Preferred Alternative Sample Clauses

Preferred Alternative. Based on the direction of the CLT and feedback from the Council, we will refine the preferred charrette alternative plans by incorporating comments from the summary and review in a call. We will review markups and sketches with the CLT and establish a preferred direction that will be refined as the master pln.

Preferred Alternative. In order to offset some of the additional costs incurred from Task 5.1, it was agreed that the final deliverables for the preliminary design of the preferred alternative would be modified. Attachment 1 provides the updated survey requirements and provides a summary of the design deliverables to be provided.

Preferred Alternative. Much of the general management direction in Alternative A would continue, although some specific directions and actions occurring under current management would be altered or not pursued in this alternative. As in Alternatives B and C, clearer goals and objectives for increasing our knowledge of wildlife and habitat needs and relationships would be established. Public use monitoring would facilitate wildlife-dependent recreation, subsistence, and other traditional uses. Voluntary guidelines for public use of bear-concentration areas would be developed. These guidelines would replace use restrictions on special use permits issued to commercial users. Day-use-only restrictions could be proposed for some bear-concentration areas based on, on-going evaluation of the effectiveness of voluntary use guidelines in these areas. One bear- ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ area would be closed to snowmachine use by regulation. Seven public use cabins would be maintained, two additional cabins would be constructed, and cabins on newly acquired land would be managed for public use, if located on appropriate sites. Regulations would be adopted to restrict camping near public use cabins and administrative facilities. Food- storage containers, latrines, temporary electric fences, and other minor improvements could be provided if needed at popular camping areas to reduce impacts. The ▇’▇▇▇▇▇▇ River closure would be modified to allow a formal bear-viewing program combining agency-supervised use (allocated to the public by lottery) with guided use (offered to the public by qualified guides selected through a competitive process and operating under a Refuge special use permit). The Moderate Management category would be reduced by 30,946 acres; the acreage in Minimal Management would increase by an equivalent amount. The Special River Management category would be eliminated. Dated: October 13, 2004. [FR Doc. 04–23832 Filed 10–22–04; 8:45 am] AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior; Forest Service, Agriculture. ACTION: Notice; correction.

Preferred Alternative. The alternative identified by the Authority to best balance the tradeoffs between potential environmental or community impacts and high-speed system performance and cost factors on an end-to- end basis. ROD. Record of Decision: The final step in the NEPA environmental process.

Preferred Alternative. On March 21, 2019, the PDT evaluated the alternatives under consideration and identified the Build (Preferred) Alternative as the Preferred Alternative (PA) for the SR-91 Improvement Project. As part of the evaluation, considerations were given to the project purpose and need; input from the public and government agencies; local, regional, state, and federal goals and policies; as well as environmental, social, and economic impacts. After reviewing these factors, seven evaluation criteria were established to compare the alternatives, as shown in Table 16. The PDT also determined a weight factor for each of the evaluation criteria based on the relative importance that was applied to the final score. The alternatives were then compared and ranked for their relative performance, and the scores were computed. 1 Improve Capacity EB from SR-57 to SR-55 3 1 2 3 6

Preferred Alternative. The No Action alternative would not be protective of human health or the environment. would not eliminate potential future routes for human exposure, and would not be protective of human health because of the potential for soil exposure to a worker, and would not provide control of leaching of contaminants to groundwater. The No Action alternative would require no construction and could, therefore, be implemented immediately. The estimated cost associated with the No Action alternative is $0.

Preferred Alternative. FHWA screened the range of alternatives against criteria for purpose and need and technical criteria to identify reasonable alternatives for detailed study in the Draft EIS. Based on these screening criteria and subsequent detailed evaluations, FHWA has identified a Preferred Alternative. The preferred approach route to the proposed Knik Arm Bridge on the Mat-Su side is Point MacKenzie Road from the intersection with Burma Road south to the Port MacKenzie District and connecting to the Northern Access Alternative through the port district. FHWA chose this route because it would avoid wetlands, would not impact Port MacKenzie operations, and is favored by Mat-Su Borough and Port MacKenzie officials. The proposed Southern Alignment is the preferred route for the bridge to cross Knik Arm. The Southern Alignment, with its accompanying Below-the-Bluff Roadway on the Anchorage approach, would be the most technically feasible and practical alignment that would avoid the Cairn Point Trench (a submarine trough), would not impact military mission and operations at Elmendorf, and would minimize potential impacts to beluga whales that congregate in areas of Knik Arm further to the north. An 8,200-foot-long pier-supported bridge is preferred over a 14,000-foot-long bridge because a shorter bridge would require fewer piers, result in less construction noise and pile driving impacts that might adversely affect beluga whales and marine fishes, would require shorter in- water construction time, and would have substantially lower construction costs. The preferred Anchorage approach to the proposed bridge would be a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill, along either of the proposed ▇▇▇▇▇ or ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Street alignments, to connect initially to the A-C Couplet, and ultimately to the ▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Couplet. All reasonable alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIS are under consideration and have been developed to a comparable level of detail. Final identification of a Recommended Alternative will not occur until the alternatives, impacts, written comments on the Draft EIS, and comments received at the public hearings have been fully evaluated and considered. The Recommended Alternative will be provided in the Final EIS.

Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is also the Proposed Action (Alternative A). It proposes to implement the LA CREP II, which would make the following additional CPs available to participating producers: • CP2, Establish Permanent Native Grasses • CP 9, Shallow Water Areas for Wildlife • CP 25, Rare and Declining Habitat Under this alternative, current agricultural production practices would be discontinued on up to 28,000 acres of eligible agricultural land and native tall grass coastal prairie vegetation would be restored on that land. Producers would receive annual rental payments and incentive awards in accordance with the LA CREP II Agreement.

Preferred Alternative. Under the Preferred Alternative, FWS will continue to provide funding, as modified by certain mitigation provisions, for operations of CDFG’s 14 trout hatcheries and the Mad River Hatchery for steelhead, and associated stocking of fish produced at those hatcheries. Although hatchery operations will remain unchanged from those conducted during the last 5 years, decisions on stocking of trout will be made using a statewide tiered review process that emphasizes protection of native, sensitive, or legally protected species. In high mountain lake areas where Aquatic Biodiversity Management Plans (ABMPs) have been 51874 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Notices prepared, stocking will continue to follow guidelines that ensure expansion of habitats for native amphibians and fish. In areas without ABMPs, trout stocking will be based on site-specific evaluations of risk to native, sensitive, or legally protected species. Where appropriate surveys have yet to be completed, stocking will be suspended until the appropriate evaluations have been completed. ABMPs or other similar plans may be developed and implemented prior to reinitiation of stocking in those locations. Depending on the specific location, such plans could include eradication of nonnative fish from water bodies currently or formerly harboring sensitive native species, genetic analysis of native fish to determine degree of hybridization, cessation of nonnative trout stocking in waters occupied by native trout populations, and implementation of measures consistent with FWS recovery plans and CDFG management plans. Stocking of Mad River steelhead will continue with measures intended to reduce the interaction between hatchery reared fish and naturally reproducing populations and consistent with the Draft Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service. The Fishing in the City and Classroom Aquarium Education Programs will continue under uniform protocols developed to ensure that stocking locations are properly screened to protect native, sensitive, and legally protected species. Implementation of Program activities following development of any ABMPs or uniform protocols for the Fishing in the City and Classroom Aquarium Education Programs may require additional, site-specific NEPA compliance tiered from the EIR/EIS.