n -^ 83 001
EPA-910/9-82-091
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10 .
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
EPA/10 Anchorage AK WWTW-82
Environmental
Impact
Statement
•
City of Anchorage, Alaska
Wastewater Facilities
-------
ADDENDUM/FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE
SEWERAGE FACILITIES EXPANSION
Prepared by:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Clark Smith, Project Officer
With Technical Assistance from:
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
2321 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
June 1983
Responsible Official
L. Edwin Coate
Acting Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
-------
COVER SHEET
ADDENDUM/FINAL IMPACT STATEMENT
EPA-910/9-82-091
a) Lead Agency: Environmental Protection Agency.
b) Proposed Action: Expansion of Municipality of Anchorage
Wastewater Facilities.
c) For further information contact:
Mr. Clark Smith, Project Officer
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, M/S 443
Seattle, Washington 98101
To request copies of the Addendum/Final EIS contact Mr. Clark
Smith at the address noted above.
d) Designation: Addendum/Final EIS.
e) Abstract: A Draft EIS for expansion of Municipality of
Anchorage wastewater facilities was prepared and made available
for public review in January 1983. Six comment letters were
received. Consideration of these comment letters in preparing
the Final EIS required only minor changes to the Draft EIS.
The changes to the Draft EIS, the comment letters, and responses
to the letters are contained in this addendum. This addendum
and the Draft EIS constitute the Final EIS.
The proposed action is the expansion of the Point Woronzof
Wastewater Treatment Plant from 34 to 58 MGD, extension of the
outfall, adding an outfall diffuser, solids disposal, con-
struction of two major interceptor sewers, and designation
of rural Hillside areas for on-site sewerage or public sewer
services. The EIS discusses the impacts of these proposed
actions and alternatives with emphasis on wetland impacts,
Hillside area issues, effluent disposal issues, and secondary
impacts. Specific mitigation measures in the form of
proposed grant conditions are considered.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ADDENDUM/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Draft ( )
Final (X)
Prepared by: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Type of Action: Administrative
Project Description
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is
prepared by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to evaluate the impacts of expanding the Municipality of
Anchorage (MOA) wastewater collection, treatment and dis-
posal system. This Addendum and the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) constitute the FEIS.
The FEIS specifically evaluates the MOA facilities plan
that proposes expansion of the sewerage system. That facili-
ties plan consists of two related documents. The first is
entitled Wastewater Facilities Plan for .Anchorage, Alaska
dated June 1982. This report was prepared for the MOA
by a joint venture of Ott Water Engineers, Inc., Quadra
Engineering, Inc., and Black and Veatch Consulting Engineers,
and it comprises the majority of the MOA Section 201 facili-
ties plan. The remainder of the Section 201 facilities plan
is the Hillside Wastewater Management Plan developed by the
MOA Planning Department, with contract assistance from Arctic
Environmental Engineers and adopted by MOA in May 1982.
The Hillside Wastewater Management Plan, funded under
Section 208 of the Clean Water Act, was prepared to address
sewerage needs of the Hillside area of the Anchorage Bowl
with an emphasis on continuing on-site sewage disposal and
preserving a rural lifestyle in the study area. The plan
identifies areas of the Hillside that are to be served by
on-site treatment and disposal systems (such as septic tanks
with drain fields), areas to be served by sewers, and areas
unsuitable for on-site systems where no sewer systems are
to be provided (although on-site systems may be allowed).
-------
The Wastewater Facilities Plan for Anchorage. Alaska
(MOA 1982) recognizes the determinations for these Hillside
areas and proposes sewage collection, treatment and disposal
systems serving the areas designated for sewerage in the
Hillside plan. It also encompasses alternatives for expansion
of sewage collection, treatment and disposal facilities for
the rest of the Anchorage Bowl, outlined as follows:
o Alternatives for expansion of Point Woronzof waste-
water treatment plant (WWTP) from a current design
capacity of 34 MGD to 58 MGD.
o Extension of the existing outfall by 1,500 feet.
o Adding a diffuser of undetermined length at the
end of the extended outfall.
o Alternatives for disposal of sludge solids from
the treatment process.
o Alternatives for construction of the West Bypass
Interceptor sewer.
o Construction of the Southeast Interceptor sewer,
including sewerage alternatives in the Rabbit Creek-
Potter Creek area.
o Provisions for on-site sewerage of a portion of the
Hillside area.
o Construction of about 70 sewer improvement projects
through 1998.
The facilities plan also sets forth a MOA-Recommended Plan,
suggesting implementation of specific alternatives.
For EIS purposes the above project alternatives, except
for the 70 sewer improvement projects, are evaluated in de-
tail in the EIS. The 70 sewer improvement projects are
addressed only with specific reference to wetland impacts
and in general terms relative to cumulative impacts.
Recommended Plan
The Point Woronzof WWTP would be expanded from its
current effective capacity of 22 MGD to 58 MGD (average annual
flow). Current design capacity is 34 MGD, although the plant
cannot meet discharge requirements at a design flow rate
over 22 MGD. This expansion would be achieved through con-
struction of three additional primary clarifiers, modification
11
-------
of other portions of the liquid processing to increase capa-
city, addition of another sludge incinerator to the solids
process, and consideration of alternative disposal methods
for incinerator ash. The facilities plan indicates a pre-
ference for discharging the ash into the Knik Arm of Cook
Inlet through the outfall along with the effluent, although
discharge to a landfill or to lagoons or a gravel pit in
the area of Point*Woronzof is also considered.
The facilities plan recommends that the outfall be ex-
tended by 1,500 feet, that an extensive design effort be
undertaken, and that the diffuser requirements be further
studied. Preliminary diffuser modeling prepared for a
Section 301(h) waiver application determined that a 1,000-
foot diffuser would enable the discharge of chlorinated
effluent to meet all existing water quality standards.
A diffuser study is underway to evaluate outfall and
diffuser requirements under the assumption that chlorination
would be discontinued. Preliminary results indicate that
a theoretical diffuser length of tens of miles .would be needed
to meet coliform standards applicable to Cook Inlet if
chlorination is discontinued. All other standards, however,
apparently could be met with a minimal (100-foot) diffuser.
The study also is evaluating the diffuser requirements
under assumptions that certain state-designated beneficial
uses of the waters of Cook Inlet would be deleted. This
change would allow less strict Alaska state water quality
standards to apply. If fecal coliform standards of 200
FC/100 ml were to apply (compared to current standards of
14 FC/100 ml), a diffuser length of 6,100 feet would enable
the discharge to meet this standard. If designated uses
were further relaxed to eliminate all coliform standards
a minimal length (100-foot) diffuser would be adequate.
A major interceptor sewer, the West Bypass Interceptor,
is proposed to connect existing interceptor sewers at the
Alaska Railroad crossing over Campbell Creek to an existing
downstream section of the West Bypass Interceptor sewer near
the Minnesota Bypass-Raspberry Road intersection. The pro-
posed completion of the interceptor between these points
would bypass a deteriorated, undersized corrugated metal
pipe sewer paralleling Campbell Creek and an occasionally
overloaded pumping station at Campbell Creek.
The existing Southeast Interceptor is proposed to be
extended south to provide service to areas of the Hillside
that are designated for public sewerage in the Hillside plan,
including the south Hillside areas near Potter Creek and
Rabbit Creek.
111
-------
The Hillside Wastewater Management Plan (MOA 1982)
evaluated the suitability of the Hillside area of Anchorage
to accommodate on-site disposal systems, arid delineated areas
for public sewers, unsewered areas for on-site systems and
unsewered areas generally unsuitable for on-site disposal
systems. It sets forth planning and design criteria, con-
struction guidelines and operation and maintenance require-
ments for on-site systems.
The Hillside plan does not preclude on-site systems
in generally unsuitable areas; rather it applies additional
restrictions, including soil tests for each Ipt in a sub-
division, requiring innovative systems unless conventional
systems are shown to be acceptable, and requiring more detailed
system reviews by MOA.
The existing Anchorage Bowl system of collector sewers
is in need of expansion, replacement and renovation in certain
areas. Additional capacity is required in some instances,
as well as replacement of several miles of corrugated pipe.
About 70 sewer construction, rehabilitation and replacement
projects are recommended in the facilities plan.
Alternatives
The DEIS evaluates alternatives to the Recommended Plan,
including no action. The Executive Summary in the DEIS sum-
marizes those evaluations.
Environmental Impacts
The DEIS evaluates environmental impacts on cost, wet-
lands, the Hillside area, and cultural resources; secondary
impacts on services and utilities, natural resources, and
socioeconomic values; treatment and disposal impacts; sludge
processing and disposal impacts; and construction impacts.
Proposed EPA Action
EPA proposes to provide federal grant funding, subject
to available funds and appropriate application by the MOA,
for the following project elements:
o Expansion of the Point Woronzof WWTP to 58 MGD.
o Extension of the existing outfall by 1,500 feet.
o Addition of a diffuser when the appropriate length
is determined.
IV
-------
o Construction of the West Bypass Interceptor sewer
by tunnel construction.
EPA proposes to impose grant conditions on the MOA
requiring monitoring of surface water quality and ground-
water quality in the Hillside area as mitigation measures.
Conclusions
The distribution list for the DEIS and this FEIS is
included at the end of the report. Availability of the FEIS
should be announced in the Federal Register in May 1983.
Comments are invited, and should be directed to:
Mr. Clark Smith, Project Officer
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, M/S 443
Seattle, Washington 98101
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2 - COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES 3
Response to Comments by Homeowners and Land- 7
owners Organization, Inc. (HALO)
Response to Comments by Alaska Department 14
of Fish and Game
Response to Comments by Kathryn Reed 17
Response to Comments by R. Brock Shamberg, 20
P.C., Attorneys at Law
Response to Comments by Rabbit Creek 24
Community Council
Response to Comments by U.S. Fish and 27
Wildlife Service
CHAPTER 3 - CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS TO DEIS 29
Revisions to Page viii 30
Revisions to Page 34 31
Revisions to Page 36 32
Revisions to Page 153 35
Explanation of Figure 8-5, page 181 36
Revisions to Page 213 38
CHAPTER 4 - DISTRIBUTION LIST, NOTIFICATION LIST 39
REFERENCES 48
-------
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
This addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for the Municipality of Anchorage wastewater facilities
contains the public comments received on the draft statement,
responses to the issues raised and changes or corrections
to the draft statement. Since textual changes to the DEIS
are minor, changes have been noted on errata sheets contained
in this document. This is consistent with part 1503.4 (c)
of the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implemen-
tation of the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). This document, combined with the DEIS,
represents the Final EIS, and has been filed with the Council
on Environmental Quality.
No comments raised issues that warranted the modification
of alternatives evaluated, the addition of new alternatives,
or additional environmental analyses.
Some comments raised issues which were beyond the scope
of the DEIS or requested information already addressed in
the draft statement. In these cases, the commentor was referred
to the appropriate section (s) of the DEIS for this information.
Brief statements were also made which specifically responded
to the comment. In a few cases, comments were raised which
required changes to be noted to correct textual errors, add
new information, or to clarify text. In these cases, the
response notes that changes are reflected in the errata sheets.
The preparers of the statement also noted some minor textual
errors which are also reflected by changes on the errata sheets.
-------
Chapter 2
COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES
This section contains reproductions of the comment letters
received and provides responses to the issues raised. These
letters are listed below:
1. Homeowners and Landowners Organization, Inc. (HALO);
2. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG);
3. Katherine M. Reed;
4. R. Brock Shamberg, P. C., Attorneys at Law;
5. Rabbit Creek Community Council;
6. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
-------
:''-~"1~'":r. .'H!
- !-•-•; i H
^omeowners
(\nd
andowners
]rganization, Inc.
••• ry,vjJAT10N
P.O. Box 10-2022
Anchorage, AK 99511
Mr. Clark Smith
Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Subject: Draft E19 - City of Anchorage, Alaska; Wastewater Facilities,
December 2, 1982.
2.
3
4
Dear Mr. Smith:
The following comments are supplemental to the testimony given by HALO
and others during the previous public hearings for both the EIS and the
Hillside Waste Water Study. HALO is an organization of Hillside home and land
owners among whose purposes are to inquire into matters of community impor-
tance and to defend the communities unique heritage of a largely natural pure
and healthful environment. Our comments are limited to the impacts on the
Hillside of the Southeast Interceptor.
In our opinion the draft EIS does not meet the full disclosure provisions
mandated by the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality. We are
particularly concerned that long term and cumulative adverse impacts of the
proposed Southeast Interceptor Extension are not adequately described. In our
opinion several of the assumptions on which the EIS is based are non-factual,
and cannot be supported. We believe the deficiencies are of such magnitude
the impact statement sections pertaining to the South Interceptor Extension
should be revised and another opportunity for public review provided.
Specific comments follow:
1. The objectives of the facilities plan as provided on page 3 are not
sufficient. Page xii of the Executive Summary discusses the limited
supply of water on the hillside and acknowledges this may either be a
limit on development or a requirement that a public water be provided
from an external source. The objectives of page 3 investigate the
ability of the proposed wastewater collection systems ability to meet
anticipated loads without consideration of the limitation on these loads
-------
imposed by water availability. If the EIS is to be realistic it should
address the capacity, cost and impacts of sewers as limited by present
water availability. If the EIS is to address sewers to accommodate the
postulated population density they should include the costs and environ-
mental impact of the necessary public water system in the EIS. To not do
so is misleading the public.
The safe Drinking Water Act described on page 9 is not being complied
with. The dense developments projected for the lower hillside can not be
served by ground water. Approved"new subdivisions (South Addition No. 4)
are obtaining surface water through infiltration galleries from Little
Rabbit Creek. High nitrate levels have been observed in this stream
(page 139) and higher levels may be expected. The EIS does not accommo-
date the health hazards imposed by the dense development. The EIS does
not recognize the cost nor environmental impact of works or political
restraints necessary to control nitrates in surface waters used for
domestic water supply.
The population projections given in table 1-1 for the year 2000, on which
the wastewa:ter treatment needs are based, are about 25 to 30 percent high
as compared to more recent projections.
O I 4. The description of fish species utilizing Rabbit Creek given on page 121
I should include King Salmon.
5. The section on page 132 and 133, Impacts on Potter Marsh fails to discuss
impacts resulting from breaks and repair of the proposed interceptor.
The section should also identify impacts resulting from failure of lift
stations during power outages and the expected frequency of these out-
ages. The discussion of impacts should also include a discussion of the
impacts from cleanup of raw wastewater in Potter Marsh. This section is
also deficient in discussion of cumulative impacts of proposed works.
6. The discussion of water availability, impacts of the proposed wastewater
I r\ system, and dense population postulated does not in our opinion meet the
' full disclosure requirements of the NEPA. The impact statement should
discuss fully the necessary works to provide domestic water and their
costs and impacts. We are particularly concerned the analysis should
consider impacts on areas outside of the immediate area served by sewers.
7- The statement on page 156, "areas south of Little Rabbit Creek cannot
develop until the South East Interceptor is extended..." i-s false and
// misleading. The area can and is being developed under existing laws,
regulations and zoning. The only constraint is its inability to support
the population density desired by developers. Other similar misleading
statements exist.
8. Table 7-1 is misleading in that much of the Hillside land described as
\2. available is not developable because of problems such as ground water,
slope instability and wind loading.
9. The EIS has not adequately considered the effects of seismic events on
/3 tne South East Interceptor. The analysis should include the effects of
slope instability under seismic excitation.
-------
Ue in HALO are willing to consult with you towards resolving the
deficient portions of your document.
Respectfully Yours,
Giles N. McDonald
President HALO
-------
Response to Comments by Homeowners and Landowners Organization,
Inc. (HALO)
1. HALO comments that the DEIS does not meet the full disclosure
provisions of the regulations promulgated by the federal
Council on Environmental Quality. Throughout the EIS
process EPA has pursued full disclosure of all impacts,
and has provided numerous opportunities for public input
to facilitate that disclosure. The responses to the specific
comments of HALO and other commentors is another step in that
disclosure process.
2. The DEIS addresses long-term and cumulative impacts of the
southeast interceptor in Chapters 4, 5, and 7; Additional
information is contained in the responses to comments in
this FEIS.
3. HALO suggests the DEIS relied on nonfactual assumptions. The
DEIS relied on facts available to EPA through local, state,
and federal agencies, relevant literature, public input, and
field review. We have responded to each concern of HALO,
relying on the best information available to us.
4. Further public review is afforded through issuance of this
FEIS. A 30-day public review period begins on the date that
the official Federal Register notice is published announcing
availability of this FEIS.
5. The objectives of the Facilities Plan are set forth in that
plan, and are summarized on Page 3 of the EIS. The objectives
of the Facilities Plan are adequate and acceptable to EPA
under the Clean Water Act and regulations adopted by EPA
pursuant to the Act. While grant funding may be provided by
EPA for sewerage facilities, the Clean Water Act provides no
authority for the planning of public water supply systems.
The DEIS recognizes the relationship between water supply and
sewage generation (page 160, paragraph 4, specifically, and
pages 159 and 160, more generally). The DEIS also recognizes
(pages 209 and 210)- that the water scarcity problem is not
resolved in the EIS and is, in fact, beyond the scope of the
EIS to resolve. Planning efforts outside the scope of 201
planning will be required to resolve the water problem. The
EIS assumes that the water shortage will be resolved. Current
water supply augmentation efforts of the MOA (DEIS, page 160)
reinforce this view. It should be recognized, however, that
if supplemental water supply sources are not developed, growth
may be constrained, and wastewater volumes may not be as
large as expected. It is also possible that additional growth
pressure may be felt in the Hillside area and other areas
where public water supplies are not currently prerequisites
for development.
-------
It is not within the scope of the EIS or the Facilities
Plan to estimate the maximum quantity of sewage that could
be generated by the area's current limited water supply.
Similarly, it is not in the scope of either document to
identify or evaluate the sewerage facilities that would be
required to collect, treat, and dispose of such limited
sewage quantities.
The Safe Drinking Water Act, which became law on December 16,
1974, was enacted to assure that the public is provided with
safe drinking water. It applies to all community water
supplies, both government- and investor-owned, that have 15
or more service connections, or that serve 25 or more
individuals. The Act does not apply to the individual wells
that serve one or two homes in the Hillside area. It does
apply to individual wells that serve schools and restaurants,
as well as to community water systems meeting the above
criteria.
In general, the law calls for the federal government, through
EPA, to establish standards for drinking water quality, and
for the state governments to enforce the federal or more
stringent state standards. The State of Alaska has assumed
responsibility for enforcement of the federal standards and
certain more stringent state standards. The state standards
include bacteriological standards, violations of which may
occur in Little Rabbit Creek, as well as other area streams.
State statutes also charge the Alaska Department of Environ-
mental Conservation (ADEC) with the conservation and protec-
tion of water resources.
Nitrate is the primary inorganic constituent of concern in
the Hillside area, due to the potential for elevated nitrate
levels from septic system discharges. Monitoring of surface
water in Little Rabbit Creek (USGS 1975, 1982) has detected
no violations of the EPA-established maximum contaminant
level of 10 mg/1 nitrate as N. The highest level detected
in the USGS sampling was 4.6 mg/1 in 1967. Sampling in 1979
and 1980 showed nitrate levels of less than 1 mg/1. Page 139
of the DEIS does not refer to high nitrate levels in any
local streams.
However, as cited on page 140 of the DEIS, nitrate levels
near to EPA standards have been detected in some individual
wells. The Hillside Plan element of the Facilities Plan may
not adequately protect groundwater quality in the Hillside
area, where groundwater is the major source of drinking water,
because large areas of the Hillside area remain designated
for on-site sewerage systems. Studies of groundwater re-
sources in the Hillside area demonstrate that drinking water
quality standards already are threatened by on-site disposal
systems, and would be increasingly jeopardized by projected
population growth in the area if on-site disposal remains as
the major wastewater treatment system. Threats to surface
water from on-site system discharges may also increase.
-------
The DEIS recognizes these potential threats to public health.
EPA will impose grant conditions on the MOA to require
regular monitoring of groundwater and surface water.
The EIS does address the health hazards imposed by develop-
ment pursuant to the Hillside Wastewater Management Plan,
primarily in Chapter 5. It is beyond the EIS scope to
develop cost estimates for implementation of adequate
methods that would prevent nitrate contamination of water
supply sources. The DEIS recognizes the potential for
contamination to occur and suggests steps that can be
taken to prevent public health threats from developing.
The cost and impact of prevention will increase with time,
and the cost and impacts of remedies after contamination
has occurred may be substantial. The MOA can estimate
the costs of incorporating additional preventive measures
in their Hillside area management program, since implemen-
tation is a local responsibility. However, estimation
of costs and impacts of actions that are not part of the
Facilities Plan are beyond the scope of this EIS.
7. The population projections used in the Facilities Plan
and the EIS were developed by MOA and used consistently
in the planning process. Table 1-1 on page 14 of the
DEIS cites projections developed by the Institute for
Social and Economic Research, adopted for use by the MOA
for development of the Comprehensive Plan. Any projections
are subject to revision. Such a revision would indicate
an expected change in growth rate, which would be translated
into a change in the rate of increase in sewage flows.
8. King salmon may occur in Rabbit Creek in relatively small
numbers.
9. If sewage were to be accidentally discharged in large quanti-
ties to Potter Marsh, effects could result from the increased
BOD load, toxicants in the wastewater, and elevated nutrient
levels. High BOD resulting from accidental discharge of large
quantities of sewage could substantially depress the DO level
in the marsh to the point of jeopardizing aquatic species.
Since most of the wastewater expected to be generated in the
area near Potter Marsh is domestic waste, no quantities of
toxic or hazardous substances are expected to be present.
Potter Marsh is separated from Turnagain Arm by tidal gates
on Rabbit Creek as it passes under the Alaska Railroad. Tidal
flushing is restricted, and it would appear that the residence
time of any spill and the subsequent flushing rate would be
dependent on the flow of Rabbit Creek.
-------
Tertiary treatment of sewage has been frequently mentioned
as a beneficial value of wetlands because it is assumed that
marsh plants would take up nutrients from the wastewater
stream. Gosselink et al. (1973) went so far as to calculate
an economic value for wetlands based on tertiary treatment
capability per acre. A rigorous review of extant salt marsh
literature (Nixon 1980) has challenged the notion that salt
marshes are capable of "treating" wastewater. It would
appear that the necessary data to support early claims for
this beneficial use did not exist. Furthermore, efforts to
experimentally determine whether wetlands can treat sewage
have been equivocal in their results. It would appear that
the ability to take up nutrients varies widely from place to
place and perhaps seasonally as well (Nixon 1980). A pre-
liminary study conducted by Schwartz (1982) on a northern
freshwater marsh indicates that excessive nutrients and a
large carbon source result in high phytoplankton productivity
and bacterial growth. These, coupled with high particulate
matter, inhibit submergent vegetation growth and invertebrate
fauna diversity, thereby increasing downstream transport of
nutrients. An experimental nutrient enrichment study on
an Alaskan bog (Sanville 1981) suggested that nutrients would
be absorbed by sphagnum bogs. However, the experiment
examined only plant productivity and occurred in a wetland
habitat which is different from Potter Marsh and known to be
typically nutrient-deficient.
10. The purpose of the EIS is to evaluate sewerage projects,
rather than water supply projects. No water supply projects
are proposed as part of the Facilities Plan. The DEIS
does recognize that development of the Hillside area with
on-site sewers may lead to well contamination, and that
a possible mitigation measure is to provide a public water
supply system to the Hillside. The third paragraph on
page 151 of the DEIS discusses this possible mitigation
measure briefly.
Implementation of such a system would require a series
of booster pumps, reservoirs, and pipelines. Construction
could be noisy and disruptive; erosion may occur in con-
struction areas, adversely affecting water quality; reservoirs
may cause adverse visual impacts; pump stations could
produce intermittent low-level noise; and a water system
could induce additional growth pressure on the Hillside
Area. Analysis of these impacts is beyond the scope of
the EIS, since EPA has no plans to require a water system
as a mitigation measure, nor would such a project qualify
for Clean Water Act grant funding.
11. The DEIS assumes that the area south of Little Rabbit
Creek cannot develop at the densities indicated in the
Comprehensive Plan until public sewer service is provided.
The southeast interceptor extension is recommended in
10
-------
the Facilities Plan as the preferred method for providing
the sewerage. The intent of the statement on Page 156
is to illustrate the growth-inducing effect of this portion
of the proposed sewerage facilities.
12. HALO suggests that Table 7-1 is unrealistic, due to natural
constraints on development in the Hillside area. Table
7-1 is drawn directly from the Hillside Wastewater Management
Technical Report... (MOA 1982), Table 4-2 on page 34.
The text accompanying the table recognizes that environ-
mental constraints limit development, but that, "where
natural environmental features are unconducive to develop-
ment, specific measures can be taken to provide adequate
housing. But, it inevitably requires a higher cost."
The Hillside Wastewater Management Plan does not designate
areas undevelopable for reasons cited by HALO. Construc-
tion techniques are available to allow construction on
difficult sites, including areas of high groundwater (elevat-
ing structures, providing drains), slope instability (retain-
ing walls, pilings), and wind loading (designed to resist
predicted wind forces).
The figures for Hillside area population are explained
(ibid., page 39) as representing "...an unspecified future
saturation development condition where all developable
land has been utilized in some manner."
No estimate is given, either in the Hillside Plan documents
or the DEIS, as to when this saturation development would
occur. EPA does not believe that republication of the
estimates developed in local planning activities is
misleading.
13. Seismic activity can have devastating effects on natural
and human-made features, as was amply demonstrated by
the 1964 earthquake. Sewer lines are susceptible to joint
separation, severance of lines, both vertically and horizon-
tally, and stations can be heavily damaged. As described
on page 143 of the EIS, the sewer system could be disabled
for an extended period. A further discussion of these
impacts is presented in previous response number 9.
11
-------
crzi
BILL SHEFFIELD. GOVEFt.'-'OR
March 11, 1983
Environmental Evaluation Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, ll/S 443
Seattle, Washington 98101
Attention: Mr. Clark Smith
Gentlemen:
Re: Agency Review - Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
City of Anchorage Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion and
Facilities.
Proposed
Interceptor
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has reviewed the Draft En-
vironmental Impact Statement referenced above. The ADF&G finds this docu-
ment a clear and concise description of the environmental conditions occur-
ring within the project area. The analysis of the recommended plan ade-
quately addresses the potential impacts resulting from project implementa-
tion. As described, the project is considered consistent with the Standards
of the Alaska Coastal Management Plan.
A major concern of this Department centers on the proposed location and
design of a pump station to be located near Rabbit Creek at one of two
possible locations: a) between Old and New Seward Highways, north of
Potter Marsh, or b) adjacent to the Old Seward Highway north of Rabbit
Creek. The ADF&G recommends the final design and siting of this pump
station provide adequate protection for the Potter Point State Game Refuge.
Feasibility and design of bypass and containment facilities should be an
integral part of the planning and design phase of the Rabbit
Creek area collection system. These facilities should be designed and
located to avoid Potter Point State Game Refuge and to avoid disposal of
" ! n'
L-.ii 'I
12
-------
C. Smith -2- March n, 1933
wastew£.ter into Rabbit Creek. Please contact Mr. Gary Liepitz, Habitat
Division, Anchorage at 267-2281 if you have any questions concerning this
project.
Sincerely,
Don W. Collinsworth, Commissioner
0-
BYrPhilip 0. Brna
• Habitat Biologist
Habitat Division
(907) 267-2284
cc: D. Harkness, ADF&G
B. Martin, DEC
B. Lawrence, EPA
B. Bowker, USFWS
P. Wohl, MOA
W. Wolf, DPDP
13
-------
Response to Comments by Alaska Department of FishanH Game
1. Comments acknowledged. EPA will require the engineering
evaluation of bypass and/or containment facilities in the
Rabbit Creek area as a part of any Clean Water Grant for the
Rabbit Creek facilities. Also, see responses to comments
by HALO, Inc.
14
-------
P. O. Box 110204
Anchorage, AK 99511
March 3, 1983
Mr. Clark Smith, Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave., MS 443
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Mr. Smith:
The following comments are in reference to the DEIS, City of Anchorage,
Alaska, Waste Water Facilities, with particular emphasis on the Hillside
area.
I belisve it should be stressed that it will be possible to accommodate
a considerable increase in population in the Hillside area under the scheme
proposed by the Wastewater Management Plan without extending sewers beyond the
areas recommended for public sewers. The enforcement of complete site testing
(to include identification of the water table positions at the three septic
system sites per lot), thorough inspection of installations, and aggressive
maintenance of system should be sufficient to ensure safe continuation of the
various lifestyles in the area. Until the MOA actively insists that pumpers
have proper tank-cleaning (not just emptying) equipment, encourages/approves
use of the mound and shallow trench systems, and knows conditions in undeveloped
areas well enought to require safe lot configuration even at the expense of
replatting to larger lots, then we risk continuing the present less-than-optimum
conditions.
The USGS "Hillside" report does not recommend surface water as a source for
drinking water. Hydropraphs will show that flow is probably inadequate,
especially in winter, for any concerted development, quite aside from the water
quality problems. The impact on Potter Marsh will certainly be adverse if
the creeks are tapped.
With increased runoff that normally follows development, it will be
essential to identify flood-plain dimensions and see that creekside land is
in a condition to withstand floods. The MOA has never addressed the cause and
effects of the periodic late spring flooding on Rabbit Creek—a problem that
may well be compounded by increased suburban runoff. The MOA is, however,
working on a plan to retain much of Rabbit Creek's course in its natural
state.
The limiting factor on Hillside population growth is bound to be water
availability. There is not sifficient data to predict the location of
suitable aquifers in the glacial sediments—nor is there likely to be. If
the water budget is upset by bringing coTimunity water to the area and
recharging it through septic systems or by draining the area by sewers,
the consequences will be dire indeed. Therefore, I do not think it can
15
-------
be stressed too much that planning for sewers anywhere in the Hillside has to
be done in concert with planning for water supplies. Recommendations in the
DEIS need to deal with this perhaps more explicitly.
The sewer line route near Potter Marsh might cause fewest problems if
it were routed as in alternative 3 (p. 67) with plan D. Potter Marsh has too
great a value to the city to be compromised by the chance of leaks or breaks
in sewer lines. The backup pump and storage alluded to would be valuable.
Sewer sizing should not encourage additions from the Hillside, as the
addition is almost certain to be random, a reaction. I think it is possible
to rehabilitate failed systems by re-location or other means, even if the
homeowner is inconvenienced for some time. (The spectre of this failure
ought to prompt good maintenance; it should also spur the MOA into insisting
on adequate tank-cleaning equipment.,
Final1, one of the secondary impacts of Hillside growth will be the need
for additional paramedics. This item ought to be added to the list in the
DEIS.
Sincerely,
Katherine M. Reed
16
-------
Response to Comments by Kathryn Reed
1. This comment is generally consistent with the findings
of the EIS. EPA also believes that monitoring of ground-
water and surface water is essential to detecting increases
in nitrate levels and other contaminants and is also essential
to protecting public health.
2. The USGS (1975) concludes that: "Surface-water reservoirs
or diversions from the streams crossing the area do not
appear to be practical sources of water." However, during
the EIS process it was brought out that developers were
proposing to provide a water supply from streams in the
Hillside area. Since the availability of sewers to the
south Hillside is viewed as a growth-inducing factor,
and the impact of depleting the surface-water supply to
Potter Marsh thereby became an EIS issue, the DEIS addresses
this issue.
3. Comment acknowledged.
4. The suggestion that water and sewer facilities must be
evaluated in concert to avoid disruption of local groundwater
hydrology is sound. However, as discussed in prior responses,
the purpose of the DEIS is to evaluate the impact of sewerage
decisions, rather than water supply decisions. The EPA
hopes that the MOA will include both water and sewerage
considerations in future planning for the Hillside. This
is particularly important if future groundwater pollution
prompts the introduction of a community water system as
a mitigation measure. The addition of an unconstrained
water supply concurrent with cessation of current groundwater
pumping may lead to substantial increases in local and
seasonal groundwater levels, with adverse effects on the
ability of septic systems to provide adequate treatment.
This in turn could threaten public health due to surfacing
of inadequately treated effluent.
5. Comment acknowledged.
6. Comment acknowledged.
7. Comment acknowledged. Paramedic services, ambulance service,
hospital facilities, and other types of health care services
will all be affected by growth.
17
-------
R. BROCK SRAMBERG, P. C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
BROCK SMi-'BSRG POST OFFICE BOX 1O-295
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA O9511
TELEPHONE (907)345-3855
March 4, 1983
Mr. Clark Smith
Environmental Evaluation Branch
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, M/S 443
Seattle, WA 98101
Re: EIS Anchorage Wastewater Facilities; Draft, November 1982
Dear Mr. Smith:
I have read with interest and concern the Environmental
Impact Statement for the Anchorage wastewater facilities and
appreciate this opportunity to respond to the draft.
Overall, I am struck by the tremendous amount of effort and
work that has gone into the Environmental Impact Statement, but
keep coming back to one central question. What about on-site
disposal systems? Why does the report seem to play down this
permanant solution?
I realize, of course, that the impact statement is a feasi-
bility study, as opposed to recommendation for construction, but
it is clear in the overall reading of the report that a major
permanent solution for many of the hillside residents has been
mainly ignored, obscured or played down. My feelings and reac-
tions can be simply stated as follows:
1. The report is comprehensive, but fails to adquately deal
with an on-site development program that would include proper
construction, operation and maintenance of existing and future
on-site septic systems.
2. Cost comparisons are not adequately stated with regard
to alternatives of spreading the effective costs of sewer con-
struction vs. on-site systems.
3. Anchorage is not a community that needs a massive, long-
term construction project to boost its economic base, and if such
a project were needed, the "Knik Crossing" would serve the needs
of the community far better.
4. The report ignores the current problems with the current
city sewer system and the upgrading of those lines and facilities
that are of mounting proportion.
18
-------
'•'i . '..'i. ar:k Srrii th
Page Two
March 4, 1983
7
8
5. The report does not adquately consider nor provide for
surface water conditions on the Hillside, despite its being a
high priority at the EIS scoping meetings.
6. Although availability of water for Hillside residents is
of equal concern, whether there is a sewer system or a septic
system, the report does not deal with this problem in an adequate
manner, nor in the long range. This is the priority issue, in my
opinion, and wastewater a secondary and a far less limiting fac-
tor to our growth and quality of life.
Overall, the report lacks because of what is omitted; not in
what is stated. Everyone realizes that sewers are a necessity
and an inevitability in certain areas, but recommendations are
strongly needed with regard to the proper construction, operation
and maintenance of on-site syterns where possible. This the
report simply does not bolster, support, nor deal with the ad-
vantages of the on-site alternative to the reader and our
community.
Thank you again for the opportunity to make these comments.
Respectfull
RBS/jl
cc: John R. Spencer, Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
2321 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
19
-------
Response to Comments by R. Brock Shamberg, P. C., Attorney^
at Law
1. The DEIS does not attempt to play down the use of on-
site systems. Chapter 5 explores this issue in depth.
The DEIS is intended as an evaluation of impacts of the
proposed sewerage decisions, rather than as a feasibility
study. The Facilities Plan "documents serve as feasibility
studies.
2. The DEIS discusses existing on-site system management
on pages 137 and 138, and suggests additional mitigation
measures on pages 150-152. A document on the operation
of septic systems is referenced on Page 151 of the DEIS.
That document deals extensively with the management of
on-site systems, dealing with both technical and institu-
tional issues.
3. The commentor states that adequate cost comparisons of the
option of public sewers versus on-site sewers are lacking.
This information was requested from the MOA by EPA but was
never developed as part of the facilities planning process.
A 20-year present-value analysis considering full life-cycle
costs of both systems would be desirable. The lack of this
information has not constrained other analyses in the
DEIS, and will not prevent funding decisions by EPA on
other parts of the Facilities Plan.
4. Comment acknowledged. Expansion of the sewerage system
is proposed to meet the requirements of an expanding com-
munity and prevent pollution of the waters, not as a "make-
work" project.
5. The Facilities Plan and DEIS include numerous (about 70)
sewer improvement projects to correct current and projected
deficiencies, and to upgrade the interceptor system. Nearly
all of these facilities are described in the Facilities
Plan in very general terms, such that detailed analysis
in the DEIS was not possible. The DEIS includes those
facilities in a general way only, addressing the cumulative
impacts of the overall plan, with detailed NEPA evaluations
confined to the plant expansion, outfall. West Bypass Inter-
ceptor, and Southeast Interceptor projects only.
6. The DEIS discusses surface-water hydrology and quality in
the Hillside Area on pages 139, and 142-152.
7. As discussed in prior responses to comments, the DEIS
evaluates sewerage decisions proposed pursuant to the
Clean Water Act. Water supply issues are discussed only
as they interact with sewerage decisions. See also the
responses to comments by HALO and Kathryn Reed.
20
-------
8. The DEIS has identified possible deficiencies in current
on-site system construction, operation, and maintenance,
with the objective of providing information to the agencies
and public that may allow reduction of potential public
health threats. It is the purpose of the report to evaluate,
rather than bolster, the alternatives in the Facilities
Plan.
21
-------
RABBIT CREEK COMMUNITY COUNCIL
SRA BOX 261-M
Al-JCHORAGE, ALASKA 99507
March 6, 1983
Mr. Clark Smith
Environmental Evaluation Branch
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, M/S 443
Seattle, WA 98101
Re: EIS Anchorage Wastewater Facilities;
Draft, November 1982
Dear Mr. Smith:
The EIS Anchorage Wastewater Facilities Draft has been reviewed
with great interest by the officers, directors and various members
of the Rabbit Creek Community Council. Many of the areas dis-
cussed in this draft are located within the boundaries of our
council.
The following subjects, in our opinion, require further consid-
eration and study:
1) The EIS does recognize the possible mix of septic
systems and sewers. Mitigating measures to an adopted plan
are not in question, but we urge that the EIS stress the
positive benefits of continuing septic systems. The key to
their success will be vigorous, enforced maintenance of the
systems. This natural solution to wastewater treatment is,
we believe, untimately safer and less costly than sewers.
Given the continuance of large lots (one acre plus) ,
the cost of sewering the entire Hillside area is simply too
great to be borne by the homeowner. Alternatively, while
sewers and high density development throughout the Hillside
area would reduce the cost of sewers per homeowner lot, the
entire population of Anchorage would then be asked to share
in the cost of construction and maintenance of the system,
an economic burden which we feel would prove equally unaccept-
able. Further, it would destroy the rural lifestyles in the
Hillside area whose continuance the Hillside Wastewater
Management Plan was directed to emphasize.
9 1233
22
•''-_ EVAtUATiON
-------
March 6, 1983
Page 2
2) Growth in the Anchorage area will be limited by
availability of water and effects of surface drainage before
it will be limited by the availability of sewers.
a) The draft EIS devotes little space to water
availability. We would like to see mitigating measures dealt
with more specifically. What sources of surface water must be
considered? What is the long-range outlook for public ground-
water supplies?
b) Surface drainage is recognized in the EIS as a
problem. There is little information about drainage in this
geologically young area, and drainage is continually disrupted
by road and home construction. The EIS should stress that an in
depth sutdy of the impacts of development needs to be made — that
it is desirable to map flood plains and plan for flood control.
It will be essential to identify gaining and losing reaches of
streams so that septic wastes can be directed safely. None of
this can be done without extensive detailed work. The EIS might
specify approaches to these problems.
We look forward to the final Environmental Impact Statement that
incorporates the input made by this council and others.
Lloyd V. Morris
Vice President
Rabbit Creek Community Council
LVM/ j It
cc: John R. Spencer, Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
2321 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
Senator Ted Stevens, U. S. Senate
Senator Frank Murkowski, U. S. Senate
Representative Don Young, U. S. House of Representatives
23
-------
Responses to Comments by Rabbit Creek Community Council
1. The objective of an EIS is to evaluate the implications of
an action, not to stress benefits that may be offset by
potential adverse effects on public health. The purpose
of any sewerage system is to dispose of liquid waste in
an environmentally-acceptable manner without risk to human
health. The analyses in the DEIS seriously question whether
the on-site system alternative, as adopted in the Hillside
Wastewater Management Plan, is capable of achieving this
purpose. EPA agrees that the success of this alternative
depends, at least in part, on vigorously enforced maintenance
of systems.
2. Full life cycle cost data for sewers and on-site systems
have never been provided to EPA to demonstrate cost-effective-
ness of either system.
3. The Facilities Plan and EIS assume that water availability
will not be a constraint to growth in the 20-year period
analyzed by the EIS. The MOA is'drilling additional wells
to meet short-term demand and is pursuing implementation
of water importation from the Eklutna project for a long-
term solution. Groundwater will most likely continue
to be used, subject to the management of the local groundwater
basin to prevent salt intrusion from Cook Inlet.
4. The MOA has established a requirement for specific drainage
plans (DEIS, page 146, 4th paragraph). Areawide drainage
planning and floodplain delineation are suggested in the
EIS as additional mitigations. The approach to areawide
drainage planning should be consistent with other area
plans underway or completed in the Anchorage Bowl. These
plans have been developed by contractors to the MOA, and
data on the scope of services are available from the Planning
Department.
Floodplain delineations are normally prepared consistent
with Corps of Engineers or Federal Emergency Management
Agency criteria.
24
-------
IN REPLY REFER TO:
UAES
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
1011 E. TUDOR RD.
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99503
(907) 276-3800
2 I MAR !98j
Mr. Clark Smith
Environmental Evaluation Branch
Environmental Protection Agency - Region 10
1200 Sth Avenue (Fi/S 443)
Seattle, UA 98101
Re: Draft EIS City of Anchoraya-, Alaska
Waste Uater Facilities - Uov. 1C82
Dear fir. Smith:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFU'S) has reviewed the document and
offers the following comments:
1. The document would greatly benefit from more in depth discussion of
what is already known about the unconfined and shallow aquifers of
the Anchorage Bowl and their relationships to surficial and shallow
subsurface (upper 100-200 ft) soils and sedimentary strata.
Wet lands, Logs and streams will be variously traversed by pipes, and
an evaluation of the potential problems that will require
pre-construction design considerations to protect and maintain the
integrity of surface and subsurface aquifer should be discussed in
detail in the EIS.
For example, the alternative of tunneling for emplacement of a 78
inch gravity line could present significant construction and
post-construction problems if the integrity of the geological
formation "sealing" the shallow aquifers or the stream channels of
creek crossings is and remains breached, causing water to seep and
flow along a least resistance path along the tunnel bore. In
addition, we are quite concerned over the possibility of subsidence
following tunnel construction. This concern is particularly acute in
the area around Campbell and Little Campbell Creeks. Uo believe a
more thorough discussion of this problem is warranted.
Small cave-in's have already occurred in the Anchorage area as a
result of breaks and have resulted in uncontrolled flow along buried
pipes. Creaking the seal of perched aquifers during trenching can
also induce changes in wetland environment, including those
designated for preservation.
25
-------
2. The long term potential environmental impact of "dewaterimj" of the Rabbit
Creek - Potter Creek Hillside area upon the water requirements of Potter
Refuge/Potter Harsh, through a combination of ground-surface water
withdrawal and transportation of the withdrawn water as "sewerage"1 for
treatment and disciiaryc outside the hillside drainage area, should Lc
discussed. Potter Harsh, located in the southeastern corner of tine Potter
Point Gar.ie kefujs, established in 1970 by the State legislature, supports
diverse fish ana wilolne resources or high public interest throughout the
year and requires high ar.iounts of surface and groundwatei1 inflow to
Maintain the ecological quality of .tne marsh - wetland environment. The
long ten.i effects of sewering the hillsiue area contiguous to Potter- Harsh
should be discussed in terr.is of the overall lony terr.i water supply-demancs
for the hillside area.
3. llucii encroachment by transportation systei.is crossing the marsn have
sigr.if icantly reduced and degraded the remaining land-water quality,
essential to the well being of tite botanical, resident and moratory biota
of the r.iarsh. Ue would regard, but not necessarily endorse until detailed
plans can be reviewed and approved, alternative 1 and alternative 0 (Fig.
3-fJ. ri. f,7) as preferred options for sewer inc: the area. Alternative 1
should not, however, include emplacement of the sewer line within the
refuge boundary, dafinc-d as extending seav/ard from the "toe of the
bluff." Alternative 3, by placing the inner sewer line- landward of the
"toe of the bluff" and seav/ard of the outer right-of-way of the railroad
should have minimal impacts upon the Potter Harsh habitat.
Be advised that on Ilarch 19, 1983, a meeting was held in Anchorage and chaired
by tiie Audubon Society to discuss Potter Marsh. The meeting v/as well attended
and many pertinent factors influencing Potter Harsh were discussed. It was
agreed that within two weeks the Auciubon Society would provide a summary of
the meeting. Furthermore, liayor Tony Know 1 us of Anchorage agreed to convene
within thirty days,
task force co-chaired by the Municipality and the Alaska
developr.n
uncertain what the results of tin's mayoral task force will be, we"art
convinced that those concerned with Potter Harsh are somewhat disturbed by the
piecemeal approach of existing and proposed development. For this reason we
urge you to consider carefully and utilize the task force prior to making
final decisions on pipe alignment, as it relates to the Potter Harsh area.
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to ccmmont on this document.
Sincerely,
l Director
26
-------
Responses to Comments by U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1. An in-depth evaluation of the aquifers in the Anchorage Bowl
is beyond the scope of this EIS. Much information on these
aquifers is contained in the numerous publications of the
USGS.
The question of hydrologic impacts of sewer construction is
addressed in some depth in Chapter 4 of the DEIS. The dis-
cussions contained in that section should provide sufficient
guidance to design engineers in considering potential impacts
and designing appropriate mitigations to protect the integrity
of the aquifers. The 70 proposed sewer construction projects
could affect the shallow aquifer, as discussed in the
DEIS; no impact on the artesian aquifer is expected.
2. The tunneling proposed for the 78-inch interceptor is
expected to occur within a clay lens, reported as over
100 feet in thickness. Preliminary soil borings indicate
that this is a largely water-tight formation. No measurable
hydrologic impacts are expected if tunneling is confined
to the clay layer. Lateral movement of groundwater along
the tunnel bore and subsidence above the tunnel are not
likely. The pipe will be placed in the tunnel and the
space between the pipe wall and the tunnel bore will be
sealed, inhibiting settlement and movement of water.
The potential for such impacts will be further addressed
in a separate Environmental Information Document being
prepared by the MOA in support of a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) covering the West Bypass Interceptor.
3. These impacts are addressed on pages 142 and 143 of the
DEIS.
4. Comment acknowledged.
5. Comment acknowledged.
27
-------
Chapter 3
CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS TO DEIS
This chapter presents changes and corrections to the
DEIS as a result of public review, comments, and reviews by
the preparers. Portions of relevant pages of the DEIS are
reproduced, with changes typed in italics in context on the
page.
29
-------
Revisions to Page viii
A primary characteristic of a wetland is, obviously,
the presence of water. The presence, characteristics, and
movement of this water are termed hydrology. Hydrologic
values of wetlands include retention of rainfall and snowmelt
runoff, augmentation of stream base flow, water quality benefits,
and groundwater recharge. Loss of wetlands could result
in elevated flood and erosion risks, and alteration of stream
flow and water quality.
Planned growth, supported in part by sewerage expansion,
together with the construction of facilities within and adjacent
to the wetlands, may result in the loss of more than half of
all nontidal wetlands in the Anchorage Bowl.
Construction of sewers within wetlands as proposed in
the facilities plan (about 26 sewer facilities in many of
the area wetlands) will result in destruction of vegetation
and loss of wildlife habitat along pipe alignments. Heavy
equipment crushes or removes vegetation and compacts peat
deposits. Areas of bog wetlands stripped of vegetation
generally do not revert to the original habitat type, but
instead are overgrown by ruderal vegetation or are kept barren
by foot or off-road vehicle traffic. Long-term alteration
of habitat is apparent in aerial photographs taken long after
emplacement of pipe. In Campbell-Klatt Bog, for example,
one sewer line is proposed to pass through an area used by
Canada geese and other waterfowl as a nesting area.
Much more subtle, but perhaps more significant, is the
delayed impact on hydrologic features of wetlands. Most
peat bogs, such as 'those comprising the majority of wetlands
in the study area, are natural water-retaining basins. In
some ways, their character is analogous to a teacup filled
with water and cotton. If a buried pipe were placed through
a wetland, and if backfill material were used which did not
impede water movement, the action would be approximately
analogous to chipping the rim of the cup, allowing some of
the water to drain away. To continue the analogy, water
level in the cup (bog) will probably sink below the level
of the damaged area because the cotton (peat) will act as
a wick bringing moisture to the outlet area. This dewatering
process will adversely change the biological and hydrologic
values of wetlands.
30
-------
Revisions to Page 34
The combined facilities plan describes an areawide sewerage
facilities expansion program serving the Anchorage Bowl and
extending over a 20-year period. It encompasses:
o Alternatives for expansion of Point Woronzof WWTP;
o Extension of the existing outfall by 1,500 feet;
o Study of adding a diffuser at the end of the extended
outfall;
o Alternatives for disposal of sludge solids from the
treatment process;
o Alternatives for construction of the West Bypass
interceptor sewer;
o Construction of the Southeast interceptor sewer, includ-
ing sewerage alternatives in the Rabbit Creek-Potter
Creek area;
o Provisions for on-site sewerage of a portion of the
Hillside area;
o Construction of about 70 sewer improvement projects
through 1998.
The facilities plan sets forth a MOA-recommended plan, suggest-
ing implementation of specific alternatives.
For EIS purposes the above project alternatives, except
for the 70 sewer -improvement projects, are evaluated in detail
in the EIS. The 70 sewer improvement projects are addressed
only with specific reference to wetland impacts and in general
terms relative to cumulative impacts. They are not covered
pursuant to NEPA requirements by this EIS and will not be candi-
dates for federal funding without future NEPA review. The
Recommended Plan, which consists of the first seven projects
listed above, is presented and analyzed in greater depth,
with alternatives analyzed in sufficient detail to provide
a full perspective of the consequences of alternative actions.
31
-------
Revisions to Page 36
Recommended Plan
The Wastewater Facilities Plan for Anchorage, Alaska (MOA
June 1982) and the Hillside Wastewater Management Plan (MOA
May 1982) together set forth an area-wide Recommended Plan for
wastewater collection, treatment and disposal in the Anchorage
Bowl. The Hillside plan, which designates areas for sewerage,
on-site sewage disposal systems, and no sewerage service
(generally unsuitable for on-site systems), was adopted by
the Municipal Assembly on May 18, 1982. This is considered
a Recommended Plan in the context of EIS analyses. The
Wastewater Facilities Plan for Anchorage, Alaska acknowledged
the adopted Hillside plan and includes sewerage service to the
areas so designated in that plan. The wastewater facilities
plan also evaluates alternatives in the remainder of the
Anchorage Bowl and presents a Recommended Plan selected from
those alternatives.
The Recommended Plan for providing wastewater collect-Ion,
treatment and disposal -Is described in this section. The
expansion of the Point Woronzof treatment plant is described
first3 followed by the outfall and diffuser, major interceptor
sewers, and Hillside sewerage plans. The remaining 70 sewer
improvement projects, which are not described in detail and
are not covered in detail in the facilities plan or this EIS,
are mentioned last. These projects are listed for information
only, to provide the full context of the Facilities Plan.
The Point Woronzof WWTP would be expanded from its current
effective capacity of 22 MGD annually to 58 MGD (average annual
flow). (Current design capacity is 34 MGD, although the plant
cannot meet discharge requirements at a design flow rate over
22 MGD.) This expansion would be achieved through construction
of three additional primary clarifiers, modification of other
portions of the liquid processing to increase capacity (Figure 3-1),
addition of another sludge incinerator to the solids process
(Figure 3-2), and consideration of alternative disposal methods for
incinerator ash. These improvements are described below in the
order of the treatment process.
Cost Summary
Federal regulations require that a comprehensive cost
analysis of all wastewater treatment plans be undertaken.
The most cost-effective plan is defined as the lowest present-
32
-------
worth alternative that meets water quality standards in the
absence of overriding non-monetary costs. Present-worth
evaluation is the method most commonly applied to evaluate
the cost of alternative facilities. Present-worth evaluations
include:
o Probable construction costs: engineering, legal and
administrative fees, contingencies and interest.
o Operation and maintenance: labor, materials, supplies,
spare parts, chemicals and power, usually on an annual
basis.
o Remaining value of improvements: Value of facilities
at the end of the planning period.
Table 3-3 shows the criteria used to determine the costs
of the above present-worth components. Tables 3-4 through 3-10
show present-worth alternatives described in this chapter.
Present-worth costs for the outfall extension and diffuser
are not included in the tables. A 1,500-foot outfall extension
is estimated to cost $5,660/000, and a 1,000-foot diffuser
is estimated to cost $3,770,000 (MOA 1982).
A summary table of present worth costs (Table 3-12) is
attached showing comparable cost data for the Recommended
Plan facilities, to the extent comparable data are available.
User Costs
Costs to individual MOA sewer customers would increase
as a result of expansion of the wastewater facilities
(Table 3-11). Those customers served by sewers would sustain
a rate increase estimated at from 22 percent to 34 percent
in 1985, and 30 percent to 40 percent in 1999 as a result
of the Recommended Plan, depending on funding sources for
construction.
The low range in these estimates assumes that U. S. EPA
would provide 75 percent construction funding for the Point
Woronzof WWTP improvements, and the State would provide
an additional 12.5 percent; that the State would fund 50 percent
of all other expansion; and that local funds would comprise
the balance. The high range assumes no U. S. EPA funding,
but rather that all construction cost funding would be
50 percent State and 50 percent local. In both cases, all
repair and rehabilitation work, as well as maintenance and
operating costs, would be paid with 100 percent local funds.
33
-------
Table 3-12. Summary of Present Worth Costs -
Recommended Plan
Item Present Worth
Point Woronzof Wastewater Treatment
Plant expansion $5,431,000
Incinerator ash disposal alternatives:
- landfill 1,198,900
- outfall 574,900
- lagoon 983,700
Outfall, diffuser (1)
West Bypass Interceptor sewer (2)
Southeast Interceptor (3)
Rabbit Creek Interceptor, pump station 3,975,000
(1) Not available.
(2) Being revised by MOA; original estimates ranged from
$8,953,000 for pump station and force main to $13,609,000
for open trench construction.
(3) Not provided in facilities plan.
SOURCE: Anchorage Wastewater Facilities Plan June 1982.
34
-------
Revisions to Page 153
Chapter 6
CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS
Archeological Resources
The Anchorage Bowl area is not noted for extensive use
by prehistoric populations. A known archeological site occurs
at Point Woronzof one-half mile south of the WWTP (49-TYO-030).
The Tanaina were known to have fish camps at the mouth of Ship
Creek during early historic times. A more detailed description
of archeological resources is available to qualified persons
by request from EPA Region 20, at the address on the cover
of this EIS.
Impacts to known or newly-discovered archeological sites
can be minimized through avoidance where possible. The faci-
lities plan does not threaten the site in the Point Woronzof
area. A preconstruction survey of the expansion area at the
WWTP should be conducted as a precautionary measure. Since
watercourses are often places of high habitation probability,
a brief reconnaissance at all stream crossings is recommended.
During all construction activity, a localized work halt should
occur and the State Historic Preservation Officer should be
immediately notified if an archeological site is uncovered.
Historic Places
Although Anchorage is a comparatively young city, having
been established in 1915, it has a number of places of historic
value, including seven sites listed in the National Register
of Historic Places;
o the Oscar Anderson House on 4th Avenue
o the Old Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse at 601
W. 4th Avenue
o the Campus Center .on Wesley Drive
o the Eklutna Power Plant northeast of Anchorage
o the Old St. Nicholas Russian Orthodox Church on
Eklutna Village Road
o the old Anchorage City Hall at 524 W. 4th Avenue
o the Pioneer School House at 3rd Avenue and Eagle St.
None
of these sites is affected by the facilities plan.
35
-------
Explanation of Figure 8-5, page 181
Figure 8-5 on page 181 (repeated as Figure B-8 on page
B-25, Appendix B) bears a vertio-al axis designated by "W/V
and P/V, g/d-m3." The reader should be referred to pages B-19
and B-24 of Appendix B for a further explanation. W stands
for waste biochemical oxygen demand (WBOD)3 P stands for phyto-
plankton dissolved oxygen deficit (PDOD), V is the volume of
the receiving water. These factors are expressed.as grams
per day per cubic.meter of the receiving water (g/d-m ).
The chart illustrates that BOD loading and oxygen deple-
tion due to the Point Woronzof outfall are not a problem in the
Knik Arm.
36
-------
100
10
wd od
eo
v \Boston
\P\HarboY
\
•o
X
O)
N
o.
•a
c
(9
\
.1
Houston Ship
Channel
QDelaware River
v
ocean \
outfall \
\
A
-oi
Knik Arm
\
\
w
\
i
lmg/L wdod
lOmg/l pdod
\
m9/l pdod
\
.001
present discharge
proposed discharge
10
10'
10
FLUSHING TIME IN DAYS
Figure 8-5. Estuarine Waste Assimilation Diagram.
37
-------
Revisions to Page 213
EIS Wetlands Workshop - October 16, 1981
An EIS workshop emphasizing wetlands work was held in
the new Federal Building in Anchorage on October 16, 1981.
A major purpose was to identify a detailed scope of expanded
biological studies to satisfy both EIS needs and MOA special
study needs. Federal, state and local agency representatives
attending the workshop received handouts outlining a tentative
study scope and modifications were suggested by participants.
(The expanded biological studies were not funded for this
EIS.)
Facilities Plan Public Meeting - January 20, 1982
A 201 Facilities Plan public meeting was held on
January 20, 1982 at West High School, attended by about
25 people. Wastewater project alternatives were presented
and EIS issues discussed. Primary public attention was
focused on Hillside and Potter Marsh impacts that might
occur from sewering of the south Hillside.
EIS Wetlands and Hillside Workshop - April 14, 1982
A two-session EIS workshop was held in Anchorage on
April 14, 1982 to discuss wetlands and Hillside area issues.
The first session, attended by about 15 people, was held
in the Hill Building. The second session, attended by about
10 people, was held at Wendler Junior High School. Issues
discussed at the workshops included the outfall, Hillside
issues and specific wetland impacts.
Comments Received Through Distribution
of the Preliminary Draft EIS
The Preliminary Draft EIS was circulated for comments
on August 30, 1982 to certain public agencies and groups
that were active participants in EIS scoping. Comments
were received at a meeting in the MOA Telephone Utility
offices on September 15, 1982. Those comments have been
considered in completing this Draft EIS.
38
-------
Chapter 4
DISTRIBUTION LIST, NOTIFICATION LIST
The following pages contain' listings of the agencies and
individuals who were provided copies of the DEIS. Additional
copies were also distributed through the Municipality and
through Ott Water Engineers.
Notices of availability of the DEIS were sent to an addi-
tional group of agencies and individuals. These are shown
on the "DEIS Notification List."
39
-------
DEIS DISTRIBUTION LIST
Alaska Department of Environ-
mental Conservation
Pouch 0
Juneau, Alaska 99811
U. S. Public Health Service
Indian Health Service
3rd & Gamble Streets
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Alaska Department of Community
& Regional Affairs
Pouch B
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Office of Legislation, A-102
Environmental Protection
Agency
Room 3105, Waterside Mall
Washington, DC 20460
Oil & Special Materials
Division (WH-448)
Water Programs Operations
Environmental Protection
Agency
Room 2106, Waterside Mall
Washington, DC 20460
Office of the Governor
State of Alaska
Division of Development and
Planning
Pouch AD
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99811
State Clearinghouse,
A-95 Coordinator
Office of the Governor
State of Alaska
Pouch AD
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Alaska Department of Fish
and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Department of Natural Resources
323 E. 4th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Alaska Energy Allocation Assistance
Office
338 Denali Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Alaska Department of Commerce & Economic
Development
Pouch D
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Office of Public Affairs, A-107
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 3014, Waterside Mall
Washington, DC 20460
Commissioner
Department of Fish and Game
Subport Building
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Facility Requirements Division, WH-595
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Alaska Department of Highways
802 3rd Street - Douglas
Juneau, Alaska 99513
Mr. Paul Larson
ATTN: AF2T-FE-EQ
HQ, 172nd INF BDE (AK)
Fort Richardson, Alaska 99505
Jose Vicente, Centrum Engineering
524 International Airport Rd.
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Mr. Rick Kentopp
Karolaska Community Association
Box 4-1875
Anchorage, AK 99509
Mr. Don Follows
SRA Box 1586
Anchorage, AK 99507
40
-------
Mr. Erv Martin
SRA Box 9373
Eagle River, AK
99577
Dee Lane
4434 East 5th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99504
Mr. Todd Miner
P. O. Box. 3657
Anchorage, AK 99510
Michelle Michaud
P. O. Box 4-1645
Anchorage, AK 99509
Ms. Kathryn Tubbs
1234 West Hillcrest Drive
Anchorage, AK 99503
Mr. Mark Premo
2905 West 35th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99503
Mr. Nels Kjelstead
Crews, Maclnnes & Hoffman
3812 Spenard Road, Suite 100
Anchorage, AK 99503
Ms. Nelda Warkentin
SRA Box 2060-W
Anchorage, AK 99507
Mr. Jim Swing
4401 Woronzof Drive
Anchorage, AK
Mr. Richard Pittenger
6602 Lakeway Drive
Anchorage, AK 99502
Mr. Mike Szyrnanski
SRA Box 1304 B
Anchorage, AK 99502
Mr. Ron Alleva
3216 Thompson Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99504
Mr. Al Carlson
Department of Natural Resources
323 East 45th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
Mr. Larry Hayden
Resource Development Council
Box 516
Anchorage, AK
Ms. Hope Reed
222 West 13th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
Ms. Jane Gray, AK PIRG
P. 0. Box 1093
Anchorage, AK 99510
Mr. Bob Fleming
SRA Box 2921
Wasilla, AK 99687
Mr. Andy Achilles
P. 0. Box 10-2154
Anchorage, AK 99511
Mr. Wayne Westberg, Chairman
Alaska Water Resources Conmittee
SRA Box 1559
Anchorage, AK 99507
Ms. Sue Brownfield
Huffman/0'Malley Council
SRA 1563-C
Anchorage, AK 99507
Sand Lake Branch Library
7015 Jewel Lake Road
Anchorage, AK 99502
Spenard Community Library
2739 C Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
ZJ Loussac Library
524 West 6th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
41
-------
Sampson Dimond Branch Library
Dimond Mall
Anchorage, AK 99507
Mountain View Branch Library
120 South Bragaw
Anchorage, AK 99508
Grandview Gardens Branch Library
1325 Primrose
Anchorage, AK 99504
Alaska Resources Library
701 C Street
Anchorage, AK 99513
42
-------
James B. Wright
Black & Veatch
1207 E. 45th Avenue, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80239
Paul Arneson
Nongame Coordinator
Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99502
John Pitcher
2839 Telequana, Apt. 1
Anchorage, AK 99503
Clark Smith
0. S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Bruce Phelps
Anchorage Planning Department
Pouch 6-650
Anchorage, AK 99502
Reford Reid
Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation
437 E Street, Suite 201
Anchorage, AK 99501
Ken Lauzen
Anchorage Telephone Utility
600 E. 38th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99503
Ted Rockwell
O. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Alaska District
P. O. Box 7002
Anchorage, AK 99510
Lance Trasky
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99502
Wayne Pichon
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1011 E. Tudor Road
Anchorage, AK 99502
Ray Blackman
Manager, Engineering & Planning
Anchorage Water & Sewer Utilities
3000 Arctic Boulevard
Anchorage, AK 99503
Rikki Fowler
Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation
437 E Street, Suite 201
Anchorage, AK 99501
Ted Rockwell
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Alaska District
p o. BOX 7002
Anchorage, AK 99510
Louis J. Bonito
Anchorage Water & Wastewater Utility
3000 Arctic Boulevard
Anchorage, AK 99503
James Lieb
Division of Game
Department of Fish and Game
Subport Building
"Juneau, AK 99801
Roger Harris
318 Cardinal Court
Mill Valley, CA 94944
Jon R. Nickles
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
7136 Terry Street
Anchorage, AK 99502
Eulalie Sullivan
Office of Coastal Management
Pouch AP
Juneau, AK 99811
Judy Stanek
Federation of Community Councils
801 West Firewood Lane
Anchorage, AK 99503
Sandra L. Christy
Ott Water Engineers
Building D, Suite 8
4790 Business Park Boulevard
Anchorage, AK 99503
Robert Rasmussen
Department of Health and
Environmental Protection
825 L Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Edward G. Burton
Burr, Pease & Kurtz
810 N Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Ron Kreizenbeck
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Alaska Operations Office
Pouch 0
Juneau, AK 99811
Ron Morris, Chief
National Marine Fisheries Service
701 C Street
Anchorage, AK 99513
District Engineer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Alaska District
P. O. Box 7002
Anchorage, AK 99510
Alaska Center for the Environment
1069 W. Sixth Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
43
-------
Weymouth Long
U. S. Soil Conservation Service
2221 E. Northern Lights Boulevard
Anchorage, AK 99504
Paul D. Arneson
Nongame Coordinator
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99502
George Wolfson
c/o Hanover Group
1100 Alma Street, Suite 200
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Bob Martin
Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation
437 E Street, Suite 201
Anchorage, AK 99501
Paula P. Easley
Resource Development Council
Box 516
Anchorage, AK 99510
Leslie L. Brattain, P.E.
Tryck Nyman & Hayes
740 I Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
William Carlson
5346 W. 73rd
Anchorage, AK 99502
Bill Ryan
U. S. Public Health Service
Box 7-741
Anchorage, AK 99510
R. David Black
Ott Water Engineers
Suite 8, Building D
4790 Business Park Boulevard
Anchorage, AK 99503
Tom Arminski
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99502
Debra Clausen
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
570 W. 53rd Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99502
Dick Hutson
Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility
3000 Arctic Boulevard
Anchorage, AK 99503
Butch West
Quadra Engineering
301 E. Fireweed Lane
Anchorage, AK 99503
Jeffrey Bowles
Central Alaska Utilities, Inc.
1301 E. 80th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99507
Carl Aragawa
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99502
Wendy Wolfe
Office of Coastal Management
Pouch AP
Juneau, AK 99811
Bill Donaldson
Marine Coastal Habitat Management
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99502
Bill Lawrence
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Alaska Operations Office.'
701 C Street, Box 19
Anchorage, AK 99513
Dan Crevensten
Municipality of Anchorage
Pouch 6-650
Anchorage, AK 99502
Eino A. Reinikka
1400 K Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Al Carson
Department of Natural Resources
323 E. 4th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
George F. Shaw
Retherford & Associates
Box 6410
Anchorage, AK 99502
Peg Tilestom
4780 Cambridge Way
Anchorage, AK 99503
Jean Elder
Environmental Evaluation
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Alaska District
P. O. Box 7002
Anchorage, AK 99510
Tim Brabets
U. S. Geological Survey
1209 Orca Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Jim Sweeney
Anchorage Telephone Utility
600 E. 38th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99503
Joel Grunewald
Anchorage Solid Waste Management
3500 E. Tudor Road
Anchorage, AK 99507
Ted Trueblood
Alaska Railroad
100 W. 1st Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
44
-------
George Franklet
Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Pouch O
Juneau, AK 99811
Ed Bangs
Kenai National Wildlife Refuge
U. S. Pish and Wildlife Service
Soldotna, AK 99669
Anchorage Air Pollution Control Agency
825 L Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Sharon 0. Richards
2306 Douglas Drive
Anchorage, AK 99503
Donald E. Wilson
Kinnetic Laboratories Incorporated
519 W. 8th Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
M. Scott Christy, Ph.D.
R. A. Kreig & Associates, Inc.
1503 W. 33rd Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99503
Sidney Clark
1506 W. 36th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99503
Robert Kubick
Royal Krest Construction Company
621 W. Dimond Boulevard
Anchorage, AK 99502
Giles McDonald
HALO
P. O. Box 10-096
Anchorage, AK 99511
Richard Pittenger
6602 Lakeway Drive
Anchorage, AK 99502
Jose Vincente
4335 Laurel
Anchorage, AK
99507
Consuela Wassink
BLM Public Information Officer
P. 0. Box 1159
Anchorage, AK 99503
Franz Vail
AEE
810 W. 72nd Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99502
William J. Schaedel
Anchorage School District
4600 De Barr Road
Anchorage, AK 99504
Martha Woodward
•Harding-Lawson Associates
624 W. International Airport Road
Anchorage, AK 99502
Charles E. Hawkes
Regional Architect
Box 4-2540
University of Alaska
Anchorage, AK 99509
John E. Lobdell, Ph.D.
Environmental Archaeologist
SRA - Box 1026C
Anchorage, AK 99502
Marilyn Barker
2440 Lake George Street
Anchorage, AK 99504
Clifton Eames
National Wildlife Federation
835 D Street, Suite 204
Anchorage, AK 99501
Bill Lloyd
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 7002
Anchorage, AK 99510
Wayne Pichon
4550 Edinburgh Drive
Anchorage, AK 99502
Dr. Lidia Selkregg
Box 2217
Anchorage, AK 99504
Harry Wassink
1340 W. 23rd Avenue, Apt. A
Anchorage, AK 99504
45
-------
DEIS NOTIFICATION LIST
Andy Achilles
P. 0. Box 10-2154
Anchorage, AK 99511
Ron Alleva
3216 Thompson Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99504
Paul B. Baer
3622 Wesleyan Drive
Anchorage, AK 99504
Jo Blackman
3958 Reka
Anchorage, AK
99504
Tim Buckley
SRA Box 4005-B
Anchorage, AK 99502
Kenneth Cannon
CCC Architects
431 W. 7th Avenue, Suite 100
Anchorage, AK 99501
Don Follows
RSA Box 1586
Anchorage, AK 99507
Bill Gee
3201 W. 48th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99503
Jane Gray
AK PIRG
P. 0. Box 1093
Anchorage, AK 99501
Debby Johnston
914 W. 23rd Avenue, Apt. D
Anchorage, AK 99503
Joe P. Josephson
425 G Street, Suite 930
Anchorage, AK 99501
Rick Kentopp
Box 4-1875
Anchorage, AK
99509
John Klinger
5828 Winding Way
Anchorage, AK 99504
Paul Larson
ATTN: AF2T-FE-EQ
HQ, 172d INF BDE (AK)
Ft. Richardson, AK 99505
Ben Marsh
2926 Drake Drive
Anchorage, AK 99504
Christina Matallanna
917 E. 20th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
Larry Albert
P. O. Box 3-3934 ECB
Anchorage, AK 99501
Jane Angvik
1538 Orca Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Robert Baldwin
"4907 Roger Road
Anchorage, AK 99507
Sue Brownfield
SRA 1563-C
Anchorage, AK 99507
Helen .Butcher
P. 0. Box 4-1203
Anchorage, AK 99509
Fred Chiei
P. 0. Box 148
Anchorage, AK 99501.
Bob Fleming
SRA Box 2921
Wasilla, AK 99687
Per Fossum
ASTS
420 L Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Mike Holloway
Rainbow viy.
Indian, AK 99540
Dale Johannes
7731 Anne Circle
Anchorage, AK 99504
Toni Jones
310 K Street, Suite 407
Anchorage, AK 99501
Nels Kjelstead
Crews, Maclnnes & Hoffman
3812 Spenard Road, Suite 100
Anchorage, AK 99503
Dee Lane
4434 E. 5th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99504
Mr. T. Lovebit
SRA Box 373-K
Anchorage, AK 99507
Greg Magee
816 N. Hoyt, A
Anchorage, AK 99504
Carol Maser
2526 Glenwood
Anchorage, AK
99504
46
-------
Roger McShea
308 G Street, Suite 201
Anchorage, AK 99501
Michelle Michaud
P. O. Box 4-1645
Anchorage, AK 99509
Todd Miner
P. O. Box 3687
Anchorage, AK 99510
Rick Mystrom
2727 Iliamna Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Roberta Piper
201 E. 16th Avenue, Apt.
Anchorage, AK 99501
312
Mark Premo
2905 W. 35th
Anchorage, AK
99503
Don Smith
3002 Spenard Road, #403
Anchorage, AK 99503
Kim Sundberg
SRA Box 1720-E
Anchorage, AK 99507
Kathryn Tubbs
1234 W. Hillerest Drive
Anchorage, AK 99503
Nelda Warkentin
SR Box 2060-W
Anchorage, AK 99507
William F. Meehan, Jr.
2941 Madison Way
Anchorage, AK 99504
Bill Miernyk
3910 Laun Lane
Anchorage, AK 99504
Ruth Moe
SRA Box 1547-R
Anchorage, AK 99507
Raymond Pearce
7944 Highlander Drive
Anchorage, AK 99502
James M. Powell
2143 Churchill Drive
Anchorage, AK 99503
Hope Reed
222 W. 13th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
Cheryl L. Stewart
1247 Richardson Vista,
Anchorage, AK 99501
Mike Szymanski
SRA Box 1304-B
Anchorage, AK 99502
Dave Walsh
3104 Brookside
Anchorage, AK 99503
#81
47
-------
REFERENCES
Gosselink, J. G., E. P. Odum, and R. M. Pope. 1973. The
value of the tidal marsh. Center for Wetland Resources,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. 30 pp.
Nixon, S. W. 1980. Between coastal marshes and coastal waters -
a review of twenty years of speculation and research
on the role of salt marshes in estuarine productivity
and water chemistry. In: P. Hamilton and K. B. MacDonald
(eds.). Estuarine and Wetland Processes. Plenum Publ.
Co., New York. Pp. 437-525.
Sanville, W. 1981. Productivity response of an Alaskan wetland
plant community to nutrient enrichment, Draft report.
EPA Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis.
22 pp.
Schwartz, L. N. 1982. The effects of sewage on a Lake Champlain
wetland, Vermont. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 63:155.
48
------- |