3.0 Affected Environment - Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Knik Arm Crossing DraftFinal EIS Affected Environment 3.6.1.2 Agency and tribal consultation SHPO was invited and agreed to participate in the NEPA process as a cooperating agency (43 C.F.R. § 1501.6). Consultation under Section 106 was also initiated with SHPO, and the following were invited to be consulting parties under 36 C.F.R. § 800.3(c): Federally Recognized Alaska Native Governments and Native villages and regional corporations (Native Village of Eklutna; Eklutna Incorporated; Knik Tribal Council, Knikatnu Inc.; Native Village of Tyonek; Tyonek Native Corporation; Chickaloon Village Traditional Council; Chickaloon-Moose Creek Native Association; and the Cook Inlet Region, Inc.), the Municipality of Anchorage Certified Local Government (CLG), the Mat-Su Borough CLG, the Government Hill Community Council, the Chugiak-Eagle River Historical Society, the Wasilla-Knik-Willow Creek Historical Society, and the Cook Inlet Historical Society. The general public was also invited to participate through a series of public scoping meetings. SHPO, Federally Recognized Alaska Native Governments and organizations, and the two CLGs have participated throughout the process. Native Village of Eklutna Resolution No. 2005–24, Preservation of Historical and Cultural Resources, is provided in Appendix D. The Knik Tribal Council’s Historic and Cultural Protection Ordinance 2006-02 is also found in Appendix D. 3.6.1.3 Identification of historic properties Stephen R. Braund & Associates (SRB&A) completed an inventory and evaluation of historic properties on behalf of FHWA for compliance with 36 C.F.R. § 800.4 (SRB&A 2006; Knik Arm Crossing, Section 106 Report, Volumes I and II, 2006). SRB&A conducted literature reviews for the Study Area, reviewed Alaska Heritage Resource Survey files (AHRS) for previously identified sites and then requested site numbers for documentation of properties within the general vicinity of the Anchorage approach, and conducted library, archival, and oral interviews to obtain further information about historic properties in the Study Area. Throughout the scoping process SRB&A conducted windshield surveys of various Anchorage approaches and completed a field inventory and testing program on both proposed alternatives in the Mat-Su . Site-specific inventories of the area of potential effect (APE) for the Degan and Erickson Alternatives were then completed. FHWA consulted with the SHPO, 32 who requested additional information regarding the possibility of establishing a historic district. SRB&A then inventoried all of the 281 buildings on Government Hill. SRB&A also conducted extensive interviews with elders from the Knik Tribal Council and Native Village of Eklutna for a Dena’ina fish camp called Tak’at (ANC-01337) and, with their assistance, prepared a traditional cultural property (TCP) recommendation for a determination of eligibility for the National Register (SRB&A 2006, Vol. I). Permission for access to complete inventories on Elmendorf land was not granted. If the proposed project is approved with a USDOT easement or title transfer, those portions of the Study Areas on Elmendorf property will be inventoried for Section 106 compliance prior to construction. 32 In this document, the noun form “the SHPO” means “the State Historic Preservation Officer.” 3-134 12/18/07
Knik Arm Crossing DraftFinal EIS Affected Environment 3.6.1.4 Evaluation of historic significance 36 C.F.R. § 800.4(c) requires that the agency official 1) apply the National Register criteria to properties identified in the APE, in consultation with the SHPO and federally recognized tribes that may attach religious and cultural significance, and 2) determine whether a property is eligible. The criteria, set out in 36 C.F.R. Part 63, are: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and (a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. National Register Bulletin 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties, provides further instruction on how to apply the criteria to TCPs. Examples of properties possessing such significance include (among others) locations where a community or members of a community have traditionally carried out cultural practices or beliefs important in maintaining their historic identity. 3.6.1.5 Determination of eligibility FHWA applied the National Register criteria to the properties identified by SRB&A, in consultation with the SHPO and appropriate Native Alaska governments, and made the following determinations. 3.6.1.5.1 The Mat-Su The field inventory and testing program found no historic properties (SRB&A 2006, Vol. I); therefore, no identified historic properties would be affected by the implementation of any alternative presented in this Draft EIS. 3.6.1.5.2 Anchorage SRB&A inventoried all of the 281 properties on Government Hill (SRB&A 2006). Government Hill had two historic properties, the Brown’s Point Cottages, ANC-0048 and ANC-1205, already listed in the National Register. FHWA, 33 in consultation with SHPO, has determined that there are four historic districts and six additional individual properties that are eligible for the National Register and therefore meet the criteria for protection under 33 Personal communication, Edrie Vinson, letter to Judith Bittner, June 23, 2006 (see Appendix D). 12/18/07 3-135
Page 1:
Knik Arm Crossing DraftFinal EIS Af
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49:
Page 53:
Page 57:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99:
Page 103:
Page 107:
Page 111:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127:
Page 131 and 132: Knik Arm Crossing DraftFinal EIS Af
Page 139: Knik Arm Crossing DraftFinal EIS Af
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307:
show all

3.0 Affected Environment - Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?