| Q. |
 |
How will this project be funded? |
| A. |
|
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has
received Federal and State (Nevada and Arizona) money to
complete the design and construction of the project.
Go to the Project
Funding page to read about the current status of the
project funding.
|
| Q. |
|
Why do we need a new river crossing along
U.S. 93? |
| A. |
|
There are several reasons for developing an
alternative to using the top of the Hoover Dam as the main
crossing of the Colorado River:
- The current two-lane highway across the dam, U.S. 93,
can no longer adequately handle the 14,000 vehicles and
trucks crossing per day, double the volume of 15 years
ago.
- This section of highway is narrow, winding and steep -
inadequate and unsafe for the volume of traffic.
- There is no other route in the western states that can
efficiently accommodate this traffic.
- The current highway conditions pose a potentially
dangerous situation to Hoover Dam visitors and the dam
facilities.
|
| Q. |
|
Why is this route so important to the U.S.
economy? |
| A. |
|
U.S. 93 is on the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) route between Mexico and Canada, and it is
also the major commercial route between the states of
Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. With delays and potential
closures (from accidents) on this section of highway,
industry around the country suffers from loss of time and
money in transporting goods and services.
|
| Q. |
|
Will a new river crossing accommodate
present and future traffic volumes? |
| A. |
|
A new river crossing would be designed as a
new four-lane highway that will safely accommodate present
and future traffic volumes that rely on the U.S. 93 Colorado
River crossing.
|
| Q. |
|
If a new crossing is built, will the
existing roadway on the dam remain open for public traffic? |
| A. |
|
The present roadway will remain open to
Hoover Dam visitors. However, through traffic and truck
traffic will not be permitted on the dam.
|
| Q. |
|
What are the traffic restrictions
for vehicles crossing the dam? |
| A. |
|
Information regarding current
traffic
restrictions on the
Hoover Dam can be found on the
US Bureau
of Reclamation website.
|
| Q. |
|
What are the environmental impacts to
building a new crossing? |
| A. |
|
A detailed environmental study was undertaken
to identify environmental impacts of three alternate routes.
The chosen alignment, the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment, has
the least environmental impact. Mitigation measures
will be implemented to minimize the adverse impacts.
See the Record
of Decision.
|
| Q. |
|
Who "owns" the Hoover Dam? |
| A. |
|
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, a bureau
within the United States Department of Interior, owns the
Hoover Dam and its facilities. U.S. 93 uses the top of the
Hoover Dam to cross the Colorado River. This crossing and
the highway approaches on both the Nevada and Arizona sides
are currently maintained by the Federal government. Because
of the federal ownership of the river crossing, federal
highway funding for a new river crossing is being pursued.
Long-term maintenance and ownership of a new river crossing
will be the responsibility of the state DOTs.
|
| Q. |
|
What is the schedule for this project? |
| A. |
|
The environmental process has
been completed and a Record of Decision was issued in March
2001. This clears the way for the project to proceed
through final design and construction.
Design for the roadway and structures began in August
2001. Assuming funding sources do not dry up, the
project should be completed in 2010.
|
| |
| Q. |
Why has the environmental process taken
longer than anticipated? |
| A. |
In June of 1999 the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (ACHP) revised 36 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 800 Protection of Historic Properties to
include the 1992 amendments to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). These revisions
modified the process by which Federal agencies consider the
effects of their undertakings on historic properties and
provide the ACHP with a reasonable opportunity to comment
with regard to such undertakings, as required by section 106
of the NHPA. The ACHP sought to better balance the interests
and concerns of various users of the Section 106 process,
including Federal Agencies, State Historic Preservation
Officers (SHPOs), Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPOs),
Native Americans and Native Hawaiians, industry and the
public.
Part of the revisions included important changes that
significantly alter the role of Native American Indian
tribes in the Section 106 process for Federal undertakings
both on and off Tribal lands. Ultimately, the revisions to
36 CFR 800 established that tribes should be involved early
in the process and invited as signatories to a Memorandum of
Agreement, or at least have the ability to concur or object
to the part of a project or plan that will affect an area of
tribal or Native American interests. This involvement
includes discussion surrounding the identification,
evaluation determination of effect and potential mitigation
proposals for properties to which the tribes attach
religious and cultural significance.
Compliance with the revised 36 CFR 800 regulations
required additional ethnographic studies, interviews, and
Agency/Tribal coordination. Resulting benefits of the
process are (1) continued Agency/Tribal consultation and
coordination regarding the project, and (2) Native American,
as well as other historic specialist expertise, input
regarding avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures.
|
