LarimoreCTR, Andrew (MARAD

From: Sent: To:

Subject: Attachments: Here’s the plan...

Winn, Ryan H POA [Ryan.H.Winn @] Monday, July 11, 2005 8:49 PM Winn, Ryan H POA; Blum, Maggie <MARAD>;; bhumphries ©; brian.lance@;;; Frances_Mann; gamblep@; bill.sharrow@; sheffieldwj @;;;;; michaelmj ©; Carter, Michael <MARAD>;; stewart_seaberg © RE: Draft Mitigation Concept Plan, Port of Anchorage Expansion/Redevelopment Mitigation Plan July 8 Revision,doc

From: Winn, Ryan H POA

Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 4:48 PM
To: (; Barbara Mahoney (; Bill Humphries

(; Brian Lance (; Cam Toohey (; Diana Brake (; Frances Mann (; Gen. Pat Gamble (; Gen. William Sharrow (; Gov. William Sheffield (; Heather Dean (; Holly Kent (; Jim Kubil:z (; Larry Peltz (; Mary Jane Michael (; Michael Carter (; Roger Graves (; Stewart Seaberg (stewart_seaberg©dnr.state.ak. us) Subject: Draft Mitigation Concept Plan, Port of Anchorage Expansion/Redevelopment

Attached is the Draft Mitigation Concept Plan for the Port of Anchorage Expansion/Redevelopment Project. Please review and provide any initial substantive comments you may have within 7 days. This concept plan will serve as the base from which the Mitigation Plan will develop through our discussions. The plan will be periodically updated as it evolves from our collective efforts. Ryan Winn Project Manager





.4 Sbsidianv of Kcniag, Inc

Tnterated Cmceps & Research Crpo ratioii

Port of Anchorage Intermodal Expansio n Project Marine Terminal Redevelopment Pro ject

Draft Mitigation Concept Plan

Contract No. DTMA1 D03009 Contracted with US Department of Tra nsportation Maritime Administration ICRC

Infrastructure Support Services Division

July 2005


/ iir 11i/tirin, (nc’r P!tii

/0.1 1/tir/ne Ccnu/mii



r(lble of Contents

I 2 .2.1 1.2.2

Pt irpose ut Document Project Description Purpose and Need .\lternatives Considered

I 1 -2 1-2 1-4


2. 2. 1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 3. 3.2 -I. 5. 5.1 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.2 5.3

1!itigation Pro grain
\Iitgation Requirements

2-I 2—1 2—I 2-I 2- I 2-I 2-2 3-1 3-I 3-I .1-I 5-I 5-I 5-I 5-4 5-4 5-5 5-6

Intertidal Fill Fish Kahitat Implemented Mitigation and Monitoring Acti ons Beluga Monitoring Fish Sampling .l1itiation Commitment Structural/Design Mitigation Ship Creek Commitment Ship Creek Model .1 litigation Selection Process Mitigation and Funding Selection of Mitigation Actions Process tbr Using Funds Establish Mitigation Advisory Committee Meetins Determine List of Mitigation Options Perform Initial Prioritization Develop Baseline Model Determine Feasibility of Options Re-Prioritize (‘uinpare Fimding to Priorities and Select Opti ons l[itiç’ation Options

5.5 5.6 5.7 5.5 5.3

5-6 5-7 5-7 6—1


riiizeline of Ficures


I lit: ç’atio!z P!aiininç’

Flo wehart





fOIL’ (If



\/if;i,THo; (‘Hce”T P’en

Fhis document comprises a concept plan tor iden tit\ ing. developing. pnontizing. amid implementing mitigation actis ities asocmated with the Port of Anchoraze POA) Marine
Terminal Redev elopment Project.



This document presents the plan and process for identif ying, evaluating .electing. and implementing actions to mitigate impacts on intertid al lands and fish habitat associated with the POA Marine Terminal Redevelopment Project (Project). The document includes the procedural concept that will he used to ultima tely develop detailed mitigation plans. rite POA is implementing an expansion to: • • • Replace outdated, obsolete. and marginally safe facilities: Provide sufficient facilities for existing Port users with crowing demands. including use for military deployment: and

Provide tbr anticipated growth needs of existing and new users through 2025. Through the expansion. the POA will impact intertid al lands and fish habitat in a fashion that will require mitigation of those impacts. The stakeholders involved with the Project desire to focus those mitigation efforts within the Ship Creek watershed and estuary. the ame geomorphic unit iii which the Port is located. However, there are several constraints to mitioation activities within the Ship Creek watershed and estuary. Uhose constraints include: • laud ownership;

Lack of information expansion:


the monetary value ot impacts associated with the Port

incomplete Litow ledge ut the hdraulic amid hydrol ogic system witlun the tcrshed ael es turn ry: •



data elated to [ishery resources. habitat and mnieratiomm patterns: ot coals amid
ohjectives hr

I ack ot prlormriiaton r iii tmeatmumm IL tlommS.

the area, as well as prmilrmti/atmoml



I /

Nc cnu,m


Iii (10(1111


I )i’:r tIiriuriui Co?ctL?r P/uii

1l:eretore. to he able to maximize

the value ut jiutigation etforts. t is unportant to :dequateI identity. detine. and prioritize mineation opponumties within the Ship Crcek
rca to address those constramts.

tlocuinent prov ides the procedural process that ill be used to address the above constraints, and receive appropriate input for stakeholders. to develo

p a final detailed


plan fur PO:\ expansion


Specifically the document details:

• • •

Processes for establishing and administering mitiga tion funds: Responsibilities for mitigation program definition and implementation: Formation of a stakeholder Iitigation Advisory Comm ittee (MAC): Procedures for identification, research, development. prioritization and implementation of potential mitigation actions, includ ing the development of \vatershed and estuary model development to evaluate potential options: and Tiinelines for action.



This section provides background information concer ning the purpose and need for the

Project. as vell as alternatives for design considered for Project implementation. The Final Environmental Assessment EA for the Projec t’, developed to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provides detailed information on Purpose and Need anti on Altern atives Evaluation, and on impact analyses based upon best available data. The following section s provide summaries of that i nforrnation.


Purpose and Need

Fhe PO,\ presently is operating nearly at or above Sustain able Practicable Capacity for lie various types ot cargo handled at the facility. In addition, the existing facilities are ubstantiallv past their tlesien life, have degraded to levels of marginal safety and are, in many cases. tunctionallv obsolete. Ike Proect is to expand the current POA focihtv and







ClLn. \Iarch .OO5. \ttrine [‘onitiiat R le



II 2(M5


.SLC 0011











The Project, which includes titnieruttis ictis ities to enhance the transportation of goods and services ss thin the State nt \Iaska. would expand. reorganize, and improv e the POA o’. er a sesen—\ ear period anticipated to begin in 2005. rIte Projec t would add 135 acres of land. doubling the size of the POA. and provide approxnnarelv X.S8() linear feet of waterfront structures west. northwest, and southwest of the existing POA. Operations at the POA would improve nd increase with the expansion. construct ion, and reorganization, fOe Project would influence both the physical and economic aspects of the Municipality of Anchorage MOM and the State of Alaska. In addition, the Project is critical to national defense by providing the additional land and facilities necess ary to support military deployments. Specific Project needs include:

to address these existing and prne cred tutttLe needs to allow the PO\ to adequately ntpport the needs of Anchorage and

.-\laska through 2025.

Vecessar,’ replacement of obsolete i,,frastructiire certain elements at the POA’s cisting infrastructure are functionally obsolete and near or below design safety standards or seismic events.

thility to withstand harsh environmental conditions the Upper Cook Inlet provides challenges in the form of strong currents, the second most widely fluctuating tides in the world. ice buildup, scour from ice and silt, and earthqu akes that any POA expansion proposal must consider.

tbility to withstand design seismic events the Municipality of Anchorage, through both the Geotechnical Advisory Commission and mayor a al-appointed Blue Ribbon committee have imposed stringent seismic design standards for the Port with the intention of providing appropriate stability during major seismic events.

Icve(s. A minimum of 135 additional acres have been identified as needed to suppor t s sting and future Port operations.

tdditional capacity to accommodate growth in current customers tiLtlLre carvo-handting capacity will continue to exceed

current and near

maintainable, sate, and efficient

Idditionai berths to provide service to new and existing custouier.c expected growth of operations coupled svith existing customer deman d will result in at least 4)) percent trowih in ship calls, causing berthing contlicts. increas ed waiting times tor berths, and incrcasd triitsporiation costs to the public.


lk’eper drafs, Ion ç’er berths, larç’er cranes lir u/flooding and umiore streanuhi,ied ,iter,nodal trnnspurrahioul to e/iicientty handle new ships with the a),ihity to Inure (lie i,Icrcasint,’ amount of cargo out to the public current trends in Inarti t me I rinspor tat ion i.e arciduced I inter. I on ecr sit I ps I tat cannot currc,ttl Y e si ipponed by the POA. ‘? i fit cener dratts and wider warns. itese tree ships reqit ire cin’er berrh md Lr;tnts with Iei• ;ipacitv br iiilu;idiit. Failure to expatid would rcsmilt in mlcreasina mitetticiettcies cd costs or shipptit emits to Ali.skas customers. Lotdinmi procedures it ports if rein ire currently testrictcd by he PO\ crane reach.

I its (,O5






1 lirj t mo, t L’

‘nccpr P!


!.iç’Izring. gores, Ihiritinie

uid other /eature.v ii) nicer new security require i1Iei(S under i/it’ new Security ,nandates he PU. Re ii L S ports. must construct I mien ties and opiernent measures to comply sith the \larttime t’rmin sporriiton Security Act of 2fl1)2 md •umsoct mitcd L S Coast U uard narit me security reuzul at ions des dined to protect the mu mutt s ports and \vmiterwmmvs ruin terrorist ,ittack.


tdditional space and an unproved bert/i to suppor t military rapid deployments wit/tout con jliciing with commercial customers mis a critical conduit for military deploment. lie PO.-\ siIl need to maintain a sustained commitment that embodies a long-term plan, mutemlruting ntern-todal etlicicrtcv with that ot heiehte ned security and positive cargo control. (‘titTent berthing [acilities at the POA ire insuttmcicnt to accommodate both military and commercial ships supporting the LS Army’s Alaska-based Stryker Brigade Combat Thain. The expansion in tacilitles and increas e in efticiencies are also critical to he PO.\ [or supporting its designation as the 15 Strategic Commercial Seaport in the nation.

1.2.2 Alternatives Considered
Pu define reasonable alternatives for the EA. the Department of Transportation. Maritime Administration MARAD) and the POA conduc ted a hierarchical screening process iivolv ing three major criteria: I) location; 2) size: and 3) orientation and design. rhese criteria and their sub-criteria tie directly to the purpose and need of the Project. .\t’ter the initial screening, three alternative design s were deemed appropriate for further e aluation [‘or the expanded terminal facilities: I) one hundred 1 100) percent open cell sheet pile construction: 2) pile-supported dock with a sheet pile fill: and 3) and a combination of the two designs. Any one of these three alternative design methods was determined to meet the stated purpose and need. The three alternatives were then evaluated based upon a second set of selection criteria. including environmental impacts, seismic design standards, and economics. The \lunicipality of Anchorage. through their Geotec hnical Advisory Commission and a mmtaoraI Blue Ribbon Panel, established stringent seismic design requirements for the Pmject. POA and MARAD went to extens ive eltRirt to evaluate the performance of the .electcd design alternatives in comparison to those standards. Through the process. it is determined that ilte I II) percent open cell sheet pile design pros ided the best
itipliance sv tb those standards.

fit v )t’)’f

I —I

I i/Oil


Ii trim/i idiot

)irr tliricnrion L(



W the three alternatises considered. all had similar ens ronnieiital impacts. s hich \ l.\R.’sD determined not to he significant on the basis of best available data. Machinery kr ilriviiig pipe piles will likely cenerate more noise than the machinery expected to he ised for Uris mo sheet pile. Thus, the alternatives that included a pipe pile supported dock would have greater noise impacts. Concern has been raised by various resource manag ement agencies. given an absence of e’isting data concerning the managed fishery resourc e in Upper Cook Inlet. hpothesizing that impacts may occur with the selecte d alternative to Fish migration because of the interruption of intertidal zones from the Project. The interruption of the intertidal zone would occur in all three of the alterna tives considered in detail in the EA. \IARAD and POA are presently undertaking fish resource studies in association with the
Project. While those studies are not finalized and data collection is on-going. initial

findings have indicated that the intertidal zone in Upper Cook Inlet is unique from intertidal zones typically found in the Pacific Northw est. Because of the inlet’s limited productivity and heavy silt loads, habitat and predato r/prey relationships may not follow traditionally accepted patterns. especially for juvenile salmon. Resource agencies have suggested the consideration of an additional alternative that sould entail constructing a new intertidal zone in front of filled areas. This approach sould result in constructing a pile supported dock further into the inlet, and at a greater histance from the filled area. In addition, analysis of this alternative indicates that it ould not adequately meet critical stability require ments and seismic design parameters imposed by the Municipality of Anchorage. Further, alternative slope designs evaluated would result in similar problems. For example. the gentler the grade. the farther the pile supported dock would have to extend into the Inlet. Further extensions into the Inlet increase risk to seismic events to levels that do not meet Municipality of Anchorage ictjuireinents. Conversely. the steeper he slope, the less olohahly stable the placed tatenals ‘sill he. and the risk of failure liv sloughing will increase
to unacceptable levels.

Ehis dotiL’hmg potential will be exacerbated by continu ous maintenance dredging at the Io’.snstream point oF the slope to keep shipping lanes open. Removal oF the downs tream ‘c will encourage sliding OF the placed material. In addition, the increased amount of till

“cctIol I


Ii 111( (/iO non

‘)017 lf/ri(,rnu, (niLent


create the tev iiiteiritlal zone. the iumber or Lahlit!onal piles required. and the .dditioiial cathodic coating and protection requirements. render this alternative ccunomically prohibitive.
LIIred 1 LL to

\ L\RAD and the POA identified no other reason able alternatives capable of fulfilling the

purpose. teed, engineering, code compliance, and econom ic feasibility requirements. Ehe continued degradation to structural features. espeOl ally from the on-going corrosion of support piles. will continue to result in restricted operations. limiting the [low of goods into Alaka and, ultimately, increasing the costs of those limited goods to consumers.

I nv


/ -ó







C on 71 Plait

2. 2.1 2.1.1


the Project, approximately n6 acres sill he within the present intertidal area. Phe intertidal zones impact ed are either adjacent to existing [‘CA facilities and Corps of Engineer dredging operati ons or. to the north of existing POA operations adjacent to an old military landfil l regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation. and Liability Act (CERCLA).

Of the 35 lures to he tilled as

part of

2.1.2 Fish Habitat
As noted, the design alternative selected for the Projec t will interrupt the intertidal zone in the Port vicinity. MARAD determined in the EA that the best availahle data do not indicate a significant impact to the fishery resource from that action. However. POA and \IARAD are presently performing a year-long data collection program to provide a better database for assessing the impacts of the proposed design.



POA and MARAD are implementing several actions hefore and during construction to provide additional data collection for mitigating the impact from the Project. These mmclude monitoring of l’eluga activities and continued fish sampling.


Beluga Monitoring

In July 2005. POA and MARAD are instituting a l’eluga monitoring program. Under this proeram. two scparate monitoring etforts will be perform ed through July 2006.
BL’lUç’a Obserrution.

Durine the typical construction season July through November mmd April dirommeh July. cc cimmtlitiomis permittingh oh.serv aumins fir heluga will occur ice ‘aceklv. over a hill (i—hour tidal cycle [mm t\si) points adjacent to he proposed ‘roiect houmillarY. litiimnal Oceanic and Atmospheric .\dminismratiitn NOA,\) taft has


2 .1


thin 2




r .(



floepr P’:ii

reed to help train individuals to etfec tively monitor helucas. In addition .M)\.-\ dl

:c’ jew and comment on documentation proced ures. During the same time period July through Novem ber and April trough J ulv. ice conditions permitting). monitoring of in— ater acoustics \s 11 occur ti Jcterniine the level and distance of impacts from construction activities, primarily pile
rh ing.



2.2.2 Fish Sampling
Fish sampling activities are continuing at the Port through July of 2(305 to complete a

‘ear of sampling during ice-free periods. Month ly sampling methodologies include both beach setnin in the vicinity of the POA and, beginning in 20))5. from tow net sampling along transects crossing the inlet vithin the vicinity of the Port.







I )oir lIir/’iriti,i C iucpr P!n



IARAD and POA understand that n itigation will he required for till in of intertidal inds corn inens irate w th the cx sting value of those intertidal lands, and for mi pacts on tish habitat in the area. ‘vlARAD and PO.-\ are comm 2 itted to pro’ iding the required cvel ut mitigation through the tollowing methods.



\Vhere feasible and at a level appropriate, and within economic and design limitations. 1ARAD and POA will mitigate for lost fish migrat ion area, Although it has been determined that any suggested design that would result in the re-construction of the intertidal ‘one is not seismically nor economically feasibl e. MARAD and POA will consider strucwral features as part of the open cell sheet pile design that could provide tither corridors for fish migration as appropriate.

[t is


the commitment of POA and MARAD that any funded mitigation effort, other than desion actions discussed above, occur within the Ship Creek watershed. MARAD and POA are also committed to actively working with interes ted stakeholders in inplementin mitigation actions. Those stakeholclers include the Municipality of .\nchorage. landowners, resource management ageticies. and public interest groups.

it,[ e

intieitid hat


‘.t\R\L) titillnhtltin




he a’uiIihu)iiy iI iiind.


ii e

_l I

S 1011(1)? J

1 /iii’c 11i(



/ Jr ;r 1 Iui’orioir (



there is an apparent consensus aniono stake holders that there is value, for mitieation and iher purposes. to pertormmg restoratio n activities within Lower Ship Creek. and there are a substantial num her of potential mitig ation actions that have

neither consensus on prioritization of thos e actions, nor a determination of their tasihility or likelihood of success.

been suggested by ‘.irious stakeholders that could he impl emented. To dare, however, there has been

a model of the system within Lower Ship Cree k and the associated watershed. Thus. the first mitigation action proposed tinde r this plan is the development of a baseline model of the system.

Section 5 of this document proposes art approach to developing stakeholder cons ensus and prioritization of potential actions. [he key component of that approach is assessing the feasibility of proposed options. The appr opriate tool for making such a determination

Nerv ices.

MARAD and POA have initiated the deve lopment of a work scope with the Alaska District Corps of Engineers Hydrology and Hydraulics Group USACE-AK-HH) to develop the required baseline model. It is antic ipated that model development will begi n in July 2005 by a contractor selected by USA CE-AK-HH. PO’VMARAD funding will he transferred to USACE-AK-HH via an existing Memorandum of Agreement for such

lute ‘0(15



4 —S/ti Creek IJo id ) 1




1 HOn (oi (5

pr P! n



Ibis section describes the process that v ill be used trw dentit’ tug. evaluaung. and .electine mitigation actions tor the Project. As the proces s t[owchart in Fleure 5.1 illustrates, selection ot mitigation actions v ill he accomplished throtigh two concurrent .tctiv ties. The first is the valuation of required in iti cation and obligation of identified nitigauon amounts in accordance with Section 5. I 1.2. The identified mitigation amount II he determined by the Alaska District Corps of Engineers Regulatory Group USACE-AK-Reg. vith input from MARAD and the POA and from appropriate

resource management agencies. fhe second is identif ication, evaluation, and selection of mitigation options to he implethented. This will he accomplished by USACE-AK-Reg v. ith input provided by a mitigation advisory commi ttee.


MITIGATION AND FUNDING Selection of Mitigation Actions

POA. and MARAD are committed to performing mitiga tion required for the Project thin the boundaries of the Ship Creek watershed, with a focus on the restoration of Ship Creek. However, there are several potent ial constraints to potential mitigation actions within Lower Ship Creek that are noted in Section 1.1. These constraints must he addressed in order to select the approp riate mitigation actions.

Selection of specific mitigation actions within Ship Creek will he made following appropriate data collection. analysis, and review. \ process for evaluation and selecti of various options is described in Section 5.2 throug h 5. and Section








Ii(i,’(Iruh,i ,t/CCtUI1i


IJ (
uit. -/i












Figure 5—i Mitiatjon Plnning Flowchart POA Marine Termina’ Redevelopm ent Project





.11/ri c i/on C’





5. 1. 1. 1 Establishing Funding Amount
ith \IARAD and PO,\. \litigatton Valuation FvlV). That FMV will he based on:

LSACE—.\K-RCO in consultation

ill determine the Final

Intertidal flil impacts. and

Fish habitat impacts. intertidal FilL As previously noted, the Projec t will require filling approximately b6 acres of intertidal zone. rhe portion of intertid al zone to he tilled is located either among and adjacent to present POA operations and Alaska District - Corps of Engineers \laintenance and Operations Group (USACE-AKM&O’t dredging operations. or adjacent to a regulated military landfill. MARA D and the POA will review literature to determine how debits and credits are assigned for impacts from filling in intertidal zones under similar operations. Based upon this review . MARAD and POA will then develop a proposal [‘or assiening debits and credits for the Project. USACE-AK-Reg will review the proposal and make a tinal determination [‘or assigning debits and credits. In the event that USACE-AK-Reg does not accept the propos al, either as submitted or as modified through subsequent discussion, the Anchorage DehitlCredit System will he applied.

Fish ifabitat. USACE-AK-Reg will consult with appropriate resource agencies to
MARAD and POA. Based upon that determination. USACE-AK-Reg will assign valuati a on amount to mitigation costs for fish habitat, when applicable and feasible. fo meet the defined purpose and need of the Project including designing to specific engineering and seismic criteria and funding colistralilts. it may not he possible to directl y mitigate all impacts to potential fish habitat . I ‘SACE—-\K-Reg in consultation with MARA D and POA. will make a determination of ‘he level of nitigation funding that ssill he require d fur the Project to jointly address orertidal till intl [ish habitat impacts. Fliat valuation will become the amount of -Ititigatiun timlitie to he prosilcd by MARAD atul POi\.
determine the importance and value of lost fish habitat. The determination will consid er he results of on-going fish studies funded by




,‘e(runI .) —t’lingtiruni Selection


a7 t!iriiru’,t

Cu?ce/’r P/;ii

5. 1. 1,2 !itign f/on Funding
its prime contract w th [CR C o ill establish a funded task order. Jcfining the oerall anticipated scope ot the work to he accomplished for mitigation actions in lower Ship Creek. The amount ot funding for this task order will he stablished through the process described in Section 5. I 1.1.

\ l.\RAD. through

5.1.2 Process for Using Funds Sections 5.2 through 5.It) of this documen t describe the process for selection mitig ation actions to he to he executed under the fund ed task order. MAR-\D will he responsib le for appropriate contract and project man agement of this task order. When USA CE-AK Reg makes a final determination of appropria te mitigation actions. MARAD will prov ide .pecific direction under the fund ed task order to its prime contractor ICR C. [CRC. in turn, in accordance with its commercial purc hasing procedures, will solicit proposals for mplementation of selected actions. Specific projects will he awarded via subcontra ct by [CRC. subject to regular subcontracting appr oval process and subject to the availabili ty of funds,



tjSE-AK-Reg .with support from MARAD as the lead f’uncling agency, will he responsible for ultimately determining the mitigation actions to he implemented for the Project. Both of’ those parties, as well as the POA. are committed to actions with in Lower Ship Creek for mitigation purposes and there is not a current consensus amo ng takehoklers as to the feasibility or prioritiza tion of potential mitigation actions. riterefore. USACE-AK-Reg will convene a mitigation advisory committee tMA C to provide input to the development of mitigation requirements. [he MAC, headed by USACE—AK-Ree. will he comprised of repre sentati’.es from the variotts stakeholders in he tniti2ation process. [‘hose stakehobl ers include the proponent POAt. the lead federal oencv \[ARAD . the permitting agency tJSACE—A K—Remi ). landowners potential ly rctip:tcted 1w niti’ation I \lunicmpalitv of’ .\itchcrace and Alaska Railroad Corporati on






Sck’Luon Piw’cvs


I1rioro),? (



are and tederal resource a aenci es. the Alaska n Co it oressiotial Delegation rod pith) ic :lterest oroups. Specifically, the committee w ill consist of: Fvriry ,\la.ska District Corps of Engineers US DOT 1aritime Administration


R’an ‘mnn
\laogie B!umn Michael Carter Jim Kuhitz Gen. Pat Gamble

US DO!’ Maritime Administration
Alaska Railroad Corporation

\laska Railroad Corporation \lunicipality of Anchorage
Alaska Congressional Delegation Liaison Department of lnterioriOffice of the Secreta ry

Mary Jane Michael
Gen. William Sharrow Cam Toohey

(iS Fish and Wildlife Service

Frances Mann
Barbara Mahoney Larry PeltzjBrian Lance [leather Dean Stewart Seaherg Holly Kent

Marine Mammal Protection Habitat Protection

US Environmental Protection Agency .\DNR-OHMP .\nchorage Waterways Council

Port of Anchorage
Port of Anchorage

(]ov. William Sheffield
Roger Graves Bill Humphries Diana Brake




meetings, at a minimum, will he:

LSist USACE-AK-Permits in determining mitigation requirements. Uhose specific

[he MAC will hold approximately six meetin gs, each with a specific set of objectives. to

\litigation ( )ption List Development Meetin g. (July 2S. 21)05) \ litigation I )ption L’oncepts and Parameter Development Meetin

g. August 5.

\litigation Uptiomm Prioritii.rtiomi Nleetin g. Septemher Y. 21)1)5)
( 1w nership Impact Meeting. Septemher Ih. 21)115)






5 -4Iirir,’arimm SCkCti(fli Process





C 00 ‘-‘J(


feasibility Es akiatiun Presentation. (Janu ary



Final \litigation List Des elopment and Prio ritization Meeting.

20. 206)



Fhe initial step within the mitication planning process will he the development of a list of potential mitigation options by the ?vIAC. Sect ion ts presents a set ut options identified by arious stakeholders, IThis list will serve as the initial discussion basis bar potential options. hut will he modified as appropriate by input from the MAC.



Once a comprehensive list of potential mitig ation options has been developed, the MAC vill provide input to USACE-AK-Permit s to prioritize the preferred options. At this poinr. the feasibility of the various options will not have been evaluated. Instead this prioritization will establish the conceptual level preferences of the stakeholders.



.\s noted in Section 4, USACE-AK-HH will develop a baseline model of Ship Creek for the purpose of evaluating the technical feasi bility of proposed mitigation options.



\fter prioritization of mitigation action conc epts. a determination of the feasibility of the various options will he made. The feasi bility will be determined for three compone nts and are described below: I technical: 2) econ omic: and 3) ownership.
Techi,ical. USACE-AK-HH will be respo nsible for modeling each concept to deter mine

lie technical and physical feasibility of acco mplishing the milloation concept. goals. itid hectives. gisen the nature of the baseline cond itions within Ship Creek.


PO.\ and \1\RAD will he responsible tor developing couceptuil—leel cost 2nI?lares or the implementation or each mitigation option. lThose cisrs Oil include both

.1, oie

1 5-f

l!irieutuui Se/cof,oi, Prmev


/ ‘rr lhri_?troI (u’Lnr


nstuticrlon and operattonaliiiiaintcnance costs. as wcll hiiiilow ners andior users.

compensation to


wnerchip. \s noted, neither POA nor \IARAD owns land within the Lower Ship Creek area. The feasibility of any mitigation concep t will depend upon the willingness of the land owner the Alaska Railroad Corporation and affected tenants to allow its implementation. and may require compensation. vlARA D and the POA will he responsible for necotiating owner commitments to proposed mitigation concepts.



Based upon the results of the feasibility analyses, and with input from the MAC, SACE-AK-Permits 1 L will develop a final priority list for the proposed mitigation actions.



Upon completion of the final prioritization. USACE-AKPerniits will compare the prioritized list with the mitigation funding level determ ined as described in Section 5.1.1. USACE-AK-Permits will then coordinate with MARA D to ensure that mitigation funds ao to implementation of the selected mitigation option s.







Se/ecno: P)(’e,VV

!ii.’c;ol7 t . C,’IL!’T




[he N IAC ‘sill de elop an initial ist of Iningatton prolect concepts. [he follo w no is a ha of potential Initiization options that have previously been identified b vario us takeholders. The list below will prov ide a starting basis for the MAC. Thei r list is e\pected to include additional optio ns. and may exclude sonic of those liste d below.

upon which those operations are located, as well as regrading and re-ve getating to desired conditions. The action would requ ire a series of activities that coul d he
.1 re:

at the Mouth of Ship Creek. [here is substantial interest in restoring the north hank of the mouth of Ship Creek to condition s .pproaching the historic Ship Cree k estuary. Tins action would involve the relocation of present industrial operation s at that location, removal of some fill

Restoration of North


funded totally, or in part. by mitigation funds. the potential individual activities

define goals and objectives of the actio n, boundaries of the area to be restored. orading requirements. exca vation and fill volumes, costs, and other conceptual design informati on. o

(onceptual Plan. As an initial step. a conceptual plan would have to

necessary to collect appropriate data on the existing site conditions of the area subsurface and other informati on necessary for design. • Environmental Impact rnalyse.c and Per,nittjn. This activity would entail developing and issuing the envi ronmental dociLmentation necessary 0 :Lcc inpi is h a id pr i p sed res torat Lull ac tio Ii. Rest oration Deck’,,.

Data Collection. To verify design conc ept feasibility. and to provide information for detailed restoration planning and design. it would he

lb is Lctlv i rv ‘sii hi entail the devek pnle ilt (if a :etailcd restoration lesICn. including appropriate plans and specifications . nd ciii2lneerini! level cost estililate s.

I. ne iM5



.e’Cfloi? (

—.1 fir, ç’ljt(o/I O’rfoos

!)?rr ¶1/ri aithn




Prior to restoration, it wIt he necessary to relocate cxistlng operations ut the area. Such reloc ation wit involve



logistics and cost to provide existing oper ations comparable facilities.. ucitiding equivalent intermodal transporta tion connecti dies tie.. .\nchorage wateutront andlor road and rail access)


Restoration Activities. This activity would entail executing the
construction—type activities to implemen t the plans and specifications of the restoration design.

Comprehensive Pedestrian Access Plan . The Lower Ship Creek area has been substantially impacted by uncontrolled acce ss from pedestrians and anglers. Excessive use of the area has resulted in dc-vegetation, hank erosion, and hank instability. Therefore, conditions within Lower Ship Creek can

This action would entail the studies necessary to determine access requ irements. and to develop a plan to meet access needs in a controlled manner that resto res the integrity of the creek system. • Elevated Boardwnlks and Anler Access. One potential approach to access ontrol is the construction of pedestria n hoardwalks and angler platforms. This action would entail the construction of such boardwalks. either through selected caches or the entire length of Lower Ship Creek. with angler platforms at key locations.
Pedestrian and Ancler Parkinc’. Simi larly, the construction of controlled park ing locations for anglers and pedestrians coul d be used to control access and limit use of ensitI’,e iteas.
Bank Re.s’toration,Re— ;‘eç’etatiowR ei’et

improved by controlling pedestrian and angl er access. access control, it is important that access he planned.

be substantially


provide adequate

ment Program. [II is act ion entat Is the design and consirtictioti associated with the restoration of coraded snenin banks .iiiil other areas with in lower Ship Creek. Potential





.ccrio,i 6 —tI/ri .‘ci1iOIi Options

• “::r lliiLar(ol, (/co!’r P!o,, :csturatioii actionS include slope reconstru ction. slope stahiliiaiion s ith :c\ etments or other techniques. andi nr re—s egetation.

This action entails the plannino. perrn itting. design and construction associated with the remo val of ponds and impoundments within the Lower Ship Creek watershed to improve stream tiow quantities and quality, and to provide increased access to migrating fish.
action includes planning . permitting. design and construction associated with lowering, notching. removal or other actions associated with dams within the Lower Ship Creek Watershed to improve acce ss to migrating fish.

Pond Removals.

Darn ,Iodifications. This

Hatcheries. This action entails the evalu ation and modification of hatcheries and hatchery activities to improve fish habitat.
Pouzt-Disclzarç’e Studies. There are a number of point-discharges into Lower

impacted by the quality of those disch arges. Although some of those disch arge points have been selectively studied, no comprehensive evaluation of the qual ity of all discharge points has been performed . This action would entail such comprehensive studies. • Storm- Water OutMi .1itigation. This action entails the planning, permitting , design and construction associated with the implementation of water quality improvement actions at outfalls into Ship Creek that have been identified as having impaired water quality.

Ship Creek. The water quality within Lower Ship Creek can he significa ntly

Plant Removal. An inactive power plan t with an associated cooling pond nd ilani are preseut on Lower Ship Cree k. However, the present owner has •s pressed the intent to re—activate that plan t. IThe potential to render the plan t disc requires the retention nt the existing structure, pond. and dam that all hase ‘otentiallv adverse impacts on .satcr qual itY. tish habitat. and lish migration .


cH it

O —.liti.iiric;u (.)puion.v

LoTr lI;riorio,, 1),1(epr P!, ,

Phis action \Nild entail the pur chase ut the pOser plant facilities. and the no iiticatiofl andior removal of the stntcwres. pond. and dam.
• ils the purchase of critical areas within Lo\ser Ship Creek. and the plac ement of easement restriction s on those properties to preclude development. ( ons’ri’atwn Eose,ne,,ts. Phisac don enta


Lease Easeineizts. [his action entails the execution of long term leases, with ;Oiting uiLl)or develop ment restrictions. [his opt ion may he applicable, in lieu of conservation easements. whe n the present land owner is not willing to sell

Educational, Visitor and, Wd Prorwns. This action enta ils the implementation )f programs to support educati onal and visitor programs, as well as Americans with Disabilities Act programs. Elinendorf’ Fish Ltzdder Parkin One stakeholder is specifically interested in using the Elmendort’ Shi p Creek Fish Ladder for visitor and educational purposes. This action would entail the development of improved parking at that location to facilitate such programs.

/ oi[10/i (I


rio,is 1 O



tI;fCtlIoo? (


Oie timehne

for accompIishin the mitieation proe ram is as tbUovs: Completion Date July 20. 2005 August 12. 2005




Completion ot I Year ot Fish Mon itoring \‘Ii tiganon Option List Fish Monitoring Report Final Mitigation Valuation fdentitlcation of Mitigation Funds .\ litigation Option List Prioritization Development of Baseline Model Feasibility Evaluation Final Mitigation List Final Mitigation List Prioritization Selection of Mitigation Actions

15. 2005

September 2. 2005 September 16. 2005 September 23. 2005 N/n ember 4. 2005 January 13. 2006 February 3, 2(.)06 February 24, 2006 March 17. 2006



rioii 7 Thnclin