DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment Nenana Rail Realignment Project Nenana, Alaska Railroad Mile 410.1 to Mile 413.3 NEP A ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Submitted pursuant to 42 USC 4332(2)(c), 23 CFR Part 771.119 by the u.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION and ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION /~ Ociof:yyy r2tXJ<j Date of Approval ~ R..rkdtLJU.Krocha1is,RegionalJpMAdministrator . 0 Federal Transit Administration The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Jennifer Bowman . Barbara Hotchkin or Greg Lotakis Federal Transit Administration Alaska Railroad Corporation 915 Second Avenue Suite 3142 P.O. Box 107500 Seattle, Washington 98174 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 (206) 220-7953 (907) 265-2313 or (907) 265-2217 The Alaska Railroad Corporation proposes to realign its mainline track to bypass the downtown area ofNenana, Alaska. The Proposed Action includes a new embankment (up to approximately 150 feet wide and 25 feet high), a bridge over the George Parks Highway, oversized culvert underpasses (multi-plate tunnels) to maintain access along the airport access road and 9thStreet, and an optional rail sidingnear the airport. The existing track through downtown Nenana and the existing looped approach to the Tanana River bridge would be left in place to maintain freight service to the Port ofNenana. To mitigate impacts on floodwater elevations, a dike would be constructed at the upstream end of the airport runway. This document addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposal. Additional copies of the document can be obtained by contacting Stephenie Wheeler, Alaska Railroad Corporation, P.O. Box 107500, Anchorage, Alaska, 99510, (907) 265-2671. Comments on this environmental assessment are requested by November 15,2004 and should be sent to Greg Lotakis, Project Manager, Alaska Railroad Corporation, P.O. Box 107500, Anchorage, Alaska, 99510, (907) 265-2217. [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 PURPOSE.................................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 NEED........................................................................................................................................1-1 1.3 THE NEPA PROCESS.............................................................................................................1-2 INSERT FIGURE 1 ..........................................................................................................................1-3 1.4 PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS .............................................................................................1-5 2.0 ALTERNATIVES.............................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 PROPOSED ACTION..............................................................................................................2-1 2.1.1 Factors Considered in Selecting the Proposed Action................................................2-2 2.1.2 Construction of the Proposed Action..........................................................................2-6 2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FOR DETAILED STUDY ..............................................2-7 2.2.1 Alternative B High Profile..........................................................................................2-7 2.2.2 No Action ...................................................................................................................2-8 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY ........2-9 2.3.1 Alternative A: New Tanana River Bridge Crossing ...................................................2-9 2.3.2 Alternative B Low Profile Options.............................................................................2-9 2.3.2.1 Alternative B Low Profile ...........................................................................2-9 2.3.2.2 Alternative B-1 Low Profile......................................................................2-10 2.3.2.3 Alternative B-2 Low Profile......................................................................2-10 2.3.2.4 Reasons for Eliminating the B Low Profile Alternatives from Further Consideration............................................................................................................2-10 2.3.3 Alternative C: East Airport Bypass ..........................................................................2-11 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND IMPACTS ............................................................................3-1 3.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT.................................................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Air Quality..................................................................................................................3-1 3.1.2 Soils, Geology, and Seismic Conditions.....................................................................3-2 3.1.3 Surface Water and Groundwater Hydrology ..............................................................3-4 3.1.4 Water Resources.........................................................................................................3-8 3.2 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT............................................................................................3-9 3.2.1 Upland Vegetation......................................................................................................3-9 3.2.2 Wetlands ...................................................................................................................3-11 3.2.3 Fish and Wildlife ......................................................................................................3-14 3.2.3.1 Fish............................................................................................................3-14 3.2.3.2 Birds ..........................................................................................................3-15 3.2.3.3 Mammals...................................................................................................3-17 3.2.3.4 Effects of Alternatives on Fish and Wildlife.............................................3-18 3.2.4 Protected Species......................................................................................................3-19 3.3 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT...................................................................................................3-19 3.3.1 Land Status and Land Use ........................................................................................3-20 3.3.2 Socioeconomics........................................................................................................3-23 3.3.2.1 Population, Demographics, and Housing ..................................................3-23 3.3.2.2 Economy....................................................................................................3-24 3.3.2.3 Subsistence................................................................................................3-27 NENANA RAIL REALIGNMENT PROJECT i SEPTEMBER 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3.3.3 Environmental Justice...............................................................................................3-28 3.3.4 Transportation Systems and Facilities......................................................................3-29 3.3.4.1 Highways and Roads.................................................................................3-29 3.3.4.2 River Transportation..................................................................................3-30 3.3.4.3 Aviation.....................................................................................................3-30 3.3.4.4 Alaska Railroad .........................................................................................3-31 3.3.5 Noise and Vibration..................................................................................................3-31 3.3.5.1 Noise..........................................................................................................3-31 3.3.5.2 Vibration....................................................................................................3-34 3.3.6 Utilities .....................................................................................................................3-34 3.3.7 Cultural, Archaeological, and Historic Sites ............................................................3-35 3.3.8 Recreation.................................................................................................................3-36 3.3.9 Section 4(f)/Section 6(f) Property ............................................................................3-37 3.3.10 Contaminated Sites...................................................................................................3-38 3.3.11 Visual Impacts ..........................................................................................................3-38 3.4 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ...............................................................................................3-39 3.5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ....................................................................................................3-41 3.5.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future External Actions .......................3-41 3.5.2 Cumulative Effects on the Physical Environment ....................................................3-43
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Addison H. Laflin, Jr., Photographs, B2018.007
    REFERENCE CODE: AkAMH REPOSITORY NAME: Anchorage Museum at Rasmuson Center Bob and Evangeline Atwood Alaska Resource Center 625 C Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Phone: 907-929-9235 Fax: 907-929-9233 Email: [email protected] Guide prepared by: Sara Piasecki, Archivist TITLE: Addison H. Laflin, Jr., Photographs COLLECTION NUMBER: B2018.007 OVERVIEW OF THE COLLECTION Dates: circa 1944 Extent: 1 box; 0.2 linear feet Language and Scripts: The collection is in English. Name of creator(s): Addison H. Laflin, Jr.; Charles F. Cann Administrative/Biographical History: Addison H. Laflin, Jr. (born 1911) served with the United States Army in Alaska during World War II. He was apparently stationed at the Army camp in Nenana.1 After the war, he returned to California and served as secretary of the Bay Area Electric Railroad Association for several decades in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Nothing else was known about him at the time of processing. Scope and Content Description: The collection contains 18 black-and-white negatives and 118 prints taken by Addison H. Laflin Jr. during his service with the U.S. Army in Alaska during World War II. The images primarily depict Alaska Railroad equipment and facilities, riverboats, and military installations. For more information, see Detailed Description of Collection. 1 According to Lyman Woodman, “Nenana did not become a post, remaining merely a camp. Company E, 138th Infantry, arrived in May 1943. One Army Transport Service unit, a platoon of the 878th Port Company, medical detachment, and a few Harbor Craft unit men were stationed there to protect military property and help load river craft and barges bound for Galena.” Duty Station Northwest, vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring, Modeling, and Assessment of Scour Critical Bridges in Alaska
    Monitoring, Modeling, and Assessment of Scour Critical Bridges in Alaska Robin A. Beebee Hydrologist U.S. Geological Survey Alaska Science Center In Cooperation with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and the Alaska Railroad Corporation This information is preliminary and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information is provided on the condition that neither the U.S. Geological Survey nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information. Photos by author except where noted The Alaska Streambed Scour Program Contributors Jeff Conaway (USGS) Karenth Dworksy (USGS) Schyler Knopp (USGS) Paul Schauer (USGS) Micah Claypoole (USGS) Mike Knapp (AKDOT&PF) Hiram Henry (AKDOT&PF) Preliminary Information-Subject to Revision. Not for Citation or Distribution. The Alaska Streambed Scour Program Assessment – Monitoring - Assessment Partnership between the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and the U. S. Geological Survey since 1964, with additional support from the Alaska Railroad. Started as a way to better understand scour and sediment movement at gravel-bedded rivers in Alaska. The initial study (Norman, 1975) measured hydraulic variables and streambed elevations during floods at 11 bridges. The U.S. Geological Survey began a large-scale phased assessment program throughout the state in 1994. In 2001, real-time monitoring of a subset of scour-critical bridges was initiated in part to fulfill a mitigation strategy for scour-critical bridges until counter-measures or replacement could occur. Preliminary Information-Subject to Revision. Not for Citation or Distribution.
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries in the Tanana River Management Area, 2010 by Audra L
    Fishery Management Report No. 12-32 Fishery Management Report for Recreational Fisheries in the Tanana River Management Area, 2010 by Audra L. J. Brase and Brandy Baker August 2012 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Divisions of Sport Fish and Commercial Fisheries Symbols and Abbreviations The following symbols and abbreviations, and others approved for the Système International d'Unités (SI), are used without definition in the following reports by the Divisions of Sport Fish and of Commercial Fisheries: Fishery Manuscripts, Fishery Data Series Reports, Fishery Management Reports, and Special Publications. All others, including deviations from definitions listed below, are noted in the text at first mention, as well as in the titles or footnotes of tables, and in figure or figure captions. Weights and measures (metric) General Mathematics, statistics centimeter cm Alaska Administrative all standard mathematical deciliter dL Code AAC signs, symbols and gram g all commonly accepted abbreviations hectare ha abbreviations e.g., Mr., Mrs., alternate hypothesis HA kilogram kg AM, PM, etc. base of natural logarithm e kilometer km all commonly accepted catch per unit effort CPUE liter L professional titles e.g., Dr., Ph.D., coefficient of variation CV meter m R.N., etc. common test statistics (F, t, χ2, etc.) milliliter mL at @ confidence interval CI millimeter mm compass directions: correlation coefficient east E (multiple) R Weights and measures (English) north N correlation coefficient cubic feet per second ft3/s south S (simple) r foot ft west W covariance cov gallon gal copyright degree (angular ) ° inch in corporate suffixes: degrees of freedom df mile mi Company Co.
    [Show full text]
  • November 2010
    Interior Alaska Transportation Plan November 2010 Table of Contents Abbreviations & Acronyms ........................................................................................................... ix Preface..............................................................................................................................................1 Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................3 1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................7 1.1 Plan Purpose ......................................................................................................................7 1.2 Planning Factors ................................................................................................................8 1.3 Outline ...............................................................................................................................8 1.4 Study Boundaries ..............................................................................................................9 1.5 Planning Process and Public Involvement ......................................................................11 1.6 Overview of Previous Planning Documents ...................................................................11 1.7 Planning Issues ................................................................................................................12 1.8 Goals and
    [Show full text]
  • NORTHERN ENGINEER a Publication of the School of Engineering
    THE NORTHERN ENGINEER a publication of the school of engineering Volume 22, Number 4 Winter 1990 Haneman ADVISORY BOARD Announces Robert Boswell Lake & Boswell Retirement Fairbanks, AK Vincent S. Haneman, Jr., P.E., has Andrie Chen announced that he will retire from his Exxon Production Research Company post as Dean of the University of Houston, TX Alaska Fairbanks, School of Engineering in August of 1991. Mark Fryer Haneman--considered one of the Pryer/Pressley Engineering, Inc. leading educators in the U.S.-bas Anchorage, AK been at UAF for over a decade. He came to us from Auburn University in Wilbur Haas Alabama in 1980 to fill the post left Michigan Technological vacant by former Dean Charles University Houghton, MI Behlke, P .E. During Haneman's tenure at UAF, Lee Leonard U.S. Department student enrollments and the number of of Energy engineering faculty have doubled, lab Washington, DC and classroom space has grown threefold, and the number of accredited Ed Link U.S.CRREL programs has increased by 50 percent. Hanover,NH In 1982, the research arm of the School of Engineering was organized as the Glen Martin Institute of Northern Engineering; CH2MHILL with grants and research support Denver, CO approaching $2 million annually, INE MikeMetz is one of the leading research units at Yukon Pacific UAF. And with the much appreciated assistance of Sen. Bettye Fahrenkamp and Corporation former Rep. Bob Bettisworth, an addition to the Duckering Building was completed in Anchorage,AK record time. N.R. Morgenstern In addition, three national advisory committees have been established to provide University of Alberta peer review of the school's proposals and progress, and a video program has been Edmonton, Alberta, Canada initiated.
    [Show full text]