DOCSLIB.ORG

Overview of the 2018 Cook Inlet Earthquake in Alaska

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Overview of the 2018 Cook Inlet Earthquake in Alaska Overview of the 2018 Cook Inlet Earthquake in Alaska ACEHR Meeting Boulder, CO April 30 – May 1, 2019 Jay Harris Acting NEHRP Deputy Director Engineering Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology U.S. Department of Commerce Earthquake Information Date: Friday, Nov. 30, 2018 at 8:29am Magnitude: Mw 7.0 (initial 6.6 to 7.2) Epicenter: 7 miles north of Anchorage Depth: 27 miles Fault Mechanism: Rupture occurred on an intraplate normal fault within the subducting Pacific Plate (beneath NA Plate) Aftershocks: > 600 aftershocks within 2 days of the earthquake Earthquake impacted Anchorage and Matanuska-Susitna Borough and Kenai Peninsula 2 Key Takeaways from this Event • Evaluation of available data (media coverage, first-hand observations, initial analysis of ground motion data) indicates that the surface intensity of the earthquake was not a “design-level” hazard event • This event provided another opportunity for the region to test in-place policies and procedures while providing a table exercise in the event of a higher intensity earthquake • No widespread significant structural damage observed; widespread nonstructural damage occurred • No one said that earthquake repairs have to be permanent to achieve functional recovery • The effects of and response to this event are not over 3 Hazard Response Spectra • Design-level Hazard – ASCE 7 (2016) 4 Developing Connections in AK • Sought to develop impactful connections with community stakeholders Municipality of Anchorage (Building Department) Division of Homeland Security and Source: M. Speicher (NIST) Emergency Management (AK, Anchorage, Mat-Su) Anchorage School District Alaska Department of Transportation, Central Region Regional Structural and Geotechnical Engineers (SEA-AK) Source: M. Speicher (NIST) Regional General Contractors (Alaska Demolition) Building Owners and Facility Managers 5 Impact to Commercial Structures • Non-structural component damage was widespread Ceiling assemblies and track systems, light fixtures Broken mechanical distribution lines due to insufficient seismic bracing HVAC equipment slid off supports and damaged connections (reports of fluid Source: Artic Today leaks) Water damage was significant (e.g., melting snow with gutter failures) Source: ABC 6 Impact to Commercial Structures • Some structural damage was observed Appears to be isolated to older construction (1980 era) No total collapsed commercial buildings, some have partial collapses of structural systems Buildings red-tagged unstable and Source: KTUU need repair Source: J. Harris (NIST) Source: J. Harris (NIST) Source: J. Harris (NIST) 7 Impact of Geotechnical Failures • Geotechnical failures slope stability failures and lateral spreading Liquefaction Settlement in non-compacted fill Source: ADN Source: J. Harris (NIST) Source: Alaska Star Source: ADN 8 Impact to Residential Structures • Primary Residential Damages (direct or indirect causes) Geotechnical failures No building code enforcement Construction-era practice Source: Alaska Star Source: ADN Source: ADN 9 Impact to Residential Structures • Earthquake insurance is underutilized in residential sector Voluntary insurance Can be cost prohibitive: 10%-30% deductible Some may not reimburse as high as replacement cost Source: J. Harris (NIST) Philosophy of homeowner Source: ADN Source: ADN Source: J. Harris (NIST) 10 Impact to School District • 92 Buildings, 86 Schools, 48K Students, 6K Employees 22 schools designated as community shelters Nonstructural damage was widespread among schools Some isolated structural damages 2 schools in Eagle River and 1 in Mat-Su were red-tagged Schools shut down after earthquake, re-opened Dec. 10th • One week after event (few extra days to help gain normalcy) Source: J. Harris (NIST) 11 Impact to School District • Representative nonstructural damage Source: KTVA Source: ADN Source: Twitter 12 Impact to School District • Eagle River Elementary & Gruening Middle Source: J. Harris (NIST) Source: J. Harris (NIST) Source: J. Harris (NIST) 13 Impact to Transportation Network • Observations 155 sites with some level of damage; primarily functional failures and not collapse Most damage associated with ground failure Vine Road Damage & Repair – Source: AK DOT (liquefaction, slope stability) Bridges were essentially undamaged Significant collapses were temporarily repaired within 4 days • Contracts done by “hand shakes” • Political changes had not occurred Source: ADN Source: Twitter Source: ADN 14 Impact to Lifeline Infrastructure • Lifeline Infrastructure performed well, companies worked around clock to remedy any failures Airport, Port of Anchorage, and rail system to Fairbanks shut down briefly, reopened after inspections to safely continue operations Public transportation in Anchorage was operational Source: ADN No reports of damage to power generation systems. Three power distribution companies reported widespread power outages, primarily due to tripped substations Several natural gas and water main breaches were reported, and the companies were steadily working to remedy breaches. Source: Twitter No reports of damage to telecommunication networks, and internet service providers were able to maintain services 15 Emergency Managers from Anchorage and Mat-Su • EOC responsible for situational awareness Community representatives report to EOC Some public reported cellular communications early issues, no issues with texting service “FirstNet” system, available bandwidth decreased Most felt they were “lucky” Preparedness and public awareness is an ever evolving effort Mass exodus of residents is a concern Source: M. Speicher (NIST) 16 Tsunami Warning for Anchorage • NOAA’s National Tsunami Warning Center warning issued 8:35am AKST for the “coastal areas of Cook Inlet and southern Kenai Peninsula” (south of Anchorage) Forwarded via sources (cell, tweets), with geography and timing of messages sometimes conflicting for recipients (Anchorage residents did receive) Some in Anchorage did evacuate, despite the fact that tsunami risk is extremely low in Anchorage, with no official tsunami evacuation routes or plans for the Anchorage area • 9:58am AKST cancellation of the tsunami warning after no tsunami activity was observed, but not sent out via cellular service (this is normal SOP) Need to customize distribution of cellular emergency messaging to appropriate sub-populations (work is in process) Opportunity to bring in NOAA to NEHRP activities; to help increase the knowledge-base across NEHRP on tsunamis 17 Discussions / Questions 18.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CMI Cook Inlet Surface Current Mapping Final Report
    OCS Study MMS 2006-032 Final Report CODAR in Alaska Principal Investigator: Dave Musgrave, PhD Associate Professor School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences University of Alaska Fairbanks P.O. Box 757220 Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 (907) 474-7837 [email protected] CoAuthor: Hank Statscewich, MS School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences University of Alaska Fairbanks P.O. Box 757220 Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 (907) 474-5720 [email protected] June 2006 Contact information e-mail: [email protected] phone: 907.474.1811 fax: 907.474.1188 postal: Coastal Marine Institute School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences P.O. Box 757220 University of Alaska Fairbanks Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 ii Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iv List of figures................................................................................................................................. iv Abstract........................................................................................................................................... v Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 Methods........................................................................................................................................... 2 Results............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Nos Cook Inlet Operational Forecast System: Model Development and Hindcast Skill Assessment
    NOAA Technical Report NOS CS 40 NOS COOK INLET OPERATIONAL FORECAST SYSTEM: MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND HINDCAST SKILL ASSESSMENT Silver Spring, Maryland September 2020 noaa National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Ocean Service Coast Survey Development Laboratory Office of Coast Survey National Ocean Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Commerce The Office of Coast Survey (OCS) is the Nation’s only official chartmaker. As the oldest United States scientific organization, dating from 1807, this office has a long history. Today it promotes safe navigation by managing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) nautical chart and oceanographic data collection and information programs. There are four components of OCS: The Coast Survey Development Laboratory develops new and efficient techniques to accomplish Coast Survey missions and to produce new and improved products and services for the maritime community and other coastal users. The Marine Chart Division acquires marine navigational data to construct and maintain nautical charts, Coast Pilots, and related marine products for the United States. The Hydrographic Surveys Division directs programs for ship and shore-based hydrographic survey units and conducts general hydrographic survey operations. The Navigational Services Division is the focal point for Coast Survey customer service activities, concentrating predominately on charting issues, fast-response hydrographic surveys, and Coast Pilot
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of the Prince William Sound and Kenai Peninsula Region, Alaska
    Geology of the Prince William Sound and Kenai Peninsula Region, Alaska Including the Kenai, Seldovia, Seward, Blying Sound, Cordova, and Middleton Island 1:250,000-scale quadrangles By Frederic H. Wilson and Chad P. Hults Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3110 View looking east down Harriman Fiord at Serpentine Glacier and Mount Gilbert. (photograph by M.L. Miller) 2012 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Contents Abstract ..........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................1 Geographic, Physiographic, and Geologic Framework ..........................................................................1 Description of Map Units .............................................................................................................................3 Unconsolidated deposits ....................................................................................................................3 Surficial deposits ........................................................................................................................3 Rock Units West of the Border Ranges Fault System ....................................................................5 Bedded rocks ...............................................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • On the Movement of Beluga Whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Old Dominion University Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons CCPO Publications Center for Coastal Physical Oceanography 12-2008 On the Movement of Beluga Whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska: Simulations of Tidal and Environmental Impacts Using a Hydrodynamic Inundation Model Tal Ezer Old Dominion University, [email protected] Roderick Hobbs Lie-Yauw Oey Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/ccpo_pubs Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Environmental Monitoring Commons, Marine Biology Commons, and the Oceanography Commons Repository Citation Ezer, Tal; Hobbs, Roderick; and Oey, Lie-Yauw, "On the Movement of Beluga Whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska: Simulations of Tidal and Environmental Impacts Using a Hydrodynamic Inundation Model" (2008). CCPO Publications. 117. https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/ccpo_pubs/117 Original Publication Citation Ezer, T., Hobbs, R., & Oey, L.Y. (2008). On the movement of beluga whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska: Simulations of tidal and environmental impacts using a hydrodynamic inundation model. Oceanography, 21(4), 186-195. doi: 10.5670/oceanog.2008.17 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Coastal Physical Oceanography at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in CCPO Publications by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. or collective redistirbution of any portion of this article by photocopy machine, reposting, or other means is permitted only with the approval of The Oceanography Society. Send all correspondence to: [email protected] ofor Th e The to: [email protected] Oceanography approval Oceanography correspondence POall Box 1931, portionthe Send Society.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska M7.0 Earthquake Response
    2018 M7.0 Anchorage, Alaska, Earthquake RESPONSE Date and Time: November 30, 2018, 8:29:29 am Location: N 61.323°, W 149.923° (7 miles north of Anchorage) Area of Effect: Strong to very strong shaking felt from northern Kenai Peninsula to Matanuska-Susitna Valley; light to moderate shaking felt throughout southcentral and interior Alaska. Initial earthquake followed 6 minutes later by M5.7 aftershock. Fatalities: 0 Damage: Power outages and gas leaks; damage to roads, railroads, and buildings; and closures of schools, businesses, and government offices throughout Anchorage bowl and Mat-Su Valley. Tsunami: Tsunami warnings were sent out within minutes of the earthquake. No tsunami waves Lateral spreading disrupted Vine Road near Wasilla. Many reported. failures of engineered materials occurred on or adjacent to water-saturated lowlands. (Photo credit: U.S. Geological Survey) Alaska Seismic Hazard Safety Commission Alaska Earthquake Center 2018 Cook Inlet Earthquake 1 Points to Ponder Proximity matters The Anchorage earthquake occurred 7 miles north of Anchorage and caused extensive damage, while the 2002 M7.9 Denali earthquake, which occurred about 170 miles north of Anchorage, caused no damage in the area. Anchorage population is approximately 325,00, Mat-Su 104,000 & Kenai Borough 50,000= 479,000 Entire state population is 710,000 Earthquake-resilient construction saves lives The population affected by the Anchorage earthquake generally reside in structures built in accordance with seismic building codes or using construction techniques that are resistant to earthquake shaking, and no lives were lost. Areas where codes were not enforced saw higher damage as a result Infrastructure is vulnerable to earthquake damage Construction codes for roads and embankments are not as successful as building codes for structures.
    [Show full text]
  • The 1964 Prince William Sound Earthquake Subduction Zone Steven C
    Adv. Geophys. ms. Last saved: 2/12/2003 6:lO:OO PM 1 Crustal Deformation in Southcentral Alaska: The 1964 Prince William Sound Earthquake Subduction Zone Steven C. Cohen Geodynamics Branch, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 2077 1 email: Steven.C.Cohen @ .nasa.gov; phone: 301-6 14-6466 Jeffrey T. Freymueller Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 99775 Outline: 1. Introduction 2. Tectonic, Geologic, and Seismologic Setting 3. Observed Crustal Motion 3.1 Coseismic Crustal Motion 3.2 Preseismic and Interseismic (pre-1964) Crustal Motion 3.3 Postseismic and Interseismic (post-1964) Crustal Motion 4. Models of Southcentral Alaska Preseismic and Postseismic Crustal Deformation 5. Conclusions 6. References Adv. Geophys. ms. Last saved: a1 a2003 6:lO:OO PM 2 1. Introduction The M, = 9.2 Prince William Sound (PWS) that struck southcentral Alaska on March 28, 1964, is one of the important earthquakes in history. The importance of this Great Alaska Earthquake lies more in its scientific than societal impact. While the human losses in the PWS earthquake were certainly tragic, the sociological impact of the earthquake was less than that of is earthquakes that have struck heavily populated locales. By contrast Earth science, particularly tectonophysics, seismology, and geodesy, has benefited enormously from studies of this massive earthquake. The early 1960s was a particularly important time for both seismology and tectonophysics. Seismic instrumentation and analysis techniques were undergoing considerable modernization. For example, the VELA UNIFORM program for nuclear test detection resulted in the deployment of the World Wide Standard Seismographic Network in the late 1950s and early 1960s (Lay and Wallace, 1995).
    [Show full text]
  • Tsunami–Tide Interactions a Cook Inlet Case Study
    ARTICLE IN PRESS Continental Shelf Research 30 (2010) 633–642 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Continental Shelf Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/csr Tsunami–tide interactions: A Cook Inlet case study Zygmunt Kowalik a,Ã, Andrey Proshutinsky b a Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, AK 99775, USA b Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA article info abstract Article history: First, we investigated some aspects of tsunami–tide interactions based on idealized numerical Received 17 December 2008 experiments. Theoretically, by changing total ocean depth, tidal elevations influence the speed and Received in revised form magnitude of tsunami waves in shallow regions with dominating tidal signals. We tested this 22 September 2009 assumption by employing a simple 1-D model that describes propagation of tidal waves in a channel Accepted 1 October 2009 with gradually increasing depth and the interaction of the tidal waves with tsunamis generated at the Available online 9 October 2009 channel’s open boundary. Important conclusions from these studies are that computed elevations by Topical issue on ‘‘Tides in Marginal Seas’’ simulating the tsunami and the tide together differ significantly from linear superposing of the sea (in memory of Professor Alexei V. surface heights obtained when simulating the tide and the tsunami separately, and that maximum Nekrasov). The issue is published with tsunami–tide interaction depends on tidal amplitude and phase. The major cause of this tsunami–tide support of the North Pacific Marine interaction is tidally induced ocean depth that changes the conditions of tsunami propagation, Science Organization (PICES).
    [Show full text]
  • Cook Inlet Circulation Model Calculations Final Report to the U.S
    OCS Study BOEM 2015-050 Cook Inlet Circulation Model Calculations Final Report to the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Contract No. M14AC00014 Seth L. Danielson1 [email protected] Katherine S. Hedstrom1 [email protected] 2 Enrique Curchitser [email protected] 1Institute of Marine Science 2Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences School of Fisheries and Ocean Science Rutgers University University of Alaska Fairbanks 71 Dudley Rd., New Brunswick, NJ 08901 905 N. Koyukuk Dr., Fairbanks AK, 99775 732-932-7889 (Office) 907 474-7834 (Office) 732- 932-8578 (Fax) 907 474 7204 (Fax) OCS Study BOEM 2015-050 Cook Inlet Circulation Model Calculations This collaboration between the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the University of Alaska Fairbanks and Rutgers University was funded by the the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region Anchorage AK 99503 under Contract No. M14AC00014 as part of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Alaska Environmental Studies Program 18 November 2016 Citation: Danielson, S. L., K. S. Hedstrom, E. Curchitser, 2016. Cook Inlet Model Calculations, Final Report to Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, M14AC00014, OCS Study BOEM 2015- 050, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, 149 pp. Cover Image: NWGOA model sea surface salinity and Aqua Satellite 250 m pixel resolution false- color image of the northern Gulf of Alaska. Aqua image provided by NASA Rapid Response Land, Atmosphere Near real-time Capability for EOS (LANCE) system operated by the NASA/GSFC/Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS) with funding provided by NASA/HQ.
    [Show full text]
  • Anchorage CEDS Draws Heavily on the Municipalityʼs Anchorage 2020 Plan and Its Housing and Community Development Plan
    Anchorage Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy April 16, 2009 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Matt Claman, Acting Mayor Municipality of Anchorage Mary Jane Michael, Executive Director Municipality of Anchorage Office of Economic & Community Development Bill Popp, President and CEO Anchorage Economic Development Corporation Prepared By Susan R. Fison, Fison & Associates Darrel W. Hess, Project Manager Municipality of Anchorage Office of Economic & Community Development Erin E. Ealum, Business and Economic Development Director Anchorage Economic Development Corporation Funding Provided By Alaska Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development Alaska Regional Development Organizations Program and Municipality of Anchorage 2 Table of Contents Introduction Background 6 CEDS Development Process 7 Mayorʼs Economic Advisory Panel 7 Office of Economic and Community Development 8 Anchorage Economic Development Corporation 8 Anchorage Overview Anchorage History 10 Geography & Climate 12 Demographics 14 Labor Force, Employment & Unemployment 18 Income & Wage Rates 20 Education 21 Quality of Life 25 Cost of Living 28 Infrastructure Overview 30 Air Transportation 30 Port of Anchorage 32 Alaska Railroad 33 3 Road & Highways 34 Public Transportation 35 Telecommunications 37 Water and Sewer 38 Natural Gas & Electric 38 Solid Waste 39 Major Economic Sectors Oil and Gas Industry 40 Air Cargo & Global Logistics 42 Visitor Industry 44 Health Care 46 Construction 47 Housing Market 49 Retail Trade 52 Military 53 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping Cook Inlet Rip Tides Using Local Knowledge and Remote Sensing
    OCS Study • MMS 2000-025 Environmental Studies Program Mapping Cook Inlet Rip Tides Using Local Knowledge and Remote Sensing ......... ..:::;::.:::" . Prepared for Minerals Management Service .,.:.,':'.:::: ~.::.~~..:.~..<~~:: .. " ': . Contract No. 01-98-CT -30906 Prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc. 4175 Tudor Centre Drive, Suite 202 Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Yt"_ .' . .- U.S. Department of the Interior MMS Minerals Management Service Alaska OCS Region I~ , . -,'" ' ',.' O\~".;~nVi·~~~·~~n't~rStudie.~P;'i6'~~~rri':" ".,;.' " ::~.'; "::'" i~>"/:':_:.,.. \.' .,'~.?"},....~":.< .r, '. , " • .: " '\ ,', O{~~~:':;'~:Ma'ppi)ig :·9.p,ok In·l.etJ~.~irf~·i~.e~·,:\«,tJS,~..11:9 ·Eoca I,. /: -.·,':KitoVvf~dgea.hd.·,Rem6t~S~n~iQlf· ....:r. ' >( ,~!'" ;.; 1, ••:f-' . ~,j" ~:.~,. ~ -: • •. ',' f:' .r > /' •. ~ •. J." .' " ,7 i: ':'\.' ," :~.'! 'I. .,. ~ . >~. :.'-. ,",,~q ••• , -: '~ ..•. .t-.', , ." ... '.; '0 .~.\' : ..', 1,'1</ '';''. ," ,,,' "0 , \':.' I: I, I \ I I ',' .,).i' • ~"\.'~ ~~ '··!~'~'~i. .~.\~ . ,. ~ ,! . U.S. D.epartmertt of.the Inter!pf, ... ,';' . ., (', ,>.' J, ~, " .,; .,' " .. , " .. - 'H.) ".:~" ," , ~,," 'l Minerals .Management Servic,e ' ' "". ',' .. .•.. ",,1 • ~ ,I .' I' ( I, , ". " . ,~ ~"(: " " ~. .- ... .. ";'" F ,',' ,-. ~;Ala,sk~.p_C;S~egion' c·· '.' .,,' ",.i, ~ c • ~. ": '>.' •.••• ,~.:, .. ~1\...~. " " ~'~"~ ',.-,".: ",;; f ",'. 'O~, ..- -. "'J " " ." •••.. ~. I' • ,'. ; ~'.' r ,'".- .\'~ ; . ~.. , .... '. ".. I ,,'" I . ,.; ')\ " .. ..~ ,·O~':'''·'' .•• ~ 1', • 1'" ~. <.' " .' ~., I· " , " It '. " H,
    [Show full text]
  • March 27, 1964 Regional Effects
    The Alaska Earthquake March 27, 1964 Regional Effects Shore Processes and Beach Morphology GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 543-J ~~~m~~~~~~ll'ilir- DENVER 3 1819 00086468 2 THE ALASKA EARTHQUAKE, MARCH 27, 1964: REGIONAL EFFECTS Effects of the Alaska Earthquake of March 27, 1964 On Shore Processes and Beach Morphology By KIRK W. STANLEY The effects of tectonic uplift and subsidence along 10,000 miles of shoreline, and the practical meaning of those effects GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 543-J APR 7 1969 APR 11 1991 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON 1968 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402- Price 45 cents (paper cover) THE ALASKA EARTHQUAKE SERIES The U.S. Geological Survey is publishing the re­ sults of its investigations of the Alaska earthquake of March 27, 1964, in a series of six Professional Papers. Professional Paper 543 describes the re­ gional effects of the earthquake. Other Professional Papers in the series describe field investigations and reconstruction and the effects of the earthquake on communities, on the hydrologic regimen, and on transportation, utilities, and communications. CONTENTS Page Page Abstract_______________________ J1 Coastal features and earthquake Introduction____________________ 1 effects -Continued Shorelines of the earthquake-af- Coastal erosion and movement fected region_________________ 2 of material-Continued
    [Show full text]
  • Chugach Access Plan
    CHUGACH ACCESS PLAN Public Hearing Draft July 2012 Chugach Access Plan Public Hearing Draft July 2012 Municipality of Anchorage With Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation 1 Table of Contents 2 3 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 4 Background and Overview ................................................................................................. 1 5 Purpose and Scope .............................................................................................................. 2 6 Project Goal ........................................................................................................................ 2 7 Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 2 8 PLANNING EFFORT AND PROCESS .................................................................................. 3 9 Planning Process ................................................................................................................. 3 10 Planning Effort and Criteria for Access Recommendations ............................................... 4 11 How This Plan Relates to Other Plans or Regulatory Systems .......................................... 5 12 ISSUES ..................................................................................................................................... 6 13 Funding Constraints ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]