Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA2756[}{].£00~&. c ~®&.®©@ Susitna Joint Venture Document Number ;;;) 7S0 Please Return To DOCUMENT CONTROL KNIKARM CROSSING Scopi ng Report March 8, 1 983 .S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Iaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities KNIKARM CROSSING Scopi ng Report March 8, 1983 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION CHAPTER II: SUMMARY A. PURPOSE OF SCOPING B. AGENCY COORDINATION C. SCOPING MEETINGS D. INITIAL TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION E. CONCLUSIONS FROM SCOPING F. CORRIDOR LEVEL ALTERNATIVES G. EVALUATION CONSIDERATIONS CHAPTER III: AGENCY & ORGANIZATION CORRESPONDENCE A. FEDERAL AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE B. STATE AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE C. LOCAL AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE D. ORGANIZATION & PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE CHAPTER IV: SCOPING MEETINGS A. INTRODUCTION B. WASILLA SCOPING MEETING C. ANCHORAGE SCOPING MEETING D. AGENCY MEETINGS CHAPTER V: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS A. INTRODUCTION B. ENGINEERING C. TRANSPORTATION D. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC E. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT F. CULTURAL RESOURCES G. CONCLUSIONS CHAPTER VI: CORRIDOR LEVEL ALTERNATIVES A. INTRODUCTION B. NO ACTION C. ALTERNATIVE TRAVEL HODES D. UPGRADING EXISTING HIGHWAY SYSTEM E. HIGHWAY CROSSING LOCATIONS F. HIGHWAY CROSSING CONFIGURATIONS G. AUXILIARY FACILITIES iii I - 1 II - 1 II -1 II -2 II -2 II -3 II - 5 II -7 III -1 III -5 III -9 III -12 IV -1 IV -1 IV -3 IV - 5 v -1 v -1 v -2 v -4 v -6 v -8 v -9 VI -1 VI -1 VI -1 VI -2 VI -2 VI -4 VI - 5 - -Page CHAPTER VII: EVALUATION CONSIDERATIONS - A. ENGINEERING DESIGN VI -1 B. COST AND SCHEDULE VI -2 c. FINANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION VI -3 -D. BENEFIT-COST AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS VI -3 E. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS VI -4 F. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS VI -6 -G. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS VI -8 H. CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS VI -10 APPENDICES - APPENDIX A: FEDERAL AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE A -1 APPENDIX B: STATE AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE B -1 -APPENDIX C: LOCAL AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE c -1 APPENDIX D: ORGANIZATION CORRESPONDENCE D -1 - - - - - - - - - - - iv - LIST OF FIGURES Number Title Page I - 1 Project Development and Design Process I - 1 II - 1 Corridor Locations II - 6 LIST OF TABLES Number Title Page III -1 Federal Agency Communication III -2 III -2 State Agency Communication III -6 III -3 Local Agency Communication III -10 III -4 Organization Communication III -13 v Chapter I INTRODUCTION In September 1982, the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT/PF) began preliminary design for a highway crossing of the Knik Arm of Cook Inlet from Anchorage to the Matanuska- Susitna Borough. The project, which began where previously completed work left off, is structured to help assure that the crossing will reinforce southcentral Alaska's growth objectives and do so economically with minimal adverse impact to existing urban neighborhoods, military facilities, and the environment. Project development will be completed in three cycles illustrated in Figure I-1. Cycle 1, Corridor Analysis, will include the evaluation of all possi- ble crossing and approach road corridors. In July 1983, several of these corridors will be selected for further analysis. Cycle 2, Location Analysis and Environmental Impact Statement, will in- clude evaluations of specific alignments within the selected corridors ..., Cycle 1 _r:D >-3 ...., Scoping Corridor Report -7 Alternatives Analysis Draft [Final Draft [ Final ~ ~ Involvement '<t '<t Cycle 2 _r:D Cycle 3 _r:D "" ... :; .. .Q ..., E .. (.J Location En vi ron menta I Design .. a ' AI ternatives -7 Impact ~~ Report a / Analysis Statement Cost Estimate Draft [ Filial ~ I-1 Draft 1 Final Draft [ Final LJ} ~ Figure 1-1 Project Development & Design Process and selection of a preferred alternative in July 1984. An Environment- al Impact Statement will present the findings of these analyses. Cycle 3, Preliminary Design, includes preparation of engineering plans, cost estimates, scheduling, and implementation plans for the preferred alternative. Recommendations for project construction will be developed in December 1984. This Scoping Report marks the midpoint in Cycle 1. Corridor alterna- tives have been defined and initial technical reconnaissance completed. Government agencies and the public have been asked to comment on the scope of the project in compliance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations. A detailed comparison of alternatives will next be conducted, according to procedures described in this report. I-2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Chapter II SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A. PURPOSE OF SCOPING ADOT/PF, based upon previous experience and initial contacts with Federal agencies, determined that an Environmental Impact Statement meeting Federal criteria (National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA) would be required to obtain necessary permit approvals for construction of a Knik Arm Crossing and its approach roadways. "Seeping" is the term applied to the activities required by Federal regulations (40 CFR 1501.7) to initiate preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Knik Arm Crossing scoping activities have included: 0 0 0 0 0 Identification of a Federal "Lead Agency," the Federal Highway Ad- ministration, which will sponsor the EIS. Preparation of a Scoping Document (November 29, 1982) identifying project alternatives to be evaluated, impact assessment procedures, and a schedule for environmental document preparation. Establishment of lines of communication with Federal, State, and local agencies and organizations with interest in the project. Federal agencies with interest are referred to as "cooperating" agencies. Other agencies and organizations serve in an "advisory" capacity throughout the project. Coordination of scoping meetings with agencies and the public providing information on project alternatives and impact assess- ment. Performance of initial technical analysis to aid in refining key design and environmental issues, project alternatives, and assess- ment procedures. Scoping activities concluded with the presentation of a clearly defined set of project alternatives and assessment procedures. B. AGENCY COORDINATION Federal law contains specific requirements for Federal agency contact and coordination. State and local agencies and business, civic, neighborhood, and conservation organizations were asked to advise in EIS preparation. A Scoping Document (November 29, 1982) with a letter II-1 requesting comments and/or review were sent to all agencies and organi- zations identified as having interest in the project. Typical letters are shown in the appendices. C. SCOPING MEETINGS On January 12 and 13, 1983, four seeping meetings were held, two for public (January 12 -Wasilla, January 13 -Anchorage) and two for government agencies (January 13 Anchorage) • The format of each meeting was similar, beginning with a description of the project purpose, procedures, and schedule (10 minutes), followed by description of alternatives and design evaluation considerations (20 minutes) , followed by a comment period. Prior to the meetings, announcements were published in local newspapers and distributed to radio and television stations. Notice of pending seeping meetings were also announced in the December 2, 1982 Federal Register (Vol. 97, #232) along with the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS. Correspondence to government agencies and public interest groups included invitations to the meetings. A newsletter, summarizing contents of the Seeping Document, and pre-addressed, postage paid comment cards were prepared for distribution at the seeping meetings. The public seeping meetings in Wasilla and Anchorage were each attended by approximately 100 persons. Combined attendance at the agency seeping meetings was approximately 30 persons. Meeting comments are contained in Section III of this report. In addition to the formal seeping meetings, several briefings were held to acquaint agency staffs with project alternatives and evaluation procedures: Elmendorf Air Force Base staff, Anchorage -November 2 FHWA staff, Juneau -November 15 Fort Richardson Army Post staff, Anchorage -November 22 Knik Arm Crossing Project Steering Committee and DOT/PF staff, Anchorage -January 6 Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Commission, Palmer -January 24 Matanuska-Susitna Borough staff, Palmer -December 14 Minutes of each of these meetings are on file with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. D. INITIAL TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Concurrently with presentation to agencies and the public, the consul- tant design and evaluation team reviewed available technical information II-2 - - - - - - - - - - - - .. , and suggested refinements to alternatives and evaluation procedures. Substantial trade-offs were identified among cost, benefit, and environ- mental impact. E. CONCLUSIONS FROM SCOPING Based on comments from government agencies and the public, obtained during the seeping process and initial technical investigations, the following changes in project direction are recommended: v/ ll.dd an Alternative North Approach Across Goose Bay to Connect with Knik Road and Wasilla. A right-of-way exists for winter access, by all-terrain vehicles, across the Goose Bay State Game Refuge. This route would be the shortest connection between Point MacKenzie and the existing Knik-Goose Bay road. Environmental impacts would be reduced with bridge construction across the wetland area. Add a North Approach Corridor Through the Nancy Lake Recreation Area via the Nancy Lake Parkway. Mat-Su Borough staff suggested a variation of the Willow corridor that would connect through Nancy Lake Recreation Area rather than passing West and North of the Recreation Area. This option would provide greater access to recreation opportunities. Adjust the Elmendorf Corridor to Avoid Major Elmendorf AFB and Fort Richardson Facilities. Considerable military opposition was expressed to Knik Arm Crossing south approaches across Elmendorf AFB and Fort Richardson, partic- ularly the Elmendorf corridor. Modifying these corridor locations might make them more acceptable. Consider Staging of Crossing Development to Keep Initial Cost Low. There was recognition that costs of crossing construction would be high, and that traffic and benefits would increase over time. Staged construction within an overall plan may make the project more financially feasible. Identify Techniques for "Fast Tracking" the Project. General support was expressed for a highway crossing, but displea- sure was expressed over the lengthy schedule anticipated for environmental investigation, design, and construction. Considera- tion will be given to alternatives which minimize time required II-3 for right-of-way acquisition, permit approvals, construction tech- niques, financing methods, and project administration/management approaches to expedite project completion. Avoid Premature Selection of a Single Preferred Corridor at the End of Cycle 1 Corridor Analysis. Several reviewers expressed concern that key decisions regarding the type and location of the project would be made during the next four to five months of corridor evaluation, and that subsequent EIS evaluation would not address many valid al terna ti ves. The pro- ject's initial direction was to select, at the end of Cycle 1, a single reasonable corridor, determine the configuration of the crossing (bridge, tunnel, or causeway) , and include or exclude tidal power, railroad, and utilities for further evaluation within the preferred corridor. NEPA procedures require consideration of of "all reasonable" alternatives. Consequently, at the close of Cycle 1 it is expected that at least two corridor locations will be carried into the EIS, and the issue of including railroad with a highway crossing will remain unresolved. Those alternatives that appear technically feasible and offer benefit commensurate with cost would be retained for detailed evaluation and inclusion in the EIS. It is the intent of ADOT/PF and FHWA to include the full range of reasonable alternatives in the EIS. Provide Specific Plans for Project Alternatives as Soon as Possi- ble to Facilitate Project Understanding and Comment. Presenting specific (representative) approach road plan lines, crossing plans, and cost estimates at the earliest possible date would provide reviewers a better understanding of alternatives and might elicit greater comment on community impact and environmental issues. Obtain Supplemental "Seeping" Input Prior to Environmental Impact Statement Preparation. Corridor alternatives are generally defined at this time. Review agencies and the public have had some difficulty identifying how project alternatives will relate to specific features within the community. The project development schedule provides opportunity for agency and public comment at several points prior to Draft EIS publication: • Corridor Alternatives Analysis Report - A review and comment period and public meetings are scheduled following dis- tribution of the draft report and prior to selection of preferred corridors. II-4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Draft Alignment Alternatives Report A review and comment period and public meetings are scheduled following distribu- tion of the draft report and prior to selection of alterna- tives to be featured in the EIS. It is the intent of ADOT/PF and FHWA to use these review periods to obtain additional specific direction from government agencies and the public regarding the alternatives and evaluation criteria to be included in the EIS. F. CORRIDOR LEVEL ALTERNATIVES The alternatives to be evaluated are of six basic types summarized here and described in greater detail in Section VI of this report. Figure II-I illustrates the location of the alternative highway crossing and approach corridors. Alternatives which have been added or modified as a result of the seeping process are identified with an asterisk. No Action Alternative Travel Modes • • Ferry/Surface Water Mode Intercity Bus/Passenger Rail * Upgrade Existing Highway System • • • Widen and Grade Separate Glenn Highway Widen and Grade Separate Parks Highway Combination Highway Crossing Locations • • North Approaches Willow Nancy Lake * Houston Big Lake Wasilla * South Approaches Eagle River Fort Richardson Elmendorf * Downtown Point MacKenzie II-5 ~North 0 2 4 Smiles March 8, 1983 Figure II· 1 Corridor Locations ·- - - ·- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ... • Crossing Corridors Eagle River Central (Fort Richardson to Downtown) Point MacKenzie Highway Crossing Configurations • • • • Bridge Tunnel/Tube Causeway Combinations of above Auxiliary Crossing Facilities • • • G. Railroad Tidal Power Utilities (Water, Gas, Coal Slurry, Electricity, Communications) EVALUATION CONSIDERATIONS The evaluation factors to be addressed in corridor level evaluation are identified below and described in greater detail in Section VII. Fac- tors which have been added or modified following seeping activity are identified by an asterisk. Engineering Design • • • • • • • • Plans and Profile Drawings Soils and Seismic Safety Channel Navigation Aviation Clearance Military Communications and Safety Tidal Currents, Wind, and Ice Right-of-Way Materials * Cost and Schedule • • • Construction and Right-of-Way Costs Operation and Maintenance Cost Construction Schedule Finance and Implementation • • • • Financing Construction Staging * Permit Requirements * Management * II-7 Benefit-Cost and Cost-Effectiveness • • • • • Vehicle Travel Freight Movement Economic Development Community Development Resource Development Transportation Impacts • • • • • Highways Accessibility Traffic Volumes and Service Levels Freight Movement Public Transportation * Transportation Plan Compatibility * Social and Economic Impacts • Urban Growth • Land Use Plan Compatibility • Dislocation and Relocation • Urban and Military Disruption • Economic Development • Public Finance • Business and Housing Natural Resource Impacts • • • • • • Biological Resources Water Resources Air Quality Noise Energy Visual Cultural Resource Impacts • • Antiquities and Historic Sites Parks and Recreation II-8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Chapter III AGENCY AND ORGANIZATION CORRESPONDENCE A. FEDERAL AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE Table III-1 summarizes Federal agency communications. The second columns list agencies, contact people, and addresses. of participation requested and each agency's interest and/or is shown in column three. first and The type expertise Letters requesting participation were sent December column shows which agencies were invited to attend ing meetings by letters dated December 29, 1982. at the meetings are indicated in the fifth column. 1, 1982. The fourth the January 13 scop- Agencies represented In addition to scoping meetings, some agencies were contacted for addi- tional input; those agencies are shown in column six entitled, "Meeting Other Than Scoping." The seventh column shows which agencies sent written responses, as well as their general comments. Responses from Federal agencies are summarized below. Weymouth E. Long, Soil Conservation Service, recommended the consid- eration of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (PL 97-98 Dec. 22, 1981) for corridor selection. The purpose of the act would be to insure that conversion of farmland to non-agriculture uses would be minimized and that administration of Federal programs be compatible with State, local and private programs and policies for farmland protection. (January 17, 1983) • Colonel Don R. Conway, United States Air Force, wrote that additional emphasis is needed in the following areas: • • • • Impact of proposed courses of action on all antenna fields in the vicinity of the crossings. Impact of dislocation/relocation of facilities on the overall mission activities of the military installations and costs associ- ated with the disruption, especially disruption of ammunition storage areas and range locations and uses. Impact of selected routes on the physical security of the instal- lations bounded by the route selected. The actual physical barriers and their emplacement, maintenance, and operation should be discussed and covered as part of the physical design require- ments of the roadway and route. Milestone dates, i.e., month and year, for the Cycle I, II, and III actions listed on pages two and three of the Scoping Document. III-1 I H H H I N ' Cooperating Agency Contact Person Fedenl llighway Administration Mr. Thomas Neunaber Field Operations Engineer (586-7427) The Alaska Railroad Mr. Bill Coghill Manager of Planning (265-2667) Bureau of Indian Affairs Superintendent (271-4126) Bureau of [.and Management •tr. John Herrick, Area Manager (267-1308) Chugach National Forest Mr. Norm Howse (279-5541) Corps of Engineers Mr. Tf'd Rock we 11 (552-4942) Department of llousing & llrhan Development (HUO) Hr. l<en Bowring Environmental Officer/Planner (271-4181) Federal Aviation Administration Mr. David Epstein (271-5892) Federal Emergency Management Agency Mr. William II. Mayer ( 481-8800) . I I ' Table III-1 FEDERAL AGENCY COMMUNICATION Address P. o. Box 1648 Juneau, Alaska 99801 P. o. Box 7-2111 Anchorage, Alaska 99510. P. O. Box 120 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Interest/Expertise Lead Agency Railroad Operation Possible right-of- way acquisition Review Agency Peninsula Resource Area Review Agency Bureau of Land Management 4700 East 72nd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99507 2221 E. Northern Lights Forest Resources Anchorage, Alaska 99504 U. S. Army Engineer District, Alaska ATTN: NPACO-RF-S Pouch 898 Anchorage, Alaska 99506 701 C Street, Box 64 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 701 C Street, Box 14 1\TTN: AAL 400 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Waterways and Wet- lands, Encroachment on waterways and wetlands (Section 10 and Section 404) permits I.and Use and urban Growth Airport Operations, Possible aircraft approach zone encroachment permit Federal Regional Center llatural Hazards Bothell, Washington 99801 I t I c I Invitation to Scoping Meeting X X X X X X I f Attendance Meeting at Other Scoping Than Meeting Scoping X X X X X X X t I Response Received Agree to serve Agency Investigate crossing, requests data to determine operations impacts No comment, no expertise to offer on environ- mental issues Detailed impacts in tary operations neces- sary Impacts to HLID assisted projects. Assistance in noise, energy, land use planning compati- bility, dislocation and relocation urban dis- ruption, growth and economic impacts No comment I I I I H H H I w Cooperating Agency Contact National Marine Fisheries Mr. Brad Smith (211-5006) National Park Service Dr. Floyd Sharrock (271-4051) u. s. Airforce/U. s. Army Col. Don R. Conway (552-4100) u. s. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Hr. Sterling Powell (276-4246) II. S. Coast Guard Lt. J. D. Klimas (271-5137) U. S. Department of Energy Alaska Field Office (211-5954) U. s. Environmental Protection Agency Mr. William B. Lawrence Anchorage Operations (271-5083) 11. s. Fish & Wildlife Service Hr. Robert Bowker (271-4575) U. s. Geological Survey Water Resources Division Hr. Philip A. Emery, District Chief (271-4138) Table 111-1 FEDERAL AGENCY COMMUNICATION Invitation Address Interest/Expertise 701 c Street, Box 43 Marine Resources Anchorage, Alaska 99513 540 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 AAC/CV, Elmendorf AFB Anchorage, Alaska 99506 2221 E. Northern Lights Anchorage, Alaska 99504 701 c Street, Box 17 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 701 C Street, Box 12 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 701 c Street, Room E5556 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Antiquities and Historic, Possible encroachment on recreation, historic, and cultural re- sources (4 (F) and 106) Base Facilitiies and Operations, possible right-of-way acquisition Agriculture, Soils Knik Arm Navigation, Bridge Permit Review Agency Air and Water Quality and Noise, Certify completion of environ- mental documents, compliance with State Air Quality Implemen- tation Plan 605 West 4th Avenue Biological Resources Room G-81 and Endangered Species Anchorage, Alaska 99501 1515 East 13th Avenue Water Resources Anchorage, Alaska 99501 to Scoping Meeting X X X X X X X X Attendance Meeting at Other Scoping Than Meeting _ Scoping X X X X X X X X X Response Received Marine resourc~s impacts Cultural resources management participation Impact to airpnrt faci 1- ities, cycle dates, land use changes Data available in the area; evaluation of potential route links with ADNR lise of bridge type structure to avoid sedi- mentation and salinity changes Air quality & wetlands cooperation; do not deal with noise Fish & wildlife data available, review of ETS & Federal permits No Conunent • • • • • Headquarters, Department of Air Force, Department of Army, Depart- ment of Defense, and local levels need to approve land uses pro- posed by this project. This is a time consuming process and land within the installations is limited. Impacts of proposed corridors on present flight activities . Clearing of unexploded ordnance in the Eagle River route that passes through the Fort Richardson impact area. Comments from the Air Force Technical Applications Center Detach- ment at Elmendorf AFB indicate concern in finding a suitable loca- tion, free from electrical noise sources, for relocating communi- cation facilities displaced by a south approach. Such a location may not exist on any other military installation lands. This would constitute a serious mission impairment and is not acceptable to the Air Force. Additional comments have been requested from Headquarters Air Force Technical Applications Center. These co~.ents will be forwarded when received. Corps of Engineers has requirements for permits Clean Water Act and Section 10 of Rivers and (December 27, 1982) (Section 404 of Harbors Act) . Colonel Neil E. Saling, Corps of Engineers, commented on the need for detailed assessment of the effect of alternatives on military operations at Fort Richardson and Elmendorf AFB. Greater detail than that presented in the 1972 study is required. Robert Bowker, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concern with the general nature of the Scoping Document because it was difficult to determine if environmental impacts would be adequately addressed. He recommends the full appraisal of secondary impacts. He stated that an assessment based on sound biological data is needed to insure the development of a mitigation plan, and that the following gaps exist in the current data base~ • • • Identification of extent and duration of use, and movement through the Knik Arm estuary, by juvenile salmonids. Clarification of ecological processes of upper Cook Inlet and Knik Arm. Sediment transport, as it relates to both the naturally occurring process and the fate of dredged spoils, and nutrient flow must be better understood. Determination whether or not the Susitna flats are utilized as breeding grounds by the relatively scarce tule white-fronted geese. Baseline studies for other species including trumpeter swans, sandhill cranes, lesser snow geese, Pacific white-fronted geese, lesser Canadian geese, cackling Canada geese, and shorebirds are also needed. III-4 - - - - - - - ... - .... - - - - - - - - - F. H. Jones, Federal Railroad Administration, advocated a highway/rail- road crossing and stated the following benefits: • • • Will aid in the trances to three development of Alaska resources providing en- major coal fields -Susitna, Yentna, and Beluga. Reduction of vehicular traffic along the Glenn Highway by develop- ing a rapid transit system to the Mat-Su Borough (creating a 15 to 20 minute commuter service from Wasilla to Anchorage) . Encourage industrial development directly across the Knik Arm, away from the city. (December 22, 1982) Robert McVey, National Marine Fisheries Service, stated that the type of crossing structure chosen will determine how critical marine resources are, but that any crossing may impact marine resources. (January 10, 1983) John Duffy, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), expressed concern with the impact that the alternatives would have on HUD assist- ed projects. Provision of assistance in the following areas may be available: • • • • • • Noise Energy Land Use Plan Compatibility Urban Disruption Growth Impacts Economic Impact (December 21, 1982) Captain R.H. Spoltman, U.S. Coast Guard, wrote that a causeway type structure would be less desirable due to potential sedimentation and salinity changes, and because future development of the upper Knik Arm waterway for seaborne commerce would be eliminated. His interpretation of the Seeping Document is that development is a prime objective of the project and therefore he recommends a bridge type structure with suffi- cient under clearance. (December 21, 1982) B. STATE AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE Table III-2 summarizes State agency communication. Agency contact peo- ple and addresses are listed on the left. Agencies that were sent a Seeping Document are shown in the next column. Seeping Documents were sent to State agencies on December 1, 1982. Invitations to attend the January 12, 1983 seeping meeting were sent to agencies on December 29, 1982. State agencies that were requested to attend the seeping meetings and those that attended are shown in columns four and five. Additional meetings held with State agencies are listed III-5 ' H H H I 0\ ' Agency Contact Person Alaska State Department of: Coastal Management Policy Development & Planning (465-3540) Commerce & Economic Development Hr. Ron S. Walt, Development Specialist III (465-2022) Alaska Power Authority Hr. George Gleason (277-7641) Energy & Power, Division of Hr. Bill Beardsley, Director (561-4201) Community G Regional Affairs Hr. Hark Lewis (465-4700) Environmental Conservation Hr. Bob Hartin, Regional Supervisor (272-2533) Fish & Game llabitat Division Hr. Philip J. Brna, Habitat Biologist (344-0541) Natural Resources Forestry, Division of (276-2653) I I I 1 Table 111-2 STATE AGENCY COMMUNICATION Address Pouch AP Juneau, Alaska 99811 Pouch EE Juneau, Alaska 99811 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 3601 C Street, Suite 7222 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Commerce Building Pouch B Juneau, Alaska 99811 437 E Street, 2nd Floor Anchorage, Alaska 99501 333 East 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 323 East 4th Avenue Anchoraqe, Alaska 99501 I I Scoping Document Recipient X X X X X X X I Invitation to Scoping Meeting X X X X X X ' Attendance at Scoping Meeting X I Meeting Other Than Scoping X I Response Rec~ived Cost effective, max1m1ze commercial and personal transportation efficien- cies Socioeconomic impacts, Capital improvements Planning, land develop- ment, Alaska railroad impacts Air and water quality, Point Woronzof sewage outfall Further input after review of Draft Alter- natives Analysis/Envi- ronmental Investigation Report I I I I H H H I ...... Agency Contact Person Natural Resources Land & Resource Planning Mr. Bill Beatty (276:..2653) I.and & Water Management Ms. Donna Lane (276-2653) Parks, Division of Director (276-2652) Chugach State Park Planning Team (276-2652) Historic Preservation Office (276-2653) Public Safety Alaska State Troopers Mr. James D. Vaden, Deputy Director (269-5649) Transportation & Public Facilities Mr. Mike Millar State Environmental Coordinator (465-3900) Alaska State Housing Authority Mr. John B. Curtis Executive Director (279-76431 Alaska State Resources Library (271-5025) Table 111-2 STATE AGENCY COMMUNICATION Address Pouch 7-005 Anchorage, Alaska Pouch 7-005 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 619 Warehouse Avenue Suite 210 323 East 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 619 Warehouse Avenue, Suite 210 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 P. 0. Box 6188 Annex Anchorage, Alaska 99502 P. o. Box 3-1000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 P. o. Box 80 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 701 c Street Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Seeping Document Recipient X X X X X X X X X Invitation to Seeping Meeting X X X X X X X Attendance at Seeping Meeting X X X Meeting Other Than Seeping X X Response Received No comments at this time No comments at this time No comments at this time Scoping Document made available for public review1 no written response required I H H H I 00 I Agency Contact Person Iditarod Trail, Joint State ' Federal Office Terry O'Sullivan (264-2110) University of Alaska ' Institute of Social ' Economic Research (278-4621) School of Engineering (786-1900) I I I Table 111-2 STATE AGENCY COMMUNICATION Address 619 Warehouse, Suite 210 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 707 A Street c/o University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 I ' I f Scoping Document Recipient X X I Invitation to Scoping Meeting X I f Attendance at Scoping Meeting f Meeting Other Than Scoping I I Response Received Will participate as advisory agency I f I in column six. Column seven, "Written Response/Comments" shows only those agencies that sent written responses and briefly describes the responses. Responses from State agencies are also summarized below. Mark Lewis, Commissioner of Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, commented that the extent of land shortages in Anchorage and the potential relief to be derived from a Knik Arm Crossing should be analyzed in terms of time so that required planning for capital improve- ments projects can be completed. In addition, he feels development should be encouraged in the Anchorage core area rather than creating sprawl along a proposed transportation corridor. Mr. Lewis expressed concern regarding possible competition that might develop between rail and road vehicles to service agriculture lands in the Point MacKenzie area. He recommended that analysis of this be included in the report. The use and incorporation of comprehensive planning efforts by the Municipality of Anchorage and of the Mat-Su Borough are expected by him. (January 7, 1983) Bill MacClarence, Department of Environmental Conservation, recommended, in a telephone call, that the report address the impact of a causeway on the Municipality's sewage treatment outfall. (January 17, 1983) Ron s. Walt, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, wrote that the design should maximize commercial and personal transportation efficiencies. (December 22, 1982) Bob Martin, Department of Environmental Conservation, noted that the Anchorage urban area is classified non-attainment for air quality and, thus, USEPA 1979 Non-attainment Area Implementation Plan Revisions criteria will need to be used in the analysis of alternatives. Two of the requirements of this plan include demonstration that the benefits of the project outweigh the environmental and social cost, and demonstration of a commitment to the establishment, expansion, and improvement of public transportation to meet basic transportation needs as expeditiously as possible. His concerns with water quality are impacts to fish migration, anadromous stream systems, potential salinity changes, erosion, and sedimentation created by construction of access roads. Point Woronzof sewage outfall dilution and dispersal could be impacted by changes in tidal current patterns and should also be investigated. (January 25, 1983) C. LOCAL AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE Table III-3 summarizes local agency communication. Local agencies, contact people, and addresses are shown in the first two columns. The agencies that received a Scoping Document are shown in column three. Column four shows which agencies were sent invitations to the scoping meeting. Columns five and six show agencies which attended either the scoping meeting or other meetings. Written responses received from agencies are summarized in the last column. III-9 Table III-'3' LOCAL AGENCY COHHUNICATIO~ Invitation Attendance Meeting Seeping to at Other Agency Document Seeping Seeping Than Contact Person Address Recipient Meeting Meeting Seeping Response Received Anchorage Air Pollution Control 825 L Street Agency Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Director X X Anchorage Economic Development 3221 Providence Drive Commission Anchorage, Alaska 99508 X X Anchorage Municipal School District 4600 DeBarr Road School Facilities Anchorage, Alaska 99504 Assistant Superintendent X X (333-9561) city of Houston P. o. Box 27 H City Clerk's Office Houston, Alaska 99694 H (892-6869) H I 1-" City of Palmer P. 0. Box 1368 0 Mr. David Soulak, Palmer, Alaska 99645 X X City Manager (745-3271) City of Wasilla P. 0. Box 430 Off ice of the Mayor Wasilla, Alaska 99687 X X Matanuska-Susitna Borough P. 0. Box B Borough Manager Palmer, Alaska 99645 Historical Preservation ' Box 874 Restoration Collllllittee Wasilla, Alaska 99687 X X Mayor Box B F.dna Armstrong Palmer, Alaska 99645 X X X Impact to port fad li- (745-4801) ties Planning Oepartment Box B Mr. Rodney Schulling Palmer, .1\laska 99645 X X X X (745-4801) School District P. 0. Box AB X X District Superintendent Palmer, Alaska 99645 (745-4822) ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 H H H I 1-' 1-' Agency Contact Person Municipality of Anchorage Transportation Planning Division Mr. Jeff Scherbarth, Coordinator, AMATS (264-4224) Parks & Recreation Council of Anchorage Port of Anchorage Mr. Tyler Jones, Assistant Port Director (272-1531) Water Utill.ty Advisory Conunission Address Pouch 6-650 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 913 West 6th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 2000 Anchorage Port Road Anchorage, Alaska 99501 3808 Locarono Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Table III-3 LOCAL AGENCY COMMUNICATION Scoping llocument Recipient X X X X Invitation to Scoping Mf'cting X X X X Attendance at Scoping Meeting Meeting Other Than Scopinq X R~sponse Received Below is a summary of local agency written comments: The Mat-Su Borough, represented by the Mayor, the Borough Manager, and the Borough Engineer, responded to the Scoping Document with feelings that more emphasis is needed concerning the port proposed at Point MacKenzie. Impact to existing as well as potential port facilities should be throughly investigated. Recommendation was made for the addition of Knikatnu (Knik Village Corporation) , the City of Wasilla, and the City of Houston to the agency contact list. (December 20, 1982) In a letter from Claudio Arenas, Planning Director of the Mat-Su Borough, Gary Thurlow, Mat-Su Borough Manager, suggested the addition of a fourth corridor alternative that uses the Nancy Lake Parkway to connect to the Parks Highway from the Willow corridor. Enclosed with this letter was a copy of a letter (December 9, 1982) from Mr. Arenas to Pat Beckley, Division of Parks, that gave reasoning for the use of Nancy Lake Parkway as an access road. Mr. Arenas also included a memorandum (December 1, 1982) from the Division of Parks that rejected the proposal of using the Nancy Lake Parkway as an access road. D. ORGANIZATION AND PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE Table III-4 summarizes other organization communications. Other organ- izations, contact people, and addresses are shown in the first two columns. The organizations that received a Scoping Document are shown in column three. Column four lists organizations which were sent invi- tations to the scoping meeting. Columns five and six show organiza- tions which attended either the scoping meeting or other meetings. Written responses received from organizations are summarized in the last column. Two responses were received from these organizations: David L. Sinclair, Chief Engineer of ENSTAR Natural Gas Company, would like the crossing to be built so that a gas transmission line could be installed within the right-of-way. (December 28, 1982). Eric Haemer, Director of Planning and Major Projects for Chugach Electric Association, wrote that the crossing design should provide utility right-of-way and that safety concerns for electrical power transmission should be considered. He also recommended the considera- tion of a gas pipeline within the right-of-way. Mr. Haemer provided information on the location of two CEA submarine cable fields that cross the Knik Arm. Public written responses used the "Public Comment Cards" with the III-12 .... ... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - H H H I t-' w Agency Contact Person Alaska Carrier's Association, Inc. 1272-0568) Alaska Center for the Environment Ms. Mary Core (272-36211 Alaska Federation of \~omen's Clubs Ms. Linton (272-1440) Alaska Gas & Service Company/ENSTAR ( 272-5551 Alaska Jaycees, Inc. Alaskan Federation of Natives Ms. Janie Leask, President ( 274-3611) Alaska Public Interest Research Group Coordinator (278-31'>61) Alaska Society of Professional F.nqineers Aleut Corporation Mr. Wayne Lewis (274-1506) American Institute of Architects American Society of Civil F.ngineers (276-4245) Anchorage Audubon Society (274-9152) Table IJI-4 ORGANIZATION COMMUNICATION Address 3443 Minnesota Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99503 1069 West 6th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 1430 West 23rd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99503 3000 Spenard Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 P. 0. Box 4-3032 Anchorage, Alaska 99509 411 West 4th Avenue Suite lA Anchorage, Alaska 99501 P. 0. Box 10-1093 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 c/o Alaska Professional Design Council P. 0. Box 3115 D.T. Anchorage, Alaska 99510 2550 Denali Anchorage, Alaska 99503 600 Barrow, Suite 200 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 2515 A Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 P. o. Box 1161 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Scoping Document Recipient X X X X X X X X X X X X Invitation to Scoping Meeting X X X X X X X X X X X X Attendance at Scoping Meeting Meeting Other Than Scoping Response Received t H H H I ...... "" r Agency Contact Person Anchorage Board of Realtors (272-3833) Anchorage Chamber of Commerce (272-2401) Association of General Contractors Alaska Chapter Hr. Richard Pittenger (276-5354) Calista Corporation Hs. Herlyne Paine, CPS Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Hr. Eric Haemer, Director of Planning and Major Projects (276-3500) Chugach Native, Inc. (276-1080) Cook Inlet Regional, Inc. Hr. Ron Huhndort (214-8638) Denali Citizen's Committee Eklutna, Inc. Hr. Daniel Alex (276-5701) ENSTAR Natural Gas Company Hr. David L. Sinclair, Chief Engineer (277-5551) Federation of Community Councils Hr. Kris Barnes (277-1977) I I f I Table 111-4 ORGANIZATION COMMUNICATION Address 1818 West Northern Lights, Suite 103 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 415 F Street Anchorage, Alaska .99501 P. o. Box 4-2500 Anchorage, Alaska 99509 516 Denali Anchorage, ~laska 99501 P. o. Box 3518 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 12 West 15th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 2525 C Street, 5th Floor Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Box 39 McKinley Park, Alaska 99510 840 K Street, Suite 202 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 3000 Spenard Road P. 0. Box 6288 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 801 West Fireweed Lane, 1103 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 ' • I f Scoping Document Recipient X X X X X X X X X X f Invitation to Scoping Meeting X X X X X X X X X X f I Attendance at Scoping Meeting I Meeting Other Than Scoping Response Received Location of CEA subma- rine cable fields across Arm, utility and gas right-of-way, safety of electrical power transmission lines. Gas transmission line in right-of-way I I t t H H H I ...... lJl Agency Contact Person Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs Friends of the Earth Highway Users Federation of Alaska Mr. Vern Smith ( 561-1030) Homebuilders Association of Alaska (274-9243) Knik Village Corporation League of Women's Voters (274-8477) National Audubon Society (276-7034) Operating Engineers Local 302 Palmer Chamber of Commerce (745-2880) Resource Development Council for Ill ask a, Jnc. Ms. Paula Easley, Executive Director (278-9615) Sierra Club Ms. Sally Kabisch (274-2318) Talkeetna Chamber of Commerce Teamster Local 959 Table III-4 ORGANIZATION COMMUNICATION Invitation Attendance Meeting Seeping to at Other Document Seeping Scoping Than Address Recipient Meeting Meeting Scoping Response Received 1895 Pioneer Way X X Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 1895 Pioneer Way X X Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 c/o 3M Company 5331 Minnesota Drive X X 999 East Tudor Road X X Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Willow Street Wasilla, Alaska 99687 P. o. Box 1345 X X Anchorage, Alaska 99510 308 G Street, Suite 219 X X Anchorage, Alaska 99501 610 6th Avenue X X Anchorage, Alaska 99501 P. 0. Box 45 X X Palmer, Alaska 99645 444 West 7th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 X X No conunents 545 East 4th Avenue, Suite 5 Girdwood, Alaska 99501 X X P. 0. Box 334 X X Talkeetna, Alaska 99676 1829 East 5th Avenue X X P. o. Box 2092 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 f H H H I ,_. 0\ I Agency Contact Person Trustees for Alaska Hr. Jeff Eustis (276-4244) Tyonek Native Corporation ~ls. B. Agnes Brown (272-4548) Wasilla Chamber of Commerce (376-2121) f f f I Table JII-4 ORGANIZATION COMMUNICATION Address 338 D Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 912 East 15th Avenue, Suite 2 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 P. 0. Box 1930 Wasilla, Alaska 99687 I I I I Invitation Scoping to Document Scoping Recipient Meeting X X X X X X f f Attendance Meeting at Other Scoping Than Meeting Scoping Response Received X I f I I I I exception of one letter (see Appendix D). Listed below are there- spondents: Dan Brockhurst Garvan Bucaria Richard & Barbara Burg Robert B. Butt Brian Caldwell Benjamin H. Cowart Jeffery M. Eustis Ed Fortier E. A. Hamm Jr. Carroll Raney Ken Hinchey Bud Hooker Dewey Jarrett Darryl Jordon Donald c. Jones Leo c. Kaye Ann Leach James B. Leach III Ann Lewis Charles Lippitt Robert G. Lincoln William J. Lindow L.M. McDonals Peter s. Morgan Charles Nevada John Nystrom Carol Raney Mark Rauch Jean Ring Bruce Rizer Ron Roberts Henry G. Saylor, Jr. Norman L. Schlittler Charmaine Smith Chuck Smith Kurtis J. Smith Jacklyn Sourant Jim Sourant Carol E. Staats Elaine Swearingin A. R. Timm Connie Wassink Tom Williams Jim Woelfel D. J. Wright Written responses from the public were similar in character to oral responses at the public meetings. The following additional comments were made: • • • • • • • Use tube (tunnel) design to reduce possible damage by ice flow, strong winds, and high tides. This would reduce exposure hazards (wind, ice, snow, climate, snow removal) and problems encountered with construction of support structures. Inform public about major funding . Cross Goose Bny State Game Refuge to connect to existing Knik Road . Place crossing near C Street overpass to avoid blocking naviga- tion routes. Use Nancy Lake Parkway to access Parks Highway and provide easier access to Nancy Lake Recreation Area. Investigate funding raised through revenue bonds, paid by tolls . Include Federal Highway Commission in planning and design . III-17 • • • Investigate population increases, housing demand, public services, and public costs for growth. Tie into present and future municipal transportation system . Avoid Goose Bay Refuge and tie into Point MacKenzie road exten- sion. III-18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CHAPTER IV SCOPING MEETINGS A. INTRODUCTION As part of the seeping process for the Knik Impact Statement, ADOT/PF held two public agency seeping meetings. Arm Crossing Environmental seeping meetings and two At each of the meetings, the ADOT/PF described the work program, the proposed corridor alternatives, and the key issues in corridor selection. Each meeting provided opportunity for the public and agency representatives to ask questions and make comments. There was also an opportunity for agency representatives to hear the concerns of the other interested agencies. B. WASILLA MEETING The Wasilla Public Seeping Meeting was held at 7:30 p.m. January 12, 1983, at the Wasilla City Hall. The following comments were expressed by the public. Tidal power, in conjunction with a causeway at Point MacKenzie was favored by one respondent. He felt the longterm benefits of tidal power outweighed the adverse changes in the environment that a causeway would create. Among the benefits of tidal power, he included enough excess energy to heat greenhouses that could produce food for the Anchorage area~ utilization of silt deposits, created by the causeway, for fill in the Anchorage area~ and better air quality in Anchorage because tidal power could reduce use of petroleum products. Alternative modes of transporting goods and people across the Knik Arm in a tube system, utilizing electromagnetic propulsion, was presented by another person. Minimal construction efforts, little to no environ- mental impacts, early project completion, low cost, and fast transport of goods and materials were the major benefits of his proposal. Another respondent suggested that ADOT/PF consider more strongly the cost benefits of reducing travel distances from Fairbanks to Anchorage, versus the cost-benefits of a shorter route between Wasilla and Anchorage. He suggested the use of the Knik-Goose Bay Road. In addition, he pointed out that native lands within any of the corridors may create problems and questioned the State's ability to condemn native lands. He also felt a strong population base created by a dock and industrial development on the north side of Knik Arm might reduce the need for people commuting to Anchorage. IV-1 Someone else felt that the location of the crossing at either end of Knik Arm, rather then in the middle, would allow a second bridge to be built at the opposite end if future demand warranted. Going through each of the alternative crossing locations, one person felt the most benefit could be derived from a crossing that was close-in to Anchorage. He felt the Point MacKenzie alternative would work only with a tunnel due to problems between a bridge and air traffic. However, he felt a tunnel or tube would be too expensive. His final recommendation was a bridge at the narrowest part of the Knik Arm (Cairn Point). He stated that the benefits of location and structure here would include lower cost due to shorter distance, open access to the city dock, uninterrupted waterfront development, movement of freight up the Knik Arm (bridge designed with high clearance), and better access to western Alaska. He also recommended the ADOT/PF reduce costs to insure the building of the project. He said incremental or stage construction would do this and would also put more local people to work. Phasing the project so the approach roads were developed later would also reduce the overall price tag of the project. Existing roads should be used now for approach roads. Concerns from the next respondent were twofold. He felt the project could create degradation of air quality in the Knik/Big Lake area. His second concern was that the project could increase congestion along the Knik/Goose Bay road. As a representative of the Iditarod Trail Blazers, he raised concern over impacts to the Iditarod Trail and to sled dog trails in the area. He mentioned coordination between ADOT/PF, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the State Division of Parks. In further discussion with ADOT/PF representatives, he cited the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department as a source for trail maps and the BLM for its recent survey of parts of the Iditarod trail. A respondent felt better access from Wasilla to Anchorage was needed. He felt upgrading the Knik/Goose Bay road and the Parks Highway to Wasilla should be considered with connecting approaches. Cost and funding were a concern of another person who suggested ADOT/PF investigate the Rivers and Harbors Act for funding sources. He questioned whether a 1955 Corps of Engineers study was being used. Impatience with more studies was expressed by another respondent, saying that he knows of seventeen studies in Juneau that are "gathering dust." The concensus of the seventeen studies, he stated, was that the most feasible crossing would be Eagle River with a combination of causeway and bridge across the channel. He suggested that the crossing be built in stages. For example, one two-lane causeway could be built, and if the need was found, an additional t,.,o-lanes could be added, providing a four-lane highway. If necessary, the respondent suggested, fill could be added for a railroad. Utilities, a gas pipeline, and IV-2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------~~---~~ ~ power lines crossing overhead could also be added. The respondent said that problems could be encountered where Military, Borough, University, and other agencies own land. The next person to comment wanted the maps used at the public meeting to include more detailed information to show high activity areas. He recommended the following areas be identified or emphasized on the maps: • • • • • • • • • • Knik/Goose Bay road Point MacKenzie agricultural project Port access road Fish Creek proposed agricultural project Railroad ENSTAR gas line Existing gas wells Existing and proposed land ownership Iditarod Trail Beluga coal fields He added that by showing these areas ADOT/PF could get a better idea of future transportation needs. The remaining respondents duplicated earlier responses with a few addi- tional suggestions including the use of a toll or fee type system to help pay for the road, the use of the 1955 Corps of Engineers study, the 1972 ADOT/PF report, and the Rothschild Corporation study on tidal power. C. ANCHORAGE MEETING The Anchorage Public Scoping Meeting was held at 7:30 p.m. on January 13, 1983, at the Anchorage School District headquarters offices. The following comments were expressed by the public. The Executive Director of the Alaska Lung Association was in favor of a crossing. However, he wanted more information on location, type, costs, and timing. He stated that Anchorage is in trouble because it can not meet Environmental Protection Agency standards for carbon monoxide levels. He believed Anchorage should consider moving people out into other areas and that the crossing would open areas of land across the Knik Arm. He complimented the Department of Highways for doing what has to be done and stated the Lung Association would support them 100 percent. In a detailed analysis another person went through each of the corridors explaining what he felt were major advantages and disadvantages to each of the alternatives. His main points were to keep cost down by building the project in increments, to determine costs of a bridge alone so that connecting road costs could be analyzed separately, to use only State funding for the project so that the Environmental Impact Statement could IV-3 be omitted, and to keep the project simple, excluding railroad and hydro alternatives. These, he said, could be added later as need arises. A representative from Air Cushion Technology was in favor of building a causeway crossing but suggested that in the interim a Hovercraft system should be put into service. He conunented that once the crossing was developed, the Hovercraft could be used to connect Anchorage to Kenai, Tyonek, Hope, and Beluga. It could also be used locally for search and rescue. A bridge crossing at Cairn Point was the choice of the next respondent. He reconunended connecting to the A Street/C Street couplet on the Anchorage side and using the existing road (Knik/Goose Bay Road) on the north side. He felt there was no need for an Environmental Impact Statement and that a design could be completed in months, with the building of the project complete in two years. Coordination was a concern of another person. He wanted assurance that ADOT/PF use existing planning efforts of the Municipality of Anchorage, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and the Military. He felt an alternative further North would avoid Federal lands. One respondent was concerned with the way the project would be present- ed to the Legislature, to the public, and how the issue would go on a ballot. He wanted to avoid mistakes that might result in the failure of the project. A causeway was reconunended by the next person who believed benefits would include development of better port facilities and the utilization of local materials (gravel and muck) to reduce construction costs. He gave a detailed description of how a causeway could be built using local labor and materials. An aide to a State Legislator had two concerns. The first concern was the connecting roads on either side of the crossing and how they would work with the port. Secondly, he questioned the need for an Environmental Impact Statement since he felt the likelihood of Federal funds is small. A crossing location that would tie into downtown would be more bene- ficial, according to one respondent. He also felt that the crossing design should allow for future addition of railroad and utilities. Another person felt a causeway changes to the existing salt water He felt a bridge would be better. would create significant negative marsh including impacts to wildlife. Several other people spoke supporting what had been said earlier, with the additional conunents that the study should focus on the crossing and use of existing roads to approach the crossing. North approaches should be investigated at a later date. IV-4 - - .... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - D. AGENCY MEETINGS The agency seeping meetings were held at 9:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. Jan- uary 13, 1983 in the ADOT/PF Anchorage office conference room. The following agencies were represented: U.S. Coast Guard, Anchorage Alaska State Troopers, Anchorage Alaska Railroad, Anchorage U.S. Air Force, Elmendorf Air Force Base, Anchorage Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Habitat Division, Anchorage ADOT/PF, Juneau National Park Service, Anchorage Corps of Engineers, Anchorage U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Anchorage National Marine Fisheries Service, Anchorage Federal Highway Administration, Juneau Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Land and Water, Anchorage Soil Conservation Service, Anchorage Federal Aviation Administration Agency comments were as follows: Ted Rockwell, Corps of Engineer's Environmental Manager, questioned the decision to do corridor analysis outside of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. His concern was that alternative cor- ridors might be eliminated too early, resulting in an EIS that examines only one corridor. Larry Wright, National Park Service, questioned the need for a Willow corridor because of the defeat of the vote for the capital move. He suggested that it should be fairly obvious that the most direct connection between highly concentrated populations should be the chosen corridor. He also questioned the feasibility of a tunnel, and pointed out the hardships of crossing Department of Defense lands. Bill Coghill, Alaska Railroad (ARR), stated that ARR visualizes an in- dustrial area across the Knik Arm from Anchorage. He sees the coal fields (Beluga, Susitna, and Yentna) as a developing industry and also sees the possibility of a commuter railroad service that could carry approximately 3,000 persons from the Mat-Su valley each day to work in Anchorage. Mr. Coghill stated that there is little room for further industrial expansion in Anchorage and that the area directly across the Knik Arm from Anchorage is a logical expansion area. James Hostman, Alaska Air Command, pointed out that sensitive military facilities may have to be relocated, and that he knows of no alternative sites. IV-5 Mr. Hostman explained that such encroachments require Secretary of the Army, Air Force, Defense, and ultimately congressional approval. He also said that the military base would have to declare those lands as surplus prior to disposal. This would open them to claims by other agencies. He mentioned that the pending agreement with Eklutna and Municipality of Anchorage has been in process for ten years and is still waiting congressional approval even though it was advocated by all levels of command and by Alaska's Senator. Mr. Hostman questioned the plan for tie-ins to other arterials such as Minnesota Drive and the proposed Ship Creek Arterial. He stated many other problems with Fort Richardson and Elmendorf corridors. He said the Fort Richardson corridor crosses ammunition storage areas, impact areas, and firing zones. The Elmendorf corridor comes close to ammunition storage areas, recreation areas, fuel storage areas, the final approach zone of Elmendorf's north-south runway and the zone for the east-west runway, the hospital, and it goes through a housing area. He said that these corridors are not acceptable because of function disruption to the installation's function. Brad Smith, National Marine Fisheries, asked if the study was seriously considering the tidal power alternative. Obie Weeks, Chief Engineer, Alaska Railroad, stated that from their point of view this study should start with a railroad/highway study as the main objective instead of a highway crossing with the railroad as a secondary objective. Mr. Weeks mentioned the need to look at the Beluga coal field and how and where coal from that field would be delivered. He said that in the discussion of the alternative of upgrading the Parks and Glenn Highways that upgrading of the ARR also needs to be included. Gary Lieptiz, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, pointed out that multiple corridors were not suggested as an option and asked if multiple roads might be built. David Epstein, Federal Aviation Administration, inquired if environ- mental impact will receive the greatest effort of the consultant team. He also wanted to know if the analysis will be done "in house". Lt. Col. Michael Blair, United States Air Force, speaking for the military, took issue with the reference to "The Crossing" citing the 1972 recommendation for a crossing upstream of Cairn Point. He recommends referring to it as "A Crossing" rather than "The Crossing. " Lt. Col. Blair also commented that the Eagle River corridor crosses one of the military's primary training drop zones for equipment and person- nel serving all of Alaska. The Fort Richardson corridor and the IV-6 - - ... - ... - - - - - - - - - - - - - Elmendorf corridor will seriously impact the military's ability to carry out their training missions. The Downtown corridor will impact not only the military, but also the Port of Anchorage. Questions re-garding the military mission or the base can be referred to Col. Blair. IV-7 Chapter V TECHNICAL ANALYSIS A. INTRODUCTION As part of the seeping process, a general evaluation of the corridor alternatives was conducted. The purpose of this evaluation was to determine, from an engineering or environmental impact standpoint, if any alternatives should be dropped or altered, and what criteria are key to distinguishing between the alternatives. Evaluation criteria and alternatives presented in the Seeping Document and at the seeping meetings, as well as criteria added as a result of public and agency response, were considered. B. ENGINEERING Two principal criteria were used in evaluating the corridors: Cost and ease of implementation. Cost Construction costs for the crossing will vary depending on the depth and width of channel, type of crossing, and the structure type required to meet design constraints. A tunnel will be the most costly type of crossing ( $490 to 515 million) , followed by a causeway ( $269 to 431 million), causeway/bridge ($262 to 342 million), and bridge ($194 to 389 million). The corridor requiring the greatest cost to construct a bridge is the Downtown corridor ($389 million), followed by Point MacKenzfe ($300 million), Fort Richardson ($281 million), Eagle River ($250 million) , and Elmendorf ($194 million) . The cost of a causeway or causeway/dam decreases as one moves up the Arm ($431 to 269 million). The cost of a tunnel varies little between alternatives ($413 to 515 million). Maintenance costs generally vary by the length of the cross- ing. Cost of construction and right-of-way for the north approach will be primarily dependent on the roadway length, with the longer corridors being the most costly ($2 -to 65.8 million, exclusive of right-of-way cost) . Total cost for completion of a south approach would be great- est in the Downtown corridor ($121.1 to 292.5 million) , followed by Elmendorf ($49 to 223.2 million), Fort Richardson ($47.5 to 48.5 million), Eagle River ($42 to 43.5 million), and Point MacKenzie ($28 to 80 million) . V-1 The Downtown and Elmendorf corridors have the highest right-of-way costs due to displacement of urban development or military facilities. Costs also vary depending on whether the approach is at-grade, elevated, depressed, or in tunnel (least costly to most costly). Maintenance costs would increase with approach road length. Implementation All of the crossing corridors are technically feasible although they will be challenging to construct. Difficulties in construction will be greatest for a tunnel and least for a bridge. All the crossing types lend themselves to staged construction. Several permits from Federal agencies will be required with any of the crossing alternatives. Staged construction can corridors by initially Right-of-way availability be significant concerns. streams and wetlands. be readily achieved in the north approach connecting into the existing road system. and ease of construction are not expected to Federal permits will be required for crossing South approach road construction can be staged by building two lanes initially and adding lanes as required to meet future traffic demand. Significant displacement will be involved in obtaining right-of-way for approaches in the Point MacKenzie, Downtown, and Elmendorf corridors. The Elmendorf, Fort Richardson, and Eagle River corridors all cross military lands which can only by obtained with the approval of the U.S. Department of Defense. Ease of construction is not a significant concern. Federal permits would be required for crossing any streams or wetlands. C. TRANSPORTATION The following evaluation criteria are addressed in this section: Motor Vehicle Travel, Freight Movement, Public Transportation, and Transpor- tation Plan Compatibility. Motor Vehicle Travel A Knik Arm Crossing has essentially two travel markets: Diversion of traffic from the Glenn and Parks Highway to a Knik Arm Crossing in order to realize a shorter trip; and traffic resulting from residential and industrial growth induced by increased accessibility between the Mat-Su Borough and Anchorage. Of the two, diversion of traffic is the smaller. Anchorage-Fairbanks travel is a very small part of the travel demand; only a straight, fast route between Wasilla and downtown Anchorage would be expected to divert substantial Glenn/Parks Highway traffic. The V-2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - larger share of travel demand would be from residential development in the southern Mat-Su Borough, particularly from a Point MacKenzie to central Anchorage route. Routes that zigzag between the Mat-Su Borough and Anchorage (Eagle River, Fort Richardson) will induce little growth and hence carry little traffic. From the standpoint of complementing the existing Anchorage transpor- tation system, a Point MacKenzie crossing appears optimal, since facili- ties on the west side of Anchorage generally have more available capacity (typical peninsula situation). Crossing into the downtown area could compound downtown circulation problems and necessitate upgrading of the 5th-6th and Ingra-Gambell couplets to freeway facilities. Crossings which feed into the Glenn Highway (Ft. Richardson, Eagle River, possibly Elmendorf) would compound circulation problems on the Glenn Highway, and no real alternate access to Anchorage will be achieved. Freight Movement Rail access across the Knik Arm could shorten the railbelt route to Fairbanks, and eliminate a crooked and slow section of the Alaska Railroad immediately north of Anchorage. Cost of railroad relocation will be quite high (perhaps $150-200 million). Substantially greater freight volumes than at present may have to be achieved before benefits offset cost. Point MacKenzie industrial development would undoubtedly necessitate rail access to the Point. It is conceivable that rail access would be less costly via a Knik Arm Highway Crossing than extending the railroad south from Willow or Wasilla. Public Transportation Little impact on public transportation is expected. Provision for future highway bus pull-outs and park-and-ride lots could be incorporat- ed on north approach right-of-way. Transportation Plan Compatibility Neither the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (AMATS) nor the Mat-Su Borough's transportation plan incorporate a Knik Arm Crossing route. A connection which ties into existing roadways and causes the least disruption to the current plan may be considered most compatible. The Eagle River, Fort Richardson, and Point MacKenzie (to International Airport) corridors would be least disruptive to planned improvements and system capacity. The Downtown corridor could necessitate substantial rethinking of planned facilities through the Downtown area due to in- creased traffic volumes. V-3 D. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC The following evaluation criteria are addressed in this section: Urban Growth, Land Use Plan Compatibility, Dislocation and Relocation, Urban and Military Disruption, and Economics. Urban Growth The extent to which change in planned growth patterns would occur with a crossing is primarily related to how accessibility from developable lands to downtown Anchorage would be altered. Such changes would be least likely for the Eagle River corridor, followed by the Fort Richardson corridor. In these cases developable lands within the Anchorage bowl would remain more accessible than the southern portion of the Mat-Su Borough. The Point MacKenzie and Downtown corridors would bring new developable lands close to Anchorage and thus would be the corridors most likely to alter future development patterns. Shifts in planned residential and some commercial development would be likely. Decreased development would be expected on marginal lands in the Anchorage bowl, and new urban development beyond what is now anticipated would occur in the Point MacKenzie area and to a limited extent along the Parks Highway. A north approach from either a Downtown or Point MacKenzie crossing would have similar influence on new growth patterns. If growth is encouraged in the Point MacKenzie area, public services would need to be provided and strict zoning and subdivision regulations would be required to achieve desired urban densities. Land Use Plan Compatibility Neither the land use plans for the Anchorage area nor the Mat-Su Borough assume a Knik Arm Crossing within their planning period. Although the Point MacKenzie and Downtown corridors would alter planned growth patterns, this could be viewed as a positive feature since they would open new development options for Anchorage. The Anchorage bowl would be filled almost to capacity within the current 20 year planning period. If an alignment were placed through the Port of Anchorage, it could have a significant adverse impact on port development scarcity of land for new port facilities. Completion facilities in the Fort Richardson land use plan would the Eagle River or Fort Richardson corridors. V-4 plans due to the of new physical not be impacted by - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A north approach road leading to a crossing south of Goose Bay would be most in keeping with Mat-Su Borough planning. Plans for industrial and port development in the Point MacKenzie area would be reinforced. However, development would need to be controlled so it does not impact planned agriculture development in the same area. The Wasilla corridor would bring the Borough's principal area for development closer to Anchorage. However, it would also cause the Knik area, now planned for only limited development, to have increased development pressure due to its new proximity to Anchorage. Any of the north approach corridors would bring the Parks Highway and Big Lake areas closer to Anchorage, encouraging additional development. New roads serving agriculture and timber development are already planned in the Willow corridor. Dislocation and Relocation Dislocation of existing structures and facilities and their functions is not expected to occur with the north approach corridors due to the sparseness of development in the areas through which they pass. Dislocation is of primary concern in the developed areas southeast of Knik Arm. The greatest displacement could occur with the Downtown corridor; including homes on Government Hill, Alaska Native Medical Center, businesses; and Elmendorf Air Force Base's circularly disposed antenna array (CDAA), POL storage facilities, and receiver site antenna. Again, the extent of displacement would depend on the alignment selected. Urban and Military Disruption An alignment could be placed within a~y of the north approach corridors without significant impact to existing urban development or military facilities. A bridge crossing south of Cairn Point would have to be high enough and have wide enough spans not to impede ships served by the Port of An- chorage. There also is a potential for intrusion into aircraft approach zones from bridges connected to the Point MacKenzie, Downtown, and Elmendorf approach corridors. An alignment in the Point MacKenzie corridor near Internfrtional Airport could interfere with the small plane taxiway and parking west of Lake Hood. If the alignment followed the Alaska Railroad from Bootlegger's Cove, it would displace park land, require an elevated roadway through a residential development (until the approach could join the existing arterial street system), and would result in significant displacement at it's connection to the existing street system. V-5 An alignment in the Downtown corridor could pass through or adjacent to the Government Hill residential neighborhood. If the Elmendorf corridor is angled south it is anticipated that an alignment could be developed that would avoid interference with Elmendorf operations and facilities, except for those facilities described under "Displacement and Reloca- tion." The Fort Richardson and Eagle River corridors would both inter- fere with Fort Richardson training areas. Economics Economic impacts of the crossing alternatives are related to the pat- terns of urban growth that can be expected with each alternative. Thus, progressively less impact on economic development, public finance, and housing and business markets would occur with the Fort Richardson and Eagle River corridors, in that order. Economic development plans for Point MacKenzie and Anchorage are not dependent on each other, so a crossing of Knik Arm, even with a Point MacKenzie or Downtown south approach, should not significantly change these plans. This includes both port and industrial development proposals. The primary economic change that would come when the southernmost south approaches are used, would be a shift in the responsibility for providing public services from the Municipality of Anchorage to the Mat-Su Borough. The costs of this might ultimately be offset by increased Borough revenues. With a crossing, the increased availability of land near the Anchorage area could keep housing costs lower than what would otherwise be expected. Land values would rise in the Point MacKenzie area. E. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT The following evaluation criteria are addressed in this section: Biological Resources, Water Resources, Air Quality, Noise, Energy, and Visual. Biological Resources A causeway/dam would have the greatest impact on biological resources of any of the crossing types under construction. Salmon runs, fisheries programs, marine habitat, wetland vegetation, waterbird habitat, moose habitat, and aquatic habitats would be adversely affected. Dam height and provisions for exchange of tidal water across the causeway are V-6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - critical factors in the extent of impact. The impacts would also be less severe for a causeway in the Eagle River corridor than one in the Elmendorf Corridor. Little long-term impact would be expected from a bridge or tunnel crossing. Conflict with biological resources would exist with any of the north approach corridors, but it would not preclude development of an approach road. The greatest conflict would be with the Wasilla corridor where it crosses Goose Bay, and the Willow and Nancy Lake corridors. Primary concerns would be stream crossings; moose migration; new road access to fishing, hunting, and trapping areas; and crossing of wetland habitat. Lessor impacts would be expected with the Houston and Big Lake corri- dors. South approach alternatives with the greatest conflict with biological resources would be the Elmendorf, Fort Richardson, and Eagle River cor- ridors. The potential for impact would be roughly the same as for north approach corridors. Water Resources A bridge or tunnel crossing would not be expected to have a significant long-term impact on water resources. However, a causeway/dam would significantly alter the existing hydrological regime of Knik Arm. Impacts would include creation of a freshwater reservoir, flooding of lowland areas, sediment deposition, higher summer water temperature, and continuous ice cover on the reservoir in winter. Other impacts might be increased icing and a greater tide range at the Port. A causeway with bridged openings or incorporating tidal power would reduce the impact. As with biological resources, the extent of impact would vary by the location of the causeway. Impacts to water resources would be minimal for a north approach near Goose Bay. The Big Lake, Houston, Nancy Lake, Willow, and Wasilla corridors all would involve stream crossings and wetlands encroachment. Fewer impacts would occur in the Houston and Big Lake corridors. Greater impacts would occur in the Wasilla corridor where Goose Bay is crossed. All south approach corridors would have a minimal impact on water resources. Air Quality The Downtown, Point MacKenzie and Elmendorf corridors could have a significant impact on air quality. The greatest impact could be with the Downtown corridor. Traffic presently creates a carbon monoxide problem and with this corridor all crossing traffic would have to pass through downtown, increasing the problem. V-7 Noise The potential for noise impact would be greatest for the south approach. The Point MacKenzie, Downtown, and Elmendorf corridors all would place crossing traffic adjacent to noise sensitive land uses. Energy Motor vehicle energy consumption would be reduced by providing more developable land close to Anchorage. This potential would be greatest for crossings using the Downtown and Point MacKenzie corridors. How- ever, if urban densities are not achieved in new developable area this potential would be lost. The energy used to construct and maintain the crossing and its approach roads would also tend to offset motor vehicle energy savings. Visual A bridge would create a significant visual feature, contrasting with the natural landscape, and could either complement or intrude into views of Knik Arm. A causeway would also be a significant visual element, in- truding upon existing views. Visual impacts from north approach corridors could be minimized by avoiding recreation areas, lakes, streams, and trails and by using proper revegetation techniques. Revegetation would also minimize any adverse visual impacts in the Elmendorf, Fort Richardson, and Eagle River corridors. The dominance of manmade elements in the Point MacKenzie and Downtown corridors would reduce visual impacts, except where an alignment is selected that would pass through a residential area or block views of the Arm. F. CULTURAL RESOURCES Two evaluation criteria are considered in this section: Antiquities and Historic Sites, and Parks and Recreation. Antiquities and Historic Sites Most sites of historic value in the areas through which corridors pass are small, discrete, and easily avoided. The corridors also appear to have low archaeological value. Parks and Recreation Potential impacts on recreation would be greatest for the north approach corridors. Recreation opportunities exist throughout the Mat-Su Borough, including hunting, hiking trails, lake and stream access, and camping areas. The crossing and north approach roads would improve access to these areas. Trails and streams would be crossed. The Nancy Lake corridor passes through the Nancy Lake Recreation Area. Fish Creek Recreation Area lies in the Big Lake Corridor. V-8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Point MacKenzie and Downtown south approach corridors contain public recreation areas along the shore of Knik Arm. Major parks could prob- ably be avoided. A bike trail is proposed for construction along the full length of the Arm between and including the two corridors. The trail and smaller recreation areas along the Arm could be impacted. It is anticipated that recreation impacts can be avoided along the Elmendorf, Fort Richardson and Eagle River corridors. G. CONCLUSIONS The technical analysis resulted in the conclusion that all the corridor alternatives presented in the Scoping Document and those added as a result of the scoping process should be further evaluated in the Corri- dor Alternatives Analysis. They each offer distinct trade-offs in terms of benefits and impacts. None of the corridors have impacts of such severity that they should be excluded from further consideration at this time. The Elmendorf corridor was angled to the south to reduce the disruption of military operations and displacement of military facili- ties. No additional evaluation criteria were identified as a result of the technical analysis. V-9 Chapter VI CORRIDOR LEVEL ALTERNATIVES A. INTRODUCTION The following alternatives defined for corridor level evaluation reflect the full range of possible travel improvements between Anchorage and the Mat-Su Borough. The first three alternatives -no action, alterna- tive travel modes, and upgrade Glenn and Parks Highways -are required by Federal environmental regulation; they provide a good benchmark for comparison with highway crossing alternatives. During corridor level evaluation, limited effort will be spent in evaluating these alterna- tives. Most effort will be focused ·on the last three types of alterna- tives -highway corridor locations up and down Knik Arm (crossing, north, and south approaches), configuration alternatives (bridge, causeway, tunnel) and auxiliary crossing facilities, i.e., projects that might be pursued in conjunction with a highway crossing (rail, tidal power, utility lines). The following section describes each of the alternatives: B. NO ACTION Area population, employment, land development, and traffic growth would increase to the year 2000 as projected in Anchorage and Mat-Su Borough plans. There would be no Knik Arm Crossing, no improvement of the Glenn and Parks Highway north to Palmer and Willow, and no provision of alternative travel modes. C. ALTERNATIVE TRAVEL MODES Ferry/Water Surface Mode A passenger and vehicle ferry, Hovercraft, or other water surface craft, would link downtown Anchorage with Point MacKenzie in the Mat-Su Bor- ough. Intercity Transit A substantially increased intercity bus or passenger rail service would be provided along the Glenn Highway to Palmer and along the Parks High- way to Wasilla and Willow. VI-1 D. UPGRADING EXISTING HIGHWAY SYSTEM Glenn Highway Improvements Major intersections along the highway would be grade separated with full access-control extended from central Anchorage to Palmer. The highway would be widened to four and six lanes as travel demand warrants. Parks Highway Improvements Major improvements along the highway would include bypasses of Wasilla and Houston with access-control between the Glenn Highway and Willow. The highway would be widened to four lanes as travel demand warrants. Combination Both Glenn Highway improvements and Parks Highway improvements would be made. E. HIGHWAY CROSSING LOCATIONS Figure II-1 locates five north approach highway corridors in the Mat-Su Borough, five south approach highway corridors in the Anchorage area, and three broad Knik Arm crossing corridors. These broad corridors in- corporate all of the 1971 HNTB Knik Arm Highway Crossing study cross- ing sites. They minimize encroachment on recreation and wildlife pre- serves on the north, and major military and transport facilities and urban neighborhoods to the south. North Approach Corridors Willow Corridor: This corridor provides the longest bypass of the existing Parks and Glenn Highways. From north of Willow the corridor passes between the Susitna River and Nancy Lake Recreation Area and extends south across the Little Susitna River and then passes between the Susitna Flats and Goose Bay State Game Refuges to the Knik Arm shore. This offers the shortest route between Fairbanks and Anchorage, with approximately 30 miles savings over the present route. Principal design constraints are the water bodies, planned agriculture development, proposed industrial and port development, recreation sites, natural habitat, and poor soils associated with wetland areas. Provision must also be made for crossing the Iditarod Trail. Nancy Lake Corridor: This corridor links the Parks Highway below Willow to Point HacKenzie passing through the Nancy Lake Recreation Area along the Nancy Lake Parkway. This corridor provides increased access to Nancy Lake Recreation Area, but could also create impacts to existing recreation opportunities within the park. Principal design constraints are similar to those of the Willow Corridor. VI-2 - - - - - - - - .. - - - - - - - - - - Houston Corridor: This corridor J o1ns the Parks Highway, in the vicinity of Houston, with the southern part of the Mat-Su Borough, passing between Nancy Lake Recreation Area .:md the Big Lakes area. The corridor provides the most direct access to both Big Lake and Nancy Lake recreation area. Design constraints are similar to those of the Willow Corridor. Soil conditions in this corridor may be particularly difficult for road construction. Big Lake Corridor: This corridor links the Big Lake area with southerly Mat-Su Borough, passing east of the Big Lakes area. Design constraints are similar to those of the Willow Corridor, including water bodies, game refuges, and poor soils. Archaeological sites are in the Fish Creek area and an extensive system of dog mushing trails are in the Knik area. Wasilla Corridor: This is the most easterly corridor. It utilizes the existing Goose Bay Road between Knik and Wasilla and a winter access road along the mouth of Goose Bay to Point MacKenzie. This corridor provides the most direct access to existing and planned Mat-Su Borough population growth in the Wasilla-Palmer area. Utilization of the existing roadway would reduce project cost. The access route across the Goose Bay State Game Refuge is constrained by soils and natural habitat considerations. South Approach Corridors Eagle River Corridor: This easternmost corridor crosses Fort Richardson land to connect with the Glenn Highway north of the Eagle River commun- ity. The greater distance of this corridor from central Anchorage will reduce travel benefits. Design constraints include potential disruption to military training areas near Clunie Lake. Fort Richardson Corridor: This corridor crosses the northern tip of Elmendorf AFB and the Fort Richardson gunnery area to tie into the Glenn Highway south of the Eagle River community. Relocation of ammunitions storage and gunnery range would be required. Elmendorf Corridor: This corridor crosses the middle of Elmendorf AFB and Fort Richardson to tie into the Glenn Highway near r,1uldoon Road. Relocation of communications antennas, munitions storage, transport routes, and military recreation areas would be required. Military security and wildlife habitat could be affected. Downtown Corridor: This corridor connects to the intersection of the Glenn and Seward Highways extended, passing through the congested Port of Anchorage and the Ship Creek area. Relocation of petroleum storage tanks, industrial and transport facilities, and residential buildings would be required. A crossing approach route below the bluffs, beside Elmendorf AFB, would require relocation of major military communications facilities sensitive to electrical and sound interference. VI-3 Point MacKenzie Corridor: This corridor would connect to Northern Lights Boulevard and/0r International Airport Drive in Anchorage. Proximity to Anchorage International Airport operations and waterfront residential development are design constraints. Crossing Corridors Eagle River Crossing: Although the farthest north of Anchorage, this alternative reduces disruption of community and military facilities. It appears to offer greater po.tential use of causeway due to shallow depth of channel, and greater potential for auxiliary tidal power facilities. This is the longest crossing at approximately 3 to 4 miles in length. However, the channel is shallow with less than 15 foot depth at high water. This corridor, like all others, must address extreme icing, wind loading, tidal action, seismic forces, and poor soil conditions. Central Crossing: A two to three mile crossing appears technically feasible within a nine mile reach of the Knik Arm between Goose Bay State Game Refuge on the north and downtown Anchorage on the south. This corridor includes a range of geographic conditions; both deep and narrow sections of Knik Arm with the shortest crossing structure near Cairn Point; shallower channel depths conducive to causeway and auxiliary tidal power generation near Goose Bay State Game Refuge; and deep (over 100 feet) channel depths conducive to long span bridge or tunnel nearer downtown Anchorage. Elmendorf AFB runway clear zone, military communications non-interference, and Port access criteria must be met. Avoidance of existing structures and transport lines on the south shore becomes increasingly difficulty with proximity to downtown Anchorage. Point MacKenzie Crossing: A deep channel and 2. 5 mile channel width indicate a crossing in this location will be technically challenging and most expensive. Anchorage Airport clear zone and Port access criteria pose constraints. South shore residential and park use along the waterfront limit the width of the corridor. F. HIGHWAY CROSSING CONFIGURATIONS Bridge A long span structure is necessitated by a deep channel and safe navigational clearance in the southwest portion of Knik Arm. Large and costly substructure units are expected due to long spans, poor soils, and seismic safety requirements. Less costly shorter span structures appear possible in the northeast portion of the Arm. A high-level long span structure will be required south of the Port of Anchorage to facilitate ship access. VI-4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tunnel/Tube A tunnel or a subaqueous tube will be considered in all locations although the narrower central crossing corridor appears most conducive to tunnel/tube feasibility. Causeway A causeway is most feasible in the Eagle River corridor and northerly end of the central corridor due to shallower channel depths. Sediment transport and settlement are design constraints for causeway construc- tion. Changes in water temperature and water quality upstream of a causeway may have climatic, agriculture, wetlands, and wildlife impacts. Downstream of a causeway there may be increased icing and tidal ranges. Combination Bridge, tunnel/tube, and causeway options could be combined in the upper reaches of the Knik Arm. G. AUXILIARY FACILITIES Railroad The highway crossing design could be modified to accommodate addition of railroad trackage. Crossing sizes and costs would be increased. Tidal Power Causeway design could be modified to accommodate the addition of tidal power generation. Utilities Highway bridge, tunnel, or causeway design could be modified to accommodate addition of utilities. Crossing cost and safety could be impacted. VI-5 Chapter VII EVALUATION CONSIDERATIONS A. ENGINEERING DESIGN The engineering evaluation will determine potential design and construct- ability constraints and benefits for each alternative, including crossing and approach roads. The general design criteria for highways will be based on State of Alaska, Federal, and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standard specifications and design standards. As required, criteria will be developed for the railroad, utility, and tidal power generation options. Plan and Profile Drawings By means of aerial photo examination, field inspections, and study of available mapping and other data, schematic alignments for the crossing and approach roadways will be developed. The alignments, cross- sections, and profiles will be used to develop quantities for costing purposes. Soils and Seismic Safety Geotechnical factors may affect the cost of a crossing by 20 to 30 percent. The geographic location of Knik Arm, in one of the world's most active seismic zones, and the presence of vibration sensitive glacial deposits in the Knik Arm region, combine to make this area one of considerable concern with respect to the design and construction of structures. Seismic reflection surveys have been made at crossing locations to understand channel subbottom conditions and structural design requirements. Later, a limited number of borings will be taken to confirm survey findings. On the shore, there is concern for bluff stability and roadway founda- tion requirements. Terrain will be investigated to determine its influence on design, drainage in conjunction with highway construction, and potential erosion and sedimentation during and following con- struction. Soil Conservation Service soils investigations, Landsat satellite photo interpretation, and previous borings will be used to identify subsurface soils and geology. Channel Navigation Access to the Port of Anchorage dictates width and height of a bridge span and protection for a tunnel/tube for any crossing south of Cairn Point. Navigation requirements north of Cairn Point will need to be determined. VII-1 Aviation Clearance Elmendorf AFB approach zones within Knik Arm. airport and Anchorage pose constraints on the Military Communications and Safety International height of any Airport bridge flight placed A highway within one mile of a sensitive circularly disposed antenna array (CDAA) on Elmendorf AFB could cause eltro-magnetic and sound interfer- ence. Other communication antennas on Elmendorf AFB and Fort Richardson must also be avoided or relocated. Clear zones around ammunition storage and firing ranges must be maintained. Tidal Currents, Wind, and Ice Climatic factors are severe in the Arm, affecting cost of structure and maintenance for all crossing locations. Right-of-Way Acquisition Military, port, business, and recreation activities may need to be relocated in south approach corridors. Acquisition and clearing of right-of-way requires both time and monetary expenditures. Materials Available Aggregate for roadway base construction is not uniformly available within the study area. Some corridor locations may be closer than others to material sites and construction requirements in one corridor may also require more long distance transport of materials than others. B. COST AND SCHEDULE Construction and Right-of-Way Costs Construction and right-of-way costs will be developed for each align- ment and for the non-crossing alternatives. Unit prices will be abstracted from recent bids received by ADOT/PF and others. The prices will be adjusted as necessary to reflect variables such as geologic constraints and distances to sources of construction materials. For each approach corridor, right-of-way costs will be based upon assessed values obtained from the Mat-Su Borough for the north approach and Municipality of Anchorage for the south approach. Operation and Maintenance Costs The evaluation of maintenance costs for the approaches will consist of obtaining historic maintenance cost data from appropriate study area VII-2 - - - - .... - - - - - - - - - - - - - -maintenance stations. Crossing maintenance costs will be based on past U.S. and Alaska experience as well as anticipated crossing use. In the case of tunnel/tube alternatives, operating costs will be estimated from historic costs of operating other tunnel/tubes. Construction Schedule A schedule for design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction will be developed for each alternative. Scheduling will permit assessment of financing and manpower requirements as well as assessment of project benefits and impacts. C. FINANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION Financing Cashflow requirements will be identified based on design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction schedule. Potential revenue sources will be identified. A suggested financial program will be developed to implement alternatives, and mechanisms for guaranteed long-term financing will be investigated. Construction Staging Consideration will be given to incremental construction of crossing and approach road improvements within a long-range plan. Phasing of con- struction could minimize initial cost and allow time for traffic and associated crossing benefits to increase before additional phases are added. Permit Requirements Federal permit approvals, particularly authorization to cross military lands, could delay project construction. Potential delay time and associated costs will be gauged for each alternative. Management Alternative mechanisms will be considered for obtaining expertise needed to construct, operate, and maintain project alternatives, particularly the crossing structure. D. BENEFIT-COST AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS Where possible, user and community benefits will be stated in dollar value and the estimated benefit compared to cost. In addition, the relative performance (effectiveness) of each alternative will be determined, and cost per unit of effectiveness computed. VII-3 Vehicle Travel Cost of vehicle travel will be evaluated for each corridor alternative and for the No Action alternative. Comparisons will be made based on cost per passenger trip; cost per passenger mile; cost per vehicle mile; cost per vehicle mile eliminated; and cost per passenger hour saved. Freight Movement Cost-benefit evaluation would address costs (per mile and per hour) via compared to the No Action alternative. highway and rail freight shipment alternative corridors and savings Economic Development This evaluation will address industrial development costs (tourism, coal, etc.) associated with alternative corridors and estimate benefits compared to the No Action alternative. Community Development Cost-effectiveness evaluation will be used to compute typical costs for developing a residential lot in the Point r1acKenzie area compared to costs in the Anchorage bowl. Infrastructure costs (roads, sewer, water) will be estimated from interviews with local contractors and developers. Resource Conservation The cost-effectiveness evaluation will identify the incremental cost of preserving natural resources (i.e., dollars per acre of wetlands). E. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS Transportation considerations that will be a part of the Crossing evaluation fall into five categories. These are accessibility, traffic volumes and level of service, freight public transportation, and transportation plan compatibility. Highway Accessibility Knik Arm highway movement, A primary objective of the Knik Arm Crossing project is to provide more direct accessibility between the Municipality of Anchorage and communities in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. This is expected to divert traffic from the existing Glenn and Parks Highways and to induce new development and traffic. Accessibility to downtown Anchorage will be a key factor in diverting travel, affecting urban growth patterns, and VII-4 - ... - - - - - - ... - - - - - - - - - generating travel benefits (time and operating savings). Accessibility is important to reduce travel time; because of secondary benefits of reduced energy consumption, air pollutant emissions, cost of travel; and for the potential economic development. Savings will be determined for existing trips and for forecasted new trips. Traffic Volumes and Level-of-Service Highway trip diversion and Borough will be determined. volumes include: trips generated by Areas of concern growth related in to the Mat-Su anticipated 0 The capability both in the Borough, to of the existing and planned street and highway system, Municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna handle forecasted volumes at an appropriate level-of- service. 0 Design of intersections and highway cross-sections required for smooth operation. A two-step travel forecasting procedure will be used to address acces- sibility, traffic volume, system capacity, and level-of-service: First, initial "quick response" procedures designed to provide order-of-magni- tude comparison, and secondly, testing of selected alternatives using the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (AMATS) travel models. Year 2030 as well as year 2000 travel demand will be evaluated to reflect the useful life of a crossing structure. Forecasted traffic volumes will be used to determine air quality, noise, and other traffic related impacts. Freight Movement Potential changes in railroad passenger and freight operations and truck freight operations will be addressed. This will include changes in the volume of goods transported to and from existing receivers and shippers, and changes resulting from new economic development generated by each alternative. Public Transportation Two factors will be considered: The future transit travel demand in the corridor, and the capacity of corridor bus, rail, or water transit volumes. service may be increased or decreased access and the resulting urban growth within design of each alternative to transit facilities. VII-5 alternatives to handl.e increased Use of bus and rail passenger indirectly as a result of new pattern. Provision may be made accommodate future bus or rail Transportation Plan Compatibility Factors to be considered in the evaluation are whether or not the corri- dor alternatives complement planned access and circulation patterns; make use of existing and planned roadway, rail, port, transit and airport capacity; minimize local transportation capital and operating costs; provide opportunities for joint or collateral facility development (clearing, grading, filling, access); and minimize encroachment on existing and planned transport facilities (airport, port, and rail) and their operation. F. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS Social and economic considerations include urban growth; compatibility; dislocation and relocation; urban and ruption; economic development, public finance and business, Urban Growth land use plan military dis- and housing. Any Knik Arm crossing, particularly linking Point MacKenzie with central Anchorage, would shift population and employment growth due to changes in accessibility. Accessibility factors used in the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (AMATS) and the Municipality's Planning Land Use Model (PLUM) will be employed to estimate order of magnitude shifts in land use allocation. Increased requirements for urban services are expected to result in any urbanizing area. Items considered under growth impacts will be population and employment increases, changes in population distribution, changes in way-of-life for persons living in areas where growth occurs, and new or changed public service requirements. The impact on public service will be gauged, including sewer, water, electricity, gas, telephone, cable TV, fire, police, schools, parks and recreation facilities, street construction and maintenance, snow removal, and public transit. Land Use Plan Compatibility The compatibility of each alternative with land use planning by the Municipality of Anchorage, other communities within the study area, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Elmendorf Air Force Base, and Fort Richardson Army Post will be addressed. At the present time, no land use plan within the study area includes a Knik Arm Crossing. Thus, the focus of consideration will be whether or not each alternative reinforces or counters implementation of area land use plans. VII-6 .. - - - - - ... - - - - - - - - - - - Dislocation and Relocation Dislocation and relocation issues include: Location and type of dwelling units, businesses, railroad, port, and military facilities that could be displaced within each corridor and the probability of being able to avoid such displacements. If displacement is likely, the availability of suitable land and buildings for relocation will be identified. Techniques will be identified for reducing disruption to business and military operations during relocation. Urban and Military Disruption Potential disruption to urban and military land uses include disruptions by division, disruption due to traffic, and construction disruption. Disruption by Division: If an alternative passes through a residential neighborhood, school, or service area, the effect on circulation within those areas will be evaluated. A Downtown corridor will require care in placement to avoid impacts to port facilities. Changes required in railroad operations could also be a consideration. The Elmendorf, Fort Richardson and Eagle River corridors could potentially impact military operations. Explosives are stored at various locations on the bases and clear zones must be maintained for safety and security. The CDAA, south of Green Lake, is of particular concern. Underground fuel storage tanks, communications antennas, and access routes across any corridor are other considerations. In the Eagle River corridor, a joint military assault training field should be avoided. Disruption Due To Traffic: Residential neighborhoods may be affected by traffic and associated noise, air pollutants, safety, and circulation changes. The presence of traffic too close to the CDAA could disrupt its operation and require its relocation. Construction Impacts: Temporary increases may be expected in noise levels, air pollutant emissions, and changes in pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic circulation around any construction project. Means of controlling impact in residential and other sensitve locations will be addressed. Economic Development The economic development analysis will focus on what changes are anticipated in resource and other economic development plans, as a result of access improvements between Anchorage and the Mat-Su Borough. Areas to be addressed include changes in the extent, location, and VII-7 timing of future economic development, and the development changes on employment, freight movement, requirements. The economic benefits to be derived power with a crossing will also be addressed. Public Finance impact of economic and utility service from combining tidal Areas to be addressed under this category include changes in local and State revenues created by new development, and cost to local government for public services. Increases in revenue could come from either the sale of government owned lands to private owners or from the taxation of new development or redevelopment of present private lands. Costs to local government include roads, sewers, and other facilities and services needed to support growth. The principal objective will be to identify corridor alternatives that facilitate orderly and economical development patterns rather than those that contribute to high municipal construction and maintenance costs. Business and Housing The project may generate changes in property values, either increases due to development and redevelopment or decreases resulting from introduction of increased motor vehicle travel near residential areas. The effect of a crossing in considered, including effects on the cost-of-living, and on cost of will also be addressed. generating economic growth will be prevailing wage/price structure, on doing business. The effect on tourism The financial impact on local business from temporary or permanent traffic diversions and the potential for altering retail markets will be considered. G. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS Biological Resources The crossing may impact anadromous fish, marine mammals, wetlands, and salt marsh and other coastal ecosystems. Approach road considerations include stream crossings, encroachment to floodplains, wetlands, and game refuges, opening of lightly hunted areas, and impacts to moose, water fowl, rare and endangered species, and unique ecological systems. Construction of a causeway and conversion of upper Knik Arm from salt- water to freshwater ecosystem has the greatest potential for impact on biological resources. VII-8 - - - - ... - .... - - - - - - - - - ..... The corridor biological resources analysis will be done level of detail focusing on the likelihood of such impacts each corridor, and the potential for avoiding adverse careful route location and design. Water Resources at a general occuring with impact with Design and construction techniques to mitigate potential erosion into streams will be used. Changes in hydrologic regime and water quality of streams due to highway construction and operations and resultant develop- ment will be evaluated. Significant impact to the hydrology or water quality of streams is not expected. The extent of impacts to the hydrology of Knik Arm will depend on the crossing mode and design. A partial causeway would alter current and sediment deposition regimes. Such impacts could become a significant concern if secondary impacts on navigation or biological resources were a probable outcome. The causeway alternative would convert the upper part of Knik Arm into a freshwater reservoir and thus have far reaching effects on water resources. The detrimental and beneficial impacts of a causeway will undoubtedly become an important concern. Air Quality The primary air quality concern likely to be associated with a Knik Arm crossing is the potential aggravation of existing air quality problems. Portions of the Anchorage metropolitian area now qualify as non- attainment areas of carbon monoxide pollution. The magnitude of this problem will depend on the location of the crossing and connecting roadways, amount of traffic, and kinds of intersections. A connecting roadway to the downtown area or other high traffic areas would be much more likely to compound air quality problems than would roadways to the north where background levels of carbon monoxide are low. The traffic analysis described earlier will be used to model the air quality impacts associated with alternative routings and to determine the severity of the problem. There could be a degradation of air quality northwest of the Knik Arm as a result of increased human development in areas now largely undeveloped. Development patterns and transportation infrastructure with a crossing will be predicted for use in this analysis. Noise Potential noise impacts to be addressed include increased noise levels at sensitive urban receptors such as residential and recreational areas, and impact on wildlife due to the introduction of highway noise. VII-9 --------------· -~ ------ Energy The focus of evaluation will be on changes in highway and rail energy consumption. Items to be addressed will include fuel consumed by present and anticipated trips making use of an improvement, fuel consumed by new trips generated, changes in indirect vehicle energy consumption (manufacturing, maintenance and operation), construction energy consumption, and consumption required for roadway maintenance. Visual Crossing design and location will be reviewed for visual compatibility with the adjacent landscape and existing views. The location of approach roads will affect the visual quality of the view from the road, depending on the adjacent land uses, landscape types, and the ability of approach roads to complement the surrounding landscape. Detrimental change to the natural character of the landscape should be minimized. Corridors should avoid areas and situations where revegetation and restoration would be difficult such as steep slopes, wetlands, and certain soil types. Corridors next to or within view of visually sensitive areas including recreation areas, trails, historic sites, streams and campgrounds should be avoided. H. CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS Antiquities and Historic Sites There are numerous sites of historic value the preliminary corridors that will be routes. either within or adjacent to considered when planning road The greatest concentration of historic sites occurs in the downtown Anchorage vicinity; therefore, the location of highway interconnections could be constrained to some degree in this area. Earthquake Park, east of Point Woronzof, is a historic landmark and could affect the location of the bridge and roadway in the Point MacKenzie corridor. The other known sites within the study area are small, discrete and easily avoidable. Most of the area west of Knik Arm has not been surveyed for archaeological sites. However, this area does not appear to have exceptional potential, but surveys will need to be conducted when road alignments are selected. The Iditarod Trail, part of the National Historic Trail system, extends westward from the town of Knik to Nome. The proposed highway, regardless of the corridor used, would cross this trail. Crossing the Ititarod Trail may become a significant issue and mitigation of impacts will be required to preserve the trail and its historic status. VII-10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Parks and Recreation Impacts to parks and recreation include improved access, encroachment on parklands, and crossing of trails. Improved access may increase the number of park visitors and recreation users to areas within the Mat-Su Borough, and may change present circulation patterns within parks and recreation areas. Encroachment on parklands occurs within the Wasilla and Nancy Lake corridors where Goose Bay State Game Refuge and Nancy Lakes Recreation Area would be affected. Adverse effects would be the disruption of existing uses within these areas. Other potentially adverse effects to mitigate in design are the crossing of existing or proposed recreational trails, traffic, noise, and air pollutants. Both private and public recreation facilities and opportunities will be considered. Impacts to public facilities are governed by the require- ments of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. VII-ll - - - - - - - - - - - - Appendix A Federal Agency Correspondence - ----------------------------------- APPENDIX A FEDERAL AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE Agency LEAD AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Federal Highway Administration Federal Highway Administration Federal Register Notice COOPERATING AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities The Alaska Railroad Corps of Engineers Department of Air Force Department of Housing and Urban Development Environmental Protection Agency Federal Emergency Management Agency National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Park Service Soil Conservation Service Date October 25, 1982 November 1, 1982 December 2, 1982 December 1, 1982 December 29, 1982 December 28, 1982 January 10, 1983 December 27, 1982 January 3, 1983 December 21, 1982 December 22, 1982 December 7, 1982 January 10, 1983 January 10, 1983 December 27, 1982 January 17, 1983 A-1 Page A - 3 A - 3 A - 4 A -5 A -6 A -7 A -10 A -8 A -9 A -11 A -12 A -13 A -9 A -13 A -14 A -10 - - - Agency Date Page - United States Agricultural December 7, 1982 A -14 Research Service -United States Coast Guard December 21, 1982 A -12 United States Fish and Wildlife No date A -15 Service - No date A -16 -United States Forest Service, December 10, 1982 A -7 Regional Office .... United States Forest Service, December 23, 1982 A -16 Chugach National Forest United States Geological Survey, December 13, 1982 A -11 -Water Resources Division United States Forest Service, December 23, 1982 A -7 -Chugach National Forest - - - - - - - A-2 - - UIGIIIIA IS DISICII AliD COHSnucriOII Ill'. lany r. Hor...._4 DiYlatOD Ada!Dtatrator rada~.t atabw•r ...._taiatrattoa r.o. lOll 1648 Juauu, Aluka t9102 nona 266-UOO Octoller U, 1912 ... :Z4Zc-:Z507 fl'oject AllOZl IAtll An C&'oealaa& t.a4Apaq OQ Sept•b•r Ucla, 1982, w aotan4 tDto a 27-tla CODtnct vttla EHPS/Svel'4rup, ea ea&iDHl'iD& jof.Dt ,...turo fin, to oa.taiD • Ellvtr ........ t.t bpact Stat-t u4 • fl'altaiDa&"J Deatp ..,..rt tO&" a croadaa of tho IAtlt An u4 ldahvar coauacttODa fl'-tba rarlta HtahvaJ oa tba aortla ead to ella .AHA!S OD tho aoutb. Tlaa acopo of thta project vtll raqutro axtaoatvo co-or4taattoo ..aas fe4aral, atata and local aaaactaa to aaauro that all aavtroaoaatal coaat4ar- attona are adaquatelJ e4draaaad. Pursuant to title 40, Coda of ¥ederal laaulatlona, Pal't lSOl.S, aubparaaraph (d), ve raqueat the Pedarel HlabwaJ Ad.tatatrat1oa (FIIWA) ae•...,. tho naponaibllttt•• of "Lead AgencJ" aa pra.alane4 under the National Zuvlraa.eatal Palter Act for praparattoo of tba project !nvtronaeotal I.,act Statemeat. Sloca tho project ta claarlJ one io wblcb FiB/A to the federal aaencJ bavtoa the .oat axparttaa, thla requeet baa oat baea a4draaae4 to anJ other aaanCJ. Please todlcata Jour daclaiOD and all" bolav, and ratun a con aa aooa aa poaalbla. We are raadr to beslo the eovtraaaental "acoplna" proceae and a lead aaenc:J -t be dee1Rnatad prior to thla effort. Approved __ Barry F. llorehead JISA/Jil/bpa Dlaapprcrved __ Data SlncerelJ, Richard S. Arw~trona, P.E. Director, Central Region Desiga and Construction US(IqxUM~ ollronspollalion federal Highwar Admlnlslrallorl SuiJto<l Kn ik Ar• Crolla ina Request for Lead Aaency from: Division A4•1nlatrator Juneau, Alaska Ta: Hr. Richard Aroetrona, Director .Deatan and Construction, ADOT/PF Cantral.leaion Memorandum OaJe ~ovembr.r 1, 1982 ~t$1_.:, '"" ol IWO-AK 734.2 Your latter dated October 25, 1982, re'JUasted that "e assume the respon- albllttlail of "Lead Aaency" puuuant to Title 40, Code of t'ederal leaulatlone, Part 1501.5. Because of our co.-it•ent to "ork closely ~<ith you in the continued develop.ent of Alaska's high.,ay system, "e accept the reaponalbllity of Lead Agency. the Notice of Intent to be published au ... ltted to us aa soon as possible. be requested as cooperating agencies Scapin& proceaa atarta. in the federal Register ohould now be Also, the deter01lnadon on ~<ho should should be jointly •ade before th~ < rf ·--~---J J 1} () r-e-'"''Y-T /;;,,ut;.'Jo . .., Barr{ f. llor~head I I 54404 Federal Regllller I Vol. 47, No. ZJ:l I Tharaday, December Z. 1002 I Notlcea Federal Hlgllwar Admlnlatrallon Envtr__,.laltmpact Stat.,.enl; Anchorage, Alaaka AGENCY: Federal Hish-1 Adminlatrallon (FHW At doL IUMMAIIV: The FlfW A io iuuina lhio aolice to advioe the public that an environmental impact llalement wiU be prepared lor a proposed bishw•r projec:l In the Municipality of Aachora•• and lha Matanuoka-Suailna BorousJI, Aloalca. fOil FUIIITHIEIIINFOIIIIATION CONTAct; Tom Neunaber, t1eld Operaliona Enaineer. Federal Highway AdminialraUon. P.O. Bo• 11148. Juneau, Alaska 99801, Telephone (1107) 586-7421; Terry f1emlna. Central Regioo Environmental Coordinator, Alaska Department of Tnnsporlalion 6 Public Faci11Ue1. Pouch 8900, Anchorase. Alaska Telephone(907) 2118-1500. SUPPLEMENTARY IHFOII:MATION: The FIIWA.ln cooporalioa wilh lha Alaua Department of Transportalion and Public Facilities. will prepare aa Environmental Impact Stalemeat (EIS) on a propoaed hiahwar cro1aln1 over the knik Ann coiUiecUna the Anchorase Metropolitan Area TransportaUon Study (AMA TS) oyolem In the Municipality of Anchoraae to the Pork• llishway In the Malanuska·Susllno (Mot-Su) Borouah. Conslrucllon olthe propooed bi1hway I I I oroSIIna and oppioacheo II conoidtrrod aecesaary lor lheloUowinJ reaoona: (11 To provide aa lmportaatlink wllhiD lba realonaltraaoporlaUoo plan; (21 To provide lncreeoed acceu ID employment. recreation, and other opporhmilie1 for Anchor•&• area reoidenlo: (31 To provide opf.orlunlly lor orderly economic and popu allan arowth of the Aachoraae area through Improved acceoo to auilablo reoldenUol and lnduolrlal oileo In tho Mat·Su Boro,..h: (4J To reduce Ira vel and coot from Anchoraae to tho Parka Hiahway cooununllleo IIJid north to Falrbonlca: and (5) To lnc,.,uotho marketab~ily of lhe natural reiOW'ce .. louriala. aaricullura, and coal development In lbe Suaitna ru .. r Baoin and area to tho west Altematl~es under coaalderatloq include: (I)NoAclion. (2J Allemale Travel Modeo. (31 Upgrade ExlollnJ TranaportaUoo Syatem. (4) Jligbwoy CroSlin~ a. Altemalive Cro11ina LocaUonL b. AltemaUve CroooinJ Configura tiona. c. Allemalive Approach l.ocaUono. cl. Aaclllary Cro .. lnJ Facllilleo. Lellero deocribina the propooed action and aolicJilna commenll will be 1entlo appropriate Federal, State. and local aaenclea. and lo prtvate.oraanJzationt I I and cilbeno who laove previoualy expressed lnlueotln lblo propooal. A Scopina Doc:umea~ deoc:riblnJ altomativea end propooad envirunmealal onalyoe1. wiU be dlolrihuted with each leller. 'lbree public lolormaUoa/ocoplna meelinao will be bold diJrlua lbo oocond weelc In January alllmoo and localkma lo be delormiDed. One meeUna will be held In lbe Mat·Su Borouah and two OCher meetlnso wiD be bold In Aachoroae. There wiU be corridor public meellnp and workohopa held periodlcaUy prior lo circulation ollba DEIS. Public heari1J81 · will be bold In mld-1983 alter o corridor level evaluation report ha1 been completed and made available; and In .mi~l!IIH alier tho Drali Environmental lmpiicl Statement b., been completed and made available. · To enaure thet lhe full ranae of iuue1 related to thia propoaed action are addre11ed and aU oianllicantlsoueo Identified. cornmen11 aDd •usse•lione are Invited from •U Interested partin. Comment• or que111on1 ooncemina the propooed action ohould be directed to theFIIWA orlhaADOT/I•F altho addrease1 provided ebove. (Catalo1 ol Federal Doalettic: Aa•lala~Ke Praa ... m Number Z0.206.1flahway Resean:h Plann&na and Conatruclloo.. The Provi£ioo1 ol OMb Circular No. A-IS rqardln1 Stale aocl 1«11 Clearin1houe nvlew of Federal and I I I Fedora! Rngisler I Vul. 47. No. 232 I Thursdny. December 2, 1!182 / Nullcco lederall)' 111iated prosrem• end projectl epply lo lhie pf08reml b1utd on November J:J, tBBZ. '111oma1 C. N•....,bcr. F;e/d()perotiotUEngi,..r.FHWAJuneaP. AID•Ica . ... Doc. U-3=-t ..-.... ···--~=·--~ 8IUJNQ COOl ...... .,.... I ( I t • I I 5·J.10!i c I ;1:1 I U1 ....... ~~~~~ .. ,~~"~~~-~~~I Deu.111ber I , 191:? [lear· Sir: lAY S H~!IIIONP 'OrH:;r.~ 411J .l't.\'MnCJN .''1\'f.•'\1111 1'()1}('11 f;•lji(J Af.JUI(Jii4t;E. '\1 A511.•1 11'1"0'.' tTlLI .'C 1~ IWil The Stolte of Al.1ska llc11artment of Transpo•·Lation and Public radlities (IJOl/1'1) in wope•·,rtiun •lilh the Fe<leral llignway Administration (fii\·IA) is no1·1 Sl.llllyiny a lll•rnat ive hi!JhliilY tranwortation corrltlors to acc01,.11odate futui'P. travel IU."P<Is ln!hleen the Municipality of Anchorage and the Hatanuska-Susitna Uonmgh. Tin·!~<· studies ;-we Lentered on Lhe physical barder pl'esentect by the r.nik Ann of Couk Inlet. FIIHA is the desi!jnated Feder-al lead Agency. l·le di'C requesting yo,,r pa•·Lidp.rtion as a Coopet·atin<J Agency under jlrovhions of 40 CFR 1501.&. An inlmdudion to the Knik Ano1 Crossing project is coutained iu the cnclosr><l Swpiu!l Uocument. The current investigation is divided into three "1.yde~". Cyd•• 1: Corr-idor Studies, includin•J (,1) Scoping PI"Ocess and (b) Altcrnali•:•• Cnrridol' Analysis/EnvirorJnental Investigation. c_vde II: l.ocalion Studies and Enviro)JUP.nt.11 l1111l<1ct Stal<>lllent, indu<lill•l (a) l'n•limin.wy locution Alte•"nilliv"s Evaluation, (b) ConwpltJ.11 O'·!~i<ln ami lhaH EnvirorJneolal Impact Slatetnent, and (c) Final Fnvirorm••nliol lnoiJ.1Lt SL<ltl•nent. lyde Ill: l't"elilninary Des-ign llllenHliv"' to be considet'ed during Cycle I in..tude: I. llo A•. t i.m 2. Allemate T•·avel tlodes J. llp!Jl-,Hie fxistiny Trausportation Syst1111 ~. lli<jhllay Ct'OSSing a. Alterniltc Cn,.<sin<J l.ocations h. Alternate Cmssing ronfi<Juralions c. A I t.en1a te AIIJ>roach I f'ta l I <lll' d. Auxiliary Crossing ladlitiPs Ynu•· .tS!;isl.tnu! ,1s ,, coopt!r.tliucJ .lqf'II(.Y j<;., n·qw".l••d in tiu• , .. ,u.ltto~l i•111 •·· I••• fullo\'liny 111·e,ls of t.UIILf'ru: a. ron~LiiSl (htm~)l!') ill fnd~jhl. lolllld9CS aud I ,-.~.·,(~111]1'1 \et·~ i••· h. Uisru1Jtion of R.lilroad Op.,rations dt~s iyua te ron tat. t person revieu and C.OIIIUimt Cllt SlOpinq dOLIIIIIPUl tua~.e availahh! lo IJroJ•~cl tet:lmilid represent.cllivt·~~ auy cl.ll!l l'tt:d i·.···"i I, your •1!JenLy tucet pe•·ioclically \'litn pnt_icct lf.'Lhllit~dl n!pn·sculitl iv .. c, 1•• i•11 I•• l!id,l i. • lion of UEIS LCJllllent on a111'ropdalc SPCI i1!nS of reViPI"I draft uf 11,-,11 t fill· '""I h····. Analysis/EnvirooJnental lnv.,sligatiou Report (f.y,l•• I) f(Hlnal revie~l or Ot·aft 1\llel"flclli\'P.S 1\ualysis/[II'Jil'liiiiiii~IILd lm····,l&q<~ll• 01 Report (Cycle I) COIIJUent on appro11ri«Le set lions of revi<'\·1 tlr(lll. ol llrafl I 111 o~l i:o11 .'\II· tH·•' i·: Report (Cycle II) fonnal •·evie11 of Draft location .\1 ternatives lh>IHII"l (l.y<.l•· II) l:(llllncnt on tlllpropriate set:tions of revie\·1 <lr,lfl of Drt~ft 111'/ll"r•ll•' :1: .. 1 :r., .... 1 Statement (Cycle II) formal •·eview of Uraft fnvi.-uumeutal Impatt St.ltellu•ul (( Y• lr· 11) The enclosed sc.:oping doctuncut is prnvitlt'd for y01w infotllltllion. 1'1•·,1'.•· ... ;II i•l·1 yout· willingness to pitrlitipat.e iliHiprovitll.' any ll'IL111PIIIS. 1111 l.rll' diHIIItlt'HI \'.il.tl•r I. lie next 30 days. [nclosnre As Slated --e,, \;. ,.,,_ / ... ·" Hi c.h.lnl '). 1\rur. lroWJ Uirech11·, i)f'<;iqu ;~ ftHr~t··,;, l.•rfL Cr~ntr.ll Heqtnn I r ~!.~~~.N~O~ T~~~~A~~ I 11111Sioolli6d.c;o,..,_ and PUBLIC FACILITIES IIIC.In4AYS DESIGN Atm CONSTRUCl'ION ::.::::-H::.-•,:::: :r.fm PIIONE: 266-1506 December 29, 1982 RE: 242C-2507 Project A8l02' Knik Arm Crossing; Agency Scoplng lleetings ,\s part of the scoping process for the Knik A011 Crossing f.nvfromoental lmpa(:t Statement and related environ•ental i111pact fnvestJRatlons, the" ,\Iaska Department of Transportation und Public Facilities will hold t"" m.•ctlnr,s. The Department recently distributed the t:nlk Ani Crossing Scoptnr Document for coau~ent and review. Your aguncy should have re- ceived a copy In early December. The purpose of the scoping process Is to obtain input into the selection of alternatives and the deter- ••lnat ion of the scope of environmental issues to be c.-.nsidered In the t.:urridor impact evaluation. Tlw two meetings will be held on January Jlth, 198], and :1ou at·e In- vited to send a representative to one or both of thcso mcetfnr.A. At hoth Dl{~~tlogs, tin! Departments's consultant team will descril.Jc the work prograan, and those issues presrntly viewed as the key issues in corrhlt..1r selection. There will then be an opportunity for iJJ~encr rc- pn·.scntat lves to ask questions of the OepartniP'Ilt and consultant team n·pn•scnlat lvcs nnd/or ~aake comments. Tldr. wi 11 n] so hn an uppnrtunJ ty r or your aceocy •.o hear the concl!rns of the olher interested agcnc ics. lih! times and place of the meetiugs are: llorning (9:]0-11:00 a.m.) Mternoon (1:]0-):00 p.11.) AUOT/Pf <:un£ercncc Roor.1 ldll ,\vlatlon llrive Anchorage, Alaska hm public Information and environmental imract scoring meetings vii I I I I I • I I I f also be held on J."10U:II"? 12th nnd llth, at 7:)0 p.m., in IJ;l~illa and Andwr.1ge, respectivc]y. If you \oJould like more tnfornlation about the St·oplng l'ro•'l'~S PI" tl11• project in general, please cal] the Kntk Arm C.ros!iing offh'{' :1L 278-1565. r I I Sincerely, 4 -)----//: ""t-1\ l .r /(: :__ :-~-.... ( .-• Terry Fleming _// Environmental Co-ordinalor Central Region I I I I r DEPAr<TMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOI'. FEOEf,AL RAILROAD AUMINISTRATIUN tl.-. Rich .. ud S. Arntljtcong Uir•!•"ttJr, O~siin 6. Constcu~tiun Ucp.lrtNictnt of Transportation and t'uhllc Facilities State of Alaska Pouch 6900 Anchora&e, IlK 99~02 Dear Hr. Ar•strona: THE AUSKA RAILROAD Pouoh 1·2111 AndiOfolgl, Alatk• 99510 ~ly st.a(f and 1 have ceviewed your letter dated Uccr.11.l:wr I trana•itting th~ l'.nik Ar• Crossing Scoping DocuiMt!nt. lie wi II be &lad to provide you with the for~ca•t and chana~• in frei~tht tonnagt:s and pasaenaer aerv j ces upon epee it ic requeat with the t i~~e elem<nts involved, Reaardin& disruption of railroad operation•, it will be necessary to have further data supplied to us concernina the areas the condtruction would impact. In revic·,..ing the scoping doctu•ent, our basic concern ia that thP. Knik Ar.:: i.s JoJsigul!d as 3 priMary hizhuay cro:osi:•:!, and l·'e feol a·hnt it tolllulld bl! designed as a highway/railroa,l crottsing. \-le atrnngl:f belicv~ th.•l ll•e Knik Arm crossing with rail asaess .• t,ility will aid the dev•!lnp- ml•nt of Alaska 1& resoucce&. It would J,rovide tlh~ (·nrrar.c~ to tiHt!.:! 111:1jnc coal field• of Alaaka--Susitna, \'t!ntna, and Keluga. Ari•Htittrenlly, a rapid transit syste~ could be developed to tlte Hat-Su Valley wher~ sm••·· 1,000 people pt!r day CO~Mtute to/from tlw City of Anchorage:. Fifte•~n tu hlenty minute commuter service (rum Wasi II '.I to Anchor.J~.! wo•Jid b,, .,u•t Olttr.lctive and would most assuredly rt!Jun~ llu~ vel.i(·ular ll"affic ,,,, tlu~ Glt!:IU Uighway. Thct 1\nik Anu crossiug \lith &aiJ~h\uy/_~ai~!~~!! acc.~asahil ity \.'\luld provide for industrial develu....-.aent dir•~ct ly '"ross thl"! ICoik Arm :••·U)' from the city nnd a rapid trnnsit: sy&tt•PI to the b.!dro•li"A cmam••nitie' LIJ the north and t!.1st. IL1: •. ~.1 up•1n l.hcsc Cf)PI!I('IIt :i, iL is JL!~OIIII~•··nol.d rhat llw hi ;~IH1a)l (utl( i gura- LL~o~ t"ll:' uw.lificd lo inclu•l..! a hil·.la...,.Jy/r<tilct-.;t,J Cl"fl!,&in:!· ~ly ~t.afr anJ l wi II b~ avai lahl•! to further discm.s the~ • l'•!COt!n•~•uLlt ion!i .1t y:"Jur cu•l'll!hit~llt;f~. I haw! rlo!signal•!d Cit'". Rill C···~nill, ~lan.1;~•·•· u( i'l.lwain~, ;t·: l11·~ cout•t~t pcr~~on fur this prokt t; tH~ ,·.111 lu~ •••arh•!•l .--,1 2f,')-:!'''~7. Si ur.:: .. ~r i v, ...... _ 1:-·. t', It, lo•:;·.·S I;,~~~~· 1 . · I : ;.,u.•:.. .~ r aa•1 Chi· I I ·:t'l'lll i-., •• ')IIi ,. ,,,, ..... ~''''""'''' Mr. Terry fll•mlng Ht·qiltllill II I I" io:t.' llepaJ·lmcut or lranspurlal.iun an!l l'ulllio: f;:;o;j[jl;., .• 4111 Aviation Avenue Pouch 6~1UU lluchurage, AK 99502 L Dear Hr. fleming: II. ,., .. 'Lilli •'' ' ,,, I!L'L I 1·. letter. Our representullvu rur this .,filltl •i II loo· "'·· i11 .. ,, ,,. I• Supervisor, Norm liowse or tloe Cilll\lach Nali•JII;ol I tJ.o:· ... il , lo furnisl• you any co111menls we mlyl1t llfJVt: ··~l;•lin~l 11• 11" ·' 11· Document prlor to January 1, lYU:!. Sluccrcly, ,"'II I :t:" I Ol i DIPARTMINT 0• THE AIR fORCE HIAOOUAiflll At.UKAN All COMMAND ELMfNUOAf "lit fOR t BASE. ALA$1KA 88506 Knik At·m Crossing Scoping l}ocumtmt Stal<! of Aluska tluparlment of 1'1·ansportation and J>u~lic Facilities, Central Region 4111 Aviation Urive Anchot·age, AK 99502 2 'I DEC 198;> J. The Knlk Arm Crossing Scoping Uocument dated 29 NtY S2 bas lwcn t·evlcwcd by the Air Force, Army and Corps of Engrneers: we Hnd ~;evcral areas in the document that require additional emphasi~;: a. Impact of proposed courses of action on all antenna fields in the vicinity of the crossings. ~. Impact of dislocation/relocation of facilities on the ••verall mission activities of the military installations and .... , .• I,., assol!iated with the disruption, especially ammunition ,,.,., ... ~., at·eas and range Jocat ions and uses. c. lmpal!t uf selected ro'utes on the physical security or the installations ~uundod by the route selected. 1'he actual physical hatTicrH and theia· emplacement, maintenance and operation should '"' di scur;,;ed and covea·ed as part of the physical design requirements of the a·uadiVay and route. d. ~II Jest one dates, 1. e., month and year, for the Cycle I, II and Ill action" listed on pages 2 and 3 of the document. "· The issue of tt·ansfer· of Fudct·al lands .for an uctive miJitat·y installation is not as simple as it IVould appear in the cua'J'unt document. Approvalr; for land usu of the type proposed , . .,,,uit·u ;wtlon at lleadquarter·s, Llcpartment of the Air Force, IJqHII'tmcnL of the At·my and Uepartment of Uefense levels as well as at the local level. This takes time to accomplish. Also, hoth installations have only tho minimum amount of land necessary lul' lhui I' 111issiuu~. f. Tlw Scopin~; llocnmenl does nut a<lutlllately outline the discussion uf impacts on flight a<:livilies Jll'esently occurring in lhe ;u·eas selcc(e<l fur potential r·outes. While physical facilities of t.uildin..:s, tanks and antennas can ~e muvocl, runways and their f I i ~hl paths can1101 he moved. I I I I I I I I I 9• The Ea9le River route passes over the Fort Richardson Impact Area and would have to be cleared of unexploded ordnance before any construction could be accomplished. 2. Comments from the Air Force Technical Applications Center Detachment at Elmendorf AFB indicate concern in findin9 a suitable location free from electrical noise sources. Such a location may not exist at any other location on the military installation lands. This would constitute a serious mission impairment and is not acceptable to the Air Force. Additional comments have been requested from lleadquarters Air Force Technical Applications Center. These comments will be forwarded when received. 3. The Alaska District, Corps of En9ineers has a re9ulatory a9ency interest in the Knik Arm Crossin9. The requireme~ts of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Jlarbors Act concernin9 permits must be applied for directly to the Corps of En9ineers. Please provide this office with an information copy of the correspondence. 4. It must be reemphasized that this office is the only point of contact for military input on this project. All correspondence must be routed throu9h AAC/CV, Elmendorf AFB AK 99506. 5. Project officers at this lleadquarters are Lt Col Michael Blair (552-21171 and Mr James llostman (552-5185). ~R~C~ Colonel,:o~=:~ { . Vice Commander 2 I I f I Cy to: 172d Inf Bde (AK) Attn: AFZT-EII-PS Fort Richardson AK I ADE/NPARE ADE/NPACO-RF-S I f ' IJII'AHIMINilll 1111 AIH IUNU tfll\ltt.tUAII1fU:; 'JI:Ol C:••WIII\1 :.lii'I'CIUI I,IUIUI' IJoAI"I IIMI Nlitllll l'l.llllltUol 111\:,1. 1\11~'•1'1\ 'l'l!oUio JAN 3 1982 ua·:a·:v AltcnuH.ivc lil~hway Tranr.port;ILion Corrlclc•rR )lclWf!f'll lhf'! Jtunicipaltry or tuachurar,.c an•l the Matanufika-SuRt tna lhn·our,.h ('iunr l.t r, I Ucc.:cn•hc~· I flii:!", Richard S. Ar•stron~ Ucpnrt••'~nt of Tr-ansportation and l'ubllc Facilities 4111 Aviation Avenue l'ouch &90(1 1\nchor•ll~. lllaska 99~02 The sco1•inR docu•ent provided with subject letter includes the .. a.!<•r urr~r. of lnter<'st prr.vlously Identified by our staff. The contact person for the r.tohlv proce) "Ill be Hr. tlichael Grenl<o (21 CSC/IIEF.V/S52-41S7). . ,-p/ .. /~ ~ -1 ··/ · ·:PY RltSSt:l.l. E. S"GUJA, P.E. ll· (Hil)' Haaoc Cf~il Enp.lneer 1'oJi ( tll1'1 I •' IHJO"IC"ol January 10, 198) { t•:·•i:l C .;.iiAII.~ Oli'IUUI\l&.NI Ut LUt~li.I:...Ul.l IJatiol\ol Oceanic and Atm~sphcric Administration .:at i01UJl ~briue Pialaeriea Se1•vice 1'.0. Hox 1668 •. m£U.Ii4 1 Ala:;ka 9980:! ! r, •r.nv r>J.rrti.n9 r-nvirnncental Coorolin,..t:nr l>ept. of. 'l'ranspol-taHon i:'tiC~ PUblic F<1d lities 4111 Aviatim 'l.ve. l'onch 69110 1\nchori'')Co Alaska 99502 Dear Hr. Flanlng: lie: have rc<:eivcd vot.u: ktt<'r nf ();,c;cmher 1, 1982 and enclost.od Scoping Docltm?llt COJteenlii'"" t:hH ":nik .1\lm Crossing. Our <>gcncy •..oelCCI'Y~s the O{flOl·tunity to asoh't ''':"'-'" d·~p"rlln,•.nt ~ tloe planning sta9E)G of tJ:ti~ prqx>sal. liS your !lcq>m<J Docmcnt pomts out, t110 type of cross1ng structure ultiii~C~telv pr~:md uill. determine \lhetl>er marine resources uill b.,."'(;{Jre a crit.l<:al com>idcration, although any crossing may present potential JJI\»ct b·•-e. Our A•tchora9E) Field Office -.ill coordinate tU-'S involvuncnt uith U>ifl project. '11"'Y can be reached at 7.71-·?006. I )>' I I-' 0 f Soil Conserv ilion Service Professional Center -Suite 129 2221 East Northern lights Boulevard Anchorage, AK 9950~ (907) 276-~2~6 January 17, 1983 RE: 242C-2507 Project A81021 knlk Ana Crossing; Agency Scoplng Meetings Terry Fll!llllng Envlront~ntal Coordinator, Central Region Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Highways Oeslgn and Construction 4111 Aviation Avenue, Pouch 6900 Anchorage, Alaska ggso2 Oear Hr. Fleoulng: The Fanaland Protection Polley Act (Pl 97-98 Oecelber 22, 1981) should be considered In the Corridor Selection process. The purpose of this act Is to ~lnl•lze the extent to which Federal Progra.s contribute to the unnecessary and Irreversible conversion of fanaland to nonagricultural uses, and to assure that Federal Progra.s are a~lnlstered In a •anner that, to the extent practicable, will be compatible with state, unit of local government. and private progra•s and policy on fanaland protection. '! .", •I /. /"' ~. ' '/ ;-1.~~.7" Weyraeth E. long State Conservationist f I I I I I I I • DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ALASKA DISTRICT. C.ORI'S OF ENGINEERS .I.LW te Regula t~;.y·r::.;; t't'ons Branch Special Actions Section ro.e•·xJooa ANCHORAGE. ALA&KA 881!1.10 January 10, 1983 Richard S. Anastrong, Director Oeslgn and Construction Alaska Depart.ent of Transportation and Public Facilities 4111 Aviation Avenue Pouch 6900 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Reference: Knlk Ana Crossing Scopl ng Document Oear Hr. An~strong: Thfs fs In response to your Dece~~~ber 1, 1982 letter requesting that the Alaski District participate, as a cooperating agency, In the Knlk Arm Crossing Study, The Alaska District will participate as a cooperating agency. The person to contact Is Hr. Ted Rockwell of the Special Actions Section at the above address, ATTN: NPACO-RF-S or call (907) 552-4942. At this tlllll!, 1 have only cne conuent on the referenced Scopl ng !J . ur.1ent. The l•pact assessment of the various alternatives upon the •illlary operations of Fort Richardson and £1tnendorf Air Force Base must be detailed and comprehensive. ·It Is lilY understanding that the 1g72 study by Howard, Needles, Tannen and Bergendorff Is bel ng used as the stutl ng point for the present study. The 1972 study did not consider Impacts upon •f11tary facilities In the detail necessary for reasonable decision •aklng. Work wiH be required to assess the Impacts and consequences of t~ various alternatives on miJitary facilities for Inclusion In the present planning effort. Tltanl: you for the opportunity to review the Scoplng Doc1111ent. Sl ncerely, ~-=---J-----. C~~~·of Engineers District Engineer I I I ' I ' DEPARTMENT Of HOUSING AND UIIBAN DEVELOPMENT "NCttORAGl Aft( A OfftCl aECIOH X [lcccoobcr 21, 1982 Richard S. Anast rong' OihH~tor, Oeslgn 6. Construction Cent .-al Region JOI C STRUT,IIOIIM ANCHORAGE, ALASKA IO~IJ ll"l'"rlmcnt of Transportation and Public Facilities 4111 Aviation Avenue Pouch 6900 Ancloor.1gc, Alaska 99502 IJc;lr ti•·. ArnuiL rung: IN ftf.PLY RUlft 10. Thauk vou for the recent letter in which UUP , .... 1s requested to particip,,ll' as a (:oupcr~•tlng Agency under the provisions of 40 Ct'R 1501.6 as the llCJl.u·t- ""'Ill nf Trans1mrtatlon and Public ~·acilitlas (llOT/PF) cvaluatPS tit<• Knlk Moo (;r,)~;:;iug au·o)c,:t. In rct\ponse tn this rcquestt I have t.le>:-oiL~n•tll·•l l:en aotnilll' .• Envirmulh!ntal Offlccr/l•lanncr. as IIUO's cont"ct pcnmn (or thifi pntjl•ct. llllll has a primary concern \.Jilh the .-otentlal i1upacl the various ,,)l{'J"Il:Jti·h ,.lill h:1vc on IIUD assisted projects. In addition. a review o( the uKni.,_ Arm C:russing:Scoping DocUiaent" Indicates that aHsha.,ncc rna>' also hi(! provit.l{•d in the follmdng otrcas of consideration: -~I) i:.it; -I~IH'l"H)' -Lmd (lsL! Planning Con1p.1Lihllity -J)is)n,:at ion and RclocHt ion -llrhau llisruption -Crm1th Impacts -h.unomh' "fm&MCtfj )lrah rC'vicw material and information n~caucHts Hhou)d hl~ sc:nl direct))' lu J-.:,•,l l~m!l·JH~~· lf ythl have any (1ucstious or need .1ny a,h.lillonal nssl:;tanc''• lu.: cau <ll:->1\ h~· l·onlact(!d at 271-tdtU. SI~~CLJQ______ 6,.) Jnhn c:. Huffy ---------Area ti<111agcr. JO.IS --~.~--..... UNITLD SlAte; DEPARTMENT OF Tl IE IN If 111011 GEOLOGICAL. SIIIIVlY Water Resources Oivis inn 1515 East lllh Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 9'1501 Oecember 13, 19A2 Mr. Terry Fleming, Environmental Coordinator 4111 Aviation Avenu~ Pouch 6900 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Hr. fleming: 1 The U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division Is ~1illing to participate in a review capacity for the Knlk Arm Crossing Project. Please note our new address. We are no longer at 218 "[" Street. Sincerely yours, /!tl~j tl. i~,---- Philip7 Emery / District Chief I I DEPARTMENT Of JRf,NSPOIHATION UNITED STATES COAST GUAno CutU ... •tU&tiUII till it't'l II. :~. t:n.1::1 t ;u.u ,I M."lriu·~ ~iilf•·l\' Olli•· 'IU I •:. ::t . , I'•• :~ I I "nchor il']~, !'.V. .,._.~ 1 1 Mr. Richard S, Armstrong State of Alaska !){I"/ :u 1-~d 1"1 l'iOIIIJ 21 December l~A~ Departonent of ~·ransportatlon and Public FacUlties 4111 Aviation Avenue Poucla 6900 Anchora'}e, AK 99502 RE: Your ltr of Dec I, 1982 near Sir: 1. In response to your letter please be advised of the fnlloulnc;: a. LT KLIMAS (271-5137) has been desi9nated as tha point of contact. b. Comments on the scopln9 document \iould indicate that development Is one of the prime objectives, If a cause>;uy type structure were chosen it appears to be the less dPsireal;le because of potential sedimentation and salinity chan')e problems. It u:>.ol-i ol iminate future development of the upper ::r lk Arm •~•ltero.·ay I.e commercE by sea, It would thus appear that from this vlewpli~~ ; brlol')e type structure >lith sufficient under clearance Ia constructed. c. Specific data for the project will be provided to representatives once It Is justified to the r.oast Guard. d. Review of all drafts with comm£nts will be provlrle' throu~l. lhe point o( contaqt. 7.. ~;hould you desire any specific inror111i1tion th.1t· t-.'H 1 .. vt .. available you can expect our full coope~at on. 7'~ i~~tit'J. r···\ , ...... 55·, ·-·-I ...... ! .......... 1(11 •• ·.•11 I • I I n.n. fiP";)I.t~lf• - Captain!' u, S. Coast Gu·:.r..J Comma no ll'J Off: i c<er I I I t U. S. E N V I R 0 N M E IH A L P R 0 TE C ll 0 N A G [ tH-: Y REGIOU X 1200 51XIII AYlHUE $tAlllf. V.ASttiNGION 98101 IIN1 10 A11H Of, H/S 443 OlC?. 2 IJ&l Richard S. Armstrong, Director Design I Construction, Centra 1 Region OeparbPent of Transportation and Public facilities Pouch 6900 Anchorage, Alaska g9502 Dear Hr. An11strong: The Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 l'lill participate a~ d cooperating agency for the Knlk Arat Crossing project. Our 11rimary areas of Interest are air quality and wetlands. Although a.e are Interested In potential noise inapacts, EPA no longer has a formal nnhe progra• nor do we have In-house expertise to provide technical assistilnce "11 noise questions. 1cuments for EPA's review should be sent to botu the follm'ling addre>~cs; 1-!i 11 i am B. laurc,nce Richard R. Thiel, P.E., Chief Environmental Evaluation Branch Enviromnental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue, ti/S 443 Seattle, Washington 98101 Anchoo·age Ope rat ions llffit:e Environmental Protecti;~n Aqc~ocy Room [556, Federal ~uilding 701 C Street Anchorage, Alask<t 99513 The scoping document appears to anticipate those issues which wi 11 nee<i to be addressed in greater detail In future studies and iol tlu; fnvin1i111K'nt.~l Impact Statement. We have no additional Clll .. toents to provide at Lllis til!.e. The contact person(s) for this project 1~111 be Kathy Davidson in Seattle dl (206) 442-1834 and Bill law1·ence in Anchorage at (907) 271-5083. Sincerely, • ., -'1 j ~ I ' { r.-i.-J I J (...L"-•L~. <•/.1/J,'I· l. \_L Robert S. Burd Director, Water Division I I I c I 1 I .f_:~t~~\ Federal Emergency Management Agency ... _~;,.-~'(} ReKiun X l'cclcral Regional Cemer Duthcll, Washingtun 98011 ~ Terry Flealng, Envlron.ental Coordinator Alast.a Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 4111 Aviation Avenue, Pouch 6900 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Dear Mr. Fleatng: We have reviewed your Oecl!lllber 1, 1982 trans•lttal of the "Knik Ar. Crossing Scoplng Oocu.ent,• and have no comments to offer at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to review the document. Sincerely, Charles L. Steele Deputy Regional Director • .. . Unitt. States Department of tl Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Alaska Regional Office 540 West Fifth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 l7619 (ARO-P) Mr. Terry Fleming Central Region Environmental Coordinator Alaska Oepartaent of Transportation & Publtc Factl t ttes Pouch 6900 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Dear Mr. Fl~lng: JAN 10 1982 In response to the December 2, 1982, Federal Register notice of intent to prepare an environmental l111pact statement for the KoJk Arm Cro.uiog_ project, we have the following comment. The National Park Service ~:ill participate as a cooperating agency for cultural resources management. Dr. Floyd Sharrock, Archeologist of my staff, will serve as the contact person. His telephone number Is 271-4051. Thank you for the opportunity to participate In this project. Sincerely, L~· ......... _ Associate Regional Director Planning, Recreation & Cultural Pesource~ Alaska Region cc: WAS0-135 l~r. RichardS. Armstrong Mr. Paul Gates I I Terry Fleming Soil Conservation Service Environmental Coordinator Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities 4111 Aviation Avenue Pouch 6900 Anchorage, Alaska g9502 Oear Hr. Flenlng: Profes•lonal Center -Suite 129 2221 East Northern Light• Boulevard Anchorage, AK 9950~ (907) 276-~2~6 December 27, 1982 We have reviewed your Knik All!! Scoplng Doc~~~~ent. The SCS has collected •uch data In the area anne have liiacre evaluations of potential route links through the area In cooperation with ADNR. If we may be of any assistance, please call Sterling Powell (276-4246). / Weymeth E. Long State Conservationist I I • I I I I t.~'Tj\l United States 1~ l,~p Department of -~ Agriculture Science and Edur.ation Administration A!Jficultural Research Service P. 0. oux Ill Western Region Palmer, Alaska 99645 t Mr. Terry Fleming Envlron~ental Coordinator Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities 4111 Aviation .,venue Pouch 6900 Anchora~e. AK 99502 Dear Hr. Flentlng: This will acknowledge receipt of your December 1, 1982 letter and Knik Arm Crossing Scoplng Document which was delivered to the Agricultural Research Service office In Palmer. I believe this should have been directed to the Soil Conservation Service, so am forwarding the material to •lr. Weymeth E. long, USDA-SCS, 2221 E. Northern lights Blvd., Suite 129, Anchm·aye, Alaskd g9504. Very truly yours, .. ") ! ( I ~ ( '. ./. . I (.~"'~' <. _.(_ /,(.J:<-,. . .....__ ..--:· ROSCOE l. TAtlDR 1 Research leader cc: H. long I I I I I I I ;I>' I t--' lJl United States Department of the lmerior IN AEPL 't "SfE;t TO: FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WestP.rn Alaska Ecolo&ical S~rvtces 7ll W, 4th Avenue, Sohe 101 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 271-4515 IIAE~ 1·\r. Richard S. Anastrong Alaska Oeparbnent of Transportation and Public Facilities 4111 Aviation Avenue Pouch 6900 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Dear Mr. Anastrong: We have received your request to participate In the stu~ of alternative highway transportation corridors between the Municipality of Anchorage and the ~\atanuska-Susitna Borough and to review the Knllt An~ Crossln!l Sclplnr pocumen~. We appreciate this opportunity tocontRDutefcitlle p ann ng process and provide the following comments on the scoplng doct~nt for your consideration. The scoping document Identifies •any of the general Issues regarding wetlands, moose winter range and •lgratlon routes, fish passage, water quality, and sediment transport which represent significant envlron.ental concerns to b~ considered In the planning process. The general nature of the docUAK!nt, h011ever, makes It difficult to detenalne tlhether the usessment of the various alternatives will adequately address environmental Impacts. Secondary Impacts, in particular, would be extensive If one of the Knik Arm crossing alternatives Is selected and need to be fully appraised. A thorough assess.ent based upon sound biological data, Is also needed to insure that a •ltlgatlon plan for the project can be developed. Significant Information gaps presently exist In the data base and •ust be filled tn analyze Impacts and fonaulate a mitigation plan. !mediately apparent study needs include: 1. Identification of extent and duration of use, and movetnent through the Knllt A111 estuary by juvenile sahtoroi ds. 2. Clarification of ecological processes uf upper Cook Inlet and Knlk Arm. Sediment transport, as It relates to both the naturally occurring process and the fate of dredg~d spoils, and nutrient flotl must be hetter understood. 3. Oeten11inatlon of ldtether the Susltna ll<~ts Is utilized as breeding grounds by the relatively scat·ce tule uhite-fronteo geese. Oasellne studies for other species including tntmJleter s1·1ans, sandhill u<anes, lesser snow geese, Pacific tlhltc-frontl'd geese, lesser Canadil geese, cackling Canada geese, and shot·eblrds .ore also needed. We are lntet·ested in actively contributing to the planning 11roc:ess and will puticipate as a Cooperating Ayency as Jtrovided in 40 CFR 15UI.G. Our conta~ t for this project is: Robert Dowker, Field Su~crvisor U.S. Fish and \4ildl ife Service 605 W. 4th, Room G-01 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Phone: (907) 271-4575 We hope that close coordination and early ldentl ficatlon of our concerns 11i I I aid your planning efforts. Sincerely, ~~ Field SUpervisor I B ,.o•, i , -............ United States Department of the Interior IN AlPL V R(fUI 10: FISH AND WILDLIFE SEJI\'ICE llutern Alaska EcolnJ:Ical ScrvlceR 60S ll. 4th, Roo• G-81 Anchorasc, Aln•ka 99SOI I WAES Hr. Tl10ooas C. Neunaber Field Operations Enslnecr Federal lllghway Adoolntatratfon Juneau, Alaska 99811 Dear Hr. Ncunaber: This letter is provided in response to the Notice of Intent to pn!llare •n f.nvlronaoental l•pact State•ent (EIS) for the Knlk Ar• Crossing, HIIIUelpalhy of Anchorage and Hatanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska. The Fish and lllldlll c Service asrees to participate as a cooperating agency In th" preparation of this docuooent, with the Intent of focusing upon providing l<•clmlcal assistance In the review of early plannlns efforts and the scoplna of l•sucs to be addressed through the Identification of data aaps. We will .ake available a,opltcable fish and wildlife re>~ourco• data to lead asency pcrsonn"l writing the EJS. Because of budget and Manpower constraints, however, Wf• do not have the capability to collect and analyze new data or wrJte portions or the clurtuncnt. Our agency will also review tlw E.IS and .1ny Federal pt•r••lts which may be requl red to J•plf"meot a pro.)ect. l~nclo~cd is a copy of our earlier f<'::>pons'• to the A)iiRka l>epartment of 1'rauspnrtonJon and Public FacJlltJcs Jndtcatlng some of our tnitJnl cunccrns r"r tht! project. As stated therein our contact for this project Is: Robert Bowker, FJeld Supervisor 11.5 • .-tsh and Wltdllle Se<vlce 60S W. 4th Ave. , Ramo G-81 Anchoragl'1 Alnska 99~01 Phone: (907) 27l-4S7S l.J't· ,apprt•t'lt~Lc Llw ol•po.-tunlty tn cnntrlhutt• to thlti plannJng 1•roccsH and Jt•ok f()rwou.t to working with lead agency pcl'snnncl. cc: UUI, Bruce Blanchard AIMIT/PF, Rl cha 1 d Ar10st rong ollli'I.G, Ga<y l.leJ>hz ~'tit'S, Urad Smll h I I I f I I I I m United Slalas 'W=.nlol FOI&SI Senrica Chugach National Forest 222• E. Northern Lights Blvd Suite 238 I rMr. Terry Fle~~lng Department of Transportation and Public faclltttes 4111 Avtatton Avenue Pouch 6900 LAnchorage, AK 99502 Dear Mr. fle.lng: Anchorage, Alaska 99506 ""'''" 1950 December 2 3, 1962 We have revtewed the ·~k Ann Crossing Scooln' ~cument• and have no caaaents. The area In question lies outstde o \Ores£ Service jurisdiction and, tn addltton, we can offer no spectal expertise with respect to the environmental Issues at this time. However. please contact us If we can be of further assistance. We appreciate b~t.~ tv~~ ~h~ ~portunlty to comment. ~,··iJt .... t., It HI\N • lllWSE Actlng.Forest Supervisor fS-&00-IIti-Bl) I I I I I I I - .... - - Appendix B State Agency Correspondence APPENDIX B STATE AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE Agency Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Alaska State Housing Authority Department of Community and Economic Development Department of Community and Regional Affairs Department of Environmental Conservation Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division Date December 1, 1982 December 8, 1982 December 22, 1982 January 7, 1983 January 25, 1983 December 14, 1982 B-1 Page B - 3 B - 4 B - 4 B - 5 B - 6 B - 6 ....... ~~~~~'""~~,.~~~-~.~~I II fl ·11'1 ·11 I• ~-V I I" ·, I'JI'•"IIr,·•,·a . ,f.'OIOfii.lil:. ,11 1>1.-'l '''''·' ."•1.'0'•} llt!Lt111h('l" l' 1~'1:12 Tht! ~il.ill.c of lll<~ska Oeparl.ment of Transport.1t.ion atHI l'ubl ic: fad I illes (llUT/I'r) in o.ntopea·al.inu ~lith t.hc rcdt•l·al lllght·ld}" /lt.llinistratinn (1'11\41\) is 11<1\i S[IHiying "It erno.JI. i ve h iuh\·lay tr,lnspo~~t:a ti nn COlT i dnrs to dtt:rlUinndale fu tun? lrave 1 m~r-do:. lwll·ll"f!ll l111.• l·lunidpality of Anchorage and the 1-tatanuska-Susitnd t:~u·ough. Tlti'Sl· s l.wli PS <m• 1.en tcred on the rhys i ca I l><lrr i c1· pmsPnl.c<l hy lhc 1:n II: llru1 of (nul: lnld. Tlll·l/1 is the d!!slgnded rcderal l.cad II!II!IKV. 1·!1' ~Kluld apprecioll.e olii.Y iulmm<tlion fll' luput. you may wish to make to Uti~ st1uly. 01 lin inl.rrulau.t.ion to the Knik Ann C•·ossiug 1n·oj!!d is wnlai111!d in lhe e11clnsed 1 ~.cnpin~ llr.tt••uent.. The curreut investigJtion Is divided into three "cydes". w Cyd•• I: l:o1Tidor Studies, including (a) Swping Process and (b) Altr:rnaliv" cnrritl<w llnalysis/EnvlrolJIIental lnvestigdlion. ryde II: l01.atlon Studies and (nvlmo•nental ltupact Slatemr>nt, lnclu<liu•) (.1) l'rclimioMry locatinn /llten~oltivcs Evalu.ltion, (b) Conu!ptu.ll llt'~.ign aoorl ilo'aft l.nvirorwnental Impact St<llcment, and (c) Tinill [nvironmenl.,ll impoltl S tel lPUh:ll t. Cycle Ill: Pn!liminary llesign. lllto·nwtiv"s lobe considered during Cycle I iucludt!: I. llu IlL lion :1. llp<Jroltlc [xhtin<J Trolnsporlalion Sy~L•·m .o. Allernale Cross in<) I oo.at.iu11s h. AI ten~o~te Cross in!) Cnuf i•JIIl'•llinw. •.. Allcrnai.P. llppl'OJch to<.atiuns tl. Au xi llary Crossing ractl i ties II. 1~01altl lw IIKI~.I. helpful il \-11' •ntdd •··•••ivt• yo111 iull i.ll ''"'a•u·,d·. '.JIIIII'I 1111 Ill! X I. J() dilyS • [uclosure As SL,ltcd Siuu~n·ly, ) • I~ I /i. '' Te•-ry Fl•·min~.l lnv i ro1•11P11 ta I Co01 d i lhll.o1· f Mr. Terry Fleaing Environaental Coordinator State of Alaska Departaent of Transportation and Public Facilities 411 Aviation Avenue Pouch 6900 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Dear Mr. Fleainga December 8, 1982 Rea Knik Ar• Crosstnq &coping Docuae~ 1 have reviewed the Knik Ara Crossing &coping Docuaent that was transmitted with your letter of Deceaber 1, 1982. It appears fro• ay review of the docuaent that the three cyclea of the study will result in full consideration and public exposure of the project. Thank you for the opportunity to review the docuaent. JBCaGMBaara Sincerely, ALASKA~ATB .HOUSING AUTHORITY _,!;~ -/c - .fohn B. Curtis Executive Director I I I I I' II flU I I'J H II J I 'I I f.i 4 .I BOX 10 ANCUOAAGf. AlASKA 11§.10 I I I I I I I I I r MEMORANDUM State of Alasl<a "' Terry FINing, EnvlrorMuentdl Depart.ent of Transportation Facilities Coordindtor HAll and Publl] fll[ NO UcLL•mher 2l, I 9U2 I 110M Anchorage pj ~~ONE NO Ron s. watt, Oevelopr.ent Speclallst Ill SUIIJLLI Office of Special Industrial Projects Oepart.ent of Cooaerce I Economic OeveloJIIIM!nt lomrncnts on Knik Arm Crossin!J 1 aa hklng thh opportunity to respond to your request for comouents ·on the knlk A111 Crossing In place of Richard Eakins, uho is llil lou~.,,. ~lth the departMent. As lndluted In your letter, this crossing provosal has llecn ai•e•l previously. Our chief Interest In revie11ing this proposal is that it be cost effective and that It be designed in such a ~1ay tllat it aulalze cOIIIIII!rclal as well as personal transportation efflcit!llcles. We will took forwud to reviewing add it tonal phases of the study as work progresses. RSW/sal/22 I I I I I I f I •• PT. eF t::eMMliNITY A aiiQieNAL AFFAiai!J OFFICE OF THE ~R I IIILL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR ~ucH• JUNEAU. ALASICA tHII IHONE IH11 4/IHitlll to I U1 Mr. Terry Fle~~tng Envtrn~ntal Coordinator Deparbnent of Transportation anll P11hltr. Fact11ttes Centra 1 Reg ton 4111 Avtatton Avenue POliCh 6900 Anchnraoe, AK q9~02 Dear "r. Fle~~tng: Janllll') 7, 1!1113 The StatP. of Alas~a PP.part.en\ of CDD~M1ntty and Regional Affairs has·~v•...d the Knlk Ani Crossing Scoplng Docu.ent and agree wtth the tnttlal of~PBD the flnc•IMI!nt ts taj(,tng. The following c1111111ents are constn1cttve I• 1111ti•"•--.nc1 reflect potential areas of concern to DCRA's current and anttctpatef ~ acttvlttP~. Tl'" t:ntl: Am r.rosstng Scoptng llocument suggests, as an overrtdtng pnniUI!Iftflun. that growth tn Anchorage wtll sptll over Into the Point MacKenzie ar-.1 df the Mahnu~~a-S11st tnft Borou!lh as tlell as t.he htghwfty corridor and adjacn\ conm1ntttes. Thts presumption ts supported by the stateaent that ._..re Is aa arparent ~hortage of resl~enttal land and Industrial ~llldtng sttes Ktthtn the Anchorage ur~n area.• To begtn to understand the anttctpated t-racts of these physical .teve1or-nts tn tenns of ttl'll! tt would seet1 appropriate to focus a portton of the study doc-nt on defining the nature and scope of the app~rr.nt lantl shortage 1·1lthtn the Anchor~ge area. In tei'IIS of assessing and adjusting to socto-econoalc tapacts to com.unttles confronted wtth .. jor c~pttal ll'lflrovl!f'll!nt projects and satd pro.lects f11ture Influence on land use patterns, tt1tng Is a crtttcal factor. Capital expenditures associated with service dP.ltvcry and planning dectstons should he hased on long-tenn objectives thus requtrtng the study to consider the relationship of land s~orta~s tn Anchorage to the anticipated "spillover" tn terms of tt~. PrtliOttng develop~ent as close to the dev,1oped core of Anchorage as possible rl'pre~ents a reasonahle and cost effective development pattern as oppnsed to urhan sprawl along transportation corridors or leapfrogging develop~ent ei'Collr~ged hy satd corrt~ors. Thts tltll he pftrttcuhrlv true tn teras of service delivery costs to local governments and the State. Anrother concern which Ke feel needs to l)e constderell ts the Influence of such a crossing on the l.medtate and long tena operation of the Alaska Railroad. Thrre h a possihtl tty that such a factltty coulll ad.,ersely tPipact the ~tates abiltty to operate and .. tntatn an efficient rail syste., assu.tng of course that. the Stftte ftnds tt fl!vor~hle to acquire thP. ~ydl!lll. lltven the anttctpated ttes of agriculture to the rat1 systea and agricultural develo.-nt rntenthl of the Potnt llacl(en7.le area c0111petttton hettii!P.n ratl and road vehicle could well develop. We are not suggesting that thts wtll be the ca~e hut do reconqend these concP.rn~ he ~ddressed tn the ~tudv. I Mr. Terry Fll!llltng January 7, 1983 Page ?. In addttton, and as ft ftnal c~nt, we assu11e the Knik A11'1 CrMsin!l Scopinn effort wtll address and, as appropriate, Incorporate relevant provtstons from Cmlflrehenstve planntn!l efforts of the 1\lntctpaltty of AnchoraiJP anrl the Matanuska-Susttna Borough. Thts would Include the Anchorage l·letropolitan Area Transportation Study IN-tATS). Thank .vou for the opport11ntt.v to rl'vtew thts dncume11t. I hoJie the~P cnrcprn~ and lnfonaatton are helpful to your efforts. Please keep us Informed of your pro!lress. cc: Mr. Mtke •~ehan, Planning Director ~•ntctpaltty of Anchorage Mr. Claudio Arenas, Planning Director Mltanush-Susttna Rorou!lh I ttl I 0'1 I MU ~EFF16LII, GOVEIINO/f 4V E.ITifEEr SECOND FLOOII aEPT. Ot' ENVIRONMENTAl. t;ONSBRVATittN =~~ALASKA 11811111 SOUrHCENrRAL REGIONAL OFFICE January 25, 198 Mr. Terry Flet~lng Envlron.ental Coordinator State of Aluka Depart.ent of Transportation and Pub 11 c he 1l tty 4111 Aviation Avenue Pouch 6900 Anchorage, Alaska g9502 Dear Mr. Fle.tng: RE: Knlk An. Crossing Scoptng Docu.ent 0 0 0 f'.O .• OJflll KODIAK. ALASKA 118115 11111114N·:USO r.o .• OJfiJtJl :wrz:z~.~LASKA - r.O • .OJflllle VALDEL ALASKA - IIIIJ11-- r.o . .aJf- WASILLA. ALASKA -1 IIIIJ1/:111·fill» We are responding to your letter dated Decetlber I, 1g82, requesting Input to the alternative highway transportation corridor study. The envtro~~~~ental considerations addressed In the Scoplng Doc-nt for the Cycle l Alternatives Analysts/EnvtroMentll Investigation have been reviewed. We have the following ca.aents concerning water and atr quality. The Anchorage urban area ts now classtfted non-attatn~~ent for carbon .onoxtde illlblent atr qua11ty standards. USEPA criteria for approving 1979 Non-attatn- llll!nt Area l•ple~~entltlon Plan Revisions requires an analysh of alternative sites and envtron.ental control techniques which det10nstrates that benefits of proposed project significantly outweigh the envtroftlllntal and social cost l•posed IS a result of Its location and construction. An additional requtre- llllnt ts the de1110nstratton of COQII1t~~ent to the establ tshllent, expansion and lllljlrove•nt of publ1c transportation ~~easures to ~~eet baste transportation needs as expeditiously as ts practicable. Prtnctple Issues concerning water qua11ty are !.pacts to fhh •lgratlon and anadro.ous strea• systet1s because of potential salinity changes resulting fra. construction of a causeway across the ICntk An.. Other t.pacts on freshwater strea• quality, such as eroston.and sedt.entatton, could result Ira. construc- tion of access roads wtthtn the proposed corridors. Another Issue not addressed In the Scoptng Docu•nt Is the possible illljlact on the Point Woronzof sewage outfall dtlutton and dispersal characteristics. Outfall design h based on the location and utent of gyres during the flood and ebb cycle. A Kntk Ar• crossing could affect tidal current patterns along with sediMentation properties, and thus sewage dilution and dispersal. We hope the above cu..ents prove helpful In your Investigation and look forward to continued Involvement throught review of the planned assess.ants. Sincerely, .. Bob Martin Regional Supervisor cc: Deena Henklns I I I I I I I , I MEMORAf\luUM 10 Terry Flet11lng FROM. Envtronaental Coordinator Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities Central Regt~J'~. ~ Phtltp J. sMII~ Habitat Biologist Habitat Division Anchorage State of Alaska PATE TELEPHONE NO SUBJECT December 14, 1982 344-0541 Kntk Arm Cross1ng Scoplng Document The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the scoptng document for the ICnik Ar11 Crossing and finds that It adequately presents Issues which should be evaluated during project related studies. We will provide further input after our review of the Draft Alternatives Analysis/Environmental lnvesttgatton Report. oa-ocu 111•-·••/Jtl ' I f r I I I - - - - - - - - ..... .... - Appendix C Local Agency Correspondence - - Agency Matanuska-Susitna Borough Matanuska-S.us i tna Borough Planning Department APPENDIX C LOCAL AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE Date Page December 20, 1982 c -3 December 29, 1982 c -3 C-1 n I w Matanuska · Susltna Borouth neoember 20, 1982 Hr. Jerry Hamel Project Miulager Knik Ann Crossing Study BOX B. PALMER, ALASKA 99645 • PHONE 745 · 4801 DEPARTMENT OF PUBliC WORU High.ravs llesiCJII and Olnsb:Uctioo Departnent of Transportation and Public Facilities I'OOch 6900 Anclnrage, Alaska 99502 1e: Knik Ann Crossing Scq>ing Docullent Dear Mr. llanell 'ltlank you for providing this docQrent for our review and for providing the discussion made with us in Palmer on neoember 15, 1982. OJ page 11, item l.C of Urban Dis1f!ion speaks of • ••• potential bpacts m port facilities. • We believe t this, as stated, is aw«Priate. We also believe the docQrent, perhaps Wider Eoonanl.c Jnpact:s on page ll, should specifically acknowledge "potential lJilliiCts on port facilities, both existing and potential" as the iDportanoe of 11111intaining consid- eration of this characteristic relative to the proposed crossing is felt to be of critical need to this Borough. We feel the port features described are of the same critical iqlortanoe to the follnicipality of Anchorage and deserve continuing consideration Wring the study with equal inport to a rud:ler of the other cited items, such as anackamua fish, historic features and recreational onnoepts. lnder Others on page 16 we would reocmnend the following additions• 1. Knikatnu (Knik Village <brp.l 2. City of Wasilla l. City of Houston We look forward to working with the study activity cllring its life and wish to express our oooperative philosophy in aooooplishing its aims. Sinoerely, ,:..• . /i \i;.' .. d ' .... -r.-. / Annstrong ./ Hayor, Mat_ &I Borough KAL/map Deceaiber 29. 1982 Matanuska · Susltna Do••ou•h BOX B. PALMER, ALASKA 89645 • PHONE 745·3246 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mr. Warren E. Wild, P.E. Partner EMPS P.O. Box 2317 Juneau, AK 99803 Dear Mr. Wild: Enclosed Is lnfor~~~~~tlon that Gary Thurlow, Borough Hanager thought you should have regarding a possible fourth corridor from the Knik An. Crossing to the Parks Highway. Sl/.1/)~y, J?. /il. (ff(UL(} u;retU<J Claudio Arenas Planning Olrector MU. Enclosure - - ..... - - - - .... - - Appendix D Organization Correspondence - APPENDIX D ORGANIZATION CORRESPONDENCE Agency Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Chugach Electric Association, Inc. ENSTAR Natural Gas Company Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc. Date December 1, 1982 February 16, 1983 December 28, 1982 December 15, 1982 D-1 Page D - 3 D - 5 D - 4 D - 4 0 I w f IAJ .( ii~."IIIJ.'IR ,:ot'UWII~ ·fill AI'1411•1N ,\1'1/vl'' l'llllr·n r•'hhl /llo~t:llflli!llil. At-40:1;,, '•'"•II' lllll.'l{ ;•.•,,,.;•., lhP >tall' of 1\las~a ltepartmcnl uf lt"<ltlSIIOI'tat:ion olll<l Puhl ic Foll iIi I iP~ (IIIII /1'1 l in r·nu1••·•··1tiun tlith th~ fedet·al lligitt~ay 1\rlntinist.r.ttinu (1111·111) is nm·1 slutlyill'l .11 Ll'l'llrlt iVC! hiljh~ld.Y l.t'iliiSJlOI"tat ion COITidot·s to MCIM<IIIIldrltc rutowe Lrave I nP•'cl'. l>l!lt·II'Pn the l·lunidpa I i ly of 1\nchot·agc and the Hatauu~l.a-Sus i tna Bnrnu!]h. I ill"~··· stU<Iies an• u•nlct·cd on the physical ban·ier lll"f'SPntPd ht the l:nik .•.nu uf fnol: lulel.. rtiWI\ is the designated fcdet·al l£>ad 1\(lf'llt.Y. UP 1·1nuhl app>cdal.e •lily iufonnation o•· input you may wish to 111o1ke to l.his study. 1\11 inlmdtH.lion to the Knik 1\nu Ct·osslng lli'Ojett is wnlaine<l in the Pm.lowtl \tnpin•r Uou•ncnl. The current lnvesl.i!ralion is divitl,•d lnt.o lht'<'C "<.yelP~". tyde I: fot·ridor St.udics, iucluding (a) Swpinl) l'rOLCSS and (h) 1\1 l.••rn,tti •!P. Corridut· 1\nalysis/Enviror~uental Investigation. t:vllP. II: location Studies a11<l Euvh·o11ncut.11 lllllld<.l ~t.ll•!n~·nl, itu:lwliuq (,t) l'ro•l imitt<li"Y lotatiun lllt<!rttollivcs I.Vollual inn, (h) t<mu•plu.tl ll<'~i<tll ollt<l llrolfl l.uvirliiNIII!nlal Impact Statement, and (L) rin.ll luvin•tVIIl'nloll hnpih.l ~t,tlt~hll~llt.. tyd•• Ill: Prelirninary Uesign. Ill tentatives to be wnsi•h ,..,.r during Cyde I indudP: I. lin lit ti on 1. 1\llenwtc TrJvel l·todes J. lljlyrade Existing Transport.ltion System 1. lli'Jh"ay Crossing it. 1\lternatr. Cross iny LOLiltiuns h. 1\ltentate Crnssi1111 f.unfi~IUI"iltiuns '·· J\lla.'l'lltll.t• 1\pltriMl h lot.tll inll'i d. llttx i ll.try Crossing rad l i ti"'' It \·Jould l·c· u1ost helpful if \'If? tnuld n·u~ivp ynur initial cou•w•nt.s 1·Jil.ili11 lh'' Ill" X l Ill rl,ty~. luc I O'.llt't~ II~ •,t.tled ') incerPI.Y, ,( IPITY FIPIIIill~l EuvirwHnt.'lllal Cnordin.•tf,e· I r Oecemer 28, 1982 Hr. Terry Fle•lng Environmental Coordinator State of AlaskA -----~· 30005ponofd- P.O lloolli288 -oge.Aiaska- 19071271·5551 Department of Transportation and Public facilities Pouch 6900 Anchorage , A 1 aska 99502 RE: Cook Inlet Crossing Scoplng Document Review Dear Hr. Fle•lng: This letter Is In response to your request for ca.nents on the Knlk Ar. Crossing Scoplng Pocu.ent dated Noveuber 29, 1982. £NSTAR Is Interested In the possibility of Installing a gas trans•lsston line wtthtn the Right- of-Way corridor. Construction that would acca.modate a pipeline Is re- COIIIIII!nded. I appreciate this opportunity to comment early In the design pro- cess, and would be pleased to discuss, In detail, design criteria or other pertinent data as the project develops. Please feel free to con- tact me at 264-3745 If you need additional 1nfor.atton. David L. lnclalr Chief Engineer DLS/jkk I I I I t I I I (aiCUIWI DIIICIOI ............ , IXICUIM COMMiflfl -.. ........ ....... ............................. .......... v.c ........... ..................... o. ...... ...w ... •.--.. ...... ~. I 'fl . .,, ... c....-,,._.., ...... 01 ......... GAt .. " "GGM .............. . ~.~::. .. w-. ..... _ ..... " ~ ..... ....... l .a-. ...... ... IIIIKJOUJIOUNCJIIt _ ......... ............ _ Good ...... ........... ..._. .......... ,_, .. .4, '"'"'"•" ......... ...... a...-. ..... , ....... IJt '-thw ·-•G ....,.-g.,, •.. ,. ........... w ............. ............ _ ·-·-o...•-·· .......... '-1M11-elht ........ .... G., .............. ......... c.., w., .. c ..... ..... ...._ .. .....,--.:.. ........ .......... .., ........... ,,... ... _..., •:w••...,••l G_,,.._. .. "~ ........... ............. ~ ....... _ ... ,.._ ... " ... , ............... .. , ......... ...... . _.. ... .. ......... ·-·'"'· "--JMcttk ......... .... Qf,...,..,_ .,., ......... w C~lluAO'D~-· HoNOh- 1 ... •0..•• tto,,. •• _ .... ... "" ...... ~:==r ••• a.-aa .. ····--J .. _., .... ............. ............ ,..;,, ........ . ......... v, ......... .. ..... Wrouoo •--w.a-.. .... ~J,j.,.,, ............. , 'lo•ll ....... IAIU • r.,,,,., ....... ,, ................... ~·· M ............. J ... ............... ....... _ ..... . .......... I Deceaber lS, 1982 Terry Fleaina, Environaental Coordinator Depart•ent of Transportation and Public Facilities Pouch 6900 4111 Aviation Avenue Anchoraae, AK 99502 Dear Hr. Fleatna: The Reaou~ce Development Council has for several years been interested and active in •atters dealing with a propoaed Kntk Ara Crosstna. We obtained a copy of your scoptng document on the project and noted our oraanizatton was not listed with others receiving the •aterial. Please •ake this correction so that we receive future information on a tiaely basts and are appropriately listed . I •• not certain we will have time to comment by Deceaber 30 but will •onttor studies and be prepared to com•ent as they proceed. Sincerely, RESOURCE DEVELOP"ENT COUNCIL Cor Alajka, fc. } / " J / t?a/(u, {l.ttt{,/ P&ula P. Easley ,1 ixecuttve Director t/ I I t I I I I I t:l I Ul /l ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION. INC. February 16, 1983 State of Alaska DO'f/PF Central Pouch 6900 •o -·.. • v4adoaoge. v4fos~o -· _,., .,.__ Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Attn: T. Fleming Enviornmental Coordinator Re: Knik Arm Crossing Scoping Document Gentlemen: We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the above referenced document. Our observations are the following: Firat, there are two CEA submarine cable fields crossing the in- let; one between Pt. MacKenzie and Pt. l•oronzof; the other from the west side of the Knik Arm to a terminal near Six-mile Creek. The second ia that Electrical power needed in the expected devel- opment area would be generated by Chugach Electric Association, and may be transmitted from Anchorage. The design must provide for utility rights of way. The safety concerns addressed ln the document do not apply to electrical power transmission. Based on recent developments on the natural gas availability in Beluga, it would be advisable to address right of way requirements for a gas pipeline on the crossing. We request to be retained on all distribution and developments to the crossing, since it could have a significant impact on our long range planning. If you require any additional information or clarification on this. please do not hesitate to contact ua. (907) 276-3500. Very truly yours, Eric Haemer Director of Planning and lbjor Projects EH/tc