APPENDIX A Environmental Authorizations and Permits

Transcription

1 APPENDIX A Environmental Authorizations and Permits

2 Juneau Second Channel Crossing Environmental Authorizations and Permits The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental analysis and documentation process identifies what approvals, authorizations, clearances, permits, and reviews are required for the project. They may include the following. NEPA-Phase Consultations and Coordination 16 Section 106 (National Historic Preservation Act) Review Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO Clearance) The Section 106 review process ensures compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. A Section 106 review is required for federal-aid projects that may affect cultural or historical resources and projects requiring federal permits. The lead federal agency (FHWA) makes a determination regarding the project impacts on known cultural and historical resources and requests State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurrence. If potential adverse effects are identified, further consultation and mitigation are undertaken. Section 7 (Endangered Species Act) Consultation - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) A consultation required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 must be performed for any activities that may affect species formally listed as threatened or endangered species. A USFWS consultation is required for bird and terrestrial species and a NMFS consultation for marine species. In the Juneau area, listed species include Steller sea lions and humpback whales. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation - NMFS Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is addressed in a provision of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (50 CFR ). It is defined as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. If the federal sponsoring agency determines the project may adversely affect EFH, the DOT&PF environmental coordinator will prepare an EFH assessment that documents the resource, the potential adverse effects, and the proposed measures to mitigate the adverse effects. NMFS reviews and responds to this assessment. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Consultation - NMFS The MMPA of 1972 (16 U.S.C ) established a moratorium, with certain exceptions, on the taking of marine mammals in U.S. waters. NMFS will determine whether a project being considered has the potential to constitute a taking of marine mammals. 16 Environmental permits may be obtained concurrently with the NEPA environmental document approval provided the design of the preferred alternative is detailed enough to quantify the impacts accordingly.

3 Bald Eagle Nesting Tree Coordination - USFWS The Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended, specifically prohibits the molestation or disturbance of bald and golden eagles. If a project is determined to have impacts near existing bald eagle nests, a consultation with USFWS will establish appropriate buffers. Section 309 (Clean Air Act) Consultation - United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Section 309 of the Clean Air Act provided the EPA with authority to review and publicly comment on federal actions conducted under NEPA. Therefore, EPA would review the environmental analyses within the DEIS for compliance with NEPA requirements and guidelines of the Council on Environmental Quality. 4(f) Determination - Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) The Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f) (49 USC Subtitle I, Section 303), prohibits approval for the use of land from a significant publicly owned public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or any significant historical site for transportation projects unless no practicable alternative exists. If the only practicable alternative must use such a 4(f) property, all reasonable mitigation measures must be incorporated into the project. The environmental assessment evaluation will reflect the results of early consultation, including identification of the effects of the project on 4(f) properties and acceptable mitigation measures. The FHWA shall consult with the officials having jurisdiction over the section 4(f) lands, and other agencies as necessary. The environmental impact statement shall thoroughly analyze and document alternatives that would avoid the section 4(f) land and provide detailed measures to minimize harm. Floodplain Management Consultation - CBJ Protection of floodplains and floodways is required by Executive Order 11988, USDOT Order , and the Federal-Aid Policy Guide (23 CFR 650). The purpose of floodplain programs is to avoid and minimize encroachment of structures within 100-year (base) floodplains and to avoid supporting land use development that is incompatible with floodplain values. Any placement of fill or construction within the mapped 100- year flood plain requires authorization from the local water resource and flood plain management agency (CBJ). The purpose for these regulations is to avoid and/or minimize highway encroachment within the 100-year (base) floodplains and to avoid supporting land use development that is incompatible with floodplain values. The floodplain management consultation occurs concurrently with the Alaska Coastal Management Program consistency review. Airport Clearance Consultation - Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport clearance is required on all projects that are within 3.2 kilometers of public airports that may obstruct navigable airspace (14 CFR Part 77). Clearance is obtained by submitting a sketch plan of the project and airport vicinity showing distances and pertinent relationships between the project and landing paths to the FAA Airport Division Manager, Airport Division, FAA for approval. Air Quality Assessment (Clean Air Act) - USEPA and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) A macro-scale analysis will be conducted for particulate matter (PM-10) and a micro-

4 scale analysis will be conducted for carbon monoxide (CO) once a preferred alternative is selected. Environmental Permits Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act) Permit - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) A USACE Section 10 permit is required by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for construction or placement of structures, dredging or other work in or affecting navigable waters of the U.S. Section 103 (Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act) Permit - USACE The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (33 U.S.C. 1413) of 1972 requires approval for the transport of dredged material for the purpose of dumping into ocean waters. The standard for permit issuance is whether the dumping will "unreasonably degrade or endanger" human health, welfare, or the marine environment [MPRSA sections 102(a) and 103(a)]. USACE is permitting authority subject to EPA concurrence role and use of EPA dumping criteria. Section 404 (Clean Water Act) Permit - USACE Under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) of 1972, a Section 404 Permit is required for placement or discharge of fill materials into waters of the U.S., including wetlands. A permit may be issued after public notice, consideration whether the project is in the public interest, and incorporation of mitigation measures. Certificate of Reasonable Assurance - ADEC Under authority of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C 1344), ADEC issues a Certificate of Reasonable Assurance to accompany any federal permit pursuant to the EPA Clean Water Act (e.g., USACE Section 404 and USCG Section 9 permits). Certification is may be issued after state review of the permit application and a request for certification is published with the federal permit s public notice. Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) Consistency Finding - ADNR, Office of Project Management and Permitting (OPMP) For The ACMP applies to activities within or outside affecting land or water or a natural resource of the State of Alaska within the formally designated coastal zone that affect land or water or a natural resource of the State of Alaska coastal zone, as defined in the volume of Coastal Zone Boundaries of Alaska (1988, updated in 1991). A Coastal Project Questionnaire must be completed and submitted with related materials to ADNR OPMP. OPMP coordinates a review by state agencies and the public to determine whether the project is consistent with the ACMP and issues a Consistency Determination Finding. During this process the CBJ will review the project and check consistency with the Juneau Wetlands Management Plan (JWMP) and the Juneau Coastal Management Plan (JCMP). Special Area Permit - Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) An ADF&G Special Area Permit (5 AAC ) is required for construction, continuing use, or other activity in state game refuges, critical habitat areas or sanctuaries.

5 Section 9 Permit for Bridges Over Navigable Waters - U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Under Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended, and the General Bridge Act of 1946, as amended, the plans and location for construction or alteration of bridges and causeways across navigable waters of the U.S. must be approved by the USCG Coast Guard before the start of construction. Application Permit for Private Aids to Navigation - USCG An Army Corps of Engineers permit (33 CFR 62.25, 64, 66, and 67) is required for installation of private aids to navigation on man-made structures in or over navigable waters of the U.S. if the USCG determines the structure to be an obstruction to navigation. Title 41 (Fish Habitat) Permit- ADNR Office of Habitat Management and Permitting (OHMP) A Title 41 Permit applies to construction or other activities in anadromous streams or that block fish passage in streams with resident fish. A fish habitat permit may be required for any activity that either (1) involves a potential obstruction in water bodies containing resident fish (e.g., a culvert), or (2) equipment use or construction activities that would disturb the natural flow or bed of an anadromous stream, river, or lake. This includes crossing of anadromous streams by vehicles or equipment. Title 41 does not normally apply to activities in the marine environment; however, if a project will affect the mouth of a stream, a fish habitat permit may be required. Leasing of State-Owned Land (11 AAC 58/11 AAC ) - ADNR State-owned land includes State-owned tidelands (land between mean high and mean lower low tides), submerged land (three miles out from mean lower low tide), and shoreland (land covered by non-tidal water considered to be navigable under federal law). ADNR will provide a lease for the use of State-owned lands. Actions considered could involve lease, easement on, or purchase of State-owned lands. Construction-Phase Permits (normally obtained by contractor) Wastewater Disposal Permit - Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Per 18 AAC 72, operations resulting in the disposal of non-domestic wastewater into or upon waters or lands of the States require a permit from the ADEC. Non-domestic wastewater includes wastes resulting from stormwater runoff and both septic effluent and trench-dewatering activities. Temporary Water Use Permit- ADNR A temporary water use permit may be required when taking freshwater on a temporary basis from any surface or subsurface source on all lands regardless of land ownership. This permit would be necessary if the contractor for activities that used water from a lake, stream, or well for activities such as: dust control, compaction of soils, potable water at construction camps, hydro-seeding, or drilling. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit - USEPA and ADEC Under Section 402 of the 1972 Clean Water Act, this permit is required for point source discharges of wastewater or stormwater into waters of the U.S. from construction, industrial, or commercial operations. EPA has permitting authority for the NPDES

6 program, although ADEC maintains certification authority. The permit to cover construction activities is the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities. Noise Permit - CBJ Any operation of heavy machinery prior to 7:00 am (9:00 am weekends) or after 10:00 pm requires a noise permit. Miscellaneous Permits Other miscellaneous permits may be required of the construction contractor depending on the nature and location of the project.

7 APPENDIX B AGENCY SCOPING COMMENTS SUMMARY

8 JUNEAU SECOND CHANNEL CROSSING AGENCY SCOPING COMMENTS AND DRAFT RECOMMENDED ACTION PLAN Agency ACOE EIS Content: Develop EIS with adequate information to make a determination of compliance with Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines. Avoid/Minimize impacts: Avoid discharge of dredged or fill material; reduce project footprint; evaluate alternatives with least adverse impact on aquatic ecosystem. Three-step Project Progression: Implement avoidance, minimization, and compensation procedure for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources. EIS Scope of Analysis: Second Crossing is a reasonably related activity to the extension of North Douglas Highway and development of the New Growth Area on the west side of Douglas Island; evaluate all in EIS and apply for under the same permit application. Limits of Corps Jurisdiction: Landward limits in tidal waters extends to the high tide line; non-tidal extends to the ordinary high water mark or limit of the adjacent wetlands-show all proposed alternatives relative to pertinent jurisdictional boundaries. Hydrology: Analyze pre-project and anticipated post-project hydrologic conditions; suggest contact with ACOE Waterways Experiment Station (WES) in Vicksburg, Mississippi; data available from navigational improvement study for Gastineau Channel; Research data from current JIA EIS; Also, assess hydrological functional values. Impacts to Aquatic Resources: Analyze pre- and post-project impacts to aquatic resources for various alternates and detail the benefits of any proposed compensatory mitigation; Also, prepare a pre- and post-project functional assessment for ecological diversity, nutrient removal/transformation, production export, recreation, wildlife habitat, and fish habitat-check available data from JIA EIS. Similar No-not treated as a direct impact if not directly related to proposed action in the context of indirect and cumulative impact assessment ; 1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual - Degree of - Degree of Page 1 of 7

9 Agency ACOE USFWS NMFS Navigation: Analyze the proposed project s effect to navigation resulting from the discharge of fill material. Wetland Impacts: Concern with further encroachment upon, or degradation of wetlands associate with the MWSGR and the Mendenhall River delta; Include evaluation of cumulative impacts to these wetlands and the incremental effects of any proposed or reasonably foreseeable new impacts. Disturbance to Fish and Wildlife: Evaluate measures to minimize disturbance to waterfowl foraging habitat, shorebird, eagle, anadromous fish habitat, and seal and sea lion foraging areas at the mouth of the Mendenhall River. Effects on Bird Passage: Conduct a thorough evaluation to ensure that bridge structures do not become obstruction or hazards to bird movements since the project area is a heavily used migratory corridor for many avian species. General Fish and Wildlife Resources: Provide general and detailed data about the fish and wildlife and their habitats that are directly and indirectly affected by the project; Ensure provisions for fish passage and migration in channel. Essential Fish Habitat: Prepare an EFH assessment in accordance with 50 CFR (e)(3) to minimize the adverse effects of the proposed action. Scope: Include an evaluation of the impacts of the proposed Douglas Island development, including increased traffic, expansion/development on natural resources, development in the absence of extension of infrastructure (sewer, water) and the potential impact of infrastructure development, proposed port facilities, commercial zones and construction/development near shoreline and offshore. -Degree of - Degree of - Degree of -Degree of -Degree of No-not treated as a direct impact if not directly related to proposed action in the context of indirect and cumulative impact assessment-degree of Page 2 of 7

10 Agency NMFS Study Area: Study area should be expanded to include the west side of Douglas Island; Fritz Cove and the marine areas adjacent to West Douglas Island have significant EFH, over-wintering area for humpback whales, and support commercial and recreational fishing for several marine fish, as well as Dungeness and King Crab; EFH in Fritz Cove and areas adjacent to West Douglas Island may be negatively impacted by proposed development facilitated by the Second Crossing. Cumulative Impacts: Evaluate project in the context of past, present and potential future impacts to the project area; Include, at a minimum, the proposed expansion at JIA, proposed Sunny Point Intersection improvements, and the proposed DOT Transportation Plan for southeast Alaska. Needed Research in Study Area: location, characteristics and seasonal use of spawning habitats in Gastineau Channel and adjacent areas for important forage fish species, particularly capelin, sand lance, herring, and eulachon. Needed Research in Study Area: location, characteristics and seasonal use of intertidal/subtidal rearing habitat for juvenile Dungeness crab and other crab species in Fritz Cove, Gastineau Channel and the west side of Douglas Island. Needed Research in Study Area: Establish baseline to characterize the seasonal range of tidal conditions as they relate to freshwater mixing and drainage patterns-speed, volume, salinity, flow direction, and sediment transport. Needed Research in Study Area: Model the effects of different crossing structures on tidal currents, flow and sediment transport in relation to fish and wildlife habitat. Needed Research in Study Area: Determine the seasonal utilization of near-shore marine habitats on the west side of Douglas Island by marine and anadromous fish and marine mammals. Needed Research in Study Area: Estimate impacts on the west side of Douglas Island on the commercial and recreational fisheries that occur there. Needed Research in Study Area: Determine/model the effects of a structure across Gastineau Channel on the migration of juvenile and adult salmon. No-not treated as a direct impact if not directly related to proposed action in the context of secondary and cumulative impact assessment-degree of -Degree of -Degree of -Degree of -Degree of -Degree of -Degree of -Degree of -Degree of Page 3 of 7

11 Agency NMFS ADNR- OHMP Needed Research in Study Area: Establish a baseline of water quality characteristics for Gastineau Channel before, during and following completion of the project that includes natural and contaminant parameters. Needed Research in Study Area: Determine the marine/brackish shallow water fish and invertebrate fauna between Salmon Creek and Fritz Cove. Needed Research in Study Area: Determine spawning grounds, summer and winter adult distribution of juvenile starry flounder from the Fritz Cove spawning stock. Needed Research in Study Area: Determine seasonal distribution and habitat requirements of pink shrimp and sidestripe shrimp in Fritz Cove. Known Hot Spots for Fish/Invertebrates: The mouth and intertidal area of all streams and tidal sloughs encompassed by the study area; Fritz Cove; mouth of Fish Creek and Gastineau Channel; 9- mile Creek to the 1 st navigational marker in Fritz Cove; the intertidal area at the end of the Mendenhall Peninsula near the mouth of the Mendenhall River is a highly productive area; Picnic Cove near Outer Point; emergent vegetation in the wetlands and Refuge due to carbon and nutrient production and secondary and tertiary treatment of regulated pollutants. Purpose and Need: Clarify, rank, and fully document; West Douglas Conceptual Plan is not a Master Plan and is not intended to meet the more detailed CBJ land use criteria for a master plan, including the identification of important habitats (mapping and field work); Similarly, the North Douglas Highway Extension Corridor Identification EIS lacks the resource and impact information for a road proposal; More recent information on public need may be required to support a finding of superior public need for a Second Crossing; Specific criteria for a transportation corridor on the Refuge must be met; Incorporate environmental goals, including Refuge management goals into the purpose and need. Cumulative impacts of incremental developments and actions must be considered, and habitat degradation due to fragmentation must be minimized. -Degree of -Degree of -Degree of -Degree of - Degree of Page 4 of 7

12 Agency ADNR- OHMP Scope of Review: The scope of review needs to be extended to include the West Douglas potential New Growth Area-detailed planning and impact documents do not exist; Similarly, the project scope should be extended to include some analysis of the Bench Road corridor; Effects of the project on congestion at the current bridge could be evaluated to address need and development of West Douglas; project may increase use of the North Douglas Highway and further burden the busy highway and existing bridge; Limiting routes to existing interchanges/intersections may unduly constrain crossing locations. ADF&G and ADNR Review Roles: ADF&G is the lead for Special Area (Refuge) management and permitting, Coastal management review within Special Areas, and habitat-related review of ADNR land disposals. ADNR-OHMP is the lead for Fish Habitat permitting, Coastal Management Reviews outside Special Areas, and NEPA reviews for federal actions. Depending on the preferred alternative, either ADF&G or ADNR may be the lead for coastal management review for the project coincidental with release of the DEIS. Both agencies will coordinate closely and both agencies will participate in the NEPA review. Review Criteria for Refuge: Adhere to Mendenhall Wetlands State Game Refuge Management Plan dated March 1990 and Special Area Permitting review criteria; a Special Area Permit cannot convey an interest in state land. Refuge Advisory Group Recommendations: The Refuge CAG requests that impacts be fully identified and avoided, project need and off-refuge alternates be fully explored, and that they be informed of the project status throughout the EIS process. Additional Review Criteria: Habitat impacts of the project within and outside the Refuge will be also be reviewed with reference to other applicable municipal and state land use documents and regulations, including state habitat standards, coastal management enforceable policies, impaired waterbody recovery plans, state species of concern, and state fish passage/habitat requirements. Impact Assessment: Conduct a thorough analysis of biological and hydrologic functions and impacts, cumulative impact analysis, and pay special attention to impacts to human use of resources. No-not treated as a direct impact if not directly related to proposed action in the context of indirect and cumulative impact assessment-degree of Page 5 of 7

13 Agency ADNR- OHMP Impact Assessment-Cumulative, Indirect and Secondary Effects: Cumulative impacts should include stormwater, wastewater, and industrial discharges; colonization by invasive species; isostatic uplift; and potential, pending, and approved accretion claims; Impact assessments must address cumulative and potential effects on natural communities from changes in water quality, tidal flushing, salinity, sediment and nutrient transport. Impact Assessment-Pilings Only Design Options: Include alternative analysis and cost estimates for pilings-only design options for routes within wetlands. Impact Assessment-Behavioral Effects: Analyses should consider effects of alternatives on bird habitat as well as habitat availability and potential effects on airport safety-consider effects of noise and lighting, effects on wildlife movement and resting, as well as foraging. Impact Assessment-Douglas Island Impacts: The analysis should address important fish and wildlife resources, and current human use of those resources, including deer winter refuge habitat, waterfowl concentration areas, amphibian breeding ponds, productive eelgrass and shellfish beds, and rare natural communities/forest types; According to CBJ land use code. Impact Assessment-Human Use: Address effects of the project on access, hunting, shellfish gathering, sport and commercial fishing and related vessel traffic, outdoor education, wildlife viewing, and other recreation uses and values, including scenic values of the Refuge. Selected Refuge Information Needs: Recreational and hunter use information will be needed to assess potential impacts on access and use; Water quality and benthic toxicology data for the refuge is lacking and would be required to address cumulative impacts of urban pollutants form proposed and existing road run-off and other resources; Little information is available for the Refuge concerning habitat use by invertebrates; bird resting and night-time use areas; quantification of marsh productivity or waterfowl foraging intensity in different habitats; patterns of use by juvenile anadromous and marine fish; use by adult capelin, sand lance, and eulachon; bird use of habitats on the central Douglas side of the Refuge; and wildlife disturbance effects from development and recreational use. New and Existing Information: ADNR provided additional source data and contacts for the project. - Degree of - Degree of - Degree of -Degree of N/A Page 6 of 7

14 Agency ADF&G ADEC CBJ Coastal Coordinator s: ADF&G provided comments to ADNR pursuant to MOU and concurs with and supports the comments provided by OHMP. Refuge: Wetlands within the Refuge represent a habitat that is rare in southeast Alaska-the potential for direct and secondary impacts to change the character and function of the wetland is of concern for a refuge this size-concern that a crossing may break up the continuity of the refuge for wildlife as well as the people who use-conduct full review of alternatives that would avoid the Refuge; Each of the four key criteria identified in the Mendenhall Wetlands State Game Refuge Management Plan for establishing a transportation corridor within the Refuge must be fully and explicitly addressed. Air Quality: No specific comments at this time; Mendenhall Valley is classified as an air quality nonattainment area for PM-10 and any final decision to place the crossing in the Valley region may require analysis of air quality impacts. Juneau Coastal Management Program: Provided enforceable policies of the JCMP that apply to the Second Crossing project: minimize hazards, superior public need and feasible and prudent test for dredging and filling in tideflats and wetlands; protection of scenic qualities; protection of shorelines and fisheries resource base; maintain water quality standards; habitat protection. Anadromous Streams: Approximately 20 catalogued salmon streams within the study area-five are classified as impaired by ADEC (Jordan, Duck, Vanderbilt, Lemon, and Casa Del Sol Creeks); stream mouths are especially critical; salmon migratory routes need to be considered. Tidal Flows: Model bridge structures for hydrological impacts, specifically currents and tidal flow throughout the seasonal range of tidal conditions, for purposes of evaluating sediment transport and secondary effects on wetlands and streams. Secondary Impacts on West Douglas: Assessment of secondary and cumulative impacts should include a literature review and identification of sensitive marine and upland habitats in West Douglas. N/A -Degree of - Degree of -Degree of - Degree of Page 7 of 7

15 APPENDIX C PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS SUMMARY

16 JUNEAU SECOND CHANNEL CROSSING PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS AND DRAFT RECOMMENDED ACTION PLAN Topic Roadway Access/Safety/Traffic Refuge Purpose and Need Environmental Impacts Improved access is vital to the Juneau community Improved access is not necessary-leave things the way they are Safety aspect of project is critical-emergency response and improved access benefits Safety justification for the project is weak-project is not warranted based on safety needscan provide police and fire stations on North Douglas Island Traffic would be greatly improved on the existing bridge Traffic congestion and safety conditions would worsen on North Douglas Highway How does the Bench Road fit into the plan? Be sure to include analysis of the Bench Road Consider transit/ public transportation Need bike lanes and pedestrian accommodations on the crossing Crossing should be located off of the Refuge Concern over impacts to the Refuge, habitat fragmentation, wetlands, wildlife, and fisheries. Concern over impacts to hunting and waterfowl Concern over impacts to recreation and access to the Refuge Concern over adequacy of purpose and need objectives Question the reality of population growth considering recent trends-why do we need this project? Comprehensive cost effectiveness must be demonstrated-waste of money Stop perpetual and redundant planning-move ahead-the project is needed for the community-build it now-build it responsibly and cost effectively-essential to the growth and vitality of Juneau Impacts to wetlands, wildlife, and fisheries Construction Impacts are a concern Noise and air quality impacts are an issue -No-Build /No Page 1 of 3

17 JUNEAU SECOND CHANNEL CROSSING PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS AND DRAFT RECOMMENDED ACTION PLAN Topic Economic Development Recreation Funding Aesthetics Navigation Social Impacts Land Use-need-update of Comprehensive Plan needed first-concern over community sprawl How will West Douglas develop?-question reality of affordable housing being made available-need more details Adverse impacts to downtown economy Uncertainty as to the status of the West Douglas Conceptual Plan Recreation and recreational access are very important issues-project would negatively impact recreational aspects of the Refuge Create access points, fishing platforms, view platforms with the project Costs and funding are a major concern (source, benefit, competing projects, operation and maintenance costs, additional service requirements) Need to work out a funding strategy What is Goldbelt s contribution? Land sales to individuals instead of developers would prompt community support Don t waste money on existing bridge-use funds now to construct a new bridge-a second crossing would significantly improve traffic conditions on the existing bridge. Aesthetics and viewshed are very important-need to protect Design an architecturally appealing structure Navigation-no need to maintain navigation in the Channel Navigation is very important in the Channel-do not impact Impacts to residents along North Douglas Highway-quality of life, social impacts, safety, etc. Minimize impacts to neighborhoods Page 2 of 3

18 JUNEAU SECOND CHANNEL CROSSING PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS AND DRAFT RECOMMENDED ACTION PLAN Utilities Other Topic Utility improvements would be beneficial-make sure they are included Minimize light pollution on the bridge Concern over disproportionate benefit to Goldbelt-are they contributing? Airport impacts-don t impact JIA operations Crossing should be located near the airport-best function and would be near areas already impacted in the Refuge Make sure bridge is expandable for future needs Keep the public informed Second Crossing EIS should include the proposed development of West Douglas No-not treated as a direct impact if not directly related to proposed action. in the context of indirect and cumulative impact assessment. Page 3 of 3