Posted by admin on 11/ 11/ 15
The performance of a hydrosystem engineering infrastructure, function of an engineering project, or completion of an operation all involve a number of contributing components, and most of them, if not all, are subject to various types of uncertainty (Fig. 1.1). Detailed elaboration of uncertainties in hydrosystem engineering and their analysis are given in Tung and Yen (2005). Reliability and risk, on the other hand, generally are associated with the system as a whole. Thus methods to account for the component uncertainties and to combine them are required to yield the system reliability. Such methods usually involve the use of a logic tree, which is discussed in Chap. 5. A typical logic tree for culvert design is shown in Fig. 1.2 as an example.
The reliability of an engineering system may be considered casually, such as through the use of a subjectively decided factor of safety (see Sec. 1.6). Today, reliability also may be handled in a more comprehensive and systematic manner through the aid of probability theory. Factors that contribute to the slow development and application of analyses of uncertainty and reliability in hydrosystem engineering infrastructure design and analysis include the following:
1. Those who understand the engineering processes well often are not trained adequately and are uncomfortable with probability. Contrarily, those who are good in probability theory and statistics seldom have sufficient knowledge of the details of the engineering process involved.
|
Natural variability Knowledge deficiency
|
Geomorphologic
|
Hydr
|
ologic
|
Seismic
|
Structural
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Model Operational Data
|
|
|
|
Construction Procedure Deterioration Maintenance & manufacturing or process і
|
|
|
|
Inspection
|
Repair
|
|
Formulation
|
Parameter
|
Execution
|
Numerical
|
|
|
|
Measurement
|
Inadequate
|
Handling and
|
Statistical
|
|
error
|
sampling
|
transcription
|
analysis
|
|
|
|
error
|
of data
|
Sources of uncertainty. (After Tung and Yen, 2005.)
  
OR
2. Many factors contribute to the reliability of an engineering system. Only recently have advances in techniques and computers rendered the combination and integration of these contributions feasible to evaluate the system reliability. Nevertheless, some of the factors are still beyond the firm grasp of engineers and statisticians. Furthermore, these factors usually require the work of experts in different disciplines, whereas interdisciplinary communication and cooperation often are a problem.
3. Engineers have a tendency to focus on components affecting their problem most while ignoring other contributing elements. For instance, hydrologists as a group perhaps have contributed more than any other discipline to frequency analysis and also have made major contributions to related probability distributions. Yet their devotion and accomplishment are a blessing as well as a curse, in that they hinder the vision to see beyond to a broader view of uncertainty and reliability analyses. As noted by Cornell (1972):
It is important to engineering applications that we avoid the tendency to model only those probabilistic aspects that we think we know how to analyze. It is far better to have an approximate model of the whole problem than an exact model of only a portion of it.
Only more recently, uncertainties other than natural randomness of floods/ rainfalls are considered in reliability-based design of flood mitigation schemes (U. S. National Research Council, 2000).
4. Inconsistent definitions of risk and risk analysis cause considerable confusion and doubt about the subject. For example, in flood protection engineering, hydraulic engineers tend to accept the definition used by structural, aerospace, and electronic engineers that risk analysis is the analysis of the probability of failure to achieve the intended objectives. Hydrologists often consider risk in terms of the return period, which is considered as the reciprocal of the annual exceedance probability of the hydrologic events (i. e., flood, storm, or drought). Water resources planners and decision makers mostly adopt the definition used in economics and the health science fields, regarding risk analysis as the analysis of risk costs, assessment of the economic and social consequence of a failure, and risk management. For example, the United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs (1992) defines risk as
The expected losses (of lives, persons injured, property damaged and economic activity disrupted) due to a particular hazard for a given area and reference period. Based on mathematical calculations, risk is the product of hazard and vulnerability.
Further, hazard is defined as “a threatening event or the probability of occurrence of a potentially damaging phenomenon within a given time period and area.” Hence, in the United Nations terminology, hazard is what engineers define as risk. The problem of confusion probably would be minimized if the experts in these subdisciplines worked separately, each responsible for his or her own specialty. However, the trend of the past decades, expecting jack-of-all-trades water resources engineers to be experts in all these subdisciplines, bears significant undesirable consequences, a small one ofwhich is the confusion concerning the definition of risk.
Practically all hydrosystem engineering infrastructures placed in a natural environment are subject to various external stresses and loads. The resistance, strength, capacity, or supply of the system is its ability to accomplish the intended mission satisfactorily without failure when subjected to demands or external stresses. Loads, stresses, and demands tend to cause failure of the system. Failure occurs when the demand exceeds the supply or the load exceeds the resistance. Owing to the existence of uncertainties, the capacity of an infrastructural system and the imposed loads more often than not are random and subject to some degrees of uncertainty. Hence the design and operation of engineering systems are always subject to uncertainties and potential failures.
Nevertheless, engineers always face the dilemma of decision making or design with imperfect information. It is the engineer’s responsibility to obtain a solution with limited information, guided by experience and judgment, considering the uncertainties and probable ranges of variability of the pertinent factors, as well as economic, social, and environmental implications, and assessing a reasonable level of safety.
Posted by admin on 11/ 11/ 15
Whether we admit it or not, we all respond emotionally to our surroundings. Buildings create interior environments that can be drab,
 distinctive, inspiring, or discouraging. How a building looks, how it’s laid out, the materials used—all these influence how we feel. I’ve visited huge, expensive homes that were not very inviting. Just because a house is big does not mean that it is warm and attractive.
Even a small, plain house can be made to feel inviting and uplifting, giving us pleasure, raising our spirits, and making us feel safe and secure (see the photo on the facing page). In the years that I’ve been a Habitat volunteer, I’ve had
the opportunity to give a few humble houses a bit more personality and life than they’d otherwise have had. In this book, I’ve tried to include many of the lessons I’ve learned—things such as ensuring that there are two sources of light in every room. For example, add an easy-to-install tube skylight in a dark area. Simple things like this can help make rooms bright and cheery.
Ask the right questions
Getting the details right will make life more convenient when you move into your house. Details also present many opportunities to make spaces special by using color schemes, hardware, unique materials, and built-in features (see the photo at left). As you’re working out your house’s design, ask yourself these key questions: “Is there a place to set groceries when I enter? Where will we hang up our coats or take off our boots when we come inside in the winter? Is it easy to get food to the table and to clear the dishes?” More than anything else you do, thinking about how you will actually live in the house will help you refine its design and ensure that the experience of living in it is a pleasant one.
Posted by admin on 11/ 11/ 15
The driving force of this urban development is likely the significant population growth, as seen in a proliferation of villages and small towns in the IVth millennium BC. Subsequently, it may be that as the climate became drier, some of the villages were abandoned causing market towns to grow and evolve into cities. As some branches of the river became dry, it was necessary to dig canals and establish a complex system of water distribution, and also to bring more land under cultivation by draining swampy areas and irrigating dry land. The accompanying need to organize a work force and coordinate the construction gave birth to the Sumerian civilization, the first to have a hierarchical organization.[7] Studies of human settlements in certain regions of lower Mesopotamia, performed by the American archaeologist Robert Adams, show a decrease in the number of villages, and a concomitant increase in the number of cities and population increases in existing cities, during the period between 3000 and 2500 BC. These really were cities in the true sense of the word: Uruk, one of the largest and oldest, occupies 550 hectares with a wall of circumference 9.5 km. The reconstitution of Uruk’s urbanization in 2500 BC is shown in Figure 2.3 of the following chapter.
The notion of writing first appeared in this urban civilization, in particular in Uruk about 3300 BC (and perhaps also in Suse to the east). One of the oldest texts describes the creation of man, vegetation and animals, and the first five cities (Eridu, Bad Tibira, Larak, Sippar, and Shuruppak). It goes on to argue for the vital need to maintain the hydraulic system, mentioning the necessity of “the cleaning of the small ditches.”[8] Another account contains the following:
“At this time, water was short in Lagas, there was famine in Girsu. Canals were not dug, vast lands were not irrigated by a shadoof (shaduf),[9] abundant water was not used to dampen meadows and fields, because humanity counted on rainwater. Asnan did not bring forth dappled barley, no furrow was plowed nor bore fruit! No land was worked nor bore fruit! No country or people made libations of beer or wine, […] sweet wine […], to the gods. No one used the plow to work the vast lands. (…) In order to dig the canals, in order to dredge the irrigation ditches, in order to irrigate the vast lands by a shadoof, in order to utilize abundant water so that the meadows and fields were moistened, An and Enlil put a spade, a hoe, a basket, a plow, the life of the land, at the disposal of the people. After this time, human beings gave all their attention to making the barley grow.” (there follows a list of numerous canals dug by the leaders of Lagash) [10] [11]
A third text describes periods of famine, caused by a conflict between the “waters of the primordial sea” having invaded the earth and the beneficial water of the Tigris.11 Does this perhaps refer to the conflict, common to all deltaic and estuarine zones of large rivers, between fresh and salt water, the latter useless for both cultivation and human consumption?
“Famine was severe, nothing was produced, The small rivers were not cleaned, the dirt was not carried off, On the steadfast fields no water was sprinkled, there was no digging of ditches, In all the lands there were no crops, only weeds grew.”
Posted by admin on 11/ 11/ 15
Water and the infrastructure for its conveyance are ever-present needs of civilization, whether for irrigation or flood protection, for water supply or for wastewater drainage from the earliest cities. Added to these needs are those of waterborne commerce, canals, and ports.
This story begins in the East with the great Neolithic revolution, humanity’s fundamental stride into an economic system of production, of agriculture and its accompanying development of the first cities.
From the birth of agriculture to the development of irrigation: the origins of the great Mesopotamian civilizations
In the near-East there is a zone of hills called the “fertile crescent” extending from Syria-Palestine to the foot of Mounts Taurus and Zagros. On these hills, blessed by ample rainfall, naturally grow wild grains such as barley and wheat. The natural fertility of this zone began to develop around 16000 BC, when the climate began to become warmer and moister. This occurred first in the western portions of the area where, after the interruption of a dry and cool period from 10500 to 9000 BC, the climate stabilized to become more or less as it is today, albeit somewhat more humid.1 The change continued into the eastern portions of the zone, in the foothills of Mount Zagros in present-day Iraq, and finally ended about 7000 BC with the permanent inundation of the Persian Gulf.
In about 12500 BC, in this fertile land in the middle and to the west of the present fertile crescent, the harvesting of wild grains led the hunter-gatherers to begin to settle. Toward 9500 BC they began to take charge of their means of subsistence. They came down from the hills to begin early cultivation of domestic grains and cereals in the sedimentary corridor from the Jordan Valley to the upper valley of the Euphrates, and in the oasis of Damas. For example, in the IXth millennium BC, Jericho is a village located near a spring; a rather large settlement of two hectares and probably having several hundred inhabitants, surrounded by a thick wall possibly designed to protect the inhabitants from floods. Prehistorians call this corridor the Levantine core (Figure 1.1).[1] [2]
Subsequently, about 8000 BC, this seat of early agriculture moved north to take root in the Syrian interior and in the south of Anadolu. This is when animal husbandry first appeared, as well as the rectangular dwelling, a major architectural innovation
(prior to this, the semi-underground huts were round). The population began to increase, and this in effect marked the beginning of the Neolithic revolution which occurred from about 7500 BC to 4500 BC. [3] Toward the west, this movement gradually reached the Syrian coast, then the West through two parallel paths: the
Mediterranean and the Danube. The population spread also extended toward the east, and it is this eastern spread that interests us here. The Neolithic human tide reaches the Zagros mountains, where it has now become possible for men to live. Indeed, since 7000 BC the Persian Gulf had been flooded, and was even deeper than it is today.
The human tide spreads into some hospitable niches of the arid Syrian desert: the oases of the regions of Palmyra and El-Kown, and the site of Bouqras, at the confluence of the Euphrates and the Khabur.
|
Figure 1.1 From the Neolithic revolution in the East to the first irrigation canals: birth and spreading of agriculture from the Levantine core toward the culture of Samarra and the land of Sumer, from 9000 to 6000 BC.
|
The rain and natural runoff are at first sufficient to provide enough water for grains and vegetables. Then, the needs of individual, isolated farmers or perhaps small groups of them, led to the advent of irrigation through small ditches. This made it possible to improve yields and cultivate new land that lacked sufficient rainfall. It is very difficult to date these very first and rudimentary “hydraulic works”. It is possible that when settlers began to occupy the oases mentioned above, as at Bouqras where, between 7400 BC and 6800 BC, the flood plain of the Euphrates valley was cultivated,[4] or at El-Kowm where, in the first half of the Vth millennium BC, artesian springs were available, some management of water was already occurring. Moreover, the earliest evidence of drainage of water from dwellings was found at El Kowm (Figure 1.4).[5]
The first definite evidence of irrigation dates from the VIIth millennium BC – in the middle Tigris valley, at the foot of the Zagros mountains, and at the sites known as the Samarran civilization (Samarra, Sawwan, Choga Mami). At Choga Mami, remains of what are thought to be two-meter wide canals have been found, canals that connect to the rivers and follow elevation contours for hundreds of meters before distributing the spring flood waters into the fields.[6] The first wells appeared in the VIth millennium BC.
Also in the VIth millennium BC, the irrigated cereal-growing know-how began to spread to the Euphrates delta, a potentially fertile area thanks to its silt deposits, but an arid one. This is the Ubaid culture that may have been the inheritor of the Samarran culture. The multiple channels of the delta surely facilitated irrigated farming in this semimarshy alluvial region. The first great urban civilizations, as we recognize them today, took root here.
Posted by admin on 11/ 11/ 15
From the era of the early cultivators to the conquests of Alexander the Great
From the beginning of history up to the conquests of Alexander the Great, continuous and rapid development of civilization occurred in the valleys of the Tigris, the Euphrates, and the Nile Rivers, as well as on the shores of the Aegean Sea. Each of these regions has its own particular historical context, and each would be worthy of its own detailed description. But the regions were also closely linked together and unified by extensive trade and military ventures, and by the transfer of technology that came with them.
The historical period of Part I of this book ends in the era of Alexander the Great, whose conquests marked the end of a civilization in the Orient.
To understand this period, one must keep in mind that it includes the Bronze Age, from the IVth millennium BC to the end of the IInd millennium BC, and the transition to the Iron Age. In some areas, such as Egypt, this transition occurred smoothly and continuously. In other areas, such as Greece, the transition represented profound ruptures with the past.
Posted by admin on 11/ 11/ 15
1.1 Reliability Engineering
Occasionally, failures of engineering systems catch public attention and raise concern over the safety and performance of the systems. The cause of the malfunction and failure could be natural phenomena, human error, or deficiency in design and manufacture. Reliability engineering is a field developed in recent decades to deal with such safety and performance issues.
Based on their setup, engineering systems can be classified loosely into two types, namely, manufactured systems and infrastructural systems. Manufactured systems are those equipment and assemblies, such as pumping stations, cars, computers, airplanes, bulldozers, and tractors, that are designed, fabricated, operated, and moved around totally by humans. Infrastructural systems are the structures or facilities, such as bridges, buildings, dams, roads, levees, sewers, pipelines, power plants, and coastal and offshore structures, that are built on, attached to, or associated with the ground or earth. Most civil, environmental, and agricultural engineering systems belong to infrastructural systems, whereas the great majority of electronic, mechanical, industrial, and aeronautical/aerospace engineering systems are manufactured systems.
The major causes of failure for these two types of systems are different. Failure of infrastructures usually is caused by natural processes, such as geophysical extremes of earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes or typhoons, heavy rain or snow, and floods, that are beyond human control. Failure of such infrastructural systems seldom happens, but if a failure occurs, the consequences often are disastrous. Replacement after failure, if feasible, usually involves so many changes and improvements that it is essentially a different, new system.
On the other hand, the major causes of failure for manufactured systems are wear and tear, deterioration, and improper operation, which could be dealt with by human abilities but may not be economically desirable. Their failures usually do not result in extended major calamity. If failed, they can be repaired or replaced without affecting their service environment. Their reliability analyses are usually for production, quality control, or for maintenance service and warranty planning. Thus failures of manufactured systems often are classified into repairable and nonrepairable types. Conversely, failures of infrastructural systems can be classified as structural failures and functional failures, as will be explained in Sec. 1.5.
The approaches and purposes of reliability analysis for these two types of systems are related but different. As described in Sec. 1.3, reliability analysis for manufactured systems has a history of more than 70 years and is relatively more developed than reliability analysis for civil engineering infrastructural systems. Many books and papers have been published on reliability engineering for manufactured systems. One can refer to Ireson and Coombs (1988), Kececioglu (1991), Ushakov (1994), Pecht (1995), Birolini (1999), and Modarres et al. (1999) for extensive lists of the literature. Conversely, this book deals mainly with reliability issues for hydrosystem engineering infrastructures. Nonetheless, it should be noted that many of the basic theories and methods are applicable to both systems.
Posted by admin on 11/ 11/ 15
It was not until after I thought I had already finished designing my little dream home that I became familiar with the term “minimum-size standards.” Up to this point, I had somehow managed to remain blissfully unaware of these codes; but, as the time for construction neared, my denial gave way to a grim reality. My proposed home was about one-third the size required to meet local limits. A drastic change of plans seemed unavoidable, but tripling the scale of a structure that had been designed to meet my specific needs so concisely seemed something like altering a tailored suit to fit like a potato sack.
I resolved to side-step the well-intentioned codes by putting my house on wheels. The construction of travel trailers is, after all, governed by maximum – not minimum size restrictions, and since Tumbleweed already fit within these, I had only to add some space for wheel wells to make the plan work.
looked a bit like American Gothic meets the Winnebago Vectra. A steep, metal roof was supported by cedar-clad walls and turned cedar porch posts. The front gable was pierced by a lancet window. In the tradition of the formal plan, everything was symmetrical, with the door at exterior, front center. Inside, Knotty Pine walls and Douglas Fir flooring were contrasted by stainless steel hardware. There was a 7’ x 7’ great room, a closet-sized kitchen, an even smaller bathroom and a 3’ 9”-tall bedroom upstairs. A cast-iron heater presided like an altar at the center of the space downstairs. In fact, the whole house looked a bit like a tiny cathedral on two, 3,500-pound axles.
The key to designing my happy home really was designing a happy life, and the key to that lay not so much in deciding what I needed as in recognizing all the things I can do without. What was left over read like a list I might make before packing my bags for a long trip. While I cannot remember the last time I packed my TV, stereo, or even the proverbial kitchen sink for any journey, I wanted this to be a list of items necessary not only to my survival, but to my contented survival. I am sure any hard-core minimalist would be as appalled by the length of my inventory as any materialist would be by its brevity. But then, I imagine nobody’s list of necessities is ever going to quite match anybody else’s. Each will read like some kind of self-portrait. I like to think that a house built true to the needs of its inhabitant will do the same.
 Tumbleweed (facing page)
Posted by admin on 11/ 11/ 15
Through my academic career, I have spent most of research efforts on problems relating to probabilistic hydrosystem engineering. I am truly thankful to my advisor, Larry W. Mays, who first introduced me to this fascinating area when I was a Ph. D. student. Over the years, both Larry and the late Ben C. Yen have been my unflagging supporters and mentors. In the process of putting together the book, the use of materials from some of my former students (Drs. Wade Hathhorn, Yixing Bao, and Bing Zhao) brought many fond memories back about the time we spent together burning midnight oil, cutting fire wood, and fishing. Many of my more recent students (Chen Xingyuan, Lu Zhihua, Wang Ying, Eddy Lau, and Wu Shiang-Jen) have contributed their kind assistance in preparing figures and tables, reading manuscripts and offering their criticisms from a student’s perspective. I am also grateful to Ms. Queenie Tso for skillful typing of numerous equations and painstakingly performing necessary corrections in the book. Especially, I would like to express sincere gratitude to my dear friend Ms. Joanne Lam for her prayers and encouragements during the course of writing this book.
Although writing this book has been a very rewarding experience, it nevertheless has occupied many hours and attention that I should have spent with my family. I am grateful to my wife Be-Ling and daughters (Fen, Wen, Fei, and Ting) for their understanding and support without which the completion of this book would not have been possible. By the time the final manuscript was submitted, I felt an overwhelming sense of sadness and loss since I wished Prof. Yen would have lived to see the completion of this book. I want to thank Ruth Yen for her encouragement to continue with the work. Also I am much obliged to Steve Melching for his willingness to work with me on the book. Looking back, I see how kind God has been to me. He blesses me by surrounding me with so many people who do not hold back their support, kindness, and love. I praise the Lord that through His mercy and grace the book is completed.
Last, but not the least, I am thankful to McGraw-Hill for supporting the publication of the book, to Mr. Larry Hager for his advice in preparing the book, and, in particular, to Samik Roy Choudhury (Sam) and his team at International Typesetting and Composition for editorial and production efforts.
Yeou-Koung Tung
I would like to take this opportunity to most sincerely thank my coauthors. The late Prof. Ben C. Yen was my Ph. D. advisor, mentor, and friend, and the greatest influence on my life after my parents and my Lord Jesus Christ. Professor Yen led me down the path of the study of uncertainty and reliability in hydrosystems engineering in my Ph. D. work and we worked together on many related projects throughout my professional life. Professor Y. K. Tung invited me to get involved in this book after Prof. Yen’s untimely death, initially to be a second pair of eyes to ensure that the concepts were clear, concise, and correct. Eventually my small contribution grew enough that Y. K. honored me with a coauthorship.
I also would like to thank my wife, Qiong, and my children, Christine and Brian, for their patience while I hide in the basement on evenings and weekends working on this book. I also thank my former students, Satvinder Singh, Sharath Anmangandla, Chun Yoon, and Gemma Manache, whose work on uncertainty analysis gave me additional insight that is part of my contribution to this book.
Charles S. Melching
Posted by admin on 11/ 11/ 15
NEPA is the most important federal environmental legislation to be considered in the planning and development of highway projects. NEPA was enacted by Congress in December 1969 and signed into law by President Nixon on January 1, 1970. It was the first comprehensive environmental law in the United States and established the country’s national environmental policies. To implement these policies, NEPA requires federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of its discretionary actions prior to making decisions on such actions. Actions subject to NEPA include such activities as the financing or approving of projects or programs; the adoption of agency regulations and procedures; the permitting of private and public actions; and a broad range of other actions.
As indicated in Section 101 of NEPA, its purpose is “to declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)”, within the executive office of the president.
In addition to the agency specific regulations implementing NEPA, DOT and its constituent agencies have identified the process and methods to be used to assess environmental impacts under NEPA in a number of orders, technical advisories, and memoranda. These include Order 5610.1C, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (9/18/1979), which established procedures for consideration of environmental impacts in decision making on proposed DOT actions. A draft revision to this order has been considered by DOT (Draft Order 5610.1D, 7/5/2000), but has not been finalized. Further guidance for preparing environmental documents under NEPA is provided in FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents (10/30/1987), the Federal Aid Policy Guide (FAPG), and a number of FHWA Policy Memoranda (see Table 1.1).
TABLE 1.1 FHWA Office of Planning, Environment, and Real Estate—Selected Policy Memoranda
 Issued date
8/17/06 Guidance on 23 USC §328 Environmental Restoration and Pollution Abatement
7/31/06 Memorandum on Improvement of NEPA Documents
5/25/06 Highway Traffic Noise
4/4/06 Section 6004: State Assumption of Responsibility for Categorical Exclusions
3/29/06 Transportation Conformity Guidance for Qualitative Hot-Spot Analysis in PM2.5
and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas 2/15/06 Release of FHWA Construction Noise Model (FHWA RCNM) Version 1.0
2/14/06 Interim Guidance for Implementing the Transportation Conformity Provisions in
the SAFETEA-LU
2/3/06 Interim Guidance for Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents
1/13/06 Guidance for Applying the 4(f) Exemption for the Interstate Highway System
3/10/05 Federal-Aid Eligibility of Wetland and Natural Habitat Mitigation
4/28/99 Guidance on the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ)
Program under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) 3/12/97 Eligibility of ISTEA Funds to Mitigate Historic Impacts to Wetlands
10/28/96 NEPA Requirements for Transportation Enhancement Activities
12/15/95 Memorandum of Understanding to Foster the Ecosystem Approach
12/13/95 Use of Private Wetland Mitigation Banks
10/11/95 Highway Noise—The Audible Landscape: A Manual for Highway Noise and
Land Use
7/25/95 Participation in Funding for Ecological Mitigation
7/5/95 Use of Private Wetland Mitigation Banks as Compensatory Mitigation for
Highway Project Impacts
6/12/95 Highway Traffic Noise Guidance and Policies and Written Noise Policies
2/3/95 Analyzing Exempt Projects in the Conformity Process
11/8/94 Federal Interagency Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Implementation
of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
8/22/94 Interim Guidance of Applying Section 4(f) on Transportation Enhancement
Projects and National Recreational Trails Projects 4/19/94 Wetland Delineation and Mitigation
Additional guidance is provided in common law resulting from litigation concerning environmental matters. Judicial review may result in clarification or invalidation of all or parts of environmental regulation. There is an extensive body of law that has resulted from such review.
| |
