Exhibit B-4 Egan-Yandukin_PEL_Final.pdf

Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study Report

Egan Drive and Yandukin Drive Intersection Improvements IRIS Program No. SFHWY00079 Federal Project No. 0003208

Juneau, Alaska August 2021

Prepared by:

The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by DOT&PF pursuant to 23 USC 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated November 3, 2017 and executed by FHWA and DOT&PF.

This page is intentionally left blank.

Egan Drive and Yandukin Drive Intersection Improvements Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study Report IRIS Program No. SFHWY00079 / Federal Project No. 0003208

This PEL Report for Egan Drive and Yandukin Drive Intersection Improvements was carried out by DOT&PF pursuant to 23 USC 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated November 3, 2017, and executed by FHWA and DOT&PF.

The Statewide Environmental Office confirms this PEL study process has followed DOT&PF guidance, has reviewed the Egan Drive and Yandukin Drive Intersection Improvements Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study Report, and concurs with its findings. The Statewide Environmental Office also concurs that the Final Report meets the requirements of 23 USC 168, including the ten conditions outlined in 23 USC 168(d).

Douglas Kolwaite, Statewide Environmental Program Manager Date

The following are in concurrence with the findings of the Egan Drive and Yandukin Drive Intersection Improvements Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study Report.

This PEL study was conducted in accordance with the provisions of 23 CFR 450.212.

Marie Heidemann, Southcoast Region Planning Chief Date

Benjamin Storey, Southcoast Region Environmental Manager Date

Kirk Miller, Southcoast Region Preconstruction Engineer Date

Lance Mearig, Southcoast Region Director Date

8/17/2021

08/17/2021

Acknowledgments

James Brown / DOT&PF / Project Manager Taylor Horne / HDR / Project Manager and Design Group Chief Mark Dalton / HDR / Contract Manager

David Epstein / DOT&PF / Regional Traffic Gina McAfee / HDR / Senior Environmental Planner and Safety Engineer Laurie Cummings / HDR / Senior Transportation

Benjamin Storey / DOT&PF / Regional Environmental Planner Manager Linda Smith / HDR / Senior Environmental Planner

Christy Gentemann / DOT&PF / Environmental Analyst Summer Hudson / HDR / Graphic Designer Joseph Galgano / DOT&PF / Environmental Analyst Aurah Landau / HDR / Senior Strategic Ryan Bare / DOT&PF / Environmental Analyst Communications Coordinator Scott Gray / DOT&PF / Maintenance and Josie Wilson / HDR / Strategic Communications

Operations Superintendent Director Verne Skagerberg / DOT&PF / Southcoast Region Alice Rademacher / HDR / Strategic Communications

Planning Chief (ret.) Coordinator Marie Heidemann / DOT&PF / Southcoast Region Scott Norton / HDR / Senior GIS Specialist

Planning Chief Nikki Wray / HDR / Project Coordinator Joanne Schmidt / DOT&PF / Planner Chase Quinn / HDR / Project Coordinator Jonathan Weaver / DOT&PF / Engineer Elizabeth Grover / HDR / Technical Editor Nathan Purves / DOT&PF / Engineer Jeanne Bowie / Kinney Engineering / Richelle Martens / DOT&PF / Engineering Assistant Senior Traffic Engineer Gregory Weinert / DOT&PF / Chief ROW Agent James Smith / Kinney Engineering / Transportation Hans Pedersen / DOT&PF / Land Survey Manager Engineer Angelo Saggiomo / DOT&PF / Publications Specialist Aiza Miguel / Kinney Engineering / Junior Sam Dapcevich / DOT&PF / Public Information Officer Transportation Engineer Mike Lesmann / DOT&PF / Legislative Liaison Jessi Miranda / Kinney Engineering / Civil Engineer Douglas Kolwaite / DOT&PF / Statewide Environmental Michael Horntvedt / Parametrix / Senior Strategic

Manager Advisor Jill Taylor / DOT&PF / Statewide NEPA Assignment

Program Manager Emily Haynes / DOT&PF / NEPA Program Manager

The DOT&PF would like to thank the members of the Community Focus Group and Agency Workgroup for their generous participation and engagement.

Community Focus Group

Sgt. Nick Zito / Alaska State Troopers Trp. Christopher Umbs / Alaska State Troopers Roscoe Bicknell IV / Bicknell, Inc.

Richard Peterson / Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska William Ware / Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska Royal Hill / Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska John Hawkins / Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska Michelle Hale / City and Borough of Juneau / Assembly Member

Richard Etheridge / City and Borough of Juneau, Capital City Fire/Rescue Ed Foster / City and Borough of Juneau, Capital Transit Hal Kulm / City and Borough of Juneau, Capital Transit Denise Guizio / City and Borough of Juneau, Capital Transit Alex Pierce / City and Borough of Juneau, Community Development Department Irene Gallion / City and Borough of Juneau, Community Development Department Patty Wahto / City and Borough of Juneau, Juneau International Airport David Campbell / City and Borough of Juneau, Juneau Police Department Lt. Scott Erickson / City and Borough of Juneau, Juneau Police Department Mike Stoll / Fred Meyer Charlie Williams / Greater Juneau Chamber of Commerce Mike Satre / Greater Juneau Chamber of Commerce Mike Rose / Juneau Christian Center Rob Welton / Juneau Freewheelers

Agency Workgroup

Barbara Trost / Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air Quality Bill O’Connell / Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Contaminated Sites Program Adeyemi Alimi / Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air Quality Terri Lomax / Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water Jesse Lindgren / Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Habitat Kate Kanouse / Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Habitat Judith Bittner / Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Office of History and Archaeology Sarah Meitl / Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Office of History and Archaeology Lee Cole / Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water Chris Carpeneti / Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land & Water Irene Gallion / City and Borough of Juneau, Community Development Department Alex Pierce / City and Borough of Juneau, Community Development Department Benjamin Soiseth / U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Delana Wilks / U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Matthew Brody / U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Randy Vigil / U.S. Army Corps of Engineers James King / U.S. Forest Service Don MacDougall / U.S. Forest Service i | P a g e

Contents Executive Summary..............................................................................................................E-1

PEL Study Process ...........................................................................................................E-1

Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................E-2

Range of Alternatives ........................................................................................................E-3

Alternatives Screening ......................................................................................................E-4

Summary of Recommended Alternative.............................................................................E-6

Environmental Overview ...................................................................................................E-9

Public and Agency Involvement.........................................................................................E-9

Implementation Plan .......................................................................................................E-10

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Project Background/History..................................................................................... 1-1

1.1.1 Study Area ...................................................................................................... 1-2

1.1.2 Area Wide Transportation Plan (CBJ 2001) ...................................................... 1-4

1.1.3 West Egan Drive Corridor Study (DOT&PF 2003)............................................. 1-4

1.1.4 Juneau Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (CBJ 2009) ................................... 1-6

1.1.5 Comprehensive Plan of the City & Borough of Juneau (CBJ 2013) ................... 1-6

1.1.6 Lemon Creek Area Plan (CBJ 2018) ................................................................ 1-7

1.1.7 Traffic Analysis and Alternative Concepts Report (DOT&PF 2019).................... 1-7

1.2 Public Notice of Intent ............................................................................................. 1-8

1.3 General Process ..................................................................................................... 1-8

2. Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Process Followed to Develop Purpose and Need .................................................... 2-2

2.2 Key Data Used ....................................................................................................... 2-3

2.2.1 Crash Data ...................................................................................................... 2-3

2.2.2 Current Transportation Grid and Community Planning Documents.................... 2-4

2.2.3 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ......................................................... 2-5

2.2.4 Existing and Forecasted Traffic Volumes.......................................................... 2-6

2.3 Accepted Purpose and Need Statement .................................................................. 2-7

2.4 Statewide Environmental Office Concurrence .......................................................... 2-8

3. Alternatives Considered and Screening Process ............................................................ 3-1

3.1 Process Followed ................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Public and Agency Input ......................................................................................... 3-3 ii | P a g e

3.3 HSIP Interim Action ................................................................................................ 3-5

3.4 Range of Alternatives Considered ........................................................................... 3-7

3.5 Two-level Screening Process Overview................................................................... 3-9

3.6 Level 1 Screening Process and Results .................................................................. 3-9

3.6.1 Screening Results ......................................................................................... 3-11

3.6.2 Alternatives Eliminated .................................................................................. 3-15

3.7 Level 2 Screening Process and Results ................................................................ 3-16

3.7.1 Screening Results ......................................................................................... 3-19

3.7.2 Alternatives Eliminated .................................................................................. 3-20

3.8 Recommended Alternative .................................................................................... 3-21

3.8.1 Partial Access Signalized Intersection and Glacier Lemon Spur Extension ...... 3-21

4. Environmental Setting and Consequences ..................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Process Followed ................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Public and Agency Input ......................................................................................... 4-1

4.3 By Resource........................................................................................................... 4-4

4.3.1 Floodplain/Drainage......................................................................................... 4-5

4.3.2 Water Quality................................................................................................... 4-6

4.3.3 Wetlands and Waters of the United States ....................................................... 4-7

4.3.4 Vegetation and Invasive Species ..................................................................... 4-9

4.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species and Wildlife............................................ 4-9

4.3.6 Historic, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources ................................ 4-11

4.3.7 Socioeconomic Characteristics and Environmental Justice ............................. 4-13

4.3.8 Transportation ............................................................................................... 4-16

4.3.9 Land Use....................................................................................................... 4-18

4.3.10 Economic and Right-of-Way........................................................................... 4-20

4.3.11 Recreation/Section 4(f) .................................................................................. 4-23

4.3.12 Visual ............................................................................................................ 4-27

4.3.13 Noise............................................................................................................. 4-28

4.3.14 Air Quality...................................................................................................... 4-29

4.3.15 Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................... 4-32

4.3.16 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4-33

4.4 Additional Data or Gaps to be Supplemented in NEPA .......................................... 4-34

4.4.1 Data Refinements/Outstanding Tasks ............................................................ 4-34 iii | P a g e

4.4.2 Agency Coordination ..................................................................................... 4-35

5. Public and Agency Involvement ..................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Goals of the Program.............................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Specific Techniques Used....................................................................................... 5-2

5.3 Membership in Groups............................................................................................ 5-4

5.3.1 Community Focus Group ................................................................................. 5-4

5.3.2 Agency Workgroup .......................................................................................... 5-4

5.4 Stakeholder Outreach Activities and Outcomes ....................................................... 5-5

5.4.1 Purpose and Need Statement .......................................................................... 5-5

5.4.2 Range of Alternatives, Screening Process, and Evaluation Criteria ................... 5-8

5.4.3 Level 1 Screening Results, Level 2 Screening Criteria and Process ................ 5-10

5.4.4 Level 2 Screening Results ............................................................................. 5-14

5.4.5 Public Review of Draft PEL Study Report ....................................................... 5-16

5.5 Outstanding Issues and Recommendations for Future Involvement ....................... 5-16

6. Implementation Plan ...................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Highway Safety Improvement Program Safety Improvement (No Build) ................... 6-1

6.2 Recommended Alternative Implementation Options................................................. 6-1

6.3 Anticipated NEPA Class of Action Determinations and NEPA Process..................... 6-4

6.4 Cost Estimates/Funding/STIP ................................................................................. 6-6

6.5 Schedule ................................................................................................................ 6-9

6.6 Next Steps and Responsibilities ............................................................................ 6-11

6.7 Unresolved Issues ................................................................................................ 6-12

List of Tables Table ES-1. Key Public and Agency Involvement Activities..................................................E-10 Table ES-2. Recommended Alternative Anticipated Class of Action.....................................E-12 Table ES-3. Recommended Alternative Cost Estimates ......................................................E-12 Table 3-1. Public and Agency Input Points and Responses ................................................... 3-4 Table 3-2. Alternatives Eliminated in Level 1 Screening....................................................... 3-15 Table 3-3. Level 2 Screening Results .................................................................................. 3-20 Table 3-4. Alternatives and Variants Eliminated in Level 2 Screening .................................. 3-20 Table 4-1. Summary of Public and Agency Input and Project Team Response to Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................................... 4-1 Table 4-2. Summary of Calculated Impacts to Resources ...................................................... 4-5 Table 4-3. Increase of Impervious Surface Added to the Study Area by Alternative ................ 4-7 iv | P a g e

Table 4-4. Approximate Wetland Impacts by Alternative ........................................................ 4-8 Table 4-5. Fish Stream Impacts .......................................................................................... 4-11 Table 4-6. Historic Sites in the Buffered Study Area ............................................................ 4-12 Table 4-7. Minority Population ............................................................................................ 4-14 Table 4-8. Low-income Population ...................................................................................... 4-14 Table 4-9. Plan Impacts ...................................................................................................... 4-20 Table 4-10. Property to be Acquired.................................................................................... 4-22 Table 4-11. Parks, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges in the Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 4-24 Table 4-12. Increase in Pavement Area Subject to Winter Sanding...................................... 4-31 Table 5-1. Outstanding Issues and Recommendations for Future Involvement..................... 5-16 Table 6-1. Recommended Alternative Anticipated Class of Action ......................................... 6-4 Table 6-2. Recommended Alternative Cost Estimates ........................................................... 6-6 Table 6-3. Implementation Options Possible Schedule ........................................................ 6-10 Table 6-4. Steps of Implementation Phase .......................................................................... 6-11 Table 6-5. Unresolved Issues ............................................................................................. 6-12

List of Figures Figure ES-1. Recommended Alternative: Partial Access Signal with Pedestrian Crossing and Glacier Lemon Spur Extension..............................................................................................E-8 Figure ES-2. Recommended Alternative Components that Address Each Need...................E-11 Figure 1-1. Egan Drive and Yandukin Drive Intersection Improvements PEL Study Area........ 1-3 Figure 1-2. Egan Drive and Yandukin Drive Intersection Improvements PEL Study Planning Approach ............................................................................................................................. 1-9 Figure 2-1. Purpose & Need Focus Areas ............................................................................. 2-1 Figure 2-2. Public and Agency Comments Informed the Purpose and Need........................... 2-2 Figure 2-3. Crash Severity Analysis, 2005–2017 ................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-4. Current Traffic Pattern......................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-5. Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ............................................................ 2-6 Figure 3-1. Alternatives Screening Process ........................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-2. Seasonal Speed Reduction Components of the HSIP Interim Action .................... 3-6 Figure 3-3. Left-turn Lane Median Striping and Offset Northbound Right-turn Lane Components of the HSIP Interim Action..................................................................................................... 3-7 Figure 3-4. Level 1 Screening Measures ............................................................................. 3-10 Figure 3-5. Level 1 Screening Results................................................................................. 3-12 Figure 3-6. Five Alternatives Moved into Level 2 Screening ................................................. 3-14 Figure 3-7. Level 2 Screening Measures ............................................................................. 3-17 Figure 3-8. Compatible Design Elements ............................................................................ 3-18 Figure 3-9. Recommended Alternative: Partial Access Signal with Pedestrian Crossing and Glacier Lemon Spur Extension............................................................................................ 3-22 Figure 4-1. Study Area Fish Use Map ................................................................................. 4-10 Figure 4-2. Juneau Capital Transit Route Map .................................................................... 4-17 v | P a g e

Figure 4-3. Zoning .............................................................................................................. 4-19 Figure 4-4. Property Boundaries ......................................................................................... 4-21 Figure 4-5. Mendenhall Valley Air Quality Maintenance Area ............................................... 4-30 Figure 4-6. Hazardous Materials Locations ......................................................................... 4-32 Figure 5-1. Open House #1 Comments by Category ............................................................. 5-8 Figure 5-2. Agency Workgroup and CFG Member Comments ............................................. 5-10 Figure 5-3. Open House #2 Comments by Category ........................................................... 5-13 Figure 5-4. Online Open House #2 Comments .................................................................... 5-13 Figure 6-1. Recommended Alternative Components that Address Each Need ....................... 6-2 Figure 6-2. PEL Study and STIP Planning Process ............................................................... 6-8 Figure 6-3. E-Y Intersection Improvements PEL Study Timeline ............................................ 6-9

List of Appendices Appendix A: PEL Questionnaire Appendix B: SEO Concurrence Communications Appendix C: Traffic Analysis and Alternative Concepts Report Appendix D: Public Notice: Public Open House (November 19, 2019) Appendix E: Interim Improvement Concepts White Paper Appendix F: Range of Alternatives White Paper Appendix G: Level 1 Screening Results White Paper Appendix H: Level 2 Screening Results White Paper Appendix I: Interim Action Strategies Summary and Comparison Appendix J: Environmental Overview Memorandum Appendix K: Agency Workgroup Meeting #1 Summary Appendix L: Community Focus Group Meeting #1 Summary Appendix M: Open House #1 Summary Appendix N: Agency Workgroup Meeting #2 Summary Appendix O: Community Focus Group Meeting #2 Summary Appendix P: Agency Workgroup Meeting #3 Summary Appendix Q: Community Focus Group Meeting #3 Summary Appendix R: Open House #2 Summary Appendix S: Agency Workgroup Meeting #4 Summary Appendix T: Community Focus Group Meeting #4 Summary Appendix U: Summary of Public Input on the Draft PEL Study Report Appendix V: References vi | P a g e

Acronyms ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources AHRS Alaska Heritage Resources Survey APE Area of Potential Effects BMP Best Management Practice(s) CBJ City and Borough of Juneau CE Categorical Exclusion CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFG Community Focus Group CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGP Construction General Permit COA Class of Action DOT&PF Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order E-Y Egan Drive and Yandukin Drive EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems LMP Limited Maintenance Plan LOS Level of Service MOU Memorandum of Understanding NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetlands Inventory PEL Planning and Environmental Linkages PI Public Involvement PIP Public Involvement Plan vii | P a g e

PM10 Particulate Matter with a Diameter of 10 micrometers Refuge Mendenhall Wetlands State Game Refuge ROW Right-of-way SEAL Trust Southeast Alaska Land Trust SEO Statewide Environmental Office SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SR Southcoast Region STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program TDM Travel Demand Management TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UST Underground Storage Tank VPD Vehicles per Day WEDCOR West Egan Drive Corridor Study viii | P a g e

ES-1 | P a g e

Executive Summary The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) is planning improvements to the Egan Drive and Yandukin Drive (E-Y) intersection in Juneau, Alaska, in response to concerns about safety and the need for an alternate driving route in the event of a crash on Egan Drive. DOT&PF is using a Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) study to define issues associated with the E-Y intersection to develop potential solutions for enhancing the safety, connectivity, and reliability of the corridor as a whole. The study area is approximately 1.5 miles long and 0.25 mile wide. The western terminus is approximately

0.25 mile west of the Glacier-Nugget intersection, while the eastern terminus is approximately

0.6 mile east of the E-Y intersection.

PEL Study Process The E-Y intersection PEL study started in June 2019. The project team, composed of DOT&PF staff and a consultant team, generally met every week over the course of the project.

As required by planning regulations (23 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 450.210 and 450.316), public and agency involvement is an important part of PEL studies. During the PEL study, local government, state, and federal agency representatives were engaged through four Agency Workgroup meetings. Key stakeholders, including business owners, tribal representatives, and elected officials, were engaged through four Community Focus Group (CFG) meetings. The general public was involved through two Public Open House meetings, a project website, and other outreach activities.

The process consisted of several steps, including alternatives development, pre-screening (or fatal f law screening), and Level 1 and Level 2 alternatives screening. The steps in this process can generally be described as follows:

1. The draft purpose and need statement was generated using data and input from stakeholders, agencies, and the public. The needs and goals described in the purpose and need statement were used as a basis for designing the alternatives and generating screening measures. The purpose and need statement was finalized after modifications were made in response to public and agency feedback.

2. An initial list of engineering treatments was generated by the project team, focused on addressing the project needs of improving safety and mobility for drivers and non-motorized uses at the E-Y intersection and providing an alternate driving route.

3. The list of treatments was used to generate 15 alternatives that were forwarded into the Level 1 Screening process. Treatments that were not reasonable or feasible, or did not adequately address a project need, were not used in the range of alternatives (see Section 3.4).

4. Concurrently, the project team identif ied an immediate need to improve safety as quickly as possible at the E-Y intersection. Because implementing any recommended alternative from this PEL study could take several years, the project team looked for other ways to quickly implement a safety improvement at the intersection. The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) was identif ied as one way to potentially fund and

ES-2 | P a g e implement these improvements on an expedited timeframe. The project team developed a set of low-cost, effective treatments to improve safety that was funded, and will be designed and constructed as a separate HSIP project (see Section 3.3). These improvements would be permanent.

5. Level 1 screening measures were developed to qualitatively evaluate each alternative, focusing on how well the design met the project needs, goals, and other social and environmental considerations. The screening measures were established in cooperation with stakeholders and using public input gathered during the first Public Open House on November 19, 2019. The Level 1 Screening process is discussed in Section 3.6.

6. From the 15 alternatives evaluated using the Level 1 Screening measures, the top five scoring alternatives were brought forward into the Level 2 Screening process.

7. Level 2 Screening measures were developed, using a more quantitative approach that used traffic modeling software and traffic engineering best practices to evaluate how well each of the five alternatives performed against each other. Screening measures were again based on project needs, goals, and other social and environmental considerations, as informed by stakeholders and public input. The Level 2 Screening process is discussed in Section 3.7.

8. Applying the Level 2 Screening measures to the five alternatives during the Level 2 Screening process resulted in the top scoring alternative being identified as the Recommended Alternative: the Partial Access Signalized Intersection with a protected pedestrian crossing and Glacier Lemon Spur Extension. The Recommended Alternative is discussed in Section 3.8.

At f ive points during the PEL study development, concurrence on certain work products and decisions was obtained from the DOT&PF Statewide Environmental Office (SEO; see Appendix B for concurrence communications). The DOT&PF SEO administers the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Assignment Program and is crucial in the development of PEL studies as DOT&PF has assumed the duties of FHWA with regards to adopting components of a PEL study into the NEPA process.

Purpose and Need The purpose and need statement was developed during this PEL study in a way that allows it to be used in the subsequent NEPA processes for any project that results from this study.

Throughout the initial phase of this PEL study, members of the Agency Workgroup, CFG, and public participated in identifying needs at the intersection and were provided the opportunity to comment on the draft purpose and need statement. Data reviewed to develop the purpose and need statement included crash data, the current transportation grid, existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities, existing and forecasted traffic volumes, and community plans. See Chapter 2 Purpose and Need for more details on the purpose and need development process.

ES-3 | P a g e

The accepted purpose and need statement for this PEL study is as follows:

The purpose of the Egan Drive and Yandukin Drive (E-Y) Intersection Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study is to identify ways to improve transportation safety for all users. The secondary purposes are to identify ways to improve mobility and route diversity in the transportation grid, improve access and mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists, and maintain traffic capacity and flow through the E-Y intersection and the surrounding area.

Transportation improvements will address the following needs:

• Safety: The traveling public has expressed concerns regarding intersection safety.

Crash frequency at this intersection is similar to the statewide average for similar intersections. Data show that out of a total of 86 crashes between 2005 and 2017, 7 involved major injuries. While there have been no fatalities at the intersection, nearly 48 percent of all crashes involved some sort of injury.

• Alternate route in the event of crashes: Motorists traveling between the Mendenhall Valley and downtown are limited to using a single roadway, Egan Drive, for travel.

Juneau businesses rely on the intersection as a vital component of the connection between downtown, Juneau International Airport, Mendenhall Valley, and points further out the road. When an accident occurs on Egan Drive, the lack of an alternate route directly affects travel time reliability, particularly during peak travel times. The lack of an alternate route results in area-wide congestion and traffic delays when collisions occur and increases overall perception of the crash rate and severity at the intersection.

• Non-motorized access: The nearest controlled crossing of Egan Drive for pedestrians and bicyclists is 0.75 mile north from the E-Y intersection. Bicyclists and pedestrians unwilling to follow the lengthy, circuitous path often cross Egan Drive at Yandukin Drive, which is illegal and unsafe.

Potential improvements to the E-Y intersection should meet these additional community goals:

• Provide improvements that are consistent with approved land use plans and ordinances

• Consider designs that maintain or improve access to and visibility of businesses

• Transportation improvements should support opportunities for economic development and support planned future land uses

• Seek to minimize increases in vehicle delay, especially during the peak morning and evening commuting periods, to maintain the high mobility function of the corridor

Range of Alternatives The alternatives development process began with two project team workshops (held April 8 and 15, 2020) held to outline specific traffic management and geometric improvements that would address the project purpose and need, and to discuss combinations of treatments to create alternatives. During these workshops, the project team developed a list of treatments that were then combined to create build alternatives. This information was presented to the Agency Workgroup meeting on June 30, 2020, and the CFG meeting on July 1, 2020. Afterwards, refinements were made in the alternatives, including adding compatible elements to some

ES-4 | P a g e alternatives so they would better meet the purpose and need. The refined alternatives were presented to the Agency Workgroup on August 20, 2020, and the CFG on August 21, 2020.

Based on the workshop results and stakeholder input, the project team developed 15 stand-alone build alternatives for consideration (see Section 3.4 for a list of the alternatives considered; see Appendix F Range of Alternatives White Paper for a complete description of each alternative).

Alternatives Screening The alternatives screening process was designed to initially consider a wide range of transportation options, then screen the alternatives to identify those that best address project needs. See Chapter 3 Alternatives Considered and Screening Process for more information on the alternatives development and screening process. The screening process consisted of two levels:

Level 1: Identified which alternatives met the project’s purpose and need, and qualitatively assessed each alternative’s impacts to environmental, social, and economic considerations in comparison to the No Build alternative. The five top-ranking build alternatives were advanced into the next level of refinement and screening.

Level 2: Used more detailed engineering and traffic modeling analyses along with quantitative calculations of approximate environmental consequences to compare the performance of the five build alternatives against each other and against the No Build alternative. The top performing alternative was identif ied as the Recommended Alternative.

Level 1 Screening

Level 1 screening measures were developed initially by the project team using comments gathered during the first Open House. Draft Level 1 Screening measures were presented to the Agency Workgroup on June 30, 2020, and CFG on July 1, 2020. Comments received from those groups were incorporated into the final Level 1 Screening measures, presented in Section 3.6.

The 15 build alternatives (plus the No Build alternative) from the Range of Alternatives White Paper (Appendix F) were screened and ranked using the Level 1 Screening measures. Five alternatives advanced to Level 2 Screening:

• Mobility Alternative (HSIP Interim Action)1

• Partial Access Signalized Intersection

• Full Access Signalized Intersection

1 This was termed the HSIP Interim Action in the Level 1 Screening Results White Paper (Appendix G) and stakeholder outreach. Later in the PEL study process, this alternative was renamed as the “Mobility Alternative” to avoid confusion with the separate HSIP Interim Action project, which is included in the No Build alternative for this PEL study. The Mobility Alternative focused on adding compatible elements to the HSIP Interim Action project to meet the needs for an alternate driving route and non-motorized access improvements.

ES-5 | P a g e

• Two Signalized T-intersections

• Diamond Interchange

These alternatives scored higher than the ten alternatives that were not advanced to the next level of screening.

Level 2 Screening

Level 2 screening was a more in-depth, quantitative ranking of alternatives in comparison to each other and to the No Build alternative. The screening measures used during this process were based on project purpose and need as well as environmental, social, and economic factors, as presented in Section 3.7 and further described in the Level 2 Screening Results White Paper (Appendix H).

Two variants of each alternative were analyzed during Level 2 Screening, each adding a compatible design element. One variant added the median crossover element to each build alternative,2 and the other variant included a two-way frontage road to the Glacier-Nugget intersection (Glacier Lemon Spur Extension) element to each build alternative. By adding these variants, the analysis conducted during the Level 2 Screening process verified that each build alternative was paired with a viable method for reducing delay when a crash occurs by providing an alternate route. Two compatible elements that could be added to the build alternatives were also analyzed: a pedestrian bridge over Egan Drive and transit stop relocation. These elements were analyzed for their effect on pedestrian access, comfort, safety, and equity in the context of the Level 2 Screening measures.

While the project team was conducting the Level 2 Screening process, they learned that:

• Median crossover traffic control measures could not be implemented quickly enough to provide alternate driving route benefits during crashes on Egan Drive. Therefore, they were eliminated from consideration because they are not reasonable.

• The compatible element that is a frontage road (Glacier-Lemon Spur) extended to the Glacier-Nugget intersection was added to each alternative design as a way to meet the alternative route need.

• Constructing an elevated pedestrian bridge (also known as a pedestrian overpass) over Egan Drive meets the needs for safety and non-motorized accessibility, provides benefits for the pedestrian and bicycling community, and is compatible with guidelines in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Therefore, the pedestrian bridge was added to each alternative design for evaluation purposes. Each design also functions with at-grade pedestrian crossings, with reduced benefits to non-motorized users compared to the pedestrian bridge but improved benefits compared to the No Build alternative.

• Each design is compatible with keeping the existing transit stops; no bus stop changes are necessary. Coordination with Capital Transit should continue during future design development.

2 The exception is the Two Signalized T-Intersections alternative, which would inherently allow additional routes when there is a crash without the median crossover treatment.

ES-6 | P a g e

• Acquiring right-of-way (ROW) from the Juneau International Airport is challenging.

• The private property parcels in the southwest quadrant of the E-Y intersection were sold, some of the new owners are seeking permits for construction, and other new owners are constructing improvements on their properties.

The Partial Access Signalized Intersection alternative scored the highest among the alternatives that met the project purpose and need, with acceptable impacts to ROW, wetlands, and vegetation. While the Full Access Signalized Intersection and Diamond Interchange alternatives also met purpose and need with acceptable impacts, the Partial Access Signalized Intersection had several advantages compared to the other two top-scoring alternatives. The Partial Access Signalized Intersection alternative has less wetland impacts than the Diamond Interchange alternative and fewer ROW, stormwater, and air quality impacts than the Full Access Signalized Intersection and Diamond Interchange alternatives. The Partial Access Signalized Intersection alternative is less complex, which means there would be less impacts to the traveling public during construction, and construction would be for a shorter period. The overall costs of the Partial Access Signalized Intersection alternative are less than the other two top-scoring alternatives. The overall costs for the benefit provided by the Partial Access Signalized Intersection alternative are more consistent with optimizing the system performance within statewide planning budgets.

Summary of Recommended Alternative The Partial Access Signalized Intersection with a protected pedestrian crossing and Glacier Lemon Spur Extension is the Recommended Alternative based on the alternatives screening process used for this PEL process. This alternative scored the highest among the alternatives that met the project purpose and need while having acceptable impacts to ROW, wetlands, and vegetation. This alternative was also considered more cost effective as it meets the project needs at a reduced cost as compared to the interchange.

The Partial Access Signalized Intersection alternative is composed of three main components that each help meet a primary or secondary need for the project:

• Driving safety is improved through the signalization of existing left-turn movements at the E-Y intersection with other intersection improvements;

• Pedestrian safety is improved through construction of a protected pedestrian crossing, either an at-grade crossing or a pedestrian bridge across Egan Drive; and

• An alternate route in the event of crashes on Egan Drive is provided by extending Glacier-Lemon Spur Road to the Glacier-Nugget intersection.

The project team determined that impacts to the Juneau International Airport property and private properties near Honsinger Pond were critical factors in identifying the Recommended Alternative because acquiring the ROW needed for the Full Access Signalized Intersection and Diamond Interchange alternatives could drastically impact new development planned for that area, which would have socioeconomic impacts that were not considered in the Level 2 Screening measures. Furthermore, acquiring land from the airport is complicated and time-

ES-7 | P a g e consuming (see discussion of Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] approval in Section 4.3.10).

The Partial Access Signalized Intersection alternative does not impact these properties, while the Full Access Signalized Intersection and Diamond Interchange alternatives do impact these properties.

Figure ES-1 depicts the Partial Access Signalized Intersection preliminary planning concept.

ES-8 | P a g e

Figure ES-1. Recommended Alternative: Partial Access Signal with Pedestrian Crossing and Glacier Lemon Spur Extension

ES-9 | P a g e

Environmental Overview The project team conducted a high-level overview of the existing environmental setting, potential impacts, mitigation, and stakeholder concerns for the alternatives (and variants) that were analyzed as part of the alternatives screening process. The impacts discussed for each resource are based on conceptual-level design and available data; no fieldwork was conducted to assess existing conditions or gather resource data. As the design is advanced and refined during the subsequent NEPA and preliminary design processes, alternative-specific impacts may change. See Chapter 4 Environmental Overview and Appendix J Environmental Overview Memorandum for more information.

Public and Agency Involvement Planning regulations (23 CFR 450.316 and 210) relevant to public and agency involvement were followed for this PEL study.

The project team created an advisory group, the CFG, comprising 22 members of the public who contributed meaningful and substantive feedback outside of the open houses. This CFG helped the project team’s understanding of the community’s needs and concerns during the PEL study. An Agency Workgroup was also created to engage 18 representatives of regulatory agencies and divisions, the local municipality, and service providers in discussions about the project and affected resources, as well as solicit feedback that could be used during the PEL study. Two public open houses were held to present information on the PEL study and gather public comments. Public comment periods lasted 30 days.

Key public and agency involvement activities that occurred during the PEL study are included in Table ES-1.

Starting in spring 2020, due to restrictions on in-person gatherings due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all outreach activities were changed to virtual delivery. The project team meetings were held using online collaboration software. CFG and Agency Workgroup meetings were held using similar collaboration software to enable sharing of content and teleconferencing. The project team developed meeting-specific websites for each CFG and Agency Workgroup meeting that presented information and enabled participants to leave written feedback during the comment period. These websites remained accessible to participants throughout the entire PEL study. The second planned in-person Public Open House was also converted to an Online Open House event using online collaboration software. A live question and answer session was provided for the public, along with a comment period. The second Online Open House website remained available for viewing through the remaining portion of the PEL study process. See Chapter 5 Public and Agency Involvement for more information on public and agency involvement.

ES-10 | P a g e

Table ES-1. Key Public and Agency Involvement Activities

Meeting Date Agency Workgroup Meeting #1 November 5, 2019

Community Focus Group Meeting #1 November 5, 2019

Public Open House #1 November 19, 2019

Online Open House #1 Comment Period November 19 – December 20, 2019

Agency Workgroup Meeting #2 June 30, 2020

Community Focus Group Meeting #2 July 1, 2020

Agency Workgroup Meeting #3 August 20, 2020

Community Focus Group Meeting #3 August 21, 2020

Online Open House #2 (Virtual Public Meeting) October 14, 2020

Online Open House #2 Comment Period October 14 – November 12, 2020

Agency Workgroup Meeting #4 January 6, 2021

Community Focus Group Meeting #4 January 7, 2021

Draft PEL Study Report Public Comment Period May 17 – June 16, 2021

Implementation Plan The Recommended Alternative is composed of components that address each of the E-Y Intersection Improvements project needs, compared to the No Build alternative: improve intersection safety, provide an alternate route in the event of a crash on Egan Drive, and improve non-motorized access, all while maintaining traffic f low through the area. Building upon the HSIP solution implemented as part of the No Build alternative, each component of the Recommended Alternative must be constructed to meet each of the needs identified for this project. Figure ES-2 lists project needs and components of the Recommended Alternative that address each of those needs.

ES-11 | P a g e

Figure ES-2. Recommended Alternative Components that Address Each Need

Two options presented below describe some of the available methods for DOT&PF to implement the Recommended Alternative:

Implementation Option 1: Design and Construct the Entire Recommended Alternative

Under this option, DOT&PF would program the entire…