State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

SEWARD HIGHWAY: MP 25.5-36, TRAIL RIVER TO STERLING WYE REHABILITATION

Project No.: 0311(031)/Z546590000

DESIGN STUDY REPORT

STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES

PREPARED BY: DOT&PF Central Region 4111 Aviation Avenue Anchorage, AK 99502

February 2021

Revised November 2017

STATE OF ALASKA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES – CENTRAL REGION

DESIGN STUDY REPORT

For

Seward Highway: MP 25.5-36, Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation

Project No.: 0311(031)/Z546590000

Written by: Brittany Barkshire

Prepared by:

______Kirsten Valentine Date Project Engineer State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 4111 Aviation Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99502 (907)269-0585

Concur by:

______Chris Bentz, P.E. Date Project Manager

Concur by:

______James E. Amundsen, P.E Date Chief, Highway Design

Approved:

______John Linnell, P.E. Date Preconstruction Engineer

NOTICE TO USERS

This report reflects the thinking and design decisions at the time of publication. Changes frequently occur during the evolution of the design process, so persons who may rely on information contained in this document should check with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for the most current design. Contact the Design Project Manager, Chris Bentz, P.E. at 907-269-0652 for this information.

PLANNING CONSISTENCY

This document has been prepared by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities according to currently acceptable design standards and Federal regulations, and with the input offered by the local government and public. The Department's Planning Section has reviewed and approved this report as being consistent with present community planning.

CERTIFICATION

We hereby certify that this document was prepared in accordance with Section 520.4.1 of the current edition of the Department's Highway Preconstruction Manual and CFR Title 23, Highway Section 771.111(h).

The Department has considered the project's social and economic effects upon the community, its impacts on the environment and its consistency with planning goals and objectives as approved by the local community. All records are on file with Central Region - Design and Engineering Services Division, Highway Design Section, 4111 Aviation Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99502.

John Linnell, P.E. Date Todd Vanhove Date Preconstruction Engineer Chief, Planning

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ...... iii LIST OF ACRONYMS ...... iii 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 1 1.1 Project Location and Description ...... 1 1.2 Existing Facilities and Land Use ...... 1 1.3 Purpose and Need ...... 2 2.0 DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES ...... 2 3.0 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 3 3.1 First Alternative ...... 3 3.2 Second Alternative ...... 3 3.3 Third Alternative ...... 3 4.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ...... 3 5.0 TYPICAL SECTIONS ...... 3 6.0 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL ALIGNMENT ...... 4 6.1 Horizontal Alignment ...... 4 6.2 Vertical Alignment ...... 4 7.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ...... 4 8.0 DRAINAGE ...... 5 9.0 SOIL CONDITIONS ...... 5 10.0 ACCESS CONTROL FEATURES ...... 5 11.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ...... 5 12.0 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ...... 6 13.0 RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIREMENTS ...... 6 14.0 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES ...... 6 15.0 UTILITY RELOCATION AND COORDINATION ...... 6 15.1 Alaska Railroad Corporation ...... 7 15.2 AT&T ...... 7 15.3 Chugach Electric Association ...... 7 15.4 TelAlaska ...... 7 16.0 PRELIMINARY WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL ...... 7 16.1 Traffic Control Plan (TCP) ...... 7 16.2 Public Information Plan (PIP) ...... 7 16.3 Transportation Operations Plan (TOP) ...... 8 17.0 STRUCTURAL SECTION AND PAVEMENT DESIGN ...... 8 18.0 COST ESTIMATE ...... 8 19.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS ...... 9 20.0 BRIDGES...... 9 21.0 EXCEPTIONS TO DESIGN STANDARDS ...... 9 22.0 MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS ...... 9 23.0 ITS FEATURES ...... 9

Seward Highway MP 25.5-36: Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation i Design Study Report

APPENDIX A Approved Design Designation and Draft Design Criteria APPENDIX B Typical Sections APPENDIX C 3R Analysis APPENDIX D Approved Environmental Document APPENDIX E Design Memos

Seward Highway MP 25.5-36: Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation ii Design Study Report

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Location & Vicinity Map

LIST OF ACRONYMS

3R Resurface, Restoration, and Rehabilitation AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials CGP Alaska Construction General Permit ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation APDES Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ARRC Alaska Railroad Corporation ATM Alaska Traffic Manual BMP Best Management Practice CFR Code of Federal Regulations DOT&PF Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities ESCP Erosion and Sediment Control Plan EPA Environmental Protection Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration HPCM Alaska Highway Preconstruction Manual HMCP Hazardous Material Control Plan HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program LOS Level of Service MADT Monthly Average Daily Traffic MP Milepost MPH Miles per Hour MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PGDHS A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets PIP Public Information Plan ROW Right-of-Way SWMM Storm Water Management Model SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TCP Traffic Control Plan TMP Traffic Management Plan USGS United States Geological Survey

Seward Highway MP 25.5-36: Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation iii Design Study Report

END PROJECT MP 36.2 STA. 593+50

BEGIN PROJECT MP 25.5 STA. 23+00

SEWARD HIGHWAY MP 25.5 TO MP 36.2 REHABILITATION

Figure 1 Location and Vicinity Map

Seward Highway MP 25.5-36: Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation iv Design Study Report

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.1 Project Location and Description

The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) proposes to rehabilitate approximately 11 miles of the Seward Highway from historical milepost (MP) 25.5 (mile point 25.3) near the Trail River bridge to MP 36, just south of the Sterling Wye. The proposed project is located in Section 12, T. 5N, R. 2W; Sections 7, 17, 18, 20-22, 24, 27, T. 5N, R. 1W; Sections 25, 26, 36, T. 5N, R. 1W; Sections 1, 12, 13, T. 4N, R. 1W; on USGS Quad Maps Seward C-7, Seward B-7 NE, Seward Meridian (Figure 1). Approximate GPS coordinates for the beginning of the project are Latitude 60.4362ºN, Longitude 149.3727ºW; midpoint, Latitude 60.5004°N, Longitude 149.3967; and end, Latitude 60.5324ºN, Longitude 149.5358ºW.

The proposed rehabilitation includes; widening the roadway to provide 6 foot shoulders outside of the community of Moose Pass, removing and upgrading guardrail, replacing culverts, signs, and striping, improving ditching and drainage, clearing vegetation for improved sight distance, upgrading existing pedestrian amenities and adding traffic calming measures through the community of Moose Pass.

See Figure 1 for Project Location & Vicinity Map.

1.2 Existing Facilities and Land Use

In the winter of 1908, the Alaska Road Commission ordered a survey of the route from Seward, through the Cook Inlet Country and beyond to Nome for the purpose of reaching the gold fields of Hope, Sunrise, and Nome, originating the Iditarod Trail.

In 1923, a road was built from the city of Seward to Kenai Lake, serving the community of Moose Pass and paralleling the Iditarod Trail. The segment from Moose Pass to the town of Hope was built in 1928. The bridge over Snow River (approx. MP 18), nicknamed ‘The Missing Link’, was erected in 1946, linking the communities of Seward, Moose Pass, and Hope. The Seward Highway was connected to Anchorage in 1951, paved in 1952, and remains the sole road access to the communities on the Kenai Peninsula.

In 1976, the Seward Highway was partially realigned with areas of widening shoulders as part of the Seward Highway MP 24.97 to MP 36.61 Grading, Drainage, and Surfacing project, FH-3-2 (1). In 1980, as part of the Moose Pass Pathway Project, BWF-031-1(16), a multi-use trail was constructed from approximately MP 28.5 to MP 29.9 providing a separated bicycle and pedestrian facility for the community of Moose Pass. Various other projects have addressed flood repairs, roadway restoration, and rock-fall mitigation within the project area. This portion of the highway was last re-paved during the Seward Highway Rut Repair project in 2002.

The existing roadway from roughly MP 25.5 to MP 30 of the highway is 28 feet wide with 12-foot lanes and 2-foot shoulders. From MP 30 to the Sterling Wye the pavement width is 36 feet wide with 12-foot lanes and 6-foot shoulders.

The Seward Highway runs through the Chugach Mountains which is thickly wooded and largely undeveloped adjacent to the highway. Above the tree line, slopes are bare rock or are covered in low alpine tundra and brush. From MP 25.5 to MP 32.5, Upper and Lower Trail Lake runs parallel on the east side of the highway. The community of Moose Pass is located from MP 28.3 to MP 29.7. The Trail Lakes Hatchery is located at MP 31.5. Two Chugach National Forest trails, Johnson’s Pass (MP 32.7) and Carter Lake (MP 33), can be accessed from trailheads on the Seward Highway.

Seward Highway MP 25.5-36: Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation 1 Design Study Report

The Seward Highway is classified as a rural arterial. The road traverses generally mountainous terrain and is drained by cross culverts and ditches. The posted speed on this section of the Seward Highway is 55 MPH, but decreases to 35 MPH through Moose Pass. The 2014 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for the Seward Highway was 1,892 vehicles per day (vpd). Traffic volume is expected to grow at a rate of 1% per year.

1.3 Purpose and Need

The purpose of the proposed 3R (Resurface, Restoration, and Rehabilitation) project is to improve travel efficiency and safety along approximately 11 miles of the Seward Highway and to extend the service life of the facility. The Seward Highway currently exhibits rutted pavement, inadequate drainage, narrow shoulders, and faded pavement markings. The proposed project would address these deficiencies.

2.0 DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

Design standards and guidelines that apply to the Seward Highway MP 25.5-36: Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation are contained in the following publications:

Standards:

• ADA Standards for Accessible Design, United States Department of Justice, September 15, 2010 except for the use of Detectable Warnings on Curb Ramps standards as stated in the ADA Standards for Transportation Facilities, United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), 2006. • A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (PGDHS), 6th Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2011. • Roadside Design Guide (RDG), 4th Edition, AASHTO, 2011. • Alaska Highway Preconstruction Manual (HPCM), State of Alaska, DOT&PF, 2005 as amended. • Alaska Highway Drainage Manual (AHDM), State of Alaska, DOT&PF, 2006. • The Alaska Traffic Manual (ATM), consisting of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009 as amended, U.S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Alaska Traffic Manual Supplement (ATMS), State of Alaska, DOT&PF, 2016. • ADA Standards for Transportation Facilities, U.S. DOT, 2006. • ADA Standards for Accessible Design, United States Department of Justice, 2010. • Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 5th Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2010.

Guidelines:

• Proposed Accessibility Standards for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (PROWAG), United States Access Board, 2011. • Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, 1st Edition, AASHTO, 2004. Appendix A contains the project Design Criteria and Design Designation.

Seward Highway MP 25.5-36: Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation 2 Design Study Report

3.0 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES

3.1 First Alternative

The first alternative is the No-Build alternative. This alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the project.

3.2 Second Alternative

The second alternative is to rehabilitate the roadway on the existing alignment. This alternative would include culvert, guardrail, and drainage improvements. While this alternative meets some of the purpose and need of the project, general roadway geometry would not be improved. This alternative does not increase passing opportunities, improve sight distance, or provide widened shoulders.

3.3 Third Alternative

The third alternative is to rehabilitate the roadway to 36 feet; including two 12-foot lanes and 6-foot shoulders throughout the project. This alternative would include slow vehicle turn outs where feasible, drainage improvements, and guardrail upgrades. Some geometric improvements would be made to increase passing opportunities and improve sight distance.

4.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The preferred alternative is a combination of alternatives two and three.

A 3R Analysis was completed on this project to determine if any geometric changes were required to improve the safety of the roadway. The analysis concluded no changes were required, therefore the existing horizontal and vertical curve geometry will remain.

Within the community of Moose Pass (MP 28.3 to MP 29.7) the design will match the existing 28-foot wide roadway. The 35 MPH and 45 MPH speed zones will be restriped for 11.5’ lanes and 2.5’ shoulders. The existing pathway will be upgraded and realigned 6 feet from the east edge of pavement. While the alignment will vary slightly from existing, the approximate start and end of the pathway will remain the same. Culverts will be replaced and/or upgraded as necessary. ROW limitations do not allow for shoulder widening or significant slope flattening, but drainage improvements will be made.

Within the remainder of the project limits, the roadway will be widened to 36 feet. Culvert, guardrail, and drainage improvements will be made as necessary. Clearing will be done to improve sight distance.

This alternative meets the purpose and need of the project while matching the geometry of adjacent sections of the Seward Highway outside of Moose Pass.

5.0 TYPICAL SECTIONS

In the community of Moose Pass, the highway typical section will consist of two 11.5-foot lanes with 2.5- foot paved shoulders and an 8-foot wide separated path on the east side of the highway. Ditches will be established adjacent to the highway and pathway shoulder, with 3:1 foreslopes and 2:1 backslopes. While

Seward Highway MP 25.5-36: Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation 3 Design Study Report

this typical section does not meet the minimum clear zone requirement for new construction, it either improves or maintains existing conditions within this area.

The highway typical section will consist of two 12-foot lanes with 6-foot paved shoulders. While the 3R report did not indicate that shoulder widening was required to alleviate accidents, to maintain consistency throughout the corridor, all shoulders within the 45 and 55 MPH zones will be widened to 6 feet. Rumble strips will be installed on the shoulders within the 55 MPH zone. Slope foreslopes will be constructed at 4:1 with no guardrail or a 2:1 when guardrail is required. Slope backslopes will be constructed at a 2:1 slope. Areas requiring rock cuts will have flat bottom or V-ditches of varying widths to satisfy minimum clear zone or rock catchment width requirements. Rock cuts will be made at a 0.75:1 or flatter, with a 5-foot wide horizontal bench every 30’ high. The overburden depth varies throughout the project. A 1.5:1 slope is proposed through the overburden. In areas where the slopes are required to be steeper than 1.5:1, a pinned wire mesh to stabilize steep soil slopes will be used.

The typical sections are provided in Appendix B.

6.0 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL ALIGNMENT

The existing horizontal and vertical alignments within the project limits will remain.

There will be no change to the existing horizontal and vertical alignments in the vicinity of Bridge 4090.

6.1 Horizontal Alignment

There are 31 horizontal curves within the project limits. Ten of the existing horizontal curves do not meet minimum design criteria for the design speed of 60 miles per hour; however, no geometric changes will occur since improvements to the horizontal alignment are not warranted by the 3R analysis.

6.2 Vertical Alignment

There are 56 vertical curves within the project limits. Eight of the existing vertical curves do not meet minimum design criteria for the design speed of 60 miles per hour; however, no geometric changes will occur since improvements are not warranted by the 3R analysis.

7.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL

The project includes temporary and permanent measures to control or prevent erosion and sedimentation during and post project construction. The contractor will prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to construction that conforms to the DOT&PF Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Erosion and Sediment Control in accordance with the DOT&PF contract specifications and follows the guidelines of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) provided to the contractor. The contractor will submit the SWPPP for approval by the Construction Project Engineer. The contractor will conduct construction activities in accordance with the approved SWPPP. Appropriate erosion and siltation controls will be used and maintained in optimal condition during construction and all other exposed soils/fills will be permanently stabilized. Temporary BMPs will remain in place until permanent erosion and sediment control measures are in place and soil is permanently stabilized.

Seward Highway MP 25.5-36: Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation 4 Design Study Report

8.0 DRAINAGE

The existing Seward Highway drainage within the project is provided by parallel ditches and cross culverts. Storm water flows off the roadway and either infiltrates the ground via vegetated roadside ditches or flows to adjacent lowlands and water bodies. The storm water, through drainage conveyances, drains to Trail River, Moose Creek, Dave’s Creek, and their tributaries; Upper and Lower Trail Lakes; Tern Lake; and Kenai Lake. None of these waterbodies are designated as impaired, per a review of the EPA’s Alaska Water Quality Assessment Report on June 2, 2020. The proposed project will not change the general drainage pattern within the project corridor.

All ditching within the project limits will be reestablished and improved to increase accessibility for Maintenance and Operations, improve drainage, and alleviate rock fall from entering the roadway in rock cut areas. General highway drainage issues were discussed with local M&O personnel and field investigations were performed to identify areas that would benefit from drainage improvements. All culverts within the project limits have been evaluated to determine if upgrades or replacement is required. The majority of culverts south of Moose Pass will require extensions due to road widening.

South of Moose Pass, the Alaska Railroad is located downstream of the highway. Storm water runoff from the highway will be controlled and channelized into existing ARRC drainage structures. An H&H analysis was performed to verify upgrades to DOT infrastructure will not negatively impact ARRC drainage infrastructure.

The Roycroft Lake Dam exists above the community of Moose Pass. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources is analyzing ways to remove the dam and reclaim the area. Removal of the dam may return water flow to its original natural channels, altering the drainage within the project limits. An H&H analysis identified four 24” diameter cross culverts likely to receive more flow after dam removal. Three of these culverts were independently recommended for replacement due to poor condition or to comply with current standards. The replacement culverts will be 36” in diameter, providing adequate capacity for discharge volumes anticipated after dam removal. The fourth culvert has excess capacity at its current size and is in adequate condition to remain.

9.0 SOIL CONDITIONS

A geotechnical report is being developed for this project. Areas of rock excavation were determined by visual inspection during site visits, Google Maps, and AKDOT&PF's Geotechnical Asset Management Program’s GIS site. The final Geotechnical Recommendations will include all soil and bedrock conditions within the project area.

10.0 ACCESS CONTROL FEATURES

New access to the highway will be managed through driveway permits and future project evaluation. Reconstructed driveways will be constructed to current standards. Consolidation will be considered and addressed as the design progresses.

11.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

The 2014 AADT for this segment of the Seward Highway was 1,731 vehicles per day. There are three speed zones within the project. The posted speed limit in Moose Pass is 35 MPH and the posted speed limit outside of Moose Pass is 55 MPH. There are two 45 MPH transition zones on the outer limits of Moose Pass.

Seward Highway MP 25.5-36: Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation 5 Design Study Report

A 3R analysis was performed in accordance with the HPCM Section 1160.3 for the Seward Highway MP 25.5-36 Project to evaluate the roadway crash data. The following design speeds were evaluated as part of the 3R analysis: 40 MPH in the Moose Pass speed zone, 50 MPH for the transition zones, and 60 MPH for the remainder of the highway. One speed study indicated the 85th percentile speed on the highway is greater than 60 MPH, however the report uses a 60 MPH design speed from MP 29.653 to EOP. Since the posted speed limit will remain 55 MPH, designing the curves to accommodate a 65 MPH speed would encourage traffic to drive faster through the corridor. In addition, speed data is generally collected on tangents. Since accidents on curves are evaluated in this report, it is reasonable to round the tangent speed down. The 60 MPH design speed reflects the characteristics of a rural arterial in mountainous terrain.

12.0 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS

The proposed improvements will enhance the safety and drivability of the roadway by widening shoulders and improving clear zone and sight distance. Existing guardrail will be replaced with new guardrail where warranted. The length of need for existing guardrail was evaluated and adjustments were made where required for the new guardrail design. Rumble strips will be installed adjacent to the fog line in the 55 MPH zones.

From 2002 to 2018, DOT&PF conducted a study on the effectiveness of speed limit stencils inlaid on the pavement through Moose Pass. The data indicates that speed stencils are not effective in lowering speeds on the Seward Highway, however the percent of vehicles in the pace was improved. As the results were desirable but not conclusive, the stencils will be replaced in-kind by the project.

A study is ongoing in Cooper Landing on the effectiveness of reduced lane widths and wider lane markings on reducing speeds and crash rates. Moose Pass shares several characteristics with Cooper Landing: both are isolated communities with reduced speed zones and limited available pavement width through the community, in a rural, winding, mountainous context. The study will be expanded to Moose Pass.

13.0 RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIREMENTS

This project will require additional ROW.

Partial acquisitions will be required to construct project slopes and improve clear zone.

All permanent work will be constructed within the Right-of-Way (ROW), easements, or permitted ARRC ROW. Temporary Construction Easements (TCEs) and Temporary Construction Permits (TCPs) will be required for constructing driveway approaches, detours, embankments, and other facilities.

14.0 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES

Throughout the 45 and 55 MPH zones, the 6-foot wide paved shoulders will be available for bicycle and pedestrian usage. The existing multi-use trail from MP 28.7 to MP 29.9 will be rehabilitated as an eight- foot separated path on the east side of the highway. The new pathway alignment will tie into the existing pathway near MP 30, prior to the pathway’s jog towards Upper Trail Lake.

15.0 UTILITY RELOCATION AND COORDINATION

Utility companies with facilities in the project limits include the Alaska Railroad Corporation, AT&T, Chugach Electric Association, and TelAlaska. Utilities will require relocation and agreements will need to be developed, at select locations throughout the project, to address the following conflicts:

Seward Highway MP 25.5-36: Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation 6 Design Study Report

15.1 Alaska Railroad Corporation

The Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) owns and operates a track that parallels the east side of the project from approximately MP 25.5 to 27.5. Roadway work in the ARRC Right of Way will require a permit. It was checked and confirmed that no railroad traffic control devices need to be brought up to standards in the project area. Drainage concerns associated with project improvements will be addressed under the H&H analysis.

15.2 AT&T

AT&T owns and operates one fiber optic and one copper cable within the ARRC Right of Way. These facilities are not anticipated to be in direct conflict and will not require relocation.

15.3 Chugach Electric Association

Chugach Electric Association (CEA) owns and operates aerial electric transmission and distribution facilities along and crossing the Seward Highway within the project limits. The majority of CEA’s pole line is outside of the existing Right of Way; however, there are ten overhead power crossings within the project limits. Since no vertical curves will be adjusted, no height conflict is anticipated. Existing guy wire may require adjustment to accommodate fill slopes.

15.4 TelAlaska

TelAlaska owns and operates aerial and underground fiber optic and copper telecommunication facilities throughout the project limits. Some TelAlaska facilities may require relocation or adjustment to accommodate ditch construction.

16.0 PRELIMINARY WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL

The HPCM, Section 1400.2 sets forth the criteria for determining if a project is to be classified as a “Significant Project” for purposes of determining the level of effort required in developing a TMP. This project meets the definition of a Category 2 “Significant” project and therefore requires a Traffic Management Plan. The TMP herein addresses delays and queuing times by limiting road closures to night time on weekdays only. Components of the TMP that are required include a Traffic Control Plan, Public Information Plan, and Transportation Operations Plan.

16.1 Traffic Control Plan (TCP)

The contractor will develop a TCP, to safely guide and protect the traveling public in work zones during construction, in accordance with the ATM and the project specifications. The plan will be assessed and approved by the Construction Project Engineer and the Traffic Control Engineer. The contractor is responsible for providing advance notice to the public, including local businesses, residents, and road travelers, of construction activities that could cause delays, detours, or affect access to adjacent properties. The TCP will include detours for the replacement of the Moose Creek fish passage culverts.

16.2 Public Information Plan (PIP)

The DOT&PF in cooperation with the contractor will develop a public information plan to inform the public of upcoming activities that will impact local road users, the general public, area residents and businesses, and appropriate public entities. It will contain measures to inform stakeholders of project

Seward Highway MP 25.5-36: Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation 7 Design Study Report

scope, expected work zone impacts, closure details, and recommended action to avoid impacts and changing conditions during construction. Measures to disseminate information may include:

• Department’s Construction section thru the Department’s 511 system • Department’s Navigator website • Television, Radio, and/or newspaper

16.3 Transportation Operations Plan (TOP)

Coordination between the contractor and the ARRC will minimize the impacts to railroad traffic during blasting operations. No large construction projects are anticipated within the vicinity of this project site, so cumulative traffic delay impacts are not anticipated.

17.0 STRUCTURAL SECTION AND PAVEMENT DESIGN

The existing pavement thickness on this portion of the Seward Highway is two inches. Sections of the roadway have been overlaid by Maintenance and Operations; however, thicknesses at those locations are unknown. The pavement surface contains ruts, cracking, potholing, and frost heaving.

Final pavement recommendations are being developed; however, preliminary recommended sections include the following:

Mill and overlay: • 2-inches of Hot Mix Asphalt, Type II, Class A after 2-inches of planing

Pavement rehabilitation: • 2-inches of Hot Mix Asphalt, Type II; Class A • 3-inches of Asphalt Treated Base (ATB) • 2-inches of Aggregate Base Course, Grading D-1 • 36-inches of Selected Material, Type A for shoulder widening, culvert replacements and where full-depth rehabilitation is warranted due to weakened underlying material.

Material sources for this project will be contractor supplied.

18.0 COST ESTIMATE

The project cost estimate is as follows:

Preliminary Engineering $ 3,580,225

Right-of-Way $ 650,000

Utility Relocation $ 200,000

Construction $ 38,000,000

Total $ 42,430,255

Seward Highway MP 25.5-36: Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation 8 Design Study Report 19.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS

The proposed project meets the criteria for classification as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) per 23 CFR 771.117(d)(13), and meets the conditions outlined in the April 13, 2012 Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Agreement (PCE) between the FHWA and the Alaska DOT&PF. The PCE was approved May 9, 2018.. A re-evaluation will be completed to verify the findings of the original document. These documents are provided in Appendix E.

Permits required for this project may include the following: • U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Permit • ADF&G Title 16 Fish Habitat Permit • Kenai Peninsula Borough Conditional Use Permit • Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Letter of Non-Objection • Eagle Permit

The contractor will be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP in accordance with Section 7.

The contractor will be required to dispose of solid waste at an ADEC approved landfill. The contractor will be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits and clearances for material sites, disposal sites, and staging areas unless DOT&PF has obtained all necessary permits.

20.0 BRIDGES

Bridge 4090 is a double culvert at approximately MP 31.7. The span along the roadway centerline exceeds 20 feet and therefore the crossing meets the definition of a bridge. The culverts are in acceptable condition and do not require rehabilitation in order to extend the service life of the roadway.

21.0 EXCEPTIONS TO DESIGN STANDARDS

There are no exceptions to design standards for this project.

22.0 MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS

Maintenance will remain the responsibility of the State of Alaska and the local DOT&PF Maintenance and Operations Station located at the Crown Point Alaska Maintenance Station.

Widened shoulders will require additional effort for snow removal in the project area, though the ditches will provide additional snow storage area. Additional guardrail installations may require revisions to the current snow removal procedure.

23.0 ITS FEATURES

There is an ATR located at Milepost 32.25, just south of Moose Creek near the Fish Hatchery. It has 2 piezos and 2 loops per lane. It also includes a temperature data probe, pavement temperature component and air temperature sensors. The piezos and loops will be replaced during roadway work.

Seward Highway MP 25.5-36: Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation 9 Design Study Report

APPENDIX A

Approved Design Designation and Draft Design Criteria

Seward Highway MP 25.5-36: Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation Design Study Report

Project Design Criteria Project Name: Seward Highway: MP 25.5-36, Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation Source/Comments Project Number: Z546590000 Functional Classification: Rural Arterial Design Year: 2029 Present ADT (2014): 1,892 Design Designation Design Year ADT: 2,197 Mid Design Period ADT: 2,090 Design Designation DHV: 20.70% Directional Split: 60/40 Design Designation Percent Trucks: 12.5 Equivalent Axle Loading: 819,380 Design Designation Pavement Design Year: 2029 Design Vehicle: WB-67 Design Designation Terrain: Mountainous Number of Roadways: 1

Design Speed: As-Built Posted 35 MPH (MP 28.2908-29.7061)

85th Percentile Speed: Speed Study Project Drive-thru Derived from Existing Geometrics 40 MPH Existing Lane Width: 12' Existing Shoulder Width: Outside: 2' Inside: N/A Existing Lane + Shoulder Width: 28' Lane + Shoulder Width for 4R: 36' 12' Lane, 6' Shoulders PGDHS (TA 7-3) Existing Superelevation Rate: 6% Min. Radius for 4R: 485' (Evaluate Curves tighter than this) PGDHS (TA 3-7) Min. K-Value for Vert. Curves (4R): Sag: 64 Crest: 44 PGDHS (TA 3-36, TA 3-34) Stopping Sight Distance: 305' PGDHS (TA 7-1) Passing Sight Distance: 600' PGDHS (TA 7-1)

Existing Bridge No(s): N/A Existing Bridge Width(s): N/A Surface Treatment: T/W: HMA Shoulders: HMA Vertical Clearance: 20' 6" (Overhead Utilities) PCM (TA 1130-1) Degree of Access Control: Driveway Permits Median Treatment: N/A Existing Illumination: N/A Proposed Illumination: N/A Curb Usage and Type: N/A Existing Bicycle Accommodations: Paved Shoulders, Pathway Proposed Bicycle Accommodations: 6' Paved Shoulders, Pathway PCM 1160.5.10 Existing Pedestrian Accommodations: Paved Shoulders, Pathway Proposed Pedestrian Accommodations: 6' Paved Shoulders, Pathway PCM 1160.5.10 Misc. Criteria: 4:1/2:1 Foreslopes/Backslopes 14' Min. Clear Zone PCM (TA 1130-2), RDG P. 3-3

The shaded area represents features requiring 3R evaluation per Section 1160.

Proposed - Designer/Consultant: Date:

Endorsed - Engineering Manager: Date:

Approved - Preconstruction Engineer: Date:

Alaska Highway Preconstruction Manual Figure 1100-2(b) June 2018 Project Design Criteria Project Name: Seward Highway: MP 25.5-36, Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation Source/Comments Project Number: Z546590000 Functional Classification: Rural Arterial Design Year: 2029 Present ADT (2014): 1,892 Design Designation Design Year ADT: 2,197 Mid Design Period ADT: 2,090 Design Designation DHV: 20.70% Directional Split: 60/40 Design Designation Percent Trucks: 12.5 Equivalent Axle Loading: 819,380 Design Designation Pavement Design Year: 2029 Design Vehicle: WB-67 Design Designation Terrain: Mountainous Number of Roadways: 1

Design Speed: As-Built Posted 55 MPH

85th Percentile Speed: Speed Study Project Drive-thru Derived from Existing Geometrics 60 MPH Existing Lane Width: 12' Existing Shoulder Width: Outside: 2', 6' Inside: N/A PCM 1160.3.2 Existing Lane + Shoulder Width: 28', 36' Lane + Shoulder Width for 4R: 36' 12' Lane, 6' Shoulders PGDHS (TA 7-3) Existing Superelevation Rate: 6% Min. Radius for 4R: 1330 (Evaluate Curves tighter than this) PGDHS (TA 3-7) Min. K-Value for Vert. Curves (4R): Sag: 136 Crest: 151 PGDHS (TA 3-36, TA 3-34) Stopping Sight Distance: 570' PGDHS (TA 7-1) Passing Sight Distance: 1000' PGDHS (TA 7-1)

Existing Bridge No(s): 4090 Double Culvert Existing Bridge Width(s): 26' Surface Treatment: T/W: HMA Shoulders: HMA Vertical Clearance: 20' 6" (Overhead Utilities) PCM (TA 1130-1) Degree of Access Control: Driveway Permits Median Treatment: N/A Existing Illumination: N/A Proposed Illumination: N/A Curb Usage and Type: N/A Existing Bicycle Accommodations: Paved Shoulders Proposed Bicycle Accommodations: 6' Paved Shoulders PCM 1160.5.10 Existing Pedestrian Accommodations: Paved Shoulders Proposed Pedestrian Accommodations: 6' Paved Shoulders PCM 1160.5.10 Misc. Criteria: 1250' Max Length of Slow Vehicle Turnouts March 9, 2012 Memo 4:1/2:1 Foreslopes/Backslopes 30' Min. Clear Zone PCM (TA 1130-2)

The shaded area represents features requiring 3R evaluation per Section 1160.

Proposed - Designer/Consultant: Date:

Endorsed - Engineering Manager: Date:

Approved - Preconstruction Engineer: Date:

Design Speed: As-Built Posted 55 MPH

The shaded area represents features requiring 3R evaluation per Section 1160.

Proposed - Designer/Consultant: Date:

Endorsed - Engineering Manager: Date:

Approved - Preconstruction Engineer: Date:

Alaska Highway Preconstruction Manual Figure 1100-2(b) June 2018

APPENDIX B

Typical Sections

Seward Highway MP 25.5-36: Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation Design Study Report

APPENDIX C

3R Analysis

Appendices have been removed from the 3R Analysis. See official 3R Analysis for full report.

The information in this report is compiled for highway safety planning purposes. Federal law prohibits its discovery or admissibility in litigation against state, tribal or local government that involves a location or locations mentioned in the collision data. 23 U.S.C. § 409; 23 U.S.C. § 148(g); Walden v. DOT, 27 P.3d 297, 304-305 (Alaska 2001).

Seward Highway MP 25.5-36: Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation Design Study Report

Curve #20 has curvature that does not meet current standards and actual accidents equivalent to the predicted values. A cost analysis was conducted based on the collision data for this specific curve. The collision costs are less than the estimated cost to reconstruct the curve to current standards; therefore, improvements are not required per the 3R analysis. Without improvements the current curve warning signs (50 MPH) should remain.

Vertical Curves The existing vertical alignment was examined for conformance with the current design standards for the design K value and stopping sight distance. Minimum stopping site distances for the vertical curvature within the project limits include 570’ (60 MPH), 425’ (50 MPH), and 305’ (40 MPH). Crest Curves #4, #7, #8, and #45, do not meet the current design standards for stopping sight distance, but the actual number of accidents is less than predicted; therefore, improvements are not required per the 3R analysis. Sag Curves cannot be analyzed under the PCM 3R analysis.

Bridges At approximately station 359+12 there are two 11’-5” x 7’-3” structural plate pipe arch culverts. The spacing between the culverts is approximately 3’, providing a total width greater than 20’, which meets the criteria for a span bridge. This is bridge number 4090, which was constructed in 1976. Improvements necessary to keep this structure serviceable throughout the design period should be evaluated in design.

Side Slopes and Clear Zones The same analysis is used under this section as used in Lane and Shoulder Analysis, therefore no changes are required. Side slopes vary within the project limits. Clear zone for 55 MPH is a minimum of 24’.

Pavement Edges Drops There is no indication of pavement edge drops.

Intersections No intersection collision anomalies occurred within the study period with the exception of the Sterling Highway intersection, which is outside the scope of this project and was not included in the analysis.

Driveways No driveway collision anomalies were noted within the project limits.

Passing Sight distance Improving passing sight distance is not required within the context of PCM 3R analysis.

Grades The grade from station 461+00 to 473+50 exceeds the max grade of 6.00%. Crash history indicates one embankment crash in this vicinity, resulting in property damage only. All other grades within the project limits meet AASHTO guidelines for mountainous terrain. Grade improvements are not required within the context of 3R analysis.

Page 2 of 3

“Keep Alaska Moving through service and infrastructure.”

Safety Mitigation It is recommended that clearing to improve sight distance be added to the project scope where feasible. Additional field investigation is required to define suitable locations within the project area.

Moose-Vehicle Collisions Although the PCM 3R analysis does not require evaluation of moose related collisions, a mile point breakdown of moose collision was analyzed. The threshold for moose-vehicle collisions, as identified in the 1995 Report Moose-Vehicle Accidents on Alaska Roads, was not met, and the Seward Highway from MP 25.5-36 is not included in the 2014 Regional Moose Collision Ranking List, therefore moose mitigation design improvements are not required.

Attachments: Seward Highway MP 25.5-36 3R Analysis

Page 3 of 3

“Keep Alaska Moving through service and infrastructure.”

SEWARD HIGHWAY: MP 25.5-36, TRAIL RIVER TO STERLING WYE REHABILITATION

Project No.: Z546590000

3R Analysis Report - Draft

STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES

PREPARED BY: DOT&PF Central Region – Design and Construction 4111 Aviation Avenue Anchorage, AK 99502

July 2019 (Refer to Section 1160, Resurfacing, Restoration, & Reconstruction Projects, Alaska Preconstruction Manual, January 1, 2005)

INDEX SECTION DESCRIPTION PAGES

1160.3.1 Historic AAST Volumes 1 2005-2014 Collision Summary 2 2005-2014 Collision Data 3-4 1160.3.1 Design Speed; 85th Percentile Speed Data 5 1160.3.2 Predicted vs. Actual Accident Rates for Lane & Shoulder Widths 6 1160.3.2 3R Procedure Outline (Case I&II) from the AK PCM 7-8 1160.3.3 Horizontal Curve Evaluation 9-12 1160.3.4 Vertical Curve & Stopping Sight Distance Evaluation 13-15 1160.3.5 Bridges 16 1160.3.6 Side Slope and Clear Zone 17 1160.3.7 Pavement Edge Drops 18 1160.3.8 Intersections 19 1160.3.9 Driveways 20-22 1160.3.10 Passing Sight Distance 23 1160.3.11 Grades 24 1160.3.12 Safety Mitigation 25

OTHER: Analyze Threshold Moose-Vehicle Collision Values 26

Appendix A: Speed Study Data Appendix B: 3R Plan and Profile Historic AADT Volumes

ROUTE: 130000 MP: 25.65-36.4

CDS Length *AADT THIS SEGMENT Average DESCRIPTION MILEPOINT (miles) (Based on ADOT 2005-2016 Traffic Volume Report) AADT

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

28.845 Depot Road 3.28 1,860 1,750 1,800 1,660 1572 1614 1584 1568 1555 1570 1,653

32.125 Johnson Pass Trail 4.37 1,743 1,638 1,680 1,553 1680 1938 1900 1880 1880 1891 1,778

36.495 Jct with Sterling Highway 0.615 2690 2530 2600 2420 2450 2520 2470 2666 2640 2670 2,566

*Average AADT 1,802 1,694 1,740 1,607 1,626 1,776 1,742 1,724 1,718 1,731 *Average AADT does not include Jct with Sterling Highway since this location is outside the project limits

Page 1 2005-2014 Collision Summary

10-YEAR PERIOD ROUTE: 130000 Functional Class 2 - Principal Arterial -Other (CDS M.P. 25.5-32.125) Functional Class 1 - Principal Arterial -Interstate (CDS M.P. 32.125-36)

Number Number Number Percent Percent Percent CDS CDS CDS CDS CDS CDS CDS CDS CDS CDS CDS CDS CDS of This of This of This of This of This of This Mile- Mile- Mile- Mile- Mile- Mile- Mile- Mile- Mile- Mile- Mile- Mile- Mile- Accident Type TOTAL Percent Type of Type of Type of Type of Type of Type of point point point point point point point point point point point point point Description ACCIDENTS Totals Accident Accident Accident Accident Accident Accident 25.5- 26- 27 - 28- 29- 29.7- 30- 31- 32- 33- 34- 35- 36- on dry during (May 1 to on dry during (May 1 to 25.99 26.99 27.99 28.99 29.7 29.99 30.99 31.99 32.99 33.99 34.99 35.99 EOP surface Daylight Sep 30) surface Daylight Sep 30) Collision-Animal* 1 2 35%3 1 3 14% 3% 13% Collision-Moose* 1 1 11 47%3 2 2 14% 5% 8% Collision-MV Rear End* 1 12%01 20%3% 8% Collision-MV Angle 1 1 1 35%2 3 2 10% 8% 8% Collision-MV Head On 1 1 24%02 00%5% 0% Collision-Ditch 121 11 6 11% 2 2 2 10% 5% 8% Collision-Embankment 1 1 24%12 25%5% 8% Collision-Fixed Object 1 1 24%12 15%5% 4% Collision-Guardrail 1 1 1 2 1 1 7 13% 3 6 3 14% 15% 13% Collision-Stopped in Road 1 12%11 15%3% 4% Collision-Tree 1 12%11 15%3% 4% Non Collision-Overturn 11 1 35%01 00%3% 0% Non Collision-Other 1 2 1 2 6 11% 2 4 2 10% 10% 8% Ran off Road 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 9 16% 2 6 3 10% 15% 13% Snowberm 1 1 2 1 59%05 00%13% 0% Improper Passing 1 12%01 00%3% 0% Total 5 5 3 3 3 2 4 7 7 4 4 5 4 56 21 40 24 100% 100% 100% All Accident Types - Expressed as Percent of 9% 9% 5% 5% 5% 4% 7% 13% 13% 7% 7% 9% 7% 100% Total Accidents Total Excluding * 16 Total Excluding * 32

Mid Average ADT 2005 to 2014 (Use 2010) 1,614 1,614 1,614 1,614 1,614 1,614 1,614 1,614 1,938 1,938 1,938 1,938 2,520 Accidents per Million 0.85 0.85 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.34 0.68 1.19 0.99 0.57 0.57 0.71 0.43 Vehicle Miles FATALITIES 0000000000001 V=million vehicle miles = (ADT*10Years*365 Days)/1000000

Page 2 2005-2014 Collision Data

*(3R) Run-off Intersectio NUMBER SURFACE Road, Head n or Moose or CDS MILE MAJOR MINOR ROAD CASE ID DATE TIME DAY OF FATALITIES ACCIDENT SEVERITY ACCIDENT TYPE CONDITIO LIGHTING on, or Driveway Animal POINT INJURIES INJURIES GEOMETRY VEHICLES NS Sideswipe Related 1 200513352 25.65 8/26/2005 2315 FRIDAY 2 0 2 5 INCAPACITATING INJURY OTHER STRAIGHT/LVL DRY DARK ‐ RD NOT LIGHTED 1 201203559 25.741 5/2/2012 1830 WEDNESDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY ANIMAL UNKNOWN DRY DAYLIGHT 1 201202833 25.741 2/13/2012 2002 MONDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY MOOSE STRAIGHT/GRD ICE DARK ‐ RD NOT LIGHTED 1 200706645 25.758 8/13/2007 1545 MONDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY GUARDRAIL FACE UNKNOWN DRY DAYLIGHT 200801561 25.758 2/23/2008 1810 SATURDAY 1 0 0 1 NON‐INCAPACITATING/POSSIBLE INJURY OTHER FIXED OBJECT CURVE/HLCRST ICE DAYLIGHT 1 1 201303922 26.6138 8/6/2013 1519 TUESDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY EMBANKMENT/OVERTURN STRAIGHT/LVL WET DAYLIGHT 1 200513708 26.733 11/26/2005 1430 SATURDAY 2 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY VEH ‐ ANGLE UNKNOWN SNOW DAYLIGHT 1 201093822 26.835 3/22/2010 1425 MONDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY MOOSE STRAIGHT/LVL DRY DAYLIGHT 1 200851961 26.835 2/24/2008 1530 SUNDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY RAN OFF ROAD UNKNOWN ICE DAYLIGHT 1 200909705 26.96 8/13/2009 1321 THURSDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY RAN OFF ROAD CURVE/GRD DRY DAYLIGHT 1 200800771 27.814 1/28/2008 0 MONDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY UNKNOWN UNKNOWN MISSING NOT REP 1 201365159 27.8289 1/18/2013 1513 FRIDAY 1 0 0 0 UNKNOWN UNKNOWN STRAIGHT/LVL ICE DAYLIGHT 1 1 201101872 27.829 7/16/2011 2324 SATURDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY GUARDRAIL FACE CURVE/LVL DRY DARK ‐ RD NOT LIGHTED 1 201078545 28.633 1/31/2010 1330 SUNDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY SNOBERM UNKNOWN ICE DAYLIGHT 1 201091007 28.665 9/4/2010 1048 SATURDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY RAN OFF ROAD STRAIGHT/GRD WET DAYLIGHT 1 201368201 28.7862 11/10/2013 800 SUNDAY 1 0 0 0 NO DAMAGE RAN OFF ROAD UNKNOWN ICE DUSK 1 201367141 29.2208 8/24/2013 1245 SATURDAY 2 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY STOPPED IN ROAD STRAIGHT/LVL DRY DAYLIGHT 1 201303892 29.2464 7/24/2013 1915 WEDNESDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY MAILBOX STRAIGHT/LVL DRY DAYLIGHT 1 200964378 29.495 11/6/2009 950 FRIDAY 1 0 0 1 NON‐INCAPACITATING/POSSIBLE INJURY RAN OFF ROAD UNKNOWN ICE DAYLIGHT 1 201075861 29.707 6/15/2010 1530 TUESDAY 2 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY VEH ‐ REAR END UNKNOWN WET DAYLIGHT 1 201303160 29.9942 3/16/2013 1520 SATURDAY 1 0 0 2 POSSIBLE INJURY GUARDRAIL FACE CURVE/LVL ICE DAYLIGHT 1 200704707 30.271 3/12/2007 2030 MONDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY OTHER CURVE/LVL ICE DARK ‐ RD NOT LIGHTED 1 200802536 30.699 4/22/2008 239 TUESDAY 1 0 0 1 NON‐INCAPACITATING/POSSIBLE INJURY RAN OFF ROAD CURVE/LVL ICE DARK ‐ RD NOT LIGHTED 1 201303266 30.9047 4/5/2013 1640 FRIDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY GUARDRAIL FACE CURVE/LVL ICE DAYLIGHT 1 201303270 30.9064 4/4/2013 1515 THURSDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY GUARDRAIL FACE CURVE/LVL ICE DAYLIGHT 1 201202834 31.057 10/19/2012 1400 FRIDAY 2 0 0 1 NON‐INCAPACITATING/POSSIBLE INJURY CROSS MEDIAN/CENTERLINE CURVE/GRD ICE DAYLIGHT 1 200907685 31.057 6/20/2009 2105 SATURDAY 1 0 0 1 NON‐INCAPACITATING/POSSIBLE INJURY GUARDRAIL FACE CURVE/LVL DRY DAYLIGHT 1 201367377 31.1502 1/13/2013 1602 SUNDAY 2 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY UNKNOWN UNKNOWN ICE DAYLIGHT 1 200510576 31.298 6/21/2005 1802 TUESDAY 3 0 0 2 NON‐INCAPACITATING/POSSIBLE INJURY VEH ‐ ANGLE CURVE/LVL DRY DAYLIGHT 1 1 201435541 31.5476 2/26/2014 2325 WEDNESDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY DITCH/ ROLLOVER UNKNOWN ICE DARK ‐ RD NOT LIGHTED 1 201202835 31.691 3/20/2012 1850 TUESDAY 1 0 0 1 NON‐INCAPACITATING/POSSIBLE INJURY SNOBERM CURVE/GRD WET DAYLIGHT 1 200802756 31.961 5/3/2008 1011 SATURDAY 1 0 1 0 INCAPACITATING INJURY OTHER CURVE/LVL DRY DAYLIGHT 1 200908272 32.105 7/6/2009 500 MONDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY ANIMAL UNKNOWN DRY OTHER 1 200509761 32.159 8/17/2005 200 WEDNESDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY ANIMAL UNKNOWN DRY DARK ‐ RD NOT LIGHTED 1 200603743 32.178 3/18/2006 1830 SATURDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY OVERTURN UNKNOWN SNOW DAYLIGHT 1 201103485 32.4 10/29/2011 815 SATURDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY DITCH STRAIGHT/LVL ICE DARK ‐ RD NOT LIGHTED 1 1 201365601 32.4846 1/7/2013 1830 MONDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY DITCH CURVE/LVL ICE DARK ‐ RD NOT LIGHTED 1 200901672 32.5 1/27/2009 1550 TUESDAY 1 0 0 1 NON‐INCAPACITATING/POSSIBLE INJURY SNOBERM UNKNOWN ICE DAYLIGHT 1 201303038 32.6408 2/26/2013 1050 TUESDAY 1 0 0 1 POSSIBLE INJURY SNOBERM/ROLLOVER CURVE/GRD ICE DAYLIGHT 1 200515781 33.248 12/31/2005 1927 SATURDAY 1 0 1 0 INCAPACITATING INJURY OVERTURN STRAIGHT/LVL WATER DARK ‐ RD NOT LIGHTED 1 200912309 33.3 9/26/2009 1626 SATURDAY 1 0 0 1 NON‐INCAPACITATING/POSSIBLE INJURY TREE CURVE/GRD DRY DAYLIGHT 1 201093964 33.56 6/9/2010 315 WEDNESDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY DITCH STRAIGHT/LVL DRY TWILIGHT 1 200707019 33.661 8/26/2007 1953 SUNDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY EMBANKMENT STRAIGHT/LVL DRY DAYLIGHT 1 200801896 34.463 3/14/2008 1730 FRIDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY SNOWBERM UNKNOWN ICE DAYLIGHT 1 201076569 34.516 11/7/2010 945 SUNDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY RAN OFF ROAD UNKNOWN ICE DAYLIGHT 1 200505856 34.627 5/11/2005 1730 WEDNESDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY MOOSE UNKNOWN DRY DAYLIGHT 1 1 201365671 34.7772 1/13/2013 1544 SUNDAY 2 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY IMPROPER PASSING STRAIGHT/LVL ICE DAYLIGHT 1 201203208 35.23 2/18/2012 1600 SATURDAY 1 0 0 2 NON‐INCAPACITATING/POSSIBLE INJURY OVERTURN UNKNOWN MISSING TWILIGHT 1 201233785 35.522 5/21/2012 2357 MONDAY 1 0 0 1 NON‐INCAPACITATING/POSSIBLE INJURY MOOSE UNKNOWN DRY TWILIGHT 1 1 201463699 35.5316 8/22/2014 0 FRIDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY DITCH UNKNOWN DRY DAYLIGHT 1 201302550 35.6091 1/12/2013 1544 SATURDAY 2 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY CROSS CENTERLINE CURVE/GRD SLUSH DAYLIGHT 1 201103486 35.722 1/10/2011 1745 MONDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY RAN OFF ROAD STRAIGHT/GRD ICE DARK ‐ RD NOT LIGHTED 1 200801022 35.997 2/5/2008 2245 TUESDAY 1 0 0 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY ANIMAL UNKNOWN ICE DARK ‐ RD NOT LIGHTED

Page 3 2005-2014 Collision Data (Continued)

Page 4 Design Speed; 85th Percentile Speed Data

USE FOR 85th POSTED CDS 3R DESCRIPTION PERCENTILE SPEED MILEPOINT Analysis SPEED (MPH) (MPH) (MPH)

27.789 150' South of Milepost 28 Northbound 48.10 45 27.799 150' South of Milepost 28 Southbound 52.84 45 27.814 Near MP 28 NB & SB 54.48 45 AVERAGE 51.81 50

28.716 0.05 Miles South of Estes Brothers Grocery NB 36.16 35 28.726 0.05 Miles South of Estes Brothers Grocery SB 39.50 35 28.858 Estes Brothers Grocery 44.00 35 AVERAGE 39.89 40

29.419 0.65 Miles North of Estes Brothers NB 53.13 45 29.429 0.65 Miles North of Estes Brothers SB 53.60 45 29.653 Near MP 30 NB SB 52.18 45 AVERAGE 52.97 50

34.719 Near MP 35 NB 63.63 55 60

There is no speed data for the portion of Seward Highway before CDS Milepoint 27.789. The report uses a 60 MPH design speed for this zone.

The report uses a 60 MPH design speed from MP 29.653 to EOP. While the 85th percentile speed data indicates a speed greater than 60 MPH, the posted speed limit will remain 55 MPH; therefore, designing the curves to accommodate a 65 MPH speed would encourage traffic to drive faster through the corridor. In addition, speed data is generally collected on tangents. Since accidents on curves are evaluated in this report, it is reasonable to round the tangent speed down. The 60 MPH design speed reflects the characteristics of a rural arterial in mountainous terrain.

Page 5 Predicted vs. Actual Accident Rates for Lane & Shoulder Widths

THIS ANALYSIS EXCLUDES THE FOLLOWING ACCIDENT TYPES: Rear-end accidents. Moose-vehicle accidents. Intersection accidents. Pedestrian-vehicle accidents. Driveway-related accidents.

Collision Data Years = 10 (2005 thru 2014, midyear = 2010)

3R Lane & shoulder analysis %difference 3R Suggested Milepoint Milepoint Number of ‡ADT Segment Description0 W (ft) PA (ft) UP (ft) H TER1 TER2 Actual Acc. vs. Increase in shoulder Begin End Crashes 2010 AACTUAL APREDICTED Predicted * width acc/mi/yr acc/mi/yr 2' Shoulder Section 25.650 29.707 12 2060151,614 0.12 1.09 -96% Not Required 6' Shoulder Section 29.707 36.400 12 6060161,938 0.09 0.91 -82% Not Required

FORMULAS:

APREDICTED=PREDICTED ACCIDENTS PER MILE PER YEAR = 0.0019ADT 0.882 x 0.879W x 0.919PA x 0.932UP x 1.236H x 0.882TER1 x 1.322TER2 A = Number of run-off road, head-on, opposite-direction sideswipe and same-direction sideswipe accidents per mile per year. *ADT = mid-accident study period year two-directional average daily traffic volumes W = existing lane width in feet. PA = existing width of paved shoulder in feet. UP = existing width of unpaved (gravel, turf, earth) shoulder, in feet. H = median roadside hazard rating for the highway segment, measured subjectively on a scale from 1(least hazardous) to 7 (most hazardous). (Figures 1160-1 though 1160-7, Highway Preconstruction Manual, Alaska DOT & PF, January 1, 2005.) TER1 = 1 for flat terrain, 0 otherwise. TER2 = 1 for mountainous terrain, 0 otherwise.

AACTUAL=ACTUAL ACCIDENTS PER MILE PER YEAR = NUMBER OF APPLICABLE ACCIDENTS/LENGTH OF HIGHWAY SEGMENT IN MILES X COLLISION DATA YEARS

*If the historical accident rate is equal to or less than the predicted rate a, then the existing total lane and shoulder width may remain unchanged. If the historical accident rate exceeds the predicted rate A, widen the total lane and shoulder width, in each direction by 1 foot on each side for every 10% increment the historical accident rate exceeds A. The widening shall not exceed the values required for new construction.

‡ See Design Volume; ADT average No widenning is required by table 1160‐1. Conclusion: It is recommended to review the shoulder width between CDS milepoint 25.371‐29.707; Three of the accidents are collisions against guardrail.

Page 6 Table 1160-1 3R Procedure Outline (Case I) 3R PROCEDURE OUTLINE CASE I

EXISTING ROADWAY TOP WIDTH IS LESS THAN REQUIRED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION

Site Specific Accidents or Anomalies

Accident site specific geometry or obstacles shall be evaluated in accord with Section 1160.03.

Lane & Shoulder Width Selection (total top width)

General accident rate for segment or General accident rate for segment or project equal or less than the predict- project greater than the predicted ed accident rate. accident rate.

Top width widening is not required. Widentopwidth1fteachside(2ft total) for each 10 percent increment that the actual accident rate exceeds the predicted rate up to but not exceeding the width required for new construction. Cross Sectional Elements Cross Sectional Elements

Evaluation not required. Reduce the actual accident rate by ten percent for each 1 ft of top widening each side (2 ft total).

If adjusted accident is equal or less If adjusted accident exceeds the pre- than the predicted then the cross dicted then the cross sectional ele- sectional evaluation is not required. ments require evaluation in accord with Section 1130.

Table 1160-2

Alaska Highway Preconstruction Manual 1160-5 1160. 3R Projects Effective January 1, 2005 Page 7 3R Procedure Outline (Case II) 3R PROCEDURE OUTLINE CASE II

EXISTING ROADWAY TOP WIDTH IS EQUAL OR GREATER THAN REQUIRED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION

Site Specific Accidents or Anomalies

Accident site specific geometry or obstacles shall be evaluated in accord with Section 1160.03.

Lane & Shoulder Width Selection (total top width)

Top width widening is not required.

General accident rate for segment or General accident rate for segment or project equal or less than the project greater than the predicted predicted accident rate. accident rate.

Cross Sectional Cross Sectional Elements Elements

Evaluation not required. The roadside cross sectional elements require evaluation in accord with Section 1130.

1160. 3R Projects 1160-6 Alaska Highway Preconstruction Manual Effective January 1, 2005 Page 8 Horizontal Curve Evaluation

DOT ROW Engineering provided the exiting alignment based on design survey and record documents. THIS ANALYSIS EXCLUDES THE FOLLOWING ACCIDENT TYPES:

Rear-end accidents. Intersection accidents. Driveway-related accidents. Pedestrian-vehicle accidents. Moose-vehicle accidents unless noted otherwise. COLLISION DATA YEARS: 2005-2014 MIN DOES Predicted Meets Is Cost Existing DESIGN ACC HISTORY Posted Curve Existing Degree of ASSUMED RADIUS MEET Number of Number of Design Effective PC Station PT Station Radius SPEED L (mi) W/IN Speed Limit Number Length (feet) Curvature e% max (Per RADIUS Accidents Accidents Speed Analysis (feet) (85th &-tile) PREDICTED? (miles/hr) AASHTO*) REQ? (Ah) (miles/hr) Needed? 1 27+98.05 32+25.74 1637 427.69 3.500 60 6% 1333 Yes 0 0.08 1 Yes 60 55 No 2 68+39.59 71+77.14 1273 337.55 4.500 60 6% 1333 No 0 0.06 1 Yes 55 55 No 3 73+77.12 79+98.31 1637 621.19 3.500 60 6% 1333 Yes 0 0.12 1 Yes 60 55 No 4 97+65.70 103+49.08 1146 583.37 5.000 60 6% 1333 No 1 0.11 2 Yes 55 55 No 5 106+10.58 110+47.40 1146 436.82 5.000 60 6% 1333 No 1 0.08 2 Yes 55 55 No 6 112+95.21 119+35.90 2292 640.69 2.500 60 6% 1333 Yes 0 0.12 1 Yes 70 55 No 7 124+16.26 130+52.18 2292 635.92 2.500 50 6% 833 Yes 0 0.12 1 Yes 70 45 No 8 134+82.11 138+87.40 1146 405.28 5.000 50 6% 833 Yes 0 0.08 1 Yes 55 45 No 9 141+82.12 151+75.29 3274 993.17 1.750 50 6% 833 Yes 0 0.19 1 Yes 80 45 No 10 155+02.01 161+13.29 2292 611.29 2.500 50 6% 833 Yes 0 0.12 1 Yes 70 45 No 11 163+51.01 171+79.74 2355 828.73 2.433 50 6% 833 Yes 0 0.16 1 Yes 70 45 No 12 174+80.38 185+57.06 5730 1076.68 1.000 40 6% 485 Yes 0 0.20 1 Yes 80 35 No 13 215+14.40 216+88.47 1432 174.07 4.000 40 6% 485 Yes 0 0.03 1 Yes 60 35 No 14 231+25.98 239+33.41 5730 807.44 1.000 50 6% 833 Yes 0 0.15 1 Yes 80 45 No Total = 8579.89 feet Total = 2 Accidents 15 254+20.03 270+78.65 1146 1667.62 5.000 60 6% 1333 No 1 0.32 3 Yes 55 55 No 16 274+20.21 283+21.98 1146 901.77 5.000 60 6% 1333 No 1 0.17 2 Yes 55 55 No 17 285+99.16 295+89.94 5730 990.78 1.000 60 6% 1333 Yes 0 0.19 1 Yes 80 55 No 18 298+79.96 306+11.19 955 731.23 6.000 60 6% 1333 No 1 0.14 2 Yes 50 55 No 19 307+89.83 313+67.87 819 578.05 7.000 60 6% 1333 No 0 0.11 2 Yes 45 55 No 20 315+63.43 319+98.08 818 434.65 7.000 60 6% 1333 No 2 0.08 2 Yes 45 55 Yes 21 326+98.81 331+44.68 1910 445.87 3.000 60 6% 1333 Yes 1 0.08 1 Yes 60 55 No 22 366+68.39 373+14.42 11459 646.04 0.500 60 6% 1333 Yes 1 0.12 1 Yes 80 55 No 23 385+69.74 391+98.55 818 628.81 7.000 60 6% 1333 No 0 0.12 2 Yes 45 55 No 24 395+92.12 400+41.43 917 449.32 6.250 60 6% 1333 No 1 0.09 2 Yes 50 55 No 25 411+94.61 416+91.39 1432 496.78 4.000 60 6% 1333 Yes 0 0.09 1 Yes 60 55 No 26 435+04.42 445+19.46 2292 1015.04 2.500 60 6% 1333 Yes 2 0.19 2 Yes 70 55 No 27 453+96.09 459+55.07 1637 558.98 3.500 60 6% 1333 Yes 1 0.11 1 Yes 60 55 No 28 469+48.23 475+86.86 1910 638.63 3.000 60 6% 1333 Yes 0 0.12 1 Yes 65 55 No 29 488+18.50 506+12.18 11459 1793.68 0.500 60 6% 1333 Yes 1 0.34 2 Yes 80 55 No 30 588+94.84 593+30.50 11459 435.66 0.50 60 6% 1333 Yes 0 0.08 1 Yes 80 55 No 31 593+30.50 597+56.48 11459 425.99 0.50 60 6% 1333 Yes 0 0.08 0 Yes 80 55 No Total = 12838.90 feet Total = 12 Accidents

Page 9 Horizontal Curve Evaluation (Continued)

BASIS OF HORIZONTAL CURVE EVALUATION: Evaluate only those curves that have an accident history, and has a radius of curvature less than required for new construction (VARIES),

or if the actual number of accidents is greater than the predicted number of accidents (A h).

FORMULAS: < 253+46.87 >253+46.87 ***10-year ***10-year 2005-2014 2005-2014

AT = 14 Number of accidents on tangents AT = 20 Number of accidents on tangents

LH = 4.32 Existing highway length (miles) (Sta. 10+00 to 630+00) LH = 6.68 Existing highway length (miles) (Sta. 10+00 to 630+00)

LAC = 1.6 Total length of all curves (miles) LAC = 2.4 Total length of all curves (miles) ADT 1,776 ADT (mid acc. Period - 2005-2014) ADT 1,938 ADT (mid acc. Period - 2005-2014) Y 10 Accident Period (years) Y 10 Accident Period (years)

ARS= 0.80 ARS = Accident rate on straight segment of roadway ARS= 0.67 ARS = Accident rate on straight segment of roadway

V = 6.48 ARS = AT/(ADT*365day/yr*Y*(LH-LAC)/1,000,000) V = 7.07 ARS = AT/(ADT*365day/yr*Y*(LH-LAC)/1,000,000)

Ah = Predicted number of accidents on each curve

Ah = ARS(L)(V)+[0.0336*D*V} L = Length of each curve (miles) V = Total traffic volume (million vehicles) = (ADT*365*Accident Period/1,000,000 miles) R = Radius of each curve (ft) D = Degree of curvature =5728.58/R

Page 10 Horizontal Curve Evaluation (Continued)

3R CURVE COST ANALYSIS - COST OF CURVE # 20 REALIGNMENT

CALCULATED BB DATE: January 10, 2019

ESTIMATE OF QUANTITIES

ITEM NO. ITEM UNIT QUANTITY Unit Price Amount

201(3A) CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACRE 0.3 15,000$ 4,924.24

202(2) REMOVAL OF PAVEMENT S.Y. 2,860 8$ 22,880.00

203(3) UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION C.Y 9,077 $15$ 136,148.50 203(6A) BORROW, TYPE A TON 5,940 $15$ 89,100.00 203(6C) BORROW, TYPE C TON 6,145 $8$ 49,160.79

301(1) AGGREGATE BASE COURSE, GRADING D-1 TON 413 30$ 12,386.84 306(1) ATB TON 524 80$ 41,902.50

401(1A) HOT MIX ASPHALT, TYPE II, CLASS A TON 349 90$ 31,427.04

611(2) Riprap, Class 1 TON 905 100$ 90,535.83 618(2) SEEDING POUND 107 100$ 10,656.35

620(1) TOPSOIL S.Y. 35,521 4$ 142,084.72

Subtotal$ 631,206.83

Page 11 Horizontal Curve Evaluation (Continued)

COST EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS; HORIZONTAL CURVE # 20

Curve realignment

Estimated Total Cost = $ 631,206.83 (see cost estimate)

CRF= Capital Recovery Factor, to compare present cost of multi‐year cost of improvement 2018 KABCO Values in Dollars Property Damage 7,700.00 20 x Possible Injury 73,000.00 CRF  .1( 07 .0) 07  .0 094 4 20  Non‐incapacitating 140,000.00 .1 07 1 Serious Injury 700,000.00 Fatality 10,100,000.00 Annual First Cost = $ 59,585.92 per year

ACCMPT ACCNUM ACCYR ACCMON ACCDATE DAY ACCTIME EVETYPE TOTINJ MAJINJ MININJ TOTFATAL ACCSEVERITY DAMAGE 30.9047 201303266 2013 4 5 FRIDAY 1640 GUARDRAIL FACE 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 7,700.00 30.9064 201303270 2013 4 4 THURSDAY 1515 GUARDRAIL FACE 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 7,700.00 Total 15,400.00

10 year period Annual Accident cost = 15,400.00 /10 1,540.00

Annual Accident cost less than annual first cost of improvement; therefore, the curve geometry would not need to be changd

Discussion It is recommended to review the curve to find cost effective measures in order to reduce the amount of accidents

Page 12 Vertical Curve & Stopping Sight Distance Evaluation

THIS ANALYSIS EXCLUDES THE FOLLOWING ACCIDENT TYPES:

Rear-end accidents.

Intersection accidents. Driveway-related accidents. Pedestrian-vehicle accidents. 3R - VERTICAL CURVE EVALUATION Moose-vehicle accidents unless noted otherwise.

1 Meets 2 Predicted Reqr'd 'K' Minimum Stopping Actual Curve Elevation Grade In Curve Curve EXISTING Design Number of Requires PI Station Grade Out (%) A (%) A Minimum Stopping Speed Number of Number (ft) (%) Type Length (ft) 'K' Factor Speed Crashes Improvement Factor Sight Met (mph) Crashes (N ) Distance? c 1 28+50.00 476.000 -0.81% 1.59% 2.40% 2.4 Sag 500.00 208.485 60 136 Yes 60 0 No 2 38+25.00 491.500 1.59% 1.92% 0.33% 0.33 Sag 200.00 611.765 60 136 Yes 60 0 No 3 44+25.00 503.000 1.92% 5.03% 3.11% 3.11 Sag 600.00 192.990 60 136 Yes 60 2 No 4 54+00.00 552.000 5.03% -5.06% 10.09% 10.09 Crest 900.00 89.214 60 151 No 50 0 0 No 5 62+00.00 511.500 -5.06% 1.61% 6.67% 6.67 Sag 600.00 89.943 60 136 No 45 0 No 6 69+15.00 523.000 1.61% -2.52% 4.13% 4.13 Crest 400.00 96.897 60 151 No 50 0 0 No 7 75+50.00 507.000 -2.52% 2.32% 4.84% 4.84 Sag 600.00 124.083 60 136 No 55 0 No 8 85+00.00 529.000 2.32% -3.06% 5.38% 5.38 Crest 800.00 148.751 60 151 No 55 0 0 No 9 95+75.00 496.080 -3.06% 3.42% 6.48% 6.48 Sag 1200.00 185.192 60 136 Yes 60 2 No 10 105+50.00 529.400 3.42% 4.26% 0.84% 0.84 Sag 200.00 236.668 50 96 Yes 50 0 No 11 113+50.00 563.500 4.26% -3.20% 7.46% 7.46 Crest 800.00 107.203 50 84 Yes 50 0 0 No 12 121+00.00 539.500 -3.20% 1.00% 4.20% 4.2 Sag 400.00 95.238 50 96 No 45 0 No 13 129+50.00 548.000 1.00% -0.48% 1.48% 1.48 Crest 600.00 404.651 50 84 Yes 50 0 0 No 14 136+75.00 544.500 -0.48% 2.59% 3.07% 3.07 Sag 800.00 260.133 40 64 Yes 40 0 No 15 143+50.00 562.000 2.59% 1.16% 1.43% 1.43 Crest 500.00 348.106 40 44 Yes 40 0 0 No 16 159+50.00 580.500 1.16% -4.11% 5.27% 5.27 Crest 1400.00 265.660 40 44 Yes 40 3 1 No 17 181+50.00 490.000 -4.11% 0.82% 4.93% 4.93 Sag 700.00 142.016 40 64 Yes 40 0 No 18 188+00.00 495.300 0.82% -1.33% 2.15% 2.15 Crest 400.00 186.498 40 44 Yes 40 0 0 No 19 196+50.00 484.000 -1.33% 0.67% 2.00% 2 Sag 300.00 150.295 40 64 Yes 40 1 No 20 201+00.00 487.000 0.67% -0.47% 1.14% 1.14 Crest 400.00 352.622 40 44 Yes 40 0 0 No 21 207+50.00 483.960 -0.47% 1.74% 2.21% 2.21 Sag 600.00 271.941 40 64 Yes 40 1 No 22 215+00.00 497.000 1.74% -1.82% 3.56% 3.56 Crest 700.00 196.803 40 44 Yes 40 0 0 No 23 220+50.00 487.000 -1.82% 0.57% 2.39% 2.39 Sag 400.00 167.391 50 96 Yes 50 0 No 24 227+50.00 491.000 0.57% -0.75% 1.32% 1.32 Crest 400.00 302.703 60 151 Yes 60 2 0 No 25 233+50.00 486.500 -0.75% 0.46% 1.21% 1.21 Sag 400.00 330.726 60 136 Yes 60 0 No 26 252+00.00 495.000 0.46% 0.29% 0.17% 0.17 Crest 400.00 2302.222 60 151 Yes 60 0 0 No Total: 15200.00 Total: 11

27 259+00.00 497.000 0.29% -0.33% 0.62% 0.62 Crest 1000.00 1627.389 60 151 Yes 60 0 0 No 28 277+25.00 491.000 -0.33% 3.51% 3.84% 3.84 Sag 700.00 182.297 60 136 Yes 60 0 No 29 288+50.00 530.500 3.51% -1.91% 5.42% 5.42 Crest 900.00 166.014 60 151 Yes 60 0 0 No 30 310+75.00 488.000 -1.91% 0.98% 2.89% 2.89 Sag 600.00 207.764 60 136 Yes 60 0 No 31 322+00.00 499.000 0.98% -1.11% 2.09% 2.09 Crest 500.00 239.362 60 151 Yes 60 0 0 No 32 331+00.00 489.000 -1.11% 0.70% 1.81% 1.81 Sag 800.00 441.060 60 136 Yes 60 2 No

Page 13 Vertical Curve & Stopping Sight Distance Evaluation (Continued)

1 Meets 2 Predicted Design Reqr'd 'K' Minimum Stopping Actual Curve Elevation Grade In Curve Curve EXISTING Number of Requires PI Station Grade Out (%) A (%) A Speed Minimum Stopping Speed Number of Number (ft) (%) Type Length (ft) 'K' Factor Crashes Improvement (85%) Factor Sight Met (mph) Crashes (N ) Distance? c 33 349+50.00 502.000 0.70% -0.59% 1.29% 1.29 Crest 800.00 620.680 60 151 Yes 60 0 0 No 34 364+00.00 493.500 -0.59% 1.79% 2.38% 2.38 Sag 600.00 252.559 60 136 Yes 60 0 No 35 373+50.00 510.500 1.79% -3.29% 5.08% 5.08 Crest 800.00 157.630 60 151 Yes 60 1 0 No 36 380+50.00 487.500 -3.29% 1.68% 4.97% 4.97 Sag 600.00 120.950 60 136 No 55 0 No 37 400+50.00 521.000 1.68% -0.45% 2.13% 2.13 Crest 600.00 282.139 60 151 Yes 60 2 0 No 38 408+25.00 517.500 -0.45% 1.52% 1.97% 1.97 Sag 600.00 304.319 60 136 Yes 60 1 No 39 414+50.00 527.000 1.52% 0.42% 1.10% 1.1 Crest 200.00 181.269 60 151 Yes 60 0 0 No 40 426+50.00 532.000 0.42% 3.76% 3.34% 3.34 Sag 800.00 238.946 60 136 Yes 60 0 No 41 435+00.00 564.000 3.76% 2.50% 1.26% 1.26 Crest 600.00 474.419 60 151 Yes 60 0 0 No 42 443+00.00 584.000 2.50% 4.54% 2.04% 2.04 Sag 600.00 293.878 60 136 Yes 60 2 No 43 455+00.00 638.500 4.54% 2.33% 2.21% 2.21 Crest 500.00 226.415 60 151 Yes 60 1 0 No 44 461+00.00 652.500 2.33% 6.36% 4.03% 4.03 Sag 600.00 149.007 60 136 Yes 60 1 No 45 473+50.00 732.000 6.36% -2.15% 8.51% 8.51 Crest 1000.00 117.559 60 151 No 55 0 0 No 46 483+75.00 710.000 -2.15% -0.43% 1.72% 1.72 Sag 600.00 350.077 60 136 Yes 60 0 No 47 493+00.00 706.000 -0.43% -1.77% 1.34% 1.34 Crest 500.00 374.028 60 151 Yes 60 0 0 No 48 499+50.00 694.500 -1.77% -0.54% 1.23% 1.23 Sag 400.00 326.165 60 136 Yes 60 0 No 49 517+00.00 685.000 -0.54% -1.90% 1.36% 1.36 Crest 400.00 294.737 60 151 Yes 60 0 0 No 50 522+00.00 675.500 -1.90% 1.63% 3.53% 3.53 Sag 600.00 169.811 60 136 Yes 60 1 No 51 537+00.00 700.000 1.63% -2.54% 4.17% 4.17 Crest 800.00 191.764 60 151 Yes 60 0 0 No 52 550+00.00 667 ‐2.54% ‐0.85% 1.69% 1.69 Sag 400 236.9021 60 136 Yes 60 0 No 53 560+00.00 658.5 ‐0.85 ‐0.2 0.65 65 Sag 400 615.3846 60 136 Yes 60 1 No 54 570+00.00 656.500 -0.20% -0.36% 0.16% 0.16 Crest 400.00 2482.759 60 151 Yes 60 1 0 No 55 588+00.00 650.000 -0.36% -0.49% 0.13% 0.13 Crest 400.00 3108.370 60 151 Yes 60 0 0 No 56 600+25.00 644.000 -0.49% 0.00% 0.49% 0.49 Sag 400.00 816.667 60 136 Yes 60 0 No Total: 18100.00 Total: 13

Page 14 Vertical Curve & Stopping Sight Distance Evaluation (Continued)

YEARS 2005 TO 2014

1 Pg. 3-157, Exhibit 3-35, "A Policy on Geometric Design," 2011, AASHTO, Sixth Edition.

2 Nc = ARh(LVC)(V) + ARh(Lr)(V)(Far)

Nc = number of predicted accidents attributable to the crest vertical curve segment

ARh = average accident rate for the highway in consideration in accidents per million vehicle miles

ADT *365 Years ** Pr oject L eng h Total vehicle miles [mvm] = ,1000,000

LVC = length of vertical curve (highway segment) in miles V = total traffic volume in millions of vehicles =Y*ADT * 365 ,1 000,000

Lr = length of restricted sight distance in miles (The length of restriction is the distance over which the available sight distance is less than that considered adequate by AASHTO procedures for the actual highway operating speed.)

Lr =[ao + (a1 X A)] / 5280

A = the absolute value of grade difference in percent

Far = accident rate factor. Table 1160-3 and Table 1160-4, PCM, November 13, 2013

< 253+46.87 >253+46.87 ***10-year ***10-year 2005-2014 2005-2014 A = 11 A = 13

LH = 4.32 LH = 6.68 ADT 1,776 ADT 1,938 Y10 Y10

ARh= 0.39 ARh= 0.28 V = 6.48 V = 7.07

Page 15 Bridges

Bridge 4090, a double culvert at station 359+12, will be evaluated during design to ensure the structure is serviceable through the design period of this project.

Page 16 Side Slope and Clear Zone

The evaluation of cross sectional elements and obstacles within clear zone is not required according to Table 1160-1: 3R Procedure Outline (Case 1) of the Alaska Preconstruction Manual.

Page 17 Pavement Edge Drops

While there is no indication of pavement edge drop, shoulders should be graded to eliminate any drop that may exist.

Page 18 Intersections

INTERSECTIONS EVALUATIONS

HPCM 1160.3.8 The risk of accidents at intersections is high. It is normal to observe accident clustering at intersections. Study the accident history of an intersection to determine if the accidents are caused by a design deficiency or operator error. Correct a geometric deficiency related to accidents to the new design standards of the manual (HPCM, 2005) or to the "AASHTO Policy on Design of Highways and Streets" if cost-effective or corrected by actions such as signing, signaling or channelization.

Sight distance is of primary importance at intersections to allow operators sufficient time to observe and react to conflicts. The sight triangle shown in figure 1160-8 of the HPCM is the minimum allowable at any existing intersection (driveway). The sight distances required (S d ) are the minimum stopping sight distances required by Section 1120.1 (HPCM, 2005).

INTERSECTION LOCATION Vertical SD Horizontal SSD Speed Number of Restriction a Restriction a (mph) INTERSECTION Min. ISD COMMENTS Accidents possible possible 85th Figure 1160-8 CDS Milepost Station OFFSET factor? factor? Percentile 28.1399 170+90 RT Unnamed No Yes 50 425 28.7449 202+68 RT Post Office Dr No No 40 305 28.8452 207+83 RT Depot Road No No 40 305 32.1259 380+90 RT Johnsons Pass Trail 1 Yes No 55 495 Animal 32.8179 417+45 LT Unnamed No No 55 495 33.6919 463+33 RT Toklat Way 1 No No 55 495 Embankment 33.9809 478+60 RT Baneberry Road Yes No 55 495 34.1669 488+32 RT Hannisford Dr No No 55 495 35.2209 544+33 RT Ewe Loop 1 No No 65 645 Overturn 35.5419 560+82 RT Ewe Loop 1 No No 65 645 Ditch

CDS milepost for intersections are from Roadway Report Log.

No Collision anomalities at intersections.

Page 19 Driveways

DRIVEWAY EVALUATIONS

Height of eye = 3.5 feet Height of object = 3.5 feet

Per HPCM 1160.3.9 Driveways; "Existing driveway geometry may remain except if accident records indicate an anomaly."

DRIVEWAY SUMMARY

DRIVEWAY APPROX. Number of OFFSET REMARKS NO. STATION¹ Accidents² MP 26 to MP 27 1 50+27 LT 0 2 77+58 RT 0 3 82+91 LT 0 4 94+79 RT 0 MP 27 to MP 28 5 119+04 LT 0 6 134+76 RT 0 7 139+74 RT 0 8 141+14 RT 0 9 147+69 LT 0 10 150+32 LT 0 11 154+43 LT 2 Unknown Crash, Guardrail Face MP 28 to MP 29 12 155+00 RT 0 13 163+12 RT 0 14 164+88 LT 0 15 173+92 RT 0 16 178+11 LT 0 17 178+39 RT 0 18 181+73 LT 0 19 183+10 RT 0 20 184+21 LT 0 21 185+33 LT 0 22 186+89 LT 0 23 187+64 LT 0 24 188+28 LT 0 25 189+42 RT 0 26 189+69 LT 0 27 190+62 LT 0

DRIVEWAY SUMMARY DRIVEWAY APPROX. Number of OFFSET REMARKS NO. STATION¹ Accidents² MP 29 to MP 30 28 192+41 LT 0 29 193+66 LT 0 30 195+46 LT 0 31 197+01 RT 1 Snowberm 32 197+90 LT 0 33 198+44 LT 0 34 199+36 LT 0 35 200+90 LT 0 36 202+13 LT 0 37 202+86 LT 0 38 203+89 LT 0 39 205+51 RT 0

Page 20 Driveways (Continued)

40 205+41 LT 0 41 206+55 LT 0 42 208+07 LT 0 43 209+40 LT 0 44 210+09 LT 0 45 211+17 LT 0 46 214+21 LT 0 47 214+49 RT 0 48 215+84 LT 0 49 217+78 LT 0 50 218+00 RT 0 51 218+28 LT 0 52 220+35 LT 0 53 221+44 LT 0 54 223+55 LT 0 55 224+51 LT 0 56 226+13 LT 0 57 228+08 LT 0 58 229+40 LT 0 59 231+54 LT 0 60 233+95 LT 0 61 234+56 LT 0 62 236+76 LT 0 63 243+34 LT 0 64 245+71 LT 0 65 248+24 LT 0 66 251+32 LT 0 67 254+04 LT 0 MP 30 to MP 31 68 257+79 RT 0 69 259+97 LT 0 70 260+90 LT 0 71 265+83 LT 0

DRIVEWAY SUMMARY DRIVEWAY APPROX. Number of OFFSET REMARKS NO. STATION¹ Accidents² MP 31 to MP 32 72 322+23 RT 0 Turnout 73 336+33 RT 0 Turnout MP 32 to MP 33 74 350+30 LT 0 75 357+54 LT 0 76 360+35 LT 0 77 364+86 RT 0 Hatchery 78 365+65 RT 0 Turnout 79 372+40 LT 0 80 373+72 LT 0 81 383+20 RT 0 MP 33 to MP 34 82 405+84 LT 0 Carter Lake Trail 83 424+50 RT 0 MP 34 to MP 35 84 476+45 RT 0 85 490+08 LT 0 MP 35 to MP 36 86 514+43 LT 0 87 518+94 LT 0

Page 21 Driveways (Continued)

88 520+63 LT 1 Improper Passing 89 524+32 LT 0 90 527+43 RT 0 91 529+42 LT 0 92 532+23 LT 0 93 532+86 RT 0 94 534+00 RT 0 95 535+04 LT 0 96 536+21 RT 0 97 536+68 LT 0 98 537+40 LT 0 99 538+18 LT 0 100 541+06 LT 0 101 547+56 LT 0

DRIVEWAY SUMMARY DRIVEWAY APPROX. Number of OFFSET REMARKS NO. STATION¹ Accidents² 102 550+46 RT 0 103 550+50 LT 0 104 552+67 LT 0 105 553+28 LT 0 106 554+41 LT 0 107 554+80 LT 0 108 557+33 RT 0 109 558+09 LT 0 Firehouse 110 559+67 RT 0 Moose MP 36 to MP 37 111 566+85 RT 0 112 567+16 LT 0 113 569+97 LT 0 114 590+76 RT 0

¹Existing alignment ²excludes angle and rear end accidents

Accident records did not indicate an anomaly therefore the existing driveway geometry may remain.

Page 22 Passing Sight Distance

HPCM 1160.3.10 – Operational and passing sight distances are given in Section B of the Alaska Traffic Manual. Improvements of passing distance are not required within the context of 3R Projects.

Page 23 Grades

DESIGN MAX GRADE SPEED (%)* 40 8 45 7 50 7 55 6 60 6 65 5

* Per Table 7-2, "Mountainous"; AASHTO 2011, 6th ed.

PCM 1160.3.11 Grades that do not meet new construction standards should be evaluated as a potential contributing factor where there are clusters of accidents on or in the vicinity of the grade section. Grade-related accidents might include single or multiple vehicle accidents where a vehicle lost control and leaves the travel lane or is unable to stop. Countermeasures for steep grades may include warning signs or realignment.

85th Station Crash Grade (%) Percentile Comments History Begin End Speed 461+00 473+50 6.36% 60 1 EMBANKMENT - PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY

Page 24 Safety Mitigation

HPCM 1160.3.12 – Even though these 3R standards may not require a geometric improvement, the designer should anticipate circumstances where mitigation improvements could be made at minimum cost. For example, geometric changes at an intersection or horizontal curve to increase sight distance may not be cost-effective, but cutting brush or trees can partially alleviate the problem.

Brush and tree clearing will be done as a safety mitigation measure. This will improve sight distance and may help to reduce vehicle/moose collisions within the project limits.

Page 25 Analyze Threshold Moose-Vehicle Collision Values

1 FREQUENCY *RATE PERCENTILE (ACC/MI/5 YEARS (ACC/MVM) 75 8 1.0 95 15 1.5 five year period

Adequate MOOSE ACCIDENTS Frequencies 4CDS CDS Sight ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT) TOTAL *RATE(Accidents/MVM) (Accidents/mi/5 yrs) MILE- - MILE- MILES Distance? POINT POINT 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2005- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- Horiz. Vert. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2014 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 25.371 26.371 1.0 Yes Yes 1,860 1860 1860 1750 1800 1660 1572 1614 1584 1568 1 1 1 1 0.326 0.333 0.343 26.371 27.371 1.0 Yes Yes 1,860 1860 1860 1750 1800 1660 1572 1614 1584 1568 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.307 0.317 0.326 0.333 27.371 28.371 1.0 1,860 1860 1860 1750 1800 1660 1572 1614 1584 1568 0 28.371 29.371 1.0 1,860 1860 1860 1750 1800 1660 1572 1614 1584 1568 0 29.371 30.371 1.0 1,860 1860 1860 1750 1800 1660 1572 1614 1584 1568 0 30.371 31.371 1.0 1,860 1860 1860 1750 1800 1660 1572 1614 1584 1568 0 31.371 32.371 1.0 1,860 1860 1860 1750 1800 1660 1572 1614 1584 1568 0 32.371 33.371 1.0 1,743 1734 1743 1638 1680 1553 1680 1938 1900 1880 0 33.371 34.371 1.0 1,743 1734 1743 1638 1680 1553 1680 1938 1900 1880 0 34.371 35.371 1.0 Yes Yes 1,743 1734 1743 1638 1680 1553 1680 1938 1900 1880 1 1 0.321 35.371 36.371 1.0 Yes Yes 2374 2370 2690 2530 2600 2420 2460 2520 2470 2666 1 1 1 1 0.219 0.220 0.219

1 Threshold moose-vehicle collision values obtained from Moose-Vehicle Accidents on Alaska Roads, pg. 13, Figure 3, 1995, AK DOT & PF. PER DECEMBER 5, 2003 MEMO (Scott Thomas); "Include moose vehicle collisions in individual horizontal & vertical curve computations on rural two-lane highways when: - headlight sight distance or stopping distance is not met, and - the 75th percentile threshold is exceeded along that feature.

* Since there are no segments that have a moose-vehicle collision rate exceeding the 75th percentile threshold, exclude moose accidents in the horizontal and vertical computations

Page 26

APPENDIX D

Approved Environmental Document

Appendices have been removed from the Environmental Document. See official document for full report.

Seward Highway MP 25.5-36: Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation Design Study Report MEMORANDUM State of Alaska Department of Transport ation and Pub Ii c Fae ii ities Central Region Design and Engineering Services Prel iminary Design and Environmental

Matt Dietrick To: Me li ssa Goldstein Date: /\pril 13, 20 18 NEPA Program Manager f-rom: Brian El liott ~t Proj ect Seward I li ghway: MP 25 .5- Regional Environmental Manager Name: 36. Trai l Ri ver to Sterl ing Wye Rehabi litati on Subj ect: Programmatic Categori cal Project No: Z546590000/03 I I 03 I Exclusion (PCE)

The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) has assumed the responsibilities of the Federal Hi glnvay Administration (FT-TW A) under 23 U.S.C. 327.

The project meets the criteria for classifi ca ti on as a categorical exclu sion (CE) per 23 Cf-R 77 I.I 7(d)(13) and meets the conditions outlined in the November 201 7. Programmatic /\pproval 2.

The environmental review. consultat ion. and other actions required by appli cable Federal environmental laws fo r thi s project are being. or have been. carried out by DOT&PF pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated November 3. 201 7. and executed by Fl-JW I\ and DOT&PF.

Encl osures: PCE Documentation cc: Kim Campo-Allen. Environmental Impact /\nalyst. PD&E Cynthi a Ferguson. P. E .. Project Manager, I li ghvvay Design Breanna Mahoney, Environmental Team Leader. PD&E State of Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DOCUMENTATION FORM (NEPA Assignment Program Projects)

The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by the applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been carried out by the DOT&PF pursuant to 23 U.S.C 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated November 3, 2017, and executed by FHWA and DOT&PF. I. Project Information: A. Project Name: Seward Highway: MP 25.5-36, Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation B. Federal Project Number: 0311031 C. State Project Number: Z546590000 D. Primary/Ancillary Project Connections: N/A E. CE Designation: 23 CFR 771.117(d)(13) F. List of Attachments: Figure 1: Location and Vicinity Map Appendix A: Relocation Benefits Memo Appendix B: Section 106 Consultation Appendix C: Wetland and Waterbody Determination and Functional Assessment Report Appendix D: Section 4(f) Consultation Appendix E: Public and Agency Coordination

G. Project Scope (Use STIP Project Description) The project description included in the Draft 2018-2021 STIP states that the proposed project would rehabilitate and/or upgrade the project road as needed. The project may also include slow vehicle turnouts and sight distance improvements to increase passing opportunities.

H. Project Purpose and Need: The purpose of the proposed project is to improve travel efficiency and safety along approximately 11 miles of the Seward Highway and to extend the service life of the facility. The Seward Highway is the primary land surface transportation link connecting the communities of Moose Pass and Seward to the rest of the state, thus providing a critical economic, cultural, and recreational link. The roadway currently exhibits rutted pavement, inadequate drainage, narrow shoulders, limited passing opportunities, and faded pavement markings. The proposed project would address these deficiencies.

I. Project Description: The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) has assumed the responsibilities of the Federal Highway Administration under Section 327 of amended Chapter 3 of Title 23, United States Code (23 U.S.C. 327), and is proposing to restore, resurface, and rehabilitate (3R) the Seward Highway from milepost (MP) 25.5 to MP 36.6, near Moose Pass, Alaska (Figure 1). Proposed work would include the following: • Rehabilitate the roadway and widen roadway shoulders from MP 25.5-36.6

1 of 22 Project Name: Seward Highway: MP 25.5-36, Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation CE Documentation Form State Project Number: Z546590000 /Federal Project Number: 0311031 November 2017 • Improve and construct slow vehicle turnouts • Upgrade, replace, or install new guardrail, signs, and striping • Minor roadway alignment shifts and straightening of curves (vertical and horizontal) to bring the roadway to current highway design standards in accordance with the DOT&PF Preconstruction Manual and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) requirements • Improve pedestrian amenities and traffic calming measures (such as pavement markings, signs, and/or changes in roadway geometry) through the community of Moose Pass • Replace double culvert bridge (DOT&PF bridge #4090) at Moose Creek (MP 32.3) • Improvements to storm water drainage facilities, including culverts • Improve and construct avalanche mitigation • Retaining wall installations • Acquire right-of-way (ROW) • Utility relocations and improvements to Automated Traffic Recorders • Vegetation clearing The proposed project is located within Section 12, T. 5N, R. 2W; Sections 7, 17, 18, 20-22, 24, 27, T. 5N, R. 1W; Sections 25, 26, 36, T. 5N, R. 1W; Sections 1, 12, 13, T. 4N, R. 1W; on USGS Quad Maps Seward C-7, Seward B-7 NE, Seward Meridian (Figure 1). Approximate GPS coordinates for the beginning of project are Latitude 60.4362 ºN, Longitude 149.3727 ºW; and for the end of project are Latitude 60.5324ºN, Longitude 149.5358ºW.

II. Environmental Consequences  For each “yes,” summarize the activity evaluated and the magnitude of the impact.  For any consequence category with an asterisk (*), additional information must be attached such as an alternatives analysis, agency coordination or consultation, avoidance measures, public notices, or mitigation statement.  Include direct and indirect impacts in each analysis.

A. Right-of-Way Impacts N/A YES NO 1. Additional right-of-way required. If no, skip to 2. a. Permanent easements required. Estimated number of parcels: 0 b. Full or partial property acquisition required. Estimated number of full parcels: 0 Estimated number of partial parcels: 25 c. Property transfer from state or federal agency required. If yes, list agency in No. 4 below. d. Business or residential relocations required. If yes, insert the number of relocations below, summarize the findings of the conceptual stage relocation study in No. 4 below and attach the conceptual stage relocation study. If no, skip to 2. i. Number of business relocations: 0 ii. Number of residential relocations: 0 e. Last-resort housing required.

2 of 22 Project Name: Seward Highway: MP 25.5-36, Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation CE Documentation Form State Project Number: Z546590000 /Federal Project Number: 0311031 November 2017 2. Will the project or activity have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations as defined in E.O. 12898 (FHWA Order 6640.23A, June 2012)? 3. The project will involve use of ANILCA land that requires an ANILCA Title XI approval. 4. Summarize the right-of-way impacts, if any: The proposed project would require the acquisition of up to 25 partial parcels to accommodate widened roadway shoulders and minor roadway realignments; no full parcel acquisitions would be required. Partial parcels would be acquired from private property owners and from State agencies, including undeveloped parcels owned by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) and the Alaska Mental Health Trust. One structure which serves as a seasonal residence would be moved; however, the property is not eligible for relocation benefits as it is not a primary residence (refer to Appendix A for documentation of benefits available to the affected property). If additional parcel acquisitions are required and relocations determined necessary, all relocations will be done in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Properties Acquisition Act. A review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool on January 1, 2018, indicted that the minority and low income population statistics for the project area are within or below the state average. The proposed project would not alter existing roadway conditions in a manner that would cause disproportionately high and averse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations as defined by Executive Order 12898.

B. Social and Cultural Impacts YES NO 1. The project will affect neighborhoods or community cohesion. 2. The project will affect travel patterns and accessibility (e.g. vehicular, commuter, bicycle, or pedestrian). 3. The project will affect school boundaries, recreation areas, churches, businesses, police and fire protection, etc. 4. The project will affect the elderly, handicapped, nondrivers, transit-dependent, minority and ethnic groups, or the economically disadvantaged. 5. There are unresolved project issues or concerns of a federally-recognized Indian Tribe [as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(m)]. 6. Summarize the social and cultural impacts, if any: The Seward Highway serves as the primary surface transportation route connecting the City of Seward and recreational amenities of Resurrection Bay with the remainder of the Kenai Peninsula. Land use along the project corridor is predominately undeveloped with the exception of the community of Moose Pass and scattered rural housing along the corridor. The proposed project would not affect school boundaries, recreation areas, churches, businesses, or emergency services within Moose Pass, or anywhere else along the project corridor, as the project would not result in a permanent change in current traffic patterns, access, or capacity within the area. Additionally, due to the limited scope and footprint of project activities, disadvantaged social groups would not be affected by the proposed project.

C. Economic Impacts YES NO 1. The project will have adverse economic impacts on the regional and/or local economy, such as effects on development, tax revenues and public expenditures, employment opportunities, accessibility, and retail sales.

3 of 22 Project Name: Seward Highway: MP 25.5-36, Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation CE Documentation Form State Project Number: Z546590000 /Federal Project Number: 0311031 November 2017 2. The project will adversely affect established businesses or business districts. 3. Summarize the economic impacts, if any: No long-term adverse economic impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Several recreational and seasonal businesses are located along the project corridor, including seasonal cabins, lodges, and bed and breakfasts, fishing and flight-seeing charters, a local grocery store, and an RV park. The proposed project would not permanently change access patterns to these businesses and all local access would be maintained during project construction. Refer to Section III, Part P for discussion of construction related business impacts.

D. Land Use and Transportation Plans N/A YES NO 1. Project is consistent with land use plan(s). Identify the land use plan(s ) and date. Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB) Comprehensive Management Plan (2005); Moose Pass Comprehensive Plan (1993); Chugach National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (2002); Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan (1997); Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Kenai Area Plan (2001) 2. Project is consistent with transportation plan(s). Identify the transportation plan(s) and date. KPB Transportation Plan (2003); Alaska Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plan (2008); 2016- 2019 Statewode Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Need ID 2620 3. Project would induce adverse indirect and cumulative effects on land use or * transportation. If yes, attach analysis. 4. Summarize how the project is consistent or inconsistent with the land use plan(s) and transportation plan(s): Land use within the project area is predominantly undeveloped with the exception of the community of Moose Pass and scattered rural housing along the corridor. The following land use and transportation plans were reviewed and are in accordance with the project scope of work: KPB Comprehensive Plan: This borough wide plan includes transportation goals and objectives aimed at improving and maintaining the existing road system. Moose Pass Comprehensive Plan: This community plan includes goals and objectives aimed at maintaining the rural character of the community and maintaining access to recreational lands. Chugach National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan: The goals and objectives of the Chugach National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan are aimed at managing forest resources including stream flow and water quality, viable wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities, and timber and mineral harvest on forest land. Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan: This plan is the basis for the management of state land and waters within the Kenai River Special Management Area (KRSMA) and other state lands within its planning boundaries. The primary purpose of the plan is “to provide effective direction to the management of the fishery and wildlife resources, sensitive habitat areas, recreational, and development activities in the Kenai River Special Management Area and those areas adjacent to it.” The proposed project corridor boarders land within the boundaries of the Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan (KRCMP).

4 of 22 Project Name: Seward Highway: MP 25.5-36, Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation CE Documentation Form State Project Number: Z546590000 /Federal Project Number: 0311031 November 2017 ADNR Kenai Area Plan: Includes goals aimed at preserving natural resources when designing and constructing transportation systems, including the minimization of construction in wetlands and stream crossings, and the rehabilitation of wetlands and fish and wildlife resources. KPB Transportation Plan: This plan provides goals for transportation development and management in the KPB, an overview of existing transportation facilities, and a summary of programs that fund construction and maintenance of transportation facilities. Updating roads within the KPB is a primary goal of the plan. Alaska Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plan: This long-range, statewide transportation plan sets policies for safe, cost-effective transportation development that upgrades and improves existing facilities. System preservation and safety are two primary policy categories which are addressed within the plan. Alaska Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 2016-2019: The proposed project is listed in the 2016-2019 STIP under Need ID 2620 and is consistent with the project scope. Project improvements would not alter existing land use or transportation patterns. The proposed project is consistent with both state and borough transportation and land use plans as improving driving conditions and safety through the project corridor would improve access to recreational lands, while retaining the current setting and character of the area. Drainage improvements, including culvert replacements and installations, will improve wetland and waterbody connectivity across the road corridor as well as improve fish habitat in the project area. No adverse direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to local land use or transportation systems are anticipated.

E. Impacts to Historic Properties N/A YES NO Consider the February 2015 DOT&PF Cultural Resources Confidentiality Guidelines for cultural resource attachments. 1. Does the project involve a road that is included on the “List of Roads Treated as Eligible” in the Alaska Historic Roads PA? If yes, follow the Interim Guidance for Addressing Alaska Historic Roads. 2. Does the project qualify as a Programmatic Allowance under the Section 106 * Programmatic Agreement? If yes, attach the Section 106 PA Streamlined Project Review Screening Record approved by the Regional PQI and skip to 10. 3. Date Consultation/Initiation Letters sent December 4, 2015 Attach copies to this form. a. List consulting parties: Chugach National Forest, Kenaitze, Qutekcak Native Tribe, Kenai Peninsula Borough, and the State Historic Preservation Office b. If no letters were sent, explain why not. Attach “Section 106 Proceed Directly to Findings Worksheet”, if applicable N/A 4. Date “Finding of Effect” Letters sent October 25, 2016 Attach copies to this form a. State “Finding of Effect” No Historic Properties Adversely Affected b. State any changes to consulting parties N/A 5. List responding consulting parties, comment date, and summarize: On November 17, 2016, SHPO concurred with the DOT&PF on a Finding of No Historic Properties Adversely Affected; no other consulting party

5 of 22 Project Name: Seward Highway: MP 25.5-36, Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation CE Documentation Form State Project Number: Z546590000 /Federal Project Number: 0311031 November 2017 responses were received. 6. Are there any unresolved issues with consulting parties? * If yes, the Section 106 process may not be complete, Statewide Cultural Resources Manager consultation is required. Attach consultation.

7. Date SHPO concurred with “Finding of Effect” November 17, 2016 Attach copy to this form. 8. Is a National Register of Historic Places listed or eligible property in the Area of Potential Effect? 9. Will there be an adverse effect on a historic property? If yes, attach correspondence (including response from ACHP) and signed MOA. If yes, Programmatic Categorical Exclusions (PCEs) do not apply. 10. Summarize any effects to historic properties. List affected sites (by AHRS number only) and any commitments or mitigative measures. Include any commitments or mitigative measures in Section V. A cultural resource and architectural survey was completed in September 2015 by HDR Alaska, Inc. (HDR) to evaluate historic resources and structures of 45 years of age and older which may be effected by the proposed project. The survey identified 26 historic resources in the direct Area of Potential Effect (APE) and 23 in the indirect APE. Of the 26 resources within the direct APE, two properties (SEW-00148; SEW-00592) were determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) during previous investigations. Four of the 23 resources within the indirect APE (SEW-00580; SEW-00583; SEW-00584; SEW-00591) were also found eligible for inclusion in the NRHP during previous investigations. DOT&PF did not find any additional properties/resources within the direct or indirect APE eligible for listing in the NRHP. Summary of DOT&PF’s findings for properties in the direct APE: During the October 2015 cultural resource survey, no evidence of SEW-00148 remained within the direct APE; therefore, DOT&PF found that the proposed project would have no effect on SEW-00148. Because the proposed project would not acquire ROW or result in the alteration or relocation of SEW-00592, DOT&PF found that SEW-00592 would not be adversely affected by the proposed project. Summary of DOT&PF’s findings for properties in the indirect APE: DOT&PF found that no properties located in the indirect APE would be adversely affected by the proposed project as project improvements would have no effect on the characteristics that make the properties eligible for listing on the NRHP. On November 17, 2016, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with the DOT&PF’s Finding of No Historic Properties Adversely Affected. See Appendix B for Section 106 documentation.

F. Wetland Impacts YES NO 1. Project affects wetlands as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). If yes, complete the remainder of this section and document public and agency coordination required per E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands. If no, skip to Section G. 2. Are the wetlands delineated in accordance with the “Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Alaska Region (Version 2.0) Sept. 2007”? 3. Estimated area of wetland involvement (acres): 2.9

6 of 22 Project Name: Seward Highway: MP 25.5-36, Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation CE Documentation Form State Project Number: Z546590000 /Federal Project Number: 0311031 November 2017 4. Estimated fill quantities (cubic yards): 12,078 5. Estimated dredge quantities (cubic yards): 257 6. Is a USACE authorization anticipated? If yes, identify type: NWP Individual General Permit Other 7. Wetlands Finding Attach the following supporting documentation as appropriate: Avoidance and Minimization Checklist, and Mitigation Statement Wetlands Delineation. Jurisdictional Determination. Copies of public and resource agency letters received in response to the request for comments. a. Are there practicable alternatives to the proposed construction in wetlands? If yes, the project cannot be approved as proposed. b. Does the project include all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands? If no, the project cannot be approved as proposed. c. Only practicable alternative: Based on the evaluation of avoidance and minimization alternatives, there are no practicable alternatives that would avoid the project’s impacts on wetlands. The project includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to the affected wetlands as a result of construction. If no, the project cannot be approved as proposed. 8. Summarize the wetlands impacts and mitigation, if any. Include any commitments or mitigative measures in Section V. A review of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Wetlands Mapper and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory on September 8 2015, and January 2, 2018, indicated scattered freshwater emergent and forested shrub wetlands are located along the project corridor. A wetland delineation and functional assessment, conducted in September and October of 2015, confirmed the presence of wetlands and waterbodies in the project vicinity. Refer to Appendix C for the Wetland and Waterbody Determination and Functional Assessment Report and Appendix E for documentation of public and agency coordination per E.O. 11990. The proposed project is being designed to avoid wetland impacts to the maximum extent practicable; however, total avoidance of wetland impacts is not feasible as the existing alignment of the Seward Highway bisects numerous wetland complexes. Impacts to wetlands would result from the permanent placement of fill required to accommodate widened roadway shoulders, improvements to passing opportunities, and minor roadway realignments. The replacement of existing roadway cross-culverts which convey wetland waters under the Seward Highway would also result in impacts to wetlands. The proposed project will incorporate all practicable minimization and mitigation efforts into project design as design develops. Only the minimum amount of dredge and fill necessary to construct the project will be placed into wetlands. A Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) would be obtained prior to construction to authorize work within jurisdictional waters. The DOT&PF will comply with Section 404(b)(1) mitigation guidelines for impacts to jurisdictional waters that cannot be otherwise avoided. For details on jurisdictional water bodies in the project area, such as impacts to Moose Creek and its tributaries, see Section G, Waterbody Involvement.

G. Water Body Involvement N/A YES NO 1. Does the project affect the following:

7 of 22 Project Name: Seward Highway: MP 25.5-36, Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation CE Documentation Form State Project Number: Z546590000 /Federal Project Number: 0311031 November 2017 a. A water body. b. A navigable water body as defined by USCG, (i.e. Section 9)? * c. Waters of the U.S. as defined by the USACE, Section 404? * d. Navigable Waters of the U.S. as defined by the USACE (Section 10)? * e. Fish passage across a stream frequented by salmon or other fish (i.e. Title 16.05.841)? f. A resident fish stream (Title 16.05.841)? g. A cataloged anadromous fish stream, river or lake (i.e. Title 16.05.871)? * h. A designated Wild and Scenic River or land adjacent to a Wild and Scenic River? If yes, the Regional Environmental Manager should consult with the NEPA Program Manager to determine applicability of Section 4(f). 2. Proposed water body involvement: Bridge Culvert Embankment Fill Relocation Diversion Temporary Permanent Other 3. Type of stream or river habitat impacted: Spawning Rearing Pool Riffle Undercut bank Other 4. Amount of fill below (cubic yards): OHW 3,365 MHW N/A HTL N/A

5. Summarize the water body impacts and mitigation, if any. Include any commitments or mitigative measures in Section V. A review of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) list of Navigable Waters of the U.S., the USACE Alaska District list of Navigable Waters, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Navigable Waters mapper, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Anadromous Waters Catalog, and the National Wild and Scenic Rivers list on January 2, 2018, indicated the proposed project area is adjacent to several lakes and ponds and intersects numerous creeks, rivers, and streams. Water bodies within the project area flow into Kenai Lake, a traditional navigable water, approximately two river miles downstream of the project area, making all waters within the project area subject to jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (CWA). No navigable waters or Wild and Scenic Rivers were identified within the project area. In addition to the wetland impacts identified in Section F, impacts to waters of the U.S. would result from the permanent placement of fill below ordinary high water (OHW) of Moose Creek to replace ageing culverts at MP 32.9 and MP 33.1, and the double culverts at DOT&PF bridge number 4090 (MP 32.3). Additional in-stream culvert replacements, installations, and culvert extensions would occur throughout the project corridor at several named and unnamed drainages which would require additional work below OHW of waters of the U.S. The proposed project is not expected to result in permanent adverse impacts to water body functions or values as culverts in Moose Creek and other drainages along the project corridor would be upsized to meet current design standards. The upsized culverts would increase hydraulic capacity and reduce any stream constriction caused by existing culverts which are undersized. Additionally, culverts in Moose Creek would be lined with simulated streambed material, allowing for the stream to more closely resemble a natural system. DOT&PF avoided permanent adverse impacts to Moose Creek by shifting two segments of the

8 of 22 Project Name: Seward Highway: MP 25.5-36, Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation CE Documentation Form State Project Number: Z546590000 /Federal Project Number: 0311031 November 2017 creek away from the project roadway. The stream shifts were necessary to avoid the permanent placement of fill below OHW in association with shoulder widening and roadway realignments. Both stream segments would be recontoured to match existing stream gradients and stream widths. Stream banks would be revegetated with riparian species local to the area. Refer to Section P for discussion of temporary stream diversion impacts during construction and Section H for a discussion of impacts to anadromous waters.

H. Fish and Wildlife N/A YES NO 1. Anadromous and resident fish habitat. Any activity or project that is conducted below the ordinary high water mark of an anadromous stream, river, or lake requires a Fish Habitat Permit. a. Database name(s) and date(s) queried: ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog on January 2, 2018 b. Anadromous fish habitat present in project area. * c. Resident fish habitat present in project area * d. Adverse effect on spawning habitat. * e. Adverse effect on rearing habitat. * f. Adverse effect on migration corridors. * g. Adverse effect on subsistence species. * 2. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH includes any anadromous stream used by any of the five species of Pacific salmon for migration, spawning or rearing, as well as other coastal, nearshore and offshore areas as designated by NMFS. a. Database name(s) and date(s) queried: ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Mapper, and NMFS Alaska Regional Office Nearshore Fish Atlas of Alaska Database, January 2, 2018 b. EFH present in project area c. Project proposes construction in EFH. If yes, describe EFH impacts in H.6. d. Project may adversely affect EFH. If yes, attach EFH Assessment. * e. Project includes conservation recommendations proposed by NMFS. If NMFS conservation recommendations are not adopted, formal notification must be made to NMFS. Summarize the final conservation measures in H.6 and list in Section V. 3. Wildlife Resources: a. Project is in area of high wildlife/vehicle accidents. b. Project would bisect migration corridors. c. Project would segment habitat. 4. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. If yes to any below, consult with USFWS and attach documentation of consultation. a. Eagle data source(s) and date(s) : See below b. Project visible from an eagle nesting tree? *

9 of 22 Project Name: Seward Highway: MP 25.5-36, Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation CE Documentation Form State Project Number: Z546590000 /Federal Project Number: 0311031 November 2017 c. Project within 330 feet of an eagle nesting tree? * d. Project within 660 feet of an eagle nesting tree? * e. Will the project require blasting or other activities that produce extreme * loud noises within 1/2 a mile from an active nest? f. Is an eagle permit required? * 5. Is the project consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act? 6. Summarize fish and wildlife impacts and mitigation, including timing windows, if any. Include any commitments or mitigative measures in Section V. Anadromous and Resident Fish and Essential Fish Habitat A review of the ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog on January 2, 2018, identified multiple anadromous water bodies adjacent to or flowing underneath the project roadway (Table 1). These water bodies are also considered essential fish habitat (EFH) by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Table 1 - Anadromous and Resident Fish Water Bodies in the Project Area Water Body Anadromous Waters Milepost Anadromous Species and Use Catalog (AWC) Seward Number Highway Tern Lake 244-30-10010-2177- 36 Coho salmon (sr), sockeye salmon (sr), whitefish 3020-0090 (p) Daves Creek 244-30-10010-2177- 35 Coho salmon (sr), Chinook salmon (sr), sockeye 3020 salmon (p), whitefish (p) Unnamed Creek 244-30-10010-2177- 35 Coho salmon (s), sockeye salmon (s) #1 3020-4315 Moose Creek 244-30-10010-2225- 31.5-33.5 Sockeye salmon (s) 3013 Unnamed Creek 244-30-10010-2225- 33.5 Sockeye salmon (s) #2 3013-4011 Carter Creek 244-30-10010-2225- 32.5 Sockeye salmon (s) 3013-4009 Upper Trail 244-30-10010-2225- 26.5-31.5 Coho salmon (p), Chinook salmon (p), sockeye Lake 0020 salmon (p) Unnamed Creek 244-30-10010-2225- 27.75 Sockeye salmon (p) #3 3007 Lower Trail 244-30-10010-2225- 25.5-26.6 Coho salmon (p), Chinook salmon (p), pink Lake 0010 salmon (p), sockeye salmon (p) Trail Creek 244-30-10010-2225 25.5-29.5 Coho salmon (p), Chinook salmon (p), pink salmon (p), sockeye salmon (p)

The proposed project would require work below OHW of several anadromous waters to replace and install culverts. Additionally, two segments of Moose Creek which run parallel to the highway may be shifted (away from the roadway) to avoid the permanent placement of fill below OHW in association with shoulder widening and roadway realignments. Any stream bed and gradient modifications would match existing conditions as much as practicable, and stream banks would be revegetated with riparian species. All culvert replacements and installations would follow the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between ADF&G and DOT&PF for the Design, Permitting, and Construction of Culverts for Fish Passage. DOT&PF believes there will be no adverse effect on EFH because of the proposed mitigation measures associated with the MOA and Title 16 Fish Habitat Permit stipulations. Refer

10 of 22 Project Name: Seward Highway: MP 25.5-36, Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation CE Documentation Form State Project Number: Z546590000 /Federal Project Number: 0311031 November 2017 to Section P for a discussion of construction related water quality impacts and minimization measures and Section VI for environmental commitments and mitigation measures. Wildlife Resources A review of the Statewide DOT&PF Moose-Vehicle Collisions (MVCs) Rankings (2006 to 2010) indicated the proposed project area is not within an area of disproportionately high incidents of MVCs. Adverse impacts to wildlife or their habitat are not anticipated as the project will not further segment or disrupt habitat or migration corridors. Adjacent land disturbed from widening is not anticipated to substantially impact wildlife due to the abundance of similar habitat nearby. Although wildlife may temporarily avoid the project area during project construction, the proposed project is not likely to result in permanent adverse impacts to wildlife. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act A review of the Wetland Ecosystems Services Protocol for Southeast Alaska (WESPAK-SE) GIS Module on January 2, 2018, indicated that no known eagle nests are present within 660 feet of the proposed project area. Windshield surveys conducted in summer of 2017 also indicated no eagle nests are present along the project corridor. Prior to construction, DOT&PF may conduct additional surveys of the project area to determine if active eagle nests are located within the primary (330 feet) or secondary (660 feet) zones. If active eagle nests are sighted within 660 feet of the project area prior to or during construction, DOT&PF will seek guidance from the USFWS on how to proceed. Migratory Birds Several species of migratory birds may travel through the proposed project area and may be disturbed by clearing operations. Clearing and grubbing would not be permitted within the migratory bird window of May 1st to July 15th, except as permitted by federal, state, and local laws and approved by the Project Engineer. For these reasons, adverse impacts to migratory birds are not expected to occur as a result of the proposed project.

I. Threatened and Endangered Species (T&E) YES NO 1. Database name(s) and date(s) queried: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) IPaC Mappper, USFWS Critical Habitat Portal, and ADF&G Special Status Species Website on January 2, 2018 2. Listed threatened or endangered species present in the project area. 3. Threatened or endangered species migrate through the project area. 4. Designated critical habitat in the project area. 5. Proposed or Candidate species present in project area. 6. What is the effect determination for the project? Select one. a. Project has no effect on listed or proposed T&E species or designated critical habitat. b. Project is not likely to adversely affect a listed or proposed T&E species or * designated critical habitat. Informal Section 7 consultation is required. Attach consultation documentation, including concurrence from the Federal agency, to this form. c. Project is likely to adversely affect a listed or proposed T&E species or * designated critical habitat. If yes, consult the NEPA Program Manager.

11 of 22 Project Name: Seward Highway: MP 25.5-36, Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation CE Documentation Form State Project Number: Z546590000 /Federal Project Number: 0311031 November 2017 7. Summarize the findings of the consultation, conferencing, biological evaluation, or biological assessment and the opinion of the agency with jurisdiction, or state why no coordination was conducted. Include any commitments or mitigative measures in Section V. A review of the USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) and ADF&G endangered species websites on January 2, 2018, indicated there no listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered species or critical habitat areas within the proposed project area. As such, no impacts to threatened, endangered, or candidate species or their habitats are anticipated.

J. Invasive Species YES NO 1. Database name(s) and date(s) queried: Alaska Exotic Plants Information Clearing House (AKEPIC) mapping system and database on January 8, 2018 2. Does the project include all practicable measures to minimize the introduction or spread invasive species, making the project consistent with E.O. 13112 (Invasive Species)? If yes, list measures in J.3. 3. Summarize invasive species impacts and minimization measures, if any. Include any commitments or mitigative measures in Section V. Results of the AKEPIC invasive plants query identified the presence of several invasive species that could be encountered in the proposed project area. To minimize the risk of introducing or spreading invasive species, the DOT&PF will comply with all federal, state, and local laws, including Executive Order 13112, by ensuring that ground disturbing activities are minimized, and disturbed areas are re-vegetated with native species in accordance with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) re-vegetation manual.

K. Contaminated Sites YES NO 1. Database name(s) and date(s) queried: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Contaminated Sites Database on January 4, 2018 2. There are known or potentially contaminated sites within or adjacent to the * existing and/or proposed ROW. If yes, attach ADEC coordination documentation and summarize below in IV.K.4. 3. There are contaminated sites with 1,500 feet of where excavation dewatering is anticipated? If yes, attach ADEC coordination correspondence and summarize below in IV.K.4. 4. Summarize the contaminated site impacts and mitigation, if any. Include any commitments or mitigative measure in Section IV. A review of the ADEC website listed in K.1. indicated no known active contaminated sites are located within or adjacent to the proposed project area. As such, there is low to no potential for encountering hazardous materials during construction.

L. Air Quality (Conformity) N/A YES NO 1. The project is located in an air quality maintenance area or nonattainment area (CO or PM-10 or PM-2.5). If yes, indicate CO or PM-10 or PM-2.5 , and complete the remainder of this section. If no, skip to Section M.

12 of 22 Project Name: Seward Highway: MP 25.5-36, Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation CE Documentation Form State Project Number: Z546590000 /Federal Project Number: 0311031 November 2017 2. The project is exempt from an air quality analysis per 40 CFR 93.126 (Table 2 and Exempt Projects). If no, a project-level air quality conformity determination is required for CO nonattainment and maintenance areas, and a qualitative project-level analysis is required for both PM-2.5 and PM-10 nonattainment and maintenance areas. 3. The project is included in a conforming Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). a. List dates of FHWA/FTA conformity determination: N/A 4. Have there been a significant change in the scope or the design concept as described in the most recent conforming TIP and LRTP? If yes, describe changes in L.8. In addition, the project must satisfy the conformity rule’s requirements for projects not from a plan and TIP, or the plan and TIP must be modified to incorporate the revised project (including a new conformity analysis). 5. A CO project-level analysis was completed meeting the requirements of * Section 93.123 of the conformity rule. The results satisfy the requirements of Section 93.116(a) for all areas or 93.116(b) for nonattainment areas. Attach a copy of the analysis. 6. A PM-2.5 project-level air quality analysis was completed meeting the * requirements of Section 93.123 of the conformity rule. The results satisfy the requirements of Section 93.116. Attach a copy of the analysis. 7. A PM-10 project-level air quality analysis was completed meeting the * requirements of Section 93.123 of the conformity rule. The results satisfy the requirements of Section 93.116. Attach a copy of the analysis. 8. Summarize air quality impacts, mitigation, and agency coordination, if any. Include any commitments or mitigative measures in Section V. On January 4, 2018, DOT&PF reviewed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) list of Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for Criteria Pollutants and the proposed project is not within a non-attainment or maintenance area for any National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The proposed project would not result in a permanent change in traffic patterns, volume, or any other factor that would cause a substantial change or increase in emissions along the corridor. As such, permanent adverse impacts to air quality are not expected to occur. Refer to Section III, Part P for a discussion of construction related air quality impacts.

M. Floodplain Impacts (23 CFR 650, Subpart A) YES NO 1. Project encroaches into the base (100 year) flood plain in fresh or marine * waters. Identify floodplain map source and date : Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Pannels 0200122150A, 0200122175A, and 0200122525A on January 2, 2018 If yes, attach documentation of public involvement conducted per E.O. 11988 and 23 CFR 650.109. Consult with the regional or Statewide Hydraulics/Hydrology expert and attach the required location hydraulic study developed per 23 CFR 650.111. Answer questions M.1.a through d. If no, skip to M.2.

13 of 22 Project Name: Seward Highway: MP 25.5-36, Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation CE Documentation Form State Project Number: Z546590000 /Federal Project Number: 0311031 November 2017 a. Is there a longitudinal encroachment into the 100-year floodplain? * b. Is there significant encroachment as defined by 23 CFR 650.105(q)? If yes, * attach a copy of FHWA’s finding required by 23 CFR 650.115. c. Project encroaches into a regulatory floodway. * d. The proposed action would increase the base flood elevation one-foot or * greater. 2. Project conforms to local flood hazard requirements. 3. Project is consistent with E.O. 11988 (Floodplain Protection). If no, the project cannot be approved as proposed. 4. Summarize floodplain impacts and mitigation, if any. Include any commitments or mitigative measures in Section V. A review of the FEMA FIRM panels listed in M.1 indicated that although portions of the proposed project area are adjacent to the base (100-year) floodplain of Upper and Lower Trail Lake, the proposed project lies within flood zones C and D. Encroachment upon the base floodplain of Upper and/or Lower Trail Lake is not anticipated at this early stage in project design. Consequently, no impacts to floodplains are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project.

N. Noise Impacts (23 CFR 772) YES NO 1. Does the project involve any of the following? If yes, complete N.2. If no, a noise analysis is not required. Skip to section O. a. Construction of highway on a new location. b. Substantial alteration in vertical or horizontal alignment as defined in 23 CFR 772.5. c. An increase in the number of through lanes. d. Addition of an auxiliary lane (except a turn lane). e. Addition or relocation of interchange lanes or ramps added to a quadrant to complete an existing partial interchange. f. Restriping existing pavement for the purpose of adding a through-traffic lane or an auxiliary lane. g. Addition of a new or substantial alteration of a weigh station, rest stop, ride- share lot or toll plaza. 2. Identify below which category of land uses are adjacent: A noise analysis is required if any lands in Categories A through E are identified, and the response to N.1 is ‘yes’. Category A: Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. Category B: Residential. This includes undeveloped lands permitted for this category. Category C (exterior): Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, daycare centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of worship, playgrounds, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools, television studios, trails, and trail

14 of 22 Project Name: Seward Highway: MP 25.5-36, Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation CE Documentation Form State Project Number: Z546590000 /Federal Project Number: 0311031 November 2017 crossings. This includes undeveloped lands permitted for this category. Category D (interior): Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, places of worship, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, schools, and television studios. Category E: Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed lands, properties or activities not listed above. This includes undeveloped lands permitted for this category. 3. Does the noise analysis identify a noise impact? If yes, explain in N.4 4. Summarize the findings of the attached noise analysis and noise abatement worksheet, if applicable: Horizontal and vertical alterations to the roadway would not be substantial as defined by 23 CFR 772.5; as such, a traffic noise analysis was not required. Refer to Section III, Part P for discussion of construction related noise impacts and Section VI for noise related environmental commitments and mitigation measures.

O. Water Quality Impacts N/A YES NO 1. Project would involve a public or private drinking water source. If yes, explain in O.7 2. Project would result in a discharge of storm water to a Water of the U.S. (per 40 CFR 230.3(s)) 3. Project would discharge storm water into or affect an ADEC designated Impaired Waterbody. If any of the Impaired Waterbodies have an approved or established Total Maximum Daily Load, describe project impacts in O.7 a. List name(s), location(s), and pollutant(s) causing impairment: N/A 4. Estimate the acreage of ground-disturbing activities that will result from the project? 190 acres. 5. Is there a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) APDES permit, or will runoff be mixed with discharges from an APDES permitted industrial facility? a. If yes, list APDES permit number and type: N/A 6. Would the project discharge storm water to a water body within a national park or state park; a national or state wildlife refuge? 7. Summarize the water quality impacts and mitigation, if any. Include any commitments or mitigative measures in Section V. Storm water within the proposed project area flows off the roadway and either infiltrates the ground via vegetated roadside ditches or is conveyed to adjacent lowlands and water bodies. Potential receiving waters include: Trail River, Moose Creek, Dave’s Creek, and their tributaries, Upper and Lower Trail Lakes, Tern Lake, and Kenai Lake. A review of the ADEC 2012 Final Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report on November 6, 2017, indicated none of these waterbodies are designated as impaired. A Review of the ADEC Drinking Water Protection Area Mapper on November 1, 2017, indicated several groundwater drinking water protection areas are located within the project area. However, given the scope of work and shallow depths of excavation, no adverse impacts to public or private

15 of 22 Project Name: Seward Highway: MP 25.5-36, Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation CE Documentation Form State Project Number: Z546590000 /Federal Project Number: 0311031 November 2017 drinking water sources are anticipated. Upper and Lower Tail Lakes and Trail River drain into Kenai Lake, a portion of the KRSMA – an area of over 105 lineal miles of rivers and lakes established in 1984 as a unit of the state park system – making all three water bodies potential Tier III waters. Prior to construction, DOT&PF will consult with ADEC to determine if additional storm water protection measures or monitoring will be necessary for the discharge of storm water into a potential Tier III water body. While the proposed project would increase impervious surface area along the project corridor, no changes to drainage patterns are anticipated as surface water is expected to filter through existing and new gravel and vegetated ditches before entering adjacent receiving waters. As such, no long- term adverse impacts to water quality are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Refer to Section III, Part P a discussion of construction related water quality impacts.

P. Construction Impacts N/A YES NO 1. There will be temporary degradation of water quality. 2. There will be a temporary stream diversion. 3. There will be temporary degradation of air quality. 4. There will be temporary delays and detours of traffic. 5. There will be temporary impacts on businesses. 6. There will be temporary noise impacts. 7. There will be other construction impacts (e.g. TCEs/TCPs, utility relocates, staging areas, etc.). 8. Summarize construction impacts and mitigation for each ‘yes’ above. Include any commitments or mitigative measures in Section V. Water Quality Impacts The proposed project may result in the temporary degradation of water quality due to work within wetlands and Moose Creek. Modification of the streambank and removal of the existing culverts in Moose Creek would result in increased turbidity immediately adjacent to the work area and downstream; however, these impacts would be short in duration and minimized through the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce downstream turbidity. An Erosion and Sediment Plan (ESCP) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared for the proposed project. Both would include BMPs to be used during construction to stabilize slopes and prevent sedimentation and would comply with the Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (APDES) Construction General Permit (CGP) required for this project. Temporary Stream Diversion Temporary stream diversions may be necessary to isolate work areas from flowing water during culvert replacement operations. Impacts to fish would be minimized by either working during time periods recommended by ADF&G or by providing appropriate fish habitat in the stream diversion channel. Air Quality Impacts The operation of construction equipment may lead to a temporary local degradation of air quality as a result of increased airborne dust and emission-related particulate matter. Air quality impacts would be temporary and could be abated by watering disturbed surface areas and ensuring that construction equipment receives regular maintenance. No permanent adverse impacts to air quality

16 of 22 Project Name: Seward Highway: MP 25.5-36, Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation CE Documentation Form State Project Number: Z546590000 /Federal Project Number: 0311031 November 2017 are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Traffic Impacts Road users may experience delays or detours during project construction. Traffic impacts would be mitigated by providing advance notice to the public and through implementation of a traffic control plan. Construction may also be scheduled at off-peak hours in order to limit delays. Business Impacts Area businesses may be temporarily impacted by commercial and tourism traffic delays; however, these impacts would be temporary and access would be maintained throughout construction. Noise Impacts Temporary noise impacts will result from the operation of heavy equipment, the presence of construction crews, rock blasting and other associated construction activities. Abatement methods such as proper maintenance of construction equipment would help reduce these impacts. Permanent adverse noise impacts are not expected to occur. Other Construction Impacts The proposed project may require temporary construction easements (TCEs) or temporary construction permits (TCPs) during construction; access to effected properties would be maintained.

Q. Section 4(f)/6(f) YES NO 1. Section 4(f) (23 CFR 774) a. Was detailed Section 4(f) resource identification conducted for this project, other than * that required for Section 106 compliance? If no, attach consultation with the NEPA Program Manager stating further Section 4(f) resource identification was not required. b. Does a Section 4(f) resource exist within the project area; or is the project adjacent to a * Section 4(f) resource? If yes, attach consultation with the NEPA Program Manager to determine applicability of Section 4(f). If no, skip to Q.2. c. Does an exception listed in 23 CFR 774.13 apply to this project? If yes, attach * consultation with the NEPA Program Manager, and documentation from the official with jurisdiction, if required. d. Does the project result in the “use” of a Section 4(f) property? “Use” includes a * permanent incorporation of land, adverse temporary occupancy, or constructive use. If no, attach consultation with the NEPA Program Manager and skip to Q.2. e. Has a de minimis impact finding been prepared for the project? If yes, attach the finding. * f. Has a Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation been prepared for the project? If yes, attach * the evaluation. g. Has an Individual Section 4(f) Evaluation been prepared for the project? If yes, attach * the evaluation. 2. Section 6(f) (36 CFR 59) a. Were funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA) used for improvement to a property that will be affected by this project? b. Is the use of the property receiving LWCFA funds a “conversion of use” per Section 6(f) of the LWCFA? Attach the correspondence received from the ADNR 6(f) Grants Administrator. 3. Summarize Section 4(f)/6(f) involvement, if any:

17 of 22 Project Name: Seward Highway: MP 25.5-36, Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation CE Documentation Form State Project Number: Z546590000 /Federal Project Number: 0311031 November 2017 A review of the USFWS National Wildlife Refuge System Online Mapper, U.S. National Park Service (NPS) Online Mapper, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation (DPOR), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the KPB Parcel Viewer websites on January 22, 2018, identified several Section 4(f) resources adjacent to the proposed project corridor, including: Johnson Pass Trail, Carter Lake Trail, three undeveloped parcels managed by the ADNR for eventual inclusion to the KRSMA, and five historic properties determined eligible for listing in the NRHP (see Section E – Impacts to Historic Properties for details regarding NRHP eligible historic properties). No properties along the project corridor received funds from the LWCFA. On January 26, 2018, the Statewide NEPA Program Manager concurred the proposed project would not result in a permanent incorporation, adverse temporary occupancy, or constructive use of a 4(f) resource. Refer to Appendix D for Section 4(f) property details and consultation documentation.

III. Permits and Authorizations N/A YES NO 1. USACE, Section 404/10 Includes Abbreviated Permit Process, Nationwide Permit, and General Permit 2. Coast Guard, Section 9 3. ADF&G Fish Habitat Permit (Title 16.05.871 and Title 16.05.841) 4. Flood Hazard 5. ADEC Non-domestic Wastewater Plan Approval 6. ADEC 401 7. ADEC APDES 8. Noise 9. Eagle Permit 10. Other. If yes, list below. Kenai Peninsula Borough 50-Foot Habitat Protection District Permit; ADNR Special Use Permit

IV. Comments and Coordination N/A YES NO 1. Public/agency involvement for project. Required if protected resources are involved. 2. Public Meetings. Date(s): April 6, 2016. Additional public meetings will be held in spring 2018 and summer 2019. 3. Newspaper ads. Attach certified affidavit of publication as an appendix. Name of newspaper and date: Alaska Dispatch News on December 10, 2015; Peninsula Clarion on December 9, 2015, Seward Phoenix Log on December 10, 2015, and Seward City News on January 10, 2016. 4. Alaska Online Public Notice date: December 7, 2015 5. Agency scoping letters. Date sent: June 27, 2016 6. Agency scoping meeting. Date of meeting: N/A 7. Field review. Date: The DOT&PF design team visited the project site August 30-31, 2016, to determine which culverts should be replaced, assess any design challenges that may be encountered on site, and measure grades of the pedestrian pathway for ADA compliance. DOT&PF

18 of 22 Project Name: Seward Highway: MP 25.5-36, Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation CE Documentation Form State Project Number: Z546590000 /Federal Project Number: 0311031 November 2017 Environmental staff attended the wetland delineation organized by HDR on September 28-30, 2015. DOT&PF Hydrological staff visited culvert locations in the project area on August 21, 2014 to provide recommendations for improvements, if needed. 8. Summarize comments and coordination efforts for this project. Discuss pertinent issues raised. Attach correspondence that demonstrates coordination and that there are no unresolved issues. Public Coordination Public coordination for the proposed project began with a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Begin Engineering and Environmental Studies, which was published in the Alaska Dispatch News, Peninsula Clarion, Seward Phoenix Log, DOT&PF Public Notices website, and Seward City News on the dates listed in item 3 of this section. Two project-specific open houses were held on April 6, 2016; one at the Alaska SeaLife Center in Seward, Alaska and the other at the Moose Pass Community Hall in Moose Pass, Alaska. The project was also represented at the Seward Holiday Arts and Crafts Fair on December 4, 2015, and December 2, 2016, in Seward, Alaska. The predominant comments received included concurrence that traffic calming measures were needed through Moose Pass. Many residents were concerned with the ROW acquisitions proposed by the designs adding passing lanes, shoulder widening, and the addition of a pedestrian pathway on the west side of the highway within Moose Pass. The design proposing a second pedestrian pathway on the west side of the road was not preferred by the community due to potential ROW acquisitions. In general, the comments favored repaving the area within Moose Pass and implementing the proposed shoulder widening and passing lanes where the speed limit is higher. Extending the current pedestrian pathway north and south was favored by residents. Some residents expressed confusion regarding the School Zone on the Seward Highway in Moose Pass; these residents did not consider it necessary. Due to public concerns regarding ROW acquisitions through the community of Moose Pass, the project design team chose to move forward with Moose Pass Typical Section Alternative 1: Repave Existing Road and Pathway, as shown on page A-46 of Appendix E. Outside the community of Moose Pass, shoulder widening will occur as needed to meet current highway design standards in accordance with the DOT&PF Preconstruction Manual and the AASHTO requirements. The pedestrian pathway within the community of Moose Pass may need to shift slightly to improve drainage. Culverts are planned to be replaced throughout the project to improve drainage as well.

Agency Coordination Agency coordination consisted of a scoping letter sent to resource agencies, local government, tribes, and native corporations via email on June 27, 2016. ADF&G, ADNR, BLM, and the USFS submitted comments, summarized below. ADF&G: Responded that they had no additional comments; all fish bearing waters will need to be identified and replacement of culverts/bridges will be required to meet fish pass criteria as stated in the scoping documents. ADNR: Responded that the project is adjacent to the proposed Kenai River Special Management Area. Permits may be required. They asked that the DOT&PF please submit a Multi-Agency permit application to the Kenai River Center for consideration. BLM: Responded that they do not manage any land in the area nor have any comments on the proposed project. USFS: Responded on August 27, 2015 requesting a meeting to discuss the project scope, scale, and Forest Service involvement. The DOT&PF responded by providing contact information for four projects that may require USFS involvement. USFS spoke at the April 6, 2016 open houses 19 of 22 Project Name: Seward Highway: MP 25.5-36, Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation CE Documentation Form State Project Number: Z546590000 /Federal Project Number: 0311031 November 2017 about materials use. Steve Hohensee was interested in coordinating efforts with the USFS and the DOT to utilize several gravel pits within the project area as source material for the proposed project. Additional agency coordination is planned to happen throughout the project. Agency meetings may be held at a later date as project design develops further. Refer to Appendix E for public involvement documentation, agency scoping materials, and a full summary of comments received and associated responses.

V. Environmental Commitments and Mitigation Measures List all environmental commitments and mitigation measures included in the project. 1. If cultural, archaeological, or historical sites are discovered during construction, then all work that may impact the sites will stop. The SHPO would be consulted to determine the appropriate corrective action. 2. If contamination or hazardous materials are encountered during construction, all work in the vicinity of the contamination will stop and ADEC would be consulted to determine the appropriate corrective action. 3. If active bald or golden eagle nests are found within the project area, a primary zone of a minimum 330 feet will be maintained as an undisturbed habitat buffer around nesting eagles. If topography or vegetation does not provide an adequate screen or separation, the buffer will be extended to 0.25 mile, or a sufficient distance to screen the nest from human activities. Within the secondary zone (between 330 and 660 feet), no obtrusive facilities or major habitat modifications shall occur. If nesting occurs in sparse stands of trees, treeless areas, or where activities would occur within line-of-site of the nest, this buffer shall extend up to 0.5 miles. No blasting, logging, or other noisy, disturbing activities within the primary or secondary zones should occur during the nesting period (March 1 – August 31). 4. The contractor will be required to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), a Hazardous Materials Control Plan (HMCP), and a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) in accordance with DOT&PF's contract specifications and the APDES Construction General Permit (CGP) for storm water discharge from construction activities in Alaska. 5. The contractor will be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits and clearances for material and disposal sites and borrow or equipment storage areas, including compliance with the APDES CGP for storm water discharge, unless DOT&PF has obtained the necessary permits. 6. Air quality BMPs such as watering, sweeping, maintaining construction exits, and equipment emission control devises will be used to maintain air quality. 7. The contractor is responsible for creating a traffic control plan and providing advance notice to the public and businesses of construction activities that could cause delays, detours, or affect access to adjacent properties. 8. The contractor will make every reasonable effort to minimize construction noise through abatement measures such as proper maintenance of construction equipment. 9. Erosion and sediment control materials would be made from locally produced products to minimize potential importation of new weed propagules from outside Alaska.

20 of 22 Project Name: Seward Highway: MP 25.5-36, Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation CE Documentation Form State Project Number: Z546590000 /Federal Project Number: 0311031 November 2017

This page intentionally left blank.

PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP STATE OF ALASKA BY DATE: SCALE: J McLAURIN 9/8/2015 NTS END PROJECT MILE 36.6 SEWARD HWY: MP 25.5-36, TRAIL RV. TO STERLING WYE REHABILITATION LOCATION AND VICINITY MAP PROJECT NO. Z546590000 MOOSE PASS , AK LEGEND PROJECT AREA MOOSE PASS LOCATION PROJECT

BEGIN PROJECT

MILE 25.5 LOCATION MAP

GULF ARCTIC ARCTIC

OF OCEAN FIGURE 1

ALASKA N

This page intentionally left blank.

APPENDIX E

Design Memos

Appendices have been removed from the Culvert Recommendation Memo. See original Memo for individual pipe inspection reports.

At this time, no significant design changes were made after the approval of this document. The final asbuilt plans for this project will be available in Central Files within the Highway Design Section (4111 Aviation Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99502).

Seward Highway MP 25.5-36: Trail River to Sterling Wye Rehabilitation Design Study Report Seward Hwy MP 25.5 – 36 Rehab: Z546590000 Culvert Assessment

MEMORANDUM State of Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities Design and Engineering Services – Central Region Preliminary Design & Environmental

TO: Chris Bentz, PE DATE: December 31, 2019 Project Manager Highway Design TELEPHONE NO: 375-6467

PROJECT NUMBER: Z546590000 Seward Hwy MP 25.5 – 36, Trail PROJECT NAME: River to Sterling Wye Rehab Jake Ciufo, PE FROM: SUBJECT: Culvert Assessment Assistant Hydrologist

Culverts on the Seward Highway MP 25.5 – 36 Rehabilitation project were inspected on August 21 – 22, 2019 and September 25 – 26, 2019. The following people were in attendance:

August 21 – 22, 2019 • Jake Ciufo, PE, Assistant Hydrologist, PD&E • Zach Kay, Designer, PD&E • Paul Janke, PhD, PE, Regional Hydrologist, PD&E

September 25 – 26, 2019 • Brittany Barkshire, PE, Designer, Highway Design • Jake Ciufo, PE, Assistant Hydrologist, PD&E • Paul Janke, PhD, PE, Regional Hydrologist, PD&E

Summary Culverts were evaluated based on a project design life of 10 years. Repair and replacement recommendations are provided for culverts that are not expected to function properly during the design life of the rehabilitation project.

For each culvert, the following components were assessed: • Roadway • Inlet/outlet embankment • Inlet/outlet channel • Culvert material • Culvert horizontal and vertical alignment • Culvert shape • Flow condition (i.e. sediment/debris blockage)

The condition rating system for each component is based on a 5-point scale. A rating of 1 (good) indicates a like-new component, with little or no deterioration that is structurally sound and 1

Seward Hwy MP 25.5 – 36 Rehab: Z546590000 Culvert Assessment

functionally adequate. Rating numbers increase with worsening condition up to a rating of 5 (failed), indicating failure of a component that directly affects the structural capacity of the roadway or the functional capacity to carry the waterway.

About 59 out of 109 culverts inspected are recommended to be replaced or lined. This is primarily because the majority of culverts were installed between 1951 and 1953, making them 66 to 68 years old. In a neutral pH, high soil resistivity, and low abrasion environment, the average service life of corrugated galvanized steel culverts is 50 years.

General Recommendations 1. A Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis is required: a. For each anadromous culvert to ensure fish passage criteria are met. b. All culverts to be replaced with a rise greater than or equal to 48”. 2. Unless specified the recommended culvert sizes should match existing. 3. Culvert material shall be HDPE. Exceptions to this recommendation, include, but are not limited to: a. Culverts required to meet fish passage criteria. b. Culverts outside the allowable cover shown on standard plan D-04.21. c. Steep culverts in erodible soils. Unless adequate erosion protection is provided. d. Culverts in poor soils that have potential for differential settlement and/or frost heaving. This exception can be negated if a Geotechnical Engineer provides bedding recommendations and ensures little to no settlement and/or frost action. 4. Culvert replacements in cataloged anadromous streams shall meet fish passage criteria in the Memorandum of Agreement between ADF&G and DOT&PF dated 2001. An alternative funding source, such as from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) settlement may modify criteria if approved by ADF&G. On past projects the Stream Simulation Method was used. 5. The following minimum sizes shall be used to avoid maintenance problems and clogging: a. 24” desirable, 18” minimum for side drains or driveways, b. 24” for all road systems, c. 36” for all culverts 100 feet or greater in length. 6. Consider headwalls or other approved end restraint on culverts with a rise 48” or greater.

Recommendations for all found culverts are attached as well as field notes and photos.

cc: Brittany Barkshire, PE, Designer, Highway Design Kristina Busch, PE, Project Engineer, Highway Design Paul Janke, PhD, PE, Regional Hydrologist, PD&E

PROJECT NAME: SEWARD HWY: MP 25.5 - 36, TRAIL RIVER TO STERLING WYE REHABILITATION PROJECT NO: Z546590000 INSPECTION DATES: 8/21-22 and 9/25-26 Culvert Assessment Seward Hwy MP 25.5 - 36 RECOMMENDED MILEPOINT DIA LENGTH CATALOGED STATION YEAR SIZE PER ASBUILT RECOMMENDATIONS ADF&G RECS REPLACE SIZE (in) (MP) (in) (ft) ANADROMOUS 25+53 25.39 2011 36 83 24x42 No No recommendations 31+92 25.51 1951 24 30 24x40 ARRC Culvert No Good Condition - No inlet end section 32+04 25.51 1992 24 75 24x67 No Clean and grade inlet. 37+18 25.61 1951 36 54 36x58 No Rebuild bedding at outlet and add class II riprap (5' high overfall, 2' cantilever) X2439+85 25.66 1951 24 62 24x52 No Blockage found at centerline and outlet could not be found. Replace. Unable to confirm condition. 43+05 25.72 1951 24 68 24x54 No Upsize to 36" due to high rust line. Flatten foreslope and add riprap at the inlet. Evaluate downstream impacts (if any) to ARRC due to upsized culvert. X36 X3646+89 25.80 1951 24 57 24x56 No Upsize to 36" due to high rust line. Pipe needs replacement due to corrosion. X3658+56 26.02 1951 24 118 24x116 No Outlet is blocked. Replace due to corrosion. 65+38 26.15 1951 36 69 36x68 No Rebuild bedding and class 2 riprap at outlet to the top of the pipe (3' overfall, 2.5' cantilever) 76+66 26.36 1951 36 88 36x86 No Clean pipe. Regrade inlet 20' and add riprap for 10'. X2482+75 1951 18 No Replace with 24" pipe. Culvert on project LT X2483+17 26.48 1951 24 48 24x46 No Replace culvert. Grade outlet to drain. 93+68 26.68 1951 24 61 24x60 No Clean pipe. Dredge inlet channel 20'. Place class II riprap at outlet (2' overfall, 2' cantilever) 97+49 26.75 1951 24 63 24x62 No Clean outlet and grade inlet and outlet to drain. X24107+82 26.95 1951 24 81 24x80 No Replace culvert. Vertical deflection (possible joint failure) below the steep foreslope. 115+84 27.10 1951 24 46 24x44 No Clean pipe and grade inlet to drain. Abandon 120+40 27.19 1951 24 85 24x72 No Did not find. Require the contractor to locate culvert and remove or abandon with slurry. 123+65 27.25 30 45 No Culvert diameter is 24". Bend inlet to original shape and grade to drain. Clean and grade outlet to drain. 126+01 27.29 1951 24 52 24x50 No Clean pipe and grade inlet and outlet to drain. 131+24 27.39 1951 24 43 24x42 No Clean pipe and grade outlet to drain. 135+00 27.47 1951 24 No Clean pipe and grade inlet and outlet to drain. (Culvert not shown on plans) 138+30 27.53 1951 24 45 24x44 No Add class II riprap at outlet (3' overfall) X24143+70 27.63 1951 24 47 24x46 No Replace with 24" pipe. Grade inlet and outlet to drain. X42146+59 27.68 1951 24 47 24x46 No Replace with 42" pipe. Grade outlet to drain. Possible Fish 150+70 27.76 1951 36 57 36x56 Yes, downstream Grade inlet to improve alignment. Add class II riprap at inlet and outlet (3' perched outlet) Not checked, but likely Culvert 154+65 27.84 1976 24 62 24x60 No Clean pipe and grade inlet and outlet to drain. 155+02 27.84 1976 24 35 18x34 Driveway No Clean pipe and grade inlet and outlet to drain. Culvert is on project RT. 164+37 28.02 1951 24 50 24x50 No Replace with 24" pipe. Possibly eliminate this culvert and install an approach culvert. Need to reinspect and consult with M&O to make final decision. X24 X36165+21 28.04 1951 24 50 24x50 No Replace with 36" pipe. 168+21 28.09 2003 24 67 (1951 - 24x64) No 1951 Pipe. Grade inlet and outlet to drain. 169+71 28.12 2003 24 60 (1951 - 24x58) No 1951 Pipe. Clean pipe and grade outlet to drain. Add one layer of riprap to the outlet to stabilize the embankment 181+72 28.35 2003 18 30 Driveway No Culvert is on project LT. Grade outlet to drain. 182+04 28.36 1951 18 67 24x68 No Pipe is 24". Driveway culvert is backing up highway culvert. Replace hwy culvert. Raise inlet and outlet inverts, so DW culvert does not obstruct flow. X24 X24182+50 28.36 24 39 Connected? No Culvert is on project LT. Replace if approach is needed, otherwise remove culvert. X24183+97 28.39 1951 24 62 24x52, 1976: Extended 10' RT No Replace culvert due to corrosion. X24184+25 28.40 24 38 Driveway No Culvert is on project LT. Both culvert ends are burried. Replace pipe. X24185+37 28.42 24 55 Driveway No Culvert is on project LT. Replace. X24186+00 28.43 1951 24 55 24x44, 1976: Extended 10' RT No Replace culvert. Add class II riprap at outlet. X24187+00 28.45 18 44 Driveway No Culvert is on project LT. Culvert is blocked. Replace. X24187+50 28.46 8 30 Driveway No Culvert is on project LT. Culvert is blocked. Replace. Replace culvert. The outlet is blocked and the inlet is crushed. May be possible to abandon culvert and direct runoff to the next downstream culvert. 188+02 28.47 1951 24 56 24x46, 1976: Extended 10' RT No X24 Reinspect to make this decision. X24189+01 28.49 1951 24 61 24x50, 1976: Extend 10' RT No Replace culvert due to corrosion. 190+23 28.51 1951 24 61 24x50 No Place class II riprap at outlet. X24191+86 28.54 1951 24 66 24x54 No Replace due to corrosion. X24193+51 28.57 1951 24 57 24x46, 1980: Extended 6' RT No Replace culvert. The extension is crushed 10' from inlet and there is scour at the outlet. Consider removing culvert and redirecting runoff to the north. Reinspect and consult with M&O to make this decision. Crushed inlet and outlet. Grade to 202+29 28.74 1951 24 57 24x46 NEAR POST OFFICE RD. No X 24 or Remove drain X36206+28 28.82 1951 24 51 24x50 No Clean outlet and grade to drain. Upsize culvert to 36" due to icing issues.Consider installing thaw pipe. X36207+41 28.84 1951 24 51 24x48 No Replace culvert due to corrosion. Upsize to 36" due to icing issues. Replace with 36" pipe. A drainage easement is required for this location. This culvert backwaters highway culvert due to icing. M&O unable to maintain 207+89 28.85 24 164 Does not cross SH - Leaves ROW No X36 because its outside ROW. INSPECTED IN 2014 WITH NO Corrosion has increased since 2014, but all three culverts are in good condition. Hydraulic capacity needs to be evaluated considering future dam 210+50 28.89 1987 3X48 77' No RECOMMENDATIONS (3 - 48x86) removal. Determine drainage paths after dam removal and redesign culvert crossings for worst case with or without dam. Pipe is skewed and much longer than indicated on the plans. Grade inlet and outlet to drain. Need to locate outlet end. Consider upsizing to 36" diameter 213+29 28.95 1951 24 60 24x62 No if length is >100'. 215+33 28.99 1951 24 164 24x138 No Clean pipe. Grade inlet and outlet to drain. Add an inlet end section. Consider upsizing to 36" diameter because length is >100'. 24x50 CONNECTED TO SD SYSTEM, 1980: Permanently remove or replace culvert. Pipe is plugged at the inlet and has joint failure on the downstream end. There is a manhole at the inlet with a 219+08 29.06 1951 24 61 No X 24 or Remove Extended 8' plywood lid. Culvert is on project LT. Consider permanently removing. Runoff can drain to the cross culvert to the north. Currently drains to manhole with plywood lid. 220+50 29.08 1951 18 102 18x20 CONNECTED TO SD SYSTEM No Reinspect and consult with M&O to decide. 220+64 29.09 1951 24 61 24x48, 1980: Extended 6' RT No Replace culvert. There is joint failure on the downstream end. The outlet foreslope is steep and channels to the lake. Grade inlet and outlet to drain. X24 X 5' of 24 223+77 29.15 1951 24 59 24x48, 1980: Extended 4' RT No Replace the last 5' of culvert under the pathway. Clean pipe and grade the inlet and outlet to drain. Private culvert discharges to cross culvert with 1' separation. Remove approximately 10' of private culvert and expand the ditch to ROW. Remove and 225+36 29.18 1951 24 57 24x46, 1980: Extended 4' RT No X 10' of 24 replace the last 10' of cross culvert. X24226+36 29.20 1951 24 62 24x50, 1980: Extended 6' RT No Replace culvert due to joint failures. Field inlet is a small drain for the parking lot and is not connected to the cross culvert. Add 1 CY of class 1 riprap at the outlet. Abandon and relocate or 228+37 29.23 1951 24 122 24x120 No replace and obtain permission to inspect and maintain. If length > 100 feet, recommend minimum 36" diameter. X24231+37 29.29 1951 24 62 24x50 No Replace culvert due to a blocked inlet, vertical deflection under the road, and an adverse slope. X or CIPP 24 234+31 29.35 1951 24 60 24x48, 1980: Extended 10' RT No Replace or install CIPP liner due to corrosion. Do not reduce diameter. X or CIPP 24 236+48 29.39 1951 24 62 24x50, 1980: Extended 10' RT No Place class 1 riprap at outlet. Grade inlet to drain. Replace or install CIPP liner due to corrosion. Do not reduce diameter. 240+94 29.47 1951 24 58 24x46, 1980: Extended 10' RT No Clean pipe. 243+97 29.53 1951 24 62 24x54, 1980: Extended 6' RT No Clean pipe and grade inlet and outlet to drain. 250+16 29.65 1951 18 61 24x46, 1980: Extended 16' RT No Clean pipe. 254+30 29.72 1976 24 80 24x58, 1980: Extended 20' RT No Clean pipe and grade inlet to drain. X24259+25 29.82 1976 24 64 24x64 No Replace pipe due to corrosion. X24262+20 29.87 1951 24 52 24x52 No Replace pipe due to blocked outlet and joint failure. Grade inlet and outlet to drain. Abandon 266+23 29.95 24 63 No Did not find. Require the contractor to locate culvert and remove or abandon with slurry. X36266+90 29.96 1976 36 61 36x60 No Replace with 36" pipe. Add class II riprap (2' overfall, 1' cantilever). Drains the wrong way. 275+53 30.13 1976 36 60 36x60 No Clean pipe. Add class II riprap at outlet (5' overfall, 3' cantilever). Replace bedding at outlet end. Abandon 279+60 30.20 24 34 Survey incomplete or pipe does not cross road No Abandon culvert with slurry X42279+69 30.21 1976 24 69 24x72 No Replace with 42" pipe. Future lining possibility. Outlet is cantilevered about 3' and stream is 3' wide. 293+19 30.46 1976 24 77 24x76 No Clean pipe. Grade inlet to drain and add class II to outlet (4' overall). Abandon 293+24 30.46 24 51 Survey incomplete or pipe does not cross road No Abandon culvert with slurry Grade inlet and outlet to drain with ditch lining at at the outlet. Minor joint separation near outlet end. Small holes in inlet invert due to corrosion. Replace 299+42 30.58 1976 36 55 36x60 No X or CIPP 24 or install CIPP liner. X or CIPP 24 306+33 30.71 1976 24 83 24x90 No Grade inlet and outlet to drain. Marginal condition due to corrosion. Clean pipe. Replace last 20' at outlet due to seam failure. Add class II riprap at the outlet (3' overfall). Reinspect to detemine is portion of pipe to remain is 308+19 30.75 1976 36 59 36x58 No X 20' of 36 round. 314+78 30.87 1976 24 59 24x56 No No recommendations PROJECT NAME: SEWARD HWY: MP 25.5 - 36, TRAIL RIVER TO STERLING WYE REHABILITATION PROJECT NO: Z546590000 INSPECTION DATES: 8/21-22 and 9/25-26 Culvert Assessment Seward Hwy MP 25.5 - 36 RECOMMENDED MILEPOINT DIA LENGTH CATALOGED STATION YEAR SIZE PER ASBUILT RECOMMENDATIONS ADF&G RECS REPLACE SIZE (in) (MP) (in) (ft) ANADROMOUS 318+75 30.95 1976 36 60 36x60 No Clean pipe and grade inlet and outlet to drain. Add class 1 riprap at outlet (6" overfall) 325+27 31.07 1976 24 53 24x52 No Clean pipe and grade inlet and outlet to drain. CIPP 24 328+06 31.12 1976 24 90 24x98 No Grade inlet to drain. Install CIPP liner due to corrosion and 25'+ embankment height. X24332+84 31.21 1951 24 57 24x44, 1976: Extended 10' No Replace. Culvert is blocked. Unknown condition. Approx. 5' embankment height. 334+59 31.25 1951 24 101 24x44, 1976: Extended 10' No Clean pipe. X24334+59 31.25 1951 24 No Two separate culverts at 334+59. Replace culvert on project RT (underneath pull-out). Enlarge ditch between road and pull-out. 337+01 31.29 1951 24 61 24x48 No Grade inlet and outlet to drain. Install CIPP liner due to flaking and holes. Sliplining is not recommended due to high rust line. Add 1 CY class II riprap to outlet (cantilevered 2' with 349+36 31.52 1951 24 126 24x114, Extended 10' in 1976 No CIPP 24 scour). Grade inlet to drain. Reinspect to confirm sliplining recommendation. BRIDGE 4090 - NEED BRIDGE RECS Bridge recommendations required. Beaver dams blocking both inlets. M&O actively removing dams. Large scour hole at outlet. Inverts are flaking. Left 359+19 31.71 1976 2X138" 121 Yes, Moose Creek DOUBLE ARCH 11.5' culvert outlet is separated from headwall. Possible EVOS funding to relace culverts and make necessary upgrades for fish passage. Fish Passage TBD (1953: 2 - 65x40 Arch Culverts, 1976: Anchor Added). Replace culverts. Dip in NB lane. Outlet ends are cantilevered. Right culvert top is flat. The culverts installed in 1953 were replaced in--kind in November 391+94 32.33 1953 2x60x46" 66 Yes, Moose Creek Fish Passage X Fish Culvert REPLACED W/ 2-60x46 IN NOV. 2019. 2019. They do not meet fish passage criteria. 399+29 32.47 1976 18 64 18x62 Clean pipe and grade inlet and outlet to drain. Fish Passage Not RECOMMENDED REPLACEMENT IN 2014 - (1953: 405+57 32.59 1953 36 58 No Upgrade size and replace pipe. Pipe is 1.5' perched above the water surface with a large scour hole at outlet. Required X TBD 36x58, 1976: Extend 6') 410+96 32.69 1953 24 74 24x56 (1976: Extended 8' LT, 16' RT) Clean pipe and grade inlet and outlet to drain. Replace pipe. Joint failure at inlet. Inlet is lifted, likely due to highwater event. Add class II riprap to outlet (3' overfall, 5' cantilever). Inlet should be moved 421+75 32.90 1953 48 82 48x64, 1976: Extended 6' LT, 10' RT Yes, Moose Creek Fish Passage X Fish Culvert to line up with bend in stream. X24428+61 33.03 1953 24 70 24x50, 1976: Extended 10' LT, 8' RT Replace pipe. Grade inlet and outlet to drain. Fish Passage Not 441+72 33.27 1953 24 66 24x52, 1976: Extended 10' LT, 2' RT No Clean pipe and grade inlet and outlet to drain. Required Place class II riprap on the left side of the culvert inlet and stream bed and at the outlet (1.5' overfall). Geotechnical recommendations needed at outlet and 50' north of the inlet. If culvert is replaced, realign and lengthen to resolve steep slopes. The culvert is in good condition. However, erosion protection 450+82 33.45 1953 48 93 48x78, 1976: Extended 14' RT Yes, Moose Creek is needed to stabilize inlet and outlet. Erosion protection needed on road embankment about 100' upstation of inlet. EVOS funding may be available to Fish Passage Fish Culvert replace culvert and make necessary upgrades for fish passage. Fish Passage. Remove Culvert on project RT. Place riprap at inlet and outlet. Determine if approach is even necessary. Remove culvert and reestablish natural channel if 456+56 33.56 48 35 Yes, Moose Creek if possible. Possibly Remove approach is not needed. EVOS funding may be available to replace culvert if it is determined that the approach is needed. Fish Passage X Fish Culvert 458+43 33.59 1953 24 141 24x124 No Replace due to corrosion and upsize. More survey data may be required. 463+35 33.68 1953 24 50 24x64 No Clean pipe. Grade inlet and outlet to drain. 468+63 33.78 1953 24 70 24x64 No Clean pipe. Grade inlet and outlet to drain. 480+80 34.01 1953 24 90 24x64 No Clean pipe. Grade inlet and outlet to drain. X24488+42 34.16 1976 18 47 18x44 Driveway No Did not find approach culvert. Replace with 24" pipe and grade to drain. May need to deepen ditches for minimum cover. 497+10 34.32 1953 24 77 24x58 No Grade inlet and outlet to drain. X24510+09 34.57 1953 24 74 24x52 No Replace. Grade inlet and outlet to drain. X24518+97 34.74 1976 18 40 18x40 Driveway No Replace and lower for minimum cover. X24520+65 34.77 18 27 No Replace. DOUBLE PIPE 2' - RECOMMENDED 523+06 34.81 1953 2x24 68 No Replace both pipes. Grade inlet and outlet to drain. Consider one 36" culvert. X (2) 24 or (1) 36 REPLACEMENT IN 2014 - (1593: 1- 24x54) 550+08 35.33 1953 24 65 24x50 No Clean pipe. Grade inlet and outlet to drain. Fish Passage Not 556+57 35.45 1953 24 65 24x58, 1976: Extended 6' No Replace with 36" pipe. Required X36 Fish Passage Not 558+38 35.48 1953 24 61 24x60 No Replace with 36" minimum pipe. Required X36 Fish Passage Not 565+57 35.62 1953 24 61 24x58 No Replace with 36" minimum pipe and add riprap at outlet. Required X36 567+56 35.66 1953 24 60 24x50 No Grade inlet and outlet to drain.