Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Chena River Lakes Project 19803411-80 Final Supplemental : Environmental Impact Statement CHENA RIVER LAKES PROJECT PROPERTY OF: Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99501 JUNE 1980 reeeneneiianeetaaienesiitiee eee ee | PRINTED IN U.S.A. FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CHENA RIVER LAKES PROJECT Proposed Plan for Completion of the Flood Control Project at Fairbanks, Alaska The responsible lead agency is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. The Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chena River Lakes Project, Fairbanks, Alaska was filed with the Council on Environmental Quality 27 October 1971. ABSTRACT For eight years, the Alaska District has been constructing a flood con- trol project designed to protect Fairbanks, the second largest poputa- tion center in Alaska. Features remaining to be completed include a section of the Tanana River levee and protective groins along the length of the levee. Of the many plans originally considered for levee comple- tion, several were selected for detailed study. Plan 1, consisting of a levee alinement crossing a major channel of the Tanana River, would be protected by three L-shaped groins, would require a pilot channel to divert Tanana River flows southward through a 1,000 foot wide pathway, and would provide maximum flood protection under existing authorization with minimum adverse impacts downstream; however, disagreement on the potential downstream effects on navigability on the Chena River was encountered. Plan 2, consisting of a levee alinement crossing a major channel of the Tanana River, would be protected by four L-shaped groins, would require a pilot channel to divert Tanana River flows southward through a 1,500 foot wide pathway, and would provide maximum flood protection with minimum potential for adverse impacts to downstream navigation. Both the Corps and Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd., private consultant, agree that adverse impacts to navigation on the Tanana and Chena Rivers are highly unlikely with this plan. Plan 3, consisting of two levees, one partially in-water protected by eight groins and the other northward on land, would provide maximum flood protection. Although the Corps believed adverse impacts to downstream navigation were unlikely, representatives of the Alaska Division of Lands, Fairbanks North Star Borough, and private individuals expressed concern that an in-water levee would result in downstream channel changes which would lower the water level of the lower Chena River and increase downstream erosion. Pians 4 and 5 consisting of an on-land levee alinement, would not pro- vide maximum flood protection and would block natural drainage, thus requiring a pumping plant (4) or excavation of additional interior drainage channels (5). Plan 6, consisting of an on-land levee, would provide maximum flood protection but would interfere with the Instrument Landing System at the Fairbanks International Airport. Plan 7, consisting of an on-land levee protected by sheet pile, would provide maximum flood protection but was technically unworkable because of permafrost. Plan 8, consisting of an on-land levee which extended around the airport is no longer possible because of river erosion. Plan 9, consisting of a levee crossing the Tanana River south of the airport, diverting the Tanana into Salchaket Slough, would provide total flood protection but would adversely affect navigation, wetlands, fish and wildlife. Tentatively, Plan 2 has been selected because it provides maximum flood protection, preserves existing land uses and natural drainage, and mini- mizes adverse effects on downstream navigability. Three plans for protective groins upstream of the proposed levee exten- sion were considered in detail. Plan I, consisting of immediate con- struction of 8 new groins along with improvements to three existing groins, extends into major river channels and would ultimately force the Tanana approximately 3,000 feet south of its present location. Plan II consisting of the immediate construction of 13 new groins and improve- ment of three existing groins would ultimately force the Tanana approxi- mately 500 to 1,500 feet south of its present location. Plan III, consisting of deferred design and construction of those groins needed to stop river bank erosion at the time the integrity of the levee is threatened, would have an alinement similar to that of Plan II. Con- struction would occur whenever the river eroded to a point 500 feet from the levee; however, deferred construction is not possible under current policy. Tentatively, Protective Groin Plan II has been selected based upon providing the maximum protection for the levee by permanently directing the Tanana to the south of the present north bank. Flood forecast and warning services will be provided by NOAA/NWS River Forecast Center in Anchorage with meteorlogical forecasts and flood warnings emanating out of the Fairbanks Forecast Center. A monitoring and research program administered by the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory has been established to evaluate the effects of construction on the Tanana River. Should significant adverse impacts be identified as resulting from construction, corrective measures would be undertaken. SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO THE DISTRICT ENGINEER WITH IN 30 DAYS FOLLOWING PUBLICATION OF THE NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER. If you would like further information of this statement, please contact: Mr. William D. Lloyd U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska P.O. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Telephone: (907) 752-2572 ii tLe LIST OF PREPARERS The following people were primarily responsible for preparing this Environmental Impact Statement. Name Expertise Ms. Lizette Boyer Anthropology Ms. Jean Elder Biology (EIS Coordinator ) Mr. Thomas Munsey Hydraulic Engineer Mr. C.R. Neill (Consultant - Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Ltd.) Ms. Julia Steele Archaeology Mr. Charles Welling Economist Mr. Ken Wichorek Project Management (Project Manager) Mr. Gene Crook (Consultant - Ott Water Engineer ing) Experience 2 1/2 years planning historical and archaeo- logical programs 2 years EIS Studies, Alaska District Chief, Hyd, Section M.S. River Engineering M.A. Anthropology, 4 years Lab and field experience 18 years Planning Corps of Engineers 27 years registered Professional Engineer Professional Discipline Anthropologist Fisheries Biologist Engineer Engineer Archaeologist Economist Civil Engineer Engineer TABLE OF CONTENTS COVER SHEET - ABSTRACT i LIST OF PREPARERS iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Vv I. SUMMARY 1.01 Major Conclusions and Findings 1 1.02 Areas of Controversy 2 03 Unresolved Issues 3 1.04 Relationship to Environmental Requirements 3 1305 Original EIS 3 II. NEEDS AND OBJECTIVES 2.01 Authority 7 2.02 Public Concerns 7 2.03 Planning Objectives 7 III. ALTERNATIVES 3.01 Plans Eliminated From Further Study 8 3.02 Without Conditions (No Action) 9 3.02.1 Levee 9 3.02.2 Upstream Protective Groins 9 3.03 Plans Considered in Detail 10 3.03.1 Levee 10 3.03.2 Upstream Protective Groins 15 3.04 Potential Borrow Sites 16 3205 Comparative Impacts 17 IV. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4.01 Environmental Conditions 39 4.02 Significant Resources 40 4.02.1 River Geomorphology 40 4.02.2 Land Use 42 4.02.3 Navigation 43 4.02.4 Ground Water 44 4.02.5 Water Quality 44 4.02.6 Fish and Wildlife 45 4.02.7 Wetlands (EO 11990) 49 4.02.8 Threatened and Endangered Species 54 4.02.9 Flood Plain (EO 11988) 54 4.02.10 Cultural Resources 54 AgAIAaanainiainn ~ b> 5550500 SCeOCBNANHBWH— TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont) V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS River Geomorphology Land Use Navigation Ground Water Water Quality Fish and Wildlife Wetlands (£0 11990) Threatened and Endangered Species Flood Plain Cultural Resources VI. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public Involvement Program Required Coordination Statement Recipients Public Views and Responses (ER 11052920) VII. INDEX, REFERENCES, AND APPENDIXES Index Reference Appendices A. Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation Levee Completion B. Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation Protective Groins C. Statement Recipients Federal State Local Organizations Private D. Public Views and Responses Index Federal State Local Private E. Pertinent Correspondence Received prior to DSEIS Circulation Index vi 59 61 63 64 64 65 67 7 73 74 75 75 75 75 re wm E-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont) FIGURES Figure No. 1 Relationship of Plans to Environmental Requirements Zs Comparative Impacts of Alternatives 36 Levee Completion Alternative 1 4. Levee Completion Alternative 2 Se Levee Completion Alternative 3 6. Levee Completion Alternative 4 Te Levee Completion Alternative 5 Si Levee Completion Alternative 6 9. Levee Completion Alternative 7 10. Levee Completion Alternative 8&9 vs Levee Completion Alternative 10 2 Upstream Groin Alternative I iS Upstream Groin Alternative II 14. Potential Borrow Sites 1a. Fish Species List 16. List of Common and Botanical Plant Names 16a. Vegetation Mapping Units Ws Vegetation Map 18. Vegetation Map 19. 100 Year Flood - Alternative 10 20. 100 Year Flood - Alternative 2 Ze 100 Year Flood - Alternative 4 22 100 Year Flood - Alternative 5 vii 18 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 48 50 oil 52 53 69 70 7] 72 I. SUMMARY 1.01 Major Conclusions and Findings Levee Plan 2, consisting of an alinement which crosses a channel of the Tanana River and would be protected by four L-shaped groins and an exca- vated pilot channel has been chosen as the tentatively selected plan. A temporary division structure would also be necessary to divert river flows into the pilot channel. This alternative would provide maximum flood protection for the western portion of Fairbanks while preserving the integrity of the existing Fairbanks International Airport, which serves the northern two-thirds of Alaska, and of the Alaska Railroad spur which supplies the majority of aviation fuel and other petroleum products which are distributed from the airport fuel depot. With a slight rechanneling of an existing slough, natural drainage would be maintained north of the levee. Although seasonal timing of construction involving work in the water would be coordinated with resource agencies, the magnitude of impact is difficult to determine because of a lack of biological data. This alternative has been evaluated by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Ltd., an independent consultant. Realizing that no absolute assurances can be given regarding future channel changes in a river of this type, this firm believes that adverse effects on down- stream navigability are extremely unlikely (NW Hydraulics 1980). The Alaska District concurs with this evaluation. Although some wetlands would be lost by clearing and filling, much of the area which would be affected by the on-land portion of the levee has been disturbed previously by human activity. Disturbance to some wet- lands cannot be avoided while providing maximum flood protection for Fairbanks. The discharge sites for Plan 2 levee completion can be specified through the application of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines and are consistent with EO 11990. The proposed construction would be located within the base (100 year) flood plain and no practicable alter- native exists for locating the levee outside the base flood plain. The levee would facilitate future expansion of the airport which cannot be located elsewhere. Since no development would be allowed riverward: of the levee, flood plain values would be preserved riverward. The levee completion is in compliance with £0 11988. Protective Groin Plan II which would consist of the immediate construc- tion of 13 new L-shaped groins and improvement of three existing groins, all upstream of the levee completion, is the tentatively selected plan. Although some major channels are intersected by groins, creating major channel changes, this scheme would provide the maximum permanent protec- tion for the levee by redirecting the Tanana approximately 500 to 1,500 feet southward. Seasonal timing of in-water work would be coordinated with resource agencies although the magnitude of impact is difficult to determine because of a lack of biological data. Some filling of wet- lands would be unavoidable; however, protective groins are necessary to maintain a natural silt blanket at Jeast 500 feet wide riverward of the levee. The discharge sites for Alternative II protective groins can be specified through the application of Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines and are consistent with EO 11990. This construc- tion must be located within the base (100 year) flood plain and would not encourage further development. It is consistent with EO 11988. Flood forecast and warning services will be provided by the NOAA/NWS River Forecast Center in Anchorage with meteorlogical forecasts and flood warnings emanating out of the Fairbanks Forecast Center. A moni- toring and research program administered by the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory has been established to evaluate the effects of construction on the Tanana River. Should significant adverse impacts be identified as resulting from construction, corrective measures would be undertaken. No threatened and endangered species would be adversely affected by levee completion or protective groin construction under any of the alternatives considered. No known cultural resources would be adversely affected. The probability of finding sites in the construction area is low. Coordination has been completed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning endangered species and with the State Historic Preservation Officer concerning cultural resources. Final comments on cultural resources will be requested from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at the time the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is circulated for review. All cultural resource surveys have been completed. 1.02 Areas of Controversy Although the Alaska District, Corps of Engineers' evaluation of in-water levee schemes determined that diversion of the Tanana River away from the mouth of the Chena River was highly unlikely, disagreement arose concerning levee completion and probable effects on downstream naviga- bility. Concern was expressed that in-water levee construction could result in downstream channel changes which would decrease water levels on the lower Chena River and increase downstream erosion. As a result, a detailed study of Alternative 1 was conducted by the Alaska District. The results of this study indicate adverse impacts to downstream naviga- tion are extremely unlikely. Alternative 1 was also evaluated by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Ltd., an independent consultant, who recommended a modification, Alternative 2, which they believe would cause no significant adverse impacts to navigation and erosion down- stream of the confluence of Chena River. The Alaska District agrees that significant adverse impacts for this design are unlikely. Two on-land alternatives (Alternatives 4 and 5) have been evaluated by Ott Water Engineering. Although these schemes would not interfere with the Instrument Landing System of the Fairbanks International Airport, they do block natural drainage behind the levee and require either a pumping plant (4) or rerouting of the interior drainage channels into the Chena River (5). These alternatives would not provide maximum flood protec- tion to western Fairbanks nor would they entirely preserve existing land uses near the airport runway. In addition, concern has been expressed about the effect on the Tanana River by the immediate construction of 13 new groins and improvements to three existing groins, Alternative II (Recommended Alternative). In general, concerned agencies, groups and individuals favored as little intrusion into the river as possible. Preferred levee protective schemes that were expressed include continuous bankline revetment, a bentinite filled trench in conjunction with continuous bank revetment, riprap protection on the levee itself and design and construction of groins as they are needed to protect the levee from an advancing river, Deferred Construction Alternative III. 1.03 Unresolved Issues Although the Fairbanks North Star Borough (by Resolution), the Alaska Railroad, the Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Hydraulics Consultants, Inc. (January 1980 Report), Ott Water Engineering (comments at a Borough workshop), Warren Steen and J.A. Carroll have expressed support of the recommended levee completion, several agencies and individuals continue to be concerned about both levee completion and contruction of upstream protective groins. Comments expressing concern over tentative recommended plans were received from the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Alaska State Clearing House, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, James Aldrich, and Lane Thompson. The Alaska Conservation Society and Charles M. Binkley object to in-water levee completion schemes and upstream protective groins which extend into the Tanana River. The concerns and objection of these agencies, organizations and individuals are discussed further in Section VI Public Involvement. Comment letters are printed in their entirety along with the technical responses in Appendix D. Transcripts of a public meeting held 16 April 1980, in Fairbanks, are on file in the Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. 1.04 Relationship to Environmental Requirements See Figure 1 1.05 Original EIS A final Environmental Impact Statement, Chena River Lakes Project, Fairbanks, Alaska was filed with the Council on Environmental Quality, 27 October 1971. Additional environmental assessments were prepared and filed in the Alaska District September 1974 and December 1977. Federal Policies Fish and Wildlife Coordina tion Act Federal Water Project Recreation Act Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 National Historic Preser- vation Act of 1966 Archeological and Historic Preservation Act Wild and Scenic Rivers Act National Environmental Policy Act Clean Water Act FIGURE 1 RELATIONSHIP OF PLANS TO ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS (Levee Completion Alternative 2 and Upstream Protective Groin Alternative II, Tentatively Selected Plans) Levee 10 All plans in full com- pliance All plans in full com- pliance All plans in full com- pliance All plans in partial com- pliance - All surveys are complete. No sites have been identified. Final Advisory Council comments requested with this SEIS. Same as above N/A for this portion of river All plans in full com- pliance All plans in full com- pliance through Sect. 404(r). SEIS will be submitted for Congressional Committee review. Protective Groins oor ir! FIGURE 1 RELATIONSHIP OF PLANS TO ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS (cont) Protective Federal Policies Levee Groins Ue =. 37a 4 oP tO Ot 9.60 Lester Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 Endangered Species Act of 1973 Flood Plain Management (EO 11988) Protection of Wetlands (EO 11990) Clean Air Act as amended Estuary Protection Act Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Rivers and Harbors Act 1899 Marine Protective, Research and Sanctuary Act N/A for all projects All plans in full pliance All plans in full pliance All plans in full pliance All plans in full pliance N/A for all plans All plans in full pliance All plans in full pliance N/A for all plans com- com- com- com- com- com- State & Local Policies Plt iI Anadromous Fish Protection Permit! Critical Habitat Areas Permit2 Land Use Plans Airport Master Plan Fairbanks North Star Borough FIGURE 1 RELATIONSHIP OF PLANS- TO ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS (cont) Protective Levee Groins 1 2 3 4 5 G7 8 9 10 NC NC NC N/A N/A N/A NC N/A NC N/A Non-compliance for plans NC NC NC requiring work in the Tanana River. Contractor, not agency, must obtain permit from AK Dept. of Fish and Game prior to working in the river. N/A for all plans FC FO; FC “RC PC: “FC RC EC EC FC N/A N/A N/A All plans in full com- pliance NOTES: The compliance categories used in this table were assigned based on the following definitions: a. Full Compliance - All requirements of the policy and related regulations have been met. b. Partial Compliance - Some requirements of the policy and related regulations remain to be met. c. Non-compliance - None of the requirements of the policy and related regulations have been met. lalaska Statute 16.05.970 Protection of Fish and Game 5 Alaska Administrative Code 95.010 Waters Important to Anadromous Fish 2Alaska Statute 16.20.230 Fish and Game Critical Habitat Areas II. NEED FOR AND OBJECTIVES OF ACTION 2.01 Authority The Chena River Lakes Project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 13 August 1968, Public Law 90-483, Section 203, 90th Congress (S-3710), in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in Senate Document No. 89, 90th Congress. This authorization modified an earlier project authorized by the Flood Control Act of 3 July 1959, which had not been constructed because of changed conditions in the area. This authorization provided for the construction of a dam and reservoir on the Chena River for flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement; a dam and detention reservoir on the Little Chena River for flood control; and a levee along the Tanana River from Moose Creek Butte to the confluence of the Chena River and up the Chena River to the vicinity of University Avenue, and appurtenant works, including interior drainage for flood control. 2.02 Public Concerns The Fairbanks North Star Borough, resource agencies, organizations, and individuals have expressed a desire to have maximum flood protection provided for Fairbanks while maintaining current land uses and naviga- tion on the rivers. 2.03 Planning Objectives The flood control project has been designed to maximize flood protection for Fairbanks, maintain current and proposed Fairbanks International Airport facilities including the Alaska Railroad, assure continued navigability on the Chena and Tanana Rivers and minimize adverse environmental impacts. III. ALTERNATIVES 3.01 Plans Eliminated From Further Study A variety of levee alinements and diversion schemes have been considered to provide flood protection for the city of Fairbanks and the sur- rounding areas. These have not been considered further for a variety of reasons including significantly higher costs, technical engineering problems, significant adverse environmental impacts, and reduced flood protection. These alternatives are discussed in Supplement No. 1 to General Design Memorandum No. 5, Tanana Levee - Alternate Proposals, and in Design Memorandum No. 24, Tanana River Levee, Phase II B. They are also included in the Appendix to Design Memorandum No. 27 - Effects of Levee Construction on the Tanana River. a. Saichaket Slough Diversion (Eielson Air Force Base) is a scheme to divert the Tanana River southward from its present location into Salchaket Slough near Eielson Air Force Base. This would require a 500-foot wide cleared and stripped swath for a pilot channel extending 23 miles from the point of diversion near Eielson to the point where the slough re-enters the Tanana approximately 5 miles downstream of the Chena River. A levee would be required along the entire north bank of the pilot channel. Although this alternative would provide complete flood protection for Fairbanks, it would require a radical change in the river, is unacceptable environmentally, presents many unknown factors for engineering, would cost significantly more than other alternatives, and would adversely affect navigation on the Chena River. b. A variety of alinements for diversion of the Tanana_ into Salchaket Slough near the Fairbanks International Airport were investi- gated. These required extending a levee from the north bank levee near the airport across the Tanana River and along varied alinements to a point upstream from the exit of Salchaket Slough; thus, forcing the Tanana south near the airport. Although these alternatives would provide complete flood protection for Fairbanks by moving the Tanana River away from Fairbanks, they had significant engineering problems, required a radical alteration of the river, were environmentally unac- ceptable, and had construction costs significantly higher than those for north bank alinements One of the plans which would divert the Tanana River into Salchaket Slough was considered in detail and is discussed in Section 3.03.1h.. c. The Alaska Conservation Society proposed an on-land levee aline- ment similar to that of Alternatives 4 and 5 discussed in Section 3.03 Plans Considered in Detail. This plan terminated the Alaska Railroad north of the levee and proposed that tank facilities for storage of petroleum products be constructed at the terminal end of the railroad spur. Although this plan was seriously considered, it has not been included in Section 3.03 because of the similarities with Alternatives 4 and 5. The Alaska Conservation Society's proposed alinement would block natural drainage north of the levee and result in impoundment of water behind the levee. Flooding behind the levee would be extensive during high water stages. d. Several levee schemes protected by using continuous rock revet- ment were investigated. These were not considered further because they did not provide the maximum levee protection for the most economical cost. Riprap available in the Fairbanks area is relatively small sized and an extremely large quantity would be required for continuous revet- ment. 3.02 Without Condition (No Action) 3.02.1 Levee - Alternative 10 (Figure 11) The "no action" alternative would terminate the levee as presently com- pleted, about 21,100 feet west of the Goose Island Access Road. | The levee is terminated upstream of the erosion area near the Fairbanks International Airport and does not cross or touch the main Tanana River channel. This alternative is the least expensive of all those consi- dered in more detail as no in-water construction would be necessary and no additional property would be required. Navigation within the Chena and Tanana Rivers would not be affected by construction, although no absolute assurances can be given that natural channel changes would not occur in the future. No additional adverse environmental impacts would occur as a result of construction. This alternative would not provide the flood protection from Tanana River high water that has been authorized for the project. For floods equal to or greater than the 100 year flood, elevations would be approximately four feet higher than that of other north bank alterna- tives and flood waters would inundate a portion of western Fairbanks. (Figure 19). The Fairbanks North Star Borough has stated that this level of flooding is unacceptable. Erosion near the southwest end of the airport would continue, resulting in a loss of wetlands in that area and encroachment of the river upon the Alaska Railroad and ultimately the Fairbanks International Airport. Continued expensive bank protec- tion would be necessary. 3.02.2 Upstream Protective Groins Design of the Tanana River levee incorporated a natural silt blanket barrier of at least 500 feet riverward of the levee to limit seepage quanties under the levee embankment and reduce seepage exit velocities north of the levee. The Tanana River's movements are very unpredictable; however, it appears to be gradually migrating north toward the levee and erosion is progressing rapidly at some points. Should no protective groins be placed ("no action") the river is expected to continue its northward migration. As the river erodes to points within 500 feet of the enbankment seepage quantities could increase to a point resulting in flooding north of the levee. In addition, seepage exit velocities could undermine the stability of the levee and result in its failure. 3.03 Plans Considered in Detail A number of plans have been considered in detail for the levee comple- tion and upstream protective groin construction. Two of the alinements proposed for levee completion have also been evaluated by independent consultants. 3.03.1 Levee a. Alternative 1 - In-Water Levee with Three Protective Groins. (Figure 3) - This levee alinement would extend the levee approximately 9,000 feet to the eastern bank of a slough located approximately 100 feet upstream from the Chena River and would require crossing a major channel of the Tanana River twice. To protect the levee from erosion, three groins would be constructed extending 2,540 feet, 2,075 feet, and 2,480 feet respectively riverward from the levee. The river would be rerouted to the south by a temporary diversion structure consisting primarily of gravel, sand, and silts into a 4,200- by 150-foot diversion channel. This design would provide maximum flood protection and would not restrict natural drainage behind the levee. The extreme angle of attack to which the river bend is presently being subjected makes infeasible any design which tries to maintain the river bank in its present location. As a result, the design relocates the river into a more gradual bend. Construction would require working in the water and diversion of a main channel of the Tanana into the pilot channel. Seasonal timing of construction would be coordinated with resource agencies, although determining the magnitude of impacts is difficult because of a lack of biological data. Concern has been expressed that this work may force the Tanana to the south away from the mouth of the Chena River, by causing severe bank erosion and channel shifting down- stream of the construction, and that this redirection would lower the water levels of the Chena. Should water levels be reduced to the worse case, access to the Chena River salmon spawning areas would be blocked and overwintering areas in the lower Chena used by diversified fish species would be eliminated. Access to water front businesses would also be blocked and navigation between the Chena and Tanana Rivers would be impossible. Should this occur, salmon spawning stocks that supply the Tanana and Yukon River fishery and which have increased in recent years would be adversely affected as would business owners who rely upon the Chena River for water front access. The possibility that water levels of the lower Chena River would be affected is considered extremely unlikely. 10 b. Alternative 2 - In-Water Levee With Four Protective Groins. (Figure 4) - A rearrangement of the levee and groins as proposed in Alternative 1 has been recommended by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Ltd., an independent consultant. The levee alinement would extend approximately 8,700 feet southwest of the existing levee. Four L-shaped groins would provide protection for the levee. Lengths of these groins respectively from the centerline of the levee are 1,300 feet, 1,600 feet, 1,800 feet, and 1,800 feet. A temporary diversion structure pri- marily consisting of gravel, sand and silt would be constructed to divert Tanana River flows south of the levee into an excavated pilot channel 300 feet wide at the bottom by 4,000 feet long. This alterna- tive would provide maximum flood protection for Fairbanks and vicinity without blocking natural drainage. Shortened groins in conjunction with an alinement slightly north of that proposed in Alternative 1 provides a 1,500-foot wide pathway for Tanana River flows south of the levee and groins. Although absolute assurances cannot be made concerning a river of this type, the possibility of adverse effects on water levels and depths near the mouth of the Chena in the foreseeable future is con- sidered to be extremely unlikely. Should construction divert the Tanana to the south of the Chena River mouth, adverse impacts would occur to business owners who depend upon the lower Chena for access and to the salmon spawning stocks which supply the Chena, Tanana, and Yukon River fisheries and which have been increasing in recent years. Resident fish populations would also be adversely impacted as a unique overwintering area used by a diversity of species is located in the lower Chena River. The width between the groins and the main south bank is expected to minimize bank erosion that could result in downstream transport of coarse materials which might provoke channel changes near the mouth of the Chena River. Construction of this alternative would require working in the water; thus, construction would be coordinated with resource agencies to minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic environment (NW Hydraulics 1980). c. Alternative 3 - Two Levee Scheme. (Figure 5) - This alternative consisted of extending a levee approximately 2.5 miles from a point about 1,300 feet west of where the Goose Island causeway road crosses the levee. This levee alinement would approximately parallel the Tanana River at a minimum distance of 1,000 feet to this point then bear north- west for 590 feet before turning southwest extending approximately 1 mile across the Tanana River. Eight 500-foot groins would be placed iat 1,000 foot intervals to provide levee protection. A 5,000-foot long by 150-foot wide diversion channei would be excavated and a _ temporary diversion structure constructed of gravel, silt, and sand to divert Tanana flows southward from the severely eroding north bank. In addi- tion, a 2.2-mile north levee would be constructed around the southern end of the airport allowing natural drainage between levees. This alinement also would provide maximum flood protection for Fairbanks and erosion control near the airport. This alternative would require con- struction in the water. Concern was expressed that this alinement would divert the Tanana away from the mouth of the Chena, thus lowering the water level in the lower Chena River. Further evaluation indicated that similar flood protection and existing land uses could be maintained more efficiently by other alternatives and this alternative was not pursued further. 11 d. Alternatives 4 and 5 - Runway Tie-Off. (Figures 6 & 7) - This levee alinement extends northwest beyond its intersection with the Alaska Railroad spur, then west to the runway of Fairbanks International Airport where it terminates. Another segment of the levee extends from the runway to the confluence of the Chena and Tanana Rivers. To comply with airport clearance criteria established by the Federal Aviation Administration, levee height for a distance of 500 feet on either side of the airport would be reduced to that of the runway; whereas, the remainder of the levee would be designed to a height four feet above river levels at Standard Project Flood. During flood stages greater than the 100 year flood, approximately 2,000 feet of the lower portions of the levee and the airport runway would be protected by sand bags or other temporary materials. Crossings of the Alaska Railroad would be blocked by stop-log structures. A gravity flow drain and a pumping plant (Alt. 4) or an interior drainage channel emptying into the Chena River (Alt. 5) would be necessary to provide drainage of surface runoff and ground water seepage accumulation north of the levee during high water stages of the Tanana River. The gravity drain structure placed under the levee for both alternatives would consist of six 12-foot diameter corrugated metal pipe culverts with wall-mounted flap gates on the Tanana River end. Approximately 2,000 cubic yards of rock placed to a depth of three feet at the culvert outlets would be required to minimize erosion. For each alternative a drainage channel that is approximately parallel to the airport runway would intercept surface run off and convey it to the gravity drain. Both alternatives would require additional means to remove water accumu- lating north of the levee. Alternative 4 includes four two-stage 600 horsepower vertical turbine propeller pumps to lift seepage and run-off water over the levee and into the Tanana River. The Interior Drainage Channel A would be extended to convey flows to the pumping facility. Constructing a berm and raising the Alaska Railroad bed also would be necessary to channel flows to the gravity drain. Alternative 5 would require routing Interior Drainage Channel A to the Chena River along a line east of the runway. The bottom widths would vary from 12 to 37 feet. Bottom widths of the surface run off channel would be approximately 250 feet. Since the alinement is entirely on land, no in-water construction would be necessary and no adverse impacts to the fisheries or navigation of the Chena and Tanana Rivers would occur as a result of construction; however, no assurances can be made that natural channel changes would not occur in the future which might divert the Tanana River away from the mouth of the Chena River adversely impacting these resources by impeding access and/or navigation. Construction could be accomplished during the summer months and would not interfere with the Instrument Landing System at Fairbanks International Airport. 12 Flood protection would be less by either of these schemes (Figures 21 & 22). For both, the area between the levee and the Tanana River would be unprotected. Both schemes would block natural drainage behind the levee. The extent of flooding north of the levee would be dependent upon several factors including the reliability of the temporary protec- tive measures across the airport runway and the railroad crossings. Success of these designs depends upon separation of peak seepage flows occuring during high water stages of the Tanana and peak surface runoff flows from rain and snow melt. Should these peaks occur close together flooding would result. Interior Drainage Channels are all designed to accomodate 25 year flood seepage flows; however, higher flows would result in out of bank conditions. Redirecting channel A northeast of the runway would increase flooding during high water stages in heavily populated areas (Ott 1980). e. Alternative 6 - On-Land Against Airport. (Figure 8) An on-land alinement was considered which would extend from the existing levee northwest to the Alaska Railroad spur, then westward to the Chena River. This alternative would provide maximum flood protection with no construction required in the water; thus, construction could be accom- plished during the summer months and no adverse impacts to fisheries or navigation on the Chena and Tanana Rivers would occur as a result of construction. Natural drainage patterns would not be blocked. However, relocation or abandonment of the Alaska Railroad spur which delivers aviation fuel and other prtroleum products to unloading facilities on the other side of the runway would be necessary. Since the airport Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach relies partially upon signals reflected from the ground, this alinement would affect the performance of this system and require its recalibration. Erosion would continue along the bank line threatening the railroad. Future airport expansion would be limited. This alternative was opposed vigorously by the Federal Aviation Administration, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Division of Aviation Design and Construction, and the Alaska Railroad. f. Alternative 7 - Sheet Pile Along Bankline. (Figure 9). An alternative using sheet pile for protection of an on-land levee: was investigated, although sheet piling is significantly more expensive ‘than gravel fill. This scheme requires realinement of a section of) the Alaska Railroad along the southwest end of the runway of International Airport to provide room for levee construction. This alternative would allow summer construction and maintain the river at its present config- uration near the airport. Maximum flood protection for north bank schemes would be provided. The railroad and airport Instrument Landing System would remain functional. The area is underlain by permafrost and channel depths along the rapidly eroding river bank are in excess of 45 feet. To insure the integrity of this levee alinement the sheet piling must extend 60 to 70 feet deep. Experimental attempts to drive sheet 13 piling in various depths of permafrost near the eroding bank in 1978 proved to be extremely difficult. This alternative is not considered technically workable. Attempting to maintain the river bank line in its present configuration would require continual costly maintenance on any protective structures. g. Alternative 8 - GDM #5 On-Land. (Figure 10) With this alterna- tive, the levee would extend along the north side of the Tanana River from the Moose Creek Dam 20.4 miles to the confluence of the Chena - River, then up the east side of the Chena River 5.5 miles to University Avenue. Approximately 3.3 miles of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities highway between the airport terminal building and University Avenue would be upgraded and serve both as a levee and high- way. A minimum setback of 600 feet from the riverbank was incorporated into the design to protect the levee from seepage and consideration was given to the airport master plan for the alinement near the airport. Since the natural drainage patterns would be blocked by the levee, a gravity drain and pumping plant would be necessary to accommodate drain- age of surface runoff and sheet flows resulting from an elevated water table during high water stages of the Tanana. At the request of the Fairbanks North Star Borough, who felt the operation and maintenance of the pumping plant would be too expensive, other north bank levee schemes were pursued. When this alternative was proposed, no in-water construc- tion was necessary and no adverse impacts to navigation and fisheries could occur. Since that time, rapid erosion has occurred near the airport and this alinement would now require crossing a major channel of the Tanana in the location of recently proposed levee completion schemes. This alinement is no longer possible on land (GDM 5). . h. Alternative 9 - Salchaket Slough Diversion Immediately Upstream of Airport. (Figure 11) this alternative would extend the levee from the north bank across the Tanana River at a point 1.8 miles from the airport runway. On the south side of the Tanana, the levee would follow high ground until it met the curve of the Tanana south bank where it terminated above the mouth of the Salchaket Slough, approximately 5 miles downstream from the mouth of the Chena. A 1,500-foot pilot chan- nel would be necessary extending from the Tanana near Fairbanks International Airport. A 1,000-foot wide cleared swath would extend from the downstream end of the pilot channel to the Tanana River 5 miles downstream from the mouth of the Chena River. This scheme is the only one considered in detail which would provide western Fairbanks with complete flood protection by moving the river away from Fairbanks. It would also provide room for airport expansion and would eliminate erosion problems near the airport. Land acquisition costs would be reduced because of lower land costs south of the Tanana. 14 Radical changes in the river would be necessary which would create a number of engineering problems. Successful diversion of the river would adversely impact navigation and disrupt anadromous fish runs. Construc- tion costs would be significantly higher than those of north bank alter- natives. There would be a period of adjustment in the Tanana River the results of which would be difficult to predict. For these reasons this alternative was not proposed for construction (GDM 5). 3.03.2 Upstream Protective Groins Three structural designs for upstream protective groins have been considered in addition to the "no action" alternative discussed in Section 3.02.2. a. Alternative I - Immediate Construction of 8 Groins. (Figure 12) This design consists of 8 new L-shaped groins varying in length from 4,000 feet to 6,000 feet. In almost all cases the dikes extend out into the river and across major river channels, diverting these channels to the south. A diversion channel and temporary diversion structures would be required in order to construct many of these groins. This plan would provide maximum levee protection by relocating the entire length of the river adjacent to the levee (20 miles), approximately 3,000 feet south of its present channel location. Sediment deposition both up- stream and downstream would occur but is not expected to affect ground water supplies within Fairbanks. Since the groins of this plan extend across major channels some disorientation of anadromous fish may occur. Some habitat, which may include overwintering and burbot spawning, would be lost although slow current and clear water in blocked channels may be attractive to fish and possibly waterfowl. Some wetland vegetation would be destroyed. b. Alternatve II - Immediate Construction of 13 Groins. (Figure 13) A protective groin scheme consisting of 13 L-shaped groins varying in length from 3,700 feet to 6,000 feet also has been considered. Some of these groins would cross main river channels. This design would attempt to maintain the river close to its present alinement upstream from the airport . Sediments would be deposited both upstream and downstream of the groins during high water stages. Some disorientation of anadromous fish may occur during high water stages and some wetland vegetation would be lost as a result of clearing and filling. Some habitat, which may include overwintering and burbot spawning, would be lost although slow current and clear water in blocked channels may be attractive to fish and possibly waterfowl. c. Alternative III - Deferred Construction. Because changes in the river channels are very unpredictable, deferred construction has been considered. This plan would delay design and construction of the 13 groins discussed in Alternative II until riverbank erosion posed a clear threat to the levee system. The basic design, location, and layout jof the levee protective groins would be similar to that of Alternative II. Some areas of the river which had been rapidly eroding in the past appear to be stabilizing and may not require protective measures; whereas, unpredictable river movement may require placement of groins ‘in other areas. This alternative may minimize adverse environmental 15 impacts by requiring protective groins only where necessary to protect the integrity of the levee; however, although this alternative is receiving further consideration, current policy is to totally complete a project before assumption of operation and maintenance responsibilities by the local sponsor, thus, assuring no further Federal involvement. d. Also considered was a plan for immediate construction of approximately six groins in locations that are believed likely for future erosion. Erosion could occur in uprotected areas and remedial action would be a local responsibility. e. An additional alternative would be to stockpile rock and/or gravel at perhaps two or three locations along the river bank, to be used by the Borough to construct groins when they are needed in the future. f. A combination of both Alternatives d. and e. is another alternative. 3.04 Potential Borrow Sites. Selection of a borrow site prior to construction would be the responsi- bility of the contractor who must assure the quality of materials and obtain any necessary permits for their removal. Several sources of gravel, silt and sand and one rock quarry are located within the Fairbanks area. Potential borrow sites are identified on Figure 14. 3.04.1 Rock Only one source of rock suitable for riprap is available in the Fairbanks area. This source, known locally as “Brown's Hill," has provided all the rock used previously on the Chena River Lakes Project. It is an existing quarry which has been in use for a number of years. 3.04.2 Gravel, Silt and Sand. a. Pilot Channel near Fairbanks International Airport. Suitable materials excavated from the proposed pilot channel could be used for construction. In addition, areas adjacent to the upstream end of the pilot channel would be available for material removal. Since the channel would pass through portions of vegetated islands and the sub- strate is an alluvial deposit, organics and debris would be encountered in addition to gravel, sand and silt. Vegetation would be cleared prior to construction. b. Existing Borrow Sites. Several existing commercial borrow sites are found in the Fairbanks area. Although selection of borrow sites would be the responsibility of the contractor, these are also potential sources for materials to be used in levee and protective groin construc- tion. 16 c. Potential Tanana River Sources. Material removal from the north half of the Tanana River Channel adjacent to the levee upstream from Goose Island has been restricted since 1978. This action was necessary to protect the integrity of the levee. Since existing sources may not have sufficient quantities of material for construction, potential Tanana River borrow areas have been identified. These areas are located at the ends of groins in areas which are believed to contain suitable materials, the removal of which would not affect the integrity of the levee; however, material sampling and testing have not been conducted. These areas include both vegetated and unvegetated gravel bars and islands as well as river and channel beds. Should the contractor choose river borrow areas other than those identified as existing or potential sites in this document, a Department of the Army permit would be required from the Corps of Engineers in addition to other necessary Federal, State and local permits. 3.05 Comparative Impacts of Alternatives. Figure 2 compares the impacts to significant resources for all alterna- tives considered in detail. 17 FIGURE 2 COMPARATIVE IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES (Chena River Lakes Project-Levee Completion Alternative 2, tentatively selected) gt 1. River Geomorphology 2. Land Use 3. Navigation 4. Groundwater 5. Water Quality. Alternative 10 "No Action" No impact (Continued erosion at the airport) No impact from construction. Flooding would occur at Fairbanks Int'l Airport, Ak. Railroad and western Fairbanks. No impact. No impact. No impact. Natural Drainage maintained. Alternative 1 (0M 27) Slight possibility of downstream channel changes. Increase sediment deposition down- stream. No impact from construction. Maximum flood protection. Slight possibility of lowering of Chena River water levels or of sediment deposition which would impede navigation. No impact. Temporary increase in suspended solids. Natural drainage maintained. Alternative 2 (NW Hydraulic) Extremely slight possibility of downstream channel changes. Increase sediment deposition downstream. No impact from construction. Maximum flood Protection. Extremely slight possibility of lowering water levels on the Chena River of of sediment deposition which would impede navigation. No impact. Temporary increase in suspended solids. Natural drainage maintained. Alternative 3 (0M 24) Slight possibility of downstream channel changes. Increase sediment deposition downstream. Minor loss of lands as a result of north levee construction. Maximum flood protection. Slight possibility of lowering water levels on the Chena River or of sediment deposition which wo:} impede navigation. No impact. Temporary increase in suspended solids. Natural drainage maintained. Alternative 4&5 (ott) No impact (Continued erosion at the airport) Significantly reduces airport lands for expan- sion. Continued erosion at the airport. Flood- ing may occur behind levee. No impact. No impact. No impact. Natural drainage patterns would be blocked. 61 6. Fish and Wildlife 7. Wetlands 8. Endangered Species 9. Flood Plain 10. Cultural Resources (Archeology) V1. Initial Cost 12. Annual Maintenance Alternative 10 "No Action" No impact. No impact. No impact. Reduced flood protection for western Fairbanks. No impact. COMPARATIVE IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES (cont) Alternative 1 (DM 27) Possible disruption of burbot spawning and overwintering area by sedimentation. Possible disorienta- tion of juvenile and adult anadromous fish. Minor loss of wild- life habitat. No impact on habitat designated as critical. Slight pos- sibility of adverse impacts to Chena River fishery. On land portion through wetlands. No impact. In 100 year flood plain. Provides maximum flood pro- tection. No impact to known sites. Probability of additional sites is low. $11,340,000 $25,000 Alternative 2 (NW Hydraulic) Possible disruption of burbot spawning and overwintering area by sedimentation. Possible disorienta- tion of juvenile and adult anadromous fish. Minor loss of wild- life habitat. No impact on habitat designated as critical. Slight pos- sibility of adverse impacts to Chena River fishery. On land portion through wetlands. No impact. In 100 year flood plain. Provides maximum flood pro- tection. No impact to known sites. Probability of additional sites is low. $13,950,000 $25,000 Alternative 3 (DM 24) Possible disruption of burbot spawning and overwintering area by sedimentation. Possible disorienta- tion of juvenile and adult anadromous fish. minor loss of wild- life habitat. No impact on habitat designated as critical. Slight pos- sibility of adverse impacts to Chena River fishery. On land portion through wetlands. No impact. In 100 year flood plain. Provides maximum flood pro- tection. No impact to known sites. Probability of additional sites is low. $15,000,000 $25,000 Alternative 4 & 5 (ott) No impact on fish. Minor loss of wildlife habitat. No impact on habitat designated as critical. Levee and drainage channels through wetlands. Natural drainage blocked. No impact. In 100 year flood Plain. Reduced flood protection. Flooding may occur north of levee during floods greater than 25 year event. No impact to known sites. Probability of additional sites is low. 4 10,570,000 5 11,920,000 $108,000 02 1. River Geomorphology 2. Land Use 3. Mavigation 4. Groundwater 5. Water Quality Alternative 6 On Land Airport No impact (Continued Erosion at the airport) Interferes with the airport Instrument Landing System. Reduces airport lands for expansion. No impact. No impact. No impact. COMPARATIVE IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES (cont) Alternative 7 (Sheet Pile) No. impact Attempted to main- tain present con- figuration of the river. Technically unworkable. No impact. Unworkab le No impact. No impact. Temporary increases in suspended solids. Alternative 8 (OM 5) No longer possible because of erosion at the airport. No longer possible. No. longer possible. No impact. No impact. Alternative 9 (Slough Diversion) Major river alteration diverts Tanana into Salchaket STougn. Blocks Tanana River at the airport. Possible decrease in water levels in lower Chena River. Would provide total flood protection by moving the Tanana. Maximum land for expansion. Navigation from Chena to Tanana upstream of Ghena mouth blocked. Mavigation on Tanana possible via diversion channel. Possible decrease in water levels on lower Chena River. No impact. Increases in suspended solids which would last for several years Tz 6. Fish and Wildlife 7. Wetlands 8. Endangered Species 9. Floodplain 10. Cultural 11. Initial Cost 12. Annual Maintenance Alternative 6 On Land Airport No impact to fish. Minor loss of wild- life habitat. Mo impact to habitat designated as critical. Levee through wetlands. No impact. In 100 year flood plain. Reduced protection. No impact to known sites. Probability of additional sites is low. $4,950,000 (Costs borne by FNSB not included) $2,000 COMPARATIVE IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES (cont) Alternative 7 (Sheet Pile) No significant impact to fish. Minor loss of wildlife habitat. No impact to habitat desig- nated as critical. Part of levee through wetlands. No impact. In 100 year flood plain. Maximum protection. No impact to known sites. Probability of additional sites is low. $19,490,000 About $50,000 but ultimately not maintainable. Alternative 8 (DM 5) No impact to Minor loss of wildlife habitat. No impact to habitat desig- nated as critical. Levee through wet- lands. No longer possible. No impact. In 100 year flood plain. Maximum protection. No impact to known sites. Probability of additional sites is low. $14,930,000 (no longer possible) Not possible Alternative 9 (Slough Diversion) Significant adverse impact to fish and wildlife. Disorientation of anadromous fish likely. Possible blockage of fish to Chena River and upstream Tanana River tributaries. Significant disruption of moose habitat. River diversion, pilot channel, Jevee, clearing all in wetlands. No impact. In 100 year flood plain. Provides total flood protection. No impact to known sites. Probability of additional sites is low. $23,290,000 $100,000 22 2. 3. River Geomorphology Land Use Navigation Groundwater COMPARATIVE IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES (Chena River Lakes Project. Upstream Protective Groins Alternative II, tentatively selected) Alternative I (Immediate Const- with 8 groins) Ultimately would move river approx. 1/2 mile south. Increased sediment transport for several Sediment dispostion on both sides of groins. Future channel changes are unpredictable, but the river should, in general, train on the L-head groins. No impact Where groins cross major channels, increased velocities resulting downstream sediment deposition may adversely affect navigation. Water tables may be lowered 1 to 2 ft. immediately ad- jacent to the river bank as a result of siltation. This effect will diminish northward. Alternative II (Immediate Const- with 13 groins) Attempts to maintain river close to present configuration. Ulti- mately would move the river up to 2,000 feet south. Increased sediment transport for 3 or 4 years. Sediment deposition on both sides of groins. Future channel changes are unpre- dictable, but the river should, in general, train on the L-head groins. No impact Where groins cross major channels, increased velocities resulting downstream sediment depsition may adversely affect navigation. Water tables may be lowered 1 to 2 ft. immediately ad- jacent to the river bank as a result of siltation. This effect will diminish northward. Alternative III (Deferred Construct ion- of up to 13 groins) Attempts to maintain river close to present configuration. May move the river up to 2,000 feet south. Increased sediment transport downstream of groins following construction. Sediment deposition on both sides of groins. Future channel changes are unpredictable, but the river should, in general, train on the L-head groins. No impact Adverse impacts may occur if groins extend into major river channels. The degree of impact would be less than Alternatives I and II since fewer ‘ins would be placed and intervals between placement would be longer. Deposition would tend to be just downstream of each groin. Water tables may be lowered 1 to 2 ft. immediately adjacent to the river bank as a result of siltation. This effect will diminish northward. The degree of impact would be less than I & II because of fewer groins anda - longer interval between construction of groins. €2 5. Water Quality 6. Fish & Wildife 7. Wetlands 8. Endangered Species 9. Floodplain 10. Cultural Resources V1. Initial Cost 12. Annual Main- tenance COMPARATIVE IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES (cont.) (Chena River Lakes Project. Upstream Protective Groins Alternative II, tentatively selected) Alternative I (Immediate Const- with 8 groins) Temporary increase in suspended solids. Possible disorientation of anadromous fish. Loss of wildlife habitat; possible loss of nesting sites. Groins cross wetlands. No impact In 100 year floodplain. No impact to known sites. Probability of additional sites is low. $35,000.000 $28,000 Alternative II (Immediate Const- with 13 groins Temporary increase in suspended solids. Possible disorientation of anadromous fish. Loss of wildlife habitat; possible loss of nesting sites. Groins cross wetlands. No impact In 100 year floodplain. No impact to known sites. Probability of additional sites is low. $51,000,000 $28,000 Alternative III (Deferred Construct ion- of up to 13 groins) Temporary increase in suspended solids. The degree of impact would be less than I & II because of fewer groins and longer time intervals between construction of each groin. Possible disorientation of anadromous fish. Loss of wildlife habitat; possible loss of nesting sites. Degree of impact less because of fewer groins and a longer time interval between construction of groins. Groins cross wetlands. No impact In 100 year floodplain. No impact to known sites. Probability of additional sites is low. $25,000,000 $12,000 G2 F Byers Island : oe es Bee eee VER ie at 2 FAIRBANKS, ALASKA CHENA RIVER LAKES PROJECT ALTERNATIVE NO. | ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS FIGURE 3 yy Y)( AY &: Nf Oy [= Fe Ay } 3 i. i ANKs BANAL AIRPORT ac 1) tel eee Bs COMPLETION; - RMYE NO.2~ 4 FAIRBANKS, ALASKA CHENA RIVER LAKES PROJECT ALTERNATIVE NO.2 ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS FIGURE 4 26 Le FAIRBANKS, ALASKA CHENA RIVER LAKES PROJECT ALTERNATIVE NO.3 ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS FIGURE & oe fel Pe - ret oy : “Ee at Fes"nvon SURFACE - RUNOF; CHANNEL | <<< ji " a, 4 FAIRBANKS, ALASKA FGRAVITY-DRAINAGE .. 1°8TRUCTURE.. CHENA RIVER LAKES PROJECT ALTERNATIVE NO.4 ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS FIGURE 6 62 A om E> = "Ch ANNEL a . ll 7 FAIRBANKS, ALASKA CHENA RIVER LAKES PROJECT ALTERNATIVE NO.5 ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS FIGURE 7 Vij WY VEN Byers Island FAIRBANKS, ALASKA CHENA RIVER LAKES PROJECT ALTERNATIVE NO.6 ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS FIGURE 8 30 LE FAIRBANKS, ALASKA CHENA RIVER LAKES PROJECT ALTERNATIVE NO.7 ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS FIGURE 9 ret ally Py BANKS. BAAL AIRPORT ae fay “Noa “ALTERNATIVE ‘NO.8 1972 | = = BANKLINES <=" | FAIRBANKS, ALASKA CHENA RIVER LAKES PROJECT ALTERNATIVE NO.8 &9 ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS FIGURE 10 32 c€ SN Lai \ Sof ”) ry} FAIRBANKS, ALASKA CHENA RIVER LAKES PROJECT ALTERNATIVE NO.IO ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS FIGURE 11 t AS Eh FAIRBANKS i > INTERNATIONAL. AIRPORT ee tes c a” —s XS 5 TANANA-RIVER LEVEE: (EXISTING) FAIRBANKS, ALASKA CHENA RIVER LAKES PROJECT UPSTREAM GROIN ALTERNATIVE NO.I ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS FIGURE NO. 12 ex 6 TANANA LEVEE ee Wee \ee ; TANANA RIVER ; LEVEE PROTECTION S r EXISTING FAIRBANKS, ALASKA CHENA RIVER LAKES PROJECT A Note: Levee Completi : i ___UPSTREAM GROINS ~s\ AR. 2 assemed ti.be ALTERNATIVE NO. IL in piece . ‘ . ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS Ms, FIGURE NO. 13 ws we Qe E, / > TANANA-RIVER . LEVEE : (EXISTING) LEGEND WH ROCK QUARRY @ EXISTING MISC. "| & COMMERCIAL . FAIRBANKS, ALASKA @ PUBLIC AGENCY @ TANANA M : CHENA RIVER LAKES PROJECT RIVER POTENTIAL BORROW SITES / FIGURE HO. 14 ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS IV. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4.01 Environmental Conditions. Fairbanks, Alaska's second largest city with a population of approxi- mately 66,000, is located at the confluence of the Chena and Tanana Rivers, 400 road miles northeast cf Anchorage and 100 miles south of: the Arctic Circle. Founded in 190] as a trading post, the town became a supply center for the mining region to its north after gold was dis- covered. It has since become the commercial and transportation hub of north and central Alaska. The University of Alaska with its associated research institutes and facilities is also located there. The Chena and Tanana River drainage basins lie within the spruce-birch forest of the western extension of the boreal forest belt traversing North America. Unconsolidated alluvium with areas of discontinuous permafrost underlies the flood plain of the Chena and Tanana Rivers. Vegetation along the north bank of the Tanana which has been undisturbed by human activity consists primarily of sedges, resin birch, ericaceous shrubs, willows, black spruce, tamarack and paper birch, although white spruce, alder, and balsam poplar are found in some areas. Wildlife in the construction area consist primarily of small mammals and a variety of birds some of which nest on gravel bars and islands within the Tanana River. Anadromous fish (salmon) migrate through this reach of the Tanana but are not known to spawn there. Several species of fish are found in the Tanana and Chena Rivers. Burbot over winter and may spawn near the mouth of the Chena River. Both the Tanana and Chena Rivers are navigable waterways which provide access for boats, float planes and the river boats Discovery I and II, a local tourist attraction. Being a large braided river whose bed is perched above adjacent land, the Tanana is constantly shifting its course. At the present time, its trend is to migrate northward slightly toward Fairbanks. Local erosion near the International Airport is occurring at a rapid rate. of approximately 110 feet a year. An Alaska Railroad spur which extends around the western end of the runway to deliver aviation fuel and other petroleum products for airport operation and distribution to other locations is also threatened by the advancing river. Groundwater within the Fairbanks area is recharged principally by infiltration from the Tanana River and to a lesser extent from the Chena with flows generally in the direction of surface flows. The climate of the Fairbanks area is one of extremes characterized by cold dry winters and warm summers with temperatures ranging from 96°F to -66°F. Large annual and diurnal temperature amplitudes are experi- enced. During periods of extremely low winter temperatures, ice fog and smog occur, persisting from a few days to one or two weeks. The mean annual rainfall at the Fairbanks International Airport is 11.22 inches. The Chena River Lakes Project is over 95 percent complete with the Tanana River levee in place down to a point opposite the Fairbanks International Airport. The Moose Creek and North Pole diversion groins and the Goose Island Causeway are in place to provide river bank erosion protection in front of the Tanana River levee. 4.02 Significant Resources 4.02.1] Tanana River Geomorphology. During glacial times, the Tanana River was against the hills on the north side of the present day Chena River. The Chena at that time flowed out of the hills directly into the Tanana River about 5 miles northeast of North Pole, Alaska. As the glaciers retreated, the Tanana, aggrading because of its high material transport, built up higher than the lands to the south and shifted its course southward. As the Tanana moved southward, the Chena migrated westward until it reached its present course adjacent to Chena Ridge. The aggrading of the Tanana River near the mouth of the Chena River has created a damming (backwater) effect on the Chena. The Tanana has caused a continuous above normal depth in the lower Chena for an esti- mated 500 years. The presence of the Chena River tends to retard depositional processes of the Tanana, thus restricting migration of the Tanana in that reach. (DM 27) The Tanana River combines characteristics of both a braided and a mean- dering stream. Braided stream charateristics include being wide with poorly defined and unstable banks, and a steep, shallow course with multiple channels; whereas, a meandering stream consists principally of a single channel with bends in a more or less regular series, alterna- ting directions. Photographic analysis indicates that throughout most of the reach adja- cent to the levee the Tanana is a characteristically braided stream. Since channels in a braided stream can change rapidly, the actual frequency and extent of channel changes are unknown. Braided channels are unstable, change alinements rapidly, carry large sediment loads, and are wide and shallow during flood stages. Individual braids generally are unpredictable. A short distance above the Fairbanks International Airport the stream form begins to change from a braided to a meandering channel. The channel width is reduced to between 2,000 and 3,000 feet. Meanders generally tend to move downstream. 40 The Tanana river channel system has not migrated significantly beyond its extreme bank limits in the vicinity of Fairbanks, although the long term directional trend of the river is in a northward direction. Erosion rates along the north bank vary from 40 to 100 feet per season. The most critical erosion is presently located adjacent to the Fairbanks International Airport upstream of the mouth of the Chena River. The rate at this area is approximately 110 feet per season; however, erosion rates of up to 300 feet have been recorded. (DM 24, Supp. 1) Three protective structures have been placed in the Tanana upstream of the mouth of the Chena River. The 6,250 foot "North Pole" Diverison Dike was placed in May 1975 to protect a section of the levee where erosion was occurring rapidly. The flood plain downstream and behind the dike has silted in during the past two years and vegetation: is beginning to appear on the gravel bars of the old river bed. The two principle braids that were blocked by the construction now contain rela- tively clear water. Tne north bank line downstream of the dike is beginning to establish its own natural angle of repose with some revege- tation. High water behind the dike has been of a duration such that black spruce along the bank are dying from the river to the levee approximately 500 feet upstream. Erosion is occurring where the Tanana returns to the north bank downstream. In the early fall of 1975, the Fairbanks North Star Borough constructed a causeway from the north bank of the Tanana River across the north branch of the river for the purpose of extracting gravel from the south banks of Goose Island. The causeway provides essentially a river diver- sion with effects similar to the "North Pole Dike." A diversion dike and pilot channel were constructed in the spring of 1979 east of the Chena River floodway channel sill. Initial indications are that this diversion will also function similarly to that at "North Pole." As a result of a sediment transport study completed in February 1978, guidelines were established to limit the location and volume of material that could be removed from the Tanana River between Chena Ridge and 1/2 mile upstream of the Chena floodway sill diversion dike. Gravel extrac- tion is presently occurring only in the Borough administered Goose Island area. (DM 24, Supp. 1) Although aggradation and low lands on the south tend to force the river southward by sudden channel change, other forces are gradually forcing the Tanana northward. These include thawing of the north bank by the sun while the south bank remains frozen and geostrophic acceleration which, in the Northern Hemisphere, tends to force a moving body to the right along its line of motion. 41 At the present time, the Tanana River is aggrading its channel with its banks higher than surrounding lands to the north and south and is gradually migrating northward where it will be stopped by the levee and protective structures. A large flood event could cause a sudden major channel shift to the south through Salchaket Slough. This slough now has a small channel, probably because permafrost in the area resisted major sediment movement during prehistoric floods; however, the permafrost content of soils in the Salchaket area has lessened during the last 80 years of higher temperatures. (DM 27) 4.02.2 Land Use. Preservation of existing and projected land uses in the area of the proposed levee extension has been of major concern. a. Fairbanks International Airport. The Fairbanks International Airport iS a major transportation hub for the Interior Region serving not only the Fairbanks vicinity but also all the bush villages of the northern two-thirds of the state. The airport is a general transporta- tion facility used both for cargo and passenger flights. It also serves flights destined to and from Prudhoe Bay oil field facilities. The Fairbanks area has a high incidence of ice fog and low visibility during the winter months. As a result, a Category 2 Instrument Landing System (ILS) has been installed at Fairbanks International Airport. This system allows landings when 100-foot ceilings with less than 1/4-mile visibility occur (Tanaka 1978). Instrument approaches are made from the south using approach lighting and guiding signals half of which come from the ground (Pickett 1979). Although no immediate expansion of the airport is planned, future aircraft designs may necessitate lengthening the airport 2,000 to 3,000 feet. Runway expansion can only be made at the southern end of the existing runway toward the Tanana River. Lands to the southwest of the runway have been designated for future development of aviation and industrial activities which would be depen- dent upon being able to taxi aircraft (Isberg 1978). b. Alaska Railroad. A railroad spur has been constructed to the Fairbanks International Airport by the Alaska Railroad, a Federally owned and operated line. This spur runs along the southwest side of the airport, wraps around the southern end of the runway and terminates on the northeastern side where off loading facilities are located. Construction was initiated by requests from the local community in an 42 effort to reduce truck congestion in downtown Fairbanks (Isberg 1978) and to improve aircraft fuel and petroleum product delivery to and from the airport. The off loading and fuel storage facilities at the airport serve all of Fairbanks with all types of fuel (England 1979). The Tanana River has been advancing toward the railroad spur and Fairbanks International Airport at a rate of approximately 110 feet per year. Riprap protection for these facilities was placed in 1979, but is expected to provide only temporary protection. c. Float Plane Basin. A float plane basin is located south of and parallel with the Fairbanks International Airport south runway and north of the Alaska Railroad spur. 4.02.3 Navigation. Both the Chena and Tanana Rivers are navigable rivers from breakup, mid-May, to freezeup, first of October. Prior to construction of the Alaska Railroad, Fairbanks International Airport and Alaskan roadways, supplies and passengers were transported by riverboat to Interior Alaska. As a result of being at the head of feasible navigation on the Chena and Tanana Rivers, Fairbanks developed as a trade center. Although most supplies are now transported by air, rail or truck to Fairbanks, these rivers continue to receive a variety of uses. One of the major tourist attractions in the area is riverboat tours offered by Alaska Riverways, Inc. which is located on the lower Chena River. Two commercial vessels make daily trips along the Chena River, down a portion of the Tanana River and back during the period from break-up to freeze-up. Captain Binkley, owner, estimates 25,000 persons use his business during the season. ‘ Alaska Range Hunts located on the lower Chena provides commercial guided big game hunting. Hunters are flown from the Chena River in pontoon equipped planes from mid-May to October and in ski equipped aircraft during the winter. Thus, the Chena serves this business year round for take offs and landings (Elliot 1978). Other businesses which require the Chena River for access include a float plane airport, a barging port and jet boat tour facilities. Traditionally these rivers have been and still are used by hunters, prospectors and fish camp occupants. The Tanana River provides access to areas along the southern bank which are open to moose hunting and generally support a large moose population. This river is also used for access to and from fish camps and the community of Fairbanks. Outboard river boat races, fishing and pleasure boating are also activities which take place on both rivers. A public boat ramp is located on the Chena River. 43 4.02.4 Groundwater. Most of the 11.22 inches per year of precipitation which falls on Fairbanks either runs off as surface flow or is lost to the atmosphere by evaporation or the transpiration of plants. Only a small fraction infiltrates to the watertable. The Tanana River is the major source of recharge to the aquifer under the flood plain with flows northwesterly. The Chena River and direct infiltration of precipitation may seasonally contribute some water to the aquifer. At most times the aquifer loses water to the Chena River. Millions of gallons per day can be produced from this alluvial aquifer. Unconsolidated alluvium deposited by the Chena and Tanana Rivers under- lies the flood plain. The maximum thickness penetrated by drill at the Moose Creek Dam site is 616 feet and a thickness of 800 feet was seis- mically determined by Barnes (1961) at a site 2 miles south of Fairbanks. The aquifer is commonly more than 300 feet deep. Water from most sources on the flood plain requires treatment to make it potable. Groundwater from the alluvial aquifer is of calcium bicar- bonate type with a hardness ranging from 92 to 670 mg/L. Water from most wells sampled on the flood plain contains more dissolved iron and manganese than the recommended limits for drinking water of 0.3 mg/L and 0.05 mg/L, respectively. Methane and hydrogen sulfide have been noted in some wells indicating an anaerobic environment in which oxygen has been consumed by decomposing organic matter. The most desirable water for drinking is found in sand and gravel deposits that have small amounts of organic detritus and are close to a source of recharge by oxygenated surface water. (Nelson 1978) 4.02.5 Water Quality. The Tanana River contains hard water of calcium bicarbonate type, with dissolved solids ranging from 76 to 180 milligrams per liter. In samples collected at Nenana, down river from Fairbanks, all chemical constituents except manganese and cadmium were within EPA recommended maximum levels for drinking water. Manganese concentrations were above the recommended maximum of 0.5 mg/L in samples analyzed for dissolved metals. Although several samples were below the recommended maximum of -01 mg/L for dissolved cadmium, two were 0.14 and 0.32 m/L respectively, more than 10 times the recommended limit for drinking water. Because cadmium is toxic and the Tanana River is the source of groundwater near Fairbanks, additional samples were collected and analyzed for cadmium (Nelson 1978). Additional tests have been below recommended levels and errors in sampling technique may have resulted in inaccuracies in earlier tests (Parks 1979). Much of the suspended sediment in the 44 Tanana River consists of glacial flour, which is silt and clay sized rock particles produced by glaciers. The suspended sediment concentra- tion relates to the rate of glacial melting and is highest during the summer, more than 1,000 mg/L. During the winter, when glacial melt is at a minimum, the river is clear. Water from the Chena River is also of the calcium carbonate type with dissolved solids ranging from 50 to 170 mg/L. As in the Tanana Manganese is generally higher than the maximum recommended level for drinking water. Other constituents are within the EPA recommended limits. Suspended sediment concentrations increase with stream flow but are significantly lower than those of the Tanana with a maximum measured at 510 mg/L in August 14, 1967 during a major flood. (Nelson 1978) 4.02.6 Fish and Wildlife. Within the Flood Control Project area are at least 34 species of mammals, 13 species of fish and at various times, either seasonally or as immigrants, 113 species of birds. a. Fish. Information concerning Tanana River fisheries is limited primarily to data compiled by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game on commercial and subsistence fishing downstream of the mouth of the Chena River and to studies associated with construction of the Trans Alaska oil pipeline in tributaries up river of the proposed construction. The Tanana River is a large braided system clouded with glacial silt which makes it extremely difficult to study. Although attempts to identify possible over wintering areas have been made, site specific data within the proposed construction site are not available. The Tanana River forms at the confluence of the Chisana and Nebesna Rivers at Northway Junction, then flows northwestly 440 miles to the Yukon River. Both the river and its tributaries support a number of resident and anadromous fish. Water quality and spawning habitats in the area have been largely preserved in their original condition. Pollution, logging, dam construction and mining activities have been to date minimal or nonexistent. (Geiger and Anderson 1979) Species found within the Tanana River drainage include but are not limited to, king salmon, coho salmon, fall and summer chum salmon, arctic grayling, round white fish, longnose suckers, humpback white fish, cisco, burbot, northern pike, slimy sculpin, sheefish and stickleback. The high turbidity in the Tanana has hindered the determination of the distribution, abundance and timing of salmon runs in the river. (Dinneford and Francisco, 4th 1977) Although no mainstream spawning is known to occur within the construction boundaries, anadromous fish do 45 migrate through the reach of the Tanana which would be affected by construction to spawning areas in upstream reaches and tributaries. In general, king salmon and summer: chum spawn in tributaries along the north bank of the Tanana River. (Dinneford and Francisco, 3rd 1977) Coho salmon and fall chum salmon spawn in subpermafrost spring areas that surface along the south bank of the Tanana and in spring fed areas of southern tributaries. (Dinneford and Francisco 4th 1977) The Salcha River, 45 river miles upstream from the Chena River (Anderson and Geiger 1978), has the largest known spawning population of king salmon in the Tanana River drainage with a record run in 1978. A record king salmon run also occured in 1978 in the Chena River. (Anderson and Geiger 1978) Adults enter the river to spawn in late July and smolt out migrations occur throughout April and early May. (Dinneford 3rd 1977) Improved king salmon runs can be expected in the future throughout the Yukon River drainage as a result of the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission (INPFC) Treaty which will reduce high sea inter- ceptions. (Anderson and Geiger 1978) In addition, the Salcha River supports the largest known population of spawning summer chum salmon in the Tanana River drainage. Adults return to spawn in late July and early August and chum smolt out migrations occur April through late May. (Dinneford 3rd 1977) These fish make an important contribution to commercial, subsistence and sports fishing. Other important species of salmon which migrate through the Tanana to spawn upstream of the proposed construction include fall chum salmon and coho salmon which spawn along the southern bank of the Tanana and in southern tributaries. The Tanana River system is one of the major fall chum spawning areas within the Yukon River drainage. Major populations return to spawning areas near Delta in late July and early August. Smolt out migrations occur April through late May. (Dinneford 3rd 1977) Fall chums are the primary target species for commercial fishing within the Tanana River because they are relatively abundant and have a good flesh quality with a bright silvery appearance. They are large, with a robust body shape and high oi] content. Existing regulations also restrict catches of king salmon to 1,000 while allowing larger catches for other salmon species. (Anderson and Geiger 1978) Spring fed areas along the south bank of the Tanana and its southern tributaries also are used for spawning by coho salmon as far upstream as the Gerstle River. Adult runs occur from early October through November and smolt out migrations appear to be throughout the month of April. 46 (Dinneford and Francisco, 4th 1977) The major coho spawning concentra- tions of the Yukon drainage to date occur in the tributaries of the upper Tanana River drainage. (Anderson and Geiger 1978) All salmon species contribute to an important commercial, subsistence and sports fishery within the Tanana River drainage as well as the lower Yukon River. Since 1974, the Tanana River has been open for commercial fishing up. to the mouth of the Chena River. The vast majority of all commercial fishermen within the Yukon River drainage are Eskimo and Indian residents. Fish wheels are used for commercial and subsistence harvesting in the Tanana River. In general, commercial fishing catches are increasing yearly in the Tanana River. Subsistence fishing is an important part of the food supply of many residents along the rivers of interior Alaska. Catches of king salmon, used for human consumption, have remained constant whereas chum salmon catches for subsistence use have declined. Traditionally chum salmon have been used as a food supply for sled dogs. With increased depen- dence upon the use of airplanes and snow machines the use of dog sleds decreased. As a result, subsistence harvesting of chum salmon declined but has increased in recent years with the popularity of subsistence roe sales and recreational sled dog teams. The significance of subsistence are for non salmon species is not well known. (Anderson and Geiger 1978 Sports fishing within the Fairbanks area is primarily for grayling within the Chena River. A burbot fishery occurs year round and some sports fishing for salmon, white fish and sheefish is done. An over- wintering area for a diversity of fish species is located in the lower Chena River and in the Tanana River near the mouth of the Chena. Burbot spawn in February and March and are believed to use the overwintering areas for spawning. Dye Mammals. Beaver, coyote, wolf, red fox, mink, muskrat, porcupine, snowshoe hare, and small mammals such as voles, lemming, shrews and mice maybe found in the area of proposed construction. Occasional moose and black bear seasonally inhabit the area. c. Birds. The Fairbanks area is a summer residence for about: 85 species of birds and is a migratory stop off for an additional 25 species. Some 27 species usually remain throughout the winter including the ruffed grouse, spruce grouse, chickadees, gray jays and ravens. The area is used for general habitat and for feeding as well as nesting’ by some species. 47 FIGURE 15 King salmon Coho salmon Chum salmon Arctic grayling Round whitefish Longnose suckers Humpback whitefish Cisco Burbot Northern pike Slimy sculpin Sheef ish Stick lebacks Arctic lamprey Lake chub FISH SPECIES LIST 48 Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha « kisutch O. keta Thymallus arcticus Prosopium cylindraceum atostomus catostomus Coregonus pidschian oregonus sp. Lota lota Esox Tuc ius Cottus cognatus Stenodus aa Pungitius pungitius Lampetra japonica Oovesius plumbeus 4.01.7 Wetlands. Vegetation within the Chena River Lakes Project has been mapped by fifteen mapping units delineated from aerial photography. These include the following: White spruce; white spruce/paper birch; paper birch; balsam poplar/paper birch; paper birch/black spruce; black spruce; resin birch/ericaceous shrubs; sedge grass/wet meadow; water and cultural features; willow thickets; quaking aspen; upland dry grass/forb meadows; unvegetated river bars; balsam poplar; balsam poplar/white spruce. (Graham 1975) Within the area to be affected by the proposed construc- tion all types are found except the quaking aspen and upland dry grass/ forb meadow; however, the majority of vegetation consists of black spruce and resin birch/ericaceous shrub which are clearly wetlands and paper birch/black spruce which generally are wetlands in this area although differences in the understory may classify this map unit as non wetlands in some areas. Several areas have been disturbed by previous human activity as indicated by the vegetation maps (Figures 17 & 18). More detailed discussion of associated vegetation units is found in the 1977 EA which is reprinted in the Appendix to DM 27. Among wetland flora which would be affected by the proposed construction are the following: black spruce, paper birch, larch, red fruit bearberry, labrador tea, bog blueberry, mountain cranberry, prickly rose, willows, sphagnum mosses, sedges, grasses, resin birch, leather leaf, blue- berries, bog rosemary, bog cranberry and sweet gale. (Corps 1975) Wetlands are considered to be vital areas that constitute a productive and valuable resource. Along the Tanana River in the vicinity of the proposed project, wetlands serve natural biological functions for small mammals, moose and a variety of birds but are not designated as critical habitat. In addition, they filter surface runoff and store storm and flood waters. During high water stages, these wetlands often have standing water on them. Upstream for a distance of approximately 500 feet from the existing North Pole groin, standing water which accummulates behind the groin during high flows has resulted in the loss of a section of black spruce forest reaching from the river to the existing levee. Plant species tolerant to sustained standing water conditions are expected to replace the black spruce. Wetlands which would be affected by the proposed construction are a small] portion of extensive interior wetlands within the Tanana River floodplain. 4g Coniferous Trees Deciduous Trees Ericaceous Shrubs Other Shrubs Herbaceous Plants FIGURE 16 LIST OF COMMON AND BOTANICAL PLANT NAMES Common Plant Names Larch White Spruce Black Spruce Paper Birch Balsam Poplar Quaking Aspen Bog-rosemary Red-fruit Bearberry Bearberry Kinnikinnick Leather leaf Labrador Tea Bog Blueberry Mountain Cranberry Thinleaf Alder Resin Birch Prickly Rose Feltleaf Willow Diamondleaf Willow Buffaloberry Highbush Cranberry Bluejoint Reedgrass Beaked Sedge Horsetails Pasque Flower 50 Botanical Plant Names Larix laricina (Du Roi) K. Koch Picea glauca (Moench) Voss Picea mariana (Mill.) B.S.P. Betula papyrifera Marsh. Populus balsamifera L. Populus tremuloides Michx. Andromeda polifolia L. Arctostaphylos rubra (Rehd. & Wilson) Fern. Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (L.) Spreng. Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (L.) Spreng. Chamaedaphne calyculata (L.) Moench Ledum groenlandicum Oeder Vaccinium uliginosum L. Vaccinium vitis-idaea L. Alnus incana (L.) Moench ssp. tenuifolia (nutt.) Breitung Betula glandulosa Michx. Rosa acicularis Lindl. Salix alaxensis (Anderss.) Cov. Salix pulchra (Cham.) Shepherdia Canadensis (L.) Nutt. Viburnum edule (Michx.) Raf. Calamagrostis canadensis (Michx.) Beauv. Carex rostrata Stokes Equisetum spp. Pulsatilla patens (L.) Mill. FIGURE 16a VEGETATION MAPPING UNITS 1. White Spruce 2. White Spruce/Paper Birch 3. Paper Birch 4. Balsam Poplar/Paper Birch **5. Paper Birch/Black Spruce *6. Black Spruce *7. Resin Birch/Ericaceous Shrub *8. Sedge Grass/Wet Meadow 9. Water and Cultural Features *10. Willow Thickets 11. Quaking Aspen 12. Upland Dry Grass/Forb Meadow 13. River bars unvegetated 14. Balsam Poplar 15. Balsam Poplar/White Spruce *Wetland **Generally wetlands along north bank of the Tanana River between the mouth of the Chena River and Moose Creek Dam 51 at V MAP UNITS FAIRBANKS, ALASKA CHENA RIVER LAKES PROJECT VEGETATION MAP ALASKA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS IGURE NO. 18 4.02.8 Threatened and Endangered Species. No threatened or endangered plants or animals listed or proposed for listing by the Department of Interior under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 are found in the area. (USFWS letter report 1979) 4.02.9 Flood Plain. The City of Fairbanks and vicinity are located on a broad alluvial flood plain of the Tanana River Basin. The stream courses through the plains area have changed many times as the river moved laterally back and forth across the plains and the area is laced with many channels. Major floods in the basin result from either severe rainfall or a combination of rainfall and snow melt. As the Tanana River curves past Fairbanks, it flows in a heavily braided channel through a broad, flat floodplain 6 to 12 miles wide.A long shallow depression south of the Salchaket Slough acts as a flood flow relief area for the Tanana River when the upstream channel capacity is exceeded. Since the channel of Salchaket Slough south of the Tanana River is bounded by natural levees, it forms an irregular barrier against Tanana River waters reaching the depressed area until discharge in the Tanana exceeds 115,000 cubic feet per second and overtopping occurs. (GDM #5 1972) Prior to construction of the existing flood control structure, flooding of the Fairbanks vicinity could occur as a result of high water on the Chena and/or Tanana Rivers. The record flood of 1967 occurred from high water in the Chena River, inundated almost the entire city of Fairbanks and remained out of bank for about a week. Although regulation of the Chena iRiver by the Moose Creek Dam outlet works will prevent flooding downstream by Chena water, potential flooding by Tanana waters down- stream of the existing levee is possible. (Figure 19) The city of Fairbanks, Fort Wainwright military post, North Pole, unin- corporated suburbs, farms, homesteads, the Fairbanks International Airport, existing flood control structures and all alternatives for levee completion and upstream protective groins are located within the base (100 year) flood plain. 4.02.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES as Background Research: Late Prehistoric Athapaskan A.D. 1850-A.D. +» The Jand within the project area was aboriginally use by the Chena and Salcha bands of Athapaskan Indians (Andrews, 1975). Both groups were nomadic, travelling within a generally restricted area during their annual cycle of hunting, snaring, and fishing. Although the names of each band were taken from the river in their major area of exploitation, they ranged between the foothills of the Alaska Range to the south and the Yukon River to the north. 54 Analysis of the ethnographic literature concerning interior Athapaskan settlement and subsistence patterns and their relation to ecological variables provides site location data which can be applied to the shores of the Tanana River. Ethnographic literature (Helm 1969; McKennan 1959, 1965, 1969, Guedon 1975; Andrews 1977) indicates that Athapaskan settle- ments were located in areas that enabled the exploitation of two primary animal resources--caribou and salmon. Concentration of these resources focused precontact populations into primary settlements from which a variety of less concentrated species, such as small mammals, waterfowl, moose, etc., could also be harvested. Exploitation of these secondary species resulted in satellite camps which are located along river, lake, and stream margins, and on overlooks providing panoramic views of the surrounding terrain. Primary winter settlements are situated along clear water tributaries to salmon spawning streams. Several Athapaskan villages have been reported near the area under consideration in this assessment. One occupied by the Wood River band of Athapaskans, is located on the Wood River where it empties into the Tanana River. Another settlement of this same band is reported up the Wood River near Wood River Buttes. Two additional settlements belonging to the Chena band of Athapaskans are located on the north shore of. the Tanana River down river from the proposed Chena Levee extensions, but not in an area of impact. b. Prehistory. Early prehistoric settlement and exploitation pat- terns may well have differed from those outlined above, since the area was primarily unforested before 8000 B.P. Research in areas of the Tanana River Valley has uncovered numerous early archaeological sites. These occur in areas of low elevation adjacent to clear water streams and lakes, as well as on bluffs and hills near clear water sources (Rainey 1939, Yarborough 1975). Tanana Valley sites which have proved to be of major importance to the prehistory of Interior Alaska are the Campus site, an early core and biade site of problematic dating, located on a bluff northwest of Fairbanks; the Healy Lake site on the shores of Healy Lake southwest of Fairbanks, where the earliest level has been dated to ca. 11,000-9,000 B.P.; Donnelly Ridge near the Delta River, another early core and blade site; and the Chugwater site on Moose Creek Bluff within the boundaries of the Chena River Lakes Project Area south of Fairbanks, which possibly dates to 6000 B.P. c. Historic Period (present to A.D. 1850). Both the north and south shores of the Tanana River have the potential for yielding his- toric age sites. Information concerning the early development of Fairbanks, such. as mining, the town of Chena, and the Bonnifield Trail, as well as recent historic information concerning the Wood River and Chena Athapaskan bands, clearly indicates both non-Native and Native historic use of the area. Historic use, in most cases, is recognized! by observations of surface features such as cabin remains, house depres- sions, cache pits, clearings, etc. d. Potential Impact on Cultural Resources. Construction activities related to the JTevee extension and the building of protective groins River confluence. Ground visiblility was excellent as the decidous plants were in early spring leaf development. These areas are characterized by bogs, swamps and marshes with a low probability of prehistoric sites as discussed above. No evidence of historic sites was observed. (Steele, 1980) Cultural resource investigations for this project have been completed. Consultation of the National Register of Historic Places (Federal Register, March 18, 1980) and with the State Historic Preservation Officer (see Appendix D) indicates that there are no properties pre- sently included in, or eligible for, inclusion in the National Register within areas of direct or indirect impact of this project. The Chugwater Site (FAI-035) was placed on the Register 23 November 1979 and is within the overall project boundaries, but will not be affected by levee or groin construction. 57 V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 5.01 River Geomorphology 5.01.1 Levee Completion. a. Alternative 1. The steepening of the channel due to project construction would introduce increased aggradation downstream in some unexpected places and cause bars to appear where none have been seen before. The volume of sediment and rate of its movement do not appear sufficient to completely clog the principal Tanana braid and cause its relocation. The introduction of unsilty Chena River water at the con- fluence of the rivers will increase the ability of the Tanana to carry away material from this point and prevent the accretion process at the mouth of the river, thus insuring the continued presence of the princi- pal Tanana braid at that point. Sediment deposition is expected to occur immediately downstream of the pilot channel and along the inside curves of river bends. No major channel changes due to ice jams or sediment blocks are likely. Occurring over a period of years, downstream impacts are likely to be a tendency for the river to became more braided, a rise in the bed and water surface and an increase in bend erosion rates. Construction of this levee alinement is unlikely to result in any increased bank erosion downstream of the Chena River confluence. Absolute assurances concerning channel changes can not be given for a river of this type; however, changes which would adversely affect Chena water levels and depths near the mouth of the Chena River are unlikely. Upstream of the levee, water surface levels would be increased for all river stages. This would occur immediately and persist for several years. (DM 27) The Alaska District would monitor the Tanana River throughout the construction to assure no significant adverse impacts occur downstream or to the left bank as a result of construction. b. Alternative 2. Downstream and upstream effects of this levee alinement are similar to those of Alternative 1 discussed above but not as pronounced. Realinement of the levee and shortened groins provide an additional 500 feet (a total of 1,500 feet) between the groins and the main south bank opposite the end of the Fairbanks International Aiport, thereby lessening the possibility of severe bank erosion and the opening of new channels to the south. Although absolute assurances concerning channel changes cannot be made for a river of this type, adverse effects on water levels and depths near the mouth of the Chena River are extremely unlikely in the foresee- able future. (Northwest Hydraulics 1979) A monitoring and research oo program administered by the Cold Region Research and Engineering Laboratory has been established to evaluate the effects of construction on the Tanana River. Should significant adverse impacts occur to the left bank or downstream as a result from construction, corrective measures would be undertaken. c. Alternative 3. Upstream and downstream effects of this alter- native are similar to those of Alternative 1. d. Alternative 4 and 5. No changes to the river would result from construction of this alternative; however, rapid river bank erosion at the bend near Fairbanks International Airport would continue to occur and no assurance can be given that natural changes in downstream chan- nels would not occur. These alternatives were evaluated by Ott Water Engineering. e. Alternative 6. Although river bank erosion would continue to occur at the bend near the airport, no impact to the Tanana would occur as a result of constructing this levee alinement. f. Alternative 7. This plan attempted to maintain the Tanana in its existing configuation at the bend near the airport, but was tech- nically unworkable. g- Alternative 8. This alternative is no longer possible because of river bank erosion near the airport. h. Alternative 9. This plan would radically change the Tanana River by diverting it into Salchaket Slough from a point near Fairbanks International Airport. In effect, this would reroute the mouth of the Chena River to a point approximately five miles downstream of its pres- ent location. Navigability on the Chena River and Tanana River near the mouth of the Chena would be adversely affected. i. Alternative 10. River bank erosion would continue to occur at the bend near the airport but there would be no impacts to the river from construction. No assurances could be made concerning future natural downstream channel changes. 5.01.2 Upstream Protective Groins. a. Alternative I - Immediate Construction of Etant Groins. Approximately miles of the Tanana River eventually wou e relocated about one-half mile south of its present location. Deposition of sedi- ments upstream and downstream of the groins would build up the banks which would ultimately revegetate. Increased erosion would gradually occur along the south bank up to a maximum distance of one-half mile. Increased water surface levels for all river stages would occur upstream immediately and would last for several years. Initially, velocities of the water along the head of the groins would increase. In order to 60 construct many of these groins pilot channels would need to be excavated and temporary diversion berms placed. b. Alternative II - Immediate Construction of Thirteen Groins. An attempt is made to maintain the river near to its existing river config- uration with this protective groin scheme. The river may stabilize or natural channel changes may shift the river away from the present north bank making some groins unnecessary. Sediment deposition would occur upstream and downstream of the groins. As these bottom elevations build up, vegetation would become established. Upstream water surface levels would increase for all river stages immediately and last for several years. c. Alternative III - Deferred Construction of up to Thirteen Groins. Groins would be designed and placed only at the time when erosion of the river bank was threatening the levee integrity; in general, within 500 feet of the levee. Areas in which channel movement stabilized or shifted southward would not require groin placement. Sediment deposition would occur upstream and downstream of the groins with eventual revegetation. Upstream water surface levels would increase for all river stages immediately upon construction and last for several years. Alinements of these groins would be similar to Alternative II. 5.01.3 Potential Borrow Sites. a. Pilot Channel. Effects on the river as a result of removing material from the pilot channel are similar to those of Section 5.01.1 (a) Alternative 1. b. Existing. No adverse effects to the river would occur from upland sites. Existing river sites would not be significantly altered. c. Potential Tanana River. Material removal from the river would decrease particle size immediately downstream of the borrow area. Removal of vegetation on islands for access to gravel, may increase erosion in these areas with increased sedimentation downstream. 5.02 Land Use. 5.02.1 Levee. a. Alternative 1. Current land uses in the vicinity of Fairbanks International Airport would be preserved. b. Alternative 2. Current land uses would be preserved. 61 c. Alternative 3. Current land uses would be preserved. d. Alternative 4 and 5. Tnese alternatives would provide less flood protection. Drainage channels and impoundment of surface water behind the levee would significantly reduce airport property available for expansion as projected in the airport Master Plan. The railroad would possibly be lost due to erosion of the north river bank or require expensive long term bank protection. Should this occur, the supply of aviation fuel and other petroleum products to Fairbanks International Airport would be curtailed, significantly affecting the northern two- thirds of the state. Freight shipped by rail to the airport for air transportation would also be affected. Rerouting of the railroad to the north of the runway would be extremely costly as over passes for main roads would be necessary. An extreme danger to life would exist at grade crossings during ice fog conditions. e. Alternative 6. Although this alinement would provide maximum flood protection it would interfere with the Instrument Landing System (ILS) of Fairbanks International Airport (FIA), which partially relies upon signals reflected from the ground. The exact extent of inter- ference is difficult to determine. Loss of the ILS would reduce signi- ficantly the arrivals and departures of aircraft in the Fairbanks area. Diverted flights would result in a significant loss of revenue and much inconvenience to residents, visitors and businesses of Interior and Northern Alaska as the FIA is a major transportation center. Less land would be available for airport expansion and the railroad may be lost due to erosion of the north riverbank or require expensive long term bank protection. f. Alternative 7. Although not technically workable, this plan would have preserved existing land use. g. Alternative 8. No longer possible. h. Alternative 9. Existing land uses would be preserved and addi- tional land would be available for expansion. i. Alternative 10. "No Action". River bank erosion near the airport would continue to threaten the Alaska Railroad and airport property. Flooding would occur in western Fairbanks. 5.02.2 Upstream Protective Groins No significant impact to existing land uses would occur as a result of constructing any of the alternative designs for protective groins. 5.02.3 Potential Borrow Sites No significant impact would occur to existing land use. 62 5.03 Navigation 5.03.1 Levee Completion a. Alternative 1. Increased aggradation downstream of the con- struction would cause bars to appear where none have been before. River pilots would need to be more attentive while navigating the Tanana River until the river stabilized. Relocation of the Tanana River to the south or deposition of materials at a sufficient depth to impede navigation to or within the Chena River is unlikely although predictions concerning rivers such as the Tanana cannot be made with absolute assurance. Should water levels or sediment deposition result in impeded navigation, several businesses which rely upon the Chena River for access would be affected. One major carrier makes daily tours available to tourists and residents during the summer months, traveling the lower Chena to the Tanana, navigating downstream and then returning to docking facilities on the Chena. A barge landing facility, a float plane airport, a big game guide service providing air access to hunting areas, and numerous private individuals who use the river for fishing, recreation, and sub- sistence and sports hunting would be affected. The worst possible case would completely block access from the Tanana to the Chena. b. Alternative 2. Impacts to navigation would be similar to those of Alternative 1. According to the best available advice, adverse impacts would be minimal. An increase in width of the river pathway between the groins and main south bank would lessen downstream erosion and sediment deposition. c. Alternative 3. Impacts of this plan would be similar to that of Alternative 1. d. Alternative 4 and 5. No impact to river navigation would occur. e. Alternative 6. No impact to river navigation would occur. This levee alinement would interfere with air traffic uses of the Instrument Landing System at Fairbanks International Airport. f. Alternative 7. No impact to river navigation would occur. g. Alternative 8. No longer possible. h. Alternative 9. This major river diversion would significantly affect the navigability of both the Tanana and Chena Rivers by rerouting both. Predicting resulting river conditions is extremely difficult; however, all businesses and individuals who would use the rivers near their confluence would most likely be adversely affected. Navigation from the Chena to the Tanana would be completely blocked upstream of the Chena mouth, although navigation of the Tanana would be possible through 63 the new channel. In the worst case, water levels of the lower Chena would be decreased to the point that navigation would be impossible. i. Alternative 10. No impact to river navigation would occur. 5.03.2 Upstream Protective Groins a. Alternative I. Since this protective groin alinement would reroute approximately 20 miles of the Tanana River one-half mile south, navigation in this reach of the river may be affected. The extent to which navigation would be affected is difficult to determine. Primary users of this portion of the river are sport and subsistence fishermen and hunters who reach moose hunting areas along the south bank via the river. Since the river is braided, channels navigable by river boat may be available. Sedimentation downstream of the groin field may affect navigation. b. Alternative II. Impacts would be similar to those of Alternative I. c. Alternative III. Impacts would be similar to Alternative I. The degree of impact would be proportional to the number of groins con- structed. No sedimentation downstream of the groin system is likely, since river reaches between groins will be available for deposition. 5.03.3 Potential Borrow Sites. No significant impacts to navigation would occur. 5.04 Groundwater. 5.04.1 Levee Groundwater tables would not be significantly affected by any of the levee completion alternatives. Water levels may be lowered two to four feet downstream of the groins and raised one to two feet immediately upstream adjacent to the riverbank. 5.04.2 Upstream Protective Groins. Sediment deposition upstream and downstream of the groins may slightly affect groundwater levels near the river but is not expected to have a noticeable effect on water supplies within the Fairbanks area. 5.04.3 Potential Borrow Sites. No impact to groundwater is expected. 5.05 Water Quality. Temporary increases in suspended solids during and immediately following in-water construction would be expected for levee completion alterna- tives 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, for all three protective groin alternatives, and for river borrow sites. 64 No changes in chemical composition would be expected. Construction of groins near the Fairbanks sewage outfall line extending from Peger Road would require additional evaluation and possible exten- sion of the discharge line to insure dispersion to meet acceptable water quality standards. Groin construction should eliminate erosion that is now occurring near the outfall line. 5.06 Fish and Wildlife. Information concerning resident and anadromous fish within the Tanana River is almost nonexistent except for subsistence and commercial catch data that has been collected by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The river is large, braided and high in suspended solids during open water and ice covered during winter months making monitoring difficult. Salmon studies have been conducted in some upstream tributaries in con- juction with the construction of the Trans-Alaska oi] pipeline. In general, these tributaries are clear and some escapement data has been obtained by visual inspection. Very little is known about overwintering areas. Since a winter fishery exists at the mouth of the Chena, other areas within the construction boundaries may also serve as over- wintering areas. Attempts at identifying these areas have been unsuc- cessful. Because of the lack of biological data, predicting the magnitude of impacts of construction involving in-water work is very difficult. 5.06.1 Levee Completion. a. Alternative 1. Construction of the levee and pilot channel would result in facteased sedimentation downstream of construction. Areas which would be primarily affected are the areas immediately down- stream of the diversion channel and along inside bends of river curves. Construction undertaken during the winter months would minimize adverse impacts to anadromous fish, although introducing suspended solids at a time of the year when the waters of the Tanana are normally clear. Turbidity of the water would extend beyond a burbot overwintering area near the mouth of the Chena. Since burbot are year round residents of the Tanana, which is high in suspended solids during the summer months, gill damage is unlikely to occur. Although reduced dissolved oxygen levels may occur as a result of a disturbed substrate, this would be Slight. Some covering of benthic organisms which contribute to the food chain may occur but would not be a significant impact as the river, with high velocities and icing conditions, would not be expected to contain high numbers of benthic organisms. No proven spawning areas would be affected although burbot spawning areas if near the mouth of the Chena River may be adversely affected. Increased velocities in the pilot channel may create some impedence to upstream migrating king, coho and chum salmon immediately following diversion, but would be short term in duration. The braided character of the Tanana should allow adequate passage of anadromous fish. Migrating fish tend to be attracted to major currents but some upstream and downstream migrants may become disoriented in slack water areas and eddies behind the groins. Should 65 the unlikely event of a worst case total channel change occur away from @ the mouth of the Chena, anadromous fish (king and chum salmon) which spawn in the Chena River would not be able to reach their spawning areas. Some minor loss of bird, small mammal and moose habitat may occur as a result of on-land construction activities. b. Alternative 2. Impacts to fish and wildlife would be similar to those of Alternative 1, although downstream sedimentation would be some- what less. iC; Alternative 3. Impacts would be similar to those of Alternative T. d. Alternative 4 and 5. No adverse impact to fish would occur. Minor loss Of bird, small mammal and moose habitat would occur as a result of construction. e. Alternative 6. Impacts similar to those of Alternatives 4 & 5. f. Alternative 7. Although some downstream increases in turbidity might occur, no significant adverse impacts to fish would result. Minor bird, smal] mammal and moose habitat would be lost by on-land construc- tion. g. Alternative 8. No longer possible. h. Alternative 9. The radical change in the river required by this alternative would significantly affect resident and anadromous fish of the Tanana and Chena Rivers. Disorientation would be highly likely. Passage to spawning areas might be blocked. Entrapment in the vegeta- tion and depressions along the diversion channel would be highly likely. Because of disruption of spawning stocks which supply the Yukon River fishery, adverse impacts which would result could be extended far downstream of the construction site. Habitat for a significant moose population along the south bank of the Tanana would be eliminated along the diversion channel and levee. Habitat for birds and smal] mammals would also be lost. i. Alternative 10. No adverse impacts would occur as a result of the flood control project construction. Entrapment of fish could occur should flood waters inundate western Fairbanks. 5.06.2 Upstream Protective Groins a. Alternative I. Since the groins of this alternative extend across major river channels, they may have a significant impact upon @ 66 migrating salmon. The extent of impact is difficult to assess as the Tanana is highly braided. Migrating fish could probably find routes to upstream areas without being detained by high velocities. Some disori- entation would be likely to occur to both adults migrating upstream and smolts migrating downstream. Increased sediment desposition would cover benthic organisms in the area, although river velocity and icing condi- tions would naturally limit benthic populations. Bird, smal] mammal, moose and bear habitats would be lost by clearing and filling. DB. Alternative II. Impacts of this plan are similar to Alternative I. c. Alternative III. Impacts to fish are similar to those of Alternative I and II except that they may be lessened by constructing only those groins necessary to protect the levee. 5.06.3 Potential Borrow Sites. a. Pilot Channel. Impacts would be similr to those of levee Alternative 2, Section 5.06.1. b. Existing Borrow Sites. No additional significant adverse impact would occur. c. Potential River Borrow Sites. Removal of material from vege- tated islands may result in the loss of nesting habit for some species of birds. Similar habitat is abundant in the area. Extraction of mate- rials from the river at times when anadromous fish are not present would lessen adverse impacts to these species. Fish in the area would move away. 5.07 Wetlands (E0 11990) 5.07.1 Levee Completion. a. Alternative 1. Vegetation will be lost as a result of clearing or covering. Although much of the vegetation has been disturbed by prior human activity, some wetlands will be affected by the on-land por- tion of the levee. These wetlands include sedge meadows, ericaceous shrubs and black spruce and/or tamarack bogs. This levee alinement would not block natural drainage, although a short diversion of an existing slough would be necessary to provide drainage of water accumu- lating on lands behind the levee into the Tanana River. Some filling of wetlands is unavoidable. These wetlands are in natural drainage areas and serve as storage for high water and as general habitat. b. Alternative 2. Impacts same as those of Alternative 1. 67 c. Alternative 3. Impacts are similar to Alternative 1. d. Alternative 4 and 5. Although much of the vegetation in this area has previously been disturbed, filling wetlands cannot be avoided. This alinement would require slightly more filling of wetlands than for alinements partially in the water and would block natural drainage. Impoundment of water behind the levee would result in a loss of all but emergent aquatic species unless the impoundment is of short duration. e. Alternative 6. Some wetland vegetation would be covered by fill but natural drainage would not be blocked. f. Alternative 7. Some wetland vegetation along the river bank would be covered by levee construction. Natural drainage would not be affected. g. Alternative 8. No longer possible. h. Alternative 9. Almost the entire area on the south bank of the Tanana which would be affected by this alternative is wetlands. These wetlands are serving as flood storage and habitat for a significant moose population. Natural drainage patterns would be altered. i. Alternative 10. No adverse impact to wetlands would occur as a result of construction. Erosion near the airport would result in con- tinued loss of some wetland vegetation. 5.07.2 Upstream Protective Groins All the alternatives for protective groins would require filling of some wetlands of the sedge meadow, ericaceous shrub and black spruce and/or tamarack bog types. Natural drainage to the Tanana would not be affected, although the Tanana River would gradually be re-routed. These wetlands serve as general habitat for birds, small mammals, moose and bear. Nesting of seagulls and other birds take place on the gravel islands and river banks. The wetlands also store flood waters. a. Alternative I. Impoundment of water behind the groins may result in loss of vegetation for species not adapted for standing water conditions. Re-routing the river one half mile south of its present channel location would destroy vegetation along the south bank which is predominantly wetlands. These wetlands provide storage for floodwaters and habitat for a significant moose population. b. Alternative II. Impacts of this alternative are similar to Alternative I. 68 LEGEND fg FLOOD AREAS “ye UL FAIRBANKS, ALASKA CHENA RIVER LAKES PROJECT 100 YEAR FLOOD MAP ALTERNATIVE NO.IO ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS FIGURE 9 LEGEND GQ FLoop AREAS ey SEEPAGE FLOOD SSS ——$—$=> $= YY) U7, bY Y) Uf) Mf It ( ( ) / Y § FAIRBANKS, ALASKA CHENA RIVER LAKES PROJECT 100 YEAR FLOOD MAP ALTERNATIVE NO.2 ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS FIGURE 20 PL AAA DPA’ ARS OSS / YA My ee SORLOSROY MOORE 7S ole ag ge Ss WS TY REZ “dae Os “= \ WO Ee q ‘ SS “s Zs Pa eo FLOOD AREAS |¥/ Y xs e LY) 2 4 4 y LSB/, > Uh), 4 Ui) 4 NAL ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS Ni N FIGURE 21 FAIRBANKS, ALASKA CHENA RIVER LAKES PROJECT Z SNE 100 YEAR FLOOD MAP eat ALTERNATIVE NO. SN SSS NY WN SS \S a o Zo bo dep i 8 Pete js K / /| N ; I (| \ SS & MM ‘ 7 ONS S SS @ SO 7 ge BAG \ I~ RSH 3 JOSE NN Ve Ss seg BO KES oS SS ( . SEBBAGERS) SS \.. SS < mates << \ ~S : NEARY y AS IAAQG="_: ® sree A a RS OR SS S AN SS ESN WSS . ROS REESE 6, % ty NES We RS x on. , fo AS SS at -~__, Ye IN 7 Z FAIRBANKS, ALASKA CHENA RIVER LAKES PROJECT 100 YEAR FLOOD MAP ALTERNATIVE NO.5 ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS FIGURE 22 c. Alternative III. Impacts to wetlands would be similar to those of Alternative II. Should less groins be required, impact would be proportionately reduced; should more groins be required adverse impacts would be proportionately increased 5.08 Threatened and Endangered Species No threatened or endangered species will be affected by construction on any of the levee or groin alternatives. 5.09 Floodplain (EO 11988). All. Fairbanks Flood Control features are located within the base (100-year) flood plain. While relocation of the community was con- sidered as an alternative in early project planning stages, Fairbanks was well established at the time and this alternative was not practi- cable. The proposed levee extension would protect or reduce flood levels in western Fairbanks and Fairbanks International Airport from Standard Project Flood and more frequent flood events. The floodplain extends from Chena Ridge on the north across the Tanana River toward the south for approxi- mately 12 miles making relocation of the airport impracticable. Comple- tion of the Tanana River levee would induce development in the flood- plain particularly at the airport. Non-floodplain alternatives for airport expansion are not practicable. a. Levee Completion Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 7 would provide maxi- mum protection for western Fairbanks and the airport. Alternative 9 would provide total flood protection while alternatives 4, 5, and 10 would provide less flood protection. Alternative 8 is no longer pos- sible. Concern has been raised about adverse impacts to water levels in the Chena River which might occur as a result of those levee alinements providing maximum flood protection. (Figure 20) As a result, detailed analysis of Alternative 1 was made by the Corps of Engineers. The same alternative was evaluated by Northwest Hydraulics, Ltd, a private con- sultant. A slightly altered alinement was suggested as Alternative 2. Although no absolute assurances can be given concerning future channel changes on a river like the Tanana, evaluations by the Corps and by Northwest Hydraulics indicate the possibility is highly unlikely in the near future with this alinement. These alternatives do not block natural drainage of lands behind the levee. On-land levee alternatives would not have any possibility of impacting adversely upon the river but would provide less flood protection and reduce present land uses. (Figures 21 and 22) 73 Tne "No Action", Alternative 10, would eliminate adverse impacts to the river and wetlands near the airport but would not provide flood protec- tion for western Fairbanks. (Figure 19) b. Protective Groin Alternatives I and II would provide permanent long term protection for the levee by permanently relocating the Tanana River one half mile to 3,000 feet south. Existing floodplain value of high water storage would be preserved. Deferred construction, Alternative III, would provide the least infringement on floodplain values by constructing only those groins necessary to protect the levee. At the present time deferred construction is not possible because policy is to complete all construction in a design that is rela- tively maintenance free before releasing project features to local sponsors for operation and maintenance. Lands riverward of the levee, except where protective groins are neces- sary, will be maintained in their natural state with no development allowed. 5.10 Cultural Resources. No known cultural resources would be affected by any of the levee and groin alternatives. The probability of sites being located in the areas of proposed construction is very low. All surveys for cultural resources have been completed. No sites were identified. 74 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 6.01 Public Involvement Program. Coordination has been maintained with Federal, State and local agencies and with interested organization and individuals throughout the planning and design stages of the Chena River Lakes Project. Comments were requested from the public, organizations and agencies for consideration in the preparation of this Draft Supplemental Environ- mental Impact Statement (DSEIS). These requests were made by news releases, newspaper display advertisements and individual letters. A public meeting to discuss the DSEIS was held on 16 May 1980, prior to the expiration of the public comment period. 6.02 Required Coordination. Distribution of the Final SEIS will be made to all Federal, State and local agencies, and interested individuals and organizations for review and comment. 6.03 Statement Recipients. (See Appendix C) 6.04 Public View and Responses. Information and comments were received from the following agencies and individuals and incorporated in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Alaska Railroad; National Marine Fisheries Services; Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forest, Land and Water Management; Alaska State Historic Preservation Office; Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Division of Design and Construction; Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Division of Aviation; Alaska Department of Fish and Game; Alaska Riverways, Inc, Capt. Jim Binkley; Warren C. Steen; J.A. Carroll; and Richard H. Sims. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Interior Region, Design and Construction, stated that they have had unfavorable experiences with the use of groins on the Tanana River because the stream currents change in direction and magnitude too rapidly. They suggest that the Corps of Engineers not install any more groins to control the Tanana River. Although the Corps of Engineers agrees that construction in the river should be avoided whenever possible, a continuously riprapped north river bank in front of the levee would be impracticable and very expen- sive. Riprap available in the Fairbanks area is relatively small sized 75 and extremely large quantities would be required. In addition, should erosion occur along the continuous embankment during flood stages, the simultaneous maintenance at many points along the embankment would be virtually impossible. Discussions with the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and with the Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. concerning their experiences with groin systems indicate that problems they encountered were a result of by-passes around the shoreward end of the groins caused by log and/or ice jams or insufficient groin height and not due to riprap failure. Overall, Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. has had excellent success with their groin systems throughout the length of the pipeline. The Corps of Engineers' experience with the groins which have been placed in the Tanana River to protect the levee indicates that groins can be designed and constructed to give long term protection for the Tanana River Levee. Copies of all letters received in response to review of the DSEIS, including those received after the comment period ended, are printed in their entirety in Appendix D. Comment letters with comments numbered in the right margin are located on the left side of the page. Responses numbered to correspond to respective comments are on the right half of the page. Responses to the DSEIS were received from the following agencies, organizations, and individuals: the Advisory Council On Historic Preservation; the U.S. Department of Commerce; the National Weather Service; the U.S. Department of Commerce; the National Marine Fisheries Service; the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the U.S. Department of the Interior; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; . the Department of Transportation System; The Alaska Railroad; the Department of Transportation; the Federal Aviation Administration; the Alaska Department of Natural Resources; the Alaska State Clearinghouse; the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer; the Alaska Conservation Society; Charles M. Binkley; President Alaska Riverways, Inc.; and Mr. Kevin Harun; Assemblymember, Fairbanks North Star Borough. In addition, the following gave testimony concerning the DSEIS at a public meeting held 16 April 1980 in Fairbanks, Alaska: Mr. James Aldrich, Lane Thompson, Captain Jim Binkley, Larry Mayo, and Roy Pickett. Although comments from the Alaska Railroad and the Federal Aviation Agency, Warren Steen, and J.A. Carroll have expressed support for the recommended levee completion, Alternative 2, several agencies and individuals continue to be concerned over levee completion and construction of upstream protective groins. In general these agencies and individiuals prefer alternatives which do not require construction of groins within the Tanana River. 76 Fishery resource agency concerns are based on the fact that the lack of biological data for the Tanana River makes evaluation of construction impacts very difficult. As a result, they would prefer construction alternatives which do not require in-water work. In addition, a unique overwintering area with large numbers and a diversity of species is located in the Chena River. Should the unlikely event occur lowering water levels in the Chena River, adverse impacts to fishery in the Fairbanks area would be significant. Although the Alaska Department of Natural Resources agrees that the recommended plan, Alternative 2, is an improvement over earlier schemes they continue to be concerned over the potential, however unlikely, of downstream erosion and channel changes which could affect navigation on the Chena River. Because of the uncertainty in predicting natural channel changes in the Tanana, they recommend deferred construction, Alternative III for upstream levee protection. Further evaluation of deferred construction, Alternative III, for levee protective groins has been requested by the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs through the Alaska State Clearinghouse. A preferrence for on-land alternatives for both levee completion and upstream protective groins has been expressed by the Alaska Conservation Society which is concerned about the difficulty of predicting the downstream effects of major alterations to the river. They request the Corps cease plans to divert the Tanana River. Captain Charles M. Binkley of Alaska Riverways, Inc., objects to in-water alternatives for levee completion and the placement of thirteen upstream protective groins. His experience as a riverboat captain on the Tanana River leads him to believe that there is a high degree of risk of failure on the south and west banks resulting from construction of the recommended plan; however, he believes this plan is an improvement over earlier schemes. He objects to construction of the proposed thirteen upstream groins, Alternative II, because, in his opinion, these will compress the river and force it into a faster flow increasing the pressures against the south and west bank opposite the mouth of the Chena River. In verbal testimony presented at a public hearing held in Fairbanks to discuss the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Lane Thompson expressed concern that increased bank erosion would result downstream of the confluence of the Chena River from construction of the recommended plan. At the same public hearing, James Aldrich, hydrologist, requested that the Corps consider further alternatives for Levee protection that do not extend so far into the river. He is concerned about’ the unpredictability of downstream impacts as a result of groin construction. Responses to these concerns maybe found in Appendix D on the right half of the page containing the commenting letter. 77 SUBJECTS Affected Env Alternatives Areas of Controversy. .. Comparative Impacts of Alternpatives. s* 3° ss. capes cs COVE NCCE. C= ice her Bie ee 6 ee Ss Environmental. Conditions. S222 .6s% <i.) s Egvaronmental Effects; . .ce.-. is 3 37% List of Preparers 4... .:'. si Up Aah oi Cate ese - te Major Conclusions and Findin MGs emis oS ee Need For and of Action Planning Objectives INDEX AFONMENCS 6 < tate ate owe Objectives Plans Considered in Detail. Plan Eliminated from Further Study. «:%. . © 6 « ere, 04/10 RUDI, CONERGNSHS "Sods % oa oe OS 8g Public Involvement Program Public Views Responses . Relationship cise Wot ahs 5: torre oi apres ae to Environmental TUS COIIES ein: 63 ee eee we Oe Required Coordination ....... dip id Significant Resources Cultural Fish and Floodpla ks ae oe ee Land Use RESGUPGES «(5 tedie ih bu et tela tie, th Endangerea. Species... 2 se mes 6 He“ WiIGITf6S. co. dos | re iNeies' 3 ah. Rr iemaaatey ainomens Perr e gen. oye we Ne Oy ew, ee -0 NAV IGat1Ons ire ok 5 eae or es os River Geomogphology . 2. 6... S06 % ss Woven Guar tOy ccs k he eos ois. Siete Wetlands S26) 6 Le @. Je 6" oes «ets Statement Recipients. ..... aya @ ns @ Study Author Summary . . a Se oi eee ee ee TADIGSOTEBONCEHES sion! 6. 0 Ger), 6: 00d eu. i Unresolved Issues... oe ee, ve Without Conditions (No Action). Sue ome. 79 fol see Sele Nr fete 8 oP Scat 's tcl a aa Hel Wet e “ler ska = 75 as et Se ee ees se D-1 oie Uae ahaa ah euee REFERENCES Anderson, Fredrick M. and Geiger, Michael F. "Annual Management Report 1978 Yukon Area," Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1978. Dinneford, W. Bruce. "Third Interim Report of the Commercial Fish Technical Evaluation Study: Salcha River," Special Report No. 17, Joint State/Federal Fish and Wildlife Advisory Team, Anchorage, AK. 1977. Dinneford, W. Bruce and Francisco, Kim. "Fourth Interim Report of the Commercial Fish Technical Evaluation Study: Tanana and Delta Rivers 1977," Special Report No. 19, Joint State/Federal Fish and Wildlife Advisory Team, 1977. Isberg, Howard, Alaska Department of Transportation, Public Testimony, 8 August 1978. Nelson, Gordon L. "Hydrologic Information for Land Use Planning, Fairbanks Vicinity, Alaska," Open File Report 78959, U.S. Geological Survey. Anchorage, Alaska, 1978. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. “Review of Tanana River Levee Phase III," Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. January 1980. Orth, Donald J. Dictionary of Alaska Place Names, Geological Survey Professional Paper 567. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington; 1967, Reprinted 1971. Ott Water Engineers, Inc. “Chena River Lakes Project, The Investigation of Two Alternate Schemes for the Completion of the Downstream End of the Tanana River Levee, Fairbanks, Alaska," Anchorage, Alaska, December 1979 Parks, Bruce, U.S. Geological Survey, Personal Communication, 14 January 1979. Pickett, Roy, Public Testimony, 8 August 1978. "Preliminary Annual Report Fiscal Year 1979" State Aid to Local Governments Municipal Services Revenue Sharing Program (AS 43.18.010045) State of Alaska, Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Local Government Assistant, Juneau, Alaska, March 1979. . Smith, George, University of Alaska Museum, Personal Communication, 15 November 1979. 81 REFERENCES (cont.) Steele, Julia. "Cultural Resource Reconnaissance of the South Bank of the Tanana River for the Chena River Lakes Project," Anchorage, Alaska, June 1980. Tanaka, James M., Public Testimony, 8 August 1978. University of Alaska Museum, 1979 Fort Wainwright Archeological Reconnaissance Research Strategy. Manuscript on file with Alaska District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Alaska District. Chena River Lakes Project General Design Memorandum No. 5," 25 February 1975 >» "Chena River Lakes Project Environmental Resource Inventory." Prepared by John Graham and Co., March 1975. >» "Chena River Lakes Project Tanana Levee Alternate Proposals, Design Memorandum No. 1, Supplement 1." February 1975. >» "Chena River Lakes Project Tanana River Levee Phase II B," Design Memorandum No. 24, May 1979. >» “Fairbanks Flood Control Project Effects of Levee Construction on the Tanana River, Design Memorandum No. 27, September 1979 > "Fairbanks Flood Control Project Tanana River Levee Protection," Design Memorandum No. 24 March 1979. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Letter Report, 10 December 1979. Yarborough, Linda F. "Chena River Lakes Project, Cultural Resource Investigation," Anchorage, Alaska, 18 December 1978. 82 APPENDICES A. Preliminary 404(b) Evaluation - Levee completion B. Preliminary 404(b) Evaluation - Upstream Protective Groins. C. Public Views and Responses D. Statement Recipients E. Correspondence Received Prior to DSEIS Circulation 83 APPENDIX A 404(b)(1) EVALUATION LEVEE COMPLETION ALTERNATIVE 2 A-1 A-2 FINAL 404(b)(1) EVALUATION CHENA RIVER LAKES PROJECT LEVEE COMPLETION ALTERNATIVE 2 1. Project Description. The proposed work will require excavating a pilot channel and placing dredged and fill material within the Tanana River and adjacent wetlands as shown in Figure 4. Approximately 544,500 cubic yards of gravel, silts and sands will be required for construction of the levee and four protective groins. An additional 206,900 cubic yards of rock will be placed to provide protec- tion from erosion. The levee will be approximately 18,000 feet long. The four protective groins will have lengths of 1,300 feet, 1,600 feet, 1,800 feet, and 1,800 feet. Crown widths will be 12. feet. Base widths will vary according to substrate configuration and depth of rock protec- tion. Excavation of the 300-foot by 4,000-foot pilot channel would remove approximately 398,000 cubic yards of material. Materials that are suit- able will be used for construction of the levee. This material may also be used to construct a temporary diversion dike. Those materials un- suitable for construction will be disposed of in the river north of the diversion channel. Other borrow sites have not been specified. Should additional gravel silt and sand be required, the contractor will be responsible for ob- taining borrow sites by permit. Potential borrow areas would be from the river at Goose Island, existing borrow sites and widening of the upstream end of the pilot channel. Rock will be obtained by the contractor from an upland quarry known locally as Brown's Hill. Construction is tentatively scheduled for 1980-1981. 2. Physical Effects. (40 CFR 230.4-1(a)). a. Wetland. (40 CFR 230.4-1(a)) Although much of the area of con- struction has been disturbed by prior human activity, some wetlands will be lost by filling and clearing. Wetland vegetation is discussed in the DSEIS in section 4.02.7 and 5.07. Natural drainages will not be blocked. b. Water Column. (40 CFR 230.4-1(a)(2)) Temporary increases jin suspended solids resulting from construction will reduce light trans- mission immediately downstream for a period of time. A-3 Timing of construction will be coordinated with local resource agencies to reduce adverse impacts to migrating salmon (king, chum, and coho). Winter construction may affect fish over-wintering areas and burbot spawning, but the extent of impact is difficult to determine. No signi- ficant adverse impact to plankton is anticipated. c. Benthics. (40 CFR 230.4-1(a)(3)). Although some covering of benthic organisms may occur downstream and at the sites of construction, no significant adverse impact will occur. d. Other. (40 CFR 230.4-1(a)). The discharge of fill materials will raise bottom elevations along the levee and groin alinements. Materials placed for the diversion dike and in the disposal of materials unsuitable for construction are expected to be temporary, ultimately being redistributed within the river. 3. Chemical Biological Interactions. (40 CFR 230.4-1(b)). Materials to be used in construction meet the exclusion criteria. All existing and potential borrow sites are removed from sources of pollution and would be of a substrate similar to that of the disposal site. Rock riprap will provide assurance that the material will not be moved by currents. 4. Site Comparison. (40 CFR 230.41(c)). Not applicable since materials are similar. 5. Water Quality. A temporary increase in suspended solids is expected during in-water construction. No permanent degradation of water quality is anticipated. 6. Selection of Disposal Sites. (40 CFR 230.5) a. Need. Fairbanks, the second largest city in Alaska, is the transportation hub of Interior and Northern Alaska. Flood control facilities at the present stage of completion do not provide Standard Project Flood protection for western Fairbanks and _ Fairbanks International Airport. The need exists to provide maximum flood pro- tection, preserve existing land use and minimize adverse environmental impacts. b. Alternatives. Alternatives for the proposed construction are discussed in Section III of the DSEIS. A "no action" alternative and a variety of partial in-water and on-land levee alinements have been con- sidered. c. Objectives Considered. (40 CFR 230.5(a)). Although some wet- lands will be permanently lost as general habitat and for floodwater A-4 storage, they are a small portion in comparison to similar habitat with- in the Tanana River floodplain. An attempt has been made to provide maximum flood protection while preserving existing land uses and mini- mizing adverse impacts to the environment. The discharge of fill material for this project is not expected to have a significant impact on the food chain, diversity of plant and animal species, movement into and out of feeding, spawning, breeding, and nursery areas, water intakes or water quality. No impact will occur to threatened or endangered species. Areas subject to erosion by high water flow will be protected by rock to minimize erosion and turbidity. Timing of in-water construction will be coordinated with fisheries resource agencies to minimize adverse impacts to fish. 7. No contaminated material is to be used in this project. 8. The mixing zone is the smallest practicable. 9. Determinations. a. An ecological evaluation has been made following the evaluation guidance in 40 CFR 230.4, in conjunction with the evaluation consider- ations in 40 CFR 230.5. b. Appropriate measures have been. identified and incorporated in the proposed plan to minimize adverse effects on the aquatic environment as a result of the discharge. c. Consideration has been given to the need for the proposed acti- vity, the availability of alternative sites and methods of disposal that are less damaging to the environment, and such water quality standards as are appropriate and applicable by law. d. Wetlands. The site selected is the alternative which will pro- vide maximum flood protection with minimum impacts to wetlands. 10. Findings. Tne discharge site for the Chena River Lakes Project levee completion and four protective groins have been specified through the application of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. APPENDIX B 404(b)(1) EVALUATION UPSTREAM PROTECTIVE GROINS ALTERNATIVE II B-1 B-2 FINAL 404(b)(1) EVALUATION CHENA RIVER LAKES PROJECT UPSTREAM PROTECTIVE GROINS ALTERNATIVE II 1. Project Description. The proposed protective groin plan -will require placing approximately 1,307,000 cubic yards of gravel, silt and sand and 1,143,000 cubic yards of rock into the Tanana River and adja- cent wetlands as shown on the attached plan. The 13 L-shaped protective groins will vary in length from 3,750 feet to 6,000 feet with a crown width of 12 feet. Bottom widths would vary with substrate configuration and depth of rock protection. Potential borrow sites for sand, silt and gravel are discussed in the Alternative Section 3.04 of the DSEIS. A government borrow source will not be identified. Materials will be placed by scraper. Rock for rip- rap protection will be obtained from an upland quarry. The only source of rock of suitable quality is from a quarry known locally as Brown's Hild. 2. Physical Effects. (40 CFR 230.4-1(a)) a. Wetlands. Some wetland vegetation will be lost as a result of clearing and covering. These wetlands serve for general habitat, some nesting by seagulls and other birds, and as storage for floodwaters. b. Water Column. Temporary increases in suspended solids as a result of construction would occur reducing light transmission down- stream. The Tanana normally carries high sediment loads and should not be significantly affected by suspended solids. Plankton populations are not expected to be significantly affected. Because the groins will extend across major river channels, anadromous fish could be disoriented or detained. The extent of impact is diffi- cult to assess. Since the Tanana River is highly braided, significant impacts to fish may not occur but cannot be ruled out. c. Benthics. Because of the high velocities and sediment loads and ice scour in the spring, benthic populations are not high and no signi- ficant impact to benthic populations would occur. 3. Chemical - Biological Interactive Effects. (40 CFR 230.4-1(b)) The fill materials would meet the exclusion criteria. All existing and potential borrow areas are removed from a source of pollution. Quarry rock for riprap will provide assurance that the material will not be moved by currents where subject to erosion. B-3 4. Site Comparision. (40 CFR 230.4-1(c)(2)) Not applicable. Materials are similar. 5. Applicable Water Quality Standards. A temporary increase in suspended solids is expected during in-water construction. The discharge of materials is not expected to alter water or sediment chemical constituents. 6. Selection of Disposal Sites. (40 CFR 230.5) a. Need. The Tanana River levee is designed to have at least 500 feet of natural silt blanket riverward of the levee. In areas where the river bank is eroding northward protective groins are necessary to pro- tect the integrity of the levee. The entire levee must be protected. b. Alternatives. Two alternatives to this plan have been con- sidered and are discussed in the Alternative Section 3.03.2 of the DSEIS. These are a plan including eight groins, and a deferred construction scheme which would design and construct groins whenever the levee was threatened by an eroding bank line. A "no action" alternative was also considered. c. Objectives Considered. (40 CFR 230.5(a)) An attempt has been made to provide maximum protection for the Tanana River levee while minimizing operation and maintenance costs for the local sponsor. Destruction of some wetlands by filling and clearing is unavoidable. One alternative, deferred construction, may be less environmentally damaging by resulting in the construction of only those groins necessary to protect the levee at the time that river bank erosion actually threatened the levee; however, current policy requires that full protection must be installed at the time of construction and the project then turned over to the local sponsor for maintenance. The discharge of fill materials for protective groins is not expected to have a significant impact on the food chain, diversity of plant and animal species, water intakes or water quality. No impact will occur on threatened or endangered species. Movement to spawning and nursery areas of king, coho and chum salmon could be adversely impacted, parti- cularly by those groins crossing major river channels. The extent of impact is difficult to determine. Since the Tanana is a braided system anadromous adults and smolt may be able to find adequate passage with a minimum of disorientation. Areas subject to erosion by high water flows will be protected by rock to minimize erosion and turbidity. Timing of construction will be coor- dinated with local resource agencies. 7. No contaminated material is to be used in this project. 8. The mixing zone is the smallest practicable. 9. Determinations. a. An ecological evaluation has been made following the evaluation guidance in 40 CFR 230.4, in conjunction with evaluation considerations in 40 CFR 230.5. b. Measures have been identified to minimize adverse effects on the aquatic environment. Although this alternative could result’ in disorien- tation of migrating adult and juvenile king, coho and chum salmon, timing of construction to avoid migration and the use of riprap to pre- vent erosion would minimize adverse impacts. c. Consideration has been given to the need for the proposed acti- vity. Water quality would be within acceptable standards. Consider- ation has been given to alternative sites and methods of disposal that are less damaging to the environment. d. Wetlands. Filling of wetlands and major river channels of the Tanana River is unavoidable. 10. Findings. The discharge site for the Chena River Lakes Project Upstream Protective Groins can be specified through the application of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. B-5 APPENDIX C STATEMENT RECIPIENTS C-1 FEDERAL FEDERAL Field Supervisor - NAES U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fed Bldg, Box 20, 101 12th Ave. Fairbanks, AK 99701 Environmental Protection Agency Section 10/404 Permits Br M/S 5 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Evaluation Branch Coastal Engineering Research CE Kingman Building Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060 National Oceanographic Data Cntr Environmental Data Service Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin Washington, D.C. 20235 Area Director Heritage Conservation & Rec. Svc 1011 E Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Area Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 E Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 U.S.G.S. Water Resources Division P.O. Box 11 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 MAILING LIST Advisory Council Historic Preservation Lake Plaza - South, Suite 616 44 Union Blvd. Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code A-104CE NW 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Divison Engineer North Pacific Division Corps EN P.0. Box 2870 Portland Oregon 97208 DAEN-CWP-E Washington, D.C. 20314 DAEN-CWP-C Washington, D.C. 20314 Area Director Bureau of Indian Affairs 1 Box 3-8000 Juneau, Alaska 99801 State Director Bureau of Land Management 701 C Street, Box 13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Director - Bureau of Land Mgmt. District Office 4700 E 72nd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Dr. Wm H. Gabriel-Ch. Bio Rsrcs Br Bureau of Land Management 701 C Street, Box 13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Manager-AK Outer Cont Shelf Ofc Bureau of Land Management Box 1159 Anchorage, AK 99510 Director Bureau of Mines U.S. Dept. of the Interior Washington, D.C. 20240 Environmental Protection Agency Region X 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 FEDERAL (cont. ) W. James Sweeney, Director Environmental Protection Agency 701 C Street, Box 19 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 NW Region, Ofc of Regional Dir. FAA-Dept. of Transportation FAA Bldg., Boeing Field Seattle, Washington 98101 Reg. Dir., Fed Aviation Admin . Dept. of Transportation, AK Reg. 701 C Street Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Dir, Env Impact Div, Ofc Env Prog Federal Energy Administration New PO Bldg., 12th & Pennsylvania Washington, D.C. 20461 Fed Energy Admin, AK field Office Federal Power Commission Federal Building Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Div Engr, Fed Highway Admin Dept of Transportation, AK reg. Box 1648 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Environmental Protection Agency Env. Eval. Branch-M/S 443 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Area Dir-U.S. Fish Wildlife Svc. U.S. Dept of the Interior Box 1287, Fed Ofc Bldg Rm 409 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Reg Administrator, HUD ATTN: Env Clearance officer Arcade Plaza Building Seattle, Washington 98101 C-6 Regional Director National Marine Fisheries Svc Box 1668 Juneau, Alaska 99801 National Marine Fisheries Svc 701 C Street, Box 43 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Project Leader National Park Svc Study Team 524 W 6th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Office of Polar Programs National Science Foundation 1800 G Street Washington, D.C. 20006 Director, AK Region National Weather Service 701 C Street Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Reg H1th Dir, H]lth Srvs Admin Public Hlth Srvs, DHEW, Regional 1321 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 State Conservationist Soil Conservation Service 221 E Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, Alaska 99504 Office of the Secretary ATTN: Coord Eng Qity Activities U.S. Dept of Agriculture Washington, D.C. 20230 Chief, Alaska Division USACRREL FT. Wainwright AK, APO 98731 . FEDERAL (cont.) Deputy Commandant U.S.Army Engineer School Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 Deputy Asst. Secy for Environment U.S. Dept. of Commerce ; Room 2816 Washington, D.C. 20230 U.S. Dept. of Commerce Economic Development Admin 1700 Westlake Ave North Seattle, Washington 98109 Forest Supervisor-U.S. Forest Srvc Chugach National Forest 2221 E Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, Alaska 99504 Program Leader Forest Service Institute of Northern Forestry Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Dist Chief, U.S.G.S. Water Resources Division 218 E Street, Rm 316 Skyline Bldg Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Pacific NW Region-Bur Outdoor Rec U.S. Dept. of the Interior 1000 Second Avenue Seattle, washington 98104 Director Office Environ Project Review U.S. Dept Interior Rm 5308 Washington, D.C. 20240 Dept of Housing-Urban Development 334 West Fifth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Region X Secretarial Rep U.S. Dept of Transportation 1321 Second Ave., RM 507 Seattle, Washington 98101 C-7 Special Counsel Committee on Inter & Insolar Af U.S. Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senator 701 C Street, Box 2 Anchorage; Alaska 99513 Honorable Mike Gravel United States Senator 701 C Street, Box 1 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Honorable Don Young Representative in Congress 701 C Street, Box 3 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Sp Asst. to Secretary U.S. Dept. of Interior 1675 C Street Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Alaska Power Administration Water Resources Studies U.S. Dept Interior P.0. Box 3276 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Honorable Mike Gravel United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Honorable Don Young House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 FEDERAL (cont.) Alaska Resources Library 701 C Street Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Library U.S. Army CRREL Box 282 Hanover, New Hampshire 03755 Waterways Experiment .Station Environmental Lab P.O. Box 631 Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180 Heritage Cons & Rec Service Pension Building 440 G Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20043 Mr. Paul Gallagher Federal Aviation Administration 5640 Airport Way Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 DAEN-CWO-C Washington, D.C. 20314 C-8 STATE Mr. Scott Grundy Regional Habitat Supervisor Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1300 College Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mr. Jerry Halberg Sports Fish Division Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1300 College Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mr. Fred Anderson Commercial Fish Division Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1300 College Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Alaska Division of Lands 4420 Airport Way Fairbanks, Alaska .99701 State Historic Preservation Officer Alaska Division of Parks 619 Warehouse Drive, Suite 210 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Andy Zahare Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 2301 Pegar Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 University of Alaska University Museum College, Alaska 99701 Mr. T.C. Fuglestad Chief Engineer, Alaska Railroad P.O. Box 7-2111 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Alaska Division of Lands 4420 Airport Way Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 C-11 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation P.0. Box 1601 Fairbanks, Alaska Alaska Dept. of Transportation 2301 Peger Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Jessie Dodson Special Asst. to the Governor Office of the Governor Pouch “A" Juneau, Alaska 99811 John Haywood Department of Administration Risk Management Division Pouch "Cc" Juneau, Alaska 99811 Chief, Alaska Division USACRREL ATTN: Jim Buska Fort Wainwright, Alaska 98731 Department of Natural Resources Div. of Forest, Land & Water Mgmt. ATTN: Mr. Theodore G. Smith 323 E. Fourth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dr. Robert F. Carlson, Director Institute of Water Resources University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mr. Clayton Hueners, Director Div. of Aviation, Design and Const. Dept. of Trans. and Public Fac. Pouch 6900 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 State of Alaska Water Resources Board 323 E. Fourth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 STATE (cont.) Harold M. Hume Director, Interior Region Dept. of Trans. and Public Fac. 2301 Peger Road Anchorage, Alaska 99701 Arctic Information & Data Center 707 A Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Honorable Jay S. Hammond, Governor State of Alaska Pouch A Juneau, Alaska 99811 Pipeline Coordination Office 430 W Seventh Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 R.A. Democh State of Alaska Department of Revenue Pouch SA Juneau, Alaska 99811 Arctic Environmental Research Laboratory College, Alaska 99701 Leader Cooperative Wildlife Research University of Alaska College, Alaska 99701 Institute of Marine Sciences Director University of Alaska College, Alaska 99701 Director Institute of Water Resources University of Alaska College, Alaska 99701 Mr. Jerry Madden, St-Fed Coord. A-95 Clearinghouse, Div Planning Pouch AD Juneau, Alaska 99811 C-12 Mr. Tyler Jones, Alaska Rep. Office of Senator Gravel 701 "C" Street, Box 1 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 William F. Barber Asst Hydraulic Engineer Alaska DOT/PF Box 351 Douglas, Alaska 99824 LOCAL C-13 LOCAL AND LIBRARIES Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce 550 First Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mr. Phil Berrian Fairbanks North Star Borough P.O. Box 1267 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 Mayor Carleta Lewis P.0. Box 5109 North Pole, Alaska 99705 Mayor William R. Wood City of Fairbanks 410 Cushman Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mayor John Carlson Fairbanks North Star Borough P.O. Box 1267 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Fairbanks News-Minor P.O. Box 710 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 All Alaska Weekly P.O. Box 970 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 KFAR Radio and TV Box 910 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Z J Loussac Library 427 F Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Elmer E. Rasmuson Library ATTN: Documents Collection University of Alaska College, Alaska 99701 Elmer E. Rasmuson Library ATTN: Skinner Alaska Section University of Alaska College, Alaska 99701 Library University of Alaska College, Alaska 99701 Library University of Alaska 2651 Providence Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99504 Fairbanks North Star Borough Public Library 1215 Cowles Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Fairbanks North Star Borough North Pole Branch Library 901 First Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 C-15 ORGANIZATIONS Executive Secretary Alaska Conservation Society P.O. Box 80192 College, Alaska 99701 Executive Director Fairbanks Environmental Center 218 Driveway Fairbanks, Alaka 99701 Arctic Audubon Society ATTN: Ms. Rosa Meehan P.O. Box 60524 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 National Wildlife Federation ATTN: Ken Fanning, Fairbanks Rep. Fairbanks, Alaska The Wildlife Society, Alaska Chpt. ATTN: Marilyn Sigman Ester, Alaska 99725 Alaska Conservation Society Edward C. Murphy, State Pres. 737 Columbia Circle Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Alaska Conservation Society ATTN: Larry Mayo SR 200-78 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Sierra Club Roland Shanks Star Rt. 5-0556 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Fairbanks Environmental Center ATTN: John Adams 218 Driveway Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 C-16 Sierra Club-RCC ATTN: Liv Sonnenberg RR 4, Box 4350-63A Juneau, Alaska 99803 President Tanana Valley Sportsment Assc. Box 669 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Arctic Institute of North America 1343 "“G" Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 President AK-Yukon RR Historical Society 1845 E 27th Anchorage, Alaska 99504 Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite #276 St. Louis, Missouri 63141 ATTN: MR. D.J. McQueen Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc. 1113 West Fireweed Lane Suite 101] Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Ltd. 4823-99 Street Edmonton, Alberta T6E 4Y1 Canada Ott Water Engineering 4790 Business Park Suite 4, Bldg. D Anchorage, Alaska 99503 INDIVIDUALS C-17 PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS Mr. Warren C. Steen 415 Fifth Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 J.A. Carroll P02 Box 1775 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 Metro Company Box 257 Fairbnks, Alaska 99701 Dr. David D. Smith Environmental Consultants P.O. Box 929-E M/S 1679 San Diego, CA 92109 Mr. Steve Tack 211 Irving Building University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Fairbanks Economic Development Corp. Box 1672 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 Ms. Sally Smith 321 Church Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 Mr. Mike W. Nussbaumer Box 60346 Fairbanks, Alaska 99706 Mr Don Morris Box 60346 Fairbanks, Alaska 99706 Mr. G. Cornelius P.0. Box 2668 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mr. Tony Leveque 113 Dunkel Street Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 C-19 Mr. Oriville Scott Box 60003 Fairbanks, Alaska 99706 Mr. E.H. Johnson 4622 7th & Boardmoor Fairbanks, Alaska 99706 Ms. Margaret Zavari Broadmoor Acres Fairbanks, Alaska 99706 Mr. Jack G. Cornelius 2.8 Mile Bague Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 Alaska Railroad ATTN: Chief, Engineer Fuglestad Pouch 7-2111 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Mr. Glenn Hackney 1136 Sunset Drive Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Ms. Galen F. King 5223 King Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mr. John L. Winterstrom 4641 8th Street Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mr. & Mrs. Richard G. Possenti S.R. Box 10596 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mr. Lewis J. Gibson 4636 8th Street Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mr. Charles L. Richmond Box 60101 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS (cont.) Honorable John Carlson Mayor, Fairbanks North Star Boro. P.O. Box 1267 Fairbanks, Alaska Mr. George Lowny 2249 King Road Fairbanks, Alaska Mr. Terry Johnson 2101 Broadmoor Fairbanks, Alaska Mr. & Mrs. Robert 5920 Airport Way Fairbanks, Alaska Mr. Roy Heidel 4231 Rosebud Lane Fairbanks, Alaska Mr. Leo J. McLeve 4867 Evergreen Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 99701 & Mr. Bruce Johnson 99701 Elliot 99701 99701 99701 Mr. Thomas Dean Fouts 4632 8th Street & Fairbanks, Alaska Broadmoor 99701 Mr. Robert L. Hallett 4658 7th Fairbanks, Alaska Mr. M. Van Hatten 4728 6th Street Fairbanks, Alaska Mr. Th. Inman Box 60325 Fairbanks, Alaska Mr. Bill Lagren P.O. Box 184 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 99701 99706 99701 C-20 Mrs. Rita Carlson 5 Mile Airport Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mr. Dale C. Carlson 5 Mile airport Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mr. J.W. Mease P.O. Box 80001 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 Mr. Douglas D. Morgan 1207 Park Drive Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mr. Mitchell Fuchs Box 60704 Fairbanks, Alaska 99706 Mr. James C. McCord Box 1672 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 Mr. Philip H. Deisher Box 2323 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mr. David C. Nelson P.O. Box 80131 College, Alaska 99701 Mr. Gene R. Davis 5880 Airport Way Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mr. J.A. Kornfeind 1839 Crossen Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mr. Emory W. Chapple 5926 Airport Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mr. Warren Killen P.O. Box 60375 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS (cont.) Ms. Mary L. Heidel 4231 Rosebud Land Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Capt. Jim Binkley P.O. Box "G" College Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 Mr. Ralph W. Pendue 547 Fairbanks Street Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 Ms. Audrey L. Mease S.R. Box 10578 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Ms. Judith C. Wright S.R. Box 10402 3.3 Mile Chena Pump Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mr. Larry D. Carpenter 403 Lignite Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mr. Jance Christenson P.O. Box 81383 College, Alaska 99708 Mr. K. Shodi P.O. Box 1271 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 Mr. Frank Murkowski Mile 1/2 Chena Pump Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mr. Dave L. Brennan Wildwood Trailer Court Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mr. Walles C. Droz 1031 Gilmore Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Kevin Harun 1010 College Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 Mr. John P. Kohler -5 Mile Henderson Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Joseph D. Marshall 1241 Wildrose Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mr. Mike Rebar 2 Mile Goldstream Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mr. Harry Reimer 6 Mile Steese Highway Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mr. William Stringer P.0. Box 81088 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 C. Lee Warehem 14 Mile Steese Highway Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 S. Kailing 4029 Widgeon Way Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Phil Younker P.O. Box 60188 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Bruce Wammack 913 Noble Street Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 J.A. Carrol] P.O. Box 216 Arlington, Washington 98223 C-21 PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS (cont.) H. Paul Friesema Northwestern University 2040 Sheridan Road Evanston, Illinois Fred Schmidt 60201 Documents Librarian Colorado State University Library Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Lane Thompson P.0. Box 80368 College, Alaska 99708 Robert Harper 352 Driveway, Apt. Fairbanks, Alaska James W. Aldrich P.O. Box 80214 Fairbanks, Alaska Bill Crampton SR Box 20160-D Fairbanks, Alaska Janice L. Wagner P.O. Box 10573 Fairbanks, Alaska Jo Feyhl SR 60727-A Fairbanks, Alaska James E. Vick 2124 Eagen Street Fairbanks, Alaska Timothy Tilsworth 1020 Pedro Street Fairbanks, Alaska Lisa Buskirk Box 2095 Fairbanks, Alaska A 99701 99701 99701 99701 99701 99701 99701 99701 C-22 APPENDIX D PUBLIC VIEWS AND RESPONSES PUBLIC VIEWS AND RESPONSES INDEX FEDERAL Advisory Council On Historic Preservation. .......2.2.e. U.S. Department of Commerce - NOAA/NWS. ..... 2.2 ee eee U.S. Department of Commerce - NOAA/NWS. . 2... 2.2.2 ee eee U.S. Department of Commerce - National Marine Fisheries Service. ..... | teedal -o'latal) «| fel) od sia Department of Housing and Urban Development .... UsS. Department ‘of the Interior .%. 2. «-. 33.6 USS. Envaronmental Agencys ca. 7. 2.) s6 ciuet™ 3 xe 5 Department of Transportaion - The Alaska Railroad . Department of Transportation - Federal Aviation oe we we © 1! 0 © fs ee we we oe we we sir if s © € © 6 vs Administration. <3 < 6 « «.¢ i! || cos] sie Mer| col) 9}| to fre ¥el Kel teh [et Iho) [a [ts STATE Alaska Department of Natural Resources. .... ay |e) fot [st ley fay I Alaska Department of Fish and Game. ....... aw ole ele Alaska State Clearinghouse. .......... piel telited leheiten ts Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer. .... olieeltediloitel ie ORGANIZATIONS Alaska Conservation Society ...... ei | 9) |te*licer| | foutal] ‘sk fol fot fe) fs PRIVATE Charles M. Binkley - Alaska Riverways, Inc. .......e+ee-. Kevin A. Harun. .... 2e.8 468 @ wee ee ee ew «8 D-3 uv a oO oe —tt wonwon-rPnr COON PePPee Fz: waa ep ey 25 D-35 D-43 D-46 FEDERAL D-5 Advisory fee runount OW HISTORI PRESERVATION Council On ter Historic 44 UNION BLVD. Preservation acre Toad is eR ASE Washington ingtoa DC This response m i ent pursuant to ea sae Preservation Act, nor Sectinn 2(U) March 26, 1980 Colonel Lee R. Nunn District Engineer Corps of Engineers, Alaska District Department of the Army P. 0. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Dear Colonel Nunn: Thank you for your request of March 7, 1980, for comments on the draft supplemental environmental impact statement (DSEIS) 1 for Chena River Lakes Project near Fairbanks, Alaska. Pursuant ~N to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Council's regulations, "Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties" (36 CFR Part 800), we have determined that your DSEIS does not contain sufficient information concerning historic and cultural resources for review purposes. Please furnish the following data indicating: Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470£, as amended, 90 Stat. 1320) - The environmental statement must demonstrate that either of the following conditions exists: 1. No properties included in or that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places are located within the area of environmental impact, and the undertaking will not affect any such property. In making this determination, the Council requires: ~-evidence that you have consulted the latest edition of the National Register (Federal Register, March 18, 1980, and its monthly supplements); --evidence of an effort to ensure the identification of properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register, including evidence of contact with the State Historic Preservation Officer, whose comments should be included in the final environmental statement. The 2 Responses to comments by ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION: 1. Section 4.02.10 Cultural Resources has been revised to indicate that the latest version of the National Register of Historic Places has been consulted. 2. Comments by the State Historic Preservation Officer, Mr. William Hanable, have been included in Appendix D in the draft as well as the final SEIS. 8-d Page 2 Colonel Lee R. Nunn Chena River Lakes Project March 26, 1980 State Historic Preservation Officer for Alaska is Mr. William S. Hanable. 2. Properties included in or that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places are located within the area of environmental impact, and the undertaking will or will not affect any such property. In cases where there will be an effect, the final environmental impact ement should contain evidence of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act through the Council's regulations, "Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties". Should you have any questions, please call Ms. Betty LeFree at (303) 234-4946, an FTS number. Sincerely, 3. A location and identification study of the Tanana River south bank and the river islands has been completed by a professional archaeologist. No sites were found and the potential for finding sites in the area was assessed to be low. The report of the results of this study will be forwarded to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation along with a copy of comments from the SHPO. 6-d U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE - ALASKA REGION 701 C Street, Box 23, Anchorage, AK 99513 OA/WFA2/DLC:njc April 21, 1980 Colonel Lee R. Nunn District Engineer Alaska District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Re: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Chena River Lakes Project Levee Completion and Upstream Protective Groins Dear Colonel Nunn: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject DSEIS. The National Weather Service provides daily river stage and discharge forecasts for the Tanana and Chena Rivers. Forecasts are not only a non- structural alternative for reducing flood damages, but also a necessary adjunct of other measures, including levees, for achieving relief from flood damages. The levee and protective groins will affect the stage-discharge relation- ship at Fairbanks, and that change will have to be incorporated into our forecast procedure. This can, and should, wait until your final design is complete and construction is underway. At that time we would like to use the results of your hydraulic studies and obtain your evaluation of ice jam potential and expected sediment transport. I am pleased that the Corps' hydrologic/hydraulic engineers and the NWS hydrologists enjoy good working relationships. I have no comments to offer on the design or selection of any of the various alternatives discussed in the DSEIS. Sincerely, Stuart G. Bigher Director | | Responses to NOAA, NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE: 1. We agree that tne importance of the National Weather Service daily forcasts of river stages and discharges for the Tanana and Chena Rivers should be presented in the SEIS and the document has been revised to reflect this. 2. We are pleased to cooperate with the National Weather Service and will provide your agency with information as it is available. OL-a - hs : ™, +| UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SI The Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology ot Jf Wastungton. D.C. 20230 (202) 377axm 4335 May 6, 1980 Colonel Lee R. Nunn Alaska District, Corps of Engineers Department of the Army Post Office Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Dear Colonel Nunn; This is in reference to your draft supplemental environmental impact statement entitled, “Proposed Chena River Lakes Project Levee Completion and Upstream Protection Groins to Complete Flood Protection Structures Near Fairbank, Alaska." The enclosed comments from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are forwarded for your consideration. Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide these comments, which we hope will be of sistance to you. We would appreciate receiving eight (8) copies of the final environmental impact statement. Sincerely, Bruce R. Barrett Acting Director Office of Environmental Affairs Enclosure Memo from: Mr. Richard E, Hallgren National Weather Service OA/W - NOAA Responses to comments by the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE: Comments are found on the following page. Lii=a U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE pele’ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ou NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE we £oR ee Silver Spring, Md, 20910 One = APR 1 1980 Reply to Attn. of; OA/W2x2 : PP/EC ~ Joyce Wood Z i From = / Qa/w - Richard E. Hallgren Sutect: EIS 8003.19 - Chena River Lakes Project - Alaska (Your memo of 3/20/80) This flood control project is designed to protect the city of Fairbanks on the Tanana River where major floods have occurred. es were discussed in the original EIS for No mention, however, is made of non-structural measures either as 1 the ae Bee alternatives or companion items to the proposed structural measures. 1 e e Because of the varied circumstances under which major flooding can 1 2. Th Je in flood . ie SEIS has been revised to reflect NOAA/NWS role in flo occur around Fairbanks that include the combination of spring forecasting and warning. We rely upon your agencies forecasts as the goownel¢.and;ice: Jaueto: heevy tains, inyAugust,. there demonstrated | 2 Corps of Engineers has no authority to make flood forecasts on an need for flood forecast & warning services. This existing service, currently provided by the NOAA/NWS River Forecast Center in Anchorage unregulated river such as the Tanana. with meteorological forecasts and flood warnings emanating out of the Fairbanks Forecast Office, should be included as a companion item to the project. This is considered an oversight and should be reflected in the DEIS. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. 2L-d UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Assistant Secretary for Productivity, Technology, and Innovation Washington, D.C. 20230 (202) 377.3% 4335 May 19, 1980 Colonel Lee R. Nunn Alaska District, Corps of Engineers Department.of the Army Post Office Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Dear Colonel Nunn: The Department of Commerce reviewed the draft supplemental environmental impact statement by the United States Army Corps of Engineers relative to the "Proposed Chena River Lakes Project Levee Completion and Upstream Protection Groins to Complete Flood Protection Structures Near Fairbanks, Alaska", and forwarded comments to you in our letter of May 6, 1980. Since that time, additional information has developed which is pertinent to the project. This additional information from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is enclosed for your consideration. We are pleased to have been offered the opportunity to review this statement. : Sincerely, Bruce R. Barrett Acting Director Office of Environmental Affairs Enclosure Memo from: Harry L. Rietze National Marine Fisheries Service F/AKR - NOAA . Responses to the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE: Comments are found on following page. p 1e& National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gee Pre National Marine Fisheries Service Aa P. 0. Box 1668, Junecu, Alaska 99802 Ose : May 1, 1980 Reply to Atcn. of: To =: PP/EC - Joyce M. Wood fri Ll 7 From : F/AKR - Harry 4. Rietze ele U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement - Chena River Lakes Project We have reviewed the subject document and offer the following comments: Section 303.1, Subsections a, b and h, pages 10-14 Discussions of plans for levee alignment and construction mention potential adverse impacts to salmon spawning areas and overwintering areas. However, no mention is made of the value of these resources. Several species of fish are known to utilize the lower Chena River for overwintering and for year-round use. The possible loss of these resources should be discussed. Section 506.1, Subsection a, page 61 It is mentioned that construction would occur during the winter months to minimize adverse impacts to anadromous fish. No mention is made regarding impact to other species which may utilize the Tanana River for overwintering. Fisheries information for the Tanana River is relatively limited, so the magnitude of impacts to these resources as a result of this project are not known. This section should discuss in more detail the types of impacts associated with winter construction as compared to summer construction. In general we prefer an alternative that involves no in-stream con- struction activity. We believe that alternative 7-should be examined again. While maintaining the river bank line in its present configur- ation may require costly maintenance, the cost of doing this should be offset somewhat by not having to construct protective groins as called for in several other alternatives. Other advantages of this alternative include relatively limited damage to fisheries resources and no interference with the railroad and airport. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. CLEARANCE SIGNATURE AND DATE F/HP:J.Rote 1. Section 3.03.1 has been expanded to i value of the fishery resources. Pee a ancicera:cteciss ionjof, the 2. Section 5.06.1 has been revised to include a fur’ ther di winter and summer construction impacts. In addition, the Scares er a determ pera the magnitude of impacts with available biological data is 3. Comment is noted. 4. Alternative 7 is not considered to be techni cally workab) - cussed in Seciton 3.03.1f. To insure the integrity of this heveahaltond ment, sheetpiling must extend 60 to 70 feet deep. The area is underlain witn permafrost making attempts to di el ipereatront ees g attempts to drive sheet pile to these depths vL-d - ®P REGION x Offi and DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT REGIONAL OFFICE ARCADE PLAZA BUILDING, 1321 SECOND AVENUE Cd SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 April 9, 1980 ice of Community Planning loc Development Lee R. Nunn Colonel Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Dear Colonel Nunn: Subject: Chena River Lakes Project raft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement We have reviewed the statement submitted with your March 7, 1980 letter. We agree with your planning objective to provide maximum flood protection for Fairbanks, to maintain current and proposed Fairbanks International Airport and the Alaska Railroad area to assure continued navigability on the Chena and Tanana Rivers. We support your Alternative No. 2. However, we would like to know if as a result of the project, the degree of flooding in areas that remain in the flood plain would be increased, and if so, can those areas be identified? We would also like to see a section in your statement covering the socio-economic benefits that could result from the project. We defer to other agencies to comment in other areas not within our jurisdiction or expertise. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your statement. Regional Office of CPD AREA OFFICES ‘Portiand, Oregon + Seattle, Washington + Anchorage, Alaska + Boise, Idaho Insuring Office Spokane, Washington IN REPLY REFER To: & to Responses to comments by DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT OFFICE OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT: 1. Noted. 2. The degree of flooding in areas unprotected by the levee would not increase as a result of the proposed project. 3. Socio-economic benefits were calculated for the project as a whole, not incremental features. Initial construction and annual maintenance costs are provided for evaluation in the Tables of Comparative Impacts found on pages 18-23. Si-d United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY P. O. Box 120 ER-80/223 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 May 6, 1980 Colonel Lee R. Nunn District Engineer Alaska District Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Dear Colonel Nunn: In response to your March 7, 1980, request,we have reviewed the Draft Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement for the Chena River Lakes Project and offer the following comments for your consideration, General Comments Recreation - The lower Chena River and the Tanana River are significant summer and/or winter recreation resources. We suggest the draft supple- ment be expanded to address the effect (immediate and long term), if any, the project will have on summer and winter recreational use of both rivers. Of particular interest is the project's potential effect on the use of existing recreation facilities such as the public boat ramp on the Chena River. We believe recreation should be included among the significant resources analyzed in Figure 2 (pages 18-23). | Cultural Resources - Cultural resource investigations adequate to deter- | | mine direct or indirect impacts on historic and prehistoric sites have | been conducted--or provided for, per the recommendation of the State I Historic Preservation Officer. The potential need for compliance with ¢ Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act should be noted in the event that sites eligible for listing on the National Register are found during surveys that are planned for areas of indirect impact. We would recommend also that the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and the cultural aspects of subsistence also be considered and addressed, if appropriate, Specific Comments 1,01 Summa: first paragraph - Timing of groin placement does not mint- | nize aes aa from groins (only short-term construction impacts) These long-term impacts include major alteration of flow and sediment ° | | regime in these channels, deposition and eventual closure of these channels and general loss of aquatic habitat, especially if the river moves toward a single channel configuration, Responses to comments by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: 1. Since recreation was not identified as a significant resourse in the scoping process, it does not appear as a separate item in the Comparative Impacts of Alternatives. Recreational uses of the Tanana and Chena Rivers are discussed under Section 4.02.3 Navigation. Impacts to navigation also include impacts to the rivers recreational users. The public boat ramp on the Chena River should receive no adverse impact as a result of proposed construction. 2. A location and identification study has been completed by a pro- if fessional archaeologist along the south bank of the Tanana River and 0 the islands in the river. No sites were located and consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is not necessary. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act is not applicable. Subsistence uses of the Tanana and Chena Rivers are discussed under Section 4.02.3 Navigation and Section 4.02.6 Fish and Wildlife. 3. The final SEIS has been revised to indicate that seasonal timing of construction would minimize short-term construction impacts. Long term impacts of the total groins system are subject to analysis and correction if only a few groins are built initially, and their performance subse- quently monitored over a period of years. 9L-d 1.01 Sumrarys second paragraph - What are limits of the Tanana River , plain wit without jitional (diverted) Chena River flows? 4 The general statement here that there are no practicable alternatives for locating the levee out of the base floodplain needs clarification. 3.03.1.a Levee - Since this section mentions impacts, such as loss of Salmon runs and fish overwintering areas, it should also describe the value of these resources. Salmon runs have shown major increases in the Ss: last couple years. The overwintering and year-round use of the lower Chena River by large numbers and species of fish is significant. A ror | mention here of possible loss of these resources without explanation of their values is misleading. 3.03.1b Same as above - Again, coordination of construction activities | with resource agencies minimizes only the short-term adverse impacts. Timing of construction is the only practical recommendation resource 1g agencies can make once plans are this far along. The best possible time for construction in a river the size of the Tanana is still not certain. So the statement that coordination will minimize impacts is misleading in that it implies that impacts will be significantly reduced. In fact,’ coordination may cause a minimum reduction of impacts. ‘ 3.03.1.b Alternative 5 - It is unclear how future natural channel changes could have adverse impacts on the fishery as a result of this alternativd. 3.03.2.a - Blockage of these major channels would alter flows and sedi- ; ment Tn these channels. The channels will eventually be cut off down- stream from the main river. This will result in loss of aquatic habitat} | and some entrapment. Groin construction could result in loss of over- | wintering areas and burbot spawning areas. Slow current and clear water |8 in Serene channels would be attractive to fish and possibly waterfowl. Construction during winter may affect fish overwintering and burbot spawning. Summer construction with instream activities of equipment and major channel blocks may affect large numbers of salmon moving | through, | Flaure #4 pene 18 Fish and Wildlife Impacts - Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 |_| shou s slight poss ty of impacts occurring to the Chena \9 River fishery since river geomorphology lists the slight possibility of | downstream channel changes in the Tanana River. 5.06.1.a - Should emphasize the void in available biological data of the, Tanana River. Impacts mentioned here are accurate but the magnitude of | impacts is largely unknown. Also salmon fry using the Tanana River for ‘0 rearing could be impacted. If the Tanana is used as rearing areas for fry of all species, winter construction could be the worst time. The statement that winter construction would minimize impacts cannot be 4. The Tanana River flood plain, with or without Chena River flows, extends from the base of Chena Ridge north of the Chena River to approxi- mately 12 miles south of the Tanana River. The city of Fairbanks is located on the northern side of the flood plain. In order to protect the city of Fairbanks from Tanana floods by a levee, that levee must be constructed in the flood plain. 5. This section has been revised to indicate the significance of the Chena River fishery. 6. Comment is noted. The SEIS reflects the uncertainty of minimizing adverse impacts. 7. Natural channel changes could shift the Tanana River to the south of its present location at the mouth of the Chena River. Should this occur, impacts would be similar to those discussed as highly unlikely worst case scenerios in the SEIS. 8. Section 3.03.22 has been expanded to include these comments. 9. The Comparative Impacts of Alternatives section has been revised to include the slight possibility of adverse impacts to the Chena River fishery. 10. The void in biological data is stated in Section 5.06 and is applicable to all Alternatives proposed for the Tanana River levee exten- sion and protective groins. This section has been revised to reflect the unknown magnitude of impacts to fish and wildlife. Z1-d substantiated even if resource agencies recommend it. Again, the emphasis should be that no one knows what the magnitude of impacts to es and wildlife are because of the serious data gap for the Tanana ver. 5.07.2.a. and b. - Groins involving instream construction can have impact: similar to levee and diversion construction. These impacts may be under- i emphasized because flow within many major channels of the Tanana would be significantly altered. 5.09 - A map of the Tanana River 100-year floodplain from below the con- |. Fluence of the Chena River upstream to the Moose Creek dam would be usefu ar in understanding this section. Better delineation of the active (and hissoricelly, active) river channels south of Fairbanks would also be elpful. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document. Sincerely, Regional Environmental Officer-Alaska 11. We agree that instream groin construction will have impacts similar to levee construction; although. in general, wetlands which would be affected by groin construction have not been previously disturbed by prior human construction. Changes in floristic communities would be more pronounced in wetlands affected by upstream protective groins construction. 12. The area which is bordered on the north by Chena Ridge and the south by the Tanana River and which extends from below the confluence of the Chena River upstream to Moose Creek Bluff is within the 100 year flood plain of the Tanana River. Delineation of the active and historically active river channels south of Fairbanks is found in Design Memorandum 24, Supplement 1(Revised), February 1980. 8L-d U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION X “a 1200 SIXTH AVENUE WZ: SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 MAY 07 1980 Colonel Lee R. Nunn Department of the Army Alaska District, Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 7002 . Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Dear Colonel Nunn: We have completed our review of your Chena River Lakes Project, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS). In general, the DSEIS adequately identifies those alternatives available and those issues which wil] merit analysis in the final EIS. We offer the following comments for your consideration. Since the Tanana and Chena are important fishery rivers, we feel that the timing of in-stream construction to avoid conflicts with salmon migration is an important factor. A construction schedule should be included in the final EIS illustrating construction activites juxtaposed against salmonid migration schedules. Further discussion on the impacts to the potential overwintering sites in the Tanana River should be included in the final EIS. We. suggest that the Corps commit itself to attempting to locate potential overwintering sites in the Tanana River prior to construction. This would allow the construction specifications or plans to protect these critical habitats. The feasibility of modifying the in-river alignment for the Phase III levee and groins as suggested by the Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Limited (NWHCL) should be given serious consideration in the final EIS. Modifying the location might reduce the possibility of downstream impacts, i.e. lowering the water level at the mouth of the Chena River, impeding navigation, impacting the fishery on the lower Chena River. 4 3 Responses to the U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: 1. Timing of instream construction would be coordinated with the . Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service; however, the lack of information concerning the Tanana aquatic resources makes prediction of impacts difficult. Although winter construction would reduce impacts to salmonid migration, the potential for adverse impacts to downstream overwintering areas may not be out weighed by benefit: accrued from winter construction.” oF y Benehiss, tei 28 2. As discussed in Section 4.02.6, the size of the Tanana River along with tne winter ice cover and summer suspended sediments make study of the Tanana difficult. The University of Alaska plans to undertake a three er study oe aquatic et hset of the Tanana and lower Chena River. r research is scheduled to begin in 1980. Coordi - tained with the study team. 3 forsigat ton) wiih Beieaie 3. The modifications suggested by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants have been proposed as the recommended plan. This alternative further reduces the possibility of downstream adverse impacts. 6L-d Since the effects that groins have on rivers the size of the Tanana are not well known or easily predictable, we suggest that the Corps give further consideration in the Final EIS to the amount and configuration of the groins to be constructed on the Tanana Levee. The possible effects that groins may have, such as, impacts on anadromous fish as 4 well as resident species, bank erosion, transportation and deposition | of coarse sediment material upstream and downstream, channel changes, and loss of wetland construction are all topics that merit further \ discussion in the final EIS. We concur with NWHCL that the Corps should consider modification to the pilot channel to give the river a strong impetus to form its main channel to the south of the groinfield. We also concur with 5 suggestion that a study of gravel extraction at Goose Island may help determine the long-term impacts on downstream morphology. The Environmental Protection Agency has rated the Draft Supplemental EIS LO-1 (LO - Lack of Objections; 1 - Adequate Information). This | rating will be published in the Federal ister in accordance with © EPA's responsibility to inform the public of our views on proposed j Federal actions under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, as amended. | If you have questions or wish to discuss our comments, please contact LeRoy Loiselle or me at (206) 442-1285 or (FTS) 399-1285. Sincerely, ger/K. Mochnick, Acting Chief Environmental Evaluation Branch 4. The upstream protective groins have been evaluated for a worst case basis. Construction of fewer groins would result in proportionately less adverse impacts. Impacts of groin construction are discussed under each of the significant resources. 5. The pilot channel associated with the recommended plan incorpo- rates the comments of Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Ltd. Gravel fe extraction at Goose Island is being monitored along with other aspects of the river as part of tne Corps monitoring program. 6. Comments noted. —————————————— ee =0LTHE ALASKA RAILROAD 02-d March 28, 1980 Colonel Lee R. Nunn, District Engineer Alaska District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 7002 Anchorage, AK 99510 Re: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Chena River Lakes Project Levee Completion Dear Colonel Nunn: The draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement forwarded with your letter of March 7 has been reviewed by my Engineering staff. We are in full agreement with the findings and conclusions of this report, and feel. your staff has adequately addressed the environmental impacts of the various alternatives. For the reasons stated in our letter of December 13, 1979 to your Chief of Engineering, Mr. Soper, the recommended in-water levee approach as presented in DM 27 (Alternative 1) and modified by the proposals of Northwest Hydraulics (Alternative 2), offers the best solution to the flooding problems in Fairbanks. We would like to add emphasis to the land use impacts of the "No Action" choice (Alternative 10) summarized in Figure 2 (page 18) of the report. In our opinion the present critical erosion situation adjacent to the Fairbanks International Airport Spur, mentioned briefly on page 40 of the report, is certain to result in a major land use impact if the "No Action" alternative is chosen. Not only will the current functioning of the Fairbanks International Airport be significantly impacted by the possible loss of ARR fuel deliveries, but also the future development plans of the airport will be severely restricted if the Tanana River is allowed to erode through our roadbed and reestablish flow in the old channel at the end of the runways. We are hopeful you can proceed the construction of Alternative 2 during the 1980-1981 season. Thank you for the continuing opportunity | to have input into this project. Sincerely, Saree F. H. Jones General Manager Responses to comments by DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION THE ALASKA RAILROAD: All comments are noted. The “No Action" impacts on the Alaska Railroad and Fairbanks International Airport are discussed in the Final SEIS (Para. 3.02.1). lé-d DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ALASKAN REGION °.0. 80x 14 ‘WIC STREET ANCHORAGE, ALASKA s0013 APR $0 1980 Colonel Lee R. Nunn Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Dear Colonel Nunn: We would like to take this opportunity to exprei to you our appreci- ation for the professional approach that you and your staff have shown throughout the discussions and public hearings on the Fairbanks flood control project. We also appreciate the various opportunities you have provided for us to explain to your engineers and to the public the adverse conditions that would be imposed on air commerce transiting the Fairbanks International Airport by some of the proposed levee alignments. Referring specifically to the DSEIS dated March 1980, for which you have requested our review and comments, we find that plans 1, 2, 3, and 9 would have no adverse impact on the Category II Instrument Landing ‘System, specifically the ground reflection area for the Glide Slope, called "Fresnel" area. The other plana would adversely affect the fresnel area, sooner or later, diminishing the capacity of the airport to support aircraft landings in bad weather. A further review of the four plans that do not adversely affect the Instrument Landing System indic: to us that the le lignment pro- posed in Plan 2 will provide the best overall good to the community of Fairbanks and its citizens. Therefore, we concur with your decision to tentatively select Plan 2, Please advise if we can be of any further assistance concerning air navigation at Fairbanks. Sincerely yours, Chief, Airway Facilities Division Responses to comments by the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION: All comments are noted. STATE D-23 S2-d STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ‘323 E. 4TH AVENUE DIVISION OF FOREST, LANO AND WATER MANAGEMENT / ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 90501 May 1, 1980 279-5577 Colonel Lee R. Nunn District Engineer Alaska District Corps of ins P. 0. Box 7002 = a Anchorage, AK 99510 Dear Colonel Nunn: The Division of Forest, Land and Water Mana; gement has reviewed th supplement draft environmental impact statement on the Chena Lakzs Project, Tanana Levee letion and 0; hae teat . ce Ipstream Protection Groins and 1. General Comments The way the discussion on the two actions is presented one think they are being done on two different cava ‘8. There tara attempt to relate the upstream groin alternatives to the levee completion, The extensive review of the levee completion alternatives has been done under the assumption that the Tanana aa will continue flowing in its present condition. This flow tion will be changed with the upstream groin protection Plan, immediately with alternatives I and II. What is the chance that the movement of the main channel of the Tanana River some unspecified distance to the south will effect the performance of the downstream groins? This and any other possible adverse impacts of the combination of these two Proposed actions should be investigated and discussed in a more integrated fashion. We see no reason to adhere to form for form's sake but clegents of environmental impact statements mentioned in NEPA es a guidelines for writing environmental impact statements seing: (a) the relationship between short term use of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long term sromeativiry. and (b) any irreversible and irretrievable ce tments of resources. These are important elements for consideration of these actions because both recommended alternatives may result in undesired changes to the Tanana River Fegime that will be difficult to rever We are particularly concerned about the possibility of a radical movement of the Tanana River to the south, The Tanana River has achieved ite Present location over geologic time. Several of these proposed alternatives could destroy this equilibrium and the river into a more southerly aicectioa. a aces 4AY $. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR | ! Responses to comments from the ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF LANDS AND WATER MANAGEMENT: 1. The levee completion and the upstream groin system will affect the river as a unit after the construction of both features. They were deli- berately separated in the SEIS because they are incremental additions to the project and will most likely not be built at the same time. The levee completion is required to give Fairbanks its authorized level of flood protection. The design has been analyzed in great detail, and plans and specifications have been prepared for this construction. Most objections to the levee completion have been discussed at great lengths in public meetings. The North Star Borough Assembly has indicated its desire to have the levee completed. In short, there is good reason to believe that the levee will be complete and functioning in a year's time, subject to availability of construction funds. When contrasting this with the upstream groin system and the problems still inherent in getting this feature's construction underway, it is seen as highly desirable not to allow controversy over the upstream system to delay construction of the levee completion and the acheivement of the desired level of flood protection. The upstream groin system adds nothing to the level of flood protection. The total levee including the proposed levee completion can function for Sometime without the addition of any upstream groins. Ideally, the upstream groins should be constructed only as field conditions dictate their need; however, constraints, as outlined in the. SEIS, may require an accelerated timetable for upstream groin construction. This has not yet been resolved. In view of the relative certainty of levee completion construction and uncertainty of the upstream groin system the following assumptions were made in the SEIS: a. The proposed levee completion was designed using the assump- tion that an upstream groin system would eventually be incorporated into the project, but that the levee completion may have to stand by itself for a period of several years before any upstream groin construction. The effects discussed in the SEIS are from the Phase III levee completion only. b. The upstream grain system was addressed assuming the levee completion was already in place. Al) comments made on the upstream groin system in the SEIS refer to effects of the system when added to the complete levee, including the proposed levee completion. Thus, in the case of assumption by, combined effects of the proposals are addressed. We do not expect the construction of upstream protective groins to significantly affect downstream areas, including the levee completion and associated protective groins. 2. The most recent reglations promulgated by the Council on Environmetal Quality for implementing the Natonal Environmental Policy Act (40 FR 1500, 9 Jyne 1980) no longer contain the elements you've identi- fied as (a) and (b). Impacts of the proposed construction are discussed in Section V of the SEIS and titled Environmental Effects. 3. Experience to date with the Tanana River, plus analysis of the topography for possible favorable gradients for river relocation, indicate that, in the river reach where the groin system is located, no radical movement or avulsion of the river is likely. 92-0 Colonel Lee R. Nunn 2 May 1, 1980 II, Tanana Levee Completion Alternatives feasible alternatives should be fully evaluated for flood protection benefits. It is stated that the recommended’ alternative, alternative two, provides “maximum” flood protection. Since alternative nine provides more flood protection than alternative two, alternative two mst provide something less than “maximm" flood protection. All the alternatives have varying degrees of flood protection that should be qualified in more precise terms than "maximum" or "less", preferably with maps delineating areas that will be flooded under each alternative and expected levels of flood water. 4. Concur that word “maximum” could be improved; however, flooded area maps, Figures 19 through 22, which are provided should clarify any confusion. . Alternative levees 4 & 5 have a greater probability for flooding as Errante of surface run off and seepage flows accumulating behind the levee than those alternatives which do not block natural drainage. In addition, failure of the pumping plant and/or breaching of the levee, although unlikely, would result in impoundment of water behind the levee. With the recommended plan, water accumulating behind the levee would drain through interior drainage channel A into the Tanana just upstream of the Chena River. The purpose of the project is flood protection, therefore, For alternatives four and five it is stated that less flood protection would be provided. More properly stated, these alternatives have identical protection from the Tanana River flooding but their interior drainage schemes allow for a great probability of flooding from ponding behind the levee. The scenario given for the coincidence of Tanana River peak flows and peak interior drainage flows would also create problems for the recommended alternative. In this scenario perhaps the pumping plant would be best in removing interior drainag: River was included but this has now been deferred indefinitely. The discharges for flooding on the Little Chena River were not published in Design Memorandum One, Hydrology, (besides a Probable maximum flood of 65,000 c.f.s.) but using the same discharge-area relationship that was developed for the Chena River, the standard project flood discharge would be on the order of 20,000 c.f.s. Channel capacity flow of the Chena River through Fairbanks is 12,000 c.f.s., so a flow of 20,000 c.f.s. will probably cause flood damage. This is important to note because much weight is given to the protection from flooding from the Tanana River om land that may not be protected from flooding from the Chena River due to a more localized but equally probable event in the Little Chena River drainage. 5 6 6. A 100-year recurrance interval flood on the Little Chena River with only the present Chena flood control facilities in place would remain within the banks of the Chena River through Fairbanks. Floods less | frequent than once in 100 years will begin to flood the area. 7. Comment noted. Selection of the recommended alternative comes down to a tradeoff of a@ level of flood protection and erosion control versus the possibility of adverse effects on the Tanana River. We are still mot convinced that alternative two should be recommended but do agree that it is an improvement over alternative one. 8. The “no action™ alternative would eventually result in levee failure and was discussed in Section 3.02 Without Condition (No Action) in the Draft SEIS. A close alternative is the “do nothing until you have to," Alternative III. Flow net analyses have shown that a minimum of 500 horizontal feet riverward of the levee is necessary to reduce seepage velocities under the levee to safe levels. Refer to levee design memos III, Upstream Protective Groins (3,5,9, & 24) for details. Groins are not designed to create 500 feet of silted-in blankets, but rather to protect the existing banks, where a The “no action" alternative ie not described. In neither this minimum of 500 horizontal feet of natural silt cover already exists, from DEIS nor im the supplement to DM 24 which gives more detail on erosion. The groin lengths are dictated by economics and site conditions the upstream groins are the consequences of doing nothing 8 and have no connection with any 500-foot design parameter. evaluated. It is not clear whether the primary purpose of the : i groins is to protect the integrity of the levee or to maintain a 500 foot silt blanket. If it is the former are there other 7 In the original Chena Lakes Project a dam on the Little / L2-a Colonel Lee R. Nunn fo May 1, 1980 alterna’ available to protect the levee? If the latter, what are the effects of having less than a 500 foot silt blanket? How|6 much would seepage increase and how would that effect interior|9 drainage flooding? Why are groins longer than 500’ under'r consideration? With alternatives I and II what is the possibility of the groins being incorrectly located or not sufficient in numbers so that 3| the lev is threatened by erosion anyway? Would the Corps of Engineers come back into the project to do remedial work or would the state or local government be required to fix the levee and/or build more groins? With the exception of the present Corps policy against deferred construction, all the arguments point toward ernat. Il, construction deferred until needed, eas the alternative sost | | worthy of being pursued. Of the three alternatives discussed the Division of Forest, Land and Water Management recommends alternative III. controversial actions and request that the questions raised above are addressed in the final EIS. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We are pleased to see that an EIS is being done on these ove i Sincerely, ZF Mh h- SLL Theodore Smith Director ec: Robert LeResche, Commissioner Jessie Dodson, Office of the Governor 9. The Corps must design and construct the project to provide the maximum protecion with the minimum of maintenance costs. At the present time, all construction must be complete before the local sponsor assumes responsibility. The Corps does not anticipate a need for major repairs or the addition of groins after project completion and turn over to the local interest. Repairs will be a local sponsor responsibility. Addition of groins may be undertaken by the Corps if the need develops as a result of a deficiency in the project. 10. Deferred construction, Alternative III, is being evaluated further, but at the present time the Corps is required to complete a pro- ject in its entirety before releasing it to the local sponsor for operation and maintenance. 11. Comments noted. 82-0 JAY $. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 1300 COLLEGE ROAD FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701 May 16, 1980 Col. Lee R. Nunn District Engineer, Alaska District U. S. Army Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Dear Colonel Nunn: Re: March 1980 Chena River Lakes Project Oraft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement “The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the subject document and our comments follow: 1. A river closure structure has been proposed subsequent to the writing of this document. The environmental consequences of this 1 1 structure must be addressed in the final statement. 2. We reviewed the ADOT/PF November 27, 1979 letter in "Appendix D" with great interest. Their advice to omit the groins and pilot channel because of past experiences with similar structures and support for continous riprap along the riverbanks or a riprapped 2 levee must be examined in detail as viable alternatives. These ! recommendations are most attractive to us as they would alleviate | the necessity of much of the proposed instream construction acti- vity. The ADOT/PF utilized this technique to protect the Richardson nigeey near Shaw Creek and to our knowledge it has been maintenance ree. 3. Before this Department can evaluate the Present proposals fully and before we can issue the project constractor an A. S. Title 16 permit, we must have the following information: a. construction timing : 3 b. sequence of activities ¢. construction methods Responses to comments by the ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME: 1. The river closure will be a temporary structure and is discussed in the final SEIS (Para. 1.01 and 3.03.1 a., b, c). 2. Although the Corps of Engineers agree that construction in the river should be avoided whenever possible, a continous riprap along the river banks or a riprapped levee are considered impractical. Riprap in the Fairbanks area is relatively small sized and extremely large quanties would be required. Should erosion occur along a continous embankment during flood stages, the simultaneous maintenance at many points along the embankment would be virtually impossible. Referring specifically to the Phase III Levee area, the extreme angle of river attack on the bend adja~ cent to the ARR spur makes the use of a continous revetment along the bank line difficult to construct and impossible to maintain without a more or less continous addition of material to the revetment to repair washouts. 3. Close coordination with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game will be maintained and the requested information will be provided in as much detail as possible prior to applying for an A.S. Title 16 permit. 62-d Gol. Lee R. Nunn 22- May 16, 1980 + In general, this Department is uncomfortable with the proposed alters 4 native to divert and train a large braided river when the long term feasibility of such an undertaking is questioned by experienced engineers.| Sincerely, Alan H. Townsend Habitat Biologist III Habitat Protection Section (907) 452-1531 cc: OD. Lowery - ADEC Fairbanks W. Copeland - ADL Fairbanks Mayor Carlson - Fairbanks North Star Borough A. Zahare - ADOT/PF Fairbanks 4. The best opinion available concerning river construction as pro- posed is that of Northwest Hydraulics, Ltd. of Edmonton, Alberta. In their report dated January 1980, they indicate that with their modifica- tions for levee completion, the recommended plan, is extremely unlikely to have any adverse effects on water levels in the Tanana River downstream or in the Chena River or to have any adverse effects on downstream bed levels and navigation depths. Northwest Hydraulics recommendations are incorpo- rated in the recommended plan, Alternative II. 0€-d STATE OF ALASKA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR POUCH AD DIVISION OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811 May 7, 1980 Colonel Lee R. Nunn Department of the Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. -P.0. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Subject: Chena River Lakes Project DSEIS State ID #FD020-80032005 Dear Colonel Nunn: The pase State Clearinghouse has completed review of the referenced DSEIS. The following comment was received from the Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA): “This Supplemental EIS does not appear to sufficiently address Exective Order 11988 which calls for non-structural solutions in floodplains, whenever possible. The implementation of a levee system frequently gives a false sense of security and encourages continued building in floodplains. Although construction above the 100-year floodplain and/or flood-proofing buildings within the floodplain 1s required by the National Flood Insurance Program, the point to be considered here is whether a structural approach, that is, the levee, is to be preferred over other non-structural approaches that would be less likely to encourage future additional development in the floodplain. “Also, it seems that the deferred construction option (pages 14 and 70) should be given an engineering evaluation rather than be eliminated — because deferred construction is nat a current departmental policy. “There seems to an inconsistency in the evaluation of the Cultural Resources. Pages 53 and 54 indicate that there is a high potential for finding additional sites in the area but the remaining Cultural Resources sections in the document all specify that there is a low potential for finding additional sites." JAY S. HAMMOND, Governor (2 b Responses to comments by the OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, DIVISION OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING (A-95 review): 1. Non structural alternatives to levee construction were addressed in the original EIS for this project. 2. Deferred construction is being considered further. At the present time, the Corps must design and construct all features prior to the local sponsor assuming responsibility. 3. The Cultural Resources sections have been rewritten. A location and identification study of the area has been completed by a professional archaeologist. No cultural resources were found and the potential for finding site was assessed to be low. Te-d Colonel Lee R. Nunn -2- May 7, 1980 The State Clearinghouse has no objection to this document. however, we ' request that you respond to the concerns of DCRA. We would appreciate a — copy of such for our files. 4 This letter satisfies the review requirements of OMB Circular A-95, | Thank you for your cooperation with the review process. Sincerely, ( q Tad Seles Se Michael Whitehead State-Federal Coordinator cc: Commissioner McAnerney, DCRA 4. A copy of our response to DCRA concerns will be forwarded for your files. 2€-G Response to Comments From the ALASKA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER: STATE OF ALASKA / aenmon comer ae hee Chip Dennerlein, Director DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Sevalgetin nota ‘Anchorage, Alaska 99501 DIVISION OF PARKS 274-4676 June 23, 1980 1130-2-1 Harlan E. Moore, Chief Engineering Division Alaska District Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Dear Mr. Moore: This letter is to make comments on the revised cultural resources report entitled "Cultural Resource Reconnaissance of the South Bank of the Tanana River for the Chena River Lakes Project". The report was forwarded under cover letter dated June 11, 1980. We concur with the findings of the principal investigator Julia Steele. If you have further questions, please contact us. Sincerely, Avabshs ere o State Historic Preservation Officer DR/cw LOCAL D-33 se-d Alaska Conservation Soctety Yucorporated tas 1960 P.O. Box 60192 College Branch, Fairbanks, Alaske 99708 May 6, 1980 Colonel Lee R. Nunn U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 7002 . Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Dear Colonel Nunn: This letter supplements the testimony given by the Alaska Conservation Society regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Fairbanks flood protection project. The original EIS was, to our knowledge, the first EIS covering any Alaskan project. The Supplement is noteworthy because it addresses primarily the cultural, economic, and scientific consequenses of the project. In 1976, ACS became alarmed that your agency was involved in moving the Tanana River from its present relatively stable location to some other more convenient location. The Supplemental EIS is the first admission by the Corps of a Engineers that such is, in fact, true. Although 1980 is a for accepting such an obvious environmental consequence of a proposal or agtion taken prior to 1975, we are pleased to be on the same wavelength in our dialogue. The primary purpose of the project is flood protection for Fairbanks. Reference on p. 7 of the DSEIS of “maintenance 2 of current and proposed International Airport facilities and the Alaska Railroad" is an erosion control justification statement, which is not appropriate to the authorized purpose. Moreover, the apparent elimination of the Little Chena Dam from the project may be much more important to the overall flood protection of Fairbanks than the levee completion and groin construction. If and when the Little Chena Dam is KY constructed, ACS requests that its design be modified to utilize the hydropower which would become possible. Approxi- mately 1.5 megawatts of electricity would be available from this project averaged over the year. Responses to comments from the ALASKA CONSERVATION SOCIETY: 1. The Corps of Engineers has no plans to move the Tanana River. Protective structures in the river are designed to assure the integrity of the levee which provides flood protection for Fairbanks. Since the river is not in a stable location, the need for levee protection structures is obvious; however, the impact of a large number of groins built in the river over a relatively small time span could introduce unpredictable sediment erosion and deposition patterns. 2. The accumulation of ancillary benefits from a flood control pro- ject is obviously desirable, even though the levee completion was neither economically justified, planned nor aligned using airport and railroad erosion control as a decision factor. 3. Construction of the Little Chena Dam has been deferred indefinitely. The present project, without the Little Chena Dam, can contain the 100-year recurrance interval flood within the banks of the Cnena River at Fairbanks. Floods less frequent than once in 100 years will begin to flood the area. The Little Chena Dam, as presently designed, does not impound a permanent pool behind it. If, during the final design stage, a permanent pool is reconsidered, the inclusion of Power generating facilities will also be investigated. 9¢e-d Letter to Colonel Nunn May 6, 1980 Page 2 Little Chena River joins the Chena River below the Sieeraten dam. In veco che peak discharge was 17,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) and your design memoranda state that the maximum possible discharge could be 65,000 cfs. Add to this the leakage through the flood gates, the seepage under the diversion dam and levee as well as interior rainfall runoff,and a flood in Fairbanks of approximately the same magnitude (but less frequent recurrence interval) as the 1967 flood is possible. TaAEzOO W The DSEIS has two major organizational problems. First, the downstream consequences of the upstream groin proposal are 4 overlooked. If the upstream groins shift the river braid system 3,000 feet south as advertized, the need for downstream groins and diversions may be unnecessary. Secondly, the effects of in-river gravel extraction, for levee and groin construction and for other uses in the Pairbanks area, may affect the behavior of the river and the stability of the 5 levee more than anything else. The Corps' own project as well as its permitting processes greatly affect gravel extraction, yet no analysis is made of the consequences of short-term intensive or long-term continuous gravel extraction. Another important omission was made in the DSEIS. An increasingly critical "cost" environmentally and even culturally now is the amount of other resources, especially fossil fuels which will be consumed by the project. The amounts of such resources consumed should be assessed in the EIS process. 6 DSEIS that appear to serve as statements of project justification In fact, these statements ‘e not “scientific" because they do 1 not follow from accepted principl and they are not supported by properly referenced research. Reading the DSEIS we became aware that “scientific fact," “engineering judgement," “project justification," “real or imaginary environmental impact," and “historical fantasies" become thoroughly mixed together and inseparable. The following are examples: We found a number of “scientific-sounding" statements in the | 1) p. 38--The northward migration of the Tanana River is taken as fact. We know of no study that has been made that even suggests such a thing. Ice-rich permafrost, thick peat deposits, and scattered ice-wedge polygons occur on both 8 si of the river (USGS Map I-455). This geologic infor- mation would support, instead, the conclusion that the Tanana River location has been relatively stable for al thousand years. Such a perceived potential threat has apparently become almost real in some minds. 4. The ‘protrusions of the groin system into the river averages 1650'. The ,average expansion of the river to the south to accomodate the system will be no greater than this and probably less since the river form ts in a transitional state and the braiding tendency is not very pronounced. This expansion will take place over several decades. 5. The short and long-term effects of gravel extraction are being analyzed under the monitoring and research program administered by the Alaska Projects Office of the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. ~ 6. Fossil fuel consumption was not identified during the scoping Process as a resource to be included in the SEIS. Although fossil fuels would be consumed during levee groin construction, this resource would also be consumed in significant amounts while preserving existing land uses without the levee completion. 7. All EIS statements referenced in the ACS letter's numbered tabula- tion are correct. 8. No readily detectable migration trend is apparent over the 40 years that accurate information on the nistory of Tanana River is available. Local channels have intruded up to 2,000 feet north of the average north bank line during that period. Observations of the Tanana River on a larger scale; however, tends to.confirm the northward migration trend, since the river is up against the hills on the northern rim of the Tanana basin until downstream of Nenana, where the hills stop and the river runs almost directly north. The on-going processes of geostrophic acceleration and preferential north bank thawing do tend to push the river gradually northward. The claim for gradual northward migration, therefore, is well supported. The presence of longstanding on-bank geologic features, although not supported by your arguments, would not be surprising. Channel changes of the Tanana, especially in a southerly direction, are quite likely accomplished by avulsion, rather than a gradual erosion process; thus, permafrost, peat, and other features could remain in place for thousands of years while the river aggrades one channel] and switches sud- denly to another, by passing the on-bank features. Examination of the map mentioned in the letter (USGS Map I-455), does not support the claim that ice-rich permafrost, thick peat deposits and scattered ice wedge polygons occur adjacent to the present river channel. The closest polygon structure is 4 S from the river channel, south of.Salchaket Slough. The map indicates that, in the vicinity of Fairbanks, a 10-mile wide zone from the hills on the north of Fairbanks to south of Salchaket Slough is composed of recent unconsolidated floodplain alluvium of low ice content. No “permanent" features (e.g. polygons) occur in this zone. The contention that the Tanana River has been stable for several thousand years thus appears to have no factual basis. Z€-d Letter to Colonel Nunn May 6, 1980 Page 3 2) 3) 4) Pp. 36--The Tanana is “perched above the floodplain" according to the DSEIS. Actually, discontinuous natural levees from 1 to 4 feet high along the river have led to 9 this erroneous conclusion. A perched stream is one which has an unsaturated percolation zone between the river and the groundwater table. Such is not the case for the Tanana. p- 15--The estimated effect of the upstream groins is to shift the Tanana River 3,000 feet south. There is no geologic structure, change in lithology, river terrace, nor alluvial fan from the Alaska Range that could keep the Tanana River from shifting 10 miles or more to the south. 10 Therefore, once the present conditions of stability of the Tanana River are s a cantly srupte the river wi shift a minimum o: L eet sou ut _may continue to shift 10 miles or more to the south. Neither the river's present stability nor the factors that could trigger a substantial change are known with any degree of certainty at this time. Pp. 36--Statements about Fairbanks weather and climate \u t are incorrect. . Disregarding the natural levees along the river, the slope of the eran on botenetdes of the river is away from the river bank rather than towards it. The bed of the Tanana River is, at some points, about the same elevation as the average ground surface in the Salchaket Slough swale. On the south side of the river this southern sloping of the land away from the Tanana River does not begin until about a mile inland from the bank tt ridge runs more or less parallel to the Tanana River. We tee the fees “perched" varies from discipline to discipline. See Simons’ Sediment Transport Tecnnology, page 49, for an example of use similar to that tn ETS 10. The maximum lateral protrusion of the new upstream groin system is 3,100 feet. The average protrusion is 1,650 feet. Since the river shows no signs of shifting southward due to the present groin at North Pole and the Goose Island Causeway, which since 1975 have protruded 1,800 1, one t and 4,000 feet, respectively, into the Tanana River Channel, be reasonably infer that further groin work would produce no dramatic 1 flows shifts either. The available slopes to produce large out of channe to the south are not available in spite of the lower ground in the Salchaket Slough area. The exception to this is the area near to and upstream of the present upstream end of Salchaket Slough. The available slope is present here. This probably accounts for the presence of Salchaket Slough, and admittedly a shifting of the Tanana River 5 miles to the south is possible at this point, altnough as a result of natural causes rather than human-induced. The Corps agrees that, if all 13 new groins are placed within a short time frame (say 3 years) the local adjustments that the river might make to this rapid and large-scale change are basically unpredictable; and, being such, have the remote possibility, if adverse, of being uncorrectable. If, however, about half that number of groins are built on an incremental as-needed basis over the 100-year life of the project, with adequate time for adjustment and observation between construction periods, no adverse impacts should occur. 11. Statements about Fairbank's weather and climate on page 36 are correct as stated. During periods of extremely low winter temperatures, both ice fog and smog occur, with ice fog merely being the visible manifes- tation of low temperature air pollution. Water itself must be considered @ pollutant under low temperature conditions, since at higher temperatures, the same amount of water would remain as uncondensed water vapor in the air and would notgresent a problem. In addition to water, all other com- ponets of air pollution, including lead, S02, NOx, CO and total hydro- | carbons, are also present, often in high concentrations. Steep temperature | inversions often form over Fairbanks, raising pollution levels to values ! equal to that of Los Angeles, a city with more than 200 times the popula- | tion of Fairbanks. For further information on ice fog and smog, refer to Benson's and Rizzo's 1979 article, “Air Pollution in Alaska," in Alaska's Weather and Climate, ed, Gunter Weller, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, UAG R-269, The statement on page 39 about the Fairbanks area having a high incidence of inclement weather with low visibility throughout the year is incorrect, although ice fog frequently occurs during the winter months. The Fairbanks area is within Alaska's Interior region, which has the most continental Climate in the state. The SEIS has been revised to indicate this. 8€-d 5) Reasons for Chena River backwater area, that is used for moderate draft navigation, are not correct. The Chena River is an underfit stream. The channel is what remains of the pre-1947 Chena Slough which the Corps blocked off. 6) The Pleistocene history of the Tanana is highly speculative and not supported by any scientific studies. 7) +p. 39+-The “story” about the Salchaket is just that, a story. Permafrost accelerates erosion. The fact that the 32, |13| Corps of Engineers states otherwise leads us to conclude that leg the Corps does not have even a basic understanding of the implications of this project. The presence of ice-rich permafrost in the flood plain increases the probability that the river could shift dramatically. Refer to TAPS or Arctic Gas EIS statements for a clearer understanding about permafrost and erosion. Furthermore, what evidence is there that the climate has warmed in the past 80 years? We object strenuously to the continual barrage of “scientific” sounding statements in this EIS that are little more than blind guessing. i 45 12. The backwater effect of the Tanana River on the Chena River has existed in the area for a very long time. This is supported by analyses of Tanana River aggradation and Chena meander sinuosity, as well as testi- mony from long-time Fairbanks residents, including Captain Jim Binkley. The aadit sone aflow and depth in the Chena River, due to Chena Slough, allowed boat traffic to come as far as the Cushman Street bridge, before construction of the Moose Creek Dike in the early 1940's eliminated the Tanana River's flow contribution. Subsequent to that time boat traffic (other tnan small draft pleasure craft) was restricted to that portion of the Chena River that was held above normal (equilibrium) depth by the presence of the Tanana River. This backwater effect was certainly more noticeable after the Moose Creek Dike construction, but it was affecting the lower Cnena River many years before that. 13. The "Pleistocene" history of the Tanana was reconstructed by Hamilton and Andersen of the University of Alaska in 1967. Subsequent observations, including tne well-defined presence of the old Tanana River bank line stretching northwest from Moose Creek Bluff have tended to Support their reconstruction. Note also that the history occurred in geologically recent time (as shown on Map I-455), not in the Pleistocene epoch. 14. Permafrost located on a river bank can accelerate erosion if: (1) It is in more or less continous contact with the water and (2) It is in an area which would not normally be subject to erosion by other river processes. Permafrost located on the outside of a river bend in an area that would otherwise be eroding rapidly has actually been seen to retard erosion. During breakup flooding on Arctic streams, Scott observed that permafrost seemed to retard bank erosion and scour in all the study streams, especially in the smaller ones. Measurements on larger arctic streams indicated that direct permafrost contro] of eroison ended well before the peak discharge for breakup flooding occured. Scott (1979), in Effects of Permafrost on Stream Channel Behavior, USGS Prof Paper 1068, reports that s ely tha e net effect o ie permafrost environment is to create greater channel stability than is found in unregulated streams of similar size in non-permafrost environments, although combinations of factors, particularly those encourageing high rates of thermo-erosional niching, could lead to erosion rates that dictate engineering caution. As for the case of Salchaket Slough, discontinous sheet flow over land will erode more on unfrozen soil than on frozen soil. TAPS and Arctic Gas EIS's refer to the erosive response of excavated permafrost areas. 15. That there has been a general world-wide temperature rise for about a 100 years, peaking about 1940 and then slowly declining, is generally accepted nowadays in the scientific community. Plots of average yearly temperatures since 1900 in the Fairbanks area, although subject to large year-to-year variations, follow the world-wide pattern. 6€-G Letter to Colonel Nunn May 6, 1980 Page 4 Alternative No. 6 in the DSEIS is clearly the best alternative for the levee completion. It costs less than half the "preferred project and has the least environmental impact. How can we pass {\§ up a bargain like that? Alternative No. 6 is not the best yet however. We are still in the process of compiling ideas about modifications and estimate that these ideas will be transmitted to you and other agencies by May 20, 1980. The upstream groin system, we submit, is a gross mistake. The decision to move the Tanana River from its present geologically stable location is a serious one that we will have to live with, and cope with, into the far-distant future. We request that 7 the Corps of Engineers cease all plans to divert the Tanana River because (1) the river has not threatened anything yet and (2) the Corps does not possess the knowledge to understand the implications of such actions. We doubt that the river would have eroded to the levee below the North Pole groin as the Corps feared, because the river gradient would have decreased more than is possible before it ever would have reached the levee We request that the Corps breach all present groins to prevent any chance of further p: ms. Many people believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Goose and groin is the cause of the present erosion problem at the sewage plant outfall and even at the ARR spur site. We also request that one “alternative” to be considered should be the originally authorized project, i.e., build a flood protection levee. What we mean here is for you to design a levee that will work, rather than relying on the present, inadequate thin pile of gravel. The present inadequate levee is not justification to move the river. The present, not even completed, levee is not designed to serve as a fail-safe levee for 100 years. We suggest that it be widened and have significantly shallower sloping sides so they can revegetate. A wider levee would not have such a critical seepage velocity problem either. If rip-rap is considered necessary at some locations, we suggest that the same amount of rip-rap be installed on the levee as is proposed for the diversion groins, but installed in a thinner blanket at a shallower slope. The reason for this is to allow the river to disipate its energy against more rip-rap surface area. All of this construction could be done in spring, summer, and fall. Alyeska Pipeline Company found out the hard way it winter construction wi only 5-10 percent effective summer construction, i.e., it cost 10 to 20 times more in terms of time, manpower, machinery, and fuel than was necessary. 16. Alternative 6 is not acceptable because of interference with airport operations, particularly the ILS. The cost shown in the EIS does not include locally incurred costs, such as rairoad relocation, recalibra- Elon of er compensation for loss of the ILS, and compensation for lost real estate. 17. An upstream groin system in some form is necessary. The river just downstream of the Nortn Pole groin was, in 1974, before the groin was built, within 350 feet of the toe of the levee and eroding at a rate of 80 feet per year with no indications that this rate was slowing. Bend development at other locations on the river in similar circumstances mas eroressed as much as 2,000 feet laterally landward of the original bank line. The comment, “Many people believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Goose Island groin (sic) is tne cause of the present erosion problem at the sewage plant outfall and even at the ARR spur site,” appears to be based on rumor rather than scientific evidence. 18. The seepage problem is under the levee rather than thru the levee. Regardless of the levee section designed, it is impossible to cut off seepage thru the highly pervious gravel which underlays the entire length of the levee to a depth of 500 feet or more. The most economical and obvious solution is to make the seepage path for flood water as long as possible. The levee design, therefore, keeps a minimum of 500 horizontal feet between river bank and levee toe. The overlying silt on the bank has avery low vertical permeability, and most seepage flood water has to travel the 500 + feet horizontally before coming up on the inside of the levee. This seepage length reduces the water seepage volume and velocity to acceptable levels. Ov-d Letter to Colonel Nunn May 6, 1980 Page 5 Don't divert the Tanana River---that is the wrong choice. There are| other solutions to the problems associated with the levee, the 19 railroad, and the airport than moving the Tanana River. Moving the river is very likely the worst possible alternative. How we resolve these problems is, as John Haines said, “What will determine what kind of people we are." Sincerely yours, ALASKA CONSERVATION SOCIETY Ribot B cheen Robert B. Weeden President cc: Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly State Division of Lands State Division of Transportation State Department of Environmental Conservation RBW:pd 19. Comments are noted. PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS D-41 Responses to comments by CHARLES M. BINKLEY, ALASKA RIVERWAYS, INC.: 1. All comments are noted. April 30, 1980 ALASKA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS Post Office Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Attention: Lee R. Nunn, Colonel Corps of Engineers District Engineer Re: DSEIS Chena River Lakes Project NPAEN-PL-EN, Letter 7 March 1980 Gentlemen: ev-d This letter is in response to the Col. Nunn invitation of 7 March 1980 for comments respecting the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement enclosed with the 7 March 1980 letter. I am not going to make extensive comments, since the DSEIS contains several pages of previous comments I have made. How- ever, my previous comments were made during the constantly changing plans with respect to the in-river facilities pro- posed as the design progressed. I do not wish to have my | failure to comment construed as approval of the latest form of those in-river facilities now proposed in the DSEIS. a First, I wish to make a record of my impressions of the DSEIS. I call attention to the Administrative Procedure: Environmen- | tal Impact Statements applicable to Corps of Engineers projects as published in 33 C.F.R. 209.410, in which the following | statement is made at §209.410(i) (7): | (7) Environmental statements will be based on CEQ 'Guidelines' Appendix A; the guidance of Appendix C, and the following: "(i) Describe the proposed action concisely using simple terms. Describe the environmental impacts and effects sufficiently to provide a careful assessment, evaluation, and independent vv-d ALASKA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS -2- - April 30, 1980 appraisal of the favorable and adverse en- vironmental, social and economic primary and secondary effects of the recommended proposal and each considered alternative. This dis- cussion will include the impacts associated with O&M requirements during the life of the project. In no case will possible adverse effects be ignored or slighted in an attempt to justify an action previously recommended or currently supported. Conversely, avoid over- stating either favorable or unfavorable effects." In my opinion this particular DSEIS wasan attempt to the action recommended rather than a fair and iupartiaurenclee sis of the impacts of the recommended action. Several submis- sions were included opposing or questioning in-river struc- tures, including my own, but these were ignored in the dis- mn. The only statements made about such effects were statements to the effect that adverse effects are “highly unlikely", "extremely unlikely", or having “extremely slight possibilities." The authority for such statements is apparent- ly a Northwest Hydraulics report of 1980, which is not even included in the draft EIS submitted to the public. Without any supporting discussion and without any reference to opposing views I believe that this EIS is a plain overstatement of the case in support of a preconceived project. I recognize that the proposed Plan 2 is an improvement over Plan 1, but I oppose Plan 2, also. In my opinions based upon my experience with the Tanana River, Plan 2 only slightly re- duces the danger to the South and West banks of the Tanana River, and therefore, navigation on the Chena River. It will still be guided into a direct attack on those banks, and I be- lieve there is a high degree of risk of failure. I am now alarmed by one additional feature, which, to the best of my knowledge, has appeared in an EIS for the first time. This involves the placing of thirteen groins upstream of the present airport project. All of these groins will be intrusions into the river. Their purpose is to compress and hold the Tanana River into its present channel. This is, in effect, attempting to drive a naturally Northward drifting river to the South. In the process, in my opinion, it will compress the river and force it into a faster flow. That can have no other effect than to increase the pressures against the South a ov Responses to comments by CHARLES M. BINKLEY, ALASKA RIVERWAYS, INC.: 1. All comments are noted. 2. Opposing views, including objections to an in river scheme were discussed in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in Section 1.02 Areas of Controversy and in Section 6.04 Pulic Views and Responses. In ai on, letters received in response to our scoping etter were printed in entirety within Appendix D. Sections 1.02 and 6.04 have been expanded in the final SEIS. 3. The best professional opinion available is that of Northwest Hydraulics, Ltd. of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. In their report dated January 1980, which evaluates a levee extension (Phase III), are the following statements: a. “...the Phase III works, either as proposed by the Corps or with modifications as suggested herein, are extremely unlikely to have any adverse effects on water levels in the Tanana River downstream, or in the Chena River.” b. “With the modified levee and groin layout ... we believe the adverse effects on downstream bed levels and navigation depths due to the works are extremely unlikely.” Copies of this report were circulated to Federal, State, and local authorities, environmental groups, and individuals who expressed an interest in the project. To reduce the amount of paper work associated with the SEIS, information, including the Northwest Hydraulics, Ltd. report, is incorporated by reference as specified in Council on Environmental Quality regulations found in 40 FR 1500.4, November 29, 1978. Information concerning all referenced documents may be obtained by contacting the Alaska District. 4. Comment is noted. See Section 1.03 Unresolved Issues and Section VI Public Involvement. 5. The purpose of the upstream groins system is to prevent river erosion of the bank in front of the levee. Some bank progression to the south, opposite the groins, should take place over a period of years after their construction; however, since the river does tend to migrate northward when not restrained, no additional pressure should be felt on the south bank downstream of the groin field. Experience with in place Tanana River groins has shown that the river does tend to the north, just downstream of the groin tip. Sv-d ALASKA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS =-3- April 30, 1980 and West bank opposite the mouth of the Chena River. I still maintain from my observation that every manmade effort to change the Tanana River downstream effects. Several of these have occurred in the past, and many of them have caused damaging effects. I objett to any thirteen groin levee pro- tection program such as has been proposed in this DSEIS. I am not satisfied with the statements in the DSEIS that the Corps of Engineers will monitor the Tanana River during con- struction, The Corps has given no indication as to what they would do with the information they obtained by monitoring. If some detrimental effects begin to materialize, we will be en- gaged in another argument as to whether or not it is caused by the project or natural causes, There is no pledge by the cores that it would do anythingt to remedy any detrimental ef- ects. In addition the Corps pledges only to monitor during construc~- tion, whereas it is highly likely that damage resulting from the construction could take place one, two or more years after construction. I do not feel justified in relying on the pledge to monitor the situation contained in the present DSEIS. I keep open the possibility that if the Corps feels so strongly about the need for this particular in-river project, and if it feels so confident that no harm will result from it, it will undertake in advance the obligation to hold me harmless from the loss of my business and my livelihood, if the Corps should turn out to be wrong. Very truly yours, . a af . Cc hacliei) on fife [eth Alas ha hin imag Wig CHARLES M. BINKLEY ALASKA RIVERWAYS, INC. CMB:mfa TqR0e Ww . The Corps has established a committee of highly qualified facet eapahts which have determined criteria for monitoring the Tanana River and who will analyze all data collected to identify trends occuring as a result of construction. Formal monitoring using project funds will end upon completion of all Corps construction throughout the project, approximately two to three years after completion of the levee near Fairbanks International Airport. Should a project deficiency be discovered during or after construction, the Corps will take action to correct the deficiency. 9¢-d April 9, 1980 Department of Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District P. 0. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Colonel Lee R. Nunn: 1. In response to your letter of March 20 to Mayor John Carlson, Fair- banks North Star Borough, concerning the Corp's interpretation of Borough Assembly resolution 79-75, I wish to go on record to reiterate that this resolution states: “Corps has agreed that if construction of an in river system takes place, the Corps will carefully monitor down-river effects for three years and take remedial action if deterioration of navigability or serious down-river erosion related to the project takes place. It is my interpretation that this means approval is contingent upon an assumption of responsibility by the Army Corps of Engineers. I, as one borough assemblymember, do not feel the Corps can relinquish its responsibilities. 2. I object to the short notice given on the DSEIS public meeting. I received eight (8) days public notice of this meeting and it was scheduled dure the Assembly's tax appeal hearing week, thereby precluding any assemblymember's involvement. 3. Please include this letter as part of my testimony on the DSEIS Chena River Lakes Project. Detailed written testimony will be sub- mitted prior to 9 May 1980. ASSEMBLYMEMBER FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH Responses to comments by Mr. Kevin Harun: 1. An Ad Hoc Committee composed of prominent scientists and engineers knowlegable in river geomorphology has developed detailed criteria for monitoring the Tanana River before and during construction. Should the committee identify trends resulting from construction which are likely to result in severe downstream erosion or impeded navigation, corrective measures will be taken. 2. We regret that you did not receive the notice for DSEIS public meeting earlier and were unable to attend. As noted in the public notice, written comments are encouraged. 3. This letter has been included in the final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. APPENDIX E Pertinent Correspondence Received Prior to Circulation of DSEIS Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Division of Design and Construction Alaska Department of Transportation, Divison of Aviation Design and Construction University of Alaska, University Museum Charles M. Binkley Warren C. Steen J.A. Carroll E-1 e>d SUAVE OF ALASKA / +: om DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES apt pases Soap FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701 INTERIOR REGION, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION (907) 462-1911 November 27, 1979 Alaska District, Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Attn: Environmental Section Gentlemen: We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Corps of Engineers Flood Protection project for the Tanana River between the Moose Creek Dam Extension and the Fairbanks International Airport. Our comments are as follows: Tanana River Levee The general alignment of the Tanana River Levee is considered favorable for the long range control of the river. However, the levee should be continued down- stream to the mouth of the Chena River, and then from the mouth of the Chena to the upper end of the existing riprapped-bank in the vicinity of the Chena Pump Road wayside. This extension of the levee will provide a more complete protection for the airport and the Property downstream from it without altering the flow pattern of the river. Use of Groins for River Control During the early 1960's the Corps of Engineers warned Department of Highways personnel about using groins for the control of braided streams in the Interior of a; i.e., the Corps said that groins should not be u to control rivers like the Tanana. Since the Department didn't fully accept the Corps’ advice, we had to learn the hard way that groins weren't appropriate for the control of the Tan: other similar streams. —— Corps of Engineers Page 2 November 27, 1979 Consequently, we have had some unfavorable experiences with the use of groins. And at this point in time we feel obligated to inform the Corps that their prior advice was sound. The Department has learned from its own experience, and now knows that it is not practical to install groins in the Tanana River. The reason being that the stream currents in the Tanana change in direction and magnitude too rapidly to allow the use of groins. In fact the chaotic patterns of flow in this river make it virtually impossible to establish an effective system of groins for stream control. Therefore, the Department of Transportation suggests that the Corps of Engineers not install any more groins to control the Tanana River. And that the money that would be spent on groins be spent in strengthening the Tanana River Levee with the use of riprap. It is the opinion of our geologists and engineers that the only way to control the Tanana River is by protect- ing the river bank with continuous riprap or by construc- ting a riprapped levee. The use of groins in conjunction with the levee will only make it more difficult for the levee to function properly. Pilot Channel Southeast of the Airport If the levee is extended and protected with riprap as we have suggested, there will be no need for a pilot channel. Actually a pilot channel has no value if the river chooses to not use it. We feel the concept of protecting the north river bank and allowing the Tanana to seek its own course will offer the beneficial impacts ded for the protection of airport property and offer the least possible adverse impacts to the other concerns. Sincerely, Zaha: Acting Interior Regional Engineer AZ/MT/saj ps SUAVE OF ALASIA / -+-mn en DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Umar Avene DIVISION OF AVIATION ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99502 DESIGN @ ComsTRUCTION (TELEX 26-165) December 6, 1979 Re: Tanana River Protective Groin System Colonel Lee R. Nunn District Engineer Alaska District, Corps of Engin P. 0. Box 7002 Anchorage, AK 99510 ATTN: Environmental Section Dear Colonel Nunn: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the potential impacts of the protective groin system on the Tanana River. Addressing this issue only as it affects Fairbanks International Airport, I can see only positive impacts. I continue to support the groin concept because it would provide erosion protection for airport property and obviate the need for spending money each year to protect the airport railroad spur embankment. Last summer the Department of Transportation spent approximately $250,000 to temporarily protect the railroad embankment and I expect similar expenditures in the future unless the groin system is built, Sincerel ‘Clayfon C. Director Ge4 UNIVERSITY MUSEUM. UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA COLLEGE ALASKA 99701 January 14, 1980 Lezette Boyer Environmental Section Alaska District Corps of Engineers Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Dear Ms. Boyer: Please find, enclosed, the archeological assessment of of the Tanana River prepared by the University of ey cin ese on the research design developed for the Ft. Wainwright study and the field work conducted this past summer it is our evaluation that the shores of the Tanana River just south of Fairbanks have the potential for historic and archeological sites. As such, we recommend that a program be developed for locating, evaluating, and mitigating any adverse effect for sites that exist in the area under consideration in this assessment. If you have any questions or comments concerni this assessment, please feel free to contact our office. be Sincerely, PF foorg George S. Smith Research Associate ARCHEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE SHORELINE OF THE TANANA RIVER JUST BELOW FAIRBANKS IN CONNECTION WITH ‘THE PROPOSED CHENA LEVEE EXTENSION PROJECT. PREPARED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA MUSEUM DECEMBER 1979 Introduction: This assessment of the archeological potential of the shores of the Tanana River south of Fairbanks was prepared in response to a request by the Alaska District, Corps of Engineers. Although the area considered here was not one of the preselected sampling areas developed for the Museum's contract with the Corps, to conduct a reconnaissance level survey in preselected sampling areas on Ft. Wainwright and surrounding Army lands, we feel obliged to supply what information we can because the results of our 1979 field work are not yet available in report form. Although the shores of the Tanana River were only surveyed from the air the data generated by the research design developed for this project included the Tanana River shoreline and can be applied to this assessment. Xerox maps of the project were provided by the Corps of Engineers in Anchorage and additional data was provided by the Corps’ Fort Wainwright office. This information indicates that the proposed Chena Levee extension will extend the existing levee by approximately 2 1/2 miles and will include 3 to 4 protective groins. The area proposed for this construction is an area just south of the Fairbanks International Airport. Although no borrow pits have been designated in the proposed construction area it is possible that material could be taken from sources in the area such as Goose or other Islands. It is expected that construc- tion will divert the Tanana River, however, the extent of this diversion is not known at this time. Estimates provided by the Corps of Engineers range between approximately 300 meters being affected along the south shore, to no affect at all. As a federally funded and licensed project the framework and authority for considering cultural resources which we must deal with in our assess- ment are spelled out in a number of regulations. These include the 1906 9-3 Antiquities Act, the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the Reservoir and Salvage Act of 1966, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1974, Army Regulation AR 200-1, Environmental Protection and Enhancement (1975), Chapter 8 -- Historic Preservation, and the Alaska Historic Preservation Act of 1975. These regulations, specifically the two which apply directly to water related construction projects (Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 and the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974) specify that cultural resources within the areas that will be affected by dams, flooding, roads, or the alterations of the terrain caused by such projects must be identified, evaluated, and mitigating measures developed for those sites that will be already impacted by any phase of the project. In order to be in compliance with the above regulations it is first necessary to identify all archeological and historic sites within the study area. In this case the area under consideration is the south shore of the Tanana River as well as the areas selected for the proposed levee and protective groin extension on the north shore of the Tanana near the International Airport. The first step in the procedure is to review all pertinent archeological and historic literature for the locations of any sites recorded in the affected area. This has already been accomplished in connection with the research conducted by the University of Alaska Museum for the Fort Wainwright Archeological Project, conducted in 1979. Next it is necessary to develop an archeological survey in order to locate undocumented sites. Part of any cultural resource survey is the research design. The research design developed for the Fort Wainwright project has already been completed. It can readily be applied to this assessment because the south shore of the Tanana falls within the area covered by the research design. The application of the research design to the Chena Levee Extension will be discussed in the following section. Once the affected a has been surveyed and sites located it is then necessary to determine the significance of the discovered sites and impact which may result from the Chena Levee Extension Project. Therefore, the minimum develop mitigating measures for avoiding an adve: requirement concerning cultural resources for the Chena Levee Extension Project consists of locating historic and prehistoric sites that fall within both primary and secondary impact areas, determining their signif- icance, developing mitigating measures to avoid adverse effect to these sites, and finally implementing these measures. Intensive systematic excavation is not the only solution to mitigate potential destruction of archeological sites. Mitigation consisting of one or more of the following must be applied to all sites that will be adversely impacted by the Chena Levee Extension Project. 1. Avoidance: removing. the destructive force, such as re- locating a borrow pit, or realigning a groin. 2. Preservation: preserving the resource or minimizing the effect of the project on it. This may consist of stabilizing or reconstructing the site or protecting it by fencing, patroling, monitoring, or public education. 3. Investigation: conservation of the information contained within the site through adequate study before the site is destroyed. In most cases this consists of a fullscale problem oriented excavation program. Mitigation implies the consideration of a complex set ef alternatives. designed to reduce or remove the adverse impact by a particular project, in this case the Chena Levee Extension Project. As such, alternatives must be developed that are specific to the project's needs as well as cultural resources involved. Evaluation of Archeological Potential In the summer of 1979 the University of Alaska Museum conducted a reconnaissance level survey of one selected portion of the Fort Wainwright Cantonment and the Blair Lakes Bombing Range, an area in exc of 1,000 square mil rch design developed for this project and the data gathered as a result of the implementation of the design can be applied to the evaluation of the archeological potential along the shores of the Tanana River south of Fairbanks. The research design developed for the Fort Wainwright Project synthesized data dealing with the fauna, flora, geology, archeology, ethnographic data, . The re: iA and history in a diachronic perspective in order to select sampling loca’ within the study area. As a result, certain areas were identified as having the potential for pre erving sites representing five different time 10,000 B.C. or greater, Early Denali -- 10,900 B.C. periods; i.e. Early sites 4,500 B.C., Northern Archaic/Late Denali -- 4,500 B.C. - A.D. 1,000, Late Prehist Athapaskan -- A.D. 1,000 to A.D. 1850, and Historic A.D. 1850 to present. Are ected for sampling during the 1979 field season were those areas where the potential for preservation of sites representing all these time periods was possible. These “high potential" areas were then surveyed by means of both surface and subsurface testing techniques as well as aerial reconnaissance. Prior to on-the-ground testing a helicopter flyover (at an altitude of 150m) of the selected sampling areas (as well as helicopter transects of other areas) was conducted. Although no sites were located during aerial reconnaissance 52 sites were located during on the ground testing. The helicopter transects developed for this project were not successful due to dense vegetation in most areas, especially along the major drainages such as the Tanana River. The three sites that did have surface indications were not seen from the air although they were subject to aerial reconnaissance before and after these sites were located, consequently, helicopter flyover was the only method employed for site survey along the south shore of the Tanana River. This survey located no sites along the south shore of the Tanana River. However, as previously mentioned, local dense vegetation makes this survey technique difficult to apply in this area. It should be stressed that were discovered during the 1979 survey were that over 80% of the sit found through subsurface testing. These sites demonstrated no observable surface indications. Within the five sampling areas six (6) sites were located in the hills on the north boundary of the Fort Wainwright Cantonment twenty-six (26) sites were located on the Wood River Buttes, fifteen (15) sites were located in the Blair Lakes area, and five (5) sites were located én Clear Creek Buttes Although no sites were located during aerial reconnaissance along the south shore of the Tanana a high potential for site preservation exists. The research design developed for this project suggests that the Tanana River margins hold excellent potential for preserving sites of historic and Late Prehistoric Athapaskan periods. Recent surficial geologic deposits which include reworked river gravels, swamp deposits, and recent flood- Plain alluvium may preclude discovery of archeological sites representing earlier periods. This does not mean that older sites could not be deeply buried in this area -- only that the surface geological deposits are too young to contain sites from the earlier periods. However, these older sites may be exposed in erosional areas. Historic Period (present to A.D. 1850) Both the north and south shores of the Tanana River have the potential for yielding historic age sites. Information concerning the early develop- ment of Fairbanks, such mining, the town of Chena, and the Bonnifield Trail, as well as recent historic information concerning the Wood River and Chena Athapaskan bands, clearly indicate both non-native and Native historic use of the area, Historic use, in most cases, is recognized by observations of surface features such as cabin remains, house depressions, cache pits, clearings, etc. In most cases, however, from the air these features y be obscured due to dense vegetation. Under such conditions foot survey thods would be the most reliable for locating sites dating to this time period. Late Prehistoric Athapaskan (A.D. 1,850 - + 1,000) Analysis of the ethnographic literature concerning interior Athapaskan settlement and subsistence Patterns and their relation to ecological variables provide site location data which can be applied to the shores of the Tanana River. Ethnographic literature (Helm 1969; McKennan 1959, 1965, 1969; Guedon 1975; Andrews 1977) indicates that Athapaskan settlements were located in areas that enabled the exploitation of two primary animal S=s] resources -- caribou and salmon. Concentration of these resources focused precontact populations into primary settlements from which a variety of less concentrated species, such as small mammals, waterfowl, moose, etc. could also be harvested. Exploitation of these secondary species resulted in satellite camps which are located along river, lake, and stream margins, and overlooks providing panoramic views of the surround- ing terrain. Primary winter settlements are situated along clearwater tributari to mon spawning streams. Several Athapaskan villages have been reported near the area under sessment. One occupied by the Wood River band of Athapaskans is located on the Wood River where it empties into the Tanana River. Another settlement of this same band is reported up the Wood consideration in this a: River near Wood River Buttes. Two additional settlements belonging to the Chena band of Athapaskans are located on the north shore of the Tanana River down river from the proposed Chena Levee extensions. Based on a review of data pertinent to the Tanana River south of Fairbanks and a field survey of military land in the immediate a it is Possible to ess the potential for archeological sites in this area. There is a high potential for sites representing historic and late pre- historic Athapaskan periods to be present within the area of the flood control project. Although older period sites may exist in the a surficial geologic deposits are more recent, thus probably diminishing the potential for discovering sites dating to these periods. Although these sites may exist in the area, they are likely deeply buried by the recent sediments unless exposed through erosional processes, such as river or stream cutting. Based on the foregoing analysis it is necessary to develop a survey program that will locate sites that may exist along the shores of the Tanana River in those areas that will be affected by the Chena Levee Extension Project. Recommendations: As there is a high potential for preservation of historic and pre- historic archeological sites along the shores of the Tanana River it is recommended that an archeological survey program be developed and conducted prior to the construction phase of the Chena Levee Extension Project. Such a program should include very low level helicopter aerial nce and on-the-ground survey and testing of the entire area reconna. to be impacted by the Chena Levee Extension Project. The vegetated islands in the impact area should be considered as well. At minimum, a survey strategy should take into consideration the local environment along the margins of the Tanana River. The program should include both surface reconnaissance and subsurface testing. Sites located should be systematically tested, mapped, soil profiles drawn, artifacts plotted and the appropriate mitigating measures developed and implemented. An effort should be made to collect samples suitable for radiocarbon dating in order to determine the temporal placement of sites, if possible. In addition, the area on the north shore of the Tanana River proposed for actual le and pro- tective groin construction, including borrow pits, should be included in the survey program. Furthermore, it is recommended that any ground disturbing activities be avoided in this area until the recommended studies are completed. 6-4 December 16, 1979 Department of the Army Alaska District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Attn: Environmental Section Re: Jay K. Soper, Chief, Engineering Division's letter dated November 13, 1979 Gentlemen: I have received the Soper letter of November 13, 1979, including the request for written comments to be submitted prior to November 30, 1979. I am sorry that my schedule and consultation requirements did not allow me to respond prior to the suggested date. However, since it was a request for my comments I am making them as soon as possible. To preface my opinions and comments, I call attention to facts which you already know, that I am not an engineer but that my opin- ions are based upon a lifetime of riverboat experience and observa- tion of the mechanics of the Tanana and Chena Rivers. I recognize that my opinions conflict in some cases with the opinions of some engineers, but I also understand that some engineering opinions sup- port my views. All that demonstrates to me is that river engineer- ing is far from an exact science which does not replace the input of practical experience. My views with respect to the levee construction in the Tanana River are well known to you. I have stated these views many times and they have appeared in the record of public hearings, in previous communi- cations with the Alaska District and its representatives, and in private meetings with District Engineers and the Corps' Engineering staff. Rather than repeat all of those views I am attaching letters to the Corps of Engineers dated July 19, 1978 and September 5, 1978. Also enclosed is a copy of my attorney's letter dated August 1, 1979. I still believe in the statements and opinions made in those letters and I believe they respond to the levee construction portion Alaska District, Corps of Engineers December 16, 1979 Page 2. of the Soper November 13, 1979. letter. Other matters in the Soper letter also require comment. This is the first time I have noticed the proposal of 13 or 15 groins along the length of the Tanana River levee. According to the attached sketch several of these including the three at the airport turn will project from the north side into the existing riverbed. My rule-of =thumb is that every manmade disturbance of the riverbed or invasion into it creates downstream consequences. All of these groins are an attempt to force a naturally northerly drifting river to the south, Each one of them will concentrate the Tanana River into a narrower space and increase its flow. The net result will concen- trate the river even more dangerously at the airport bend, and if the three groins are placed in the river at that bend the pressure at the south and west banks of the Tanana will be greatly increased. My prediction of a breakthrough is even more firm with all of that up-river disturbance. Since this request for comments deals with environmental impacts I wish to call your attention to the fact that the first in your list of considerations is "navigation". That is consistent with the em- phasis placed upon “navigation, present and prospective" in regula- tions dealing with the responsibility of the Corps of Engineers in navigable waters. Navigation comes first, and I urge you to consi- der it in its rightful place when evaluating environmental impacts. I have been furnished a copy of Design Memorandum No. 27 entitled "Effects of Levee Construction on the Tanana River". This appears to be an engineering-type analysis of the effect on the Tanana River of the levee and three groins intended to be placed in the River at the airport bend. Since it is an engineering study I am not pre- pared to analyze it, except that its opinions and conclusions about the effect on the Tanana River and the confluence with the Chena River are contrary to my opinions based upon my experience with that River. I intend to obtain some engineering study of Design Memorandum No. 27, and I would like to reserve the right to make further comment with respect to that Memorandum, Very truly yours, 8 per Kinte ey get Jim Binkley a Riverways, Inc. JB:df Attachments OL-J Alaska Riverways, Inc. ca P.O. Box G A Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 ' oe 4907) 479-6673 ———— July 19, 1978 Alaska District, Corps of Engineers ATTN: Regulatory Functions Branch P.O. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 COMMENTS BY CAPT. JIM BINKLEY NPACO-RF, Tanana River 63. Gentlemen: These comments are made pursuant to the invitation of the Public Notice dated June 21, 1978 concerning the Second Phase of the Tanana River Levee project. When I saw the Vicinity Map attached to the Notice and read the description of the proposed work, I became alarmed. The sketched levee with its groins appears to completely shut off the airport bend of the river, and the diversion channel appears to cut off the opposite bend on the south side, terminating at the westerly bank of the south bend. Such radical changes in the river channel would in my opinion immediately redirect the downriver couse of the river. Being concerned because of the Notice, I undertook to investigate the Corps’ intentions more specifically. Corps personnel in Anchorage were cooperative with my Company's representative and furnished copies of the December 1977 Supplement to the environmental impact statement and Design Memorandum No. 24 pertaining to this project. Studying these documents reveals that the Public Notice is totally inadequate to advise the public of the actual proposed project. The design now proposed is a shortened version of a previous diversion proposal, which was intended to eliminate the present mouth of the Chena. That previous proposal was criticised on the basis of the lowering of the Chena and loss of navigation in the Chena and Tenana in public hearings and the environmental impact statement supple- ment in February 1975. This present design apparently is intended to eliminate that criticism by reintroducing the diverted river into its present channel after cutting off the airport bend. In the opinion of this writer, the change in design does not eliminate the problem of the loss of the mouth of the Chena. Instead of being planned for, as previously, the diversion from the Chena con- fluence is now predictable from the river changes caused by the pro- posed plans. I predict that the accelerated and directed flow of the diverted course of the Tanana River will cut the channel more directly across the south behd, impact the force of the river against the west- erly bank of the south bend and cut new more southerly channels for the Tanana across the north bend in front of the Chena mouth. This Alaska District Corps of Engineers July 19, 1978 Page two result is considered probable in the discussion of Alternate I in Design Memorandum No. 24 with the same diversion channel as proposed but with a longer levee. I see no difference between these plans so far as effect on the Chena is concerned. The inevitable result, in my opinion, will be the loss of the present mouth of the Chena. I believe my opinion has merit. I am a licensed riverboat captain. I have piloted riverboats on the Yukon, Tanana and Chena rivers for 39 years. As a riverboat pilot, I must be and have been intimately acquainted with the vagaries of the rivers on which we operate. I must be constantly aware of the changes in the channel location, channel depth, and water velocity. To aid in my knowledge of the river, I am constantly taking soundings, watching shifts in the river channels, watching erosion of banks and bars, and watching build up of bars. To supplement my knowledge by observation I have done some studies of geology of the area and hydrology. Most of the changes in the river are explainable and predictable. I believe that I personally have the greatest amount of knowledge of the Tanana River and navigable portion of the Chena River by experience of any person. Alaska Riverways, Inc., with which I am an owner and active riverboat pilot, has been operating on the Chena and Tanana rivers since 1950. That company currently operates two commerical vessels licensed and certified by the U.S. Coast Guard to carry passenger's for hire. One vessel is licensed to carry 150 passengers and one is licensed to carry 335 passengers. We operate on a daily basis from about Break-up to Freeze-up, and are considered as a common carrier. This operation is one of the popular history-oriented tourist attrac- tions in the State of Alaska, and will carry approximately 25,000 passengers during 1978. It is foregoing extensive experience upon which I base my opinion that the proposed channel diversion will cause the ultimate withdrawal of the Tanana away from the mouth of the Chena. In my opinion the angle of discharge and concentrated force of the diversion channel will cause the main channel of the Tanana to move northward from its old channel along the long rounded curve of the south bend, to cut directly across that bend. This phenomena has been aided by the extensive dredging operations for borrow allowed by the Corps of Engineers in the past on the north side of the south bend. This stronger east-to-west flow across the south bend will project more heavily against the westerly bank at nearly a right angle. This force at this angle will create exactly the same problem on this west bank as is presently the problem at the railroad bank which this project is attempting to cure. This west bank of the northerly course of the Tanana opposite the Chena River mouth is a fragile bank, already bearing remains of the beds of portions of the river which have broken through this bank in the past. In my opinion this bank will not hold the Tanana in its present course across the A Ala: District, Corps of Engineers July 19, 1978 Page three fact of the Chena. When it will break through depends on many factors such as weather, upstream activity, etc., but in my opinion it is certain. At a hearing on this matter I intend to have ‘available professional expert evidence to support my opinion. Should the Tanana shift its main channel away from the face of the Chena River, the admitted result will be the loss of the damming effect on the Chena, so that the lower Chena will carry only the small amount of water carried in that river at Fairbanks and above. Its level will drop. Navigability in the Chena and in the Tanana to the mouth of the Chena and below will be lost. This loss of water in the Chena will have many environmental effects. A full river will become a small stream. All of those peo- ple now living and owning property along the 6 miles of the lower Chena will be damaged by loss of the beauty and usefulness of the river. Businesses, including a float plane airport, float plane guide services, a barging port, and my Company's riverboat operation will be destroyed. Even public small-boat traffic, which is now plentiful, will be seri- ously curtailed. A stream, which has been navigable since 1901, the navigability of which has been a part of the history of Alaska, will lose that valuable characteristic. In the case of Alaska Riverways, Inc., there will be no way that the business can survive if the present mouth of: the Chena, with its natural damming effect, is lost. There is no other use for the river- boats in the area. The tourist attraction, with its favorable impres- sion of Alaska and its history, and with its economic benefit to Alaska and Fairbanks, will be lost. The riverboat landing with roads, resi- dences and facilities related to it will be useless. My livelihood, as well as that of several employee members of my family, and employ- ment of several other persons are dependent upon the riverboat opera- tion. We will be out of business. At this point I wish to complain about the adequacy of the envi- ronmental impact statements on this project. The Public Notice refers to a final statement filed October 27, 1971 and supplements dated February 1975 and December 1977. According to the Notice, from these it has been determined that “this proposed work will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment" and that no further state- ment is needed. Referring to those statements we find that the original 1971 statement did not contemplate a river diversion in the airport bend and did not discuss its impact. The 1975 statement did contem- plate a diversion which would intentionally divert the Tanana away from the Chena mouth} that diversion was severly criticised in that version of the statement because of the effect on navigation and the environment due to the loss of the Chena mouth, specifically mention- Alaska District, Corps of Engineers July 19, 1978 Page four ing the prevention of the Alaska Riverways, Inc. continued operation and other uses. Now comes the December 1977 supplemental which attaches, as Exhibit 3, a plan which appears to be similar to the present proposal. Despite the previous history of adverse public hearings and the ad- verse comments in the 1975 statement, this new statement says not one word about the environmental, social and economic effects, including navigation, on the downstream Tanana and the Chena. The statement seems to assume, without any discussion at all, that the new diversion design will have no downstream or Chena effects at all. Tinkering with a river channel, particularly the Tanana, will necessarily have some downstream effect, and I suggest that an environmental statement which completely ignores a statement on those effects is totally deficient. Without it the public is deceived. The 1977 statement rejects the alternative of doing nothing at the airport bend on the basis that that would eliminate the planned flood protection for Fairbanks, and it rejects the alternative of relocating the railroad with the following concluding sentence in paragraph 5.03.3: "Socio-economic impacts associated with this alternative are considered to heavily outweigh any environmental advantages, thus it is not viable.” That sentence has no support in the statement, indicating either the adverse socio-economics or the environmental advantages. What socio- economic consideration? What environmental considerations? Was the endangering of the mouth of the Chena with all of its associated im- pacts considered? Maybe it would be determined that the public good would be best served by moving the railroad and putting all of the levee and protection devices on land and not in the river, as sug- gested in paragraph 5.03.3, if all advantages and disadvantages were fully explored and discussed. I suggest that the present environmental statements are totally inadequate. I raise one other question. The basic reason for the diversion of the Tanana is to prevent further erosion at the railroad corner, and to protect the new dike at that point. I suggest that flood control is one thing and erosion control is another. The project authorized by Congress is for flood control. The Corps of Engineers appears to me to be using that authority to solve an erosion problem which has nothing to do with flood control, and which I contend is the product of previous activity upstream in the Tanana. The policy of the Corps has been to drive the ana south as an erosion control measure and to provide readily acc ible borrow sources from the river bed. Several episodes of river disturbance have occurred with the last el-3 Alaska District, Corps of Engineers July 19, 1978 Page five ten (10) years, but some have been of serious proportions. The first the major L shaped levee which diverted the river southward by ling off two northerly branches of the river upstream from Goose ind. Another was the Goose Island causeway. The net effect of these southerly diversions has been the concentration of the river into a destructive channel for its return north. Prior to the up- stream diversions the Tanana held to three graceful, large curves which I have called the airport bend, the South Bend and the Chena mouth bend. These bends were stable with slow erosion over periods of many years. Within the last 2 or 3 years the erosion has greatly accelerated on the outside of all 3 curves. In my opinion these are erosion problems created the upstream activities, resulting in the right-angle problem at the railroad corner. I am not opposed to flood control. I believe it is necessary, but I object to erosion control, particularly to correct previous mistakes, under the guide of flood control. I also realize that corrective action at the railroad-airport corner is necessary. That problem has to be solved. I do object to its solution by a method solving that problem, only to create another just as bad from my point of view at the next bend. My view of the engineering consequences of this project apparently differs from that of the Corps of Engineers. If I am right and the Corps is wrong, the results can be tragic. I dare not allow this project to proceed without objection. If the Corps does proceed and my business is harmed, I expect to consider that the Corps has taken my property. On the other hand, I do not want to be solely an obstructionist. I would be happy to participate in efforts to find an acceptable en- gineering alternative. In addition I would be happy to engage in ion with the Corps with the idea of establishing some promises, » or other contractual obligation giving my some protection by dredging, channel diversion, or other means in the event this particular proposal is implemented. I recognize that the Corps considers this to be an emergency, and I am ready and Lore to engage in discussion immediately, even in advance of a public aring. Very truly yours, Captain C. M. (Jim) Binkley CMB: smk Wesputos, Froniicn, Powke & Lakcrisu LAwTERS ey) OAK OF Cac OM COmiem SEATTLE WASHINGTON HOI Ames Cone 208 882 1790 aminue Yemen er es Lav Tom a mom memmemT ) Lanerine i MEMLY REFER TO 78-29) oun ruc wo! August 1, 1979 District tEngineer, Department of Transportation Alaska District, Corps of State of Alaska Engineers Pouch "2" P.O. Box 7002 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Department of Administration Department of Resources State of Alaska State of Alaska Pouch “C" Pouch “M" Juneau, Alaska 99811 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Mayor, Fairbanks North Star Borough P.O. Box 1267 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 Office of the Attorney General State of Alaska Pouch “K* Juneau, Alaska 99811 Re: Tanana River Diversion Gentlemen: I am writing as attorney for Alaska Riverways, Inc., upon the instructions of Capt. Jim Binkley, its President. It appears from current newsstories and from information gather- ed in various meetings and conversations that the Corps of Engi- neers intends to advertise for bids and proceed with construction of the diversion project in the Tanana River at Fairbanks in the immediate future. As you all know from his consistent opposition to this project, Capt. Binkley firmly believes that the proposed diversion of the Tanana will create downstream changes in the course of the Tanana, including a very high probability of the failure of the south and west banks opposite the mouth of the Chena River, with severe lowering of the water level in the Chena as a result. In his opinion, based upon his lifetime riverboat experience and study, the Chena will be lost as a navigable river. Capt. Binkley has had long and serious agonizing over his course of conduct. He could wait to see what happens. If what he pre- dicts will happen does happen then he and his family will be out of business. Their livelihood and way of life will be gone, as will a major asset of the City of Fairbanks. Of course, if that Sia Dist. Engineer, Corps of Office of the Atty General, Engineers State of Alaska Dept. of Resources, State Dept. of Transportation, of Alaska State of Alaska Dept. of Administration, Mayor, Fairbanks North Star State of Alaska Rorough August 1, 1979 Page 2. happens Alaska Riverways would be forced to bring an action for damages against the Corps of Engineers for its deliberate and unlawful taking and damage of the property and business of Alaska Riverways, against the State of Alaska under its statutory accep- tance of liability for such damages, and against the Fairbanks North Star Borough on its indemnification agreement. We believe that the action for damages would be a good one against each of the named partics for some or all of the damages, but we already note statements of disclaimer in the public press, seemingly made to justify a decision to procecd. Even the best action for damages, however, is a poor choice for Alaska Riverways, since it will be out of business, facing a legal contest to establish lia- bility and amount of damages, and then waiting years for compen- sation. So waiting is the rejected remedy. The second remedy available to Ala Riverways is an immediate action in Court to enjoin the Corps of Enqineers from proceeding. We believe this would be a good remedy and that an Injunction could be obtained. In our opinion the environmental impact state- ments upon which this project is based are totally inadequate to advise the public about the potential loss of navigation and other environmental impacts relating to downstream changes in the Tanana and its confluence with the Chena. The "Public Notice" dated 21 June, 1978 stated to the public that "... this proposed work will not significantly affect the quality of the human en- vironment and that an Environmental Impact Statement Supplement is not needed prior to accom hing Lhe work". The hearing dis- closed a substantial probability of the lowering of the Chena and the recognition by the Corps of Enyineers that some probability exists. Subsequent to the hearing a new design has been created and the project appears to be goiny ahead with no supplement or compliance with any environmental procedures. In addition the purposes of the project now appear to be essen- tially erosion control to protect the Fairbanks Airport and the Alaska Railroad spur and a method of creating new public land, with a minimal flood control value, We consider this to be Dist. inginesr, Corps of Oties of the Attorney Engineers - General, ite Of Aluska Dept. of Resources, State of Dept. of Transportation, Alaska State of Alaska Dept. of Administration, Mayor, Fairbanks North Star State of Alaska Borough August 1, 1979 Page 3. ause of funds not authorized by the Chena River Lakes Flood Control legislation. In pursuing the injunction remedy, Alaska Rivcrways would seek to stop the project before it yot started with the idea of pre- serving the Company's business, alleging the illegality of the project, procedural deficiencies in its development, and any ether defects discovered during discovery proceedings. An in- junction action is the preferred remedy. ra There is one alternative to Alaska Riverways' preferred remedy. Capt. Binkley is not opposed to flood control, nor to properly used crosion control neither. He would not oppose this one if it did not appear to affect his livelihood without quick and full compensation. le will not consider bringing an injunction action if he can have for Alaska Riverways an adequate indemnification agreement. To be adequate, that aqreement must provide for full and fair damages, including depreciation in the value of real property of Alaska Riverways' and the members of the Binkley family located on the Chena; depreciation in the value of boats, drydock, shops, landings, equipment, and other personal property, left high and dry, or without use or application; loss of the business of Alaska Riverways' including loss of anticipated pro- fits; and such other damages as are caused by the lowering of the Chena River due to the diversion of the Tanana. To avoid lengthy litigation, both liability and amount of damages, including attor- neys' fees and costs, shall be subject to arbitration. If either the United States Government or the Stute of Alaska, or both wish to enter into an Indemnity Agreement as proposed, Alaska Riverways and Capt. Binkley will enter into nevotiations for the agreement Promptly upon receipt of a response indicating an intention to enter into such an Agreement. My instructions are to propose the altcrnative of an Indemnity Agreement by this letter, wait for twenty days for a response, vind Dist. Engineer, Corps of Oftice of the Attorney General, Engineers State of Alaska Dept. of Resources, State Dept. of Transportation, of Alaska State of Alaska Dept. of Administration, Mayor, Fairbanks North Star State of Alaska Borough August 1, 1979 Page 4. and then if there is no response, or an unfavorable one, to immediately commence injunction proceedings. Very truly yours, WENDELLS, FROELICH, POWER & LAKEFISH LD VWEndible A. T. Wendells ATW:df ec: Alaska Riverways, Inc. ‘ September 5, 1978 District Engineer Alaska District Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Re: Tanana River Levy Dear Colonel: May I first express my appreciation for your obvious effort to make a sound judgment in this case. You have taken my position, expressed at the public hearing, seriously, and have made new attempts to satisfy my position. I was compli- mented by your courtesy in consulting with me on your pro- posed "realinement" of August 10, 1978. Your good intentions in this matter have caused me to be very serious about the response I make. I told you that I wanted to consult with my engineer and my attorney before making a firm response. I have done that and I am now prepared to respond about your August 10 proposal. I will say at the outset that it appears to be an improvement over the recommended plan proposed on August 8, 1978. My conclusion, however, is that I cannot approve or agree to this new plan, and I feel compelled to oppose it. My experience and observations have been that every effort to channelize or move the channel of the Tanana River has re- sulted in downstream changes. In my opinion the present problem at the railroad bend has been caused by previous up- stream diversions. In my opinion the present fragile nature of the west bank opposite the mouth of the Chena has been caused by the dredging in the river south of the airport. Former efforts to concentrate and move the River to the south have cauaad powerful downstream reactions to the west and back to the north. I am convinced that the recommended plan of August 8, 1978 had a high risk, to the point of predictability, of the Sioa removal of the Tanana from its confluence with the Chena. Al- though the exact point of attack is not as predictable in the “realinement" of August 10, 1978, I am still convinced that the concentration of flow and diversion to the south will create a westerly and northerly reaction. In my opinion, there will still be a high risk of adverse effect on the Chena River. I believe that the language of my engineering con- sultant in his letter to the Corps of Engineers dated August 18, 1978, dealing with the former proposal, is most appropriate to this new proposal: "Although the exact new configuration is diffi- cult to predict, it most assuredly will occur and the greater the modification, the greater the consequent adjustment." To me and to the Alaska Riverways, Inc., business, the risk of damage still appears great even under the new August 10 proposal. I dare not agree to the proposal, even though I recognize your efforts to solve a problem. I submit that the risk of casing predictable or unpre- dicted damage downstream by placing man-made structures in the bed of the Tanana River is of greater public importance than the value to be gained in flood control. I recall the yellow areas on the map presented at the August 8 hearing which would be flood-free in a major 100 or 150 year flood if the project is completed. This was a surprisingly minor portion of the Fairbanks territory compared to the portions which would still be flooded in such a flood. In my opinion the risk of damage by a major folld, protectable by this project. I understand that other considerations keep cropping up, such as erosion protection for the railroad, maintaining air- port flight lanes, creating additional usable land, etc., but I submit that these are not relevant to flood control. I recall testimony on behalf of the railroad and airport that they have in mind making appropriations for their own protection, which is as it should be. None of these considerations should be added to flood control as determining factors in comparing risk. Finally, after giving serious consideration to your August 10, 1978 “realinement" proposal, I cannot approve it as an acceptable alternative. I still favor the Non-Structural Alternate presented August 8, 1978. Very truly yours, ° m nkley, Pres A me Riverways, Inc. C.B./mab Sta November 29, 1979 Alaska District Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Attn: Environmental Section Gentlemen: I would like to offer the following comments on the Suppli- mental Environmental Impact Statement concerning the Tanana River Levee: 1. Myself and everyone I have talked to are in favor of the flood protection near the International Airport and most people are disappointed that it was not put out for bid this winter as planned. We feel that every effort should be made for the " State, Corps, and Borough to reach an agreement so the work can proceed as orderly as possible. 2. Myself and most everyone I have talked to are in favor of the groins being built in the Tanana River to prevent erosion and protect the existing gravel dike. Thank 1 2 Goad Carroll Ambassador Apartments 415 Fifth Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska Phone Gl 2--3342 Ver 2-6, 1979 ndevelygel acts avtal af THe lowe noe! see the wes hover. ake aCe igh eee ae 2 ae aa he te f 2 0 [ 1 JF tr proche £4 P) 4 o8 ” oul Ll mee 3 Fe : hve Caan : oo hore