DOCSLIB.ORG

2010 - 2013 STIP Revision 2 7 Incorporated

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

2010 - 2013 STIP Revision 2 7 Incorporated Amendment (Revision 27) Approved by FHWA & FTA July 28, 2011 Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities "Providing for the safe movement of people and goods and the delivery of state services" How to Reach Us •B am>W Statewide Prudhoe Bay Division of Program Development . - P.O. Box 112500 Northern Region Planning 3132 Channel Drive, Suite 200 Phone: (907) 451-5150 Juneau, AK 99811-2500 Fax: (907) 451-2333 PHONE: (907) 465-4070 (in Jtmeau) Kotzebue.. ethan.birkholz@alaska. gov TOLL FREE: (888) PLAN DOT (752-6368) Circle FAX: (907) 465-6984 (in Juneau) • FREE FAX: (888) PLAN FAX (752-6329) Gambell Ruby • ~h a g • Alaska Relay: Tok (800) 770-8973 for TTY Kot li~ • • • Pax~on (800) 770-8255 for Voice • Talkeetna Holy Cr~rs McGm111 0 • • Gicnnllllen (800) 770-3919 for ASCII Scammon Bay • Crooked Creek 1\nchorege Valdez (866) 355-6198 for STS • • • Bctbd• • •'Skagway (866) 335-6199 for Spanish Cordovn JUllcau EMAIL: [email protected] vcliuuu • INTERNET: http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stip • ~tersburg .--------------iS~int Paul Kiug Salmon S i lk~ • A till • Central Region Planning tKodiak Phone: (907) 269-0520 Fax: (907) 269-0521 - Southeast Region Planning and david.post@a la.ska. gov SandP<:rint Alaska Marine Highway Unalaska dak 0' Phone: (907) 465-1776 -· ~- Fax: (907) 465-2016 andy.hughes@alaska. gov Anchorage Metropolitan Area Fairbanks Metropolitan Art>a Transpor·tation Solutions Transpor·tation Systt>m AMATS Coordinator FMATS MPO Coordinator Mtmicipality of Anchorage City ofFairbanks P.O. Box 196650 800 Cuslunan Street Anchorage, AK 99519-6650 Fairbanks, AK 99701-4615 PHONE: (907) 343-7996 PHONE: (907) 459-6786 FAX: (907) 343-7998 FAX: (907) 459-6783 [email protected] djgardino@ci fairbanks.ak.us DOT&PF Anchorage Area Planner DOT&PF Fairbanks Area Planner P.O. Box 196900 2301 Peger Road Anchorage, AK 99519-6900 Fairbanks, .AK 99709-5316 PHONE: (907) 269-0515 PHONE: (907) 451 -2252 FAX.: (907) 269-0521 FAX: (907) 451 -2313 david.post@alaska. gov margaret.camenter@alaska. gov Email your comments to: [email protected] You may also mail them to: STIP Division of Program Development, Alaska DOT&PF P.O. Box 112500 Juneau, AK 99811-2500 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ALASKA DIVISION 709 W. 9TH STREET, ROOM 851 P.O. BOX 21848 JUNEAU, AlASKA 99802-1848 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION 915 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 3142 SEA TILE, WASHINGTON 96174 July 28, 2011 Mr. Marc Luiken Commissioner In Reply Refer To: Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities PR2-2 P.O. Box 112500 Juneau, AK 99811-1125 Dear Mr. Luiken: The Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have received Revision 27, (Amendment) for the 2010-2013 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for review and approval. In accordance with 23 CFR 450.220, the FHWA and FTA, based on the certification of the Statewide and metropolitan transportation planning process for and within the State of Alaska, hereby find that the projects described in the STIP Amendment are based on a transportation planning process that substantially meets the requirements of 23 CFR Part 450 Subparts A, B, C; 49 U.S.C. Sections 5303-5304; and 23 U.S.C. Sections 134 and 135. Therefore, the amendment is approved. Approval of the STIP and amendments are not construed as a Federal-aid eligibility determination. Each project must satisfy the specific requirements of the program from whieh the federal fimds are solicited, as well as the other federal requirements before federal fimds are authorized. If you have any questions concerning om joint action of tltis STIP amendment, please contact Mr. Kris Riesenberg, FHW A Planning Program Manager at (907) 586- 7413, or Mr. Ned Comoy, FTA Conmmnity Planner at (206) 220-4318. Sincerely, - ~aJL~4t--/7 ,MvDavld:Miller 7) Division Administrator Federal Highway Administr·ation Administration Cc: Jeffery C. Ottesen, Director, Division Program Development, DOT&PF Pete Christensen, Transportation Planner, DOT&PF Ned Comoy, FTA SEAN PARNELL, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 3132 CHANNEL DRIVE P.O. Box 112500 AND PUBLIC FACILITIES JUNEAU, AK 99801-7898 PHONE: (907) 465-6441 TTY/TDD: (907) 465-3652 DIVISION OF PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT FAX: (907) 465-6984 July 27, 2011 David Miller, Division Administrator R.F, Krochalis, Regional Administrator Federal Highway Administration, Alaska Division Federal Transit Administration, Region X P.O. Box 21648 915 2nd Ave., Suite 3142 Juneau, AK 99802‐1648 Seattle, WA 98174‐1002 SUBJECT: Revision 26 to the 2010‐2013 STIP Dear Mr. Miller and Mr. Krochalis: Enclosed for your review and endorsement is Revision 27 (Amendment) to the 2010‐2013 Alaska Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). This amendment is to address federal fiscal year 2011 funding and scheduling issues on several projects around the state. Enclosed you will find a fiscal summary and proposed project pages for this revision and more information (including public comments) can be accessed through the Alaska STIP website at www.dot.alaska.gov/stip. This STIP amendment was developed in compliance with Title 23 ‐ Section 135 and the state planning regulations. It includes a statement of the state funds budgeted to adequately operate and maintain the surface transportation system. None of these projects will require an update of the air quality non‐attainment conformity analysis. As specified in 23 CFR §450.218, the State certifies that the transportation planning process is being carried out in accordance with all applicable requirements of: (1) 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135, 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304, and this part; (2) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000d‐ l) and 49 CFR part 21; (3) 49 U.S.C. 5332, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, or age in employment or business opportunity; (4) Section 1101(b) of the SAFETEA‐ LV (Pub. L. 109‐59) and 49 CFR part 26 regarding the involvement of disadvantaged business enterprises in USDOT funded projects; (5) 23 CFR part 230, regarding implementation of an equal employment opportunity program on Federal and Federal‐aid highway construction contracts; (6) The provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. ) and 49 CFR parts 27, 37, and 38; (7) Sections 174 and 176 (c) and (d) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7504, 7506 (c) and (d)) and 40 CFR part 93; “Providing for the safe movement of people, and goods, and the delivery of state services.” - 2 - (8) The Older Americans Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101), prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance; (9) Section 324 of title 23 U.S.C., regarding the prohibition of discrimination based on gender; and, (10) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 {29 U.S.C. 794} and 49 CFR part 27 regarding discrimination against individuals with disabilities. We request your approval of Revision 27 (amendment} to the 2010-2013 Alaska Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. r:z· ~ r"- Marc A. Luiken Commissioner Enclosures cc: Ned Conroy, Community Planner, FTA Kris Riesenberg, Transportation Planner, FHWA Mike Vanderhoof, Statewide Programs Team Leader, FHWA Patrick Kemp, P.E., Deputy Commissioner of Highways and Public Facilities Jeff Ottesen, Director, Division of Program Development, DOT&PF Pete Christensen, Manager, Capital Improvement Program Mike Vigue, Chief, Surface Transportation Planner Ethan Birkholz, Planning Chief, Northern Region, DOT&PF Jennifer W itt, Planning Chief, Central Region, DOT&PF Andy Hughes, Planning Chief, Southeast Region DOT&PF Christa Hagan, AMHS Planner Talena Adams, STIP Planner "Providing f or the sqfe movement ofpeople , goods, and the delivery ofstate services." Revision 27 Change Summary Region Need ID Project Title Change C 2186 Wood River Bridge Revised earmark and bond funding; FFY11 and FFY13; PH 3, 4, 7 C 2202 New Seward Highway: Rabbit Creek to 36th Avenue Increased FFY11 funding PH 2, 4; decreased PH 7 C 2500 Mat‐Su: Trunk Road Reconstruction Decreased PH 4 FFY11 and revised FFY12 C 2617 MP 18 to 25.5 Rehabilitation ‐ Snow River to Trail River Decreased FFY11, PH 4, 7 C 11925 MP 75 to 90 ‐ Ingram Creek to Girdwood Road and Bridge Rehabilitation Moved all funding beyond FFY13 C 11959 MP 34 to 42 Reconstruction ‐ Parks to Old Glenn Hwy Revised FFY 11 funding to correct match ratio C 12640 MP 99 to 104 ‐ Bird and Indian Improvements Increased FFY11 , PH 2 C 18903 Recreational Improvements FFY 11, Moved some Earmark funding to PH 7, increased PH 4 C 26124 Takotna: Gold Creek Bridge and Tatalina Bridge Replacement Increased FFY11, PH 2 C 26348 Naknek Bridge Added earmark project to STIP, FFY11, PH 2 C 26409 Avalance Detection Project Added project to STIP. C 26449 Akutan Dock Improvements (FBD) Added ILLU project to STIP ‐ Possible discretionary grant H 6451 Statewide Research Program Increased FFY 11 funding H 7179 Statewide: Highway Data Equipment Acquisition and Installation (Iways) Moved $2M, PH 4 from FFY11 to FFY12 H 12259 Recreational Trails Program Increased FFY11 funding to match allocation H 25276 Alaska Historic Roads Study Decreased FFY11, Increased FFY12, 13 H 26448 Transportation Community System Preservation (TCSP) Added ILLU project to STIP ‐ Possible discretionary grant H 26450 Public Lands Highway Discretionary (PLHD) Added ILLU project to STIP ‐ Possible discretionary grant M 6413 Ferry: Fleet Condition Survey Update Increased PH 8, FFY12,13 M 18358 Ferry Refurbishment Increased FFY11, PH 4 $24M N 3742 Nome‐Council Road: MP 4 to 16 Funded ILLU Project, FFY11, PH 3, 4 Decreased BOND, increased other funding and revised to correct N 6382 MP 172 to 189 Rehabilitation ‐ Tolsona River to Richardson Hwy.
Recommended publications
  • $315 Million Bridge to Nowhere Rep. Don Young (R-AK) Is Trying to Sell

    $315 Million Bridge to Nowhere Rep. Don Young (R-AK) Is Trying to Sell

    $315 Million Bridge to Nowhere February 9, 2005 Rep. Don Young (R-AK) is trying to sell America’s taxpayers a $315 million “bridge to nowhere” in rural Alaska. As Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, he is in a very good position to get his way. But Rep. Young should be stopped from using his political clout to force federal taxpayers to pay for a bridge that is ridiculous in its scope, unjustified on its merits, and far too expensive for taxpayers to swallow at a time of record federal deficits. If Rep. Young succeeds, tiny Ketchikan, Alaska, a town with less than 8,000 residents (about 13,000 if the entire county is included) will receive hundreds of millions of federal dollars to build a bridge to Gravina Island (population: 50). This bridge will be nearly as long as the Golden Gate Bridge and taller than the Brooklyn Bridge. The Gravina Bridge would replace a 7-minute ferry ride from Ketchikan to Ketchikan Airport on Gravina Island. Project proponents tell the public that the bridge is a transportation necessity, though the ferry system adequately handles passenger traffic between the islands, including traffic to and from the airport.1 Some herald the project as the savior of Ketchikan because it will open up land on Pennock Island to residential development, despite the fact that Gravina’s population has been shrinking. 1 Alaska Airlines, the only commercial passenger airline that flies to Ketchikan, runs seven daily flight routes in the summer and six in the winter. Two ferries, which run every 15 minutes in the summer and every 30 minutes in the winter, provide transportation to and from the airport.
  • Great Fun for All in the Land of Sarah Palin's Joe

    Great Fun for All in the Land of Sarah Palin's Joe

    Yukon Rumination: Great Fun for All in the Land of Sarah Palin’s Joe Sixpack Alaska Jennifer C. Wolfe BlazeVOX [books] Buffalo, New York Yukon Rumination: Great Fun for All in the Land of Sarah Palin’s Joe Sixpack Alaska by Jennifer C. Wolfe Copyright © 2009 Published by BlazeVOX [ebooks] All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced without the publisher’s written permission, except for brief quotations in reviews. Printed in the United States of America Book design by Geoffrey Gatza First Edition BlazeVOX [books] 14 Tremaine Ave Kenmore, NY 14217 [email protected] publisher of weird little books BlazeVOX [ books ] blazevox.org 2 4 6 8 0 9 7 5 3 1 B X Yukon Rumination: Great Fun for All in the Land of Sarah Palin’s Joe Sixpack Alaska A Collection of Political Poetry Musings Bridge to Nowhere Empty concrete bridge to nowhere: Spanning miles of icy water, Killed at the drawing table, Before you had a chance to blossom: The saddened pipe dream unfulfilled. A filibuster; an economic earmark Paid for by US mainland taxpayers: Who have all of the bridges they could Ever need, or want, or appreciate, (Never mind, if they sometimes fall down). Why begrudge Alaska one bridge? Never mind that it not needed, or wanted, Or even appreciated by Alaskans: Except for those who snatch greedily at Allotted highway dollars. Field Dress a Moose John McCain served time in a hellish Vietnam prison, But can he field dress a moose? George W. Bush made the US Presidency into a laughingstock farce, But can he field dress a moose? Laura Bush puts up with her longsuffering husband, She ought to know how to field dress a moose.
  • Congressional Appropriations and Earmarks

    Congressional Appropriations and Earmarks

    Congressional Appropriations and Earmarks An Analysis of the Economic and Political Effects P. Anthony Allen University of Kentucky CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATIONS AND EARMARKS 2 Table of Contents i. Abstract……………………………………………………………………………..3 ii. Executive Summary………………………………………………………………..4 iii. Introduction………………………………………………………………………...5 iv. Problem Statement, Deals and Reform…………………………………………...7 v. Review of Literature…………………………………………………………….....9 vi. Research Question and Hypotheses……………………………………………...14 vii. Analysis of Data…………………………………………………………………...16 viii. Research Design…………………………………………………………………...24 ix. Results……………………………………………………………………………...27 x. Discussion………………………………………………………………………….31 xi. Limitations………………………………………………………………………...36 xii. Conclusions………………………………………………………………………..37 xiii. References…………………………………………………………………………39 CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATIONS AND EARMARKS 3 Abstract The effects of political characteristics on the Congressional appropriations process have remained a subject of debate in recent years. Congressionally directed spending influenced by these effects are defined as earmarks. To counter the practice of earmarking, Congress implemented multiple reforms and rules to curb the influence of partisan agendas. Total federal appropriations by year and state from 2002 – 2018 were aggregated to test the significance of the economic and political effects. This model utilized a time series fixed effects regression to determine the results that suggest select political characteristics of U.S. Senators remained significant
  • Lifting the Earmark Moratorium: Frequently Asked Questions

    Lifting the Earmark Moratorium: Frequently Asked Questions

    Lifting the Earmark Moratorium: Frequently Asked Questions Updated December 3, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45429 SUMMARY R45429 Lifting the Earmark Moratorium: Frequently December 3, 2020 Asked Questions Megan S. Lynch In response to congressional concern over the earmarking process, in the 110th Congress (2007- Specialist on Congress and 2008), the House and Senate codified earmark disclosure requirements into their respective the Legislative Process chamber rules with the stated intention of bringing more transparency to the earmarking process. As concern over earmarks continued, in the 112th Congress (2011-2012), the House and Senate began observing what has been referred to as an “earmark moratorium” or “earmark ban.” The moratorium does not exist in House or Senate chamber rules, however, and therefore is not enforced by points of order. Instead, the moratorium has been established by party rules and committee protocols and is enforced by chamber and committee leadership through their agenda-setting power. In recent years, some Members have expressed interest in lifting the earmark moratorium. Whether or not the earmark moratorium is lifted, the House and Senate continue to have formal earmark disclosure rules that were implemented in the 110th Congress with the stated intention of bringing more transparency to earmarking. These rules generally prohibit consideration of certain legislation unless information is provided about any earmarks included in the legislation. House and Senate rules require that any Member submitting an earmark request provide a written statement that includes the name of the Member, the name and address of the earmark recipient, and a certification that the Member has no financial interest in the earmark.
  • Earmark Disclosure Rules in the House: Member and Committee Requirements

    Earmark Disclosure Rules in the House: Member and Committee Requirements

    Earmark Disclosure Rules in the House: Member and Committee Requirements Megan S. Lynch Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process May 21, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS22866 Earmark Disclosure Rules in the House: Member and Committee Requirements Summary Earmark disclosure rules in both the House and Senate establish certain administrative responsibilities that vary by chamber. Under House rules, a Member requesting that an earmark be included in legislation is responsible for providing specific written information, such as the purpose and recipient of the earmark, to the committee of jurisdiction. Further, House committees are responsible for compiling, presenting, and maintaining such requests in accord with House rules. In the House, disclosure rules apply to any congressional earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit included in either the text of a bill or any report accompanying the measure, including a conference report and joint explanatory statement. The disclosure requirements apply to earmarks in appropriations legislation, authorizing legislation, and tax measures. Furthermore, they apply not only to measures reported by committees but also to measures not reported by committees, “manager’s amendments,” and conference reports. This report will be updated as needed. Congressional Research Service Earmark Disclosure Rules in the House: Member and Committee Requirements Contents Introduction .....................................................................................................................................
  • Appendix H Draft Plan of Development

    Appendix H Draft Plan of Development

    DOCKET NO. CP17-___-000 DOC NO: USAI-PE-SRREG-00- RESOURCE REPORT NO. 8 000008-000 ALASKA LNG APPENDIX H – DRAFT PLAN OF DATE: APRIL 14, 2017 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REVISION: 0 PUBLIC APPENDIX H DRAFT PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT DRAFT PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT AKLNG-6020-REG-PLN-DOC-00029 AKLNG-6020-REG-PLN-DOC-00029 PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT 4-APR-17 REVISION: 0 PUBLIC PAGE 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................. 5 1.2 SUMMARY OF PROJECT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ................................................................ 8 1.3 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION AND REVISION .............................................................................. 8 2.0 PROJECT PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 9 2.1 EXPECTED PUBLIC BENEFITS ............................................................................................... 10 2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................... 10 2.2.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 10 2.3 COMMODITY AND PURPOSE ................................................................................................. 12 3.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND LAND REQUIREMENTS
  • Chapter 3 2 Land Management Policies for Each Management Unit 3 4 Introduction

    Chapter 3 2 Land Management Policies for Each Management Unit 3 4 Introduction

    1 Chapter 3 2 Land Management Policies for Each Management Unit 3 4 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 5 Organization of Chapter ...................................................................................................... 2 6 Land Use Designations ....................................................................................................... 2 7 Map 3: Planning Area and Regions ............................................................................. 3 8 Designations Used in This Plan .......................................................................................... 5 9 Explanation of Habitat Designations .................................................................................. 9 10 Explanation of Oil and Gas Designation .......................................................................... 10 11 Resources and Uses and Management Intent .................................................................... 10 12 Duration and Flexibility of Plan ....................................................................................... 11 13 Glossary ............................................................................................................................ 12 14 Plan Structure .......................................................................................................................... 12 15 Plan Regions ....................................................................................................................
  • 2004-2006 STIP Phases

    2004-2006 STIP Phases

    2004-2006 STIP National Highway System draft DRAFT STIP Req'd Funding >6 Need ID Highway Location Project Description/Funding Source Phse Apprn FFY 04 FFY 05 FFY 06 FFY 07 FFY 08 FFY 09FFY 10 years 10547 Alaska MP 1222 to 1235 Rehabilitation - (Border West) 2 500.0 410.0 Leveling and resurfacing. 4 9,000.0 Federal IM 0.0 0.0 467.0 382.9 8,406.0 0.0 State 0.0 0.0 33.0 27.1 594.0 0.0 Other Project Total 0.0 0.0 500.0 410.0 9,000.0 0.0 0.0 10548 Alaska MP 1256 to 1270 Rehab - Lakeview - Northway Jct. 2 560.0 Leveling and Resurfacing. 4 Federal IM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 509.4 State 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.6 Other Project Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 560.0 7,000.0 6088 Alaska MP 1270 to 1314 Rehabilitation - Northway Junction to Tok 2 150.0 Relevel, resurface and install WIM - Northway Junction to Tok. 4 7,770.0 Federal IM 0.0 140.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 State 0.0 9.9 7,770.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other Project Total 0.0 150.0 7,770.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7367 Alaska MP 1308 - Tok Weigh Station 2 200.0 New weighing system facility to facilitate simultaneous axle group and gross weight indications for truck weight enforcement.
  • 1 Statement of Jason Pye Vice President of Legislative Affairs, Freedomworks U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Rules T

    1 Statement of Jason Pye Vice President of Legislative Affairs, Freedomworks U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Rules T

    Statement of Jason Pye Vice President of Legislative Affairs, FreedomWorks U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Rules “Article I: Effective Oversight and the Power of the Purse” Thursday, January 18, 2018 1 Not long after the 2016 presidential election, House Republicans entertained a rule change1 proposed by Reps. John Culberson (R-Texas), Mike Kelly (R-Pa.), Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), and Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) to bring back earmarks. The rule change, which likely would have passed if allowed to proceed, was quashed by Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.),2 who felt that reviving the practice sent the wrong message after a “drain the swamp” election. Speaker Ryan did pledge, however, that the House Republican Conference would revisit the issue. At the time, he indicated that such a proposal would be considered in the spring.3 That time passed and the issue fell to the wayside as major legislative initiatives like health insurance reform and tax reform took center stage. Unfortunately, under the direction of Speaker Ryan, the House Rules Committee will conduct hearings the week of January 15 on bringing back the practice of earmarks.4 During a meeting with congressional leaders, President Donald Trump appeared to endorse the idea.5 He believes that earmarks will make passing legislation easier, a sentiment shared by many members of Congress. Earmarks Breed Corruption What is an earmark? It is a specific line item in a spending bill, such as an appropriations or transportation bill, for a project or program. Earmarks may not necessarily always be pork-barrel spending, but they often meet the definition.
  • Galbraith Lake Airport and Access Road

    Galbraith Lake Airport and Access Road

    Galbraith Lake Airport and Access Road Compliance The proposed action is in conformance with the approved Bureau of Land Management Utility Corridor Resource Management Plan approved January 11, 1991. The project has been considered in the context of public health and safety and consistency with regards to Federal, State, and local laws. Selected Action The proposed action described in the Category Exclusion mentioned below is the selected action. A twenty (20) year airport lease case file F-12632 and a twenty (20) year right-of-way grant case file F-91217 for the access road from the Dalton Highway MP 275 to the airport will be issued to the State of Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. This lease and grant is for the continued operation of the Galbraith Lake Airport and the access road to the airport. Compliance with NEPA: The proposed action is categorically excluded from further documentation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with United States Department of the Interior 43 CFR §46.210 or United States Department of Interior Manual, Part 516, Chapter 11 which provides: 11.9 E (Realty) (9) Renewals and assignments of leases, permits, or rights-of-way where no additional rights are conveyed beyond those granted by the original authorizations. Public Involvement: It was determined that no public involvement was needed due to the remoteness of the action Rationale: The proposed action is consistent with the use of public lands under the authorities of Titles III and V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the regulations found in 43 CFR 2920 and 43 CFR 2800.
  • Analyzing the Impact of the Earmark Moratorium on U.S. Congressional Coalition Building

    Analyzing the Impact of the Earmark Moratorium on U.S. Congressional Coalition Building

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Carolina Digital Repository Analyzing the Impact of the Earmark Moratorium on U.S. Congressional Coalition Building By Connor Choate Senior Honors Thesis Political Science University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 1 April, 2019 Approved: _____________________________ Dr. Sarah Treul, Thesis Adviser _____________________________ Dr. Jason Roberts, Reader _____________________________ Dr. Kevin McGuire, Reader 1 Introduction In 2012, Congress struggled to pass a highway authorization bill that was historically considered to be a more painless and bipartisan affair. When then-Speaker John Boehner was asked why the highway bill was proving so difficult, he said, “I think when it comes to things like the highway bill that used to be very bipartisan, you have to understand it was greased to be bipartisan with 6,371 earmarks… You take the earmarks away, and guess what? All of a sudden people are beginning to look at the real policy behind it. So each one of these bills will rise or fall on their own merits” (Steinhauer 2012). Boehner has long been a staunch opponent of earmarks, leading the charge to ban them after Republicans regained control of the House in 2010, and he most certainly was not praising them with this comment (Cillizza 2016). Still, perhaps without realizing it, he made a case for their utility: earmarks make it easier for Congress to do their job. Boehner’s story holds for past highway bills; in Diana Evans’ exploration of the 1986-87 and 1991 highway bills, earmarks play a major role in garnering particularly bipartisan support (Evans 2004, 128).
  • What Did the Earmark Ban Do? Evidence from Intergovernmental Grants

    What Did the Earmark Ban Do? Evidence from Intergovernmental Grants

    Journal of Regional Analysis & Policy 48(3): 20{40 What did the Earmark Ban Do? Evidence from Intergovernmental Grants Steven Gordon University of Kentucky Received: 12/12/2017 Accepted: 02/21/2018 Abstract Critics of the 2011 congressional earmark ban argue that legislators have simply replaced earmarking with other means of directing federal funds to their home districts. I estimate the impact of the ban using data on federal competitive grants to state and local governments. Because several earmark reforms predated the 2011 ban, I test for a break in the relative trends between regions receiving more earmarks versus those receiving fewer earmarks. My results indicate that for grants to local governments, the 2011 ban had no effect. For grants to state governments, I find that the earmark ban of 2011 may have had an impact; I find statistically and economically significant negative effects, suggesting that the earmark ban may have altered the distribution of intergovernmental grants to state governments. I also show that a large bias in earmarks existed between high and low income districts, suggesting that the earmark ban potentially improved equality. 1 Introduction \I will do everything I can to protect my district." {Peter T. King, (R-NY) \I'll be making more phone calls, writing more letters, arranging more meetings and doing whatever I possibly can. That's the way it's going to be done...now that they have eliminated these earmarks." {Maurice Hinchey, (D-NY)1 Earmarking is the process by which members of Congress redirect funds already allocated to federal agencies. Most frequently inserted into the report language accompanying appropriations bills, earmarks alter the way projects are funded by agency grant programs and, until recently, have seen rapid growth.