The Pegasus project has been reported by Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington, Paul Lewis, David Pegg, Dan Sabbagh and Sam Cutler in London, Nina Lakhani in Mexico City, Shaun Walker in Budapest, Angelique Chrisafis in Paris, Martin Hodgson in New York and Michael Safi.
The second phase of the 10-year NIH-funded Human Microbiome Project (HMP2) has reached its fruition in the form of a collection of studies addressing the role of the microbiota in inflammatory bowel disease, the onset of type 2 diabetes and in pregnancy and preterm birth. Through the power of multi-omic technologies and clinical analyses, these studies provide the most comprehensive analysis of both the host and the microbiota to date, revealing important insights into the complex interplay between these partners and how this changes over time. The work of the HMP has generated vital resources and analytical tools that continue to fuel progress in the field, and has set a precedent for future human multi-omic studies that strive to integrate basic and clinical science.
Over ten years, the Human Microbiome Project has provided resources for studying the microbiome and its relationship to disease; this Perspective summarizes the key achievements and findings of the project and its relationship to the broader field.
As part of the second phase of Human Microbiome Project, the Multi-Omic Microbiome Study: Pregnancy Initiative presents a community resource to help better understand how microbiome and host profiles change throughout pregnancy as well as to identify new opportunities for assessment of the risk of preterm birth.
The purpose of Part 2 is to use the information from Part 1 to identify potential adverse impacts that need further consideration by the reviewing agency. The questions included in Part 2 are designed to help the reviewing agency identify what, if any, impacts may occur as a result of the project. Part 2 is further used to decide whether those impacts will have no impact or a small impact, or a moderate to large impact. Nothing in this workbook, particularly the guidance offered in Part 2 and 3, is found in regulation. While the EAF's need to be completed according to Part 617 regulations, interpretation on the size or significance of an impact is at the discretion of the reviewing agency.
Completing Part 2 will help identify any topics that need to be discussed further in Part 3. Taken together, Part 2 and Part 3 will help the reviewing agency determine if a negative or positive declaration is appropriate. If a positive declaration is made, parts 2 and 3 will help the reviewing agency develop a list, or 'scope' of environmental topics that will need to be addressed further in an environmental impact statement.
Note that nothing in this workbook, particularly the guidance offered in Part 2 and 3 is found in regulation. While the EAF's need to be completed according to the Part 617 regulations, interpretation on the size or significance of an impact is at the discretion of the reviewing agency.
When you have determined that a potential impact may occur, you will also need to decide if that impact will be small or moderate to large. This decision should be based on the magnitude of the potential impact. Magnitude is not just the physical size of the project in feet or acres. Magnitude also considers the scale and context of a proposed project, and severity of that project's impact.
Scale refers to both the size and the intensity of the project. The scale of a project can be measured several ways. It includes the overall size of the project site, the number of buildings or structures proposed, the size of the parking lot, or the height and other dimensions of buildings. It also refers to features that measure the intensity of the project such as the amount of traffic that will be generated, or the amount of land to be cleared and graded in relation to the entire parcel size.
Context refers to the conditions on the project site and its relation to adjacent parcels, the neighborhood, and the community as a whole. Similar projects in different settings may have very different environmental impacts. For example: construction of a commercial building that is 10,000 square feet in size in a community that is already developed, has public water, sewer and storm drains, and is on a lot that has already been cleared will have very different impacts than the same sized and scaled project built in a rural, undeveloped community, with no public infrastructure, and little other development nearby. In this example, the scale is similar but the context is very different.
An impact is measured in part, by its magnitude. The magnitude of an impact depends on the overall size, setting, and severity of the impact. A project that will disturb a few hundred square feet of land might be considered small in area, but if it destroys 100% of a rare species habitat, the severity of that impact would be considered large. Likewise, the construction of a warehouse in an established industrial district might be large in area, but the severity of the impact might be considered quite small, or even non-existent.
Part 2 asks reviewing agencies to identify if an impact will occur, and if so, what the size of that impact will be. The magnitude of an impact should be determined based, as much as possible, on the facts provided in Part 1, and on the scale and context of the project. A proposed action could have no impact on the environment, or an impact could be small, or moderate to large. In Part 2 of the FEAF, moderate and large impacts are considered together.
These descriptions of no or small impact, and moderate and large impacts are not always clearly defined, however. An impact to a very small area that is home to a rare species would generally be considered a large impact because it could severely impact that rare species. And a project that affects many acres may not affect any resources. When evaluating whether a proposed action has an impact, and if so, how large it is, the reviewing agency must consider the size, scale, magnitude, and resources in and around the location together.
You should use information submitted by the applicant or project sponsor in Part 1 to answer these questions. That includes additional information that may be submitted by the applicant. The reviewing agency can request clarification or expansion of information submitted in Part 1 if it is needed to answer the questions in Part 2. New information that is requested could come from currently existing or readily available sources, or site specific information collected as part of a survey, inventory, or other data collection. It is not intended that exhaustive new studies on all resources be required to complete Part 2. If, after your analysis, the reviewing agency finds that there is potential for at least one or more moderate to large impacts, Part 3 will be used to examine the impacts in more detail and a determination of the significance of those impacts will be made.You may find it helpful to follow these steps to complete the Part 2 questions:
LANTERO: After a long battle in declining physical health, President Franklin D. Roosevelt died at the age of 63. Vice President Harry S. Truman took the oath of office as President and is quickly briefed on the classified project known as Manhattan.
COMMANDER NARRATOR: 12:05 Departed for Okinawa after having circled smoke column. Lack of available gasoline caused by an in-operative bomb bay tank booster pump forced decision to land at Okinawa before returning to Tinian. 13:51 Landed at Yontan Field, Okinawa.
EDELMAN: After the war, Americans were astounded to learn of the existence of a far reaching, government run, top secret operation with a physical plant, payroll, and labor force comparable in size to the American automobile industry. In total, about 130,000 people were employed by the project at its peak, among them many of the nation's leading scientists and engineers. That total was almost the equivalent of people that were killed in Nagasaki.
EDELMAN: And because the Department of Energy is a direct descendent of the Manhattan Project, we still own and manage most of the major Manhattan Project properties. So the question became, DAVID KLAUS: What were we going to do with these Manhattan Project facilities?
KLAUS: When I came to the Department in 1998, we were at the point where all the Manhattan Project facilities were 50 years old or older. And one of the requirements of National Historic Preservation law, is that you must do a historic assessment when you take down any federal facility that's 50 years old or older.
LANTERO: Those sites are on the three locations that have been at the crux of our story. Oak Ridge, Hanford and Los Alamos. The sites were validated by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, a government entity that believe it or not whose job is to advise federal departments and agencies on how to do historic preservation,
TOUR GUIDE: Welcome to the B Reactor, this is one of our newest National Historical Parks. And we're very excited to be a part of the National Park Service. So why don't we come on inside and we'll get our tour started. And now as we come around this corner you will indeed see the B-Reactor itself... Welcome to the control room, I like to think of the reactor itself as being the heart of the matter out here, but here is the mind at this wall over here. We have one whole wall that is nothing but knobs....So we are now in a humongous room. This is called the valve pit because we are actually going down into a pit. It is very huge and it is completely lined in concrete: concrete floor, concrete walls, stairs, metal grated platforms all over the place. But more than anything else what you see in this room are pipes, lots and lots of pipes. They are probably at least ten inches in diameter, mostly a gray color. 781b155fdc