final environmental assessment of the wrangell front street road and utility project

Revised Environmental Assessment

January 2011

DOT&PF Project No. 68828 and 67789 Federal Project No. STP HPRM-003(135)

EPA Grant Number XP-96028001-2

Wrangell Road & Utility Improvements

REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

WRANGELL ROAD AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS

WRANGELL, ALASKA

DOT&PF PROJECT NO. 68828 AND 67789

FEDERAL PROJECT NO. STP HPRM-003(135)

USEPA GRANT NUMBER XP-96028001

Prepared for:

United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Alaska Division

709 West 9th Street, Room 851 Juneau, Alaska 99802

Cooperating Agency:

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Prepared for:

State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Southeast Region

6860 Glacier Highway Juneau, Alaska 99801

Prepared by:

DOWL HKM 4041 B Street

Anchorage, Alaska 99503 (907) 562-2000

January 2011

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

for

WRANGELL ROAD AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS

REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

DOT&PF PROJECT NO. 68828 AND 67789

FEDERAL PROJECT NO. STP HPRM-003(135)

BACKGROUND

The State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF), in cooperation with the City and Borough of Wrangell (CBW), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) propose to improve a one-half mile (0.5 mile) corridor of road, sidewalks, and utilities in and along Front Street and add visual character and pedestrian amenities such as those described in the Wrangell Downtown Revitalization Report (WDRR), including the addition of lampposts along Front Street, areas for future landscaping, and the use of dark-red-colored glass chips to create colored concrete in the sidewalk design.

The project corridor is defined as Front Street from the city pier to Case Avenue, including the intersections of Front Street with Stikine Avenue, Campbell Drive Loop, Federal Way, McKinnon Street, Lynch Street, Saint Michaels Street, Episcopal Avenue, and Case Avenue. The roadways and infrastructure of Wrangell’s downtown are at least 30 years old, nearing the end of their useful life, and are in need of repair or replacement.

An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in accordance with the DOT&PF Alaska Environmental Procedures Manual, FHWA Technical Advisory 6640.8a, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Guidance for Special Appropriation Act Grants (2008). The EA evaluates potential environmental impacts from the proposed improvements. Detailed explanations of the proposed project components, and associated impacts, as well as drawings showing the existing and proposed road, sidewalks, landscape, and utility designs, can be found in the EA.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION

FHWA has provided funding for the improvements described below. Supplemental Figure Sets A and B are located at the end of the EA.

Road Improvements

Remove existing concrete roadway and resurface project corridor with concrete (6 inches of concrete, 6 inches of base course, and 16 inches of subbase).

Widen 12-foot vehicle traffic lanes to 13 feet from the city pier (beginning of the proposed project) to Case Avenue (end of the proposed project), with clearly marked curbs and road shoulders and posted 15-mile-per-hour speed limits. Existing 39-foot curb-to-curb dimensions of Front Street would generally be widened to 42 feet (Supplemental Figures A-1 through A-6).

Reconstruct two vertical pile/retaining systems near the Tlingit and Haida Regional Housing Authority and City Market buildings that are partially failing. The reconstruction will consist of acquiring the necessary right-of-way (ROW) and installation of a new stabilized earth wall that will support roads and sidewalks at the interface with adjacent buildings along Front Street (Figure 4 of the EA and Supplemental Figures B-4 and B-5).

Delineate 8-foot parking lanes throughout most of the project and add bulb-outs at the intersections of Front Street with Federal Way, Campbell Drive, McKinnon Street, and Lynch Street (Figures A-1 through A-6). Add a delineated parking lane to the western side of Front Street from Campbell Drive to Case Avenue (at its southern intersection with Front Street) as shown on Supplemental Figures A-1 through A-6.

Improve existing circular turnaround for tour buses and truck traffic at the city pier (Supplemental Figure A-1).

Improve truck-turning movement at the intersection of Front Street and McKinnon Street by restricting on-street parking and lengthening the curve (Supplemental Figure A-2).

Reconfigure parking on Front Street at City Market from perpendicular parking to angled parking (Supplemental Figure A-5).

Pedestrian Facility Improvements

Remove existing concrete sidewalks along Front Street and Lynch Street (Supplemental Figure A-3) and replace with sidewalks that have widths, cross slopes, and ramps that meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards and fit within the available ROW as described in the EA.

Reconstruct 8-foot sidewalks on both sides of Front Street between the city pier and Campbell Drive (Supplemental Figures A-1 through A-4).

Reconstruct and widen sidewalks on the northeast side of Front Street between Campbell Drive and Case Avenue to widths varying between 4 and 6 feet (Supplemental Figures A-1 through A-4).

Relocate the sidewalk across from City Market into the Sentry Hardware parking area in order to make needed space for angled parking at the City Market (Supplemental Figure A-5).

Construct new 6-foot sidewalks on the southwest side of Front Street between Campbell Drive and Case Avenue (Supplemental Figures A-1 through A-4).

Reconstruct 4.5-foot sidewalks on both sides of the road on Lynch Street (Supplemental Figure A-3).

Construct new 8-foot sidewalks at the city pier turnaround area (Supplemental Figure A-1).

Clearly define crosswalks by constructing 10-foot bulb-outs at the intersection of Front Street and Federal Way, Campbell Drive, McKinnon Street, and adding or reconstructing curbs (Supplemental Figures A-1 through A-6).

Utility Improvements

Lighting and Electrical (Supplemental Figures B-1 through B-6):

Add lighting to project corridor to meet American National Standard Practice of Roadway Lighting.

Visual Character and Pedestrian Amenities

The visual character and pedestrian amenities will include the addition of lampposts on the Front Street sidewalks as shown on Figure 5 of the EA and Supplemental Figures A-1 through A-6.

Dark-red-colored glass chips would be floated into the grey concrete surface in Front Street sidewalks to replicate the appearance that the sidewalks are paved with crushed garnets.

Areas planned for future landscaping would be preserved (graveled) rather than cemented. General depictions of the landscape and streetscape concepts are included in the WDRR in Appendix A of the EA.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT

The overall purposes of the Proposed Action are to improve vehicle and pedestrian transportation, install underground utility systems along Front Street, and enhance pedestrian amenities in the project corridor for Wrangell residents and visitors.

Road

Concrete road surfaces in the project corridor are over 30 years old and are deteriorating and beginning to spall and crack.

Front Street formerly paralleled the oceanfront, and buildings on the western side of the road were supported by pilings. Over the years, extensive tideline fill efforts have expanded the Wrangell downtown area to the west. However, in some places, subsurface vertical pilings still support roads and sidewalks at the interface with adjacent buildings along Front Street. Some of these pilings are at the end of their useful life and are beginning to fail, resulting in subsidence of roads and gaps between road surfaces and sidewalks (Figure 6 of the EA). In addition, these pilings are not fully located within the ROW and private property acquisition will be needed to construct the walls and provide space for future maintenance (Figure 7 of the EA).

Traffic Control and Safety

Travel lanes, road shoulders, and parking areas are unmarked and there is no posted speed limit on Front Street.

Cars park at or near the corner of intersections, limiting sight distances for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians crossing intersections.

Parking on the western side of Front Street from Campbell Drive to Case Avenue is on gravel road shoulders because there are no curbs or delineated parking (Figure 8 of the EA).

Due to the current narrow width, buses and large vehicles are unable to turn around at the city pier without entering the adjacent city-owned staging/receiving yard, currently used in association with barging activities by the leasees, Alaska Marine Lines and Northland Services Inc. (Figure 9 of the EA).

Large vehicles turning at McKinnon and Front Streets are sometimes constrained due to a tight turning radius and the presence of parked vehicles in key locations.

Current perpendicular parking at the City Market disrupts traffic flow because it requires vehicles to back directly into the traveled way. Long vehicles, when parked in this configuration, can extend into the southbound driving lane, further disrupting traffic and affecting safety on Front Street.

Existing curb heights vary.

Pedestrian Safety

Concrete sidewalks are spalling and cracking in some sections making the walking surface uneven.

Sidewalks are not in compliance with the ADA.

Water draining onto sidewalks is ponding in some areas and, during the winter, icing occurs in these areas creating dangerous walking conditions.

There are no sidewalks in some areas; in other areas, crosswalks are not clearly defined or consistently separated from movements of vehicles. The city pier lacks a sidewalk; pedestrian facilities consist of undefined walkways in close proximity to industrial activities.

As stated above, cars park at or near corners reducing visibility at crosswalks.

Utilities

Lighting and Electrical

Lighting does not meet current American National Standard Practice of Roadway Lighting standards, limiting the visibility of pedestrians and vehicles.

Electrical lines installed 20 years ago are aging and may not meet the projected increased capacity, because residents switch from oil to often cheaper electric heat.

Some utility poles are badly listing and are in the sidewalk, constricting sidewalk widths.

Visual Character and Amenities

Visually, Front Street is an unadorned corridor with a mix of structures dating between the 1890s and 1980s. It typifies a working town in Southeast Alaska with no landscape or pedestrian amenities.

REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES

Two alternatives are evaluated in the EA: The Proposed Action Alternative and the No-Action Alternative. In the development phase of the project six other alternatives were considered (Section 3.3 of the EA). The Alternative Analysis took into account input from private property owners and the community throughout the Public Involvement process and during the development of the EA. These alternatives were dismissed based on engineering, community, and environmental reasons.

No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, no action would be taken, and deficiencies described in Chapter 2.0 of the EA would not be addressed. The CBW would continue ongoing maintenance of road, sidewalks, and utilities.

ASSESSMENT

Based on the EA analysis, the Proposed Action would not have significant adverse impacts on any resource category (Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences). Below is a summary table of the environmental consequences discussed in the EA.

Environmental Consequences

Environmental Element Description of Impact Applicable Page

Number in EA

ROW

Partial acquisition of 11 properties would be required, which could potentially adversely affect businesses by decreasing the parking capacity. Approximately 74 temporary construction easements would be required.

16

Social

Increase in community cohesion, enhanced accessibility, and visual aesthetics, improved utility systems, and increased safety. No disproportional affects to children or minorities. No long-term impacts to travel patterns, isolate

18


Number in EAneighborhoods, schools, fire, or police districts, or displacement of businesses or residents. Net loss of 2 legal parking spaces between the city pier and Campbell Drive/gain of approximately 15 parking stalls along the waterside of the road between Campbell Drive and Case Avenue.

Economic

No long-term direct economic impacts are anticipated. Short-term impacts to businesses may occur as a result of construction. Indirect impacts could result from increased spending as residents and tourists spend more time downtown. Less maintenance and operations costs for the CBW.

20

Cultural Resources

Impacts to archeological deposits are possible during construction. SHPO concurred that the project would not adversely affect the eligibility of previous listed properties, proposed eligible buildings, or the Historic District.

23

Water Body Involvement

Minor short-term direct and indirect impact during construction. Improved water quality in stormwater entering Zimovia Strait.

29

Alaska Coastal Management Program

The project is consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management Program Statewide Standards. 30

Hazardous Waste

Petroleum contaminated soil may be encountered and asbestos piping will be exposed during construction. A Contingency Plan has been developed to outline field-screening procedures for potentially contaminated soils, stockpiling, or reuse of contaminated soil during construction and to address worker safety. A Quality Assurance Project Plan and a Hazardous Waste Management Plan would be submitted to the USEPA for approval, in the event that USEPA funds are used for the treatment or management of soils or removal and disposal of asbestos containing material.

30

Air Quality Localized short-term impacts may result during construction 33

Noise

No long-term noise impacts are anticipated.Short-term noise disturbances may occur during construction. Disturbances would be minimized by limiting construction activities to 7 a.m. through 8 p.m. on weekdays and holidays to comply with local ordinances and minimize disturbances to local residents.

33

Water Quality

Minor short-term direct and indirect impact during construction. Improved water quality in stormwater entering Zimovia Strait.

34

Permits and Authorizations

Coastal Zone consistency determinationUSACE Nationwide Permit (7) for Outfall Structures and Maintenance Notification of intent to work under the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Construction General Permit under the Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (APDES) program. DEC storm drain plans review. Noise permit from CBW.

36


Number in EAConstruction Impacts Temporary minor impacts. 36

Irreversible and Irretrievable

Commitment of Resources

None. 42

Short-term Use of Environment versus

Long-term Productivity None. 42

The Proposed Action is consistent with local land use and transportation plans and goals as described in Section 4.4 of the EA.

MITIGATION MEASURES AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS

The following summarizes mitigation measures and environmental commitments that are incorporated into the project:

Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments

Mitigation Measure or Environmental Commitment Description Applicable Page

Number in EAROW None. 36

Social

Pedestrian access will be maintained during business hours. A Traffic Control Plan detailing minimization of impact to road and sidewalk users will be developed and implemented by DOT&PF or their contractor. Construction will be phased to minimize disruption at the city pier.

36

Economic See Social. 37

Cultural Resources

A plan for archeological monitoring has been developed to address any potential archeological finds during construction. If an adverse effect is anticipated, a memorandum of agreement will be created.

37

Hazardous Waste

A contingency plan has been developed in cooperation with the DEC to address the possibility of encountering petroleum contaminated soils during construction. Equipment fueling and servicing operations will not occur within 100 feet of water bodies, and sorbent materials will be used during project construction and to detail measures to control discharges of such materials into waters of the United States. The contractor will handle project-generated hazardous waste in accordance with DEC requirements and dispose of project-generated waste at the nearest appropriate facility. A Quality Assurance Plan and Hazardous Management Plan will be submitted to the USEPA for approval in the event that funds are used for treatment or management of contaminated soils or removal of asbestos containing material.

37

Solid Waste

The contractor will handle project-generated waste in accordance with DEC requirements and dispose of project-generated waste at the nearest appropriate facility. Existing concrete in the project corridor will be removed and stockpiled in the empty yard between the Nolan Center and boat yard (Figure 2 of the EA). The CBW intends to use the concrete pieces as part of a previously planned and permitted tideland fill/port expansion project located in front of the Nolan Center.

37

Hazardous Waste

Petroleum contaminated soil may be encountered and asbestos piping will be exposed during construction. A Contingency Plan has been developed to outline field-screening procedures for potentially contaminated soils, stockpiling, or reuse of contaminated soil during construction and to address worker safety. A Quality Assurance Project Plan and a Hazardous Waste Management Plan would be submitted to the USEPA for approval, in the event that USEPA funds are used for the treatment or management of soils or removal and disposal of asbestos containing material.

30

Air Quality Dust will be minimized through watering, as needed. 38

Noise

Construction activities (exceeding 40 decibels) will be limited to 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on weekdays and 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. on weekends and holidays to comply with local noise ordinances and minimize disturbances to local residents. No activity should exceed 90 decibels in a residential district without a noise permit from the CBW.

33

Water Quality

Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be in place to protect water quality including erosion prevention and stabilization measures. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be developed for inclusion in the construction special provisions. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be prepared to detail BMPs planned for the construction effort as required by the DEC Construction General Permit.

38

Material Sources

Materials needed for the project will be contractor supplied. The contractor is responsible for ensuring that all environmental permitting and compliance is completed prior to material removal.

38

Invasive Species

Use only weed-free straw, topsoil, gravel, and other new materials brought into the site. Wash vehicles before entering and leaving the construction site. Remove weeds from material sites before excavating material. Gravel all disturbed areas.

38

COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

A public hearing was held on Monday, November 2, 2010, at Nolan Civic Center, 296 Campbell Drive, Wrangell, Alaska. Comments received at the public hearing are summarized below:

Comment Response I would remind everyone probably one of the biggest events is the 4th of July so if this is a project that rolls over a two year plan, I don't have a problem with that, but we need to make people very aware of that period of time because you will have more people in town and it will be congested. We need to be part of this process so that when it goes out to bid, that time frame will be considered. We will have a lot of folks in the downtown during that time period. We certainly don't need a great big ditch, so it’s worthy of mentioning, so when we put this project out to bid, those dates are considered because they are key and critical to our community. The 4th of July is the premier event for our community, not only as an event and a money maker for our community but as a return of folks coming back home and loving this community for what it is. It should be focused on and thought about while we are planning this construction process.

Comment acknowledged.

We have a lot of people in town who are elders who use wheelchairs, walkers, canes, and they have had strokes or traumatic brain injuries or are just getting old and its hard getting around. People in this community should not have to make a decision or deliberate whether or not to go to the store or pharmacy or hardware store and have to deliberate whether to take that risk to break a hip, or a leg or arm. The state of our downtown - and I know the City does what they can do to make sure its safe as possible - but when you have a plan like this and you know there will be a lot of money spent, you don't want to invest in a lot of money in infrastructure that will be torn out year after year when we know this project is going to happen. It’s not acceptable that we have the downtown corridor that basically excludes the members of the public from participating and what should be our primary center of community involvement. We live in a town where you communicate with people by running into them at the grocery store or the post office or on the street. Right now, a lot of people do not feel safe coming downtown and trying to get around on the sidewalks or streets. I consider myself to be pretty strong and mobile. It can be entertaining for me to get around town but for a lot of people it’s completely undoable and that is completely unacceptable. I know there is a lot of technical reasons and policy reasons why this project hasn't happened sooner than what it has. What I want to leave you with is the expectation that I have as a leader of this community, a taxpayer of the State of Alaska. Every time you go to work, this should be your number 1 priority and when you go to work, you think about the residents who cannot use the stores, and for right now because they fear literally for their lives. I don't want to seem like I am over exaggerating it but I can tell you exactly that is what people are feeling in this community and we are isolating them. We are causing them to lose their dignity and we are excluding them to participate in this community. And that's not acceptable. As you move forward, you need to make this your number 1 priority until it’s completed from this day forward. I am happy to help you in any way that I can, to provide you with any support that you need, as mayor I can tell you the days of delays and setbacks are over and that again, your number 1 priority is to

This project is partly being conducted to upgrade the pedestrian facilities to meet ADA, (Americans with Disabilities Act) criteria, and make the downtown safer and more walkable for pedestrians.

Comment Response get this project done and to be as creative, and as intelligent and committed to getting this finishing this project, as we are in seeing it completed. One property in particular is one of the oldest buildings, the Biehl's building. Back in 1924, was moved back 24 feet, which created the main street of downtown Wrangell, because that is where it ended and after that it was beach front. That part of building and side walk, from Jenkins Building, which was constructed in 1932, and that section of the sidewalk was at such an angle (relating to what Mayor Maxand said), that it’s very difficult for anyone in a wheel chair or small mobile chair to get around. It's pretty dangerous because it has a heck of a slope. . I am looking forward to this project getting completed on time and I echo Dawn Angerman's comments and Mayor Maxand's statements, in terms of hurrying it up and getting it done. Let's get it done right but let's get the streets and sidewalks straightened up because those people who have a disability, whether it is a noticeable disability or just an elderly person have difficulties, those sidewalks need to be fixed so that people don't start shuddering down towards the street and end up in the gutter. I've actually seen that happen with individuals and it’s really sad to see that kind of thing happen.


Some of my clients are people who are not able to get downtown to do anything because they fear they will fall and end up in the hospital, long-term care. I myself have fallen and twisted my ankle due to the sidewalks that are broken and busted up.


What about the financial impact? The community is concerned about this. This project impacts revitalization. There is a lot of evidence out there, around the country and communities that show investment in the downtown, that it doesn’t just provide safe sidewalks and streets that are drivable, but it makes people want to visit their towns. Is the State going to work with this community to reimburse for the lost revenue from the delays or find ways to help us fund the secondary projects (i.e., landscaping)? This project is more than about safety, it should be about making this community the most amazing community.

The State has given Wrangell $300,000 worth of design money from the General Fund.

There have been some of us going to downtown revitalization meetings for at least 10 years. I know the State didn't get involved until 2007/2008, but we have been looking forward to this project, and there have been a lot of hopes and prayers put into this project, and it’s been delayed now for several years, so I guess my first question is why?

Due to the delay of this project, now we don't have the funds to do the landscaping portion of this. All of the things that we were excited about. When I hear you say that its 90% infrastructure project, 10% other that is the first that I've heard of that. The word revitalization is the key here. I don't know how many businesses have closed down since this project. If we wait any longer I'm afraid we may not need this project. We are hanging on by our finger tips. I am also on the Convention and Visitors Bureau and we have delayed going to cruise ship meetings waiting for this project to be done, so we have something new to take to them and say, see, see how beautiful our downtown is and how accessible it is. It is easy for tourists to get around; it’s easily cohesive for all of us to get along. It’s just one delay, one delay after another; we can't


Comment Response take one more delay. It seems like we have been penalized because the cost of the project has increased, and now we have fewer dollars to do what we wanted to do, due to the DOT's delays.


I'd like to know when the State received the federal funds. The State will not receive the federal funds until the construction has been awarded.

I would like to know if the State received any kind of interest on the federal funds they received and held in their coffers for at least two to three years, because it sure would be nice if the City can get those reimbursed so that we can pay for those landscaping issues.

The State does not receive the federal funds until the construction has been awarded and so this money has not been earning interest for the State.

Where did the interest go from the federal money?

The State does not receive the federal funds until the construction has been awarded and so this money has not been earning interest for the State.

How much money has been spent to date? Approximately one million dollars.How much money has gone towards the environmental work?If this project starts in 2011 and I hope it does, I hope they take into consideration that we have one small cruise ship coming in 2011. We need to somehow incorporate them into the plan so that it will not be too ugly for them.


I am looking forward to seeing this thing done. Comment acknowledged.I would like to think that the timeline set out in this presentation is going to be something that I can hang my hat on because we've heard these timelines before only to be setback. I feel that I know certain reasons why and I don't know whether to say who delayed the project, but I will flatly state that DOT has been a real pain and that's all there is to it. I do not mind saying it. From the perspective of the people in this town, they do not know why a lot of these things happened but now hopefully they do. I think we need to be cognitive with the fact that we have been waiting on this project for a very long time. This project could have been ready and been done two years ago, and we could be sitting here tonight thinking/saying we have a really nice looking downtown. I really want to see this project go ahead. I know we've had growing pains with different aspects of different downtown areas and I hope all of them have been addressed to the satisfaction of our business owners because it is our town. I'd like to think you will stick with this timeline.


The environmental process is entirely too much of a strain. The environmental process is required by law whenever federal funds are involved.

Would we have to go through the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) again, if funding was found for Lynch Street in the future?

If federal funds were allocated for Lynch Street in the future, and the scope of work was similar to the scope already analyzed in the environmental document, we would not have to go through another environmental evaluation. However, if the funds were not found within three years the project would have to undergo a written re-evaluation, but it would probably be a simple process.

Comment Response

Can you tell me more about the historical assessments you conducted?

Information regarding the historic survey, findings, and conclusions are included in the Section 4.5 of the EA, which is available via the project website.

My other question was on the lampposts. If we can include them in this project, can we include outlets and water sources, so if we had trees and we wanted to put lights on at Christmas time, or flower pots in the spring or whatever, they would already be in place?


Consider a sound system, wireless or speakers around the event areas on Front Street… for 4th of July, for Tree Lighting Ceremony … probably from McKinnon to Campbell Drive (by Diamond C).


Was the fee for disposal of concrete for downtown figured in the costs?

Yes. It's actually envisioned that the concrete will be stockpiled out near the waterfront so it can be eventually used for expansion of the waterfront.

Will you use temporary sidewalks?

Generally the contractor will be required to provide access to all the buildings and the streets during business hours. There may be short durations where access is removed, but these times will need to be approved by the State and proper notice given to the property owners of the buildings.

How big will the curbs be? Six inches high.

Are you planning on tearing up the street in sections?

Specifications will be provided for the contractor to bid on. The project will be built in two-block sections and the contractor will have to pave those two blocks before starting on the next section. The surface won't necessarily be finished but it will be drivable.

What do you consider to be two blocks? One block is considered to be the section from street to street.

I'd like to know which end of the town the project will begin at.

The contractor will probably start from the City Pier. Generally with a storm drain system, the project must begin at the lowest point and continue uphill. The contractor may implement a different plan however, as the State does not dictate exactly how the contractor should build the project.

COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMNETAL LAWS AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS

The following table lists environmental laws and executive orders that must be met by the Proposed Action. If a law or order is applicable, the table references the section in the EA where it is discussed.

Proposed Action’s Compliance with Environmental Laws and Executive Orders

Laws and Executive Orders Proposed Action Compliant (Yes, No or Not Applicable) Location in Document

Clean Water Act Yes 4.6, Water Body Involvement4.10, Water Quality

Safe Drinking Water Act

Yes - Proposed action would not change drinking water source or treatment. Would improve distribution system.

1.0, Proposed Action

Clean Air Act Yes 4.8, Air Quality Rivers and Harbors Act Yes 4.6, Water Body InvolvementNational Natural Landmarks (Historic Sites Act of 1935) Not applicable - none present -

Historic, archaeological, and cultural sites (National Historic Preservation Act and Executive Order 11593)

Yes 4.5, Cultural Resources and 5.2, Section 106 Consultation

Wetlands (Protection of Wetlands Executive Order 11990)

Yes - Other Waters of the United States - Zimovia Strait 4.6, Water Body Involvement

Flood plains (Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988)

Not applicable - none present -

Agricultural Lands (Farmland Protection Policy Act, United States Code 7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.)


Coastal Zone Management/Areas (Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1451)

Yes 4.6, Alaska Coastal Management Program

Wild and Scenic Rivers (Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1274)


Fish and Wildlife Protection (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661)

Not applicable - no fish or wildlife habitat present -

Sole Source Aquifer and Recharge Areas Not applicable - none present -

Wellhead Protection Areas Not applicable - none present -Noise Control Act Yes 4.9, Noise Impacts Protection of Children from Environmental Risk Executive Order 13045

Yes 4.2, Social Impacts

Section 4(f) of the DOT&PF Act of 1966 Not applicable - none present -

Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 Yes 4.2, Social Impacts

Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175

Yes 5.0, Comments and Coordination

Barrier Islands (Coastal Barrier Resources Act) Not applicable - none present -

Threatened and Endangered Species Protection (Endangered Species Act)


Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Protection Act (Essential Fish Habitat Assessment)


Invasive Species Yes 4.12, Construction Impacts

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 10

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101-3140

OFFICE OF WATER AND WATERSHEDS

NOV 22010

Tim Rooney, Borough Manager City and Borough of Wrangell P.O. Box 531 Wrangell, Alaska 99929

Re: City and Borough of Wrangell Road and Utility Improvements Project, Wrangell, Alaska Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

Dear Mr. Rooney:

This letter is written in regards to the Preliminary Environmental Assessment (EA) for the City and Borough of Wrangell Road and Utility Improvements, Wrangell, Alaska (November 2010). We have reviewed the EA and have found that it meets our requirements for analysis under 40 CFR 1500-1508, as well as 40 CFR Part 6. As such we hereby adopt the preliminary EA and will use it to fulfill our NEPA compliance responsibilities pursuant to 40 CFR Part 6. A FONSI has been prepared and is enclosed with this letter. The FONSI serves as EPA's decision that this project will not have significant adverse impacts on the quality of the human environment.

EPA's NEPA compliance regulations at 40 CFR Part 6.203(b) require the FONSI be made available for public review for a period of thirty (30) days. We ask your assistance in making the document available to anyone who requests it. Comments on the FONSI should be forwarded to Jennifer Curtis at EPA-Alaska Operations Office, 222 West 7th Avenue, #19, Anchorage, Alaska, 99513 or [email protected].

If you have any questions regarding this FONSI, please contact Ms. Curtis in Anchorage at (907) 271-6324 or [email protected].

S:}IY' Michael A. Bussell, Director Office of Water and Watersheds

Enclosure

cc: Ms. Jane Gendron, ADOT - Juneau Mr. Chris Riley, FHWA - Juneau

oPrtnted 011 Recyct«l PtI/HH'

mailto:[email protected]


UNITED STArES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 10

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101-3140

OFFICE OF WATER AND WATERSHEDS

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)

To all interested government agencies, public groups, and individuals:

In accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) procedures for complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at 40 CFR Part 6, EPA has completed an

environmental review of the following proposed action:

CITY AND BOROUGH OF WRANGELL, ALASKA WRANGELL ROAD AND UTILITIES IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

EPA ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY

As a recipient of EPA Special Appropriation Act grant funds, this project is subject to NEPA compliance as required under EPA's implementing NEPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 6.

BACKGROUND

The Wrangell Road and Utility Improvements project is a road and utility reconstruction and improvement project in downtown Wrangell, Alaska (Section 25, T62S, R83E). The roadways and infrastructure of Wrangell's downtown are at least 30 years old, nearing the end of their useful life, and are in need of repair or replacement. The State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT &PF), in cooperation with the City and Borough of Wrangell (CBW), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) propose to improve a one-half mile (0.5 mile) corridor of road, sidewalks, and underground utilities in and along Front Street (Figure 2). The purpose of these improvements is to add visual character and pedestrian amenities such as those described in the Wrangell Downtown Revitalization Report, including the addition of lampposts along Front Street, areas for future landscaping, and the use of colored concrete in the sidewalk design. EPA is providing funding for the water, sewer and stormwater improvements in this project.

The project corridor reaches from Front Street at the city pier to Case A venue, and includes the intersections of Front Street with Stikine Avenue, Campbell Drive Loop, Federal Way, McKinnon Street, Lynch Street, Saint Michaels Street, Episcopal Avenue, and Case Avenue.

A Preliminary Environmental Assessment (EA) (November 2010) has been prepared according to the DOT &PF Alaska Environmental Procedures Manual, FHWA Technical Advisory 6640.8a, and the EPA Guidance for Special Appropriation Act Grants (2008). The EA evaluates the potential environmental impacts from the proposed improvements. Detailed

o prIrItfHI on RtlCyc/«I P.,.

explanations of the proposed project components, and associated impacts, as well as drawings showing the existing and proposed road, sidewalks, landscape, and utility designs, can be found in the EA.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

As stated above, the road and utilities in this downtown Wrangell corridor are ending their useful life and are in need of replacement. This project will replace and improve the road, sidewalk, and underground utilities in the project corridor. The replacement of the water, sewer and stormwater components will enable the applicant to provide better quality and more efficient delivery of water and sewer services, as well as greatly improve stormwater management. There is expected to be an increase in the quality of wastewater being discharged into the marine waters at Wrangell. Additional information on the purpose and need for the project can be found in Section 2 of the EA.

ALTERNATIVES

The Agencies' preferred alternative (Proposed Action), the No Action alternative, and other alternatives considered but not carried forward for analysis, are discussed in the preliminary EA. Information on these alternatives can be found in Section 3 of the preliminary EA.

In accordance with NEPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 1508.13, the findings of the preliminary EA are hereby incorporated by reference. The EA contains the detailed description of the preferred alternative and the no action alternative, and the predicted environmental effects of the alternatives.

MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES

Mitigation and monitoring requirements associated with individual impacts are discussed in detail in Section 4 of the preliminary EA. Each of these measures will be made binding grant conditions upon the City and Borough of Wrangell. If the grantee (or its contractors) fails to comply with the grant conditions (Le., implement mitigation measures), the Responsible Official within EPA may consider applying any of the sanctions specified in 40 CFR 31.43.

SUMMARY

A preliminary EA for the Wrangell Road and Utilities Improvement Project has been completed and the analysis and conclusions are hereby incorporated by reference (40 CFR 1508.13). Based on the EA and consideration of the mitigation measures that would be binding grant conditions on the grantee, and in accordance with the guidelines for determining the significance of proposed federal actions (40 CFR Part 1508.27) and EPA criteria for initiating and Environmental Impact Statement (40 CFR Part 6.207), EPA has concluded that the Wrangell Road and Utilities Improvement Project would not result in a significant adverse effects on the quality of the human environment.

The proposed project will not significantly affect socio-economics, wetlands or floodplains, threatened or endangered species, ecologically important areas, subsistence resources, historic resources, air quality, water quality, aquatic resources, nor will it conflict with approved local land use plans or policies. The proposal also conforms to applicable federal statutes and executive orders. As a result of these findings, EPA has determined that an EIS will not be required.

Comments regarding this FONSI may be submitted in writing, within 30 days of the above issuance date of this FONSI, to the following address:

Jennifer Curtis u.s. Environmental Protection Agency

Alaska Operations Office 222 West 7th Avenue, #19 Anchorage, AK 99513

Fax: (907) 271-3424 Email: [email protected]

Additional copies of the preliminary EA can be obtained by calling Jennifer Curtis at (907) 271-6324 and are available for public review by contacting Carol Rushmore at the following location between the business hours of 8:30 am and 4:30 pm:

City and Borough of Wrangell 205 Bruger Street

Wrangell, AK 99929

No administrative action will be taken for at least 30 days after the release of this FONSI. EPA will fully consider all comments before taking final action.

\\- - 2.~l C>

Michael A. Bussell, Director Date Office of Water and Watersheds


TITLE VI POLICY STATEMENT

The State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) hereby gives public notice that it is the policy of the DOT&PF to assure full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. Title VI requires that no person in the United States of America shall, on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, disability, or age, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the DOT&PF receives federal financial assistance.

Persons with hearing impairments may call (907) 465-4647.

Per Appendix E of the FHWA SAFETEA-LU Environmental Review Process Final Guidance, a Federal agency may publish a notice in the Federal Register, pursuant to 23 USC §139(l), indicating that one or more Federal agencies have taken final action on permits, licenses, or approvals for a transportation project. If such notice is published, claims seeking judicial review of those Federal agency actions will be barred unless such claims are filed within 180 days after the date of publication of the notice, or within such shorter time period as is specified in the Federal laws pursuant to which judicial review of the Federal agency action is allowed. If no notice is published, then the periods of time that otherwise are provided by the Federal laws governing such claims will apply.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Revised Environmental Assessment Wrangell, Alaska Wrangell Road and Utility Improvements DOT&PF Project No. 68828/67789 Page i

1.0 PROPOSED ACTION ..................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................................................... 9

3.0 ALTERNATIVES.......................................................................................................................... 14 3.1 Proposed Action Alternative ....................................................................................................... 14 3.2 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................................................ 14 3.3 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed ...................................................................................... 14

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ....................... 15 4.1 Right-of-Way .............................................................................................................................. 16 4.2 Social Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 18 4.3 Economic Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 19 4.4 Local Land Use and Transportation Plans .................................................................................. 21 4.5 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................... 23 4.6 Water Body Involvement ............................................................................................................ 29 4.7 Alaska Coastal Management Program ........................................................................................ 30 4.8 Hazardous Waste ........................................................................................................................ 30 4.9 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................. 33 4.10 Noise Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 33 4.11 Water Quality ............................................................................................................................. 34 4.12 Permits and Authorizations......................................................................................................... 36 4.13 Construction Impacts .................................................................................................................. 36 4.14 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................... 39 4.15 Connected Actions ...................................................................................................................... 41 4.16 Compliance with Environmental Laws and Executive Orders ................................................... 41 4.17 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ........................................................... 42 4.18 Short-term Use of Environment versus Long-term Productivity ................................................ 42

5.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ........................................................................................ 42 5.1 Agency Scoping .......................................................................................................................... 43 5.2 Section 106 Consultation ............................................................................................................ 44 5.3 Government-to-Government Consultation ................................................................................. 44 5.4 Public Scoping ............................................................................................................................ 45

5.4.1 Planning, Design, and Construction ..................................................................................... 45 5.4.2 Parking ................................................................................................................................. 48 5.4.3 Non-Motorized Transit ......................................................................................................... 49 5.4.4 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................. 49 5.4.5 Safety ................................................................................................................................... 50

5.5 Public Hearing ............................................................................................................................ 51

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS.................................................................................................................. 52

7.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 53

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)

Revised Environmental Assessment Wrangell, Alaska Wrangell Road and Utility Improvements DOT&PF Project No. 68828/67789 Page ii

TABLES Page

Table 1: Financial Summary of Proposed Action ........................................................................................ 8 Table 2: Proposed Partial Right-of-Way Acquisitions ............................................................................... 17 Table 3: Proposed Action’s Compliance with Environmental Laws and Executive Orders ...................... 41 Table 4: Agency Scoping ........................................................................................................................... 43 Table 5: Section 106 Consultation ............................................................................................................. 44 Table 6: List of Preparers ........................................................................................................................... 52

FIGURES

Figure 1: Location and Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2: Project Corridor ......................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3: General Depiction of Proposed Wrangell Road Improvements ................................................ 4 Figure 4: Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall .......................................................................................... 5 Figure 5: Proposed Lamppost for Placement Along Front Street ............................................................. 8 Figure 6: Gaps between Sidewalk and Road Surfaces at City Market ................................................... 10 Figure 7: Existing Typical Section of Front Street from St. Michaels Street to Episcopal Street .......... 10 Figure 8: Existing Typical Section of Front Street from Campbell Drive to St. Michaels Street ........... 11 Figure 9: City Pier to Campbell Drive .................................................................................................... 11 Figure 10: Community Room Concept ..................................................................................................... 13 Figure 11: Totem Park, Located at the Corner of Saint Michaels and Front Streets ................................ 18 Figure 12: Front Street Circa 1898, Prior to Shoreline Fill ...................................................................... 25 Figure 13: Historic Buildings and District ................................................................................................ 26 Figure 14: Location of Former Wilcox Automotive and Underground Fuel Storage Tank ..................... 31 Figure 15: Current and Historical Businesses of Concern, Known Fuel Spill Locations, and

Observed Fuel Storage ............................................................................................................ 32 Figure 16: Proposed Oil-Water Separator Locations ................................................................................ 35

SUPPLEMENT FIGURES

Supplemental Figures A-1 through A-6 ................................... Proposed Road and Sidewalk Improvements Supplemental Figures B-1 through B-6 ........................................................ Proposed Utility Improvements

APPENDICES (available on attached CD)

Appendix A ................................................................................ Wrangell Downtown Revitalization Report Appendix B .................................................................................................. Preliminary Engineering Report Appendix C ..................................... Cultural Resources Consultants Reports and Section 106 Consultation Appendix D ............................................................................................................ Draft Permit Applications Appendix E .............................................. All-Appropriate Inquiry/Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix F ............................................................. Contingency Plan for Encountering Possible Petroleum Contaminated Soil During Construction Appendix G ..................................................................... United States Corps of Engineers Correspondence Appendix H ............................................................................................................ Scoping Summary Report Appendix I ...................................................................................... Additional Comments and Coordination Appendix J ..................................................................................................... Public Hearing Documentation

Revised Environmental Assessment Wrangell, Alaska Wrangell Road and Utility Improvements DOT&PF Project No. 68828/67789 Page iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AAC ................................................................................................................... Alaska Administrative Code AAI/Phase I ESA ..................................... All-Appropriate Inquiry/Phase I Environmental Site Assessment ACMP ................................................................................................. Alaska Coastal Management Program ADA ............................................................................................................. Americans with Disabilities Act ADF&G .............................................................................................. Alaska Department of Fish and Game APE ........................................................................................................................... Area of Potential Effect BMP ....................................................................................................................... best management practice CBW .............................................................................................................. City and Borough of Wrangell CFR ..................................................................................................................... Code of Federal Regulation CPQ .................................................................................................................. Coastal Project Questionnaire CRC .............................................................................................................. Cultural Resources Consultants DCRA ..................................................................................... Division of Community and Regional Affairs DEC ................................................................. State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation DLWD .................................................. State of Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development DNR ................................................................................. State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources DOT&PF ............................................... State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities EA ........................................................................................................................ Environmental Assessment FHWA ........................................................................................................ Federal Highway Administration Historic District ............................................................................................. Wrangell Core Historic District M&O ................................................................................................................... maintenance and operations NEPA ...................................................................................................... National Environmental Policy Act NRHP ..................................................................................................... National Register of Historic Places OHA ........................................................................................................ Office of History and Archaeology PER .............................................................................................................. Preliminary Engineering Report ROW ........................................................................................................................................... right-of-way SAAP .................................................................................................... Special Appropriations Act Program SAFETEA-LU ................................. Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SHPO ........................................................................................................ State Historic Preservation Office SWPPP ................................................................................................ Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan THRHA ....................................................................................... Tlingit-Haida Regional Housing Authority USACE ............................................................................................ United States Army Corps of Engineers U.S.C. ............................................................................................................................... United States Code USEPA ............................................................................... United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS ............................................................................................ United States Fish and Wildlife Service WDRR ....................................................................................... Wrangell Downtown Revitalization Report WMC ..................................................................................................................... Wrangell Municipal Code

Revised Environmental Assessment Wrangell, Alaska Wrangell Road and Utility Improvements DOT&PF Project No. 68828/67789 Page 1

1.0 PROPOSED ACTION

The Wrangell Road and Utility Improvements project is a road and utility reconstruction and

improvement project in downtown Wrangell, Alaska (Section 25, T62S, R83E [1:63360 United States

Geological Survey Quadrangles Petersburg B-2 NE]) (Figure 1). The roadways and infrastructure of

Wrangell’s downtown are at least 30 years old, nearing the end of their useful life, and are in need of

repair or replacement. The State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

(DOT&PF), in cooperation with the City and Borough of Wrangell (CBW), and the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) propose to improve a one-half mile (0.5 mile) corridor of road, sidewalks, and

utilities in and along Front Street (Figure 2) and add visual character and pedestrian amenities such as

those described in the Wrangell Downtown Revitalization Report (WDRR), including the addition of

lampposts along Front Street, areas for future landscaping, and the use of dark-red-colored glass chips to

create colored concrete in the sidewalk design. The United States Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) is also providing funding to improve sections of water and sewer lines during this project.

These improvements are described in detail below.

The project corridor is defined as Front Street from the city pier to Case Avenue, including the

intersections of Front Street with Stikine Avenue, Campbell Drive Loop, Federal Way, McKinnon Street,

Lynch Street, Saint Michaels Street, Episcopal Avenue, and Case Avenue (Figure 2).

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared according to the DOT&PF Alaska

Environmental Procedures Manual (DOT&PF, 2002) and FHWA Technical Advisory 6640.8a.

Additional content has been added to satisfy the requirements for EAs associated with USEPA Special

Appropriations Act Program (SAAP) grants (USEPA, 2008).

This EA evaluates the potential environmental impacts from the proposed improvements described below.

Detailed drawings showing the existing and proposed road, sidewalks, landscape, and utility designs are

located at the end of this document (Supplemental Figures A and B), while a general depiction of the road

improvements are shown on Figure 3.

P:\Projects\J70112\GIS\ENV\EA Documents\Vicinity Map.mxd

_̂

!

!

Gulf of Alaska

Canada

Juneau

Anchorage

Fairbanks

Project Vicinity

0 52.5 Miles

¯

Project Location

June 25, 2010

Wrangell Road and UtilityImprovement Project

Figure 1 - Location and Vicinity Map

WO: J70112

DOT & PF Project No: 68828, 67789

St. Michaels St

Episcopal Ave

Case Avenue

Campbell Drive

Front Street

Brueger Street

Lync

h St

Stikine Ave

Federal Way

McKinnon St

Church St

City PierTurnaround

Totem Park

City Market

Zimovia Strait

ConstructionStaging Area

Campbe ll Drive

Camp

bell D

r iveNolanCenter

KeyProject Corridor*

¯0 125 250

Feet

Location Map


Figure 2 - Project Corridor

WO: J70112

DOT & PF Project No: 68828, 67789* Project corridor includes road, sidewalk, and utility work areas.

Note:Proposed improvements to this section of Lynch Streethave been included in the Environmental Assessment and willbe constructed at a later time when funding becomes available.

*See notebelow

P:\Projects\J70112\GIS\ENV\EA Documents\Fig 2_Project Corridor_EA.mxd Oct 20, 2010 3:33:01 PM User: bfarrell

October 20, 2010

Environmental Assessment Wrangell, Alaska Wrangell Road and Utility Improvements DOT&PF Project No. 68828/67789 Page 4

Federal Way to Campbell Drive - Typical Section (also includes additional improvements that vary throughout the project corridor)

Typical Front Street Section (Episcopal to Case Avenues) (also includes additional improvements that vary throughout the project corridor, including angled parking)

Figure 3: General Depiction of Proposed Wrangell Road Improvements

(The typical section between Campbell Drive and Episcopal Street varies. Refer to Supplemental Figures A-1 through A-6 for details of proposed parking and sidewalk improvements.)

This section of Lynch Street is included in the EA. Improvements along Lynch Street will be constructed at a later time when funding becomes available.

WRANGELL ROAD & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS - FRONT STREET November 2010


Proposed improvements are described below.

Road Improvements:

- Remove existing concrete roadway and resurface project corridor with concrete (6 inches of

concrete, 6 inches of base course and 16 inches of subbase).

- Widen 12-foot vehicle traffic lanes to 13 feet from the city pier (beginning of the proposed

project) to Case Avenue (end of the proposed project), with clearly marked curbs and road

shoulders and posted 15-mile-per-hour speed limits (Supplemental Figures A-1 through A-6).

Existing 39-foot curb-to-curb dimensions of Front Street would generally be widened to

42 feet.

- Reconstruct two vertical pile/retaining systems near the Tlingit and Haida Regional Housing

Authority and City Market buildings that are partially failing. The reconstruction will consist

of acquiring the necessary right-of-way (ROW) and installation of a new stabilized earth wall

that will support roads and sidewalks at the interface with adjacent buildings along Front

Street (Figure 4 and Supplemental Figures B-4 and B-5).

Figure 4: Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall


- Delineate 8-foot parking lanes throughout most of the project and add bulb-outs at the

intersections of Front Street with Federal Way, Campbell Drive, McKinnon Street, and Lynch

Street as shown on Supplemental Figures A-1 through A-6. Add a delineated parking lane to

the western side of Front Street from Campbell Drive1 to Case Avenue (at its southern

intersection with Front Street as shown on Supplemental Figures A-1 through A-6).

- Improve existing circular turnaround for tour buses and truck traffic at the city pier

(Supplemental Figure A-1).

- Improve truck-turning movement at the intersection of Front Street and McKinnon Street by

restricting on-street parking and lengthening the curve (Supplemental Figure A-2).

- Reconfigure parking on Front Street at City Market from perpendicular parking to angled

parking (Supplemental Figure A-5).

Pedestrian Facility Improvements:

- Remove existing concrete sidewalks along Front Street and Lynch Street (Supplemental

Figure A-3) and replace with sidewalks that have widths, cross slopes, and ramps that meet

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards and fit within the available ROW as

described below:

Reconstruct 8-foot sidewalks on both sides of Front Street between city pier and

Campbell Drive (Supplemental Figures A-1 through A-4).

Reconstruct and widen sidewalks on the northeast side of Front Street between Campbell

Drive and Case Avenue to widths varying between 4 and 6 feet (Supplemental

Figures A-1 through A-4).

Relocate the sidewalk across from City Market into the Sentry Hardware parking area in

order to make needed space for angled parking at the City Market (Supplemental

Figure A-5).

Construct new 6-foot sidewalks on the southwest side of Front Street between Campbell

Drive and Case Avenue as shown on Supplemental Figures A-1 through A-4.

Reconstruct 4.5-foot sidewalks on both sides of the road on Lynch Street (Supplemental

Figure A-3).

1 Campbell Drive is a U-shaped street with two intersections with Front Street; one near Federal Way and one near St. Michaels

Street. All references to Campbell Drive pertain to the southerly intersection near St. Michaels Street. See Supplemental Figures A-1 through A-6 and B-1 through B-6 for clarity.


Construct new 8-foot sidewalks at the city pier turnaround area (Supplemental

Figure A-1).

- Clearly define crosswalks by constructing 10-foot bulb-outs at the intersection of Front Street

and Federal Way, Campbell Drive, McKinnon Street, and adding or reconstructing curbs

(Supplemental Figures A-1 through A-6).

Utility Improvements:

- Lighting and Electrical (Supplemental Figures B-1 through B-6):

Add lighting to project corridor to meet American National Standard Practice of

Roadway Lighting.

- Storm Drain Systems (Supplemental Figures B-1 through B-6):

Install storm drain stub-outs for individual properties along Front Street (totaling

approximately 1,500 lineal feet) currently draining into sewage lines.

Replace all existing corrugated metal storm drainpipes along Front Street with

approximately 4,725 lineal feet of new corrugated polyethylene pipe sized for anticipated

peak flows and relocate where appropriate.

Enhance stormwater drainage along the entire corridor by providing 2-foot curb/gutters.

Install two oil-water separators to treat stormwater runoff entering Zimovia Strait

(Supplemental Figures B-1 and B-4).

Construct new outfall to Zimovia Strait.

- Water/Sewer:

Increase capacity in water main line in Front Street by abandoning in-place the existing

8-inch asbestos cement pipe, and replace it with approximately 2,800 lineal feet of

10-inch high-density polyethylene pipe (Supplemental Figures B-1 through B-6).

Abandon 12-inch asbestos cement pipe sewer line across from City Market, and extend

affected services to the existing 15-inch polyvinyl chloride line, which parallels the

12-inch line for approximately 250 feet (Supplemental Figures A-4 and A-5).

Encase sewer main at water main crossings where necessary and add stub outs.


Visual Character and Pedestrian Amenities:

- The visual character and pedestrian

amenities will include the addition of

lampposts on the Front Street

sidewalks as shown on Figure 5 and

Supplemental Figures A-1 through

A-6. In addition, dark-red-colored

glass chips would be floated into the

grey concrete surface in Front Street

sidewalks to replicate the appearance

that the sidewalks are paved with

crushed garnets. Areas planned for

future landscaping would be preserved

(graveled) rather than cemented.

General depictions of the landscape

and streetscape concepts are included

in the WDRR in Appendix A.

Figure 5: Proposed Lamppost for Placement

Along Front Street

If approved, the Proposed Action would begin construction in 2011 and could extend into 2012. During

construction, the staging area and concrete disposal/storage site would be located between the Nolan

Center and the boat yard (Figure 2). The contractor will be responsible for obtaining sand, gravel, and

other materials from a permitted material site.

The Proposed Action is estimated to cost approximately $8.6 million dollars. This cost would be shared

as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Financial Summary of Proposed Action

Funding Source Total

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation $367,100$506,000

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development $908,800United States Environmental Protection Agency

City and Borough of Wrangell (funding match) $842,700$525,200

Federal SAFETEA-LU* Section 1702 Earmark $3,400,000City and Borough of Wrangell $1,112,200Denali Commission $1,000,000

TOTAL $8,662,200*Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users


Table 1: Financial Summary of Proposed Action (continued)

Project Cost Estimate Item EstimatePhase 2 - Pre-Construction Engineering/Environmental $950,000Phase 3 - ROW $100,000Phase 7 - Utilities Base Bid $100,000Phase 7 - Utilities Additive Alternate $20,000

Subtotal $1,170,000Phase 4 - Construction Base Bid $5,277,000Phase 4 - Construction Additive Alternate $932,00015% Construction Engineering/Administration 931,000

Subtotal $7,140,000TOTAL $8,310,000

4.24% ICAP $352,000GRAND TOTAL $8,662,000

There are no direct user costs to household or businesses in the project area associated with this project.

The CBW would work with building owners, who currently have roof leaders that drain to the sewer, to

eventually connect all the leaders to the storm drain system. The cost for this connection would be

minimal (less than $2,000), because underground work would be completed under the Proposed Action,

and only the aboveground connection would need to be made. The CBW would provide long-term

maintenance of the storm drain system.

USE OF LOCAL AND STATE FUNDS

Preliminary engineering was performed (using non-Federal funds) to document the design criteria and

technical issues as necessary to sufficiently evaluate design alternatives and complete the EA. Due to

funding obligations and public pressure to begin the project, the schedule would not accommodate the

FHWA required linear sequence of ROW and design tasks following the completion of the EA and the

Decision Document. In order to meet the schedule requirements, CBW initiated the ROW acquisition

efforts using local funding and DOT&PF has initiated the design phases using State funding in advance of

FHWA design approval of the Proposed Action Alternative through the NEPA process. The FHWA was

notified of this action. Both CBW and DOT&PF are aware that the funding for these activities is

considered not eligible for reimbursement by FHWA. FHWA will assure that the results of these early

activities will not bias their review and approval of required NEPA documentation of the Proposed

Action.

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

The overall purposes of the Proposed Action are to improve vehicle and pedestrian transportation and

install underground utility systems along Front Street, improve water quality in stormwater runoff and


sewage treatment plant discharges into the marine waters of Zimovia Strait, and enhance pedestrian

amenities in the project corridor for Wrangell residents and visitors.

The following specific deficiencies have been identified in the project corridor:

Road:

- Concrete road surfaces in the project corridor are over 30 years old and are deteriorating and

beginning to spall and crack.

- Front Street formerly paralleled the oceanfront, and buildings on the western side of the road

were supported by pilings. Over the years, extensive tideline fill efforts have expanded the

Wrangell downtown area to the west. However, in some places, subsurface vertical pilings

still support roads and sidewalks at the interface with adjacent buildings along Front Street.

Some of these pilings are at the end of their

useful life and are beginning to fail, resulting

in subsidence of roads and gaps between road

surfaces and sidewalks (Figure 6). In

addition, these pilings are not fully located

within the ROW and private property

acquisition will be needed to construct the

walls and provide space for future

maintenance (Figure 7).

Figure 6: Gaps between Sidewalk and Road Surfaces at City Market

Figure 7: Existing Typical Section of Front Street from St. Michaels Street to Episcopal Street


Traffic Control and Safety:

- Travel lanes, road shoulders, and parking areas are unmarked and there is no posted speed

limit on Front Street.

- Cars park at or near the corner of intersections, limiting sight distances for vehicles, bicycles,

and pedestrians crossing intersections.

- Parking on the western side of Front Street from Campbell Drive to Case Avenue is on gravel

road shoulders because there are no curbs or delineated parking (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Existing Typical Section of Front Street from Campbell Drive to St. Michaels Street

- Due to the current narrow width, buses and large vehicles are unable to turn around at the city

pier without entering the adjacent city-owned staging/receiving yard, currently used in

association with barging activities by the leasees, Alaska Marine Lines and Northland

Services Inc. (Figure 9).

Figure 9: City Pier to Campbell Drive


- Large vehicles turning at McKinnon and Front Streets are sometimes constrained due to a

tight turning radius and the presence of parked vehicles in key locations.

- Current perpendicular parking at the City Market disrupts traffic flow because it requires

vehicles to back directly into the traveled way. Long vehicles, when parked in this

configuration, can extend into the southbound driving lane, further disrupting traffic and

affecting safety on Front Street.

- Existing curb heights vary.

Pedestrian Safety:

- Concrete sidewalks are spalling and cracking in some sections making the walking surface

uneven.

- Sidewalks are not in compliance with the ADA.

- Water draining onto sidewalks is ponding in some areas and, during the winter, icing occurs

in these areas creating dangerous walking conditions.

- There are no sidewalks in some areas; in other areas, crosswalks are not clearly defined or

consistently separated from movements of vehicles. The city pier lacks a sidewalk;

pedestrian facilities consist of undefined walkways in close proximity to industrial activities.

- As stated above, cars park at or near corners reducing visibility at crosswalks.

Utilities:

- Lighting/Electrical:

Lighting does not meet current American National Standard Practice of Roadway

Lighting standards, limiting the visibility of pedestrians and vehicles.

Electrical lines installed 20 years ago are aging and may not meet the projected increased

capacity, because residents switch from oil to often cheaper electric heat.

Some utility poles are badly listing and are in the sidewalk, constricting sidewalk widths.

- Storm Drain System:

Many buildings in the project corridor have roofline drainpipes that are connected to the

sewer system. During heavy rain events, stormwater from these properties inundates the

sewer lines, overwhelming the wastewater lift station pumps, causing wastewater to

backup in the system. In addition, heavy rain volumes can exceed monthly discharge


limits of the wastewater treatment plant’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System permit.

The storm drain system capacity is inadequate, and metal pipes are beginning to

deteriorate.

The storm drain system lacks oil-water separators.

- Water/Sewer:

The water main within the project corridor requires an increasing rate of repairs and is

approaching the end of its design life.

Sewer service lines in front of the City Market are at the end of their design life.

Water mains and sewer lines are located too close to each other in places and are not

sufficiently encased.

Visual Character and Amenities:

- Visually, Front Street is an unadorned corridor with a mix of structures dating between the

1890s and 1980s. It typifies a working town in Southeast Alaska with no landscape or

pedestrian amenities.

The City of Wrangell began to plan for the proposed infrastructure improvements in 2000. The

community was part of that planning effort. The WDRR Appendix A, was produced in part with Mini-

Grant Assistance Funds made available through the

Department of Commerce, Community and Economic

Development and the Denali Commission. The WDRR

provides an in-depth analysis of what the community wanted

for their downtown. That report, approved by the city council

after multiple public meetings and hearings, identified the

community’s goal to make Front Street a “community room,”

defined as a place the community wants to be (Figure 10), Figure 10: Community Room Concept

with pedestrian- friendly safety improvements, improved infrastructure, and visually appealing

landscaping and pedestrian amenities (Jones and Jones, 2006). The Proposed Action would implement

the following recommendations of the WDRR:

Lampposts on Front Street.

Addition of dark-red-colored glass chips in concrete sidewalks on Front Street.


Planned landscaping areas would be preserved (graveled) rather than cemented for later

landscaping by CBW.

3.0 ALTERNATIVES

Two alternatives are evaluated in this document: The Proposed Action Alternative and the No-Action

Alternative. The Alternative Analysis took into account input from private property owners and the

community throughout the Public Involvement process and during the development of the EA.

Alternative road alignments and parking plans were not carried forward into the EA due to current ROW

constraints, safety concerns, existing building configurations, and the need for on-street parking. The

alternatives and design options that were considered but later dismissed, are listed in Section 3.3.

3.1 Proposed Action Alternative

As described in detail in Chapter 1.0, the Proposed Action consists of improvements to roadways,

utilities, and pedestrian facilities and amenities (see pages 5 through 8). The environmental effects of this

alternative are provided in Chapter 4.0.

3.2 No-Action Alternative

Under this alternative, no action would be taken, and deficiencies described in Chapter 2.0 would not be

addressed. The CBW would continue ongoing maintenance of road, sidewalks, and utilities.

Environmental effects of this alternative are provided in Chapter 4.0.

3.3 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed

The following alternatives and design options were considered, but dismissed during the project

development process:

Asphalt paving instead of concrete - The existing road is surfaced with concrete; use of asphalt

was dismissed because there is no permanent asphalt batch plant in Wrangell and, in the future,

all patches would be done with concrete. Using concrete to patch asphalt is not ideal due to the

differing rigidity of the two materials. While concrete costs approximately 1.4 times as much as

asphalt, it lasts twice as long.

Bulb-out size - Larger bulb-outs were rejected in order to maximize parking space, reduce visual

impacts of curb alignments to the streetscape, and allow for better truck-turning movements.

Portions of the planned McKinnon Street intersection bulb-outs were removed in order to

improve truck-turning movements. Omitting bulb-outs and just making crossings ADA


compliant was rejected because that option does not prevent vehicles from parking at the corners,

and safety issues would continue.

Driving lane and sidewalk widths - The Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) (Appendix B)

evaluated various driving lane and sidewalk widths. The CBW has requested a consistent driving

lane of 13 feet to accommodate the commercial truck traffic. With a set 13-foot driving lane,

sidewalk widths described in the Proposed Action were selected based on ROW constraints and

ADA compliance requirements.

City Market parking alignment - Various parking alignments were considered and discussed with

the owner of the City Market as well as the public. The various parking alignments considered at

City Market are presented in the PER (Appendix B). Parallel parking was considered, but angled

parking was chosen to accommodate a higher number of vehicles. Perpendicular parking was

eliminated as an option due to safety concerns.

Various curb types were considered for the project design. Similar to the existing curb, a

standard 6-inch barrier curb (parallel to the road) was chosen over rolled curbs because it offers a

better delineation between the roadway and pedestrian areas. In addition, barrier curbs allow

snow plow drivers to more easily find the roadway limits. During final design, some curb bulbs

may be designed with rolled curbs in case vehicles need to drive over them.

City pier turn-around - Several different configurations for the turn-around were considered. An

offset bulb with a 46-foot radius was chosen because it was the only option that would allow for a

40-foot city bus turn-around without requiring property acquisition or fill in Zimovia Strait.

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This chapter provides a relevant description of the existing human and natural environment and

summarizes potential environmental consequences that could result from the Proposed Action. In

keeping with FHWA’s policy and guidance, EAs are issue-based; only those resource categories

potentially affected are presented. Appropriate mitigation measures have been identified for those

resource categories potentially affected. The following resource categories are not affected by the project

and are not presented in this document:

Wetlands:

- Wetlands are not located within the project corridor.


Fish and Wildlife:

- Anadromous Fish Streams/Essential Fish Habitat: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game

(ADF&G) Atlas to the Catalog of Waters Important to the Spawning, Rearing or Migration

of Anadromous Fishes identified no anadromous streams in the project corridor (ADF&G,

2009).

- Wildlife: The project corridor is a developed urban area and does not provide wildlife habitat

except for feral cats and dogs.

- Bald Eagles: The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Bald Eagle Atlas shows

the closest eagle nest is over a half-mile from the project corridor (USFWS, 2008b).

Threatened and Endangered Species:

- No listed or proposed species occur in the project corridor, and there is no designated or

proposed critical habitat near the proposed project (USFWS, 2008a).

Floodplains:

- The project corridor is mapped on the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance

Rate Map outside of flood hazard zones, in Zone C, areas of minimal flooding.

The following sections describe environmental consequences in terms of direct, indirect (secondary), and

cumulative impacts. Direct impacts are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.

Indirect impacts are reasonably foreseeable impacts caused by the action, but occur later in time or are

further removed in distance. Direct and indirect impacts of the alternatives are discussed in each resource

category section as are the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation efforts that have been incorporated

into the Proposed Action. Compensatory mitigation measures and environmental commitments

associated with assessed resource impacts are also discussed by resource. Cumulative impacts are

described in Section 4.13. Section 4.15 summarizes how the Proposed Action meets all required

environmental laws and executive orders.

4.1 Right-of-Way

The road ROW is owned and maintained by the CBW and is designated for use as a roadway.

Up to thirteen commercial signs currently exist in the ROW. FHWA does not allow commercial signs to

exist in the ROW.


Proposed Action: All business signs in the ROW would be removed prior to advertising this project for

construction. The Wells Fargo sign currently encroaches approximately 2 feet into the ROW. A 2-foot

section of ROW will be vacated prior to construction to allow this sign to remain in place; over 5 feet of

sidewalk width would still remain in the ROW.

Reconstruction of the road and sidewalks would require partial acquisition of eleven parcels of property,

as listed in Table 2 below. These partial acquisitions may potentially adversely affect businesses by

decreasing the parking capacity. Approximately 74 temporary construction easements would be required

in order to match existing grades of driveways and building fronts to the newly constructed sidewalks and

road surfaces.

No-Action Alternative: No changes to the current ROW or business signs would be needed with the No-

Action Alternative.

Table 2: Proposed Partial Right-of-Way Acquisitions

Parcel No. Block Lot Acquisition

Area (square feet)

Reason Owner Landmark

02-011-210 1 Lot A 55 For 8-foot sidewalk, increase turning radius

Elks Club 1595 Elks Lodge

02-011-212 1A Lot 7 50 For 8-foot sidewalk, increase turning radius

Wells Fargo Bank Wells Fargo

02-022-301 5 Lot 15 35 For the sidewalk radius at the Saint Michael’s intersection

City Market, Inc. Parking Lot

02-022-232 5A Lot 17 230 For 6-foot sidewalk (currently, no sidewalk)

Nola Wilcox Jitterbugs Espresso


THRHA* Parking Area


THRHA Parking

02-022-226 5A Lot 14 500 For sidewalk and road-retaining system

THRHA Snow Building

02-022-224 5A Lot 13 55 For a 6-foot sidewalk (currently, no sidewalk)

THRHA Parking Area

02-033-348 6 Lot 21 390.7 To match grades, easement for sidewalk





City Market, Inc. Gravel Driveway

*Tlingit-Haida Regional Housing Authority


4.2 Social Impacts

The project corridor includes businesses, residences,

Totem Park (Figure 11), boat yards, and undeveloped

areas. No schools or churches are located within the

project corridor. Many of Wrangell’s businesses

(including hotels, clothing stores, hardware and auto

part stores, restaurants, markets, gas stations, bars, gift

shops, professional offices, and banks) are along the

Proposed Action’s corridor.

Figure 11: Totem Park, Located at the Corner of Saint Michaels and Front Streets

The 2000 census reported approximately 2,300 people living in the Wrangell area. Approximately 27%

of the population is a minority, and 9% of the population is considered to be living in poverty (Division of

Community and Regional Affairs [DCRA], 2009). There is one federally recognized tribe in Wrangell;

the Wrangell Cooperative Association. In addition, the Tlingit-Haida Central Council is a federally

recognized regional tribe (based in Juneau) that represents over 26,000 Tlingit and Haida Indians,

including those who live in the Wrangell area. Sealaska Corporation is the representative Alaska Native

Claims Settlement Act Native Corporation for Southeast Alaska.

The population in Wrangell has declined at an average rate of over 1% in the last eight years. The State

of Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD) projections indicate that the

population decline in the Wrangell-Petersburg area will continue at an average annual rate of 0.62 percent

through 2018 (DLWD, 2009).

Front Street is used by pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles as a through route and as access to

businesses. Concrete road surfaces and sidewalks in the project corridor are deteriorating and beginning

to spall and crack making walking and bicycling difficult at some times. Sidewalks are not ADA

compliant. Little to no landscaping or street furnishings are present in the existing streetscape. In

addition, existing power poles are aging and badly listing, creating sidewalk restrictions, safety hazards,

and impacts on parking and circulation.

Parking near an intersection is prohibited under the Wrangell Municipal Code (WMC), as indicated by the

red-painted curbs (WMC 11.28.01). The red curbs typically extend an average of 10-15 feet back from

each intersection, which is less than the 20 feet recommended by FHWA’s Manual on Uniform Traffic

Control Devices (FHWA, 2003). At times, vehicles do park within 20 feet of intersections, obstructing

the view of oncoming traffic, pedestrians, and/or bicyclists. The parking prohibition, 10 to 15 feet from

an intersection, is not regularly enforced.


The WDRR presented the community’s vision to make Front Street a “community room” with pedestrian-

friendly safety improvements, improved infrastructure, and the addition of site furnishings, wayfinding

signs, and other features to enhance the entire length of Front Street.

Proposed Action: The Proposed Action would add some visual character and pedestrian amenities as

described in the WDRR, resulting in increased community cohesion for residents and business owners,

enhanced accessibility and visual aesthetics, improved utility systems, and increased safety for road and

sidewalk users. ADA accessible sidewalks associated with this action would directly benefit disabled

persons.

The Proposed Action would not disproportionally affect children or minorities; it is not anticipated to

change travel patterns, isolate neighborhoods, impact schools, fire, or police districts, or displace

businesses or residents. There are three temporary structures set up alongside the NAPA Auto Parts

building near the city pier (Supplemental Figure A-1). A ROW survey associated with the Proposed

Action determined that one of these structures is in the ROW. The CBW will clear all encroachments to

the ROW prior to DOT&PF advertising the project for construction bidding.

Parking configurations associated with the road improvements (shown on Figure 3) would result in a net

loss of 2 legal parking spaces between the city pier and Campbell Drive. Approximately 15 more parking

stalls will be added along the waterside of the road between Campbell Drive and Case Avenue, currently

a gravel shoulder.

The addition of curb bulbs and clearly defined parking spaces would help prevent illegal parking at

intersection and allow better visibility.

Short-term impacts to travel patterns and accessibility may occur during construction, as discussed in

Section 4.12.

No-Action Alternative: Under the No-Action Alternative, sidewalk slopes and curb ramps would not be

compliant with current ADA standards. Continued deterioration of the roadway and sidewalks would be

expected, leading to decreased accessibility to sidewalks, businesses, and homes along Front Street. The

CBW would continue its enforcement efforts to reduce illegal parking at street intersections.

4.3 Economic Impacts

As a small southeast Alaska community, the economic history of Wrangell has been based on timber,

mining, and fishing, with tourism playing a stronger role following the 1995 closure of the saw mill.


Community plans (such as the WDRR) state that the community aims to diversify its economic base

through a variety of measures to stabilize its economy. These measures include:

Increasing the appeal and usability of the downtown area to increase consumer spending.

Improving infrastructure to enhance seafood processing capability or other industrial

opportunities.

Support marketing and events, which stimulate retail business.

Many businesses rely on both large-scale (e.g., large cruise ships) and small-scale tourism (independent

travelers). Tourist-dependent businesses in Wrangell include hotels, restaurants, gift shops, and a variety

of charter operators that offer nature walks, guided fishing trips, kayaking, and float plane excursions.

Several kiosk-like temporary structures are seasonally placed along the edge of the turning circle at the

city pier to sell tickets to tourist-dependent enterprises like nature walks and fishing charters.

Proposed Action: As a result of the Proposed Action, local aesthetics of the downtown area would be

improved and the pedestrian experience would be enhanced. No long-term direct economic impacts are

anticipated. However, indirect economic impacts could result from increased spending as residents and

tourists spend more time downtown.

Short-term economic impacts to Front Street businesses may occur as a result of construction, as

discussed in Section 4.12.

Improvements to infrastructure would have an overall positive economic impact. Improved roads,

sidewalks, and utilities would result in less maintenance and operation costs for the CBW, while other

costs may increase as described below:

Separating stormwater from the wastewater at each lot would reduce the demand on the sewage

treatment plant, thus reducing wear on equipment and associated maintenance and operations

(M&O) costs.

Undergrounding overhead utilities would reduce M&O costs associated with maintaining

overhead utility lines and power poles.

Rehabilitation of the sewer manholes would reduce M&O costs because it would reduce demand

on the sewer treatment plant. Existing systems allow stormwater inflow and infiltration into the

system because the manholes do not have a watertight seal.


Constructing curb ramps, sidewalk cross slopes that meet ADA requirements, and adding storm

drain stub-outs to each lot would reduce M&O costs from local icing issues.

Replacing the old water line with a new high-density polyethylene line would reduce M&O costs.

Adding a curb and gutter between Campbell Drive and Case Avenue would reduce icing

problems, eliminate erosion problems, and improve the integrity of the roadway shoulder.

Snow removal cost may increase due to increased time required to remove snow near bulb-outs.

Additional M&O costs would be associated with the oil-water separators. These costs would be

minimal because the oil-water separators need to be cleaned only once per year.

No-Action Alternative: No changes to the current economy are anticipated with the No-Action

Alternative. The CBW public works M&O costs will continue to increase with the need for increased

road, sidewalk, infrastructure repairs, and wastewater treatment.

4.4 Local Land Use and Transportation Plans

Existing land use in areas adjacent to Front Street consist of commercial, residential, parkland, and

undeveloped properties. Front Street is defined as a common community area of downtown businesses in

the CBW’s current planning documents.

Local land use plans call for ADA Compliant roads and sidewalks. Local code restricts bicyclists from

riding on the sidewalks in the downtown area, but bicycles are allowed to ride with traffic in the

commercial area (WMC 11.36.070). Land use development is guided by the CBW’s Comprehensive Plan

and zoning ordinance within the corporate limits of the City of Wrangell.

The purpose of the CBW’s Comprehensive Plan is to guide growth over the next 10 to 20 years. The plan

describes current conditions, reviews outstanding issues and needs, and lays out an orderly path to help

achieve the desired future. The plan address quality of life, municipal government, the economy and

economic development, transportation, land use, public works and utilities, public safety, and public

services. The plan also establishes broad goals to set overall direction, specific policies that are the

desired future that the community wants to achieve over time, and sets out actions to chart a path to help

achieve the goals (CBW, 2010).


Other local, regional, and state plans include:

The Central/Southern Southeast Area Plan

The Central/Southern Southeast Area Plan (adopted in November 2000) was developed by State and

Federal agencies, landowners, local governments, special interest groups, and the public. The plan

establishes management policies for approximately 3 million acres of state owned and state selected

uplands, as well as tidelands (both submerged and shore lands). The plan documents the manner in which

the state intends to manage lands over the long-term and ensures that public access to state lands is

maintained (DNR, 2000).

State lands are intended to be used for multiple uses, including both dispersed and marine oriented

recreation, timber harvest, habitat protection, and settlement. State uplands lands within the Wrangell

region comprise approximately 18,000 acres, located primarily on Wrangell Island with concentrations

near the Wrangell community (DNR, 2000).

Southeast Area Transportation Plan

The mission of the Southeast Area Transportation Plan is to develop a regional transportation plan that

improves mobility for residents, goods, and services throughout the region by using the advantages of air,

marine, and land transportation. The plan focuses on regional transportation improvements that increase

system efficiency and increase mobility for both Alaskans and visitors traveling through Southeast

Alaska. The focus of the plan is on the construction of new highways and construction of new ferries to

replace an aged ferry fleet (DOT&PF, 2004).

State regulations require review and update of the Alaska Transportation plan and it components,

including the Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan, every five years. The DOT&PF is currently working

on an update to the plan.

Wrangell Downtown Revitalization Report

The Wrangell Downtown Revitalization Report focuses on incorporating pedestrian-friendly safety

improvements, site furnishings, wayfinding and interpretive signage to Front Street and the downtown

area that will result in a space that people will find comfortable and safe and that will be enjoyed and

treasured by residents and visitors alike. The plan addresses current deficiencies and safety hazards

related to existing sidewalks and streets, parking and traffic, and describes the desired land and

streetscape envisioned for Front Street and the downtown area (Jones and Jones, 2006).


Proposed Action: The Proposed Action is consistent with local land use and transportation plans and

goals. The Proposed Action would not impact Totem Park, located at the northeast corner of Saint

Michaels and Front Streets. However, the addition of a sidewalk on the waterside (opposite of the park)

of Front Street between Campbell Drive and Case Avenue will provide continuous access from both sides

of the street.

All constructed and reconstructed sidewalk side-slopes and curb ramps would meet ADA standards.

Bulb-outs would enhance safety for both pedestrians and bicyclists when crossing intersections, due to

shorter crossing distances and improved visibility at intersections. Ponding issues would be resolved

through proper side-slopes and improvements to the storm drain system. Bicycle-safe storm drain grates,

manhole lids, and valve covers would be installed. The project would improve transportation use and

could enhance local development.

Access may be temporarily impeded during the construction period, but would be minimized to the extent

practical as discussed in Section 4.12.

No-Action Alternative: No land use issues are anticipated under the No-Action Alternative. Existing land

use is consistent with the local land use plans. The No-Action Alternative is not consistent with local

land use plans because no improvements would be made to the sidewalks or pedestrian amenities to bring

them in compliance with ADA standards. Sidewalks would continue to deteriorate, ponding water and

ice would remain an obstacle, and slopes and curb ramps would not be ADA compliant.

4.5 Cultural Resources

The project area has the potential to have both archaeological and historic resources. A consultant to

DOT&PF evaluated archaeological resources. The prehistoric use of southeast Alaska, including

Wrangell, began approximately 5,000 years ago. Native influence in this area is represented by three

broad groups: the Tlingit, the Alaskan Haida (Kaigani), and the Tsetsuat. The project area is within the

territory of the Shtax’héen Kwáan (Stikine Tlingit).

As presented in the 2009 survey done by Cultural Resource Consultants, LLC (CRC) for the DOT&PF,

prior studies of archaeological resources reported two villages on Wrangell Island—one south of the City

of Wrangell on the southwestern coast of the Island and one in what is now downtown Wrangell.

According to an article in the Wrangell Sentinel (July 3, 1997), Totem Park, on the corner of Front Street

and Episcopal Avenue, was the former site of the Gagaan Hit (Sun House) and the original home of the

first Kiks.ádi totem (See Appendix C, CRC, 2009).


Rushmore also interviewed individuals in Wrangell that have knowledge regarding the archeological

potential beneath Front Street. High probability areas result from the presence of the 1917 shoreline

(before fill extended areas to the west of Front Street) and the historical use of the area by the Shtax’héen

Kwáan. Based on this survey, personal observations, and an archival review of old photographs,

Rushmore concluded that there is a high probability of discovering items of cultural importance beneath

Front Street in the following areas (CRC, 2009):

The northern end of the project corridor to McKinnon Street is considered a high probability area

because of the potential for intact sediments.

Episcopal Street to Case Avenue is considered a high probability area based on past land use and

potential for intact prehistoric and historic cultural deposits.

McKinnon Street to Episcopal Street is considered a low probability area because of the amount

and depth of fill material, especially on the southern side of the street. The depth of fill material

is shallower on the northern side of the road in which case, excavations could encounter items of

cultural importance.

A detailed investigation of historic resources (including structures) was done in 1984 and submitted to the

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), when the Wrangell Historic Society obtained a funding grant

from the DNR Office of History and Archaeology (OHA) and funding from the City of Wrangell.

Elizabeth Cohen conducted a survey and prepared building histories and architectural descriptions for

identified potentially historic Wrangell structures (Cohen, 1986). The original intent was to survey the

entire 1914 Wrangell town site. Available funding allowed work to cover structures in the downtown

commercial area from Federal Way to Episcopal Street, residences between Front Street and Church

Street, and three churches along Church Street.

In 2009, CRC conducted a historical and architectural survey for the proposed project and is included as

Appendix C (CRC, 2009). Wrangell’s history described in that report is briefly summarized below:


Russian and American influence pervaded the area in

the mid to late 1800s with establishment of trading

posts and military forts. During this time, gold rush

events brought miners to the Wrangell area and

created various economic booms. Front Street was

constructed of wooden planking at this time

(Figure 12). Fishing and timber industries have

historically helped the local economy through

operations of canneries and sawmills.

Figure 12: Front Street Circa 1898, Prior to Shoreline Fill

The Post World War II Development of Wrangell shaped the town into its modern-day state. Roads were

paved, utilities were upgraded, and modern landmarks, such as City Market, the Ferry Terminal, and

Wells Fargo Bank, were built.

In March 1952, a disastrous fire broke out in Wrangell that burned through three blocks of the waterfront

side of Front Street and destroyed over 25 buildings. During this period, tideland areas were filled to

create more useable space downtown.

The periods of significance for the City and Borough of Wrangell’s history are considered to be:

1. Late 19th century development of Wrangell, 1897 to 1899

2. Early to Mid-20th century development of Wrangell, 1900 to 1941

3. Post World War II and post 1952 fire development of Wrangell, 1945 to 1965

The Proposed Action’s Area of Potential Effect (APE) has two tiers; one for archaeological resources and

one for historical/architectural resources (Figure 13). The archaeological tier is limited to the footprint of

the road and sidewalk improvements and subsurface utilities, and represents the area that may be

disturbed during construction. The historical/architectural tier accounts for possible direct, indirect, and

visual effects of the project on directly adjacent buildings as well as those structures that have a

substantial view of the project footprint. If a structure or building is determined to be eligible for listing

on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), an evaluation of the project’s potential to affect its

eligibility must be done.

T

1

N

E

2

O

P:\Projects\J70112\GIS\ENV\EA Documents\Historical District and Buildings.mxd Oct 20, 2010 3:32:14 PM User: bfarrell

Wrangell Core Historic District (PET-652)Area of Potential Effect (historical/architectural)Area of Potential Effect (archaeological)Historic Buildings ¯

0 150 30075 Feet October 20, 2010


Figure 13: Historic Buildings and District

WO: J70112


ID Building Name AHRS #1 Federal Building PET-3162 St. Phillips Church PET-315

ID Building Name AHRS #E Patenaude/Grant PET-278N Jenkins/Hofstad PET-298O Diehl/Neyman PET-299T Wells Fargo PET-618

Buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places

Buildings Determined as Individually Eligible

Note:Proposed improvements to this section of Lynch Streethave been included in the Environmental Assessment and willbe constructed at a later time when funding becomes available.

*See notebelow


Direct, indirect, and visual impacts include those that may be reasonably foreseeable and may occur later

in time, farther removed in distance, or are cumulative. Examples include (NEH, 2010) physical

destruction damage; alteration inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the

Treatment of Historic Properties; relocation of the property; change in the character of the properties use

or setting; introduction of incompatible visual atmospheres, or audible elements; neglect and

deteriorations; and transfer, lease, or sale out of federal control without adequate preservation restrictions.

Buildings within the project’s historical/architectural tier APE were evaluated to determine whether they

qualify for listing on the NRHP. In order for a building or other property to qualify for the NRHP, it must

meet one or more of the National Register Criteria for Evaluation and retain enough historic integrity

necessary to convey its significance (National Park Service, 2002). The National Register Criteria are:

A. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history.

B. Association with the lives of significant persons.

C. Embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or

representation of the work of a master, or possession of high artistic values, or representation of a

significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

D. Having yielded, or having the ability to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

There are two buildings within the APE already listed on the NRHP: the Federal Building/Post Office

(PET-316), and St. Phillips Church (PET-315). Based on the Cohen and CRC surveys, FHWA

determined that four additional buildings are individually eligible for listing on the NRHP (Figure 13):

Patenaude/Grant building (PET-278) eligible under Criterion A

National Bank of Alaska/Wells Fargo (PET-618) building eligible under Criterion C

Jenkins/Hofstad building (PET-298) eligible under Criterion A

Diehl/Neyman building (PET-299) eligible under Criterion A

Further details regarding the characteristics of these historic buildings, and the evaluation process, can be

found in Appendix C.

In addition to individual structures, there is the potential for one or more historic districts in Wrangell. A

historic district is a place that possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites,

buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development and

can comprise both features that lack individual distinction and individually distinctive features that serve


as focal points (National Park Service, 2002). In 1984, Cohen evaluated three potential historic districts;

a commercial district, a residential district, and an all encompassing district that included the Federal

Building/United States Post Office (PET-316), and several churches above Church Street. This last and

larger district included the core of the original town site and all building types present in early Wrangell.

Cohen recommended this core district as Wrangell’s historic district, and the report was submitted to the

Office of History and Archaeology (OHA) on June 20, 1986; however, a formal determination of

eligibility for this proposed historic district was never completed.

CRC also evaluated the potential for a commercial historic district along Front Street. While CRC

contended that a small commercial historic district is present on Front Street (between McKinnon and and

St. Michaels Streets), FHWA has determined that the recommended contributing elements lack integrity

to make the CRC proposed district eligible (see Appendix C). FHWA has determined that Cohen’s

proposed Historic District, modified to exclude structures no longer having integrity, and to include

structures along a portion of Front Street is eligible for listing on the National Register. Figure 13 shows

the Historic District.

This Historic District is significant under Criterion A for its association with late 19th and early 20th

century development of Wrangell, with a period of significance of 1898-1941. It is located on the

(western) side of the originally platted town site, and reflects a period when late 19th and early-mid 20th

century United States architectural, social, and economic influences were overlaid upon the earlier

Tlingit, Russian, Hudson Bay Company, and initial United States presence in the town.

The Historic District also illustrates the characteristic proximity of commercial, residential, and

government activity in Wrangell during this period, prior to the expansion of outlying industry and

infrastructure that followed World War II. The Historic District embodies typical Southeast Alaska

development patterns of that time, where the community focus centered on a primary waterfront street

featuring multiple uses including commercial, industrial, and residential, with additional residential

neighborhoods clustered nearby.

Character defining features for the district as a whole include the general retention of street patterns,

scale, and massing as they existed between Front Street and Church Street during the period of

significance. The characteristic proximity of properties representing commercial, residential, and

government activity is retained. Other character defining features include the presence of individual

buildings that retain sufficient integrity of association, location, design, workmanship, materials, feeling,

and in some cases, setting, to convey historic significance under Criterion A. However, other character

defining features from the period of significance have been diminished. The immediate waterfront


character that this portion of Front Street possessed during the period of significance has been altered.

Church Street has undergone widening and upgrades which diminish the original setting of several

properties on the south side of that street.

Proposed Action: Archeological deposits from early southeast Alaska Native people’s use of the

Wrangell area could be discovered during construction of the Proposed Action. Ground surveys (under

affected roads and sidewalks) have not been conducted, so possible effects to these resources cannot be

determined at this time. A plan for archeological monitoring has been proposed to address discovery of

potential archeological items during construction (see Appendix C of CRC, 2009 report in the EA’s

Appendix C). The objective of the monitoring will be to prevent inadvertent damage to archeological and

historical materials during construction, if possible retrieve such materials when found, and to gather

enough information to evaluate their eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP.

FHWA, in consultation with the USEPA, has determined that the proposed project will not directly or

indirectly adversely affect historic properties in the project’s APE, including the Historic District as

shown on Figure 13. Furthermore, they have determined that implementation of the proposed changes to

the streetscape would not diminish the integrity of the individually eligible or already listed properties’

historic features or result in a non-historic use of the property. The SHPO concurred on November 1,

2010, that the proposed project would not adversely affect the eligibility of the previously listed

properties, proposed eligible buildings, or the Historic District. Refer to Appendix C for additional

details.

No-Action Alternative: No impacts to cultural or historical resources are anticipated under the No-Action

Alternative.

4.6 Water Body Involvement

The only water body located near the project corridor is Zimovia Strait. The current storm drain system

collects stormwater from the project corridor and discharges it directly into the marine waters of Zimovia

Strait. The existing stormwater outfall is buried beneath the Stikine Inn and is not accessible for

maintenance.

Proposed Action: The Proposed Action would construct a new stormwater outfall below the mean high

water line of Zimovia Strait. The existing structure would be decommissioned in place, and the

stormwater currently flowing through it would be rerouted to the proposed stormwater outfall

(Figure B-1). Any fill placed below the mean high water line falls under the jurisdiction of the United

States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of


the Rivers and Harbors Act. Therefore, the proposed installation of a stormwater outfall structure into

Zimovia Strait will require a USACE Nationwide Permit 7 for Outfall Structures and Maintenance.

No-Action Alternative: Under the No-Action Alternative, the existing stormwater outfall would not be

relocated and oil-water separators would not be installed to treat stormwater runoff before entering

Zimovia Strait. Maintenance to the existing outfall would remain compromised. The quality of

stormwater being discharged into Zimovia Strait would not improve.

4.7 Alaska Coastal Management Program

The project is located within the Wrangell Coastal District Coastal Zone boundary. As such, projects

located within the coastal zone may require a review to determine its consistency with the Alaska Coastal

Management Program (ACMP).

The Wrangell Coastal District does not currently have any local district enforceable policies in place.

Proposed Action: A Coastal Project Questionnaire (CPQ), which reviews the proposed project’s

consistency with the ACMP, is attached in Appendix D. The CPQ indicates that the project is consistent

with the ACMP Statewide Standards. There are no permits that trigger an individual project review for

this project. Therefore, it is not anticipated that a formal consistency review will be required. The CPQ

has been submitted to the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

No-Action Alternative: No changes within the coastal zone are associated with this alternative.

4.8 Hazardous Waste

An All-Appropriate Inquiry/Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (AAI/Phase I ESA) was performed

for this project (DOWL HKM, 2009b - Appendix E). Key results of this investigation summarized on

Figure 15 indicate the following:

While dry-cleaning businesses and machine repair shops have operated in the project corridor,

there is low risk of solvent and oil contamination within the project corridor due to their locations

downgradient from the proposed project area.


Confirmed petroleum contaminated soil

has been documented at Fennimore’s

Service Center and is suspected near or in

the subsurface soils within the project

corridor. Soil contamination is also

suspected at the former location of Wilcox

Automotive (now Jitterbug Espresso,

Figure 14) because underground storage

tanks may have leaked over time.

Figure 14: Location of Former Wilcox Automotive and Underground Fuel Storage Tank

Due to widespread existing and historic use of heating fuel storage tanks in adjoining and

adjacent properties, it is possible that fuel spills or leaks from one or more of these off-site

locations could have migrated and now possibly pose a soil and groundwater contamination risk.

The AAI/Phase I ESA recommended the development of a work plan (Contingency

Plan/Corrective Action Plan) that would be followed during construction rather than

implementing a disruptive soil sampling event prior to construction to characterize soil under

roads and sidewalks in the downtown district.

It should also be noted that asbestos cement piping is present in the project corridor and is

currently used for water distribution.

Proposed Action: A Contingency Plan has been developed in cooperation with the State of Alaska

Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to outline field-screening procedures for potentially

contaminated soils, stockpiling, or reuse of contaminated soil during construction and to address worker

safety as discussed in Section 4.12. The Contingency Plan is included as Appendix F.

Asbestos cement piping will be exposed in some places during construction. The majority of the

pipe would be abandoned in place. However, in places where the pipe may have to be cut, the

Contractor will likely have to remove and dispose of asbestos containing material. The local

landfill does not currently accept asbestos containing material. Therefore, DOT&PF’s

Construction Specifications will outline the procedures for handling and disposing of the asbestos

cement in pipes in accordance with DEC regulations.

St. Michaels St

Episcopal Ave

Case Avenue

Campbell Drive

Front Street

Brueger Street

Lync

h St

Stikine Ave

Federal Way

McKinnon St

Church St

@?

@?

")")")

")

") ")")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

") ")

")")")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")")

")

@?

@?

Mill

Wood Shop

Boat Shop

Boat Shop

Power Plant

Boat Repair

Welding Shop

Machine Shop

Steam Laundry

Unknown Spill

Clothes Cleaners

Post Office1529.26.003

City Motor ServiceWilcox Automotive

Fennimore's Service Station1529.26.006

P:\Projects\J70112\GIS\ENV\EA Documents\smaller\Hazardous Sites.mxd

Key") Storage Tank

Business name as listed on 1914 Sanborn Fire MapBusiness name as listed on 1927 Sanborn Fire MapBusiness name as listed on 1956 Sewer Plans

@?Spill Site, DEC Number NotedEdge of PavementBuilding Footprints

¯0 125 250

Feet June 25, 2010


Figure 15 - Current and Historical Businesses of Concern,Known Fuel Spill Locations, and Observed Fuel Storage

WO: J70112



A Quality Assurance Project Plan and a Hazardous Waste Management Plan would be submitted

to the USEPA for approval, in the event that USEPA funds are used for the treatment or

management of contaminated soils or removal and disposal of asbestos containing material.

No-Action Alternative: No impacts to hazardous waste or hazardous waste sites are anticipated.

4.9 Air Quality

According to Alaska Administrative Code 18 AAC 50, Wrangell is considered a Class II area for air

quality (DEC, 2006). Class II areas have air quality standards and maximum allowable increases for

regulated air pollutants: particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter, PM10 (dust); particulate

matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter, PM2.5 (smoke); nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon

monoxide, ozone, and lead (Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR 81.302). Activities in these areas must

operate in such a way that they do not exceed listed air quality standards and increments for these

compounds.

Although no recent air quality testing has been completed in downtown Wrangell, there is no indication

that current air quality conditions do not meet standards for Class II areas (Johnson, 2009).

Proposed Action: Long-term impacts to air quality are not anticipated as a result of this project.

Localized short-term impacts to air quality may result during construction; see Section 4.12 for more

details.

No-Action Alternative: No changes to air quality are anticipated as a result of the No-Action Alternative.

4.10 Noise Impacts

Local noise ordinances are addressed in the WMC, with reference only to noise emanating from industrial

activities (20.52.060). The code refers to Ordinance 463, Section 6 (1984), and states that noises should

be muffled as to not become objectionable, and when the activities occur adjacent to a residential district,

noise at the district boundary:

“Shall not exceed 90 decibels between the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. weekdays and the hours of 10 a.m.

and 8 p.m. weekends and holidays, and 40 decibels at other hours.”

Industrial facilities along the project corridor include the boat yards and the shipping and receiving yards.

While some residences exist along Front Street, the nearest residential districts are east of Cow Alley and

along Church Street, over 350 feet from these industrial areas (Rushmore, 2009).


Proposed Action: No long-term change in noise is anticipated because the Proposed Action would not

affect traffic patterns or associated noise.

Short-term noise disturbances may be associated with construction. These disturbances would be

minimized by limiting construction activities to 7 a.m. through 8 p.m. on weekdays and holidays to

comply with local ordinances and minimize disturbances to local residents. A noise permit, from the

CBW, is to be obtained for noisy activities exceeding 90 decibels in a residential district.

The Proposed Action would not require a highway traffic noise analysis because it neither significantly

changes the horizontal or vertical alignment of the project corridor, nor increases the number of through-

traffic lanes (23 CFR 772).

No-Action Alternative: No changes to current noise regimes are anticipated.

4.11 Water Quality

No water bodies near the project corridor are on Alaska’s List of Impaired or 303(d) Listed Water Bodies

(DEC, 2008), therefore runoff is not regulated for any particular constituent pollutant (e.g., total

maximum daily limits).

Currently, untreated stormwater drains from the project corridor and discharges directly into the marine

waters of Zimovia Strait.

Many buildings in the project corridor have roofline drainpipes currently connected to the sewer system.

During heavy rain events, stormwater from these properties inundates the sewer lines. As a result, the

city’s sewer pumps get overwhelmed and sewage can back up in the lines. In the past (most recently in

December 2006), the excess stormwater entered the sewage treatment plant and resulted in an exceedance

to its permitted monthly discharge volume limit. Violations have been self-reported and no fines have

resulted. In addition, the excess rainwater can have multiple effects on water quality, including changes

in the level of oxygenation in the treatment ponds and reduces the contact time of the wastewater.

A hydrological analysis of the project area is included in Appendix B, as an attachment to the PER

(DOWL HKM, 2009a). The study area was divided into twelve drainage basins. Of the twelve basins,

seven have storm drain systems undersized for a 10-year storm event and 8 have storm drain systems

undersized for a 25-year storm event.

Proposed Action: A new stormwater outfall would be constructed that would discharge stormwater into

Zimovia Strait (Supplemental Figure B-1.) Two oil-water separators would be installed as shown in


Figure 16 and on Supplemental Figures B-1 and B-4. These systems would pre-treat stormwater to

separate hydrocarbons and sediment from urban runoff. Oil and sediment build-up would be removed

periodically by the City of Wrangell maintenance staff. As a result, water quality in stormwater entering

Zimovia Strait would be improved.

Figure 16: Proposed Oil-Water Separator Locations

Storm drain lines that would connect to the proposed storm drain improvements would reduce stormwater

from entering the sewage treatment plant and improve permit compliance.

Storm drainpipes in the project area drainages would be increased to 18-, 24-, or 36-inch corrugated

polyethylene pipe, as appropriate, in order to accommodate 25-year flood events. Minor modifications to

drainage patterns are anticipated due to the relocation of some storm drain locations (Supplemental

Figures B1 through B6).

Minor short-term direct and indirect impacts to water quality may be associated with construction

activities (Section 4.12).

Proposed Oil-Water Separators


No-Action Alternative: No changes to the current storm drain system are associated with the No-Action

Alternative. Untreated stormwater would continue to be discharged into Zimovia Strait. The wastewater

treatment plant would continue to have possible permit violation issues during storm events.

4.12 Permits and Authorizations

Proposed Action: The proposed action would require the following permits/authorizations:

Coastal zone consistency determination.

USACE Nationwide Permit (7) for Outfall Structures and Maintenance.

Notification of intent to work under the DEC Construction General Permit under the Alaska

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (APDES) program.

DEC storm drain plans review.

- Sewer system

- Storm drain

- Drinking water

Noise permit from the CBW.

No-Action Alternative: No permits/authorizations would be required.

4.13 Construction Impacts

Proposed Action: Potential impacts during all phases of the construction period are anticipated to be

short term and include the following:

ROW: Approximately 74 temporary construction easements would be required in order to match

existing grades of driveways and building fronts to the newly constructed sidewalks and road

surfaces.

Social Impacts: Short-term changes in travel patterns and accessibility are anticipated during

construction. Pedestrian access to businesses would be maintained during business hours. Some

limitation to vehicle access would occur. A Traffic Control Plan detailing minimization of

impact to road and sidewalk users will be developed and implemented by DOT&PF or their

contractor. Construction would be phased to minimize disruption at the city pier.


Economic Impacts: Short-term impacts may occur during construction. While decreased

vehicle access may decrease business activity in the construction zone, construction activities

may increase local jobs as well as a demand for food, lodging, and other services. Access issues

will be minimized through the development and implementation of a Traffic Control Plan,

phasing of the construction, and by maintaining pedestrian access throughout the construction

period.

Historical/Archeological: Cultural artifacts may be encountered during construction. A plan for

archeological monitoring has been developed to address any potential archeological finds during

construction (Appendix C). If an adverse effect is anticipated, a memorandum of agreement

would be created.

Hazardous Waste: A Contingency Plan has been developed in cooperation with the DEC to

address the possibility of encountering petroleum contaminated soils during construction

(Appendix F). The plan outlines field-screening procedures for potentially contaminated soils,

describes the contingency plans for stockpiling or reusing contaminated soil during construction,

and addresses worker safety. In addition, equipment fueling and servicing operations will not

occur within 100 feet of water bodies, and sorbent materials will be kept on-site to contain or

clean up any petroleum spill. The Contractor will be required to develop a Hazardous Materials

Control Plan to address hazardous material that will be used during project construction and to

detail measures to control discharges of such materials into waters of the United States. The

Contractor will handle project-generated hazardous waste in accordance with DEC requirements

and dispose of project-generated waste at the nearest appropriate facility. In addition a Quality

Assurance Plan and Hazardous Management Plan will be submitted to the USEPA for approval in

the event that USEPA funds are used for the treatment or management of contaminated soils or

removal and disposal of asbestos containing material.

Solid Waste: The Contractor will handle solid waste in accordance with DEC requirements and

dispose of project-generated waste at the nearest appropriate facility. Existing concrete in the

project corridor would be removed and stockpiled in the empty yard between the Nolan Center

and boat yard (Figure 2). The CBW intends to use the concrete pieces as part of a previously

planned and permitted tideland fill/port expansion project located in front of the Nolan Center. A

copy of the USACE permit associated with the tideland fill project is included in Appendix G.


Air Quality: Short-term degradation to air quality may result from heavy machinery emissions

and construction-related dust. Dust would be minimized through watering, as needed.

Noise: Construction activities could cause short-term temporary noise disturbances due to the

use of heavy machinery during the construction process. Construction activities (exceeding 40

decibels) would be limited to 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on weekdays and 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. on weekends

and holidays to comply with local noise ordinances and minimize disturbances to local residents.

No activity should exceed 90 decibels in a residential district without a noise permit from the

CBW. Removal of existing concrete, the noisiest part of the construction process, would take

approximately two continuous weeks. However, removal would likely be phased throughout the

construction season to minimize disturbance to traffic patterns, thus resulting in more, but shorter,

periods of noise from concrete removal.

Water Quality: Construction activities could cause short-term direct and indirect water quality

impacts. During construction, BMPs will be in place to protect water quality including erosion

prevention and slope stabilizing measures. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be

developed for inclusion in the construction special provisions. The Erosion and Sediment Control

Plan will provide an outline for measures to be taken by the Contractor during construction. A

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared to detail BMPs planned for the

construction effort as required by the DEC Construction General Permit. Specific BMP examples

are available in Appendix F of DOT&PF’s Alaska SWPPP Guide (DOT&PF, 2005).

Material Sources: Materials needed for the project would be contractor supplied. The

Contractor would be responsible for ensuring that all environmental permitting and compliance is

completed prior to material removal.

Invasive Species: Construction equipment and materials brought in from other places have the

potential to introduce invasive species into the project area. The following BMPs for weed

control will be implemented during construction.

- Use only weed-free straw, topsoil, gravel, and other new materials brought into the site.

- Wash vehicles before entering and leaving the construction site

- Remove weeds from material sites before excavating material.

- Gravel all disturbed areas.


No-Action Alternative: No major construction impacts are anticipated under the No-Action Alternative.

However, continued maintenance of infrastructure would occur. This would include patching concrete

roads and sidewalks or excavation of underground utilities in problem areas.

4.14 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the Proposed Action when added to other past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects for the Wrangell area are listed on the DCRA webpage

and were reviewed for this EA (DCRA, 2009). Listed projects that occurred over the past 15 years, as

well as current and reasonably foreseeable projects, can be grouped as follows:

Large infrastructure improvement projects such as:

- Planned improved pedestrian and bicycle access from the Ferry Harbor to Petroglyph Beach.

- Improved Wastewater Treatment Facility, completed in 2002.

- Ferry Terminal Improvements, completed in 2000.

- Various utility and road improvement projects including additional undergrounding of

utilities. Install empty electrical conduit along the Front Street corridor between the road and

sidewalk for the undergrounding of overhead utilities. In addition, transformers will be

installed, underground service connections will be made, and existing power poles and

overhead utilities will be removed. Future work to underground existing utilities will not

impact buildings along Front Street that are located within the Historic District. Overhead

utilities connect to the back of the buildings within the Historic District from Cow Alley.

These existing overhead connections will remain in place.

New Buildings, including:

- A new cold-storage facility constructed in 2007.

- A new Marine Service Center has been constructed; improvements to the storage yard are

still underway.

- James and Elsie Nolan Center opened 2004. This 20,000-square-foot building houses the

city’s new Wrangell Museum, visitor center, and convention center.

Harbor and airport projects including:

- Construction of a commercial fishing harbor and breakwater (2003).


- Wrangell Airport runway improvements, most recently in 2005 and 2006.

- Port Expansion in front of the Nolan Center, approved by the USACE, but not yet built

(Appendix G).

Various building renovations (ongoing).

- Housing and urban development project to revitalize the Tlingit-Haida regional Housing

Authorities historic “SNO” building.

The above projects cumulatively enhance Wrangell by improving basic infrastructure and providing more

public facilities and community areas and do not cumulatively pose an unacceptable risk to the

environment.

Several projects are planned that could overlap the construction timeframe with the Proposed Action

(Rushmore, 2009). These projects include the Etolin and Pine Streets’ resurfacing project, the proposed

City Dock Rehabilitation, the proposed undergrounding of utilities along Front Street, and the Port

Expansion. These planned construction projects would also likely have short-term air quality, water

quality, and noise impacts, which could have a cumulative impact when combined with the short-term

impacts or the Proposed Action. However, use of standard BMPs would help minimize these impacts and

together, they are not anticipated to have significant impacts.

It should be noted that historically, the development of downtown Wrangell has contributed to the town’s

cultural richness. On the other hand, development along Front Street within the past 50 years has resulted

in the alteration and/or destruction of several historic properties. Continued development in the core

commercial district is anticipated as a result of the Wrangell Road and Utility Improvements Project.

However, future development in downtown Wrangell is planned to enhance the historic setting. Given

that maintaining and enhancing the distinct character of the historic downtown is one of the stated goals

of the WDRR, these impacts could be minimized. The WDRR calls for understanding, preserving, and—

where possible—restoring the architectural elements that reflect Wrangell’s history as a working

community.

No-Action Alternative: Continued maintenance activities could create minor, short-termed impacts to air,

water, and noise quality. When combined with other construction or maintenance activities, these actions

could have a cumulative impact. However, use of standard BMPs would help minimize these impacts and

together, they are not anticipated to have significant impacts.


4.15 Connected Actions

The demolished concrete from this project is planned to be reused as part of the City Port Expansion

project. That CBW project will fill approximately 204,000 square feet of tideland. This additional area

will be used to increase the size of the port staging area, where barge companies operate and could

provide an area for the Marine Travelift and Vessel Repair Facility. While this project is part of the

Port’s master plan and is not directly connected to the Front Street Improvement project, reuse of the

demolished concrete would provide substantial cost savings to the city. A copy of the USACE permit for

tideland fill is included as Appendix G.

4.16 Compliance with Environmental Laws and Executive Orders

Table 3 lists environmental laws and executive orders that must be met by the Proposed Action. If a law

or order is applicable, the table references the section in this document where it is discussed.

Table 3: Proposed Action’s Compliance with Environmental Laws and Executive Orders

Laws and Executive Orders Proposed Action Compliant (Yes, No or Not Applicable)

Location in Document

Clean Water Act Yes 4.6, Water Body Involvement 4.10, Water Quality

Safe Drinking Water Act

Yes - Proposed action would not change drinking water source or treatment. Would improve distribution system.

1.0, Proposed Action

Clean Air Act Yes 4.8, Air Quality

Rivers and Harbors Act Yes 4.6, Water Body Involvement National Natural Landmarks (Historic Sites Act of 1935)


Historic, archaeological, and cultural sites (National Historic Preservation Act and Executive Order 11593)

Yes 4.5, Cultural Resources and 5.2, Section 106 Consultation

Wetlands (Protection of Wetlands Executive Order 11990)

Yes - Other Waters of the United States - Zimovia Strait

4.6, Water Body Involvement

Flood plains (Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988)


Agricultural Lands (Farmland Protection Policy Act, United States Code 7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.)


Coastal Zone Management/Areas (Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1451)

Yes 4.6, Alaska Coastal Management Program

Wild and Scenic Rivers (Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1274)


Fish and Wildlife Protection (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661)

Not applicable - no fish or wildlife habitat present

-


Laws and Executive Orders Proposed Action Compliant (Yes, No or Not Applicable)

Location in Document

Sole Source Aquifer and Recharge Areas


Wellhead Protection Areas Not applicable - none present -

Noise Control Act Yes 4.9, Noise Impacts Protection of Children from Environmental Risk Executive Order 13045


Section 4(f) of the DOT&PF Act of 1966


Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898


Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175

Yes 5.0, Comments and Coordination

Barrier Islands (Coastal Barrier Resources Act)


Threatened and Endangered Species Protection (Endangered Species Act)


Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Protection Act (Essential Fish Habitat Assessment)


Invasive Species Yes 4.12, Construction Impacts

4.17 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

Because the proposed project (and its alternative) is located in a developed area of downtown Wrangell,

and because resources required to complete the Proposed Action are neither unique nor in short supply,

no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources would be associated with the Proposed Action

or the No-Action Alternative.

4.18 Short-term Use of Environment versus Long-term Productivity

The Proposed Action would have minimal, short-term impacts on the surrounding natural environment,

mostly associated with construction efforts. Because its impacts are minimal, the Proposed Action would

not affect the long-term productivity of the surrounding environment. Similarly, no short-term uses or

long-term impacts to productivity would be associated with the No-Action alternative.

5.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION

Comments have been solicited and received from state and federal agencies, local governing entities,

Native governments, and community members regarding the proposed project.


Comments received and consultations during the initial scoping period have been summarized in the

Scoping Summary Report (DOWL HKM, 2009C - Appendix H). Additional comments received since

the scoping period ended are included in Appendix I.

5.1 Agency Scoping

The agency scoping was designed to communicate the purpose, need, and details of the proposed project

and to solicit comments and information from various agencies. Scoping letters were sent on

December 10, 2008. Responses were requested by January 9, 2009.

Table 4 summarizes comments and responses received from agencies:

Table 4: Agency Scoping

Agency Contacted

Date Comment Received Summary

DEC 12/16/08 No apparent impaired waters in the project corridor. ADF&G 12/11/08 No apparent issues.

DNR, Division of Coastal and Ocean Management

12/10/08 Requested a CPQ be completed. Response: A CPQ has been submitted to DNR (Appendix D).

DNR, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Southeast Division

12/15/08

Petroglyph Beach State Historic Park is near downtown Wrangell, but outside of project corridor. Inquired if access to beach was part of project. Response: Beach access not part of this project.

USEPA - Drinking Water Program

No comment received

USACE 12/29/08 No waters of the United States in project corridor.

USACE 8/18/10

Proposed storm drain, near the city pier, is located in the intertidal zone, which is under the USACE’s jurisdiction. Therefore, a Department of the Army permit application is required for the project.

USFWS 12/16/08 No threatened or endangered species in the project corridor. United States Forest Service

No comment received

Wrangell Coastal Coordinator

12/31/08 Project area within Wrangell Coastal District; drains into Zimovia Strait; located out of flood hazard area.


5.2 Section 106 Consultation

Section 106 Initiation of Consultation letters were sent to Native entities and other interested parties on

March 18, 2008. Section 106 Consultation is detailed in Appendix C. Responses from these entities are

summarized in Table 5.

Table 5: Section 106 Consultation

Agency Contacted Date

Comment Received Summary

DNR, SHPO Met with office representatives on 1/12/09, site visit on 2/17/09

Project was introduced, and a historic district survey approach was accepted as a way of analyzing historical and cultural features in the downtown area.

Wrangell Museum/Nolan Center

3/24/09 No concerns at this time - museum would like to be considered as a repository for any potential archeological finds.

Wrangell Cooperative Association

2/4/09 Supports revitalization plan; noted that progress seems slow.

Sealaska Corporation 4/10/09

No known cultural sites in area. If human remains or cultural artifacts inadvertently discovered, requests that work stop immediately until further consultation occurs.

Central Council Tlingit Haida Indian Tribes

No comment received

Sealaska Heritage Institute

No comment received

The FHWA, in consultation with the USEPA issued a finding of no adverse effect on historic properties

by the proposed project. Section 106 Findings letters were sent to the above listed agencies and

organizations on June 1, 2010. Copies of the Section 106 Findings letters are included in Appendix C.

5.3 Government-to-Government Consultation

As required by Executive Order 13157, Government-to-Government consultation was requested by the

FHWA and USEPA in letters sent out March 18, 2008, to the Sealalaska Corporation, the Sealaska

Heritage Institute, and the Central Council Tlingit Haida Indian Tribes Copies of the letters are available

in Appendix C. The only response received was from the Sealaska Corporation, as shown in Table 5

above.


5.4 Public Scoping

Public scoping was designed to communicate the purpose and need of the proposed project and the

associated environmental design and processes and to solicit comments and information from the public.

Scoping was accomplished through public meetings (held on November 18, 2008, and May 11, 2009),

mailings, a project website, and flyers.

Meeting summary notes for the 2008 meeting are including the Scoping Summary Report. Meeting

summary notes for the 2009 meeting, conducted after the scoping report was complete, are included as

Appendix C. Meetings were advertised through use of flyers and advertisements in the local newspaper

and on Wrangell’s KSTK radio station. In addition, letters and emails were sent out notifying recipients

of the project progress and the planned public meetings on November 7, 2008, and on May 1, 2009. The

project distribution list contained approximately 1,400 addresses and 60 e-mail addresses.

A project website was created and continues to be updated at: http://www.wrangell.com/projects/articles/.

A Scoping Summary Report details all elements of public scoping from November 7, 2008 to January 9,

2009, and can be found on the project website. A summary of issues and concerns is listed below by

topic. Responses to comments are in italics.

5.4.1 Planning, Design, and Construction

Removable bulb-outs for the winter season.

- No standard design currently exists for removable bulb-outs.

Start construction at the City Dock to accommodate cruise ships.

- An offset circular turnaround with landscaping and sidewalks is part of the Proposed Action

Alternative. Construction will be timed to minimize conflicts with cruise schedules.

Does not want the project to change the authentic look of Wrangell’s downtown.

- The Proposed Action seeks to maintain the historical nature of the downtown area while

enhancing aesthetics.

Install signs to highlight historic images of Wrangell, including the 1952 fire.

- Interpretive signs are part of the overall goal of the WDRR and will be incorporated during

the design phase of the Proposed Action or into later projects.


Incorporate petroglyph designs into signage and design elements added to street lights, cross

walks, and sidewalks.

- Petrogylph designs will be incorporated into project details when possible. They may be

included as concrete designs, on signs, or in planter areas. Design elements will be further

refined in the next phase of the work.

Include turnouts for the long-haul trucks; do not narrow the intersection of Front and McKinnon

Streets.

- A turnaround is part of the Proposed Action. In addition, the intersection at Front and

McKinnon Streets was designed to better accommodate large trucks through improving the

alignment and adding bulb-outs. While bulb-outs do narrow the intersection, they also keep

parked cars away out of the intersection sight triangles.

Include flat driveway curb cuts instead of pitched.

- The driveway cuts are generally flat, with the exception of a few cases where a sidewalk

would be pitched to match a fixed existing grade (such as the finished floor at a door).

Keep the access road to Cow Alley open for emergency access.

- No long-term changes to Cow Alley access are proposed. The Proposed Action was designed

to keep Cow Alley access next to Stikine Drug open.

Bulb-outs will aid in pedestrian safety access; will also create a friendly and appealing

appearance and provide landscaping areas.

- Bulb-outs are proposed in various locations along the project corridor.

Supports additional bulb-outs by Stikine Drug.

- The size of the bulb-out in front of Stikine Drug was greatly reduced at the request of the

business owner in order to maximize on-street parking in front of the store. There is now a

small bulb-out between Stikine Drug and Pirates Cove that is just big enough to receive a

crosswalk and house a fire hydrant.

Move crosswalk next to City Market.

- There is a crosswalk on either side of the City Market; one at Saint Michael’s Street and one

at Episcopal Avenue.


Would like construction to start after July 4 and end before the following July 4 to accommodate

Fourth of July celebrations.

- Construction dates are subject to change; efforts will be made to ensure that residents can

hold Fourth of July celebrations.

Would like Gateway Park concept included in the current phase of work.

- Budget constraints limit the extent of what’s included at the City Dock (referred to as the

Gateway Park in the WDRR), but current plans include some landscaping in this area.

Supports the installation of trashcans, wants more bike racks included in the design.

- Trashcans and bike racks are part of the Proposed Action.

Does not support the center structure in the city dock turnaround; the center planter/flag display at

Stikine Avenue and Front Street will restrict the swing room of the tractor-trailers.

- The center structure in the city dock turnaround is part of the design envisioned in the

community-supported WDRR and has been designed to accommodate bus and truck trailer

traffic. The center island will be delineated with a construction joint in the concrete for future

use, but the grade will be left flush with the rest of the turnaround for this project allowing

trucks to drive over the island.

Supports as much landscaping as possible in the project corridor.

- Landscaping is part of the proposed design. Budget limitations, safety issues, and historical

context of the area will dictate the extent of landscaping.

Concerned about where the Christmas tree will be located.

- The traditional Christmas tree location will not be affected by the proposed project and will

still be located near the alleyway between Fennimore’s and the Elks Club.

Does not support having a sewer dump station downtown.

- There is an existing dump station at the lift station near Case Avenue. However, the CBW

plans on removing this dump station as part of another project, most likely to be completed in

2010

Supports black-topping the parking lot behind the NAPA Auto Parts building to keep down dust

and mud.


- Additional paving behind the NAPA Auto Parts building is not part of the Proposed Action.

Supports white colored concrete for marking the crosswalks and red colored concrete for marking

the no parking zones.

- Colored concrete is part of the Proposed Action and designs will be further refined during the

landscape and streetscape design phase of the project.

5.4.2 Parking

Need ten-minute parking zones.

- Parking time limits are not part of this project.

Keep parking in front of pharmacy.

- Two parking spots would continue to exist in front of the pharmacy, although their location

would be offset slightly.

City Market parking comments: (1) The existing roadway in front of City Market is narrow and

the current pull-in parking is creating a hazardous, unsafe situation. (2) Does not support parallel

parking at City Market. (3) Supports parallel parking in front of City Market or a drive-through

along Silvernail. (4) Does not support any change of City Market’s parking. (5) Does not

support parallel parking from the City Market down to the boat yard gates. (6) Bulb-outs at the

City Market will constrict tractor-trailer movements. (7) Supports angle parking at City Market

so as not to constrict tractor-trailer movements.

- Proposed parking in front of City Market has been modified to angled parking, and a portion

of the Sentry Hardware parking lot will be used to widen the roadway in an effort to address

the majority of comments and concerns.

Add additional parking without blocking driveways.

- Parking has been maximized to the extent possible.

Buy Wilcox’s property and turn it into a parking lot; Buy Jitterbugs and turn it into a combination

park and parking lot.

- Development of additional parking lots is not part of the Proposed Action.

Should consider using 30 feet of Ann Armstrong’s property for parking; should consider using

the area in front of Arrowhead for parking because it has a sidewalk going down the length of it.


- Parking has been maximized to the extent possible. The acquisition of private property for

parking has not been considered, although organized parking along the south side of the street

between Episcopal and Case Avenues will be added.

Does not support changing parking in front of Rayme’s Bar.

- Parallel parking will be available across from Rayme’s Bar. Additional parking is available

at the establishment’s private parking area. Consistent driving lane and sidewalk widths

would not be possible with other parking alignments. A public parking area south of

Rayme’s may also be added if the CBW relocates the adjacent dump station, as planned.

Supports the parking concept by the NAPA Auto Parts building.

- Noted.

Carefully evaluate handicapped parking spaces.

- Handicapped parking spaces are not required within the ROW, but one will be designated in

front of the Diamond “C” Café. Businesses with off-street parking should provide stalls as

close to the front door as possible to minimize travel distances for disabled persons.

Supports parallel parking along Front Street.

- Noted.

Include improvements to bicycle access/mobility downtown.

- The addition of bicycle racks is included in the Proposed Action. Bicyclists would continue

to ride with traffic in the downtown area, as required by local ordinances. Bicycle-safe storm

drain grates, manhole lids, and valve covers will be installed.

5.4.3 Non-Motorized Transit

Sidewalks need to be replaced so that residents who get around on ADA-mechanized transport

can more easily navigate when they are downtown.

- Replacing sidewalks and improving slope and ramps to meet ADA guidelines are part of the

Proposed Action.

5.4.4 Purpose and Need

When some small towns in Colorado were “cutesied up,” it made it harder to get things done

because it reduced traffic and fewer people came downtown.


- Traffic reduction is neither part of the Proposed Action, nor an anticipated impact.

This project will revitalize downtown Wrangell and help the local economy.

- Noted.

5.4.5 Safety

Bad icing and runoff exists near the Strawberry Patch on Front and Saint Michaels Streets and in

front of Arrow Head.

- Improved storm drain systems and new curb/gutter will solve some of the existing runoff and

icing issues. Storm runoff across sidewalks from private property would be minimized by

private property owners connecting to the storm drain stub-outs installed as part of the

Proposed Action.

The dock area is muddy and icy and needs paving.

- Paving of the dock area is not part of the Proposed Action. However, the turnaround will be

paved with concrete and properly drained to prevent icing.

The waterfront approach to town is difficult and dangerous at the intersections with the dock,

Stikine Inn, the post office, and Front Street.

- Addition of bulb-outs and construction of sidewalks near the city pier will improve pedestrian

safety and enhance the pedestrian experience.

Believes that bulb-outs will result in loss of parking and pose possible safety hazards when

turning corners; prefers hanging baskets for landscaping options.

- Bulb-outs have been proven to enhance safety because they ensure visibility of both

pedestrians and cross traffic. In addition, they prevent cars from parking illegally close to the

intersections. Several new parking stalls have been identified and efforts have been made to

minimize the loss of parking due to bulb-outs. Hanging baskets are not part of the Proposed

Action.

Believes 6-inch curbs are safer.

- Six-inch curbs will be employed. The existing curb exceeds six inches in some locations.

Install flashing lights to warn pedestrians about vehicles travelling down the alley.

- Installation of flashing lights is not part of the Proposed Action.


5.5 Public Hearing

The DOT&PF and the CBW held an open house and public hearing on the Wrangell Road and Utility

Improvements project to discuss and obtain formal comments on the Front Street improvements and

potential environmental impacts in downtown Wrangell. The open house and public hearing were held

on Monday, November 22, 2010, at the Nolan Civic Center, 296 Campbell Drive, Wrangell, Alaska. An

open house that allowed the public to view the project material was held between 6 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. A

presentation was given at 6:30 p.m., and the public hearing followed at 7 p.m. A total of fourteen people

signed in at the registration table.

A notice announcing the availability of the EA, the public hearing, and the extent of the comment period

was mailed on November 8, 2010, to property owners and residents within the CBW and to interested

parties. The public hearing was advertised in the “Wrangell Sentinel” on October 28, 2010, and

November 4, 11, and 18, 2010, and a Public Service Announcement was sent to the local radio station

KSTK to be broadcast from November 1 to November 22, 2010. An online public notice was posted on

the State of Alaska website from October 26, 2010, and a meeting notification was also posted on the

CBW project website.

Boards about the project were placed around the meeting room for the open house. They included a

project overview, map, schedule, and the environmental conclusions from the EA. The public was given

comment sheets, and a recorder was also available to take oral testimony during the open house. A

presentation explaining the project, and the conclusions in the EA was given at 6:30 p.m. The public

hearing, where the public could sign-up to give formal oral testimony, was held at 7 p.m. Representatives

from the project team were available to discuss the project and answer questions. A handout was

distributed at the meeting that summarized the project and gave guidance on how to comment on the

project. Four people gave oral testimony at the hearing. No written comments were received at the

meeting or during the comment period that ended on December 3, 2010. Meeting materials including a

transcript of the hearing and a comment summary table are included in Appendix J.


6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

Table 6: List of Preparers

Name Affiliation/ExpertiseApplied to Document Profession

Federal Agency Reviewers

Tim Haugh FHWA Environmental Program Manager17 years experience

Christopher Riley FHWA Southeast Region Engineer10 years experience

Jennifer Curtis USEPA NEPA Reviewer/Compliance Coordinator, 13 years experience

Project Development and Supervision

Al Steininger DOT&PF Project Manager Engineer 34 years experience

Greg Lockwood DOT&PF, Consultant Coordinator

Engineer/Architect 7 years experience

Arne Oydna DOT&PF, Consultant Coordinator

Engineer/Architect 11 years experience

Jane Gendron DOT&PF, Environmental Environmental Impact Analyst32 years of experience

Carol Rushmore CBW, Project Staff Economic Development Director20 years of experience

Paul Rushmore Paleo Logics Archaeologist 30 years of experience

Michael Kell DOT&PF Environmental Environmental Impact Analyst II40 years of experience

Carl Johnson CBW, Project Staff Director of Public Works10 years experience

Text and Organization of EA

Steve Noble, PE DOWL HKM, Project Manger Engineer, Office Manager13 years of experience

Kristen Hansen DOWL HKM, Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Environmental Department Manager 12 years experience

Peter Hildre, PE Lead Engineer Engineer, Civil EngineerManager 38 years of experience

Tobias Lockhart, EI DOWL HKM, Project Design Engineering Intern 4 years of experience

Brandie Hofmeister, PG DOWL HKM, Document Author Environmental Specialist12 years of experience

Heather Campfield DOWL HKM, Document Author, Review

Environmental Specialist 12 years experience

Emily Creely DOWL HKM, Document Research

Environmental Specialist11 years experience

Michael R. Yarborough, MA Cultural Resource Consultants Senior Archeologist 38 years experience

Catherine Pendleton, MA Cultural Resource Consultants Archeologist 7 years experience

Amanda Welsh, AIA Welsh Whitely Architects Historic Architect 14 years experience


7.0 REFERENCES

ADF&G, 2009. ADF&G Atlas to the Catalog of Waters Important to the Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes interactive GIS viewer: http://gis.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/ AWC_IMS/viewer.htm. Last accessed on April 7.

City of Wrangell, 2008. City of Wrangell; Community Profile. Available at http://www.wrangell.com/ government/departments/articles/uploads/attachments/2008%20PROFILE.pdf.

City of Wrangell, 2009. City of Wrangell Economic Development website: http://www.wrangell.com/ index.html. Last accessed on April 9, 2009.

CBW, 2010. City and Borough of Wrangell Comprehensive Plan. http://www.wrangell.com/ projects/articles/detail.cfm?Project=6&Article=46&Return=index%2Ecfm%3FProject%3D6& List=45,46,47.

CRC, 2009. Archeological Assessment and Historical and Architectural Survey for the Wrangell Road and Utility Improvements Project, Wrangell, Alaska. October.

DCRA, 2009. DCRA community website: http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_BLOCK. cfm. Last accessed April 22.

DEC, 2006. 18 AAC 50 Air Quality Control; as amended through December 14, 2006. www.dec.state. ak.us/water/cruise_ships/pdfs/airqu_control_regs.pdf.

DEC, 2008. Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Alaska’s List of Impaired or 303(d) Listed Water Bodies. http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/wqsar/waterbody/integratedreport. htm.

DLWDa, State of Alaska, 2009. State of Alaska DLWD workforce population information website: http://www.labor.state.ak.us/research/pop/popproj.htm. Last accessed April 21.

DOT&PF, 2002. Alaska Environmental Procedures Manual. Available at: http://www.dot.state.ak.us/ stwddes/desenviron/pop_envmanual.shtml.

DOT&PF, 2004. Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan. http://www.dot.state.ak.us/satp/assets/ FinalSATP_noMaps.pdf

DOT&PF, 2005. Alaska Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Guide. Available at: http:// www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcsenviron/assets/pdf/swppp/english/eng_ch123.pdf.

DOWL HKM, 2009C. see Chapter 5.0, Scoping Summary Report April, 2009.

DOWL HKM, 2009a. Draft Preliminary Engineering Report, Wrangell Road Improvements and Wrangell Utility Improvements Project. January, 2009.

DOWL HKM, 2009b. AAI/Phase I ESA: Front and Lynch Streets, Wrangell, Alaska. March, 2009.

DNR, 2000. Central Southern Southeast Area Plan Adopted November 2000. http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/ planning/areaplans/cs_southeast/pdf/adopt_cov_toc.pdf


FHWA, 2003. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devised (MUTCD) for Streets and Highways: 2003 Edition.

Johnson, 2009. Personal communication with Carl Johnson, CBW Director of Public Works. October 14.

Jones and Jones, 2006. Downtown Wrangell Revitalization Report (WDRR), October, 2006.

National Park Service, 2002. How to Apply National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. http:// www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/.

National Endowment for the Humanities, 2010. Special Requirements for Renovation and Construction Projects as required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. www.neh.gov/ grants/guidelines/section_106_.

Rushmore, 2009. Personal communication with Carol Rushmore, CBW Economic Development Director, April 23 and 29.

USEPA, 2008. Environmental Review Guide for Special Appropriation Act Grants, April 2008. http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/polices/nepa/environmental-review-guide-grants-pg.pdf.

USFWS, 2008a. USFWS Consultation with Bill Hanson, Juneau. Consultation number 71440-2009-SL-0008. December 16.

USFWS, 2008b. USFWS Bald Eagle Mapper: http://164.159.151.40/private/alaskabaldeagles/viewer. htm. Last accessed on December 15.

WMC, 2009. Found online at http://www.wrangell.com/government/ordinances/index.cfm. Last accessed on April 17.

SUPPLEMENTAL FIGURES

Figures A-1 through A-6 .......................................................... Proposed Road and Sidewalk Improvements Figures B-1 through B-6 ............................................................................... Proposed Utility Improvements

PROPOSED CITYPIER TURNAROUNDPROPOSED CITYPIER TURNAROUND

FIGURE A-1

N

DOT & PF PROJECT No: 68829,67789

WO: J70112September 29, 2010

Improvement Project

Figure A-1 Proposed Road and SidewalkImprovements

Wrangell Road and Utility

Existing CurbExisting Sidewalk

Proposed CurbProposed SidewalkProposed Center LineConstruction Limits

CrosswalksLampost

FIGURE A-2

N



Improvement Project





CrosswalksLampost

E A-2E B-2FUNDING NOT AVAILABLE BUT WOULD INCLUDE

NEW CONCRETE ROAD AND SIDEWALKNEW WATER, SEWER AND STORM DRAINNEW STREET LIGHTING

FIGURE A-3

N



Improvement Project





CrosswalksLampost

FIGURE A-4

N



Improvement Project





CrosswalksLampost

FIGURE A-5

N



Improvement Project





CrosswalksLampost

N



Improvement Project





CrosswalksLampost

FIGURE A-6

PROPOSED CITYPIER TURNAROUNDPROPOSED CITYPIER TURNAROUND

OIL & WATERSEPARATOR #1

W

W

W

W

W

W

WW

W

W

W

W

WW

W

W

S

S

W

W

W

SDSD

SDSD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SDSD

SD

SD

SD

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

STORM DRAINOUTFALL TOZIMOVIA STRAIT

CONNECTION TOPOWER SOURCE

FIGURE B-1

N


WO: J70112October 15, 2010

Improvement Project

Figure B-1 Proposed Utility Improvements


Existing Curb Proposed Curb

Proposed WaterExisting WaterProposed SewerExisting SewerProposed Storm Drain

WS

SD

Existing Storm DrainExisting BuriedElectric to be Removed

Proposed UndergroundElectric for Street LightingUEL

Proposed Catch BasinProposed Manhole

Existing OverheadElectric Line

Proposed Lampost

Existing Sewerto be Abandoned

Proposed Back ofSidewalk

Proposed UndergroundElectricUE

FIGURE B-2

WW

W

WW

WW

W

WS

S S

S

W

W

W W

W

W

W

SD

SD

SD

SDSD SD

SDSD

SDSD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

UEL

UEL

UEL

UELUEL

N


WO: J70112October 15, 2010

Improvement Project





WS

SD





Proposed Lampost




FIGURE B-3

E A-2E B-2

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

S

S

S

S

W

W

W

W

W

WW

W

W

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

FUNDING NOT AVAILABLE BUT WOULD INCLUDENEW CONCRETE ROAD AND SIDEWALKNEW WATER, SEWER AND STORM DRAINNEW STREET LIGHTING

N


WO: J70112October 15, 2010

Improvement Project





WS

SD





Proposed Lampost




FIGURE B-4

OIL & WATERSEPARATOR #2

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

S

S

S

S

S

S

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SDSD

SD

SD

SD

SD

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UELUEL

CONNECTION TO EXISTINGSTORM DRAIN OUTFALL

PROPOSEDRETAINING WALL

RECONSTRUCTION

UE

N


WO: J70112October 15, 2010

Improvement Project





WS

SD





Proposed Lampost




FIGURE B-5

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

WW

S

S

S

S

S

W

W

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

PROPOSEDRETAINING WALL

RECONSTRUCTION

UE

N


WO: J70112October 15, 2010

Improvement Project





WS

SD





Proposed Lampost




WW

WW

WW

WW

W W

WW

W

W

W

SDSD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SDSD

SD

SD

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UEL

UE

UE

UE

N


WO: J70112October 15, 2010

Improvement Project





WS

SD





Proposed Lampost




FIGURE B-6

final environmental assessment of the wrangell front street road and utility project

Documents

federal project

alaska dotpf project

project corridor

road improvements

proposed road

proposed improvements

proposed project components

utility improvements