FHWA-AZNV-EIS-98-03-F
3OOR05903C
U.S. 93 Hoover Dam
Bypass Project
Record of Decision
Federal Highway Administration
Central Federal Lands Highway Division
March
2001
8CO1428Sป.37ซW 24ป_01ซni3-ROD 03/01
-------
US Department Central Federal Lands 555 Zang Street, Room 259
Of Transportation Highway Division Lakewood, CO 80228
Federal Highway
Administration
In Reply Refer To:
HPD-16
Agencies, Organizations, and Citizens:
The enclosed Record of Decision (ROD) has been prepared for the Hoover Dam Bypass Project.
The selected alternative is the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative. This alternative was selected
on the basis of: 1) collectively minimizing environmental impacts, 2) engineering and
operational advantages, 3) minimizing harm to Section 4(f) properties, 4) slightly lower
construction costs, and 5) agency and public comments received during the
environmental process.
Copies of the ROD are also available for review at the following locations:
Boulder City Public Library, Boulder City, NV
Bullhead City Public Library; Bullhead City, AZ
Clark County Public Library, Las Vegas, NV
Green Valley Public Library, Henderson, NV
Henderson Public Library, Henderson, NV
Kingman Public Library, Kingman, AZ
Laughlin Library, Laughlin, NV.
Thank you for your input during this phase of project development. Please contact me
303,716.2157 with any questions regarding this project.
Smcerely/wours,
Enclosure
be: G.Walton
Central File - Hoover Dam Bypass Project
l:\design\hoover\rod\roddispub.doc
-------
FHWA-AZNV-EIS-98-03-F
RECORD OF DECISION
U.S. 93 Hoover Dam Bypass
Clark County, Nevada and Mohave County, Arizona
March 2001
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Central Federal Lands Highway Division
555 Zang Street, Room 259
Lakewood, CO 80228
SCO/IAW2773 DOC/010440001
-------
U.S 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
Contents
Section Page
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Project Description 1
1.2 Purpose and Need 1
2. Decision 4
2.1 Bridge Concepts 4
2.2 Other Features 4
2.3 Project Construction 6
2.4 Logical Termini 6
3. Other Alternatives Considered 7
3.1 Alternatives Studied in Detail 7
3.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated 7
3.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Evaluation 10
4. Basis for Selected Alternative 13
4.1 Criterion 1 13
4.2 Criterion 2 13
4.3 Criterion 3 14
4.4 Criterion 4 14
4.5 Criterion 5 14
4.6 Criterion 6 15
4.7 Criterion 7 15
5. Section 4(f) 17
5.1 Evaluation of Potential Avoidance Alternatives 17
5.2 Least Harm Alternative 17
6. Scoping and Public Involvement 21
7. Measures to Minimize Harm 22
7.1 Air Quality 22
7.2 Noise 23
7.3 Biology 23
7.4 Water Resources 26
7.5 Cultural Resources 28
7.6 Visual Resources 31
7.7 Recreation Resources 31
7.8 Hazardous Materials 32
7.9 Construction Impacts 33
8. Mitigation Monitoring 35
9. Responses to Comments on Final EIS 36
10. Record of Decision Approval 82
SCO/LAW2773.DOC/010440001
-------
U.S 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
1. Introduction
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the
United States Highway 93 (U.S. 93) Hoover Dam Bypass Project fully documents the social,
environmental, and economic effects and considerations used to facilitate the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decisionmaking process set forth in this Record of
Decision (ROD).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project involves construction of a new bridge and highway access across the
Colorado River in the vicinity of Hoover Dam. The new bridge and highway will eliminate
truck traffic and other through traffic over Hoover Dam. The project is located in Clark
County, Nevada, and Mohave County, Arizona, and lies entirely on Federal Lands - Lake
Mead National Recreation Area (LMNRA) and the Hoover Dam Reservation Area (HDRA).
All three of the build alternatives use public recreation land and historic sites considered
under Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966
(see Figure 1, page 2).
1.2 Purpose and Need
The purpose of the project is to accomplish the following objectives:
Minimize the potential for pedestrian-vehicle accidents on the dam crest and on the
Nevada and Arizona approaches to the dam
Remove a major bottleneck to interstate and international commerce and travel in the
west by reducing traffic congestion and accidents in this segment of the major
commercial route between Phoenix and Las Vegas
Replace an inadequate federally owned highway river crossing with a new crossing that
meets current roadway design criteria, and improves through-vehicle and truck traffic
capacity on U.S. 93 at the dam
Reduce travel time in the dam vicinity
Protect Hoover Dam employees, visitors, equipment, power generation capabilities, and
Colorado River waters while enhancing the visitors' experience at Hoover Dam by:
- Safeguarding dam and power plant facilities and the waters of Lake Mead and the
Colorado River from hazardous spills or explosions
- Protecting the dam and power plant facilities from interruptions in electricity and
water delivery
- Providing improved conditions for operating and maintaining Hoover Dam facilities
SCO/LAW2773.DOC/010440001
-------
22
5
EUJ
LU a:
iu[J]o
-------
U.S. 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
The selected alternative fully addresses the following needs, which require rectification:
Accident Rate - Since 1964, more than 500 accidents have occurred in the 3.4-mile stretch
of highway approaching and crossing the dam. Commercial trucks were involved in 96
of the accidents. In every accident, the cause was partially due to the sharp curves,
narrow highway width, insufficient shoulder width, poor sight distances, and slow
travel speeds. U.S. 93 within 1 mile of the dam shows a much higher accident rate of 3.97
per million vehicle miles traveled. This rate is over three times the Nevada average for
rural principal arterials.
Inadequate Roadway Capacity - U.S. 93 over the dam has reached its capacity during
peak periods and cannot provide additional capacity with the current roadway
alignment. Considering the existing highway configuration, speed limit, pedestrians and
vehicle mix, highway capacity is 1,200 vehicles per hour. Traffic counts taken in 1996
indicated peak volumes at or exceeding the total highway capacity. The 1997 average
daily traffic (ADT) volume crossing the dam was 11,500 vehicles, corresponding to a
Level of Service (LOS) F. If the proposed improvements are not made, the projected
traffic volume crossing the dam in 2017 and 2027 will be 21,000 ADT (LOS F) and
26,000 ADT (LOS F), respectively.
Highway Deficiencies - U.S. 93 approaches to Hoover Dam include numerous
substandard geometric elements (including horizontal curves with radii too short to
provide adequate turning room, rock walls limiting sight distance, inadequate roadway
width for turning and for disabled and emergency vehicles); reduction of speed limit
from 55 to 15 miles per hour (mph) before the dam from each direction due to the
numerous hairpin curves and the steep grade; and, inadequate width for large trucks to
smoothly pass in opposite directions on the extreme hairpin curves, as trucks traveling
in each direction must cross the yellow line and use opposing lanes.
Travel Times - In 2017 there will be a delay of greater than 30 minutes for 3 hours of
each day and in 2027 a delay of 30 minutes or greater for 10 hours out of each day. If
capacity is not improved, the projected traffic will result in over 1,170 hours of travel
time delay during the 3 peak hours of each day in 2027.
Protect Hoover Dam Facilities, Employees, and Visitors - Many commercial trucks
currently crossing the dam carry volatile fuels, chemicals, and hazardous materials.
Potential hazards resulting from these materials include ignition of combustible
materials, contamination of Lake Mead or the Colorado River, and damage to the
powerhouse and associated equipment. Of particular concern is the highway drainage
system in the area near the dam on the Nevada side of the river, which directs flows off
the edge of the road, down the canyon face, onto the Nevada powerhouse roof, and into
the Colorado River.
SCO/LAW2773 DOC/010440001
-------
U.S 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
2. Decision
The Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative has been selected for the proposed project. This
alternative crosses the Colorado River about 1,500 feet downstream of Hoover Dam and
includes construction of approximately 2.2 miles of highway approach in Nevada, a
1,900-foot long bridge, and approximately 1.1 miles of highway approach in Arizona.
Existing U.S. 93 will continue to provide visitor and service access to Hoover Dam,
Lakeview Point, and the United States (U.S.) Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)
warehouse.
This alternative was selected on the basis of: 1) collectively minimizing environmental
impacts, 2) engineering and operational advantages, 3) minimizing harm to Section 4(f)
properties, 4) slightly lower construction costs, and 5) agency and public comments received
during the environmental process.
The new highway begins on the west side of the dam near the Hacienda Casino and follows
a route just south of existing U.S. 93. It then crosses and re-crosses existing U.S. 93 in the
vicinity of the Reclamation warehouse. The highway then passes through a gap in the high
rock ridge that parallels the river and descends southeasterly to the long span bridge over
the Colorado River. From the east end of the proposed bridge, the highway traverses the
northern base of Sugarloaf Mountain and then turns south crossing a wide ravine and
reconnects to existing U.S. 93 approximately 1.1 miles from the dam (see Figure 2, page 5).
2.1 Bridge Concepts
Bridge concepts for the Colorado River crossing that were developed during the
environmental process for the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative include: a concrete deck arch
bridge, a steel deck arch bridge, and a concrete cable stayed bridge. All were determined to
be feasible from an engineering standpoint. The final bridge type will be based on review of
all potentially feasible bridge types, technical and economic considerations, public input,
and input from the Design Advisory Panel (DAP) formed to provide input regarding
corridor aesthetic treatments and visual concepts to minimize adverse effects to the Hoover
Dam National Historic Landmark (HDNHL). The DAP will consist of representatives from
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Nevada Department of Transportation
(NDOT), Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), the Nevada and Arizona State
Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(ACHP), the National Historic Landmark (NHL) Coordinator, National Park Service (NFS),
Reclamation, Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), and a Native American tribal
representative, as well as an independent architectural historian and a registered landscape
architect. The approximate elevation of the proposed bridge is about 1,490 feet above sea
level, or approximately 840 feet above the Colorado River and 260 feet above the
Hoover Dam crest.
2.2 Other Features
The Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative includes the following additional features:
A 400-foot-long highway bridge near the head of Gold Strike Canyon
SCO/LAW2773 DOC/010440001
-------
UJ
DC
UJ
z.
I
o
o
en en
en z
O ID
Q- Q-
UJ UJ
LU LU
X X
en en
Z Z
DC DC
5 S S2
en i -
C5 O
m m
UJ
O
3
-------
U S. 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
A 300-foot-long tunnel passing through a high, narrow ridge separating the head of
Gold Strike Canyon from the open valley to the northeast
An 800-f oot-long highway bridge crossing a large ravine on the Arizona highway
approach
Four wildlife underpasses, three wildlife overpasses, two additional wildlife
underpasses provided by the two bridges outlined above, one additional wildlife
overpass provided by the tunnel outlined above, fencing to guide wildlife to the
crossing structures and approximately 2,400 feet beyond the interchange of the new
highway with existing U.S. 93 in Arizona, and out-jumps to allow bighorn sheep to exit
the fenced highway right-of-way
Other major features, including interchanges with existing U.S. 93 in Nevada and
Arizona and relocation of transmission towers
2.3 Project Construction
The Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative will require approximately 5 years to construct.
Assuming the balance of funding becomes available, the project is scheduled to be
completed in 2007. The estimated cost in base year 2002 dollars for design, construction and
construction engineering of the alternative is $198 million.
Major detours, road closures, or traffic delays will not be required during construction of the
bridge or highway approaches. Minor delays will be required during placement of girders
at the two proposed highway overpasses in the vicinity of the Reclamation warehouse.
Minor delays and detours will also be required during construction at the termini of
the project.
2.4 Logical Termini
The termini of the Hoover Dam Bypass alternatives studied in detail are defined to be
consistent with the purpose and need of the project. The selected alternative does not
necessitate other improvements outside the termini. Further, the alternatives studied in
detail can function independently over the project design life and do not require or preclude
future adjacent highway projects. The logical termini selected for the project do not change
current traffic compositions on regional routes. Thus, the proposed project does not
generate traffic on the U.S. 93 corridor or other regional routes, nor does it predetermine an
alternative selection on adjacent projects. Two such highway projects are in early planning
stages: an NDOT study to address the traffic problems along U.S. 93 in Boulder City that is
adjacent to the planned western terminus of the Hoover Dam Bypass alignments; and an
ADOT project to widen the existing two-lane section of U.S. 93 south of Hoover Dam
approximately 15 miles to the existing four-lane divided highway section.
Other alternative routes to U.S. 93 between Kingman and Las Vegas exist. All require
substantial out-of-direction travel (see FEIS Table 2-1). The selected alternative will provide
improved travel time benefits to regional traffic and freight movement among the Phoenix,
Kingman, and Las Vegas areas over the design life of the project.
SCO/LAW2773.DOC/010440001
-------
U.S 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
3. Other Alternatives Considered
A range of alternatives was considered (see Figure 3, page 8), and identification of the
preferred alternative was not made until the alternatives' impacts and comments on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and from the public hearings were fully
evaluated. The four most reasonable alternatives fully evaluated (including the No Build
Alternative) were developed to a comparable level of detail in the DEIS so that their
comparative merits could be analyzed. The following subsections briefly describe the
other alternatives.
3.1 Alternatives Studied in Detail
3.1.1 Promontory Point
This alternative crosses Lake Mead about 1,000 feet upstream from Hoover Dam and
requires constructing approximately 2.7 miles of highway approach in Nevada, a
2,200-foot-long bridge, and a 0.9-mile highway approach in Arizona.
3.1.2 Gold Strike Canyon
This alternative crosses the Colorado River about 1 mile downstream from Hoover Dam and
requires constructing approximately 2.2 miles of highway approach in Nevada, a 1,700-foot-
long bridge, and a 1.1-mile highway approach in Arizona.
3.1.3 No Build
This alternative consists of no action being taken. No Hoover Dam Bypass would be
developed, no change in the current highway configuration would occur, no traffic
restrictions would be imposed, and no other structural or nonstructural improvements
would be developed on U.S. 93 near Hoover Dam.
3.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated
3.2.1 Boulder City North
This alternative crosses the Colorado River about 2.5 miles downstream from Hoover Dam
and requires constructing approximately 5.6 miles of highway approach in Nevada, a
2,200-foot-long bridge, and a 2.1-mile highway approach in Arizona.
3.2.2 Boulder City South
This alternative crosses the Colorado River about 2.5 miles downstream from Hoover Dam
and requires constructing approximately 9.4 miles of highway approach in Nevada, a
2,200-foot-long bridge, and a 2.1-mile highway approach in Arizona.
3.2.3 Boulder City South Option
This alternative crosses the Colorado River about 2.5 miles downstream from Hoover Dam
and requires constructing approximately 8.8 miles of highway approach in Nevada, a
2,200-foot-long bridge, and a 2.1-mile highway approach in Arizona.
SCO/LAW2773.DOC/010440001
-------
Las Vega
HOOVER
DAM
COLORADO RIVER
*Wttl6w Beach'-l J
Alternatives Eliminated
from Detailed Evaluation
5 Boulder City South
6 Boulder City South Option
7 Willow Beach North
Lake Mead National
Recreation Area
Boundary
9 Temple Bar Corridor
10 -'1C:-, ff Cui'f
12 Laughlin/Bullhead City Corridor
13 U.S. 95/1-40 Corridor
14 Hoover Dam ModHioatiors
Golden
Shores
142883.37.03 2439_89 3/01
FIGURE 3
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
HOOVER DAM BYPASS PROJECT
RECORD OF DECISION
-------
U S. 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
3.2.4 Willow Beach North
This alternative crosses the Colorado River about 8 miles downstream from Hoover Dam
and requires constructing approximately 13 miles of highway approach in Nevada, a
2,000-foot-long bridge, and a 4-mile highway approach in Arizona.
3.2.5 Willow Beach South
This alternative crosses the Colorado River about 14 miles downstream from Hoover Dam
and requires constructing approximately 14.3 miles of highway approach in Nevada, a
2,080-foot-long bridge, and 8 miles of highway approach in Arizona.
3.2.6 Temple Bar
This alternative begins at Interstate 15 (1-15), approximately 30 miles northeast of Las Vegas.
The alignment would proceed in a southeast direction and would require a long bridge to
span the "Narrows" in Lake Mead. From the "Narrows," the alignment would generally
follow the existing road corridor west of Detrital Wash until it ties with U.S. 93 near the
LMNRA boundary. This alternative requires the construction of approximately 28 miles of
new road north of Lake Mead and 26 miles of new road along the existing road corridor
between Lake Mead and the tie to U.S. 93 in Arizona.
3.2.7 Nelson
This alternative begins at the U.S. 93/United States Highway 95 (U.S. 95) interchange west
of Boulder City. It follows the U.S. 95 corridor for 10 miles and then the NV 165 corridor for
approximately 20 miles. A new bridge across the Colorado River, 21 miles downstream
from Hoover Dam, would be constructed. Approximately 12 miles of new road
construction through previously undisturbed lands would be required on the Arizona side
to tie back in with U.S. 93 about 40 miles north of Kingman.
3.2.8 Cottonwood
This alternative begins at the U.S. 93/U.S. 95 interchange west of Boulder City and proceeds
southerly to Searchlight for approximately 35 miles. The alternative then proceeds easterly
for approximately 14 miles, along the existing road corridor to Cottonwood Cove. A new
bridge across Lake Mohave and an additional 26 miles of construction would be required on
the Arizona side to tie back in with U.S. 93 about 24 miles north of Kingman.
3.2.9 Laughlin-Bullhead City
This alternative to U.S. 93 improves the existing route between Boulder City and Kingman
via Laughlin and Bullhead City. This alternative uses existing U.S. 95, State Route (SR) 163,
and SR 68. It requires widening approximately 55 miles of U.S. 95 (programmed) and
14.5 miles of SR 68 (currently under construction) to four lanes, adding more pavement to
the existing lanes, and constructing a new multi-span bridge crossing the Colorado River
between Davis Dam and the existing Laughlin Bridge. This alternative restricts truck traffic
from crossing Hoover Dam and reroutes the traffic along the corridor discussed above.
SCO/LAW2773.DOC/010440001
-------
U.S. 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
3.2.10 U.S.95/I-40
This alternative to U.S. 93 improves the existing route between Boulder City and Kingman
via Needles, California. Approximately 56 miles of U.S. 95 in Nevada and 13 miles of
U.S. 95 in California would be widened to four lanes, and existing U.S. 95 would be overlaid
with new pavement. No improvements to existing Interstate 40 (1-40) and its crossing of the
Colorado River south of Needles are necessary.
3.2.11 Modifications to Hoover Dam
This alternative includes two options for modifying existing U.S. 93 where it crosses the
Colorado River on the crest of Hoover Dam: widening Hoover Dam and constructing an
elevated roadway on the dam.
3.2.11.1 Widening Hoover Dam
This option widens the roadway to four lanes on the dam crest and its approaches.
3.2.11.2 Elevated Roadway on Hoover Dam
This option adds an elevated crossing structure to be supported by a portion of
Hoover Dam. It also includes new and straighter highway approaches.
3.2.12 Restricting Motorized Traffic from Crossing Hoover Dam
This alternative includes two options: restricting truck traffic and restricting all vehicle
traffic from crossing Hoover Dam.
3.2.12.1 Restricting Truck Traffic Only
This option restricts truck traffic from crossing Hoover Dam by restricting specific vehicle
classifications. It diverts trucks to alternate routes, but allows automobile traffic to cross
Hoover Dam. The most likely diversions are over Davis Dam or the Laughlin Bridge.
3.2.12.2 Restricting All Traffic
This option restricts all motorized vehicle traffic from crossing Hoover Dam by diverting all
vehicles to alternate routes; it allows only bicycle and foot traffic on Hoover Dam. The most
likely diversions are over Davis Dam or the Laughlin Bridge.
3.2.13 Traffic Systems Management
This alternative includes relatively low-cost, nonstructural improvements designed to
reduce traffic congestion, improve traffic flow, and increase existing highway capacity. This
alternative could include signs, traffic signals, turn lanes, barriers, traffic controls, and other
devices to direct traffic and pedestrians.
3.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Evaluation
After applying screening criteria to the alternatives (see ROD Section 4), all were eliminated
from further consideration except for the three alignments closest to Hoover Dam:
Promontory Point, Sugarloaf Mountain and Gold Strike Canyon, and the No Build
Alternative. The alternatives were eliminated for reasons described below:
1. Some alternative routes did not meet the project purpose and need because they would
not substantially eliminate roadway deficiencies and reduce traffic congestion on U.S. 93
at Hoover Dam and the dam approaches, eliminate through traffic from the dam,
SCO/LAW2773.DOC/010440001 10
-------
US 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
enhance public safety, or protect Hoover Dam and its visitors. Alternatives were also
dropped from further consideration if they substantially increased travel time and did
not provide system continuity to enhance travel within the U.S. 93 North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) corridor. The Laughlin and U.S. 95/1-40 Alternatives were
eliminated because motorists would avoid driving the additional 23 and 70 miles,
respectively, by continuing to use the Hoover Dam crossing. Therefore, meeting the
objectives of enhanced safety and reduced congestion on U.S. 93 at the dam would not
be achieved. As described in Appendix B of the FEIS, the Laughlin Alternative would
not improve the LOS on U.S. 93 on Hoover Dam.
2. Many alternatives would affect Section 4(f) lands; however, some routes have
considerably more impact than others. The Temple Bar Alternative and all the highway
alternatives south of Gold Strike Canyon except the Laughlin and U.S. 95/1-40
Alternatives would affect much more Section 4(f) land than the three alternatives near
Hoover Dam. Based on the requirement to minimize harm to Section 4(f) property,
these alternatives were eliminated from further consideration.
3. Routes nearest Hoover Dam would pass through lands already extensively disturbed by
human-made features. Conversely, the Willow Beach, Nelson, Cottonwood, Boulder
City, and Temple Bar Alternatives were eliminated because those routes would pass
through areas of extensive pristine habitat.
4. Alternatives were eliminated from consideration because their impacts on known
peregrine falcon breeding areas, bighorn sheep habitat and movement corridors, desert
tortoise habitat, and other wildlife were more severe than the three alternatives near
the dam.
5. The cost of constructing the routes would increase as the distance away from the dam
increases because longer sections of new highway would be required; therefore, longer,
more costly alternatives were eliminated. The estimated capital construction cost of
$130 million for the Laughlin-Bullhead City Alternative (LBA) is less than the
$198 million to $215 million for alternatives closer to Hoover Dam. However,
considering traffic volumes over a 20-year period, an additional $1.4 billion in total user
costs would be incurred due to the increased length of the LBA (see Appendix B of the
FEIS). In addition, traffic projections indicate that the Hoover Dam crossing would
currently operate at a LOS E at peak hours if trucks were removed from the traffic
composition. Thus, the project purpose and need would not be met.
6. Alternatives that require keeping the existing highway open to through traffic to
provide visitor access to the dam were dropped from further consideration if they also
required operating and maintaining extensive lengths of duplicate highway. Alternative
routes not close to Hoover Dam (Willow Beach, Nelson, Cottonwood, and Temple Bar)
were eliminated for this reason.
7. Restricting truck traffic does not meet two critical elements of the project purpose and
need; it removes only a portion of the traffic contributing to Hoover Dam congestion
and results in a substantial increase in travel distance and time for truck traffic.
Additionally, closing the dam to commercial truck traffic is subject to FHWA approval
under the provisions of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR). 23 CFR
SCO/LAW2773.DOC/010440001
-------
U S. 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
Section 658.11 pertains to additions and deletions of roads on the National Network of
Highways, of which U.S. 93 is a part. In response to Nevada Senate Concurrent
Resolution No. 60, NDOT prepared a preliminary evaluation of the criteria used in
23 CFR to assess deletion of U.S. 93 from the National Network of Highways. The
results of this analysis indicated that network deletion of U.S. 93 would not be feasible.
Consequently, NDOT concluded it is not feasible to prohibit commercial trucks from
crossing Hoover Dam unless an alternate crossing in the proximity of Hoover Dam was
constructed.
In addition, a September 20,1996, letter from the Laughlin Town Advisory Board to
NDOT states that: "[We] cannot support any action ... that would cause an increase in
commercial truck traffic through Laughlin on the Laughlin bridge or over Davis Dam."
In similar correspondence, dated September 18,1996, the City of Bullhead City opposed
routing of hazardous materials transports via State Route 68. In the fall of 1996, NDOT
also received letters opposing closure of Hoover Dam to commercial trucks from the
City of Kingman, the Nevada Motor Transport Association, Nevada Petroleum
Marketers Association, Arizona Transport Association, Western States Petroleum
Association, National Private Truck Council, and many other private freight companies.
8. Restricting all traffic from Hoover Dam, with the exception of bicycle and foot traffic,
was eliminated for the reasons provided in Item 7 above and because it does not meet
the need to remove a major bottleneck to interstate and international commerce.
Further, this alternative would not meet other critical elements of the project purpose;
specifically, it would not reduce vehicle travel time or improve speed.
9. Alternatives related to Hoover Dam widening were eliminated from further
consideration for technical, economic, and cultural reasons. Because tourist traffic
would not be separated from through traffic, this option does not solve the public safety
problem, and does not protect power and water supplies. No practical way exists to
modify Hoover Dam without impacting the historic appearance of the dam or
disrupting traffic during construction.
Attaining the required highway design criteria by adding an elevated crossing structure
(which would be supported by some portion of Hoover Dam) would require new and
straighter highway approaches. Deep and lengthy excavations, or possibly tunnels, are
necessary to connect such a structure to the existing highway. Support piers for the
elevated structure would cause traffic interference during construction and would
permanently affect the space available on the dam crest for tourist movement and dam
maintenance operations.
Concerns identified with both dam modification options also include interference with
existing transmission lines, towers, and other power facilities; impacts to the historical
significance of the site (the integrity and setting of the dam and its status as a NHL); and
limited space available for separating traffic, vehicle turning movements, and parking
maneuvers.
SCO/LAW2773 DOC/010440001 12
-------
U.S 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
4. Basis for Selected Alternative
The following screening criteria and narrative provide the basis and essential considerations
used in selection of the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative:
4.1 Criterion 1. The purpose and need, including engineering and operational standards,
safety, and traffic/freight capacity, should be achieved with a reasonable cost.
The No Build Alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the project (as discussed in
FEIS Section 2.7). All three build alternatives evaluated meet the purpose and need of the
project. The Sugarloaf Mountain and Promontory Point Alternatives have the best roadway
geometry; however, the Promontory Point Alternative has a curve at each end of the
proposed bridge, whereas the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative has long, straight approaches
to the bridge. This maximizes sight distance and minimizes the possibility of an accident at
the bridge. Numerous agencies and citizens opposed the Promontory Point Alternative
because of the risk of a hazardous material spill into Lake Mead.
The Gold Strike Canyon Alternative, although 0.1 mile shorter than Sugarloaf Mountain and
0.6 mile shorter than Promontory Point, has the poorest horizontal and vertical alignments.
It also has a curve at each end of the proposed bridge. The profile grade is by far the worst
of the three build alternatives and includes more than 2.5 miles of grades steeper than
5 percent. The Promontory Point Alternative and the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative have
only 0.5 mile of grades steeper than 5 percent. Gold Strike Canyon requires the construction
of 10 bridges in addition to the Colorado River bridge, whereas Promontory Point has
1 additional bridge and Sugarloaf Mountain has 2 additional bridges.
Construction access and constructibility of the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative are the most
difficult, although these criteria are difficult to quantify. Gold Strike Canyon is also the
most expensive at $215 million, although it is only 9 percent higher than the Sugarloaf
Mountain Alternative, which is $198 million. The cost of the Promontory Point Alternative
is $204 million.
The preferred alternative under this criterion is the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative.
4.2 Criterion 2. Impacts to Section 4(f) land should be avoided or minimized pursuant to
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
The FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation determined there are no feasible and prudent
alternatives that avoid the use of Section 4(f) land. Although the Promontory Point
Alternative uses 74 acres of Section 4(f) land and the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative uses
92 acres, the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment has been determined to be the harm-minimizing
alternative. (See discussion in next section and FEIS Chapter 6.)
The Gold Strike Canyon Alternative uses 128 acres of Section 4(f) land, impacts existing
recreational use, substantially impairs pristine scenic conditions, and has an unavoidable
and potentially unmitigable adverse impact on the Gold Strike Canyon TCP. Therefore, it
cannot be considered the harm-minimizing alternative.
The preferred alternative under this criterion is the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative.
SCO/LAW2773 DOC/010440001 13
-------
U.S. 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
4.3 Criterion 3. Impacts to federally and/or state-listed threatened or endangered species
and sensitive habitats, such as wetlands, should be avoided or minimized.
The Gold Strike Canyon Alternative involves constructing through previously undisturbed
areas, whereas the Sugarloaf Mountain and Promontory Point Alternatives are generally
located along existing road corridors or through other disturbed areas. Therefore, the Gold
Strike Canyon Alternative has substantially greater impacts under this criterion. NPS, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW), and the
Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) are opposed to the Gold Strike Canyon
Alternative.
Because of the least impacts to the peregrine falcon, desert bighorn sheep, and desert
tortoise, the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative is preferred under this criterion.
4.4 Criterion 4. Impacts to cultural resources, including HDNHL and archeological
(prehistoric and historic) resources, should be avoided or minimized.
The build alternatives adversely affect between 6 and 10 historic properties, including a
Traditional Cultural Property (TCP). The Gold Strike Canyon Alternative is considered to
have the least historic impacts because it is located the farthest from Hoover Dam. The
Promontory Point and Sugarloaf Mountain Alternatives have an adverse effect on the
"historic" setting of Hoover Dam. Consultation with the Native American tribes indicates
that the tribes do not support any of the build alternatives; however, when asked about a
preference, they favored the Promontory Point Alternative and strenuously opposed the
Gold Strike Canyon Alternative because of significant disturbance to the TCP.
Therefore, the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative has the least historic impacts but has the
greatest TCP concerns. The Promontory Point and Sugarloaf Mountain Alternatives have
the greatest historic concerns (from a visual standpoint).
Consequently, only the No Build Alternative can be considered to meet this criterion.
4.5 Criterion 5. Impacts to aesthetic resources (including visual, noise, dust, and odors)
should be avoided or minimized.
All of the build alternatives will enhance the visitors' experience at Hoover Dam, since truck
traffic and much of the vehicular traffic will be removed from the dam. The Gold Strike
Canyon Alternative is the only alternative that results in a substantial noise increase over
existing levels; however, the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative is preferable for the visitors'
experience at Hoover Dam since it moves the traffic out of sight and farther away than the
other two alternatives. Traffic-generated noise, dust, and odors would be minimized. The
number of hikers and recreationists downstream from Hoover Dam is very small compared
to the number of visitors at Hoover Dam; therefore, under this criterion, it is reasonable to
identify an alternative which minimizes impacts and maximizes benefits for the visitors at
Hoover Dam.
The Gold Strike Canyon Alternative is considered the preferred alternative under
this criterion.
SCO/LAW2773.DOC/010440001 14
-------
U.S 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
4.6 Criterion 6. Impacts on recreation resources and to tourists should be avoided or
minimized.
All of the build alternatives will have a major beneficial effect on recreation and tourism
primarily for the visitors at Hoover Dam. The visitors' experience at Hoover Dam will be
enhanced by removing the truck traffic and much of the vehicular traffic from the crest of
the dam. The Gold Strike Canyon Alternative has the greatest negative impact on recreation
since the hot springs hiking trail would be closed during construction. The Gold Strike
Canyon Alternative would also have a long-term, unavoidable adverse impact on the hiking
trail because the highway would be adjacent to or bridged over the trail for most of its
length and the traffic noise could not be mitigated. The Promontory Point Alternative has a
potentially unavoidable adverse impact on NPS's planned bicycle path along the historic
railroad grade north of the Reclamation warehouse area. It also has the most impact to
water recreation since boating restrictions would be implemented during construction.
The Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative is the preferred alternative under this criterion.
4.7 Criterion 7. Public and agency input should be taken into consideration.
The approximately 160 commenters on the DEIS favored the Sugarloaf Mountain
Alternative over either of the other two build alternatives and the No Build Alternative by a
three to one margin (see FEIS Section 2.4 and FEIS Volume II). Public comments supported
the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative because of its lowest cost and least environmental
impacts. Numerous citizens expressed concerns 'about the Promontory Point Alternative
because of the possibility of a hazardous material spill into Lake Mead. The resource and
regulatory agencies, with the exception of the SHPOs, unanimously supported the Sugarloaf
Mountain Alternative because of its least impact to wildlife, wildlife habitat, water quality,
and jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Gold Strike Canyon was widely disfavored due to the
adverse effects on pristine habitat and recreation area.
The Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative is the preferred alternative under this criterion.
The Project Management Team (PMT) developed the screening criteria based on known
environmental considerations within the project area and ideals for provision of a safe and
efficient transportation facility. Analysis of the alternatives against the screening criteria
was conducted after circulation of the DEIS and careful consideration of all analytical
documentation and comments received. In November 1998, the PMT identified the
Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative as the preferred alternative. In July 1999, regulations for
implementation of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) changed regarding
Native American consultation. These revised regulations were incorporated into the
decision-making process and the screening criteria were reanalyzed.
The table below summarizes the final decisions regarding the environmentally and
operationally preferable alternative for the screening criteria.
SCO/LAW2773.DOC/010440001 15
-------
U.S. 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
U.S. 93 - Hoover Dam Bypass Alternative Preference by Individual Criteria
Public/
Engineering Section Aesthetic/ Agency
Alternative and Cost 4(f) Biological Cultural Visual Recreation Opinion
No Build Xa
Promontory
Point
Sugarloaf XXX XX
Mountain
Gold Strike X
Canyon
a Does not meet the purpose and need of the project (see FEIS Section 2.7).
The Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative is the preferable alternative for four of the six
environmental criteria. Furthermore, it is the preferred alternative for the engineering
criterion.
The environmental advantages of the No Build alternative regarding historic, prehistoric,
and traditional cultural properties was given careful consideration in balancing the essential
factors set forth in the screening criteria. However, the preferable aspects of the Sugarloaf
Mountain Alternative regarding:
Section 4(f) lands,
Least harm to threatened and endangered species and sensitive habitats,
Recreational activities, and
Public and agency input *
coupled with the beneficial impacts of providing a safe and efficient transportation facility,
outweigh the cultural impacts when considering the benefits and impacts collectively.
The environmental advantage of the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative regarding the singular
consideration of adverse aesthetic/visual impacts cannot be considered more imperative
when balanced against the substantial negative environmental impacts to the previously
undisturbed terrain associated with that alternative.
Furthermore, concentrated efforts have been made to minimize and mitigate the adverse
effects to cultural and visual resources through the interagency Programmatic Agreement
and Treatment Plan (PA/TP), establishment of a DAP, and the opportunity for continuing
government-to-government consultation with Native American Tribes (see ROD Section 6).
Based on the above analysis of essential considerations and balancing of those
considerations, the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative is the environmentally preferable
alternative when considering the benefits and impacts collectively.
SCO/LAW2773.DOC/010440001 16
-------
U.S. 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
5. Section 4(f)
5.1 Evaluation of Potential Avoidance Alternatives
The geographic shape of LMNRA and the location of existing U.S. 93 (i.e., a narrow strip of
land extending approximately 60 miles south of the existing road corridor and a variable
width strip of area extending approximately 40 miles east of the existing corridor) create a
unique problem regarding avoidance of Section 4(f) land.
5.1.1 U.S. 95/I-40 and No Build
The U.S. 95/1-40 Alternative, passing to the south of LMNRA, and the No Build Alternative
do not meet the project purpose and need because a substantial portion of the through
traffic (all for the no build) would continue to use existing U.S. 93 due to the 70-mile trip
length increase from Kingman, Arizona to Las Vegas, Nevada. Therefore, pedestrian-
vehicle accident rates, congested bottleneck conditions, substandard approaches, and travel
time would not be improved.
Moreover, any alternative that would route through traffic around the southern end of the
LMNRA would add, at a minimum, approximately 25 miles of out-of-direction travel to the
mileage currently traveled by existing U.S. 93 motorists and would have at least 17 miles of
additional steep grades (3 to 6 percent). Based on analysis of the LBA, which traverses the
extreme southern end of LMNRA, this would represent over $1.4 billion dollars in
additional total 20-year costs. These additional total user costs would be an increase of at
least 10 percent over the build alternatives studied in detail and result in a negative benefit
to cost ratio. Thus, the U.S. 95/1-40 alternative that passes far to the south of LMNRA and
adds approximately 70 miles to the trip length is unfeasible with respect to engineering
economics and imprudent regarding the increased travel time, user costs, and
environmental impacts.
5.1.2 Restricting Traffic from Hoover Dam
This alternative is unfeasible and imprudent primarily because:
It does not fulfill the designated functional requirements of U.S. 93 as a principle arterial
highway
It would eliminate a major segment of a primary north-south U.S. highway
5.1.3 Traffic Systems Management
The Traffic Systems Management alternative would not significantly improve traffic flow
across Hoover Dam, minimize the potential for pedestrian-vehicle accidents, improve
protection of the dam facility, or improve operation and maintenance conditions, and
therefore it does not meet the project purpose and need.
5.2 Least Harm Alternative
The final Section 4(f) evaluation demonstrates that the preferred alternative is a feasible and
prudent alternative with the least-harm on the Section 4(f) resources after considering
mitigation. The degree of harm considers not only size of land used, but also the:
SCO/LAW2773 DOC/010440001 17
-------
U S. 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
Location of the portion used
Severity of the portion used
Function of the portion used
The remainder of this section describes the logic used to determine the least-harm
alternative. Two build alternatives with relatively lower Section 4(f) use are the
Modifications to Hoover Dam and Laughlin-Bullhead City Alternatives.
5.2.1 Modifications to Hoover Dam
The two modification alternatives, widening the crest and elevating the highway structure,
would not:
Minimize the potential for pedestrian-vehicle accidents
Improve protection of the dam facility
Improve operation and maintenance conditions
Therefore, these alternatives do not meet the project purpose and need. In addition, the two
modification alternatives would result in direct adverse physical alteration to the HDNHL
in terms of its original design, setting, materials, and workmanship.
5.2.2 Laughlin-Bullhead City
The LBA would not reduce travel time; would have adverse impacts on public safety,
sensitive wildlife species, and air quality; would not protect the HDNHL; and would not
fully address long-term traffic issues on Hoover Dam. Therefore, it does not meet the
project purpose and need.
Further, an additional $1.4 billion dollars in total 20-year costs would be accrued. These
additional total user costs are an increase of approximately 10 percent over the build
alternatives studied in detail and result in a negative benefit to cost ratio. Thus, this
alternative is unfeasible with respect to engineering economics and imprudent regarding
the increased travel time, user costs, and environmental impacts.
5.2.3 Alternatives Eliminated Based on Section 4(f) Acreage and Quality Impacts
The following alternatives were eliminated based on Section 4(f) acreage
impact considerations.
Gold Strike Canyon (128 acres)
Boulder City North (145 acres)
Boulder City South (165 acres)
Boulder City South Option (135 acres)
Willow Beach North (405 acres)
Willow Beach South (575 acres)
Nelson (491 acres)
Cottonwood (436 acres)
Temple Bar (818 acres)
Furthermore, the LMNRA Section 4(f) acreage traversed by these alternatives is
essentially undisturbed.
SCO/LAW2773.DOC/010440001 18
-------
U.S. 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
5.2.4 Determination of Least-Harm Alternative
Based on the above considerations, the remaining two alternatives are Sugarloaf Mountain
and Promontory Point. Promontory Point Alternative uses approximately 74 acres of
Section 4(f) land. Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative uses approximately 92 acres. However,
much of the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative traverses or is adjacent to areas of existing
disturbance (e.g., power lines and related facilities) that detract from recreational and
scenic qualities.
Least-harm considerations are not always a function of minimizing acreage used. Other
important factors such as location, severity and function of the portion used also may play a
role in the decision-making process.
The Sugarloaf Mountain and Promontory Point Alternatives affect three primary Section 4(f)
activities or features:
Recreational opportunities associated with the LMNRA
Recreational opportunities associated with the HDNHL
Historic and cultural values of the HDNHL and contributing historic properties, and
the TCP
Both alternatives cross waters of the Colorado River. However, during the comment period
on the DEIS, there was strong public concern regarding the potential for a hazardous
material spill in Lake Mead from the Promontory Point bridge. Furthermore, with the
exception of the SHPOs who preferred the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative during early
reviews for its lack of visibility from the HDNHL, the resource and regulatory agencies
unanimously supported the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative due to least impact to wildlife,
wildlife habitat, water quality, and jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Through government-
to-government consultation some of the Native American tribal representatives indicated
they did not initially favor a new bridge crossing of the Colorado River. During these
consultations they were most opposed to the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative for its severe
impact on the canyon and hot springs, and also disfavored the Sugarloaf Mountain
Alternative for its adverse effect on the TCP. The Native American group expressed a
strong preference for the Promontory Point Alternative.
The Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative does not impact views of the dam and Lake Mead as
visitors approach from Arizona or Nevada. Conversely, the Promontory Point Alternative
is directly visible and would detract from the "first impression" historic views of the dam
and lake.
Both alternatives would adversely impact the scenic views from the dam crest and Lake
Mead. However, the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative could be blended into the landscape
more readily than the Promontory Point Alternative. This is because (1) the Sugarloaf
Mountain Alternative deck structure would form a fairly contiguous horizontal line with
the canyon rim, (2) the structure would not significantly protrude above the horizon line
when viewed from the dam crest, and (3) the structure would not protrude above the
horizon line when viewed from Lake Mead. Conversely, the Promontory Point Alternative
would be obtrusive and protrude above the strong horizontal component of Lake Mead
regardless of bridge type.
SCO/LAW2773 DOC/010440001 19
-------
U S. 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
Both alternatives would affect the TCP. Both alternatives would be located in previously
disturbed portions of the TCP. The Promontory Point Alternative follows the northern
boundary of the TCP along existing U.S. 93, whereas the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative
traverses a portion of the TCP. Therefore, the Promontory Point Alternative would create
less disturbance from a location standpoint. However, the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative
traverses the southern boundary of the existing disturbed area, and the tribal elders
interviewed stated that the integrity of the Sugarloaf TCP has not been diminished by
existing disturbance. In addition, impacts due to land disturbance, visual changes, and
noise will be mitigated through continuing consultation with Native American tribes and by
their involvement in the DAP, formed by the Programmatic Agreement (PA).
Therefore, the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative is the harm-minimizing alternative based on
the following factors:
Resource and regulatory agency support for Sugarloaf Mountain due to least impact to
wildlife, wildlife habitat, and water quality
No effect on the "first impression" historic views of Hoover Dam and Lake Mead
Strong public concern regarding hazardous materials spills in Lake Mead from the
Promontory Point Alternative
Ability to more readily blend Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative into the landscape
Affecting the National Register-eligible TCP in an area of extensive disturbance
Ability to minimize and mitigate impacts through continuing consultation and Native
American participation on the Design Advisory Panel
SCO/LAW2773.DOC/010440001 20
-------
U.S 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
6. Scoping and Public Involvement
Reclamation conducted numerous environmental and engineering studies for a Hoover
Dam bypass, dating back to the late 1960s. Reclamation created the PMT in 1989, consisting
of Reclamation, NFS, WAP A, NDOT, and ADOT, with FHWA joining in 1997 to perform
engineering and environmental studies, develop funding agreements, and to manage the
design and construction of a new crossing. Reclamation published a Notice of Intent in the
Federal Register in May 1990 initiating the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as lead
agency and beginning the scoping process. Public scoping meetings were held in June 1990
in Kingman, Arizona, and Boulder City and Las Vegas, Nevada. Reclamation stopped work
on the project before a DEIS was released.
FHWA filed a Notice of Intent in September 1997 announcing the FHWA - Central Federal
Lands Highway Division as the new lead agency for environmental review and
continuation of Reclamation's efforts. FHWA conducted three public meetings in Kingman,
Boulder City, and Las Vegas in October 1997 to receive comments on the alternatives carried
forward from the June 1990 scoping meetings.
FHWA circulated the DEIS to the public on September 25,1998, with publication of the
Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. FHWA held three DEIS public hearings in
Kingman, Boulder City and Las Vegas in October 1998.
Reclamation consulted with the ACHP and the Nevada and Arizona SHPOs from 1991 to
1993. FHWA reinitiated consultations with the two SHPOs and the ACHP in 1997,
culminating in additional determinations of eligibility and adverse effects for the HDNHL,
related historic features and the TCP, and execution of a PA/TP for resolving adverse effects
on historic properties from the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative.
Amendments to the NHPA regulations were published on July 1,1999. Regulations
implementing the amendments contained important changes that significantly altered the
role of Native American Indian tribes in the Section 106 process for Federal undertakings
both on and off Tribal lands. FHWA sent out invitations to 17 tribes in December 1999,
requesting their participation in formal consultation meetings on the project. Five meetings
have been held with the tribal representatives: on January 11, 2000, in Laughlin, Nevada; on
March 30, 2000, at the Hoover Dam Visitor Center; on May 8, 2000, in Henderson, Nevada;
and on August 15 and 16, 2000, and November 15, 2000, in Boulder City, Nevada. A PA/TP
have been executed that provides an opportunity for continued consultation.
FHWA approved and distributed the FEIS, with publication of a Notice of Availability in
the Federal Register on January 19, 2001. The FEIS documents the basis for identifying the
Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative as the preferred alternative, responds to comments received
on the DEIS, and describes the measures to minimize harm. The FEIS and related
documentation were developed in close coordination with the PMT, the Nevada and
Arizona SHPOs, the ACHP, USFWS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), among many other government agencies and
members of the public who have provided input to this project.
SCO/LAW2773 DOC/010440001 21
-------
U.S. 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
7. Measures to Minimize Harm
This section summarizes the specific measures adopted to minimize harm and identifies the
standard measures appropriate for the proposed project. All practicable measures to
minimize harm have been incorporated into the decision. See FEIS Chapters 3 and 6 for a
full description of all measures to minimize harm adopted for this project.
In the case of historic and cultural properties, the PA specifies that FHWA will continue
consultations with the Nevada and Arizona SHPOs, the federal land-managing agencies,
Native American tribes, and other designated authorities (see ROD Section 7.5) through a
DAP to review bridge design concepts and corridor wide aesthetic design elements, develop
aesthetic design criteria, and mitigate adverse effects on historic resources according to the
Secretary of Interior Standards and the views of the participating Native American tribes.
The extensive mitigation measures identified in the FEIS and those developed through
implementation of the PA/TP will be incorporated into the design development,
construction contract documents, and post design operation plan. In addition, Federal
Lands Highway's Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges is formulated to
minimize environmental harm and will be incorporated into the construction contract
documents. These standard specifications were developed for and are used in federal
highway construction contracts in or accessing environmentally sensitive federal lands such
as National Parks, National Forests, and Indian Reservations. The standard specifications
are designed to control the work using the most environmentally friendly methods and
include measures such as: erosion control and sedimentation prevention, compliance with
local and state regulations and permitting requirements, prevention of material and fuel
spills, prevention of fires, recycling of materials, and control of dust and noise.
7.1 Air Quality
The project will obtain and maintain all applicable permits pertaining to dust abatement and
blasting. Dust control permits will be acquired from Clark County for construction in
Nevada. An Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) permit for
Mohave County will be acquired for any portable sources of air pollution (i.e., rock, sand,
gravel, and asphaltic concrete plants). Reasonable steps will be taken to prevent fugitive
dust emissions 24 hours a day, seven days a week, during project construction. Specific
dust abatement measures (per Clark County Health District dust control permit
requirements, revised July 1,1997) will be adhered to, including:
Keep all dirt access roads and staging areas watered.
Keep dirt off paved roads by sweeping, scraping, or flushing with water.
Install a gravel pad at least 30 feet wide by 50 feet long by 6 inches deep consisting of
1-inch- to 3-inch-thick material at truck exits to minimize dirt tracked out; and, if
necessary, wash down trucks leaving proposed project area
Stabilize disturbed areas by watering, revegetating, or applying dust suppressants
where no continuing development occurs within 30 days of the disturbance of that area.
Prohibit open burning onsite without appropriate permits.
SCO/LAW2773 DOC/010440001 22
-------
U.S 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
Stop all operations, except watering trucks, during high-wind conditions that result in
dust emissions that leave the proposed project area, and apply appropriate mitigation
(e.g., soil stabilizers and wind breaks) to areas susceptible to high winds to prevent
further occurrences.
Limit vehicle speeds to reduce dust emissions.
7.2 Noise
The following measures will be implemented to reduce construction noise levels:
Ensure that all engine-powered equipment has mufflers installed according to the
manufacturer's specifications.
Require all equipment to comply with applicable equipment noise standards.
Remedial measures will be taken by the engineer if specific noise complaints are received
during construction. These measures may include the following:
Locate stationary construction equipment as far from nearby noise sensitive properties
as possible.
Shut off idling equipment.
Reschedule construction operations to avoid periods of noise annoyance, as determined
through consultation with NFS and Reclamation and defined in special provisions.
Notify nearby affected parties whenever extremely noisy work will be occurring.
Install temporary or portable acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise
sources.
The following mitigation measures will be followed for short-term noise increases from
blasting operations:
Publicize the blasting schedule through the local media.
Time blasts so that shock waves created by blasts dissipate or cancel shock waves
created by subsequent blasts.
7.3 Biology
7.3.1 Waters of the U.S.
The following measures will be followed to minimize adverse project impacts on waters of
the U.S. and help protect wildlife dependent on these waters.
Revegetate approximately 50 percent of the disturbed, non-paved area within the
highway right-of-way.
Stockpile topsoil as much as possible during construction and replace on disturbed areas
directly outside the highway shoulders after construction to re-establish desert
vegetation.
SCO/LAW2773 DOC/010440001 23
-------
U.S. 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
Remove, stockpile, and replant salvaged cacti, yucca, and candidate plant species.
Protect desert washes by placing barriers below excavation areas to prevent construction
spoil from falling in the washes. In addition, several sections of washes will be bridged.
Install culverts placed in fill areas to allow runoff to flow unrestricted, and place erosion
protection devices at the ends of each culvert.
Scale loose rocks prior to and during excavation work for construction of bridge
abutments, and install netting on the canyon slopes during blasting to minimize rock fall
and contamination of Colorado River waters.
Relocate wildlife drinking sources currently used by desert bighorn sheep, which could
be directly affected by construction, to nearby areas. They will be placed so that they are
easily found by resident sheep but are far enough from the construction site so that
sheep could use the new water source without being disturbed by construction.
Determine specific types and locations of these off site watering facilities through
consultation with AGFD, NFS, and NDOW.
Avoid or minimize temporary impacts by designating construction access, stockpile, and
staging areas outside of waters of the U.S. and by designing effective rock debris
restraints on steep slopes.
Use highway design and highway construction methods that will reduce the fill to less
than 50 feet on either side of the centerline in the vicinity of waters of the U.S.
7.3.2 Wildlife Crossings
The location, design, and number of crossing structures were determined during
consultations among wildlife biologists from AGFD, NDOW, NFS, and Reclamation. These
criteria are based on studies conducted by AGFD and NFS from 1989 through 1992 in
conjunction with this project. The following are specific mitigation measures to minimize
impacts to wildlife:
Strategically locate underpasses and overpasses near traditional bighorn sheep
movement corridors to provide safe crossings for them and other wildlife and to prevent
small populations from being isolated.
Place fencing along both sides of the highway corridor to guide wildlife to crossing
structures, thereby reducing the potential for animals being killed. Continue fencing
approximately 0.5 mile beyond the intersections of the new highway with existing
U.S. 93 in Arizona.
Ensure that NDOT and ADOT maintain wildlife underpasses and overpasses in their
respective states. Either NFS or Reclamation will maintain alternate water sources
provided for mitigation.
Replace and maintain the Reclamation sewage evaporation ponds as a wildlife watering
source, or provide a new source if relocated ponds are fenced.
SCO/UW2773.DOC/01Q440001 24
-------
U.S. 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
Conduct monitoring to determine the effectiveness of the wildlife mitigation features
following construction activities. Determine specific monitoring procedures and
duration of effort through consultation with NFS, AGFD, USFWS, and NDOW.
7.3.3 Mohave Desert Tortoise and Gila Monster
In the Biological Opinion regarding construction of the selected alternative, USFWS
determined the reasonable and prudent measures necessary and appropriate to minimize
take of Mohave desert tortoises in Nevada. NDOW comments on the FEIS, requested that
gila monster documentation be incorporated with those for the desert tortoise (see ROD
Section 9). This requested documentation will be incorporated. Terms and conditions for
implementation of the reasonable and prudent measures for the tortoise in the Biological
Opinion will be adhered to, as follows (see FEIS Section 3.3.3 and Appendix E, for
full details):
Minimize mortality or injury of desert tortoises due to construction activities, blasting
operations, and use of heavy equipment.
Minimize predation on tortoises by ravens drawn to the project area. Promptly dispose
of trash and food items in predator-proof containers with resealable lids. Remove and
properly dispose of any construction refuse from the site each day, including but not
limited to, broken parts, wrapping material, cords, cables, wire, rope, strapping, twine,
buckets, metal or plastic containers, boxes, and welding rods.
Minimize destruction of desert tortoise habitat, such as soil compaction, erosion, or
crushed vegetation, due to construction and maintenance activities.
Ensure compliance with the reasonable and prudent measures, terms and conditions,
reporting requirements, and reinitiation requirements contained in the Biological
Opinion.
Incorporate gila monster documentation per NDOW protocols with those for the
desert tortoise.
7.3.4 Desert Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Lion
Implement the following measures to minimize harm to desert bighorn sheep. Implement a
mitigation monitoring plan in consultation with AGFD, NDOW, and NFS. The plan will
assess effectiveness of the crossing structures, fencing, and alternate water sources.
Adjustments will be made, if needed.
Construct and maintain fencing to prevent desert bighorn sheep from entering the
highway.
Construct out-jumps at strategic locations to provide an escape for any sheep
accidentally trapped inside the fenced highway right-of-way.
Install roadside signing warning motorists of the possibility of encountering wildlife in
the area.
Incorporate crossing structures into the highway design to allow bighorn movement
through established movement corridors.
SCO/LAW2773 DOC/010440001 25
-------
U.S 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
Provide alternate water sources.
7.3.5 Peregrine Falcons
Ensure that biologists from AGFD and NFS monitor peregrine falcons in the proposed
project area 3 to 4 times per year at least 2 years before, during, and after 1 year of public
use of the new Colorado River bridge. Ensure that NDOW will coordinate their ongoing
peregrine falcon surveys in the area with AGFD and NFS.
7.3.6 Bald Eagles
Ensure that biologists from AGFD, NFS, and Reclamation monitor bald eagle use of the
bridge crossing sites during two consecutive winters before construction, and that any
preferred hunting perch sites or night roosting sites are identified. Take measures to not
affect any preferred hunting perch sites or night roosting sites for bald eagles.
7.3.7 Devil's Hole Pupfish, Razorback Sucker, and Bonytail Chub
There will be no construction below the waterline in the Colorado River in Black Canyon.
Construct a catch net and temporary spill containment system at the Colorado River
crossing to catch falling debris and collect contaminants if spilled to avoid water quality
impacts to these species downstream of Hoover Dam or in Lake Mohave. Scale loose rocks
prior to and during excavation work for construction of bridge abutments, and use netting
on the canyon slopes during blasting to minimize rock fall.
Complete an assessment of the potential effects of the blasting activities of the project prior
to implementation. Initiate formal consultation with USFWS for inclusion of appropriate
conservation and mitigation measures in the Biological Opinion, if the assessment identifies
unavoidable impacts to any of these protected species.
7.3.8 Bicolored Penstemon
Perform preconstruction surveys for bicolored penstemon. Salvage plants and topsoil
possibly containing penstemon seeds found within the construction right-of-way. Stockpile
and replant any salvaged plants within the constructed highway right-of-way.
7.3.9 Migratory Birds
There will be no land clearing during the avian breeding season without taking actions to
ensure that migratory birds, their nests, or nest contents will not be harmed during
construction.
7.4 Water Resources
FHWA will implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) along the project corridor to
reduce water quality impacts to the Colorado River and desert washes. BMPs will be used
to mitigate both construction and operational impacts. FHWA will manage stormwater
runoff above and below the project during construction, so that the net impact to receiving
water is negligible, as follows:
Isolate runoff-rich suspended sediment in treatment basins for both the construction and
operation phase.
SCO/LAW2773 DOC/010440001 26
-------
U S. 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
Adhere to the standards of water quality below Hoover Dam that are pertinent to this
project, as stipulated in the FEIS (Section 3.4.3).
A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be required for
each phase of construction that actively disturbs more than 5 acres. FHWA will implement
and enforce both discharge limitations and water quality standards through the terms and
conditions written into the permit. Construction mitigation measures are as follows:
Manage all construction area runoff with BMP improvements, including silt barriers (silt
fences or straw bale check dams).
Remove trapped silt and debris to an offsite location before removing the barriers.
Route offsite flows around cut and fill slopes to prevent contamination of runoff.
Properly design bypass channels to convey anticipated flow volumes and velocities.
Stabilize cut-and-fill slopes using vegetative and/or mechanical means.
Construct sediment basins to collect and treat sediment-rich runoff to remove
suspended solids before discharging to offsite drainage channels.
Clean construction equipment on a regular basis to minimize potential runoff
contamination from petroleum products.
Inspect construction equipment frequently for leaks and repair immediately when
discovered.
Fuel and service all equipment at designated locations, away from nearby channels,
swales or other drainage features that would quickly facilitate movement in the event of
a spill.
Remove and dispose of all contaminated material (e.g., concrete wash water) upon
completing the construction, in accordance with local, regional, and federal regulations.
Design and develop temporary sanitary waste facilities in a manner that protects both
surface and subsurface water resources.
Construct a catch net and temporary spill containment system at the Colorado River
crossing to catch falling debris and collect contaminants if spilled.
Scale loose rocks prior to and during excavation work for bridge abutments, and use
netting on the canyon slopes during blasting to minimize rock fall.
Relocate the Reclamation sewer evaporation ponds.
Design measures to minimize impacts to water quality consist of:
Properly design roadway channels to resist erosion.
Construct energy dissipating structures at all culverts whose discharge velocity will
cause downstream erosion.
SCO/LAW2773.DOC/010440001 27
-------
U.S 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
Construct retaining walls arid other structures at specific locations, rather than cut and
fill slopes, to reduce runoff velocities and erosion potential.
Apply rock slope protection to armor the slopes and prevent soil movement.
Line channels and culvert discharges with rock riprap and design slope reduction at
drainages to minimize erosion and sediment transport and reduce discharge velocities.
Drain runoff to settling basins, capturing road pollutants and allowing the larger
suspended material to settle. Strategically locate basins to maximize sediment removal
and function for chemical spill containment resulting from vehicle accidents. Design
each basin to contain a certain rainfall runoff volume before allowing discharge.
Design the Colorado River bridge to collect the "first-flush" runoff volume from the
bridge as well as the spill volume that might be generated from a semi-truck tanker spill.
Design any fences that may be incorporated into the basins to be compatible with basin
maintenance and function.
Ensure that NDOT or ADOT maintain roadway and bridge settling basins, depending
on their location.
7.5 Cultural Resources
Formal consultations were completed with the Nevada and Arizona SHPOs and federal
land-managing agencies to determine measures to minimize harm to historic and cultural
National Register properties adversely affected by the selected alternative.
A PA was developed in consultations among the ACHP, FHWA, Nevada and Arizona
SHPOs, NFS, Reclamation, WAPA, NDOT, ADOT, and interested Native American tribal
governments that commits FHWA to implement specific activities and mitigation measures
to resolve the adverse effects on historic properties from the selected alternative. The PA
incorporates a Treatment Plan for avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of adverse
effects to historic and cultural properties. The mitigation measures in the Treatment Plan
are specific for the HDNHL, related historic features, and the TCP (see FEIS Section 3.5.3 for
a full description).
7.5.1 Design Coordination
A DAP will be formed to assist in development of aesthetic design elements, develop
corridor aesthetic design criteria, mitigate adverse effects on historic resources, and
minimize adverse effects on the TCP. Specific measures related to this activity are
as follows:
FHWA will establish a DAP consisting of representatives from FHWA, NDOT, ADOT,
the Nevada and Arizona SHPOs, ACHP, the NHL Coordinator, NFS, Reclamation,
WAPA, and a Native American tribal representative, as well as an independent
architectural historian and a registered landscape architect.
FHWA will establish a project development schedule, with design coordination
milestones for the DAP.
SCO/LAW2773.DOC/010440001 28
-------
U.S 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
The DAP will provide input on bridge design concepts, structure type and materials,
and other aesthetic treatments in light of the historical visual context of the HDNHL.
The DAP will assist in development of a process for public involvement as design
concepts evolve.
FHWA will develop Corridor Design Criteria incorporating input from the DAP. The
criteria will incorporate standards and specifications for the consistency of major
structural, roadway, and earthwork elements. The design criteria will be applied
throughout the U.S. 93 Hoover Dam Bypass project to bridges, railings, wing walls,
tunnel portals, structural elements and colors, cut and fill slopes, and other highway
appurtenances.
FHWA will work with the DAP to insure consistency and compatibility of the
constructed facility with the historical and cultural setting of the project area. FHWA
will develop technical standards for the project in consultation with ADOT and NDOT
who, as the owners of the bypass project, approve the final plans and specifications and
are responsible for operation and maintenance.
7.5.2 Historic Resources
The PA/TP stipulate the following measures and procedures for resolving the adverse
effects to the HDNHL and related historic properties from the selected alternative:
FHWA will complete photographic Historic American Engineering Record (HAER)
recordation of and from Hoover Dam according to Secretary of Interior Standards. The
completed bypass bridge and approaches will also be subject to photographic HAER
recordation from the same viewer points as for the existing condition. FHWA will
coordinate with the NFS/HAER to ensure that recordation does not result in duplication
of information that is already available on the HDNHL.
FHWA will complete pre- and post-construction documentation, including HAER
recordation, of the affected Old Government Railroad Grade, the Nevada Transmission
Lines/Towers, the Nevada Stone Gates and Lower Portal Access Road, the Arizona-
Nevada Switchyard, the Nevada U.S. 93 Switchback Segment, Kingman Switchyard, the
Arizona Transmission Towers and the Old Arizona U.S. Highway 93 Segment within
the area of potential effects (APE), in accordance with the Treatment Plan incorporated
as Appendix A to the PA. Appropriate levels of documentation, including HAER
recordation, will be determined in consultation with the NPS/HAER.
FHWA will design the U.S. 93 bypass to maintain current serviceability of all operating
historic properties physically impacted by the proposed undertaking. The affected
portions of the Nevada Transmission Lines/Towers, Stone Gates and Lower Portal
Access Road, the Arizona-Nevada Switchyard, and the Arizona Transmission Towers
will be either avoided or relocated to meet this objective. All relocation and
reconstruction plans will be prepared in consultation with WAP A, Reclamation, and
the DAP.
SCO/LAW2773.DOC/010440001 29
-------
U.S. 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
7.5.3 Traditional Cultural Property
The following mitigation measures currently identified for the TCP have resulted from the
ongoing government-to- government consultation meetings between FHWA, NFS,
Reclamation, and the Native American tribes.
FHWA will provide the Native American tribal representative, through participation on
the DAP, the engineering details and receive their input to the Corridor Design Criteria.
FHWA will provide periodic updates to the tribal representative's group on the progress
of project development activities.
FHWA will provide designated Native American tribal representatives the opportunity
to monitor construction of the roadway facility through the TCP area and the related
lithic scatter located on the eastern flank of Sugarloaf Mountain.
FHWA, in concert with its federal partners, will maintain the confidentiality of all
sensitive cultural information to the extent allowable under federal law and regulation.
FHWA, the federal land managing agencies, and consulting tribes under this PA and
Treatment Plan will refine and elaborate on the measures to reduce adverse effects on
the TCP. The specific measures that have been recommended by the tribes during the
government-to-government consultation for implementation by FHWA and the federal
land managing agencies are to:
- Consummate a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the continued
government-to-government consultation between FHWA and the tribes
- Provide funds as available for ongoing tribal consultation
- Involve the tribes through a representative on the DAP in the design aspects of the
new bridge and roadway
- Continue the consultation with the tribes throughout the design and construction
process
- Protect the confidentiality of sensitive cultural information provided to the federal
agencies by tribal representatives
- Provide access for the tribes to traditional cultural places in the project area
- Develop statements of work for conducting future cultural landscape studies for the
larger area encompassing the Gold Strike Canyon and Sugarloaf Mountain TCP
- Provide Native American cultural interpretive exhibits, developed in consultation
with tribal representatives
- Develop a separate treatment plan with specific procedures for any inadvertent
discoveries of human remains or related objects during any design or construction
activity for the project
SCO/LAW2773 DOC/010440001 30
-------
U.S 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
7.6 Visual Resources
FHWA will implement the following mitigation measures to reduce impacts on
visual resources:
Develop Corridor Design Criteria for aesthetic consistency of major structural, roadway
and earthwork elements, per procedures established in the PA/TP.
Provide public information and data sheets to Hoover Dam visitors. Information to be
provided includes a description of the proposed project, the purpose and need, a
construction schedule, and an explanation of what viewers are seeing and what can be
expected to be seen in the future.
Provide visual simulations so that the viewer can see what the constructed project will
look like when complete.
Tint concrete surfaces with a non-glare color that blends with the surrounding
environment, as recommended by the DAP.
Design the bridge profile to be below the horizon line of Black Canyon as seen from
Lake Mead, if feasible.
Color the bridge structures to blend with the surrounding environment, as
recommended by the DAP.
Engineer rock cuts adjacent to the proposed bridge to maintain a natural appearance.
Mitigation techniques will include rough cuts, feathering cut/natural environmental
interfaces, and use of artificial desert varnish on rock cuts to match adjacent
natural colors.
Use special blasting techniques to avoid pre-split shear rock faces.
Remove all construction debris and other trash from the site as soon as construction
is completed.
7.7 Recreation Resources
Certain areas will be designated for construction activities, which will preclude using those
areas for dispersed recreational activities. The following mitigation measures are identified
in the FEIS:
Post warning signs in designated construction safety zones and construction areas, and
preclude public access to those areas.
Coordinate raft and canoe launchings at the put-ins on the Colorado River to avoid
conflicts between construction access and launching activities.
Use a net or other device to prevent construction materials or equipment from falling
from the bridge into the river near rafters.
Coordinate with NPS to adjust trail use regulations to accommodate
construction activities.
SCO/LAW2773 DOC/010440001 31
-------
U.S. 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
Coordinate scheduling of trail closings and construction safety zones with the NFS
and Reclamation.
Determine restrictions and schedules for blasting and communicate to NFS
before construction.
Maintain bicycle access to the existing dam crossing on U.S. 93 during construction.
Study the technical feasibility of a separate viewing facility associated with the bridge.
7.8 Hazardous Materials
The following subsections describe measures to address environmental concerns at the
Reclamation warehouse storage yard, the active switchyard, the sewage evaporation ponds,
and the potential contractor staging and disposal areas:
7.8.1 Reclamation Warehouse Storage Yard
Investigate and document chemical usage, storage, and releases at this site. Conduct
interviews of onsite personnel and internal record reviews to determine locations and
quantities of hazardous materials used and released in the storage yard.
Implement an investigation of soils that would be affected by roadway construction.
Take soil samples in areas where discoloration, odors, or known releases have occurred
or are suspected. Monitor soil during excavation activities to segregate contaminated
soils.
Review records documenting underground fuel tank removal to determine the vertical
and horizontal extent of contamination, location and quantity of contaminated soil
excavated, whether in situ remediation was implemented, and the cleanup standard
attained.
Monitor soil in the tank area during excavation to segregate contaminated soils.
Undertake additional control measures to ensure that airborne toxics concentration
levels do not exceed any state or federal standards, since contaminants could become
airborne during removal.
7.8.2 Arizona and Nevada Switchyard
Conduct surface soil sampling in any areas of the site required for construction where oil
stains are located in order to determine the presence of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-
contaminated soil.
Remove and dispose of any PCB-contaminated soil in accordance with applicable
environmental regulations.
Control roadway runoff downgradient from any portion of the site required for
construction by barrier use or diversion.
SCO/LAW2773 DOC/010440001 32
-------
U S 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
7.8.3 Sewage Evaporation Ponds
Conduct soil and sludge sampling to confirm that industrial wastewater has not been
discharged to the ponds.
Remove any contaminated sludge or soils, if it is discovered that industrial wastewater
has been discharged there.
Contact the ADEQ before pond excavation to determine whether specific closure or
material handling and disposal requirements apply.
7.8.4 Potential Contractor Staging and Disposal Areas
Conduct documentation reviews and personnel interviews to determine whether
releases have occurred, the extent of contamination, and how the contamination was
addressed.
Conduct an assessment at the site to ensure that cleanup was conducted properly.
Conduct soil sampling if evidence (e.g., discolored soil, odors, stressed vegetation)
suggests that contamination may still be present.
Conduct post construction assessment to assure no residual contaminate is left from
project construction activities.
7.9 Construction Impacts
Phased construction contracts will most likely be utilized. Other sections in this ROD
address mitigation measures for construction impacts on the full range of environmental
factors, whereas this section focuses on utility relocations, construction staging, and
material sources.
7.9.1 Transmission Towers and Lines
Construction of the selected alternative will require removal and modification of existing
electrical transmission components and construction of new electrical transmission
components. The final configuration of electrical towers, transmission lines, and facilities
will be determined during final design. (See FEIS Section 3.11.2.2 for alternative
configurations.)
Work with WAPA during final design to select the most beneficial solution considering
all project elements and factors (e.g., operation and maintenance characteristics for both
electrical transmission and transportation, historic and visual impacts, and construction
considerations and costs).
Work with the two SHPOs to mitigate any adverse effects related to removal of historic
transmission towers and facilities (see Section 7.5 above).
7.9.2 Construction Staging Areas
No major detours, closures, or traffic delays are expected to occur during highway approach
construction. The existing highway will remain open with little interference except during
the tie-in activity at the beginning and end of the project, blasting in the vicinity of existing
SCO/LAW2773.DOC/010440001 . 33
-------
U S 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
U.S. 93, and setting girders at overpasses. Hauling across the existing highway in two
locations will be necessary. The following mitigation measures apply:
Provide continuous access to existing U.S. 93 and Hoover Darn, Lakeview Point, and the
Reclamation warehouse.
Maximize use of the proposed right-of-way for necessary contractor staging as feasible.
Use the five areas identified by Reclamation for additional contractor staging, wherever
feasible (see FEIS Figure 3-15).
Use no new staging areas to construct the selected alternative, if feasible.
7.9.3 Material Sources
Earthwork quantities (cut and fill) will be balanced to the extent possible. Based on the
FEIS, the following stipulations will mitigate any material source impacts:
Attempt to attain a balance between cut and fill quantities on the Nevada and Arizona
approaches, so no waste disposal area will be required.
Use all material excavated from the Arizona approach to build roadway embankments
on the Arizona approach, so no disposal area will be required.
No new material sources (borrow sites) will be utilized or required for construction. It is
anticipated that the native rock within the right-of-way will be adequate to produce
some or all of the aggregate needed for the project. Other aggregates may come from
readily available commercial sources in Boulder City, Las Vegas, and Kingman.
SCO/LA W2773.DOC/010440001 34
-------
U.S. 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
8. Mitigation Monitoring
FHWA has compiled a listing of all mitigation measures and procedures established for the
proposed project. Mitigation measures are organized according to major environmental
categories. The measures are further subdivided into Federal, State, county, local, and other
categories within each affected environment category. The anticipated timing of all
mitigation measures is defined according to the following project development phases:
prior to construction, during construction, and post construction. The responsible party for
each mitigation measure is also identified. A final mitigation monitoring plan will be
developed as part of the design process.
FHWA will be responsible for overseeing all mitigation measures and implementing the
interagency/tribal PA/TP.
SCO/LAW2773 DOC/010440001 36
-------
U.S 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
9. Responses to Comments on Final EIS
To shorten download time, Section 9, Responses to Comments on Final EIS, is in a
separate file. To view Section 9, select the BACK button on your browser and click on
the link for Section 9.
SCO/LAW2773.DOC/010440001 36
-------
U.S. 93 HOOVER DAM BYPASS FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION RECORD OF DECISION
10. Record of Decision Approval
The Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative has been found to best provide a safe and efficient
transportation facility and to be the environmentally preferable alternative. This selection
was based on minimizing environmental impacts, engineering and operational advantages,
slightly lower construction cost, and review of public and agency comments received
during the environmental process. All practicable measures to minimize environmental
harm have been adopted and will be incorporated into this decision.
Of
Srr^th, P.E. Date
Division Engineer
Central Federal Lands Highway Division
SCO/LAW2773 DOC/010440001
-------
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 190/Tuesday, October 1, 2002/Notices
61619
"Procedures for Public Participation in
Power and Transmission Rate
Adjustment," has been followed in
connection with the proposed rate
adjustment. More specifically,
opportunities for public review and
comment during a 90-day period on the
proposed Rayburn power rate were
announced by notice published in the
Federal Register, May 21, 2002, 67 FR
35805. A Public Information Forum was
scheduled to be held June 6, 2002, and
a Public Comment Forum was
scheduled to be held July 10, 2002, both
in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Both forums were
canceled as no one expressed an intent
to participate. Written comments were
due by August 19, 2002. Southwestern
provided notice of the Federal Register,
together with supporting data, to the
customer and interested parties for
review and comment during the formal
period of public participation. In
addition, prior to the formal 90-day
public participation process,
Southwestern met with the customer
and the customer representative to
discuss the preliminary information on
the proposed rate adjustment. Only one
formal comment was received from
Gillis & Angley, Counsellors at Law, on
behalf of Sam Rayburn Dam Electric
Cooperative, Inc. (SRDEC), which stated
that SRDEC (the sole customer) had no
objection to the proposed rate
adjustment.
Upon conclusion of the comment
period in August 2002, Southwestern
finalized the Power Repayment Study
and rate schedule for the proposed
annual rate of $2,013,024 which is the
lowest possible rate needed to satisfy
repayment criteria. This rate represents
an annual decrease of 3.1 percent.
Information regarding this rate
decrease, including studies and other
supporting material, is available for
public review and comment in the
offices of Southwestern Power
Administration, One West Third Street,
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103.
Comments and Responses
Southwestern received one written
comment in which the customer
representative expressed no objection to
the proposed rate adjustment.
Other Issues
There were no other issues raised
during the informal meeting or during
the formal public participation period.
Administrator's Certification
The FY 2002 Revised Rayburn PRS
indicates that the annual power rate of
$2,013,024 will repay all costs of the
project, including amortization of the
power investment consistent with
provisions of the Department of Energy
(DOE) Order No.
RA 6120.2. In accordance with
Delegation Order No. 00-037.00,
December 6, 2001, and Section 5 of the
Flood Control Act of 1944, the
Administrator has determined that the
proposed Rayburn power rate is
consistent with applicable law and the
lowest possible rate consistent with
sound business principles.
Environment
The environmental impact of the rate
decrease proposal was evaluated in
consideration of DOE's guidelines for
implementing the procedural provisions
of the National Environmental Policy
Act, 10 CFR part 1021, and was
determined to fall within the class of
actions that are categorically excluded
from the requirements of preparing
either an Environmental Impact
Statement or an Environmental
Assessment.
Order
In view of the foregoing and pursuant
to the authority delegated to me, I
hereby confirm, approve and place in
effect on an interim basis, for the period
October 1, 2002, through September 30,
2006, the annual Sam Rayburn Dam
Rate of $2,013,024 for the sale of power
and energy from Sam Rayburn Dam to
the Sam Rayburn Electric Cooperative,
Inc., under Contract No. DE-PM75-
92SW00215, dated October 7, 1992.
Dated: September 18, 2002.
Spencer Abraham,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 02-24864 Filed 9-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 645O-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Western Area Power Administration
Modification and Construction of
Transmission Lines for the U.S. 93
Hoover Dam Bypass Project (DOE/EIS-
0352)
AGENCY: Western Area Power
Administration, DOE.
ACTION: Record of Decision.
SUMMARY: The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) prepared an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for construction of a new segment of
U.S. Highway 93 for the purpose of
improving congestion and hazardous
vehicle/pedestrian conflicts where the
highway crosses the Colorado River over
Hoover Dam. As a cooperating agency
for the EIS, Western Area Power
Administration (Western) proposed
modifications to its transmission system
and facilities to accommodate the
construction of the new highway and
bridge spanning the Colorado River.
With this Record of Decision (ROD),
Western is adopting the FHWA EIS and
announcing its decision to modify its
transmission system to accommodate
the new highway segment. Western's
decision for its action considered the
environmental ramifications of the U.S.
93 Hoover Dam Bypass Project (Project).
Western will ensure that its
responsibilities under the National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are
met before the modifications are
implemented.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
John Holt, Environment Manager, Desert
Southwest Customer Service Region,
Western Area Power Administration,
P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005,
telephone (602) 352-2592, e-mail
holt@wapa.gov. Copies of the EIS and
the FHWA ROD are available from Dave
Zanetell, Project Manager, Federal
Highway Administration, 555 Zang
Street, HFL-16, Lakewood, CO 80228,
telephone (303) 716-2157. For
information about the Department of
Energy (DOE) National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) process, contact Ms.
Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, NEPA
Policy and Compliance, EH-42, U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585, telephone (202)
586-4600 or (800)472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FHWA
was the lead agency for the Project EIS
(FHWA-AZNV-EIS-98-03-01; Final
dated January 2001). Western was
designated a cooperating agency for the
Project EIS by the FHWA on November
27, 1998. After an independent review
of the Final FHWA EIS, Western
concluded that its comments and
suggestions have been satisfied and with
this notice, is adopting the FHWA EIS
for its participation in the Project.
Western's EIS number is DOE/EIS-0352.
The FHWA released its ROD on the
Project in March 2001 and selected the
Sugarloaf Mountain route as its
preferred alternative. The Sugarloaf
Mountain Alternative consists of
construction of a new bridge and
highway access across the Colorado
River in the vicinity of Hoover Dam.
The new bridge and highway will
eliminate truck traffic and other
through-traffic over Hoover Dam. The
Project is located in Clark County,
Nevada, and Mohave County, Arizona,
and lies entirely on Federal lands,
including the Lake Mead National
Recreation Area (administered by the
-------
61620
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 190/Tuesday, October 1, 2002/Notices
National Park Service) and the Hoover
Dam Reservation Area (administered by
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation). The
Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative crosses
the Colorado River about 1,500 feet
downstream from Hoover Dam and
requires construction of approximately
2.2 miles of highway approach in
Nevada, a 1,700-foot-long bridge, and a
1.1-mile highway approach in Arizona.
The EIS addresses the effects of the
Project, including modification of
Western's transmission system.
Western has decided to modify the
current transmission system
configuration including substation
terminal work, and remove the Arizona
and Nevada (A&N) Switchyard to
accommodate the new highway segment
and bridge. Modifications to Western's
transmission system will occur in two
phases. The modifications for the first
phase include: (a) Rebuilding
approximately 2.6 (total) miles of the
Hoover-Mead No. 6 (single circuit) and
No. 7 (double circuit) 230-kilovolt (kV)
Transmission Lines (removing electrical
equipment, conductors, overhead
ground wires; replacing lattice steel
structures with steel poles; and
installing conductors, overhead ground
wire, insulators, and miscellaneous
transmission line hardware); (b)
Removing conductors and overhead
ground wires and insulator assemblies
for approximately 1.2 (total) miles of the
existing Arizona-Nevada Circuits 11 and
12 230-kV Transmission Lines between
the Hoover Dam to the A&N Switchyard;
(c) Constructing approximately 0.3
miles of single circuit 230-kV
transmission line connecting Southern
California Edison Circuit No. 10 to the
A&N Switchyard and to the Hoover Dam
Power Plant; and (d) Modifying
transmission line connections at the
Hoover Dam Power Plant yard and A&N
Switchyard to accommodate the new
configurations. Terminal work will
include replacing surge arresters and
associated steel supports. Other first
phase modifications may be required
based on final design. Phase one would
be complete by spring 2003.
Modifications for the second phase
include the removal of the A&N
Switchyard and the upgrade of the
Hoover-Mead transmission line. The
impacts of the removal of the A&N
Switchyard were evaluated as part of
the EIS. The removal of the A&N
Switchyard will dictate upgrades to
existing transmission lines that connect
at the switchyard and run to the Mead
substation (Hoover-Mead Transmission
Line Upgrade). The need for this
transmission line upgrade was part of
the transmission reconfiguration options
evaluated in the Final EIS, but since the
final configuration was dependent upon
the FHWA's decision, this upgrade was
not fully evaluated in the EIS. Phase two
is scheduled for completion in spring
2004
The FHWA determined that the
Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative is the
environmentally preferable alternative
and evaluated the social, economic, and
environmental impacts to the affected
area in the EIS. Where the impact from
Western's action was addressed as a
subset of the overall Project impacts, the
EIS serves as Western's environmental
review. For the Hoover-Mead
Transmission Line Upgrade, where the
impacts from Western's action were not
addressed pending final Project design,
Western will prepare a separate
Environmental Assessment (EA).
Wes;ern will complete the EA,
including cultural and endangered
species consultations, prior to its
implementation.
The EIS impact analysis concluded
that, with mitigation measures, most
impacts from the Project would not be
significant. There would be significant
unavoidable visual impacts to several
historic properties and Traditional
Cultural Properties (TCPs), including
the Hoover Dam National Historic
Landmark and the Gold Strike Canyon
and Sugarloaf Mountain TCPs. Other
historic sites or features would be
affected or potentially affected by the
Project, including some elements of the
transmission system not owned by
Western (the Nevada State Switchyard,
the Metropolitan Water District
Switchyard, and the Southern California
Edison Switchyard), as well as the
transmission towers and lines in
Arizona and Nevada and the A&N
Switchyard that would be affected by
Western's action. The FHWA has
consulted with the State Historic
Preservation Office, the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation and
Native American tribes. A Programmatic
Agreement (PA) and treatment plan was
developed for avoidance, minimization,
anci mitigation of adverse effects to
historical and cultural properties.
Western is a signatory to the PA. The
FHWA is required to complete historic
documentation of facilities affected by
the Project as described in the PA.
Western will ensure that its
responsibilities under the NHPA are met
before its action is implemented.
There will be no air, noise, land use,
or socioeconomic impacts stemming
from phase one of Western's action. For
the Project as a whole, there will be no
long-term impacts to air quality. Noise
levels would be elevated during
construction due to construction traffic
and blasting. Some recreational
activities would be restricted during
construction for safety purposes, but
there are no long-term impacts to the
general uses of the area. Since the
Project area is located in a currently
unpopulated area, no minority or low-
income groups live in the area;
therefore, no disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority and
low-income groups is anticipated.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
issued a Biological Opinion for the
Project, which determined that the
Project is not likely to adversely affect
the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), razorback sucker
(Xymuchen texanus), southwestern
willow flycatcher (Empodonax traillii
extimus), bonytail chub (Gila elegans),
or Devil's Hole pupfish (Cyprinodon
diabolis), which are federally listed
endangered species. The Sugarloaf
Mountain Alternative may affect the
desert tortoise, a Federally-listed
threatened species. The Biological
Opinion provides mitigation to avoid
harm to the desert tortoise. Western will
ensure that its responsibilities under the
ESA are met before the transmission
line modifications are implemented.
Other species of concern affected by
the Project include the desert bighorn
sheep (Ovis canidensis nelsoni), banded
Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum
cinctum), Yuma puma (mountain lion)
(Felis concolor growni), and bicolored
penstemon (Penstemon bicolor ssp.
roseus). Western is adopting the
mitigation measures in the Final EIS
and the terms and conditions identified
in the FHWA Biological Opinion for
reducing impacts to these species.
While the Colorado River itself is in
an area subject to flooding, the Project
area is considered to be in an area of
minimal or moderate risk of flooding.
There are no wetlands in the Project
area. Construction impacts to water
quality will primarily be from runoff
from new cut and fill slopes and
construction roads. Western
construction activities may impact
water quality; therefore, it is adopting
mitigation measures specified in the EIS
to minimize these impacts.
The A&N Switchyard will be removed
as part of Western's phase two action.
The site may contain soil contaminated
with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Prior to any construction activities,
contaminated soil will be identified,
removed, and properly disposed of in
accordance with the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, and
other applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 190/Tuesday, October 1, 2002/Notices
61621
Description of Alternatives
Construction of the FHWA preferred
alternative will require removal and
modification of Western's transmission
system. Western evaluated seven
preliminary electrical transmission
reconfiguration options as part of the
EIS. All options require removal of
existing spans and towers and
construction of new spans. Three of the
options would require removal of the
existing A&N Switchyard and replacing
a single-phase circuit with a double-
phase circuit to the Mead Substation
(phase two). Additionally, the Sugarloaf
Mountain Alternative requires a
realignment of two of the Hoover-Mead
transmission lines to accommodate the
new highway alignment.
Western determined the best
engineering approach for the phase one
and two modifications discussed above
based on an evaluation of the electrical
conditions on the transmission lines
and switchyards and current
transmission line construction and
electrical standards.
The No Action Alternative was
evaluated in the EIS and found to not
meet the Project purpose and need.
Mitigation Measures
The Final EIS identified mitigation
measures needed to reduce the impacts
of the Project. The specific measures are
discussed in the FHWA ROD on pages
22 to 35 and in Chapter 3 of the EIS.
Western is adopting those measures that
are applicable to its action and will
issue a Mitigation Action Plan (MAP)
prior to any construction activities that
will address the adopted and standard
mitigation measures. Some of the
measures include restricting vehicular
traffic to existing access roads or public
roads, recontouring and reseeding
disturbed areas, environmental
awareness training for all construction
and supervisory personnel, and
mitigation of radio and television
interference generated by transmission
lines. Long-term operations of the
transmission line will follow Western's
standard operating procedures and will
not be affected by this action. The
mitigation that applies to the
construction of the new lines and the
upgrading of the existing lines includes
the following provisions:
1. Protection of the desert tortoise and
banded Gila monster through
compliance with the FHWA Biological
Opinion.
2. Protection of Cultural and
Historical resources as signators to the
Programmatic Agreement.
3. Adoption of mitigation measures as
specified in the FWHA EIS.
4. Monitor actions for compliance
with Western's standard mitigation
measures.
This ROD has been prepared in
accordance with Council on
Environmental Quality regulations for
implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts
1500-1508) and DOE Procedures for
Implementing NEPA (10 CFR part 1021).
Upon approval, the MAP will be made
available.
Dated: September 20, 2002.
Michael S. Hacskaylo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-24862 Filed 9-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL-7386-6]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; Criteria for
Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities and Practices,
Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements40 CFR Part 257,
Subpart B
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this document announces
that the following Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been
forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval: Criteria for Classification of
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and
Practices, Recordkeeping and Reporting
requirements40 CFR Part 257, Subpart
B, ICR #1745.04, OMB Control #2050-
0154, expiring September 30, 2002. The
ICR describes the nature of the
information collection and its expected
burden and cost; where appropriate, it
includes the actual data collection
instrument.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before October 31, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Send comments, referencing
EPA ICR No. 1745.04 and OMB Control
No. 2050-0154, to the following
addresses: Susan Auby, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Collection Strategies Division (Mail
Code 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; and to Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB),
Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725
17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
a copy of the ICR contact Susan Auby
at EPA by phone at (202) 566-1672, by
e-mail at auby.susan@epa.gov, or
download off the Internet at http://
www.epa.gov/icr and refer to EPA ICR
No. 1745.04. For technical questions
about the ICR contact Paul Cassidy at
703-308-7281 in the Office of Solid
Waste.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Criteria
for Classification of Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities and Practices,
Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements40 CFR Part 257,
Subpart B , OMB Control No. 2050-
0154, EPA ICR No. 1745.04, expiring
September 30, 2002. This is a request for
extension of a currently approved
collection.
In order to effectively implement and
enforce final changes to 40 CFR part
257, subpart B on a State level, owners/
operators of construction and
demolition waste landfills that receive
CESQG hazardous wastes will have to
comply with the final reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. The 1984
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
as amended, mandated that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
revise the Criteria for Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities that may receive
household hazardous wastes and
conditionally exempt small quantity
generator (CESQG) wastes. EPA
submitted a Report to Congress in
October 1988 that assessed the impacts
on human health and the environment
associated with Subtitle D (non-
hazardous waste) units. While this
study found that the revised Criteria for
municipal solid waste disposal units
were necessary to protect human health
and the environment, the report failed
to draw a conclusion relating to
industrial Subtitle D units. The limited
data on such units indicated that there
might be a basis for concern and further
study was needed.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA's regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
The Federal Register document
required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d),
soliciting comments on this collection
of information was published on May \,
2002 (67 FR 21668); no comments were
received. Burden Statement: The annual
public reporting and record keeping
-------
FHWA
Attn: Dove Zonete//
,a 555 Zang Street, Room 259
Lakewood, CO 80228
PRESORTED
FIRST-CLASS
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
85713
FHWA
INSIDE-
Portion of Bypass to
to Build Nevada
Approach Hears 50% Completion
on Project Funding
" ysjy :
for Trade, Travel and Tourism
Hoover Dam Bypass Project Management Team
As the Hoover Dam Bypass Project reaches another milestone, the Federal
Highway Administration wants to thank the agencies and consultants of the
Project Management Team. This Team is committed to working together to
advance the Hoover Dam Bypass Project as quickly as possible and complete
this much needed alternative route around Hoover Dam.
Arizona Department of Transportation
Nevada Department of Transportation
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region
National Park Service, Lake Mead National Recreation Area
Western Area Power Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Arizona Division
Nevada Division
Central Federal Lands Highway Division
Design Team
HDR Engineering
Sverdrup Civil
T.Y. Lin International
Environmental Impact Study Consultant
CH2M HILL
For More Information,
Contact:
Visit our website:
www.hooverdambypass.org
Page 4
-------
HOOVER DAM BYPASS UPDATE September2003 ซ No.II
Building the Arizona Approach
Phase One of Bypass Nears 50% Completion
The joint venture contractor, R.E. Monks
Construction andVastco Inc., is moving
forward on the $21.5 million Arizona
Approach construction project.
Improvements associated with the
Arizona Approach include nearly
two miles of four-lane roadway,
a 900-foot bridge on the east
side of Sugarloaf Mountain, a
new traffic interchange at
U.S. 93 and Kingman
Wash Road, wildlife
crossings, trail access
parking, improved
drainage and rock
staining.
The Arizona Approach
is on schedule for
completion in
October 2004.
.
Workers stabilize rock on the upper wall of
Black Canyon.
Aerial view of the northern section of the Arizona
Approach including the Sugarloaf Mountain Bridge piers
in the foreground and mainline U.S. 93 excavation in the
upper left
i Area Power Administration Work
, iป f
Nevada Roadway Portion of Bypass to
.the Electrical
y of -6iซ Hoover Dam Bypass, the
tration ^WAPA) made changes
;em and reconfigured generator
am Powerhouse including
transmission lines that crossed the
were in the location planned for
^needed to the Powerhouse, WAPA
s Hoover Dam cableway system - built
the construction of the dam - to
ft 17,000-pound crane ani tons of equipment to
fteformer deck^^tfisr improvements included
Building 2.6 mites of two transmission lines and extending
a third
tight timeline and in difficult conditions,
Phase t of its improvements on schedule.
project is expected to be complete next
^MNK^fiw^a switchyard and constructing
1 Continued from front page
The Nevada Approach is scheduled for completion in mid-2006.Traffic
will not be shifted to the Bypass roadway until the Colorado River
Bridge is complete in 2007.
The Central Federal Lands Highway Division of the Federal Highway
Administration maintains a local construction office in order to
oversee the day-to-day construction of the Hoover Dam Bypass
Project. Overall project coordination will continue with the Hoover
Dam Bypass Project Management Team, which includes the Arizona
Department of Transportation, Nevada Department of Transportation,
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service and Western Area
Power Administration.
Easing the way for motorists
A lane rental policy was included in the construction bid by
the Federal Highway Administration. The tane rental program
was designed to minimize the impacts of construction on
the traveling public. When construction activities make it
necessary to close travel lanes, the contractor is chaffed a
t new double circuit transmission line.
-------
FHWtt
Attn: Dave Zanetell
12300 West Dakota Ave
Lakewood, CO 80228
ClNS/DE:
V i*
Ip Kickoff Project
ver Bridge Underway
ha 'Complete Success'
PRESORTED
FIRST-CLASS
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
85713
FHWA
Hoover Dam Bypass Project Management Team
As the Hoover Dam Bypass Project reaches another milestone, the Federal
Highway Administration wants to thank the agencies and consultants of the
Project Management Team. This Team is committed to working together to
advance the Hoover Dam Bypass Project as quickly as possible and complete
this much needed alternative route around Hoover Dam.
Arizona Department of Transportation
Nevada Department of Transportation
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region
National Park Service, Lake Mead National Recreation Area
Western Area Power Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Arizona Division
Nevada Division
Central Federal Lands Highway Division
Design Team Contractors
HDR Engineering R. E. Monks Construction
Sverdrup Civil Vastco Inc.
T.Y. Lin International Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc.
Obayashi Corporation
PSM Construction USA, Inc.
Environmental Impact Study Consultant
"""' ' |_I|I I * *Jv, " "' "*"*''' ' "W,, - '*
HILL ^- * *%,, **.,
' - -S. ' ' ' ""'''iK,, A
For More Information,
Contact:
if you have questions about these restrictions,
please call the Hoover Dam Restriction Hotline
at 1-888-248-1259.
Page 4
-------
HOOVER DAM BYPASS UPDATE May 2005 No. 13
Phase One Complete
Arizona Approach Portion of the Bypass a 'Complete Success'
The Arizona Approach is the roadway leading from Arizona
U.S. 93 to the new Colorado River Bridge crossing, located
approximately 1,600 feet downstream of the Hoover Dam.
Joint venture contractors R.E. Monks Construction and Vastco,
Inc., did excellent work on this highly technical and demanding
job, making it a 'complete success.'
The Arizona Approach portion of the bypass includes:
1.8 miles of four-lane roadway (two lanes in each direction)
Sugarloaf Mountain Bridge - 900-foot bridge spanning a canyon
on the east side of Sugarloaf Mountain
Traffic Interchange at the intersection of the Bypass, the
Hoover Dam Access Road and Kingman Wash Road
Reconstructed access road to Hoover Dam
Wildlife crossings at bridges
Drainage improvements
Trail access parking
Staining of newly exposed rock cuts
View of new U.S. 93 alignment as it crosses the Sugarloaf Mountain Bridge.
The Arizona Approach to the Hoover Dam Bypass, a $21.5
million project, was completed in December 2004, bringing Phase
I of the entire Hoover Dam Bypass project to a successful finish.
Phase Two Ahead of Schedule
Nevada Approach Portion of the Bypass 70% Complete
On the other end of the project, Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc.,
is making swift progress on the $30.1 million Nevada Approach
portion of the bypass, which is nearly three-quarters complete.
That portion of the Bypass project, which began in September
2003, will serve as the roadway leading from Nevada U.S. 93 to
the new Colorado River bridge crossing. The Nevada Approach
was originally scheduled to be complete in November 2005.
However, if construction proceeds as planned, the contractor
anticipates an early completion in the summer of 2005.
The Nevada Approach includes:
2.2 miles of four-lane roadway (two lanes in each direction)
Six new bridges
Traffic Interchange near the Hacienda Casino to provide
access to existing U.S. 93, which will become the Hoover
Dam Access Road
1.6 million cubic yards of earthwork
Retaining walls totaling 50,000 square feet
Extension of the National Park Service River Mountain
Loop Trail
Wildlife crossings
Drainage improvements
Trail access parking
Staining of newly exposed rock cuts as determined
by the Design Advisory Panel
Page 2
Site work progresses on the Nevada Interchange which includes ramps
and a 160-foot-long bridge.
Wildlife and tortoise barrier fencing is installed in designated areas on
the project to prevent wildlife from entering the work area.
-------
-------
FHWA
Attn: Dave Zanetell
555 Zang Street, Room 259
Lakewood, CO 80228
I, 'INSIDE:
wernors Guinn and
ill Lead Kick-Off
tebration
jction Planned
* Phases
Roadway
of Bypass Set
Start
!VE!
IBYPASSn
iifi ฎm ^-^
HOOVER DAM BYPASS UPDATE
US 93
Tjgy'2QQ3 * No./O
tss
Ceremony /Vlarks Construction Start
Governors Guinn and Hull Lead Kick-Off Celebration
Nevada Governor Kenny C. Guinn and former Arizona Governor Jane Dee Hull announced the start
of construction of the Hoover Dam Bypass at a celebration held recently at the Hoover Dam Visitor
:.v ^fl9KMHBBH9MiI?9 Center. They were joined by Senator Jon Kyi of Arizona,
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, Congressman Don Young of
Alaska, Congressman Jim Gibbons of Nevada and
Congresswoman Shelley Berkley of Nevada.
Speakers focused on the importance of the Bypass as a
tourism and trade route. Much emphasis was also placed on
the overall safety and security aspects of the improvements.
Relocation of a nearby Western Area Power Administration
line began just weeks before the celebration, but the interest
of the more than 100 guests was clearly on the Arizona and
Nevada roadway approaches and the new Colorado River
bridge. Construction of the Arizona roadway approach to the
bridge will begin in early 2003 (see "Arizona Approach to
Begin" article on reverse side).
Federal Highway Administrator Mary E. Peters, Arizona
Department ofTransportation Director Victor Mendez, Nevada Department ofTransportation Director
Tom Stephens, Bureau of Reclamation Regional Manager Robert Johnson, and representatives from
Western Area Power Administration and the Lake Mead National Recreation Area of the National Park
Service were in attendance representing the Hoover Dam Bypass Project Management Team. Under the
direction of the Central Federal Lands Division of the Federal Highway Administration, this team has
been working together to advance the project as quickly as possible and complete this critical
alternative route around Hoover Dam. Design for the Hoover Dam Bypass is being completed by a
joint venture consisting of HDR Engineering, Sverdrup Civil, and T.Y. Lin International.
Bui/ding the Bypass One Piece at a Time
Construction Planned In Four Phases
The Hoover Dams
-------
DAM 'January 2003 No. 10
Photo simulation
of Arizona
Approach
improvements
Contract Awarded for Phase One
Arizona Roadway Portion of Bypass Set to Start
The first phase of the Hoover Dam Bypass is the Arizona Approach
- the roadway leading from Arizona U.S. 93 to the new Colorado
River bridge crossing (approximately 1500 feet downstream of the
Hoover Dam). A joint venture of R. E. Monks Construction and
Vastco Inc. has been awarded the construction contract Work is
expected to begin in late January/early February 2003.
The Arizona Approach will include:
ซ 1.8 miles of four-lane roadway (two lanes in each direction
divided by a concrete median)
* Sugarloaf Mountain Bridge - 900-foot bridge spanning a canyon
on the east side of Sugarloaf Mountain
Traffic Interchange at the intersection of the Bypass, the
Hoover Dam Access Road and Kingman Wash Road
Wildlife crossings at bridges
Drainage improvements
Trail access parking
Staining of newly exposed rock cuts
During the initial construction work, traffic will be maintained on
the existing U.S. 93 roadway while the new access road to the
Hoover Dam is constructed. When it's complete, traffic will be
shifted to the new access road and work will begin on the
Bypass roadway, bridges and traffic interchange.The nature of
the terrain in the area will require the contractor to move
approximately 1.7 million cubic yards of earthwork to prepare
the area for roadway construction. The Arizona Approach is
scheduled for completion in October of 2004.
Traffic will not be shifted to the Bypass roadway until the
Colorado River Bridge and Nevada Approach are complete
in 2007.
The Central Federal Lands Highway Division of the Federal
Highway Administration will maintain a local construction
office in order to oversee the day-to-day construction of the
Arizona Approach. Overall project coordination will continue
with the Hoover Dam Bypass Project Management Team,
which includes the Arizona Department of Transportation,
Nevada Department of Transportation, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, National Park Service and Western Area Power
Administration.
Watch this newsletter for progress updates on the Arizona
Approach construction.
Hoover Dam Bypass Project
Management Team
Arizona Department of Transportation
Nevada Department ofTransportation
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region
National Park Service, Lake Mead National
Recreation Area
Western Area Power Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Arizona Division Nevada Division
-------
i
w
FHWA
Attn: Dave Zanetell
12300 West Dakota Ave
Lakewood, CO 80228
PRESORTED
FIRST-CLASS
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
85713
FHWA
INSIDE:
States Advances Project
Hears Completion
ach at 30%
ver Bridge Heads for
Environmental
Hoover Dam Bypass Project Management Team
As the Hoover Dam Bypass Project reaches another milestone, the Federal
Highway Administration wants to thank the agencies and consultants of the
Project Management Team. This Team is committed to working together to
advance the Hoover Dam Bypass Project as quickly as possible and complete
this much needed alternative route around Hoover Dam.
Arizona Department of Transportation
Nevada Department of Transportation
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region
National Park Service, Lake Mead National Recreation Area
Western Area Power Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Arizona Division
Nevada Division
Central Federal Lands Highway Division
Design Team
HDR Engineering
Sverdrup Civil
T.Y. Lin International
Contractors
R. E. Monks Construction
Vastco Inc.
Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc.
Environmental Impact Study Consultant
CH2M HILL
For More Information,
Contact:
ป!IS are
still In effect for travel across the Hoover Dam.
If you have questions about these restrictions,
please caJI the Hoover Dam Restriction Hotline
at 1-888-248-1259.
Page 4
-------
m
m
INSIDE:
* Arizona Approach
Hears Completion
* Nevada Approach
at 30%
* Colorado River
Bridge Funded lor
Construction
* Plant Salvage and
Environmental
HOOVER DAM BYPASS UPDATE
j]une2004 -No./2
Funding for Hoover Dam Bypass Advances Project
Arizona and Nevada Commit Bond Money
The Hoover Dam Bypass Project reached another major
milestone with the funding of the final connection - the
Colorado River E>ridge. With nearly $90 million of the
overall $234 million required for the Bypass unfunded, the
states of Arizona and Nevada have committed up to $50
million each in bond funding to assist with the construction
of this vital portion of the Hoover Dam Bypass.
"The Hoover Dam Bypass is a
critical link in the CANAMEX
Corridor a transportation and
economic development 'highway' that
is vital to the people of Arizona and
the western U.S."
- Victor Mendez, Director
Arizona Department of Transportation
The Colorado River Bridge, which will
span the Canyon, and the final roadway
surfacing are the two phases remaining
to complete the Bypass. The agreement
Computer rendering of the Colorado River Bridge. between the States and the Federal
Highway Administration allows the bonds to be repaid from available Federal funds on a debt
service reimbursement basis. The two states had already committed $20 million each when the
Bypass planning began in 2001.
Construction on the nearly 2,000-foot-long Colorado
River Bridge is expected to begin by the end of this year
and the completion of the entire Hoover Dam Bypass
Project is expected in late 2008. Find more information on
the Colorado River Bridge on page 3.
"The Nevada Department of
Transportation, and the people of
this state, are proud to make this
commitment to help complete the
Hoover Dam Bypass."
- Jeff Fontaine, Director
Nevada Department of Transportation
$4M
National Corridor Planning &
Development Funds
$23 M
US DOT Appropriations
$31.5 M
Federal Public Lands
Discretionary Funds
$41 M
Federal Highway High Priority
Projects Funds
$5M
2003 Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution
Page I
Begin Design
Preliminary Design
Final Design
Transmission Relocation
Phase 1
Arizona Approach
Transmission Relocation
Phase!
Nevada Approach
Colorado River Bndge
Pairing
Open to Traffic
$89.5 M
To be Advanced from Bond
Hoover Dam Bypass Timeline Funds * Arzona * Nevada
2001
0
2002
2003
2004
!
2005
2006
2007
2008
<
t
-------
HOOVER DAM BYPASS UPDATE June 2004 No. 12
Arizona Approach
Nears Completion
Phase One of
Bypass 85%
Complete
The Arizona Approach,
being constructed by the
joint venture contractor
R. E. Monks Construction
and Vastco Inc. and
connecting U.S. 93 with the
Colorado River Bridge, is
expected to be complete
in the fall of this year.
The $21.5 million project
includes nearly two miles of
Vastco, Inc. crews place concrete at night
to build the deck on the 900-foot-/ong
Sugar/oof Mountain Bridge.
Sugarloaf Mountain Bridge inches
across the existing U.S. 93 as R.E.
Monks excavates the new U.S. 93
alignment to the east.
four-lane roadway, a
900-foot bridge on the
east side of Sugarloaf
Mountain, a new traffic
interchange at U.S. 93
and Kingman Wash
Road, wildlife crossings,
trail access parking,
improved drainage and
rock staining.
Nevada Approach
Underway
Phase Two of
Bypass 30%
Complete
Edward Kraemer & Sons,
Inc., the contractor for the
Nevada Approach, is moving
forward on this $30.1 million
roadway improvement from
Nevada U.S. 93 to the new
Colorado River Bridge
crossing. Improvements
associated with the Nevada
Approach include just over two miles of four-lane roadway,
six new bridges, a new traffic interchange at U.S. 93 near the
Hacienda Casino,
retaining walls,
wildlife crossings, trail
extension and access
parking, improved
drainage and rock
staining.
The ex/sting U.S. 93 winds through
the mountains while blasting and
excavating of the future U.S. 93
occurs in the valley below.
Edward Kraemer & Sons crews construct
formwork and place reinforcing steel on
the Bureau of Reclamation Warehouse
Bridge.
construction proceeds as planned, the
early completion in the spring of 2005.
Western Area Power Administration
Complete System Update
New Electrical Lines Energized
The power is on at the Bypass. The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), a partner
with the Federal Highway Administration on the Hoover Dam Bypass, has completed changes
to its transmission system that were necessary to accommodate the Bypass project. These
improvements, made in two phases, included replacing transmission towers and conductors
that were installed in the late I930's and removing a switchyard with 50-year-old breakers and
switches. These state-of-the art improvements enhanced the overall reliability for electrical
customers.
Phase I, which was completed on schedule, included removing two 230 kV transmission lines
that would have been in conflict with the new Bypass bridge, rebuilding 2.6 miles of two
transmission lines, and extending a third transmission line. Two Hoover Dam generators that
were connected to the lines that were removed were paralleled at the Dam and connected to
an existing unused line to cross the Colorado River.
Phase 2 improvements consisted of removing the switchyard and constructing a new double
circuit transmission line. Construction was coordinated so that interested Native American
tribal representatives could be on-site when work occurred over or adjacent to areas of
cultural interest. When the switchyard was removed, a small portion was left in place for
historic representation.
WAPA's contractor, Wilson Construction Company, completed the Phase 2 work in time for
the new lines to be energized as scheduled on April 30, 2004.
Page 2
The Nevada Approach,
which began in
October 2003, was
originally scheduled
to be complete in
November 2005.
However, if the
contractor anticipates an
Hoover Dam Bypass Project Components
-------
f A Commitment to the Environment
Plant Salvage and Worker Training
Underway
Workers tog a cactus for salvage at the
National Park Service nursery.
1^ As a part of the commitment in the Environmental Impact Statement, construction crews
on the Arizona and Nevada Approaches are busy salvaging healthy cactus specimens such
as beavertail, barrel, pygmy barrel, fishhook and silver cholla. The cacti are stored at the
National Park Service (NPS) Boulder Beach Nursery where they will be maintained until
replanting when the Bypass project is complete. To date, more than 4,000 cactus plants have been salvaged for future use.
The Federal Highway Administration maintains a proactive approach to wildlife
monitoring and protection by requiring mandatory awareness training for all
construction personnel at the Bypass construction site. They are not only trained
on what to do when they encounter desert bighorn sheep, desert tortoise and Gila
monsters, they are also involved in documenting wildlife sightings. Since early last year,
more than 350 desert bighorn sheep sightings have been recorded in the vicinity of the
Arizona and Nevada Approaches.
Creating a National Landmark
Colorado River Bridge Ready for
Construction
With full funding now in place, the Federal Highway ^ _ ^ -_
Administration will advertise the Colorado River
Bridge for construction bids in early June with an
anticipated construction start of November 2004.
Desert bighorn sheep are occasionally seen on
the rocky slopes surrounding the Hoover Dam
Bypass.
The Colorado River Bridge will be the longest
concrete arch in North America. Nearly 2,000 feet
in length, the Bridge will soar 890 feet above the
Colorado River with an arch span of more than
1,000 feet.
arr
Profile of the Colorado River Bridge.
The deck arch-type bridge was selected because it not only met the technical needs for this bridge, but also worked well to honor
the commitment to minimize the view impacts that grew from the Environmental Impact Statement. It is also considered to be
architecturally compatible with the Hoover Dam.
According to Dave Zanetell, Project Manager for the Hoover Dam Bypass Project, "this is a highly challenging project and one we are
confident the construction industry can meet, just as they have excelled on the Arizona and Nevada Approaches."
if $ stooge Yard i >
WJWItfe Cw|srrig*!: V
yv, tr
Center^
ซy<ป Crossing
Crossings
.;.:
a * River Brtdqfe
\Wasf fiksad
\ I
Construction of the Colorado River Bridge,
connecting the Arizona and Nevada Approaches, is
expected to be complete in late 2007/early 2008.
Following the bridge construction, the final roadway
surfacing will be completed opening the Bypass for
travel in 2008.
"It is because of the strong
cooperation among our stakeholders
that we can now begin this landmark
portion of the project - constructing
the Colorado River Bridge and
completing the final link in the
Hoover Dam Bypass Project."
- Dave Zanetell, Project Manager
Federal Highway Administration
Page 3
-------
HOOVER DAM BYPASS UPDATE
No. 9
INSIDE;
Composite Deck Arch
Bridge at Colorado River
Crossing
Who is the DAP?
I Multiple Benefits
(Achieved During
preliminary Engineering
Paying the Way
wr?iM#er rendering of the
'.omposite Deck Arch Bridge.
Composite Deck Arch Bridge Will Span the Canyon
Final Bridge Type Selected
The Hoover Dam Bypass Project has marked another
milestone with the decision to build a composite bridge with
steel superstructure and a concrete arch at the Colorado
River Crossing.The selection was made by the Project
Management Team (PMT) led by the Federal Highway
Administration with input from the stakeholders consisting of
the Arizona and Nevada Departments of Transportation, the
U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, and the
Western Area Power Administration. Input during the selection
process was also provided from the Design Advisory Panel and
the design team. In keeping with its Mission Statement, the
Design Advisory Panel provided cultural, historic and aesthetic
input during the bridge type selection and will continue to be
a resource throughout final design.The public also had
opportunities to comment on the bridge type alternatives.
Many citizens cast ballots at the Hoover Dam Visitors Center
and through the Hoover Dam Bypass website
www.hooverdambypass.org.
The innovative composite solution offers many advantages and
works especially well in meeting the specific design and
construction challenges presented by the Hoover Dam Bypass
site, said Dave Zanetell, Project Manager for the Federal
Highway Administration.
The specific advantages of the composite deck arch
bridge include:
An aggressive schedule, since the composite nature of the
bridge provides opportunities for major on-site progress
while steel fabrication is also underway.
A quality finished project, blending the advantages of both
concrete and steel in a manner that is complimentary to
the Hoover Dam.
* Cost efficiency with the greatest flexibility to design and
construct the most cost-effective elements for each of the
bridge components.
The best overall design in terms of cost, quality
control, and completion time.
Effectively distributes off-site fabrication
and on-site production risks during
construction.
The Hoover Darn J:
Bypass Design :' -^
Advisory Panel..-,-' fl
The Design Advisory Panel (DAP) igji-
made up of stakeholders' in the j^'4j;
Hoover Dam Bypass ProJectThe %
Panel works as a team to provide %ป
guidance, recommendations, amP" "^?
input to the Design teanruThelDAP tl
includes the Federal Highway .- '%
Administration, the Arizona and ~js
Nevada Departments of ,:" ^J$<
Transportation, the Arizona anil i'!S'fe
Nevada State Historic Preservation1'-'j
Offices, die Advisory Council on^
Historic Preservation,tiie National
Historic Landmark CoordinawjnU^ ' |yf
internationally recognfeed Sfte,pa?-. 5$;:/r
mission is to work together as'o ^^f.'
cooperative alliance to drf^Jr :6xc^ikJ" J
effective facility of the highest qpifey /
that is aestheticaflj' pleasing; ^ -^
historically sensitive; functions as
Page I
Composite Deck Arch Bridge selected
-------
DAM UPDATE -June 2002 No.9
Improvements Made - Impacts Reduced
Concept Refinement and Preliminary Engineering Complete
Another milestone has been added to the Hoover Dam Bypass
Project with the completion of the Concept Refinement and
Preliminary Engineering for the project.This action is extremely
important in that it further defines many aspects of r.he project
including budget estimates, completion schedule, and coordination with
the Corridor Study and the Environmental Impact Study.
The completion of this phase of the project resulted in a number of
benefits to the public who will use the Bypass and will improve the
overall construction, operation, and function of the final project.
Benefits resulting from the process include:
Improved Safety and Traffic Access
Safety and simplified access were major factors in the changes in the
design, phasing, and alignment of the project that were made during
the Concept Refinement and Preliminary Engineering. Modifications at
both the Arizona and Nevada interchanges will improve sight
distances, optimize traffic flow, and eliminate an at-grade intersection.
Other modifications resulting in safety improvements include standard
shoulders on the river bridge and changing a proposed tunnel on the
Nevada Approach to an open cut.The changes will also reduce traffic
impacts on US Highway 93 during construction of the Hoover Dam
Bypass. Overall, the refined concept improves safety and roadway
uniformity, simplifies the construction process, and reduces the overall
footprint of the project.
Improved Pedestrian and Visitor Access
Pedestrian access, including parking and viewing areas, has been of
great interest to members of the public who commented on the
Hoover Dam Bypass Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Based on this input, access has been a key element for the
Design Team. Facilities developed during the concept
refinement process include a parking area, a trail to the
bridge, a pedestrian plaza, and a walkway on the bridge from
which the dam can be viewed. We'll be sharing more details
about plans to accommodate pedestrians and visitors in a
future newsletter.
Reduced Environmental and Wildlife Impacts
The overall footprint of the project
was reduced through the Concept
Refinement. In addition, the amount
of excavation required has been
reduced and the need to relocate
existing sewage treatment ponds
eliminated.The project is home to
numerous sensitive species such as
the desert tortoise, the Gila monster
and the desert big horn sheep. Closer evaluation of
the area also enabled the team to shift the footprint
slightly to areas that had been disturbed during the
dam's original construction, thus further reducing
impact to the natural environment.
Enhanced Historic and Cultural Benefits
Impacts to historic and Native American cultural propertie
have been avoided or reduced. Based on continuing
collaboration with the interested Native American Tribes,
Native American Interpretive elements are also being
considered to enhance tr
cultural and historic
experience for visitors.
The Concept
Refinement and
Preliminary Engineer!
Phase included the
completion of geotechni
work, survey and mappin;
preliminary bridge type
studies, and line and grad
refinement. In addition,
environmental impacts w<
field documented,
mitigations were reviewe<
and the project cost was I
established (see "Paying tH
Way" article on page 3).
U.S. Bureau of Rede
Warehouse
Anemometer used to measure
wind speed.
Lower Portal
Access Road Bridge
/
Nevada Interchange
Page 2
Hoover Dam Bypass Project Components
-------
2001 i 2002 2901 1 2004 I 2005 1 2006 i 2007
BEGIN DESIGN
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
FINAL DESIGN
ARIZONA APPROACH
NEVADA APPROACH
COLORADO RIVER BRIDGE
PAVING
OPEN TO TRAFFIC
$4M
National Corridor
Planning &
Development Funds
$23 M
US DOT
Appropriations
$41 M
Federal Highway High
Priority Project Funds
| Paying the Way
Project Funding Estimate Finalized
I The completion of preliminary engineering has allowed the Hoover Bypass Team to set
the final budget for the project at $231 million.The conceptual estimate, based on the
original design studies completed in the early I990's and used during the design concept
phase of the project, was $204
million.The addition of
pedestrian and visitor wซi h*E Lands
amenities, efforts to Discretionary Funds
minimize the
project "footprint,"
a reduction of
| environmental
impacts, and the
I completion of
preliminary engineering for
the project, contributed to the
change in the preliminary cost estimate.
Colorado River Crossing
Sugorloaf Mountain Rock Cut
'*ซ*)ง Walkway
Viaduct on Arizona Approach
Hoover Dam Travel
Restrictions Eased for
Some Commercial
Vehicles
Restrictions prohibiting commercial
vehicles, trucks pulling trailers and
recreational vehicles from traveling
across the Hoover Dam have been
in place since September I 1,2001.
Recently, the U. S. Bureau of
Reclamation announced some
modifications to these commercial
vehicle restrictions:
* Recreational vehicles, rental
trucks, and passenger buses not
carrying luggage are now allowed
across the dam following
inspection.
Vehicles traveling to a destination
within a 75-mile radius of the
dam (formerly 50 miles) may
obtain special permits from the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to
cross the dam.
The shortest detour route available
to commercial vehicles traveling
either east or west is the Arizona
State Route 68, Nevada 163, U.S. 95
bypass to the west and south via
Laughlin and Bullhead City.Watch
for the signs on Interstate 40 and
U.S. 93 north of Kingman, Arizona.
The Arizona and Nevada
Departments ofTransportation
remind motorists to be aware of the
6% grades on AZ 68 and NV 163.
Construction on AZ 68 is now
complete.
If you have questions, please call the
Hoover Dam Restriction Hotline at
1-888-248-1259.
I seven pictures are computer images of project features.
Page 3
-------
VMHd
QlVd
3DVฑSOd '
nvw
8ZZ08 03 '
tuooy
H3J3UDZ
aSpug
VMhU
Hoover Dam Bypass Project Management Team
As the Hoover Dam Bypass Project reaches another milestone, the Federal
Highway Administration wants to thank the agencies and consultants of the
Project Management Team. This Team is committed to working together to
advance the Hoover Dam Bypass Project as quickly as possible and complete
this much needed alternative route around Hoover Dam.
Arizona Department of Transportation
Nevada Department of Transportation
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region
National Park Service, Lake Mead National Recreation Area
Western Area Power Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Arizona Division
Nevada Division
Central Federal Lands Highway Division
Design Team
HDR Engineering
Sverdrup Civil
T.Y. Lin International
Environmental Impact Study Consultant
CH2M HILL
Visit our website:
www.hooverdambypass.org
Page 4
-------
INSIDE
[Update on Commercial
Vehicle Restrictions
^eck Arch Bridge to Cross
Colorado River
Funding Update
* Project Schedule
of
Following ten years of project development,
environmental studies, public input and
negotiations, the Record of Decision (ROD) has
been signed allowing the long-awaited Hoover
Dam Bypass project to proceed.
The ROD officially names the Sugarloaf Mountain
alternative as the alternative best suited to
minimize environmental impacts, resolve traffic
congestion and safety issues in the vicinity of the
dam, and increase protection of both the dam
and the waters of the Colorado River.
One of four alternatives evaluated, Sugarloaf
Mountain received high ratings in the
areas of positive input from the public
and local, state and federal agencies; the
consideration of environmental impacts;
and its effectiveness in meeting the
projects overall goals. It was favored
over the other alternatives by a three
to one margin. Find more information
on the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative
inside on page 2.
View the of Decision
The complete environmental document and
Record of Decision for the Hoover Dam Bypass
project are available for review at:
Boulder City Public Library, Boulder City, NV
Bullhead City Public Library, Bullhead City.AZ
Clark County Public Library, Las Vegas, NV
Green Valley Public Library, Henderson, NV
The environmental documents and Record of
Decision are also available on the Internet at the
project web site www.hooverdambypass.org.
February 2002 No. 8
HDR
for ~
Following an extensive selection process, the
Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD)
of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
in consultation with the Arizona and Nevada
Departments of Transportation, has selected HDR
Engineering to carry out the next major phase of
the Hoover Dam Bypass Project - the design of
the new bridge and four-lane highway access
downstream of the Hoover Dam.
HDR, one of the largest employee-owned design
engineering firms in the United States, leads the
Hoover Support Team which includes Sverdrup
Civil,T.Y. Lin International, and a host of firms
specializing in various aspects of the project.
William M. Dowd, RE., Executive Vice President at
HDR, is leading the Hoover Support Team as
Project Director. "The Hoover Dam Bypass Project
demands a careful balance between environmental,
aesthetic, and engineering requirements," Dowd
commented. "We're going to make sure all the
options are explored and consensus reached by
the various agencies and groups involved before
any decisions are made."
The team began mapping, geotechnical, and
alignment studies during the summer of 2001.
Preliminary design work on the project is currently
underway.
Design Team Selected
-------
Restrictions
in on
Currently, commercial vehicles, trucks pulling trailers
and recreational vehicles are prohibited from traveling
across the Hoover Dam. These conditions are in
compliance with Bureau of Reclamation's restrictions
and have been in place since the terrorist attacks
on the World Trade Center last September.
Permanent signs
and variable
message boards
have recently been
installed on
Interstate 40 and
U. S. 93 north of
Kingman, Arizona,
in an effort to
continue to advise travelers of these restrictions.
The shortest detour route available to commercial
vehicles traveling either east or west is the Arizona
State Route 68, Nevada 163, U.S. 95 bypass to the
west and south via Laughlin and Bullhead City. Both
the Arizona and Nevada Departments of
Transportation are asking that drivers be aware of
the 6% grades on AZ 68 and NV 163 as well as the
ongoing construction on AZ 68.
The only exceptions to this restriction are vehicles
with a destination within a 50 mile radius of the dam
which have been issued special permits to cross the
dam by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). If
you have questions, call the BOR External Affairs
office at (702)293-8421.
An
The !
The Hoover Dam Bypass Project was conceived to address a number of issues
related to the function of highway U.S. 93 and its crossing of Hoover Dam.This
roadway, originally constructed in 1936, crosses the dam and is the primary route
for commerce and travel between Phoenix and Las Vegas.
More than 17,000 cars, trucks and other vehicles use this section of highway daily
The volume of traffic combined with the narrow, winding highway creates serious
traffic congestion problems, safety issues, and travel delays and poses safety issues
for visitors to Hoover Dam and to the dam facilities themselves. There is no
efficient alternative route for these vehicles.
In addition, U.S. 93 is the designated CANAMEX Corridor - the commercial
route through this part of the western states for commerce related to the North
American Free Trade Agreement The highway is also a major commercial route
between the states of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah.
The need for an improved highway and especially a new Colorado River crossing
near Hoover Dam has been a priority for the Federal Highway Administration,
the states of Arizona and Nevada, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for more
than a decade. In the summer of 2001, following considerable consultation, review,
and environmental study, a route for the Hoover Dam Bypass was selected. (See
Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative Advances in this newsletter.) The alternative was
selected based in part on the factors of wildlife, noise, public safety, public service,
air quality, and traffic circulation.
The bypass will include construction of approximately 3.5 miles of new four-lane
highway and a new 1,900-foot-long bridge over the Colorado River about 1,500
feet south of the dam and ties into existing U.S. 93 on the east and the west.
Design by the Hoover Support Team, lead by HDR Engineering, is now underway
and a deck arch bridge has been selected as the preferred type for the crossing.
Design work should be complete by 2003. Final completion of the Hoover Bypass
Project is expected by 2007.
;i^ytf.,,,Mrtปfe
. -
Afimrta ซ*
Page!
Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative!
-------
Schedul
1984
Hoover Power
Plant Act
authorizes
project
1989
Establishment of Project
Management Team (PMT)
and initiation of
environmental studies
1995
Change in U.S. Bureau of \
Reclamation mission and /
lack of funding places /
project on hold /
Gubernatorial and
Congressional appeal
to Federal Highway
Administration to
restart project
1997
Central Federal
Lands Highway
Division named as
Lead Agency
1777 \
Public Open Houses
conducted to collect
Input on project /
alternatives /
Release of Draft
V Environmental
/ Impact Statement
/ (DEIS) for
public review
and comment
1770 \
Public Hearings
conducted to /
collect input /
on DEIS /
1777 \
\ Consulted State Historic
' Preservation Offices for /
Nevada and Arizona on /
preferred alternative /
ZUUI
\ Finalization and
release of the Final
Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS)
Record of Decision
(ROD) signed
selecting
Sugarloaf Mountain
2001
Hoover Support
Team begins
preliminary
design
2001
"Deck Arch"
selected
as new river
bridge design
Fall 2002
Begin construction
2007
Project completed
for
The centerpiece of the Hoover Dam Bypass Project is a new crossing of the
Colorado River, just downstream of the historic Hoover Dam. As a part of the
early design phase, it was important to the overall project completion to move
forward in the selection of the bridge type for that crossing. While many bridge
options exist, a design for this unique location is limited to several basic bridge
types. Bridge options reviewed were the deck arch, cable-stayed structure,
suspension, cantilever girders, and trusses. The deck arch type bridge was
selected because it not only met the technical needs for the bridge, but met the
Environmental Impact Statement commitment to minimize the view impacts and
provides extensive architectural opportunities for using different configurations
and material options.
The selection was made after
reviewing and taking into
consideration all potentially feasible
bridge types, the technical and
economic considerations, public
input and feedback from the Design
Advisory Panel (DAP). The DAP,
made up of architects, engineers,
historic preservationists, landscape
architects, and representatives from
the National Park Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Arizona and Nevada
Historic Preservation Offices and a Native American representative was formed
to provide input on corridor aesthetic treatments and visual concepts in order
to minimize adverse effects to the Hoover Dam National Historic Landmark.
Deck Arch Bridge
Bridge Selection Criteria
Technical suitability for the site
Inspection and maintenance requirements
Architectural potential
Height and mass on the viewscape from the Dam
Rock excavation requirements/impact on the canyon
Cost of construction
Constructibility
Structural redundancy
Engineering cost
As of January 2002, $126 million of the estimated
$I98-$204 million that will be required to build the
Hoover Dam Bypass has been acquired.
The states of Arizona and Nevada have agreed to
contribute $20 million each to the project and will
seek additional Federal funding annually.
Federal funds are coming from the "High Priority
Projects Program" of the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century ($41 million), the Department
ofTransportation and Public Lands Discretionary
Program ($18 million), the National Corridor
Planning and Development Program ($4 million),
and $23 million in US DOT appropriations.
$18 M
Federal Public Lands
Discretionary Funds
I
OM
S4M
National Corndor
Planning &
Development Funds us QQT
/ ,--^~ Appropnations
r
$20 M
Arizona Funds
$78 M
Undetermined
$41 M
Federal Highway High
Priority Projects Funds
Page 3
-------
FHWA
3 Attn: Dave Zanetell
555 Zang Street, Room 259
Lakewood, CO 80228
INSIDE:
Record of Decision Signed
* HDR Engineering Selected
for Design
Update on Commercial
Vehicle Restrictions
* Deck Arch Bridge to Cross
Colorado River
Dam Project Management Team
These agencies and consultants are working together to advance the Hoover
Dam Bypass Project as quickly as possible due to the great need for the
alternative route around the dam.
Arizona Department of Transportation
Nevada Department ofTransportation
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region
National Park Service, Lake Mead National Recreation Area
Western Area Power Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Arizona Division
Nevada Division
Central Federal Lands Highway Division
Design Team
HDR Engineering
Sverdrup Civil
T.Y. Lin International
Environmental Impact Study Consultant
CH2M Hill
Dave Zanetell
Federal High way Administration
555 Zang Street, Room 259
Lakewood, CO 80228
(303)716-2157
Visit our website:
vfww.hooverdambypass.org
Page 4
------- |