DOCSLIB.ORG

Seward Highway Rabbit Creek Road to 36Th Avenue, Environmental

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Seward Highway Rabbit Creek Road to 36Th Avenue, Environmental New Seward Highway Rabbit Creek Road to 36th Avenue Environmental Assessment Volume I Project Number: FRAF-CA-MGS-NH-0A3-1(27)/52503 U.S. Department of Transportation, Alaska Division of the Federal Highway Administration, and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities July 2006 ANC/TP5047.DOC/050810013 New Seward Highway Rabbit Creek Road to 36th Avenue New Seward Highway, Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska Final Environmental Assessment Submitted Pursuant to 42 USC 4332 (2) (c) (and where applicable, 49 USC 303) by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities ______________ ____________________________________________ Date of Approval Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) ______________ ____________________________________________ Date of Approval Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Edrie Vinson, Environmental Project Jerry Ruehle, Central Region Manager, FHWA, Alaska Division Office, Environmental Coordinator, DOT&PF, P.O. Box 21648, Juneau, Alaska 4111 Aviation Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99802-1648; (907-586-7464) 99519; (907-269-0534) The project proposes road improvements to New Seward Highway from Rabbit Creek Road to 36th Avenue. Two alternatives are being carried forward in the Environmental Assessment; one Build Alternative and a No-Build Alternative. The build alternative expands the existing divided four-lane to six lanes from O’Malley Road to 36th Avenue, provides pedestrian amenities, fencing and illumination full length of the corridor, noise barriers as warranted, and grade separations at 92nd, 76th, and 68th Avenues and International Airport Road. This project is part of the State Transportation Improvement Program. The total cost to construct the project is expected to be approximately $125 million. Comments on this EA are due by (________) and should be sent to Edrie Vinson, Environmental Project Manager, Federal Highway Administration, Alaska Division Office, P.O. Box 21648, Juneau, Alaska 99802-1648. ANC/TP5080.DOC/052340015 Contents Section Page Abbreviations................................................................................................................................... ix Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... ES-1 Purpose and Need..............................................................................................................ES-1 Proposed Action and Alternatives Considered .............................................................ES-1 Other Major Actions Proposed in the Area....................................................................ES-5 Impacts and Mitigation .....................................................................................................ES-5 Areas of Controversy or Unresolved Issues.................................................................ES-10 Other Federal Actions Required ....................................................................................ES-10 1 Purpose of and Need for Action....................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Corridor History ........................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Purpose of the Action................................................................................................ 1-2 1.3 Need for the Action ................................................................................................... 1-5 1.3.1 Increase Corridor Capacity to Accommodate Past Growth and Future Demand............................................................................................. 1-5 1.3.2 Improve System Connectivity and Linkage of Existing Roadways ...... 1-9 1.3.3 Enhance Intermodal Transportation.......................................................... 1-9 1.3.4 Upgrade Design Features to Meet Industry Standards and Improve Safety ............................................................................................................ 1-10 2 Alternatives .......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Alternatives Development ....................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Alternatives Development Overview...................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Major Investment Study Alternatives Development............................. 2-2 2.1.3 Preliminary Engineering Alternatives Development............................ 2-2 2.2 Detailed Description of Alternatives Considered and Advanced...................... 2-3 2.2.1 Design Criteria Applied to the Build Alternative .................................. 2-3 2.2.2 No-Build Alternative.................................................................................. 2-4 2.2.3 Proposed Build Alternative – Freeway Expansion with New Grade Separations and Improvements to Existing Interchanges.................... 2-4 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives with Purpose and Need .......................................... 2-8 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Not Advanced ......................................................... 2-8 2.4.1 High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane ................................................................. 2-8 2.4.2 Transportation System Management and Travel Demand Management............................................................................. 2-10 2.4.3 Roadway Improvements ......................................................................... 2-11 3 Affected Environment........................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Overview of the Municipality of Anchorage and Study Area ............................ 3-1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, NEW SEWARD HIGHWAY, RABBIT CREEK ROAD TO 36TH AVENUE PAGE III ANC/TP5047.DOC/050810013 CONTENTS Section Page 3.1.1 The Municipality of Anchorage ................................................................3-1 3.1.2 New Seward Highway Study Area ..........................................................3-2 3.2 Water Quality .............................................................................................................3-2 3.2.1 South Fork of Little Campbell Creek........................................................3-5 3.2.2 North Fork of Little Campbell Creek .......................................................3-6 3.2.3 Campbell Creek.........................................................................................3-12 3.2.4 Fish Creek...................................................................................................3-13 3.2.5 Highway Drainage....................................................................................3-14 3.2.6 Summary ....................................................................................................3-15 3.3 Wetlands....................................................................................................................3-15 3.3.1 Management Designations ......................................................................3-16 3.3.2 Study Area Wetland Types and Functions............................................3-19 3.4 Water Body Modifications ......................................................................................3-20 3.4.1 Furrow Creek.............................................................................................3-21 3.4.2 South Fork of Little Campbell Creek......................................................3-21 3.4.3 North Fork of Little Campbell Creek .....................................................3-21 3.4.4 Campbell Creek.........................................................................................3-21 3.4.5 Fish Creek...................................................................................................3-22 3.5 Fish and Wildlife ......................................................................................................3-22 3.5.1 Fish ..............................................................................................................3-22 3.5.2 Essential Fish Habitat ...............................................................................3-24 3.5.3 Wildlife .......................................................................................................3-24 3.6 Floodplains................................................................................................................3-25 3.6.1 South Fork of Little Campbell Creek......................................................3-26 3.6.2 North Fork of Little Campbell Creek .....................................................3-26 3.6.3 Campbell Creek.........................................................................................3-26 3.6.4 Fish Creek...................................................................................................3-31 3.7 Coastal Zone .............................................................................................................3-31 3.7.1 Federal Consistency..................................................................................3-39 3.8 Air Quality ................................................................................................................3-39
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Recall Retail List 030-2020
    United States Food Safety Department of and Inspection Agriculture Service RETAIL CONSIGNEES FOR FSIS RECALL 030-2020 FSIS has reason to believe that the following retail location(s) received LEAN CUISINE Baked Chicken meal products that have been recalled by Nestlé Prepared Foods. This list may not include all retail locations that have received the recalled productor may include retail locations that did not actually receive the recalled product. Therefore, it is important that you use the product-specific identification information, available at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public- health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2020/recall-030-2020-release, in addition to this list of retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in your possession to see if they have been recalled. Store list begins on next page United States Food Safety USDA Department of And Inspection - Agl'iculture Service Retail List for Recall Number: 030-2020 chicken meal product List Current As Of: 26-Jan-21 Nationwide, State-Wide, or Area-Wide Distribution Retailer Name Location 1 Albertsons AZ, CA, LA, NV, OR, TX, WA 2 Bashas AZ 3 Big Y CT 4 City Market CO 5 Dillons KS 6 Food Lion GA, SC, TN, VA 7 Fred Meyer OR, WA 8 Fry's Food And Drug AZ 9 Fry's Marketplace AZ 10 Gelson's Market CA 11 Giant MD, PA, VA 12 Giant Eagle Supermarket OH, PA 13 Heinen's OH 14 Hy-Vee IL, IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, SD 15 Ingles Markets GA, NC, SC, TN 16 Jay C IN 17 JewelOsco IL 18 King Soopers CO AR, GA, IL, IN, KY, MI, MS, OH, SC, TN, TX, VA, 19 Kroger WV 20 Lowes NC 21 Marianos IL 22 Meijers IL, IN, MI 23 Pavilions CA 24 Pick n Save WI 25 Piggly Wiggly WI 26 Publix FL, GA Page 1 of 85 Nationwide, State-Wide, or Area-Wide Distribution Retailer Name Location 27 Quality Food Center WA 28 Ralphs CA 29 Ralphs Fresh Fare CA 30 Randalls TX 31 Safeway AZ, CA, HI, OR, WA 32 Shaw's MA, NH 33 Smart & Final CA 34 Smith's NV, NM, UT 35 Stater Bros.
    [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]
  • Fishing in the Seward Area
    Southcentral Region Department of Fish and Game Fishing in the Seward Area About Seward The Seward and North Gulf Coast area is located in the southeastern portion of Alaska’s Kenai Peninsula. Here you’ll find spectacular scenery and many opportunities to fish, camp, and view Alaska’s wildlife. Many Seward area recreation opportunities are easily reached from the Seward Highway, a National Scenic Byway extending 127 miles from Seward to Anchorage. Seward (pop. 2,000) may also be reached via railroad, air, or bus from Anchorage, or by the Alaska Marine ferry trans- portation system. Seward sits at the head of Resurrection Bay, surrounded by the U.S. Kenai Fjords National Park and the U.S. Chugach National Forest. Most anglers fish salt waters for silver (coho), king (chinook), and pink (humpy) salmon, as well as halibut, lingcod, and various species of rockfish. A At times the Division issues in-season regulatory changes, few red (sockeye) and chum (dog) salmon are also harvested. called Emergency Orders, primarily in response to under- or over- King and red salmon in Resurrection Bay are primarily hatch- abundance of fish. Emergency Orders are sent to radio stations, ery stocks, while silvers are both wild and hatchery stocks. newspapers, and television stations, and posted on our web site at www.adfg.alaska.gov . A few area freshwater lakes have stocked or wild rainbow trout populations and wild Dolly Varden, lake trout, and We also maintain a hot line recording at (907) 267- 2502. Or Arctic grayling. you can contact the Anchorage Sport Fish Information Center at (907) 267-2218.
    [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]
  • Department of Transportation and Public Facilities DESIGN & ENGINEERING SERVICES PRELIMINARY DESIGN & ENVIRONMENTAL
    Department of Transportation and Public Facilities DESIGN & ENGINEERING SERVICES PRELIMINARY DESIGN & ENVIRONMENTAL PO Box 196900 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6900 Main: 907.269.0542 Toll Free: 800.770.5263 TDD: 907.269.0473 TTY: 800.770.8973 Fax: 907.243.6927 dot.alaska.gov November 13, 2018 Project: Seward Highway Pavement Preservation, Milepost 36-48 Project No.: 0311036/CFHWY00380 Re: Request for scoping comments The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) is soliciting agency comments and information on a proposed project, which would resurface the Seward Highway from milepost (MP) 36 to MP 48, near Moose Pass, Alaska. The proposed project is located within Sections 18, 7 T. 5N, R. 1W; Sections 2, 11, 12 T. 5N, R. 2W; Sections 5, 6, 7, 18, 13, 24, 25, 26, 35 T. 6N, R. 2W; Sections 29, 32 T. 7N, R. 1W on USGS Quad Map C-7, Seward Meridian; with the center point located at Latitude 60.61012ºN, Longitude 149.53528ºW, near Moose Pass, Alaska (Figure 1). Project Purpose and Need The purpose of the proposed project is to improve travel efficiency, enhance safety, and preserve and extend the service life of the Seward Highway. The Seward Highway is the primary land surface transportation connection between the Kenai Peninsula and the rest of the Alaska Highway system and provides a critical economic, cultural, and recreational link to Resurrection Bay and the Chugach National Forest. The roadway currently exhibits rutted pavement, drainage issues, narrow shoulders, and faded pavement markings. Proposed Action The proposed
    [Show full text]