Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection
Project No.: C
DESIGN STUDY REPORT
STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
Prepared by: Seawolf Engineering 3211 Providence Drive Anchorage, AK 99508
April 2017
STATE OF ALASKA
NOTICE TO USERS
This report reflects the thinking and design decisions at the time of publication. Changes frequently occur during the evolution of the design process, so persons who may rely on information contained in this document should check with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for the most current design. Contact the Design Project Manager, Joe Sandstrom, at 907-717-6049 for this information.
PLANNING CONSISTENCY
This document has been prepared by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities according to currently acceptable design standards and Federal regulations, and with the input offered by the local government and public. The Department's Planning Section has reviewed and approved this report as being consistent with present community planning.
CERTIFICATION
We hereby certify that this document was prepared in accordance with Section 520.4.1 of the current edition of the Department's Highway Preconstruction Manual and CFR Title 23, Highway Section 771.111(h).
The Department has considered the project's social and economic effects upon the community, its impacts on the environment and its consistency with planning goals and objectives as approved by the local community. All records are on file with Central Region - Design and Engineering Services Division, Highway Design Section, 4111 Aviation Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99502.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES IV
LIST OF APPENDICES IV
LIST OF ACRONYMS V
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
1.1 Project Location and Description 1
1.2 Existing Facilities and Land Use 1
1.3 Purpose and Need 1
2.0 DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 2
3.0 ALTERNATIVES 3
3.1 First Alternative: Unsignalized Intersection 3
3.2 Second Alternative: Signalized Intersection 3
3.3 Third Alternative: Roundabout 3
3.4 Fourth Alternative: No Action 3
4.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 4
5.0 TYPICAL SECTIONS 4
6.0 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL ALIGNMENT 4
6.1 Horizontal Alignment 4
6.2 Vertical Alignment 4
7.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL 5
8.0 DRAINAGE 5
8.1 Permits 5 ______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection i Design Study Report
9.0 SOIL CONDITIONS 5
10.0 ACCESS CONTROL FEATURES 6
11.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 6
11.1 Traffic Volume Growth 6
11.2 Level of Service 7
11.3 Turning Movement Counts and Projections 7
11.4 Capacity Analysis 8
11.5 Roundabout First Policy 8
12.0 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS 9
12.1 Signalized Intersection 9
12.2 Pedestrians 9
12.3 Wildlife crossing 9
13.0 RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIREMENTS 9
14.0 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES 10
15.0 UTILITY RELOCATION AND COORDINATION 10
15.1 Enstar 10
15.2 GCI 10
15.3 MEA 10
16.0 STRUCTURAL SECTION AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 10
16.1 Parks Highway 10
16.2 Big Lake Road 11
16.3 Bridge 11 ______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection ii Design Study Report
16.4 Pathway 11
16.5 Structural Sections 12
17.0 COST ESTIMATE 13
18.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS 13
19.0 BRIDGES 13
19.1 Alternatives 13
19.2 Alternative 1 13
19.3 Alternative 2 14
19.4 Preferred Alternative 14
20.0 EXCEPTIONS TO DESIGN STANDARDS 15
21.0 MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS 15
22.0 ITS FEATURES 15
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection iii Design Study Report
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Location & Vicinity Map Figure 2 2025 Non-directional Traffic Volumes Figure 3 2035 Non-directional Traffic Volumes Figure 4 2004 Turning Movements Figure 5 2035 Projected Turning Movements Figure 6 Structural Section of Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Figure 7 Alternative I. Single Crossing Bench Figure 8 Alternative II. Double Crossing Bench
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Description A Design Criteria and Design Designation B Typical Sections C Traffic Analyses (signal warrants, capacity analysis, roundabout analysis, etc.) and speed studies D Environmental Document E Erosion and Sediment Control Plan F Permit Applications G Design Memos H Hydrology Report
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection iv Design Study Report
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACGP Alaska Construction General Permit ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation APDES Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ARRC Alaska Railroad Corporation ATM Alaska Traffic Manual BMP Best Management Practice CFR Code of Federal Regulations DOT&PF Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities ESCP Erosion and Sediment Control Plan EPA Environmental Protection Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration HPCM Alaska Highway Preconstruction Manual HMCP Hazardous Material Control Plan HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program LOS Level of Service MADT Monthly Average Daily Traffic MOA Municipality of Anchorage MP Milepost MPH Miles Per Hour MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PGDHS A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets ROW Right-of-Way SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan USGS United States Geological Survey
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection v Design Study Report
Figure 1. Location and Vicinity Map
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection vi Design Study Report
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 Project Location and Description
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) proposes to reconstruct the intersection of the Parks Highway and Big Lake Road. The proposed project is located within Section 10 and Section 12, T17N, R03W, Seward Meridian on Mat-Su Borough Tax Maps H010 and H011; Latitude 61°34’31.65” N, Longitude 149°43’27.55” W, in Houston, Alaska, within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB). The proposed reconstruction project includes reconstruction of the intersection of Big Lake Road and the Parks Highway (extending approximately 0.5 miles to the north and south of the intersection and 0.25 miles to the east of the intersection), a realignment of Little Meadow Creek to its historical flow channel, construction of a new bridge over Little Meadow Creek with a wildlife crossing, and improvement of ditches and drainage.
1.2 Existing Facilities and Land Use
Parks Highway is classified as a Rural Interstate and Big Lake Road is classified as a Rural Minor Arterial, both have posted speed of 55 MPH.
To the north and south of the intersection, the Parks Highway consists of two 12-foot through lanes with opposing traffic. To the west of the intersection, Big Lake Road also consists of two 12-foot through lanes with opposing traffic. Approaching the intersection from the south, the Parks Highway widens to allow a dedicated left turn lane onto Big Lake Road. Approaching the intersection from the north, the Parks Highway widens to allow a dedicated right turn lane onto Big Lake Road. Approaching the intersection from the east, Big Lake Road widens to allow a dedicated left and right turn onto the Parks Highway from a stop control. Big Lake Road and the Parks Highway were observed to have 6-foot and 8-foot shoulders, respectively, with 4:1 side slopes.
Land use along the corridor consists of small commercial businesses such as NAPA Auto Parts in the northwest corner and Gorilla Fireworks in the southeast corner of the intersection; Big Lake Baptist Church on the southwest corner. Little Meadow Creek runs under and across Parks Highway just north of the intersection. The ROW is about 95-105 feet wide along Big Lake Road and 150 feet wide along Parks Highway.
There is no illumination along Parks highway leading up to the intersection to Big Lake Road. However, there is illumination along Big Lake Road.
1.3 Purpose and Need
The purpose of this Resurface, Restoration, and Rehabilitation (3R) project is to upgrade the intersection to: - Decrease crash rates and enhance safety; - Alleviate traffic congestion; - Accommodate future increase capacity; - Improve roadside drainage; - Provide a safe wildlife crossing to adjacent areas; ______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 1 Design Study Report
- Improve mobility for vehicles and pedestrians.
2.0 DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
Design standards and guidelines that apply to the Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection are contained in the following publications:
Standards:
● ADA Standards for Accessible Design, United States Department of Justice, September 15, 2010 except for the use of Detectable Warnings on Curb Ramps standards as stated in the ADA Standards for Transportation Facilities, United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), 2006. ● A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (PGDHS or “Green Book”), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2001. ● Alaska Highway Preconstruction Manual (HPCM), State of Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, 2005 (including all revisions thru August 2014). ● The Alaska Traffic Manual (ATM), consisting of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009 as amended, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Alaska Traffic Manual Supplement, State of Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, 2016. ● Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, AASHTO, 2004. ● An Informational Guide for Roadway Lighting (IGRL), AASHTO, 1984. ● Roadside Design Guide, 3rd Edition, AASHTO, 2002.
● NCHRP, Report 279, Intersection Channelization Design Guide, Neuman, Timothy, 1985.
● NCHRP, Report 255, Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design, Pedersen, N.J. and D.R. Samdahl, TRB, 1982.
● NCHRP, Report 755, Analytical Travel Forecasting Approaches for Project-Level Planning and Design, Smith, C.M, 2014.
● Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD), FHWA, 2009.
● Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), TRB, 2000.
Guidelines:
● Proposed Accessibility Standards for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right of Way, United States Access Board, July 26, 2011.
● Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition, AASHTO, 2012. ● Greenroads, Rating System V2, 2015. ______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 2 Design Study Report
Appendix A contains the project Design Criteria and Design Designation.
3.0 ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives were considered for this project. The first three alternatives consider new construction options with four lanes along the Parks Highway. The fourth option is the no action alternative and will keep the Parks Highway constrained to the original two lanes.
3.1 First Alternative: Unsignalized Intersection
The first alternative would upgrade the existing highway by constructing raised medians and islands while keeping the existing pathways and at-grade crossings in place. This will safely facilitate the movements of vehicles and pedestrians, increase capacity, and reduce the wait time for traffic along the Parks Highway to navigate the intersection. This alternative does not provide adequate visibility of the intersection and it creates conflicts at the intersection since it lacks a regulatory traffic control device. 3.2 Second Alternative: Signalized Intersection
The second alternative will involve the installation of a signalized system on the Big Lake Road and Parks Highway intersection. The Parks Highway will be upgraded from the existing one lane road to a four-lane highway. The signalized systems are able to control a large area to accommodate the flow of traffic for both pedestrians and vehicles. This will reduce angle collision accidents, provide the maximum degree of control at the intersection, increase the capacity of handling traffic, improve the orderly flow of traffic, and reduces delay through the intersection. Traffic signals will increase the maintenance and operations cost.
3.3 Third Alternative: Roundabout
The third alternative is a roundabout with a continuous lane on the arterial road. Roundabouts decrease incapacitating injuries and fatal crashes by 90%, they are environmentally friendly, cost efficient, and reduces the driver’s speed into and through the intersection. The geometric shape of a roundabout can enhance the safety for drivers by allowing more time to make decisions and reducing the need to judge gaps in fast traffic and it also benefits pedestrians by providing space to pause on the island which creates an easier and safer crossing. A roundabout would have an effect on large trucks passing through intersection, causing them to slow down and navigate a roundabout. If a roundabout were designed, it would need to account for the heavy large truck traffic along the Parks Highway. 3.4 Fourth Alternative: No Action
The fourth alternative is the no action or no build alternative. This alternative would leave the geometric design of the roadway unchanged. Under this alternative, the intersection delay would increase with traffic capacity and reach a LOS of F, as shown later in this report. The increased congestion would also increase the likelihood of vehicle and pedestrian crashes. The no action alternative would also be a violation of the Environmental Assessment which requires the replacement of the existing culverts with a bridge.
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 3 Design Study Report
4.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The second alternative is the preferred alternative. Due to a dramatic increase in volume for the design year, this alternative provides two left turning lanes from Parks Highway into Big Lake, additional through lanes on Parks Highway, separated pathways, and crossings across the intersection. A bridge will be constructed across Little Meadow Creek. The Creek will be realigned to create space for the bridge abutments. A bench will be constructed under the bridge to improve the animal crossing and meet our environmental commitment in the Environmental Assessments.
5.0 TYPICAL SECTIONS
The main arterial road, Parks Highway, will have four lanes that will consist of two 12 foot lanes in each direction, 8 foot shoulders on the outside, with a max allowable grade of 3%. There will be 28 feet wide clear zone on each side of the highway; on the left side, there is an 8-foot wide shoulder, 10-foot wide buffer with a side slope of 4:1, and a 10-foot wide pathway. Big Lake Road will also be upgraded to four lanes with two 12-foot wide lanes in each direction and 28 feet of clear zones on both sides of the road. The clear zones will be identical to the Parks Highway. The Big Lake Road and Parks Highway Intersection will be upgraded to a signalized intersection, this will provide safety, increase the capacity, and improve efficiency. At the intersection, there will be two turning lanes that open up to turn left from Parks Highway going northbound onto Big Lake Road and a raised median will be installed. The typical sections are provided in Appendix B.
6.0 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL ALIGNMENT
6.1 Horizontal Alignment
The proposed horizontal alignments for Big Lake Road (BL) and the Parks Highway (PH) follow closely to the existing roadway centerline. This was chosen to minimize Right-of-Way impacts and to facilitate a smooth transition back to the existing roadway to the north and south of the intersection. The beginning of the alignment, to the south of the intersection, is assumed to tie into previous construction, and therefore the proposed roadway was not tapered to match the existing roadway at this connection.
6.2 Vertical Alignment
The vertical alignment for Big Lake Road follows the existing ground to the west of the intersection, but rises as it approaches the intersection to match the Parks Highway vertical alignment. The proposed Parks Highway alignment was determined by the bridge elevation determined by the hydrologic analysis and by the existing group profile. This alignment is still being finalized, but according to the most recent design it will follow the existing ground to the south of the intersection, rise above the existing ground at the intersection to tie into the bridge elevation, and then continue as a fill area before tying into the north end of the project.
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 4 Design Study Report
7.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
This project will require the contractor to create and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). They will be provided a copy of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) to use as a guide when writing the SWPPP. The contractor will use Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction. The contractor will stabilize all disturbed areas of soil within 14 days of ceasing construction activity using BMPs such as silt fences, fiber rolls, and vegetative buffer. 8.0 DRAINAGE
The topography at the project site is generally sloping east to west, but contains some steep areas bordering the wetland in the west corner of the intersection. Ditch vegetation consists of native brush and grasses. Proposed improvements are not expected to change drainage patterns to any significant extent. The project is contained within the Little Meadow Creek watershed.
8.1 Permits
The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Clean Water Act Section 404 will be required for this project because the project encompasses a portion of Little Meadow Creek and its surrounding wetlands. The proposed project would include the permanent placement of fill below ordinary high water (OHW) in seasonal wetlands surrounding the project to allow for expansion of the existing intersection. The project will also involve the realignment of Little Meadow Creek to its historical flow channel just north of its current existing crossing. The proposed alternative will avoid wetland delineation wherever possible. Impacts to Little Meadow Creek and wetlands will be minimized by preparing an ESCP and SWPPP in accordance with the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Construction General Permit (CGP). These will implement BMPs, reseeding with native vegetation, and stabilization of disturbed soil.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) requires submittal of a completed Permanent Storm Water Management Control Plan Review Checklist and permit application section 404. The checklist for this project is necessary because Little Meadow Creek is a receiving water body that intersects the project area. This includes explanation of drainage patterns, soil types, topography, and flow paths. The section 404 permit is satisfied by the USACE Clean Water Act Section 404. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game will require a Title 16 Habitat Permit for this project since Little Meadow Creek is an anadromous creek. This permit application is currently in the consulting stages and will be completed later in the project. All permit applications can be found in Appendix F of this report.
9.0 SOIL CONDITIONS
A geotechnical report was developed by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities in September 2016. Existing soil conditions of the Parks Highway consists of peat, organic silt, and intermittent gravel/sand layers. Borings along the northbound Parks Highway through the project site along the intersection show a median groundwater depth of 2 feet. Frozen embankment was found varying from 2 to 2.5 feet in depth. The soft soil depth varies from 0 to 25 feet and surcharging is recommended. ______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 5 Design Study Report
Existing soil conditions on Big Lake Road consists of sand and gravel, usable Type B material, and groundwater was observed at a median depth of 10.4 feet. Near Little Meadow Creek, there are soft soils with groundwater near the surface. Stress cracks are observed in the existing embankment, close to the creek and are correlated with the thick loose soil conditions.
10.0 ACCESS CONTROL FEATURES
Driveway access for existing businesses and residents has been included in the current design. In some locations, drive access has been modified, or multiple driveways for the same business have been removed, but design options have been carefully weighed between individual benefits and safety benefits to the corridor. New access to the highway will be managed through driveway permits and future project evaluation.
11.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
11.1 Traffic Volume Growth
Research was performed with the ADOT Annual Traffic Report for the Central Region to find trends in historical traffic data. The annual growth rate for the current year (2017) through the design year (2035) was determined by averaging out ten years of the traffic growth (2003-2013) for the Parks Highway, and was found to be 1.63%. The annual growth rate average for Big Lake Road was also computed, and was found to be 0.45%. It was decided to use the conservative value of 1.63% annual growth for both roads.
Kinney Engineering used TransCAD to model the project area and produce non-directional traffic volumes for the project area. This model accounted for future traffic distribution in the Mat-Su Borough, land use and development, segment capacity and travel time, and projects in the Long Range Transportation Plan. The model for the year 2025 was provided for our use and is shown below as Figure 2.
Figure 2. 2025 Non-directional Traffic Volumes (Final Traffic Analysis Report - Kinney Engineering, 2013) ______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 6 Design Study Report
The 1.63% annual growth rate was used to convert the 2025 volumes to the design year (2035). A schematic of these volumes is shown below in Figure 3.
Figure 3. 2035 Non-directional Traffic Volumes 11.2 Level of Service
A Level of Service (LOS) analysis was performed on the existing intersection geometry. It was found that, for existing traffic volumes with the existing intersection geometry, that the intersection LOS is B with a delay of 11.8 seconds. A similar analysis was performed for 2035 traffic volumes with the existing intersection geometry and the results were a LOS F with a delay of 281.8 seconds.
The Calculations for LOS are provided in Appendix E.
11.3 Turning Movement Counts and Projections
Kinney Engineering collected peak hour turning movements from the intersection. These movements are shown below in Figure 4.
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 7 Design Study Report
Figure 4. 2004 Turning Movements (Final Traffic Analysis Report - Kinney Engineering, 2013)
Kinney Engineering also algorithms to convert the 2004 turning movements to projected turning movements for the design year. These movements are shown below in Figure 5.
Figure 5. 2035 Projected Turning Movements (Final Traffic Analysis Report - Kinney Engineering, 2013)
11.4 Capacity Analysis
Capacity analysis on the proposed signalized intersection was attempted as a part of this project. Due to the complexity of the intersection and time constraints, the capacity analysis was not completed. Instead, standard design guidance and common practices were used.
11.5 Roundabout First Policy
In accordance with the DOT “Roundabout First” policy, a roundabout was considered as one of the alternatives for this intersection. In the following paragraph, justification is provided for not installing a ______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 8 Design Study Report
roundabout at this intersection.
After analyzing the projected growth for 2035, a single lane roundabout would not provide a sufficient LOS for this intersection and therefore a multi-lane roundabout would be required. Building a multi-lane roundabout would make the intersection more challenging for pedestrians, because although pedestrians have the right-of-way within roundabouts, vehicles are never required to come to a complete stop and this often leaves pedestrians waiting for a gap in traffic to cross the street. Also, building a roundabout would require the purchase of additional right-of-way at the intersection, which would add expense and potentially force the businesses and church located at the intersection to relocate. Finally, a roundabout would constantly impede the Parks Highway traffic that is continuing straight through the intersection, in contrast to a signalized intersection that would allow free-flow for a large percentage of each light cycle, dramatically changing the intersection LOS.
12.0 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
12.1 Signalized Intersection
The installation of a signalized intersection will improve safety at this intersection. Without a signal, the growth of traffic volumes over the upcoming years will cause the traffic gaps or opportunities for cars to turn from Big Lake Road onto the Parks Highway to become smaller. When this occurs, cars would either have to wait much longer to get onto the Parks Highway or they would make riskier decisions about the gap length required for them to safely enter the Parks Highway. Either option is undesirable, but the increased probability of high-speed collisions is of the utmost concern. A signalized intersection will remove this potential hazard.
The double-left turn lanes from the Parks Highway onto Big Lake Road will reduce congestion and will allow more vehicles to pass through this intersection during each light cycle.
12.2 Pedestrians
This project will provide a 10-foot pathway along Parks Highway and an 8’ pathway along Big Lake Road that will be in compliance with the Americans with Disability Act. In addition, a pedestrian crosswalk with signal indications will be included at the intersection to facilitate safe crossings of both Big Lake Road and the Parks Highway.
12.3 Wildlife crossing
The culvert at Little Meadow Creek will be replaced with a wildlife crossing. This will allow animals, especially moose, to cross beneath the Parks Highway instead of across the road. This will reduce the number of moose-vehicle collisions at this intersection and improve overall safety for both motorists and animals.
13.0 RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIREMENTS
In the design process, it has been determined that the reconstruction will be within the 300 feet of Right- ______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 9 Design Study Report
of-Way. No additional ROW acquisition is required in the current plans but it may be required as the design progresses.
14.0 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
Pedestrian and bicycle facilities will be incorporated along one side of the Parks Highway and Big Lake Road, and they have been designed to accommodate existing pedestrian traffic as well as project future growth. All pedestrian facilities will be designed as multi-use trails and will be in compliance with the Americans with Disability Act.
15.0 UTILITY RELOCATION AND COORDINATION Utility companies with facilities in the project limits include GCI, Matanuska Electric Association (MEA), and Enstar. The utilities throughout the highway that are in conflict with the project will need to be relocated and agreements will need to be developed. A brief description of the utilities is listed below by company.
15.1 Enstar
Enstar is a natural gas company that has 6-inch plastic pipes containing high pressured gas on the west side of Big Lake Road stretching from Brittany Drive to the Parks Highway Intersection. Along the Parks Highway, the gas line is installed on the East side of the Parks Highway South of the intersection and crosses to the West side of the road, past Big Lake Road. Enstar facilities in conflict with the project will require relocation.
15.2 GCI
GCI has fiber optic cables running along the West side of the Parks Highway, it only crosses to the East side when it reaches the intersection. This facility will require relocation at the intersection and anywhere else it is conflict with the project.
15.3 MEA
Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) also placed their electric cables on the West side of the Parks Highway. Most of these facilities are outside of the project limits, but lines crossing the proposed roadway may be in conflict and require relocation.
16.0 STRUCTURAL SECTION AND PAVEMENT DESIGN
16.1 Parks Highway
There are layers of soft and organic soil along the Parks Highway and therefore surcharge is recommended in the months prior to construction. After this surcharge and excavation, the Parks Highway structural section will include 36 inches of Borrow, Type A material above the existing ground. Above the Type A, 2 inches of D-1 aggregate base will be applied. 4 inches of asphalt treated base course (ATB) will be ______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 10 Design Study Report
separated into 2 inch lifts with a tack coat between them, if necessary. The top layer will be a 2-inch lift of hot mix asphalt (HMA) Type 2, Class A. The Parks Highway Structural Section is shown below in Figure 6.
16.2 Big Lake Road
The Big Lake Road structural section will be composed of 36 inches of Borrow, Type A material above the existing ground. Next, 2 inches of D-1 aggregate base will be applied. The next layer will include a 3-inch lift of ATB followed by a coat of tack, if necessary. The top layer will consist of 2 inches of HMA Type 2, Class A. The Big Lake Road structural section is shown below in Figure 6.
16.3 Bridge
The bridge structural section will include 4-foot, 6-inch girders followed by a geotextile. From there, the pavement will follow the existing Parks Highway design of 4 inches of ATB separated by a tack coat with a 2-inch top layer of HMA Type 2, Class A. 16.4 Pathway
The pathway structural section will consist of 18” of Borrow, Type A, 2” of ATB, and 2” of Hot Mix Asphalt. This structural section is shown below in Figure 6.
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 11 Design Study Report
16.5 Structural Sections
Figure 6. Structural Section of Parks Highway and Big Lake Road.
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 12 Design Study Report
17.0 COST ESTIMATE
Preliminary Engineering $ 1,000,000
Right-of-Way $ 0
Utility Relocation $ 500,000
Construction $ 10,000,000
Total $ 11,500,000
18.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS
The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) outlines that this project does not have any significant environmental impacts. The contractor will be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP. An ESCP will be available to the contractor to use as a guide in developing the SWPPP.
The contractor is responsible for obtaining all necessary permits and clearances for materials sites, disposal sites, and staging areas unless DOT&PF has obtained all necessary permits. See the Environmental Document in Appendix D for project specific commitments.
19.0 BRIDGES
The EA requires a bridge to be installed over Little Meadow Creek, so the existing culverts in the project area will be replaced with a single span bridge. The bridge design is outlined in the Bridge Study Report (BSR) prepared by Shearer Design LLC. Each proposed alternative has taken into account the openness ratio (a function of crossing height, width, and length) required for a moose (the largest wildlife entity considered) to safely cross. Generally, the minimum height required is 13 feet. 19.1 Alternatives
The considered alternatives are provided in the following sections. 19.2 Alternative 1
The first alternative considered is a single crossing bench, shown in Figure 7 below. This alternative will provide a bench for wildlife and pedestrians to cross under the roadway as well as allow for recreational fishing use under the bridge. The open surface creek allows for a more natural crossing design for fish. The bridge will have a clearance of 14 feet from the bench, a 15’ 10.5” span to accommodate for the 25’ wide and 3’ deep stream. The bench is approximately 35’ in length and has a 1% slope.
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 13 Design Study Report
Figure 7. Alternative One Single Crossing Bench
19.3 Alternative 2
The second alternative is a double-crossing bench, shown below in Figure 8. This alternative will provide the same amenities as alternative one, but on both sides of the creek. This will allow for wildlife and pedestrians to be able to cross the roadway without having to cross the stream regardless of which side they enter. Having two benches is ideal since it allows for more space between pedestrians, bicyclists, wildlife, and recreational users. The bridge will have a clearance of 14’ from the bench, a 115’ 10.5” span to accommodate for the 25’ wide and 3’ deep stream. The benches are each approximately 17.5’ in length and have a 1% slope.
Figure 8. Alternative Two Double Crossing Bench
19.4 Preferred Alternative
Alternative two is recommended because it allows for crossing on both banks. This alternative provides the most efficient wildlife passage. This also ties in with the pedestrian crossing on the south side of the roadway. Moose and wildlife are limited to one side of the bank in alternative I, which could result in increased crossings in the project intersection. The chosen alternative would require additional moose fencing. The low chord for the bridge was calculated to be at an elevation of 210.5’. The high chord was calculated based on the structural section of the bridge to be 215.5’. ______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 14 Design Study Report
A hydrological report is provided in the Appendix H for further explanation and calculations.
20.0 EXCEPTIONS TO DESIGN STANDARDS
There are no exceptions to design standards for this project.
21.0 MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Maintenance will remain the responsibility of the State of Alaska and the local DOT&PF Maintenance and Operations Station located at Wasilla.
The project will improve maintenance efforts of the bridge with the addition of pathways on either side of the creek underneath the bridge which will allow workers to better reach areas that require maintenance.
22.0 ITS FEATURES
ITS features examined in this project include using vehicle radar detection instead of traffic loops at the intersection. Radar detection has become more widely used as technology has advanced. It is easier to maintenance and upgrade, and provides a high level of accuracy in transmitting current traffic conditions to the signal timers. If found feasible, this technology will be researched and detailed more completely as the design progresses.
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 15 Design Study Report
APPENDIX A: Design Criteria and Design Designation
APPENDIX B: Typical Sections
APPENDIX C: Traffic Analysis
The information in this report is compiled for highway safety planning purposes. Federal law prohibits its discovery or admissibility in litigation against state, tribal or local government that involves a location or locations mentioned in the collision data. 23 U.S.C. § 409; 23 U.S.C. § 148(g); Walden v. DOT, 27 P.3d 297, 304-305 (Alaska 2001).
HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.6
Phone: Fax: E-Mail:
______ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS______
Analyst: Joe Sandstrom Agency/Co.: UAA Date Performed: 3/10/2017 Analysis Time Period: Intersection: Parks/Big Lake Jurisdiction: Mat-Su Borough Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: Project ID: Existing 2015 East/West Street: Big Lake Road North/South Street: Parks Highway ______Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics______
| Eastbound | Westbound | Northbound | Southbound | | L T R | L T R | L T R | L T R | |______|______|______|______| Volume |41 0 148 |0 0 0 |268 255 0 |0 176 27 | % Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2
Configuration L R L T T R PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Flow Rate 43 155 282 268 185 28 % Heavy Veh 12 12 12 12 12 12 No. Lanes 2 2 2 Opposing-Lanes 0 2 2 Conflicting-lanes 2 2 2 Geometry group 1 5 5 Duration, T 0.25 hrs.
______Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet______
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2
Flow Rates: Total in Lane 43 155 282 268 185 28 Left-Turn 43 0 282 0 0 0 Right-Turn 0 155 0 0 0 28 Prop. Left-Turns 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Geometry Group 1 5 5 Adjustments Exhibit 17-33: hLT-adj 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.4 -0.4 0.7 0.2 0.2 -0.5
______Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time______
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 43 155 282 268 185 28 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.04 0.14 0.25 0.24 0.16 0.02 hd, final value 6.04 5.24 6.01 5.51 5.93 5.22 x, final value 0.07 0.23 0.47 0.41 0.30 0.04 Move-up time, m 2.0 2.3 2.3 Service Time 4.0 3.2 3.7 3.2 3.6 2.9
______Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service______
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2
Flow Rate 43 155 282 268 185 28 Service Time 4.0 3.2 3.7 3.2 3.6 2.9 Utilization, x 0.07 0.23 0.47 0.41 0.30 0.04 Dep. headway, hd 6.04 5.24 6.01 5.51 5.93 5.22 Capacity 293 405 532 518 435 278 Delay 9.50 9.76 13.95 11.99 11.20 8.14 LOS A A B B B A Approach: Delay 9.70 12.99 10.80 LOS A B B Intersection Delay 11.83 Intersection LOS B ______
HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.6
Phone: Fax: E-Mail:
______ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS______
Analyst: Joe Sandstrom Agency/Co.: UAA Date Performed: 3/10/2017 Analysis Time Period: Intersection: Parks Highway/Big Lake Road Jurisdiction: Mat-su Borough Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: Project ID: Future Year 2035 East/West Street: Big Lake Road North/South Street: Parks Highway ______Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics______
| Eastbound | Westbound | Northbound | Southbound | | L T R | L T R | L T R | L T R | |______|______|______|______| Volume |119 0 396 |0 0 0 |885 647 0 |0 625 81 | % Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2
Configuration L R L T T R PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Flow Rate 125 416 931 681 657 85 % Heavy Veh 12 12 12 12 12 12 No. Lanes 2 2 2 Opposing-Lanes 0 2 2 Conflicting-lanes 2 2 2 Geometry group 1 5 5 Duration, T 0.25 hrs.
______Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet______
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2
Flow Rates: Total in Lane 125 416 931 681 657 85 Left-Turn 125 0 931 0 0 0 Right-Turn 0 416 0 0 0 85 Prop. Left-Turns 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Geometry Group 1 5 5 Adjustments Exhibit 17-33: hLT-adj 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.4 -0.4 0.7 0.2 0.2 -0.5
______Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time______
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 125 416 931 681 657 85 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.11 0.37 0.83 0.61 0.58 0.08 hd, final value 7.45 6.63 8.11 7.60 8.07 7.35 x, final value 0.26 0.77 2.10 1.44 1.47 0.17 Move-up time, m 2.0 2.3 2.3 Service Time 5.4 4.6 5.8 5.3 5.8 5.0
______Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service______
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2
Flow Rate 125 416 931 681 657 85 Service Time 5.4 4.6 5.8 5.3 5.8 5.0 Utilization, x 0.26 0.77 2.10 1.44 1.47 0.17 Dep. headway, hd 7.45 6.63 8.11 7.60 8.07 7.35 Capacity 375 543 931 681 657 335 Delay 13.02 28.12 519.62 229.27 246.04 11.58 LOS B D F F F B Approach: Delay 24.63 396.96 219.18 LOS C F F Intersection Delay 281.82 Intersection LOS F ______
APPENDIX D: Environmental Document
Parks Highway: MP 44‐52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Federal No. IM‐0A4‐1(23)/State No. 57178 2010 Revised Environmental AssessmentEnvironmental Assessment
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
September 2010 Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronym or Abbreviation Full Spelling AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources ADOL Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development AHRS Alaska Heritage Resource Survey AKEPIC Alaska Exotic Plants Information Clearinghouse ANHP Alaska Natural Heritage Program ANSI American National Standards Institute APE Area of Potential Effect ARRC Alaska Railroad Corporation ATV All-Terrain Vehicle BG Block Group BGPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practice CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMP Coastal Management Plan CO Carbon Monoxide CT Census Tract CWMA Cooperative Weed Management Association dBA Decibels on the A-weighted Scale DOA Department of Agriculture DCOM Department of Coastal and Ocean Management DOT&PF Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities EA Environmental Assessment EFH Essential Fish Habitat EO Executive Order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
xv
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
HHS Health and Human Services HMCP Hazardous Material Control Plan KAC Knik Arm Crossing KABATA Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority LOS Level of Service LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MLCP Meadow Lakes Comprehensive Plan MLS Multiple Listing Service MP Milepost MSB Matanuska-Susitna Borough MTA Matanuska Telephone Association MVM Million Vehicle Miles NAC Noise Abatement Criteria NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHS National Highway System NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS National Resource Conservation Service NWI National Wetland Inventory OHW Ordinary High Water ROW Right-of-Way SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TCP Traffic Control Plan TDM Transportation Demand Management TNM Traffic Noise Model TSM Transportation Systems Management UST Underground Storage Tank USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey
xvi
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Table of Contents
1 SUMMARY ...... III 2 PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 1
2.1 CORRIDOR HISTORY ...... 1 2.2 EXISTING CONDITION ...... 1 2.3 SAFETY CORRIDOR DESIGNATION ...... 2 2.4 PURPOSE OF THE ACTION ...... 2 2.5 NEED FOR THE ACTION ...... 3 2.5.1 Need 1: Safety ...... 3 2.5.2 Need 2: Congestion ...... 3 2.5.3 Need 3: Travel Efficiency ...... 7 2.6 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ...... 8 2.6.1 Need 1: Improve Safety ...... 8 2.6.2 Need 2: Reduce Congestion ...... 8 2.6.3 Need 3: Increase Travel Efficiency ...... 8 3 ALTERNATIVES ...... 9
3.1 LOGICAL TERMINI SELECTION ...... 9 3.2 TYPICAL SECTIONS ...... 10 3.3 GENERAL ALIGNMENT ...... 15 3.4 ACCESS MANAGEMENT ...... 15 3.5 TRANSIT AND ROADWAY EFFICIENCY CONSIDERATIONS ...... 15 3.6 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ...... 16 3.7 ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES ...... 16 3.8 PHASED CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ...... 16 3.9 MOOSE MITIGATION ...... 17 3.10 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE ...... 18 3.11 FOUR‐LANE DIVIDED HIGHWAY WITH DEPRESSED GRASS MEDIAN AND PARTIAL FRONTAGE ROADS ALTERNATIVE (PREFERRED) ...... 18 3.12 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT CARRIED FORWARD ...... 29 3.12.1 Four‐lane Divided Highway with Fully Controlled Access Alternative ...... 29 3.12.2 Five‐Lane Section Alternative ...... 29 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 31
4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CATEGORIES WITHOUT PROJECT‐IMPOSED CONSEQUENCES ...... 31 4.2 LOCAL LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN IMPACTS ...... 32 4.3 SOCIOECONOMICS ...... 39 4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ...... 50 4.5 RELOCATION IMPACTS ...... 53 4.6 CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS ...... 63 4.7 NOISE ...... 63 4.8 WATER QUALITY ...... 78 4.9 PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS ...... 80 4.10 WETLAND RESOURCES ...... 81 4.11 WATER BODY MODIFICATION ...... 95 4.12 WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES IMPACTS ...... 101 4.13 INVASIVE AND NOXIOUS PLANTS ...... 110 4.14 COASTAL ZONE IMPACTS ...... 112 4.15 HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION ...... 113 4.16 HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES ...... 123 4.17 VISUAL ...... 135
xi
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
4.18 ENERGY ...... 136 4.19 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ...... 137 4.20 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT‐TERM USES OF MAN’S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG‐TERM PRODUCTIVITY ...... 140 4.21 ANY IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 140 4.22 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...... 141 4.23 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS ...... 165 5 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ...... 173
5.1 SCOPING ...... 173 5.2 FORMAL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...... 190 6 LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 215 7 REFERENCES ...... 217
xii
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Figures
FIGURE 1: PROJECT CORRIDOR ...... IX FIGURE 2: LEVEL OF SERVICE DESIGNATIONS ...... 5 FIGURE 3: TYPICAL SECTIONS ...... 13 FIGURE 4: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ...... 21 FIGURE 5: LAND USE ...... 37 FIGURE 6: SOCIOECONOMIC STUDY AREA ...... 41 FIGURE 7: SUBDIVISIONS ...... 45 FIGURE 8: ROW IMPACTS ...... 55 FIGURE 9: NOISE MONITOR LOCATIONS ...... 67 FIGURE 10: NOISE RECEIVER LOCATIONS ...... 71 FIGURE 11: WETLANDS ...... 89 FIGURE 12: BRIDGE OVER LITTLE MEADOW CREEK ...... 99 FIGURE 13: AREAS OF HIGH MOOSE‐VEHICLE COLLISIONS ...... 105 FIGURE 14: AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT ...... 115 FIGURE 15: PHASE I SITE INVESTIGATION ...... 127 FIGURE 16: BIG LAKE WATERSHED ...... 143 FIGURE 17: POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS, MSB AND STATE OF ALASKA ...... 145 FIGURE 18: DEVELOPMENT IN 1978 ...... 146 FIGURE 19: DEVELOPMENT IN 1984 ...... 146 FIGURE 20: DEVELOPMENT IN 2007 ...... 147 FIGURE 21: REASONABLY FORESEEABLE PROJECTS ...... 153 FIGURE 22: NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY, 1978 ...... 157 FIGURE 23: BIG LAKE WATERSHED WETLANDS, 2007 ...... 157 FIGURE 24: ADF&G GAME MANAGEMENT UNIT 14A ...... 162
Tables
TABLE 1: COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... VI TABLE 2: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COUNT ...... 4 TABLE 3: SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS W/OUT IMPROVEMENTS ...... 4 TABLE 4: MAJOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS W/OUT IMPROVEMENTS ...... 7 TABLE 5: ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES, MILLIONS ...... 16 TABLE 6: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATE BY PHASE, MILLION ...... 17 TABLE 7: PROJECT REGION HISTORIC POPULATION TRENDS ...... 39 TABLE 8: EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY ...... 44 1 TABLE 9: MINORITY AND LOW‐INCOME POPULATIONS ...... 51 TABLE 10: 2009 DHHS POVERTY GUIDELINES FOR ALASKA ...... 52 TABLE 11: MODEL EXISTING (2007) PEAK–HOUR NOISE LEVELS ...... 75 TABLE 12: MODEL PREDICTED (2007) PEAK‐HOUR NOISE LEVELS ...... 76 TABLE 13: DRIVEWAY RELOCATION COSTS ...... 78 TABLE 14: ACRES OF WETLAND AND VEGETATION TYPES IN THE STUDY AREA ...... 83 TABLE 15: WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ...... 84 TABLE 16: WETLAND IMPACTS ...... 85 TABLE 17: LOCATION AND SIZE OF EXISTING CULVERTS ...... 95 TABLE 18: HIGH RISK PARCELS ...... 125 TABLE 19: MEDIUM RISK PARCELS ...... 126 TABLE 20: AGENCY COMMENTS BY CATEGORY, 2004 ...... 174 TABLE 21: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT CHRONOLOGY ...... 175 TABLE 22: PUBLIC COMMENTS BY CATEGORY ...... 177 TABLE 23: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT CHRONOLOGY ...... 183
xiii
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
TABLE 24: PUBLIC COMMENTS BY CATEGORY ...... 185 TABLE 25: FORMAL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT CHRONOLOGY ...... 190 TABLE 26: COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING FORMAL COMMENT PERIOD ON EA ...... 195 TABLE 27: COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING FORMAL COMMENT PERIOD ON EA ...... 209
Appendices
APPENDIX A ...... PARKS HIGHWAY CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX B ...... ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS APPENDIX C ...... CONCEPTUAL STAGE RELOCATION STUDY APPENDIX D ...... TRAFFIC NOISE STUDY APPENDIX E ...... WETLAND ASSESSMENT APPENDIX F ...... MOOSE‐VEHICLE COLLISION ANALYSIS APPENDIX G ...... ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT APPENDIX H ...... SECTION 106 CONSULTATION APPENDIX I ...... PHASE I SITE ASSESSMENT APPENDIX J...... SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT APPENDIX K ...... PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT APPENDIX L ...... FORMAL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT APPENDIX M ...... DRAFT PERMIT APPLICATIONS
xiv
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
1 Summary
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF), in cooperation with the Alaska Division of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes to improve 8.3 miles of the Parks Highway. The proposed project corridor begins at Lucus Road (milepost 44) and ends approximately one-half mile past Big Lake Road (milepost 52) at Airolo Road (Figure 1: Project Corridor). The proposed project is part of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB) Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Both planning documents specifically include expansion of the Parks Highway to a four-lane highway between Lucus Road and Big Lake Road.
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve mobility for people and freight and enhance access management along the Parks Highway between Lucas Road and Big Lake Road. As a result of local growth and development, traffic congestion and thru-traffic demand in the project area is sharply increasing. This slows thru-traffic and may be a contributing factor in crashes occurring throughout the project corridor. This segment of the Parks Highway experiences higher than average crash rates and has a significantly higher proportion of high severity crashes when compared to statewide average for similar facilities. Many of these crashes are access-related and over 60 percent are head-on collisions. The Parks Highway ranks in the top five fatal and major injury corridors in the state and was designated a Traffic Safety Corridor (TSC) in 2006. This proposed project addresses safety, congestion and travel efficiency issues due to projected traffic volumes, which are expected to nearly double over the next 20 years.
Existing Condition
The functional classification of the Parks Highway is Rural Interstate; however, the roadway serves varying traffic needs. Through the City of Wasilla (i.e., five-lane section), a 45 mph speed limit and high driveway density cause it to function more as an Urban Arterial. Through the Meadow Lakes community the roadway supports local traffic circulation as well as regional thru-traffic. Beginning inside the City of Houston, Bbeyond Big Lake Road, as the setting becomes more rural and the density of driveways decreases, the highway functions primarily as a rural interstate. The proposed project takes into account the varying needs of all roadway users while encouraging development that is consistent with state and local transportation and corridor management plans. It preserves the corridor by managing access at this stage of development to enable development of frontage roads as needs arise.
Alternatives Considered
In addition to a No Build Alternative, three Build Alternatives were considered during the preliminary design phase of the project. The Build Alternatives included a four-lane divided highway with depressed grass median and partial frontage roads (Preferred), a four-lane divided highway with fully controlled access, and a five-lane section with a center two-way left turn lane (CTWLTL).
iii
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
The Preferred Alternative would extend the five-lane section from Lucus Road to Church Road and upgrade the existing highway to a four-lane divided highway with at-grade intersections spaced every half-mile from Church Road to Big Lake Road. Existing frontage roads would be improved, and the existing 10-foot wide pedestrian pathway would be reconstructed and/or relocated as necessary. Illumination would be installed along the full length of the project corridor. A bridge would be constructed parallel to the existing bridge at the Alaska Railroad crossing. The existing culverts at Little Meadow Creek would be removed and replaced with a short span bridge.
The four-lane divided highway with fully controlled access alternative would extend the five-lane section from Lucus Road to Church Road. The remainder of the project corridor from Church Road to Big Lake Road would be designed to be a freeway facility and upgraded to a four-lane divided highway with frontage roads on each side and grade separated interchanges at two major intersections. This alternative was eliminated from consideration due to its extreme right-of-way (ROW) impacts and construction cost impacts on the DOT&PF’s program budget.
The five-lane section alternative would extend the existing five-lane section the entire length of the proposed project from Lucus Road to Big Lake Road. The Preferred Alternative was selected over the five-lane section alternative because it holds considerable safety, capacity and efficiency advantages over a five-lane facility. The Preferred Alternative more effectively balances the competing demands for thru-traffic mobility, local access, and public safety. The FHWA research conducted to determine the relative safety effects of various types of medians indicates “non-transversable” medians, such as depressed grass or raised medians, are safer than “transversable” medians, such as a CTWLTL. When CTWLTLs are installed where no prior median existed, 35 percent of total crashes are expected to be eliminated. A “non-transversable” median can be expected to reduce total crashes by an additional 37 percent when they replace CTWLTLs or an approximate overall reduction of 59 percent when no prior median existed (NCHRP Report 395, 1997)
Other Major Actions Proposed in the Area
Three connector projects, which include the Museum Drive Extension, the Machen Drive Extension, and the South Mack Drive Extension, are being developed by the MSB to enhance local road network connectivity. When they are completed, local traffic would be better distributed and local community access would be improved. The Museum Drive Extension would extend Museum Drive west to Marigold Drive. The Machen Drive Extension would extend Machen Drive west to Nicola Avenue. The South Mack Drive Extension would complete a north/south corridor connecting the Parks Highway to Knik Goose Bay Road. These projects are expected to be completed before 2013.
Overview of Affected Environment
The proposed project corridor is located entirely within the MSB. The MSB has historically been the fastest growing area in the state and currently has the third largest population. The project area is predominately rural and consists of mostly residential areas with smaller pockets of commercial development. The project area offers abundant recreational
iv
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
opportunities, including fishing, boating, and camping, and contains several recreational facilities. The surrounding terrain is generally flat with large undeveloped forested and open areas. The project area contains several large and small lakes, ponds, streams, and wetlands, which provides valuable habitat for a variety of species including moose, bear, wolf, furbearers, birds, and fish.
Environmental Consequences
Under the No Build Alternative, the existing highway would remain unchanged. Safety conditions on the highway would continue to deteriorate and worsen over time. Congestion and delay would persist, ultimately reaching unacceptable levels. The existing corridor management plan would not be improved and more direct accesses to and across the highway would likely be constructed. Conditions for wildlife and fisheries would not be improved.
The Preferred Alternative would improve safety, reduce congestion, and improve travel efficiency along the highway. Access management strategies would be implemented to more effectively control direct access to and across the highway. Continuous illumination would be installed throughout the project corridor, which would improve driver visibility and is forecast to lead to a reduction in moose-vehicle collisions. Conditions for fish and other wildlife would be enhanced by removing the culverts and constructing a bridge over Little Meadow Creek, the largest and most significant anadromous fish stream in the project area.
Impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative include acquisition of additional right-of- way (ROW), a permanent loss of wetland, and visual changes. The Preferred Alternative would require acquisition of additional ROW at approximately 151 locations. Widening the highway would require loss of approximately 4.0 acres of wetland adjacent to the highway. The visual character of the area would change from a rural to a more urban setting. Construction of the Preferred Alternative would cause temporary effects, including increases in noise levels, minor degradation of air and water quality, traffic delays, and changes in accessibility to businesses. A comparison of the environmental consequences resulting from the No Build and Preferred Alternative is shown in Table 1.
v
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Table 1: Comparison of Environmental Consequences
Environmental Consequence Preferred Alternative No Build Farmland No effect No effect Air Quality No effect No effect Floodplains No effect No effect Wild & Scenic Rivers No effect No effect Coastal Barriers No effect No effect Threatened & Endangered No effect No effect Section 4(f) Properties No effect No effect Social Improve safety on Highway safety would highway continue to deteriorate Environmental Justice No effect No effect Relocation Acquisition of additional ROW at approx. 151 parcels, relocation of six No effect residences and ten businesses Pedestrians and Bicyclists Reconstruct pedestrian No effect pathway Noise No effect No effect Water Quality No effect No effect Wetlands Permanent impact to 4.0 No effect acres of wetlands Water Body Modification Replace culverts with Culverts would remain and bridge at Little Meadow continue to impact Little Creek to restore to natural Meadow Creek system condition Wildlife Bridge would provide Culverts at Little Meadow improved wildlife Creek would continue to crossing at bridge impede wildlife crossing Fisheries Replacing culverts at Culverts at Little Meadow Little Meadow Creek Creek would continue to would improve conditions impact fish passage and for fisheries and essential spawning fish habitat Cultural Resources No effect No effect Hazardous Waste Recommend a Phase II No effect Investigation Visual Highway would change No effect from a rural to a more urban setting Energy No effect No effect Invasive Species Existing invasive species Existing invasive species would be inventoried, would not be inventoried, eradicated, and controlled. eradicated, or controlled.
vi
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Regulatory Permits
Construction of the Preferred Alternative would require the following environmental permits:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 permit for discharge of fill materials into Waters of the United States and wetlands;
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) 401 Water Quality Certification;
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Division of Habitat, Title 16 Fish Habitat Permit for work below Ordinary High Water (OHW);
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), Division of Mining, Land and Water, Land Use Permit for work below OHW;
ADNR, Division of Coastal and Oceanic Management (DCOM), Coastal Consistency Review;
ADEC, Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Large and Small Construction Activities in Alaska (APDES CGP).
All construction activities and related work would be conducted in accordance with all federal, state, and local regulations and permit stipulations. All ROW acquisitions and relocations would comply with provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. Impacts to wetlands would be avoided and minimized whenever possible, and unavoidable impacts would be compensated for by restoring, enhancing, preserving, or creating wetlands. The specific form of compensation will be determined in consultation with the USACE, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ADF&G, and other regulatory agencies. Culvert work would be conducted in accordance with the 2001 Memorandum of Agreement between the ADF&G and DOT&PF for the Design, Permitting, and Construction of Culverts for Fish Passage.
Scoping and Public Involvement
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies, local governments, tribal organizations, and the public were consulted about the proposed project and asked to help identify potential concerns, mitigating measures, and alternatives. Outreach included public and agency scoping meetings, presentations to agencies and community groups, stakeholder interviews, and public information meetings. Agency and public involvement has been ongoing throughout the environmental process and would continue through construction of the proposed project. The Preferred Alternative is widely supported by most of the community. Local users consistently express frustration with safety problems along this corridor, and many voice anger and disappointment that the DOT&PF did not address safety problems in a 1996 resurfacing project in the same area. Opposition to the Preferred Alternative stems primarily from the median. Some business owners are concerned their businesses could suffer as a result of changed or redirected access.
vii
ARCTIC OCEAN
BERING SEA PACIFIC OCEAN
ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION BEGIN PROJECT END PROJECT PITTMAN RD LUCUS RD CHURCH RD VINE RD VINE SYLVAN RD ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION
BIG LAKE RD
0 750 1500 3000 PARKS HIGHWAY MP 44-52 SCALE IN FEET LUCUS RD TO BIG LAKE CUTOFF
FIGURE 1 PROJECT CORRIDOR Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
2 Purpose and Need
2.1 Corridor History
The Parks Highway is a 324-mile long Rural Interstate Highway that extends from its intersection with the Glenn Highway north to Fairbanks, Alaska. The Parks Highway serves as the primary link for commerce and tourism between Anchorage and Interior Alaska. The Parks Highway is on the National Highway System (NHS) and is functionally classified as a Rural Interstate by the DOT&PF and as a Principal Arterial by the MSB. This type of facility is intended for movement of regional traffic.
This portion of the Parks Highway was originally built as a pioneer road to access area homesteads and has undergone several upgrades. In 1958, the section from Wasilla to Big Lake Road was upgraded to a two-lane paved highway. In 1975, the highway was overlaid with two-inch hot asphalt concrete and two years later a seal coat was added. In 1983, a five- lane section was constructed through the City of Wasilla, ending between Lucus Road and Church Road. In 1996, the roadway was resurfaced. Most recently, in 2008, a rut repair project was completed between Lucus Road and Big Lake Road.
2.2 Existing Condition
The highway is currently a rural two-lane highway throughout most of the project corridor, with a short five-lane section with a CTWLTL near Lucus Road. The highway has two 12-foot wide lanes and eight-foot wide shoulders with 4H:1V side slopes. The existing alignment has numerous horizontal curves and the vertical alignment generally conforms to the surrounding terrain, which is predominantly flat. Both the horizontal and vertical alignments meet current DOT&PF design standards. The Parks Highway runs roughly parallel to the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) tracks through Meadow Lakes. East of Museum Road the tracks are south of the highway. From west of Museum Road to the crossing in Houston the tracks are north of the highway. A single span bridge structure crosses over the ARRC tracks near Museum (Neuser) Road.
Numerous driveways and local roads intersect the highway. Land directly adjacent to the highway is generally developed with residences or businesses. Commercial areas are clustered between Stanley Drive, Lamont Way, and Pittman Road. Intersections at Lucus Road, Church Road, Vine Road, and Pittman Road are signalized while the remaining intersections are stop- controlled with stop signs on minor cross-street approaches. Roadway illumination is provided near Lucus Road and limited illumination is provided at signalized intersections and at intersections with turn pockets. Drainage is provided by open ditches and culverts at natural drainage areas.
The five-lane section in Wasilla currently operates well and the DOT&PF anticipates it will operate well for the next 10 years with minor improvements. This section of corridor is functionally classified as an Interstate and is on the NHS; however, the crash rates, access density, and speeds are not consistent with this classification.
1
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
2.3 Safety Corridor Designation
In 2006, the DOT&PF, in cooperation with Alaska State Troopers and the Alaska Highway Safety Office, conducted a Traffic Safety Corridor (TSC) study for a 13 mile segment of the Parks Highway between Lucus Road and the Alaska Railroad Crossing (milepost 56) to identify segments with above average incidence of fatal and serious injury crashes. Data was collected on types of collisions, collision locations, existing conditions at times of collisions, and causes of collisions occurring between 1977 and 2005. Historical data on collisions, traffic volumes, vehicle speeds, highway condition and current traffic enforcement was also reviewed.
During the TSC study period, 33 fatal collisions occurred in the study area. Of those, 28 of the most recent fatal collisions occurred between Church Road and Big Lake Road. The fatal accident rate for this segment was 2.68 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles (MVM), which is approximately 183 percent of the national fatal accident rate for 2004. When compared to statewide averages, three factors/conditions were over represented in the fatal collision analysis including: 1) dark and twilight lighting conditions (48 percent compared to a statewide average of 28 percent), 2) improper lane use/change (21.21 percent compared to a statewide average of 5.90 percent), and 3) head-on collisions (60 percent compared to a statewide average of 16 percent). The significant increase in head-on collisions is possibly due to several factors such as the urban characteristics of this portion of Parks Highway, high volumes of both commuter and summer recreational traffic, the disparity in vehicle speeds, and vehicle mass among commuter versus recreation drivers.
To help alleviate these crashes, the eight mile segment from Church Road to Big Lake Road was designated a TSC in October 2006. The proposed project covers the entire length of the TSC. Designation as a TSC is intended to be a short-term measure to address existing safety concerns until long-term solutions are in place. Strategies to alleviate fatal and major injury crashes were implemented shortly after designation. These strategies included installing special signage, increasing enforcement and penalties for traffic violations, and employing education-based measures directed at driver behavior.
A 2009 review of crash data for the Parks Highway safety corridor indicated the short-term measures in place have been successful in reducing the frequency of severe crashes (i.e., the “combined Fatal and Major Injury”), which declined from 6.3 to 3.67 crashes per year. The per-mile crash rate fell by nearly 50 percent, declining from 15.39 to 8.1 per 100 MVM.
2.4 Purpose of the Action
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve mobility for people and freight and enhance access management along the Parks Highway between Lucus Road and Big Lake Road. In reference to a roadway, the term mobility is defined by the FHWA as “the ability [of traffic] to move or be moved from place to place”. This ability to move or be moved is not mode-dependent but applies to vehicles, transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists. According to
2
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
the FHWA, mobility can be measured in terms of “travel times, level of traffic congestion, or duration of congestion-all of which focus on how long it takes to get from place to place”. The term access refers to how vehicles get onto and off of the roadway. Access can be provided via ramps, intersections, frontage roads, and driveways. The level of access to adjacent property is dependent on the primary function of the roadway. As such, “access management” determines how and where roadway users get on and get off of a roadway, directly impacting traffic flow on the roadway.
This proposed project would correct problems created by unconstrained access, which would improve safety and reduce congestion for highway users. The intent of this proposed project can be defined by three needs: 1) safety, 2) congestion, and 3) travel efficiency.
2.5 Need for the Action 2.5.1 Need 1: Safety This section of the Parks Highway has experienced above average accident rates and has a significantly higher proportion of high severity crashes when compared to statewide averages for similar facilities. Many of these crashes are access-related and over 60 percent are head- on collisions. In an effort to address safety concerns and slow the rate of severe crashes, the Parks Highway was designated a Safety Corridor in 2006. Since then, the crash rate has reduced slightly, but the designation is intended to be a short-term measure to address safety concerns until long-term measures are in place; it does not address the need to reduce congestion along the corridor. This proposed project will correct serious safety problems and provide capacity for projected increases in traffic volumes over the next 20-30 years.
Ambient Light Conditions The TSC report states that 48 percent of the fatal collisions and 41 percent of all accidents on this portion of the Parks Highway occurred during dark or twilight ambient light conditions. These percentages greatly exceed the statewide averages for fatal collisions (28 percent) and for total accidents during dark and twilight ambient light conditions (13 percent).
Moose Collisions Based on the DOT&PF traffic and accident data for crashes occurring between 2000 and 2007, a total of 513 vehicular accidents occurred on the Parks Highway between Lucas Road and Big Lake Road. Of those, 111 (21.6 percent) involved collisions with moose. More than 70 percent of these moose-vehicle collisions occurred during dark or twilight lighting conditions, indicating poor lighting conditions are a major factor in roadway safety throughout the proposed project corridor. 2.5.2 Need 2: Congestion Heavy traffic during peak travel periods causes unacceptable congestion on the Parks Highway between Lucus Road and Big Lake Road. The current or “existing” year is 2010; a “construction” year of 2013 is assumed; and a future or “design” year of 2033 is assumed. For purposes of traffic data collection and capacity analysis, the project corridor was split into three segments: 1) Lucus Road to Church Road, 2) Church Road to Pittman Road, and 3) Pittman Road to Big Lake Road. Church Road was used as a logical segment break because it is the first major intersection beyond the current transition from the five-lane to two-lane facility. Pittman Road and Big Lake Road were used as logical segment breaks because 3
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road development in these locations generates a significant amount of traffic.
In 2010, the project corridor had an annual average daily traffic (AADT) count ranging from 13,800 vehicles at the west end of the project corridor to 20,100 vehicles at the east end of the project corridor. The DOT&PF estimates those traffic volumes will increase to 25,400 vehicles and 37,000 vehicles by 2033 (Table 2).
Table 2: Average Daily Traffic Count
Current Year Mid-Year 2023 Design Year 2010 (vehicles/day) 2033 (vehicles/day) (vehicles/day) Lucus Road to Church Road 20,100 28,400 37,000 Church Road to Pittman Road 19,700 27,900 36,400 Pittman Road to Big Lake Road 13,800 19,500 25,400
Congestion levels are evaluated using a measure called the “level of service” (LOS). Level of service is represented by a letter “grade” ranging from LOS A for excellent conditions (i.e., free-flowing traffic) to LOS F for failure conditions (i.e., extremely congested, stop- and-go traffic). LOS B through LOS E describes progressively worse traffic conditions. When the capacity of a road is exceeded, the result is congestion and a poor level of service.
The AADT counts were used to predict the LOS for traffic movements along the proposed project corridor for the current and design years if the highway is not improved (Table 3). Segment capacity analysis indicates the highway west of Pittman Road is currently operating at LOS C and the highway east of Pittman Road is operating at LOS E. Without improvements, design year traffic flow is predicted to deteriorate to LOS E west of Pittman Road and LOS F east of Pittman Road, indicating the existing facility’s capacity would be exceeded (Figure 2: Level of Service Designations).
Table 3: Segment Capacity Analysis w/out Improvements
Current Year Mid-Year Design Year 2010 2023 2033 Lucus Road to Church Road E F F Church Road to Pittman Road E F F Pittman Road to Big Lake Road C D E
4
LUCUS RD LUCUS RD LUCUS
E
F
CHURCH CHURCH LEVEL OF SERVICE OF LEVEL WITHOUT IMPROVEMENTS PARKS HIGHWAY MP 44-52 PARKS HIGHWAY MP
LUCUS RD TO BIG LAKE CUTOFF
HIGHWAY HIGHWAY FIGURE 2 FIGURE E F
PARKS PARKS
PITTMAN PITTMAN
DESIGN YEAR 2033
CURRENT2010 YEAR
GEORGE GEORGE E C
D C
AIROLO DR AIROLO DR AIROLO
ROAD ROAD
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LAKE LAKE
BIG BIG ABCDEF Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Congestion at intersections is measured by the amount of delay experienced by vehicles. Increased delay results in increased travel time, increased fuel consumption, and a lower LOS. Travel conditions at the four signalized intersections were analyzed for current and future year traffic volumes. The results indicate all intersections are currently operating at LOS B (Table 4). In the design year, conditions at the Church Road and Pittman Road intersections would deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS F in the evening peak hour. Lucas Road and Vine Road intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS C/D. However, the evening peak hour southbound movement at Lucas Road and both the morning and evening peak hours northbound left turn movements at Vine Road all operate at LOS D, indicating that while the intersection as a whole operates adequately, some critical movements are anticipated to operate below desirable levels in 2033.
Table 4: Major Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis w/out Improvements
Current Year Mid-Year Design Year 2010 2023 2033 AM/PM AM/PM AM/PM Lucus Road & Parks Highway B/B B/B B/C Church Road & Parks Highway B/B C/D E/F Vine Road & Parks Highway B/B B/B C/D Pittman Road & Parks Highway B/B B/D C/F Big Lake Road & Parks Highway* B/C B/D C/F *the unsignalized intersection at Big Lake Road was included in this analysis because it is anticipated that it may be signalized in the near future.
The Big Lake Road intersection currently operates at LOS C or better during peak hours. In the design year, the intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS C or better with the exception of the northbound left turning movements, which operate at LOS F during the evening peak hour. 2.5.3 Need 3: Travel Efficiency
A functional classification of rural interstate indicates the Parks Highway’s primary purpose is to move large volumes of traffic at high speeds from one area to another while providing reasonable access. For the purpose of this proposed project, travel efficiency is defined as “the ability to accomplish a trip with a minimum expenditure of time and effort.” The presence of commercial driveways and at-grade local road intersections throughout the project corridor are not consistent with good access management principles and reduce overall travel efficiency.
As congestion continues to increase, travel efficiency is anticipated to worsen. This congestion affects regional traffic, commuters, and local traffic. Travel efficiency in this corridor can be measured for 3 types of trips: vehicles traveling through the area from Anchorage to Interior Alaska, commuters traveling from the MSB to Anchorage, and local traffic circulating in the project vicinity. Congestion on the highway affects travel for all of these trip types.
7
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Increased congestion has resulted in long delay times and high delay costs associated with stop-and-go conditions along the highway. In 2007, the DOT&PF examined the delay in its major corridors and estimated the value of lost time to the traveling public using a value of $15 per hour. This project corridor was ranked third among the top 10 congestion bottlenecks in the Central Region with an estimated cost to the traveling public of $9 million annually.
2.6 Project Objectives
The following objectives were developed based on the purpose and needs identified in the previous section.
2.6.1 Need 1: Improve Safety
Reduce high severity crash rates along the corridor, particularly head-on collisions
Reduce overall crash rates along the corridor for vehicles and all highway corridor users
Reduce moose/vehicle collisions along the corridor
2.6.2 Need 2: Reduce Congestion
Reduce unacceptable congestion in the design year for users traveling on the Parks Highway from Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Reduce unacceptable delay (congestion) in the design year at signalized and unsignalized intersections along the Parks Highway from Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
2.6.3 Need 3: Increase Travel Efficiency
Decrease travel time for users commuting from the MSB to the Anchorage area
Decrease travel time for regional traffic heading north or south through Meadow Lakes
Safely and efficiently accommodate mobility for longer trips and accessibility to adjacent land parcels and local streets
8
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
4 Environmental Consequences
4.1 Environmental Categories Without Project-Imposed Consequences
The following environmental impact categories are not present within the proposed project area or would not be affected by the proposed project.
Farmland: No prime, unique, or farmland of statewide importance has been designated in Alaska. The National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has identified soils of local importance at the east end of the project corridor between milepost 44 and 44.2. On September 3, 2009, the DOT&PF consulted with the NRCS to determine if the proposed project would adversely impact these soils. The NRCS indicated the soils within the proposed project area are limited in extent and no significant loss of locally important farmlands would occur as a result of the proposed project. The NRCS stated that no further consultation is required. Refer to Appendix K for consultation.
Joint Development: The proposed project would not be developed or constructed in conjunction with any other projects.
Air Quality Conformity: The MSB is in attainment for all air pollutants that are monitored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate air quality.
Floodplains: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the proposed project corridor indicates the proposed project is within an area that has a moderate to low risk of flooding (i.e., Zone C). FEMA has not developed base flood elevations or depths in this area. On March 9, 2010, the DOT&PF consulted the MSB Planning and Land Use Department to determine if the proposed project would adversely affect floodplains. The MSB indicated the proposed project area is not in a regulatory floodplain and would not cause adverse impacts to floodplains. The MSB also stated that no Flood Hazard Development permit is required for the proposed project. Refer to Appendix K for consultation. Additionally, the soils in the project vicinity are generally known to have high permeability so surface runoff infiltrates rapidly reducing the potential for ponding and flooding. Based on this information, the project would not impact any floodplain.
Wild and Scenic Rivers: No waterways within the general proposed project vicinity are on the National Park Service’s online list of Wild and Scenic Rivers.
Coastal Barriers: No coastline, landforms, or coastal barriers, that provide protection for diverse aquatic habitats, are within the general project vicinity.
Threatened and Endangered Species: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) lists of Threatened and Endangered Species indicate no threatened or endangered species or critical habitats are present within the general vicinity of the proposed project. On February 8, 2010, the USFWS concurred that no listed species or designated
31
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
habitats are present in the project area. Refer to Appendix K for consultation.
Section 4(f) Resources: Potential recreational facilities, including Lake Lucille and a multi- use pedestrian pathway, are adjacent to the proposed project corridor. The proposed project would not result in a direct use of Lake Lucille. The FHWA has determined that the multi- use pathway is part of the transportation facility and is not a Section 4(f) resource.
4.2 Local Land Use and Transportation Plan Impacts Several land management entities, including the City of Wasilla, Meadow Lakes, and the City of Houston, have jurisdiction over land management for various segments of the proposed project corridor. The segment from Lucas Road to Day Street is within the City of Wasilla. The segment between Day Street and Roswell Road is within Meadow Lakes. The segment from Roswell Road to Airolo Road is within the City of Houston. While the City of Wasilla and the City of Houston are subject to zoning ordinances and land use regulations, Meadow Lakes has not designated zoning districts or special land use areas.
Study Area The land use study area includes lands adjacent to the Parks Highway between Lucus Road to Airolo Road. State of Alaska and MSB land ownership and land use data and maps were reviewed to determine existing land uses in the proposed project area. Zoning maps were reviewed for the portion of the study area within the City of Wasilla and the City of Houston. Population growth projections for the study area were reviewed to evaluate the project’s potential to influence development trends.
Existing Land Ownership, Uses, and Zoning The majority of the land in the study area is owned by the State of Alaska or by private entities and residents. The primary land use in the study area is rural residential with some commercial/industrial and community service uses (Figure 5: Land Use). Much of the land within Meadow Lakes, especially near lakes and waterways, is currently undeveloped. The portion of the study area within the City of Wasilla is zoned as a commercial district on the north side of the highway and as a residential district on the south side with a small industrial district at the City’s eastern boundary. The portion of the study area within the City of Houston is zoned as a commercial district.
Existing Land Use and Transportation Plans The State of Alaska, MSB, City of Wasilla, Meadow Lakes, and City of Houston have land management and transportation plans that assess current development trends, list specific goals and objectives, and identify road improvement projects needed to ensure future transportation infrastructure meets the needs of the growing population. The following plans address land management and development in the proposed project area.
DOT&PF Parks Highway Visioning Document, May 2006: The DOT&PF developed a long-range plan to facilitate planning efforts, describe the DOT&PF future expectations for the Parks Highway, and foster decisions about forthcoming highway projects. The document states the DOT&PF long-term goal of creating a multi-lane, controlled-access, freeway-style highway facility. The document lists several “Programmed Projects” and acknowledges the highway is scheduled to be expanded to at least four lanes from Lucus Road to Big Lake
32
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Road, with construction occurring as early as 2012. If direct access is permitted, the plan indicates six to eight lanes would be necessary, depending on how commute patterns develop1.
DOT&PF STIP 2010-2013: The STIP identifies reconstruction of the Parks Highway to four lanes from Lucus Road to Big Lake Road. The corridor reconstruction would likely occur in several phases; funds identified in the STIP are for construction of the first phase of the proposed project.
MSB LRTP, February 2007: This plan assesses the Borough’s future transportation needs and addresses key components of its desired transportation system. The plan identifies expansion of the Parks Highway to a four-lane highway from Lucus Road to Big Lake Road as a “Base Level Project”. Several agencies including the MSB, City of Wasilla, City of Palmer, City of Houston, and the DOT&PF, anticipate that “Base Level Projects” will be completed by the year 2025.
MSB Comprehensive Development Plan, 2005: This plan was originally adopted in 1970 and addresses Borough-wide as well as community-specific issues. It provides general goals and policy recommendations to help guide future development in order to enhance quality of life and the public health, safety, and welfare of the people. The plan states a land use goal of actively limiting sprawl through setting appropriate density standards and encouraging residential and commercial development to occur in areas that are centrally located and within close proximity to public and private services. Implementation strategies presented in this plan include land use and subdivision regulations that enable the Borough to actively manage and plan community growth and development.
City of Wasilla 1996 Comprehensive Plan: The transportation element of this plan summarizes ongoing efforts by the State of Alaska, the MSB, and the City of Wasilla to improve the local and regional transportation system. The plan lists several transportation related goals including improving the safety and traffic carrying capacity of the area’s arterial and major collector systems, maintaining and improving the system of collectors and local streets, and creating a system of pathways and trails. Although the plan does not specifically identify the proposed project, the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan.
City of Wasilla Official Streets & Highways Plan FY 2005-2025: This plan was developed to update previous transportation planning documents and provide a current framework for planning a road network. The goals of the plan are to provide a street and highway network that provides mobility, connectivity, and access to present and future residents, and to develop a street and highway network supportive of economic development and growth. The plan recommends several short-range (2005-2010) and long-range (2008-2025) projects within the City of Wasilla and the MSB. The plan identifies widening the Parks Highway to four lanes to accommodate increasing thru traffic volumes as a long range project.
1 The Corridor Management Plan allows partial limited access as opposed to unrestricted direct access, therefore, six to eight lanes is not required before 2033. 33
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
City of Wasilla Municipal Zoning Ordinances: The portion of the proposed project between Lucus Road and Day Road is within the City of Wasilla and subject to municipal zoning ordinances. Land adjacent to the proposed project is designated commercial and rural residential. A small section west of McCallister to Church Road is designated as industrial.
Meadow Lakes Comprehensive Plan (MLCP), October 2005: This plan was created to help local residents, business owners, and other interested parties set goals that will meet the needs of the growing community while preserving its rural character. The plan specifically addresses community objectives and acceptable land uses along the Parks Highway. The community has expressed a desire for the Parks Highway to be an attractive, safe, limited access road that facilitates traffic movement through the community or to a few select commercial areas. To accomplish this goal, the plan expresses support of maintaining the Parks Highway on its existing alignment and creating a controlled access, four-lane highway with grade separated intersections to reduce congestion, improve flow of thru-traffic, and maximizes safety. Meadow Lakes has designated a town center south of the highway to discourage strip commercial development and sprawl along the highway.
City of Houston Comprehensive Plan, July 2003 Municipal Zoning Ordinances: The portion of the proposed project near the Big Lake Road is within the City of Houston and is subject to land use regulations. The land adjacent to the Parks Highway is designated a commercial district. This plan, initially developed in April 1999 and amended in July 2003, does not contain a specific section devoted to transportation; however, several of the plan components address transportation issues. The plan recognizes traffic volumes on the Parks Highway drop off dramatically north of Big Lake Road. The plan expresses community concern over excessive commercial strip development of the Parks Highway through Houston. Stated goals include avoiding mixing residential and industrial vehicular traffic and concentrating industrial development. The plan identifies combining mixed use and restricted, or limited, access to the highway as an effective method of avoiding strip commercial development adjacent to the Parks Highway. Additionally, the use of frontage roads and shared access is encouraged by the plan to reduce the number of individual accesses to the Parks Highway. Although the plan does not specifically identify the proposed project, the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan.
Population Growth Trends The proposed project corridor is located entirely within the MSB, which has the third largest population in Alaska and is the fastest growing region in the state. The MSB grew from 39,683 people in 1990 to 82,515 people in 2008 (108 percent), more than doubling in size. The MSB is expected to continue to grow faster than the rest of the state, with a predicted average annual growth rate of 3.2 percent compared to 1.0 percent in the state from 2010 to 2030.
Environmental Consequences
No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative would not change the existing land use and zoning in the area. 34
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Without improvements, congestion along the highway would likely worsen as development continues in the area resulting in lower mobility throughout the corridor and at all the major intersections. This limited mobility would cause residential and commercial development to occur more slowly under this alternative. The No Build Alternative is not consistent with area land use and transportation plans, many of which specifically identify expanding the Parks Highway to a four-lane facility.
Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative would require acquisition of a total of 65 acres of ROW from lands that are currently undeveloped or used for residential and commercial purposes (refer to Section 4.5: Relocation Impacts for more information on anticipated ROW acquisitions). The land use designations for the acquired lands would permanently change to a transportation use. The ROW acquisitions would slightly reduce the amount of available residential and commercial land adjacent to the highway. Meadow Lakes has a sufficient supply of undeveloped, buildable land available to support predicted residential or commercial growth in the area; therefore, the change in land use would be negligible.
The Preferred Alternative may facilitate residential development in the area and lead to a minor increase in residential land use designations. The Preferred Alternative would reduce some of the negative effects of population growth, such as increased congestion and related safety issues. Improvement of the frontage road systems and reconstruction of the pedestrian pathway would allow for safer access to and from neighborhoods, commercial districts, and businesses. The rural setting, coupled with improved mobility, may be more desirable to those wishing to obtain recreational property and/or those wishing to permanently relocate to a smaller community.
The Preferred Alternative may also facilitate an increase in commercial or industrial land uses in the area by improving safe access to parcels adjacent to the highway. This could result in additional business strip development along the highway. However, the Meadow Lakes Comprehensive Plan discourages this type of new development along the highway and prefers concentrating businesses in a designated city center south of the highway.
The Preferred Alternative is consistent with and supports the goals and management objectives outlined in the local land use and transportation plans. The majority of area plans include the proposed project as a four-lane divided highway. The STIP also includes widening the highway to four lanes with attendant traffic and safety improvements between Wasilla and the Big Lake Road.
35
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
4.3 Socioeconomics
The DOT&PF conducted an analysis of regional and community growth, business and employment, housing, and the neighborhood and community environment within the proposed project area. Studying the social and economic effects of the proposed project is important to maintaining the area’s unique characteristics as well as maintaining its living and business environments.
Socioeconomic data and information are provided at two geographic levels for the purposes of this analysis: the Project Region and the Study Area. The Project Region includes the MSB, City of Wasilla, Meadow Lakes, City of Houston, and Big Lake. The Study Area includes census block groups (BG), as identified in the 2000 Census, that intersect the Parks Highway within the proposed project corridor (Figure 6: Socioeconomic Study Area). Because the size and shape of the BGs are irregular, the width of the study area on either side of the Parks Highway varies.
General Characteristics
Population According to the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (ADOL), the Project Region has grown significantly since 1990. Alaska’s population grew from 550,043 people in 1990 to 679,720 in 2008 (24 percent). The MSB grew from 39,683 people in 1990 to 82,515 people in 2008 (108 percent). Of the four cities studied, Meadow Lakes experienced the highest growth, with an increase of 4,732 people (199 percent).The MSB, Meadow Lakes, City of Houston, and Big Lake populations more than doubled in size from 1990 to 2008. The average annual growth rate is predicted to increase 3.2 percent in MSB and 1.0 percent in the State from 2010 to 2030. Table 7 shows population trends for the Project Region. Estimates were not available at a smaller scale.
Table 7: Project Region Historic Population Trends
Median Population Percent Change Age Location 1990 1999 2008 1990-1999 1999- 1990-2008 2008 City of 29.7 4,028 5,213 7,176 29% 38% 78% Wasilla Meadow 32.7 2,374 5,232 7,106 120% 36% 199% Lakes City of 34.1 697 836 1,755 20% 110% 152% Houston Big Lake 37.8 1,477 2,162 3,191 46% 48% 116% MSB 34.1 39,683 55,694 82,515 40% 48% 108% State of 32.4 550,043 622,000 679,720 13% 9% 24% Alaska Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development U.S. Census Bureau 2000
39
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Housing There are approximately 5,118 housing units within the study area, with 1,138 of those housing units vacant (US Census Bureau, 2000). Given the current zoning regulations and availability of land, there are several large unsubdivided tracts within the proposed project area that are available for development, including single- and multi-family residential and multi-use residential. For example, there are nearly 2,000 vacant subdivided lots of less than five acres in the Meadow Lakes area alone (Meadow Lakes, 2005). In addition, many thousands of acres of private land are available in larger acreage parcels within the area that could be subdivided in the future and developed for residential purposes.
Business and Employment Companies located within the MSB employed approximately 37,688 people in 2008. As defined by the US Census Bureau, employment and unemployment are identified as all civilians 16 years old and over who are currently employed or actively looking for work. The highest unemployment rate in the MSB during the period between 2000 and 2009 occurred in 2003 when unemployment reached an average of 8.6 percent. The lowest unemployment rate occurred in 2001 when it was an average of 6.9 percent. Generally, in the last nine to ten years, unemployment was higher in the MSB when compared to the entire State of Alaska.
Commercial activity within the MSB is dominated by activity in the Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Services sector of the economy. Retail jobs have become more prevalent as large chain stores have opened in the area resulting in more localized spending within the MSB. New job growth within the MSB has been relatively steady from 1997 to 2008. The number of employees increased from approximately 9,822 to 17,429 employees, or a 44.0 percent increase. Table 8 shows the number of employees in each major sector and compares job growth from 1997 to 2008 in the MSB. Industry employment data was not available at a smaller scale.
In 2007, the average annual earnings for a worker in the MSB were $33,953, which is substantially lower than workers elsewhere in the state who earn an average of $43,521 per year. This lower income is likely due to the large number of service-oriented jobs available in the MSB. It is estimated that approximately 44 percent of Borough residents commute to higher paying jobs elsewhere in the state, with 32 percent of those commuting to Anchorage. The number of workers commuting to Anchorage has slightly decreased from 38 percent in 1998.
Although the proposed project corridor is primarily rural residential, commercial developments and businesses, ranging from towing companies to RV parks, line the highway throughout much of the proposed project area. As previously mentioned, the proposed project area consists of several undeveloped lots which could be developed for commercial purposes, potentially providing opportunities for future economic growth within the project area.
43
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Table 8: Employment by Industry
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Number of Number of Employees Employees Percent of Employment by Industry Sector 1997 2008 Major Sector: 2008 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, 71 39 <1 and Hunting Mining 11 16 <1 Construction 593 1,372 8 Manufacturing 96 204 1 Wholesale Trade, 552 1,030 6 Transportation, and Utilities Retail Trade 2,298 3,283 19 Finance, Insurance, Real 3,208 7,551 43 Estate, and Services Government 2,980 3,919 23 Non Classified Establishments 13 15 <1 Total 9,822 17,429 N/A Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development Note: Industry Employment only counts the number of jobs in an area for which employers pay workers wages and salaries. It excludes business owners, self-employed persons, unpaid volunteers or family workers and private household workers.
Neighborhoods and Communities
Subdivisions Several neighborhoods are directly adjacent to the Parks Highway and are located within the study area (Figure 7: Subdivisions). The majority of the developed corridor is rural residential. Some commercial development and community service uses are interspersed throughout the proposed project corridor. Currently, the Parks Highway serves as a barrier separating the existing north and south neighborhoods along the corridor.
Public Facilities Public facilities located within the proposed project corridor include schools, public safety and emergency services, hospitals, and churches. Schools located within the proposed project corridor include Burchell High School located on Parks Highway at the eastern end of the proposed project corridor within the City of Wasilla and Mid Valley High School located on Sylvan Way just south of Parks Highway within Meadow Lakes.
Public safety and emergency services within the proposed project area are provided by the City of Wasilla City Police Department, Houston Police Department, Alaska State Troopers, Central MSB Fire Department, Meadow Lakes Fire Department, and Houston Fire Department. The Central MSB Public Safety Building, Marty J Fine Public Safety Building, Fire Station 7-2, and Fire Station 9-1are all within and serving the Project Region.
44
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Local hospitals within the Project Region include two Mat-Su Regional Medical Centers with one located in Wasilla just off of Bogard Road and the other in Palmer. The Mat-Su Regional Medical Centers are the principal hospitals for the MSB. In addition, a private family nursing clinic is located at the Meadowood Mall approximately 4.0 miles east of the project area just off of Big Lake Road, within Houston City limits. This clinic attends to preventative health care and minor accidents.
Churches near the proposed project corridor include the First Church-Christ Scientist located on Machen Road near Lamont Way and the Christian Science Reading Room located just off of the Parks Highway near the eastern end of the proposed project corridor. Several other churches, including Apostolic Worship Center, Center for Peaceful Living, Wasilla Bible Church, Northern Lights Mennonite Church, Church of the Rock, and Big Lake Baptist Church, are located within the Project Region.
The surrounding area of the proposed project offers a variety of outdoor recreational activities such as hunting, camping, hiking, nature observation, mountain bicycling, and sightseeing. In addition, there are numerous creek and lake accesses within the proposed project area that support water-associated activities such as fishing, boating, and canoeing. Further, a multi-use pedestrian pathway exists within the proposed project corridor and provides convenient access to adjacent neighborhoods.
Travel Patterns The Parks Highway is currently experiencing access and congestion problems during peak travel times when traffic volumes are highest and vehicles are frequently waiting at intersections. As is the case in many areas throughout Alaska, development has been concentrated along the highway in the Meadow Lakes area. Current access to commercial and residential properties adjacent to the highway is provided via a combination of local road intersections, frontage roads and private driveways. Some of the higher volume intersections along the corridor have dedicated turn lanes, but at most intersections and access points only the thru lanes are available. Drivers wishing to turn left must wait for sufficient gaps in oncoming traffic. Drivers wishing to make right turns do not block thru traffic, but they do slow traffic. Similarly, drivers wishing to access the highway from side streets and driveways must wait for sufficient gaps in traffic to turn onto the highway. During peak travel times, when congestion is at its worst, these waits can be long, increasing driver frustration. This leads to impatient and inexperienced drivers taking risks that are frequently cited as factors in high severity crashes.
Environmental Consequences
No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative would not change the current socioeconomic conditions in the area. The Parks Highway would retain its existing two-lane configuration along its current alignment. No frontage road or intersection improvements would be made and existing pathways would remain. In addition, there would be no ROW acquisitions or relocations. The lack of an expanded roadway would cause increased congestion along the corridor, eventually exceeding the highway’s capacity. Local traffic and access, especially left turns, would become increasingly difficult.
47
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Preferred Alternative
General Characteristics The Proposed Action may have minor socioeconomic impacts, due to the acquisition of residential and commercial parcels. Given the small number of residential displacements, no difficulties in identifying and providing comparable nearby housing would be expected. Displaced residences and businesses are expected to relocate within the Meadow Lakes/Wasilla Communities; therefore an economic loss is not anticipated.
During construction of the proposed project, access to some businesses would become slightly more circuitous causing some customers temporarily to go elsewhere or postpone their trips. Some travelers may choose alternative routes to avoid construction activity. Detours and delays would be short in duration and highly localized; they would not affect social interaction or the economic vitality within the proposed project area.
Workers employed during the construction phase of the proposed project are expected to be locally available. The local availability of workers suggests that there should be no impacts to housing. In addition, because the Borough has a sales tax and residents are making more retail purchases locally, the Proposed Action may increase tax revenues collected by the MSB. Because local workers would be employed when possible, construction of the proposed project may create temporary jobs and boost revenues of local businesses.
The proposed project would change access to the commercial areas by limiting the number of locations where turning and crossing movements could occur. Driveway access would be combined or limited to connections with existing or extended frontage roads where feasible. In locations without frontage roads, driveway access would be limited by the median to right- in and right-out movements. Approaches for several cross streets would be improved. Constructing the proposed project would improve safety by reducing right-angle and left turn collisions, as well as encroachment collisions such as head-on and sideswipe crashes.
While business access would be more limited under this alternative, research presented in the FHWA phamplet entitled “Safe Access is Good for Business” indicates that access management projects do not adversely affect the long-term success of either “destination” (i.e., those businesses where customers plan to visit in advance of the trip) or “drive-by” (i.e., those businesses that customers frequent more on impulse or while driving by) businesses. The FHWA reviewed “before and after” studies conducted in several states that show businesses along highways where access has been managed do as well or better after the projects are completed (FHWA 2006).
Access management involves using medians to channel left turns to safe locations, and providing dedicated turn lanes at intersections and access points to remove turning vehicles from through lanes. Customers often perceive a driveway on a congested highway to be unsafe and avoid making left turns into the business, especially during peak travel periods. Customers will often adapt to the changes in access by changing their driving or shopping patterns to continue shopping at certain businesses. Turn lanes at median openings or signalized intersections provide customers a safer, more appealing turning location. Access management would also reduce congestion, improve traffic flow, and facilitate the movement of customers to and from businesses. Informational signage along the highway in conjunction 48
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
with private signage on properties would direct drivers to businesses. Neither social interactions nor the long-term economic vitality within the project area would be affected as a result of the proposed project.
Neighborhoods and Communities The Preferred Alternative would not divide or fragment neighborhoods or impact community cohesion. Although relocations would be needed, the Parks Highway currently separates the north and south neighborhoods. This separation would remain under both alternatives. Expanding the highway to a four-lane divided highway would create a more substantial barrier between the north and south neighborhoods, but the overall effects on cohesiveness would be negligible.
Neighborhoods throughout the proposed project corridor would benefit from the expansion of the roadway and from improving frontage roads by improving connectivity and allowing safer access to schools, neighborhoods, businesses, and services throughout the corridor. Periods of congestion would be shortened where vehicles wait at intersections to turn onto the Parks Highway or wait for gaps in traffic to make turns. Improvements would also make merging with local traffic safer. Residential properties along the Parks Highway may experience increased traffic and noise during and after construction. Additional noise evaluations would be conducted during the final design phase of the proposed project (see Section 4.7 for further information on noise impacts).
Access to public facilities and recreational activities would be temporarily affected while the proposed project is being constructed. Access would be maintained, but detours, delays, and potentially greater emergency response times would occur during the construction. These delays and disruptions to the traveling public would cease once construction is complete. Emergency services response times are expected to improve after completion of the proposed project. School buses would also experience detours and delays potentially affecting school bus routing and timing. However, the school district would experience a positive impact once construction is complete because it would have more potential routes for school buses. The existing access to Burchell High School and the Christian Science Reading Room would not change because they are both located within the five-lane section.
The proposed project would slightly change travel patterns for pedestrians and bicycles where portions of the existing multi-use pedestrian pathway would be relocated to accommodate mainline, frontage road and intersection improvements. Safety would be improved by relocating portions of the multi-use pathway, creating better crossing locations, and promoting additional recreational use by cyclist, walkers, runners, etc. In addition, the proposed project may enhance recreational fishing opportunities by constructing a bridge over Little Meadow Creek.
Mitigation Measures Any potential negative effects of the proposed project on neighborhoods, community cohesion, and local businesses would be mitigated by the DOT&PF through continued involvement and working closely with the local government and the affected property owners throughout the detailed design and construction phases of the proposed project. In situations where it is necessary to acquire property, the DOT&PF would conform to the requirements set forth in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 49
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. This would ensure that impacts to property owners are minimized and that just compensation of all properties is paid to owners and to all affected property owners. In addition, the contractor would be required to prepare and implement a Traffic Control Plan (TCP). The TCP would be implemented and coordinated with all emergency service organizations, businesses, and local school districts prior to any construction activity.
4.4 Environmental Justice
Executive Order ("EO") 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, directs each Federal agency to: “promote nondiscrimination in Federal programs substantially affecting human health and the environment, and to provide minority and low-income communities access to public information on, and an opportunity for public participation in, matters relating to human health or the environment” and “make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” The FHWA has defined disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects as adverse effects that:
1. Are predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population or
2. Will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and are appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effects that will be suffered by the nonminority population and/or non-low income population.
Environmental Justice Populations The area of influence for environmental justice encompasses the areas of influence as mentioned in the previous section that could potentially affect minority and low-income populations. The study area is comprised of approximately 10,982 people located in Census Tract (CT) 4, within Block Group (BG) 2, CT 5, within BG 1, CT 7, within BGs 1, 2, 6, and 7, CT 8, within BGs 1 and 2, and CT 9, within BG 1 (refer to Figure 6: Socioeconomic Study Area). Statistics for the Project Region have been included in this study for comparison purposes. Table 9 compares minority status of the study area to those for the State and Project Region.
As defined by the Council on Environmental Quality ("CEQ"), a minority population is defined as either: (a) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent, or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population, or other appropriate geographical analysis. On average, there is a smaller percentage of ethnic minorities in the study area than that in the State. When compared to the Project Region, the percentage of ethnic minorities in the study area is about the same. Table 9 shows that the population living within the project area is primarily comprised of White persons (85 percent) with 16 percent being of minority origin. There are no CTs and/or BGs within the study area that has a minority population of 50 percent or higher. Although some minority populations are found in the BGs in the study area, the demographic profile of the populations within each BG is predominately white.
50
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Table 9: Minority and Low-Income Populations1
African Median American, Asian, Hispanic, Other2, Household Census Geography Population White, % % % % % Income ($) Census Tract (CT) 4 2,849 89 0 1 4 7 39,345 CT 4 Block Group (BG) 2 1,416 85 0 <1 4 11 38,750 CT 5 2,644 86 <1 <1 1 12 43,382 CT 5 BG 1 1,612 81 0 <1 1 17 44,531 CT 7 9,803 87 1 1 2 9 53,516 CT 7 BG 1 1,335 83 1 1 <1 14 40,563 CT 7 BG 2 1,494 89 0 1 3 7 41,278 CT 7 BG 6 935 78 0 2 10 10 60,093 CT 7 BG 7 1,081 85 <1 <1 5 10 37,857 CT 8 3,765 80 2 1 5 13 45,682 CT 8 BG 1 936 96 0 0 0 4 52,588 CT 8 BG 2 1,336 76 4 2 2 16 44,342 CT 9 1,740 90 0 <1 1 9 54, 706 CT 9 BG 1 837 86 0 0 0 14 47,381 Total/Average of Study Area 10,982 85 1 1 3 11 45,357 Project Region City of Wasilla 5,505 83 1 1 3 11 48,226 Meadow Lake 4,845 84 <1 1 4 10 41,030 City of Houston 1,212 83 0 <1 4 12 39,615 Big Lake 2,644 86 <1 <1 1 12 43,382 Matanuska-Susitna Borough 59,322 86 1 1 2 10 51,221 State Alaska 626,932 67 3 4 4 21 51,221 1 The Study Area described in the table is the nine reporting block groups (CT 4 BG 2, CT 5 BG 1, CT 7 BG 1, CT 7 BG 2, CT 7 BG 6, CT 7 BG 7, CT 8 BG 1, CT 8 BG 2, and CT 9 BG 1). 2 Other includes American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, Some Other Race, and two or more races. Source: US Census Bureau 2000.
51
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Income and Poverty Levels The FHWA Order 6640.23 defines "low-income" as a person whose household income is at or below the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") poverty guidelines. On average, the median household income in the study area is slightly lower than in the State and the Project Region. Median household income for the census categories is shown in Table 10.
Low-income status varies with household size. Table 10 shows the Alaska poverty guidelines for different household sizes. In Wasilla, Meadow Lakes, Houston, and Big Lake the average household size varies from 2.60 to 2.83. Therefore, the study area must have a median household income below $22,890 to be considered a low-income population. All block groups within the study area have a median income above $22,890.
Table 10: 2009 DHHS Poverty Guidelines for Alaska
Size of Family Unit Poverty Guideline ($) 1 13,530 2 18,210 3 22,890 4 27,570 5 32,250 6 36,930 7 41,610 8 46,290 For families with more than 8 persons, add $4,680 for each additional person. Source: Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 14, January 23, 2009, pp. 4199-4201.
Environmental Consequences
No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative would not change current conditions for low-income and minority populations; therefore, no human health or environmental impacts are anticipated from the proposed project.
Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative would not disproportionately affect low-income and minority populations. The race/ethnicity composition of the study area is comparable to those in the State and Project Region. The study area has a slightly lower percentage of minorities than in the State and about the same as the Project Region. Seven of the nine BGs in the study area have a median household income below the State of Alaska, MSB, and Wasilla. Six of the nine BGs have a median household income above Meadow Lakes, seven BGs have a median household income above Houston, and four of the nine BGs have a median household income above Big Lake. The median income in all nine BGs exceeds the poverty guideline for the average household size (2.76) in Wasilla, (2.83) in Meadow Lakes, (2.70) in Houston, and (2.60) in Big Lake. Consequently, the proposed project would not result in disproportionately high and adverse effects to minority or low-income populations.
52
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
4.5 Relocation Impacts
Existing ROW along the Parks Highway is generally 200 feet wide from the City of Wasilla to one-half mile south of Big Lake Road and 300 feet wide from one-half mile south of Big Lake Road to Airolo Road. A Conceptual Stage Relocation Study was conducted in September 2007 and updated in September 2009, to evaluate real-estate market conditions (Appendix C) . The study contains demographic data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau and real estate market information obtained from the Alaska multiple listing services (MLS). The study indicated a sufficient number of comparable residential and business properties are available in the MSB to accommodate relocations.
Environmental Consequences
No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative would not require ROW acquisitions or relocation of residences or businesses.
Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative would require acquisition of additional ROW to accommodate expansion of the highway from two to four lanes and improvement of existing intersections. ROW would be acquired from approximately 151 properties. Of those, 22 would be total acquisitions and 129 would be partial acquisitions (Figure 8: ROW Impacts). The majority of the partial acquisitions are anticipated to be narrow strip takes along existing ROW. The actual extent of ROW impacts will be further defined during the final design phase of the proposed project when more precise information regarding specific design features and existing conditions is known.
The Preferred Alternative would require displacement of one single-family residence, 5 businesses, 5 mixed-use dwellings (residential and commercial), 1 utility property, and 10 vacant lots. One of the vacant lots is a commercial property purchased by the DOT&PF in 2008 as an advanced acquisition. Structures would be acquired with 14 of the parcels. No residents with unique characteristics, such as a physical handicap, have been identified. A search of the MLS in August 2009 indicated approximately 146 comparable (i.e., decent, safe, and sanitary) residential properties were listed for sale in the area.
The following businesses would be relocated:
Top Gun Taxidermy, Parcel #21
Happy Hooker Towing, Parcels #27 & #28
Northern Adjusters Inc, Parcel #29
4 Seasons Maintenance & Plowing and Alaska Trapper Supply, Parcel #46
Co-Alaska, Parcel #60
53
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Cabin Rental Units, Parcel #63
Kincaid Property, Bar-B-Q & Pizza Restaurant, Parcel #88 (currently closed)
Hannah Properties, Parcel #97
Tew’s Transmission, Parcel #101
Two additional businesses, Alaska R&R RV Park & Laundry (Parcel #146) and Meadow Creek Center (Parcel #132), may be partially impacted by the proposed project. Visual survey of the property indicates that the Cabin Rental Units business may serve as housing, but it is unclear if these units are serving as seasonal housing or permanent residences. A search of the MLS in August 2009 indicated 91 comparable business properties were for sale within the Big Lake/Wasilla area. Based on current market information, all relocates would be able to be relocated to comparable properties in the region.
Advanced Acquisitions The DOT&PF actively tracks available vacant properties and purchases them as funding is available. Search criteria include the proximity of the property to a state-owned and operated facility or high demand intersections, traffic volumes, accident statistics, and possible future expansion of the highways. The properties are not selected based on specific projects. These early acquisitions are performed in an effort to preserve the state’s highway corridors and aid in access management. All acquisitions are conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act), as amended in 1987.
Within the limits of this project, the DOT&PF has purchased one vacant commercial property (parcel #64) and is negotiating the sale of a second vacant commercial property (parcel #88). These properties are located immediately adjacent to the highway at the intersections of Pittman Road and Wadal Road. Based on preliminary design efforts, both of these properties are identified as total acquisitions. These acquisitions are not considered in this evaluation and in no way limit or predetermine the selection of alternatives.
Mitigation Measures
All relocations would be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act), as amended in 1987. Relocation resources are available to all residential and business relocates without discrimination. Compliance with the Uniform Act is designed to mitigate the adverse effects of relocation. Persons not satisfied with the relocation payments or assistance offered by the Department may file an appeal. Determinations are appealed by a written letter to the Region’s Chief Right of Way Agent stating the determination under appeal and the reasons for the appeal. The appeal must be received by the Region’s Chief Right of Way Agent with 60 days of the date of the written notifications of the determination. Upon request a Relocation Counselor will be made available along with a copy of the Department’s relocation appeals process, as set forth in the Alaska Administrative Code (14 ACC 81.020).
54
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
4.6 Considerations Relating to Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Pedestrians and bicyclists currently use a 10-foot wide paved multi-use pathway that runs parallel to the Parks Highway throughout the proposed project corridor. The existing pathway generally runs along the north side of the highway from Lucus Road to Pittman Road. West of Museum Road, the pathway crosses under the railroad tracks in a pedestrian tunnel and then runs between the highway and railroad tracks to Pittman Road. At Pittman Road, the pathway crosses the highway at grade and continues along the south side of the highway to Big Lake Road.
Environmental Consequences
No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative would not increase safety for pathway users by providing a pedestrian refuge, nor would it reduce conflicts with vehicles accessing the highway at intersections and driveways.
Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative would reconstruct the pathway along the proposed project corridor and relocate it as necessary to accommodate the recommended mainline and frontage road improvements. The number of potential conflicts with motor vehicles would be reduced by limiting the number of driveways and minor cross street intersections. Improving the LOS for the mainline traffic would reduce potential conflicts for pathway users by reducing wait time for drivers accessing the highway. A pedestrian refuge provided by this alternative would increase safety for pathway users crossing the Parks Highway.
4.7 Noise
A traffic noise analysis was conducted for the proposed project in October 2007 (Appendix D). Since the study was conducted, the DOT&PF implemented new Traffic Noise Abatement Guidance (April 2009) that changes the criteria by which the DOT&PF determines if noise abatement measures will be considered. To ensure the original study remains valid and consistent with the new DOT&PF guidance, it was re-evaluated in September 2009. The re- evaluation consisted of a comparison of the 2007 and 2009 AADT, additional analysis of predicted noise impacts, feasibility, cost reasonableness, and completion of new noise abatement criteria (NAC) checklists for each receiver location.
The new DOT&PF guidance considers a predicted noise level of 1 dBA below the FHWA NAC as the condition of “approach” and a 15 dBA increase in noise as “substantial” increase, regardless of the beginning noise level. Noise abatement measures are considered when the existing or predicted future traffic noise levels exceed or approach the FHWA NAC or when the predicted traffic noise levels (design year) substantially exceed the existing traffic noise levels.
The FHWA NAC is based on the land use activities and is separated into five categories (A, B, C, D, and E). The land use categories within the project corridor include Category B (residences, churches, schools, recreation areas, motels/hotels, libraries, and hospitals),
63
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Category C (developed land and properties), and Category D (undeveloped lands). The NAC for Category B is 67 dBA; therefore a noise level of 66 or higher would be considered an impact. The NAC for Category C is 72 and therefore a noise level of 71 dBA would be considered an impact. Noise abatement measures would not be considered unless noise levels reached 66 dBA or 71 dBA or the design year noise levels substantially exceed current noise levels. The FHWA has not defined a NAC for Category D or construction noise (23 CFR 772).
Study Area The study area included all noise sensitive receiver locations adjacent to the highway within the proposed project corridor.
Analysis Methodology The traffic noise study evaluated noise levels using simulations performed with the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM), Version 2.5. This model is based upon reference energy emission levels for several vehicle classes and uses data on vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to receiver, atmospheric conditions and acoustical characteristics of the site to predict traffic-generated noise levels. Traffic noise level measurements and concurrent traffic counts were collected at representative noise sensitive locations throughout the proposed project corridor to establish existing conditions and validate the noise model. Peak-hour traffic noise levels were estimated to be the upper 10 percent of the AADT. The vehicle mix was based on 2007 traffic data and included autos (86 percent), medium trucks (11.4 percent), heavy trucks (2 percent), buses (0.2 percent), and motorcycles (0.4 percent). Noise measurements were taken at 10 locations (M-1 thru M-10, Figure 9: Noise Monitor Locations) in October 2004, which are described below:
M-1: Near the Burchell High School on the north side of the highway. A commercial building supply store is across the highway. No residences are nearby;
M-2: Near an inactive gravel pit. No residences nearby;
M-3: Near a towing service located on the north side of the highway. No residences are nearby;
M-4: Near a truck rental dealership on the south side of the highway. This area is forested. No residences are nearby;
M-5: Near some storage units, cabins, and roadside vendor booths on the north side of the highway. Several residences are nearby;
M-6: Near an antiques store east of Pittman Road on the south side of the highway. Several residences are nearby;
M-7: Near an RV park on the north side of the highway. Several residences are nearby;
64
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
M-8: Near an RV park on the north side of the highway. Several residences are nearby;
M-9: Near a church and a hotel on the north side of the highway. No residences are nearby;
M-10: Near a gravel pit entrance on the south side of the highway. No residences are nearby.
The noise levels measured at each of the ten locations were compared to sound levels predicted by the FHWA TNM. The predicted noise levels were within -1.7 and 2.8 dBA of the measured noise levels. Because the predicted levels were within +/- 3 dBA, the model was used without adjustment to calculate existing and future (2030) noise levels. The measurement techniques complied with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S1.13-1971 (R1976) “Methods for the Measurement of Sound Pressure Levels” and the FHWA “Sound Procedures for Measuring Highway Noise (1981a).
Noise Impacts
Existing Peak-Hour Noise Levels Noise levels were measured at 28 noise-sensitive receiver locations throughout the project corridor to predict peak-hour traffic noise levels (Figure 10: Noise Receiver Locations). The analysis indicated existing peak-hour noise levels approached the FHWA NAC at two receiver locations, S-10 and S-11 (Table 11). The remaining 26 receivers currently experience noise levels below the FHWA NAC. Under the new guidance, the level of “approach” changed from 65 to 66 for Category B and 70 to 71 for Category C; however, this adjustment did not change the number of receivers experiencing noise impacts.
65
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Table 11: Model Existing (2007) Peak–Hour Noise Levels
Modeled Existing Distance to FHWA/DOT&PF FHWA/DOT&PF Noise Monitoring Existing Location Criterion, 1996 Criterion, 2009 Level, Leq Receiver Pavement (ft) Description (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) S-1 373 Residence 65 66 56 S-2 130 School 65 66 63 S-3 156 Business 70 71 64 S-4 579 Residence 65 66 52 S-5 537 Church 65 66 54 S-6 153 Business 70 71 64 S-7 197 Residence 65 66 61 S-8 218 Business 70 71 61 S-9 126 Business 70 71 64 S-10 104 Residence 65 66 66 S-11 96 Residence 65 66 66 S-12 242 Residence 65 66 60 S-13 97 Business 70 71 65 S-14 122 Residence 65 66 62 S-15 135 Campground 65 66 62 S-16 274 Motel 65 66 57 S-17 155 Residence 65 66 61 S-18 141 Residence 65 66 61 S-19 141 Motel 65 66 61 S-20 354 Residence 65 66 54 S-21 173 Campground 65 66 60 S-22 333 Residence 65 66 55 S-23 202 Residence 65 66 59 S-24 129 Church 65 66 62 S-25 90 Residence 65 66 64 S-26 287 Residence 65 66 56 S-27 323 Residence 65 66 55 S-28 129 Church 65 66 61
Predicted (2030) Peak-Hour Noise Levels The predicted (2030) peak-hour noise levels were estimated to vary between 56 to 73 dBA. The model simulation predicted peak-hour noise levels to approach or exceed FHWA NAC at 12 receiver locations, which included seven residences (S-10, S-11, S-14, S-17, S-18, S- 23, S-25), two churches (S-24, S-28), one school (S-2), one motel (S-19) and one campground (S-15) (Table 12). When re-evaluated under the new DOT&PF noise guidance, noise levels at two receivers, S-23 and S-24, fell below the FHWA NAC approach level and are no longer predicted to experience noise impacts. Two receiver locations, S-11 and S-15, were excluded from further study because existing structures would obstruct the proposed improvements and it was assumed they would be relocated or acquired by the DOT&PF.
75
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Therefore, a total of 8 receivers are predicted to experience noise impacts.
Table 12: Model Predicted (2007) Peak-Hour Noise Levels
NAC,19 NAC,20 No Proposed Change Monitoring 96 09 Existing Build Action from Noise Receiver (dBA) (dBA) (2007) (2030) (2030) Existing Impact S-1 65 66 56 61 64 +8 No S-2 65 66 63 66 69 +6 Yes S-3 70 71 64 67 66 +2 No S-4 65 66 52 56 56 +4 No S-5 65 66 54 57 62 +8 No S-6 70 71 64 68 64 0 No S-7 65 66 61 64 61 0 No S-8 70 71 61 64 66 +5 No S-9 70 71 64 67 66 +2 No S-10 65 66 66 68 67 +1 Yes S-11 65 66 66 68 NA NA NA S-12 65 66 60 62 62 +2 No S-13 70 71 65 67 67 +2 No S-14 65 66 62 66 70 +8 Yes S-15 65 66 62 65 NA NA NA S-16 65 66 57 60 60 +3 No S-17 65 66 61 64 67 +6 Yes S-18 65 66 61 64 66 +5 Yes S-19 65 66 61 64 66 +5 Yes S-20 65 66 54 57 56 +2 No S-21 65 66 60 63 59 -1 No S-22 65 66 55 58 56 +1 No S-23 65 66 59 62 65 +6 No S-24 65 66 62 65 65 +3 No S-25 65 66 64 68 66 +2 Yes S-26 65 66 56 59 64 +8 No S-27 65 66 55 58 58 +3 No S-28 65 66 61 66 66 +5 Yes
Environmental Consequences
No Build Under the No Build Alternative, predicted peak-hour noise levels vary from 56 to 68 dBA. Noise impacts are predicted to occur at eight receiver locations, which include four residences (S-10, S-11, S-14, S-25), one school (S-2), two churches (S-24, S-28), and one campground (S-15). Under the No Build Alternative conditions, the same number of receivers is predicted to experience noise impacts as are predicted under the Preferred Alternative.
76
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Preferred Alternative Under the Preferred Alternative, predicted peak-hours noise levels vary from 56 to 73 dBA. Noise impacts are predicted to occur at eight receiver locations which include five residences (S-10, S-14, S-17, S-18, and S-25), one school (S-2), one church (S-28), and one motel (S- 19).
Mitigation Measures
The DOT&PF guidance requires abatement measures be determined feasible and reasonable before being incorporated into a project. Several noise abatement measures were considered including construction of noise barriers, realignment of the roadway, traffic management measures and acquisition of buffer zones and affected property. The most practical and effective option was determined to be noise barriers. Noise barriers are not considered for land use Categories C or D, which include industrial and commercial uses and undeveloped lands, unless it is necessary to protect adjacent sensitive uses (land use Categories A and B). Therefore, noise barriers were considered for Category B receivers only. Noise barriers are recommended if they were determined to be both feasible and reasonable.
In accordance with the DOT&PF noise guidance, a feasibility and cost reasonableness analysis was used to determine which noise barriers would be recommended. Noise barriers are considered not feasible if a minimum noise reduction of 5 dBA cannot be achieved because a reduction of less than 5 dBA is not readily perceived. The feasibility analysis evaluated noise barriers between 6 and 20 feet in height at each of the noise-impacted locations. The analysis indicated noise barriers would effectively reduce noise levels by a minimum of 5 dBA at all receiver locations and were considered feasible.
Once the noise barriers were found to be feasible, they were evaluated for cost reasonableness. A mitigation measure is considered reasonable or cost-effective if the total costs do not exceed $32,000 per benefited residence (i.e. a residence that receives a 5 dBA reduction in noise levels). The cost reasonableness analysis in the 2007 Traffic Noise Study, which assumed the noise barriers would cost $30/square foot, indicated noise barriers were economically reasonable at three receiver locations (S-17, S-18, and S-23). The cost reasonableness analysis was re-evaluated using an estimated cost of $35/square foot, which is based on a review of recent noise barrier construction costs for projects in Alaska. The analysis indicated a noise barrier was economically reasonable at only one receiver location (S-17). This receiver met the cost reasonableness criterion based solely on construction costs. However, construction of this barrier would require relocation of the receiver’s driveway, which is estimated to cost a minimum of $10,000 according to historic bid tabulation data. Table 13 compares the 2007 and 2009 anticipated costs associated with construction and required driveway relocation. When costs associated with relocating the driveway are included, the barrier no longer meets the DOT&PF feasibility and cost reasonableness criterion of $32,000. Therefore, no noise barriers are proposed for this project. This recommendation is based on preliminary engineering studies and the most current DOT&PF noise guidance. The recommendation will be re-evaluated during the final design of the facility to ensure its continued validity. 77
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Table 13: Driveway Relocation Costs
Barrier Barrier Costs Area Driveway Current Benefited (Square Relocation Total Economically Receiver Residences feet) $30 $35 Costs Costs Reasonable?
S-2 1 7,264 $217,920 $254,240 $0 $254,240 No S-10 1 5,348 $160,440 $187,180 $16,000 $203,180 No S-14 1 1,200 $36,000 $42,000 $4,000 $46,000 No S-17 1 906 $27,180 $31,710 $10,000 $41,710 No
S-18 1 1,000 $30,000 $35,000 $0 $35,000 No
S-19 1 1,206 $36,180 $42,210 $0 $42,210 No
S-25 1 1,692 $50,760 $59,220 $0 $59,220 No
S-28 1 2,368 $71,040 $82,880 $0 $82,880 No
4.8 Water Quality
The project area is within the Big Lake Watershed, a lowland drainage that generally drains from the northeast to southwest. There are several water bodies and wetlands, including Meadow Creek, Little Meadow Creek, unnamed tributaries, Jacobsen Lake, Blodgett Lake, and Lucille Creek, Lake Lucille, and Wallace Lake, within the general project vicinity. Of those, only Little Meadow Creek and five unnamed streams intersect the Parks Highway within the project corridor. Little Meadow Creek originates at Herkimer Lake and drains into Blodgett Lake. From there it flows west through a series of smaller lakes and merges with Lucille Creek forming Meadow Creek. Meadow Creek then drains into Big Lake and emerges as Fish Creek before finally entering Knik Arm. These water bodies provide a source of aesthetic beauty, recreational opportunities, and support fisheries and wildlife.
Receiving Waters Little Meadow Creek and its unnamed tributaries, two unnamed creeks near Museum Road, and Lake Lucille are receiving waters for untreated storm water draining from the proposed project area. Stormwater near Lucus Road is transported through a storm drain system and is discharged into Lake Lucille at the east end of the project corridor. Storm water throughout the remainder of the project corridor sheet flows off the pavement and side slopes onto existing ground or vegetated swales and is carried along the roadway to natural low points. Because the surrounding terrain is generally flat, much of the runoff is filtered through grasses and/or other vegetation then infiltrates the ground before reaching any receiving surface waters.
Impaired Water Bodies Little Meadow Creek is not listed as an impaired water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. In 1994, Lake Lucille was determined to be impaired and placed on the Section 303(d) list for low dissolved oxygen and nutrients. In 2002, the EPA approved a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for nutrients. Between 2004 and 2006, the ADEC 78
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
collected water quality data and found dissolved oxygen levels to be within water quality standard ranges during open water conditions, but below standard ranges when frozen over. In 2003, Lake Lucille was removed from the Section 303(d) list. No other water bodies were listed at impaired. As land development continues in the area, the waterways will be increasingly affected by untreated runoff. Pollutants potentially contained in the untreated runoff that may reach the waterways include petroleum products from cars, particulates from vehicle emissions, deicing agents, and gravel/sediments.
Environmental Consequences
No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative would not alter current water quality conditions or increase the amount of impervious surface area in the proposed project area.
Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative would roughly double the impervious surface area throughout the majority of the project corridor. The amount of impervious surface area within the five-lane section near Lucus Road would not increase; therefore, the flow rate and direction of flow would not change in that area. Soils in the project vicinity are generally known to have high permeability so surface runoff infiltrates rapidly reducing the potential for ponding and flooding. Increasing the impervious area within the four-lane divided section would reduce initial infiltration and slightly increase the speed at which runoff enters receiving waters and wetlands. Because the surrounding terrain is flat throughout the proposed project area, this increase would be minor in nature and would not alter existing overall drainage patterns. Runoff would continue to sheet flow off of the pavement and filter through vegetated swales and wetlands before reaching surface waters.
Construction activities would cause a temporarily degradation of water quality. Clearing and grading activities would expose soils to wind and rain erosion until those areas can be temporarily or permanently stabilized. New ground disturbance could increase sedimentation and increase turbidity of all receiving waters. Surface runoff could carry additional nutrients or contaminants from cars and construction equipment. Construction of the bridge could disturb portions of the stream banks, which could also cause increased sedimentation and turbidity within Little Meadow Creek. Water quality is expected to return to background levels after construction.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures would be implemented:
An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) would be prepared during design of the project;
A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared by qualified personnel and approved by the DOT&PF prior to construction;
79
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
The approved SWPPP and all applicable Best Managements Practices (BMPs) would be implemented in accordance with contract specifications and the APDES CGP;
All BMPs would be inspected and repaired as soon as possible and before the next storm event when possible to maintain the continued effectiveness of the controls;
Existing vegetation would be preserved when possible;
Where construction activity on a portion of the site is temporarily ceased and earth disturbing activities would not be resumed within 14 days, the areas would be temporarily stabilized and in no case would sediment be allowed to leave the project site;
All exposed soils susceptible to erosion would be permanently stabilized as soon as practicable. Fill slopes would be seeded with native species to establish permanent vegetation and minimize soil erosion;
All construction wastewater would be filtered through vegetated swales, silt bags, or other filtering mechanism;
The current channel of Little Meadow Creek would be maintained until the historic channel has been reestablished and can accommodate flows;
If a release containing a hazardous substance occurs, the ADEC will be notified in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 110, 117, and 302 as soon as site staff have knowledge of the discharge;
No fuel would be stored within a minimum of 100 feet from any water body or wetland and secondary containment capable of retaining 110 percent storage capacity would be utilized;
Fueling or servicing vehicles or equipment would not occur within a minimum of 100 feet from water bodies or wetlands.
4.9 Permits and Authorizations
Construction of the Preferred Alternative would require several federal, state, and local permits and approvals.
USACE Section 404 Permit: This permit is authorized by the Clean Water Act and is required for discharge of dredged or fill material in Waters of the United States, including wetlands. The general location of each fill activity, potential adverse impacts and proposed mitigation measures are discussed in the Wetland and Water Body Modification sections of the Environmental Consequences. A draft permit application was submitted on May 21, 2010 (Appendix E).
80
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
ADEC Water Quality Certification: This certification is a requirement of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Alaska Water Quality Standards. It is issued through the USACE in association with the Section 404 permit and indicates the proposed project complies with federal and state water quality standards. The USACE Section 404 application serves as an application for the Water Quality Certification.
ADEC APDES General Permit for Large and Small Construction Activities in Alaska: This permit is authorized by the Clean Water Act and regulates point sources that discharge pollutants into Waters of the United States. Potential water quality impacts would be minimized through the use of BMPs and implementation of a DOT&PF approved SWPPP. The DOT&PF and the contractor would both notify the ADEC of their intent to use the permit prior to construction.
ADF&G, Division of Habitat, Title 16 Fish Habitat Permit: This permit is authorized by the State of Alaska Fishway Act and is required for activities within or across a stream used by anadromous fish if the ADF&G Division of Habitat determines that such uses or activities could represent an impediment to the efficient passage of fish. A permit application would be submitted when final design of the culverts is determined.
ADNR Land Use Permit: This permit is required for work on state-owned land or when crossing state-owned land for access. The state typically owns land below OHW of navigable streams and lakes. A permit application would be submitted when final design of the culverts is determined.
ADNR, DCOM, Coastal Consistency Review: This review is required for all projects within the coastal zone of Alaska. The proposed project is within the MSB Coastal District. A Coastal Project Questionnaire would be submitted during final design of the project.
4.10 Wetland Resources
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, requires project proponents to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agency's responsibilities. The EO also states that new construction in wetlands should not occur unless there is no practicable alternative to such construction and the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands. A Practicable Alternatives Analysis for the proposed project is in Appendix E.
Study Area The study area was designed to encompass all possible project alternatives and consisted of a 600 to 800-foot wide corridor surrounding the existing highway with shorter (400-foot wide by 200-foot long) corridors at intersections of side streets and the highway. The study area was expanded at two major intersections (Pittman Road and Big Lake Road) to incorporate several possible options for improvements to the intersections. The study area comprised a total of 1,147 acres adjacent to the Parks Highway.
81
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Wetland Delineation A wetland delineation was performed on September 8-9, 2004 to identify wetlands within the study area (Appendix E). In August 2008, DOT&PF environmental analysts conducted a follow up investigation to verify the accuracy of the 2004 study. Wetland identification was based on aerial photography, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, and fieldwork. Wetland determinations were made following the standard three-parameter approach described in the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987). The boundaries of different wetland types were delineated based on color signature, plant canopy, surface relief, and hydrologic indicators. Wetland types were described following the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardian et al. 1979).
Approximately 91.5 percent of the study area did not meet the USACE wetland determination criterion and were determined to be uplands. The remaining 8.5 percent met the criterion and were determined to be wetlands. The DOT&PF determined that the delineated wetlands were jurisdictional wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The USACE concurred by issuing a preliminary Jurisdictional Determination on July 13, 2010 (Appendix E).and a preliminary Jurisdictional Determination was submitted on April 13, 2010 (Appendix E).
In total, 19 NWI wetland classes, which included ponds, flooded areas with emergent vegetation, open low shrub bogs, sedge and shrub dominated meadows, and forested wetlands, were identified in the study area (Table 14 and Figure 11: Wetlands). Most of the wetlands throughout the project corridor have been fragmented by the highway, local roads, pathways, the railroad and are currently scattered throughout the study area. The largest aggregation is located between Johnson Road and Little Meadow Creek at the western end of the study area. All of the wetland types found in the project area are common to south- central Alaska. No rare or unique wetland types were found within the project area.
82
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Table 14: Acres of Wetland and Vegetation Types in the Study Area
Acres in Study Wetland Study Area Type NWI code Area (%) PUBH Palustrine Unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded (PUBH) 31.01 2.71 R2UBH Riverine, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded 0.59 0.05 R2AB3/UBH Riverine, aquatic bed with rooted vascular plans and unconsolidated 1.56 0.14 bottom, permanently flooded PEM1F Palustrine, persistent emergent vegetation, 0.12 0.01 PUB/EM1H Palustrine, unconsolidated bottom and persistent emergent 1.03 0.09 vegetation; permanently flooded R2AB3H Riverine, aquatic bed with rooted vascular plants, permanently 0.12 0.01 flooded PEM1C Palustrine, persistent emergent vegetation, seasonally flooded 0.48 0.04 PEM1B Palustrine, persistent emergent vegetation, saturated 5.20 0.45 PEM1/SS1B Palustrine, persistent emergent vegetation and broad-leaved 11.47 1.00 deciduous shrubs, saturated PSS1/EM1C Palustrine, broad-leaved deciduous shrubs and persistent emergent 0.35 0.03 vegetation, seasonally flooded PSS1/4B Palustrine, broad-leaved deciduous and needleleaf evergreen 10.24 0.89 shrubs, saturated PSS1/EM1B Palustrine, broad-leaved deciduous shrubs and persistent emergent 5.69 0.50 vegetation, saturated PSS1B Palustrine, broad-leaved deciduous shrubs, saturated 8.55 0.75 PFO5/SS1B Palustrine, dead forest with broad-leaved deciduous shrubs, 2.08 0.18 saturated PSS4B Palustrine, needleleaf evergreen shrubs, saturated 1.83 0.16 PFO4B Palustrine, evergreen needleleaf forest, saturated 8.33 0.73 PSS4/1B Palustrine, needleleaf evergreen and broad-leaved deciduous 6.62 0.58 shrubs, saturated PSS4/EM1B Palustrine, needleleaf evergreen shrubs and persistent emergent 2.01 0.17 vegetation, saturated
Wetland Functions and Values The functional importance of wetlands in the study area was evaluated using criteria outlined in Literature Review and Evaluation Rationale [of the Wetlands Evaluation Technique] (Adamus et al. 1991). Most wetland functional assessment rankings were based primarily on landscape position, wetland size, relative abundance, and current knowledge of the study area. Additional information used in the evaluation included local topography, signs of animal use, and plant community structure. For the functional assessment, the 19 wetland types were grouped into eight aggregate types that share a similar vegetative structure and function. The eight aggregate wetland types were qualitatively ranked into categories of low, moderate, and high importance for 10 wetland functions and values (Table 1415).
Three functional assessment areas (AA) were evaluated in the study area. AA1 encompasses the westernmost portion of the study area and includes Little Meadow Creek and associated wetlands. AA2 includes Johnson Lake and adjacent wetlands and upland areas that occur west of the intersection of Johnson Road and the highway. AA3 encompasses the cluster of wetlands that occur near the center of the proposed project area where the highway crosses the ARRC tracks. The three primary wetland functions identified in the study area were
83
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
nutrient and sediment/toxin retention, storm and floodwater storage and flow regulation, and terrestrial and aquatic habitat. The largest concentration of high-value wetlands is in the Little Meadow Creek drainage at the western end of the study area.
Table 15: Wetland Functions and Values
PEM1F, Shrub Bog PUB/EM1 Sedge- PFO5/SS1B, Black H, Shrub PSS1/4B, Spruce PSS4/E R2AB3H, Meadow PSS1/EM1B, Forest M1B, Wetland Functions R2U R2AB3/ PEM1B, PEM1/ PSS1/EM1C, PFO4B, PSS4/ and Values BH PUBH UBH PEM1C SS1B PSS1B PSS4B 1B Groundwater Low- Low- Discharge High High High Mod Mod Mod-High Mod Mod Groundwater Mod- Mod- Recharge Low Mod Mod High High High Low Low Erosion Control and Flow Mod- Regulation Low Low Mod Low Mod Mod High Mod Sediment/Toxicant Mod- Retention Low Mod Mod-High Mod High High Mod High Nutrient Retention Low Mod High High High High High High Low- Mod- Mod- Mod- Production Export Mod Mod High High High High High High Aquatic Habitat High High High Low Low Low-Mod Low Low Mod- Wildlife Habitat High High High Mod High High Mod Mod Regional Ecological Diversity Low Low Low-Mod Low Low Low Low Low Subsistence/ Mod- Low- Low- Recreation Use High High Low Low Low Low-Mod Mod Mod
Environmental Consequences
No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative would not impact or result in a direct loss of wetlands. However, continued development along the Parks Highway would likely result in further wetland fill, degradation, and fragmentation of wetlands within the project corridor.
Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative would result in the direct loss of approximately 4.0 acres of wetland through excavation and placement of fill material needed to widen the roadway and recontour the side slopes. Wetlands would be permanently impacted in five different locations (Table 16). The wetland types that would sustain the largest direct impacts include sedge-shrub meadows (1.94 acres filled), black spruce forests (1.04 acres filled), and shrub bogs (0.90 acre filled). All three wetlands types have a high functional value for their abilities to retain sediment, toxicants, and nutrients. Sedge-shrub meadows and shrub bogs are moderately valuable for wildlife habitat and groundwater recharge. Black spruce forests are moderately valuable for erosion control and flow regulations.
84
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Table 16: Wetland Impacts
Fill Area Location Wetland Class Wetland Type (acres) Zak Lake PUBH Pond 0.029
Vienna Woods PEM1B, Sedge-Grass Meadow 0.069
PEM1/SS1B Sedge-Shrub Meadow 1.58 Museum Dr PSS1B Shrub bog 0.43
PFO4B Black Spruce Forest 0.92 MP 52 PSS1/EM1B Shrub bog 0.076
PSS4B, Black Spruce Forest, 0.26 PEM1/SS1B Sedge-Shrub Meadow Big Lake Road PSS1B Shrub bog 0.239
PEM1/SS1B Sedge-Shrub Meadow 0.24 Total 4.003.90
While many of the wetlands in the area have been fragmented and degraded by the existing infrastructure, the proposed project would cause greater fragmentation and degradation of the wetland complexes. Additional fragmentation could alter surface flow and possibly subsurface hydrology. Disturbance or fragmentation of a large undisturbed wetland would reduce the capacity of the wetland to store floodwaters. It may diminish the remaining wetlands abilities to improve water quality by reducing the amount of time water is retained within the wetland. Vegetative clearing would expose soils and potentially increase erosion, which would increase sediment loading to wetlands and increase water turbidity. Other materials, including salt, petroleum, and debris from roadway, could accumulate in wetlands and degrade water quality. A loss of total wetlands area would slightly reduce the amount of wildlife habitat available.
Mitigation Measures
Avoidance The highway was realigned to avoid impacting wetlands whenever possible. Total avoidance of wetland impacts for the proposed work is not feasible because the existing alignment of the Parks Highway runs perpendicular to and bisects several wetland complexes. Relocating or realigning the existing highway is not reasonable or feasible due to construction costs and ROW requirements.
Minimization The design specifications for the roadway width, centerline elevation, and side slopes is dictated by the current geometric guidelines established by the Alaska Preconstruction Manual and should not be modified or altered. To minimize unavoidable wetland impacts, the roadway centerline grade elevations would be minimized and the side slopes would be increased to the greatest extent practicable. Inlet invert elevations for new cross culverts in wetlands would match or exceed the existing water surface elevation to avoid draining
85
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
wetlands. Below are descriptions of additional measures used to minimize unavoidable wetland impacts at each impacted location.
Zak Lake: A retaining wall would be constructed on the northern edge of the frontage road to reduce the amount of fill needed and reduce the extent of side slopes.
Vienna Woods (MP 47): Wetlands are present on both sides of the highway in this location. Widening would only occur on the north side of the existing highway alignment and would be limited to the minimum amount necessary to accommodate new driving lanes.
Museum Drive: The area along the south side of the highway near Museum Drive is dominated by wetlands. The proposed realignment was designed to utilize as much of the existing Museum Drive as possible and to maintain spacing of intersections with the highway at half-mile intervals. The new alignment of Museum Drive would be as narrow as possible through wetlands while maintaining adherence to the design standards. The existing Museum Drive alignment would be revegetated with native species and allowed to return to a more natural condition.
MP 52: The area on the north side of the highway is dominated by wetlands at this location. The alignment for the frontage road was designed to minimize impacts to neighboring structures and development.
Big Lake Road: The intersection of Big Lake Road and the Parks Highway is surrounded by wetlands associated with the Little Meadow Creek system. Widening would only occur on the north side of the existing highway alignment. The existing culverts would be replaced with a clear span bridge over Little Meadow Creek and no piers would be placed in the streambed. Refer to the Water Body Modification section for additional information about the bridge.
Construction related wetland impacts would be minimized by:
Staking all wetland boundaries prior to ground disturbing or construction activities,
Restricting use of heavy equipment in wetlands,
Prohibiting fueling or maintenance of vehicles or construction equipment within 100 feet or more of wetlands and other waters of the United States,
Reseeding and stabilizing disturbed ground with native grasses adapted to the project area according to the ADNR Plant Materials Center's A Revegetation Manual for Alaska. Seeding would be done to the waterline in areas of saturated, standing-water wetlands.
Implementing BMPs as soon as practicable during construction to control erosion and sedimentation into wetlands and other waters of the United States.
86
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Compensatory Mitigation The proposed project would permanently impact five wetland types, which include a pond (PUBH), sedge-grass meadow (PEMIB), sedge-shrub meadow (PEM1/SS1B), shrub bog (PSS1B), and black spruce forest (PF04B). The pond and sedge-grass meadow would be minimally impacted (less than 0.1 acre total) and provide an overall moderate functional value. Sedge-shrub meadows, shrub bogs, and black spruce forests provide an overall moderate to high functional value, with the principle functions supporting sediment, nutrient, and toxicant removal, groundwater recharge, and wildlife habitat.
Although these wetlands are common throughout the region and have been impacted and degraded from the existing roadway and adjacent development, they continue to provide a moderate to high functional value. The DOT&PF is proposing to pay a fee in-lieu or purchase mitigation bank credits at a ratio of 2:1 to compensate for 4.0 acres of permanent wetland impacts.
Only Practicable Alternative Finding Wetlands as defined by EO 11990 occur in the project area and would be affected by the proposed project. The EO further requires that there be “no practicable alternative” to the proposed action and that all practicable measures to minimize and avoid wetlands be incorporated into the project. Because, the existing alignment of the Parks Highway bisects several wetland complexes, no practicable alternative to the proposed project exists. All practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands have been incorporated into the proposed project. Based upon the above considerations, it is determined that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed construction in wetlands and that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands that may result from such use.
87
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
4.11 Water Body Modification
Study Area The study area consists of all water resources within 250 feet of centerline (500 feet total width) of the existing highway. This area covers all water bodies and wetlands that may be affected by construction of the Preferred Alternative.
Affected Environment The study area is located within the Big Lake watershed, which encompasses a drainage basin of approximately 90 square miles. The drainage basin consists of large and small lakes, ponds, streams, and wetlands that ultimately drain into Big Lake. Numerous water bodies, including Lake Lucille, Jacobsen Lake, Zak Lake, Swan Lake, Mallard Lake, Johnson Pond, Meadow Creek, Little Meadow Creek, Lucille Creek, wetlands, and several unnamed tributaries, are within the general vicinity of the proposed project.
Six streams intersect the highway within the study area. Little Meadow Creek is the largest; the other five are unnamed tributaries. Three of these streams, Little Meadow Creek and two other unnamed streams, are anadromous fish streams, which support spawning and rearing Coho salmon and migrating Chum and Pink salmon. The two unnamed streams are tributaries of Little Meadow Creek and cross the highway within one mile (north) of the Little Meadow Creek crossing. All streams currently flow under the highway in culverts of various sizes (Table 17 and Figure 4). Generally, all stream crossings of the highway are perpendicular to the roadway.
Table 17: Location and Size of Existing Culverts
Creek Location Culvert 1 Approx. 400 feet west of Forest Lake Drive 48-inch, 120-foot 2 Directly east of Forest Lake Drive 36-inch, 117-foot 3 Approx. 500 feet west of Big Lake Road 24-inch, 90-foot 84-inch, 150-foot 4 Big Lake Road 48-inch, 108-foot overflow 5 Directly east of Neuser (Museum) Drive 60-inch, 200-foot 6 East of Vine Extension 36-inch, 80-foot
Little Meadow Creek Little Meadow Creek originates at Herkimer Lake and travels 11.5 land miles to Big Lake. It meanders through largely undeveloped land and merges with several other tributaries. The creek varies in cross section from 5 to 25 feet wide with several beaver ponds, swift sections, and deep/wide slow moving sections throughout. The streambed consists of an assortment of peat, gravel, and cobble sediments, with peaty or cobbly banks depending on the reach. An abundance of in-stream and overhanging vegetation is present throughout the stream’s length.
Little Meadow Creek currently flows under the highway through an 84-inch round culvert with a beveled end and a 48-inch overflow culvert. Signs of deterioration, such as rust, are
95
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road visible on both culverts (Photo 1). Immediately upstream of the culverts, water has become impounded and has formed a small backwater pond (Photo 2). Historical aerial photography and site visits indicate Little Meadow Creek was diverted from its historic stream channel during culvert/highway construction (Photo 3). The historic channel currently exists near its original alignment and is clearly evident (Photos 4).
Photo 1: Upstream end of culverts at the Photo 2: View of backwater pond upstream Little Meadow Creek crossing. of the culverts at Little Meadow Creek.
Photo 3: Aerial view of Little Meadow Photo 4: Historic channel downstream of Creek crossing in 1986. the Little Meadow Creek crossing in 2010.
Environmental Consequences
No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative would not remove the culverts at Little Meadow Creek or replace/extend the remaining culverts at any stream location in the project corridor. No other water body modifications would occur.
Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative would replace the existing Little Meadow Creek culverts with a bridge (Figure 12: Bridge over Little Meadow Creek). Preliminary design of the bridge
96
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road indicates it would be a short span bridge approximately 60 feet long and 124 feet wide. A pedestrian pathway would be constructed on the southwest side of the bridge. Little Meadow Creek would be realigned to match its historic channel to restore it to a more natural condition. The remaining culverts at the unnamed stream crossings would be extended or replaced with culverts that meet the DOT&PF criteria and fish passage criteria where necessary. The final design details would be determined when the site conditions and design constraints are known.
Constructing a bridge over Little Meadow Creek would provide an overall benefit to the creek system by realigning it to its historic channel and flow characteristics. The smaller streams would not be realigned with historic channels. The bridge would increase the streams cross-sectional area, thus preventing flood flows from overtopping road embankments. At normal flow conditions, water would be moving at historic rates through its natural channel. A bridge would result in fewer permanent wetland impacts, which would improve the functions and values of the adjacent wetland complex.
A privately owned driveway downstream from the Little Meadow Creek crossing of Parks Highway currently has a four foot diameter culvert. The culvert is in good condition and appears to meet current fish passage requirements. With the new bridge constructed upstream of this driveway, flow rates will increase and the culvert may not maintain capacity requirements. Preliminary considerations expect that breaching of the driveway is possible in a high flow event, so evaluation and design measures during final design may lead to modifications to the culvert. Other effects of realigning the creek to its historic channel may lead to bank protection measures.
Removal of the Little Meadow Creek culverts would improve conditions for wildlife and fisheries. Culverts can impede fish passage and adversely affect fish habitat. Constructing a bridge over Little Meadow Creek is expected to eliminate any impediment to fish passage during the design fish discharge and improve fish habitat. This may also increase fish populations upstream from this location. The bridge would provide a safer, more suitable crossing for large and small animals such as moose, bear, otter, marten, etc. The vertical clearance of the proposed bridge would be determined during final design of the proposed project and is expected to be adequate for passage of large mammals including moose. Streambed materials and configuration selected during final design would ensure that the fish and wildlife passage is enabled and not impeded.
Removal of the culverts and construction of the bridge would disturb the stream banks and may result in a minor and brief degradation of water quality through increased sedimentation and brief alteration of flow characteristics. The existing stream channel would be isolated and maintained through the construction process until the bridge and historic channel are adequately prepared to carry stream flow. After completion of the bridge structure, Little Meadow Creek flow in the existing channel would be eliminated and the area would be allowed to return to a more natural condition.
Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures would be implemented to minimize potential impacts to the creeks:
97
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Culverts would be replaced in accordance with the fish passage requirements stated in the 2001 Memorandum of Agreement between the ADF&G and DOT&PF for the Design, Permitting, and Construction of Culverts for Fish Passage;
In-water work areas would be isolated from flowing waters;
All disturbed ground adjacent to the creeks would be revegetated with native species as soon as possible;
An ESCP would be prepared during design of the project and a SWPPP would be prepared by a qualified person and approved by the DOT&PF prior to construction;
The approved SWPPP and all applicable BMPs would be implemented in accordance with contract specifications and the APDES CGP;
All BMPs would be inspected and repaired as soon as possible and before the next storm event when possible to maintain the continued effectiveness of the controls;
Existing vegetation would be preserved when possible;
Where construction activity on a portion of the site is temporarily ceased and earth disturbing activities would not be resumed within 14 days, the areas would be temporarily stabilized;
All exposed soils susceptible to erosion would be permanently stabilized as soon as practicable.
All construction wastewater would be filtered through vegetated swales, silt bags, or other filtering mechanism;
The current alignment of Little Meadow Creek would be isolated during construction until the historic channel is able to carry the flow;
If a release containing a hazardous substance occurs, the ADEC will be notified in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 110, 117, and 302 as soon as site staff have knowledge of the discharge;
Fuel would not be stored within a minimum of 100 feet from any water body or wetland and secondary containment capable of retaining 110 percent storage capacity would be used;
Fueling or servicing vehicles or equipment would not occur within a minimum of 100 feet from water bodies or wetlands.
98
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
4.12 Wildlife and Fisheries Impacts
Approximately 90 percent of the land adjacent to the project corridor consists of uplands. Of those, over 40 percent have been developed or cleared for future development and provide little to no habitat value. The remaining undisturbed uplands consist of broad and needle leaf forests, mixed forests, low and tall scrub and open meadow areas that provide habitat for a variety of large and small terrestrial animal and bird species. Approximately 10 percent of the project corridor consists of high-value wetlands clustered around Little Meadow Creek and, to a lesser extent, the railroad crossing at milepost 46.5. The Little Meadow Creek drainage provides prime habitat for nesting birds and spawning/migrating fish. Additionally, several ponds and lakes (i.e., Lucille, Jacobsen, and Blodgett Lakes) in the general vicinity of the project provide habitat for nesting waterfowl.
Fisheries and Essential Fish Habitat According to the ADF&G Catalog of Waters Important for the Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes, four anadromous fish waters, including Little Meadow Creek and three smaller, unnamed creeks, flow through the project area (see Appendix G, Figure 2 of the Essential Fish Habitat Assessment). All four creeks eventually merge into Meadow Creek downstream. Little Meadow Creek supports populations of spawning Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), rearing (juvenile) and spawning adult Coho salmon (O. kishutch), migrating adult pink salmon (O. gorbuscha), and migrating adult Chum salmon (O. keta). The three smaller creeks support populations of juvenile Coho salmon. In 2005, the US Geological Survey (USGS) collected baseline data on channel geometry and aquatic habitat data for various streams in the MSB including Little Meadow Creek. The study found that the creek is dominated by in-stream vegetation and approximately 29 percent of the stream length of Little Meadow Creek consists of spawning gravels.
All four anadromous fish streams currently flow under the highway in culverts of various sizes. Little Meadow Creek currently flows through an 84-inch diameter culvert with a 48- inch diameter overflow culvert next to it. Both these culverts are showing moderate signs of deterioration. In addition, the 84-inch diameter culvert is slightly perched at both the inlet and outlet which may impede fish passage over time. Refer to Section 4.11 Water Body Modification for additional information.
Wildlife Wildlife habitats within the project area include forested, wetland, and open water habitats and undeveloped or barren areas. Some common wildlife species that may inhabit these vegetative communities include brown bears (Ursus arctos), black bears (Ursuss americanus), moose (Alces alces), wolves (Canis lupus), caribou (Rangifer tarandus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), beavers (Castor canadensis), porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum), weasels (mustela spp.), hares (Lepus spp.), squirrels, and several species of birds. For many wildlife species, the project area serves as a migratory corridor and is also an access point to reach the open water, which provides a constant water source.
Moose (Alces alces) The proposed project is located within the ADF&G Game Management Unit 14A. According to the ADF&G, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Region II Briefing Book, dated February
101
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
2009, the moose population in this area is at or above the current population objective. In November 2008, the moose populations within this unit were estimated to be at 6,613 individuals (ADF&G 2009). Wintering moose are often attracted to this area due to lower snow levels and increased forest disturbances when compared to surrounding areas. Trains and vehicles accidentally kill approximately 100 to 300 moose annually; however, approximately 375 moose were reported killed on the highway from 2003 to 2004 within this unit (ADF&G 2009). About 40 to 50 percent of these vehicle fatalities tend to be calves.
The DOT&PF conducted a moose-vehicle collision analysis and identified an average of 16 reported moose collisions per year within the project corridor. The DOT&PF accumulated crash data from 2000 to 2007 shows over 50 percent of these collisions have occurred between milepost 47 and milepost 49 (Figure 13: Areas of High Moose-Vehicle Collisions). Additionally, above average rates of moose-vehicle collisions have also occurred between milepost 44 and milepost 45 and at milepost 52.3 at the Big Lake Road intersection, where Little Meadow Creek crosses beneath the Parks Highway.
Migratory Birds All migratory bird species that may occur in the project area, with the exception of rock pigeons (Columba livia), house sparrows (Passer domesticus), and European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, as amended (16 USC 703-712). The MBTA states that it is unlawful to take, kill or possess migratory birds, their parts, nests and eggs (16 USC 703-711). For migratory game species, the treaty order is carried out cooperatively with the state agencies (e.g., ADF&G) which set and enforce legal harvest laws and regulations. Any impacts to migratory birds are primarily a concern during the breeding season, when most species protected under the MBTA are expected to be rearing young. Various waterfowl species including Common and Pacific Loons and Red-necked Grebes have been observed nesting and foraging in the Little Meadow Creek drainage and at nearby lakes. Many other bird species, such as woodpeckers, owls, grouse, and accipiter hawks, commonly inhabit lowland forests, scrub wetlands and riverine habitats similar to those within the project area. In addition, there are several migratory bird species of conservation concern that may occur within the project area and are further discussed below.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Bald eagles are not considered endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the State of Alaska but benefit from the MBTA and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). The BGEPA (16 USC 668-668c) prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from “taking” bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The Act defines “take” as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.”
Habitat requirements for the bald eagle in Alaska typically consist of areas with abundant sources of large open waterways, such as lakes, reservoirs, seacoasts, and large rivers. The highest nesting densities of the bald eagle occur on the islands of Southeast Alaska. Bald eagles often use and rebuild the same nest each year. Nest trees are usually close to water, afford a clear view of the surrounding area, and often provide sparse cover above the nest (ADF&G 2010). Most bald eagles winter in southern Alaska, but some leave the state during colder months. Fish are the main diet of the bald eagle. The bald eagle populations prey 102
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
heavily upon herring, flounder, pollock, and salmon. Bald eagles also prey upon waterfowl, small mammals, sea urchins, clams, crabs, and carrion (ADF&G 2010).
While eagles have the potential to occur in the project, no eagle nests are known to exist within one-half mile of the project corridor. According to the USFWS Alaska Bald Eagle Nest Atlas, the nearest nest is approximately 0.8 mile north of highway near Blodgett Lake and was determined to be inactive in 2005. Eagle nest disturbance is not anticipated, however if active eagle nests are found within the primary and secondary protection zones (660 feet) then appropriate action would be taken by the DOT&PF. No adverse effect to this specie is anticipated from the proposed project.
Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) The Marbled Murrelet populations have declined dramatically throughout its range and were listed as threatened under the ESA in Washington, Oregon, and California. In Alaska, the Marbled Murrelet is considered a bird of conservation concern by the USFWS and is protected under the MBTA. Habitat requirements for the Marbled Murrelets consists of coastal areas within Alaska and can be found along rivers and lakes usually within 20 km of ocean (but up to 75 km) during breeding season (Carter and Sealy, 1986). Nesting generally occurs on large trees in old growth forested areas or on the ground on islands and along the coast (ADF&G 2006). During winter in Alaska, many birds move to protected waters, offshore areas, or unknown locations. The Marbled Murrelet diet consists of fish and aquatic invertebrates near marine waters, including shallow bays, fjords, and inlets (ADF&G 2006).
This species may inhabit the proposed project area; however, the quality of nesting habitat adjacent to the project corridor is poor due to the urbanized area. Restrictions on vegetation clearing during the nesting season would be implemented in full compliance with the MBTA. No adverse effect to this specie is anticipated from the proposed project.
Other Special Status Species Several other species of birds that are considered “Species of Special Concern” by Alaska ADF&G and are protected under the MBTA have been identified as potentially occurring in the project area. These species include the following: Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), Blackpoll warbler (Dendroica striata), American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), Arctic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius), Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis laingi), and Gray-cheeked thrush (Catharus minimus).
103
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Environmental Consequences
No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative would not change current conditions, existing travel patterns, or populations of large and small terrestrial animals and birds. No culvert replacement or extensions would occur at any stream location in the project area. The existing culverts at Little Meadow Creek would remain in place and continue to impact fish passage and fish habitat. Salmon populations in Little Meadow Creek could potentially decline over time due to culverts that could easily become blocked, impede fish passage, or otherwise fail.
Preferred Alternative
Fisheries and Essential Fish Habitat The Preferred Alternative would result in minor impacts to the streams in the project area from the removal of the existing culverts within Little Meadow Creek and replacement of the culverts at the three smaller, unnamed streams. Sedimentation produced during construction activities may temporarily affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). In addition, approximately 0.01 acres of EFH would be covered with fill during the culvert installation at the three unnamed anadromous fish streams. In addition, all in-water construction for this project would be timed to avoid fish-spawning periods and would be scheduled in accordance with stipulations specified in the ADF&G Title 16 Fish Habitat permit required for the project.
The long-term, post-construction effects are expected to be beneficial to EFH. Installing a bridge over Little Meadow Creek would improve EFH and fish passage potential by restoring the creek to its historic channel and allowing it to return to a more natural condition. Culverts at the three unnamed streams would be extended or replaced with culverts that meet the DOT&PF criteria and fish passage criteria where necessary to maintain the current levels of fish passage.
Pursuant to section 305(b)(2) and 305(b)(4)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, FHWA and DOT&PF have determined that the installation of the culverts at the three unnamed anadromous fish streams would have no adverse effects on EFH [See Appendix G for the Essential Fish Habitat Assessment (Note: The EFH was prepared for the replacement of the overflow culverts at Little Meadow Creek with a structural-plate, pipe-arch culvert and the replacement of the culverts at the three unnamed streams. The option to replace these culverts within Little Meadow Creek is no longer being considered). The NMFS agreed with this determination and proposed conservation measures on September 1, 2009.
Wildlife Because the proposed project involves expanding an existing road, wildlife habitat would be lost and become more fragmented and the disruption of movement of large or small animals would potentially increase. However, by constructing a bridge over Little Meadow Creek, this would potentially provide a safer crossing underneath the Parks Highway within the project area for wildlife to move into adjacent areas. Further, existing habitats in the area are largely undisturbed and would continue to provide browse, calving grounds, and connectivity to adjacent habitats.
107
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
The addition of lanes would potentially increase the already elevated rate of moose-vehicle collisions. To minimize these collisions, highway lighting would be installed to increase visibility and the roadway ditches would be vegetated with grasses and other vegetation less preferable to moose to deter moose from the highway. Based on the moose-vehicle collision analysis conducted by the DOT&PF, continuous lighting is predicted to decrease the current year moose-vehicle collisions from 16 moose collisions per year to approximately 5 moose collisions per year. For the design year (2033), moose-vehicle collisions are predicted to decrease from 25 per year to approximately 8 per year.
Construction activities would cause temporary and permanent disturbance to wildlife and wildlife habitat in the project area. Clearing and grading activities for the proposed project would result in the destruction of approximately 65 acres of wildlife habitat. Injury, mortality, or temporary displacement of wildlife, particularly small mammals that are not mobile enough to avoid construction operations, could occur during construction activities. Larger, more mobile wildlife species would avoid the initial clearing activity and move into adjacent areas.
Increased noise, dust levels, and human activity during construction would potentially disrupt normal foraging and breeding behavior of wildlife species adjacent to the construction area. However, these impacts would be localized and short-term. Therefore, noise impacts to wildlife would be minor. Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not eliminate wildlife populations or substantially reduce wildlife population densities in the region.
Migratory Birds Migratory birds may be directly impacted by land clearing operations if conducted during the breeding season. If there are breeding sites within the construction limits, active nests (nests with eggs or young) could be crushed or harmed by clearing operations and the adult birds may permanently abandon the nests. Proposed mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to migratory birds to negligible.
Long-term adverse affects to nesting loons and other waterfowl is not expected because they typically nest in the larger lakes away from the highway. The nearest large lake, Jacobsen Lake, is approximately 0.14 mile away from the road. The majority of existing wetland habitat would remain intact and continue to provide a similar amount of nesting habitat; however, minor degradation of the wetlands functions and values is expected. Although some habitats adjacent to the highway would be lost, adverse affects to nesting land birds is also expected to be negligible because many land birds commonly nest in close proximity to human developments and would likely continue to nest near the highway.
As previously mentioned, habitat requirements for the Bald eagle and Marbled Murrelet does occur within the project area. Construction activities may disturb breeding and foraging in the project area. However, the surrounding areas provide similar habitat and with the mitigation measures discussed below, potential impacts to these species would be negligible.
108
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Mitigation Measures
The following conservation measures have been incorporated into the project design to avoid and minimize the potential adverse effects on wildlife and EFH:
A pre-construction survey would be conducted to delineate environmentally sensitive areas that would be avoided during construction;
Vegetation clearing and construction activities would be scheduled to avoid nesting season (April 20- July 15) and fish-spawning season (May 15 – July 15);
If active Bald Eagle nests are found within 660 feet of the project area (primary and secondary projection zones), construction activities would be prohibited during sensitive nesting time periods or monitoring would be conducted during nesting period according to USFWS protocol;
A clear span bridge would be designed over Little Meadow Creek to improve fish passage and provide a crossing for wildlife to move into adjacent areas;
Continuous lighting would be installed along the entire 8.3 mile segment of the Parks Highway to reduce moose collisions within the project area;
The culverts would be replaced in accordance with the fish passage requirements stated in the 2001 Memorandum of Agreement between the ADF&G and DOT&PF for the Design, Permitting, and Construction of Culverts for Fish Passage;
A SWPPP would be implemented during construction to minimize water quality impacts to the creeks and adjacent wetlands;
All disturbed ground adjacent to the creeks would be revegetated with native species as soon as possible;
Fuel would be stored a minimum of 100 feet from any water body or wetland and secondary containment capable of retaining 110 percent storage capacity would be utilized;
No vehicles or equipment would be fueled or serviced within 100 feet of water bodies or wetlands;
An ADF&G, Division of Habitat, Title 16 Fish Habitat Permit for work below ordinary high water would be obtained; and
The construction plans would be submitted to NMFS, USFWS, and ADF&G for comment prior to construction.
109
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
4.13 Invasive and Noxious Plants
Invasive and noxious weeds are those species introduced from another region that become established and often overcome native species. Once established, they can permanently change the structure and function of ecosystems by hybridizing with native species, altering soil and water composition, and degrading water quality. In aquatic systems, established invasive plants can restrict or impede fish migration and damage fish habitat. Alaska has been largely unaffected by invasive species infestations, however, over 157 non-native species have been established in the state. The majority of invasive species have been identified near populated areas. As people and equipment move about, roadway systems often provide a way to transport invasive species to new locations and spread throughout the landscape.
Several state and federal organizations and regional community groups are working to identify, control, and prevent the spread of invasive and noxious weeds in Alaska. The Alaska Natural Heritage Program (ANHP) maintains the Alaska Exotic Plants Information Clearinghouse (AKEPIC) database which contains information on over 330 non-native plant species tracked in the state. The State of Alaska regulates and manages the spread of invasive and noxious weed species that could pose a public health risk or harm the agricultural industry. The State has prohibited 14 and restricted 9 noxious weeds. Prohibited species are harmful to public health and the environment and are often very difficult to control or eradicate. Prohibited species cannot be sold or grown in the state. Restricted species are generally considered as nuisances or economically detrimental, but can be controlled more easily.
Study Area The study area included all aquatic and vegetated areas within 1 mile of the centerline (2 miles total width) of the Parks Highway throughout the project corridor.
Analysis Methodology The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s List of Noxious Weeds for Alaska and the State of Alaska’s List of Prohibited and Restricted Noxious Weeds were used to identify species of concern to the state. The AKEPIC database and Early Detection and Distribution Mapping System were used to identify the species and locations of non-native species known to exist within the study area. In April 2010, the DOT&PF solicited input and recommendations from the State of Alaska Division of Agriculture (DOA) Invasive Weed and Agricultural Pest Coordinator and the MSB Cooperative Weed Management Association (CWMA).
Identified Species A total of 36 non-native species were identified in the study area. The most common include white sweet clover (Melilotus alba, 13), alskie clover (Trifolium hybridum, 11), narrowleaf hawksbeard (Crepis tectorum, 11), and common plantain (Plantago major, 10). The DOA stated six species of particular concern, including yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris), bird vetch (Vicia cracca), Narrowleaved hawkweed (Hieracium umbellatum), white or yellow sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis), big leaf lupine (Lupinus polyphyllus), and perennial sowthistle (Sonchus arvense), exist in the general vicinity of the project corridor. The species of highest concern from those listed are sweetclover, bird vetch and sowthistle. One
110
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road prohibited (Perennial Sowthistle, Sonchus arvensis) and two restricted noxious weeds (common plaintain and annual bluegrass, Poa annua) were identified in the study area.
Environmental Consequences
No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative would not change the current status of non-native plant species in the project corridor. No invasive species would be introduced into the proposed project area as a result of new road construction. However, no identification or eradication measures would be taken to prevent the spread of existing invasive species. Existing invasive species could easily continue to grow unchecked and be transported throughout the state on vehicles, people, or wildlife travelling through the area.
Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative could introduce or cause the spread of invasive species throughout the project corridor and the state. Invasive species could be inadvertently introduced during construction as fill material and other construction materials are brought from borrow sites or other locations. Similarly, seed mixes or landscaping materials brought from other states could contain invasive species. Invasive species and/or seeds can easily be transported on the wheels of construction equipment.
The Preferred Alternative would cause the permanent loss of some native vegetation adjacent the existing highway. This loss could change the composition of vegetation and alter ecological integrity. This alteration could provide a more suitable environment for invasive species and enable them to dominate remaining native species.
Mitigation Measures
A preliminary inventory of the area would be conducted prior to construction to ensure no previously unidentified high priority weeds are present and to determine the exact location of the weeds identified above.
If invasive weeds or other high priority weeds are discovered, efforts would be taken to dig up and bury the weeds/soil under the pavement or dispose of the fill material in an area where it will not be spread to new areas.
All construction equipment and vehicles would be washed before being brought on site to remove dirt, seeds, roots, and other plant fragments to prevent any invasive species from being brought onto the project.
All construction equipment and vehicles would be washed on site to remove dirt, seeds, roots and other plant fragments to prevent any invasive species from leaving the project.
Any erosion control materials made from straw or hay (e.g. wattles, bales of hay, etc.) would be made from certified weed free straw or hay. If certified materials are not
111
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
available locally produced products would be used to minimize potential importation of new weed propagules from outside Alaska.
All disturbed areas would be reseeded with certified weed-free seed and vegetated with native species.
4.14 Coastal Zone Impacts
The project corridor is within the MSB Coastal District. The MSB Coastal District includes 4,000 square miles of waters and water-related resources as well as uplands. The coastal zone boundary “extends to the 1,000-foot contour level and 200 feet from the OHW mark on the banks (both sides) of each stream” and the inland boundary includes “the 200-foot elevation contour east of the Parks Highway”. Because the area is heavily used for recreation, it has also been designated as a Recreation Use Area.
Environmental Consequences
No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative would not involve construction, ground disturbing activities, or work below the OHW mark of any waters within the MSB Coastal District. The culverts at Little Meadow Creek would not be removed and replaced with a bridge and no other culvert work would occur.
Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative would replace the two existing culverts at Little Meadow Creek with a clear span bridge. Construction of a bridge would allow Little Meadow Creek to return to a more natural system. Temporary impacts, such as increased turbidity and sedimentation, would occur during construction. The proposed project would also result in minor changes to the rate at which stormwater runoff reaches Little Meadow Creek; however, the runoff would continue to filter through vegetation before reaching the creek and is expected to have a minimal affect on water quality. Coordination with the MSB Coastal Coordinator on August 31, 2009, indicated the proposed project appears to be consistent with the MSB coastal management plan. A formal consistency review will occur during final design of the project to ensure compliance with the management plan.
Mitigation Measures
All work at or near any water resources or wetlands would be conducted in accordance with the MSB Coastal Management Plan Enforceable Policies.
A SWPPP and applicable BMPs would be implemented prior to construction.
The work would occur in accordance with the APDES CGP and incorporate all necessary BMPs, such as silt fence and coffer dams.
112
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
All disturbed ground adjacent to the creeks would be revegetated with native species as soon as possible.
Fuel would be stored a minimum of 100 feet from any water body or wetland and secondary containment capable of retaining 110 percent storage capacity would be utilized.
No vehicles or equipment would be fueled or serviced within 100 feet of water bodies or wetlands.
An ADF&G, Division of Habitat, Title 16 Fish Habitat Permit for work below ordinary high water would be obtained.
The construction plans would be submitted to NMFS, USFWS, and ADF&G for comment prior to construction.
4.15 Historical and Archeological Preservation
In September 2004, a Preliminary Cultural Resources Survey was conducted to identify archaeological and cultural recourses of significance in the project area (Appendix H). Because the majority of the project area is currently developed, it was concluded that the potential to encounter cultural resources within the project corridor is low.
Study Area The Area of Potential Effect (APE) included the existing and proposed ROW and generally extended 150 feet from the current centerline in both directions (Figure 14: APE). The APE extended slightly beyond the proposed ROW in locations where structures may be affected but do not require full parcel acquisition or where proposed construction isolated parcels from adjacent properties.
Analysis Methodology The survey consisted of a literature review and a field evaluation. The literature review included an examination of historical and archeological developments, prior archaeological research conducted in the area, and Native land use. Sources of information included published and unpublished documents, the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey (AHRS) library, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land status plats, and personal communications with local cultural resources specialists. The field evaluation included a visual surface reconnaissance, discretionary subsurface testing, and examination of soil/sediment characteristics in select areas of previous disturbance.
Based on the AHRS database and literature review, no known cultural resource sites were identified within the APE. Only one site, the Chitna Auto Railer at the Transportation Museum, exists within one mile of the project corridor. This site has not been evaluated to determine eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. The local cultural resource specialists consulted were unaware of any additional cultural resources in the area. The cultural resource survey did not identify any previously unknown cultural resources. 113
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Finding of No Historic Properties Affected On March 14, 2007, the FHWA sent an Initiation of Consultation letter to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), four local recognized tribes, and certified local governments, requesting information regarding places of traditional, religious and cultural importance. Between March and July 2007, three tribes responded and stated they were not interested in the proposed project and no further consultation would be required. The remaining tribe was contacted by phone and email several times for comments and did not respond. No additional comments were received. On October 22, 2007, the FHWA sent a finding of No Historic Properties Affected letter to the SHPO, local recognized tribes, and certified local governments. On November 23, 2007, the SHPO concurred with the finding of No Historic Properties Affected (also included in Appendix H).
114
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
4.16 Hazardous Waste Sites
A Phase I Environmental Site Investigation was conducted in 2004 to identify any existing, potential, or suspect conditions resulting from the use, handling, and disposal of hazardous substances at or adjacent to the highway that may restrict the use of or pose an environmental liability.
Study Area The study area encompasses the properties directly adjacent to the footprint of the preferred alignment.
Analysis Methodology The investigation consisted of a review of historical records and aerial photos, state and federal databases containing information about contaminated sites, interviews with property owners when possible, and field investigations. Due to changes in project scope, the investigation was re-evaluated in 2006. The re-evaluation consisted of a review of the properties identified in the 2004 investigation, additional properties not part of the original scope, state and federal databases, geologic and hydraulic data, interviews with citizens and government employees familiar with the past and present use of the properties, and a physical reconnaissance of the properties. Due to changes in the project limits, 54 of the 219 sites originally investigated were excluded from further study and an additional 54 sites were included. As in the 2004 study, these sites were rated low, medium, or high according to their potential risk for contamination.
Phase I Site Investigation In the 2004 site investigation, 219 sites were investigated and rated low, medium or high according to their potential risk for contamination. Low risk sites are those with no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property. Medium risk sites are those where commercial quantities of fuel or hazardous substances are or were stored on the property. High risk sites are those listed in the available government records, where commercial quantities of fuel or hazardous substances are known to have been stored on the property, or where there is evidence of a recognized environmental condition in connection with the property.
Of the 219 sites investigated, 18 sites were rated high risk, 18 sites were rated medium risk, and 183 sites were rated low risk. In addition, six sites were identified as having a history of ground water contamination linked to a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) or piping. Of the 219 sites re-evaluated in 2006, 15 were rated high risk, 21 were rated medium risk and the remaining 183 sites were rated low risk. In addition, 6 of the sites rated high risk were identified as having a history of ground water contamination linked to a LUST or piping.
The following databases were reviewed in July 2009 to determine if any new potentially contaminated sites had been discovered since the re-evaluation was completed:
123
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
National Priorities List;
Alaska Hazardous Waste Sites;
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System List;
Emergency Response Notification System List;
Alaska Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database;
Alaska Underground Storage Tank Report.
A discussion of these databases can be found in the Phase I Site Investigation Report, Section 5: Environmental/Regulatory Agency Inquiries (Appendix I). No additional sites were identified within the project corridor.
Environmental Consequences
No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative would not involve construction or ground disturbing activities; therefore, no potential for encountering hazardous materials would exist.
Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative would require partial or total acquisition of 151 parcels. Potential ROW impacts were cross referenced with the 2006 re-evaluation of the Phase I Site Investigation (Figure 15: Phase I Site Investigation). The study identified 13 parcels as high risk, 15 as medium risk, and 121 as low risk. Two parcels (149 & 150) identified as partial acquisitions were not rated in the 2004 investigation or 2006 re-evaluation; both appear to be vacant, undeveloped, wooded residential lots and are therefore assumed to be low risk sites. Also identified in the figures are 14 parcels that have been rated as high or medium risk for hazardous waste contamination located adjacent to the existing or proposed ROW.
Table 18 summarizes parcels within the project corridor that have been rated as high risk for hazardous waste contamination. The majority of the sites rated high risk are associated with commercial fuel storage activities, such as gas stations with underground storage tanks (UST). Parcel numbers are cross-referenced with the site numbers used in the re-evaluation. The table also lists 5 parcels which are located adjacent to but outside the existing and proposed ROW that has been rated as high risk but do not have anticipated ROW impacts.
Table 19 presents 24 parcels within the project corridor that have been rated as medium risk for hazardous waste contamination. Of the 24 parcels listed, 15 have potential ROW impacts and 9 are located adjacent to but outside the existing and proposed ROW. The majority of the sites rated Medium Risk are associated with automobile repair shops, vehicle storage or 55-gallon drum storage. Additional investigation may be warranted to determine the presence and/or extent of hazardous substances or fuel contamination.
124
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
All 13 of the high risk sites are anticipated to be narrow strip takes along existing ROW as shown in the figures. Six of the parcels rated medium risk for contamination are anticipated to be total takes; nine are anticipated to be narrow strip takes along existing ROW. Remaining parcels along the project corridor were rated as low risk for hazardous waste contamination. Additional information including historical and current uses of these sites can be found in the Phase I Site Investigation report included in Appendix F.
Mitigation Measures
Before commencing construction activities, the contractor would prepare a site-specific Hazardous Materials Control Plan (HMCP). If contamination is encountered unexpectedly during construction activities, the ADEC would be notified and the response efforts would be handled in accordance with an ADEC-approved Corrective Action Plan. Detailed BMPs and housekeeping measures would be outlined in the contractor’s SWPPP and HMCP. The contractor would be required to practice proper hazardous material storage and handling and adhere to the DOT&PF emergency response procedures, which stipulate that all work must stop immediately and the site secured to prevent unauthorized access if hazardous materials are encountered. In addition, the appropriate regulatory authorities must be notified immediately. Phone numbers of the National Response Center and 911 emergency services would be made accessible at work sites.
If the Preferred Alternative would require excavation at any of the high or medium risk sites, a Phase II Site Investigation is recommended during design to confirm the presence or absence of contamination. The Phase II Site Investigation would characterize the contamination and determine its extent within the area to be purchased or excavated. When the project design is further developed and the extent of ROW needs are more defined, the extent of contamination identified in the Phase II Site Investigation will be compared to actual ROW needs and construction limits. Table 18: High Risk Parcels
Parcel No. ROW Impact Site Issue Identified 2 Partial 202* Gas Station - UST 3 Partial 202* Gas Station - UST 33 Partial 156 Junk Vehicle & Used Oil Storage 34 Partial 156 Junk Vehicle & Used Oil Storage 41 Partial 149 Leaking 55 Gallon Drum Storage 55 Partial 129* Service Station- UST 59 Partial 120* Gas Station 65 Partial 95 Oil Spill & Adjacent Site Groundwater Contamination 66 Partial 96* Gas Station 68 Partial 92 Waste Oil Spill 119 Partial 37 Leaking 55 Gallon Drum Storage 133 Partial 25 UST, AST, & Drum Storage Area 139 Partial 18 Fuel Distribution 154 None 12 UST 155 None 8* Gas Station – UST 156 None 9 Adjacent Site UST 163 None 95 Reported Oil Spill & Adjacent Site Groundwater Contamination 167 None 197* Service Station - UST * Site History of Groundwater Contamination
125
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Table 19: Medium Risk Parcels
Parcel ROW Impact Site # Issue Identified 21 Total 163 Taxidermy/Refrigeration Shop 28 Total 161 Impound Vehicle Storage & 55 Gallon Drum Storage 40 Partial 150 Used Oil Storage & Hazardous Waste Hauler 47 Total 138 Rappe Excavating 48 Partial 138 Rappe Excavating 60 Total 121 55 Gallon Drum for Fueling & Storage 61 Total 121 55 Gallon Drum for Fueling & Storage 63 Total 106 Mobile Repair & Vehicle Storage 69 Partial 93 Gas Station – UST 90 Partial 41 Salvage Vehicle 94 Partial 54 Auto Repair Shop & Vehicle Storage 96 Partial 54 Auto Repair Shop & Vehicle Storage 126 Partial 32 AST & Vehicle Storage & Maintenance 143 Partial 15 Vehicle Storage 145 Partial 15 Vehicle Storage 153 None 193 UST 157 None 1 Residential Use 158 None 4 Auto Salvage Yard 159 None 5 Fireworks Stand 161 None 169 Storage 162 None 59 Waste Oil Spill & Propane Sales 164 None 103 Adjacent Site Groundwater Contamination 165 None 113 Service Station 166 None 127 Impound Lot – Damaged Vehicle Storage
126
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
4.17 Visual
A visual impact assessment was conducted to evaluate potential visual impacts of the proposed project. The assessment evaluated the quality of the existing landscape and visual resources and their sensitivity to changes associated with the proposed project. Generally, areas visible from scenic highways, rivers, or recreation areas have a higher potential for visual impacts than areas not accessible or visible.
Study Area The study area included the viewshed from any aspect of the proposed project area.
Analysis Methodology The following values were considered in the evaluation of the visual quality of the existing landscape:
Form (topographical variations, mountains, valleys, etc);
Line/Pattern (boldness, complexity, and orientation);
Color/Contrast (brightness, diversity, blending, changes in value, reflectivity);
Texture (vegetation, buildings, disturbed areas);
Uniqueness of landscape in relation to surrounding areas;
Whether the area is foreground (less than a half-mile), middle-ground (half-mile to 4 miles), background (4 miles to horizon), or seldom seen (areas only seen from air traffic or occasional hikers) (USDA 1995);
Number of potential views;
Length of time project area is visible;
Amount of previous modification or disturbance to area.
Affected Environment The land surrounding the project corridor is primarily rural residential, commercial, and undeveloped with a visual buffer of deciduous trees and shrubs between residences. Several other smaller roads exist in the area, most of which are access roads to and from the Parks Highway. The existing visual setting is vegetated, rolling to flat terrain, with a roughly 50- foot elevation change. The Talkeetna Mountains are to the north and the Chugach Mountains are to the south of the proposed project area. Additionally, several riparian areas exist within the general project vicinity. The area surrounding the project corridor exhibits a moderate level of visual quality.
Sensitive viewing areas are typically within recreational areas. The closest recreational area is the Big Lake North State Recreational Site approximately 4.5 aerial miles southwest of the 135
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
proposed project area. Because the project area is predominately flat and has little elevation change, it is unlikely that the project area would be visible to visitors of the Big Lake North State Recreational Site. The project area is not visible from any designated scenic rivers.
Environmental Consequences
No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative would not change the visual setting or resources along the existing project corridor. The existing visual environment would continue to change in response to rapid growth and development in the area.
Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative would roughly double the width of the highway from Church Road to Big Lake Road, which would change its overall appearance and character from an urban arterial to an expressway. Widening would follow the existing horizontal alignment, however, the highway would appear wider and more open to the existing landscape. Widening would also require the removal of vegetation and some structures which would create a contrasting straight line of brown against the surrounding green tree, shrub, and riparian vegetation communities. This line would provide a temporary rise in the degree of contrast, and possibly attract the attention of the casual observer. The continuous lighting would improve driver visibility at night, but would not affect distant views.
The highway bridge structure that crosses over the Alaska Railroad would require construction of a parallel structure similar to the existing structure to accommodate the additional lanes. Foreground and middle ground views would be disrupted by the removal of vegetation and by large construction equipment that would be visible from surrounding areas. Construction of a bridge over Little Meadow Creek would restore the area to a more natural environment and enhance motorists’ views from the road as well a residents’ views of the creek system.
Mitigation Measures
Several mitigation measures would be utilized to further minimize impacts to visual resources. These steps include addressing salvage of topsoil for reseeding purposes, recontouring the natural land surface, blending colors and textures, treating weeds, and revegetating the disturbed areas. These activities would return the disturbed ground to a vegetated state and will help to break up the linear features along the road with strategically placed vegetation appropriate for the environment. Dust control BMPs would be implemented during the construction phase to increase visibility. The remainder of the area would be reclaimed to its original landscape.
4.18 Energy
Highway energy consumption manifests itself in the raw materials and fuels used to construct, operate, and maintain a highway facility. Construction energy is comprised of the raw materials and equipment necessary to build and maintain the highway. Fuel consumption is affected by the type of vehicle using the roadway, the travel speed, geometry, congestion
136
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
and condition. The recent and projected growth within the vicinity of the proposed project ensures an increase in energy use, therefore increasing consumption of fuels, oils, and other energy-related products.
Environmental Consequences
No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative would not change the existing highway or the amount of energy consumption. Energy consumption would continue to rise in conjunction with rapid growth and development in the area.
Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative is expected to result in a minor increase in energy consumption. This increase would be offset by a reduction in fuel consumption resulting from decreasing congestion and limiting traffic delays. Traffic on the surrounding access roads would likely increase as area residents start to utilize them for direct access to the Parks Highway. Energy consumption would temporarily increase during construction and continue to increase as a result of road maintenance, lighting, and increased vehicle use. As the surrounding areas are developed, those properties would use additional energy during construction and when operational.
Mitigation Measures
Several construction mitigation measures would be implemented to conserve energy. The DOT&PF is encouraging the use of more efficient light bulbs, such as Light Emitting Diode bulbs, which produce more lumens and last substantially longer than incandescent bulbs. The contractor would produce a traffic control plan to address operational traffic delays and detours during construction that make efficient use of time and energy. Construction equipment and material such as batch plants and aggregate would be located as close to the project construction site as possible to further reduce hauling distance and energy consumption.
4.19 Construction Impacts
Construction of the Preferred Alternative would involve reconstruction of the existing lanes, intersections, approaches, shoulders, and pathways, construction of additional lanes and bridges, and replacing traffic signals and culverts. Purchase of additional ROW and relocation of existing utilities would be required prior to construction. Construction staging would likely include maintaining traffic on existing lanes while new lanes are constructed and diverting traffic to the new lanes while any required improvements are made to existing lanes. Culvert replacement and work in the vicinity of wetlands may require dewatering.
Anticipated construction-related impacts include a minor deterioration of air and water quality, increased noise, limited accessibility to businesses and residences, and altered traffic patterns and delays. These potential construction-related impacts would temporarily disturb local residents, commuters, and fish and wildlife in the area. Mitigation measures aimed at avoiding and minimizing potential impacts are proposed for each potential impact and would
137
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road be implemented in accordance with federal, state, and local laws, permit stipulations, and contract specifications. Public involvement measures would continue through the environmental process and during construction.
Air Quality Construction-related impacts to air quality would result from increased dust and particulate matter contained in vehicle and equipment emissions. Dust from dirt, rock, and other fine materials can become airborne when being transported in uncovered trucks to and from the site and when trucks track the materials on and off the site. Trucks, heavy equipment, and other construction equipment generate emissions from burning gasoline and diesel fuels, which contain air pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). At high concentrations, these chemicals may affect human health and ecosystems. Ambient CO and NOx levels are expected to increase during construction, but are not expected to exceed local air quality standards.
Mitigation Measures Several mitigation measures would be used to minimize adverse air quality impacts during construction. Airborne dust would be minimized by application of water, periodic sweeping and proper disposal of solid materials, and stabilization of all disturbed soils, entrances and exits. No vehicles, trucks, and heavy equipment would be allowed to unnecessarily idle and would be routinely maintained and serviced.
Water Quality Construction-related impacts to water quality would result from removal and installation of the culverts at several creeks, discharge of storm water from the site, and accidental spills or leaks from vehicles or heavy equipment. Removal of the culverts would disturb the streambed and banks causing mixing of sediment-laden water which could temporarily increase turbidity levels. Replacement or extension of existing culverts and construction of a bridge at Little Meadow Creek would require placement of additional fill below OHW which would introduce sediment into the water and potentially lead to increased turbidity levels. Storm water, water from dust abatement, and any other water from the project site would be channeled through roadside ditches into Little Meadow Creek or through a storm drain system into Lucille Lake. Accidental spills of petroleum or other toxic chemicals could contaminate drainage waters entering the water bodies.
Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures would be implemented to prevent and minimize potential impacts to water quality in accordance with the DOT&PF contract specifications, all required permits, and permit special conditions and stipulations. During culvert replacement and in-water work, the work area would be completely isolated from the flowing waters of the creeks to prevent further mixing of sediment-laden waters by allowing sediment and larger particles to settle out. Temporary storage of construction materials would occur away from streams and wetlands.
All construction activities would be conducted according to the APDES CGP. The DOT&PF would prepare and provide the contractor with an ESCP. The contractor would be required to prepare a SWPPP and HMCP and submit it to the DOT&PF for approval prior to construction. The SWPPP would identify all receiving waters and specify the structural and 138
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
procedural BMPs to be utilized during construction to prevent erosion and untreated runoff from reaching nearby water bodies. All vehicles, trucks, and heavy equipment would be kept within construction limits and operated in a manner that limits unnecessary ground disturbance. Equipment would be routinely inspected and serviced to prevent leaks and accidental spills. The SWPPP would also include a HMCP which includes established procedures for responding to accidental spills. If leaks or spills should occur, all contaminated material and soils would be contained and disposed of offsite in an approved location.
Fisheries and Essential Fish Habitat Construction-related impacts to fisheries and EFH would result from in-water work associated with culvert removal and installation. No work would occur below OHW unless approved by ADF&G.
Mitigation Measures No equipment or vehicles would be operated within any creeks and no fueling or maintenance would occur within a minimum of 100 feet of the creeks and associated wetlands. The work area would be isolated from the flowing water of the waterway to prevent fish from encountering turbid waters. Wetland and streambank vegetation would not be disturbed. Any disturbed areas would be revegetated with native species. All culvert work would occur according to the ADF&G Title 16 Fish Habitat Permit stipulations and the 2001Memorandum of Agreement between the DOT&PF and the ADF&G for the Design, Permitting, and Construction of Culverts for Fish Passage.
Noise Construction-related increases in the noise levels would result from operation of construction equipment and increased traffic to and from the project site.
Mitigation Measures Trucks and heavy equipment going to and from the project site would be equipped with mufflers and routed away from residential areas to the extent practicable. Operation of construction equipment would be limited to daytime hours when possible. If work during nighttime hours is necessary, the contractor would be required to comply with all local noise ordinances. The public would be notified in advance of construction activities.
Traffic and Accessibility Construction-related activities would result in altered traffic patterns, traffic delays and limited accessibility to businesses and residences. Public services would be temporarily impacted due to delays and detours.
Mitigation Measures The contractor would implement a traffic control plan to minimize delays, provide detours and maintain traffic flow through the project corridor. Businesses and residences would retain access during construction; however, limiting or altering access may result in minor economic losses to businesses during construction. The public, affected local schools, public service organizations and emergency personnel would be notified in advance of construction activities and potential road closures.
139
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
4.20 The Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of Man’s Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long- term Productivity
Construction projects often result in some degree of impact to the natural and man-made environment, such as increases in noise levels, degradation of local air quality, changes in travel patterns and accessibility and increase storm water runoff. An important component of any construction project is creating a balance between the project’s benefits and any potential impacts to the environment. The project’s benefits must outweigh any adverse affects for the project to be justified. The Parks Highway has one of highest severe and fatal crash rates in Alaska, with over 60 percent of those crashes being head-on collisions. The proposed project is expected to play a large role in reducing those crashes and dramatically improving safety for all roadway users.
Environmental Consequences
No Build Alternative Without capacity improvements along the proposed project corridor, the long term efficiency and productivity of the highway would be diminished by continually increasing traffic and congestion.
Preferred Alternative The predicted impacts associated with the proposed project, such as ROW acquisitions, changes in access, increases in energy consumption and loss of riparian and wetland habitats are common components of transportation projects. These impacts are minor in comparison to the benefits associated with increased capacity, and especially, improved safety along the corridor. Being the only direct route between Anchorage and Interior Alaska, traffic volumes on the Parks Highway will continue to rise and lead to unacceptable levels of congestion in the near future. Constructing a divided highway is essential to reducing the high rate of severe and fatal crashes occurring throughout the corridor. The proposed project would enhance the quality of life for MSB residents and commuters by creating a safe transportation system and encouraging the long-term productivity and viability of the community.
4.21 Any Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Which Would be Involved in the Proposed Action
Construction of the proposed project would require the use of and irretrievable commitment of environmental, financial, and human resources. Because the highway already exists as a two-lane facility, only a relatively small amount of additional land would be required for expansion to a four-lane facility. This conversion of land is irretrievable while it’s being used as a transportation facility. If needed, the land use could be reclaimed or converted. No undeveloped, pristine land would be irreversibly modified. Potentially moderate to large amounts of raw materials, such as gravel and aggregate surface course materials, and energy would be used to complete the project. Preliminary estimates indicate the project would require approximately 99,000 cubic yards of surface course materials, 600,000 cubic yards of 140
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
borrow materials, and 330,000 cubic yards of excavation. These types of construction materials are usually readily available and are not likely to become scarce.
Environmental Consequences
No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative would not result in any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of construction materials, resources, or finances.
Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative would require irretrievable expenditure of federal funds, which is estimated to total approximately $141,000,000 in current year dollars. After construction, continual federal or state funding would be required to adequately maintain and improve the highway. The proposed project would also require a significant amount of human resources including hours spent in planning, construction, inspection and oversight of the project. Although the proposed project would require a significant amount raw materials and finances to complete, the benefit to the commuters and the public would outweigh any adverse impacts associated with irretrievable resources.
4.22 Cumulative Effects
Introduction The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations requires an assessment of cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts are defined by the CEQ regulations as “The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or persons undertake such actions”. While cumulative effects may be minor when viewed as individual direct or indirect effects, collectively they can add to the effects of other actions and eventually lead to considerable environmental change. Cumulative effects include the direct and indirect impacts of a project together with past and reasonably foreseeable future actions of other projects.
Direct impacts are defined by the CEQ regulations as “effects which are caused by the [proposed] action and occur at the same time and place.” For this project, an example of a direct impact would be filling a wetland to widen the highway. Indirect impacts are defined by the CEQ regulations as “effects which are caused by the [proposed] action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate…” For this project, an example of an indirect impact could be the development of a residential or commercial development as a result of safer access provided by the project.
Methods for Determining Cumulative Impacts The methodology for determining the cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project is based on Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ, 1997).
141
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Available historic aerial photography, the DOT&PF STIP, local transportation plans and regional planning documents, and interviews with local planning professionals were used to identify past actions and reasonably foreseeable actions in the general vicinity of the proposed project (Figure 21: Reasonably Foreseeable Projects).
During preparation of this EA, the DOT&PF held scoping meetings with the public and resource agencies to help identify issues to be analyzed in the EA. Comments received during the public and agency scoping period identified as important issues on a national, regional, or local level and that will be focused on in this cumulative impacts analysis are discussed below.
Public Concerns. The primary public concerns identified during scoping were: Highway Safety Local Access and Circulation Wildlife Protection ATV/Bike/Pedestrians Pathways
Concerns of Local Municipalities. The MSB and local community councils identified the following important issues related to the project. Reduce Congestion Improve Travel Efficiency Increase Highway Safety Encourage Commercial and Industrial Uses in Meadow Lakes Area to Concentrate in Discrete Districts (As Opposed to Spread Along the Length of the Highway)
Concerns of Resource Agencies. Over the course of the scoping period, the resource agencies identified the following as important issues: Fish Passage at Little Meadow Creek Loss of Moose Habitat Loss of Wetlands
Reduced congestion, increased travel efficiency and improved highway safety are the overall purposes of the project are not examined in this cumulative impacts assessment. For an in- depth discussion of these issues see the Purpose and Need Section. Pedestrian and Bicycle issues are also discussed in Section 4.6 of this EA. For purposes of this cumulative impact assessment, the following five resource categories were determined to be important: Land Use Wetlands Water Quality Fish Habitat Moose Habitat and Moose/Vehicle Collisions
Timeframe for the Analysis The timeframe for cumulative impacts analysis includes past and future time periods. The time period for the past impacts analysis varies by resource depending on the timeframe for which historical data were available. The time period for the past analysis was determined by the information available for each resource. For some resources, data were available for only 142
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
the past 10 to 20 years, while for other resources data were available for the past 30 to 40 years. The temporal boundary for past development is generally defined as 1970 because this is the year the Parks Highway connection to Fairbanks was constructed. The time period for the future impact analysis extends from the present day to the design year of 2033.
Geographic Scope for the Analysis Study Area The geographic scope of analysis differs for each specific environmental resource considered for cumulative impacts. The geographic scope was determined by establishing the area of project impacts and determining the geographic areas occupied by the affected resource outside the project study area. The geographic scope for the land use category is the socioeconomic study area defined in Figure 6. The geographic scope for wetlands, water quality, and fish habitat is the Big Lake watershed (See Figure 16). The geographic boundary for moose habitat and moose/vehicle collisions is the ADF&G Game Management Unit 14A (Figure 24).
Figure 16: Big Lake Watershed2
Historical Context – Past Development and Land Use Trends
This cumulative impact analysis considers the anticipated changes in land use from regional growth and from growth induced by the proposed project. Past and present changes in land use in the study area have contributed to the loss of wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, and water quality degradation. A discussion on the direct and indirect effects of the project on these resources can be found in the Environmental Consequences section of this EA.
The town of Wasilla was established in 1917 at the crossroads with the trail that connected the trading center of Knik with the Willow Creek mining district and the junction of the
2 Source: MSB Planning and Land Use Department and the Geographic Information Systems Division, Big Lake Watershed Assessment and Planning Project. 143
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
newly constructed Alaska Railroad. This trail later became the Goose Bay Road southwest of Wasilla and Wasilla Fishhook road to the north, providing access to the Independence mine in Hatcher Pass. Palmer and Willow were established in similar fashion. From their founding through the 1960s, many major events and developments resulted in economic boom and bust cycles for these Matanuska and Susitna Valley communities. World War II, the New Deal programs trans-locating mid-west farmers to the region, the cold war establishment of White Alice communication systems, Statehood, the Alaska Earthquake, construction of the Anchorage-Fairbanks Highway, and construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline all contributed to past and existing land uses in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough was incorporated in 1964 in response to constitutional requirements of the new state and subsequent passing of the Mandatory Borough Act in 1963. The Borough was given power to assess property, levy taxes, and undertake regional planning and zoning, and they were responsible for providing public education.
One of the most significant developments affecting land use in the Valley was the construction of the Anchorage-Fairbanks Highway in 1971. It provided an improved road connection between Alaska’s two largest cities, in anticipation of building the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. It was renamed the George Parks Highway in 1975. It approximately paralleled the railroad route between the Glenn Highway and Fairbanks and provided a much shorter and more reliable transportation option than the existing Glenn Highway-Richardson Highway route. It also greatly improved access from Anchorage to Wasilla and other communities in the Susitna Valley. As a result of highway development, many commercial and residential developments were established along the Parks Highway corridor over the years. Major strip developments were established in Wasilla and the Houston communities as well as many points between, including the Meadow Lakes community.
After Prudhoe Bay oil started flowing through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in 1977, revenues in the State Treasury grew and many public works projects were constructed in order to address the shortage of schools, utilities, and transportation facilities around Southcentral Alaska, including the MSB. The Northern Intertie was built, connecting the electrical systems of Fairbanks and Anchorage and bringing economies of scale to the smaller communities in the railbelt. Other major economic development projects, like the Point Mackenzie area dairy farming project, contributed greatly to changes in land use and habitats.
In the 1980s, Anchorage began to use its position as the state’s transportation hub to develop many industries including freight distribution and tourism. Its expanded and improved cultural facilities became a draw for tourists and were used for marketing purposes. The combination of outstanding wildlife resources, mountain scenery and convenient transportation options by way of road, rail, sea, and air have made the Anchorage/MSB area a prime tourist destination and spurred the growth of service industries. Expansion of Anchorage’s transportation facilities, the Anchorage Port, the Ted Steven’s Anchorage International Airport, reconstruction of the Seward, Glenn, and Parks Highway, have greatly improved the capacity of Anchorage to serve as the state’s distribution center for material goods.
With increases in economic activity and corresponding development, the population of Anchorage grew rapidly. With this rise in population and corresponding increases in 144
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
development and land use controls, access to affordable housing in the Anchorage Bowl became a problem in the 1980s. As a result, the MSB, with its accessibility to Anchorage, a surplus of good developable land, and its lack of land use controls and zoning effectively became a bedroom community to Anchorage. This distinction helped it develop in to one of the fastest growing communities in the nation. The MSB has experienced major urban expansion resulting in large residential, commercial, and industrial centers along with associated infrastructure. The 1970 U.S. Census found the MSB had a population of about 6,509 people. Since then, the population has increased dramatically to 88,379 people in 2009, and this steady increase has led to continuing urban expansion. Figure 17 shows the historical population trends for the MSB and the State of Alaska.
Population Growth Trends, MSB and State of Alaska
700000
600000
500000
400000
300000 Population 200000
100000
0 1960 1970 1980 1990 1999 2009 Year
MSB State of Alaska
Figure 17: Population Growth Trends, MSB and State of Alaska3
Figures 18, 19, and 20 are historical aerial photo that depict the rapid development that has occurred in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough from the 1960s through the present. This mostly unplanned and uncontrolled growth has resulted in many changes in land use and the character of the land throughout the Borough. The effects of these past development trends all contribute cumulatively on land use, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitats, and water quality within the study area and are the basis for this cumulative impacts assessment.
3 Source: U.S. Census Bureau webpage, Population by Counties by Decennial Census: 1900 to 1990, accessed July 9, 2010, http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/ak190090.txt 145
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Figure 18: Development in 19784
Figure 19: Development in 1984
4 Source: USGS, 1978 146
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Figure 20: Development in 20075
Major Past Actions
Major past actions that have shaped the baseline condition, and that in some cases continue to exert a persisting influence on the baseline, include the following: Parks Highway Completed, 1971 Palmer Hay Flats, Goose Bay, And Susitna Flats State Game Refuges Established, 1975 Trans Alaska Pipeline Operational, 1977 Point Mackenzie Agricultural Area Established, 1974 Port Mackenzie Industrial Port/Park Deepwater Dock Completed, 2005 Reconstruction Of The Park Highways To A 4-Lane Highway From The Parks/Glenn Interchange Through Wasilla In 2003 Major Residential and Commercial Growth from the 1980s to the Present Major Mineral Extraction Activities (Primarily Gravel, Coal, And Gold)
Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions This subsection provides a general overview of the reasonably foreseeable actions that are likely to occur in the cumulative impacts study area from the present to the design year 2033 of the proposed project. This is likely not an all inclusive list as projects will be developed in this timeframe that are not currently identified in an approved development plan. For the most part, these actions are transportation projects proposed by either the MSB or the State of Alaska. Other major private and/or public infrastructure and development projects that could affect the important resource categories within the study area have also been considered. Approximately 60 acres of additional land are expected to be developed in the MSB by the design year 2033. This land is expected to be developed for a wide variety of uses including residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and resource extraction activities. All of these developments have the potential for impacting existing land use, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat and water quality.
5 Source: MSB Office of Information Technology, 2007 147
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Transportation Projects The following present or reasonably foreseeable transportation projects are listed in either the most current MSB Long Range Transportation Project or the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) (Figure 21: Reasonably Foreseeable Projects).
Museum Drive The Museum Drive extension, south of the Parks Highway, would connect Marigold Drive to the existing Museum Drive and intersect Sylvan Road and Vine Road. It is planned to be a straight segment 1.9 miles in length. This project is an effort between the MSB, the DOT&PF, and the City of Wasilla to alleviate traffic related issues along the Parks Highway, Sylvan Drive, Vine Road, Marigold Drive, and Museum Drive. The improvements between Lucus Road and Big Lake Road (MP 44-52) are being considered in design and half-mile spacing of intersections is utilized to maintain the level-of-service for the upgraded highway.
The Museum Drive extension will act as a collector and access road for the highway. Removing driveways from the highway corridor and connecting them to this road will keep slow moving vehicles from entering the highway. Controlled access at the spaced out intersections will provide safe, efficient, and viable access alternatives to private driveways along the highway. The proposed extension is currently in the design phase and construction could begin as soon as 2011.
Machen Road The Machen Drive extension, north of the Parks Highway, would connect Machen Road’s dead end to Nicola Avenue, intersecting Church Road along its path. The extension will be approximately 1.2 miles in length and generally travel in the east/west direction. Cooperation between the MSB, the DOT&PF, and the City of Wasilla has occurred, and their recognition of the need for frontage and collector roads along the upgraded highway is taken into account. This new road would collect local traffic and bring it to an access point along the highway as well as allow local traffic to travel east/west, and possibly avoid the highway altogether. This extension is currently in the design phase and construction could begin as soon as 2011.
South Mack Road The South Mack Drive extension would connect the dead end of South Mack Drive (Parks Highway side) to the dead end of South Mack Drive (Knik Goose Bay Road side) which are not currently connected; ultimately creating a connector between Knik Goose Bay Road and the highway. This is a project that the City of Wasilla has developed to provide an alternate route to access Knik Goose Bay Road from the Parks Highway, where only two access points currently exist (Main Street and Palmer Wasilla Highway). If constructed, the road would be classified as a major collector.
The extension would be approximately 1.5 miles in length and travel in a north/south direction between Knik Goose Bay Road and Parks Highway. The intersection of South Mack Drive and Parks Highway is currently signalized, while the Knik Goose Bay Road/South Mack Drive intersection is not. If this extension is constructed, more traffic is expected at the Parks Highway/South Mack Drive intersection. This extension is currently in preliminary design, with possible construction beginning in fall 2010 or spring 2011. 148
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Knik Arm Crossing The Knik Arm Crossing (KAC) is a project that has long been anticipated. The project would connect the MOA to the MSB via a bridge across the Knik Arm from the Port of Anchorage to the Port Point Mackenzie. According to the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority (KABATA) website, the project has been studied for more than 50 years. However, the DOT&PF considers the KAC a reasonably foreseeable action for this cumulative impacts assessment. The MSB LRTP developed economic and population estimates for the MSB with and without a KAC. These estimates were then further studied for specific areas within the MSB likely to be impacted by the KAC. The results indicate that construction of the KAC would result in higher traffic volumes along the Parks Highway proposed project area, which are likely due to greater development.
Bogard Road Extension East The purpose of the Bogard Road Extension East is to provide an additional east-west travel corridor to facilitate the ever growing east-west travel demand in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough as well as relieve congestion on the Palmer-Wasilla Highway. The extension will extend Bogard Road from Trunk Road to the Glenn Highway. It will be designed as a 2-lane roadway with 12-foot paved travel lanes and 6-foot paved shoulders. The expected ROW acquisitions for this project will be able to accommodate a 4-lane facility with turning lanes, pedestrian amenities, a separated pathway, lighting, intersection improvements and drainage structures. This project is currently in the design stage and is construction is expected to begin as early as the 2011 season.
Port Mackenzie Access Road The Port Mackenzie Access Road projects purpose is to widen and reduce grade along a 1.3 mile stretch of road beginning at the Lu Young/Point Mackenzie Road Intersection. The existing segment has an 11% grade and is the last stretch of the 13.5 mile road north of the Port Mackenzie dock to be upgraded to current design standards. This upgrade will significantly improve safety and reduce future road maintenance.
Port Mackenzie Rail Extension The Port Mackenzie Rail Extension would connect the Matanuska Susitna Borough’s Port Mackenzie with the Alaska Railroad Corporation’s mainline rail at a point between the Meadow Lakes Community and the Willow Town site. This project would involve the construction of 30 to 45 miles of new railway to connect the two points. A Draft EIS was submitted to the Surface Transportation Board (STB) in mid-March 2010 and is under review by the agency. Final design would begin after the EIS is approved and funding allocated.
Lucille Street Rehabilitation Study This project is to analyze engineering aspects, related studies, and feasibility of construction for upgrades to Lucille Street from Spruce Avenue to Schrock Road. The upgrades would include expanding Lucille Street to a 3- or 4-lane facility. Work done to date consists of environmental studies, public involvement, and surveys for right-of-way and utility mapping purposes. Upgrades to Lucille Street are needed to reduce congestion in a fast growing area north of Wasilla.
149
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Trunk Road Reconstruction The Trunk Road Reconstruction project is currently in the construction phase. The purpose of the project is to reconstruct Trunk Road from Parks Highway to Palmer-Fishhook Road. This project will provide an expanded major arterial for north-south travel.
Seward Meridian Parkway The Seward Meridian Parkway Phase I final design is near completion. Phase I will reconstruct the Seward Meridian Parkway from Parks Highway to Seldon Road into a 4-lane facility with a center left turn lane and separated pedestrian/bicycle path on the west side. The project is being opened for bid in October 2010 and construction would likely begin in 2011.
Vine Road Upgrade This project involves the widening and repaving of 3.4 miles of existing road which connects the Parks Highway with Knik-Goose Bay Road. The scope of the project is to repair failed sections of the subgrade, reconstitute drainage, add base course material, add 4 foot shoulder and repave with hot mix. This project is within a fast growing area of the Borough and is listed in the LRTP as needed before 2025.
Seldon Road Extension This project includes the construction of 1.5 miles of new road between Church Road and Beverly Lake Road. This segment is also part of the Seldon-Bogard Corridor which will connect the Glenn Highway with the Parks Highway. The new road will be constructed to the paved corridor standard (minor arterial) which includes an adjacent pathway. This project is in the OSHP and is listed in the LRTP as a base project that should be in progress now and completed well before 2015.
South Big Lake Road Realignment The project would improve 3.9 miles of the Big Lake Road corridor between Burma Road and Fish Creek. Improvements consist of upgrading the existing road to current standards combined with segments of construction on new alignment. The design criteria being used conform to requirements for new construction of major rural collectors with a design speed of 55 MPH.
Burma Road The project would reconstruct Burma Road between Big Lake and Point Mackenzie Road. Project length is approximately 9 miles. The general route roughly follows the existing West Susitna Parkway, Purinton Parkway and Burma Road. The design criteria being used conform to requirements for new construction of major rural collectors with a design speed is 55 MPH.
150
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Other Major Development Projects
Hatcher Pass Ski Area The Hatcher Pass Ski Area is a recently developed project. Transportation improvements would be required to open a recreation facility in Hatchers Pass. Many roads are in need of improvement for adequate access to the proposed recreation area. Upgrades that would affect the Parks Highway would take place on Willow-Fishhook Road which is accessible from Willow; traffic on Willow-Fishhook Road would increase for construction and with future recreational traffic. A Draft EIS was submitted for this project in May 2010 and is under review.
151
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Cumulative Impacts Analysis by Resource
Land Use
Study Area The geographic scope of this analysis includes the socioeconomic study area defined in Figure 6. The study area includes census block groups that intersect the Parks Highway within the proposed project corridor. The timeframe of this analysis is from 1970 through 2033.
Past Condition Increased development and urbanization in the study area has affected the overall number, size, and type of developments that have occurred in the area. Comparison of historical and current aerial photography clearly shows the transformation of the area from predominately undeveloped vegetated lands to residential, commercial, industrial and recreational uses, particularly along the highway. The land has gone from very sparsely populated with a total population of 6,509 people in the MSB in 1970 to more than 82,515 people, which is more than ten times as many people in 2008. Recent demographic data indicates approximately 23 percent of the MSB population resides in communities near the project vicinity including the City of Wasilla, Meadow Lakes Community, City of Houston and Big Lake.
The study area contains a mix of land uses and types of ownership. While much of the land adjacent to major roadways are developed, a great deal of land in the study area, especially near waterways, is currently undeveloped. The developed land is primarily rural residential with some commercial, community service, and recreational uses. Land in the study area is predominately owned by the State, with some lands owned by the MSB or private entities. Development in most of the communities, with the exception of the cities of Wasilla and Houston, is not subject to zoning requirements.
Future Trends Future growth projections indicate residential and commercial development will continue well into the future throughout the study area. Construction of the Knik Arm Bridge, which would link Anchorage to Point MacKenzie (MSB), would likely cause accelerated residential and small commercial development in the southern and western portions of the study area where much of the land is currently undeveloped. Accordingly, some lands would be converted to transportation uses as new roads, road extensions, and other infrastructure projects are constructed to accommodate the overall population growth throughout the study area.
Preferred Alternative Impacts The proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative changes in land use in the study area is expected to be minimal. As development in the area continues, land use will continue to change from undeveloped and low-density residential (rural) to more high-density residential (urban) areas. This overall projected growth is expected to have a much greater impact on land use than the direct and indirect effects of the proposed project. The proposed project would only convert 65 acres of ROW from residential or commercial land uses to transportation uses. The ROW acquisitions would slightly reduce the amount of available residential and commercial land adjacent to the highway. The study area has a sufficient 155
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
supply of undeveloped, buildable land available to support predicted residential or commercial growth in the area.
The Preferred Alternative may facilitate residential development in the area and lead to a minor increase in residential land use designations. The project would reduce some of the negative effects of population growth such as increased congestion and related safety issues. Improvement of the frontage road systems and reconstruction of the pedestrian pathway would allow for safer access to and from neighborhoods, commercial districts, and businesses. The rural setting, coupled with improved mobility, may be more desirable to those wishing to obtain recreational property and/or those wishing to permanently relocate to a smaller community contributing to more urban and suburban sprawl.
The project may also facilitate an increase in commercial or industrial land uses in the area by improving safe access to parcels adjacent to the highway, which could result in additional business strip development along the highway. However, the Meadow Lakes Comprehensive Plan discourages this type of new development along the highway and prefers concentrating businesses in a designated city center south of the highway.
The project is consistent with and supports the goals and management objectives outlined in the local land use and transportation plans. The majority of area plans include the proposed project as a four-lane divided highway. The STIP also includes widening the highway to four lanes with attendant traffic and safety improvements between Wasilla and the Big Lake Road.
Wetlands
Study Area The geographic scope of this analysis includes the Big Lake Watershed. The watershed encompasses approximately ninety square miles and includes numerous small lakes, wetlands, ponds, and streams that drain into Big Lake. The timeframe of this analysis is from 1978 through 2033. The early date for the analysis was selected because the National Wetland Inventory maps became available in 1978.
Past Conditions Growth-induced development and expansion in the study area have most certainly affected the overall number, size, and ecological function and value of wetlands in the Big Lake watershed. However, efforts to quantify impacts are frustrated by the nature of historical wetland data. Side-by-side comparison of historic and current aerial photography overlain with National Wetland Inventory data (1978) and wetlands identified in the Big Lake Watershed Atlas (2007) actually show an increase in total wetland acreage (approximately 17,000 acres to 18,000 acres). This is most certainly due to the more detailed level of analysis and measurement used in the recent study. While it is illogical to conclude total area of wetlands in the Big Lake watershed have increased, the ready availability of good, dry, desirable and easily developed land has minimized wetland impacts, as inspection of the current and historic data bear out. Wetland losses resulting from clearing forested areas for residential homesteads and recreational areas, development of agriculture fields, transportation projects, electrical transmission lines, and natural gas pipelines have occurred; however, again, the availability of uplands have held wetland impacts to negligible levels (Figures 22-23). 156
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Figure 22: National Wetland Inventory, 19786
Figure 23: Big Lake Watershed Wetlands, 20077
In 1972, Section 404 of the CWA instituted a permitting program, administered by the USACE and EPA, to regulate the discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Section 404 mandates that projects avoid and minimize wetland impacts to the extent practicable and mitigate for unavoidable impacts. In 1993, the “No Net Loss” policy was adopted to improve the federal wetlands program. This purpose of the policy was to balance unavoidable habitat, environmental, and resource losses with replacement of those items on a project-by-project basis so further reductions to resources
6 Source: USGS and NWI, 1978 7 Source: Mat‐Su Wetland Mapping Project, 2007‐2009, accessed July 12,2010 http://www.wetlands.matsugov.us 157
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road may be prevented. In April 2008, the USACE published the 2008 Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources rule. The rule mandated compensatory mitigation for all unavoidable adverse impacts to wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources authorized by the CWA Section 404 permits and other Department of Army permits. These programs have helped reduce the total amount of wetland fill and preserve the overall ecological functional value of wetlands.
Future Trends Future growth projections indicate residential and commercial development will continue throughout the study area, particularly along main roads and in the southwest region near Point MacKenzie where much of the land is currently undeveloped. New development may require some wetland fill, fragmentation, and degradation of the overall functions and values of wetlands. However, the CWA requires avoidance of wetland when possible and minimization and compensation for all unavoidable impacts to wetlands. This program would reduce the amount of fill in wetlands and lessen the severity of indirect impacts to wetlands in developing areas from those that historically occurred.
Preferred Alternative Impacts The proposed project would contribute a small increment to the overall cumulative impact to wetlands within the Big Lake watershed. While localized impacts on some wetlands would occur, the relative number of wetlands in the study area should remain constant and the regional wetland functions and values should remain intact if development continues in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Corps current mitigation policies. Construction of the proposed project would result in direct impacts to approximately 4.0 acres of wetland along the highway to accommodate roadway widening. The project would affect five wetlands types (pond, sedge-grass meadow, sedge-shrub meadow, shrub bog, and black spruce forest), which have moderate to high functional values. Impacts associated with permanent wetland losses include a slight reduction in the overall ecological functional value of the wetland complexes and their associated habitats, the amount of wildlife habitat, and the flood storage capacity of the local system. Future construction projects and development activities would likely require additional wetland fill, additional fragmentation, and a decrease of ecological functional value on a much larger scale than the proposed project.
Mitigation To mitigate the proposed project’s impact to wetlands, the project would be designed to avoid and minimize affects to wetlands when possible. All unavoidable impacts would be mitigated.
Water Quality
Study Area The geographic scope of this analysis includes the Big Lake Watershed. The watershed encompasses approximately ninety square miles and includes numerous small lakes, wetlands, ponds, and streams that are hydrologically connected to Big Lake, the Little Susitna River, and ultimately Cook Inlet. The timeframe of this analysis is from 1970 through 2033.
158
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Past Conditions The water resources in the proposed project area have been persistently affected by development over time. It is estimated that impervious surface in the study area has increased significantly from 1970 to 2005. Prior development in the area has resulted in clearing of forested areas, filling or bisecting wetlands, increasing impervious surface area, soil erosion, and sedimentation. These impacts are associated with decreased infiltration, loss of vegetated buffers, increased runoff and surface water pollution. Pollutants potentially contained in the untreated runoff that may reach the waterways include petroleum products from cars, particulates from vehicle emissions, deicing agents, and gravel/sediments.
Water quality conditions are monitored by the ADEC and analyzed in Alaska’s Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. This assessment described “whether the existing condition of Alaska’s waterbodies is sufficient to maintain multiple designated uses of that waterbody”. Alaska water quality standards designates seven beneficial uses for fresh water and seven uses for marine waters (drinking water, agriculture, aquaculture, industrial, contact recreation, non-contact recreation, growth propagation of fish and wildlife, seafood processing, and harvesting raw aquatic life for human consumption). Waters that do not support their beneficial uses are considered impaired.
Although more than 99 percent of Alaska’s waters meet current water quality standards and are not considered impaired, two major waterbodies within the Big Lake watershed have been considered impaired within the past several years. In 2006, Big Lake was determined to be impaired by petroleum hydrocarbons. Sampling results indicated areas that are used by motorized watercraft are likely responsible for the high levels of petroleum hydrocarbons. Therefore, the areas of impairment are seasonal and are concentrated around the east basin. In 1994, Lake Lucille was determined to be impaired by nutrients and had low dissolved oxygen. A TMDL was completed and approved in March 2002 and the Lake Lucille was removed from the list of impaired waterbodies. Even so, water quality data collected between 2004 and 2006 indicated dissolved oxygen levels were below water quality standards only during times of ice cover.
Within the past several decades, a number of regulatory programs evolved that control strormwater and restrict direct disturbances of waterbodies. The State of Alaska requires projects obtain a Certificate of Reasonable Assurance in accordance with Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act and the Alaska Water Quality Standards (18 AAC 70) to ensure the project meets state water quality standards. The State of Alaska also requires approval of any project that proposes to work below the OHW mark of any waterway. The USACE also regulates work below the OHW mark of all waters of U.S. and navigable waters of the U.S., as well as discharges of fill in wetlands. Additionally, compliance with the Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System is required for all projects that disturb more than one acre of land and places limits on the amount of pollutants that may be discharged from point sources. These regulatory controls require compliance with the State water quality standards and have enhanced water quality in the Big Lake watershed in recent years.
Future Trends As land development continues in the region, the waterways and water quality will be increasingly affected. The cumulative effects of past and future development will continue to 159
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
turn natural soils into impermeable surfaces and reduce flood storage capacities of existing wetlands. This will increase the volumes and flow rates of runoff to the receiving waters of the Big Lake watershed. This could change the hydrologic characteristics of area streams, lakes, and rivers. Increases in water temperatures and pollutants (such as sediment, fecal coliform from septic systems, and petroleum products and heavy metals), and the degradation of in-stream habitats could result if this development does not properly consider water quality and retention/treatment systems. These potential problems will be primarily focused in the more densely developed areas of the study area and in the areas that receive high motorized recreational uses such as the larger lakes. Compliance with State water quality standards and the new Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements should mitigate these impacts to a certain extent.
Preferred Alternative Impacts The proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative effects of past, present and future development within the Big Lake watershed is expected to be negligible. Expected growth and associated residential, commercial, and industrial developments, including proposed major transportation projects, will have a much greater affect than the proposed project on the study area’s water quality. While the proposed project would roughly double the impervious surface area of the highway in the project area, this would result in a minor increase in stormwater discharges to receiving waters adjacent the highway. Increasing the impervious area within the four-lane divided section would reduce initial infiltration and slightly increase the speed at which runoff enters receiving waters and wetlands. Because the surrounding terrain is flat throughout the proposed project area and water is filtered through gravelly substrate and vegetated areas, this increase would be minor in nature and would not alter existing large-scale drainage patterns.
Mitigation To mitigate the proposed project’s effects on water quality all disturbed areas would be revegetated. In addition, compliance with the State water quality standards and implementation of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and use of applicable BMPs during project construction would help reduce and treat highway runoff.
Fisheries
Study Area The geographic scope of this analysis includes the Big Lake Watershed. The watershed encompasses approximately ninety square miles and includes numerous small lakes, wetlands, ponds, and streams that are hydrologically connected to Big Lake, the Little Susitna River and ultimately Cook Inlet. The timeframe of this analysis is from 1970 through 2033.
Past Conditions Although fish populations fluctuate naturally, their numbers have declined over time8. Declines in fish population are likely due to habitat degradation, overfishing, and variations
8 USFWS. 2010. Species Habitat and Conservation website, access on June 13, 2010: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/Fisheries/sp_habcon/index.html.
160
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
in predator populations. As development in the proposed project area increased, some aquatic habitats were altered and degraded through removal of forest cover and side-stream vegetation, bank armoring, channel modification, and routing of streams through culverts which impact fish passage in some streams. Culvert installation often involved stream realignment to a new channel, removing natural bends and stream channelization, removing streambank vegetation, increased erosion and sedimentation, and other disturbances to stream systems and fish habitat.
The State of Alaska is responsible for managing fisheries resources in the study area. They have implemented fishing regulations that restrict when and where fishing is allowed, the type and number of fish allowed per person, and fishing techniques. Several creeks, including Cottonwood Creek, Little Meadow Creek, and Fish Creek, are closed year-round to fishing. The State of Alaska also regulates the type of work that can occur in streams and requires permits for all work below OHW and for work that may impact fish-bearing streams. The ADF&G requires that an individual or government agency notify and obtain proper authorization for activities within or across a stream used by fish if it is determined that such uses or activities could represent an impediment to the efficient passage of fish. The Alaska Statute 16.05.871 (Anadromous Fish Act) and 16.05.841 (Fishway Act) also requires that an individual or government agency provide prior notification and obtain permit approval from ADF&G “to construct a hydraulic project or use, divert, obstruct, pollute, or change the natural flow or bed” of a specified waterbody. These permits often include project specific stipulations aimed at minimizing impacts to fisheries and fish habitat.
Future Trends As the extent of development in the proposed project area continues, aquatic habitats may experience additional alteration and degradation. Gradual alteration of stream systems, along with minor but chronic contaminant discharges to waters that come with a growing human population, would likely contribute to a degradation of fish habitat that may cause fish populations to continue to decline. New roads, infrastructure, and other construction activities would impact fisheries by eliminating ecological connectivity and diversity as well as impeding streams abilities to sustain predevelopment fish populations if not properly designed. Although the regulations discussed above would reduce the severity of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to aquatic habitat in developing areas, some impact to fisheries may occur over time.
Preferred Alternative Impacts The proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts associated with the permanent loss of aquatic habitat and minor changes in stream flows are expected to be minimal. The proposed project would result in approximately 0.01 acre of fill within the three unnamed anadromous fish streams where culverts will be replaced and sized for fish passage. The two existing culverts at Little Meadow Creek, the largest creek in the proposed project corridor, would be replaced with a bridge and the creek would be restored to its historic alignment. Consequently, the overall health of the streams would be improved, resulting in a positive contribution to cumulative effects. As such, the overall cumulative impacts on aquatic habitat are expected to be negligible.
161
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Mitigation To mitigate the proposed project’s effects on fisheries resources, a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) would be implemented and all applicable BMPs during project construction would be utilized. All work would be conducted in accordance with the appropriate regulatory permits from the ADF&G.
Moose
Study Area The eastern geographic boundary of this analysis is the ADF&G Game Management Unit 14A (Figure 24). The climate in this area transitions between coastal to interior, with substantial variations in snow accumulations. The areas to the north and west typically experience higher snow accumulations which can impact ungulate survival. The eastern two- thirds of the unit experiences low snow accumulations, which when combined with significant amounts of forest disturbances attract wintering moose. The timeframe of this analysis is from 1970 to 2033.
Figure 24: ADF&G Game Management Unit 14A9
9 ADF&G Wildlife Conservation webpage, accessed July 12, 2010: http://www.wc.adfg.state.ak.us/index.cfm?adfg=hunting.unitmaps&gmu=14 162
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Past Conditions During the 1960’s, the moose population in this unit was estimated to be approximately 7,000 animals. Moose populations stabilized between 5,000 and 6,000 animals in the 1990’s. During that decade, agricultural activities and several large fires opened a considerable amount of land and allowed the growth of preferred moose browse. As a result, the number of moose increased to more than 6,000 animals in the late 1990’s. In 2008, the moose population was estimated to be approximately 6,600 animals. Between 2000 and 2008, the annual harvest was 351 bulls.
An average of 180 moose were killed on the road system annually in the MSB during the 1990’s. Between 1997 and 2007, an average of 185 (range 130-252) moose were killed by highway vehicles and 16 by trains (range 2-34) in this management unit, except for the 2003- 2004 season when 375 moose were reported killed on highways. The project corridor experiences an average of 16 moose-vehicles crashes per year and is ranked the third highest moose-crash corridor in Alaska. Crash data from 2000 to 2007 identified three specific segments of the project corridor where moose-vehicle collisions occurred most. The majority of crashes occurred between MP 47 and MP 49 (over 50 percent), MP 44 and MP 45, and the intersection of the Parks Highway and Big Lake Road where Little Meadow Creek crosses the highway.
Future Trends As the human population and corresponding development in the area continues, some of the moose habitat will be lost or altered and replaced with homes, roads, and associated commercial and industrial development. Many of the proposed linear transportation projects in undeveloped areas (Knik Arm Crossing, ARRC Rail extension, etc.) could also result in habitat fragmentation and additional moose mortality if not properly designed to accommodate wildlife crossings and habitat connectivity. Habitat loss and alteration could result in a reduction of the carrying capacity for the area’s moose population. Some alteration of habitats from these developments could actually enhance some areas for moose. Residential development and landscaping and associated decreases in predator populations in populated areas may have actually contributed to some increases in wintering moose concentrations in other parts of Southcentral Alaska (Anchorage bowl). The negative effects of future development on moose habitat and populations in the study area are mitigated to a degree by the amount of undeveloped and protected lands that surround the area. The Palmer Hay Flats, Goose Bay, and the Susitna Flats State Game Refuges protected approximately 340,000 acres of habitat. State-owned parks and the Matanuska Moose Range management area also protect important moose habitat.
The increase in the human population and interest in sport hunting in the study area have forced the ADF&G to implement management restrictions on the moose harvest in GMU 14A. ADF&G’s close oversight of the moose herd is expected to continue through the design year and beyond. The cumulative development expected in the future could result in further restrictions in the harvest of moose in this area as humans and their activities encroach on historical habitats.
163
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Preferred Alternative Impacts The proposed Parks Highway reconstruction project contribution to the cumulative impacts on moose habitat and mortality are expected to be minimal. Only 65 acres of vegetative clearing, including moose habitat, will be permanently lost as a result of the proposed project. This amount of habitat loss when viewed against the area of existing habitat that will likely be developed within the foreseeable future is negligible. Some of this clearing might actually result in a decrease in moose mortality due to greater visibility.
The addition of lanes and associated reduction in congestion could slightly increase the overall travel speed within the project corridor. This could potentially increase the already elevated rate of moose-vehicle collisions. However, the proposed project’s contribution to the overall mortality of moose due to the vehicle/moose collisions in this GMU is approximately 8 percent (16/185) and is likely to decrease with the proposed mitigation.
Mitigation To minimize moose/ vehicle collisions, highway lighting would be installed throughout the project corridor and the right of ways will be cleared of natural vegetation and revegetated with grasses. This will increase the visibility of moose throughout the year, particularly in the dark winter months when most collisions occur. It will also eliminate preferred moose browse from the highway corridor. Based on the moose-vehicle collision analysis conducted by the DOT&PF, continuous lighting is predicted to decrease the current year moose-vehicle collisions from 16 moose collisions per year to approximately 5 moose collisions per year. For the design year (2033), moose-vehicle collisions are predicted to decrease from 25 per year under the No-Build condition to approximately 8 per year. In addition, constructing a bridge over Little Meadow Creek would provide a safer crossing underneath the Parks Highway within the project area for wildlife to move into adjacent areas.
164
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
4.23 Environmental Commitments
Socioeconomic
DOT&PF will have continued involvement and continue working closely with the local government and the affected property owners throughout the detailed design and construction phases of the proposed project.
Operation of construction equipment would be limited to daytime hours when possible. If work during nighttime hours is necessary, the contractor would be required to comply with all local noise ordinances.
The public would be notified in advance of construction activities.
The contractor would be required to prepare and implement a Traffic Control Plan (TCP). The TCP would be implemented and coordinated with all emergency service organizations, businesses, and local school districts prior to any construction activity.
The public, affected local schools, public service organizations and emergency personnel would be notified in advance of construction activities and potential road closures.
Relocations
When property acquisition is necessary, DOT&PF would conform to the requirements set forth in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. This would ensure that impacts to property owners are minimized and that just compensation of all properties is paid to owners and to all affected property owners.
All relocations would be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act), as amended in 1987.
Water Quality
An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) would be prepared during design of the project.
A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared by qualified personnel and approved by the DOT&PF prior to construction.
The approved SWPPP and all applicable Best Managements Practices (BMPs) would be implemented in accordance with contract specifications and the APDES CGP.
165
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
All BMPs would be inspected and repaired as soon as possible and before the next storm event when possible to maintain the continued effectiveness of the controls.
Existing vegetation would be preserved when possible.
Where construction activity on a portion of the site is temporarily ceased and earth disturbing activities would not be resumed within 14 days, the areas would be temporarily stabilized and in no case would sediment be allowed to leave the project site.
All exposed soils susceptible to erosion would be permanently stabilized as soon as practicable. Fill slopes would be seeded with native species to establish permanent vegetation and minimize soil erosion.
All construction wastewater would be filtered through vegetated swales, silt bags, or other filtering mechanism.
The current channel of Little Meadow Creek would be maintained until the historic channel has been reestablished and can accommodate flows.
If a release containing a hazardous substance occurs, the ADEC will be notified in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 110, 117, and 302 as soon as site staff has knowledge of the discharge.
No fuel would be stored within a minimum of 100 feet from any water body or wetland and secondary containment capable of retaining 110 percent storage capacity would be utilized.
Fueling or servicing vehicles or equipment would not occur within a minimum of 100 feet from water bodies or wetlands.
Airborne dust would be minimized by application of water, periodic sweeping and proper disposal of solid materials, and stabilization of all disturbed soils, entrances and exits.
Wetlands
To minimize unavoidable wetland impacts, the roadway centerline grade elevations would be minimized and the side slopes would be increased to the greatest extent practicable.
Inlet invert elevations for new cross culverts in wetlands would match or exceed the existing water surface elevation to avoid draining wetlands.
All wetland boundaries would be staked prior to ground disturbing or construction activities.
166
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
No heavy equipment would be operated in wetlands.
No fueling or maintenance of vehicles or construction equipment would occur within 100 feet or more of wetlands and other waters of the United States.
Disturbed areas would be reseeded and stabilized with native grasses adapted to the project area according to the ADNR Plant Materials Center's A Revegetation Manual for Alaska. Seeding would be done to the waterline in areas of saturated, standing- water wetlands.
All appropriate BMPs would be implemented as soon as practicable during construction to control erosion and sedimentation into wetlands and other waters of the United States.
During culvert replacement and in-water work, the work area would be completely isolated from the flowing waters of the creeks to prevent further mixing of sediment- laden waters by allowing sediment and larger particles to settle out.
Temporary storage of construction materials would occur away from streams and wetlands.
Waterbody Modification
Culverts would be replaced in accordance with the fish passage requirements stated in the 2001 Memorandum of Agreement between the ADF&G and DOT&PF for the Design, Permitting, and Construction of Culverts for Fish Passage.
In-water work areas would be isolated from flowing waters.
All disturbed ground adjacent to the creeks would be revegetated with native species as soon as possible.
An ESCP would be prepared during design of the project and a SWPPP would be prepared by a qualified person and approved by the DOT&PF prior to construction.
The approved SWPPP and all applicable BMPs would be implemented in accordance with contract specifications and the APDES CGP.
All BMPs would be inspected and repaired as soon as possible and before the next storm event when possible to maintain the continued effectiveness of the controls.
Existing vegetation would be preserved when possible.
Where construction activity on a portion of the site is temporarily ceased and earth disturbing activities would not be resumed within 14 days, the areas would be temporarily stabilized.
167
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
All exposed soils susceptible to erosion would be permanently stabilized as soon as practicable.
All construction wastewater would be filtered through vegetated swales, silt bags, or other filtering mechanism.
The current alignment of Little Meadow Creek would be isolated during construction until the historic channel is able to carry the flow.
If a release containing a hazardous substance occurs, the ADEC will be notified in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 110, 117, and 302 as soon as site staff has knowledge of the discharge.
Fuel would not be stored within a minimum of 100 feet from any water body or wetland and secondary containment capable of retaining 110 percent storage capacity would be used.
Fueling or servicing vehicles or equipment would not occur within a minimum of 100 feet from water bodies or wetlands.
Wildlife
A pre-construction survey would be conducted to delineate environmentally sensitive areas that would be avoided during construction.
Vegetation clearing and construction activities would be scheduled to avoid nesting season (April 20- July 15) and fish-spawning season (May 15 – July 15).
If active Bald Eagle nests are found within 660 feet of the project area (primary and secondary projection zones), construction activities would be prohibited during sensitive nesting time periods or monitoring would be conducted during nesting period according to USFWS protocol.
A clear span bridge would be designed over Little Meadow Creek to improve fish passage and provide a crossing for wildlife to move into adjacent areas.
Continuous lighting would be installed along the entire 8.3 mile segment of the Parks Highway to reduce moose collisions within the project area.
The culverts would be replaced in accordance with the fish passage requirements stated in the 2001 Memorandum of Agreement between the ADF&G and DOT&PF for the Design, Permitting, and Construction of Culverts for Fish Passage.
A SWPPP would be implemented during construction to minimize water quality impacts to the creeks and adjacent wetlands.
168
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
All disturbed ground adjacent to the creeks would be revegetated with native species as soon as possible.
Fuel would be stored a minimum of 100 feet from any water body or wetland and secondary containment capable of retaining 110 percent storage capacity would be utilized.
No vehicles or equipment would be fueled or serviced within 100 feet of water bodies or wetlands.
An ADF&G, Division of Habitat, Title 16 Fish Habitat Permit for work below ordinary high water would be obtained.
The construction plans would be submitted to NMFS, USFWS, and ADF&G for comment prior to construction.
Invasive and Noxious Plants
A preliminary inventory of the area would be conducted prior to construction to ensure no previously unidentified high priority weeds are present and to determine the exact location of the weeds identified above.
If invasive weeds or other high priority weeds are discovered, efforts would be taken to dig up and bury the weeds/soil under the pavement or dispose of the fill material in an area where it will not be spread to new areas.
All construction equipment and vehicles would be washed before being brought on site to remove dirt, seeds, roots, and other plant fragments to prevent any invasive species from being brought onto the project.
All construction equipment and vehicles would be washed on site to remove dirt, seeds, roots and other plant fragments to prevent any invasive species from leaving the project.
Any erosion control materials made from straw or hay (e.g. wattles, bales of hay, etc.) would be made from certified weed free straw or hay. If certified materials are not available locally produced products would be used to minimize potential importation of new weed propagules from outside Alaska.
All disturbed areas would be reseeded with certified weed-free seed and vegetated with native species.
Coastal Zone
All work at or near any water resources or wetlands would be conducted in accordance with the MSB Coastal Management Plan Enforceable Policies.
169
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
A SWPPP and applicable BMPs would be implemented prior to construction.
The work would occur in accordance with the APDES CGP and incorporate all necessary BMPs, such as silt fence and coffer dams.
All disturbed ground adjacent to the creeks would be revegetated with native species as soon as possible.
Fuel would be stored a minimum of 100 feet from any water body or wetland and secondary containment capable of retaining 110 percent storage capacity would be utilized.
No vehicles or equipment would be fueled or serviced within 100 feet of water bodies or wetlands.
An ADF&G, Division of Habitat, Title 16 Fish Habitat Permit for work below ordinary high water would be obtained.
The construction plans would be submitted to NMFS, USFWS, and ADF&G for comment prior to construction.
Hazardous Waste Sites
Before commencing construction activities, the contractor would prepare a site- specific Hazardous Materials Control Plan (HMCP). If contamination is encountered unexpectedly during construction activities, the ADEC would be notified and the response efforts would be handled in accordance with an ADEC-approved Corrective Action Plan.
The contractor would be required to practice proper hazardous material storage and handling and adhere to the DOT&PF emergency response procedures.
Detailed BMPs and housekeeping measures would be outlined in the contractor’s SWPPP and HMCP.
The contractor would be required to practice proper hazardous material storage and handling and adhere to the DOT&PF emergency response procedures, which stipulate that all work must stop immediately and the site secured to prevent unauthorized access if hazardous materials are encountered. In addition, the appropriate regulatory authorities must be notified immediately. Phone numbers of the National Response Center and 911 emergency services would be made accessible at work sites.
If the Preferred Alternative would require excavation at any of the high or medium risk sites, a Phase II Site Investigation is recommended during design to confirm the presence or absence of contamination. The Phase II Site Investigation would characterize the contamination and determine its extent within the area to be purchased or excavated. 170
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Visual
The contractor will salvage topsoil for reseeding purposes, recontouring the natural land surface, blending colors and textures, treating weeds, and revegetating the disturbed areas. These activities would return the disturbed ground to a vegetated state and will help to break up the linear features along the road with strategically placed vegetation appropriate for the environment.
Dust control BMPs would be implemented during the construction phase to increase visibility. The remainder of the area would be reclaimed to its original landscape.
Energy
The DOT&PF is encouraging the use of more efficient light bulbs, such as Light Emitting Diode bulbs, which produce more lumens and last substantially longer than incandescent bulbs.
The contractor would produce a traffic control plan to address operational traffic delays and detours during construction that make efficient use of time and energy.
Construction equipment and material such as batch plants and aggregate would be located as close to the project construction site as possible to further reduce hauling distance and energy consumption.
No vehicles, trucks, and heavy equipment would be allowed to unnecessarily idle and would be routinely maintained and serviced.
Construction
All construction activities would be conducted according to the APDES CGP. The DOT&PF would prepare and provide the contractor with an ESCP.
All vehicles, trucks, and heavy equipment would be kept within construction limits and operated in a manner that limits unnecessary ground disturbance. Equipment would be routinely inspected and serviced to prevent leaks and accidental spills.
The SWPPP would also include a HMCP which includes established procedures for responding to accidental spills. If leaks or spills should occur, all contaminated material and soils would be contained and disposed of offsite in an approved location.
No equipment or vehicles would be operated within any creeks. The work area would be isolated from the flowing water of the waterway to prevent fish from encountering turbid waters.
Wetland and stream bank vegetation would not be disturbed. Any disturbed areas would be revegetated with native species.
Trucks and heavy equipment going to and from the project site would be equipped with mufflers and routed away from residential areas to the extent practicable. 171
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
5 Comments and Coordination 5.1 Scoping
During the initial stages of the environmental process, federal, state and local regulatory agencies, local governments and tribal organizations and the public were consulted about the project to identify potential concerns, mitigating measures and alternatives. Outreach included a combined public/agency scoping meeting, an additional public meeting, presentations to agencies and community groups, stakeholder interviews, and public information meetings.
Mailing lists were developed for the agencies and the public. The agency list included contact information for federal, state, and local resource agency representatives who might have a permitting responsibility, interest, or concern about the project. The public list, which contained approximately 2,000 names, included contact information for all residents and property owners adjacent to the highway within the project corridor, elected officials, emergency service providers, local governments and community councils, chambers of commerce, transportation providers, and utility companies. The mailing lists are included in the Scoping Summary Report (Appendix J).
A project website (www.parkshighway44-52.info) was launched in 2004 to provide residents, property owners, and other stakeholders with up-to-date information, provide notification of upcoming meetings and involvement opportunities, and allow online commenting. The site includes a project overview, maps and photos, frequently asked questions, project reports and documents, and links to related projects, local agencies, and community councils. The project site is updated as new information becomes available.
Project Scoping: October 2004 to March 2006
Agency Scoping
A combined public/agency scoping meeting was held October 28, 2004, at the Wasilla Multi- Use Sports Center. The list of invited federal, local, state and federal agencies is included in the Scoping Summary Report. Agencies were notified of the meeting by telephone. Representatives from the DOT&PF, ADF&G, USFWS, MSB, and City of Wasilla attended the meeting.
A scoping letter was sent to 11 federal, state, and local agencies on December 8, 2004, to provide information and to solicit comments about the proposed project. The letter described the proposed project, project status, and the results of preliminary environmental research. As a result of the agency scoping letter and follow-up telephone calls, comments were received from three additional agencies not represented at the scoping meeting: NMFS NOAA, ADNR DCOM, and ADF&G, Division of Habitat
Table 20 summarizes agencies’ comments by areas of concern. The Scoping Summary Report includes all written correspondence, comments received, and telephone records.
173
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Table 20: Agency Comments by Category, 2004
Category Issue Agency contact information provided; fish habitat information provided; project work below ordinary high water will require a habitat permit; Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Habitat, would like to see stream simulation used and a bridge installed at Little Meadow Creek; work at an unnamed stream at milepost 47.5 will require a habitat Fisheries permit. Moose-vehicle collisions a concern; three main moose crossings occur in Moose the project corridor Look into presence of nesting loons in nearby water bodies; lakes in the project are not very productive for nesting waterfowl, in part because of limited emergent vegetation; waterfowl nesting does occur in the Little Waterfowl Meadow Creek drainage SHPO would like to review the project cultural resources survey Cultural Resources Project team was encouraged to continue coordinating with MSB Planning and Public Works, along with the District Coastal Coordinator, Flood Hazards particularly regarding work within the coastal zone and access. MSB supports a limited or controlled access facility and encourages Facility Type park-and-ride lots to facilitate carpooling and other commuting options.
Public Scoping
A combined public/agency scoping meeting was held October 28, 2004, at the Wasilla Multi- Use Sports Complex. The public was notified scoping was beginning and of the meeting date via a mailed postcard, a flyer hand-delivered to local businesses, radio announcements on three local stations, the project website, Notice of Intent to Begin Engineering and Environmental Studies and Notice of Wetlands Involvement published in local newspapers; the Frontiersman and the Anchorage Daily News.
The meeting was held in an open-house format and included a short presentation and a workshop exercise. Those participating in the workshop discussed project issues in small groups and wrote their comments and suggestions on cards. The cards were displayed on a wall for all to view and were captured in a table for documentation purposes. All public comments received during scoping meetings, stakeholder interviews, and the website are included in the Scoping Summary Report.
A second public scoping meeting was held February 23, 2006, at the Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex to inform the public on the status of the project, to collect comments, and to discuss the alternatives under consideration. The public was notified of the meeting via advertisements published in the local newspapers; the Frontiersman and the Anchorage Daily News. Those on the mailing list were sent a postcard inviting them to the meeting. One hundred and seven people signed-in at the meeting.
Meeting materials included the agenda and comment sheets, an annotated aerial photo showing comments received at the October 28, 2004 meeting, and aerial photos showing the proposed alignment. The project team, which included HDL and DOT&PF representatives,
174
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road made a formal presentation. After the presentation, attendees were given the opportunity to ask questions and provide comments. Comments and questions were recorded on flip charts and comment sheets. The verbal and written comments received are included in the Scoping Summary Report. Table 21 shows the chronology of outreach for public scoping meetings. Table 22 summarizes the public comments received during these meeting by category. Copies of all comments received during the scoping period are included in the Scoping Summary Report. Table 21: Public Involvement Chronology
Date Activity/Location Purpose Provide vehicle for Ongoing Internet site www.parkshighway4452.info public/team communications Continue dialogue with public Receive and respond to public questions and throughout project Ongoing comments; document for project record development 10/2004, Flyers (8 1/2 x 11): sent to or posted at various Provide notice of public various dates local businesses meeting Stakeholder interview: Louis Friend III, MASCOT, 10/12/2004 Mat-Su Transit Solicit input from stakeholder Stakeholder interview: Kathy Wells, Friends of Mat- 10/13/2004 Su Solicit input from stakeholder Stakeholder interview: Bill O'Hara, Big Lake 10/14/2004 Community Council Solicit input from stakeholder Stakeholder interview: Betty Vehrs, Mat-Su 10/14/2004 Assembly Representative, Meadow Lakes Area Solicit input from stakeholder 10/14/2004 Postcard mailer to mailing service Notice of public meeting Stakeholder interview: Paddy Coan, Greater 10/15/2004 Wasilla Chamber of Commerce Solicit input from stakeholder Stakeholder interview: Marguerite Bogert, Big Lake 10/15/2004 Chamber of Commerce Solicit input from stakeholder Stakeholder interview: Angela Rosas, Houston 10/15/2004 Chamber of Commerce Solicit input from stakeholder Stakeholder interview: Mary Kvalheim, MSB Borrow 10/18/2004 Assembly, District 4 Solicit input from stakeholder 10/19/2004 Display advertisement in the Frontiersman Notice of public meeting Stakeholder interview: Darland Forshen, Director, 10/20/2004 Public Works, City of Houston Solicit input from stakeholder Stakeholder interview: William Brown, President, 10/20/2004 Meadow Lakes Community Council Solicit input from stakeholder Display advertisement in the Anchorage Daily 10/21/2004 News Notice of public meeting Stakeholder interview: Sandra Garley, Planning, 10/22/2004 City of Wasilla Solicit input from stakeholder 10/25/2004 Stakeholder interview: Bruce Carr, ARRC Solicit input from stakeholder Stakeholder interview: Rob Wells, Mat-Su Resource, Conservation & Development Council, 10/25/2004 Inc. Solicit input from stakeholder Secured radio airtime to run public service announcement for public meeting on KDBZ, KQEZ 10/26/2004 and KRPM. Notice of public meeting 10/26/2004 Display advertisement in the Frontiersman Notice of public meeting Stakeholder interview: Jody Simpson, Mat-Su 10/26/2004 Borough Assembly, Big Lake District Solicit input from stakeholder 10/27/2004 Display advertisement in the Anchorage Daily News Notice of public meeting
175
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Date Activity/Location Purpose Project scoping meeting 10/28/2004 Public meeting in Wasilla (7-9 pm) Stakeholder interview: Steve Totten, Service Oil 11/30/2004 and Gas Solicit input from stakeholder Stakeholder interview: Robert Hall, Gorilla 12/3/2004 Fireworks Solicit input from stakeholder 12/3/2004 Stakeholder interview: Mike Allen, Gator Glass Solicit input from stakeholder Stakeholder interview: Christa Bailey, Bailey's 12/3/2004 Furniture Solicit input from stakeholder Stakeholder interview: R. Brooke Clements, Hartley 12/3/2004 Motors Solicit input from stakeholder Meeting with Agnew Beck regarding Meadow Solicit input, exchange input 12/08/2004 Lakes Comprehensive Plan on projects Solicit input from stakeholder 12/08/2004 Meadow Lakes Community Council presentation group Stakeholder interview: Ben Cruz & Jess Marcott, 01/10/2005 Hartley Motors Snowmachine Dealership, Palmer Solicit input from stakeholder Stakeholder interview: Tom Dowell, Sno-Trac 01/10/2005 Snowmachine Sales and Repair Solicit input from stakeholder Stakeholder interview: Gary Dumdei, owner, Min- 01/19/2005 Alaska Transport Solicit input from stakeholder Stakeholder interview: Art Reed, Sourdough 01/19/2005 Express Solicit input from stakeholder 2/14/2006 Display advertisement in the Frontiersman Notice of public meeting Display advertisement in the Anchorage Daily 2/16/2006 News Notice of public meeting 2/21/2006 Display advertisement in the Frontiersman Notice of public meeting Display advertisement in the Anchorage Daily 2/23/2006 News Notice of public meeting Present proposed alternatives and get public 2/23/2006 Public meeting in Wasilla (6-8 pm) input
176
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Table 22: Public Comments by Category
Category Issue Consider alternate route shown on far wall [refers to aerial Alternative routes photo with comments from scoping meeting]. Accommodating off-highway vehicles and all-terrain vehicles Plan does not accommodate ATV and snow machine traffic. There is a concern with how plan accommodates emergency vehicles and school buses.
There is a concern about timely fire response to the south side of Parks Highway with a median in place.
Accommodation of emergency Trains block the Pittman Road crossing when loading gravel vehicles and school buses and emergency vehicles can’t access Parks Highway. Big Lake Baptist Church How will the project affect the Big Lake Baptist Church. There is concern about the project limits and inclusion of the entrance/road into Big Lake.
Need traffic light at Big Lake Road.
Big Lake Road What is the potential for an interchange (at Big Lake)? There is concern about how the bike and pedestrian Bike paths pathways interface with the highway. Budget Where do we best spend $20 million? Merchants with businesses along the roadway are concerned about access.
Merchants expressed concern about people just driving through [the area] if they don’t have left turn access to their businesses.
Merchants were against the divided highway.
Merchants in Meadow Lakes will be injured if the four-lane divided highway goes through. They need a turning lane (a Business impacts five-lane section). Center turn lanes are safer.
Center median serves no one.
No median — that is not community building, but community killing!
What is to prevent barrier medians in the future?
Center medians versus center Why can’t we consider concrete barriers instead of medians? turn lane (also see five-lane roadway configuration below) A depressed median is unsafe. There is concern about construction, sequencing and Construction construction impacts to traffic and business. There is blue clay on all ground between Day Street and Stanley on eastside. Water table is from 1 foot to 4 feet. Large drainage pipe is a must as this drains over 100 acres. During heavy rain, I estimate over one million gallons of water Drainage at a specific location in a 24-hour period.
177
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Category Issue Why can’t you do 5 lanes through the Meadow Lakes area?
Hates the five-lane through Wasilla.
Sterling Highway (five-lane) is very nice and does not divide the community.
Need to understand why the first part of the project is a five- five-lane roadway configuration lane road and not a four-lane. Freeway, divided highway and controlled access When did DOT decide this would become a divided highway? Use more frontage roads and fewer traffic signals; signals will further congest traffic.
Consider a frontage road between Vine Road and Pittman Road on the side opposite the Alaska Railroad.
Why didn’t the frontage road go all the way to Pittman Road Frontage roads from Meadow Lakes Road? This plan does not address current needs, let alone 5 to 10 Future traffic not accommodated years from now. Natural game trails exist in the project area. What is being done to accommodate them?
Accommodate moose crossings. Game trails and moose crossings What about an underpass for wildlife? What is the configuration of intersections along the project corridor? [Stanley Road, Lamont Way, Museum Road, Vine Intersection configuration along Extension, Sylvan Road, Pittman Road, Meadow Lakes the project corridor Road, Buttercup Drive, Rainbow Street, Potter Road] The right turn lane at Rainbow Street at Meadow Lakes discount center (the Post Office) creates a very dangerous corner when exiting either way. We need alternative roads to enter and exit our Pittman Road/Meadow Lakes Road area – and a bypass for truck/travel traffic around this area. Parks Highway needs to be widened and repaved and enter/exits. But we need to remember we are a community area. We Intersections, Rainbow Street need a bypass! Something needs to be done at the Pittman/Parks intersection. There are two schools, a bar and the train. Soon a state trooper station and grocery store. Businesses are growing — how will you handle in the future?
Intersections, Pittman Road The hill at Pittman is unsafe This project may not be needed if direct traffic flow does not run through east Mat-Su.
How much of the ’70s Dames and Moore study still influences the decision tree now. [Knik Crossing – Anchorage/Fairbanks traffic flow]?
Knik Arm Crossing Did any dollars go away because of the Knik Arm Crossing? What type of lighting is being considered for the project Lighting corridor? Limited access What does limited access mean as it relates to the proposed 178
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Category Issue four-lane and five-lane configuration? Do not divide the highway through Meadow Lakes community; use five-lanes as per Wasilla, and time the lights.
There is concern that the Meadow Lakes Community Plan is injured by the proposed medians.
The DOT, the Borough, or Wasilla is shoving this down our throats.
The Meadow Lakes community prefers more of a boulevard appearance to the roadway in the Meadow Lakes area, near the town center.
We want experts to give us a safe answer that matches our [Meadow Lakes] community vision.
Meadow Lakes community We need access at Meadow Lakes Loop. Meadow Lakes, existing and There is concern with the level of service [amount of future level of service congestion] in the Meadow Lakes area, now and in the future. We want the project to accommodate park-and-rides, transit access, and commuter rail.
Is the project considering a park-and-ride near the railroad at Multi-modal Pittman Road? What is the plan for pedestrians and bicycles?
Need a pedestrian overpass at Pittman Road with a signal.
Need an ATV or snowmobile tunnel at Pittman Road.
Bike path interface with highway needed.
A “no right turn on red” signal at Pittman will help pedestrians cross safely. Multi-use pathways and pedestrian crossing of Parks Provide a trailhead at Pittman Road that connects to Highway established trails. Scrap this project and build a bypass around Wasilla for through-traffic to Big Lake.
No-build is an option.
We hate it; put the money into a bypass.
Bad design, waste of time and money, does not solve safety issues, build a bypass.
This project is outdated before it’s built.
Oppose the project This project doesn’t address current needs. What happened to the [talked about] overpass at Pittman Road?
An overpass at Pittman Road is a priority; the whole project is Pittman Road overpass a waste of money unless you do this right. 179
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Category Issue Consider a pedestrian overpass at Pittman Road. Pittman Road pedestrian accommodations Establish Pittman Road/Parks Highway as a school zone. When will the comment period end, and will the project team mail the information to the commenter?
Public process and comment Please ensure my address is not sold or used for another handling mailing or e-mail purpose besides the DOT. What is the project schedule?
Project schedule Concern about when the construction will begin. There is concern with the width of right-of-way for the project and the process taken to obtain right-of-way. Do you have to go to court to get right-of-way?
There is concern whether the existing highway is in the center Right-of-way of the existing right-of-way. Will the project include cleaning up encroachments/eye sores Right-of-way encroachments between the road and the railroad near Pittman Road? There are accidents every few days where someone rear- Safety ends someone making a turn. Install traffic lights and four-way stop signs now.
Pre-wire the intersection before putting lights in.
Install a traffic signal at Vine Road.
Signals Make it a freeway, without traffic lights every half mile. Slow down the traffic.
Lower the speed limit to 45.
Why won’t a 45 mph zone work in the Meadow Lakes area?
Lower the speed limit [near Meadow Lakes]
People do not slow from 55 mph when they pass turning Speed vehicles [on the right]. Suggestion that for now and the next few years, just lower the Speed at Vine Road intersection speed limit and add a light at Vine Road. Try not to make the super elevation so high because when the roads are really icy and travelers slow down, the vehicles Super elevation will actually slide sideways down the slope of the curve. Would like to see four-lanes and frontage roads with limited access points to the main Parks Highway. Center turn lane is suicidal at the highway speeds in the area.
Construct the controlled access as far as you can [with the available money] and do the rest later [when funds are available].
Parks Highway should be a freeway, without traffic lights every ½ mile.
We need four lanes with frontage roads. Support the project 180
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Category Issue Making the road four lanes is needed; on any given day you can barely muster 45 mph due to traffic. Request that the team observes traffic on a really busy weekend – during the July 4th weekend, or Willow Restart of Traffic the Iditarod By the time this project is built, we will have either Spruce or Seldon through to Pittman Road, and the traffic will be greatly reduced and so will most of the problems.
Whatever happened to widening Schrock and Bogard, and Traffic, parallel corridors planned extending Church Road (Station 153+00) to Mack? There is concern that the traffic study did not look at the amount of traffic going from the north side of the Parks to the south side of the Parks.
There is concern about how far out the traffic study looks at accidents and if serious accidents are considered. There is concern about how far out the traffic study looks at accidents Traffic study and if serious accidents are considered. Consider a turning lane at McCallister (Station 187+00) (MP 45.1).
Request for a turn lane at MP 48.2 (Station 345+00) — 122 Turn lanes, specific locations sites RV park opening in April 2006. There is concern about the number of vehicles that will be U-turn pocket length and vehicle accommodated in the left turn pockets of U-turns and the accommodation length of the left turn pockets. U-turn comparison to other Question whether the team is familiar with the U-turn at the locations Palmer-Wasilla Highway. There is concern that U-turns are not designed properly for large trucks/trailers or vehicles towing trailers to make the turn safely and then get back into the driving lanes.
There is concern about the length of time it takes to get a large truck that has come to a total stop to start moving/rolling then doing a U-turn (where the U-turn area is not constructed to accommodate the size of vehicle) during heavy rush hour traffic and back safely into a lane … the traffic is heavy now and only getting worse each day.
What about doubles – meaning double trailer units – traveling on a road at 55 mph? How ancient is this design, how are you going to accommodate those? At Tesoro there are a lot of lowboys and lots of heavy traffic, also accessing Fisher Fuel.
There is concern about stacking of vehicles at turning points and reentry into traffic on other lanes.
U-turn and indirect left turn There is concern about recreational vehicles pulling trailers design trying to turn to the other side of highway. Does DOT plan to do the bypass? A bypass would remove the need for this high-speed highway.
We hate it [the improvement]. Put the money into a bypass.
Wasilla bypass Scrap this project and build a bypass. 181
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Category Issue There is concern about maintaining quality of ground and Water quality surface water in the project area. When will you make the project overview and other details Website available on the website?
Public Involvement: December 2006 to July 2009
In response to several requests, public involvement continued after the initial scoping period. Subsequent public involvement included presentations to several stakeholder groups, a field driving demonstration/exercise and two public meetings.
The project team gave presentations to the following stakeholder groups between December 2006 and July 2009 to provide updated information on the status of the project and collect comments:
Meadow Lakes Special Land Use District Planning Team Big Lake Community Council Meadow Lakes Community Council (twice) MSB Transportation Advisory Board Holiday Service Stations/Stores Susitna Rotary Club
During scoping, the public and agencies voiced concern over the ability of vehicles to move through the proposed U-turns (indirect left turns). As a result, a full-size mock-up of a typical U-turn was staged on May 16, 2007, at the Wasilla Sports Complex. Eight agencies tested 12 vehicles numerous times. All vehicles successfully navigated the course with the exception of a Wasilla Fire Department ladder truck that is slated to be retired from service, according to the fire department. A list of agencies that participated, a list of the vehicles tested and a photo log of this exercise is included in Appendix H. Since then, indirect left turns were eliminated from the project design.
Project information was also presented at two public meetings that featured multiple transportation projects in the MSB. On September 25, 2008, project information was available at the MSB Transportation Fair, which was held at the Alaska State Fairgrounds in Palmer. The DOT&PF, the MSB and other sponsoring agencies hosted a press conference on projects to be featured at the fair on September 8, 2008, at the Mat-Su Community Transit facility in Wasilla. Display ads were printed in local newspapers the Anchorage Daily News (Valley edition) and the Frontiersman. Postcard and flyer invitations were mailed to 4,365 people on the mailing lists for two of the area projects featured at the fair. Additional notice included a flyer distributed during the Alaska State Fair (August 21 to September 1, 2008), community calendar listings in local newspapers, online notices, and project presentations to community groups and transportation officials. One hundred and fifty-nine people signed in at the fair. Parks Highway meeting materials included a project fact sheet, an aerial photo with preferred alternative overlay, and a desk copy of the draft Preliminary Engineering Report.
182
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
On July 23, 2009, the project was featured at a public meeting which provided information about several transportation projects in the area. The meeting was held at the Curtis D. Menard Memorial Sports Center in Wasilla. Postcard invitations were mailed to approximately 2,075 business and property owners, local government representatives and organizations on the project mailing list. A press release was e-mailed to local newspapers the Anchorage Daily News and the Frontiersman, and to four radio stations. A public notice was placed on the DOT&PF website as well as on each of the four featured projects’ websites. An additional 3,480 flyers were mailed to people on the mailing lists of the related area projects. Twenty local, state and federal agency personnel were notified by postal service and e-mail. A display ad ran in the local newspaper the Frontiersman on July 7, 14, and 21, 2009.
Aerial photos showing the project corridor were displayed and attendees were encouraged to write comments on the photos. Attendees were also provided with comment sheets and the FHWA brochure Safe Access if Good for Business. A computer station was set up for people to view the corresponding video during the meeting. One hundred and forty-six people signed in at the meeting. Table 23 shows the outreach chronology for meetings and presentations between December 2006 and July 2009. Table 24 summarizes public comments by category taken subsequent to the scoping period. All public comments are included Appendix K.
Table 23: Public Involvement Chronology
Public Involvement Date Activity /Location Purpose Meeting with Meadow Lakes Special 12/19/2006 Land Use District Planning Team, 7-9 pm Present the project Meeting with Big Lake Community 1/10/2007 Council, 7-9 pm Update on preferred alternative Meeting with Meadow Lakes Community 2/14/2007 Council, 7-9 pm Update on preferred alternative MSB Transportation Advisory Board Report on project progress by 2/28/2007 meeting project engineer Meeting with Holiday Companies Real Discuss access to Holiday gas 3/29/2007 Estate station in project area Report on project progress by 4/30/2007 Meeting with Susitna Rotary Club project engineer Demonstration of indirect left turn for review of road maintenance, emergency Address concerns about vehicle services, school district, and other movements through proposed U- 5/16/2007 agencies turn in project area Advertise projects to be featured at Project flyer passed out at the DOT&PF the 9/25/08 MSB Transportation 8/22/2008 booth at Alaska State Fair Fair Staff report to Matanuska-Susitna 8/27/2008 Transportation Board Topic: DOT&PF projects Postcard mailer to Glenn Highway Advertise projects to be featured at 9/03/2008 project contact list (2,890) MSB Transportation Fair Postcard mailer to N. Lucille Street Advertise projects to be featured at 9/02/2008 project contact list (1,475) MSB Transportation Fair Press conference hosted by MSB, Topic: Projects to be featured at 9/08/2008 MASCOT facility MSB Transportation Fair
183
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Public Involvement Date Activity /Location Purpose Central MSB Transportation Forum 9/09/2008 meeting Presented the project to the forum E-mailed flyer on MSB Transportation 9/2008, Fair to Wasilla, Palmer, Big Lake various chambers of commerce; flyers passed Advertise projects at the MSB dates out at chambers luncheons Transportation Fair Submitted MSB Transportation Fair notice to community calendars in the Anchorage Daily News, Alaska Star, Advertise projects to be featured at 9/12/2008 Frontiersman the MSB Transportation Fair Published MSB Transportation Fair notice on State of Alaska Online Public Advertise projects to be featured at 9/12/2008 Notice site the MSB Transportation Fair MSB Transportation Fair notice published on Alaska State Fairgrounds Advertise projects to be featured at 9/18/2008 reader board from Sept. 18-Sept. 25 the MSB Transportation Fair Display advertisement in Anchorage Advertise projects to be featured at 9/19/2008 Daily News (Valley edition), Frontiersman the MSB Transportation Fair Project presentation, Brad Sworts, 9/23/2008 Wasilla Sunrise Rotary meeting MSB Display advertisement in Anchorage Advertise projects to be featured at 9/24/2008 Daily News (Valley edition) the MSB Transportation Fair Outreach by other projects participating in the MSB Transportation Fair (for 9/2008,vario example, Highway2Highway, Palmer Advertise projects to be featured at us dates Couplet) the MSB Transportation Fair MSB Transportation Fair, 4-9 pm., Information distributed at project 9/25/2008 Alaska State Fairgrounds table Postcard mailer to residents and property owners, community councils; MSB elected officials, boards and commissions; City of Wasilla elected officials, boards and commissions; City of Houston elected officials, boards and 7/06/2009 commissions; area state legislators. (2,075) Invitation to 7/23 public meeting Advertise 7/23 public meeting for Parks Highway MP 44-52 and 7/07/2009 Display ad printed in the Frontiersman related area projects
7/08/2009 Newsletter distributed to MSB Community Transit (MASCOT) Announce public open house Introduce the project and invite council members to the 7/23 open 7/8/09 Meadow Lakes Community Council house Coordinate notice of 7/23 public Request to Meadow Lakes Community meeting on council website 7/08/2009 Council (www.meadowlakeschatter.com) Press release e-mailed to the Frontiersman, Anchorage Daily News, Inform the media about the projects and radio stations KMBQ, KASH, KGOT, and public meeting for possible 7/09/2009 KSKA coverage Online notices posted on the DOT&PF, 7/09/2009 City of Wasilla, and MSB websites Advertise 7/23 public meeting
184
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Public Involvement Date Activity /Location Purpose Flyers for Parks Highway MP 44-52, Parks Highway Connectors & South Mack Extension sent to environmental 7/16/2009 agencies Invitation to 7/23 public meeting Press release e-mailed to environmental 7/17/2009 agency personnel Invitation to 7/23 public meeting 7/14/2009 Display ad printed in the Frontiersman Advertise 7/23 public meeting 7/21/2009 Display ad printed in the Frontiersman Advertise 7/23 public meeting Public meeting in Wasilla, 4-8 pm., Curtis D. Menard Memorial Sports Center. Held in conjunction with meetings on Parks Highway Connectors (Machen Road and Museum Drive extensions) and South 7/23/2009 Mack Drive Extension projects. Provide project update
Table 24: Public Comments by Category
Category Issue Indirect left turns don’t support business traffic in Meadow Lakes area.
This design caters to semis and tour buses, not Meadow Lakes businesses and residents.
Medians at Big Lake Road will restrict access to fireworks vendors in Houston.
At milepost 52 [Houston], access to local on-highway businesses will be severely restricted. Little Gorilla will have no southbound access; Black Cat no northbound access; TNT no southbound access. Customers will have no way in from those directions, and no direct access to exit in the opposite direction.
The project will reduce access to a planned business development just west of the railroad overpass, milepost 47.
A four-lane split highway with a median will limit access to businesses.
Consider the established businesses along the way and give them access so as not to damage their traffic flow.
Business New businesses will not open, and established businesses will close, in the impacts area of S. Lamont Circle because of limited or poor access. Center turn lane Center turn lane will cause snow removal and storage problems.
Construction Plan better traffic control during construction. Need frontage roads on both sides of highway.
Frontage roads Need more frontage roads all along the road. Route left turning traffic up and over the Parks to solve issues at Big Lake Intersection Big Road intersection. Lake/Parks
185
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Category Issue With the ferry system coming online, we need an interchange at Big Lake.
Intersection What happened to the plan to have an overpass at Pittman with on- and off- Pittman ramps? Knik Arm In the long-term, traffic will use the Knik Arm Crossing to and from Crossing Fairbanks. Four lanes are adequate in most places; need 5 lanes from Vine Road to Johnson Road.
Need 5 lanes through Pittman.
Need 5 lanes through Meadow Lakes area.
What is the trigger that specifies a four-lane divided highway instead of a five-lane?
For safety reasons, the upgrade should be a five-lane road with center turning lanes and a 45 mph speed limit. A four-lane highway with median will be a disaster because: Higher speeds will cause constant conflicts with children and ATVs, pets and moose. DOT will change the limit from 55 mph to 65 mph because traffic will travel at 65 mph. High speed in summer and high speed combined with snow and ice in winter will make stopping and accelerating at designated intersections difficult and dangerous.
How about going to five-lane at the end of the project (Big Lake Road) instead of having the median taper out?
Five-lane is a very bad idea.
From Lucas Road to the railroad trestle, need a five-lane with left and right access.
The mayor’s request for a five-lane through Houston is ridiculous and dangerous.
The owner of Alaska Fireplace & Accessories, milepost 50.2, prefers a two- way north and a two-way south, with middle lane for turnoff.
90-plus percent of residents as well as Meadow Lakes and Houston governments want a five-lane road, with two lanes in each direction and a turning lane in the center. DOT is only concerned with moving traffic as fast as they can.
An extra lane in either direction and a turning lane would alleviate problems Lane and still provide safety and access for the community to [get to] their homes configuration and businesses. The project is not consistent with Meadow Lakes Community vision.
The highway divides the Meadow Lakes Community.
High-speed traffic and controlled access will kill the community.
Meadow Lakes Meadow Lakes wants a five-lane, like through Wasilla. community 186
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Category Issue Meadow Lakes community desires a “boulevard” appearance.
Project does not meet the Meadow Lakes community’s vision; DOT is imposing a cookie-cutter solution and not listening to our concerns.
Project design and construction should include community transit Multi-modal accommodations, i.e. pullouts for buses, parking for park-and-rides, facilities integrated trails. Multi-use pathways and pedestrian crossing of Provide a tunnel within a mile of Pittman intersection for dogsled, horse, Parks Highway pedestrian, ATV, and snowmobile access. Oppose the project DOT is wasting money on a project most people oppose. Property owner (ROW relinquish #R-35-1-006-1) is concerned about right- of-way close to her home and limited access; recommends shifting the highway north. She needs to move her home, and project impacts could allow her to make improvements. Potential acquisition.
Right-of-way Correctly align the physical road with legal easement at W. Sems Street. How do you redirect traffic after an accident on a divided road?
For safety reasons, the upgrade should be a five-lane road with center turning lanes and a 45 mph speed limit. A four-lane highway with median will be a disaster because: Higher speeds will cause constant conflicts with children and ATVs, pets and moose. DOT will change the limit from 55 mph to 65 mph because traffic will travel at 65 mph. High speed in summer and high speed combined with snow and ice in winter will make stopping and accelerating at designated intersections difficult and dangerous.
The mayor’s request for a five-lane through Houston is ridiculous and dangerous.
Four-lane with frontage looks good. The sooner it’s completed the better as present traffic patterns are dangerous.
This project is a top priority for the area — many accidents and lots of traffic. Left turn design is a problem; any U-turn should be at a controlled Safety intersection.
Sight distance Clear trees in the ROW to increase vision, safety, where moose cross Reduce speed limit to 45 mph through Meadow Lakes area.
Reducing speeds from 65 mph to 45 mph through a town is common in the Lower 48.
A freeway and high speeds are not an upgrade for safety in a populated environment.
In 2005, a young person on an ATV was killed at milepost 46 while trying to Speed cross the highway. A high-speed freeway is not the answer. Love the idea of a divided highway. Support the project I totally support the new road being designed and built. A few lights are 187
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Category Issue sorely needed. My customers need access to my business at milepost 50. Will I be compensated for lost business during construction?
I like the four-lane divided. Hurry up and build it.
Four-lane with frontage looks good. The sooner it’s completed the better as present traffic patterns are dangerous. Coordinate traffic signals at Pittman, Vine, Church Street and Lucas.
There should be a signal at the Big Lake Road cutoff.
Need a light or a roundabout at Big Lake Road.
The possibility that this intersection [Big Lake Road] may not get a traffic signal until 2020 is unacceptable, and a four-lane, divided highway will make it worse.
Need a signal at Stanley Road and one at Big Lake Road.
A limited access highway should be safe to access without stopping traffic. Traffic signals Where are the cloverleaf and non-traffic light intersections? Did the study consider the number of people who live on the north side of the highway in Wasilla who want to make left turns to go south?
Did the study consider the response time of emergency vehicles coming Traffic study from the south side? Indirect left turns will be a problem on weekends with heavy motor home travel.
Emergency vehicles will lose precious time when negotiating indirect left turns.
By law, school buses can’t make U-turns [indirect left turns].
Large trucks hauling trailers won’t be able to negotiate indirect left turns.
Five-lane with right- and left turn movements needed at RV park to accommodate long RVs towing SUVs.
Holiday Companies prefers right-in, right-out movement at Pittman.
Most commuters want to speed through at 55 mph; turning right and then getting across to the left turn lane [indirect left turns] will be a difficult maneuver.
Trucks won’t be able to get into the left turn lane; will require more time and space to make turns. U-turn and indirect left turns Need: left turn dedicated from Parks Highway onto South Mack Drive; left design turn dedicated (from Houston) from Parks Highway onto Lucas.
DOT should encourage a bypass around Wasilla, as well as a bridge from Anchorage to Point Mackenzie and connections to the Parks Highway at Wasilla bypass Willow
188
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Summary
Comments received during the scoping period indicate most stakeholders support the project and recognize the need to enhance safety on the Parks Highway. However, the public is concerned about business access, frontage roads, traffic signals and the accommodation of pedestrians, ATVs, emergency vehicles, school buses, and commercial and recreational vehicles. Safety concerns include speed limit, pedestrian and all-terrain vehicle (ATV) traffic, moose crossings, and lighting. Safety at the intersection of the Parks Highway and Pittman Road, Big Lake Road and Rainbow Street arose as recurring concerns.
Stakeholders are divided over the benefits and drawbacks of a four-lane divided versus five- lane highway. Some perceive a divided highway with median as less safe. Some expressed doubt that indirect left turns can be successful. The indirect left turns were eliminated from consideration and are no longer a part of the project’s scope. A number of people advocated for more frontage roads and fewer traffic signals.
The Meadow Lakes community said they would like slower traffic speeds, unrestricted access to businesses, and a trail system that accommodates pedestrians, bicycle riders, ATV drivers, horse riders, and snowmobilers. They also stated a desire for a corridor that accommodates their vision for the community as discussed in the Meadow Lakes Comprehensive Plan. The following goals for traffic circulation stated in the plan’s executive summary support this project:
“Create a controlled access, four-lane highway to reduce congestion, provide for efficient flow of through traffic, and maximize safety. Minimize driveways and intersections”;
“Encourage the majority of commercial and industrial uses in the Meadow Lakes area to concentrate in several discrete districts, rather than spread along the length of the Highway”.
The public expressed limited opposition to the proposed project during scoping. Numerous people favored a bypass around Wasilla. The Knik Arm Bridge, the ferry from Point MacKenzie to Anchorage, and the Wasilla bypass were cited as major projects that, if and when they are built, would lessen the need for this project. Stakeholders also cited the extension of parallel corridors such as Spruce and Seldon as projects that would lessen the need for this project.
Public involvement following the scoping period reiterated all of the concerns voiced during the scoping phase. Access to fireworks businesses along the Parks Highway at the north end of the proposed project corridor surfaced as a new concern. However, feedback continued to show support for a four-lane, divided highway with limited access, with less opposition than during the scoping period.
189
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
5.2 Formal Public Involvement
Public Involvement: July 2010 to September 2010
The EA was approved by FHWA on July 22, 2010. The EA was made available to the public and resource agencies for review. The comment period extended between July 22 and August 27, 2010. The chronology of the public involvement process is summarized in Table 25.
Table 25: Formal Public Involvement Chronology
Date Activity/Location 7/22/10 Publish NOA online 7/26/10 & 8/4/10 NOA & PHOH in Anchorage Daily News 7/25/10 & 8/8/10 NOA & PHOP in Frontiersman 7/26/10 Request for Comments to Agencies 8/11/10 Big Lake Community Council 8/17/10 Legislative Briefing 8/17/10 Public Hearing Open House 8/25/10 Houston Community Council 8/27/10 Close of Formal Comment Period 9/9/10 Submit Revised EA & FONSI to FHWA
The DOT&PF received feedback from four regulatory agencies and 87 public comments during the comment period. The comments were grouped into the following categories according to the nature of the comment: Agency Comments Pathways Access Post Office Business Impacts Project Information Bypass Property Impacts Connector Public Hearing Data Requests Safety Driveways Schedule Emergency Response Snowmachine and ATV Frontage Roads Speed Funding Support Growth Projections Traffic Signal Hawk Lane Traffic Signal at Stanley City of Houston Travel Time Intersection Typical Section Median vs. Center Turn Lane Utilities Ongoing Contact
Comments received from these public involvement efforts are summarized with DOT&PF responses in Table 26. Additional detailed information on the public involvement is included in Appendix L.
190
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Table 26: Comments Received during Formal Comment Period on EA
Comment Summary Response to Comment Access Just west of MP 46, on south side of Parks, No new approach road is planned at this “consider acquiring ROW for secondary access location as part of this project. Access to the to business." businesses in question is accommodated via existing driveways and median breaks at existing approach roads. Specifics of access for each property will be addressed during design to ensure compliance with existing policies for driveways. Access to most properties will be via a U turn Design will ensure safe emergency vehicle in the highway, including fire vehicles, access. Specifics of turning radii at ambulances, and police? intersections are refined based on roadway configuration and access type. Maintain commercial access at Elizabeth Rd. Access is provided via 1/2 mile median breaks for Animal Hospital, Little Love Bugs Day Care to balance competing needs of property access and Church. and local- and through-traffic movement. At mile 50.2 on the Parks Highway, concerned Specifics of access for each property will be of the accessibility of semi trucks and addressed during design phase. Median break customers traveling in both directions being at 50.2 will be configured to accommodate left able to turn onto our subdivision we are in no and U turns in each direction for commercial way within any wetland concerns so making vehicles. this access should not be a problem. Intersection of Trevett and Blondell Dr, These businesses are currently shown with “Purchase ROW to open access for access at Sylvan Road. Project does not businesses on Trevett." currently indicate construction of new approach road; however, right-of-way availability may indicate possible solution during design phase. Will be investigated. Business Impacts Project is going to hurt the Holiday Station Studies indicate businesses often benefit from business, need to maintain more than one enhanced access management, that access. customers adjust to travel patterns for destination businesses of this type. Specific questions regarding driveways will be addressed during design or through driveway permitting process. Access for 4 fireworks stands at Big Lake Studies indicate businesses often benefit from intersection. enhanced access management, that customers adjust to travel patterns for destination businesses of this type. Specific questions regarding driveways will be addressed during design or through driveway permitting process. Access will be circitous. These businesses Studies indicate businesses often benefit from generate 70% of sales tax. enhanced access management, that customers adjust to travel patterns for destination businesses of this type. Specific questions regarding driveways will be addressed during design or through driveway permitting process.
195
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Comment Summary Response to Comment The property goes from two driveways down Study indicates a crash problem along the to one with no access northbound. And it's like entire corridor. The project scope is to provide crazy. Their studies show -- the number of for full improvement to Big Lake Road with a accidents and traffic flow and problems drops transition back to the existing roadway type. continuously from Church down to Big Lake We are committed to working with property Road where its normal, past the Big Lake owners to minimize inconvenience while Road, it drops another 40 percent, and yet we adhering to design and safety standards. have a divided highway median when there's no justification for it and apparently they haven't looked at the alternatives north of the Big Lake cut off. Your own documents say a driveway on a FHWA studies indicate that businesses can highway service road is -- needs convenient benefit from enhanced access management access. We may not need direct access, but and that customers adjust to travel patterns for we need convenient access. It does say, destination businesses of this type. Access to Driveby business has been adversely affected the businesses in question is not being by reconstruction when they cause them to eliminated. have highly circuitous or inconvenient access. This is not typical, but when it does, it's common for the transportation agencies to compensate business owners for losses. Are you going to do that? Just look at the beautiful businesses along the Comment noted. Parks that are not open or have shut down from your 48 Million Dollar interchange at the Parks and Glenn that replaced a blinking light. Not just business accessibility for of Understand concern. Project strives to convenience, but as a veterinary hospital, This balance local business access with highway is a legitimate concern that needs to be looked safety. Specifics of access for each property at. that really I think warrants at least a limited will be addressed during design phase. left turn access so that people don't have to drive past our business to do a U-turn, To deliver freight to Farina’s Restaurant both Specifics of driveway access for each property driveways are required. If you remove one will be addressed during design to ensure driveway, Farina’s would not have a functional compliance with existing policies for receiving door. commercial and residential driveways. Design team is committed to working with property owners to minimize inconvenience through ongoing coordination. At 1251 West Parks Highway, if one driveway The Department will strive to reduce is removed, it would be virtually impossible to inconvenience to traffic accessing properties use our building & receive our weekly and businesses along the project. Specifics of shipments. driveway access for each property will be addressed during design to ensure compliance with existing policies for commercial and residential driveways. Design team is committed to working with property owners to minimize inconvenience through ongoing coordination.
196
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Comment Summary Response to Comment The tractor trailers use both of our existing The Department will strive to reduce driveways to make deliveries. I don’t believe inconvenience to traffic accessing properties we could receive deliveries without the two and businesses along the project. Specifics of driveways. driveway access for each property will be addressed during design to ensure compliance with existing policies for commercial and residential driveways. Design team is committed to working with property owners to minimize inconvenience through ongoing coordination. Scheele is a commercial subdivision, The Department will strive to reduce businesses need long semi trailer access for inconvenience to traffic accessing properties product delivery. and businesses along the project. During design phase the team will consider options to reduce travel distances for traffic to access the Scheele subdivision, including reconfiguring the intersection to provide a full median break connecting to the frontage road system south of the highway. I have emailed you time and time again and Comment noted. have attended meetings to make sure that you do not put road blockages in front of my business. I hope that you don't. Please consider the business environment Studies indicate businesses often benefit from before putting in a median strip in front of my enhanced access management, that business, which will kill it by 50% or more customers adjust to travel patterns for destination businesses of this type. Specific questions regarding driveways will be addressed during design or through driveway permitting process. Plans have detrimental impact on businesses. Studies indicate businesses often benefit from enhanced access management, that customers adjust to travel patterns for destination businesses of this type. Specific questions regarding driveways will be addressed during design or through driveway permitting process. Plan allows only “thru fare” traffic, not existing A divided highway with median balances and future business infrastructure, decreases competing demands of through- and local existing business. traffic with established development adjacent to project. It enhances safety, preserves capacity and provides access. Bypass State should focus on alternate bypass options Comment noted. Beyond scope of this project. like the Knik Arm Bridge, Seldon Road, or the 1981 plan to build a bypass through Endeavor behind Lake Lucille. Another option would be 4 lane with turning lane and signalization where needed. Focus on Knik Arm Bridge for your bypass. Comment noted. Beyond scope of this project. Connector East of Vine Extension, between Parks and The Museum Drive Extension project is being Museum Drive extension, “MSB Design”, completed by the MSB. Information on this “Noise Impacts”, “New Subdivision” project is available on the "Parks Highway Connectors" link of the website. 197
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Comment Summary Response to Comment Museum Drive Extension, east of Vine The Museum Drive Extension project is being Extension, “Move road behind tree line” completed by the MSB. Information on this project is available on the "Parks Highway Connectors" link of the website. Museum Drive Extension, east of Sylvan Road, The Museum Drive Extension project is being “move road further away from homes, pets, completed by the MSB. Information on this and children” project is available on the "Parks Highway Connectors" link of the website. Museum Drive extension. We're concerned The Museum Drive Extension project is being about a noise impact. We're concerned completed by the MSB. Information on this because it's a moose migration corner and it is project is available on the "Parks Highway a wetland and it's a waterway during certain Connectors" link of the website. parts of the season. Data Request How can I go about getting the crash Data provided via email. data/details that were used in the project need assessment? Accident Data Data provided via email. Request information on Turning Movements Data provided via email. Driveways Like maintaining existing driveways between Support noted. Lucus Road and Church Road. Why not move the driveways both south about Specifics of driveway access for each property 100 feet? Move them down so one matches will be addressed during design phase of up with the road across the street and put in a project development to ensure compliance with little frontage road between the properties existing policies for commercial and residential driveways. Across the Parks from the intersection of Parks Specifics of driveway access for each property and Forest Lake Dr., “adjust location of will be addressed during design phase of driveways.” project development to ensure compliance with existing policies for commercial and residential driveways. Between intersection of Forest Lake Rd and Specifics of driveway access for each property Parks and Airolo Drive and Parks, on the south will be addressed during design phase of side of highway, “ 2 Permitted DIW’s?” project development to ensure compliance with “Consider Deceleration lane for NB left turning existing policies for commercial and residential traffic.” driveways. Between the intersection of Forest Lake Rd Specifics of driveway access for each property and Parks and Airolo Drive and Parks, on north are addressed during design phase of project side of highway, “Additional driveways, Existing development to ensure compliance with 4, Concept 1, Want 4, Couldn’t live with less existing policies for commercial and residential than 2.” “2 lane” driveways and consistency with project scope. Parcel A021 has only one driveway on the Specifics of driveway access for each property plan, it has over thirteen hundred feet of will be addressed during design phase of frontage and two paved drive ways both are project development to ensure compliance with DOT approved. existing policies for commercial and residential driveways. Emergency Response Emergency response vehicles will increase, Changes in traffic patterns and anticipated with future development, and the current plan future growth are continually monitored and limits the access for emergency aide, creates considered through a project's design phase. additional obstacles, and creates required u- The Department is committed to staying turns. These limit the response time! abreast of all transportation and development changes that might impact the Parks Highway
198
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Comment Summary Response to Comment project.
Frontage Roads “extend frontage road to light (Big Lake Road) Suggestion is beyond the scope of this project; however, the need for additional parallel roadways to provide for traffic circulation in the area has been noted in the MSB LRTP and is being addressed by the MSB as funding is available. West Lakes Fire Department is in the process DOT is committed to ongoing coordination on of purchasing property for a new fire station projects affecting development of property between Spring Street and Johnson Road. adjacent to project. Provide documents for The current frontage road design would plan and continue coordination with DOT&PF. prevent the construction of the new fire department. Johnson Road/BLR Frontage Suggestion is beyond the scope of this project; however, the need for additional parallel roadways to provide for traffic circulation in the area has been noted in the MSB LRTP and is being addressed by the MSB as funding is available. Would the project be using Margin Way as a As indicated in the preliminary concept Margin frontage road? Way will be utilized as a frontage road. Need frontage road between Meadow Lakes Suggestion is beyond the scope of this project; Rd and Pittman. however, the need for additional parallel roadways to provide for traffic circulation in the area has been noted in the MSB LRTP and is being addressed by the MSB as funding is available. Roads off of S. Stanley Rd running parallel to Suggestion is beyond the scope of this project; Parks Hwy, “New frontage road for business however, the need for additional parallel access on south side roadways to provide for traffic circulation in the area has been noted in the MSB LRTP and is being addressed by the MSB as funding is available. Funding Funds need to be acquired. From Fed’s, state Comment noted. This project is a high priority & Borough if necessary. Toll road a possibility for the State of Alaska DOT&PF. – also on Glenn to Anchorage Concern about $7 million state appropriation, We are following FHWA policy for funding will it be used for right of way acquisition. projects, once the Environmental Document has been approved the project will be considered for design funding. Growth Projections Engineers should consider that the South Mack Changes in traffic patterns and anticipated Drive/Clapp Road connection to Knik Goose future growth are continually monitored and Bay Highway will cause increases traffic considered through a project's design phase. volumes that exceed current estimates. The The Department is committed to staying South Clapp Road and Mack Drive extension abreast of all transportation and development will receive significant additional traffic flows. changes that might impact the Parks Highway project.
199
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Comment Summary Response to Comment Future developments and growth of Changes in traffic patterns and anticipated businesses and residents are sure to occur in future growth are continually monitored and the near upcoming years; therefore, greater considered through a project's design phase. ease of turning in/out is necessary. The Department is committed to staying abreast of all transportation and development changes that might impact the Parks Highway project. South of Jacobson Lake, along road between Comment noted. lake and airport, “train station” Hawk Lane Bottleneck before Hawk Lane is going to be a The issues at Hawk Lane have been noted by problem for schools. the DOT&PF project team; however, this location is beyond the scope of this specific project. The highway improvement should extend to DOT&PF encourages the City of Houston to past Hawk Lane. A bottleneck created just prior propose/nominate and pursue development of to the high school seems dangerous. a project to address this issue. Consider extending project north to Hawk Lane The issues at Hawk Lane have been noted by to provide for Houston Middle and High School the DOT&PF project team; however, this access location is beyond the scope of this specific project. Houston Request State meet with Houston City Members of the DOT&PF project team met Planning commission. with the Houston City Council on 25 August 10. Meeting with Planning scheduled for 9/2/10. Houston planning commission, council and The project team is committed to working residents should be informed and be able to closely with the City of Houston in addressing voice their opinion. their concerns throughout the design process. Any project touching City of Houston property Members of the DOT&PF project team met would need to be considered by the City's with the Houston City Council on 25 August 10. Planning and Zoning Commission as required Meeting with Planning scheduled for 9/2/10. by city code. Intersection Intersection of Parks and the street just east of Specific intersection configurations will be Blondell Dr., “wide turn – semi in/out” developed in design phase to accommodate design vehicle. Recommend grade separated crossings at Current preferred alternative does not include Church Road & Parks Highway and railroad at any grade separated crossings. South Mack Drive. Intersection of Forest Lake Rd and Parks, Specific intersection configurations will be “potential bottleneck (existing?) add merge developed in design phase to accommodate lane? Sub. Left turn? design vehicle. Near/at intersection of S. Mack Drive and Current preferred alternative does not include Parks Hwy, “Grade Separation”, “Church/S. any grade separated crossings. Mack over Parks” Identify u-turns locations for large vehicles, Specific intersection configurations and Signing, Design. signage plans will be developed in design phase to accommodate design vehicle. Just south of Zak Lake, on the Parks, “Explore Median spacing of ½ mile is key component of moving median break back to Lamont Way.” project for maintaining roadway consistency and capacity.
200
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Comment Summary Response to Comment Extension of Marigold Dr across Parks and to The design team is committed to continued Meadow Lakes Rd., Consider relocation of new coordination with all property owners through alignment to avoid major impacts to RV Park ongoing public involvement and will coordinate Business. with owners of RV Business Park to minimize impacts. Intersection of extension of Marigold Dr and Specific intersection configurations will be Parks, “truck u-turn radii” developed in design phase to accommodate design vehicle. Intersection of Pittman Road and Parks, “Make Specific intersection configurations will be sure intersection can accommodate U-Turns developed in design phase to accommodate by semis.” design vehicle. Intersection of Pittman and Parks, “Grade Current preferred alternative does not include Sep”, “Pittman over Parks and ARR” any grade separated crossings. Consider reducing the curve at S. Rainbow St. Noted. DOT will revisit line and grade intersection is very hazardous to exit from investigation during design phase. today. I'm wondering if when it's really busy if a The 4-lane divided section with regularly person will be able to cross two lanes if they spaced median breaks will provide turn west on from Swan onto the freeway. opportunities through gaps in traffic. At break in median near MP 50, “To be Specific intersection configurations will be modified, full median break” developed in design phase to accommodate design vehicle. This median break will be evaluated for left turns in both directions. Concerns about the turn-arounds, that in an icy The 4-lane divided section was selected for situation in the winter that they're safe enough. functional class and safety. The median is a Make sure there's frontage roads all the way, safety feature. Frontage roads are currently the whole lane, so everyone has access. being upgraded in existing locations and extended where operations and driveway density dictate. Winter maintenance of roadway features is a priority for the DOT. Like 4 lane divided highway as presented, Access is provided via 1/2 mile median breaks need to allow ingress and egress at Elizabeth to balance competing needs of property access Drive. and local- and through-traffic movement. Intersection of Big Lake Road and Parks, “4 Specific intersection configurations will be lane transitions” developed in design phase to accommodate design vehicle. Median versus Center Turn Lane Like the divided highway, a lot safer - keep Intersection spacing is set at 1/2 mile for this access to the holiday gas station from Meadow project to balance competing needs of property Lakes Loop (rd.) access and through-traffic capacity. Prefer 5-lane for greater access to existing A divided highway with median balances businesses and residences. competing demands of through- and local traffic with established development adjacent to project. It enhances safety, preserves capacity and provides access. At the corner of Parks and Elizabeth, the Understand concern. Project strives to divided median in front of veterinary hospital balance local business access with highway concerns us greatly. Please consider limited safety. Specifics of access for each property left-turn access onto Elizabeth Street based on will be addressed during design phase. the nature of our business.
201
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Comment Summary Response to Comment Please do not add any median strips or Configuration of each intersection will be roadway blockages in front of Mile 50.2 to refined during the design phase, and it is come into Scheele Subdivision. expect this configuration may change; however, median break spacing is integral to the project's consistency of operation and improving safety. The project team is working to balance the need to serve development along the route with our mandate to improve safety and route capacity for all roadway users including both local and regional traffic. We like the opportunity for two-way left turn A divided highway with median is preferred lane traffic corridor for this existing commercial over the five-lane because it balances area. We anticipate much further commercial competing demands of through- and local development between Lucas and Church traffic with established development adjacent Road. to project. It is much more effective at reducing crashes and therefore enhancing safety. We'd like a turn lane in the middle. We'd like A divided highway with median is preferred to have access north and southbound. We over the five-lane because it balances don't want to lose any of our driveways. Even competing demands of through- and local more, we'd like the guys to show up at a traffic with established development adjacent planning committee and talk to the City of to project. It is much more effective at Houston and talk to our commissioners and reducing crashes and therefore enhancing talk to the residents and see if you can work safety. some stuff out. The highway should be 5 lane, too many A divided highway with median is preferred businesses will suffer due to no reasonable over the five-lane because it balances access. competing demands of through- and local traffic with established development adjacent to project. It is much more effective at reducing crashes and therefore enhancing safety. Consider: limited to no access without u-turn, A divided highway with median is preferred fire and ambulance response time of lack of. over the five-lane because it balances ATV vehicles safety, high speeds on highway, competing demands of through- and local a serious negative impact to small business. traffic with established development adjacent to project. It is much more effective at reducing crashes of the kind that plagues the Parks Highway. The median helps manage access. Can you please make a middle lane that will A divided highway with median is preferred allow for a crossover for commercial traffic at over the five-lane because it balances Scheele Subdivision from the East and from competing demands of through- and local the West so our business will have the traffic with established development adjacent necessary traffic to survive in this location? to project. It is much more effective at reducing crashes of the kind that plagues the Parks Highway. The median helps manage access.
202
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Comment Summary Response to Comment 4 lane depressed median highway, high speed A divided highway with median is preferred access is not in the best interest of the over the five-lane because it balances community. People impacted by this road are competing demands of through- and local against it. it is a poor design that limits or traffic with established development adjacent obstructs reasonable access to businesses to project. It is much more effective at and homes in the name of moving traffic faster. reducing crashes and therefore enhancing We have had children on their ATV’s hit by safety. vehicles on this highway and in one case killed while trying to cross the highway as well as numerous vehicle moose incidents. This design by DOT is nothing but a high speed traffic corridor that will in time increase from 55mph to 65mph. . If this 4 lane with a depressed median is the A divided highway with median is preferred only option that DOT is willing to do then I over the five-lane because it balances suggest no option. I was told that the reason competing demands of through- and local this road is being designed like this is because traffic with established development adjacent of federal dollars, and if this is true than shame to project. It is much more effective at on you! Build the road that works for us if you reducing crashes and therefore enhancing want to with State Dollars or may I suggest the safety. “No Build Option. Parks Highway from Pitman to Hawk Lane A divided highway with median is preferred should be a five lane road. Next, should over the five-lane because it balances bypass this fast growing area like Eagle River competing demands of through- and local was done years ago. traffic with established development adjacent to project. It is much more effective at reducing crashes and therefore enhancing safety. Current plan allows for plowed snow and ice to A divided highway with median is preferred be “burmed” alongside the lanes, causing over the five-lane because it balances vehicle accidents to remain on highway and competing demands of through- and local blocking highway traffic and emergency traffic with established development adjacent response vehicles. A 5 lane allows for plowing to project. It is much more effective at of all 5 lanes and eliminates the snow and ice reducing crashes and therefore enhancing barricades. safety. Would like divided highway in Wasilla and a A divided highway with median is preferred five-lane to define Meadow Lakes so the town over the five-lane because it balances keeps its identity. If four-lane divided, provide competing demands of through- and local frontage roads all the way, so everyone has traffic with established development adjacent access. to project. It is much more effective at reducing crashes and therefore enhancing safety. Approve of Divided Highway Comment noted. BLCC oppose 5-Lane option Comment noted. Ongoing Contact Please contact us during the design phase of The project team is committed to continued the road. public involvement throughout the design phase. Current mailing lists will be used to notify stakeholders of future commenting opportunities to ensure ongoing public input. Pathways Plan has good safety – However doesn’t seem Bikes are accommodated on multi-use to consider walkers and bikes OR public pathway. Bus stops not within scope of this transportation. project.
203
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Comment Summary Response to Comment Post Office Swan Road, where the post office is. I there The preferred alternative will address much of really needs to be a light there of some kind, the congestion and safety issues along the because that's probably one of the most corridor. Individual intersection configurations dangerous intersections there is right now. will be addressed in design phase and traffic signal needs will be assessed. There's a post office right there. It's not just The preferred alternative will address much of Swan Road. Getting in and out of the access the congestion and safety issues along the for the post office is bad. There's a bend in the corridor. Individual intersection configurations road there, so visibility is poor. will be addressed in design phase and traffic signal needs will be assessed. “Address turning improvements at Post Office” Specific intersection configurations will be developed in design phase to accommodate design vehicle. Project Information Looking for current information on project. Project website: www.parkshighway44-52.info Who to refer constituent with questions? DOT Project Manager Gerry Welsh 907-269- 0550 Request hard copy of the EA be sent to the Big Hardcopies distributed as requested. Lake Library and possibly the Willow, Trapper Creek and Talkeetna libraries. Property Impacts The proposed highway appears to affect the Project team committed to public coordination property owned by Church on the Rock. I throughout design process. would like to be kept informed of any developments and final plan Concerns about the affect of the project on Project team committed to public coordination Church parking lot. throughout design process. Property owner with concerns over ROW Referred to DOT&PF ROW staff. acquisition and selling property Public Hearing Conflicting Dates in News Letter Reminder Postcards sent out with date and time clarification. Request for moving the hearing date because Public Hearing date is set, but project team of conflict with the Borough Assembly members have scheduled and held additional meetings. Request team members come to the meetings to accommodate local governments. Big Lake Community Council Meeting on August 11th. Request change to meeting add City of Members of the DOT&PF project team met Houston with the Houston City Council on 25 August 10. Meeting with Planning scheduled for 9/2/10. Safety Improvement greatly needed, but prefer a 5- A divided highway with median is preferred lane section. over the five-lane because it balances competing demands of through- and local traffic with established development adjacent to project. It is much more effective at reducing crashes and therefore enhancing safety.
204
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Comment Summary Response to Comment Safety speeds up the time line of building the A divided highway with median is preferred road. Safety gets it funded. Safety requires it over the five-lane because it balances be a divided four lane. Safety may contribute competing demands of through- and local to this three mile piece of work not being as traffic with established development adjacent useful and practical as it could have been. to project. It is much more effective at Given all of the tradeoffs the very best road reducing crashes and therefore enhancing should emerge not one dominated by a sole safety. overarching concept. Schedule At this point, there's no reason to deny us Center median is a safety feature. Specifics of access. Based on your own traffic studies and transition beyond Big Lake Road will be numbers, well, in 20 years we may need to do handled in design phase. it. Construction Schedule It is anticipated this project will develop in three phases, progressing from east, in Wasilla, to west, Houston. As indicated in the current Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, design of the earliest phase of the project may begin next year, with a best case scenario for construction of the first phase beginning as early as 2014, depending upon funding. When is the approximate date construction It is anticipated this project will develop in three would start? Businesses would like to begin phases, progressing from east, in Wasilla, to planning for the construction. west, Houston. As indicated in the current Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, design of the earliest phase of the project may begin next year, with a best case scenario for construction of the first phase beginning as early as 2014, depending upon funding. Construction Schedule & Concerns It is anticipated this project will develop in three phases, progressing from east, in Wasilla, to west, Houston. As indicated in the current Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, design of the earliest phase of the project may begin next year, with a best case scenario for construction of the first phase beginning as early as 2014, depending upon funding. When will the project start? It is anticipated this project will develop in three phases, progressing from east, in Wasilla, to west, Houston. As indicated in the current Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, design of the earliest phase of the project may begin next year, with a best case scenario for construction of the first phase beginning as early as 2014, depending upon funding. The project should be phased in 2 segments This is likely going to be constructed in 3 with Lucus to Pitman first with 4 lanes. phases. Early construction of Machen Rd.very The Machen Road project is being developed important for traffic (north of businesses along by the MSB. Information on this project is Parks at about MP 45-46) available on the "Parks Highway Connectors" link at the Parks Highway projects' website.
205
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Comment Summary Response to Comment This project must move ahead on a “fast track” Comment noted. basis. It is 5 years behind schedule. I propose limited left turns lanes. Most if not all should be at a controlled intersection. Speed limit of 60 mph. Snowmachine & ATV Need a place that the snowmachines could The scope of this project includes improvement cross from Pittman to the other side of the of the existing pedestrian facilities. Non- highway. Or do they have to use the stop motorized crossing will be provided at lights -- pedestrian stop lights for all of them? designated breaks, and non-motorized travel What about horses? There's no place for will be provided parallel to the highway on actually a crossing like underneath, maybe a parallel facilities. There is no specific big culvert underneath the freeway. accommodation of snow machines or ATV's provided.
Would like to see accommodations for ATV, The scope of this project includes improvement snowmachines, pedestrian, equestrian, traffic of the existing pedestrian facilities. Non- from Pittman to the other side of the highway. motorized crossing will be provided at designated breaks, and non-motorized travel will be provided parallel to the highway on parallel facilities. There is no specific accommodation of snow machines or ATV's provided.
Provide access & ATV trails to maintain The scope of this project includes improvement community character of the existing pedestrian facilities. Non- motorized crossing will be provided at designated breaks, and non-motorized travel will be provided parallel to the highway on parallel facilities. There is no specific accommodation of snow machines or ATV's provided.
Speed Can speed be reduced to 45 or 50 mph from The design speed of the facility is 55 MPH Church to Pittman? They drive way too fast. based on current design and safety standards. Speed Limit will increase—if your current plan The design speed of the facility is 55 MPH for the highway is as drawn with a depressed based on current design and safety standards. median it should be the “no build” option. DOT claims this is one of the most dangerous Moose collisions are a concern. A key road ways in South Central, a faster speed limit component of the preferred alternative is full should not be an option! ATV and Moose length illumination of the facility, a measure crashes and the cost to small businesses that intended in part to reduce moose/vehicle are the backbone of the community. collisions. Support Support Project Comment noted. Traffic Signals Intersection of Big Lake Road and Parks, Individual intersection configurations will be “Install signal, needed to accommodate turning addressed in design phase and traffic signal truck traffic” needs will be assessed.
206
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Comment Summary Response to Comment Concerns over signal function and Individual intersection configurations will be synchronization at specific intersections. addressed in design phase and traffic signal needs will be assessed. Effective overall operation of traffic signalization systems is a priority for the DOT&PF, and the Department is committed to ensuring signals along this and all its facilities are configured to optimal operation. Need a stoplight at Johnsons Road. Individual intersection configurations will be addressed in design phase and traffic signal needs will be assessed. Intersection of Parks and Johnsons Rd., Individual intersection configurations will be “Consider light here to accommodate turning addressed in design phase and traffic signal truck traffic.” needs will be assessed. Turning the light on to caution for the Parks Noted. This suggestion has been forwarded to Highway and red for the side streets after the regional Traffic and Safety section. 10:00 at night, and that would be the traffic lights from Lowe's all the way up through Lucas, Vine on the Parks Highway Parks from Wasilla to Big Lake on a Friday The preferred alternative is intended to afternoon, or holiday weekend, between 4 and address much of the congestion and safety 6 pm traffic backs up from the Pittman to the issues along the corridor. railroad overcross or even to Lamont Way-- sometimes more. Traffic Signal at Stanley On recent information received, a stop light Individual intersection configurations will be may not be planned at Stanley until many addressed in design phase and traffic signal years into the future--maybe it was 2020. With needs will be assessed. A signal at Stanley is the traffic now why must we wait 5-10 years? included in a recent state legislative appropriation package and a signal may be installed in advance of project. Big concern Lamont and Stanley accesses Individual intersection configurations will be very dangerous now with volume and speed of addressed in design phase and traffic signal traffic. Light at Stanley very important. needs will be assessed. A signal at Stanley is included in a recent state legislative appropriation package and a signal may be installed in advance of project. Signal at intersection of Stanley Rd and Parks, Individual intersection configurations will be “This light is necessary asap” addressed in design phase and traffic signal needs will be assessed. A signal at Stanley is included in a recent state legislative appropriation package and a signal may be installed in advance of project. What is the specific plan for a stop light at Individual intersection configurations will be Stanley? What is the actual construction addressed in design phase and traffic signal timeframe? needs will be assessed. A signal at Stanley is included in a recent state legislative appropriation package and a signal may be installed in advance of project. Construction schedule of any signal in advance of this project will be coordinated with the development of the Parks Highway improvements. Stanley Road is within what is anticipated as a second phase of the Parks project. The DOT&PF intends to expedite 207
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Comment Summary Response to Comment coordination of the Stanley project to the extent possible.
Safety at Stanley and Lamont has been a huge Individual intersection configurations will be concern and past accidents have shown that. addressed in design phase and traffic signal needs will be assessed. A signal at Stanley is included in a recent state legislative appropriation package and a signal may be installed in advance of project. Stanley Drive Signal Installation Timing Individual intersection configurations will be addressed in design phase and traffic signal needs will be assessed. A signal at Stanley is included in a recent state legislative appropriation package and a signal may be installed in advance of project. The team overlooked access on to and out of Individual intersection configurations will be Stanley Drive. A "future signal 2020" is too far addressed in design phase and traffic signal out and that a signal is needed now. needs will be assessed. A signal at Stanley is included in a recent state legislative appropriation package and a signal may be installed in advance of project. Travel Time Will travel time between Pittman and Big Lake The preferred alternative is anticipated to would be improved (better flowing) with the improve traffic flow and decrease travel time. proposed changes? Typical Section Will the project be a divided highway with a The preferred alternative is a divided highway frontage road? with partial frontage roads between Church Road and Big Lake Road. Utilities In 1983 widening, problem with the location of Public and agency coordination of project will the natural gas line and the bike path, so could continue through the design, right-of-way and not put in the sewer and water. Said they construction phases. This coordination would bring it in the next time they had a road includes utility interests along the project route. project in our area. Please contact the city of Wasilla about water Public and agency coordination of project will and sewer to the property. continue through the design, right-of-way and construction phases. This coordination includes utility interests along the project route. MEA is planning system improvement work in Design phase of the project is expected to the area of the Parks Hwy 44-52 project. What begin in 2011. Coordination with utilities is construction timeline, any updated info involved with the project will be a key part of available? the design process. The website will be reflecting scheduling.
208
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Notification of availability for review was sent to federal, state and local agencies. Comments received from USEPA, USFWS, ADFG and ARRC are summarized with DOT&PF responses in Table 27. Copies of the agency responses are included in Appendix L.
Table 27: Comments Received during Formal Comment Period on EA
Comment Summary Response to Comment United States Environmental Protection Agency General: EPA Requests alternatives analysis for DOT&PF consulted with the USACE during individual project components that require development of this EA and will continue to Section 404 authorization. Requests coordinate with the USACE and other interested supplemental information regarding the regulatory agencies during final design of the practicability of various alternatives to proposed project. DOT&PF has completed a thorough discharges will need to be provided to support a analysis of alternatives, which addresses Section 404 permitting action. avoidance, minimization, and compensatory measures taken to reduce impacts to all waterways and wetlands. DOT&PF expects to submit a permit application in 2012 for one or Additional information regarding avoidance and more phases of the project and will provide the minimization of impacts to wetlands will need to analysis to the USACE with permit application. be provided to support Section 404 permitting This analysis has been inserted into Appendix actions. E. Section 4.10 Wetland Resources: This Section does not reference or discuss In response to early coordination with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the Clean Water USACE, the DOT&PF performed a Practical Act. Alternatives Analysis. The required information is contained in the Only Practicable Alternative and Section 404 (b)(1) Analysis in Appendix E. The analysis describes the alternatives considered, avoidance and minimization measures, and a preliminary proposal to compensate for unavoidable wetlands impacts.
Why was bridging not evaluated as a One of the primary purposes of constructing a practicable alternative to avoid riparian wetland bridge of Little Meadow Creek is to reduce impacts at Little Meadow Creek? Why did impacts to the creek and adjacent wetlands, DOT&PF only look at bridging the Creek which would allow the creek system to return to waterway? a more natural state. The most appropriate method for crossing Little Meadow Creek will be determined during final design of project development. This decision will be based on costs, existing technology, logistics, and constructability. DOT&PF will consider all possible methods to avoid and minimize impacts to the entire riparian area.
209
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Comment Summary Response to Comment Section 4.11 Water Body Modification: This section of the EA does not reference the The most practicable method for crossing Little 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the Clean Water Act, but Meadow Creek will be determined during final it should. This section also does not discuss design of the project. The DOT&PF will conduct water body impact avoidance and minimization. further avoidance and minimization analysis prior to submission of the USACE permit application.
DOT&PF should look at all crossing to be fully DOT&PF will consider all methods to eliminate bridged including the riparian wetlands. and reduce impacts to the creek and adjacent wetlands (which would include bridging the entire riparian area) during the final design phase of the project.
United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Fish Passage/Hydrologic Function/Wetlands To avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic and DOT&PF will consider all methods to eliminate riparian habitats, all crossings should consist of and reduce impacts to the creek and adjacent a bridge or culvert that spans the floodplain, wetlands (which would include bridging the thereby providing for long-term dynamic channel entire riparian area) during the final design stability, retention of existing spawning habitats, phase of the project. maintenance of food (benthic invertebrate) production, and minimization of risk of failure.
Terrestrial Wildlife Corridors and Passages Recommend a comprehensive analysis of the All moose-vehicle collision information project on a mile-by-mile basis using actual presented in the EA is in accordance with collision locations. Additionally, preconstruction current DOT&PF methodology for evaluating baseline studies should be conducted to mitigation measures. As noted in Section 3.9, quantify and provide more accurate numbers DOT&PF will consider the use of localized related to wildlife crossings in the area. fencing during final design. Additionally, DOT&PF will commit to additional moose studies and evaluate additional moose mitigation measures during final design.
At MP 46.6 the Service believes the underpass DOT&PF will further consider the underpass culvert alternative to be practicable and culvert alternative during final design phase of recommends that it be evaluated further in an project development. effort to provide wildlife passage and maintain habitat connectivity in a known wildlife corridor.
CWCS and MBTA and ESA "Land Clearing Timing Guidance for Alaska" These guidelines will be followed during should be followed to ensure project construction of the project. development is in compliance with the MBTA.
210
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Comment Summary Response to Comment Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensatory Mitigation Recommend DOT&PF work with fish and DOT&PF will continue to coordinate with wildlife resource agencies to identify appropriate interested resource agencies during the final compensatory mitigation using a watershed design phase of the project to identify approach. appropriate level of compensatory mitigation, if required.
Recommend additional analysis be conducted DOT&PFwill conduct further analysis of at both the aquatic crossings and known wildlife avoidance and minimization measured during crossing areas. the design phase of the project.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game The Parks Highway has been responsible for All moose-vehicle collision information 30% of all the moose-vehicle collisions within presented in the EA is in accordance with the last 10 years. Further analysis of the data current DOT&PF methodology for evaluating shows that within the stretch of road between mitigation measures. As noted in Section 3.9, milepost 40 and 64, most accidents happen DOT&PF will consider the use of localized between milepost 44 and 49; roughly the area fencing during final design. Additionally, between Church Road and Pittman Road in DOT&PF will conduct additional moose studies Wasilla. This area includes most of the project and evaluate reasonable moose mitigation area for the Parks Highway MP 44-52. This is measures during the final design phase of the obviously an appropriate location to improve project. efforts to reduce VMC's.
Any road improvements that will allow motorists This information will be incorporated into to increase their speed will more than likely evaluation of additional moose mitigation result in an increase in the number and severity measures during final design. of VMC's. Also, the additional lanes will result in a higher probability for a VMC. The Parks Highway MP 22-52 project is an opportunity to substantially reduce the potential for this area becoming the worst VMC corridor in the state.
Consideration for additional lighting, directed These potential mitigation measures will be fencing (in portions of the corridor), flashing incorporated into additional moose mitigation warning lights (triggered by moose crossings), measures to be evaluated in final design. underpasses and/or overpasses, and other methods to mitigate the potential for VMC's should be appropriate and thorough.
Alternatives for moose passage that explore These potential alternatives will be incorporated ideas or concepts that are unique or innovative into additional moose mitigation measures to be should be at least discussed. For example, the evaluated in final design. use of the Parks Highway overpass of the Alaska Railroad corridor as a moose pass may have potential if agency coordination and appropriate design are set as priorities for mitigation by those involved.
211
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Comment Summary Response to Comment Alaska Railroad Corporation Lucus Road, Hallea Road Intersection The queuing space for the south-bound right Intersection configuration is a design level turn into Hallea Road should be carefully determination. DOT&PF will consider queuing considered. The current shoulder space, while space for turning movements in final design. adequate for today’s traffic volume, may need to be improved to accommodate future traffic. The left turn north-bound traffic signal queuing needs to be preserved as well.
Church Road, South Mack Drive Intersection The City of Wasilla is actively planning the DOT&PF will coordinate with ARRC and the grade-separation of Church Road and South City of Wasilla regarding projects planned in the Mack Drive. Your plans should be closely vicinity. coordinated with this effort. The grade- separation will include a highway over of the Alaska Railroad. The City of Wasilla is also planning an DOT&PF will coordinate with the City of Wasilla intermodal facility near the northern end of the regarding projects planned in the vicinity. Wasilla Airport probably close to the Transportation Museum. When this facility is completed the depot at Knik-Goose Bay Road and the Parks Highway will no longer be utilized by the Railroad.
The new intermodal facility will also serve future DOT&PF will coordinate with ARRC and the commuter rail service. The station is expected City of Wasilla regarding projects planned in the to generate considerable traffic during peak vicinity. commuter hours from commuters living in the Nancy Lake, Big Lake, Meadow Lake and the local Wasilla area. While we would expect Wasilla traffic will be accommodated by other road improvements to the South, such as the project to extend South Mack Drive, the south- bound traffic on the Parks Highway is likely to use Museum Drive. You need to consider this in your plans.
Vine Road Intersection Your photo indicates a DOT right-of-way across Aerial photos show ROW as derived from Tax the railroad tracks into the gravel pit operation at Maps. All ROW will be verified by mapping. Vine (north of the Parks Highway). Our land records do not indicate such an easement. Could you provide the appropriate documentation that supports the DOT owned right-of-way?
212
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Comment Summary Response to Comment Pittman, Sylvan Road Intersection The Meadow Lakes Community has expressed Comment Noted. No grade separated a strong desire this intersection be grade- intersections are planned as part of this project. separated. This was discussed during the development of the Meadow Lakes Comprehensive Plan and continues to be an item of input during your public meetings on this project. Pittman Road is the only access to the elementary school, fire station and several housing developments north of the Parks Highway. While the Railroad does not normally block this intersection during gravel loading operations, it does occur on occasion. This is cause for great concern for the community
The Alaska Railroad strongly encourages DOT Due to funding and scope restraints, DOT&PF consider acquiring the appropriate right-of-way is not planning to purchase ROW beyond that during this project to preserve the land for an required by this action. interchange at this location.
Marigold, Museum Drive Intersection This intersection may also capture commuter DOT&PF will address during the final design traffic from Big Lake and Nancy Lake into the phase of project development with other commuter intermodal facility. Preservation of a intersection configuration details. right-turn lane for south-bound commuters should be considered. Consideration of a future traffic signal to allow for a safe left turn from Marigold onto the Parks Highway may be appropriate as well.
In response to stakeholder input, the DOT&PF committed to the following measures during the design phase of project development:
Work closely with the cities of Wasilla and Houston and the Meadow Lakes community to address their concerns throughout the design process; Continue public involvement throughout the design phase of project development; Develop specific intersection configurations to accommodate safe emergency and commercial vehicle access; Work with property owners to minimize impacts while adhering to design and safety standards; Continue coordination with the West Lakes Fire Department on design details affecting their planned development of property adjacent to project; Continue coordination with the MSB and other planning agencies to obtain current information on all projects in the vicinity of the project; Re-evaluate the line and grade at the S. Rainbow St. intersection; Ensure signals are configured for optimal operation; Coordinate design and construction of a signal at Stanley Road with this project;
213
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Conduct additional analysis of moose-vehicle collisions and possible mitigation measures to reduce these collisions; and Conduct additional analysis of avoidance and minimization alternatives at Little Meadow Creek and the Wasilla Railroad Crossing.
214
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
7 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2001. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fourth Edition.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. April 2008. Alaska’s Final 2008 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Spill Prevention and Response. Contaminated Sites Program.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Spill Prevention and Response. Contaminated Sites Program, Contaminated Sites and Leaking and Underground Storage Tank Database.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation. February 2009. Region II Briefing Book.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation. Endangered Species in Alaska.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Notebook Series. Eagles. http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/bird/eagles.php. Accessed May 4, 2010.
Alaska Department of Natural Resource, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Office of History & Archaeology. https://dnr.alaska.gov/ohasecurity/portal. Accessed January 12, 2010.
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. May 2006. Parks Highway Visioning Document.
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. September 2009. Parks Highway, MP 44-52, Preliminary Engineering Report.
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. August 2006. Safety Corridor Study, Parks Highway: MP 44-56, Lucus Road (Wasilla) to Houston.
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. November 2009. Safety Corridors – 2009 Review (Second annual audit).
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) 2006-2009.
217
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. April 2009. Traffic Noise Abatement Guidance.
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. 2005-07 Annual Traffic Volume Report, Central Region.
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. 2008. Mat-Su Valley Traffic Map.
Alaska Multiple Listing Service, Inc.
Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska Anchorage. http://akweeds.uaa.alaska.edu/. Accessed April 2, 2010.
Brooks & Associates, website, http://www.brooks-alaska.com/contactus.htm Accessed May 12, 2010.
Carter, H. and S. Sealy. 2005. Who solved the mystery of the Marbled Murrelet? Northwest Nat. 86(1): 2-11.
City-Data.
City of Houston. July 2003. City of Houston Comprehensive Plan.
City of Wasilla. April 1996. Comprehensive Plan City Approved Draft.
City of Wasilla. Official Streets & Highways Plan FY 2005-2025.
Cowardin, Lewis M. Carter, Virginia, Golet, Francis C., and LaRoe, Edward. Classification of Wetland and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C., 131pp.
Environmental Protection Agency. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants.
Environmental Protection Agency. Comprehensive environmental response compensation and liability information system.
Environmental Protection Agency. National Priorities List.
Federal Register, Volume 59, N. 32. February 1994. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.
218
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1985. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Matanuska- Susitna Borough, Alaska. Panel No. 020021 9630 C, 020021 9650 C and 020021 9675 C.
Federal Highway Administration. 1992. Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Part 772.
Federal Highway Administration. March 1981. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. FHWA-HI-88-054.
Federal Highway Administration. Congestion Mitigation Air Quality.
Federal Highway Administration. Planning Glossary.
Johnson, J. and Weiss, Ed. June 2007. Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing, or Migration of Anadromous Fishes – Southcentral Region. Special Publication No. 07.05. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Research and Technical Services.
Kavolok, T. P. 2008. Unit 14A Moose Management Report. Pages 165-179 in P. Harper, editor. Moose management report of survey and inventory activities 1July 205-30 June 2007. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Proejct 1.0. Juneau, Alaska.
Kinney Engineering, LLC and Hattenburg, Dilley and Linell, LLC. September 2007. Parks Highway MP 44-52.3 Traffic Analyses and Alternative Development Report.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough. December 2008. Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough. February 2007. Long-Range Transportation Plan.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Department of Planning and Land Use. 2007 Update. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Core Area Comprehensive Plan.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Department of Planning and Land Use. 2003 Fact Book.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough. August 2006. Coastal Management Program, Volume 1, Enforceable and Administrative Policies.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough. My Property.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Public Lands Viewer.
Meadow Lakes Community Council. October 2005. Meadow Lakes Comprehensive Plan
219
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 1997. Report 395 Capacity and Operational Effects of Midblock Left-Turn Lanes.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries. Species Under the Endangered Species Act.
U. S. Census Bureau. 2000. Quick Facts.
U. S. Census Bureau. 2000. Fact Finder.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region. List of Alaska’s Endangered Species
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region. Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Wetland Delineation Manual.
U.S Bureau of Census. 2000. Census 2000 Summary Files 1 and 3.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 2009. Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 14, January 23, 2009, pp. 4199-4201
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Safe Access is Good for Business. August, pp. 1-14 Left-Turn Lanes Effects of
220
Parks Highway: MP 44-52 Lucus Road to Big Lake Road
Appendix A: Parks Highway Corridor Management Plan Appendix B: Alternative Analysis Appendix C: Conceptual Stage Relocation Study Appendix D: Traffic Noise Study Appendix E: Wetlands Appendix F: Moose-Vehicle Collision Analysis Appendix G: Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Appendix H: Section 106 Consultation Appendix I: Phase I Site Assessment Appendix J: Scoping Summary Report Appendix K: Agency and Public Involvement Appendix L: Formal Public Involvement Appendix M: Draft Permit Applications
221
State of Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EVALUATION FORM FOR FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION PROJECTS Project Name: Parks Highway & Big Lake Road Intersection Project Number (state/federal): Project C Date: 4/3/17 Document Type: CE
CE Designation: 23 CFR 771.117 ( )( ) EA EIS Approval Date of Original Environmental Document: September 2010 Date(s) of Previous Re-evaluation(s): N/A List of Attachments:
I. Proposed Action N/A YES NO Have there been any changes to the following since the approval of the original environmental document: 1. The project scope? 2. The project design? 3. The project funding sources? 4. Describe changes, including prior re-evaluations, compared to original environmental document: N/A II. Purpose and Need N/A YES NO 1. Have there been any changes in the project purpose and need from that described in the original approved environmental document? 2. Describe changes, including prior re-evaluations, compared to original environmental document: N/A III. Environmental Consequences N/A YES NO Identify (yes or no) if there have been any changes in project impacts from those identified in the original environmental document, including prior re-evaluations. For each “yes”, describe changes, including any changes to previously proposed mitigation and/or environmental commitments compared to original environmental document including any changes to previously proposed mitigation and/or environmental commitments. Attach any supporting analysis or studies as attachments. 1. Have there been any changes in the affected environment within or adjacent to the project area that could affect any of the impact categories (e.g. new regulations, transportation infrastructure, protected resources, land use plans, etc.)?
Parks Highway & Big Lake Road Intersection 1 of 9 Environmental Re-Evaluation Form Project C February 2016
III. Environmental Consequences N/A YES NO 2. Describe changes compared to original environmental document: N/A A. Right-of-Way Impacts N/A YES NO Have there been any changes to the following since the approval of the original environmental document: 1. The right-of-way requirements for the project? 2. The project’s effects on minority or low income populations as defined in E.O. 12898 (FHWA Order 6640.23A, June 2012)? 3. The project’s use of ANILCA land? 4. Describe changes compared to original environmental document:
B. Social and Cultural Impacts N/A YES NO Have there been any changes to the following since the approval of the original environmental document: 1. The project’s effect on neighborhoods or community cohesion? 2. The project’s effect on travel patterns and accessibility (e.g. vehicular, commuter, bicycle, or pedestrian)? 3. The project’s effect on schools, recreation areas, churches, businesses, police and fire protection, etc.? 4. The project’s effect on the elderly, handicapped, non-drivers, transit-dependent, minority and ethnic groups, or the economically disadvantaged? 5. Unresolved project issues or concerns of a federally recognized Indian Tribe [as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(m)]? 6. Describe changes compared to original environmental document:
C. Economic Impacts N/A YES NO Have there been any changes to the following since the approval of the original environmental document: 1. The project’s potential to have adverse economic impacts on the regional and/or local economy, such as the effects of the project on development, tax revenues and public expenditures, employment opportunities, accessibility, and retail sales? 2. The project’s potential to have an adverse effect on established businesses or business districts? 3. Describe changes compared to original environmental document:
D. Local Land Use and Transportation Plan N/A YES NO Have there been any changes to the following since the approval of the original environmental document: 1. Local land use or transportation plan(s)? 2. The potential for the project to have adverse indirect and cumulative effects on land use or transportation? 3. Is the project, as currently proposed, consistent with current land use and transportation plans?
Parks Highway & Big Lake Road Intersection 2 of 9 Environmental Re-Evaluation Form Project C February 2016 D. Local Land Use and Transportation Plan N/A YES NO 4. Describe changes compared to original environmental document:
E. Impacts to Historic Properties N/A YES NO Have there been any changes to the following since the approval of the original environmental document: 1. The status of National Register-listed or eligible sites in the project area? 2. The involvement of any road that is included on the “List of Roads Treated as Eligible” in the Alaska Historic Roads PA? 3. The conclusions reached in the original environmental document regarding the project’s effect on cultural and historical resources? 4. The project activities described in consultation or findings letters previously submitted SHPO or other consulting parties? 5. Describe changes, including any changes to previously proposed mitigation and/or environmental commitments compared to original environmental document:
F. Wetlands Impacts N/A YES NO Have there been any changes to the following since the approval of the original environmental document: 1. The project’s wetland impacts? If yes, complete a through d and resource agency coordination is required. a. List total acres of impact (original/changed): b. List total fill quantities in wetlands (original/changed): c. List total dredge quantities (original/changed): d. Have mitigation measures changed? 2. Describe changes, including any changes to previously proposed mitigation and/or environmental commitments compared to original environmental document: Pending Design G. Water Body Involvement N/A YES NO Have there been any changes to the following since the approval of the original environmental document: 1. The project’s effects on water bodies? 2. The project’s effects on a navigable water body as defined by USCG (Section 9)? 3. The project’s effects on Waters of the U.S. as defined by the USACE (Section 404)? 4. The project’s effects on Navigable Waters of the U.S. as defined by the USACE (Section 10)? 5. The project’s effect on a resident fish stream (Title 16.05.841)? 6. The project’s effects on a Catalogued Anadromous Fish Stream (Title 16.05.871)? 7. The project’s effects on a designated Wild and Scenic River or land adjacent to a Wild and Scenic River? 8. Describe changes, including any changes to previously proposed mitigation and/or environmental commitments compared to original environmental document:
Parks Highway & Big Lake Road Intersection 3 of 9 Environmental Re-Evaluation Form Project C February 2016 H. Fish and Wildlife Impacts N/A YES NO Have there been any changes to the following since the approval of the original environmental document: 1. The project’s effects on anadromous or resident fish habitat? 2. The project’s effects on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)? 3. The project’s effects on wildlife resources? 4. The project’s effect on bald eagles or golden eagles? 5. The project’s compliance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act? 6. The project’s effect on migratory birds? 7. The project’s compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act? 8. Describe changes, including any changes to previously proposed mitigation and/or environmental commitments compared to original environmental document:
I. Threatened and Endangered Species (T&E) Impacts N/A YES NO Have there been any changes to the following since the approval of the original environmental document: 1. The status of listed, proposed or candidate T&E species that will be directly or indirectly affected by the project? 2. The status of critical habitat in the project area? 3. The project’s effect on listed, proposed or candidate T&E species or designated critical habitat? 4. Describe changes, including any changes to previously proposed mitigation and/or environmental commitments compared to original environmental document:
J. Invasive Species N/A YES NO Have there been any changes to the following since the approval of the original environmental document: 1. The measures that will be used to minimize the introduction or spread of invasive species? 2. The project’s consistency with E.O. 13112 (Invasive Species)? 3. Describe changes, including any changes to previously proposed mitigation and/or environmental commitments compared to original environmental document:
K. Hazardous Waste N/A YES NO Have there been any changes to the following since the approval of the original environmental document: 1. The status of known or potentially contaminated sites within or adjacent to the existing and/or proposed ROW? 2. Any proposed excavation plans adjacent to, or within, a known hazardous waste site? 3. The potential for encountering hazardous waste during construction? 4. Describe changes, including any changes to previously proposed mitigation and/or environmental commitments compared to original environmental document:
Parks Highway & Big Lake Road Intersection 4 of 9 Environmental Re-Evaluation Form Project C February 2016 L. Air Quality (Conformity) N/A YES NO Have there been any changes to the following since the approval of the original environmental document: 1. The project’s effect on a nonattainment area or maintenance area, which will require a new or revised conformity determination? 2. Describe changes, including any changes to previously proposed mitigation and/or environmental commitments compared to original environmental document:
M. Floodplains Impacts N/A YES NO Have there been any changes to the following since the approval of the original environmental document: 1. The project’s encroachment into the 100-year floodplain (i.e. base floodplain in fresh or marine waters). If yes, attach documentation of public involvement conducted per E.O. 11988 and 23 CFR 650.109. Consultation with a regional or statewide Hydraulics/Hydrology expert and a location hydraulic study will be required per 23 CFR 650.111(c). 2. The project’s potential to have significant encroachment as defined by 23 CFR 650.105(q)? 3. The project’s potential to encroach on a regulatory floodway? 4. The status of local flood hazard ordinances? 5. The project’s consistency with local flood protection standards and E.O. 11988? 6. Describe changes, including any changes to previously proposed mitigation and/or environmental commitments compared to original environmental document:
N. Noise Impacts N/A YES NO 1. Does the project as currently proposed involve any of the activities, listed below, that would trigger the need for a noise analysis? Activity list: • Construction of a highway on a new location • Substantial alteration in vertical or horizontal alignment as defined in 23 CFR 772.5 • Increase in the number of through lanes • Addition of an auxiliary lane (except a turn lane) • Addition or relocation of interchange lanes or ramps added to a quadrant to complete an existing partial interchange • Restriping existing pavement for the purpose of adding a through-traffic lane or an auxiliary lane • Addition of a new or substantial alteration of a weigh station, rest stop, ride share lot or toll plaza) 2. Was a noise analysis completed on the original project? a. Was the noise analysis completed prior to implementation of the final noise rule (23 CFR 772) and the current DOT&PF Noise Policy (April 2011)? NOTE: If yes, the project likely needs a revised noise analysis to comply with the current noise rule. 3. If the project needed a noise analysis are there any newly identified noise sensitive receivers in the project area? 4. Describe results of a new noise analysis, identification of new impacts, newly identified noise sensitive receivers or changes in noise abatement measures
Parks Highway & Big Lake Road Intersection 5 of 9 Environmental Re-Evaluation Form Project C February 2016 N. Noise Impacts N/A YES NO compared to original environmental document:
O. Water Quality Impacts N/A YES NO Have there been any changes to the following since the approval of the original environmental document: 1. The project’s involvement with a public or private drinking water source? 2. The project’s effect on discharges of storm water into Waters of the U.S.? 3. The project’s effect on ADEC designated Impaired Waterbody? 4. The project’s involvement with an area that is covered by a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) APDES permit? 5. The potential for the project’s runoff to be mixed with discharges from an APDES permitted industrial facility? 6. The potential for the project to discharge storm water to a water body within a national park or state park, a national or state wildlife refuge? If yes and an Alaska Construction General Permit applies to the project, consultation with ADEC is required at least 30 days prior to planned start of construction activities. 7. Describe changes, including any changes to previously proposed mitigation and/or environmental commitments compared to original environmental document:
P. Construction Impacts N/A YES NO Have there been any changes to the following since the approval of the original environmental document: 1. Temporary degradation of water quality? 2. Temporary stream diversion? 3. Temporary degradation of air quality? 4. Temporary delays and detours of traffic? 5. Temporary impacts on businesses? 6. Temporary noise impacts? 7. Other construction impacts? 8. Describe changes, including any changes to previously proposed mitigation and/or environmental commitments compared to original environmental document:
Q. Section 4(f)/6(f) N/A YES NO Have there been any changes to the following since the approval of the original environmental document: 1. The status of Section 4(f) properties affected by the proposed action or the project’s effects on such properties? 2. The determination of whether the project would “use” land from a Section 4(f) property? 3. The status of Section 6(f) properties affected by the proposed action? 4. The determination of whether the use of a Section 6(f) property is a “conversion of use” per Section 6(f) of the LWCFA? If yes to any of the above, attach appropriate Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) documentation.
Parks Highway & Big Lake Road Intersection 6 of 9 Environmental Re-Evaluation Form Project C February 2016 Q. Section 4(f)/6(f) N/A YES NO 5. Describe changes, including any changes to previously proposed mitigation and/or environmental commitments compared to original environmental document:
IV. Permits and Authorizations N/A YES NO Have there been any changes to the status of the following permits and authorizations since the approval of the original environmental document: 1. USACE, Section 404/10 Includes Abbreviated Permit Process, Nationwide Permit, and General Permit 2. Coast Guard, Section 9 3. ADF&G Fish Habitat Permit (Title 16.05.871 and Title 16.05.841) 4. Flood Hazard 5. ADEC Non-domestic Wastewater Plan Approval 6. ADEC 401 7. ADEC APDES 8. Noise 9. Eagle Permit 10. Other. If yes, list below.
11. Describe changes compared to original environmental document:
V. Comments and Coordination Conducted for the Re-evaluation N/A YES NO 1. Has public/agency coordination occurred since the original environmental document was approved? 2. Describe all outreach and coordination efforts taken for this project since approval of the original environmental document. Discuss pertinent issues raised by the public and other agencies. Attach applicable correspondence and responses.
VI. Changes in Environmental Commitments or Mitigation Measures N/A YES NO 1. Have there been any changes in the environmental commitments or proposed mitigation? 2. Describe all changes compared to original environmental document:
VII. Environmental Re-evaluation Determination N/A YES NO 1. The conclusions of the original environmental document approval remain valid. 2. The project meets the criteria of the DOT&PF Programmatic Approval 2 authorized in the December 8, 2015 “Chief Engineer Directive – 6004 Programmatic Categorical Exclusions”. If yes, the Re-evaluation may be approved by the Regional Environmental Manager. If no, the Re-evaluation must be approved by a Statewide NEPA Manager. 3. The project meets the criteria of the April 13, 2012 “Programmatic Categorical Exclusion for Use on Federal-Aid Highway Projects in Alaska” agreement between FHWA and DOT&PF. If yes, the Re-evaluation may be approved by the Regional Environmental Manager. If no, the Re-evaluation may be approved by the FHWA
Parks Highway & Big Lake Road Intersection 7 of 9 Environmental Re-Evaluation Form Project C February 2016 VII. Environmental Re-evaluation Determination N/A YES NO Area Engineer. 4. The changes in the project scope, environmental consequences, environmental commitments or public controversy require a new or supplemental environmental document. If yes, consultation with the FHWA Area Engineer and the FHWA NEPA Project Manager or DOT&PF Statewide NEPA Manager is required.
Parks Highway & Big Lake Road Intersection 8 of 9 Environmental Re-Evaluation Form Project C February 2016
VIII. Environmental Documentation Approval Signatures
Prepared by: ______Date: [Sign] Environmental Impact Analyst
______[Print Name] Environmental Impact Analyst
Reviewed by: ______Date: [Sign] Engineering Manager
______[Print Name] Engineering Manager
Approved by: ______Date: [Sign] Regional Environmental Manager
______[Print Name] Regional Environmental Manager
Assigned CE Re-evaluation
Approved by: ______Date: [Sign] DOT&PF Statewide NEPA Manager
______[Print Name] DOT&PF Statewide NEPA Manager
Non-Assigned CE Re-evaluation
Approved by: ______Date: [Sign] FHWA Area Engineer or FHWA NEPA Project Manager
______[Print Name] FHWA Area Engineer or FHWA NEPA Project Manager
EA or EIS Re-evaluation
Approved by: ______Date: [Sign] FHWA Area Engineer or FHWA NEPA Project Manager
______[Print Name] FHWA Area Engineer or FHWA NEPA Project Manager
Parks Highway & Big Lake Road Intersection 9 of 9 Environmental Re-Evaluation Form Project C February 2016
APPENDIX E: Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan For Parks Highway & Big Lake Road Intersection Reconstruction Project C Houston, Alaska
Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities Central Region 4111 Aviation Drive P.O. Box 196900 Anchorage, Alaska USA 99519-6900
Prepared By: Jessica Carver and Robert Ellis Company Name: Seawolf Engineering ESCP Preparation Date: April 2017
The following Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) has been prepared by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) to assist bidders in successfully planning their construction means and methods to comply with the 2016 Alaska Construction General Permit (ACGP), United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 404/10 Permit, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) 401 Water Quality Certification, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Title 16, and other permits associated with this project. This document is not intended to be all inclusive of the best management practices (BMP’s) that will be required to reduce the potential for sediment discharge during construction and comply with permit conditions or construction specifications. This ESCP is intended to guide contractors during the bidding process and assist in the preparation of the contractor’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that must be approved prior to commencing construction after award. The contractor is responsible for the risk assessment analysis, planning, preparation and implementation of the SWPPP
TABLE OF CONTENTS Permittee (5.3.1) 1
Storm Water Contacts (5.3.2) Error! Bookmark not defined. Contact Information for SWPPP Preparation 1
Project Information (5.3.3) Error! Bookmark not defined. Project Information 1 Project Site-Specific Conditions (5.3.3) 1 Reference Documents Available Error! Bookmark not defined.
Nature of Construction Activity (5.3.4) Error! Bookmark not defined. Scope of Work Error! Bookmark not defined. Project Function (5.3.4.1) Error! Bookmark not defined. Support Activities (As Applicable) Error! Bookmark not defined. Sequence and Timing of Soil-disturbing Activities (5.3.4.2) 3 Size of Property and Total Area expected to be Disturbed (5.3.4.3) 3 Identification of All Potential Pollutant Sources (5.3.4.5) 4
Site Maps (5.3.5) Error! Bookmark not defined.
Discharges 4 Locations of Other Industrial Storm Water Discharges (5.3.8) 4 Allowable Non-Storm Water Discharges (1.4.3; 4.3.7; 5.3.9) 4
Documentation of Permit Eligibility Related to Total Maximum Daily Loads (3.2, 5.6) 4 Identify Receiving Waters (5.3.3.3) 5 Identify TMDLs (5.6.1) 5
Documentation of Permit Eligibility Related to Endangered Species (3.3, 5.7) 5 Information on Endangered or Threatened Species or Critical Habitat (5.7.1) 5
Applicable Federal, State, Tribal, or Local Requirements (4.10, 4.15) 6
Projects near Public Water System (PWS) (4.10) 6
Control Measures/Best Management Practices (4.0; 5.3.6) Error! Bookmark not defined. Minimize Amount of Soil Exposed during Construction Activity (4.2.2) Error! Bookmark not defined. Maintain Natural Buffer Areas (4.2.3) 7 ______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection i Design Study Report
Clearing Vegetation (4.2.4) 7
Control Storm Water Discharges and Flow Rates (4.2.5) 7 Protect Steep Slopes (4.2.6) 8 Storm Drain Inlet Protection Measures (4.3.1) 8 Water Body Protection Measures (4.3.2) 8 Down-Slope Sediment Controls (4.3.3) 9 Stabilized Construction Vehicle Access and Exit Points (4.3.4) 9 Dust Generation and Track-Out from Vehicles (4.3.5) 10 Soil Stockpiles (4.3.6) 10 Sediment Basins (4.3.8) 10 Dewatering (4.4) 10 Permanent/Post-Construction BMPs (4.11) 10 Soil Stabilization (4.5, 5.3.6.3) 10 Treatment Chemicals (4.6; 5.3.6.4) 11 Treatment Chemicals (4.6.1) 11 Treatment Chemical Use Procedures (4.6.2) 11 Application of Treatment Chemicals (4.6.3) 11 Active Treatment System information (4.6.3.3) 11 Good Housekeeping Measures (4.8) 11 Washing of Equipment and Vehicles (4.8.1) 11 Fueling and Maintenance Areas (4.8.2) 11 Washout of Applicators/Containers Used for Paint, Concrete, and Other Materials (4.8.4) 12 Fertilizer or Pesticide Use (4.8.5) 13 Spill Notification (4.9) 13 Construction and Waste Materials (4.8.6, 5.3.7) 13
Inspections (5.4; 6.0) 14 Inspection Schedules (5.4.1.2; 6.1; 6.2) 14 Inspection Form or Checklist (5.4.1.3; 6.7) 14
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection ii Design Study Report
Corrective Action Procedures (5.4.1.4; 8.0) 14 Inspection Recordkeeping (5.4.2) 15
Monitoring Plan (If Applicable) (5.5; 7.0) 15 Determination of Need for Monitoring Plan 15
Post-Authorization Records (5.8) 15 Additional Documentation Requirements (5.8.2) 16
Records of Employee Training (4.14; 5.8.2.7) 16
Maintaining an Updated SWPPP (5.9) 16 Log of SWPPP Modifications (5.9.2) 17 Deadlines for SWPPP Modifications (5.9.3) 17
Additional SWPPP Requirements (5.10) 17 Retention of SWPPP (5.10.1) 17 Main Entrance Signage (5.10.2) 17 Availability of SWPPP (5.10.3) 17 Signature and Certification (5.10.4) 17
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection iii Design Study Report
1.0 PERMITTEE (5.3.1)
The Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) will be a permittee for the project. Upon the approval of the contractor’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by DOT&PF, the contractor will be required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and obtain permit coverage as an operator. The contractor’s contact information as well as contact information for all subcontractors must be included in the contractor’s SWPPP. All subcontractors will be required to sign a certification (DOT&PF Form 25D-105) that they have read the Alaska Construction General Permit (ACGP) and the contractor’s SWPPP and will adhere to their terms and conditions.
2.0 STORM WATER CONTACTS (5.3.2)
The contractor will need to identify the qualified person responsible per Section 5.3.2 of ACGP and include the documentation of their qualifications of the SWPPP
2.1 Contact Information for SWPPP Preparation The following people may be contacted for questions when writing the SWPPP: Name Phone Email Mary Nan Cunningham (907) 632-2736 [email protected] Josh James (907) 269-0459 [email protected]
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION (5.3.3)
3.1 Project Information Project Name: Parks Highway & Big Lake Road Intersection Reconstruction Locatio Street/Location: Borough or similar government subdivision: n Mile Post 52 MSB Addres City: State: Zip: s: Houston Alaska 99694 Latitude (decimal degree, 5 places): Longitude (decimal degree, 5 places): 61°34’31.65” N 149°43’27.55” W Determined ☐ ☐ Web Map: x Other: Google By: GPS Earth, center of Parks Highway at ☐ USGS Topo Map, Scale: Big Lake Rd
3.2 Project Site-Specific Conditions (5.3.3) Mean annual precipitation based on nearest weather stations (inches): 16.87 at Houston, Alaska station number 503731 Size of the 2-yr, 24-hr storm event (in inches): 1.40 at NOAA Atlas 14 at Parks Highway at Big Lake
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 1 Design Study Report
Road Soil Type(s) and Slopes: The portions of this project that will have disturbed soils will consists of soil type A and D as well as a potential surface organic layer. Landscape Topography: The topography is relatively flat in the project area except with a low area with a creek running through it. Drainage patterns: Runoff from the road and adjacent properties flows into vegetated ditches. This project is not expected to affect drainage in any significant way. Type of Existing Vegetation: The existing vegetation contains native brush and grasses. Approximate growing season: May 8- October 5 in the Cook Inlet Region based off of the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual Seeding Dates: The project permits seeding from May 15th to August 15th, which falls within the natural growing season for this project area. Time Period to Avoid Vegetation Clearing: No clearing or grubbing is expected for this project but if vegetation clearing is needed, May 1st through July 15th will be avoided due to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Fish Window: This project will allow in-stream work to occur from May 15-July 15 based off of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Title 41 Historic site contamination evident from existing site features and known past usage of the site: Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual Additional information about these sites is available on the ADEC Division of Spill Prevention and Response website: http://dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp/db_search.htm. Include only those sites listed as ‘Active’ or ‘Cleanup Complete – Institutional Controls’
3.3 Reference Documents Available Listed below are the reference documents available for this project. Please contact the Project Engineer for assistance in obtaining these documents.
● Project Specific Permits – located in the Design Study Report (DSR) ● Environmental Document - available for review in the Preliminary Design & Environmental section of DOT&PF
4.0 NATURE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY (5.3.4)
4.1 Scope of Work The Proposed Action would: ● Project Delineation ● Use best management practices (BMP) for temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control ● Earthwork to widen the roadbase where needed ● Reroute Little Meadow Creek to its historic flow path during which the existing culverts will be replaced with a single span bridge ● Install conduits and wiring for illumination and traffic signals ● Pavement planning ● Paving ______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 2 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
● Install traffic signals and illumination poles ● Install roadway illumination and traffic signal lights ● Reseed disturbed areas to match surrounding vegetation
4.2 Project Function (5.3.4.1) The project will provide for full improvement of the Park Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection with a transition back to the existing roadway type.
4.3 Support Activities (As Applicable) 4.4 Sequence and Timing of Soil-disturbing Activities (5.3.4.2) The contractor will be required to finish, either temporary or final stabilized, individual areas prior to moving on to the next area. The contractor will be required by the General Construction Permit (CGP) to stabilize disturbed areas within 14 calendar days after construction has temporarily or permanently ceased. The contractor will be required to prepare a detailed schedule for review and approval prior to commencement of construction activities and is to be included in the SWPPP. The schedule will detail the sequence of activities and describe the stabilization schedule. The contractor must adapt this section with their specific plans in the project SWPPP.
4.5 Size of Property and Total Area expected to be Disturbed (5.3.4.3) The following are estimates of the construction site:
Description Number Remarks
Total project area: 28 acres Right-of-Way to Right-of-Way
Construction-site area to be Right-of-Way to Right-of-Way, excluding the 13 acres disturbed: undisturbed areas
Percentage impervious area 30% BEFORE construction:
Runoff Coefficient BEFORE Q=C*I*A construction: 0.53 i=16.87 inches
Percentage impervious area 40% AFTER construction:
Runoff coefficient AFTER 0.87 construction:
The values shown in the table above were calculated with the information available at the time of the final design. The contractor’s values will be different due to staging areas, batch plants, material stockpiles, etc. The Rational Method was used to calculate the Runoff Coefficient. If a discrepancy is found, contact the Project Engineer to request further information.
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 3 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
4.6 Identification of All Potential Pollutant Sources (5.3.4.5) Identify and list all potential sources of sediment from construction materials and activities which may affect the quality of storm water discharges from the construction site. Identify and list all potential sources of pollution, other than sediment, from construction materials and activities which may affect the quality of storm water discharges from the construction site. Potential sources of sediment to storm water runoff:
● Exposed soils from digging activities ● Fill materials Potential pollutants and sources, other than sediment, to storm water runoff:
● Petroleum products from project equipment and vehicles ● General site litter and waste
5.0 SITE MAPS (5.3.5)
Site map(s) and drawings are located in DSR
6.0 DISCHARGES
Subject to compliance with the terms and conditions of the ACGP, the permittee is authorized to discharge pollutants in storm water discharges from the site. If the permittee is eligible for coverage under ACGP and does not comply with the requirements of the ACGP, the permittee may be in violation of this general permit for otherwise eligible discharges.
6.1 Locations of Other Industrial Storm Water Discharges (5.3.8) The contractor is required to identify discharges from related support activities. Portable batch plants located on Department-supplied property must be included in the contractor’s SWPPP and related inspections. If the DOT&PF is not an ACGP operator for the site or sites listed in this subsection, then describe the sites and BMPs for them in a separate SWPPP2. In this section, explain which areas are covered within this SWPPP and which are covered within a separate SWPPP2. Also provide information on where the SWPPP2 is available for review.
6.2 Allowable Non-Storm Water Discharges (1.4.3; 4.3.7; 5.3.9) The contractor must list all allowable non-storm water discharges and describe how the discharges will be minimized and managed to reduce pollution to storm water in the contractor’s SWPPP.
7.0 DOCUMENTATION OF PERMIT ELIGIBILITY RELATED TO TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS (3.2, 5.6)
A search of the “Alaska’s Final 2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report” found no listings or impairments for Little Meadow Creek.
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 4 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
7.1 Identify Receiving Waters (5.3.3.3) Description of receiving waters: Little Meadow Creek and associated wetland in ROW are receiving waters. A crossing of Little Meadow Creek exists under the Parks Highway just north of Big Lake Rd. The Little Meadow Creek AWC Code: 247-50-10330-2050-3050. Outstanding Natural Resource Waters (2.1.6):
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) must be consulted, at least 30 days prior to construction activities, when determining requirements for water quality analysis on all projects that meet the following:
● Will or may discharge storm water to a Tier 3 water body, also known as Outstanding Natural Resource Waters (ONRW).
No ONRW are designated in Alaska as of the date of this document. Description of storm sewer and/or drainage systems: N/A Other: N/A
7.2 Identify TMDLs (5.6.1)
Is an EPA-established or approved TMDL published for the receiving water(s) listed in Section 7.1?
☐ Yes ☑ No TMDL: N/A Summary of consultation with state or federal TMDL authorities (5.6.2): N/A Measures taken to ensure compliance with TMDL (5.6.3): N/A
Are there impaired receiving waters listed in Section 7.1 without an approved TMDL? ☐ Yes ☑ No
8.0 DOCUMENTATION OF PERMIT ELIGIBILITY RELATED TO ENDANGERED SPECIES (3.3, 5.7)
8.1 Information on Endangered or Threatened Species or Critical Habitat (5.7.1) Are endangered or threatened species and critical habitats on or near the project area?
☐ Yes ☑ No Describe how this determination was made: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) lists of Threatened and Endangered Species
Will species or habitat be adversely affected by storm water discharge?
☐ Yes ☑ No
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 5 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Provide summary of necessary measures (5.7.5): N/A
9.0 APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, TRIBAL, OR LOCAL REQUIREMENTS (4.10, 4.15)
The contractor will be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits and clearances for material and disposal sites, and/or equipment storage areas in accordance with the ACGP for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities. Historic Properties SHPO consultation was completed on: November 23, 2007 Are there any historic sites on or near the construction site?
☐ Yes ☑ No Describe how this determination was made: On November 23, 2007 the SHPO concurred with the finding of No Historic Properties Affected sent by the FHWA.
PROJECTS NEAR PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM (PWS) (4.10)
The project boundary intersects 2 Public Water System (PWS) Drinking Water Protection Area(s) (DPWA) and 0 Provisional Protection Area(s), and will have to follow the requirements of the 2016 ACGP Part 4.10. The PWS contact will need to be notified by whatever method is most expedient: email, phone, or post (4.10.1). This should be done by the DOT&PF Project Engineer on behalf of both parties. The intersecting DWPAs and Provisional Protect Areas ID numbers (PWSID) with contact information are: Water Contact System PWSID Phone # Address Email Name Name 801 Second Spenard Avenue, Ste. brown.a@ Builders 206-501- 1300, ln- AK2222343 Audra Brown Supply Big 4519 properties. Seattle, Lake com WA-98104 PO Box 521711, Big Lake blbc@mta Brandie 907-892- Baptist AK2222084 Big Lake, online.net Delaney 6646 Church AK-99652
10.0 CONTROL MEASURES/BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (4.0; 5.3.6)
10.1 Minimize Amount of Soil Exposed during Construction Activity (4.2.2) The disturbed area will include realignment of an existing creek channel, this will include clearing, ______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 6 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
grubbing, and trenching to create a new channel for the stream. There will be an expansion of the intersection and highway that will cause a soil disturbance of clearing and grubbing.
10.2 Maintain Natural Buffer Areas (4.2.3) Are stream crossings or waters of the U.S. located within or immediately adjacent to the property? ☑ Yes ☐ No Silt Fence will be used to prevent establish sediment control.
BMP Description: Silt Fence BMP Manual/Publication: Alaska Storm Water Guide 2011 ☐ Permanent ☑ Temporary Installation Schedule: Prior to beginning of construction Maintenance and Minimum weekly Inspection: Responsible Staff: SWPPP Manager & Superintendent
10.2.1 Clearing Vegetation (4.2.4) Clearing of vegetation that disturbs the vegetative mat and exposes soil is prohibited prior to obtaining authorization under the ACGP. Cutting of trees and brush while the ground is frozen without disturbing the vegetative mat for the purpose of clearing in accordance with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service “Recommended Time Periods for Avoiding Vegetation Clearing” is allowed prior to the submittal of a project NOI. If vegetation clearing that disturbs the vegetative mat and occurs after the onset of spring thaw (as defined in Appendix C) or conditions that consist of above freezing temperatures that cause melting of snow, the permittee must develop a SWPPP and file an NOI. Operators must receive authorization under this permit and otherwise comply with the terms of this permit prior to such clearing.
10.3 Control Storm Water Discharges and Flow Rates (4.2.5) BMP Description: Silt Fence BMP Manual/Publication: Alaska Storm Water Guide 2011 ☐ Permanent ☑ Temporary Installation Schedule: prior to beginning of construction Maintenance and Weekly minimum Inspection: Responsible Staff: SWPPP Manager & Superintendent
BMP Description: Fiber Rolls BMP Manual/Publication: Alaska Storm Water Guide 2011 ☐ Permanent ☑ Temporary ______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 7 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Installation Schedule: prior to beginning of construction Maintenance and Weekly minimum Inspection: Responsible Staff: SWPPP Manager & Superintendent
10.3.1 Protect Steep Slopes (4.2.6)
Will steep slopes be present at the site during construction? ☑ Yes ☐ No
BMP Description: Fiber Rolls for Erosion and Sediment Control BMP-10.00 BMP Manual/Publication: DOT&PF, Alaska SWPPP Guide, December 2015 ☐ Permanent ☑ Temporary Installation Schedule: Installed prior to soil disturbance in the contributing drainage area. Maintenance and Inspection: Minimum of one week Inspection: Maintenance: If needed Responsible Staff: SWPPP Manager & Superintendent
Sediment Controls: Sediment control measures (e.g. sediment ponds, traps, filters, etc.) must be constructed as one of the first steps in grading. These control measures must be functional before other land disturbing activities take place.
10.4 Storm Drain Inlet Protection Measures (4.3.1) BMP Description: Inlet Protection BMP Manual/Publication: Alaska Storm Water Guide 2011 ☐ Permanent ☑ Temporary Installation Schedule: Prior to Construction Maintenance and Inspection: Minimum of one week Inspection: Maintenance: If needed Responsible Staff: SWPPP Manager & Superintendent
10.5 Water Body Protection Measures (4.3.2) Describe control measures selected to minimize discharge of sediment prior to entry into water bodies located on or immediately downstream of the site.
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 8 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
BMP Description: Silt Fence BMP Manual/Publication: Alaska Storm Water Guide 2011 ☐ Permanent ☑ Temporary Installation Schedule: Prior to construction Maintenance and Inspection: Minimum Weekly. Inspection: Maintenance: As needed Responsible Staff: SWPPP Manager & Superintendent
BMP Description: Fiber Rolls BMP Manual/Publication: Alaska Storm Water Guide 2011 ☐ Permanent ☑ Temporary Installation Schedule: Prior to construction Maintenance and Inspection: Minimum Weekly. Inspection: Maintenance: As needed Responsible Staff: SWPPP Manager & Superintendent
10.6 Down-Slope Sediment Controls (4.3.3)
BMP Description: Vegetative Buffer Area BMP Manual/Publication: Alaska Storm Water Guide 2011 ☐ Permanent ☑ Temporary Installation Schedule: Prior to construction Maintenance and Inspection: Minimum Weekly. Inspection: Maintenance: As needed Responsible Staff: SWPPP Manager & Superintendent
BMP Description: Fiber Rolls BMP Manual/Publication: Alaska Storm Water Guide 2011 ☐ Permanent ☑ Temporary Installation Schedule: Prior to construction Maintenance and Inspection: Minimum Weekly. Inspection: Maintenance: As needed Responsible Staff: SWPPP Manager & Superintendent
10.7 Stabilized Construction Vehicle Access and Exit Points (4.3.4) Sediment tracked on the roads from vehicles and equipment will be swept up as needed.
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 9 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
10.8 Dust Generation and Track-Out from Vehicles (4.3.5) The contractor will be required to keep the roadway free of debris and sediment. They will perform street sweeping and apply water to minimize dust as needed.
10.9 Soil Stockpiles (4.3.6)
Will soil stockpiles be at the site during construction? ☐ Yes ☑ No
10.10 Sediment Basins (4.3.8) Refer to ACGP Part 4.3.8 to determine if a sediment basin is required for your site.
Will a sediment basin be required during construction? ☐ Yes ☑ No
10.11 Dewatering (4.4) Describe dewatering practices to be implemented if water must be removed from an area so construction activity can continue.
Will dewatering be conducted during construction? ☐ Yes ☑ No Will excavation dewatering be conducted within 1,500 feet of an ADEC mapped contaminated site found on the ADEC website? ☐ Yes ☑ No For ADEC’s contaminated sites: http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=315240bfbaf84aa0b8272ad1cef3cad3. If yes to above question, review and comply with the ADEC General Permit for Excavation Dewatering (AKG002000) or most current version, for specific requirements.
10.12 Permanent/Post-Construction BMPs (4.11)
10.12.1 Soil Stabilization (4.5, 5.3.6.3) The project must stabilize all disturbed areas of the site to minimize on-site erosion and sedimentation and the resulting discharge of pollutants. Soil stabilization requirements vary depending on the mean annual precipitation for the site. Refer to ACGP Part 4.5 for specific requirements. Refer to the Alaska Plant Materials Center’s Alaska Coastal Revegetation & Erosion Control Guide and Interior Alaska Revegetation & Erosion Control Guide at http://plants.alaska.gov for help in selecting appropriate seed mixes and information on methods for revegetation. Describe permanent & temporary stabilization control measures and sequence of installation. Describe how the site will be stabilized prior to seasonal freeze-up.
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 10 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
BMP Description: Permanent Seeding BMP Manual/Publication: Alaska Storm Water Guide 2011 ☑ Permanent ☐ Temporary Installation Schedule: On completion of ground disturbing activities Maintenance and Inspection: Minimum Weekly. Inspection: Maintenance: until deemed established Responsible Staff: SWPPP Manager & Superintendent
10.13 Treatment Chemicals (4.6; 5.3.6.4) The use of treatment chemicals to reduce erosion from the land or sediment in a storm water discharge is allowed provided all the requirements of ACGP Part 4.6 are met. Will treatment chemicals be used to control erosion and/or sediment during construction?
☐ Yes ☑ No
10.13.1 Treatment Chemicals (4.6.1) 10.13.2 Treatment Chemical Use Procedures (4.6.2) 10.13.3 Application of Treatment Chemicals (4.6.3)
10.14 Active Treatment System information (4.6.3.3) A permittee who uses an Active Treatment System (ATS) as a control measure must submit information required by the ADEC for review at least 14 days prior to start of operation of the ATS at the project. Specific submittal requirements can be found at 4.6.3.
Will an ATS be used as a control measure at the site? ☐ Yes ☑ No
10.15 Good Housekeeping Measures (4.8) The project must design, install, implement, and maintain effective good housekeeping measures to prevent and/or minimize the discharge of pollutants. The project must include appropriate measures for any of the following activities at the site. Consult the ADEC Storm Water Guide or other resources for more information or ideas on BMPs. See also the EPA’s National Menu of BMPs at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/national-menu-best-management- practices-bmps-stormwater-documents & for a list of Alaska specific BMPs look at the Alaska SWPPP Guide’s Appendix B - BMP Guide for Erosion & Sediment Control at http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/desenviron/assets/pdf/bmp/bmp_all.pdf
10.15.1 Washing of Equipment and Vehicles (4.8.1) Will equipment and vehicle washing and/or wheel wash-down be conducted at the site?
☐ Yes ☑ No
10.15.2 Fueling and Maintenance Areas (4.8.2) Describe equipment/vehicle fueling and maintenance practices to be implemented to control pollutants to ______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 11 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
storm water (e.g., secondary containment, drip pans, spill kits, etc.). Describe spill prevention and control measures to be implemented, including ways to reduce the chance of spills, stop the source of spills, contain and clean up spills, dispose of materials contaminated by spills, and train personnel responsible for spill prevention and control. Will equipment and vehicle fueling or maintenance be conducted at the site?
☑ Yes ☐ No The contractor’s lay down yards, fueling and maintenance areas must be delineated on the contractor’s SWPPP site map. Spill kits appropriate to respond to the hazards on site will be required. Inspections will include the contractor’s fueling, maintenance, and laydown areas. Equipment will be maintained to prevent oils and grease from discharging with storm water. Prior to use each day, equipment operators are required to do a visual inspection for leaks, drips, and excess grease. If leaks cannot be repaired and stopped, the equipment will be placed out of service over drip pans and/or pads to collect any fluids or grease and prevent pollution discharge. Topping off fluids will not be allowed in lieu of maintenance. Equipment operators will look for excess grease accumulations, especially when the weather warms up, removing and properly disposing of excess grease to prevent discharge. HMCP or SPCC: For the specific sections in the Good Housekeeping BMPs that deal with fueling and oiling, equipment care and maintenance, waste materials, etc., it should be mentioned, by referencing the specific page and section, this requirement for BMP reference and citation is met. Also, it will/can create less conflict within the SWPPP due to the HMCP being project specific and the BMP citations more generic.
BMP Description: Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance BMP Manual/Publication: Alaska Storm Water Guide 2011 ☐ Permanent ☑ Temporary Installation Schedule: prior to fueling Maintenance and Inspection: Minimum Daily Inspection: Maintenance: As needed Responsible Staff: SWPPP Manager & Superintendent
10.15.3 Washout of Applicators/Containers Used for Paint, Concrete, and Other Materials (4.8.4) Describe location(s) and controls to minimize the potential for storm water pollution from washout areas for concrete mixers, paint, stucco, etc. Will washout areas for trucks, applicators, or containers of concrete, paint, or other materials be used at the site? ☑ Yes ☐ No If YES, describe control measures to be implemented to comply with ACGP Part 4.8.4. If NO, delete the following paragraph. The contractor will provide a designated concrete washout area. The washout area may be moved during the construction process but the location must be kept current on the site map. Concrete wash water may not be discharged with storm water. The washout must have sufficient capacity ______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 12 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
for the scheduled activities.
BMP Description: Concrete Washout BMP Manual/Publication: Alaska Storm Water Guide 2011 ☐ Permanent ☑ Temporary Installation Schedule: prior to concrete pouring Maintenance and Inspection: Minimum weekly Inspection: Maintenance: Replace when 70% full
10.15.4 Fertilizer or Pesticide Use (4.8.5) Describe fertilizers and/or pesticides expected to be used and/or stored on-site and procedures for storage of materials to minimize exposure of the materials to storm water.
Will fertilizers or pesticides be used at the site? ☑ Yes ☐ No Fertilizer will be used during permanent seeding following seeding procedures. Manufacturer's specifications for application must be followed.
10.16 Spill Notification (4.9) The contractor shall describe spill-notification procedures, including relevant federal, state, tribal, and local agency contact information, to be implemented in the event of a leak, spill, or release of hazardous substances or oil that occur at the construction site. Refer to ACGP Part 4.9 for permit requirements. Contractor shall use DOT&PF Hazardous Material Control Plan template at http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcsconst/assets/docs/constforms/hmcp_template.doc to create project specific plan. Include final plan as approved by DOT&PF in Appendix O.
10.17 Construction and Waste Materials (4.8.6, 5.3.7) Describe in general terms the type of construction and waste materials expected to be stored at the site, with updates as appropriate, and describe the measures for handling and disposal all wastes generated at the site, including clearing and demolition debris or other waste soils removed from the site, construction and domestic waste, hazardous or toxic waste, and sanitary waste. Refer also to ACGP Parts 4.8.3 Staging and Material Storage Areas, and 4.8.6 Storage, Handling, and Disposal of Construction Waste. Building materials and other construction site wastes must be properly managed and disposed of to reduce the risk of pollution from materials such as surplus or refuse building materials or hazardous wastes. Practices such as trash disposal, recycling, proper material handling, and spill prevention and cleanup measures can reduce the potential for storm water runoff to mobilize construction site wastes and contaminate surface or groundwater. The contractor must establish proper building and material storage areas to avoid pollutants coming in contact with rainfall or flowing storm water. Any materials that have the potential to pollute storm water will be covered to prevent rainfall from coming into contact with them. Garbage containers will be covered to prevent debris from blowing away as well. Any contractor supplied staging area must be included in inspections and the SWPPP. No materials will be staged or stored, even temporarily in flowing water. The contractor should designate a waste collection area on site that does not receive substantial amount of runoff from upland areas and does not drain directly to a water body.
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 13 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
BMP Description: Provide for Waste Management BMP Manual/Publication: Alaska Storm Water Guide 2011 Installation Schedule: prior to construction activities Maintenance and Continuously maintain during construction activities Inspection: Responsible Staff: SWPPP Manager & Superintendent
BMP Description: General Construction Site Waste Management BMP Manual/Publication: ADEC Alaska Storm Water Guide, December 2011 Installation Schedule: Continuously during construction activities Maintenance and Inspection: Inspect storage and use areas and identify Inspection: containers or equipment that could malfunction and cause leaks or spills. Check equipment and containers for leaks, corrosion, support or foundation failure, or other signs of deterioration, and test them for soundness. Maintenance: Immediately repair or replace any that are found to be defective. Responsible Staff: SWPPP Manager & Superintendent
11.0 INSPECTIONS (5.4; 6.0)
11.1 Inspection Schedules (5.4.1.2; 6.1; 6.2) Inspection frequency: Once every seven calendar days Justification for reduction in inspection frequency, if applicable: 100% temporary stabilization and winter shutdown. Estimated date of winter shutdown. November to April
11.2 Inspection Form or Checklist (5.4.1.3; 6.7) Contractor is required to attach Form 25D-100 in Appendix K. An Inspection Report will be completed after each inspection, identifying BMPs installed at the time of inspection, noting corrective actions required, and documenting complete-by-date for any actions discovered during the inspection. Each report will be certified by Contractor’s Superintendent and DOT&PF’s Project Engineer.
11.3 Corrective Action Procedures (5.4.1.4; 8.0) Identify how conditions found that require corrective action will be addressed: The following guidelines apply for setting corrective action complete-by dates as required by the ACGP: For conditions that are easily remedied (i.e., removal of tracked sediment, maintenance of control measures, or spill clean-up), the permittee must initiate appropriate steps to correct the problem within twenty-four hours from the time of discovery and correct the problem as soon as possible; or If installation of a new control measure is needed or an existing control measure requires significant redesign and reconstruction or replacement, the permittee must install the new or modified measure and ______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 14 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
make it operational within seven calendar days from the time of discovery of the need for the corrective action, unless infeasible. If a discharge occurs during a local 2-year, 24-hour storm event, a corrective action must be initiated the day after the storm event ends as described in ACGP Part 8.1.1. For corrective actions that could affect a subcontractor, notify the subcontractor within three calendar days of taking the corrective action. Additionally, deadlines for completion of corrective actions shall be selected to protect water quality and prior to the next storm event unless impracticable. Corrective Action Log The corrective action log will document the following within 24 hours of discovery of any conditions listed in ACGP Part 8.1 (use Form 25D-112 and include in Appendix J): ● Date the problem was identified ● Summary of corrective action taken or to be taken ● Notice of whether SWPPP modifications were required as a result of this discovery or corrective action ● Date corrective action completed and name of person completing the action In the event there is a reason (outside of the project staff’s control) that a corrective action cannot practicably be completed by the set complete-by date, DOT&PF will complete a Delayed Action Item Report (Form 25D-113). This form will set a new complete-by date and document the reason that the previous date could not be met.
11.4 Inspection Recordkeeping (5.4.2) Records (including inspection reports, corrective action logs, delayed action item reports, grading and stabilization logs, amendment logs, staff tracking logs, rainfall logs, and training logs) will be maintained for a minimum period of at least three (3) years after the permit is terminated. A hard copy and electronic copy of the final SWPPP, including all appendices, will be transmitted to DOT&PF when the project’s NOTs are filed.
12.0 MONITORING PLAN (IF APPLICABLE) (5.5; 7.0)
12.1 Determination of Need for Monitoring Plan
Is there an EPA-established or approved TMDL for Little Meadow Creek? ☐ Yes ☑ No
Is the receiving water listed as impaired for turbidity and/or sediment? ☐ Yes ☑ No
13.0 POST-AUTHORIZATION RECORDS (5.8)
Copy of Permit Requirements (5.8.1)
The contractor’s SWPPP must contain the following documents: ● copy of ACGP (5.8.1.1) ● copy of the signed and certified NOI form submitted to ADEC (5.8.1.2) ● upon receipt, a copy of letter from ADEC authorizing permit coverage, providing tracking number (5.8.1.3)
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 15 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
These documents must be included in Appendix F.
13.1 Additional Documentation Requirements (5.8.2) The Grading and Stabilization Log, Form 25D-110 in Appendix G, will be filled out to satisfy the following ACGP requirements: ● Dates when grading activities occur (5.8.2.1.1) ● Description of grading activities and location (5.8.2.1.2) ● Dates when construction activities temporarily or permanently cease (5.8.2.1.3) ● Dates when stabilization measures are initiated (5.8.2.1.4) ● Description of Stabilization Measure (5.8.2.1.5) ● Date of beginning and ending period for winter shutdown (5.8.2.2)
Other documents will be included as shown below: ● Copies of inspection reports (5.4.2; 5.8.2.3; insert in Appendix K). ● Copies of monitoring reports, if applicable (5.8.2.4; 5.5.2; 9.1; insert in Appendix H). ● Documentation in support of chemical-treatment processes (4.6; 5.8.2.6; insert in Appendix P). ● Documentation of maintenance and repairs of control measures (5.8.2.8; 8.1; 8.2; insert in Appendix J). ● Copy of ADEC Letter of Non-Objection (insert in Appendix D).
13.1.1 Records of Employee Training (4.14; 5.8.2.7) Training staff and subcontractors is an effective BMP. Document all training conducted for your staff, those with specific storm water responsibilities (e.g. installing, inspecting, and maintaining BMPs), and subcontractors. Use the Training Log (Form 25D-125) in Appendix I. Describe Training Conducted: Insert Text General storm water and BMP awareness training for staff and subcontractors: During safety meetings and schedule briefings, corrective actions from the previous period will be reviewed. The contractor is encouraged to discuss timing of activities and stabilization requirements. Records of the training topics, attendees, and length must be maintained in the contractor’s SWPPP. Detailed training for staff and subcontractors with specific storm water responsibilities: Insert Text Individual(s) Responsible for Training: Insert Names, Titles, and Contact Numbers here Documentation of training conducted shall be record on Form 25D-125 and included in Appendix I.
14.0 MAINTAINING AN UPDATED SWPPP (5.9)
This section does not need to be filled out but is a list of reminders for the applicant. The permittee must modify the SWPPP, including site map(s), in response to any of the following: ● Whenever changes are made to construction plans, control measures, good housekeeping measures, monitoring plan (if applicable), or other activities at the site that are no longer accurately reflected in SWPPP (5.9.1.1); ● If inspections of site investigations by staff or by local, state, tribal, or federal officials determine SWPPP modifications are necessary for permit compliance (5.9.1.2); and ● To reflect any revisions to applicable federal, state, tribal, or local laws that affect control measures ______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 16 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
implemented at the construction site (5.9.1.3).
14.1 Log of SWPPP Modifications (5.9.2) A permittee must keep a log showing dates, name of person authorizing the change, and a brief summary of changes for all significant SWPPP modifications (e.g., adding new control measures, changes in project design, or significant storm events that cause replacement of control measures). Use DOT&PF construction form 25D-114. Amendments must be approved by an AK-CESCL or equivalently certified individual and include in Appendix M. The Superintendent and the SWPPP Manager are the only persons authorized to amend the SWPPP and update the SWPPP Amendment Log.
14.2 Deadlines for SWPPP Modifications (5.9.3) Revisions to the SWPPP must be completed within seven days of the inspection that identified the need for a SWPPP modification or within seven days of substantial modifications to the construction plans or changes in site conditions.
15.0 ADDITIONAL SWPPP REQUIREMENTS (5.10)
15.1 Retention of SWPPP (5.10.1) A copy of the SWPPP (including a copy of the permit), NOI, and acknowledgement letter from ADEC must be retained at the construction site.
15.2 Main Entrance Signage (5.10.2) A sign or other notice must be posted conspicuously near the main entrance of the site. The sign or notice must include a copy of the completed NOI for both DOT&PF and the contractor.
15.3 Availability of SWPPP (5.10.3) The permittee must keep a current copy of the SWPPP at the site. The SWPPP must be made available to subcontractors, government and tribal agencies, and MS4 operators, upon request.
15.4 Signature and Certification (5.10.4) As co-permittees, the SWPPP is signed and certified by both the contractor and by DOT&PF. DOT&PF requires the use of its forms, instead of those provided as examples in the ADEC template. The contractor must complete the SWPPP Contractor Certification (Form 25D-111) once DOT&PF approves the SWPPP and include it in Appendix E. Either the contractor’s corporate officer or their duly authorized representative can certify the SWPPP. If a duly authorized representative certifies, the Delegation of Signature Authority form must be included in Appendix E. Upon approval, DOT&PF will provide the contractor with signed DOT&PF forms for the DOT&PF SWPPP Certification (Form 25D-109) and DOT&PF Delegation of Authority (Form 25D-107) for inclusion in Appendix E of the SWPPP.
APPENDIX See DSR
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 17 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
APPENDIX F: Permit Applications
Seawolf Engineering USACE Permit Application
March 15, 2017 Project: Parks Highway & Big Lake Road Intersection Reconstruction Project No: C
To Whom It May Concern US Army Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 6898 Elmendorf, AK 99506-0898
Seawolf Engineer is requesting a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 Individual Permit, for a proposed project to reconstruct the intersection of Big Lake Road and the Parks Highway and realign Little Meadow Creek with its historical flow channel. The proposed project is located within Section 10 and Section 12, T17N, R03W, Seward Meridian on Mat-Su Borough Tax Maps H010 and H011; Latitude 61°34’31.65” N, Longitude 149°43’27.55” W, in Houston, Alaska.
Project Description The proposed project would include the following:
Improvements at the intersection: ● Construction of a signalized intersection with a pedestrian and bike crossing ● Installation of traffic signals and illumination poles ● Installation of roadway illumination and traffic signal lights ● Reseeding of disturbed areas to match surrounding vegetation
Improvements of Little Meadow Creek: ● Remove both the existing 78” and 48” corrugated metal pipe (CMP) culverts ● Construction of a new 115’ 10.5” by 125’ single span bridge north of the intersection ● Construction of a crossing under the bridge to allow for a natural fish and wildlife crossing ● Realignment of the creek to flow under the bridge
Purpose and Need The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the safety of the Big Lake Road and Parks Highway Intersection to alleviate problems from recent and projected high volume traffic. The purpose of this 3R (Resurface, Restoration, and Rehabilitation) project is to upgrade the intersection to: ● Decrease crash rates and enhance safety; ● Alleviate traffic problems; ● Accommodate future increase capacity; ● Improve roadside drainage; ● Provide safe wildlife crossing to adjacent areas; ● Improve mobility for vehicles and pedestrians.
Seawolf Engineering USACE Permit Application
Clean Water Act Section 404 Involvement This project area includes Little Meadow Creek and the surrounding wetlands. The proposed project would include the permanent placement of fill below ordinary high water (OHW) in seasonal wetlands surrounding the project, to allow for expansion of the existing intersection. The project will also involve the realignment of Little Meadow Creek to its historical flow channel just north of its current existing crossing. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation The proposed alternative will avoid wetland delineation wherever possible. Impacts to Little Meadow Creek and wetlands will be minimized by preparing an Environmental Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Construction General Permit (CGP). These will implement best management practices (BMPs), reseeding with native vegetation, and stabilization of disturbed soil. Refer to the attached Individual Permit Application and Supplemental Information Sheet for a more thorough discussion of the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation efforts implemented by Seawolf Engineering throughout project development.
Sincerely,
Jessica Carver Robert Ellis
Environmental Technical Team
Enclosures: Application for Department of the Army Permit Figure 1: Location and Vicinity Map Figure 2: Project Overview Figure 3: Wetland Impacts Figures 4: Section View
Seawolf Engineering USACE Permit Application
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. Project Overview
Seawolf Engineering USACE Permit Application
Figure 3. Wetland Locations
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Permanent Storm Water Management Control Plan Review Checklist
Filled in by DEC Date of Submittal: 4/2/17 Project Number: C
Project Name: Project C Parks Highway & Big Lake Road Intersection Reconstruction Project Street/Location: Milepost 52 City: Houston State: Alaska Zip: 99694 Latitude: 61*34’31.65” Longitude 149*43’27.55” Receiving Waterbody: Little Meadow Creek Estimated Distance from Waterbody to Project Site: Intersecting Estimated Start Date: Estimated Completion Date: Estimated Total Project Area (Nearest quarter acre): 28 acres Estimated Area to be Disturbed (Nearest quarter acre): 13 acres
Applicant (Organization): Seawolf Engineering Contact Person: Jessica Carver and Robert Ellis Mailing Street (PO Box): UAA City: Anchorage State: AK Zip: Phone: Email:
Applicant Representative (Organization): Seawolf Engineering Contact Person: Jessica Carver and Robert Ellis Mailing Street (PO Box): UAA City: Anchorage State: AK Zip: Phone: Email:
General Project Information – Provide the following information. Item Yes/ Comments No 1. Address and legal description of site Houston, AK Milepost 52 Parks Highway 2. Vicinity Map
3. Project narrative 3.a. Purpose of project Seawolf Engineering has identified a need to improve the Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection to alleviate problems from recent and projected high volume traffic. The purpose of this Resurface, Restoration, and Rehabilitation (3R) project is to upgrade the intersection to: ● Decrease crash rates and enhance safety; ● Alleviate traffic problems; ● Accommodate future increase capacity; ● Improve roadside drainage; ● Provide safe wildlife crossing to adjacent areas; ● Improve mobility for vehicles and pedestrians.
3.b. Impact of development on site Disturbance of wetlands during hydrology and culvert removal, creek realignment, stormwater quality and fill due to road expansion. 3.c. Description of stormwater management Vegetated Ditches system 3.d. Rationale for selection of stormwater Vegetated Ditches will match the treatment existing condition and minimize practices impacts made to the environment. 4. Description of runoff flows down Runoff from the road will flow
to the discharge point(s) into Vegetated ditches. 5. Treatment System’s maintenance Clearing, trimming, and procedures reseeding when necessary 6. Describe existing and proposed The topography at the project topography site is generally sloping east to west, but contains some steep areas bordering the wetland in the west corner of the intersection. 7. Delineate Drainage Areas and Flow Yes See DSR Paths 8. Describe type and location of Best Management Practices storm water management will be followed. See ESCP for practice(s) details. 9. Identify if the receiving waterbody No on the Impaired Waters List (303d list) 10. Describe predominant soils type(s) The portions of this project that will have disturbed soils will consists of soil type A and D as well as a potential surface organic layer. 11. Existing land cover/land use and Wetlands and Vegetated the proposed limits of disturbance ditches within Right-of-Way 12. Identify Resource Protection Areas Little Meadow Creek is an (e.g. sensitive streams, wetlands anadromous water and it’s and lakes) surrounded by wetlands. 13. Identify stream buffer or setbacks Crossing road 14. Identify existing and proposed Existing Roads include Parks roads, buildings and other Highway and Big Lake Road structures 15. Identify snow storage and disposal Vegetated ditches locations 16. Provide storm water treatment See Hydrology Report system design and calculations 17. Make sure all engineering design Yes and calculations are stamped by Alaska licensed engineer (18 AAC 72.600 and 18 AAC 72.990(29) 18. Pay fee described in 18 AAC Yes 72.955 Table D, Plan review fees, make checks payable to “State of Alaska”
NOTE: For projects using oil and grit separators to obtain an ADEC letter of non-objection for discharge to storm sewers, an applicant must demonstrate that their proposed oil and grit separator has the ability to remove at least 50 percent of particles 20 micron in size from storm water runoff during the 2-year, 6-hour rain event.
APPENDIX G: Design Memos
At this time, no significant design changes were made after the approval of this document. The final as-built planset for this project will be available at Central Files within the Highway Design section (4111 Aviation Ave. Anchorage, AK 99502).
APPENDIX H: Hydrology Report
PARKS HIGHWAY & BIG LAKE ROAD INTERSECTION HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC SUMMARY REPORT
APRIL 2017
SEAWOLF ENGINEERING
Project C
Table of Contents
Introduction and Background 31
Project Area Description 2
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Features and Requirements 2 Topography and Drainage Patterns 3 Precipitation Data 3
Little Meadow Creek 3 Little Meadow Creek Hydrology 3 Little Meadow Creek Hydraulics 4 Alternatives Considered 5 Modeling Results 6 Little Meadow Creek Wildlife Passage Analysis 7 Little Meadow Creek Recommendations 7
Other Recommendations 7 Median Drainage 7
Erosion and Existing Soils 8
Code of Federal Regulation 8
Conclusion 8
Appendix I. HEC-RAS Modeling Data 9
Introduction and Background Seawolf Engineering has been asked to design upgrades to the existing Parks Highway intersection with Big Lake Road, located at approximately Milepost (MP) 52 of the Parks Highway. The sustained growth in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB) in the past few years has resulted in a corresponding increase in highway traffic through the project area. This has resulted in increased crashes and fatalities in the project corridor, which have necessitated the improvement of the project intersection. The project covers the intersection of Big Lake Road and the Parks Highway and extends approximately 0.5 miles both ways from the intersection along the Parks Highway, as well as 0.25 from the intersection along Big Lake Road. The Parks Highway is a rural interstate highway that begins with an intersection of the Glenn Highway east of Wasilla and continues to Fairbanks, some 324 miles. Figure 1 shows the project location. Proposed improvements include construction of a signalized intersection at the intersection of Big Lake Road and the Parks Highway, which will also facilitate pedestrian and bicycle traffic. In accordance with the Environmental Assessment (EA), the crossing of Little Meadow Creek (which currently flows through an existing flow and overflow culvert) will be relocated to its historical flow channel just to the north, and a bridge will be installed over it. This will allow the creek bed to be returned to a more natural state and provide an overland crossing for local wildlife underneath the Parks Highway.
Project Area Description The project is contained within the Little Meadow Creek watershed. Topography at the project site is generally sloping east to west, but contains some steep areas bordering the wetlands in the west corner of the intersection. Ditch vegetation currently consists of native brush and grasses. Proposed improvements are not expected to change drainage patterns to any significant extent. To the north of the intersection, Little Meadow Creek currently crosses through the project corridor starting in the south station 228+71.32 and ending at 229+90.19.
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Features and Requirements According to ADOT&PF Preconstruction Manual requirements, a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis will be performed for the proposed crossing. The hydrologic and hydraulic analysis will include the drainage area, 100-year design discharges,100-year high water elevations, and anticipated additional backwater at the 100-year flood. In accordance with EA stipulations, proposed crossing alternatives will be designed ______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 2 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Report
according to the 2001 Memorandum of Agreement between the ADF&G and DOT&PF for the Design, Permitting, and Construction of Culverts for Fish Passage (MOA). The EA stipulates returning Little Meadow Creek to a more natural state, so all proposed crossing alternatives will be designed to receive Tier 1 designation, according to the MOA’s design tiers. Little Meadow Creek is classified as an anadromous stream by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G). The project area is not currently within a mapped Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) area, but recognizing that parts of it could be mapped as such in the future, MSB floodplain requirements have been applied to the project analyses. MSB requires projects in FEMA classified floodplains to have a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to ensure that the project does not affect the 100-year flood level to any significant extent. As also required by the EA, the crossing over Little Meadow Creek will provide an overland crossing for local wildlife under the Parks Highway. Each proposed alternative has taken into account the openness ratio (a function of crossing height, width, and length) required for a moose (the largest wildlife entity considered) to safely cross. Generally the minimum height required is 13 feet and the openness ratio is 2.0. Data Collection Topography and Drainage Patterns HDL Conducted a 2-foot topographic survey of the project site. Drainage flows through vegetative ditches. Precipitation Data The mean annual precipitation of this area is 16.87 inches based on data obtained from weather station 503731 in Houston, Alaska. From the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 14, the size of the 2 year, 24 hour storm event is 1.40 inches at the Parks Highway and Big Lake Road intersection.
Little Meadow Creek Little Meadow Creek Hydrology The Little Meadow Creek watershed area is approximately 19.1 square miles as delineated by HDL from Mat-Su Borough 5-foot contour maps. The mean annual precipitation in this area area is 16.87 inches. Since this project is being designed according to MSP FEMA floodplain requirements, a 100 year flood analysis will be conducted according to DOT&PF recommendations. The 100 year regression equation in USGS publication Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of Peak Streamflows for Ungaged Sites on Streams in Alaska and Conterminous Basins in Canada (USGA 2003) for Region 4 was used to find the 100 year peak stream ______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 3 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Report
discharge. The equation used is shown below as,
ퟎ.ퟖퟒퟓퟕ −ퟎ.ퟐퟑퟒퟕ ퟏ.ퟏퟎퟗ 푸ퟏퟎퟎ = ퟏ. ퟕퟑퟖ ∗ 푨 ∗ (푺푻 + ퟏ) ∗ 푷 Where,
푸ퟏퟎퟎ = ퟏퟎퟎ 풚풆풂풓 풑풆풂풌 풔풕풓풆풂풎 풅풊풔풄풉풂풓품풆 (풄풇풔) 푨 = 푫풓풂풊풏풂품풆 풂풓풆풂 (풔풒. 풎풊) 푺푻 = 풂풓풆풂 풐풇 풍풂풌풆풔 풂풏풅 풑풐풏풅풔, 품풊풗풆풏 풃풚 푯푫푳 (%) 푷 = 풎풆풂풏 풂풏풏풖풂풍 풑풓풆풄풊풑풊풕풂풕풊풐풏 (풊풏)
The results are shown below in Table 1.
Table 1. Little Meadow Creek Hydrologic Summary Little Meadow Creek Hydraulics Currently Little Meadow Creek crosses the Parks Highway though a 78” corrugated metal pipe (CMP) culvert with a 48” overflow culvert. This is shown in Figure 1 looking southwest.
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 4 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Report
Figure 1. Existing Culverts HEC-RAS was used to model the alternatives for the proposed crossing under the road. Surrounding floodplain topography was exported from the AutoCAD drawing. Alternatives Considered The first alternative considered is a single crossing bench, shown in Figure 2 below. This alternative will provide a bench or wildlife and pedestrians to cross under the roadway as well as allows for recreational fishing use under the bridge. The open surface creek allows for a more natural and desirable crossing design for fish. The bridge will have a clearance of 14’ from the bench, a 115’ 10.5” span to accommodate for the 25’ wide and 3’ deep stream.The bench will be about 35’ in length.
Figure 2. Alternative I-Single Crossing Bench The second alternative is a double crossing bench, shown below in Figure 3. This alternative will provide the same amenities as alternative II, but on both sides of the ______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 5 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Report
creek. This will allow for wildlife and pedestrians to be able to cross the roadway without having to cross the stream regardless of which side they enter. This also allows the pedestrian crossing to tie in with the pedestrian pathway along the roadway. Having two benches is ideal since it allows for more space between pedestrians, bicyclists, wildlife, and recreational use. The bridge will have a clearance of 14’ from the bench, a 115’ 10.5” span to accommodate for the 25’ wide and 3’ deep stream. This alternative will require benches at 17.5’ each.
Figure 3. Alternative II-Double Crossing Bench Modeling Results Both alternative I and alternative II have the same size opening, so only one was modeled in HEC-RAS. The proposed alternative will be chosen based off other factors. Both alternative I and II are feasible and show improvement to the existing culvert crossing. The alternative modeled shows in Table 2 that the 100 year flood elevations are decreased with the open crossing. Each cross section and their corresponding elevations are shown in the Appendix.
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 6 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Report
Table 2. Little Meadow Creek 100 year Discharge Hydraulic Summary
Little Meadow Creek Wildlife Passage Analysis Alternative I will provide a bench for wildlife on the south side of the crossing. The bench will be above the low flow channel and have a 14’ clearance. The openness ratio for alternative I is 4 (cross sectional area divided by length of crossing). Alternative II will provide a bench of each side of the crossing. Both benches will be above the low flow channel with a 14’ clearance. The openness ratio for alternative II is 2. Little Meadow Creek Recommendations Alternative II is recommended because it allows crossing on both banks. This alternative provides the most efficient wildlife passage. This also ties in with the pedestrian crossing coming down from the south side of the roadway. Moose and wildlife are limited to one side of the bank in alternative I, which could result in increased crossings in the project intersection. The chosen alternative will require additional moose fencing.
Other Recommendations Median Drainage The runoff from the road currently flows into the vegetated ditches and with the proposed alternatives, the drainage will not be significantly changed.
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 7 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Report
Erosion and Existing Soils No significant erosion is anticipated since proposed roadway improvement are not significantly changing drainage patterns. Proposed ditches and side slopes will be reseeded and stabilized with native grasses. A scour analysis will be done in future hydrological analyses. The area of concern is the potential embankments under the bridge and the southwest side of the crossing, near the NAPA parking lot. Riprap will be placed on the banks of the river at a 50% slope to minimize erosion and scour.
Code of Federal Regulation Although this area is not currently part of a mapped FEMA floodplain, the report has been prepared in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 23 part 650.111, which outlines the requirements for encroachments made within base floodplains.
Conclusion The Parks Highway and Big Lake Intersection Reconstruction project provides a crossing for Little Meadow Creek north of the intersection. Currently, Little Meadow Creek crosses though a 78” CMP culvert with a 48” overflow culvert. As stipulated by this project’s EA the culvert will be replaced with a single span bridge and the creek will be realigned to its historical path. The bridge will also provide a wildlife crossing and return the creek bed to a more natural state. The crossing was analyzed using HEC- RAS software. The analyses showed the alternatives are both feasible and will lower the 100 year flood event water surface elevations. The recommended alternative is alternative II, which provides both hydraulic capacity and wildlife crossing benches on both banks of the creek.
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 8 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Report
Appendix I. HEC-RAS Modeling Data
100 year flood extents from HEC-RAS Ras Mapper with open crossing channel are shown below in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Bridge Crossing 100 Year Flood Event Extents For Proposed Crossing
______Parks Highway and Big Lake Road Intersection 9 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Report
Plan: Existing Pla Little Meadow Cr LMC CL RS: 1124.78 Profile: 100 yr E.G. Elev (ft) 195.97 Element Left OB Channel Right OB Vel Head (ft) 0.00 Wt. n-Val. 0.050 W.S. Elev (ft) 195.96 Reach Len. (ft) 0.00 1.00 0.00 Crit W.S. (ft) Flow Area (sq ft) 453.95 E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.000099 Area (sq ft) 453.95 Q Total (cfs) 252.20 Flow (cfs) 252.20 Top Width (ft) 172.59 Top Width (ft) 172.59 Vel Total (ft/s) 0.56 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 0.56 Max Chl Dpth (ft) 4.98 Hydr. Depth (ft) 2.63 Conv. Total (cfs) 25385.1 Conv. (cfs) 25385.1 Length Wtd. (ft) 1.00 Wetted Per. (ft) 175.87 Min Ch El (ft) 190.98 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.02 Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 0.01 Frctn Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 14.55 C & E Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum SA (acres) 3.36
Plan: Existing Pla Little Meadow Cr LMC CL RS: 1022.06 Profile: 100 yr E.G. Elev (ft) 195.97 Element Left OB Channel Right OB Vel Head (ft) 0.00 Wt. n-Val. 0.050 W.S. Elev (ft) 195.96 Reach Len. (ft) 0.00 102.72 0.00 Crit W.S. (ft) Flow Area (sq ft) 556.72 E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.000033 Area (sq ft) 556.72 Q Total (cfs) 252.20 Flow (cfs) 252.20 Top Width (ft) 123.50 Top Width (ft) 123.50 Vel Total (ft/s) 0.45 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 0.45 Max Chl Dpth (ft) 5.81 Hydr. Depth (ft) 4.51 Conv. Total (cfs) 44223.7 Conv. (cfs) 44223.7 Length Wtd. (ft) 102.72 Wetted Per. (ft) 127.40 Min Ch El (ft) 190.15 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.01 Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 0.00 Frctn Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 14.53 C & E Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum SA (acres) 3.36
Plan: Existing Pla Little Meadow Cr LMC CL RS: 976.34 Profile: 100 yr E.G. Elev (ft) 195.96 Element Left OB Channel Right OB Vel Head (ft) 0.00 Wt. n-Val. 0.050 W.S. Elev (ft) 195.96 Reach Len. (ft) 0.00 45.72 0.00 Crit W.S. (ft) Flow Area (sq ft) 619.76 E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.000030 Area (sq ft) 619.76 Q Total (cfs) 252.20 Flow (cfs) 252.20 Top Width (ft) 152.52 Top Width (ft) 152.52 Vel Total (ft/s) 0.41 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 0.41 Max Chl Dpth (ft) 5.66 Hydr. Depth (ft) 4.06 Conv. Total (cfs) 46252.1 Conv. (cfs) 46252.1 Length Wtd. (ft) 45.72 Wetted Per. (ft) 155.74 Min Ch El (ft) 190.30 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.01 Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 0.00 Frctn Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 13.15 C & E Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum SA (acres) 3.03
Plan: Existing Pla Little Meadow Cr LMC CL RS: 933.34 Profile: 100 yr E.G. Elev (ft) 195.96 Element Left OB Channel Right OB Vel Head (ft) 0.00 Wt. n-Val. 0.050 W.S. Elev (ft) 195.96 Reach Len. (ft) 0.00 43.00 0.00 Crit W.S. (ft) Flow Area (sq ft) 662.67 E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.000035 Area (sq ft) 662.67 Q Total (cfs) 252.20 Flow (cfs) 252.20 Top Width (ft) 206.08 Top Width (ft) 206.08 Vel Total (ft/s) 0.38 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 0.38 Max Chl Dpth (ft) 5.86 Hydr. Depth (ft) 3.22 Conv. Total (cfs) 42570.2 Conv. (cfs) 42570.2 Length Wtd. (ft) 43.00 Wetted Per. (ft) 208.51 Min Ch El (ft) 190.10 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.01 Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 0.00 Frctn Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 12.47 C & E Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum SA (acres) 2.85
Plan: Existing Pla Little Meadow Cr LMC CL RS: 744.93 Profile: 100 yr E.G. Elev (ft) 195.96 Element Left OB Channel Right OB Vel Head (ft) 0.01 Wt. n-Val. 0.050 W.S. Elev (ft) 195.95 Reach Len. (ft) 0.00 18.51 0.00 Crit W.S. (ft) Flow Area (sq ft) 330.70 E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.000088 Area (sq ft) 330.70 Q Total (cfs) 252.20 Flow (cfs) 252.20 Top Width (ft) 69.50 Top Width (ft) 69.50 Vel Total (ft/s) 0.76 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 0.76 Max Chl Dpth (ft) 6.84 Hydr. Depth (ft) 4.76 Conv. Total (cfs) 26911.1 Conv. (cfs) 26911.1 Length Wtd. (ft) 18.51 Wetted Per. (ft) 72.98 Min Ch El (ft) 189.11 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.02 Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 0.02 Frctn Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 11.98 C & E Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum SA (acres) 2.71
Plan: Existing Pla Little Meadow Cr LMC CL RS: 707.74 Profile: 100 yr E.G. Elev (ft) 195.96 Element Left OB Channel Right OB Vel Head (ft) 0.00 Wt. n-Val. 0.050 W.S. Elev (ft) 195.95 Reach Len. (ft) 0.00 37.19 0.00 Crit W.S. (ft) Flow Area (sq ft) 617.25 E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.000025 Area (sq ft) 617.25 Q Total (cfs) 252.20 Flow (cfs) 252.20 Top Width (ft) 129.51 Top Width (ft) 129.51 Vel Total (ft/s) 0.41 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 0.41 Max Chl Dpth (ft) 6.88 Hydr. Depth (ft) 4.77 Conv. Total (cfs) 50735.2 Conv. (cfs) 50735.2 Length Wtd. (ft) 37.19 Wetted Per. (ft) 134.19 Min Ch El (ft) 189.07 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.01 Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 0.00 Frctn Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 11.78 C & E Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum SA (acres) 2.67
Plan: Existing Pla Little Meadow Cr LMC CL RS: 596.55 Profile: 100 yr E.G. Elev (ft) 195.95 Element Left OB Channel Right OB Vel Head (ft) 0.00 Wt. n-Val. 0.050 W.S. Elev (ft) 195.95 Reach Len. (ft) 0.00 111.19 0.00 Crit W.S. (ft) Flow Area (sq ft) 1251.35 E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.000006 Area (sq ft) 1251.35 Q Total (cfs) 252.20 Flow (cfs) 252.20 Top Width (ft) 271.17 Top Width (ft) 271.17 Vel Total (ft/s) 0.20 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 0.20 Max Chl Dpth (ft) 6.56 Hydr. Depth (ft) 4.61 Conv. Total (cfs) 101993.8 Conv. (cfs) 101993.8 Length Wtd. (ft) 111.19 Wetted Per. (ft) 275.50 Min Ch El (ft) 189.39 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.00 Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 0.00 Frctn Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 10.99 C & E Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum SA (acres) 2.50
Plan: Existing Pla Little Meadow Cr LMC CL RS: 477.41 Profile: 100 yr E.G. Elev (ft) 195.95 Element Left OB Channel Right OB Vel Head (ft) 0.00 Wt. n-Val. 0.050 W.S. Elev (ft) 195.95 Reach Len. (ft) 0.00 119.14 0.00 Crit W.S. (ft) Flow Area (sq ft) 950.96 E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.000010 Area (sq ft) 950.96 Q Total (cfs) 252.20 Flow (cfs) 252.20 Top Width (ft) 195.75 Top Width (ft) 195.75 Vel Total (ft/s) 0.27 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 0.27 Max Chl Dpth (ft) 6.36 Hydr. Depth (ft) 4.86 Conv. Total (cfs) 79938.6 Conv. (cfs) 79938.6 Length Wtd. (ft) 119.14 Wetted Per. (ft) 199.90 Min Ch El (ft) 189.59 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.00 Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 0.00 Frctn Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 8.17 C & E Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum SA (acres) 1.90
Plan: Existing Pla Little Meadow Cr LMC CL RS: 343.03 Profile: 100 yr E.G. Elev (ft) 195.95 Element Left OB Channel Right OB Vel Head (ft) 0.00 Wt. n-Val. 0.050 W.S. Elev (ft) 195.95 Reach Len. (ft) 0.00 134.38 0.00 Crit W.S. (ft) Flow Area (sq ft) 791.77 E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.000018 Area (sq ft) 791.77 Q Total (cfs) 252.20 Flow (cfs) 252.20 Top Width (ft) 195.90 Top Width (ft) 195.90 Vel Total (ft/s) 0.32 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 0.32 Max Chl Dpth (ft) 6.55 Hydr. Depth (ft) 4.04 Conv. Total (cfs) 59293.2 Conv. (cfs) 59293.2 Length Wtd. (ft) 134.38 Wetted Per. (ft) 197.94 Min Ch El (ft) 189.40 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.00 Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 0.00 Frctn Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 5.79 C & E Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum SA (acres) 1.37
Plan: Existing Pla Little Meadow Cr LMC CL RS: 283.72 Profile: 100 yr E.G. Elev (ft) 195.95 Element Left OB Channel Right OB Vel Head (ft) 0.00 Wt. n-Val. 0.050 W.S. Elev (ft) 195.95 Reach Len. (ft) 0.00 59.31 0.00 Crit W.S. (ft) Flow Area (sq ft) 764.58 E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.000017 Area (sq ft) 764.58 Q Total (cfs) 252.20 Flow (cfs) 252.20 Top Width (ft) 174.44 Top Width (ft) 174.44 Vel Total (ft/s) 0.33 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 0.33 Max Chl Dpth (ft) 7.45 Hydr. Depth (ft) 4.38 Conv. Total (cfs) 60358.6 Conv. (cfs) 60358.6 Length Wtd. (ft) 59.31 Wetted Per. (ft) 176.60 Min Ch El (ft) 188.50 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.00 Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 0.00 Frctn Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 3.39 C & E Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum SA (acres) 0.79
Plan: Existing Pla Little Meadow Cr LMC CL RS: 208.45 Profile: 100 yr E.G. Elev (ft) 195.95 Element Left OB Channel Right OB Vel Head (ft) 0.00 Wt. n-Val. 0.050 W.S. Elev (ft) 195.94 Reach Len. (ft) 0.00 75.27 0.00 Crit W.S. (ft) Flow Area (sq ft) 557.65 E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.000030 Area (sq ft) 557.65 Q Total (cfs) 252.20 Flow (cfs) 252.20 Top Width (ft) 118.09 Top Width (ft) 118.09 Vel Total (ft/s) 0.45 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 0.45 Max Chl Dpth (ft) 6.78 Hydr. Depth (ft) 4.72 Conv. Total (cfs) 45896.4 Conv. (cfs) 45896.4 Length Wtd. (ft) 75.27 Wetted Per. (ft) 121.00 Min Ch El (ft) 189.16 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.01 Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 0.00 Frctn Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 2.49 C & E Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum SA (acres) 0.59
Plan: Existing Pla Little Meadow Cr LMC CL RS: 168.62 Profile: 100 yr E.G. Elev (ft) 195.94 Element Left OB Channel Right OB Vel Head (ft) 0.01 Wt. n-Val. 0.050 W.S. Elev (ft) 195.94 Reach Len. (ft) 0.00 39.83 0.00 Crit W.S. (ft) Flow Area (sq ft) 417.68 E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.000056 Area (sq ft) 417.68 Q Total (cfs) 252.20 Flow (cfs) 252.20 Top Width (ft) 90.32 Top Width (ft) 90.32 Vel Total (ft/s) 0.60 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 0.60 Max Chl Dpth (ft) 6.75 Hydr. Depth (ft) 4.62 Conv. Total (cfs) 33625.3 Conv. (cfs) 33625.3 Length Wtd. (ft) 39.83 Wetted Per. (ft) 93.68 Min Ch El (ft) 189.19 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.02 Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 0.01 Frctn Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 1.65 C & E Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum SA (acres) 0.41
Plan: Existing Pla Little Meadow Cr LMC CL RS: 129.53 Profile: 100 yr E.G. Elev (ft) 195.94 Element Left OB Channel Right OB Vel Head (ft) 0.01 Wt. n-Val. 0.050 W.S. Elev (ft) 195.93 Reach Len. (ft) 0.00 39.09 0.00 Crit W.S. (ft) Flow Area (sq ft) 351.96 E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.000126 Area (sq ft) 351.96 Q Total (cfs) 252.20 Flow (cfs) 252.20 Top Width (ft) 108.91 Top Width (ft) 108.91 Vel Total (ft/s) 0.72 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 0.72 Max Chl Dpth (ft) 5.92 Hydr. Depth (ft) 3.23 Conv. Total (cfs) 22502.1 Conv. (cfs) 22502.1 Length Wtd. (ft) 39.09 Wetted Per. (ft) 111.54 Min Ch El (ft) 190.01 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.02 Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 0.02 Frctn Loss (ft) 0.01 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 1.30 C & E Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum SA (acres) 0.32
Plan: Existing Pla Little Meadow Cr LMC CL RS: 76.15 Profile: 100 yr E.G. Elev (ft) 195.94 Element Left OB Channel Right OB Vel Head (ft) 0.01 Wt. n-Val. 0.050 W.S. Elev (ft) 195.92 Reach Len. (ft) 0.00 53.38 0.00 Crit W.S. (ft) Flow Area (sq ft) 295.47 E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.000131 Area (sq ft) 295.47 Q Total (cfs) 252.20 Flow (cfs) 252.20 Top Width (ft) 71.87 Top Width (ft) 71.87 Vel Total (ft/s) 0.85 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 0.85 Max Chl Dpth (ft) 5.89 Hydr. Depth (ft) 4.11 Conv. Total (cfs) 22048.2 Conv. (cfs) 22048.2 Length Wtd. (ft) 53.38 Wetted Per. (ft) 74.26 Min Ch El (ft) 190.03 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.03 Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 0.03 Frctn Loss (ft) 0.01 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 1.01 C & E Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum SA (acres) 0.24
Plan: Existing Pla Little Meadow Cr LMC CL RS: 40.12 Profile: 100 yr E.G. Elev (ft) 195.93 Element Left OB Channel Right OB Vel Head (ft) 0.01 Wt. n-Val. 0.050 W.S. Elev (ft) 195.92 Reach Len. (ft) 0.00 59.95 0.00 Crit W.S. (ft) Flow Area (sq ft) 389.61 E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.000075 Area (sq ft) 389.61 Q Total (cfs) 252.20 Flow (cfs) 252.20 Top Width (ft) 95.55 Top Width (ft) 95.55 Vel Total (ft/s) 0.65 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 0.65 Max Chl Dpth (ft) 6.09 Hydr. Depth (ft) 4.08 Conv. Total (cfs) 29093.4 Conv. (cfs) 29093.4 Length Wtd. (ft) 59.95 Wetted Per. (ft) 97.82 Min Ch El (ft) 189.83 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.02 Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 0.01 Frctn Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 0.59 C & E Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum SA (acres) 0.14
Plan: Existing Pla Little Meadow Cr LMC CL RS: 16.2 Profile: 100 yr E.G. Elev (ft) 195.93 Element Left OB Channel Right OB Vel Head (ft) 0.00 Wt. n-Val. 0.050 W.S. Elev (ft) 195.92 Reach Len. (ft) Crit W.S. (ft) 191.29 Flow Area (sq ft) 461.43 E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.000050 Area (sq ft) 461.43 Q Total (cfs) 252.20 Flow (cfs) 252.20 Top Width (ft) 107.64 Top Width (ft) 107.64 Vel Total (ft/s) 0.55 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 0.55 Max Chl Dpth (ft) 6.37 Hydr. Depth (ft) 4.29 Conv. Total (cfs) 35649.8 Conv. (cfs) 35649.8 Length Wtd. (ft) Wetted Per. (ft) 110.08 Min Ch El (ft) 189.55 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.01 Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 0.01 Frctn Loss (ft) Cum Volume (acre-ft) C & E Loss (ft) Cum SA (acres)
Little Meadow Creek Existing Plan: Existing Plan 3/18/2017 Little Meadow Creek Existing Plan: Existing Plan 3/18/2017
.05 .05 202 206 Legend Legend
200 EG 100 yr 204 EG 100 yr
WS 100 yr 202 WS 100 yr 198 Crit 100 yr Ground 200 196 Ground Bank Sta Bank Sta 198 194
Elevation(ft) Elevation(ft) 196 192 194
190 192
188 190 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (ft) Station (ft)
Little Meadow Creek Existing Plan: Existing Plan 3/18/2017 Little Meadow Creek Existing Plan: Existing Plan 3/18/2017
.05 .05 206 206 Legend Legend
204 EG 100 yr 204 EG 100 yr
202 WS 100 yr 202 WS 100 yr Ground Ground 200 200 Bank Sta Bank Sta 198 198
Elevation(ft) 196 Elevation(ft) 196
194 194
192 192
190 190 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (ft) Station (ft)
Little Meadow Creek Existing Plan: Existing Plan 3/18/2017 Little Meadow Creek Existing Plan: Existing Plan 3/18/2017
.05 .05 208 204 Legend Legend 206 EG 100 yr 202 EG 100 yr 204 WS 100 yr 200 WS 100 yr 202 Ground Ground 198 200 Bank Sta Bank Sta 196 198
Elevation(ft) Elevation(ft) 194 196 192 194
192 190
190 188 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft) Station (ft)
Little Meadow Creek Existing Plan: Existing Plan 3/18/2017 Little Meadow Creek Existing Plan: Existing Plan 3/18/2017
.05 .05 206 208 Legend Legend 204 206 EG 100 yr EG 100 yr 204 202 WS 100 yr WS 100 yr 202 200 Ground Ground 200 198 Bank Sta Bank Sta 198 196 196 Elevation(ft) Elevation(ft) 194 194
192 192
190 190
188 188 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Station (ft) Station (ft)
Little Meadow Creek Existing Plan: Existing Plan 3/18/2017 Little Meadow Creek Existing Plan: Existing Plan 3/18/2017
.05 .05 210 210 Legend Legend
EG 100 yr EG 100 yr 205 205 WS 100 yr WS 100 yr
Ground Ground 200 200 Bank Sta Bank Sta
195 195 Elevation(ft) Elevation(ft)
190 190
185 185 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Station (ft) Station (ft)
Little Meadow Creek Existing Plan: Existing Plan 3/18/2017 Little Meadow Creek Existing Plan: Existing Plan 3/18/2017
.05 .05 210 206 Legend Legend 204 EG 100 yr EG 100 yr 205 WS 100 yr 202 WS 100 yr
Ground 200 Ground 200 Bank Sta 198 Bank Sta
196 195 Elevation(ft) Elevation(ft) 194
190 192 190
185 188 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Station (ft) Station (ft)
Little Meadow Creek Existing Plan: Existing Plan 3/18/2017 Little Meadow Creek Existing Plan: Existing Plan 3/18/2017
.05 .05 204 204 Legend Legend
202 EG 100 yr 202 EG 100 yr
200 WS 100 yr WS 100 yr 200 Ground Ground 198 Bank Sta 198 Bank Sta 196 196
Elevation(ft) 194 Elevation(ft) 194 192
190 192
188 190 0 50 100 150 200 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Station (ft) Station (ft)
Little Meadow Creek Existing Plan: Existing Plan 3/18/2017 Little Meadow Creek Existing Plan: Existing Plan 3/18/2017
.05 .05 204 202 Legend Legend
202 EG 100 yr 200 EG 100 yr WS 100 yr WS 100 yr 200 198 Ground Ground
198 Bank Sta 196 Bank Sta
196 194 Elevation(ft) Elevation(ft)
194 192
192 190
190 188 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Station (ft) Station (ft)