. 62 3.6 STEP 6: ANALYZE INDIRECT EFFECTS AND EVALUATE ANALYSIS RESULTS ....... 63 3.6.1 No Build Alternative ........................................................................................................... 63 3.6.2 Build Alternative ................................................................................................................. 64 3.7 STEP 7: ASSESS CONSEQUENCES AND DEVELOP MITIGATION .................................. 73 3.7.1 No Build Alternative ........................................................................................................... 73 3.7.2 Build Alternative ................................................................................................................. 73 4. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................................................ 77 4.1 STUDY AREA AND GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE .......................................................................... 77 4.2 WHAT ARE THE TEMPORAL BOUNDARIES FOR THE STUDY? .................................... 77 4.3 WHAT ARE THE RESOURCES AFFECTED BY THE STUDY? .......................................... 77 Transform I-66 November 2016 i Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts Technical Report 4.4 WHAT ARE OTHER PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ACTIONS THAT HAVE IMPACTED OR MAY IMPACT THESE RESOURCES? ............................................ 77 4.4.1 Past Actions ........................................................................................................................ 77 4.4.2 Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions .......................................................... 80 4.5 WHAT WERE THOSE IMPACTS? .......................................................................................... 82 4.5.1 Socioeconomic Resources and Land Use ........................................................................... 82 4.5.2 Natural Resources ............................................................................................................... 85 4.5.3 Historic Resources .............................................................................................................. 88 4.5.4 Summary of Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 89 4.6 WHAT IS THE OVERALL IMPACT ON THESE VARIOUS RESOURCES FROM THE ACCUMULATION OF THE ACTIONS? ............................................................................................. 89 5. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 90 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Socioeconomic Resources I & C Study Area Current Land Use ............................................. 35 Table 2-2: Restricted Uses of Assessed Waters in the Natural Resources Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 41 Table 2-3: Established TMDLs for Impaired Waters in the Natural Resources Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts Study Area ................................................................................................................. 43 Table 2-4: Land Cover in the Natural Resources Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts Study Area .. 47 Table 2-5: Potential or Confirmed Threatened or Endangered Species in the Natural Resources Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts Study Area .............................................................................................. 59 Table 2-6: Direct Impacts of the Alternatives ............................................................................................ 61 Table 2-7: Build Alternative Induced Growth Study Area Outside Designated Growth Areas ................ 67 Table 2-8: Wetlands, Streams, and Floodplains in the Build Alternative’s Induced Growth Study Area .... 72 Table 3-1: General Effects Determination Matrix ..................................................................................... 82 Table 3-2: Summary of Build Alternative Incremental Contribution to Cumulative Impacts ................... 89 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Direct vs. Indirect Environmental Impact ................................................................................. 5 Figure 1-2: Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 1-3: Highway Investment on Typical Progress of Urbanization ...................................................... 8 Figure 2-1: Induced Growth Study Area .................................................................................................... 13 Figure 2-2: Socioeconomic Resources Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts Study Area .................. 14 Figure 2-3: Natural Resources Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts Study Area ............................... 15 Figure 2-4: Historic Resources Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts Study Area .............................. 16 Figure 2-5: Study Area, Fairfax County, and Arlington County Employment Projections ....................... 21 Figure 2-6: Fairfax County, Arlington County, and Virginia Unemployment Rates ................................ 22 Figure 2-7: Socioeconomic Resources I & C Study Area Current Land Use ............................................ 36 Figure 2-8: Socioeconomic Resources I & C Study Area Environmental Justice Block Groups .............. 38 November 2016 Transform I-66 ii Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts Technical Report Figure 2-9: Impaired Waterways in the Natural Resources Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................. 39 Figure 2-10: 100-Year Floodplains in the Natural Resources Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts Study Area .................................................................................................................................................. 45 Figure 2-11: 500-Year Floodplains in the Natural Resources Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts Study Area .................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study Final Report
    I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study - FINAL REPORT- Presented to: Submitted By: September 2015 Cover Letter Tollway Towers North, Suite 870 15770 North Dallas Parkway Ali K. Soroush, Ph.D. Dallas, TX 75248 Project Manager Tel: 214-245-5300 [email protected] Fax: 214-889-5049 Date: September 23, 2015 To: Morteza Farajian, Ph.D. Program Manager Office of Transportation Public-Private Partnerships Virginia Department of Transportation Subject: I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study Final Report Dear Mr. Farajian, C&M Associates, Inc. is pleased to provide you with the Final Report of the I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study. This report presents an overview of the proposed project, an assessment of existing traffic conditions and socioeconomic data in the project area, and an overview of field data collection and analyses. The report also presents details regarding the modeling approach, methodology, and, most importantly, the traffic and revenue forecast. The C&M project team expresses its sincere gratitude to VDOT for providing the opportunity to participate in this project. Respectfully, Carlos M. Contreras, MBA Ali Soroush, Ph.D. President Project Manager I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study Prepared For: By: Final Report September 2015 Disclaimer The results of this study constitute the opinion of C&M with respect to the tolled facility’s future traffic and revenue. The traffic and revenue projections provided in this report were developed based on standard professional practices and the information available at the time the study was executed, subject to the time and budget constraints of the study’s scope of work.
    [Show full text]
  • Barry Mackintosh Park History Program National Park Service
    GEORGE WASHINGTON MEMORIAL PARKWAY ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY Barry Mackintosh Park History Program National Park Service Department of the Interior Washington, DC 1996 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . 1 I. THE MOUNT VERNON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY • • • 7 II. THE CAPPER-CRAMTON ACT 21 III. EXPANDING THE PARKWAY, 1931-1952 • 33 IV. EXPANDING THE PARKWAY, 1952-1970 57 V. THE UNFINISHED PARKWAY. 87 VI. ARLINGTON HOUSE .•• . • 117 VII. THEODORE ROOSEVELT ISLAND . • 133 VIII. OTHER ADDITIONS AND SUBTRACTIONS • . • • . 147 Fort Hunt •.. • • . • • . • • . 147 Jones Point . • • . • • . • . • • . • • . • • • . 150 Dyke Marsh and Daingerfield Island . • • • . • • . • 153 Arlington Memorial Bridge, Memorial Drive, and Columbia Island • . • • • • • • . • • • • . • . • 164 The Nevius Tract • • . • . • • • • • • • . • • • . • • • 176 Merrywood and the Riverfront Above Chain Bridge • • • . 184 Fort Marcy . • • • • . • • • • . • • . • • • . 187 The Langley Tract and Turkey Run Farm • • • • . • • • 188 Glen Echo Park and Clara Barton National Historic site • 190 GWMP Loses Ground • • • . • • • • .. • . • • . • • • 197 INTRODUCTION The George Washington Memorial Parkway is among the most complex and unusual units of the national park system. The GWMP encompasses some 7,428 acres in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. For reasons that will later be explained, a small part of this acreage is not administered by its superintendent, and a greater amount of land formerly within GWMP now lies within another national park unit. Some of the GWMP acreage the superintendent administers is commonly known by other names, like Great Falls Park in Virginia and Glen Echo Park in Maryland. While most national park units may be characterized as predominantly natural, historical, or recreational, GWMP comprises such a diverse array of natural, historic, and recreational resources that it defies any such categorization. Further complicating matters, GWMP's superintendent also administers four other areas classed as discrete national park units-Arlington House, The Robert E.
    [Show full text]
  • Council Approves $2 Billion Redevelopment of Shuttered Northern Virginia Mall
    7/8/2021 CoStar News - Council Approves $2 Billion Redevelopment of Shuttered Northern Virginia Mall Council Approves $2 Billion Redevelopment of Shuttered Northern Virginia Mall $1 Billion Hospital Campus to Serve As Centerpiece of Remade Landmark Mall Rendering of Landmark Mall redevelopment. (Foulger-Pratt) By Bryce Meyers CoStar News July 7, 2021 | 5:46 P.M. The Alexandria City Council has greenlighted long-anticipated plans to remake the site of the shuttered Landmark Mall in Alexandria, Virginia, into a 4 million-square-foot, mixed-use development that ofcials are hailing as a potential catalyst for the revitalization of the city's West End. On Tuesday, the council unanimously approved plans by the city and development partner Foulger-Pratt to redevelop the 52-acre tract along Interstate 395 into a walkable, urban village that if fully built out would represent a $2 billion investment for https://product.costar.com/home/news/shared/753649929?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=personalized&utm_content=p… 1/3 7/8/2021 CoStar News - Council Approves $2 Billion Redevelopment of Shuttered Northern Virginia Mall the area. Plans call for medical ofce buildings, for-rent and for-sale multifamily units, retail and commercial space, and entertainment offerings. At the heart of the proposal is a new $1 billion hospital and medical campus for Inova that would be part of the Inova Health System that serves much of Northern Virginia. The new hospital would replace nearby Alexandria Hospital and employ roughly 2,000 health care workers. “This long-anticipated project will not only revitalize a currently vacant site many had given up on and provide signicant new economic activity, but will also be a catalyst for redevelopment and enhancements throughout the West End of our City," Alexandria Mayor Justin Wilson said in a statement.
    [Show full text]
  • Rehabilitation of Buildings 6 and 7 at the Potomac Annex U.S. Institute of Peace
    Executive Director’s Recommendation Commission Meeting: October 6, 2016 PROJECT NCPC FILE NUMBER Rehabilitation of Buildings 6 and 7 at the 7650 Potomac Annex United States Institute of Peace NCPC MAP FILE NUMBER 2301 Constitution Avenue, NW 1.33(38.00)44427 Washington, DC APPLICANT’S REQUEST SUBMITTED BY Final approval of site and building United States Institute of Peace plans PROPOSED ACTION REVIEW AUTHORITY Approve as requested Federal Projects in the District per 40 U.S.C. § 8722(b)(1) and (d) ACTION ITEM TYPE Consent Calendar PROJECT SUMMARY The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) has submitted final site and building plans for the rehabilitation of Buildings 6 and 7 at the Potomac Annex, a federal property generally bounded by 23rd Street, Constitution Avenue, the E Street Expressway, and the E Street approach ramp to Interstate 66. Buildings 6 and 7 are located directly north of the USIP Headquarters Building near the intersection of 23rd and C Street, NW. In 2012, the United States Department of the Navy (Navy) transferred administrative jurisdiction of Buildings 6 and 7 to USIP. The Navy transferred the remaining portion of Potomac Annex, except three Navy flag officer houses and associated land, to the United States General Services Administration (GSA) for use by the United States Department of State (DOS). Buildings 6 and 7 are surrounded to the southeast and east by other federal properties and organizational headquarters, including the American Pharmacists Association Building, the Harry S Truman Building, and the National Mall. Buildings 6 and 7 are contributing resources to the Observatory Hill Historic District, determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
    [Show full text]
  • GENERAL GROWTH PROPERTIES, INC. 2001 Annual Report on Behalf of All the Employees Of
    GENERAL GROWTH PROPERTIES, INC. 2001 annual report On behalf of all the employees of General Growth Properties, I would like to extend our condolences to anyone who lost a loved one, a friend, an acquaintance or a co-worker in The regional mall business is about relationships. the tragedy of September 11, 2001. We do not forge them lightly, but with the intent We are a country of strong individuals to nurture and strengthen them over time. Even in periods of distress, the relationships with who will continue to unite as we have rock solid our consumers, owners, retailers, and employees keep throughout our history.We will not us rooted in one fundamental belief: that success can be achieved allow horrific acts of terrorism to destroy when we work together.The dynamics of our the greatest and most powerful nation industry dictate that sustainability is contingent upon in the world. God bless you. the integrity of our business practices.We will never lose sight of this fact and will carry out every endeavor to reflect the highest standards. contents Financial Highlights . lift Portfolio . 12 Company Profile . lift Financial Review . 21 Operating Principles . 2 Directors and Officers . 69 Shareholders’ Letter . 4 Corporate Information . 70 Shopping Centers Owned at year end includes Centermark 1996 75 company profile General Growth Properties and its predecessor companies 1997 64 have been in the shopping center business for nearly fifty years. It is the second largest regional 1998 84 mall Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) in the United States. General Growth owns, develops, 1999 93 operates and/or manages shopping malls in 39 states.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Meeting October 28 - 30, 2021
    The MarketPlace 1st Qtr 2021 President’s remarks. Introducing the 1st Quarter MAREMA “MarketPlace” 2021 edition. In this addition we discuss topics important to our industry and introduce details on this year’s Annual Meeting. The 2021 Annual Meeting will feature a trade show and highlight our 45th anniversary through past presidents and lifetime member’s testimonials. Our theme this year is RE-Imagine and will be held at Ocean City, MD. Mark your calendar and choose a sponsorship, October will be here before you know it. I would like to invite all members to join us at our Monthly Meetings and invite a guest. If you are not a member yet join us as my guest and learn how we share best practices and share Haves (property listings) and Wants. I hope everyone enjoys “The MarketPlace”. Annual Meeting October 28 - 30, 2021 45th Anniversary Annual Meeting RE-hman OCT 28-30, 2021 • Ocean City, Maryland Platinum Sponsorship Gold Sponsorship Gold Sponsorship Entertainment Sponsor Dinner Sponsor Golf Tournament Sponsor ­ $1,500 $1,000 $500 $500 SOLD Silver Sponsorship Award Recogniztion Bronze Sponsorship Registration Luncheon Sponsor Sponsor Welcome Sponsor Sponsor ­ $400 $400 $300 $300 Program Breakfast Trade Show Sponsor Sponsor Participant $300 $300 $100 THE MISSION OF MAREMA IS TO PROVIDE YOU, THE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONAL, WITH THE ESSENTIAL TOOLS, RESOURCES, INFORMATION, AND IDEAS TO HELP YOU BETTER SERVE YOUR CLIENTS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC. AIA Construction Contracts Understanding an Industry Standard By: Peter Pokorny Introduction- Parties frequently find themselves parties, payments and a few other critical issues. responsible to construct, remodel or improve These are the A-Series of documents.
    [Show full text]
  • Landmark Mall Redevelopment
    CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP, INOVA HEALTH SYSTEM ANNOUNCE PLANS FOR MIXED-USE COMMUNITY AND STATE-OF-THE-ART MEDICAL CAMPUS AT LANDMARK ALEXANDRIA, VA (December 22, 2020) – A joint venture that includes Foulger-Pratt, The Howard Hughes Corporation ® (NYSE: HHC) and Seritage Growth Properties (NYSE: SRG) today announced an initial agreement with the City of Alexandria and Inova Health System to advance the development of the much-anticipated four million-square-foot community to include a new hospital campus at the site of the former Landmark Mall. The proposed development would revitalize the West End of Alexandria by transforming the unoccupied, enclosed mall site into a mixed-use, walkable urban village. Inova, the leading nonprofit health care provider in Northern Virginia, would invest $1 billion to create a new medical campus, anchored by the relocation and expansion of its Alexandria Hospital and more than 2,000 health care workers. Development plans on the balance of the site include residential, retail, commercial, and entertainment offerings integrated into a cohesive neighborhood with a central plaza, a network of parks and public spaces, and a transit hub serving bus rapid transit (BRT), DASH, and Metrobus. Affordable and workforce housing would be enhanced through developer contributions and co-location with community facilities such as a new Alexandria Fire-EMS station. Construction at Landmark could begin as soon as 2023, with the first buildings delivered in 2025. “This plan for the future of the Landmark site is exciting, long-awaited news for our community,” said Alexandria Mayor Justin Wilson. “The project would be a catalyst for the West End, providing significant benefits for Alexandria and the region at a time when focus on our long-term future is critical.
    [Show full text]
  • Landmark Mall Re-Planning Process Community Comment Matrix As Of
    Attachment 2 1 LANDMARK MALL RE‐PLANNING PROCESS Community Comments/Questions and Responses as of 3/20/19 *PLEASE NOTE* The following are written comments and/or questions from the public collected to date. They do not reflect verbal public comments and/or questions raised in community events. However, all community comments and questions are addressed either in this document, the frequently asked questions document and/or verbally during the community engagement events. All documents and videos can be found at alexandriava.gov/Landmark. Satus Legend: I ‐ Incorporated in the Plan Update N ‐ Not incorporated in the Plan Update F ‐ To be addressed in future approval processes (ie. CDD, DSUP) O ‐ Other Themes: 1 ‐ Community Gathering Spaces (indoor 6 ‐ Architecture/ Height/ Signature Buildings 10 ‐ Traffic and Parking 14 ‐ Property Owner Plans/Commitments/Acquisitions and outdoor)/ Open Space 2 ‐ West End Identity/ Branding 7 ‐ Land Uses/Cultural Amenities (i.e. theater)/Community Facilities (i.e. school)/ Density 11 ‐ Maintenance and Management 15 ‐ Planning Process 3 ‐ History/ Diversity 8 ‐ Safety/Connectivity within the site and to/ from surrounding neighborhoods 12 ‐ Trees/ Vegetation and Wildlife 16 ‐ Addressed during future approval process (CDD and DSUP stages) 4 ‐ Affordable Housing 9 ‐ Transportation Options (bus, car, bike, walking, etc.) 13 ‐ Property Values 17 ‐ Interim improvements/ outside scope of this and future planning processes 5 ‐ Urban, Sustainable and Universal Design Primary Secondary # Source Date Comment/ Question Status Staff Response Theme Theme Community 11/14/2018 There is a huge need for Community Meetings Space in the West End – if it doesn’t go in this Project, what The future mall site is envisioned to be a mixed‐use, urban village with both indoor and outdoor Meeting plans does the City has to create it? community spaces.
    [Show full text]
  • Palisades Trolley Trail & Foundry Trestle Bridge Feasibility
    Appendix 5b December 2019 Palisades Trolley Trail & Foundry Trestle Bridge Feasibility Study Public Meeting Summary Report: Public Meeting #2 Contract No. DCKA-2017-T-0059 Category: L – Bicycle and Pedestrian Studies, Planning & Design Prepared for: District Department of Transportation 55 M Street, SE Suite 400 Washington, DC 20003 Prepared by: Commun-ET, LLC and Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Palisades Trolley Trail& Foundry Trestle Bridge P u b l i c M e e t i n g R e p o r t : Public Meeting #2 P a g e 1 | DRAFT 10/30/19 Table of Contents 1.0 Project Background ..................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Purpose of Public Meeting #2 ...................................................................................... 4 3.0 Public Meeting Location & Notifications ...................................................................... 4 3.1. Public Input Outreach Format & Comment Period… ……………………………………………………………5 4.0 Public Meeting Format & Summary ............................................................................. 6 4.1. Meeting Attendance & Survey Data Obtained………………………………………………………………………7 4.2. Information Station Meeting Process in Detail………………………………………………..……………………9 4.3. Exhibits & Presentations…………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 4.4. Written Comments Received at Public Meeting…………………………………………..…………………….12 4.4.1. Public Comments Captured at the Information Stations……………………………………..13 4.4.2. Title VI Comments Received from Public Meeting #2………………………………………….24
    [Show full text]
  • Little Hunting Creek Bridge HAER No. VA-42D
    Mount Vernon Memorial Highway: Little Hunting Creek Bridge HAER No. VA-42D Carries the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway over Little Hunting Creek along the Potomac, 8.6 miles south of 1-95 Mount Vernon Vicinity Fairfax County Virginia 3\ <*-> PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA Historic American Engineering Recoi National Park Service Department of the Interior Washington, DC 20013-7127 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD MOUNT VERNON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY: LITTLE HUNTING CREEK BRIDGE b~$ HAER No. VA-42D Location: Carrying the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway across Little Hunting Creek at the Potomac, 8.6 miles south of 1-95 and 1.1 miles north of Mount Vernon in Fairfax County, Virginia, UTM: 18/319650/4286750 Quad.: Mount Vernon Date of Construction: Designed 1929, Completed 1932 Architect: Gilmore D. Clarke Engineer: E.J. Budge, Resident Engineer F.M. DeWaters, Assistant Resident Engineer J.V. McNary, Senior Engineer, U.S. Bureau of Public Roads Contractor: Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corporation, New York, New York Present Owner George Washington Memorial Parkway National Park Service Department of the Interior Present Use: Vehicular bridge Significance: This parkway bridge is significant because it typifies the style of bridges which were designed for this new type of roadway. This bridge was designed to harmonize with the landscape by incorporating the natural shape of the arch, facing the bridge with native stone, and using careful attention regarding the plantings and landscape surroundin; the bridge. Historian: Elizabeth M. Nolin, 1988 LITTLE HUNTING CREEK BRIDGE HAER Mo. VA-42D (page 2) The final bridge on the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway (see HAER Mo.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7: Infrastructure
    W ARREN C OUNTY Infrastructure Introduction A community’s infrastructure is the framework of essential services relating to utilities and transportation networks. This chapter focuses on the following four topics: Water Service, Sewer Service, Stormwater Management, and Transportation. Most often, capital improvement plans are an outgrowth of planning for creation and expansion of existing utility and transportation facilities. Warren County has had a history of privatization which is documented in the County Code, adopted in 1981. The code made it clear that the County wished to avoid an unreasonable burden for providing water and sewer, fire and rescue, police protection, and solid waste disposal services, or the expenditure of public funds for such services. This left many of these services in the hands of developers, untrained individuals, or owner associations which resulted in an inconsistent system of services. When subdivisions were plotted in the 1950s through the 1970s, no one could have foreseen the problems inherent in a lack of unity of the infrastructure provision and planning. A 1992 demographic survey conducted by Property Owners' Associations of Virginia, Inc., determined that in rural area subdivisions platted 30 to 40 years ago, dwellings occupied less than 40% of their lots. The Comprehensive Plan’s survey of Warren County residents, revealed that citizens are feeling the negative effects from the lack of infrastructure. In fact, 61% are concerned about development trends in their neighborhoods and 63% are concerned about development trends elsewhere in the County. The largest concern was traffic congestion, followed by substandard roads and lack of groundwater. In response to this dissatisfaction, the County must re-evaluate its development ordinances in relation to guiding and facilitating orderly and beneficial growth and 2013 C OMPREHENSIVE development that will promote public health, safety, and the population’s P LAN welfare.
    [Show full text]
  • Slade and Paragon Formations New Stratigraphic Nomenclature for Mississippian Rocks Along the Cumberland Escarpment in Kentucky
    Slade and Paragon Formations New Stratigraphic Nomenclature for Mississippian Rocks along the Cumberland Escarpment in Kentucky U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1605-B Prepared in cooperation with the Kentucky Geological Survey Chapter B Slade and Paragon Formations New Stratigraphic Nomenclature for Mississippian Rocks along the Cumberland Escarpment in Kentucky By FRANK R. ETTENSOHN, CHARLES L. RICE, GARLAND R. DEVER, JR., and DONALD R. CHESNUT Prepared in cooperation with the Kentucky Geological Survey A major revision of largely Upper Mississippian nomenclature for northeastern and north-central Kentucky which includes detailed descriptions of two new formations and nine new members U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1605 CONTRIBUTIONS TO STRATIGRAPHY DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WILLIAM P. CLARK, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1984 For sale by Distribution Branch Text Products Section U.S. Geological Survey 604 South Pickett Street Alexandria, Virginia 22304 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title: Slade and Paragon formations. (Contributions to stratigraphy) (U.S. Geological Survey bulletin; 1605B) Bibliography: p. Supt. of Docs, no.: I 19.3:1605-6 1. Geology, Stratigraphic Mississippian. 2. Geology Kentucky. I. Ettensohn, Frank R. II. Kentucky Geological Survey. III. Series. IV. Series: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin ; 1605B. QE75.B9 no. 1605B 557.3 s [551.7'51] 84-600178 [QE672] CONTENTS Abstract 1 Introduction 1 Historical review
    [Show full text]