Appendix D- pg D-1

Appendix D: Agency Meeting Summary & Agency Correspondence

North Douglas Crossing - a Public Involvement Process to identify Juneau’s Preferred Crossing Route

Agency Meetings – November 9, 2006

The CBJ and the North Douglas Crossing project team met with local, state and federal agencies to discuss the project on November 9, 2006. The morning discussion focused on airport, road transportation and navigation issues; the afternoon focused on issues of concern to environmental regulatory agencies. This document summarizes main points of discussion at the two meetings. Discussion was, in part, framed by a series of questions presented by the consultant team. The list of attendees at the meetings is attached. Morning Session: Airport, Road Transportation, and Navigation Issues Question #1 – Section 4(f) and Right of Way: Is there any change to the regulatory process, specifically 4(f) considerations, if the crossing right-of-way is owned by the city rather than the State of Alaska, and the state relinquishes that portion of the Mendenhall Wetlands State Game Refuge (MWSGR) to the transportation corridor? Andy Hughes, DOT&PF, replied that if Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) funding is used for the project, then Section 4(f) will apply, regardless of the ownership of the right-of-way. Section 4(f) requires that there be “no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from the property [Refuge]; and … all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use.” Properties within the Refuge are subject to 4(f), regardless of ownership and right-of-way status. The courts have found, and the FHWA has emphasized, that it is not acceptable to transfer land out of Refuge status simply to avoid Section 4(f). Question #2 – Airport Improvements Status: The Juneau International Airport (JIA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is scheduled for completion in late 2007. Do proposed changes to the Runway Safety Area (RSA) move the landing approach of JIA’s airspace? Does the FAA support a 16-foot clearance from the top of a bridge structure to the bottom of airspace/approach surface to account for truck and large vehicle clearance? The Airport, FAA and Alaska Airlines recommend that the crossing be as low and as far away from airport approaches as possible, to avoid conflicts. Pat Oien, FAA, noted that FAA would do a formal airspace analysis and decision on any crossing structure. She noted that there are alternatives in the JIA EIS that would move the threshold for Runway 26 further east, that would potentially impact the location of a channel crossing. There is also a plan to install MALSR lights on the east end of the runway, which extend 2,400’ and cannot be blocked from view by approaching planes.

Appendix D- pg D-2

Ben Mello, FAA, suggested that the crossing project should assume the longest possible length for the RSA and MALSR light system until the EIS is completed and an alternative is selected. Ben will work with R&M to ensure that the most extensive Airport east-end alternative is depicted on North Douglas crossing project maps. He will also check to see whether a crossing structure can intersect the MALSR light alignment and maintenance-access or other issues associated with that. Robert Van Hastert, FAA, is the Part 77 obstruction and evaluation expert. He can model obstruction scenarios, but would need to work with someone on consultant team to determine what types of example crossings to test. Robert’s contact number is 907-271-5863. Lanae Jacobson from Alaska Airlines noted that the airlines requirements for approach are even more restrictive than the FAA. It was further suggested that future Airport needs could require even more development or use on the eastern side of the field – and urged that there be flexibility to meet those future needs. Question #3 – State funding for North Douglas Crossing: What is the status of any DOT&PF project or funding with regard to the North Douglas Crossing or EIS? Andy Hughes, DOT&PF, replied that the EIS process is closed. Some federal funding was not expended. It cannot be spent on another project unless reallocated by Congress. The State Legislature appropriated $3 million for Gastineau Channel dredging. ADOT&PF is doing a reconnaissance on the channel within the 75-foot width of the federally designated navigable channel, to determine what it would take to dredge it (profile, quantities, and cost to dredge). Victor Winters, ADOT&PF, is the project manager. The state would need a permit from the Corps of Engineers and U.S. Coast Guard approval to dredge. The Corps of Engineers will not fund dredging; it will require state funds. This project will help determine what quantities of dredge material could be used as fill for a crossing. It will be a minimum of six months before the state has estimates of dredge material quantities. ADOT&PF mentioned the potential design of having very wide, flat road embankments that could be revegetated with wetland vegetation. The Coast Guard indicated that their authority is from high tide line to high tide line. They are most likely to get involved if the project proceeds to crossing construction. If there is just maintenance dredging, or if dredge spoils are disposed of outside the channel, they may not get involved.

Appendix D- pg D-3

Question #4 – What is the status of Sunny Point separated grade intersection project? As of November 9, 2006, the state had opened bids for project and was determining how to meet the full funding requirement for construction (the low bid was higher than the engineer’s estimate). The intersection design could accommodate a connection to a channel crossing structure. It was noted that the Sunny Point interchange bridge is pile-supported and could be looked to for design and costs that might be associated with pile-supported crossing. Question #5 – Reviving Crossing EIS: What factors influence the priority ADOT&PF assigns to the North Douglas Crossing project or its ability to receive funding to continue an EIS? Note: This question was not discussed. Question #6 – Navigability: It seems that the restricted use of the channel for shallow draft vessels as well as the likelihood of a resume maintenance dredging program should be considerations in determining the navigational clearance requirements of a North Douglas bridge crossing. What are your comments on this? The U.S Coast Guard replied that they would require that a new crossing meet the same navigational clearances as the existing bridge, which is a minimum of 50 feet from mean high tide to the bottom chord of the structure. There is an avenue for the Coast Guard to approved reducing the navigability requirement, but that is rarely used and would have to be analyzed in the context of an EIS. ADOT&PF responded that a low level crossing with a drawbridge (possibly opening sideways, not vertically) should be considered as a design alternative. The Coast Guard would follow a public process to determine methods and schedule for operation of a draw bridge, depending upon vessel use of the channel, tides, vehicle traffic patterns, etc. Questions #7 and #8 pertinent to afternoon meeting with regulatory agencies (see below). Question #9 – Additional factors to consider as the community considers preferred route.

• Ben Lyman, CBJ CDD – The project would be located in a Federal Emergency Management Agency coastal velocity flood zone. How would the structure impact flooding? During this discussion, it was noted that ADOT&PF has not do any geotechnical work on the project to date, and that such work is not within the scope of the CBJ’s public involvement project.

• Andy Hughes, ADOT&PF – Important to reexamine traffic patterns, using current or forecasted population nodes, current or forecasted traffic generators, travel time savings for each, vehicle use. Noted that the existing traffic analysis (February 2005 technical memo) did not distinguish between Vanderbilt Hill and Sunny Drive, and did not take into consideration new traffic generators (e.g., Home Depot in Lemon Creek.)

Appendix D- pg D-4

• Andy Hughes, ADOT&PF – Concern with regard to encroachment on Airport. Give Airport as much room as possible for future needs. Of the transportation facilities that serve the Juneau borough, the Airport’s operation is most critical.

• Dave Palmer, JIA – Seems most rational to use existing intersection at either Vanderbilt Hill or Sunny Drive, rather than constructing a new intersection. Travel time between Vanderbilt Hill Road and Yandukin Drive is minimal on Egan Drive.

• Andy Hughes, DOT&PF – Preliminarily recommends Vanderbilt Hill Road or Sunny Point, not Yandukin Drive area (due to Airport proximity.)

• On Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, Vanderbilt intersection improvement is not currently a high priority. But, if it was selected for a crossing location, that priority could change.

• Noted that the North Douglas Neighborhood Association (in September 2006 letter to CBJ) advocated for construction of a bench road, along with the crossing, to accommodate the increased traffic without impacting the existing North Douglas Highway through residential area.

Afternoon Session: Issues of Concern to Environmental Regulatory Agencies Question #7 – Issues Related to Decisions Regarding Environmental Permits

• Richard Enriquez, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, noted that while wetlands are not identified as particular “environmental hot spots,” that does not diminish the overall importance of all wetlands in the Mendenhall Wetlands State Game Refuge (MWSGR).

• Consider whether location, height, habitat displacement would affect bird strikes at the Airport (particularly on routings closer to Airport).

• Susan Walker, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), noted that there is a drainage divide at the east end of the runway, in the intertidal zone, in the Yandukin Drive area. It is important to not interrupt the normal drainage patterns and cause dewatering of important habitat. The alternative routes further east (Vanderbilt Hill Road, Sunny Point) would have less impact on this drainage.

• NMFS also noted that if the project impacts the Refuge and/or wetlands, it will need to be mitigated. Addressing the issue of Refuge lands being lost to accretion (need for a “permanent boundary” for the Refuge) should be considered as a mitigation option. Consider purchasing accreted lands for mitigation (upland owner would need to file for accreted lands, then sell to CBJ or state for inclusion in Refuge), or Legislature could establish a permanent boundary for the Refuge (would probably require compensation to upland landowners who would not longer receive accreted land.)

• Chris Meade, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) noted that agencies are not concerned only with location, but with design. The 404(b)(1) guidelines require that fill be permitted on wetlands only for the least damaging practicable

Appendix D- pg D-5

alternative. “Practicable” includes consideration of cost, logistics and technology. The analysis depends on data, not community preference. In National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, would also look at source of fill and would require a detailed wetlands functional analysis of alternative routes. A structure completely on pilings would not be a major issue to EPA, unless it impacted an environmental “hot spot.”

• Tom Schumacher, ADFG, spoke to the importance of the Refuge for recreation and open space. Need to consider affects of a crossing on the transit of the Refuge by fish, birds, wildlife, and people. Hunters are concerned that a new crossing may raise the issue of a no-hunt buffer (there is currently no buffer on the Refuge). The City would determine firearms regulations. The Refuge is going through a “zoning” process now; considering some areas closed to hunting (e.g., near Mendenhall Peninsula, where there have been issues near residences.)

• Least fill footprint on wetlands is best.

• Susan Walker noted that one advantage of another crossing would be opening up access to areas for development that have lower environmental values than the high value wetlands that remain (and are subject to development pressure) on the Juneau mainland. Consider protecting high value wetlands as mitigation for this project.

• NEPA process must be an EIS, not an Environmental Assessment for a project of this magnitude. (CBJ noted that ADOT&PF would manage the NEPA process, not the city.)

• Need to look at potential impacts to FEMA coastal velocity flood zone.

• Need to address potential disturbance to eagles’ nests (work with USFWS.)

• Mitigation projects at East and West Creeks (associated with Sunny Point intersection improvements project) must not be impacted by this project.

• Regarding location, it was noted that Vanderbilt Hill is the most intertidal & subtidal of the routes. Sunny Point and Yandukin alternatives traverse more estuarine and forested wetlands. Low estuarine wetlands, regionally, are more valuable than higher “drier” wetlands.

• ADFG prefers a routing that is more toward one end of the Refuge or the other, rather than directly through the middle of the Refuge.

• If a Refuge crossing is necessary, look to shortest crossings. Question #8 – Additional Information since 2003-05?

• Tom Schumacher, ADFG, recommended looking at Bob Armstrong’s recent report on “hot spots” for additional information.

• Richard Enriquez, USFWS, noted that Aurora and Harris Harbor sediments have some contamination issues. Need to consider contaminants in dredged material from channel, if that is planned source for fill in wetlands.

Appendix D- pg D-6

November 9, 2006 – Meeting Attendees Morning Session – Airport, Road Transportation and Navigation Issues

Charlie Bader-FAA Air Traffic-Engineering Services (phone) Derril Bergt-FAA Air Traffic (phone) Jay Boyer, US Coast Guard Susan Bell, McDowell Group Teri Camery, CBJ Community Development Jan Caulfield, Sheinberg Associates Fred Fraiser, FAA Tech Ops Roger Healy, CBJ Engineering Joe Heueisen, Juneau Airport Board Jim Heumann, DOT&PF Andy Hughes, DOT&PF Lanae Jacobson, Alaska Airlines Christine Linden, CBJ Ports Micheal Lukshin, DOT&PF Bruce Lobdell, FAA Tech Ops Ben Lyman, CBJ Community Development Ben Mello, FAA Pat Oien-FAA Airports (phone) Dave Palmer, CBJ Airport Manager Mike Post-FAA Flight Standards (phone) Dave Seris, US Coast Guard Brett Serlin, R&M Engineering Barbara Sheinberg, Sheinberg Associates Dick Somerville, PND Engineering John Stone, CBJ Ports Denny Stoner-FAA Flight Procedures Office (phone) Mike Story, R&M Engineering Ron Swanson, Juneau Airport Board Steve Turner, FAA Air Traffic Victor Winters, DOT&PF Afternoon Session – Issues of Concern to Environmental Regulatory Agencies

Sheila Cameron, DNR Office of Habitat Management and Planning Jan Caulfield, Sheinberg Associates Ed Collazi, DNR Division of Lands, Mining and Water Richard Enriquez, US Fish and Wildlife Service Travis Guymon, DNR Division of Lands, Mining and Water Roger Healy, CBJ Engineering Brenda Krauss, DEC Ben Lyman, CBJ Community Development Chris Meade, US Environmental Protection Agency Tom Schumacher, ADFG Brett Serlin, R&M Engineering Barbara Sheinberg, Sheinberg Associates Dick Somerville, PND Engineering Mike Story, R&M Engineering Susan Walker, National Marine Fisheries Service