DOCSLIB.ORG

Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport 2014 MASTER PLAN UPDATE

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport 2014 MASTER PLAN UPDATE Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport 2014 MASTER PLAN UPDATE CHAPTER 2 - INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS FINAL DECEMBER 2014 IN ASSOCIATION WITH: HDR DOWL HKM RIM Architects ATAC Photo credit: Vanessa Bauman TED STEVENS ANCHORAGE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE CHAPTER 2 INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS December 2014 FINAL Prepared for: Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport State of Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities Prepared by: In association with: HDR DOWL HKM RIM Architects ATAC AKSAS Project No.: 54320 RS&H Project No. 226-2566-000 “The preparation of this document was financed in part through a planning grant from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as provided under Section 505 of the Airport and Airways Improvement Act of 1982, as amended by the Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the FAA. Acceptance of this report by the FAA does not in any way constitute a commitment on the part of the United States to participate in any development depicted therein, nor does it indicate that the proposed development is environmentally acceptable in accordance with applicable public laws.” PREFACE The Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (Airport) Master Plan Update (Master Plan Update) provides Airport management and the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) with a strategy to develop the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport. The intent of the Master Plan Update is to provide guidance that will enable Airport management to strategically position the Airport for the future by maximizing operational efficiency and business effectiveness, as well as by maximizing property availability for aeronautical development through efficient planning. While long-term development is considered in master planning efforts, the typical planning horizon for the Master Plan Update is 20 years. The Federal Aviation Administration provides guidance for Master Plan development in FAA Advisory Circular 150 / 5070-6B, Airport Master Plans. Although not required, the Advisory Circular strongly recommends airports prepare a Master Plan. Funding for the Master Plan Update is provided primarily by the Federal Aviation Administration through an Airport Improvement Program grant. A comprehensive Master Plan Update was last prepared in 2002 and a partial update was undertaken between 2006 and 2008. This Master Plan Update was initiated in June 2012 and concluded in December 2014. The DOT&PF entered into a contract with the firm RS&H to lead this effort. The Master Plan Update included a robust public and stakeholder involvement program. Page intentionally left blank Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport Master Plan Update Table of Contents SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 2-1 SECTION 2 HISTORIC CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND OF THE AIRPORT ................................ 2-5 2.1 HISTORIC CONTEXT OF AIRPORT SITE .................................................................................... 2-5 2.2 HISTORIC CONTEXT OF AIRPORT .............................................................................................. 2-7 2.3 AIRPORT OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT, AND OVERSIGHT............................................ 2-13 2.4 AIRPORT ROLE .................................................................................................................................... 2-17 SECTION 3 REGIONAL SETTING ............................................................................................................... 2-23 3.1 REGIONAL SETTING ........................................................................................................................ 2-23 3.2 COMPATIBILITY ................................................................................................................................. 2-32 SECTION 4 AIRPORT LAND USE ........................................................................................................... 2-53 4.1 FAA GRANT ASSURANCES ............................................................................................................ 2-54 4.2 ON-AIRPORT FUNCTIONAL LAND USE CATEGORIES ...................................................... 2-54 4.3 ON-AIRPORT GEOGRAPHIC LAND USE CATEGORIES ..................................................... 2-56 4.4 ON-AIRPORT LEASING LAND USE CATEGORIES ................................................................ 2-59 SECTION 5 EXISTING AIRPORT FACILITIES ........................................................................................ 2-63 5.1 BUILDINGS / FACILITIES INDEX ................................................................................................. 2-63 SECTION 6 EXISTING AIRPORT FACILITIES BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA ........................................ 2-81 6.1 NORTH AIRPARK ............................................................................................................................... 2-81 6.2 EAST AIRPARK.................................................................................................................................... 2-83 6.3 SOUTH AIRPARK ............................................................................................................................... 2-84 6.4 WEST AIRPARK .................................................................................................................................. 2-86 SECTION 7 EXISTING AIRPORT FACILITIES BY FUNCTIONAL AREA ....................................... 2-89 7.1 AIRFIELD ............................................................................................................................................... 2-89 7.2 AIRSPACE ........................................................................................................................................... 2-102 7.3 PASSENGER TERMINAL AND LANDSIDE FACILITIES ...................................................... 2-108 7.4 AIR CARGO FACILITIES ................................................................................................................ 2-142 7.5 GENERAL AVIATION FACILITIES ............................................................................................. 2-152 7.6 AIRPORT / AIRLINE SUPPORT FACILITIES ........................................................................... 2-156 7.7 AIRPORT FIELD MAINTENANCE FACILITY ......................................................................... 2-166 7.8 AIRPORT POLICE AND FIRE FACILITIES ................................................................................ 2-176 7.9 OTHER STATE-ADMINISTERED FACILITIES ........................................................................ 2-181 December 2014 i Chapter 2 - Inventory of Existing Conditions Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport Master Plan Update 7.10 FAA FACILITIES ................................................................................................................................. 2-183 7.11 OTHER FACILITIES ......................................................................................................................... 2-186 7.12 INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITY SERVICES ....................................................................... 2-191 7.13 WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................2-200 SECTION 8 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................... 2-203 8.1 AIRPORT OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION ............................................................................ 2-203 8.2 ALASKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS SYSTEM FINANCIAL STRUCTURE ............ 2-204 8.3 HISTORICAL OPERATING REVENUE AND EXPENSES .................................................... 2-205 8.4 SOURCES OF OPERATING REVENUE ..................................................................................... 2-207 8.5 AIRLINE LEASE AND USE AGREEMENT (AIRLINE OPERATING AGREEMENT) ... 2-208 8.6 SOURCES OF CAPITAL FUNDS .................................................................................................. 2-208 SECTION 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ..............................................................................................2-213 9.1 AIR QUALITY ......................................................................................................................................2-213 9.2 BIOTIC RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 2-215 9.3 COASTAL BARRIERS ...................................................................................................................... 2-220 9.4 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................. 2-220 9.5 COMPATIBLE LAND USE .............................................................................................................. 2-221 9.6 PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ............................................................................ 2-226 9.7 FEDERALLY LISTED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES ............................. 2-227 9.8 ENERGY SUPPLIES, NATURAL RESOURCES, AND SUSTAINABLE DESIGN............. 2-227 9.9 FARMLANDS ....................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Entire Bulletin
    Volume 49 Number 51 Saturday, December 21, 2019 • Harrisburg, PA Pages 7389—7560 Agencies in this issue The Courts Department of Banking and Securities Department of Education Department of Environmental Protection Department of Health Department of Human Services Department of Labor and Industry Department of Transportation Environmental Quality Board Fish and Boat Commission Housing Finance Agency Independent Regulatory Review Commission Insurance Department Legislative Reference Bureau Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission State Employees’ Retirement Board Susquehanna River Basin Commission Thaddeus Stevens College of Technology Detailed list of contents appears inside. Latest Pennsylvania Code Reporter (Master Transmittal Sheet): Pennsylvania Bulletin Pennsylvania No. 541, December 2019 TYPE OR PRINT LEGIBLY Attn: 800 Church Rd. W. 17055-3198 PA Mechanicsburg, FRY COMMUNICATIONS, INC. COMMUNICATIONS, FRY CUT ON DOTTED LINES AND ENCLOSE IN AN ENVELOPE CHANGE NOTICE/NEW SUBSCRIPTION If information on mailing label is incorrect, please email changes to [email protected] or mail to: mail or [email protected] to changes email please incorrect, is label mailing on information If (City) (State) (Zip Code) label) mailing on name above number digit (6 NUMBER CUSTOMER NAME INDIVIDUAL OF NAME—TITLE OFFICE ADDRESS (Number and Street) (City) (State) (Zip The Pennsylvania Bulletin is published weekly by Fry PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN Communications, Inc. for the Commonwealth of Pennsylva- nia, Legislative Reference Bureau, 641 Main Capitol Build- (ISSN 0162-2137) ing, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120, under the policy supervision and direction of the Joint Committee on Docu- ments under 45 Pa.C.S. Part II (relating to publication and effectiveness of Commonwealth documents). The subscrip- tion rate is $87.00 per year, postpaid to points in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Elmendorf Air Force Base (Afb)
    ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE (AFB) Contract Details Contract Type: Energy Efficiency; Energy Savings Performance Contract; Guaranteed Energy Savings; Natural Gas Facility Size: Nearly 800 buildings; Over 9.3 million sq. feet Energy Project Size: Elmendorf Air Force Base, located in Anchorage, Alaska, comprises nearly 800 facilities and spans 9.3 million square feet of multi-use space. Ameresco $48.8 million implemented an ESPC, which included supplying the base with natural gas and decentralizing the heating system. Energy Savings: Customer Benefits (CHPP) with a modern and high-efficiency system. Over 1 million MMBtu The Elmendorf Air Force Base entered a partnership Ameresco’s insightful and thorough review of the with Ameresco to design and implement an energy project concept indicated the infrastructure to support savings performance contract (ESPC). The project the CHPP was failing and too expensive to repair. After Capacity: utilized locally available natural gas as an energy additional discussions concerning security and 5.6 MW component. Ameresco took into consideration the Elmendorf’s future growth projections, converting the setting and brief construction time frame for on-time CHPP to a decentralized heating system with the project completion. Elmendorf achieved its sustain- capability to receive their full electricity requirements ability goals and reduced energy use without redundantly from the local utility became the project’s compromising its mission. This project alone made new direction. Elmendorf’s energy reduction goals and has had a Summary major impact on the Air Force’s goals with annual Thorough consideration to provide the Ameresco developed the new project scope, managed a energy savings of over 1 million MMBtu.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Land Use Study
    Fairbanks North Star Borough Joint Land Use Study United States Army, Fort Wainwright United States Air Force, Eielson Air Force Base Fairbanks North Star Borough, Planning Department July 2006 Produced by ASCG Incorporated of Alaska Fairbanks North Star Borough Joint Land Use Study Fairbanks Joint Land Use Study This study was prepared under contract with Fairbanks North Star Borough with financial support from the Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense. The content reflects the views of Fairbanks North Star Borough and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Economic Adjustment. Historical Hangar, Fort Wainwright Army Base Eielson Air Force Base i Fairbanks North Star Borough Joint Land Use Study Table of Contents 1.0 Study Purpose and Process................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................1 1.2 Study Objectives ............................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Planning Area................................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Participating Stakeholders.............................................................................................. 4 1.5 Public Participation........................................................................................................ 5 1.6 Issue Identification........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Public Law 161 CHAPTER 368 Be It Enacted Hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the ^^"'^'/Or^ C ^ United States Of
    324 PUBLIC LAW 161-JULY 15, 1955 [69 STAT. Public Law 161 CHAPTER 368 July 15.1955 AN ACT THa R 68291 *• * To authorize certain construction at inilitai-y, naval, and Air F<n"ce installations, and for otlier purposes. Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the an^^"'^'/ord Air Forc^e conc^> United States of America in Congress assembled^ struction TITLE I ^'"^" SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army is authorized to establish or develop military installations and facilities by the acquisition, con­ struction, conversion, rehabilitation, or installation of permanent or temporary public works in respect of the following projects, which include site preparation, appurtenances, and related utilities and equipment: CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES TECHNICAL SERVICES FACILITIES (Ordnance Corps) Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: Troop housing, community facilities, utilities, and family housing, $1,736,000. Black Hills Ordnance Depot, South Dakota: Family housing, $1,428,000. Blue Grass Ordnance Depot, Kentucky: Operational and mainte­ nance facilities, $509,000. Erie Ordnance Depot, Ohio: Operational and maintenance facilities and utilities, $1,933,000. Frankford Arsenal, Pennsylvania: Utilities, $855,000. LOrdstown Ordnance Depot, Ohio: Operational and maintenance facilities, $875,000. Pueblo Ordnance Depot, (^olorado: Operational and maintenance facilities, $1,843,000. Ked River Arsenal, Texas: Operational and maintenance facilities, $140,000. Redstone Arsenal, Alabama: Research and development facilities and community facilities, $2,865,000. E(.>ck Island Arsenal, Illinois: Operational and maintenance facil­ ities, $347,000. Rossford Ordnance Depot, Ohio: Utilities, $400,000. Savanna Ordnance Depot, Illinois: Operational and maintenance facilities, $342,000. Seneca Ordnance Depot, New York: Community facilities, $129,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Open the Trestle" Rally County Executive Doug Duncan Announces Support for the Trestle and the Trail by Wayne Phyillaier/CCCT Chair
    HERESCENT Fall 1999 Vol X No. 4 Coalition Hosts "Open The Trestle" Rally County Executive Doug Duncan announces support for the trestle and the Trail By Wayne Phyillaier/CCCT Chair One of the best ways to build support and stewardship of the Capital Crescent Trail is to provide opportunities for trail users and local residents to experience trail advocacy in a personal way. On Saturday, October 23d, the Coalition for the Capital Crescent Trail did just that. Trail lovers from all around the metropolitan area participated in Coalition-sponsored hikes, both walking and biking, to the Rock Creek Park trestle for an "Open The Trestle" rally. Several Coalition Board members addressed the rally, and outlined why I repairing and opening the trestle for Trail use was essential for completing a first class interim trail to Silver Spring. Results of a Coalition sponsored I engineering design study were presented that show how the trestle can be rebuilt for Trail use at a t Dozrg Dz~ncanut rally fraction of the cost of building a new bridge. Joining rally participants was Montgomery County Executive, Mr. Doug Duncan, who spoke in support of completing the Trail. In a surprise announcement, Mr. Duncan pledged to put funding to rebuild the trestle in the upcoming FY 2001-2002 budget. He challenged trail supporters to do their part and get the support of the five County Council members needed to pass the budget. Mr. Duncan's pledge of support is a very welcome event, and allows the Coalition to focus its advocacy for the trestle on the Montgomery County council.
    [Show full text]
  • Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations
    Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations Revised Report and Documentation Prepared for: Department of Defense U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Submitted by: January 2004 Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations: Revised Report and Documentation CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary..........................................................................................iii 2.0 Introduction – Project Description................................................................. 1 3.0 Methods ................................................................................................................ 3 3.1 NatureServe Data................................................................................................ 3 3.2 DOD Installations............................................................................................... 5 3.3 Species at Risk .................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Results................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Nationwide Assessment of Species at Risk on DOD Installations..................... 8 4.2 Assessment of Species at Risk by Military Service.......................................... 13 4.3 Assessment of Species at Risk on Installations ................................................ 15 5.0 Conclusion and Management Recommendations.................................... 22 6.0 Future Directions.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • LEGISLATIVE BUDGET and AUDIT COMMITTEE Division of Legislative Audit
    LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND AUDIT COMMITTEE Division of Legislative Audit P.O. Box 113300 Juneau, AK 99811-3300 (907) 465-3830 FAX (907) 465-2347 [email protected] SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Spill Prevention and Response, Oil and Hazardous Substance Release Prevention and Response Fund, March 18, 2008. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a performance audit of the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Division of Spill Prevention and Response (Division). Specifically, we were asked to review the expenditures and cost recovery revenues from the Oil and Hazardous Substance Release Prevention and Response Fund (Fund). REPORT CONCLUSIONS The conclusions are as follows: all expenditures are not recorded according to activities compliance with statutory cost recovery requirements is unclear Division is not efficiently and effectively recovering costs most expenditures were appropriate legal costs need an improved budgeting process certain contractual oversight practices are weak detailed information on the Fund’s financial activities is incomplete During the audit we reviewed a $9 million reimbursable services agreement between the Division and the Department of Law for legal services related to two transit pipeline spills on the North Slope. The contract was funded by the Response Account without specific legislative appropriation. It would have been more prudent to follow the established legislative budget process, especially for long-term legal activities. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Division Director should improve the accountability for the Division’s activities and reporting of Fund expenditures.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 59/Monday, March 29, 1999/Rules
    14972 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 59 / Monday, March 29, 1999 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Airspace Management, Federal Aviation comments on the proposal to the FAA. Administration, 800 Independence The FAA received 11 written comments Federal Aviation Administration Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; in response to the proposal to modify telephone (202) 267±8783. the Anchorage, Alaska, Terminal Area 14 CFR Part 93 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (Notice 97±14). These commenters [Docket No. 29029; Amendment No. 93±77] included the following parties: the Air Background Transport Association; Anchorage RIN 2120±AG45 On December 17, 1991, the FAA International Airport; Alaskan Aviation published, in the Federal Register, the Anchorage, Alaska, Terminal Area Safety Foundation; Alaska Airmen's Airspace Reclassification Final Rule (56 Association, Inc.; Department of the AGENCY: Federal Aviation FR 65638). This rule reclassified various Army; State of Alaska Department of Administration (FAA), DOT. airspace designations and deleted the Transportation and Public Facilities; ACTION: Final rule. term ``Airport Traffic Area.'' These and other concerned citizens. All changes were designed to apply to all comments received were considered SUMMARY: This action amends similarly designated airspace areas. before making a determination on this regulations regarding aircraft operations However, Title 14 of the Code of Federal final rule. The following is an analysis in the Anchorage, Alaska, Terminal Regulations (14 CFR) part 93, subpart D of the substantive comments received Area. Specifically, this action revises was not amended to reflect the airspace and the Agency's responses. the description of the Anchorage, reclassification effort. Alaska, Terminal Area and the In this action, the FAA amends the Analysis of Comments Communications requirements for regulations set forth at part 93, subpart Lake Hood Segment operating in the area; adds a new D, to reflect airspace designations in the segment, with communication and vicinity of Anchorage, Alaska.
    [Show full text]
  • Ntsb/Aar-73/01
    - I’ N A T I. 0 N . .\I __. A .’ ‘~, ~Pan:,~~~~~~.~AirwayS, Ltd, L :. .~ b&ha -3lOC, N1812H ;:. T .,.” I R Missing Between . A Anchorage and Juneau, Alaska N S P 0 R T A T I 0 N S A F E .T Y .dOC 3 N 1st~ 3 AAH 73/01 4 c.2 c.2 3 3 _ L. r 8 File No. 3-0604 AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT REPO~RT I Pan Alaska Airways, Ltd. Cessna 31OC, N1812H Missing Between Anchorage and Juneau, Alaska October 16, 1972 ADOPTED: January 31, 1973 / NATIONAL TRANSPORTAjlON SAFETY BOARD Washington, D. C. 20591 Report Number: NTSB-AAR-73-1 I TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE I. Report No. 2.Government Accession No. 3.Recipient's Catalog No. NTSB-AAR-73-1 +. Title and Subtitle 5.Report Date Pan Alaska Airways, Ltd., Cessna 31OC, N3812H Janu r-v 31. 1973 Missing between Anchorage and Juneau, Alaska 6.Perfaorming Organization 1972 Code 8.Performing Organization Report No. 3. Performing Organization Name and Address lO.Work Unit No. National Transportation Safety Board Bureau of Aviation ‘Safety ll.Contract or Grant No. Washington, D. C. 20591 13.Type of Report and Period Covered 12.Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Aircraft .\ccident Report October 16, 1972 NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Washington, D. C. 20591 14.Sponsoring Agency Code 15.Supplementary Notes 16.Abstract Sl812H, a Cessna 3lDC operated by the chief pilot of Pan .Alaska .liWa!s, Ltd., disappeared on a flight from Anchorage to Juneau, .Alaska, on October 16, 1972. In addition to the pilot, three passengers, including two 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Army National Guard Bryant Army Airfield BASH Final EA
    Alaska Army National Guard Bryant Army Airfield BASH Final EA APPENDIX H. AKARNG OPERATIONAL NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN H-1 ALASKA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OPERATIONAL NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN July 2005 ALASKA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OPERATIONAL NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN July 2005 Prepared By: Operational Noise Program Directorate of Environmental Health Engineering U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine 5158 Blackhawk Road Aberdeen Proving Ground Maryland, 21010-5403 AK ARNG Operational Noise Management Plan July 2005 CONTENTS Paragraphs Page 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 General ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 History of Noise Controversy ....................................................................... 1-1 1.1.2 The Risk to Military Installations ................................................................. 1-2 1.1.3 Contending with the Risk ............................................................................. 1-4 1.1.4 The Army's Operational Noise Management Plan ....................................... 1-4 1.2 Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 1-4 1.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................. 1-4 1.4 Content ..................................................................................................................... 1-5 2 NOISE MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Patapsco Regional Greenway the Patapsco Regional Greenway
    THE PATAPSCO REGIONAL GREENWAY THE PATAPSCO REGIONAL GREENWAY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS While the Patapsco Regional Greenway Concept Plan and Implementation Matrix is largely a community effort, the following individuals should be recognized for their input and contribution. Mary Catherine Cochran, Patapsco Heritage Greenway Dan Hudson, Maryland Department of Natural Resources Rob Dyke, Maryland Park Service Joe Vogelpohl, Maryland Park Service Eric Crawford, Friends of Patapsco Valley State Park and Mid-Atlantic Off-Road Enthusiasts (MORE) Ed Dixon, MORE Chris Eatough, Howard County Office of Transportation Tim Schneid, Baltimore Gas & Electric Pat McDougall, Baltimore County Recreation & Parks Molly Gallant, Baltimore City Recreation & Parks Nokomis Ford, Carroll County Department of Planning The Patapsco Regional Greenway 2 THE PATAPSCO REGIONAL GREENWAY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................4 2 BENEFITS OF WALKING AND BICYCLING ...............14 3 EXISTING PLANS ...............................................18 4 TREATMENTS TOOLKIT .......................................22 5 GREENWAY MAPS .............................................26 6 IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX .................................88 7 FUNDING SOURCES ...........................................148 8 CONCLUSION ....................................................152 APPENDICES ........................................................154 Appendix A: Community Feedback .......................................155 Appendix B: Survey
    [Show full text]
  • Decision Analysis Methodology to Evaluate Integrated Solid Waste Management Alternatives for a Remote Alaskan Air Station
    Air Force Institute of Technology AFIT Scholar Theses and Dissertations Student Graduate Works 3-2001 Decision Analysis Methodology to Evaluate Integrated Solid Waste Management Alternatives for a Remote Alaskan Air Station Mark J. Shoviak Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.afit.edu/etd Part of the Environmental Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Shoviak, Mark J., "Decision Analysis Methodology to Evaluate Integrated Solid Waste Management Alternatives for a Remote Alaskan Air Station" (2001). Theses and Dissertations. 4696. https://scholar.afit.edu/etd/4696 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Graduate Works at AFIT Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of AFIT Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DECISION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY TO EVALUATE INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR A REMOTE ALASKAN AIR STATION THESIS Mark J. Shoviak, Captain, USAF AFIT/GEE/ENV/01M-20 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR UNIVERSITY AIR FORCE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED. The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the U. S. Government. AFIT/GEE/ENV/01M-20 DECISION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY TO EVALUATE INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR A REMOTE ALASKAN AIR STATION THESIS Presented to the Faculty Department of Systems and Engineering Management Graduate School of Engineering and Management Air Force Institute of Technology Air University Air Education and Training Command In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Engineering and Environmental Management Mark J.
    [Show full text]