HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA2707KNIKARM CROSSING
Draft Environ mental
Impact Statement
and
Section 4(f) Evaluation
FHWA-AK-EIS-84-01-D
August 31 ,1984
U.S. Department of Tran~sportation
Federal Highway Administration
Alaska Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities
FHWA-AK-EIS-84-01-D
KNIK ARM CROSSING
ANCHORAGE AND MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Submitted Pursuant to -42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (c)
and 49 U.S.C. 1653 (f)
by the
u. s. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
and
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Cooperating Agencies
Corps of Engineers; U. S. Air Force; U. S. Coast Guard; U. s. Department of
Agriculture: Forest Service and Soil Conservation Service; u. s. Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; u. S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development; U. S. Department of Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service,
=~k~~;Y· and National Park Service~s. Environmental Protection
The following persons may be contacted for additiona information concerning this
'document:
Mr. Tom Neunaber
Field Operations Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
P. 0. Box 1648
Juneau, Alaska 99802
(907) 586-7427
Mr. Jerry Hamel
Project Manager
Alaska Department of Transportation
and PUblic Facilities
4111 Aviation Avenue, Pouch 6900
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
(907) 266-1555
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities proposes to build a 2.5
to 3.0-mile four-lane bridge across the Knik ·Arm of Cook Inlet from Anchorage to the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Two alternative locations are being considered, one would
begin just north of downtown Anchorage and another would begin at a point within
Elmendorf Air Force Base. The project also would include approach roadways on both
sides of the Arm. The bridge at downtown would be connected to the local street sys-
tem at I and L Streets directly from the bridge and to Ingra and Gambell Streets via a
1.5-mile four-lane elevated connecting road. The Elmendorf bridge would connect to
the Anchorage street system near the intersection of Muldoon Road and the Glenn
Highway via a 6.5-mile four-lane limited-access road through Elmendorf AFB. Both
bridges would be connected to the Parks Highway near Houston via a 28.5-mile four-lane
then two-lane limited-access road. Principal issues are impacts on traffic volumes
and flow, growth and economic development, urban and military function and operation,
biological resources and wetlands, air quality, and 4 (f) resources. No-crossing
Alternatives are No-Action, the addition of lanes to the Glenn and Parks Highways. (the
current route from Anchorage to the Borough), and a Hovercraft crossing with a
two-lane connecting road to the Parks Highway near Houston.
Comments on this Draft EIS are due by Oc~ober 22, 1984 and should be sent to Mr. Hamel
at the above address.
--.
[
1_-
l~
b
G
[
E
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
CHAPTER I: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
PURPOSE
NEEDS
HISTORY AND AUTHORITY
CHAPTER II: ALTERNATIVES
SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
DOWNTOWN PROJECT
ELMENDORF PROJECT
NO-CROSSING ALTERNATIVES
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
CHAPTER III: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
REGIONAL SETTING
TRANSPORTATION CHARACTERISTICS
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
NATURAL RESOURCE CHARACTERISTICS
CHAPTER IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
NATURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS
CHAPTER V: SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
SECTION 4(f) REQUIREMENTS
DESCRIPTION OF 4(f) RESOURCES
IMPACTS OF EACH ALTERNATIVE
AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES
MITIGATING MEASURES
AGENCY COORDINATION
CHAPTER VI: PROVISION FOR FUTURE RAILROAD ON BRIDGE
PURPOSE AND NEED
ALTERNATIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CHAPTER VII: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS
TO WHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENT WERE SENT
CHAPTER VIII: COORDINATION
AGENCY COORDINATION
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
CHAPTER IX: LIST OF PREPARERS
iii
Page
S-1
I-1
I-1
I-4
I-5
II-1
II-1
II-7
II-20
II-24
II-30
III-1
III-1
III-1
III-10
III-34
IV-1
IV-1
IV-37
IV-81
V-1
V-1
V-1
V-7
V-11
V-13
V-19
VI-1
VI-1
VI-1
VI-4
VII-1
VIII-1
VIII-1
VIII-5
IX-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX A: ENGINEERING DRAWINGS
APPENDIX B: WETLANDS REPORT
APPENDIX C: CONCEPTUAL STAGE RELOCATION PLAN
APPENDIX D: AIR QUALITY REPORT
APPENDIX E: NOISE REPORT
APPENDIX F: KNIK ARM CROSSING PROJECT FINANCING OVERVIEW
APPENDIX G: CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX H: BIBLIOGRAPHY
INDEX
iv
Page
A-1
B"""1
C-1
D-1
E-1
F-1
G-1
H-1
IN-1
[
(
L
[
L
[
l~
f-~
[
[
[
L
lJ
[
c
[
•-i
t
I_
u
[
Number
S-1
I-1
I-2
II-1
II-2
II-3
II-4
II-5
II-6
II-7
III-1
III-2
III-3
III..,.4
III-5
III-6
III-7
III-8
III-9
III-10
IV-1
IV-2
IV-3
IV-4
v-1
V-2
V-3
V-4
V-5
VI-1
D-1
E-1
E-2
E-3
E-4
LIST OF FIGURES
Title
Crossing Alternatives
Project Location
Project Area
CAA Corridors and Representative Alignments
Alignment Al tern.ati ves
Crossings
Downtown Crossing/Seward Connector
Bridges
Houston Connector
No-Crossing Alternatives
Key Roadway Links
Growth Forecasts for the Anchorage/Mat-Su Region
Communities
Existing Land Use -Project Area
Existing Land Use Downtown and Elmendorf AFB
Habitat
Floodplains -Downtown
Floodplains -Elmendorf AFB
. Farmlands of State and Local Importance
Natural Resource Development Lands
Level-of-Service
Illustration Locations
Views of Downtown Crossing/Seward Connector
Views of Elmendorf and Mirror Lake Crossings
4(f) Resources -Project Area
Downtown Project and 4(f) Resources
Elmendorf Project and Recreation Facilities
Mitigation of Impacts, L Street Southbound Ramp
Mitigation of Impacts, I Street Southbound Ramp
Bridges with a Railroad
Representative Receptor Locations
Typical Noise Levels
Community Response to Noise
Measurement Locations
Hourly Average Sound Levels
v
Page
S-3
I-2
I-3
II-2
II-5
II-9
II-10
II-11
II-18
II-25
III-2
III-15
III-17
III-28
III-29
III-42
III-49
III-50
III-51
III-52
IV-14
IV-128
IV-129
IV-130
V-2
V-8
V-12
V-14
V-16
VI-3
D-14
E-3
E-6
E-9
E-ll
Number
II-1
III-1
III-2
III-3
III-4
III-5
III-6
III-7
III-8
III-9
III-10
III-11
III-12
III-13
III-14
III-15
IV-1
IV-2
IV-3
IV-4
IV-5
IV-6
IV-7
IV-8
IV-9
IV-10
IV-11
IV-12
IV-13
LIST OF TABLES
Title
Comparison of Alternatives
Traffic Volumes and Traffic Flow Characteristics
Level-of-Service (LOS)
Total Annual Truck Ton-Miles and Truck Miles
Street and Highway Plans
Current and Forecast Dwelling Units and Employment
by Community
Construction Costs of a Typical Single-Family
Dwelling, Spring 1984
Construction Costs of a Typical Commercial
Structure, Spring 1984
Construction Costs of a Typical Industrial
Structure, Spring 1984
Land Use Plans
Current Annual Local Government Cost and Revenue
Fish and Wildlife Values by Habitat Types
Sport Fishery Harvest (1982) for Drainages,
Streams, and Lakes in Project Area
Big Game and Waterfowl Harvest, Willow Sub-basin,
July 1982 -June 1983
Summary of Winter Carbon Monoxide Concentra-
tions in the Anchorage Nonattainment Area
Summary of Noise Measurement Results
Peak-Hour Travel Times· from Downtown Anchorage
to Outlying Communities in 2001
Average Weekday Daily Vehicle-Miles of Travel
(VMT) and Vehicle-Hours of Travel (VHT)
by Year
Year 2001 and 2010 Average Weekday Daily
Traffic (AWDT) Forecasts
Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) in
Thousands by Level-of-Service (LOS) Rating
2010 Intersection Volume to Capacity Ratio
(V/C) Comparison
Truck Freight Movement
Change in Regional Transit Ridership in 2001 from
No-Action
Glenn Highway and Crossing Transit Use and Vehicle
Requirements, 2001
Mitigation of Transit Impacts
Crossing Impacts on Major Streets and Highway
Projects
Direct Project Construction, Operating, and
Maintenance Employment Impacts
Allocation of Dwelling Units Represented by
Project Construction, Operations, and
Maintenance-related Employment
Dwelling Unit Allocation with Crossing
vi
Page
II-31
III-4
III-6
III-8
III-11
III-16
III-19
III-20
III-21
III-22
III-35
III-37
III-43
III-45
III-56
III-58
IV-3
IV-6
IV-20
IV-21
IV-27
IV-28
IV-30
IV-32
IV-34
IV-38
IV-40
IV-41
[
r
[
[
L
'[
c
c
.[
[
L
E
r t_.;
L
L
. '
I
L ..
b
i
I_
u
[
r~
[
Number
IV-14
IV-15
IV-16
IV-17
IV-18
IV-19
IV-20
IV-21
IV-22
IV-23
IV-24
IV-25
IV-26
IV-27
IV-28
IV-29
IV-30
IV-31
IV-32
IV-33
IV-34
IV-35
IV-36
IV-37
B-1
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
D-7
D-8
D-9
D-10
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Title
Employment Allocation With Crossing
Region-Serving Employment Growth Shift from
Anchorage with Crossing
Allocation of Dwelling Units,Resulting from
Region-Serving Employment Growth Shift
Industrial Sector Induced Employment, 2001
Allocation of Induced Employment and Dwelling
Units
Summary of Employment Changes with Crossing
Summary of Dwelling Unit Changes with Crossing
Housing Impact, 2001
Housing Impact, 2010
Compatibility with Land Use Plans
Dislocation and Relocation
Government Finance, 2010
Direct Terrestrial Habitat Impacts
Direct Terrestrial Habitat Impacts by Wildlife·
Value
Growth Allocation Impact on Terrestrial Habitat
in Mat-Su Borough by Habitat Type
Growth Allocation Impact on Terrestrial Habitat
In Mat-Su Borough by Habitat Value
Crossing of Important Fish Streams and Lakes
Crossing of Important Fish Streams and Lakes
by Hab~tat Value
Carbon Monoxide Estimates of Peak-Hour Emissions
Nitrogen Oxides Estimate of Peak-Hour Emissions
Maximum Predicted CO Concentrations in North
Anchorage Bowl
Prpjected Peak-Hour Traffic Noise Levels for
the Year 2010
Projected Residential Noise Impact Outside the
Anchorage Bowl for the Year 2010
Annual Average (1990 ~ 2010) Energy Consumption,
Project Area Arterials
Wetland Areas Affected
Summary of Winter Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
in the Anchorage Non-Attainment Area
Carbon Monoxide Emission Factors
Nitrogen Oxides Emission Factors
Carbon Monoxide Estimates of Peak-Hour Emissions
Nitrogen Oxides Estimates of Peak-Hour Emissions
CALINE3 Performance Assessment
CALINE3 Results for Year 1990
CALINE3 Results for Year 2001
CALINE3 Results for Year 2010
North Anchorage Bowl Roadside Concentrations at
Various Distances from Road
vii
Page
IV-44
IV-45
IV-47
IV-49
IV-52
IV-53
IV-55
IV-57
IV-59
IV-60
IV-65
IV-78
IV-82
IV-83
IV-89
IV-90
IV-94
IV-95
IV-110
IV-111
IV-114
IV-119
IV-122
IV-125
B-2
D-2
D-6
D-7
D-9
D-10
D-16
D-17
D-18
D-19
D-21
Number
E-1
E-2
E-3
E-4
E-5
E-6
E-7
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Title
Noise Abatement Criteria
Summary of Noise Measurement Results
Projected Traffic Noise Levels for the Year 2010
Projected Residential Noise Impact Outside ·the
Anchorage Bowl for the Year 2010
Projected Traffic Noise Levels in 2010 at 4(f)
Resource Locations, Downtown Project
Projected Traffic Noise Levels in 2010 at 4(f)
Resource Locations, Elmendorf Project
Average Noise Levels for Construction Equipment
viii
Page
E-5
E-10
E-13
E-15
E-18
E-20
E-21
f
r
[
n
t
L
c
L
SUMMARY
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities is proposing
to construct a crossing of the Knik Arm of Cook Inlet from the Municipality
of Anchorage to the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough. The termini would
. be at either Ingra and Gambell Streets or in the vicinity of Muldoon Road
and the Glenn Highway in Anchorage and at the Parks Highway near Houston in
the Mat-Su Borough. The proposed action would include a four-lane 1.5 or
6. S-mile limited-access roadway or connector leading from the Anchorage
terminus to the Arm, a 3.0 or 2.5-mile four-lane bridge over Knik Arm, a
two or one mile limited-access roadway leading from the bridge on the north
side of the Arm to a planned Borough road, and a 28.7-mile limited-access
connector to the northern terminus. The first 11.7 miles of the connector
would be four lanes. The last 17 miles would be two lanes.
The purposes of the proposed action are:
0
0
0
0
To bring additional developable land w£thin proximity to Anchorage.
To enhance port and induPtrial development opportunities in the Mat-Su
Borough.
To increase accessibility between Anchorage and communities to the
north ..
To improve the efficiency of motor vehicle operations between
Anchorage and areas to the north.
Other government actions proposed in the same geographic area as the
proposed action include:
0
0
0
0
The Anchorage Major Corridors Study, for which an EIS is in
preparation. The Major Corridors Study will consider alternative
improvements to: The Seward Highway north of Tudor Road, which
follows Ingra and Gambell Street for part of its length; the Northside
Corridor, which is presently served by the Glenn Highway and 5th and
6th Streets and intersects with the Seward Highway; and a 15th Street
Bypass. A seeping document for the Major Corridors Study was issued
in March, 1984 by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities and the Federal Highway Administr~tion.
Point MacKenzie port and industrial development in the Mat-Su Borough
for which the Borough is now preparing a plan as a part of their
Coastal Zone Management planning (Kasprisin-Hutnik Partnership, June
21, 1984).
Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project, which is now being implemented
in the Mat-Su Borough.
Fish Creek Agricultural Project in the Mat-Su Borough (ADNR, April
1984).
S-1
0
0
0
0
0
The possible relocation of the Alaska Native Medical Center hospital
at 3rd Avenue and Gambell Street in Anchorage to another site by the
U. s. Public Health Service.
Planned disposal of 95.3 acres of land by Elmendorf Air Force Base at
Muldoon Road and the Glenn Highway.
Coastal Trail development between Ship Creek and Resolution Park in
Anchorage (Municipality of Anchorage, [no date]).
Coastal Trail development between Ship Creek and Eklutna in Anchorage
(Municipality of Anchorage, June 1982).
Expansion of the State court building on K Street between 3rd and 4th
Avenues in Anchorage.
A. ALTERNATIVES
Two Crossing and three No-Crossing Alternatives are being considered. The
Crossing Alternatives are the Downtown Project and Elmendorf Project. The
No-Crossing Alternatives are No-Action, Glenn/Parks Improvement, and Hover-
craft.
Downtown Project
The Downtown Project is illustrated in Figure S-1. The Project would
include a 5.5-mile, four-lane Downtown Crossing between I and L Streets in
Anchorage and a planned extension of the Point MacKenzie Access Road in the
Mat-Su Borough, including a three-mile bridge over Knik Arm. There are two
southbound ramp alternatives at I/L Streets, a southbound ramp directly
into L Street, which is one-way southbound, and a southbound ramp at I
Street where traffic would reach L Street via 3rd Avenue. The Project
would also include the 1.5-mile, elevated, four-lane Seward Connector in
Anchorage. The Seward Connector would include ramps to the Port of
Anchorage area and Ingra and Gambell Streets. There are two southbound
ramp alternatives at Ingra/Gambell, a southbound ramp directly into Gambell
Street, which is one-way southbound, and a southbound ramp at Ingra Street
where traffic would reach Gambell Street via 3rd Avenue. Finally, the
Project would include the Houston Connector which would connect the
Crossing to the Parks Highway near Houston. Segment 1 of the Houston
Connector would follow the route of the existing and planned portions of
the north-south segment of the Point MacKenzie Access Road from the
Crossing to the Access Road's east-west segment. Segment 1 would be an
11.7 mile limited-access, four-lane highway with five intersections.
Segment 2 would continue north and reach the Parks Highway near Houston.
It would be a 17-mile, limited-access, two-lane road with six intersec-
tions, and it would include a bridge over the narrows between Big and
Mirror Lakes.
The Downtown Project would cost $742.9 million (1985 dollars). Annual
maintenance costs would be $1.54 million (1985 dollars). The Crossing
portion of the Project would be built between 1986 and 1990 employing 150
S-2
f
[
r
f.
~
r ' [
r
J
L
. ......
Crossing Alternatives
---0 500 1000 t500 , ... ..... :::::: ....... :. ;.: : ::=~ ..... ·················
. ··:~·-· '1'''' '
Gamb,ell sJreet Sputhbounl! .
'-. ' Ramp Alternallvjl •.
'• i ·· ' I . • .JI .....
Elmendorf Crossing
Figure S-1
Crossing Alternatives
workers. The Houston Connector would be built in 1989 and 1990 employing
50 workers, and the Seward Connector would be built in 2000 and 2001
employing 100 workers. Until 2001, the I and L ramps of the Crossing would
adequately handle Crossing traffic entering Anchorage, and the Seward
Connector would not be required.
Elmendorf Project
The Elmendorf Project is illustrated .in Figure s-1. The Project would
include a 10-mile, four-lane Elmendorf Crossing terminating in the vicinity
of Muldoon Road and the Glenn Highway in Anchorage and in the Mat-Su
Borough at a planned extension of the Point MacKenzie Access Road. The
Crossing would include a 2. S-mile bridge over Knik Arm and a bridge over
Ship Creek. In Anchorage, an interchange at Oilwell Road would provide
access to persons coming to and from the east via the Glenn Highway and to
and from the south via Muldoon Road. A Glenn Highway interchange would
provide access to persons coming to and from the west via the Glenn
Highway. The Elmendorf Project also would include the Houston Connector as
described under the Downtown Project.
The Elmendorf Project would cost $547.0 million (1985 dollars). Annual
maintenance costs would be $1. 5 million ( 1985 dollars) • The Crossing
portion of the Project would be built between 1986 and 1989 employing 150
workers. The Houston Connector would be built in 1988 and 1989 employing
50 workers.
No-Crossing Alternatives
No-Action. The No-Action Alternative would consist of the existing
regional street and highway system plus street and highway improvements
included in the region's short-range and long-range transportation plans.
These improvements would be completed whether or not a crossing is
constructed.
Glenn/Parks Improvement. The Glenn/Parks Improvement Alternative would
consist of the No-Action Alternative plus the widening of the Glenn Highway
to six lanes between Eagle River and the Glenn and Parks Highway juncture
and the widening of the Parks Highway to four lanes with a left-tum lane
from the Glenn/Parks juncture to Wasilla. The Glenn Highway would remain a
limited-access, grade-separated facility. The Parks Highway would continue
to have unlimited access with at-grade intersections. The Glenn/Parks
Improvement would cost $56.9 million (1985 dollars), and added annual
maintenance costs to the two highways would be $170, 000 ( 1985 dollars) •
The improvement would be built in 1988 and 1989 and employ 50 workers
during construction.
Hovercraft. The Hovercraft (air-cushion vehicle) Alternative would consist
of the No-Action Alternative plus the purchase of two large Hovercraft
ferries. In addition, terminals would be built on each shore and a
two-lane Houston Connector would be completed to the Parks Highway. The
Connector would include 11 intersections and a bridge across the narrows
between Big and Mirror Lakes. This Alternative would cost $226.5 million
S-4
I
[
l
L
L
I·
J I
I~
f l~
L
t
L
(1985 dollars), and annual maintenance costs on the Connector would be
$500,000 ( 1985 dollars) • Purchase of Hovercraft, ·terminal construction,
and construction of a road to the Point MacKenzie Access Road would occur
in 1986. Completion of the Houston Connector would occur in 1988 and 1989,
and construction of the Connector and terminals would employ 50 workers.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Downtown Project
The Downtown Project would result in a significant change in the pattern of
growth which would occur in the region containing the Municipality of
Anchorage and the Mat-Su Borough; in addition, a limited amount of new
growth would be induced. With the Downtown Project, the Mat-Su Borough
would have approximately 12,200 more dwelling units in 2010 than is
forecast with No-Action (33 percent greater). This is a mid-range growth
allocation change and is considered the forecast most likely to occur. All
the growth-related numbers in this summary are based on mid-range
forecasts. The maximum and minimum likely change also is addressed in this
document for the Downtown and Elmendorf Projects, respectively. Anchorage
would have approximately 11,700 fewer dwelling units with Downtown in 2010
(six percent less than No-Action). The re-allocation from Anchorage is not
the same as the re-allocation to the Borough (500 less) because of induced
development. The region as a whole would have 247,600 dwelling units with
Downtown, b.2 percent more than No-Action.
Employment location patterns would change, and there also would be some
induced jobs. The Mat-Su Borough would have approximately 3,800 more jobs
in 2010 with the Downtown Project (19 percent more than No-Action) •
Anchorage would have approximately 3,200 fewer jobs than No-Action (two
percent less). The region as a whole would have approximately 201,450 jobs
with Downtown, 0.3 percent more than No-Action.
The Downtown Project would cause Anchorage growth to occur at slightly
lower densities than are now projected in its land use plans. Borough
growth would occur at higher densities and in different locations than are
presently planned. The rate of growth in the Palmer/Wasilla area would
be less than with No-Action. Most of the new growth would occur in the
Point MacKenzie, Knik, Big Lake, and Houston areas along the Houston
Connector. Development densities for the region as a whole would be lower
with a Downtown Project than with No-Action.
Public service needs would .be changed with the change in growth patterns.
Beginning in 1990, the Borough in conjunction with the State would have to
provide.schools and emergency services to serve the faster growing Borough
population, however needs for these services would be slowed in Anchorage.
Gas, telephone, and electric service would need to be provided to those
developing parts of the Borough that do not now have service. Service
would be provided by existing private utility companies. The cost of this
service would be paid for by the user, either initially or over a period of
time. Water and sewer service in the Borough would be provided privately.
s-s
The Downtown Project would enhance to a limited extent resource development
in the Borough .Jy reducing travel time to the Anchorage market and by
supporting the construction of the Borough's planned port at Point
MacKenzie. The number of resource-related jobs resulting directly from the
crossing by 2001 would be approximately 180.
Increased growth in the Borough would result in the loss of wildlife
habitat and increased hunting and fishing pressure. The acres of land
developed in the Borough beyond that with No-Action by 2010 would be 8,200
(nine percent increase and 0.85 percent of Willow Sub-Basin). A
significant slowing in lands developed in Anchorage would not be expected
because development densities would decrease counteracting gains resulting
from less growth. Most of the Mat-Su development would be in upland forest
habitat, however there is an adequate supply to serve the increased growth.
Wetland use for development would be confined to intermittent, small
wetlands within areas that are generally dry or perhaps near lakes with
high pressure for development. The habitat lost through development would
be valuable for moose, black bear, snowshoe hare, red squirrel, spruce
grouse, and songbirds. Critical habitat is protected via the State of
Alaska Coastal Zone Management Plan and the Corps of Engineers Section 404
permitting procedure. Increased management efforts would be required in
the Mat-Su Borough to overcome adverse effects to fish and wildlife
populations resulting from increased pressure associated with improved
access from residential areas.
The change in growth patterns also would alter regional traffic flow. The
street and highway system generally would operate in a more efficient
manner with a Downtown Project than with No~Action. The vehicle-miles of
travel in the region would decrease from 4.53 million daily in 2010 to 4.12
million (nine percent decrease). . The number of vehicle-miles traveled
daily under less than acceptable traffic flows would change from
approximately 2.8 million in 2010 to approximately 2.0 million (20 percent
decrease). The most significant improvement in flow would be on the Glenn
and Parks Highways. The changes from No-Action would be mixed in the
Anchorage bowl. A small overall flow improvement would occur in the
Anchorage bowl except on I/L Streets, Minnesota Drive, Seward Highway, and
5th/6th Avenues where conqestion would be greater due to bridge traffic
entering and leaving the bowl. Regional transit use would be slightly less
(by approximately 5, 000 one-way trips in 2001 or 4. 5 percent) with the
I:?owntown . Project due to the transfer of forecast dwelling units from
Anchorage, which has higher per capita transit use, to the Borough, which
has a lower per capita transit use. Lanes for use by buses and carpools
would be provided at crossing toll booths, and bus turnouts would be
provided at Houston Connector intersections. ·
With regard to financing of local government 9perating costs by local
government, the Downtown Project would benefit Anchorage but would
adversely affect the Borough. New growth in the Borough would result in an
approximately $5 million (1983 dollars, add about 10 percent for 1985
dollars) annual shortfall of lbcally generated revenue required to meet
costs (using current costs. and tax rates). The shortfall would occur
because residential development does not pay for the services it requires
and residential services are supported through non-residential property
taxes and taxes on vacant land. The employment shift to the Borough
s-6
!
c
I
r
\
l
t_-
r J
L
l L.
L
-1
L
attributable to the Project would not be adequate t~ cover the costs of the
new residential development. Anchorage would benefit by approximately $5
million (1983 dollars) because the amount of residential development
shifted to the Borough, with its high cost in relation to revenue, would be
greater than the amount of non-residential development shifted.
Finally, the changed growth patterns would alter the amount of carbon
monoxide (CO) generated by traffic. Peak-hour emissions would decrease
4,200 pounds per hour in 2010 (10 percent) compared to No-Action. The
pattern of site-specific CO concentrations would change but overall air
quality would get slightly better in the Anchorage bowl. CO concentrations
would be reduced along the Glenn and Parks Highways. The Downtown Project
is consistent with the State Implementation Plan (for air quality).
In addition to the growth related impacts resulting from a Downtown
Project, the Project also would have the following major site-specific
impacts:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A single family home, four businesses, and a parking lot would be
displaced. Relocation would not be a serious problem.
Ships and barges would have to pass under the bridge to reach the Port
of Anchorage. Clearance would be provided, however in winter the risk
of collision would be increased if ships would become trapped in ice.
The Merrill Field aviation clear zone would be encroached by
approximately 30 feet. Federal Aviation Administration approval would
be likely for the encroachment.
999 acres of undisturbed terrestrial habitat would be taken (851 acres
in Willow Sub-basin or 0.09 percent of that area), as would 134 acres
of wetland (116 acres in Willow Sub-basin or 0.03 percent of the
wetlands in that area). The alignment being evaluated was located to
minimize wetland encroachment. No streams would be crossed, and there
would be only one lake crossing.
55 acres of land designated by the State for small farms would be
acquired (one percent of area designated).
Views from a restaurant and several residences and businesses would be
adversely affected in the vicinity of the I/L ramps. The I Street
southbound ramp alternative would have ~he least visual impact since
it would not block views of the Arm.
For several 2nd/3rd Avenue structures eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places, noise and CO levels would rise (in some
cases CO standards would be exceeded) , the I/L ramps would be visually
dominant and block views, and access would become more circuitous.
For ·Resolution Park, noise levels would rise, CO standards would be
exceeded, and access would have to be altered. The L Street south-
bound ramp alternative would take 0.3 acres of the park.
s-7
0 At Hostetler Park, noise levels would rise and co standards would be
exceeded. With the I Street southbound ramp alternative, alterations
would be required to Hostetler Park in order to restore access to
Resolution Park.
Finally, for an additional cost of $60 million (1985 dollars) the Knik Arm
bridge could be built so that a railroad could be placed on it at some
future date. This would further support implementation of the planned
Point MacKenzie port, result in a slightly greater encroachment on the
Merrill Field aircraft clear zone, and require larger bridge piers so there
would be a slightly greater disturbance to coastal wetlands.
Elmendorf Project
The Elmendorf Project also would result in the significant change in the
pattern of future growth in the region, with the accompanying effects, that
was described for the Downtown Project. A small amount of development
also would be induced. However, the change in growth patterns from
No-Action would not be as great with the Elmendorf Project. The lower
allocation change would moderate both the positive and negative allocation-
related effects. The growth pattern changes of the Elmendorf Project
(again using a mid-range forecast) would be:
0
0
0
The Borough would have approximately 8,400 more dwelling
than . with No-Action (23 percent increase). It
approximately 2,600 more jobs (13 percent increase).
units in 2010
would have
Anchorage would have approximately 7,900 fewer dwelling units in 2010
than with No-Action (four percent decrease). It would have
approximately 2,100 fewer jobs (one percent decrease).
The region as a whole would have 247,600 dwelling units, 0.2 percent
greater than No-Action, and 201,450 jobs, 0.3 percent greater than
No-Action.
The changes in densities, location of growth, and public service needs
described for Downtown would be similar for Elmendorf but moderated by the
smaller changes in growth patterns.
As with Downtown, Borough resource development would be enhanced to a
limited extent. Approximately. 180 resource development-related jobs would
be induced.
Increased Borough growth would result in 5, 800 acres of wildlife habitat
being developed · beyond what would occur with No-Action (seven percent
increase and 0.6 percent of Willow Sub-basin). Again, any reduction in the
amount of land development in Anchorage would be offset by lower densities.
The same safe~~ards and mitigating measures described for Downtown would be
applicable to Elmendorf. Increased pressure for fish and wildlife use
would require increased management efforts.
S-8
I ....
c
f
L
l
. ~.._.
Compared to No-Action, vehicle-miles of travel in the region would decrease
from 4.53 million daily to 4.37 million (four percent decrease).
Venicle-miles traveled daily under less than acceptable traffic flows would
decrease from approximately 2.8 million in 2010 to approximately 2.3
million (18 percent decrease). The most significant improvement in flow
would again be on the Glenn and Parks Highways outside the Anchorage bowl.
There would be small improvements on some Anchorage bowl arterials, but
congestion would increase on the Glenn and Seward Highways, including the
planned Northside Corridor improvements. Congestion also would increase
slightly on Muldoon and Tudor Roads. These increases would result from
bridge traffic heading towards downtown and mid-town Anchorage. Regional
transit use would decrease slightly (approximately 3,500 one-way trips in
2001 or three percent) for the same reasons as Downtown. The same
provisions for transit described for Downtown would be provided with
Elmendorf.
New Borough growth would result in an approximately $3.5 million (1983
dollars) shortfall of locally generated revenues required to meet costs.
The shortfall would occur for the same reasons as for Downtown. Anchorage
would benefit by approximately $3.5 million (1983 dollars).
Finally, peak-hour CO emissions in the region would increase 400 pounds per
hour in 2010 compared to No-Action (one percent increase). This increase
includes an increase of 1,000 pounds in the Anchorage bowl and a decrease
of 600 pounds outside the bowl. This trend is the opposite from what would
occur with-Downtown. The pattern of site-specific co concentrations would
change and overall would get slightly worse in the Anchorage bowl. The
Elmendorf Project would not be in keeping with the State Implementation
Plan. The impact could be offset by future improvements to Anchorage bowl
_arterials that would suffer traffic congestion increases. If the Elmendorf
Project is selected as the preferred alternative, specific improvements
will be analyzed and presented in the Final EIS.
In addition to the growth-related impacts resulting from an Elmendorf
Project, the completion of the Project also would have the following major
site-specific impacts:
0
0
0
A single-family home would be displaced. On Elmendorf Air Force Base,
a landfill, portion of storage yard, borrow area, gate, aeronautical
receiver antenna, and FAA antenna would be displaced. The antennas
would be the only difficult relocation. An in-depth study would be
required to find a replacement site for the antennas that would
minimize impacts to operations.
The Project would cross numerous roads and road/trails on Elmendorf
AFB. Access would be restored via overpasses, frontage ro?tds, and
large culverts.
1,183 acres of undisturbed terrestrial habitat would be taken (851
acres in Willow Sub-basin or 0.09·percent of that area) as would 124
acres of wetland (116 acres in Willow Sub-basin or 0.03 percent of the
wetlands in that area). The alignment being evaluated was located to
minimize wetland encroachment, and there would be only one stream and
one lake crossing.
S-9
0
0
55 acres designated by the State for small farms would be acquired
(one percent of area designated).
The Project would take 18 acres of AFB recreation land (16 percent of
approximately 115 acres of such land), alter views, and increase noise
levels. Grading and revegetation matching natural conditions would
mitigate impacts to views.
Finally, for an additional cost of $50 million (1985 dollars) the bridge
could be built so that a railroad could be placed on it at some future
date. This would further support the planned implementation of a port at
Point MacKenzie but would require larger piers so there would be a slightly
greater disturbance to coastal wetlands. If the railroad is provided for,
views from the bridge would be improved since both directions of travel
would be on top of the bridge.
No-Crossing Alternatives
No-Action. The No-Action Alternative would result in none of the growth
pattern and related changes described for the Crossing Alternatives.
No-Action growth forecasts are based on current trends. The Mat-Su Borough
would have approximately 19,900 jobs and 37,000 dwelling units in 2010;
Anchorage would have approximately 180,900 jobs and 209,900 dwelling units.
The density and location of future growth would be~ .ls described in area
land use plans. Public service needs would follow current demand trends.
Opportunities for resource development in the Mat-Su Borough would be based
on development strategies included in existing area plans. Approximately
88,000 acres of land would be developed in the Borough. by 2010. ·Current
trends in the growth of fish and wildlife use would be unchanged.
Vehicle-miles of travel in the region would be 4.53 million daily in 2010.
The number of vehicle-miles· traveled at less than acceptable traffic flows
would be approximately 2.8 million in 2010. Regional transit ridership
would be-112,900 one-way trips in 2001. Local government cost and revenue
trends would be unchanged. In 2010, traffic would generate 43,800 pounds
of carbon monoxide per hour during the peak hour.
No-Action would result in no site-specific impacts.
Glenn/Parks Improvement. The Glenn/Parks Improvement Alternative also
would result in none of the growth changes described for the Crossing
Alternatives. The growth data described for No-Action above are applicable
to the Glenn/Parks Improvement. The improvement would significantly
improve traffic flow on the Glenn and Parks Highway between Eagle River and
Wasilla. Transit service also would be improved through bus turnouts at
interchanges and preferential bus/carpool lanes at interchanges on the
Glenn Highway.
The completion of this alternative would have the following major site-
specific impacts:
S-10
{
l
I
\
r
l
L
'(
l
>L
r·
L·
[
l
' '•
.. /
0
0
0
0
0
Eight single-family homes, seven mobile homes, and 15 businesses would
be displaced. New homes and business structures would have to be
built to provide for relocation.
19 miles of gas transmission line either would be relocated or would
be covered and 2. 5 miles of electric transmission line would be
relocated.
126 acres of terrestrial habitat would be taken, as would be 35 acres
of wetland. Six major streams, several minor streams, would be
crossed, including eight important fish streams. Well designed
bridges, culverts, and other cross drainage (for wetlands) would
minimize impact.
Visually the roadways would become more dominant with increased width
and new cut-and-fill slopes exposed. Slopes would be revegetated •
The Eagle River to Peters Creek bikepath would be relocated within the
highway right-of-way. It would be closed for two construction
seasons.
Hovercraft. The Hovercraft Alternative would result in almost none of the
growth changes described for the Crossing Alternatives. Most of the growth
impacts described for No-Action would be applicable to Hovercraft. A
slight amount of future regional growth could occur in the Borough rather
than Anchorage. There would be a limited improvement in access to the
Borough for hunting and fishing which would increase hunting and fishing
pressures, requ~r~ng more rigid management measures. Compared to
No-Action, daily vehicle-miles of travel in the region would decrease in
2010 from 4.53 mLllion to 4.42 million (two percent decrease). Vehicle-
miles of travel at less than acceptable traffic flows would decrease from
approximately 2.8 million daily to approximately 2.7 million (two percent
decrease). Traffic flow would improve slightly on the Glenn and Parks
Highways compared to No-Action. Transit one-way trips in the region in
2001 would increase by 310 (walk-on Hovercraft users) over No-Action (0.3
percent increase). Bus/carpool preferential parking would be provided at
the Borough Hovercraft terminal.
Construction of this alternative would have the following major site-
specific impacts:
0
0
0
0
One single-family home would be displaced •.
861 acres of undisturbed terrestrial habitat would be taken (851 acres
in Willow Sub-basin or 0.09 percent of that area), as would be 126
acres of wetland (116 acres in Willow ~ub-basin or 0.03 percent of the
wetlands in that area) • The Houston Connector alignment being
evaluated was located to minimize wetland encroachment.
The Anchorage terminal would be in the tidal floodplain and· would
require protection.
55 acres of land designated by the State for small farms would be
acquired (one percent of area designated) •
S-11
C. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
Areas of controversy related to construction of the alternatives under
consideration are:
0
0
0
0
0
Changes in growth patterns in Anchorage and the Mat-Su Borough that
would result from a Crossing and whether or not they would be of
benefit to the two communities.
Fiscal impact to the Municipality of Anchorage and the Mat-Su Borough
from the change in future growth patterns resulting from a Crossing.
Competition for State general revenue funds or Federal participating
highway funds and whether or not there are other uses for those funds
that are of higher priority.
With a Downtown Crossing, the potential for ship collision with the
bridge.
The effect of the alternatives under consideration on traffic
operation in and around downtown Anchorage.
Only one of these issues has produced opposition to any of the alternatives
under consideration. Several ship and barge operators have expressed their
opposition.to the Downtown Crossing. All of these issues are expected to
be among the key considerations in the selection of a preferred alternative
and aJ:;e addressed in Chapter rJ, "Environmental Consequences".
D. SIGNIFICANT UNRESOLVED ISSUES
The following issues are unresolved:
0
0
0
The Downtown Project would penetrate the aircraft clearance zone of
Mer·rill Field, a general aviation airport. The Federal Aviation
Administration has not yet determined the acceptability of that
encroachment but will do so prior to release of the Final EIS.
U. S. Coast Guard bridge clearance requirements have not yet been
determined for the crossings of Knik Arm and the narrows between Big
and Mirror Lakes. Based in part on comments at the EIS public
hearings, the Coast Guard will render a decision prior to the release
of the Final EIS. They may also hold their own hearings on the
bridge clearance question alone.
More detailed habitat value analyses are necessary in order to develop
a mitigation program for impacts to wildlife habitat resulting from
increased development in the Mat-Su Borough with a Crossing Alterna-
tive. These analyses and the mitigation program will be developed in
conjunction with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to the
release of the Final EIS.
S-12
I'
;
\
\-..
,,
1-
,-
L:
r c
l
. l
0
0
0
0
0
The Air Force plans to retain · a consultant to develop a highway
alignment through the Base that would serve an Elmendorf bridge. That
alignment will be considered in "the Fin-al-,..EIS if the study is
completed prior to Final EIS release. The Elmendorf alignment under
consideration in this document was developed based on discussions with
Base officials.
The Mat-Su Borough is preparing a land management plan for the Point
MacKenzie Area Meriting Special Attention identified in their Coastal
Zone Management Plan (Mat-Su Borough, Planning Department, August
1983) • A discussion of the impact on this plan by the alternatives
under consideration will be included in the Final EIS. A discussion
on impacts to current planning options is included in Chapter IV,
"Environmental Consequences".
The Municipality of Anchorage is conducting its own study of the
fiscal impacts of a Crossing. Its findings will be presented in the
Final EIS.
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
conducting the Cook Inlet Transportation Study which will address
economic feasibility of a railroad on the Knik Arm bridge.
available, its findings will be presented in the Final EIS.
is
the
If
A determination of conformance to the State Implementation Plan for
air quality by the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Study
Air Quality Policy Committee is needed for the alternatives under
consideration.
E. OTHER FEDERAL ACTIONS REQUIRED
Other Federal actions required because of the proposed action include the
u. s. Coast Guard and Federal Aviation Administration findings described in
the previous section plus the following permit approvals:
0
0
0
Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit for placing dredged or fill
material in waters of the United States would be required for all
wetlands filling and likely would be needed for Knik Arm bridge
construction.
Corps of Engineers Section 10 permit for construction of structures in
navigable waterways of the United States would be required for the
Knik Arm and Mirror/Big Lake narrows bridge, as well as the Ship Creek
bridge with the Elmendorf Project and the several bridge widenings
required with the Glenn/Parks Improvement •
u. s. Coast Guard Section 9 bridge permit would be required for the
Knik Arm and Mirror/Big Lake narrows crossing.
S-13
0
0
A perm~t would be required from the Federal Communications Commission
for aircraft clearance encroachment.
Department of Defense agreement for use of right-of-way across
Elmendorf AFB with Elmendorf Project.
S-14
r
t
['
l .. ~
J'
'L
L
t
f
I
l. -
l j
L
I w
L
[
[
Chapter I
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
A. PURPOSE
Nearly half the population of the State of Alaska resides in the
Municipality of Anchorage. Although the Municipality has a large area,
some 1, 955 square miles, developable land is largely restricted to a
triangularly shaped area (the Anchorage bowl) which is bordered on one side
by the Chugach Mountain Range and on the other two sides by arms of Cook
Inlet: Turnagain Arm and Knik Arm. Elmendorf Air Force Base (AFB) and
Fort Richardson Army Post'also provide a northern limit. Figures I-1 and
I-2 show the Project Location and Project Area, respectively.
Only two highways provide access to the Anchorage bowl, the Seward Highway
from the southeast and the Glenn Highway from the northeast1 see Figure
I-1. Suburban development is constrained to a narrow corridor along the
Glenn Highway. The region is experiencing unprecedented urban growth1
employment and population ·increase averaged 12 percent per year in 1982 and
1983. The most developable land in the bowl has been committed and costs
of developing the remaining lands are increasing. The proposed action
would provide a third highway into the bowl from the north, connecting the
Parks Highway in the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough with the Anchorage
road system via a bridge across the Knik Arm of Cook Inlet.
The purposes of the proposed action are:
0
0
0
0
To bring additional developable land within proximity to Anchorage.
To enhance port and industrial development opportunities in the Mat-Su
Borough.
To increase accessibility between Anchorage and communities to the
north.
To improve the efficiency of motor vehicle operations between
Anchorage and areas to the north.
Evaluation of a Knik Arm crossing and its alternatives within this document
focuses on the issue of how best to provide for future growth of the
Anchorage metropolitan area, including the Mat-Su Borough. Orderly
expansio~ of the transportation system is important to future economic
vitality of the region and the State.
Without a highway crossing of Knik Arm and opening up additional land
outside the Anchorage bowl for residential and industrial development, it
is anticipated that the bowl will experience a shortage of suitable
building sites, rapidly escalating land prices, higher density development,
traffic congestion, and slowdown in construction and business investment.
I-1
Arctic Ocean
\
\
I Canada • Fairban"s
Proje~t Location
'
.· ... ·.·
.-AI·aska .
0
Kenai
6
.::' To Fairbanks
Project
Figure 1-1
Location
r
.[
r L
.[
[·
c
[
.[ ..... _ ..
·•
. ~
c·
D
r L
1
L
_,
,,
Sus1tna Fl State G ats ame Refuge
Jewell
Lake({) _If
Figure 1-2
Project Area
/
A crossing of Knik Arm would add to the supply of developable land close to
the Anchorage bowl, promote a more dispersed pattern of urban growth, and
contribute to a more efficient transportation system. A preferred
alternative and recommended course-of-action will be presented to the
Governor and State legislature in early 1985, following review of this
doc~ent and preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement.
B. NEEDS
Developable Land
The population of the Anchorage metropolitan area, including the suburban
Mat-Su Borough, is currently more than 260,000. It is expected to grow to
about 480,000 by the year 2010. Developable land within the Anchorage bowl
is being consumed rapidly, and the cost of developing the remaining land,
which has poor soils and drainage, is increasing. Raw land is over ten
times as costly in the bowl as it is across the Arm in the Mat-Su Borough.
The Point MacKenzie area in the Mat-Su Borough, bounded by Knik Arm, the
Goose Bay State Game Refuge, the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Area, and the
Susitna Flats State Game Refuge, exceeds 25,000 acres; see Figure I-2.
Although detailed surveys have not been made, preliminary assessments show
that over half of that area is suitable for development. The crossing
would bring this large supply of developable land as close as three miles
from Anchorage, thereby lowering the cost of commercial and resident.ial
construction.
Industrial Development Opportunities
Parcels of economically developable land large enough for extensive indus-
trial development are scarce in the Anchorage bowl, but are plentiful in
the Point MacKenzie area. Similarly, expansion of the Port of Anchorage is
constrained and an additional port site will need to be developed in the
future, . particularly for export. The Alaska Department. of Natural
Resources and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough· adopted in 1982 the Willow
Sub-Basin Area Plan (ADNR, October 1982) , which designates planned usage of
public lands. It covers lands within the southcentral portion of the
Borough including the land most affected by the proposed action; see Figure
I-1. Except for the area dedicated to agriculture, the Point MacKenzie
area, directly across the Arm from Anchorage, has a recommended land use of
"Development of Port, Industrial Area, and Co~i ty" . This intent is
confirmed in the Borough's draft comprehensive plan (DOWL Engineers,
February 1983), its adopted coastal zone management plan (Mat-Su Borough,
August 1983), and its current Point MacKenzie planning effort
(Kasprisin-Hutnik Partnership, June 21, 1984).
A Knik Arm crossing is viewed in a recent Borough planning document for
Point MacKenzie as "the single most important transportation scheme to
facilitate the future growth and development of the Point MacKenzie area".
(Phase I -Point MacKenzie Port/Park Land Management Plan, Kasprisin-Hutnik
I-4
L
[
[
[
r L
(:
l
[
t L
c
l
c
r l
L
~,
4
c;::l
t~
Partnership, 1984). The Crossing would help justify development of the
Borough's proposed industrial port/park facility.
Increased Accessibility
Anchorage is the economic and cultural center of Southcentral Alaska and
provides a variety of services such as health care, financial, entertain-
ment, supplies, and equipment to outlying communities. Conversely, the
area across Knik Arm from Anchorage provides municipal residents with a
wide variety of recreation opportunities, natural resources such as gravel,
and agricultural resources.
Present northbound motor vehicle traffic from Anchorage must travel around
Knik Arm via the Glenn Highway northeast to its intersection with the Parks
Highway and then the Parks Highway west to Houston {and points north)~ see
Figure I-2. A Knik Arm crossing would shorten the approximate distance
from Anchorage to Houston from 58 miles via the present route to as little
as 34 miles.
The present highway route between Anchorage and the Point MacKenzie area is
even more circuitous. . To reach it involves traveling northeast on the
Glenn Highway to its intersection with the Parks Highway, west to Wasillai
southwest on the Knik-Goose Bay Road to the Point MacKenzie Access Road;
west along the north side of the Goose Bay State Game Refuge, and finally
south. The proposed action would shorten the approximate distance from
Ancho~age to Holstein Avenue in the Point MacKenzie· Agricultural Area
{Figure I-2) from 72 miles via the present route to as little as 14 miles. .
Efficiency of Motor Vehicle Operations
A Knik Arm crossing would affect future traffic volumes on all the major
highways in the region. Growth which otherwise would have occurred either
along the Glenn/Parks Highway corridor or in the Anchorage bowl would occur
across Knik Arm to the north. Thus, future traffic volumes on the Glenn
and Parks Highways and on many roads within the Anchorage bowl would be
less if a Knik Arm crossing were built.
In the year 2010, the proposed action would reduce daily vehicle-hours of
travel {VHT) in the area from about 148,000 without a crossing to as little
as 129,000 with a crossing {as described later). Daily vehicle-miles of
travel (VMT) within the region would be reduced from approximately 4.53
million without a crossing to as little as 4.12 million with a crossing.
C. HISTORY AND AUTHORITY
In 1955, the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce sponsored an economic study for
a causeway at Cairn Point (Bloch, 1955) ~ see Figure I-2. In 1971, the
State of Alaska Department of Highways commissioned an evaluation of the
feasibility of constructing a highway crossing of Knik Arm (Howard,
Needles, Tammen & Bergendoff, 1972). Although the development of a
crossing did not proceed beyond the 1971 study, it was determined at that
I-5
/
time that a peJ;"Inanent crossing could be constructed.
resulted in the following conclusions:
0 The construction of a crossing is feasible.
0 A bridge is the most advantageous structure.
The 1971 report
0 The most favorable location is 1-1/2 miles upstream from Cairn Point.
In 1975, a Phase I Feasibility Study for a Prpposed Knik Arm Crossing
Utilizing a Ferry System was commissioned by the Alaska Department of
Public Works. The report recommended a crossing generally at Cairn Point
with an access road located between Elmendorf AFB and Fort Richardson.
The current work was authorized by the State Legislature, which in 1981
appropriated funds for an Environmental Impact Statement {EIS) and
preliminary design of a Knik Arm crossing. An EIS is being prepared
because it has been determined that issuance of permits by the u.s. Coast
Guard and Corps of Engineers would be a major Federal action. Following a
study of economic feasibility in 1983 {ADOT/PF, April 15, 1983), the
project was endorsed by the Governor and key legislators.
A Draft {US DOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF, August 12, 1983) and a Final {US DOT/FHWA,
ADOT/PF, December 5, 1983) Corridor Alternatives Analysis report were
prepared as a part of EIS development and are considered a part of this
document. Their purpose was to narrow the · range of possible Knik Arm
crossing project locations and configurations to be considered in the EIS.
They contained cost, environmental impact, benefit-cost:, cost-effective-
ness, and financial analyses at a general level of detail, and they
resulted in the identification of unreasonable corridors for the crossing
and its approach roads, as well as unreasonable crossing configurations.
Only the corridors and configurations found to be reasonable with that
general level analysis are analyzed in detail in this document, along with
several no-crossing alternatives. Other reports prepared as a part of the
current -Knik Arm crossing evaluation are listed on Appendix H under "US
DOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF" •
I-6
[
[
r L
[
f' L
c
[~
c
[
L
[
[
c
[
-i
·v
~'
Chapter II
ALTERNATIVES
Two Crossing Alternatives and three No-Crossing Alternatives are evaluated
in this document. The Crossing Alternatives are the Downtown Project and
the Elmendorf Project. Each Crossing Alternative includes a highway
bridge. The option of designing the bridges so a railroad track can be
incorporated at a later date is addressed in Chapter VI. The No-Crossing
Alternatives are the No-Action, Glenn/Parks Improvement, and Hovercraft
(air cushion vehicle).
A. SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives analyzed in this document were selected based on two
analyses, a corridor analysis and an alignment analysis, which eliminated
unreasonable alternatives.
Corridor Analysis
Several corridor, crossing configuration, and no-crossing alternatives were
considered in the corridor analysis, see Figure II-1. The results of this
analysis are documented in a report entitled Final Corridor Alternatives
Analysis (CAA) (USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF, December 5, 1983). In the Final CAA.,
the following analyses were made · in the evaluation of alternative
corridors: Benefit-cost, environmental impacts, cost-effectiveness.,
financing, conceptual costs, urban growth, and travel forecasts.
Alternatives found to be reasonable and meriting further consideration in
the Final CAA were:
0
0
0
0
South Approach/Crossing Corridors:
Downtown I
Elmendorf
Crossing Configuration:
Bridge
North Approach Corridor:
Houston
No-Crossing Alternatives
No-Action
Additional Lanes on Glenn and Parks Highways (low capital
investment option)
Hovercraft Ferries (transit option)
II-1
.............. ......
Susitna F'iots
• State
"":-A_ M .AIL
Gorne Kefuge
....... ~..MilL
Point
MacKenzil'lr.:=s:~-:::.!..·e;
/
~North
iii ~ .... • 0 5 lO Miles
Figure 11-1
CAA Corridors and
Representative Alignments
[
[
L
[
r
f
[
l
--,
_j
-;
J
/
Improved bus service '"'as a part of both the Crossing and No-Crossing
Alternatives also was found reasonable. Those alternatives found to be
unreasonable were foun~ so for the following reasons:
0
0
0
0
South Approach/Crossing Corridors:
Point MacKenzie -unacceptable aviation clear zone interference
and benefit-cost ratio due to high cost
Downtown II -unac~eptable aviation clear zone interference
Fort Richardson -low incentive for development in Mat-Su Borough
and unacceptable return on investment
Eagle River -low incentive for development in the Mat-Su Borough
and unacceptable benefit-cost ratio due to low benefits
Crossing Configurations:
Tunnel: unacceptable benefit-cost ratio due to high cost
Causeway -section 4 (f) impact (see Chapter V, "Section 4 (f)
Recr.1irements" for definition) for which a prudent and feasible
alternative does exist, high level of natural environment
impacts, and unacceptable benefit-cost ratio due to high cost
compared ~o bridge '
Bridge/Causeway: high level of natural environment impacts,
unacceptabie benefit-cost ratio and return on investment due to
high cost
North Approach Corridors (via western route except Wasilla):
Willow -high level of natural environment impacts, and higher
costs with lower benefits and toll revenue compared to other more
easterly corridors
Nancy Lake -unacceptable changes to the character of the Nancy
Lake Parkway and use of Nancy Lake Recreation area, plus the
reasons listed for the Willow corridor
Big Lake -circuitous route results in lower benefits and toll
revenue compared to more direct corridors
Wasilla section 4 (f) impact (see Chapter V "Section 4 (f)
Requirements" for definition)~ there are prudent and feasible
alternatives to crossing Goose Bay State Game Refuge
No-Crossing Alternatives
Ferry Boat unreliable in winter, slow service, and low
incentive for development in Mat-Su Borough due to poor user
attraction
II-3
Vertical Take-Off and Landing Aircraft (VTOL) or Helicopter
Crossing VTOL inappropriate for short travel distance;
helicopters would have low capacity, provide no means for vehicle
crossing, and operations would be adversely affected by inclement
weather
Commuter Rail -insufficient Mat-Su/Anchorage transit demand to
warrant investment
A Draft Corridor Alternatives Analysis (USDOT/F;HWA, ADOT/PF, August 12,
1983) was circulated for public and agency comment. The Final CAA then was
prepared. The corridor alternatives analysis was part of the EIS process
and Final CAA findings are considered a part' of this document. Copies of
the Final CAA can be obtained from the Alaska Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities in Anchorage (see title page of this document for
contact and address).
Alignment Analysis
EIS preparation began with the development of alignments within the
Downtown !/Houston and Elmendorf/Houston corridors, now termed the Downtown
Project and Elmendorf Project. Their development was based on further
engineering and meetings with the Municipality of Anchorage, Mat-Su
Borough, and military staff during early 1984, as well as public and
agency comments on the representative alignments used in the corridor
analysis. The components of the three No-Crossing Alternatives (No-Action,
Glenn/Parks Improvement, and Hovercraft) similarly were defined in greater
detail early in EIS preparation.
Figure II-2 locates project alignments that were considered and highlights
those selected for evaluation in this document. The alignments listed
below were selected for evaluation because they maximize transportation
service and minimize cost and environmental disruption:
1. Downtown Project
0
0
0
Downtown Crossing --bridge structure across the Arm plus enough
roadway· to bring bridge traffic to the existing road system in
Anchorage (intersection of 3rd Avenue and I/L Streets) and the
planned extension of the Point MacKenzie Access Road in the
Mat-Su Borough (intersection near Lake Lorraine)
Seward Connector --elevated roadway providing improved access
from the crossing to the Port of Anchorage and to the
intersection of 3rd Avenue and Ingr~/Gambell Streets a~ well as
the Northside and Seward corridors, for which ADOT/PF is
examining major highway improvements (ADOT/PF, FHWA, March 1984).
Houston Connector --roadway providing improved access from the
crossing to the Parks Highway at Houston
-Segment 1 provides improved access as far north as the
east-west segment of the Point MacKenzie Access Road
II-4
[
[
[
c
c
[
r L
c
G
tJ
[
[
[
c
l ( i, ,[
0
Crossing Alternatives
••••••••• Unreasonable Alignment
Selected Alignment
---Southbound Ramp Alternative
L!. J \, l .i
I MUea
l ... ~ ~ -J
.·.-· ..... ---0 500 1000 1500 f .. l
,:.."' ..
'II 1' •
Downtown Crossing/Seward Connector
Figure 11-2
Alignment Alternatives
)
2.
-Segment 2 provides improved access between the east-west
segment of the Point MacKenzie Access Road and the Parks
Highway
Elmendorf Project
0
0
Elmendorf Crossing --bridge structure across the Arm plus enough
roadway to bring bridge traffic to the existing road system in
Anchorage (Glenn Highway west of the Muldoon Road interchange)
and the planned Point MacKenzie Access Road in the Mat-Su Borough
(intersection near Lake Lorraine) '
Houston Connector --Segments 1 and 2 as indicated for the ·
Downtown Project
Other alignments were examined and dropped from further consideration.
They are located in Figure II-2 and are described below:
0
0
0
0
0
0
Downtown Crossing Southbound Ramp Connected to L Street at 6th Avenue:
There would be an unacceptable level of dislocation and neighborhood
disruption. The view of Knik Arm for area residents would be blocked.
Seward Connector Ramps Serving Downtown Anchorage on the C Street
Viaduct: Crossing traffic would pass through what is expected to
become the center of activity in downtown Anchorage, adding to traffic
congestion.
Seward Connector Ramps Connecting to E and G Streets: G Street is not
a through arterial street and E Street has limited capacity, so
traffic distribution problems would occur in downtown Anchorage. In
addition, the E Street ramp would pass adjacent to the planned
location for several historic homes. The G Street ramp would cause
unacceptable commercial and residential dislocation.
Elmendorf Crossing Beginning at Boniface Parkway and Reaching the Arm
South of Alignment Analyzed in This Document: The Air Force identi-
fied several significant and costly impacts that would result from
this alignment. The present alignment responds to Air Force concerns
and reduces the impact on Air Force facilities.
Ramps Improving Access from Crossing to Glenn Highway East of Muldoon
Road: This movement is provided for by the Elmendorf Crossing via a
half diamond interchange at Oilwell Road. The ramps would provide a
more direct route than the Oilwell Road interchange. However, it was
found there would not be enough traffic (350 vehicles per average
weekday in 2010, including both directions of travel) to warrant the
cost of the ramps.
Houston Connector Intersecting Parks Highway• North of Houston: This
alignment was used in the Final CAA. It followed an ADOT/PF
designated future transportation corridor, however it passed through
II-6
[
c
r
[
f' L
G i
[j
[
c
L
[
[
-·
-:
0
/
an extensive wetland area and required bridges across the Little
Susitna River and the Alaska Railroad. Concern about the extensive
wetland involvement and the Little Susitna River crossing was
expressed during review of the Draft CAA. Thus, the alignment was
dropped in favor of the present alignment.
Houston Connector Intersecting Parks Highway at King Arthur Road:
This alignment was suggested by the Houston City Council (see Appendix
G) , but it was dropped because it would require a bridge over the
Alaska Railroad.
The components of the No-Crossing Alternatives identified in the corridor
analysis and carried forward to this document are:
0
0
0
No-Action Projects presently programmed and planned between
Anchorage and the Mat-Su Borough
Glenn/Parks Improvement -Supplementing the No-Action Alternative with
additional lanes on the Glenn and Parks Highways
Hovercraft (air cushion vehicle} Supplementing the No-Action
Alternative with a Hovercraft Ferry across Knik Arm
A fourth No-Crossing Alternative was evaluated but dropped from further
consideration, the Transportation Systems Management (TSM} Alternative.
This is defined as limited capital improvements maximizing use of the
existing road system. ' In examining possible actions for inclusion in this
alternative, it was concluded that no TSM technique would improve signifi-
cantly the access to growth areas outside the Anchorage bowl on the Glenn
and Parks Highway.
Carrying capacity of the Glenn/Parks Highways could not be increased
significantly by signalization, striping, and bus/high occupancy vehicles
(HOV} on contraflow lanes. Pavement widths would not be sufficient to
accommodate additional traffic lan~s or a continuous left turn lane along
the Parks Highway through Wasilla. Provision of a bus/HOV lane on the
Glenn Highway would be impractical in that either a lane would have to be
removed from the peak direction of traffic flow, reducing capacity to
unacceptable levels, or two lanes would have to be removed from the
non-peak or contraflow direction, reducing capacity to unacceptable levels.
Government sponsored HOV incentives, such as leasing vans for van pools,
might induce some carpooling but the shift would not be sufficient to
justify the dedicated lane.
B. DOWNTOWN PROJECT
The termini for the Downtown Project would be the Seward Highway at Ingra/
Gambell Streets in Anchorage and the Parks Highway near Houston in the
Mat-Su Borough. The Downtown Project would be divided into the following
parts shown in Figure II-2:
0 Crossing (access ramps from I and L Streets in downtown Anchorage, a
bridge across Knik Arm, and a road connecting to a planned extension
of the Point MacKenzie Access Road in the Mat-Su Borough}
II-7
0
0
Seward Connector (road connecting the crossing with the Seward Highway
at Ingra and Gambell Streets and with the Port of Anchorage)
Houston Connector
Segment 1 (road between crossing and east-west segment of Point
MacKenzie Access Road in the Mat-Su Borough)
-Segment 2 (road between end of Segment 1 and Parks Highway at
Houston)
Crossing
Alignment Description. The southern terminus of the crossing would be at
the I/L couplet near 3rd Avenue in Anchorage. Two alternative configura-
tions for the southbound ramp are under consideration. One would end at L
Street and the other at I Street. The northbound ramp would begin at I
Street. Starting from the southern terminus, Knik Arm would be crossed in
a north-west direction, reaching.the north bluff about 1.5 miles north-east
of the tip of Point MacKenzie. The crossing then would proceed north along
the west slope of the Elmendorf Moraine (Figure II-3) for approximately two
miles and end near Lake Lorraine at the line between Sections 22 and 23,
Tl4N, R4W, Seward Meridian. The entire crossing would be about 5.5 miles
long, see Fi~~res II-3 and II-4. Additional detail is shown in Appendix A.
Traffic Volume. Traffic capacity of the four-lane crossing is estimated at
50,000 AWDT (average weekday daily traffic, including both directions of
travel). Traffic on the crossing is forecast at 42,300 AWDT in year 2010
(design year) , approximately twenty years after project completion.
Bus Service. It is anticipated that conunuter bus service would use the
crossing to accommodate the increased transit demand between Anchorage and
the Mat-Su Borough. See description under "Houston Connector". A separate
bus/carpool lane would be. provided through the crossing toll ·booths.
Design Features. The central feature of this crossing would be the spans
over Knik Arm, which would include a single-level, four-lane, cable-stayed
bridge. A conceptual drawing of this bridge is shown in Figure II-5. It
would consist of the 2,240-foot long cable-stayed configuration, 9,500 feet
of 500-foot deck-truss spans, and approximately 4,000-feet total of shorter
multiple-girder spans which would reach the bluffs on either side of the
Arm. The total length would be three miles.
The bridge would accommodate installation of utilities, but there would be
no provisions for use by either non-motorized vehicles or pedestrians.
Navigation clearance 1,000-feet wide and 150-feet above MHHW (Mean Higher
High Water) would be provided under the main span. The two piers flanking
the main span would be centered about a navigation course ident~fied by
the Coast Guard (U.S. Coast Guard, January 1981). Navigation lights would
be provided on the bridge in conformance to Coast Guard requirements.
II-8
[
c
[
c
r
[
[
c
[
L
[
[~
[!
[
[
[
1:-r 1 l '-I·•'• -J
Houst'Q,JJ Connect
,~·~0 ?{~~~~
f
t.
Possible Construction
Staging Area
r .
' ( .. :} c)
iPossl:ble Construction
:na1AII1lA Area
Elmendorf Crossing
/
f;,~-;:
' '\\
c.:-1 c-l I ;
~ •....
2 Miles
Figure 11-3
Crossings
,----.:..; I ,
····. '.:' •;,
h' l':J!C . .'J ul:i • ....
North
Figure 11-4
Downtown . Crossing/
Seward Connector
L {, '.I .. .l l. L, .J l.. ..J I.J l .1
. . --·-·· -~~~!t __ ..
fo---1,200' ~-------.!:14~S~p~an'!.s.~a,_l _ 500' ~-7,000' ·····----------1--~()~4-1,200' I 500' 5 Spans ot 500' • 2,500'
Girder Spans Girder Spans Truss Spans
-
0 1100 2000 F .. l
800'
\.._ Girder Spans
------
0 1100 2000 F .. t
Cable-Stayed Span
(Elevation) (Croaa Section)
Downtown
J .. -~
,::
Elev. 336 Aviation Clearance~
Downtown
13.000
21 Spans al 500' • 10500'
Truss Spans
Elmendorf
1--r
MHHW Ele~ 12.6
MSL Elev. 00
MJ.!.W Elgy, -16.1
-/"Seabed
I ,.--steel Cylinder
Pipe Piles
Approach Span
(Croaa Section)
Truaa Span
(Croaa Section)
Coble -Sto)'ed Sp I""'
, 1000' x 152' NoviQalion Clearance
Elmendorf
1,700'
Girder Spans
-
ooting
eo! (Tremie Concrete)
\Steel H·Piles
Approach Span
(Crose Section)
Figure 11-5
Bridges
l .
The two towers supporting the cable-stayed spans would project
approximately 30 feet into the aviation clear zone for Merrill Field.
Lighting for aircraft would be provided in conformance with requirements of
the Federal Aviatiop Administration (FAA).
All bridge piers would be designed to resist earthquakes, ice, temperature
extremes, wind, and other forces that would affect a structure at this
location. The bridge would also be designed to minimize the chance of ship
collision and the damage resulting from a collision. Design investigations
would include an analysis of the following means to minimize ship
collisions:
0
0
0
0
Locate the navigation channel to provide the safest passage into and
out of the Port of Anchorage
Provide the optimum navigation clearance for the number and character-
istics of ships
Provide navigation aids to assist the passage of ships under the
bridge
Utilize ice breaking type vessels and designated pilots to assist
ships during hazardous climatic conditions
The following means to minimize damage to the bridge in the event of a s~ip
collision would be analyzed:
0
0
Design of fendering system at the piers to partially absorb the energy
from a collision and/or to deflect a ship away from the pier
Design of the pier itself to withstand a collision without collapse of
the bridge
The remainder of the Crossing north of Knik Arm would be a linti ted access
four-lane at-grade roadway. Grades would be moderate with. large cuts
required north of the end of the bridge due to a large ridge called . the
Elmendorf Moraine. A 400-foot wide right-of-way would provide adequate
width for future utilities, space for future frontage roads, and/or buffer
space to protect adjacent land uses from roadway noise and visual impacts.
Fencing would not be provided along the right-of-way.
Toll booths would be constructed on the Mat-Su end of the Crossing between
the bluff and the first interchange. The booths would accommodate
northbound and southbound users of the Crossing.
Lighting would be provided on the bridge structure, at the toll plaza, and
at roadway intersections.
Cost. The estimated 1985 costs of the Downtown Crossing, plus additional
costs resulting from a five percent inflation rate before project
completion, are:
II-12
[
c
t
c
c
[
[
L~
c
[
[
.r-:J
L~
Engineering
Right-of-Way
Construction
TOTAL 1985 costs
Inflation to
Construction
TOTAL
$ 33,600,000
1,000,000
522,900,000
557,500,000
72,300,000
$629,800,000
Inflation calculations took into account the forecast timing of
construction expenditures. Annual maintenance costs (1985) are estimated
to be $1,100,000•
Construction. Construction of the Crossing would take six years, allowing
for design time, site characteristics, and winter shutdown. The at-grade
roadway could be built independent of the bridge-and would take less time.
With construction starting in 1986 as planned, the Crossing would be open
for traffic use in 1991.
Construction materials· for the bridge, including superstructure members,
steel pier shells, and steel pier bases probably would be fabricated
outside of Alaska. Cement and reinforcing steel also would be shipped in
from out-of-State.
Labor requirements for construction of the bridge would be solicited from
within the State and then, if necessary, additional labor would be sought
from outside the State. An average of 150 workers per year would be
required during construction.
For the at-grade roadway portion, all labor, heavy equipment, and construc-
tion materials, except for cement and certain specialty steel items, would
be availabl'e within the State.
A single central construction staging area is
importation and storage of supplies and
construction. This site would require:
envisioned to provide for
equipment for Crossing
0
0
0
Dock facilities --pier at 20-foot depth water (low tide); crane to
unload barges bringing steel and concrete from the Orient or Lower 48
Storage yard --level cleared area approximately 15 acres (750 x 1,000
feet) in proximity to the dock and above high water to provide for
storage of materials and equipment,· mixing of concrete, and
.contractor's office
Access road to the staging area for bringing in sand and gravel and
personnel; the approximately 40-foot wide road on 100-foot
right-of-way would be· designed for truck loading and six percent
maximum grade; crushed rock surface is envisioned
II-13
The crossing staging area would not need to be at the construction site
although proximity would be desirable. The site would be occupied only
during construction and therefore could be leased or purchased and sold
following construction.
Three alternative sites for construction staging are shown in Figure II-3.
They are:
1.
2.
South of Ship Creek on the Anchorage waterfront on land leased from
the Alaska Railroad. For use as a staging_ site, the current site
would require fill, dock construction, and dredging. York Steel, the
current leaser, has Corps of Engineers permits for dock and fill at
this location. Proximity to existing transportation, services, and
labor would make this a preferred location for staging. This location
would necessitate a subordinate Mat-su-side construction office
(perhaps one acre) to manage Mat-Su-s ide construction. Boat or
aircraft transport would be provided between Anchorage and the Mat-Su
shore.
Approximately one mile west of MacKenzie Point on the Mat-Su shore on
land leased or P.Urchased from private owners. Approximately one-half
mile of pier would be needed to reach 20-foot water depth. Off-loaded
materials would be transported to the top of the bluff or a 15 acre
fill area would be created in the mud flat area. Approximately 11
miles .of access road would be required to link this staging area with
the existing terminus of the Point MacKenzie Access Road. This
location would require a boat or aircraft transport link to Anchorage
and a subordinate Anchorage-side construction office (perhaps one
acre) to manage on-shore construction. Construction of a staging area
dock, storage, and access road in this location could provide the
nucleus for a Point MacKenzie port following Crossing construction.
3. Approximately four mi~es north of the Port of Anchorage on the Mat-Su
shore. This site would J:?e leased or purchased from the Borough or
private owners. Approximately one-half mile of pier would be needed
to reach 20-foot water depth. Alternately a 15-acre fill area would
be created in the mud flat area near the dock. This location would
require a boat or aircraft transport link to Anchorage and boat link
to the Elmendorf shore. Approximately eight miles of gravel roadway
would be needed to connect the site to the existing terminus of the
Point MacKenzie Access Road. Construction of a dock, staging area,
and access road in this location could provide the nucleus for a Point
MacKenzie Port following Crossing construction.
Any of the three sites could be used with a Downtown Crossing. The first
two would be particularly suitable.
Maintenance and Operation. Maintenance requirements for the bridge portion
would include safety inspections, and navigation and aircraft lighting
replacements. An eight year paint cycle would be required for the steel.
Snow removal, sign repair, periodic lane striping, roadway repairs, and
repaving would also be required. Periodic repairs would be made to the
toll booths. Operation requirements would include 24-hour staffing by toll
collectors. Approximately 25 jobs would result.
II-14
[
[
[
r L
[
c
c·
[
[
c
[
[
L
~
-,
_j
Financing. See Appendix F, "Project Financing Overview".
Permits and Approvals. The following permits and approvals would be
required with the Downtown Crossing:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 •
Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit for all wetlands filling and
likely for Knik Arm bridge construction
Corps of Engineers Section 10 permit for construction of Knik Arm
bridge
u.s. Coast Guard Section 9 permit for Knik Arm bridge
Approval by the Federal Aviation Administration to encroach on the
Merrill Field clearance zone
Permit fr6m the Federal Communications Commission for the air
clearance encroachment
Department of Environmental Conservation Certificate of Reasonable
Assurance (that water quality would be maintained)
Governor's office determination of coastal zone plan consistency
Department of Natural Resources tidelands lease and an 11 AAC 93.160
dam permit for constructing cofferdams
Department of Fish and Game Title 16 permit (for affecting critical
habitat area)
ADOT/PF, Division of Design and Construction, Design Group II
(aviation) clearance with Federal Highway Administration and Federal
Aviation Administration concurrence since crossing is within two miles
of an airport
Seward Connector
Alignment Description. This portion of the Downtown Project would connect
both the Seward Highway and the Port of Anchorage to the Crossing. The
connection from the Seward Highway would proceed north from Ingra/Gambell
Streets (starting point for Seward Highway as well as end points for
planned Seward and Northside Corridors, See Chapter III, "Street and
Highway Plans") through an undeveloped area. Two southbound ramp alterna-
tives are being considered, one would end at Gambell Street and one would
end at Ingra Street. The northbound ramp would begin at Ingra Street. It ·
would curve west, cross an Alaska Railroad track, and run parallel to and
south of Ship Creek until it would connect with the Crossing near the
shore of Knik Arm. The length of the Seward Connector would be about 1.5
miles. Vehicular access to the Port of Anchorage would be provided to the
Crossing via two, one-lane ramps on the west side of the Alaska Railroad
mainline track, see Figure II-4. Additional detail is shown in Appendix A.
II-15
Traffic Volumes. Traffic capacity of the four-lane Connector is estimated'
at 50,000 AWDT, which includes both directions of travel. Year 2010
traffic is forecast at 1~,600 AWDT.
Design Features. The Seward Connector would consist of a four-lane bridge
throughout its entire length. The bridge would be high enough to allow
clearance underneath for railroad traffic, but low enough to pass under the
existing C Street viaduct. No provisions would be made for use by either
pedestrians or non-motorized vehicles except crossing underneath the
bridge. Roadway lighting would be provided at all exits and entrances.
The Connector would be drained into the Municipal storm sewer system.
Cost. The estimated 1985 costs of the Seward Connector, plus additional
costs resulting from a five percent inflation rate before project
completion, are:
Engineering
Right-of-Way
Construction
TOTAL 1985 costs
Inflation to construction
TOTAL
$ 6,900,000
8,000,000
107,900,000
122,800,000
134,400,000
$257,200,000
Inflation calculations took into account the forecast timing of construc-
tion expenditures. Annual maintenance costs (1985 dollars) are estimated
to be $40,000. This figure does not include cyclical maintenance, such as
repaving, which ·is treated as a capital expenditur~ by the State.
Construction. It is anticipated that construction would be completed in
two years with much of the work continuing through the winter. Labor
requirements would be solicited initially from within the Stpte of Alaska.
Const+action would take place in 1999 and 2000 with the Connector open for
traffic in 2001. The schedule would be coordinated with Major Corridor
Project(s) (ADOT/PF, F.HWA, March 1984). During construction activity, the
project would employ about 100 workers.
Maintenance. The largest maintenance expenditures would be for snow
removal, surface repair, and repaving• One or two new jobs might result.
Financing. See Appendix F, "Project Financing Overview".
Permits and Approvals. .The following permits and approvals
required with the Seward Connector:
0 Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit for filling wetlands
would be
0 Department of Environmental Conservation Certificq,te of Reasonable
Assurance (that water quality would be maintained)
II-16
[
c
[
i
"
f" L
c
c
c
[
[
[
c
[
L
[
L
,....,
I
_____.·
0
0
Governor's office determination of coastal zone management plan
consistency
ADOT/PF,_ Division of Design and Construction, Design Group II
(aviation), clearance with Federal Highway Administration and Federal
Aviation Administration concurrence since Connector is within two
miles of an airport
Houston Connector
Alignment Description. This Connector would connect the Crossing of either
the Downtown or Elmendorf Project to the Parks Highway. Segment 1
of the Houston Connector would start at the line between_ Sections 22 and
23, Tl4N, R4W, Seward Meridian, which would be the northern terminus of the
Crossings near Lake Lorraine. It then would head northwest, following the
west slope of the Elmendorf Moraine for about 6.5 miles where it would join
the south end of the existing Point MacKenzie Access Road. The alignment
would follow this road north 5.2 miles to where the Point MacKenzie Access
Road turns east. Segment 2 of the Connector would continue north, passing
between Carpenter Lake and Cann Lake, then it would proceed northeast,
passing between Cann Lake and Jewell Lake for about 6.3 miles to South Big
Lake Road. In the next 10.2 miles, it would cross over the narrows between
Mirror Lake and Big Lake, pass south of Bottle Lake and north of Orchid
Lake, continue northeast between Blanket Lake and Little Beaver Lake, and
then turn ~ast and terminate at the Parks Highway about 0.25 miles south of
the Alaska Railroad grade crossing in Houston, see Figure II-6. Additional
detail is shown in Appendix A.
Traffic Volume. Traffic capacity would be approximately 30,000 AWDT for
the four-lane Segment 1 and 15,000 for the two-lane Segment 2. Year 2010
traffic is forecast at 23 , 400 · AWDT for Segment 1 and 11,000 AWDT for
Segment 2.
Bus Service. Increased accessibility to the Anchorage bowl and ·the
availability-of developable land is expected to generate development and
associated demand for commuter bus service. Because of the long travel
distance, an express bus system with few stops is envisioned. Park-and-
ride lots for car pooling and bus operations near major intersections could
also occur. Bus/carpool turnouts would be provided at major intersections,
and there would be room in the Connector right-of-way for the eventual
construction of park-and-ride lots. Bus service is discussed in detail
under "Public Transportation", Chapter IV.
Design Features. Segment 1 would be a limited access four-lane road.
Segment 2 would be a limited access two-lane road. Limited access means
that access to the connector would be permitted only at intersections. The
Connector would have a grade that is gentle to rolling, with small cuts and
fills. A bridge would be required for the crossing of the narrows between
Mirror Lake and Big Lake. Bridge clearance would be in conformance with
Coast Guard requirements.
II-17
I
I
I
l ..
r·...;
I
\
• • "' I .. •1.. •(j, ... t--.. ~ ·· .. :foroct i ,Jj ...... .
: .:;::·, ~ t
i l
I c.) ~~
~J
I i
I ' l I
I
I
I
~-
LL,
~
il Susitna Flats
state Game
' Refuge
I .
I
L,
I
I
I
I
I
0 Intersections
~-
----l sj .
I L
J. Goose Bay l_ __ r State Game Refuge
~--~---,_·l
'-1
0
c
c
F
[
vic
JO
[ ~
t I U /i ~
I c
I c
I [
~North! c ----~ 1. L-_,·. ,..---5 Miles 1
Figure 11-6
Houston Connector
[
-'
::'~
v
As shown on Figure II-6, at-grade intersections with lighting, signs, and
bus/carpool turnouts would be provided at eleven locations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
South of Lake Lorraine
South of Twin Island Lake
West of Lost Lake
Holstein Heights Subdivision (Point MacKenzie Agricultural Area)
East-West Segment of Point MacKenzie Access Road
East of Jewell Lake
Irish Hills Subdivision
South Big Lake Road
Horseshoe Lake Road
West of Beaver Lakes
Parks Highway
There would be no provisions for non-motorized vehicles or pedestrians
throughout the length of the Houston Connector, however the right-of-way -
would be wide enough for future inclusion of a path for non-motorized
vehicles or pedestrians. A bridge would be provided for the users of the
Iditarod Trail to cross over the route. Also a parking lot would be
provided on the right-of-way near the trail crossing.
A 400-foot right-of-way would be required for both segments to provide
adequate width for future utili ties, frontage roads, future upgrading to
full grade separation (interchanges) , and/or buffer space to protect
adjacent land uses from roadway noise and visual impact. Initially,
fencing would not be provided along the right-of-way boundary. If required
at some locations in the future, it would be installed.
Costs. The estimated 1985 costs for the Houston Connector, plus additional
costs resulting from a five percent inflation rate before project
completion, are:
. Segment 1 Segment 2 Total
Engineering $ 3,100,000 $ 3,600,000 $ 6,700,000
Right-of-Way 0 4,500,000 4,500,000
Construction 23,700,000 27,700,000 51,400,000
TOTAL 1985 costs 26,800,000 35,800,000 62,600,000
Inflation to
Construction 5,800,000 7,100,000 12,900,000
TOTAL $32,600,000 $42,900,000 $75,500,000
Inflation calculations took into account the forecast timing of
construction expenditures. Annual maintenance costs (1985 dollars) are
estimated to be $230,000 for Segment 1 and $170,000 for Segment 2. These
figures do not include cyclical maintenance, such as repaving, which is
treated as a capital expenditure by the State.
II-19
Construction. All labor, heavy equipment, and construction materials,'
except for cement and reinforcing steel, would be available within Alaska.
Since construction of the Connector would require little or no specialty
items, the funds expended out-of-State would be negligible. Construction
would occur during the final two years of the Crossing construction (1989
and 1990). Labor requirements would be solicited initially from within the
State of Alaska, and it is anticipated that an average of 50 workers per
year would be required during construction.
Maintenance. Maintenance requirements for this Connector would include
snow removal, sign and roadway light repair, periodic lane striping,
roadway repair, and repaving. One or two new jobs might result.
Financing. It is anticipated that the Houston Connector would be financed
partially by Federal participating funds. See Appendix F, "Project
Financing Overview".
Permits and Approvals. The following permits and approvals would be
required with the Houston Connector:
0
0
0
0
0
Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit for filling wetlands
Corps of Engineers Section 10 permit for Mirror/Big Lakes narrows
bridge
u.s. Coast Guard Section 9 permit for bridge across Mirror/Big Lakes
narrows
Department of Environmental Conservation Certificate of Reasonable
Assurance (that water quality would be maintained)
Governor•s office determination of coastal zone management plan
consistency
Department of Fish and Game Title 16 permit (crossing fish ~treams or
affecting critical habitat area)
C. ELMENDORF PROJECT
The termini for the Elmendorf Project would be an interchange with
Glenn Highway near Muldoon Road in Anchorage and an intersection of
Parks Highway near Houston in the Mat-Su Borough (Figure II-2).
Elmendorf Project would be divided into the following parts:
the
the
The
0 Crossing (road from the Glenn Highway in Anchorage, a bridge across
Knik Arm, and a road connecting to a planned extension of the Point
MacKenzie Access Road in the Mat-Su Borough)
0 Houston Connector (same as with Downtown Project)
II-20.
[
[
[
[
r
t
[
[~
c
[
c
[
.[
[
[
[
L
I .
b=o
u
~~
L./
,..,
I
l.
L
L.
[
Crossing
Alignment Description. The Crossing would begin at the Glenn Highway near
Muldoon Road, cross Fort Richardson and Elmendorf Air Force Base (AFB) ,
cross Khik Arm, and end at the line between Sections 22 and 23, T14N, R4W.
The alignment would be northerly from the interchange at Glenn Highway,
passing between the AFB hospital and Bartlett High School. It would curve
to the northwest near the hospital's helicopter pad and then curve north
near Ship Creek, passing between an AFB east-west runway clear zone and
munitions safety clearance zones. The alignment would continue northerly
until it reached the Alaska Railroad. It then would turn to the northwest
and pass north of the north-south runway clear zone, and north of the
Hillberg Ski Area reaching the bluffs of Khik Arm north of Green Lake.
Khik Arm then would be crossed in an east-west direction, reaching the
Mat-Su side of the Arm about four miles northeast of the tip of Point
MacKenzie. The Crossing would proceed west for about one mile before
ending near Lake Lorraine. The length of the entire Crossing would be
about 10 miles, see Figure II-3. Additional detail is shown in Appendix A.
Traffic Volume. Traffic capacity of the four-lane Crossing is estimated at
50,000 AWDT. Year 2010 traffic is forecast at 30,100 AWDT.
Bus Service. Buses would use the Crossing to serve increased transit
demands between Anchorage and the Mat-Su Borough. See description under
"Houston Connector". A separate bus/carpool lane would be provided thro-qgh
the crossing toll booths.
Design Features. The portion of the Crossing passing through Fort
Richardson and Elmendorf AFB would be a fully access-controlled four-lane
divided highway. Deep cuts and high fills would be required for approxi-
mately 1.7 miles.
There would be a directional interchange with the Glenn Highway near
Muldoon Road and a half-diamond interchange at Oilwell Road. In the
_portion passing through Fort Richardson and Elmendorf AFB, 13 bridges would
be needed, including two over the Alaska Railroad. For the 400-feet
before reaching Knik Arm, the highway would be close to the shore of Green
Lake. Except for Ship Creek, this portion of the highway would not cross
any streams or lakes.
A 300-foot wide right-of-way would be required through military property.
This entire portion of the Crossing would be fenced at the right-of-way
boundary.
A four-lane double-level bridge would cross Knik Arm, see Figure II-5. The
2. 5 mile long bridge would consist of 21 through-truss spans and about
2,500-feet 6f multiple-girder spans. At the bluff line on both sides of
the Arm, about 1,000-feet of girder spans would project onto the shore.
These spans would provide for the transition from a double-level roadway on
the bridge to a side-by-side roadway on the shores.
II-21
The bottom of the steel trusses would be high enough to clear waves and
spray at high tide. Navigation clearance for large boats would not be
provided, however there would be clearance for small craft and the
Chugach Electric maintenance barge. Lighting for aircraft and navigation
would be provided in conformance to the requirements by the FAA and U.s.
Coast Guard. Provisions would be made to allow for the installation of
utility lines, but no provisions would be made for use by pedestrians or
non-motorized vehicles.
Bridge piers would be designed to resist earthquakes, ice, temperature
extremes, wind, and other forces that would affect a structure at this
location.
On the Mat-Su side of the Arm, the Crossing would be a four-lane at-grade
roadway with small cuts and fills. A 400-foot right-of-way would provide
adequate width for utilities and future frontage roads. No fencing would.
be provided for this portion of the Crossing.
The bridge, toll plaza, and intersections would be lighted.
Toll booths would.be constructed on the Mat-Su end of the Crossing between
the bluff and the firpt interchange. The booths would accommodate
northbound and southbound users of the Crossing.
Cost. The estimated 1985 costs for the Elmendorf Crossing, plus additional
costs resulting from a five percent inflation rate before project
completion, are:
Engineering
Right-of-Way
Relocation
Construction
TOTAL 1985 costs
Inflation to construction
TOTAL
$ 26,800,000
1,000,000
89,100,000
367,500,000
484,400,000
47,200,000
$531,600,000
Inflation calculations took into account the forecast timing of
construction expenditures. Annual maintenance costs (1985) are estimated
to be $1,100,000. This figure does not include cyclical maintenance, such
as repaving, which is treated as a capital expenditure by the State.
Construction. Construction would take five years, allowing for design
time, site characteristics, and winter shutdown. The at-grade roadway
could be built independently of the Arm bridge and would take about two
years. With construction starting in 1986 as planned, the Crossing would
be open for traffic use in 1990.
Construction materials for the Arm bridge, including superstructure mem-
bers, steel pier shells, and steel pier bases, likely would be fabricated
outside Alaska. Cement and reinforcing steel also would be shipped in from
out-of-State. Some heavy equipment needed for the Arm bridge would need to
be brought in.
II-22
[
[
[
[
c
[
[
[
l
L
L
L
An average of 150 workers per year would be require'd during construction.
Labor requirements for construction of the bridge would be solicited from
within the State and then, if necessary, additional labor would be sought
from outside the State.
Construction of the at-grade roads could be carried out by local contrac-
tors, utilizing labor mostly from the State of Alaska. Most of the
materials needed for construction of the roads would be available within
Alaska. Construction of the road through Fort Richardson and Elmendorf AFB
would require about 100,000 tons of fill material which would be brought in
from the Mat-Su Borough.
A staging area also would be required for this Crossing. Any of the three
locations described under the Downtown Crossing could be used; the first
and third would be particularly suitable.
Maintenance and Operation Requirements. Maintenance and operation require-
ments would be similar to those for the Crossing segment of the Downtown
Project.
Financing. See Appendix F, "Project Financing Overview".
Permits and Approvals. The following permits and approvals would be
required with the Elmendorf Crossing:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Department of Defense agreement for use of right-of-way through
Elmendorf AFB
Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit for filling wetlands
Corps of Engineers Section 10 permi:t for Knik Arm and Ship Creek
bridges
u.s. Coast Guard Section 9 permit for Knik Arm bridge
Department of Environmental Conservation Certificate of Reasonable
Assurance (that water quality would be maintained)
Governor's office determination of coastal zone management plan
consistency
Department of Natural Resources tidelands lease and an 11 AAC 93.160
dam permit for constructing cofferdams
Department of Fish and Game Title 16 permit (crossing fish streams or
affecting critical habitat area)
Houston Connector
This portion of the Elmendorf Project would be identical to the Houston
connector described for the Downtown Project except that construction would
be started and completed one year sooner (1988 to 1989). Year 2010 traffic
II-23
is forecast at 17,600 AWDT for the four-lane Segment 1, and 8,600 AWDT for
the two-lane Segment 2. Traffic capacity would be approximately 30,000
AWDT for Segment 1 and lS,OOO AWDT for Segment 2.
Costs. The estimated 1985 costs for the Houston Connector, plus additional
costs resulting from a five percent inflation rate before project
completion, are:
Segment 1 Segment 2 Total
Engineering $ 3,100,000 $ 3,600,000 $ 6,700,000
Right-of-Way 0 4,500,000 4,500,000
Construction 23,700,000 27,700,000 51,400,000
TOTAL 1985 Cost 26,800,000 35,800,000 62,600,000
Inflation to
Construction 4,300,000 5,200,000 9,500,000
TOTAL $31,100,000 $41,000,000 $72,100,000
Inflation calculations took into account the forecast t~ming
tion expenditures.
of construe-
D. NO-CROSSING ALTERNATIVES
Three No-Crossing Alternatives are analyzed in this document:
1.
2.
3.
No-Action Includes only those projects presently programmed
(FY 1984 to 1989) and planned (1983 to 2001) between Anchorage and the
Mat-Su Borough
Glenn/Parks Improvement --Supplements the No-Action Alternative with
additional lanes on the Glenn and Parks Highways
Hovercraft (Air Cushion Vehicle) Supplements the No-Action
alternative with Hovercraft ferries crossing Knik Arm between downtown
Anchorage and Point MacKenzie plus a two-lane road from the Point
MacKenzie ferry terminal to Houston
No-Action
The No-Action Alternative is defined for two timeframes --(1) short-range,
reflected in the-FY 1984 to 1988 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
for the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (AMATS, Septem-
ber 1983) , the 6-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the Mat-Su
Borough (Mat-Su Borough, March 1984) the ADOT/PF FY84 105 Program (ADOT/PF,
September 1983), and the Anchorage Accelerated Road Program (MOA-ADOT/PF,
March 1984); and (2) long-range, 1983 to 2001, reflected in the
Municipality (Municipality of Anchorage, Community Planning Department,
July 1983) and Borough (Mat-Su Borough, March 1984) long-range transporta-
tion plan elements. Components of the programs and plans affecting travel
in the Anchorage to Mat-Su corridor are described below and shown in Figure
II-7.
II-24
[
[
c
l
[
f"
L
c
c
c
[
c
[
[
[
No-Action
Short-Range ( 1984-1989)
(!)widen Glenn Highway from Muldoon
Road to Eagle River (6 lanes)
~North Eagle River Interchange
@Widen and grade separate Glenn
Highway from Ektutna to Parks
Highway (4 lanes)
@Park-and-Ride lot
Long-Range (1990-2001)
@Glenn Highway Interchanges and
widening (6 lanes)
@NorthsIde Bypass
(j) Seward Freeway
L1 J
Glenn/Parks
.lmpro.vement
l. j t I .! ,,
I• Ll.J
· Hovercraft
~North
Figure 11-7
No-Crossing Alternatives
Short-Range. Four improvements are proposed in the Anchorage to Mat-Su
Borough corridor during the 1984 to 1989 timeframe:
0
0
0
0
Widening of the Glenn Highway to six lanes from Muldoon Road to Eagle
River. Traffic capacity would be increased to 75,000 AWDT. The year
2010 expected traffic volume is approximately 80,400 AWDT.
Widening and grade separation of the Glenn Highway to four lanes from
Eklutna to the Parks Highway. Interchanges would be constructed at
the intersections of the Glenn and Parks Highways and at the inter-
section of the old and new Glenn Highways south of the Knik River.
Traffic capacity would be increased to 50,000 AWDT. Year 2010 traffic
volumes are forecast at 34,600 AWDT.
North Eagle River interchange. The interchange would improve safety
and increase traffic capacity to approximately 50,000 AWDT. Year 2010
traffic is forecast at 59,600 AWDT.
A park-and-ride lot within the right-of-way of the Glenn and Parks
Highway interchange. Short-range capacity of the lot would be approx-
imately 45 spaces; long-term capacity 75 spaces.
Long-Range.
timeframe:
Three improvements are proposed for the 1990 to 2001
0
0
0
Bragaw Street and Boniface Parkway interchanges with Glenn Highway and
Glenn Highway . widening to six lanes between Turpin Street (between
Muldoon Road and Boniface Parkway} and Airport Heights Road. Traffic
capacity along this segment would be increased to 75,000 AWDT. Year
2010 traffic is forecast at 67,200 AWDT.
Northside Bypass, extending the Glenn Highway in a 6-lane, grade sep-
arated configuration between Airport Heights Road and a proposed
Seward Freeway beside the Ingra/Gambell one-way couplet. Traffic
capacity would be increased to approximately 75,000 AWDT: Year 2010
traffic is forecast at 77, 200 AWDT. Although listed in current
Anchorage bowl plans, this is only one of several alternatives being
considered for the Northside Corridor in ADOT/PF' s Major Corridors
Study; see Chapter III, "Street and Highway Plans".
Seward Freeway, extending the Seward Highway as a freeway north from
Tudor Road to connect with the Northside Bypass. Traffic capacity in
this corridor would be increased to approximately 75,000 AWDT. Year
2010 traffic is forecast at 47,000 AWDT. Although listed in current
Anchorage bowl plans, this is only one of several alternatives being
considered for the Seward Corridor in ADOT/PF's Major Corridors Study;
see Chapter III, "Street and Highway Plans".
II-26
[
[
[
[
[
f
[
[
c
c
[
[
[
c
t:
[
L
L
·-"
i
L-
Glenn/Parks Improvement
Alignment Description and Design Features. This alternative would widen
the Glenn Highway to_six lanes (three lanes in each direction) between Eagle
River and the Glenn/Parks Highway juncture. The addition of one extra
traffic lane in each direction would require that all of the existing
bridges be either widened or replaced, depending upon the structural
configuration. Additionally, some of the present interchanges would
require major modification in order to accommodate the added traffic lanes.
The Parks Highway would be widened to four lanes, two lanes in each
direction with provisions for a separate left-tum lane, between the Glenn
Highway and Wasilla. The present alignment and grade would be followed.
Additional right-of-way or construction easements would be required for
both widenings where cut or fill slopes would exceed present right-of-way
limits. At interchanges on the Glenn Highway where major modifications
would be dictated, additional right-of-way would be required. Bridges over
six major and several minor streams would have to be widened.
These improvements would be in addition to those included under the
No-Action Alternatiye, see Figure II-7.
Traffic Volumes. The additional lanes would increase the capacity of the
Glenn Highway from Eagle River to the Parks Highway from approximately
50,000 (No-Action) to 75,000 AWDT. Forecast 2010 traffic volumes in this
section are 59,600 AWDT. The additional lanes on the Parks Highway
would increase its capacity to approximately 30,000 AWDT. Year 2010
traffic volumes would oe approximately 27,100 A~~T between the Glenn
Highway and Wasilla.
Bus Service. To complement highway widening, bus/carpool pullouts would be
incorporated at -freeway interchanges. The bus/carpool pullouts with
passenger shelters and pedestrian access to nearby streets would encourage
use of high-occupancy vehicles, thereby increasing the benefit from highway
investment. Ramp metering with preferential bus/carpool lanes would be
incorporated.
Costs. Cost of the addition of lanes to the Glenn and Parks Highways would
be approximately $56.9 million (1985 dollars), plus additional costs
of approximately $8.5 million re.sulting from a five percent inflation rate
before project completion. Inflation calculations took into account the
forecast timing of construction expenditures. Maintenance costs would be
approximately $170,000 ( 1985 dollars) annually. This does not include
cyclical costs, such as repaving, which are treated as a capital
expenditure by the State.
Construction. All labor, heavy equipment, and construction materials,
except for cement and reinforcing steel, would be available within Alaska.
Since construction would require little or no specialty i terns, the funds
expended out-of-State would be negligible. Construction would occur from
1988 to 1989. Labor requirements would be solicited initially from within
the State of Alaska, and it is anticipated that an average of 50 workers
per year would be required during construction.
II-27
Maintenance. Maintenance requirements would include snow removal, sign and
roadway light repair, periodic lane striping, roadway repair, and repaving.
Financing. Improvements would be partially financed with Federal partici-
pating funds.
Permits and Approvals. The following permits and approvals
required with the Glenn/Parks Improvement:
would be
0
0
0
0
0
Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit for filling wetlands
Corps of Engineers Section 10 permit for crossings of six major
and several minor streams
Department of Environmental Conservation Certificate of Reasonable
Assurance (that water quality would be maintained)
Governor's office determination of coastal zone management plan
consistency
Department of Fish and Game Title 16 permit (crossing fish streams or
affecting critical habitat area)
Hovercraft. (Air-Cushion Vehicle)
Description. This alternative would include purchase of three large
Hovercraft ferries and construction of Anchorage and Point MacKenzie
terminals and access roads. The Hovercraft Alternative would provide a
ferry crossing of Knik Arm with lower carrying capacity and cost · than a
highway bridge. The Hovercraft Alternative also would provide less
accessibility and generate less travel demand than a bridge.
Each Hovercraft vehicle would have a capacity of approximately 60 autos and
420 passengers. A vehicle would depart every 30 to 40 minutes with the
majority of the time used in loading and unloading the craft. Hovercraft
would be relatively unconstrained by ice and tides and would have greater
operating flexibility, speed, and reliability than conventional ferry
boats.
Terminal facilities would consist of large stable pads just above tide flat
areas. The Anchorage terminal would be inunediately north of Ship Creek,
while the Mat-Su Borough terminal would be approximately one-and-a-half
miles north of Point MacKenzie. Approximately 14 acres of land would be
required at each terminal location to provide space for Hovercraft storage,
ticketing, passenger waiting/shelter, and vehicle parking. This
alternative also would include completion of the Houston Connector as a
two-lane road for both segments; see the earlier Houston Connector
description. The Anchorage terminal would be just south of Ship Creek and
adjacent to the existing Port Access Road connecting to the A/C Couplet,
see Figure II-7.
II-28
[
[
[
0
[
c
c
[
[
[
c
[
[
l
-
~
~
L
Operations. Assuming a 13-hour operating day, capacity of each Hovercraft
vessel per direction would be approximately 700 vehicles per day and 5,000
passengers. One-way fares would be about five to ten dollars for an
automobile and driver and about two dollars per passenger. Year 2010
travel demand is estimated at approximately 980 vehicles (1.27 passengers
per vehicle) and approximately 400 passengers (without vehicles) each way
daily with about 75 percent of the trips occurring during the peak period.
Bus Services. Feeder buses likely would be ·provided for access to the
Hovercraft terminals on the Anchorage side.
Construction and Maintenance. Construction and maintenance requirements
would be similar to those described for the Houston Connector. Hovercraft
would be purchased, terminals completed, and a gravel Houston Connector
built to the Point MacKenzie Access Road in 1986. The Houston Connector
would be completed in 1988 and 1989. An addi tiona! requirement would be
maintenance of the Hovercraft vehicles.
Cost. Three Hovercraft vehicles, access roads, and terminals would cost
approximately $226.5 million (1985 dollars). Five percent inflation would
add approximately 14. 5 million to the cost. Inflation calculations took
into account the forecast timing of construction expenditures. Annual
operating and maintenance cost would be about $18.2 million (1985 dollars).
Finance. .Construction and operating costs could be financed in part
(perhaps 25 percent) by user fares, however the majority of construction
and operating costs would be subsidized from the State general fund and
other sources.
Permits and Approvals. The following permits and approvals would be
required with the Hovercraft Alternative:
0
0
0
0
0
0
Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit for filling wetlands
Corps of Engineers Section 10 Permit for Mirror/Big Lakes narrows
bridge
u.s. Coast Guard Section 9 permit for bridge across Mirror/Big Lakes
narrows
Department of Environmental Conservation Certificate of Reasonable
Assurance (that water quality would be maintained)
Governor's office determination of coastal zone management plan
consistency
Department of Fish and Game Title 16 permit (for affecting critical
habitat area)
II-29
E. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Table II-1 summarizes, in a form that allows easy comparison, the
characteristics of the Crossing and No-Crossing Alternatives presented in
this chapter and their impacts for each of the areas of concern presented
in Chapters IV, v, and VI.
II-30
[
[
[
c
[
c
c
[
[
[
c
('
L
[
[
H
H
I w
1-'
Area of Concern
CIIARACTERISTICS OF
ALTERNATIVES
o Design Features
o Construction
Cost
(millions of
1985 dollars)
o Annual Mainte-
nance Cost
(millions of
1985 dollars)
::-:-J
No-Action
None beyond current
programs and plans
$0 beyond current
programs and plans
$0 beyond current
programs and plans
[~.-,
' J CJ
Table II-1
! '·
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
No-Crossing Alternatives
Glenn/Parks
Improvement
Widen Glenn Highway to
6 lanes between Eagle
River and the Glenn/
Parks juncture, widen
Parks Highway between
Glenn/Parks juncture
and Wasilla to 4 lanes
with left turn lane
$56.9
$0.17
Hovercraft
Purchase three large Hov-
ercraft ferries1 build
terminals and 2-lane Hous-
ton Connector from Hat-su
side terminal to Houston
with 11 intersections and
bridge at Big/Mirror
Lakes
$226.5
$0.5 for Connector to
Parks Highway plus
Hovercraft maintenance.
(total annual operating
and maintenance cost =
$18.2
II ' l
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Project
5.5-mile 4-lane Crossing
between I/L Streets in
Anchorage and planned
Point MacKenzie Access
Road in Mat-Su Borough
including a 3-mile
bridge over Knik Arm1
1.5-mile elevated 4-lane
Seward Connector to
· Ingra/Gambell Streets
in Anchorage, 11.7-mile
limited access 4-lane
Houston Connector to
east-west Point MacKen-
zie Access Road with
five intersections,
17-mile limited access
2-lane Houston Connec-
tor to Parks Highway
with six intersections
and bridge at Big/Mirror
Lakes
$742.9
$1.54
Elmendorf Project
10-mi1e 4-lane Crossing
between vicinity of Glenn
Highway and Muldoon Road
in Anchorage and planned
Point MacKenzie Access
Road in Mat-su including
2.5-mile bridge over Knik
Arm1 11.7-mile limited
access 4-lane Houston
Connectpr to east-west
Point MacKenzie Access
Road with five intersec-
tions, 17-mile limited
access 2-lane Houston
Connector to Parks' High-
way with six intersec-
tions and bridge at Big/
Mirror Lakes
$547.0
$1.50
* Two different growth allocation scenarios were considered for each Crossing Alternative. A mid-range and high allocation to Borough were considered
for the Downtown Project. A mid-range and a low allocation to Borough were qonsidered for the Elmendorf Project. The mid-range is consider~d the
most likely to occur. For the Downtown Project, the number in parentheses relates to the high allocation scenario. For the Elmendorf Project, the
number in parentheses relates to the low allocation scenario.
H
H
I w
N
Area of Concern
CHARACTERISTICS OF
ALTERNATIVES
(continued)
0 ·Construction
Period
o Construction
Labor Reguire-
ments (average
annual jobs)
TRANSPORTATION
IMPACTS
o Hi'i!hway Acces-
sibility
-2001 travel
time Anchorage
to Houston
-2010 daily
vehicle-miles
of travel in
project area
-2010 daily
vehicle-hours
of travel iri
project area
0 Traffic Volumes
-2010 Glenn
Highway average
weekday traffic
(AWDT) at Eagle
River Bridge
No-Action
None
None
82 minutes
4.53 million
147,6 thousand
80,400 AWDT
Table II-1 (c.ontinued)
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
No-Crossing Alternatives
Glenn/Parks
Improvement
1988 to 1989
50 from 1989 to 1990
76 minutes
4. 53 million
143.6 thousand
80, 400 AI'IDT
C1
Hovercraft
1986 for Hovercraft,
terrni.nals, road to Point
MacKenzie Access Road;
1988 to 1989 for com-
pletion of Houston
Connector
50 in 1986, and from
1989 to 1990
73 minutes
· 4.42 million
144.4 thousand
78 1 100 AWDT
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Project
1986 to 1990 for Cross-
ing (open 1991); 1999
to 2000 for Seward Con-
nector; 1989 to 1990
for Houston Connector
150 from 1986 to 1988;
200 from 1989 to 1990,
100 from 2000 to 2001
44 (45)* minutes
4,12 (4.35)* million
128,6 (137.5)A thousand
57,100
(57,500)* AWDT
r11
Elmendorf Project
1986 to 1989 for Cross-
ing (open 1990); 1988 to
1989 for Houston Connec-
tor
150 from 1986 to 19871
200 from 1988 to 1989
60 minutes
4.37 (4,21)* million
139.0 (133.4)* thousand
60,900
(61,300)* AWDT
1-. -,
H
H
I w w
Area of Concern
TRANSPORTATION
HIPACTS (continued)
-2010 Crossing
AWDT
-2010 Anchorage
bowl traffic
• Traffic Flow
-2010 Anchorage
bowl traffic
flow
No-Action
Current trends
u.nchanged
Current trends
unchanged
-2010 traffic Current trends
flow outside unchanged
Anchorage
bowl
-2010 vehicle-2,788
miles of travel million VMT
(VMT) at less
than acceptable
levels-of-
service (D
to F) in pro-
ject area
c-. ~J
Table II-1 (continued)
COMPARISON OF ALTF.RNATIVES
No-Crossing Alternatives
Glenn/Parks
Improvement
Same as No-Action
Same as No-Action
Significant improvement
on Glenn and Parks High-
ways
2.788
million VMT
Hovercraft
2,600 AWDT
Same as No-Action
Same as No-~ction
Slight improvement on
Glenn and Parks High-
ways
2.739
million VMT
-. J l
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Project
42,300 (49,000)*
AWDT
Significant decreases
in forecast volumes on
Glenn Highway, Boniface
and Lake Otis Parkways,
and C StreetJ signifi-
cant increases on I/L
Streets, Minnesota
Drive, and Seward High-
way
Improvements throughout
Anchorage bowl except on
I/L Streets, Minnesota
Drive, Seward Highway,
and 5/6th Avenues, which
lead to the bridge, where
~1here congestion would
increase
Significant improvement
on Glenn and Parks High-
ways, Crossing would
operate at level-of-
service C or better in
2001, and at less than
acceptable D or E by
2010
1.982 (2.816)*
million VMT
Elmendorf Project
30,100 (27,600)*
AWDT
Slight decreases in fore-
cast volumes on some
major arterials, increas-
es on Glenn and Seward
Highways and planned
Northside Corridor im-
provementS! small in-
creases on Muldoon and
Tudor Roads
Some improvement in
Anchorage bowl, conges-
tion would worsen slight-
ly on Muldoon and Tudor
Roads, on Glenn and
Seward Highways, and on
planned Northside Corri-
dor improvements which
lead to the bridge
Significant improvement
on Glenn and Parks High-
ways, Crossing would op-
erate at level-of-service
C or better through 2010
2.343 (2.223).
million VMT
H
H
I w
~
(---;
Area of Concern
TRANSPORTATION
IMPACTS (continued)
-Flow at cross-
ing termini
o Freight Movement
-Annual truck
miles Anchor-
age to 1-!illow
in 2010
-Access Im-
provements to
port and indus-
try in Anchor-
age
o Public Transpor-
tation
-Daily transit
one-way trips
in project
area, 2001
-Daily transit
round-trips on
Glenn Highway,
2001
No-Action
1,19 million miles
None
112,900 trips
5,000 trips
Table II-1 (continued)
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
No-Crossing Alternatives
Glenn/Parks
Improvement
1.19 million miles
None
112,900 trips
5,000 trips
Hovercraft
1,19 million miles
None
113,210 trips
5,000 trips
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Project
Adequate capacity at
Parks Highway without
changes to that road1 .
street modifications
required at I/L St.reets
and 3rd Avenue including
removal of parkingr
modifications required
at Irigra/Gambell Streets
and 3rd Avenue, including
the reduction of 3rd
Avenue in that area to
one or two through lanes
depending on ramp con-
figuration
0.83 million miles
(change due to reduced
travel distance)
Direct truck access
from Port of Anchorage
and Ship Creek indus-
trial area to Interior
Alaska
107,860 (103,810)* trips
4,500 (4,300)* trips
Elmendorf Project
Adequate capacity at
Parks Highway, and Oil-
well and Muldoon Roads,
no alterations. required
to serve crossing
traffic
0,99 million miles
(change due to reduced
travel distance)
None
109,440 (111,350)* trips
4,700 (4,900)* trips
,...--,
f.tL J
.,
H
H
I w
Ul
Area of Concern
TR.!\NSPORTATION
IMPACTS (continued)
-Daily transit
round-trips
across cross-
ing
Transit im-
provements. in-
cluded in al-
ternatives
o Pedestrians and
Bicycles
[;-]
No-Action
None beyond those
now planned by
Borough and
Anchorage
-Impacts to No impact
movement
-Pedestrian and None
bicycle pro-
visions in-
cluded in al-
ternatives
o Street and
Highway Plans
-Planned major
street and
highway pro-
jects
No impact
( ~-] [ I J l
Table II-1. (continued)
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
No-Crossing Alternatives
Glenn/Park?
Improvement
Bus/carpool turnouts at
highway interchanges and
preferential bus/carpool
lanes at interchange
ramps on Glenn Highway
Eagle River to Peters
Creek bikepath would
be relocated in highway
right-of-way, closed
for two seasons
None
Entrance to proposed
Eklutna FrGntage Road
altered slightly
Hovercraft
310 trips
Bus/carpool preferential
parking at ~lat-su termi-
nal
No impact
Walk-ons permitted on
ferry
Some planned roads would
become part of the Hous-
ton Connector, others
would cross or join Con-
nector at an intersection
L I J L I •• J l ... J
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Project
480 (580) trips*
On Houston Connector,
sites for park-and-ride
lots in right-of-way,
bus/carpool turnouts at
intersections, and toll
booth lanes
Pedestrian access to
Resolution Park inhib-
ited (see "Section 4(f)
Evaluation: below)
One 8-foot lane on
Crossing would cost
about $20 million so
no provision made for
pedestrians and bi-
cycles
Elmendorf Project
360 trips
Same as Downtown
No impact
Same as Downtown
Some planned roads would Same as Downtown
become part of the Hous-
ton Connector, others
would cross or join Hous-
ton Connector at an inter-
section, need for Wasilla
Bypass deferred
j
H
H
I w
0'1
(---:
Area of Concern
TRANSPORTATION
IMPACTS (continued)
No-Action
-Major Corri-No impact
dors Study
(Northside and
Seward llighway
Corridors,
15th Avenue
Bypass)
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
IMPACTS
0 Urban Growth
and Economic
Develoement
2010 forecast
employment
-Mat-Su Borough 19,936 jobs
-Anchorage 180,928 jobs
2010 forecast
dwelling units
-Mat-Su Borough 37,052 units
-Anchorage 209,946 units
2010 average
square feet of
land per
dwelling unit
(sf/du)
-Anchorage bowl 3,210 sf/du
-Eagle River 4,210 sf/du
-Point MacKenzie 19,600 sf/du
-Other Mat-Su 19,600 sf/du
Table II-1 (continued)
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
No-Crossing Alternatives
Glenn/Parks
Improvement
No impact
19,936 jobs
19,936 jobs
37,052 units
209,946 units
3,210 sf/du
4,210 sf/du
19,600 sf/du
19,600 sf/du
Hovercraft
No impact
19,936 jobs
19,936 jobs
37,052 units
209,946 units
3,210 sf/du
4,210 sf/du
19,600 sf/du
19,600 sf/du
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Project Elmendorf Project
Need for Northside Corri-No impact
dar improvements more
critical, feasibility of
two alternatives that use
3rd Avenue as part of a
one-way couplet reduced
by Seward Connector traf-
fic movement at Ingra/
Gambell1 Need for Seward
Highway Corridor improve-
ments made less critical,
alterations required to
freeway extension alter-
natives north of Chester
Creek so they would meet
Seward Connector ramps
23,717 (26,520)A jobs
16,728 (13,940)* jobs
49,292 (58,272)* units
198,266 (189,276)* units
3,530 sf/du
4,840 sf/du
4,900 sf/du
19,600 sf/du
22,585
17,881
(21,274)* jobs
(19,202)* jobs
45,482 (41,282)* units
202,066 (206,266)* units
3,530 sf/du
4,840 sf/du
4,900 sf/du
19,600 sf/du
r-1 \ .
H
H
I w
-..,J
Area of Concern
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
UIPACTS (continued)
o Land Use Plans
o Dislocation and
Relocation
No-Action
No impact
No impact
Table II-1 (continued)
CmiPARISON m• ALTERNATIVES
No-Crossing Alternatives
Glenn/Parks
Improvement
Minimal impact1 consis-·
tent with area Coastal
Zone Management Plans to
the maxim~ extent prac-
ticable
8 single-family, 7 mobile
homes, 15 businesses dis-
placed, new homes and
business structures would
have to be built to pro-
vide for relocation
Hovercraft
Minimal impact, consis-
tent with area Coastal
Zone Management Plans to
the maximum extent prac-
ticable
1 single-family, finding
home with identical
amenities may be diffi-
cult
'I J L
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Project
Slows Anchorage develop-
ment, reduces planned
housing densities, re-
inforces downtown infill
and multiuse development
plans, increases rate of
Mat-Su Borough growth,
reinforces plan to de-
velop port and industry
at Port Mac~enzie, in-
creases residential
densities beyond what
is now planned, encour-
ages greater amount of
development in rural
areas south of Big Lake,
shifts planned Big Lake
core area from east to
west side of lake, con-
sistent with area Coast-
al Zone Management Plans
to the maximum extent
practicable
Same residential dis~
placement as Uovercraft1
four businesses and one
parking lot displaced!
no difficulty expected
in relocating businesses
without disrupting the
community
Elmendorf Project
Growth related impact
similar to Downtown Pro-
ject although less sig-
nificant due to smaller
increase in rate of Bor-
ough growth1 consistent
with area Coastal Zone
Management Plans to the
maximum extent practi-
cable
Same residential dis-
placement as Hovercraft,
landfill, portion of
storage yard, borrow
area, gate, aeronautical
receiver antenna dis-
placed on Elmendorf AFB1
in-depth study required
to find replacement site
for antenna that minimal-
ly impacts operations, no
difficulty with other
military relocations
H
H
I w
00
Area of Concern
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
IMPACTS (continued)
• Urban and Mili-
tary Function
and Operation
-Neighborhood
and Business
Community
-Military
No-Action
No impact
No impact
Table II-1 (continued)
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
No-Crossing Alternatives
Glenn/Parks
Improvement
No impact
No impact
Hovercraft
Houston Connector would
split privately-owned
parcelsr frontage roads
and underpasses would
provide access
No impact
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Project
Increases traffic on
I/L and Ingra/Gambell
couplets where passes
through residential
neighborhoodsr some
disruption of indus-
trial operations in
Ship Creek area during
constructionr south-
bound Gambell Street
ramp alternative would
disrupt Alaska Native
Medical Center access
and circulation, how-
ever the facility may
be moved by the u.s.
Public Health Service
and this ramp would
be built only if the
Center is movedr Hous-
ton Connector impact
same as Hovercraft
No impact
1--n
' :1 .J
Elmendorf Project
Increases traffic on
Ingra/Gambell couplet
where passes through
residential neighborhoods
but not as great an in-
crease as Downtownr Hous-
ton Connector impact same
as Hovercraft
Would cross numerous
paved and gravel roads
plus road/trailsr access
would be restored in all
cases either via over-
passes, frontage roads,
or in the case of road/
trails large culvertsr
construction equipment
may need to be modified
to assure no disturbance
to Circularly Disposed
Antenna Array
Cj
H
H
I w
1.0
Area of Concern
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
IMPACTS (continued)
-Schools
-Emergency
Services
-Port of An-
chorage and
Navigation
Clearance
-Aviation
Clearance
-Utilities
No-Action
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
Table II-1 (continued)
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
No-Crossing Alternatives
Glenn/Parks
Improvement
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
19 miles of gas trans-
mission line either re-
located or covered, 2~
miles electric trans-
mission line relocated,
FAA antenna array may
need to be relocated
Hovercraft
No impact
No impact
No impact
No. impact
Two major electric lines
passed under, maintenance
access across llouston
Connector provided
:1 J .JI l
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Project
In 2010, 6,120 (10,610)
students* in Mat-Su
beyond No-Action fore-
cast, same number
fewer in Anchorage
Fire and emergency medi-
cal service would need
to be provided to a
rapidly growing Point
MacKenzie and Knik/Goose
Bay areas
Direct access from port
to bridge provided,
ships and barges would
have to pass under the
bridge to reach the Port
of Anchorage, clearance
provided, however in
winter vessel control
can be reduced if
trapped in ice
Bridge towers penetrate
approximately 30 feet
into the Herrill Field
aviation clear zone
Portions of three major
electric lines would be
relocated slightly by
Seward Connector, same
llouston Connector impact
as Hovercraft! gas,
electric, and telephone
service would be re-
quired in Point MacKen-
zie and other now un-
developed areas, no
difficulty is expected,
water and sewer likely
provided privately
Elmendorf Project
In 2010, 4,215 (2,115)
students* in Mal-Su
beyond No-Action fore-
cast, same number
fewer in Anchorage
Same as Downtown, except
not as much growth would
occur
No impact
No impact
Portion of major electric
line would be relocated
slightly, another would
be raised where it would·
pass over crossing south
approach, same Houston
Connector impact as
Hovercraft; same utility
service required as for
Downtown, but to a lesser
extent because of smaller
growth shift
H
H
' I
,j:>.
0
I~
Area of Concern
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
IMPACTS (continued)
-Minorities,
Low Income,
Elderly
• Government
Finance
-Local
Government
Operations
-Competition
with Other
Capital Pro-
jects
NATURAL RESOURCE
IMPACTS
• Biological
Resources
-Acres of
terrestrial
habitat taken
No-Action
No impact
No Impact
No impact
0 acres
~ "-l '''"-ull
Table II-1 (continued)
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
No-Crossing Alternatives
Glenn/Parks
Improvement
No communities impacted,
so special effort in
coordination and partici-
pation in hearings is not
required
No impact
Competition for Federal
highway funds minimized
through scheduling
construction involving
State funds late in cur-
rent short-and long-
range planning periods,
other desirable State
general fund projects
could be delayed but
no decision to fund
alternative made and
would compete on own
merits with other capi-
tal projects
126 acres
Hpvercraft
Same as Glenn/Parks Im-
provement
No impact
Same as Glenn/Parks Im-
prov.ement, plus ferry
fares would be used to
help finance
1,146 acres
':l, ________ ..;c.;;r..;;o.;;s..;;s..;;i;.;.n'-"g'-'-A:..:l:..:t:..:e:..:r;.;.n:..:a:..:t:..:i:..:v..;e:..:s;..... _______ · .. ; ..
Downtown Project
Same as Glenn/Parks I~
provement
New growth in Borough
would'.result in a $5.09
($8.85) million* short-
fall of locally generated
revenue required to meet
costs (using current
costs ,and tax rates) I
Anchorage would benefit
by $5.1 ($8.35) million.
(in 1983 dollars, add
about 10 percent for
1985)
Same as Glenn/Parks Im-
provement, plus other
sources of funding that
would minimize use of
State and Federal funds
are being considered
1,350 acres
Elmendorf Project
Same as Glenn/Parks Im-
provement
~
New growth in Borough
would result in a $3.5
($1.75) million* short-
fall of locally generated
revenue required to meet
costs (using current
costs and tax rates) 1
Anchorage would benefit
by $3.52 ($1.84) million
(in 1983 dollars, add
about 10 percent for
1985)
Same as Downtown
1,518 acres
H
H
I
~ .....
,_
Area of Concern
NATURAL RESOURCE
IMPACTS (continued)
-Acres of
terrestrial
habitat taken
(by wildlife
value)
0 Moose
• Black Bear
• Snowshoe Hare
• Red Squirrel
• Fur Bearers
• Spruce Grouse
o Song Birds
• Muskeg Nest-
ing Birds
o ~laterfowl and
shorebirds
No-Action
0 acres
0 acres
0 acres
0 acres
0 acres
0 acres
0 acres
0 acres
0 acres
-Acres of devel-88,000 acres
oped land in
Mat-Su Borough,
2010
-Marine habi-
tats
-Number of im-
portant fish
streams and
lakes crossed
No impact
0 crossings
L.J
Table II-1 (continued)
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
No-Crossing Alternatives
90
126
90
90
35
90
90
0
35
Glenn/Parks
Improvement
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
88,000 acres
No impact
8 crossings
Hovercraft
850 acres
810 acres
841 acres
751 acres
0 acres
751 acres
841 acres
9 acres
0 acres
_88,000 acres
Minimal impact to marine
mammals and seabirds could
occur during operation of
Hovercraft
1 crossing
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Project
980 acres
940 acres
971 acres
881 acres
0 acres
881 acres
971 acres
9 acres
0 acres
96,200 (102,000)* acres
(would be increase in
terrestrial habitat
use)
Temporary construction
impacts, minimal long-
term impacts1 port de-
velopment at Point Mac-
Kenzie aided by the
Crossing could result
in water pollution,
disruption to fish mi-
gration, noise, and
displacement of inter-
tidal habitats
1 crossing
Elmendorf Project
1,182 acres
1,108 acres
1,155 acres
1,065 acres
0 acres
1,065 acres
1,155 acres
28 acres
0 acres
93,800 (91,000)* acres
(would be increase in
terrestrial habitat
use)
Same as Downtown
2 crossings
H
H
I
.t:.
N
Area of Concern
NATURAL RESOURCE
IMPACTS (continued)
-Aquatic habi-
tat impact due
to change in
growth pat-
terns
-Use of fish
and wildlife
-Threatened or
Endangered
Species
• \'letlands
-Acres affected
-Effects of
change in
growth pattern
• Water Quality
-Marine En-
vironment
No-Action
No change
No impact
No impact
0 acres
No change
No impact
Table II-1 (continued)
COMPARISO~ OF ALTERNATIVES
No-Crossing Alternatives
Glenn/Parks
Improvement
No change
No impact
No impact
35 acres
No change
No impact
Hovercraft
Minimal change
Limited improvement in
access to hunting and
fishing areas in Borough
which would increase'use,
requiring more rigid
management measures
No impact
125 acres
Minimum change
Minor increase in sus-
pended sediments during
construction
·Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Project
Could result in in-
creased fishing pres-
sure, decrease in water
quality, loss.of stream
bank habitat, blockage
of fish passage, impacts
to water supply in Bor-
oughr Borough subdivi-
sion regulations place
limits on "shoreland"
development which
would help minimize
impact
Elmendorf Project
Same as Downtown, but
less growth increase in
Borough
Significant improvement Same as Downtown
in access to hunting and
fishing areas in Borough
which would increase use,
requiring more rigid
management measures
No impact
134 acres
In Borough, small
intermittent wetlands
developed in areas
generally dry, and
possibly some devel-
oped near lakes, as a
result of growth in-
crease
No impact
124 acres
Same as Downtown, but
less growth increase in
Borough
Minor and temporary Same as Downtown
changes to water quality
during construction,
minimal long-term impacts
would include runoff from
bridge surfaces
LJ.J
H
H
I
oJ::. w
Area of Concern
NATURAL RESOURCE
IMPACTS (continued)
Freshwater En-
vironment
Water quality
Effects of
change in
growth
patterns
• Hydrology
No-Action
No impact
No change
-Marine Environ-No impact
ment
-Freshwater En-No impact
vironment
L...J
Table II-1 (continued)
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
No-Crossing Alternatives
Glenn/Parks
Improvement
Would cross six major
streams and several minor
streams, impact would be
would be minimal, some
sedimentation
No change
No impact
Would cross six major
streams, several minor
streams, tidal areas,
wetlands, well designed
bridges, culverts, and
other cross drainage
materials would mini-
mize impact
Hovercraft
No impact
Minimal change
No impact
No impact
r .. ,
L-.....J
r , .__j
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Project
Construction impacts to
Ship Creek minimized
through drainage ditch-
es, settling basins, and
spill cleanup1 construc-
tion impacts for Houston
Conne"ctor minimized
through-drainage con~
trol, erosion control,
and revegetation, no
significant long-term
impacts
Long-term impacts in
Borough due to increased
development could in-
clude increase in lake
nutrient content causing
eutrification process to
speed up, siltation and
increased turbidity, and
water pollution, State
and Federal regulatory
and permitting programs
would minimize impact
Elmendorf Project
Minor impacts (increased
sedimentation) to Ship
Creek during construc-
tion, construction im-
pacts for Houston Con-
nector minimized through
drainage control, erosion
control, and revegeta-
tion, no significant
long-term impacts
Same as Downtown, but
less growth increase in
Borough
In Knik Arm, minor Same as Downtown
changes in patterns of
currents and sediment.
deposition, minor scour-
ing could occur due to
ice pile-up
Houston Connector could , Same as Downtown
alter drainage patterns
as it crosses wetlands
north of Big Lake1 cul-
verts would minimize
impacts
' -""
H
H
I
t
Area of Concern
NATURAL RESOURCE
UIPACTS (continued)
° Floodplains
0 Natural .Resource
Development
-Farmlands of
State and
Local import-
ance
-Agriculture
and Marketing
Processing
-Timber
No-Action
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
Table II-1 (continued)
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
No-Crossing Alternatives
Glenn/Parks
Improvement
No impact
No impact
No impact
Timber could be salvaged
from cleared right-of-
way for firewood
Hovercraft
Building and paved area
would be in tidal flood-
plain, would require
protection
Right-of-way acquisition
would require 55 acres of
designated farmland for
Houston Connector
Minimal impact
Timber cleared for right-
of-way could be salvaged
for firewoodr resource-
to-market access would
not improve
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Project
Seward Connector pier
foundations would en-
croach on the Ship Creek
floodplain, however they
would not affect channel
capacity and flood flows
Same as Hovercraft
Improved access to
Anchorage local market
for Point MacKenzie
Ag_ricnltural Projectr
would support develop-
ment of a Point Mac-
Kenzie port/industrial
complex which would
provide part of in-
frastructure needed
for processing and
export
Elmendorf Project
Narrowing of floodplain
and encroachment of piers
at Ship Creek crossing,
however bridge design
would result in no impact
on floodwater flow
Same as Hovercraft
Same as Downtown
Timber cleared for right-same as Downtown
of-way could be salvaged
for firewood; improved
access between local mar-
ket and timberr supports
development of Borough
port/industrial facility
complex which could pro-
vide opportunities for
processing and exporting
wood products
H
H
I
~
VI
Area of Concern
NATURAL RESOURCE
IMPACTS (continued)
-Recreation
-Subsurface
Resources
-Western Alaska
Resources
0 Iditarod Trail
o Air Quality
-Peak hour co
emissions
(lb/hr in 2010)
r· , ~
No-Action
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
43,800 lb/hr
.-· I
L-._1
': .. '1 W-.-J
Table II-1 (continued)
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
No-Crossing Alternatives
Glenn/Parks
Improvement
No impact
Would require sand and
gravel from known local
borrow sites
No impact
No impact
43,800 lb/hr
Hovercraft
Increased access to po-
tential recreation areas
in Mat-Su1 impact limited
by time, cost, and Hover-
craft· capacity
Would require sand and
gravel for Houston con~
nector, and would induce
development of known,
but unused, gravel
sources within five
miles of Connector
No impact
Access improved, Houston
Connector would cross1
a bridge that mushers
and other trail users
could easily use would
be provided, as well as
vehicle pullout and in-
terpretive sign
43,800 lb/~r
1 ~ r : '"----"
I '1 l ~
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Project
Increased growth to
Borough and improved
access would increase
demand for recreation
requiring additional
recreation facilities
and intensified man-
agement of water and
wildiife resources
Same as Hovercraft, plus
would support develop-
ment of coal, oil, and
gas, and particularly
sand and gravel1 would
support port develop-
ment which would help
encourage sub-surface
resource development
Would help develop-
ment of Beluga coal
field and oil and gas
reserves by improving
access1 would also
support port develop-
ment which could provide
necessary processing and
export infrastructure
Same as Hovercraft
39,600 (40,800)* lb/hr
Elmendorf Project
Same as Downtown, but
growth increase less
Same as Downtown
Same as Downtown
Same as Hovercraft
44,200 (42,700)* lb/hr
,.
j!
i.
!.
~.
H
H
I
,j::.
0'1
Area of Concern
NATUHAL RESOURCE
IMPACTS (continued)
-Peak-hour NO
X emissions
(lb/hr in 2010)
-Maximum Pre-
dicted 8-hour
CO concentra-
tions (ppm in
2010)
North Anchor-
age bowl (av-
erage for 14
receptors
tested)
Outside Anchor-
age bowl
No-Action
1,800 lb/hr
8,6 ppm (6 recep-
tors violate
standards)
6. 7 ppm
Mat-Su Borough Less than 1.5 ppm
-Anchorage Air No impact
Quality Plan
Implementation
• Noise
-Residences with 681 residences
peak-hour L
greater tha~q
67 dB, year
2010, outside
Anchorage bowl
Table II-1 (continued)
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
No-Crossing Alternatives
Glenn/Parks
Improvement
1,800 lb/hr
8.6 ppm (6·receptors-
violate standards)
6,7 ppm
Less than 1.5 ppm
No impact
728 residences
Hovercraft
1,800 lb/hr
8.6 ppm (6 receptors
violate standards)
6.7 ppm
Less than 1.5 ppm
No impact
536 residences
-Anchorage bowl
noise levels
No change from cur-Same as No-Action
rent trends, levels
Same as No-Action
100 feet from ar-
terials just below
or slightly above
FHI~A 67 dB cri-
terion
r··~ ' ~ L.J
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Project
1,600 lb/hr
8.4 '(8.8)* ppm (5 re-
ceptors violate
standards)
4.7 (4.8)* ppm
Less than 1.5 ppm
Would redistribute traf-
fic in the Anchorage
bowl but would not im-
pede implementation of
plan1 conforms to State
Implementation Plan
591 (594)* residences
Generally noise levels
~IO'Jld have either neg-
ligible or a beneficial
change from No-Action
along bowl arterials
Elmendorf Project
1,700 (1,600)* lb/hr
8.8 (8.7)* ppm (6 recep-
tors violate standards)
5,2 (5.3)* ppm
Less than 1.5 ppm
Would redistribute traf-
fic in Anchorage bowl,
reducing the success of
the plan, would not con-
form to State Implementa-
tion Plan unless Long-
Range Transportation Plan
revised to offset emis-
sions increases
551 residences
Same as Downtown
H
H
I
~
-...1
Are~ of Concern
NATURAL RESOURCE
IMPACTS (continued)
• Energy
(1990 to 2010
average annual
equivalent
barrels of oil/
day)
• Visual
SECTION 4(f)
EVALUATION
• 918 West 2nd
Avenue
r· 1 .______
No-Action
5,200 barrels
No impact
No impact
L_J L..J ~' ' '
~.....--.. LJ
Table II-1 (continued)
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
No-Crossing Alternatives
Glenn/Parks
Improvement
5 1 300 barrels
Roadway would be more
dominant with increased
width, new cut and fill
slopes exposed
No impact
Hovercraft
5,200 barrels
Houston Connector would
provide ~cenic corridor,
cuts and fills would be
visible, views of road
from Big Lake area would
be a minor impact to
nearby homes
No impact
LJ
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Project
5,000 (5,300)* barrels
Would dominate and ad-
versely affect views
from one restaurant and
several residences and
businesses on the north
side of Downtown Anchor-
age where I/L ramps end,
Houston Connector same
as for Hovercraft
L Street Southbound
Ramp: noise levels
increase 8 dB (barrier
minimally reduces) ,
ramps dominant visual·
element and L Street
ramp closes views to
west1 I Street Southbound
Ramp: noise levels in-
crease 11 dB, exceed
67 dB criterion (barrier
minimally reduces) ,
ramps dominant visual
element, and access
more circuitous due to
increased traffic on
3rd Avenue at K Street
Elmendorf Project
5,300 (5,000)* barrels
Would pass through land
valued for natural set-
ting and involve deep
cuts and high fills1 mit-
igation would include
grading and revegetation
to match natural condi-
tions, Houston Connector
same as for Hovercraft
No impact
__ j
H
H
I
tl::-
00
Area of Concern No-Action
SECTION 4(f)
EVALUATION (continued)
o 935 West 3rd
Avenue
o 813 and 8131:!
West 2nd Avenue
o Resolution Park
[ ~_j
No impact
No impact
No impact
Table.II-1 (continued)
COHPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
No-Crossing Alternatives
Glenn/Parks
Improvement
No impact
No impact
No impact
L...:.J r__j
Hovercraft
No impact
lllo impact
No impact
( ..... : .. :J
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Project
L Street Southbound
Ramp1 views altered1
I Street Southbound
Ramp1 Noise levels
increase 7 dB, CO
standards exceeded,
on-street parking in
front of building lost,
views altered, access
more circuitous due to
increased traffic on
3rd Avenue at K Street
Noise levels raised 4
to 6 dB depending on
the ramp alternative,
ramps dominant visual
element
L Street Southbound
RamP,: Takes .03 acres.
of land which would be
replaced in accordance
with Lan·d and Water
Conservation Fund Act,
access affected but
would be restored,
noise levels increased
by 6 dB, eight-hour CO
standards exceeded,
views altered at parK
entrance and from deck1
I Street Southbound
Ramp: Access affected,
but would be restored
although likely altera-
tions to Hostetler Park
(including loss of land)
would result, noise
levels increased by
4 dB eight-hour CO
standards exceeded
Elmendorf Project
No impact
No impact
No impact
LJ F1'1'' I ....__.
! .,
I
LJ
H
H
I
~
U)
LJ\
J
Area of Concern No-Action
SECTION 4 (f)
EVALUATION (continued)
0 Hostetler Park
0 Elmendorf AFB
Recreation
Facilities
PROVISION FOR
FUTURE RAILROAD
ON BRIDGE
No impact
No impact
L ... J
Table Il-l (continued)
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
No-Crossing Alternatives
Glenn/Parks
Improvement
No impact
No impact
Hovercraft
No impact
No impact
L_j
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Project
L Street Southbound
Ramp: Noise levels in-
creased by 6 dB, 8-hour
CO standards exceeded1
I Street Southbound
Ramp: Restoration of
access to Resolution
Park.could necessitate
park 'alterations, noise
levels increased by 4dB,
8-hour CO standards ex-
ceeded
No impact
$60 million added to
cost (1985 dollars),
10 percent increase in
construction employment,
supports implementation
of planned Point MacKen-
zie industry and port,
25 feet additional en-
croachment in Merrill.
Field aircraft clear
zone1 piers larger so
slightly greater dis-
turbance to coastal
wetlands
Elmendorf Project
No impact
18 acres of land in rec-
reation area taken, rec-
reational quality affec-
ted by changes in visual
character, increased
noise levels (1 to 8 dB),
and proximity to road1
however access to all
areas maintained, large
culverts would carry
trails under road, visual
impacts mitigated by re-
vegetation and blending
cut-and-fill slopes into
existing terrain
$50 million added to cost
(1985 dollarsl1 10 per-
cent increase in con-
struction employment1
supports implementation
of planned Point MacKen-
zie industry and port1
piers larger so slightly
greater disturbance to
coastal wetlands, views
improved from bridge
since both directions of
travel on top of bridge
]
(-1
]
J
]
]
J
J
,]
'j
J
Chapter III
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
A. REGIONAL SETTING
The project area is in Southcentral Alaska within the Municipality of
Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough (see Figure I-2).
Anchorage is the population, transportation, trade, service, and cultural
center for Southcentral Alaska. It is the State's largest city with a 1983
population of 230, 900. The Municipal boundaries extend east into the
Chugach Mountains, north to the Knik River, and south around Turnagain Arm.
However, the central city is in a bowl physically bounded on the west and
south by the Knik and Turnagain Arms of Cook Inlet and on the east by the
Chugach Mountains. Elmendorf Air Force Base and Fort Richardson Army Post
provide a northern limit. Suburban-type growth occurs along Knik Arm and
in other locations outside the bowl.
Key transportation links between the interior and the Lower 48 are found in
Anchorage, including highway, rail, port, and air facilities. The Glenn
and Parks Highways provide access to the interior and the Seward Highway
offers access to the Kenai Peninsula. The Alaska Railroad connects
Anchorage ~o Fairbanks and to ports at Whittier and Seward. Air transpor-
tation is provided by five airfields including Anchorage International
Airport and Elmendorf Air Force Base.
The Mat-Su Borough covers an extensive ·area north of Anchorage.. The
project area is in-the southcentral portion of the Borough which is
characterized by heavily vegetated lowlands with numerous water-
bodies, wetlands, and small hills. This area includes large tracts of
undisturbed land, land that.has been cleared for agricu~ture, and streams
and lakes valued for recreation, as well as developed areas. Population of
the entire Mat-Su Borough in 1983 was 30,600 with the highest concentration
of people living in the Palmer and Wasilla areas. Development also
occurs along the Parks Highway, at Big Lake, and several other
road-accessible lakes in the project area.
B. TRANSPORTATION. CHARACTERISTICS
The following areas of interest are discussed under .. transportation
characteristics: Existing roadway network, traffic volumes, traffic flow,
freight movement, public transportation, pedestrians and bicycles, and
street and highway plans.
Existing Roadway Network
Key roadway links in the project area are shown in Figure III-1; each is
numbered. These major urban arterials and rural highways are those on
which traffic operation is most likely to be influenced by the introduction
III-1
wmow
Mat-Su Borough
horage Anchorage North
1 Bowl I {see inset)
Tudor Rood
61
"" "" "' 0
0 a::
45
§
0
"<> :; :::;:
Figure 111-1
Key Roadway Links
l
J
]
J
1c1
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
]
]
]
J
'\
J
J
]
]
J
]
/
of the alternatives under consideration. The links were used in modeling
traffic forecasts. The transportation analysis divides the project area
into two parts, an urban arterial area and a rural highway area. The
urban arterial area is the Anchorage bowl south of the intersection of the
Glenn Highway and Muldoon Road. The rural highway area includes all roads
north of that intersection.
Traffic Volumes
Existing (1982) and currently forecast traffic volumes (2001 and 2010) on
selected key roadway links are shown on Table III-1. These volumes assume
no Knik Arm Crossing is built and are shown as Average Weekday Daily
Traffic (AWDT) including both directions of travel. Volumes are not listed
for all links in the network shown in Figure III-1. Those listed are
representative of volumes within the entire project area.
Traffic volumes on the Glenn Highway between Muldoon Road and Eagle River
(link 16) are expected to increase significantly from approximately 29,000
AWDT presently to 80,400 in 2010. Volumes on the Parks Highway also are
forecast to increase significantly, as shown on link 7, from 8,500
presently to 27,100 in 2010.
Within the Anchorage bowl also, traffic volumes are expected to increase
significantly on many of the roadways. For example, volumes on the
downtown 5th/6th Avenue Couplet between C Street and the Seward Highway
(link 42) are expected to increase from a present 39,000 AWDT to about
49,700 in 2oio. Volumes on the Seward Highway south of Tudor Road (link
81) are forecast to reach 54,200 in 2010 from 43,200 currently. Volumes on
Muldoon Road between DeBarr Road and Northern Lights Boulevard (link S2)
are projected to. increase from today' s 25,400 to about 51,000 in 2010,
while traffic volumes on Tudor Road between Lake Otis and Boniface Parkways
(link 61) are forecast to grow from a present 44,600 to 74,500 in 2010.
The current traffic volume of 23,600 on Dimond Boulevard between the Old
Seward Highway and the Seward Highway (link 203) is expected to increase to
51,000 AWDT in 2010.
Traffic Flow
Table III-1 also presents the level-of-service (LOS) rating for selected
key links within the project area. The LOS indicates the operational
efficiency of a certain roadway segment and is determined by comparing the
traffic volume to the capacity of the facility. Various facility
improvements described under the No-Action Alternative in Chapter II are
accounted for in the 2001 and 2010 levels. LOS A represents a free flow of
tr~ffic, while LOS F ~epresents extreme congestion and major traffic flow
interference; see Table III-2. LOS A to C are considered acceptable
traffic flows, D to F are less than acceptable. Several key links are
forecast to operate at a poor level-of-service. The Parks Highway between
Wasilla and the Glenn/Parks Highway juncture (link 7) would operate at LOS
F in 2001 and 2010. The Glenn Highway between Muldoon Road and Peters
Creek (links 15 and 16) would operate at levels-of-service E and D,
respectively, in 2001 and both would be at LOS F in 2010.
III-3
Table III-1
TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND TRAFFIC FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
(Current and Forecast)
1982
Link No. of
Number Roadwa:t (Location) AWDT ~ LOS
RURAL HIGHI~AYS
1 Parks Highway (from Willow north) 1,400 2 A
4 Parks Highway (just east of Big Lake Road) 4,300 2 A
7 Parks Highway (Glenn/Parks Junction to Wasilla) 8,500 2 B
10 Glenn Highway (from Palmer north) 2,400 2 A
13 Glenn Highway (Eklutna to Knik River) 10,600 2 c
15 Glenn Highway (Eagle River to Peters Creek) 16,000 4 A
16 Glenn Highway (Muldoon Road to Eagle River) 29,000 4 B
24 Big Lake Road (Parks Highway to Big Lake) 2,200 2 A
32 Knik-Goose Bay Road (just south of Wasilla) 3,000 2 A
35 Point MacKenzie Access Road (east-west segment) 2
URBAN ARTERIALS
36 Glenn Highway (Boniface Parkway to Muldoon Road) 25,900 4 A
37 Glenn Highway (Bragaw Street to Boniface Parkway) 34,500 4 D
38 Northside Bypass (planned between Old Seward Highway & Bragaw Street)
42 5th/6th Avenues (C Street to Seward Highway) 39,000 6 F
H 43 5th/6th Avenues (L Street to C Street) 28,100 6 D H
H 44 Muldoon Road (Glenn Highway to DeBarr Road) 26,700 4 c
I 45 DeBarr Road (Boniface Parkway to Muldoon Road) 22,700 4 B
""" 49 15th Avenue (Seward Highway to Lake Otis Parkway) 27,300 4 c
50 15th Avenue (C Street to ~eward Highway) 13,100 4 A
52 Muldoon Road (DeBarr Road to Northern Lights Boulevard) 25,400 4 c
53 Northern Lights Boulevard (Boniface Parkway to Muldoon Road) 13,600 4 A
56 Northern Lights Boulevard (Seward Highway to Lake Otis Parkway) 25,400 4 c
58 Northern Lights/Benson Couplet (Minnesota Drive to c Street) 41,700 8 A
60 Muldoon/Tudor Roads (Northern Lights Boulevard to Boniface Parkway) 22,100 4 B
61 Tudor Road (Lake Otis to Boniface Parkway) 44,600 4 F
62 Tudor Road (Seward Highway to Lake Otis Parkway) 40,800 4 F
63 Tudor Road (Old Seward to Seward Highway) 36,600 4 F
64 Tudor Road (C Street to Old Seward Highway) 31,600 4 D
65 Tudor Road (Minnesota Drive to c Street) 28,800 4 c
68 International Airport Road (Spenard Road to Minnesota Drive) 21,800 4 A
69 Boniface Parkway (Glenn Highway to DeBarr Avenue) 16,400 4 A
70 Boniface Parkway (DeBarr Avenue to Northern Lights Boulevard) 14,000 2 c
73 Bragaw Street (DeBarr Avenue to Northern Lights Boulevard) 12,700 4 A
76 Lake Otis Parkway (Northern Lights Boulevard to Tudor Road) 19,400 4 B
17 Seward Highway (5th/6th Avenues to 15th Avenue) 39,000 8 A
78 Seward Highway (15th Avenue to Northern Lights Boulevard) 53,100 6 c
80 Seward Highway (just north of Tudor Road) 41,600 4 D
81 Seward Highway (just south of Tudor Road) 43,200 4 c
82 Old Seward Highway (36th Avenue to Tudor Road) 16,200 4 A
84 C Street or A/C Couplet (5th/6th Avenues to 15th Avenue) 17,000 4 A
r t_j [__1 c:.:J
AWDT
3,100
7,500
20,200
9,700
26,100
47,600
66,800
BOO
4,400
2,000
67,000.
54,200
63,800
42,100
31,900
35,700
24,200
21,400
20,000
45,100
14,700
22,900
44,500
39,400
64,300
54,300
57,000
50,100
33,500
23,100
26,700
26,900
18,000
24,200
40,200
70,300
59,900
47,500
27,500
30,200
r ' · i
~
.
2001
No. of
Lanes LOS
2 A
2 A
2 F
2 c
4 B
4 E
6 D
2 A
2 A
2 A
6 c
6 B
6 c
6 F
6 E
4 D
4 c
4 B
4 B
4 F
4 A
4 B
8 A
4 D
4 F
4 F
4 F
4 F
4 D
4 A
4 c
4 c
4 A
4 c
4 c
4 F
6 c
6 A
4 D
6 A
LJ
2010
No. of
AWDT ~ LOS
3,900 2 A
10,100 2 c
27,100 2 F
11,700 2 c
34,600 4 c
59,600 4 F
80,400. 6 F
1,200 2 A
6,500 2 A
2,900 2 A
83,000 6 D
67,200 6 c
17,200 6 D
49,700 6 F
38,600 6 F
41,500 4 F
26,600 4 c
22,000 4 B
21,800 4 B
51,000 4 F
16,700 4 A
23,800 4 B
47,200 8 A
45,300 4 F
74,500 4 F
61,400 4 F
64,400 4 F
56,600 4 F
35,800 4 D
26,600 4 A
32,800 4 D
30,100 4 D
18,600 4 A
25,400 4 c
47,000 4 c
82;300 4 F
11,300 6 c
54,200 6 B
30,800 4 D
34,500 6 A
-:--J
H
H
H
I
01
Link
Number
URBAN
86
88
89
90
92
93
94
201
202
203
206
208
210
212
214
NOTES
r· L-___ ... ,_. I
L..-
'l'able III-1 (Continued)
TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND TRAFFIC FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
(Current and Forecast)
1982
No. of
Roadway (Location) ~ Lanes LOS
ARTERIALS (continued)
C Street (Northern Lights Boulevard to Tudor·Road) 18,000 4 A
I/L Street Couplet (5th/6th Avenues to 15th Avenue) 39,700 6 B
Minnesota Drive (15th Avenue to Northern Lights Boulevard) 30,700 6 B
Minnesota Drive (Northern Lights to Spenard Road) 31,100 Ei B
Minnesota Drive (Northern Lights Boulevard to Tudor Road) 29,500 6 A
Minnesota Drive (Tudor Road to International Airport Road) 29,000 6 A
Spenard Road (Minnesota Drive to International Airport Road) 21,200 2 F
Dimond Boulevard (Minnesota Drive to C Street) 23,500 2 F
Dimond Boulevard (C Street to Old Seward Highway) 25,400 4 c
Dimond Boulevard (Old Seward Highway to Seward Highway) 23,600 4 B
Dowling Road (Old Seward Highway to Seward Highway) 15,000 2 c
Minnesota Drive (International Airport Road to Raspberry Road) 20,400 4 A
C Street (Dowling Road to Dimond Boulevard) 8,100 2 A
Old Seward Highway (Dowling Road to Dimond Boulevard) 16,300 2 D
Seward Highway (Dowling Road to Dimond Boulevard) 36,700 4 B
AWDT
42,800
35,400
30,100
35,200
35,700
33,600
27,200
35,400
_50,900
45,100
30,700
36,900
43,700
22,400
54,800
AWDT-signifies Average Weekday Daily Traffic (includes both directions of travel). Rounded to nearest hundred.
LOS -signifies Level-of-Service, see Table III-2.
These traffic volumes and level-of service ratings assume a Knik Arm crossing is not built.
Sources:
-1982 traffic volumes -ADOT/PF, 1982a and ADOT/PF, 1982b.
LJ
2001 2010
No. of No. of
Lanes LOS AWDT ~ LOS ---
6 c 46,600 6 D
6 A 41,800 6 B
6 B 35,600 6 B
6 B 40,800 6 c
6 B 40,800 6 c
6 B 37,600 6 c
4 D 31,600 4 E
6 B 40,000 6 c
6 D 57,500 6 E
6 D 51,000 6 D
4 D 34,700 4 D
4 B 41,700 4 c
4 F 49,400 4 F
4 B 25,300 4 c
6 B 51,900 6 c
-2001 and 2010 volumes (rural·area) -Knik Arm Crossing project team (see Chapter IX), 1984, 2001 and 2010 volumes (Anchorage bowl or urban area)-
derived from Municipality of Anchorage traffic forecasts.
LOS
A
B
c
D
F
Table III-2
LEVEL-OF-SERVICE (LOS)
< .so
< .60
< • 75
. < .90
< 1.00
> 1.00
Description
Free Flow
Stable Flow -few
restrictions on operating
speed
Stable Flow -higher
volume, more restrictions
on speed and lane changing
Approaching Unstable Flow -
little freedom to maneuver,
condition tolerable for
short periods
Unstable Flow -lower
operating speeds, some
momentary stoppage
Forced Flow -considerable
stoppage
Source: Highway Research Board, 1965.
* V/C -Volume to Capacity Ratio used to determine level-of-service.
III-6
J
J
]
]
J
J
~l -_,
J
]
J
r'
J
J
\1.
'-
]
J
J
J
~]
]
J
In the Anchorage bowl, streets operating at level-of-service D or worse
would occur throughout the bowl on both major east-west and north-south
arterials. Streets which would operate at LOS E or worse by 2001 include
5th and 6th Avenues (Links 42 and 43), Muldoon Road (Link 52), Tudor Road
(links 61, 62, 63, and 64), Seward Highway (link 78), and C Street (link
210).
Freight Movement.
Freight movement within the project area occurs via two major transporta-
tion modes, truck and rail. Freight movement by truck outside the
Anchorage bowl occurs along primarily the Glenn and Parks Highways. Within
the Anchorage bowl, freight by truck follows major arterials·, terminating
at the Port of Anchorage and various industrial locations; see "Urban and
Military Function and Operation". Table III-3 presents total annual truck
ton-miles and truck load-miles for truck freight from downtown Anchorage to
the Willow area. As shown, shipments of approximately 8.3 million
ton-miles occurred in 1980. Shipment of freight is forecast to rise
substantially to approximately 18.8 million ton-miles and 23.8 million
ton-miles in 2001 and 2010, respectively. Approximately ten percent of
total traffic on key links outside the Anchorage bowl is trucks and about
five percent of urban traffic is truck traffic. These percentages are
expected to remain constant in future years.
The Alaska Railroad provides freight service between interior Alaska and
marine terminals in Anchorage, Whittier, and Seward. Whittier and Seward
have ice-free ports for receiving rail cars and cargo transferred fro~
ship. The Port of Anchorage is the State's principal seaport and handles
all container shipments to and from the interior. Rail operations north of
Anchorage around Knik Arm consist of a single freight train daily in each
direction between Anchorage and Fairbanks, a single passenger train daily
in each direction (two trains daily in summer) to and from Denali National
Park/Fairbanks, and four to six gravel unit-trains in each direction
between Anchorage and Palmer in the Mat-Su Borough. Future rail tonnages
and train movements are forecast to increase in proportion to the popu-
lation/employment at interior destinations, i.e. 250 to 300 percent in-
crease for Mat-Su Borough rail movements by 2010 and a 100 percent increase
for Fairbanks shipments.
Public Transportation
The Anchorage People Mover (bus) system accounts for approximately 1.5
percent of all Municipality travel, with about four to seven percent of
person-trips in most of the primary transit corridors. (Municipality of
Anchorage, 1982b). Currently, approximately 39 scheduled pe~ hour buses
are in operation on 17 network routes. Service is available from
approximately 6:00 a.m. to 12 midnight Monday through Friday and to 10:00
p.m. on Saturday.
Planned short-range transit improvements include maintenance and storage
facility improvements, 115 additional buses to retire old buses and upgrade
service, a downtown passenger center to accommodate a "through-routing"
III-7
Year
1980
2001
2010
NOTES
Assumes:
Table III-3
TOTAL ANNUAL TRUCK TON-MILES AND TRUCK LOAD-MILES
(Anchorage to 1.8 miles north of Willow)
Total Total Total
Tons Ton-Miles Truck Loads
(thousands) (thousands) (Vehicles)
114 8,300 5,700
258 18,800 12,900
328 23,800 16,400
-No-Crossing
-20 tons/average truck load
Total
Truck Load
Miles (VMT)
410,000
940,000
1,190,000
-72.7 miles (1.8 miles north of Willow to downtown Anchorage)
VMT signifies vehicle-miles of travel.
III-8
l
.J
J
~J
J
~l
]
J
'i
]
]
D
]
~J·
L '
],
J
]
system and increased ridership, 50 additional bus turnouts, 40 passenger
shelters, 2 staff vehicles, an automatic information and monitoring system,
three park-and-ride lots and shelters, and 860 bus stop signs (AMATS,
September 1983) •
In the long range, the Municipality targets approximately 8..4 percent of
total person-trips by transit in 2001. Continued operation of buses in
"mixed" traffic is planned with the addition of exclusive lanes in selected
locations (Municipality of Anchorage, Community Planning Department, July
1983).
Currently, two commuter buses travel between the cities of Wasilla, Palmer,
and Anchorage on weekdays, one bus leaving Wasilla and one leaving Palmer
at 6:30 a.m. These buses reverse their route in the afternoon. Ridership
in 1981 averaged 30 persons per day on each of the Wasilla and Palmer runs
(HNTB, November 1982).
It is anticipated that ridership could double in the next five years if
various improvements., including greater promotion of available bus service,
are made. Improvements proposed by 1986 in the Borough's transportation
plan include the purchase of two additional buses (45 passenger capacity)
plus preferably one additional bus or van for shuttle service between
Wasilla and Palmer. Ninety percent utilization of bus seating by 1986 is
assumed. The current bus schedule would be expanded (by adding one run
each from .wasilla and Palmer) to four runs during each peak period, or
eight runs daily. Additional information signs would be placed at stops or
along highways. Also, a park-and-ride transfer station is proposed at the
Glenn/Parks Highways junction, which would include 40 to 50 spaces for bus
users, 20 to 25 spaces for carpoolers, and a 10-person enclosed
shelter (Matanuska-Susitna Borough, March 1984b).
Pedestrians and Bicycles
Provision for pedestrian movement in the Downtown and Ship Creek areas is
mostly on sidewalks or along the street edge with the exception of informal
trails along the railroad tracks that follow Knik Arm. A coastal trail is
planned that would go from Ship Creek to Knik Arm (Municipality of
Anchorage, [no date]), see "Land Use Plans", and it would elimin,ate use of
most of the informal trails. Bicycle movement occurs on streets throughout
the area. In the area of Elmendorf AFB influenced by alternatives under
-consideration, prov~s~ons for pedestrian movement are limited to along
roadways and hiking trails (see Chapter V). In the Borough, a segment of
the Iditarod Trail extends from the town of Knik to the Little Susitna
River and has several connecting trails (see "Iditarod Trail").
There is also an extensive system of bike trails in Anchorage. Within the
area of the alternatives under consideration, there is a bike trail that
begins at Muldoon Road, connects to Bartlett High School, and follows the
Glenn Highway to North Birchwood. The only segment that could be affected
by one of the alternatives begins at Eagle River and· parallels the Glenn
Highway for seven miles to its terminus east of the Glenn Highway North
Birchwood interchange (see Figure V-1) . The path is within the Glenn
III-9
Highway right-of-way and is usually visible from the road. Distances
between the highway and the bikepath vary from 20 feet to over 100 feet
with vegetation providing little or no buffer between them. The path is
usually open to the highway on its west side and has either cut slopes with
little vegetation or naturally vegetated open space on its east side.
Bikepath grades vary, climbing and descending small hills. The path is 6.5
feet wide and paved with asphalt. Heaviest use is from mid-April to
October, although no usage figures are available. Greatest use is by
bicyclists, however 3-wheelers and hikers occasionally use the bikepath.
Winter use is limited.
Bicyclists in the Mat-Su Borough use the shoulder of the Parks Highway and
other local roads.
Street and Highway Plans
Table III-4 describes current street and highway plans for the project
area. Two planned rail improvements are also noted. The focus is on
specific projects which could be affected by implementation of the
alternatives under consideration. The key transportation planning body for
the Anchorage bowl is the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Study
(AMATS) , a cooperative effort of the Municipality of Anchorage and Alaska
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT/PF) responsible
for long-range travel forecasting, planning, and capital improvement
programming for the Anchorage bowl.
In ·addition to the above plans, ADOT/PF has recently begun the Major
Corridors Study. A seeping document has been released (ADOT/PF, and FHWA,
March 1984). This study will consider road improvement alternatives in the
Northside Corridor (Bragaw Street to C Street. in the Glenn Highway and
5th/6th Avenue area) and Seward Corridor (Tudor Road to 3rd Avenue in the
Seward Highway and Ingra/Gambell Street area). The Anchorage bowl
Long-Range Transportation Plan (see Table III-4) identifies the need for
improvements in these corridors and proposes specif·ic solutions. The
Northside Corridor alternatives under consideration are: creating a
3rd/5th Avenue one-way couplet with high occupancy vehicle lanes, building
a freeway extension of the Glenn Highway from Bragaw Street to Ingra
Street, and extending the Glenn Highway as a freeway from Bragaw Street to
ramps at C/E Streets and G/I Streets. The Seward Corridor alternatives
are: a freeway extension of the Seward Highway from Tudor Road to Chester
Creek and addition of high occupancy vehicle lanes on the A/C Street
Couplet, a freeway extension from Tudor Road to 12th Avenue, and a freeway
extension from Tudor Road to a Northside Corridor freeway. Also being
considered in the Major Corridors Study is a 15th Avenue Bypass from the
Glenn Highway to the A/C Couplet. All the above alternatives are being
considered in various combinations or systems (ADOT/PF and FHWA, March
1984).
C. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
The following areas of interest are discussed under social and economic
characteristics: Urban growth and economic development, land use plans,
urban and military function and operation, and government finance.
III-10
(.
H
H
H
I .... ....
Plan
AMATS Transportation Im-
provement Program (TIP)
FY 84
Date: September 1983
Term: FY84-FY88
Status: Final
Source: MIATS,
September 1983
Long-Range Transportation
Plan (LRTP) For the
Anchorage Bowl 1983-2001
Term: 1983-2001
Status: Draft
Source: Municipality of
Anchorage, Com-
munity Planning
Department,
July 1983
Table III-4
STREET AND HIGHWAY PLANS
General Description
Five year implementation schedule for Anchorage area
transportation projects -showing projects for which one
or more phases will begin between FY 84 and FY 88, TIP
projects are drawn from the AMATS Long-Range Element,
Short-Term Analysis Plans and Programs, and th·e
Highway Safety Improvement Program.
This long-range transportation plan updates the 1977
LRTP, It identifies. goals and objectives, idendifies
existing and future d*ficiencies based on current
socio-economic projections, evaluates several
alternative roadway networks, and recommends the
preferred network and improvements within the AMATS
study area. Major goals and objectives include:
0 To provide a transportation system that enhances
the social and economic aspects of the region
0 To provide safe and economical mobility to all
people
0
To provide a transportation system that moves people
and goods in the most efficient and cost-effective
manner
To provide a transportation system that protects the
environment
To provide a transportation system that conserves
energy
.t. I .. .., ..._._..... ·~ L l __,
0
Improvements
A/C Street Couplet -construction of a 6-lane one-
way couplet along A and C Streets from approximately
Tudor Road to 6th Avenue.
Glenn Highway-Eklutna Frontage Road construction.
Glenn Highway-Muldoon Road to Eagle River -widen
the Glenn Highway from 4 to 6 lanes.
Glenn Highway-North Eagle River Interchange.
Boniface Parkway (DeBarr to Tudor Roads) -widen
Boniface Parkway from 2 to 4 lanes.
Glenn Highway/Boniface Parkway Interchange -upgrade
capacity and traffic flow.
Glenn Highway-Northside Bypass -This 2.3 mile
6-lane facility from Ingra/Gambell Streets to
Bragaw Street, north of the Glenn Highway/5th/6th
Avenue corridor, would provide an upgraded route
connecting the Glenn Highway and the Seward Highway
corridors. (Also one alternate in ADOT/PF Major
Corridors Study.)
Glenn Highway/Bragaw Street Interchange -upgrade
capacity and traffic flow.
Glenn Highway-Bragaw Street to Eagle River Inter-
change -widen from 4 to 6 lanes.
Seward Highway Corridor-3rd Avenue to Tudor Road -
upgrade this corridor to a 6-lane, grade separated
highway with major interchanges at 36th Avenue,
Benson/Northern Lights Boulevards, 15th Avenue, and
other streets north to 3rd Avenue. The highway would
follow approximately i.ts current alignment between
Tudor Road and 15th Avenue and then along Hyder
Street (between Ingra and Gambell Streets) from 15th
·to 3rd Avenues. (Also one alternate in ADOT/PF Major
Corridors Study.)
Seward Highway Corridor Extension -This 1-mile,
4-lane facility would connect the Seward Highway to
the Northside Bypass. (Also one alternate in ADOT/PF
~lajor Corridors Study.)
A/C Street Couplet -see above.
Boniface Parkway-DeBarr to Tudor Roads -see above,
Plan
Anchorage CBD Comprehensive
Development Plan
Term: Long-term
Status: Adopted
Source: Nunicipality of
Anchorage, Planning
Department,
Fall 1983
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Comprehensive Development
Plan -Transportation
Term: 1981-2001
Status: Adopted
~ Source: Mat-Su Borough,
~ March 1984b
~
I ......
I\)
" l [
Table ,III-4 (continued)
STREET AND HIGHWAY PLANS
General Description
This plan serves as a guide for coordinated public and
private investment decisions in downtown Anchorage.
Several downtown circulation alternatives were
evaluated.
The primary objective of this plan is to establish a
long-range direction for planning of the primary
roadways (arterials and collectors) in the Mat-Su
Borough. The 20-year long-range plan is based on growth
projections for the area and determined system deficien-
cies.
L
f I l~,
·-~1 l __ _; ' ' 1. L.....-.-
0
Improvements
E/G Streets One-Way Couplet -this improvement would
provide one-way traffic flow along these facilities
between 3rd and 9th Avenues.
Restrict peak hour parking along the north side of
5th Avenue between Ingra Street and K Street. This
would allow space to be used exclusively by HOV's
(High Occupancy Vehicles) such as buses, car-pool, or
van-pool vehicles during peak hours.
Construction of the A/C Street Couplet is assumed.
See above.
Close F Street between 5th and 6th Avenues.
Close G Street between 9th and lOth Avenues.
Provide intersection improvements along 9th Avenue at
Ingra,'Gambell, A, C, E, G, I, and M Streets.
Susitna River Road or Susitna Corridor -,This 24-mile
resource road would provide an access road south from
along the Susitna River to Chuitna Corridor (see
below).
Houston Right-of-Way -the corridor is located south
and west of Houston running generally in a north-
south direction and would provide a connection to the
Point MacKenzie area. The right-of-way should pro-
vide space for utility use and rail, as well as
the roadway.
Point MacKenzie Access Road (Phase III) -An exten-
sion to provide access to a potential Point MacKenzie
Port site.
Fish Creek Agricultural Access-This 2.7 mile east-
west project would be the first element of the
Chuitna corridor, which would ultimately provide
access to the Beluga Coal Fields area west of tha
Susitna River.
Burma Road -This 6-mile roadway would connect the
existing South Big Lake Road and Point MacKenzie
Access Road. It is planned as an arterial with
controlled access.
North Big Lake Road -a 5.5 mile roadway which would
complete the loop around Big Lake.
Briggs Road-A 1.7 mile road providing access
between Horseshoe Lake Road and North Big Lake Road.
Wasilla Bypass -Thi.s approximately 9-mile highway
project would provide alternative access between the
Parks Highway west of Wasilla to the Parks Highway
east of Wasilla.
I I _...!
r 1 l--->
,.
H
H
H
I
1-' w
Willow
Term:
Status:
Source:
Plan
Sub-Basin Area Plan
Indefinite
l\dopted
ADNR, October.l982
Fish Creek Management Plan
Term: Indefinite
Status: Public Review Draft
Source: ADNR, April 1984
Table III-4 (continued)
STREET AND IIIGIIWAY PLANS
General Description
This plan is a land use plan for State and certain
Borough lands in the Southcentral portion of the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Transportation goals
include: '
A system which supports goals and objectives of
other plan elements
A system with the lowest possible long-run costs
A system with minimal environmental impacts
A system which efficiently uses energy and encourages
compact and efficient development patterns
This plan is the final product of the Alaska Depart-
ment of Natural Resource's planning process for the
Fish Creek area. It includes:
Policy statements as to the allocation of State land
to various uses and a framework for resource
decisions
Refinement of land use allocations made in the
Statewide plan on a regional basis
Development of site specific land use allocations
Improvements
Chuitna Right-of-Way - A road leading westerly from
approximately Point MacKenzie Access road and along
the north side of Susitna Flats State Game Refuge
with bridges crossing at the Little Susitna River and
Fish Creek.
Winnebago Way - A connection between Willow and the
Chuitna Right-of-Way.
Susitna Corridor - A resources access road leading
southwesterly from Willow parallel to the Susitna
River.
Moraine Ridge Road - A residential access road
between the Chuitna Right-of-Way and the Red Shirt
Lake area.
Houston Right-of-Way - A corridor likely to be used
for rail only. See above for approximate alignment
descriptimi.
Chuitna Right-of-Way -See description above.
Winnebago Way (Chuitna Right-of-Way to Red Shirt Lake
Area only) -See description above. Primary or
secondary road depending on status of Moraine Ridge
Road.
Moraine Ridge Road -See description above. The
proposed alignment would function as a primary or
secondary road depending on status of Winnebago Way.
Rail access to a potential Point MacKenzie Port pref-
erably would follow an alignment along Moraine Ridge
Road, however, because of the highly speculative
nature of rail use in or through this area, no
right-of-way is currently defined.
Urban Growth and Economic Development
Figu~e III-2 presents recent growth trends and forecasts of population,
dwelling units (occupied), and employment (by place of work and excluding
military) for the Anchorage/Mat-Su region. Recent growth-has been higher
than anticipated by regional econometric modeling. Housing and employment
growth during the past two years has averaged 12 percent per annum for the
region compared to the approximately four percent average rate anticipated.
Several factors appear responsible for the unexpectedly high growth rate:
0
0
0
a construction surge as oil revenues began fueling both public and
private investment
Alaska became an attractive location for new business and retail ser-
vice expansion during economic slowdown elsewhere
the difference between Alaska and Lower 48 cost of living and cost of
doing business has been steadily dropping
The result has been an unexpected broadening of the Anchorage
Alaska, and Anchorage as the principal service center in the
economy, is becoming less dependent on the Lower 48 for services,
economic multiplier effect of local investment is increasing.
economy.
Alaskan
and the
Forecasts 4eveloped by the project team (see Chapter IX) and adopted for
Knik Arm Crossing evaluation are a summation of the Municipality of
Anchorage and Mat-Su Borough's latest 1983 to 2001 forecasts (Municipality
of Anchorage, July 1983) (DOWL Engineers, February 1983) and extension to
2010 assuming a growth rate slightly less than that occurring prior to
2001. Although the Anchorage and Borough forecasts were derived
independently, their summation reflects what the University of .Alaska's
Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) terms "high economic
growth" for the region.
A similar but slightly more conservative long-term regional forecast is
presented by the baseline assumptions for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project
(Alaska Power Authority, February 1984), Le., no Susitna Hydroelectric
construction. A considerably more pessimistic . forecast than adopted for
Knik Arm Crossing evaluation is reflected in the mid-range scenario
utilized for a recent Outer Continental Shelf evaluation (Berman and Hull,
1984). Differences among these forecasts can be attributed largely to
different multipliers assumed for public and private project investment,
i.e., the extent to which project construction will spur additional
short-range and long-range growth in State employment.
Table III-5 presents 1983 estimates and forecasts for 2001 and 2010 of
dwelling units and employment for communities within the Municipality of
Anchorage and the Mat-Su Borough. The communities are shown in Figure
III-3. Currently, more than 80 percent of Anchorage-Mat-Su housing and
employment is within the Anchorage bowl (communities 9 to 16). Approxi-
mately eight percent of housing and two percent of employment lies within
the Eagle River and Turnagain Arm communities outside the bowl but within
III-14
l
J
'l
d
]
l
L
500
400
300
200
100
0
1970
200
150
100
so
0
1970
L_j
Population
(In Thousands)
484.~KAC
fiJ . f/Jf/J SH 398.2 _..,.f~J ,,,,,,
1980
~-· ,,,,,, .,..-,,,,,,,
~--,,,,,,,
306.8,_~,,,,, ••• ocs ,. . .. __.. ... .-. ....... .; ..... . ...... •
1990 2010
Employment 200.4 .KAC ........ 173.~----,,,,,,, SH _....,._,,,,,,,,, ( In Thousands ) f/IJ:---,,,,, tfi••'''''' -~~~~··' ·ocs •••••
• • •• • • • • • • • • • • • •
1980 1990 2000 2010
LJ
200
150
ow·~liin9:_t~nits~ . ·
( In .T~ou_aanda ) ._' . . 180 ~ KAC
. .. ..
. 150.9 -----SH . --· ,,,,,,,
: : .,..-,,,,,,,,,,
1~1.~~----,,,, •••••• .--ra ••••••
"""'''''':· ~ ..... ~....,.
100
50
0
1970 ·"'1980 2000 2010
. . •.·· ..
L~g~:. .....
,.. .
• • • •
··KAc
Kni"k Arm Crossing Baseline; same as
·Comprehensive Plan Forecasts for
Anchorage plus Mat-Su Borough, 1983-
2001 (Municipality of Anchorage, July
1983; DOWL Engineers, February 1983)
ocs
Outer Continental Shelf Baseline,
<without OCS leases), <Berman .and
Hu II, 1984)
!;_. ...
1111111111 SH
Su-Hydro Baseline, (without Susitna
. Hydroelectric Project), (Alaska Power
Authority, February 1984)
Figure Ill-2
Growth Forecasts for the
··Anchorag_e/Mat-Su Region
Table III-5
CURRENT AND FORECAST DWELLING UNITS
AND EMPLOYMENT BY COMMUNITY
(assumes no crossing)
Dwelling Units Employment
1983 2001 2010 1983 2001
MAT-SU BOROUGH
1. Point MacKenzie 400 600 200
2. Knik/Goose Bay 200 1,600 2,700 100 900
3. Fish Creek 300 500 200
4. Willow/Nancy Lake 300 1,300 2,000 200 700
5. Big Lake/Houston 1,100 3,600 . 5,400 600 2,100
6. Wasilla/Fishhook 4,300 7,900 11,000 2,200 4,500
7. Palmer/Sutton 2,300 6,600 9,700 1,200 3,800
8. Other Mat-Su 1,600 3,200 5,100 900 1,800
MAT-SU SUBTOTAL 9,800 24,900 37,000 5,200 14,200
MUNICIPALITY OF
ANCHORAGE
9. Northeast 23,500 31,600 35,100 15,400 21,900
10. Ship Creek 1,700 1,600 1,800 23,600 24,500
11. Downto:wn 900 800 800 16,500 17,700
12. Northwest 19,200 23,100 24,700 24,900 44,200
13. Central 8,400 14,300 17,400 9,800 19,200
14. Sand Lake 4,600 11,200 12,700 6,000 7,500
15. Ocean View 5,600 9,900 10,800 3,600 14,800
16. Hillside 6,~00 13,900 15,300 2,000 2,200
17. Eagle River 6,700 16,900 20,700 2,300 5,900
18. Turnagain Arm 1,100 2,700 3,800 400 1,000
ANCHORAGE SUBTOTAL 77,900 126,000 143,100 104,500 158,900
TOTAL 87,700 150,900 180,100 109,700 173,100
NOTES
Dwelling Units and Employment are rounded to the nearest one hundred.
Sources: 1983: Municipality of Anchorage and Mat-Su Borough
2010
400
1,400
300
1,100
2,900
5,800
5,100
2,900
19,900
24,900
27,800
20,100
50,200
21,900
8,500
16,800
2,500
6,700
1,100
180,500
200,354
2001: Municipality of Anchorage and Mat-Su Borough adjusted to the
project team's region-wide growth model.
2010: Project team's growth allocation model.
Communities are shown in Figure III-3.
III-16
-,
~ l
J
l ,_ J
1
L:l
I
I
_j
Cl
~j
]
~l
-I
~
r~
<......
<''
"-:ii
-,
'·-
€--
L
.~1
. J
]
]
J
rJ ~.
8
FJ L
]
]
F"•.:in!
~v:acK~:mzl,:;
Sus~~nc F!ots
S~cte Gcfr:-s Refu<]e
0
Note: Turnagain Arm not shown
North
4 SMiles
Figure 111-3
Communities
the Municipal boundaries. Approximately 11 percent of the region's housing
and five percent of its employment are located within the Mat-Su Borough.
Significant urban growth is expected throughout the project area over the
next 27 years, although at a somewhat lower rate than that experienced pre-
viously, and higher in the first 18-year timeframe than the last nine
years. Because the greatest available holding capacity is in the Borough
and because the cost of remaining developable land in the Anchorage bowl is
rising, an increasing share of both project area dwelling units and jobs is
expected to locate outside the Anchorage bowl.
Approximately 87, 700 current dwelling units are forecast to increase to
approximately 150,900 units by the year 2001 (average annual growth rate of
3.0 percent) and further increase to 180,100 by the year 2010 (2.0 percent
per annum). Employment is forecast to increase at a slightly slower rate
--2.8 percent per annum for the 1983 to 2001 period and 1.6 percent per
annum in the· 2001 to 2010 timeframe. The portion of dwelling units
outside the Anchorage bowl would increase substantially from the current 19
percent to 29 percent in 2001 and 34 percent by 2010. The portion of
employment outside the bowl would increase from 7 percent currently to 11
percent by 2001 and 14 .percent by 2010.
Tables III-6, III-7, and III-8 illustrate in Spring 1984 dollars (increase
by five percent to obtain an estimate of 1985 dollars) market dynamics for
residential., connnercial, and industrial development within the
Anchorage/Mat-Su region. In particular, they indicate the extent to which
development is more expensive within the Anchorage bowl than in outlying
locations. Land is the principal component responsible for cost
differences. For example, the cost of a typical single family residential
lot with improvements in Spring 1984 dollars varies from $5.90 per square
foot in the Anchorage bowl to $.90 per square foot in the Matanuska Valley
(areas listed for Borough in Table III-5 except "Point ·MacKenzie" and
"Other Mat-Su"). The cost of a typical connnercial lot varies from $18.30 a
square foot in the Anchorage bowl to $3.40 a square foot in the Matanuska
Valley. -The cost of a typical industrial lot ~aries from $5.20 per square
foot in Anchorage to $1.30 per square foot in the Matanuska Valley. Point
MacKenzie improved land costs are essentially the same as for the Matanuska
Valley.
Land Use Plans
Table III-9 describes area land use plans. Comprehensive development,
coastal zone management, and resource management plans are included. Table
III-9 descriptions focus only on those areas of the plans that could be
influenced by the alternatives. Elmendorf AFB also has plans for future
projects, however they are not public. They were reviewed by the project
team and accounted for in alignment planning. In addition to the plans de-
scribed in the table, there are three planned projects that warrant consid-
eration.
III-18
]
l
J
'!
J
J
]
J
J
J
]
_._"'
r l
1..---J
H
H
H
I .....
1.0
L.J LU LJ
Table III-6
.CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF A TYPICAL SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, SPRING 1984
Anchorage Matanuska Point
Construction Costs Bowl Eagle River Chugiak Valley MacKenzie
Land $ 50,000 $ 40,000 $51,000 $ 17,700 $ 23,000
Cost of Structure 70,000 69,000 69,000 69,000 69,000
Financing & Sales 30,000 30,000 24,000 24,000 24,000
Average Total Cost $150,000 $137,000 $150,000 $110,700 $116,000
NOTES
Cost estimat~ for land within the Anchorage bowl and Eagle River includes an R-1 lot (8,500 square
feet with all utilities including water, sewer, electric, gas, paving, curbs, and gutters. All
estimates for Matanuska Valley, Point MacKenzie, and Chugiak assume one-half acre and one acre lots,
respectively, with graded access, power, septic tank, and well. All estimates include interest and
closing costs charged by the developer prior to lot payoff.
Cost of structures are for a typical split-entry house with the following characteristics: 1,144
square feet finished upstairs, which includes two bedrooms, 1~ baths, kitchen, dining room, and
living room with fireplace; 568 square feet unfinished downstairs, plus a 440-square foot two-car
garage.
Financing and Sales includes commissions, closing costs, interest on construction loan and loan fee,
job supervision, and direct job overhead. It also includes general and administrative expenses such
as insurance, office expense, and taxes. In addition, it includes builder's profit.
Spring 1984 dollars can be converted to an estimate of 1985 dollars by increasing them five percent.
Source: Anchorage Real Estate Research Committee, Fall 1982/Spring 1983; Les Brattain (Anchorage
Bowl), Rob Gamel (Eagle River and Chugiak), and Frank Langill and Carolyn Crusey (Matanuska
Valley.
H
H
H
I
N
0
Table III-7
CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF A TYPICAL COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE·, SPRING 1984
Construction Costs
Land
Structure
Finance & Sales
Average Total Cost
NOTES
Anchorage Bowl
$ 165,000
250,000
40,000
$455,000
Eagle R·iver/
Chugiak Matanuska
$ 250,000 $
90,000
35',000
$375,000
Valley
150,000
90,000
25,000
$265,000
Land cost is based on a typical 9,000 square foot commercial lot in the Anchorage bowl and one-acre
commercial lots in Eagle River/Chugiak and Matanuska Valley. Estimates include lots developed with
water, sewer, street improvements, electricity, engineering, and other fees.
Structure costs are for a typical commercial structure 5,023 square feet in the Anchorage bowl and
3,254 square feet in Eagle River/Chugiak. Matanuska Valley structure size was assumed equal to Eagle
River/Chugiak.
Financial and Sales costs include commission, closing costs, interest on construction loan and loan
fee, job supervision, and direct job overhead. Also included are general and administrative expenses
such as insurance, office expense, taxes, and builder's profit.
Spring 1984 dollars can be converted to an estimate of 1985 dollars by increasing them five percent.
Source: Appraisal Section, Department of Finance, Municipality of Anchorage~ Terrie Peterson,
Appraiser's Office, Mat-Su Borough.
r 1 L L _., ( __ :_J LJ ' I _.;
H
H
H
.I
N
f-'
1-' ~ LJ ('. ',
L...-.1
Table III-8
CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF A TYPICAL INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE, SPRING 1984
Construction Costs
Land
Structure
Finance & Sales
Average Total Cost
Major Cost Differences
Raw Land Costs
Financing
NOTES
Anchorage Bowl
$ 130,000
245,000
35,500
$410,500
$ 110,000
20,000
Eagle River/
Chugiak
$ 74,000
110,000
18,400
$202,400
$ 60,000
10,000
Matanuska Valley
$ 45,000
110 ,ooo
15,500
$170,500
$ 35,000
8,000
Land cost includes a typical 25,000 square foot I1 lot in the Anchorage bowl and one-acre I1 lot in
Eagle River/Chugiak and Matanuska Valley. Estimates included lots developed with water, sewer,
street improvements, electricity, engineering, and other fees.
Structure costs are for a typical 6,388 square foot warehouse storage structure in the Anchorage bowl
and 3,098 square foot warehouse in Eagle River/Chugiak. Matanuska Valley structure size was assumed
equal to Eagle River/Chugiak.
Finance and sales costs include commission, closing costs, interest on construction loan and loan
fee, job supervision, and direct job overhead. Also included are general and administrative expenses
such as insurance, office expense, taxes, and builder's profit.
Spring 1984 dollars can be converted to an estimate of 1985 dollars by increasing them five percent.
Source: Don Graham, Principal Appraiser, Department of Finance, Municipality of Anchorage: Terrie
Peterson, Appraiser's Office, Mat-Su Borough.
H
H
H
I
N
N
Jurisdiction/
Plan
Anchorage Bowl
Comerehensive
Development
Plan (revision)
Term: 20 Years
Status: Adopted
Source:
Municipality
Anchorage,
Planning De-
partment,
~larch 1982
Anchorage CBD
Comerehensive
Development
Plan
of
Term: Long-term
Status: Adopted
Source: Munici-
pality of An-
chorage, Com-
munity Planning
Department,
Fall 1983
Port of Anchor-
age Marketing
and Develoement
Plan, Phase II
Term: to 2000
Status: Final
Source: TAMS
Engineers, 1983
General
Description
Focus on goals,
policies, and ob-
jectives for en-
vironment, trans-
.portation, parks,
energy, and urban
development.
The plan is de-
scribed as a
strategy on which
to base decisions
rather than spe-
cific blueprint.
Goal is integrated
multi-use center.
Proposes specific
projects plus in-
fill development
clustering around
major downtown
anchors.
Focus on improv-
ing the utiliza-
tion of existing
port lands. It
also views Fire
Island as the best
long-term option
(beyond 2000) for
providing for port
growth, particu-
larly in terms of
bulk products.
( ' ·~
Residential
Development con-
sistcnt with
natural charac-
teristics of area,
encourage higher
densities, par-
ticularly near
downtown, consi-
der effects of
development on
High density
housing should
be mixed with
other uses.
r
Table III-9
LAND USE PLANS
Conunercial
Concentrate rath-
er than spread
along arterials,
establish neigh-
borhood centers,
encourage down-
town development
as multi-use dis-
trict and en-
courage govern-
adjacent land
uses •
. New retail com-
plex between 5th
and 6th/A and D.
Industrial
Concentrate in-
dustrial develop-
ment in single-
use districts,
primarily at Ship
Creek·and along
Alaska Railroad
in South Anchor-
age.
ment offices
there.
Circulation,
storage, and
berth improve-
ments planned
on existing
port site. Will
discourage non-
cargo use of
waterfront.
Parks
and Open Space
Develop a system.
of parks, green-
belts and trails,
including linear
park along Ship
Creek. Emphasis
on neighborhood
and conununity
level.
Enhancement of
pedestrian en-
vironment.
F Street Mall be-
tween 4th & 6th
and Town Center
Plaza between E
& F/5th & 6th1
view walk linking
new small parks
with Resolution
Park (locations
are 6th & L, 4th &
L, 3rd & H).
Municipal! ty
should acquire
waterfront lands
to provide access
to shoreline.
Conununity
Services
Avoid extension
of utilities
through areas to
be protected
from development.
Utilities should
precede develop-
ment.
New parking
structures at 5th
& c, 4th & I, and
7th & H1 State
office complex on
5th between A and
Barrow.
Other
Encourage energy-
efficient develop-
ment and use of
mass transit, fol-
low Coastal Zone
Management and
Wetlands Manage-
ment plans. En-
courage historic
preservation.
Designates area
generally between
3rd & 7th/E & G as
"Town Center" or
civic core, in-
cludes mall, pla-
za, performing
arts, and conven-
tion centers, plus
several government
buildings. Sup-
ports preservation
of historic re-
sources (e.g.,
Municipality plans
to relocate
historic homes to
Quyana Park at 3rd
& c for office and
conunercial uses).
Goal is to remain
major cargo cen-
ter.
I .,.
~
H
H
H
I
(\.) w
Jurisdiction/
Plan
Anchorage
Coastal Zone
Management
Plan
Teiiii: Indefi-
nite
Status: Adopted
and approved
Source: Muni-
cipality of
Anchorage, 1980
Anchorage Wet-
lands Hanage-
ment Plan
(Revision}
Term: Indefi-
nite
Status: Ap-•
proved April
1982
Revised May
1983
Source: Muni-
cipality of
Anchorage,
Community Plan-
ning Department,
May 1983
Coastal Scenic
Resources and
Public Access
Plan (part of
Anchorage
Coastal Zone
Management
Plan}
General
Description
Management bound-
ary includes area
of coastal flood-
ing plus adjacent
floodplains, wet-
lands, lakes, and
streams to 1,000-
foot contour, ex-
cludes Federal
land, Designates
Areas Meriting
Special Attention
(AMSA} warranting
preservation or
careful develop-
ment planning.
Designates areas
of wetlands for
protection, con-
servation, and
development.
Establishes con-
trols to balance
preservation and
development.
Identifies miti-1
gating measures.
Offers plans for
development of a
Coastal Trail plus
sites along the
trail including
Ship Creek Dam,
Railroad Station,
and Resolution
Term: Indefi-
nite
Park.
Status: Guide
Source: ~luni
cipality of
Anchorage, (no
date} 1 (c,a.
1980}
Residential
L.J
Tab~e III-9 (Continued)
LAND USE PLANS
Commercial Industrial
Port of Anchor-
age area is an
AMSA to guide
growth of water
dependent uses.
Combine development and conservation by encouraging
mixed use development of wetlands, cluster buildings
to minimize portion of land covered.
Parks
and Open Space
Parks and green-
belts are effec-
tive means for
conserving wet-
lands.
Bicycle path pro-
posed along
coastal corridor
beginning at Ship
Creek Dam1 im-
provements for
salmon and water-
fowl viewing on
north bank at Ship
Creek Dam1 a con-
tinuing series of
scenic and recrea-
tion improvements
along the trail.
Community
Services Other
Goal is to balance
growth with pres-
ervation of Coast-
al areas. Most of
Coastal zone clas-
sified preserva-
tion environment
(sensitive natural
environment,
hazardous lands,
coastal flood
zone).
Ship Creek Wet-
lands east of dam
designated for
preservation, west
of dam they are
designated for
conservation.
H
H
H
I
"' ~
Jurisdiction/
Plan
Coastal Trail
Plan: Ship
Creek to
Eklutna
Tenn: Indefi-
nite
Status: Final
Source: Huni-
cipality of
Anchorage,
June 1982
Eagle River-
Chugiak-Eklutna
Comprehensive
Plan
Tenn: 1980 to
2000
Status: Adopted
Source: Huni-
cipality of
Anchorage,
Planning De-
partment,
September 18,
1979
Matanuska-Su-
sitna Borough
Comprehensive
Plan
Tenn: 6 Years/
20 Years
Status: Draft
Source: DOWL
Engineers,
February 1983
General
Description
Presents northern
section of Coast-
al Trail. Trail
generally follows
Ship Creek to
Eagle River; North
of Eagle River it
follows the Glenn
Highway bike trail
with three loops
to the coast.
Area divided into
urban/suburban
development (Eag-
le River), re-
source protection
(slopes and near
streams), and
rural development
areas (all other) •
Focus on road-
served areas, pro-
viding minimum
recommendations
outside that area1
inside road-served
areas do not ex-
pand the ~mount of
privately owned
land (6 years) 1
coordinated with
Willow Sub-basin
Plan.
r .. ,
Residential
Focused along
Glenn Highway and
Eagle River Road
with highest den-
sities in Eagle
River area.
Elsewhere main-
tain existing
low density rural
character.
Most undeveloped
private land ex-
pected to become
residential,
maintaining rural
densities; create
a Big Lake com-
munity core on
east side of lake.
L '''l D [
Table III-9 (C~ntinued)
LAND USE PLANS
Commercial
Increased level
of local employ-
ment, major com-
mercial area
downtown Eagle
River, limited
strips and at
intersections
along Glenn High-
way.
Expand commercial
development,
neighborhood and
regional' (pri-
marily at major
intersections and
existing commer-
cial areas), no
new commercial
nodes along Parks
Highway.
J
Industrial
Two sites avail-
able along Alas-
ka Railroad and
two in Eagle
River Area.
Industrial and
port develop-
ment in Point
MacKenzie area
(plan in pro-
gress).
Parks
and Open Space
Trail will provide
greenbelt to link
existing parks and
open space areas.
Greenbelts on
Eagle River, Fire
Creek, and
Peter's Creek and
areawide trail
system linked to
Glenn Highway
bike trail.
Preservation of
Little Susitna
River Corridor
from Parks High-
way south, rec-
reation reserves
on area lakes;
urban recreation
as required.
Community
Services
Integrated water
and sewer utili-
ty for Eagle Riv-
er, generally
private systems
elsewhere.
Sewer and water
systems at Wasil-
la and Big Lake;
16 new fire sta-
tions,, 42 schools,
another hospital,
added solid waste
transfer stations
by 2001.
[_J
Other
Water/sewer con-
straints will
limit growth;
areawide zoning
to be implemented.
Agricultural de-
velopment south-
west of Willow,
south of Nancy
Lake, Carpenter
Lake area, Point
MacKenzie Agricul-
tural area, and
scattered small
sites. Encourage
tourism, resource
development.
(.__] ' l
-.J
r 1
'----1
H
H
H
I
N
U1
.Jurisdiction/
Plan
Matanuska-
Susitna Borough
Comprehensive
Plan: Public
Facilities
Term: To 1955
Status: Draft
Source: Mat-Su
Borough, March
1984
Matanuska-
Susitna Borough
Coastal Manage-
ment Plan
Term: Indefi-
nite
Status: Ap-
proved
!;ource: Mat-Su
Borough, Plan-
ning Department,
August 1983
General
Description
Detailed recom-
mendations for
Borough public
facilities and
services. Based
on population
projections in
1983 Comprehen-
sive Plan. Dis-
cusses potential
to control growth
patterns.
Plan to balance
preservation with
resource develop-
ment. Management
area includes
townships up to
200-foot contour
and selected
streams up to
1,000-foot con-
tour. This in-
cludes all of the
project area.
Table III-9 (Continued)
.LAND USE PLANS
Residential Commercial Industrial
,-
1 I ...__._..._.
Parks
and Open Space
Goal is to meet
recreational needs
of Borough, pro-
mote tourism, and
protect scenic
quality and
environment poten-
tial. Proposed
parks include 17
neighborhood and
community parks,
mostly in conjunc-
tion with schools,
and eight State or
Borough parks in-
cluding Lake
Lucille and the
Little Susitna
River/Holstein
Road area.
i 1 l--..._.l
Community
Services
Specifies type,
location, quan-
tity, and time-
frame for im-
provements to
fire protection
equipment and
facilities,
emergency medi-
cal services,
solid waste,
water, and sew-
age systems, li-
braries, museums,
historic trails,
government of-
fices, schools1
and parks.
A review of private development plans will include consideration of impact on natural re-
source use, range of uses, and quality of use1 effect on habitat, water bodies, water
and air quality, cultural resources, floodplains, hazarqous resources, and subsistence
resources, consistency with local land and water use controls, and consistency with AMSA
plans. New residential development shall be located in already developed areas.
Recommended AMSA's include Point MacKenzie Industrial Port/Park, Goose Bay State Game
Refuge, Nancy Lake Recreation Area, Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge, Knik/Matanuska
River Floodplains Area(s) (not in project area), and Susitna Flats Game Refuge.
Other
i . .____,
All new community
energy facilities,
fisheries, timber,
mineral, transpor-
tation, utility,
agricultural, and
recreation devel-
opment must be
consistent with
plan. This in-·
eludes all devel-
opment falling
under planning,
zoning, and sub-
division require-
ments.
...
H
H
H
I
(\)
0"\
Jurisdiction/
Plan
City of Houston,
Comprehensive
Development
Plan
Term: 20 Years
Status: Adopted
Source: DOWL
Engineers,
June 1982
Willow Sub-
Basin Area Plan
Term: Indefi-
bute
Status: Adopted
Source: ADNR,
October 1982
Fish Creek
Management Plan
Term: Indefi-
nite
status: Public
Review Draft
Source1 ADNR,
April 1984
General
Description
Aid for decision-
makers in guiding
growth to meet
community goals.
Designates uses
for much of the
public land with-
in the hydrologic
sub-basin of Su-
sitna River Basin.
It includes area
between Knik Arm
and Susitna River.
Management plan
for 45,000 acres
of public lands
south of Nancy
Lake Recreation
area, between
the Susitna River
and the Little
Susitna River.
r '1
Residential
Moderate density
along Parks High-
way. South of
Little Susitna
River light
density north of
Parks High~1ay,
rural density
south. Rural
density north of
river and Parks
Highway.
Areas designated
for settlement
include ~loraine
Ridge, Willow,
Houston, Wasilla,
Big Lake, Knik,
and Point Mac-
Kenzie. Pear
Lake and Ronald
Lake areas are
designated for
settlement/small
farms.
Settlement in
Moraine Ridge
area at eastern
border of manage-
ment area.
[
Table III-9 (Continued)
LAND USE PLANS
Commercial
Clustered at
three locations
on Parks Highway1
do not mix with
residential uses1
strip development
to be avoided.
Sale of lands for
commercial uses
will be on a case
by case basis
consistent with
plan. No specif-
ic areas desig-
nated.
Commercial center
at southern end
of Moraine Ridge.
'\
J
Industrial
Concentrate im-
mediately north
of Little Susitna
River and south
of Parks Highway,
(major railroad
corridor shown
ending at this
point).
Point MacKenzie
area is desig-
nated for indus-
trial develop-
ment.
Could occur in
Moraine Ridge
area.
Parks
and Open Space
Scattered urban
parks1 open space
along Little Su-
sitna River and
two large parcels
on north and south
sides of communi-
ty. Provide
recreation for
residents and
tourists.
Recreation
designations in-
clude Iditarod
and related
. trails, Lake
Lorraine, Big
Lake, Horseshoe
Lake, and Little
Susitna River.
The River is to
be buffered from
non-compatible
uses.
Recreation areas
are proposed at
seve!) locations
adjacent to lakes
and several areas
along streams.
Iditarod Trail to
have 400-foot
buffer corridor.
«;:ommunity
Services
Upgrade emergency
services as popu-
lation grows.
Minimize public
water/sewer
systems.
Water and sewer
systems antici-
pated at south
end of .Moraine
Ridge.
Other
Two sections in
northwest corner
of community re-
served! also area
along Parks High-
way northwest of
commercial area in
middle of town.
Resource develop-
ment areas also
designated. See
"Natural Resource
Development".
Agricultural de-
velopment is pro-
posed in most of
the area (excep-
tions are Morai~e
Ridge, along
streams, and wet-
land areasl1 wet-
lands designated
for wildlife habi-
tat and resources.
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
0
,-,
~>
]
]
]
Point MacKenzie Port/Industrial Site. This development is proposed to be
in the Point MacKenzie area. The Point MacKenzie area, about 15,000 acres,
is surrounded by the Goose Bay State Game Refuge to the north, the Point
MacKenzie Agricultural Project to the northwest, the Susitna Flats State
Game Refuge on the west, and Knik Arm and Upper Cook Inlet on the east and
south. The area has been defined as an Area Meriting· Special Attention
(AMSA) in the Borough Coastal Zone Management Plan: its primary value is
identified as use for the development of water dependent facilities.
Various development schemes for alternate sites have been proposed and
studied. They include a port facility primarily for exporting, an
industrial complex, and a residential support community. The Borough is in
the process of developing a specific management plan for the Point
MacKenzie area. (Kasprisin-Hutnik Partnership, June 21, 1984). Two land
use plan options are under consideration. One reflects the Downtown
Crossing and the other the Elmendorf Crossing. Industrial development and
a port are shown in the vicinity of the crossing. Multi-use zones
(commercial/higher density residential) are also shown in the vicinity of
the crossing. Residential use is shown in two areas along the Point
MacKenzie Access Road and on Knik Arm north and south of Goose Bay. A
maximum density of two dwelling units per acre is indicated. Densities of
two to five acres per dwelling unit predominate.
Susitna Hydroelectric Project. The Alaska Power Authority has proposed a
two dam development on the Upper Susitna River upstream from Talkeetna at
Watana and.Devil Canyon, north of the Knik Arm crossing project area. The
project is one of the largest hydroelectric projects ever brought before
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for issuance of a license. It is
designed to play a major role in meeting the future electrical demand of
the Alaska Railbelt where over 70 percent of the State's population
currently resides. Design, detailed engineering, and environmental studies
are under way. · It is estimated that the Watana dam could begin power
production in 1993. Construction of the Devil Canyon dam is dependent on
future demand, but construction could begin in 1994 with power production
by 2002.
Expansion or State Courts Building. The State plans to expand . the State
Courts Building between 3rd and · 4th Avenues and K and I Streets. Part of
the expansion project is proposed across I Street from the existing
building. Sub-surface and overhead pedestrian walkways across I street are
planned.
Urban and Military Function and Operation
Land Use. Figure III-4 is a generalized map of existing land use in the
analysis area. Additional detail north of Downtown Anchorage is shown in
Figure III-5. The project area includes the urbanized Arichorage bowl,
Elmendorf Air Force Base (AFB), Fort Richardson Army Post, suburban devel-
opment along the Glenn Highway, the rapidly developing Wasilla area in the
Mat-Su Borough, rural communities of Houston and Willow, the recreational
community of Big Lake, and the generally undeveloped area of the Mat-Su
Borough south of the Parks Highway. This latter area includes three game
refuges., a developing agricultural area, the town of Knik, and widely
scattered residential development.
III-27
m!J Residential Concentrations
~ Scattered Residential Development
c:::J Non-Residential Concentrations
I2QI Military
1!:!3 Agricultural Developments
t:S:S:I Major Parks & Reserved Open Space
-City Limits
-Railroad
<D International Airport
® Lake Hood Seaplane Base
@ Elmendorf Airfield
@ Merrill Field
@) Six Mile Lake Airstrip
.. . ••a: . .: •' . . ··
Figure 111-4
Existing Land
Project
Use-
Area
J
J
J
J
1 u
L
~-
., ... •·
\. . l·'.
/
1:883 Industrial, Warehousing & Transportation
~ Retail, Office & Services
E:::Z:3 Residential
~ Parka & Open Spaces
-·-Military Boundary ---i-Fire Service Boundary
School
Hospital
Fire Station
North
2 Miles
Figure 111-5
Existing Land Use-
Downtown & Elmendorf AFB
Land use north of downtown Anchorage is primarily non-residential. North
of Ship Creek is the Port of Anchorage and the Anchorage yard of the Alaska
Railroad, described later in this section. The Government Hill residential
neighborhood is also north of and overlooks Ship Creek. Immediately south
of Ship Creek is industrial and warehouse development as well as additional
facilities of the Alaska Railroad. West of C Street, on the hillside north
of downtown are primarily small structures, many are former homes now used
for office space. A private developer is considering constructing a new
office building on the north side of L Street at 3rd Avenue adjacent to
Resolution Park. A few residences are mixed with non-residential uses.
Several parking· lots also are in this area. East of C Street is a mixture
of small office buildings, parking areas, and residences, both single and
multifamily. The Alaska Native Medical Center (hospital) is at 3rd Avenue
at Gambell Street.
Land use along the Glenn'Highway, the current route from the Anchorage bowl
to the Mat-Su Borough, is primarily commercial from its beginnings at the
Ingra/Gambell Couplet to Bragaw Street where two schools are located. From
that point east to Muldoon Road, Elmendorf AFB is to the north and resi-
dential neighborhoods are to the south. Bartlett High School is near
Muldoon Road and the Glenn Highway. From Muldoon Road to Eagle River the
Highway passes through undeveloped Fort Richardson lands. One cluster of
base housing is near the highway. Several communities are along the Glenn
Highway from Eagle River north to 'the Knik River. Concentrations of
residentiaJ,. development along the highway occur at Eagle River and Lower
Fire Lake (about a mile north of the Eagle River community), and at Peters
Creek. Chugiak High School and Birchwood Elementary ·can be seen from the
Glenn Highway. Scattered residential development is near the Glenn Highway
at Birchwood, Chugiak, and Eklutna. Residential and commercial develop-
ment is scattered along the Parks Highway with the greatest concentration
at Wasilla.
The Mat-Su Borough south of the Parks Highway is largely undeveloped.
South of the east-west segment of the Point MacKenzie Access Road there are
only a few homes. A large area of land west of Goose Bay is being devel-
oped for agriculture. North of the Point MacKenzie Access Road resi-
dential development is scattered, but it is common along numerous private
roads. A large portion of the Borough' s dispersed residential lands are
recreationally oriented. The shores of Big Lake and several smaller lakes
in the same area are lined with residential development as are the major
public roads in that area.
Emergency Services. Emergency services in Anchorage are provided by the
Municipal government. Two Anchorage fire service areas are in the vicinity
of Ship Creek and downtown. See Figure III-5. The northern boundary of
the Station 1 (6th Avenue and C Street) service area is Ship Creek east
from the Knik Arm to where the creek is crossed by the Alaska Railroad.
The border then follows the railroad to Elmendorf AFB. North of this line
is the service area for Station 2 (on Government Hill) which serves the
Port of Anchorage and related industrial development north of the boundary
described, as well as the Government Hill neighborhood. Station 1
has engine, squad, rescue, truck, aerial, and battalion companies. Station
III-30
[
[
[
[
[
[
c
c
[
c
L
[
c
[
L
L
r-..,
L
[
L:
[
r-
2 has an engine company. Emergency medical service vehicles are also at·
Station 1. Elmendorf AFB supplies. its own fire and rescue services,
described below under military.
In the Mat-Su Borough, fire service is provided by several Fire Service
Areas, along the Parks Highway and at Big Lake, staffed primarily by
volunteers. The service area for Big Lake includes only the area
immediately south and east of Big Lake and the Beaver Lake area. No fire
service is provided south and west of Big Lake, including the Point
MacKenzie area. Emergency Medical Service vehicles in the project area are
stationed at Houston, Willow, and Wasilla.
Military. The following Elmendorf Air Force Base facilities are near
alternatives under consideration: Base hespi tal, hous·ing, helicopter pad
(and approach/departure zone), ammunition dump {and clear zones), suspect
vehicle parking .(and clear zone) , Defense Property Disposal Office site,
Tactical Air Navigation Facility {TACAN), ground-to-air transmitter/receiv-
. er, hanger safety clearance, material borrow area, Circularly Disposed
Antenna Array {CDAA) .(and one-mile clear zone from outer edge of array),
and Aeronautical Receiver Site including Federal Aviation Administration
receiver {and 4,800-foot clear zone). These facilities are illustrated in
Figure III-5. Recreation facilities are also in the area and are addressed
in Chapter V.
Fire service is provided from three stations; see Figure III-5. All
stations serve all areas of the base. The largest piece of equipment is a
65-ton crash vehicle whose size and weight must be accounted for in the
design of overpasses for any alternative passing through the Base. The AFB
has eight emergency medical service vehicles. All are stationed at the
base hospital.
Port of Anchorage and Navigation Clearance. The Port of Anchorage is a
general cargo port operated by the Municipality of Anchorage. It is 115
acres in size, containing four terminals and three shoreside transit yards
or open storage areas. Four private terminals are operated south of the
Municipally-owned facility. All terminals are north of Ship Creek. The
largest vessels now entering the Port area have a breadth of 105 feet,
height above waterline of 140 feet, draft of 29 feet, and length of 744
feet. Highway access across Ship Creek to the port area is provided by the
c Street viaduct. York steel is presently filling into the Arm south of
Ship Creek. The planned use for the fill has not been determined.
There are presently no established horizontal or vertical clearances for a
bridge across Knik Arm. The Coast Guard plans to make a determination
prior to the publication of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The determination will be based in part on EIS hearings, but the Coast
Guard may hold separate hearings focusing on navigation clearance alone.
In March -1983, the Coast Guard solicited conunents on navigation
requirements for several bridge sites that were under consideration at that
time. South of Cairn Point, operators suggested verticai clearances of 136
to 200 feet above high high water and horizontal clearances of between 300
and 2,000 feet.
III-31
No conunercial navigation requirements are expected north of Cairn Point.
Operators that responded to the Coast Guard's March notice indicated that
conunercial navigation need not be accommodated at a location similar to
that proposed for the Elmendorf Crossing. However, a crossing at that
point must acconunodate pleasure craft and a Chugach Electric maintenance
barge.
The Coast Guard considers Ship Creek navigable up to the dam at about
Cordova Street (extended). The Coast Guard also is responsible for
navigation on the narrows between Mirror Lake and Big Lake and plans to
determine specific navigation requirements before publication of the Final
EIS.
Alaska Railroad. Intensive railroad operations and facilities are north of
downtown Anchorage, see Figure III-5. The Alaska Railroad Anchorage
Yard is north of Ship Creek. Its freight main line also passes through
that area. South of Ship Creek is the passenger main line and numerous
sidings serving area businesses. Some are shipper-owned and others are
railroad-owned. The Alaska Railroad crosses Ship Creek in three locations
in this area: near Knik Arm tidal flats (freight main), adjacent to the C
Street Viaduct {spur between mains), and near the east end of Warehouse
Avenue (passenger main).
From the area just described, a combined main line extends south along the
shore of KI?.ik Arm and north through Elmendorf AFB and Fort Richardson. In
the Mat-Su Borough, it follows the Parks Highway~ see Figure III-4.
Airports and Aircraft Clearance. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
has established standards for determining obstructions in navigable air
space near airports {USDOT/FAA, March 4, 1972). Around every airport are a
series of "imaginary surfaces" or clear zones. The FAA must approve any
penetration of these zones since their penetration could be a hazard to
aircraft. Principal airports in the project area include Anchorage Inter-
national Airport, Lake Hood Seaplane Base, Merrill Field, Six Mile Lake
airstrip, and Elmendorf AFB airfield; see Figure III-4. Elmendorf AFB also
has a helicopter pad near its hospital in the project area; see Figure
III-5.
Utilities. Several firms and agencies have facilities in the vicinity of
the alternatives under consideration. These facilities include both major
transmission or trunk lines and local distribution lines. The firms and
. agencies and their major facilities are:
0 Municipality of Anchorage
-·Anchorage Telephone Utility (1,800-pair buried telephone cable on
the north side of 3rd Avenue east of Ingra Street)
Municipal Light and Power (transmission line along H Street,
sub-station at H Street and 2nd Avenue, double circuit transmission
facility along the north side of 3rd Avenue, 115 KV transmission
circuit with 12.5 KV distribution line and two communication cables
attached along the south side of the Glenn Highway at Muldoon Road,
115 KV transmission circuit in conjunction with a military line on
Elmendorf AFB)
III-32
[
[
L
[
f'
L
[
[
c
[
[
[
[
L
l
'
i
--'
4
'
L
I ~
r
I-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-Anchorage Water and Waste Water Utility (36-inch RC sewer trunk line
paralleling the railroad tracks in the Ship Creek area)
ENSTAR Natural Gas (12-inch HP natural gas main on south side of 3rd
Avenue east of Ingra Street tieing into an 8-inch main along the west
side of Ingra and gas transmission line to Beluga along east-west
segment of Point MacKenzie Access Road)
Multivisions (cable TV) (no major facilities near alternatives)
Tesoro (8-inch high pressure multi-purpose line on Ocean Dock Road in
Ship Creek area)
Chugach Electric Association (double-circuit transmission line near
Washington Avenue in the Ship Creek area and 138 K!V aerial trans-
mission line in the Point MacKenzie area)
Elmendorf AFB (34.5 '¥Jl electric transmission line with 12.5 K!V dis-
tribution line)
Matanuska Electric Association (115 K!V transmission line near Parks
Highway in Houston)
Matanuska Telephone Association (no major facilities near alterna-
tives>.
Utili ties with authority to serve the Mat-Su Borough south of the Parks
Highway, the area most affected by changes in development patterns that
would result from the alternatives under consideration, are:
0 Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. (MEA)
0 Matanuska Telephone Association, Inc. (MTA)
0 ENSTAR ~atural Gas Company
MEA currently provides service as far south as the north side of Goose Bay.
A service extension to the Point MacKenzie Agricultural area will be built
soon. The Association gets all its power from Chugach Electric and has no
plans to generate its own power~ additional power can be obtained as
required. Front-end costs for providing new electric service are paid by
the consumer. A subdivider would pay to have the lines placed and would
receive a refund as other people connect to the new system. For a long
line to an individual, the consumer would pay a deposit and make payments
on the line extension· for five years. A one.:.:year lead time would be
required to provide service.
Matanuska Telephone presently provides service as far south as the north
side of Goose Bay. MTA plans to extend service to the Point MacKenzie
Agricultural Area in 1984. To serve a large number of new subscribers
(4,000) in a now undeveloped area, MTA likely would build a new office,
install a $2 million switch, and install about $9 million in cable. Two
years lead time would be needed to install a new switch which would connect
III-33
to the rest of the system by either cable or antenna to Wasilla. The
utility would finance the new service, but the amount invested would depend
on the anticipated number of subscribers and the anticipated return.
ENSTAR Gas recently has been granted permission to serve the Mat-Su Borough
and is installing lines in Wasilla and Palmer. In 1985, ENSTAR will
complete a 16 to 20-inch gas line from Beluga to Anchorage around Knik Arm.
It will pass through the Mat-Su Borough portion of the project area along
the east-west segment of the Point MacKenzie Access Road and along
Knik-Goose Bay Road. In the Municipality the gas line will follow the
Glenn Highway into the Anchorage bowl. Gas service is generally
user-financed. In an undeveloped area, service would be provided at the
request of and upon payment by a developer. Lines running to the
development from existing lines would be oversized at the cost of ENSTAR if
it was believed likely that additional developers soon would want service.
Government Finance
Table III-10 summarizes local government cost and revenue for the Mat-Su
Borough (fiscal year 1983 to 1984) and the Municipality of Anchorage
(fiscal year 1983). These are the most recent figures available for a
single time period. They are 1983 dollars and can be converted to 1985
dollars by increasing them about 10 percent.
D. NATURAL RESOURCE CHARACTERISTICS
The following areas of interest are discussed under natural resource
characteristics: Biological resources, wetlands, water resources and
quality, hydrology, floodplains, natural resource development, Iditarod
Trail, air quality, noise, and visual.
Biological Resources
Terrestrial Habitats. Terrestrial habitats within the project area primar-
ily consist of upland boreal (northern) forest with smaller wetland areas
interspersed throughout. The upland forest is characterized by mixed
stands of paper birch and white spruce with occasional balsam poplar,
quaking aspen, willow, and alder. The interior lowlands are mostly
wetlands of the bog and fen types consisting of a sedge and sphagnum mat
with ericaceous shrubs (heath) and occasional stands of black spruce.
Coastal salt marsh, another wetland type, is limited to specific areas such
as Goose Bay and the Susitna Flats. A variety of birds and mammals inhabit
these areas. Moose is the most conspicuous and economically important
species commonly found in the uplands and interior wetlands. Waterfowl
are an important animal group inhabiting the coastal marshes. Table III-11
describes habitat types and wildlife use in detail.
Marine Habitats. Knik Arm is a glacial estuary characterized by very
turbid water, extreme tides, and strong currents. Primary production is
very low. Intertidal and subtidal benthic (living in the seabed) organisms
III-34
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
c
c
.t
[
[
[
L
L
L
r u
[
[
'
Table III-10
CURRENT ANNUAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT COST AND REVENUE
ANNUAL COSTS
A. Municipality of Anchorage
a. Municipal
b. School District
B. Mat-Su Borough
a. Areawide
b •. Non-areawide
Total
( $ millions)
190.8
212.3
403.1
c. Wasilla Fire Service District
17.52
.99
.29
38.19
56.99
d. School District
ANNUAL REVENUES
A.
B.
c.
D.
Anchorage Bowl (Property Tax
a. Residential
b. Coim!).ercial
c. Vacant
Revenues)
66.75
6.43
9.18
82.36
Eagle River-Chugiak-Eklutna (Property Tax Revenues)
4.43 a. Residential
b. Commercial 0.43
c. Vacant 0.61
5.47
Municipality of Anchorage (Other Local Revenues)
53.00 a. Municipality
b. Schools 4.84
57.84
Mat-Su Borough (Property Tax Revenues)
1. Area-wide
a. Residential
b. Commercial
c. Vacant
III-35
3.13
1.00
4.99
9.12
Dollars* Per
Dwelling Unit (DU) ,
Employee, or Acre
2,449/DU
2,725/DU
5,174/DU
1,307/DU
90/DU
97/DU
2,849/DU
4,343/DU
952/DU
63/Ef11Ployee
Vacant Residential =
643/Acre**
Vacant Commercial =
3,641/Acre**
663/DU
184/Employee
Vacant Residential =
427/Acre**
Vacant Commercial =
758/Acre**
680/DU
62/DU
234/DU
192/Employee
41/Acre**
D.
Table III-10 (continued)
CURRENT ANNUAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT COST AND REVENUE
Mat-Su Borough (Property Tax
Revenues) (continued)
2. Non-areawide
a. Residential
b. Commercial
c. Vacant
3. Wasilla Fire Service District
a. Residential
b. Commercial
c. Vacant
Total
($ millions)
0.21
0.09
0.34
0.62
0.09
0.03
0.14
0.26
Dollars* Per
Dwelling Unit (DU),
Employee, or Acre
19/DU
16/Employee
2.5/Acre**
30/DU
26/Employee
3.5/Acre**
E. Mat-Su Borough (Other Local Revenues)
a. Areawide
b. Non-areawide
c. Wasilla Fire Service District
6. 77
0.02
0.01
6.80
505/DU
2/DU
3/DU
510/DU
PERCENT OF·COSTS PAID BY LOCALLY-GENERATED REVENUES
A. Municipality 38% 1,974/DU
B. Mat-Su Borough (Areawide,
Non-areawide, and WFSD) 29% 1,253/DU
OPERATING REVENUE PROVIDED BY THE STATE***
A. Municipality of Anchorage 224.46 (56%) 2,880/DU
B. Mat-Su Borough (Areawide,
Non-Areawide, and WFSD) 30.47 (65%) 2,293/DU
Sources: Municipality of Anchorage, May 1983.
*
**
***
Anchorage School District, 1983.
Mat-Su Borough School District, February 24, 1983.
Mat-Su Borough, September 1983.
Walt Chapel, Mat-Su Borough personal communications.
Marie Keen, Mat-Su Borough School District personal communication.
Bob Kern, Alaska State Department of Revenue, personal communication.
These figures are based on fiscal year 1983 and 1983/84 data. They are in
1983 dollars and can be converted to 1985 dollars by increasing them about
10 percent.
Vacant residential land value in Anchorage bowl at $77,000/acre and
commercial land at $436,000/acre. Vacant residential land in Eagle
River-Chugiak-Eklutna at $61,500/acre and commercial land at $109,000/acre.
Vacant land in Mat-Su Borough at $5,000 per acre.
Other non-local sources of revenue exist but are not relevant to the
government finance analysis contained in Chapter IV.
III-36
[
[
[
[
[
[
c
[
[
[
[
[
L
L
' ._.
' -
l
Habitat Type
TERRESTRIAL HABITATS
Coniferous and
mixed deciduous/
coniferous forest
Low Shrub scrub
(part wetland)
Closed black spruce
(part wetland)
Sedge/grass meadow
(wet and dry)
(mostly wetland)
Tall shrub and de-
ciduous forest
Salt Marsh
(wetland)
Table III-11
FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES BY HABITAT TYPES
Vegetatfon
Types
ICl, IC2, IC3,
IAl, IA2, IA3,
some IB1
IIBl, IIB2
IAl (black spruce) ,
some ICl
IIIA2, IIIA3,
IIIB3
IIAl, IIA2, IBl,
IB2, IB3
IIIC3, IIIC4
Dominant
Fish and Wildlife
Values
Year-round food and cover for
moose, snowshoe hare, red
squirrel, and spruce grouse:
food and cover for black
bear: nesting habitat for
song birds.
Year-round food for moose and
snowshoe hare -limited
cover: food for black bear:
breeding habitat for shrub-
nesting song birds.
Marginal year-round food and
cover for mbose, black bear,
snowshoe hare, and spruce
grouse. Year-round food and
cover for red squirrel:
nesting habitat for song
birds.
Supplemental spring, summer,
and fall food for moose and
black bear: breeding habitat
for w~skeg nesting birds such
as greater yellowlegs:
rearing habitat for coho
salmon (when connected to
stream system) •
Year-round food and limited
cover for moose. Low quality
or inadequate food for snow-
shoe hare, red squirrel and
spruce grouse: nesting
habitat for song birds.
Important habitat for migrat-
ing and nesting waterfowl and
shorebirds such as: lesser
Canada goose, Tule white~
fronted goose, mallard, pin-
tail, and sandhill crane:
feeding habitat for black
bear, furbearers, and
raptorial birds.
III-37
Acres in
Willow
Sub-Basin
(thousands)
286
58
130
121
85
29
Habitat Type
TERRESTRIAL HABITATS
(continued)
Intertidal mud
flat (wetland}
MARINE HABITATS
Knik Arm
AQUATIC HABITAT~2
Fish Streams
Little Susitna
River
Fish Creek
Goose Creek
Ship Creek
Table III-11 (continued}
FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES BY HABITAT TYPES
Vegetation
Types
Dominant
Fish and Wildlife
Values
Feeding habitat for dabbling
ducks.
Migratory corridor for all five
species of salmon and eulachon;
marginal rearing habitat for
juvenile salmon; year-round
habitat for saffron cod and
Bering Cisco.
Important fish stream; spawning
habitat for chinook, coho,
pink, and chum salmon, rainbow
trout, and Dolly Varden; rear-
ing habitat for chinook and
coho salmon, rainbow trout, and
Dolly Varden; migratory corri-
dor for sockeye salmon; beaver
habitat in sloughs and tribu-
taries; bald eagle feeding
habitat.
Same as Little Susitna River
except no chum salmon and fewer
salmon spawners.
Acres in
Willow
Sub-Basin
(thousands)
17
Spawning and rearing habitat for
coho salmon and rainbow trout;
beaver habitat.
Spawning habitat for chinook,
coho, pink, and chum salmon;
rearing habitat for coho and
chinook salmon.
III-38
L
[
[
c
C
[
[
[
c
c
[
G
[
[-~
;;
[
[
L
L
L
,_,
L.
[
[
r l~
[
Habitat Type
AQUATIC HABITATS 2
(continued)
Fish Streams (continued)
Eagle River
Peters Creek
Eklutna River
Knik River
Matanuska River
Spring Creek
Rabbit Slough
Wasilla Creek
Cottonwood Creek
Meadow Creek
Lakes
Mirror Lake/Big
Lake
Table III-11 (continued)
FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES BY HABITAT TYPES
Vegetation
Types
Dominant
Fish and Wildlife
Values
Chum, pink, sockeye, chinook
salmon migration~ sockeye and
chinook salmon rearing~ pink
and chum salmon spawning.
Pink and coho salmon migration~
coho rearing.
Coho and sockeye salmon
rearing.
Sockeye and coho salmon
migration.
Migration for all five Pacific
salmon~ chum, chinook, and
coho spawning.
Coho salmon spawning and
rearing.
Coho salmon spawning and
rearing.
Coho, chinook, and chum
salmon spawning; coho
rearing.
Coho salmon spawning; sockeye
salmon migration.
Coho salmon spawning and rear-
ing; sockeye salmon spawning.
Rearing habitat for sockeye and
coho salmon, rainbow trout,
and Dolly Varden.
III-39
Acres in
Willow
Sub-Basin
(thousands)
Table III-11 (continued)
FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES BY HABITAT TYPES
Habitat Type
Vegetatf?n
Types
Dominant
Fish and Wildlife
Values
Acres in
Willow
Sub-Basin
(thousands)
AQUATIC HABITATS2
(continued)
2
Lakes (continued)
Other Mat-Su Lakes
Elmendorf Lakes
(Green Lake,
Spring Lake,
Hillberg Lake)
Landlocked lakes often contain
rainbow tro·ut; lakes connected
to stream systems often provide
coho salmon rearing habitat;
beaver habitat; nesting and
feeding habitat for diving
birds such as common loon and
goldeneye as well as trumpeter
swans.
Habitat for stocked rainbow
trout; little or no natural
reproduction.
1 From Viereck, et al., 1980-see also Technical Memorandum No. 16 (USDOT/FHWA
January 27, 1984)
IAl -closed needleleaf (conifer) forest
IA2 -open needleleaf (conifer) woodland
IA3 -needleleaf (conifer) forest
IBl -closed broadleaf forest
IB2 -open broadleaf forest
IB3 -broadleaf woodland
ICl -closed mixed forest
IC2 -open mixed forest
IC3 -mixed woodland
IIAl -closed dwarf tree scrub
IIA2 -open dwarf tree scrub
IIBl -closed tall shrub scrub
IIB2 -open tall shrub scrub
IIIA2 -mesic graminoid herbaceous
IIIA3 -wet graminoid herbaceous (emergent)
IIIB3 -wet forb herbaceous
IIIC3 -sedge-grass marsh
IIIC4 -sedge-grass wet meadow (saline)
Other aquatic habitats exist in the project area. Those described are those most
likely to be affected by the alternatives under consideration. Sedge/grass meadow
also can be valuable for coho salmon rearing when connected to stream system. See
"Terrestrial Habitats" above. Eklutna River, Knik River, Matanuska River, Spring
Creek, Rabbit Slough, and Wasilla Creek are not shown in Figure III-6. All are at
near the east end of Knik Arm.
Sources: u.s. Department of Agriculture et al., Octeber 1981.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1982.
III-40
or
[
[
[
c
[
r L
[
[
c
c
c
t
[
[
[
c
[
[
r·
~~
I
c
[
[
[
[
r
L~
[
[
are sparse. However, recent evidence (USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF, December 20,
1983) suggests that moderate production of fish and epibenthic inverte-
brates (animals that live on or near the bottom) occurs within the Arm.
Energy for this simple ecosystem is probably provided by organic detritus
that enters Knik Arm from adjacent marshes and streams. Important resident
fish include saffron cod and Bering Cisco; see Table III-11. Knik Arm also
provides a migratory corridor and temporary residence for adult and juve-
nile salmon as they migrate to and from local streams. Adult salmon are
present in the Arm from late May through September depending on the spe-
cies. Juvenile salmon migrate through the area from May through late June
and to some extent they feed on marine invertebrates while in the Arm.
Marine birds are not abundant in Knik Arm, presumably because the turbid
water hampers feeding ability. However, some birds, especially greater
scaup and white winged scoter, occasionally do rest in Knik Arm. Marine
mammals also are not abundant; beluga whales occasionally are observed
during salmon migrations~
Aquatic Habitats. Lakes and streams are abundant within some portions of
the project area, particularly north of the east-west segment of the Point
MacKenzie Access Road. Fish, especially anadromous species, are an impor-
tant area resource and contribute to significant sport and commercial
fisheries (see below). The Little Susitna and Big Lake drainages support
significant populations of all five species of Pacific salmon as well as
resident trout and Dolly Varden, most of which are considered key
indicators of habitat quality. South of Knik Arm aquatic resources are
more sparse. Ship Creek is utilized by four species of salmon. Figure
III-6 and Table III-11 show important fish species and their locations in
major streams and rivers.
Use of Fish and Wildlife. Because of proximity to the Anchorage metropoli-
tan area, sport fishing pressure is heavy on all area streams and lakes
that contain substantial fish resources. Harvest and fishing pressure for
streams north and south· of Knik Arm for 1982 are presented in Table III-12.
The Little Susitna River is the most popular sport fishing stream in the
Mat-Su Borough (Larry Engel, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, personal
communication). For example, in 1982, fishermen spent 24,020 man-days
fishing on the Little Susitna River (Mills, 1982). Other lakes and streams
between Knik Arm and the Parks Highway also are fished heavily, including
Big Lake. The small lakes on Elmendorf AFB adjacent to the Elmendorf
Crossing also receive substantial fishing pressure. Total man-days fished
in 1982 in the project area north of Knik Arm were 91,713. The Anchorage
area south of Knik Arm received 82,007 man-days of fishing effort.
Knik Arm has been closed to commercial fishing since· 1959, however a
limited amount of set-net fishing for salmon occurs just outside the
entrance to the Arm. This mid-summer fishery concentrates on sockeye
salmon. A significant commercial salmon fishery also occurs in upper Cook
Inlet along the Kenai Peninsula to which Knik Arm salmon stocks contribute.
The average commercial salmon catch in Upper Cook Inlet in the years 1977
to 1980 was 3,800,000 fish (Braund, 1980).
III-41
a Major Fish Streams Rivers
~ Major Coastal Wetlands
~ Major Freshwater Wetlands D Upland Boreal Forest .
Sockeye Salmon
Coho Salmon
[
[
c
[
[-.,
·'
Sockeye Salmon
Coho Salmon
[
~[
Sockeye Salmon
Coho Salmon
Pink Salmon
ChinOGk Salmon
Rai~~'w Trout
, D~IJ Varden
Goose Creek \>'
Coho Salmon
Rainbow Trout
. \l Eagle River 1
\\~Chum Salmon
\' Pink Salmon
~
lr
l t_j
Peters Creek
Pink Salmon
Coho Salmon
19· 1 ) ·/vs. ~
(!) i
!
North !
I
5 Miles
Figure 111-6
Habitat
[
[
L
[
c
L
L'
~ r,
H
H
H
I
,j::,.
w
r-l j
Days
Fished
r----"1 l.i \ J 1:--;J
Table III-12
SPORT FISHERY IIARVEST (1902) FOR DRAINAGES,
STREAMS, AND LAKES IN PROJECT AREA
Number of Fish Caught by
.. ] J J
SJ2ecies•
DV
(1982) KI KS ss LL RS PS cs RT AC LT GR BB SM Other
TOTAL KNIK ARM DRAINAGE** 91,713 691 975 13,676 10,845 4,621 1,425 1,174 30,549 13,540 1,058 2,924 681 0 817
-I.ittle Susitna River 24,020 534 933' 7,116 0 1,865 1,163 943 1,551 1,331 0 388 10 0 713
-Wasilla Creek
(Rabbit Slough)
-Cottonwood Creek
-Wasilla J,ake
-I.ucille Lake
-Big Lake
-Nancy Lake Rec, Area,
including Nancy Lake
TOTAL ANCHORAGE AREA
DRAINAGE***
-Otter Lake
-Sixmile Lake
-Green Lake
-Hillberg Lake
-Ship Creek
-Eagle River
*Fish Species
6,261 0
5,186 0
2,457 0
2,218 0
15,371 0
8,615 0
82,007 0
7,421 0
5,016 0
8,223 0
4,828 0
2,695 0
3,037 0
KI -Chinook (king) salmon less than 20 inches
KS -Chinook (king) salmon
ss -Coho (silver) salmon
LL -Landlocked coho salmon
RS -Sockeye· (red) salmon
PS -Pink salmon
CS -Chum salmon
RT -Rainbow trout
DV -Dolly Varden
AC -Arctic char
LT -Lake trout
GR -Arctic grayling
BB -Burbot
SM -Smelt
0 1,624 0
0 1,886 0
0 0 42
0 0 3,312
0 0 324
0 0 126
0 1,571 2,557
0 0 0
0 0 136
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 168 0
0 10 0
0 147 0 63 1,289 0 0 0 0
608 0 0 786 10 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2,243 63 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
126 0 0 9,369 8,793 440 0 461 0
618 0 0 2,840 272 356 0 210 0
272 1,178 10 49,242 2,893 0 210 0 116,617
0 0 0 6,445 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1,499 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 4,747 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2,162 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 639 210 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 734 1,247 0 0 0 0
** Knik Arm Drainage: All waters inside the area bounded by the Little Susitna River on the north and west and Knik Arm on the south, including
all drainages of the Matanuska and Knik Rivers. Boundary streams are included in the area.
••• Anchorage Area Drainage: All waters inside the area bounded by the Eklutna River on the north, Knik Arm on the west, Turnagain Arm to-and-
to-and-including Portage Creek at Portage on the south, and the Chugach Mountains on the east. Boundary streams are included in the area,
Source: Mills, 1982
0
0
0
0
0
73
94
0
0
0
0
0
0
The set-net subsistence fishery was closed in Knik Arm in 1971 because of
depletion of salmon stocks (Braund, 1980), but a personal use (subsistence)
net fishery has been permitted under various regulations in upper Cook
Inlet outside of Knik Arm in recent years. In 1980, the subsistence salmon
catch was 14,775 in Upper Cook Inlet from Anchor Point north (Braund,
1980). Knik Arm salmon stocks contribute substantially to this fishery,
especially for those fishermen who fish adjacent to Fire Island and Point
Ma:cKenzie.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and the Cook Inlet
Aquaculture Association (CIAA) both are involved in enhancement projects to
improve sport and commercial fisheries in upper Cook Inlet drainages. CIAA
operates a chum and coho salmon hatchery on the Eklutna River at the head
of Knik Arm and ADF&G operates sockeye and coho salmon hatcheries on Meadow
Creek near Big Lake and on Ship Creek in Elmendorf AFB. These enhancement
projects involve the hatching and rearing of salmon and trout to be
released in local streams, rivers, and lakes.
Big game hunting (moose and black bear) for sport and/or subsistence is a
primary use of the undisturbed areas north of Knik Arm. Hunting pressure
and harvest for moose are presented in Table III-13. Big game hunting in
the Anchorage bowl or Elmendorf AFB generally is not permitted except under
highly controlled circumstances. Controlled moose hunting regularly occurs
on Fort Richardson. Smaller upland game such as snowshoe hare and spruce
grouse als9 are pursued in areas where these species are abundant. Some
trapping occurs north of Knik Arm, mostly along rivers and streams.
Waterfowl hunting (Table III-13) is another high intensity game use in the
Cook Inlet area. Nearly all of the hunting occurs in coastal marsh areas~
Susitna Flats, Goose Bay, and Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuges are all
hunted heavily.
Hunting and fishing pressure in the project area is considered high, but in
the presence of existing management measures, current harvest levels have
not been shown to be detrimental to areawide animal populations. Access to
hunting and fishing areas is a key element in determining the pressure
received in local areas. The Parks Highway is the primary road in the
Mat-Su Borough and consequently serves as a focal point for hunting and
fishing activity.
Threatened or Endangered Species. No ~lant species identified as
threatened or endangered have been found to occur within either the wetland
or upland plant communities of the project area (Murray, 1980).
Two sub-species of the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus ana tum and F.
peregrinus tundrius) are listed as endangered by the u. s. Fish & Wildlife
Service and may pass over the Mat-Su Borough and Anchorage areas during
migration to and from nesting areas farther north. A third sub-species (F.
peregrinus pealei) is known to nest in coastal areas of southcentral Alaska
but is not considered endangered.
III-44
[
[
c
L
[
[
[
[
[
[
L
L
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
Species
Bull moose
Antlerless moose
Black bear
Brown bear
Ducks
Geese
NOTES
Table III-13
BIG GAMEl AND WATERFOWL 2 HARVEST
WILLOW SUB-BASIN
JULY 1982 -JUNE 1983
Number of
Permits
2,219
400
Hunter
Days
13,145
Number
Harvested
311
123
49
10
28,505
1,325
The number of permits for black bear and brown bear is unavailable.
Most goose harvesting is incidental to duck hunting.
fources:
Personal communication, Jack Didrickson, Alaska Department of Fish
and Game~ Includes Management Unit 14A.
2 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, February 1984, total for Susitna
Flats, Palmer Hay Flats, and Goose Bay State Game Refuges.
III-45
Wetlands
Wetlands in the project area can be divided into coastal wetlands, poorly
drained low areas inundated by salt water on extreme tide,· and non-tidal
freshwater wetland areas, including forested wetland (black spruce bogs),
low shrub bogs and fens, and freshwater marshes. Major wetland areas are
illustrated in Figure III-6 and values are described in Table III-11.
Wetlands traversed by the Crossing Alternatives are shown in detail in
Appendix C. Detailed wetland maps of the area are available from the u.s.
Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Program. Forty-two
percent of the Willow Sub-basin, 411,300 acres, is classed as wetland (U.
s. Department of Agriculture et al., October 1981). Elmendorf AFB contains
11 percent, 1,420 acres, of wetland habitat (Rothe et al., 1983).
A primary importance of the coastal marshes is providing waterfowl habitat.
These areas support . large numbers of waterf<:>wl including Canada geese,
pintails·, green-wing teal, and mallards. Use is during migration, feeding,
and resting in addition to use as summer nesting habitat. These areas are
also important to adjacent salt water habitats in the production of plant
material which provides nutrients for the marine food web. Furbearers such
as mink and red fox also frequent these productive marsh areas.
Freshwater wetlands are scattered throughout the project area both in small
isolated, poorly drained areas and also in large expanses. These areas
function tp recharge ground water, filter out organic pollutants f~om
surface water, and absorb large amounts of water to act as natural flood
control. Wetland areas along the streams and rivers (i.e., Fish Creek,
Little Susitna River) act as overflow areas during flooding and help
prevent erosion.
These non-coastal wetlands also are of ·major importance in providing
wildlife habitat. Black spruce bogs are considered important winter
habitat for moose and provide good browse species for food. Black bear
utilize wetlands seasonally because of the presence of preferred plant food
items. -Muskeg breeding birds such as yellowlegs and common snipe also
prefer these interior bog areas (Ritchie et al., 1981). S~ll streams
draining large wetland areas were found to be utilized a$ rearing streams
for coho salmon and rainbow trout.
Water Resources and Quality
Marine Environment. Knik Arm is a glacial estuary characterized by extreme
tides and currents. Maximum tidal range (39 feet) is second only to the
Bay of Fundy in eastern Canada. Tidal currents up to 11 feet per second
have been documented (Britch, 1976). The currents and resulting turbulence
produce high levels of suspended sediment with values to 1,350 milligrams
per liter reported (Kinney et al. 1970). In the summer, salinity can vary
from 6 to 20 parts per thousand depending on tide stage. Some sources of
potential pollution exist including the Anchorage sewage treatment outfall,
storm drains, and spills of oil and other materials at and by ships using
the Port of Anchorage. The flushing rate is so great that the
pollution of Knik Arm as a whole has not been considered a problem to
date, and under normal conditions the waters would be considered unpolluted
III-46
[
[
c
[
r L
[
[
c
[
[
[
[
[
L
L
[
[
[
E
[
L
[
except for the presence of natural suspended sediment. However, studies in
the Point Woronzoff vicinity, near the Anchorage sewage outfall, have
indicated higher than normal counts of fecal coliform bacteria suggesting
that localized pollution could become signific~t (U. s. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1979a) • The Municipa1i ty of Anchorage currently is reviewing
the need to relocate the sewage outfall.
Freshwater Environment. Water quality in the-streams of the Mat-Su Borough
generally is good in the sense that the streams are essentially unpolluted
(Rununel, 1980). However, since the density of shoreline development is
relatively high around some of the lakes (e.g. , Big Lake) , the potential
exists for gradual increases in nutrients due to leaching of domestic
wastes, as has occurred elsewhere in the country. Most of the streams in
the project area have relatively clear water and do not carry a high silt
load. Surface waters in the Wasilla area are relatively soft with a
hardness less than 120 milligrams per liter and are of the calcium magne-
sium carbonate type (Rwmnel, 1980) •.
Water quality in streams and lakes south of Knik Arm is good in water
bodies outside the population centers, e.g., as on the northern portion of
Elmendorf AFB. Deterioration in water quality has been observed in those
portions of streams that flow through the Anchorage area, e.g., Ship Creek
and Chester Creek, (U. s. Army Corps of Engineers, 1979b) • The water
quality of Ship Creek has been monitored in recent years by Elmendorf AFB
and the Army Corps of Engineers. Some contamination by petroleum products
is present in lower Ship Creek, apparently the result of old spills on the
AFB, but is not sufficiently serious to affect the fish at the Ship Creek
hatchery (Rothe et al., 1983). Increases in total dissolved solids, iron,
and coliform bacteria also have been noted (U. s. Army Corps of Engineers,
1979b).
Hydrology
Water is a dominant feature ot" the project area nE>rth of Knik Arm. The
flat, low-lying terrain contains abundant lakes, streams, and wetland
areas. The Little Susitna River is the larqest stream system, originating
in the Talkeetna Mountains and flowing westerly and southerly until it
enters upper Cook Inlet near the entrance to Knik Arm. Little Susitna flow
is derived from a variety of sources including glacial melt, runoff, and
groundwater. Maximum discharge generaily occurs in June (greater than
1,000 cubic feet per second) with flows remaining high throughout the
summer and decreasing drastically to a minimum of less than 25 cfs in March
(Mat-Su Borough, 1981a). The other major drainage in the project area is
the Big Lake/Fish Creek drainage. The presence of several lakes in the
drainage tends to moderate the discharge, causing a much more uniform flow
regime and less annual variation than that of the Little Susitna River. In
addition to the major systems, several small streams enter the north side
of Knik Arm. Numerous landlocked lakes and wetland areas provide an
enormous storage capacity, moderate runoff effects, and contribute to
groundwater recharge.
III-47
South of Knik Arm, in the Elmendorf and Anchorage bowl areas, surface water
resources are dominated by relatively short, non-glacial stream systems
that originate in the Chugach Mountains and flow westerly across the
alluvial deposits of the Anchorage area before entering Knik Arm. Ship
Creek is the primary drainage within the area that could be affected by the
alternatives under consideration. The Ship Creek basin is an important
recharge area for the Anchorage artesian aquifer, a significant source of
potable water (Rothe et al., 1983). Long-term discharge records indicate
that peak flows occur in June with flow gradually decreasing to a low in
March. Ship Creek responds rapidly to precipitation events, and thus high
flows can occur for short periods in summer and fall. A substantial
portion of Ship Creek water currently is diverted for municipal and mili-
tary water supply and for power plant cooling. Several diversion dams are
present in the stream.
Floodplains.
The 100-year or base floodplain and regulatory floodway for Ship Creek
(U. s·. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975/1980 update) (U. s. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1982) is shown in Figures III-7 and III-8. In the Mat-Su
Borough, coastal floodplains occur in the Goose Bay and Palmer Hay Flats
State Game Refuges. They also line a-rea streams, but none are in the
vicinity of Crossing Alternatives. General floodplain limits are shown for
the Mat-Su Borough in their Coastal Zone Management Plan (Mat-Su Borough,
August 198;3).
Natural Resource Development
Farlillands of State or Local Importance. There are no prime or unique
farmlands within the project area. However, there are lands determined to
be of State and local importance by the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources and by the Borough. Figure III-9 depicts these lands as shown in
the Willow Sub-Basin Area Plan (ADNR, October 1982). The State designated
lands include the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Area, Fish Creek Agricul-
tural Area, and large concentrations at Pear Lake and Ronald Lake. The
Borough designated lands include all Borough owned parcels of 40 acres or
more that are at least 40 percent Class II and/or Class III soils.
Agriculture Production. Farming in the area, predominantly grain, hay, and
potatoes, is limited due to the lack of clear land, J§lroductive soils,
access, ·an~ processing/marketing infrastructure. In addition, farming has
declined from a peak in the mid 1960's because it is more profitable to
sell land for subdivision~ only intensive development such as livestock or
truck farming can exceed the sale price for residential use.
Both the Borough and the State want to increase agricultural activity in
the project area. The Willow Sub-Basin Area Plan (ADNR, October 1982)
designates lands for commercial agriculture, including the Point MacKenzie
Agricultural Project and the Fish Creek Agricultural Project (see Figures
III-9 and III-10) • The Point MacKenzie project consists of 13,900 acres
for dairy farming, hay, barley, and potatoes. The Fish Creek project
consists of 16,000 acres proposed for hay, barley, and potatoes. Road
access into the Fish Creek area is planned but not yet programmed for
completion.
III-48
[
[
c
r
L
[
[
c
[
[
[
I.
L
L
~I Regulatory Floodway
E:J, 100-year Floodplain
I~ ,.J l. J
Figure 111-7
Floodplains-Downtown
North
0 200 400 1000 Feet
=
Oilwel! Road
Air Force
Hospitol
[
c
[
[
[
[
[ -
[
[
===== .... ~--======·=====:.:.===========-===·
[
[ I!
.B 100-year Floodplain
,.
" 'I
Figure 111-8 [
Floodplains -Elmendorf AFB
r--
-i'
[
[
c
[
[
[
[
L
r
,.., • l l:'~ >
/ .I
i ! ! / r' ! ( \" c:;---r-J !J rJ>--.:... , Nancy Lake
1
1
( I Recreation Area LJ .
1 L_
i
i
r·· :---
i ;_-·"
!r rv
I
j
Sus;tnc Fiats
State Game
Refuge
ml Farmlands of State and Local Importance
·~---~...,._r-' ~~~'Hous~ ~
I
)
/\ . : l v r. o)ln
J U/r
\ / nu v v
North J
'
Figure 111-9
Farmlands of State
and Local Importance
Designated Primary Uses
IT:] Commercial Agriculture
msmall Farm
IUf1 Forestry
~ Public Recreation
[I]] Use and Protection of Fish and Wildlife
~ HortO
Figure 111-10
Natural Resource
Development Lands
[
[
c
r' L
[
[
c
[
[
L
[
[
F'
!
[
[
L
L
[
[
[
[
[
[
l
Other Surface Resources. The project area is rich in timber, fish and
wildlife, and recreation resources. There are abundant white spruce,
black spruce, and cottonwood stands with the potential for firewood and
some commercial timber production. However, the area imports lumber and
does not meet the local demand for firewood. Commercial forestry requires
large blocks of land with enough quality timber to assure long-term har-
vesting. However, forestry complements other resources~ timber can be
salvaged from lands cleared for agriculture ·and roads, logging roads
provide access for recreation, and logging improves habitat for wildlife
such as moose. Consequently, the Willow Sub-Basin Area Plan (ADNR, October
1982) designates high quality forest areas including areas north of the
Point MacKenzie Agriculture Project and northwest of the Nancy Lake
Recreation Area for timber production, and those areas eventually could
support a few small mills. Forestry is listed as a secondary use (e.g.,
timber salvage) for the Little Susitna Corridor and for all agricultural
areas except Point MacKenzie (Figure III-10).
The fish and wildlife resources in the project area are among the State's
most abundant and diverse, and they are a significant economic resource.
Due to the proximity to population centers, particularly Anchorage, these
resources receive heavy utilization by recreation, commercial, and subsis-
tence users. A fundamental issue for the Borough is the growing demand,
with a simultaneous decrease in land available to support the resources.
Consequently, the Willow Sub-Basin Area Plan (ADNR, October 1982) desig-
nates publi_c recreation _areas such as the Nancy Lake Recreation Area and
numerous smaller sites, as well as the legislatively designated fish and
wildlife use and protection areas such as Goose Bay State Game Refuge and
Susitna Flats State Game Refuge, for use and protection of wildlife. This
designation is listed as a secondary use of recreation areas and two
agricultural areas (see Figure III-10).
Subsurface Resources. Subsurface resources in the project area include
coal, oil and gas, lime, clay, and sand and gravel. Sub-bituminous coal is
one of the principal nonmetallic resources in the Borough. Deposits
underlie most of the project area, however the beds are deep, discon-
tinuous, relatively thin, and appear to be uneconomical to develop. There
are no active mines, and other rich deposits in the Susitna, Matanuska, and
Beluga coal fields are more likely prospects for development within the
next 10 to 20 years (ADNR, October 1982).
Producing oil and gas basins extend into the project area, so there is a
potential for development. There are existing leases scattered throughout
the project area, but there have been no commercial finds to date (ADNR,
October 1982).
Gravel is another of the principal nonmetallic resources in the Borough.
Glacial dep9sits of sand and gravel lie on both sides of Knik Arm, although
many of the deposits are depleted or covered by urban and military develop-
ment southeast of Knik Arm (ADNR, October 1982).
The majority of the State-owned subsurface deposits are open to exploration
and development, but many of the designated recreation, agriculture, and
settlement areas are closed to coal and/or metallic mineral development
(ADNR, October 1982) •
III-53
Western Alaska Resources. Opportunities for resource development also
exist west of the project area. This-includes all of the same resources
that exist within the project area. The most promising for near-term
development are coal, oil, and gas resources .in the area of the Beluga
River and Cook Inlet southwest of the Susitna River. Natural gas wells
already operate, and a natural gas pipeline is being completed from that
area to Anchorage. This is the only area west of the project area where
the provision of road access is being considered in area planning.
Iditarod Trail
The Idi tared Trail system includes 1, 500 miles of continuous trails that
were used for the transportation of people and goods in the development of
Alaska. The portion of the trail that is within the area of concern begins
at the town of Knik and extends west for 15 miles where it meets the Little
Susitna River; see Figure III-10. This portion is part of the "Knik to
Susitna Station" segment which is a 20-mile trail from Knik to the Susitna
River. Beginning at the town of Knik, the trail passes through lowland
spruce hardwood forests, wetlands, and lakes. The segment ends at the
Susitna River at the site of a deserted trading post and community. The
condition of the trail varies from summer to winter, but it is impassable.
at many places when the ground is not frozen. Maintenance is done by
volunteers and occurs in the winter in preparation for races. A survey was
completed of this segment by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources
(1983). This survey established the trail location for recreation
purposes, however the trail location has varied over time. The historic
location is not known in the area of the Houston Connector. The surveyed
route is that which is used by recreationists and maintained by private
interest; its location is based on what is thought to be the historical
route as well as on topography, physical features, and land ownership. The
trail passes through lands owned by the State, the Mat-Su Borough, and
through private holdings. The intersection of the Iditarod Trail and the
Houston Connector is between nine and ten miles west of Knik and is on
privately-owned land.
The State Historic Preservation Officer, in a letter dated June 11, 1984
(see Appendix G), found the segment that would be crossed by the Houston
Connector not eligible for the National Register because the historic trail
location is unknown. The Federal Highway Administration has found that the
point that would be crossed by the Houston Connector does not fall under
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (see Chapter
v, "Section 4(f) Requirements") because it is on privately-owned land.
Use of the trail is greatest in winter months by sled dog mushers,
snowmachiners, and cross country skiers. The heaviest use occurs within
the first 10 to 12 miles from Knik by sled dog trainers. The Iditarod Sled
Dog Race, an international event, occurs on the trail in February or March
of each year. Summer use occurs on dry portions of the trail and includes
three-wheeling and hiking.
The only existing and planned facilities along the trail are directional
signs. Intrepretive centers at the beginning and the end of the trail are
in long-range trail management plans.
III-54
[
[
[
L
[
r ,
\ L
r·
b
[
c
rr
L
L
L
[
[
L
L
[
[
c
[
c
[
C
[
[
[
[
G L
l
L
L
The trail is available for both pedestrian and motorized (snowmachine,
three-wheeler) traffic and mostly is limited to winter use due to bog
conditions along the trail. Users currently enter the trail at Knik and at
several other connecting trails in the area.
Air Quality
Air quality is evaluated based on maximum pollutant concentrations in an
area and their relation to ambient air quality standards (AAQS). State of
Alaska and National AAQS are identical. Carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen
dioxide (NO ) are the two pollutants of primary concern from motor vehi-
cles. The iAgs for CO are 35 parts per million (ppm) (1-hour average) and
9 ppm (8-hour average). These concentrations may be exceeded no more than
once per year. The AAQS for N0 2 specify 0.05 ppm (annual average). Only
CO standards are exceeded now in the project area and only within
Anchorage.
CO concentrations are measured on a continuous basis by the Municipality of
Anchorage at four locations in the Anchorage bowl. Available data, which
include the months October through March, are summarized in Table III-14.
October th~ough March are the months when the highest CO concentrations are
measured. High c~ncentrations generally are due to light winds and stable
atmospheric conditions which minimize dispersion of pollutants. These
conditions generally occur in the winter months.
Data in Table III-14 indicate that, of the four monitoring sites, the
highest CO concentrations were measured at the Benson Boulevard and Spenard
Road site. The eight-hour AAQS was exceeded at all sites, however at the
7th and C street and Raspberry Road sites, this standard was exceeded only
once in the 1982 to 1983 season. The 1-hour AAQS has been exceeded on a
single day in December 1980 at the Benson and Spenard site and has not been
exceeded at the other sites. Maximum concentrations generally are associ-
ated with morning and evening rush hour traffic when automobile emissions
are greatest. It is difficult to detect any trends from the data in Table
III-14. Differences from year to year may depend as much or more on
meteorological conditions than on emissions.
An air quality monitoring program was conducted by Anchorage Municipal
Power and Light Company at a site about 1/2 mile southeast of the inter-
. section of the Glenn Highway and Muldoon Road. The maximum one-hour
average CO concentration in 19~2 was 6 ppm which is substantially less than
maximum concentrations in the downtown area. The annual average NO
concentration measured in 1982 was 0.012 ppm, which. is less than 25 percent
of State and National AAQS. (Rob Wilson, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Seattle, personal communication).
Although monitoring data are not available, air quality north of Knik Arm
in the Mat-Su Borough is considered better than in Anchorage because
automobile emissions are much less. It is unlikely that AAQS are exceeded
ih this area. The Parks Highway is the primary generator of pollutant
emissions in the northern part of the project area.
III-55
Table III-14
SUMMARY OF WINTER CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS
IN THE ANCHORAGE NONATTAINMENT AREA
1 Measured CO Concentrations (ppm) Days with Exceedanc2
Site and Season Mean 1-Hr Maximum 8-Hr Maximum of 8-Hour Standard
16th and Garden
1979-1980 2.2 25 18.9 12
1980-19813 2.7 23 17.1 17
1981-1982 2.4 21 15.6 12
1982-1983 3.2 26 14.9 22
7th and c
1976-19774 2.7 21 11.5 4
1977-19784 3.3 23 16.0 18
1978-1979 2.8 21 13.1 5
1979-1980 2.1 33 16.5 9
1980-1981 1.9 20 12.9 4
1981-1982 2.2 16 10.0 3
1982-1983 2.4 15 9.1 1
Benson and _Spenard
1978-19795 5.0 30 20.0 32
1979-1980 4.0 30 27.4 27
1980-1981 4.2 43 26.3 36
1981-1982 4.7 31 21.6 51
1982-1983 4.6 24 18.1 42
3340 Raspberry
1980-1981 1.3 23 14.0 6
1981-1982 1.4 18 12.6 8
1982-1983 1.8 21 16.6 1
1
2 Season includes October through March except where noted.
3 8-hour State and National Ambient Air Quality Standard is 9 ppm.
4 February missing.
5 October missing.
October and November missing.
III-56
[
[
c
[
c
c
u
t
[
[
[
C
[
L
l
[
n
[
[
L
[
L
The Municipality of Anchorage has an active program, presented in the
Anchorage Air Quality Plan (Municipality of Anchorage, 1982a), to address
air quality problems. Functions include air quality monitoring of co, as
discussed above, and input to transportation planning. A vehicle in-
spection and maintenance program has been approved by the Municipal Assem-
bly and is scheduled to be implemented in July 1985. It is anticipated
that this program will reduce automobile CO emissions through proper engine
tuning. The plan's strategy to control air pollution also includes traffic
signal improvements, street and highway improvement plans (see "Street and
Highway Plans" in this chapter) , encouraging carpooling and variable office
hours, and public transit improvements.
Noise
To document the existing noise environment in the project area, noise
levels were monitored at nine locations. As shown in Table III-15, at five
of the locations the day-night sound level, Ld , was measured. Ld is an
average of the noise levels occurring during anfull 24-hour periodnwith a
weighting of 10 decibels (dB) applied to those noises occurring during the
hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. At an additional four locations, the average
sound level occurring during shorter ~eriods (typically 10 to 30 minutes),
L , was measured. eq
Except for location 3 in Eagle River, aircraft noise (from military air-
craft, ligh~ aircraft, and helicopters) is a major contributor to the noise
environment. For those locations south of the Ship Creek area, the
railroad, industry, and power plants are also major noise sources. Traffic
noise is also important except for sites on Elmendorf AFB and at the
locations on the Mat-Su Borough side of the Arm. At these locations
(locations 1, 2, 8, and 9), in the absence of aircraft, noise levels are
low.
Occasional artillery firing at Fort Richardson also affects the noise
environment in the northeastern portion of Anchorage.
Additional detail on the noise measurement program is in Appendix E.
Visual
The project area can be divided into three landseape types of similar
visual character. These are the Downtown/Ship Creek area, Elmendorf Air
Force Base, and the Mat-Su Borough. The differences between these land-
scape types result from the presence and extent of manmade features and/or
differences in the characteristics of natural features.
Downtown/Ship Creek. This area is highly developed with industrial and
transportation uses occurring in the narrow valley formed by Ship Creek and
the surrounding bluffs. Within the valley is the Ship Creek overlook at
Ship Creek dam, a small park on the north edge of Ship Creek just east of
the C Street viaduct. Views from this park are oriented primarily to the
immediate park area and the Ship Creek dam where viewers watch salmon and
water fowl.
III-57
Table III-15
SUMMARY OF NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
Location
No. Description
24-hour measurements (L~
1 Elmendorf AFB Hospital
2 Elmendorf AFB Housing
Unit 24-334
3 Residence, 136 Breckinridge,
Eagle River
4 Alaska Native Medical Center
5 Office, 211 H Street
Short-Term Measurements (L qL
6 Resolution Park
7 Bartlett High School
8 Point MacKenzie Agricultural
Area {Eastern Boundary)
9 South Big Lake Road
III-58
decibels
(dB)
58
63
68
65
58
60
53
42
52
Major
Noise Sources
Aircraft
Aircraft
Traffic (Glenn Highway
100 feet away)
Traffic, Rail, Industry,
Power Plant, Aircraft
Traffic, Rail, Construe-
tion, Industry, Aircraft
Traffic, .Rail, Industry,
Aircraft
Aircraft, Ventilation
Equipment
Aircraft
Aircraft
[
[
c
[
[
c
[
(
J!i-
L
E
[
[
[
L
[
[
r -;
[
-!
[
[
[
L
L
The south facing bluff is covered with natural vegetation and has houses on
its plateau. High quality scenic views from this plateau are directed to
the west over Knik Arm; viewers include homeowners along Knik Arm and
viewers from Brown's Point Park, a small park on the bluff above the Port
of Anchorage. Southern views from the bluff are narrowed by vegetation on
the slope and are focused on Ship Creek industry and the opposite slope and
plateau.
Development on the north facing slope and plateau is both commercial and
residential. High quality panoramic views are to the west and include Knik
Arm and opposite shores, Mount Susitna, and the Alaska Mountain Range. The
views are significant for business persons, shoppers, tourists, and users
of the downtown area as well as for residents along the bluff. Tourists
are directed to Resolution Park for its views of Knik Arm and the Alaska
Range to the west and southwest.
Elmendorf Air Force Base. Much of the natural character in Elmendorf Air
Force Base has been retained. The land is fairly flat but rises gently to
the Elmendorf Moraine ridge. Dense vegetation of spruce, birch, and alder
covers most of the area. There are several small lakes in the area that
have a high recreation value and that provide diversity in the ~andscape.
Man-made features include groupings of buildings, roads, power lines, . a
gravel pit, and recreation facilities. These man-made features dominate
the natural landscape only when they are in the foreground of views. Views
of Knik Arm, the Mat-Su Borough, and the Alaska Range are possible from
clearings .on Elmendorf Moraine.
Mat-Su Borough. A uniform visual character is created by regular, gentle,
and subtle changes in topography; similarity of vegetation, and the abun-
dance of small lakes in the Mat-Su Borough. Man-made features are not a
dominant element but are obvious features in the landscape where panoramic
views exist. Clear cutting for agriculture, airstrips, powerlines, and
roads breaks the uniform character of the landscape. The number of pan-
oramic views is limited by dense foreground vegetation.
The clearing and development of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural project
would change the visual character of that area to a rural/farmland charac-
ter.
The Big Lake area is a visual unit within the Mat-Su Borough because of the
size of the lake and the development around its perimeter. Recreational
cabins, year-round homes, and small boat facilities line the shores of Big
Lake and other smaller lakes in the area. Views of the lakes from their
shores are a valued feature.
III-59
I'
,. ... ..,
r .;
[
[
L
Chapter IV
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This chapter evaluates the environmental impacts of the Crossing and
No-Crossing Alternatives. Positive and negative, direct and indirect, and
short-term (generally construction) and long-term impacts are addressed.
Planned measures to mitigate negative impacts are. also described. The
discussion is divided into .three sections: Transportation impacts, social
and economic impacts, and natural resource impacts. Cultural resource
impacts are addressed in Chapter V, "Section 4 (f) Evaluation". The impact
of providing the structure necessary to later install rail on the bridge
alternatives is discussed in Chapter VI.
A. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
The following areas of interest are discussed under transportation impacts:
Highway accessibility, travel volumes, traffic flow, freight movement,
public transportation, . pedestrians and bicyclists, and street and highway
plans.
Highway Accessibility
Long-Term. Accessibility is measured in terms of travel time and cost to
reach an attractive destination. A transportation improvement would modify
existing levels of accessibility by increasing or decreasing travel time or
cost. A high utilization of a crossing would be a result of the increased
accessibility which would be provided from Anchorage to many areas within
the Mat-Su Borough.
Table IV-1 illustrates the 2001 travel times to several destinations with
and without a crossing. The travel times reflect the number of minutes to
travel between downtown Anchorage and several outlying areas and communi-
ties within the analysis area during the peak hour. Off-peak travel times
would be faster than indicated in the table. Considerable travel time
savings could be achieved to various areas in the Matanuska-Susitna
(Mat-Su) Borough with a Knik Arm crossing. The Downtown Project generally
would show the greatest amount of travel time savings.
Overall accessibility may be evaluated from either vehicle-miles of travel
(VMT) or vehicle-hours of travel (VHT) • Systemwide VMT and VHT for all
alternatives for the years 2001 and 2010 is shown in Table IV-2.
The Downtown Project with a mid-range growth allocation (see "Urban Growth
and Economic Development") would demonstrate the greatest improvement in
accessibility by reducing VMT and VHT more than the other alternatives in
both 2001 and 2010. This improvement would be attributable to two factors:
(1) the allocation of dwelling units to the Point· MacKenzie area in response
to a crossing would reduce the average vehicle trip length compared to the
No-Action Alternative which would have higher dwelling unit growth in the
IV-1
Table IV-1
PEAK-HOUR TRAVEL TIMES FROM DOWNTOWN ANCHORAGE
TO OUTLYING COMMUNITIES IN 2001
No-Crossing Alternatives
No-Glenn/Parks
Community Action Improvement Hovercraft
Eagle River 29 23 (-6) 29 (0)
Peters Creek 39 33 (-6) 39 (O)
Palmer 65 59 (-6) 64 (-1)
Wasilla 68 62 (-6) 66 (-2)
Houston 87 76 (-6) 73 (-9)
Willow 102 96 (-6) 94 (-8)
Point MacKenzie Area 110 104 (-6) 40 (-70)
Big Lake Area 87 81 (-6) 70 (-13)
Knik Area 93 87 (-6) 56 (-37)
Fish Creek Area 117 111 (-6) 69 (-48)
NOTES
Peak-hour travel time in minutes is shown.
Decrease in travel time due to congestion is included.
Downtown
(Mid-Range)
27
36
60
61
(-2)
(-3)
(-5)
(-7)
46 (-36)
66 (-36)
12 (-98)
45 (-42)
29 (-64)
42 (-75)
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Elmendorf
(High) (Mid-Range)
28 (-1) 28 (-1)
37 (-2) 37 (-2)
62 (-3) 61 (-4)
63 (-5) 62 (-6)
47 (-35) 60 (-22)
68 (-34) 81 (-21)
12 (-98) 28 (-82)
46 (-41) 59 (-28)
30 (-63) 45 (-48)
44 (-73) 58 (-59)
Elmendorf
(Low)
27 (-2)
37 (-2)
61 (-4)
62 (-6)
60 (-22)
81 (-21)
28 (-82)
59 (-28)
44 (-49)
57 (-60)
Peak hour, peak direction travel time would be greater; off-peak travel time would be less than average values
shown.
2001 travel times are representative of average conditions during the 1990 to 2010 period.
All alternatives are measured from Glenn Highway· at Seward Highway (Ingra/Gambell couplet).
Travel times include approximately 5.0 minutes terminal time (travel time to get from major roadway facility
to the origin or destination).
Numbers in parentheses indicate change from No-Action Alternative.
Low, mid-range, and high refer to dwelling unit and growth allocation scenarios described under "Urban Growth
and Economic Development"
r;
Table IV-2
AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY VEHICLE-MILES OF TRAVEL (VMT)
-~ AND VEHICLE-HOURS OF TRAVEL (VHT) BY YEAR
-. .P
VMT (millions) VHT (millions)
--"I Auto Truck Total Auto Truck Total
4 Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
No. Change No. Change ~ Change No. Change No. Change No. Change
YEAR 2001
NO-CROSSING
' ' 0 No-Action 3.45 .28 3.73 107.2 7.9 115.1
0 Glenn/Parks
Improvement 3.45 0 .28 0 3.73 0 104.9 -2.1 7.6 -3.8 112.5 -2.3
o Hovercraft 3.37 -2.3 .27 -3.6 3.64 -2.4 104.6 -2.4 7.6 -3.8 112.2 -2.5
b CROSSING
o Downtown (mid-range) 3.29 -4.6 .26 -7.1 3.55 -4.8 99.6 -7.1 7.3 -7.6 106.9 -7.1
I' o Downtown (high) 3.46 +.03 .29 +3.6 3.75 +0.5 102.7 -4.2 7.6 -3.8 110.3 -4.2
'---;'} o Elmendorf (mid-
range) 3.44 -0.3 .27 -3.6 3.71 -o.5 105.6 -1.5 7.4 -6.3 113.0 -1.8
'!
o Elmendorf (low) 3.33 -3.5 .26 -7.1 3.59 -3.8 100.9 -5.9 7.2 -8.9 108.1 -6.1
l ~ --·
~ YEAR 2010
NO-CROSSING
0 No-Action 4.18 .35 4.53 137.3 10.3 147.6
0 Glenn/Parks
r _Improvement 4.18 0 .35 0 4.53 0 133.7 -2.6 9.9 -3.9 143.6 -2.7
o Hovercraft 4.08 -2.-4 .34 -2.9 4.42 -2.4 134.4 -2.1 10.0 -2.9 144.4 -2.2
~
r·1 CROSSING
L_ o Downtown (mid-range) 3.80 -9.1 .32 -8.6 4.12 -9.1 119.8 -12.7 8.8 -14.6 128.6 -12.9
u
o Downtown (high) 4.01 -4.1 .34 -2.9 4.35 -4.0 127.9 -6.8 9.6 -6.8 137.5 -6.8
[ 0 Elmendorf (mid-
range) 4.04 -3.3 .33 -5.7 4.37 -3.5 129.7 -5.5 9.3 -9.7 139.0 -5.8
0 Elmendorf (lot,r) 3.89 -6.9 .32 -8.6 4.21 -7.1 124.5 -9.3 8.9 -13.6 133.4 -9.6
I NOTES
l. OO"is shown in millions and VHT in thousands. Percent Change is relative to No-Action.
y Low, mid-range, and high refer to the dwelling unit and employment allocation scenarios described under "Urban Growth
and Economic Development".
r
Ld
[
[
r,
l,
IV-3
'', L
Palmer/Wasilla area, and (2) development of a second route into Anchorage
from the north would relieve traffic congestion on the Glenn and Parks
Highways. The Downtown Project (high growth allocation scenario) would have
approximately the same total VMT as the No-Crossing, No-Action Alternative.
This would be due to the high growth scenario conclusion that dwelling units
would not shift from the Palmer/Wasilla area to Point MacKenzie in
response to a crossing. Rather, the high growth scenario indicates a shift
in residential development to Point MacKenzie would come exclusively from
the Anchorage bowl and the Eagle River/Chugiak area. Vehicle-miles of
travel for trips originating in Point MacKenzie would be approximately the
same as for trips within Anchorage.
The Glenn/Parks Improvement Alternative would result in no change in VMT
when compared to No-Action due to unchanged traffic volumes. However,
improvements would decrease travel time, producing a slight improvement in
total VHT. The Hovercraft Alternative would produce improvements in both
VMT and VHT.
Construction. Construction of the Downtown Crossing I/L Street ramps would
have minimal impacts on local truck and auto traffic. Automobile traffic
would 'be affected for a limited period during the construction of an L
Street southbound ramp. This impact would be mitigated by designating a
detour of southbound L Street traffic to H Street and 5th Avenue. The
detour would not be required for more than a few days. Since all of the
ramp construction would be elevated structure, much of it could cont.inue
without significantly impeding traffic.
Impacts associated with the construction of the Seward Connector would be
more · significant, but the same basic principles would apply. All of the.
construction near areas where traffic moves would be elevated structure and
much of the structure would not be either within or above Municipal
streets. Impact on local truck traffic would be expected in the area of
the crossing at Warehouse Avenue. However, since the construction of
elevated structure would be involved, much of the impact would come from
local, . short-duration detours around construction acti vi:ty and from
construction related traffic. There would be no long-term road closings.
The only significant traffic impacts associated with construction of the
Elmendorf Crossing would occur during the construction of the Glenn Highway
ramps. The major impact would result from construction of the northbound
ramp where it crosses the highway. Lane closings would occur, and con-
struction related traffic would interfere with Glenn Highway traffic flow.
Impacts would be mitigated by not closing lanes during peak traffic
periods. Temporary construction access roads on the edge of the right-of-
way would be used to reduce construction-related traffic impacts.
Impacts on traffic during construction would be minor with the Houston
Connector. Traffic would be allowed to pass through the construction zone
at all times. The majority of this traffic would cross through the con-
struction area at South Big Lake and Horseshoe Lake Roads.
IV-4
r
[
[
c
c
[
L
[
[
[
[
[
L
L
LJ
[
('
[
l ..
[ --
Prior to construction of any of the alternatives, ADOT/PF·would consult the
Municipality, Borough, and military to develop a program that would
m~n~~ze disruption to traffic on existing roadways during project
construction.
Traffic Volumes
Average weekday daily traffic (AWDT} forecasts {which include both
directions of travel} for 2001 and 2010 on key arterial roadways within the
project area are presented .in Table IV-3. The forecasts were developed by
the project team (see Chapter IX} in cooperation with the Municipality of
Anchorage according to the following procedural sequence:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Dwelling uriit and employment forecasts were developed for 2001 and
2030 for small areas within Anchorage and the Mat-Su Borough as
described under "Urban Growth and Economic Development". Four
dwelling unit/employment scenarios that accounted for changes in growth
allocation for residential development and residential-serving
businesses due to improved accessibility to the Borough were determined
and used for forecasting crossing traffic: (1} Downtown mid-range; {2}
Downtown high; { 3} Elmendorf mid-range, and ( 4} Elmendorf low. A
single dwelling unit/employment scenario (current trends} was used to
forecast traffic for all No-Crossing Alternatives.
Forecast trip generation rates (trip productions and attractions per
dwelling unit, trips per employee} for the Anchorage bowl were
obtained from the AMATS Long-Range Transportation Plan Update
(Municipality of Anchorage, Community Planning Department, July 1983).
Outside of the Anchorage bowl, trip generation rates reflecting the
more suburban/rural character were developed based upon national
averages (Transportation Research Board, [no date]} and travel survey
data from Fairbanks.
A single No-Crossing and two Crossing highway networks were simulated
by computer. Networks were developed at two different levels of
detail:
a. A regional network (connecting 20 sub-regional and five external
areas) for forecasting corridor travel within the Anchorage
bowl, Eagle River-Chugiak-Eklutna, and the road-served portion of
the.Mat-Su Borough from Palmer-Sutton west to Willow and south to
Point MacKenzie
b. The Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (AMATS)
network (356 traffic analysis zones} for forecasting arterial
street travel within the Anchorage bowl
2001 and 2030 traffic forecasts (AWDT) were modeled using the dwelling
unit and employment forecasts, trip generation rates, and alternative
networks described above. .Travel demand was assigned to the shortest
time path, reflecting anticipated congestion. Regional model
forecasts for the crossing and the Glenn Highway were input to the
AMATS model (Urban Transportation Planning System model) for
calculating 2001 forecasts for the bowl.
IV-5
Link
No.
1
4
7
10
13
15
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
32
35
36
37
38
Roadway (Location)
Parks Highway (from Willow north)
Parks Highway (just east of Big Lake
Road)
Parks Highway (Glenn/Parks Highway
junction to Wasilla)
Glenn Highway (from Palmer north)
Glenn Highway (Eklutna to Knik River)
Glenn Highway (Eagle River to Peters
Creek)
Glenn Highway (Muldoon Road to Eagle
River)
Houston Connector (Parks Highway to
Horseshoe Lake Road)
Houston Connector }Horseshoe La~e
Road to South Big Lake Road)
Houston Connector (South Big Lake
to Point MacKenzie Access Road)
Houston Connec~or (Point MacKenzie
Access Road)
Houston Connector (Point MacKenzie
Access Road to Crossing)
Big Lake Road (Parks Highway to Big
Lake Road)
Knik-Goose Bay Road (just south of
Wasilla)
Point MacKenzie Access Road (east-
west segment)
Glenn Highway (Boniface Parkway to
Muldoon Road)
Glenn Highway (Bragaw Street to
Boniface Parkway)
Northside Bypass (planned between
Table IV-3
YEAR 2001 AND 2010 AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY TRAFFIC (AWDT) FORECASTs 1 •2
(Key Network Links)
No-Action
& Glenn/Parks
Improvement
2001 2010
AWDT AWDT
3,100
7,500
20,200
9,700
26,100
47,600
66,800
0
0
100
1,100
0
800
4,400
2,000
67,000
3,900
10,100
27,100
11,700
34,600
59,600
80,400
0
0
200
1,700
0
1,200
6,500
2,900
83,000
Hovercraft
2001 2010
AWDT
3,100
6,900
18,300
9,700
24,300
45,700
64,900
200
500
600
1,200
1,300
500
3,100
1,000
67,000
AWDT
3,900
9,400
24,600
11,700
32,200
57,200
78,100
300
700
900
1,800
1,800
800
4,500
1,500
83,000
Alternative
Downtown
(Mid-Range)
2001 2010
AWDT
3,300
2,100
10,400
9,900
16,600
34,300
50,900
3,100'
9,000
9,100
20,500
18,400
900
400
1,400
50,500
AI~DT
3,900
2,900
11,600
11,600
18,200
38,500
57,100
3,900
10,900
11,000
27,200
23,400
1,400
600
2,600
57,600
Downtown
(High)
2001 2010
AWDT
3,400
2,300
12,100
10,100
19,300
35,700
51,200
3,600
10,500
10,600
23,800
21,400
1,000
400
1,600
56,900
AWDT
4,100
3,200
13,500
11,900
21,100
40,100
57,500
4,400
12,700
12,900
31,700
27,300
1,500
600
3,000
64,900
Elmendorf
(Mid-Range)
2001 2010
Al-lOT
3,200
2,300
10,700
9,800
17,000
36,100
53,600
2,900
7,000
7,100
13,100
14,100
1,000
300
1,200
69,800
Al-lOT
3,900
3,200
12,400
11,700
19,400
41,400
60,900
3,700
8,600
8,800
17,600
18,000
1,400
500
2,200
84,400
54,200 67,200 54,200 67,200 47,300 54,400 52,600 60, 500. 65,800 78,900
Old Seward Highway and Bragaw Street) 63,800 77,200 63,800 77,200 60,800 69,300 68,800 78,400 76,600 90,400
,---,
"· '
Elmendorf
(Low)
2001 2010
AWDT AWDT
3,200
2,100
9,800
9,700
15,600
35,600
54,000
2,700
6,400
6,500
12,000
12,900
900
300
1,100
69,100
59,000
66,500
3,800
3,000
11,300
11,400
17 ,BOO
40,900
61,300
3,400
7,900
8,000
16,100
16,400
1,300
500
2,000.
83,600
70,800
78,500
r-.
Link
No.
42
43
44
45
49
50
52
~ 53
I 56 -..!
58
60
61
62
63
64
65
68
69
r----,
l. ' -I ,,
Table IV-3 (continued)
,__,
( j l
YEAR 2001 AND 2010 AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY TRAFFIC (AIIDT) FORECASTS 1 ' 2
(Key Network Links)
Alternative
No-Action
& Glenn/Parks Downtown Downtown
Im~rovement Hovercraft (Hid-Range) (High)
2001 2010 2001 2010 2001 2010 2001 2010
Roadway (Location) 1\WDT AWDT AWDT AWDT AWDT AWDT AWDT AWDT
5th/6th Avenues (C Street to Seward
Highway) 42,100 49,700 42,100 49,700 40,600 46,700 41,000 47,200
5th/6th Avenues (L Street to C Street) 31,900 38,600 11,900 38,600 35,300 40,300 35,500 40,500
Muldoon Road (Glenn Highway to
DeBarr Road) 35,700 41,500 35,700 41,500 34,700 39,500 33,900 38,700
DeBarr Road (Boniface Parkway to
Muldoon Road) 24,200 26,600 24,200 26,600 23,800 25,200 21,700 23,000
15th Avenue (Seward Highway to Lake
Otis Parkway) 21,400 22,000 21,400 22,000 19,000 19,600 18,600 19,100
15th Avenue (C Street to Seward Hwy.) 20,000 21,800 20,000 21,800 17,400 19,100 17,600 19,400
Muldoon Road (DeBarr Road to
Northern Lights Boulevard) 45,100 51,000 45,100 51,000 41,300 45,800 41,100 45,700
Northern Lights Boulevard (Boniface
Parkway to Muldoon Road) 14,700 16,700 14,700 16,700 11,300 12,500 11,300 12,500
Northern Lights Boulevard (Seward
22.,900 Highway to Lake Otis Parkway) 22,900 23,800 23,800 ', 20,100 20,900 18,700 19,400
Northern Lights/Benson Boulevards
Couplet (~linnesota Drive to ·C St.) 44,500 47,200 44,500 47,200 44,200 46,800 43,000 45,600
Muldoon/Tudor Roads (Northern Lights
Boulevard to Boniface Parkway) 39,400 45,300 39,400 45,300 36,500 40,900 35,000 39,200
Tudor Road (Lake Otis Parkway to
Boniface Parkway) 64,300 74,500 64,300 74,500 60,600 A7,9oo 57,600 64,500
Tudor Road (Se\~ard Highway to Lake
Otis Parkway) 54,300 61,400 54,300 61,400 57,500 63,200 53,800 59,200
Tudor Road (Old Seward Highway to
Seward Highway) 57,000 64,400 57,000 64,400 52,500 58,300 55,000 61,000
Tudor Road (C Street to Old Seward
Highway) 50,100 56,600 50,100 56,600 50,400 56,000 50,400 56,000
Tudor Road (Minnesota Drive to C St.) 33,500 35,800 33,500 35,800 38,100 40,800 37,900 40,600
International Airport Road (Spenard
Road to Minnesota Drive) 23,100 26,600 23,100 26,600 19,800 22,500 19,400 22,200
Boniface Parkway (Glenn Highway to
DeBarr Road) 26,700 32,800 26,700 32,800 23,400 27,400 23,400 27,400
l ' J l -l
Elmendorf Elmendorf
(Mid-Ran2el (Low)
2001 2010 2001 2010
1\WDT 1\WDT AWDT AWDT
42,000 49,200 44,400 51,900
32,000 37,100 31,500 36,600
37,000 44,500 34,100 41,000
24,300 26,000 21,600 23,100
22,900 23,600 22,700 23,400
20,800 23,600 19,300 21,800
45,900 54,600 43,700 52,100
13,200 14,800 13,500 15,100
21,900 22,800 22,800 23,700
44,600 47,700 50,700 54,200
39,600 46,400 37,300 43,600
67,100 78,500 65,900 77,100
60,700 68,600 55,400 62,600
56,300 63,600 57,500 64,900
57,500 65,500 49,400 56,300
38,900 43,900 33,000 37,300
19,900 22,900 19,700 22,600
22,400 26,400 27,400 32,400
1
OJ
Link
No.
70
73
76
77
78
80
81
82
84
86
88
89
90
92
93
94
101
104
105
106
Table IV-3 (continued)
YEAR 2001 AND 2010 AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY TRAFFIC (AWDT) FORECASTs 1 •2
(Key Network· Links)
Roadway '(Location)
Boniface Parkway (DeBarr Road to
Northern Lights Boulevard)
Bragaw Street (DeBarr Avenue to
Northern Lights Boulevard)
Lake Otis Parkway (Northern Lights
Boulevard to Tudor Road)
Seward Highway (5th/6th Avenues to
15th Avenue)
Seward Highway (15th Avenue to
Northern Lights Boulevard)
Seward Highway (just north of Tudor
Road)
Seward Highway (just south of Tudor
Road)
Old Seward Highway (36th Avenue to
Tudor Road)
c Street or A/C Couplet ·(5th/6th
Avenues to 15th Avenue)
c Street (Northern Lights Boulevard
to Tudor Road)
I/L Street Couplet (5th/6th Avenues
to 15th Avenue)
Minnesota Drive (15th Avenue to
Northern Lights Boulevard)
Minnesota Drive (Northern Lights
Boulevard to Spenard Road)
Minnesota Drive (Northern Lights
Boulevard to Tudor Road)
Minnesota Drive (Tudor Road to
International Airport Road)
Spenard Road (Minnesota Drive to
International Airport Road)
I/L Street ramps of Downtown Crossing
seward Connector
Elmendorf Crossing
Downtown Crossing
Hovercraft
No-Action
& Glenn/Parks
Improvement
2001 2010
AWDT
26,900
18,000
24,200
40,200
70,300
59,900
47,500
27,500
30,200
42,.800
35,400
30,100
35,200
35,700
33,600
27,200
0
0
0
0
0
AWDT
30,100
18,600
25,400
47,000
82,300
71,300
54,200
30,800
34,500
46,600
41,800
35,600
40,800
40,800
37,600
31,600
0
0
0
0
0
Hovercraft
2001 2010
AWDT
18,000
24,200
40,200
70,300
59,900
47,500
27,500
30,200
42,800
35,400
30,100
35,200
35,700
33,600
27,200
0
0
0
0
2,000
AWDT·
30,100
18,600
25,400
47,000
82,300
71,300
54,200
30,800
34,500
46,600
41,800
35,600
40,800
40,800
37,600
31,600
0
0
0
0
2,600
Alternative
Downtown
(Mid-Range)
2001 2010
AWDT
21,100
16,800
17,100
52,500
81,900
67,000
62,000
23,300
24,500
29,500
47,100
37,200
42,100
38,200
38,900
29,600
19,400
15,200
0
31,500
0
AWDT
22,700
17,200
17,900
60,400
94,100
79,000
69,400
26,100
27,900
31,800
57,000
45,000
48,900
43,200
43,500
34,300
25,900
.19,600
0
42,300
0
Downtown
(High)
2001 2010
AWDT
19,700
17,800
16,800
5'4,300
83,700
69,200
58,000
22,500
23,900
27,900
48,300
36,800
41,800
38,000
38,300
29,800
22,000
17,000
0
36,500
0
AWDT
21,200
18,200
17,700
62,500
96,300
81,700
65,000
25,200
27,200
30,100
58,400
44,600
48,500
43,000
42,900
34,600
29,400
22,000
0
49,000
0
Elmendorf
(Mid-Range)
2001 2010
Elmendorf
(Low)
2001 2010
AWDT AWDT AWDT AWDT
21,100
20,100
22,700
49,100
75,600
68,600
59,900
23,700
27,300
34,000
34,600
34,700
40,400
39,000
40,600
27,200
0
0
22,100
0
0
23,000
20,700
23,800
56,500
86,900
80,900
67,700
26,500
31,100
37,100
40,100
40,200
46,000
43,300
45,500
31,300
0
0
30,100
0
0
27,900
17 ,BOO
24,100
42,600
75,200
61,600
48,800
28,400
29,700
41,600
35,000
30,800
34,900
35,200
32,700
26,500
0
0
20,200
0
0
30,400
18,400
25,300
48,900
86,400
72,600
55,200
31,800
33,900
45,300
40,600
35,700
39,800
39,100
36,700
30,400
0
0
27,600
0
0
!;:!
I
1.0
r: ·'' J L J c L ~ .. (, I L J ) J
Table IV-3 (continued)
YEAR 2001 AND 2010 AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY TRAFFIC (A~IDT) FORECASTs 1 •2
(Key Network Links)
Alternative
No-Action
& Glenn/Parks Downtown Downtown
Im12rovement Hovercraft' (Mid-Range) (High)
Link 2061 2010 2001 2010 2001 2010 2001 2010
No. Roadway (Location) AIIDT AWDT AWDT AWDT AIIDT AWDT AWDT AWDT
201 Dimond Boulevard (Minnesota Drive to
C Street) 35,400 40,000 35,400 40,000 30,600 34,500 28,800 32,600
202 Dimond Boulevard (C Street to Old
Seward Highway) 50,900 57,500 50,900 57,500 48,600 54,900 47,600 53,800
203 Dimond Boulevard (Old Seward Highway
to Seward Highway) 45,100 51,000 45,100 51,000 47,800 54,100 46,100 52,100
206 Dowling Road (Old Seward Highway to
Seward Highway) 30,700 34,700 30,700 34,700 22,600 25,500 21,200 23,900
208 Minnesota Drive (International
Airport Road to Raspberry Road) 36,900 41,700 36,900 41,700 41,500 46,900 40,500 45,800
210 C Street (Dowling Road to Dimond
Boulevard) 43,700 49,400 43,700 49,400 34,500 38,900 33,600 38,000
212 Old Seward Highway (Dowling Road to
Dimond Boulevard) 22,400 25,300 22,400 25,300 14,200 16,000 13,200 14,900
214 Seward Highway (Dowling Road to
Dimond Boulevard) 54,800 61,900 54,800 61,900 68,900 77,900 70,200 79,300
1
,,.} ~L, .J
Elmendorf
(Mid-Range)
2001 2010
/\WDT AWDT
31,500 35,600
50,000 56,500
48,200 54,400
23,800 26,800
42,200 47,700
36,600 41,400
14,800 16,700
70,000 79,100
' .J
Elmendorf
(Low)
2001 2010
AWDT AWDT
38,200 43,200
49,600 56,000
44,300 50,000
29,100 32,800
36,500 41,200
41,300 46,600
22,900 25,900
57,300 64,800
2 Includes both directions of travel.
Low, mid-range, and high refer to the dwelling unit and employment growth allocation sce~arios described under "Urban Growth and Economic Develop-
3 ment".
4 Burma Road if No-Action:or Glenn/Parks Improvement.
Point MacKenzie Access Road (existing north-south segment) if No-Action or Glenn/Parks Improvement.
Sources: 2001 and 2010 volumes (links 1 to 35 and 101 to 107) -Knik Arm Crossing project team, 1984, 2001 and 2010 volumes (links 36 to 94 and 201
to 215) -derived from Municipality of Anchorage traffic forecasts developed for the Knik: Arm EIS.
5.
6.
Outside the Anchorage bowl, 2010 traffic forecasts (AWDT) were derived
by interpolating 2001 and 2030 regional model forecasts (60 percent of
the 2001 to 2030 demographic and traffic increase was assumed to occur
by the year 2010). Within the Anchorage bowl, 2001 traffic forecasts
for each link were factored up by applying regional modeled 2010/2001
ratios.
Although not presented in Table IV-1, 1990 traffic forecasts (AWDT)
were estimated. These were interpolated from 1982 and 2001 volumes
based upon 1990 dwelling units currently forecast by the Mat-Su
Borough and Anchorage in the vicinity of each highway link. -These
forecasts were developed for the required year-of-completion air
quality analysis.
The following discussion uses data presented in Table IV-3 to briefly
describe some of the trends of each alternative on motor vehicle travel.
The focus of this discussion is crossing volumes and changes in travel
volumes on the Glenn and Parks Highways and on arterial streets within the
Anchorage bowl. Traffic volumes in the project area would not differ
significantly between the No-Action Alternative and the other two
No-Crossing Alternatives.
Downtown Project (Mid-Range). The Downtown Project with a mid-range
allocation scenario would provide -highly improved access between the
Anchorage _bowl and the southern portion of the Mat-Su Borough due to
substantially lower travel times. Travel volumes on the crossing would be
approximately 31,500 in 2001 and 42,300 in 2010. In the area outside the
Anchorage bowl, traffic volumes along several major corridors would decrease
as compared to the No-Crossing Alternative. Along the Parks Highway west of
Wasilla, there would be reductions of approximately 48 percent and 57
percent in 2001 and in 2010, respectively. Along the Glenn Highway between
Muldoon Road and Eagle River, decreases of approximately 24 percent and 29
percent would occur in 2001 and in 2010, respectively.
Within the Anchorage bowl, there would be significant reductions in traffic
volumes on the Glenn Highway, Boniface and Lake Otis Parkways, and C Street
between 5th Avenue and International Airport Road. Small reductions would
occur along the Old Seward Highway between the Seward Highway and Tudor
Road, and Muldoon Road between DeBarr Road and Northern Lights Boulevard.
The 5th/6th Avenue Couplet between C Street and the Seward Highway would
also experience a slight reduction in traffic volumes.
Two north-south arterial routes would receive significant increases in
volume when compared to the No-Crossing Alternative. First, along the I/L
Street Couplet, increases would be approximately 33 percent and 36 percent
in 2001 and 2010, respectively. Along Minnesota Drive (I/L's extension)
between 5th Avenue and Northern Lights Boulevard, traffic volumes would
increase by 24 percent and 26 percent in 2001 and 2010, respectively.
Second, traffic volumes along the Seward Highway would increase
substantially. For example, the Seward Highway between 5th Avenue and
Northern Lights Boulevard would increase an average of approximately 24
percent in 2001 and 22 percent in 2010. Other areas with slight volume
increases would include Spenard Road, between Minnesota Drive and
International Airport Road, and Tudor Road, between the Seward Highway and
Lake Otis Parkway.
IV-10
[
[
[
[
c
[
L
[
[
[
[
L
l
L .i
1-
[
r
I
L.-
l
Downtown Project (High). The Downtown Project with a high growth
allocation scenario would be very similar to the Downtown mid-range since it
would result in the same roadway network. Because higher growth outside the
Anchorage bowl was assumed, changes in traffic volumes in this area would be
slightly greater than those with a mid-range allocation. Travel volumes on
the Crossing would be approximately 36,500 in 2001 and 49,000 in 2010.
Traffic would decrease along the Parks Highway, west of Wasilla, by
approximately 40 percent in 2001 and 50 percent in 2010. Traffic would
decrease along the Glenn Highway between Muldoon Road and Eagle River by
about 23 percent in 2001 and 29 percent in 2010.
Within the Anchorage bowl, impacts would be about the same as with a mid-
range allocation. However, because the Crossing would produce slightly
higher volumes, the IlL/Minnesota and Seward Highway increases would be
slightly greater. Again, traffic would decrease on almost all other major
streets and highways within the bowl. Significant decreases would occur on
the Glenn Highway, C Street, and Boniface and Lake Otis Parkways.
Elmendorf Project (Mid-Range) • The Elmendorf Project would produce a
slightly greater travel time to the Anchorage bowl from the Mat-Su Borough
than the Downtown Project. Therefore, traffic volumes on the Elmendorf
Crossing would be lower. With a mid-range growth allocation scenario, they
would be approximately 22,100 in 2001 and 30,100 in 2010. Compared to
No-Action, traffic volumes along the Parks Highway west of Wasilla would be
reduced by. approximately 47 percent in 2001 and 54 percent in 2010. Along
the Glenn Highway between Muldoon Road and Eagle River, traffic volumes
would be reduced by about 20 percent in 2001 and 24 percent in 2010. These
reductions would be slightly less than with the Downtown Project.
Within the Anchorage bowl, traffic volumes would be reduced slightly on
some arterial streets such as Northern Lights Boulevard and Boniface
Parkway. Traffic would increase slightly along the entire length of
Muldoon Road and Tudor Road, a direct route from the Crossing to employment
areas in the mid-town business district. Traffic would increase more
significantly along portions of the Glenn Highway, the planned Northside
Bypass, and the Seward Highway which also would lead to mid-town.
Elmendorf Project (Low). Only slight variances from Elmendorf mid-range
would occur since the roadway network would be the same. Fewer vehicles
would use the Elmendorf crossing due to the reduced residential growth
which would occur in the Mat-Su Borough. Crossing volumes would be
approximately 20,200 in 2001 and 27,600 in 2010. Compared to No-Crossing,
traffic volumes along the Parks Highway west of Wasilla would be reduced by
approximately 51 percent in 2001 and about 58 percent in 2010. Along the
Glenn Highway, between Muldoon Road and Eagle River, traffic volumes would
be reduced by about 19 percent in 2001 and 24 percent in 2010.
The effect on the Anchorage bowl would be similar, but slightly less than
Elmendorf mid-range since a low growth allocation scenario was assumed. In
addition, Northern Lights Boulevard west of the Seward Highway would
experience some increase in traffic. For example, Northern Lights Boulevard
between Minnesota Drive and C Street would have a traffic volume increase of
approximately 15 percent in 2001 and 2010.
IV-11
No-Crossing. Hovercraft would result in little change in traffic volume
forecasts as compared to No-Action. However, traffic circulation patterns
would be altered along roadways in the Knik/Goose Bay and Big Lake areas,
which would lower forecast volumes on existing roadways. The Glenn/Parks
Improvement would not alter forecast traffic volumes from those now
forecast with No-Action.
Other Growth Changes. The traffic volumes presented above account for only
the residential and residential-serving business change in growth
allocation, the principal growth change presented under "Urban Gro~h and
Economic Development"-It was estimated that traffic volume on the Downtown
bridge (mid,-range growth scenario) would increase between zero and 3. 7
percent (zero to 1,200 AWDT in 2001) by including the other categories of
growth change. This increase would be small because, first most of the new
jobs in the Borough would be taken by people choosing to live in the
Borough, and second, there would be no net gain of jobs in Anchorage. There
would be some additional traffic across the crossing from the Anchorage bowl
to the new Mat-Su Borough jobs since travel time to the Borough w:ould be
low.
With the Elmendorf Project, mid-range, the change in crossing volume would
be close to zero. The greater distance to Anchorage with an Elmendorf
Project would increase the likelihood that almost all persons who would
take the additional jobs in the Mat-Su Borough would live in the Borough.
Changes in-traffic volumes within the knchorage bowl w0uld be minimal as a
result of the additional crossing traffic volumes and growth changes. No
significant impacts on traffic flow beyond those discussed in the next
section would occur. For example, with the Downtown mid-range,
approximately 260 AWDT would be added to existing traffic along the Seward
Highway between 15th Avenue and Northern Lights Boulevard. This would
represent an increase in traffic volume of less than one percent.
Effect of Bridge Toll. Traffic volumes on the crossings were estimated for
several _ toll amounts. The 2001 Downtown bridge traffic (AWDT) would be
about 31,500, 25,700, and 20,900 with tolls in each direction of $1.00,
$2.00, and $3.00, respectively (1983 dollars, to estimate 1985 dollars add
about 10 percent). The 2001 Elmendorf bridge traffic would be about 22,100
with a $1.00 toll, 17,700 AWDT with a $2.00 toll, and about 14,100 AWDT with
a $3.00 toll. These forecasts assume mid-range growth scenarios.
For either Crossing, revenue would increase despite the increase in toll.
It would take ~ toll over $3.00 (1983 dollars) to discourage enough drivers
from using the Crossing that rev~nues would begi~ to decline.
Effect of Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Construction of the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project would have minimal impact on traffic volumes
currently forecast within the project area. Based on discussions with
Alaska Power Authority and Susitna Hydroelectric Project staff, it was
estimated that about 2, 500 construction employees would commute to the
project from Anchorage. Employees would work probably 10-day shifts with
seven days off. Based on an average vehicle occupancy rate of 1.5
employees per vehicle and two one-way trips per vehicle, approximately
3,300 vehicle trips would occur over a 17 day period. Assuming about 50
IV-12
L
c
[
.,.,_
--
f'
L
[
E
[
[
[
L
L
L
L,.
,-.
L
l~
percent more trips ~or service vehicles (trucks, etc.) to the project area,
about 5, 000 vehicle trips or approximately 300 AWDT would occur. This
would be added either to the Glenn and Parks Highway traffic volumes with
No-Crossing or to the Crossing traffic volumes.
Assuming this traffic demand would occur in 2001, the Downtown bridge
mid-range volume would increase by approximately one percent to 31,800 AWDT.
The Elmendorf bridge mid-range volume would increase by about 1.4 percent to
22,400 AWDT. Construction-generated traffic would end shortly after 2001.
About 50 to 100 AWDT would be generated between Anchorage and the
hydroelectric project by operat1ng, maintenance, and recreational users at
the dam after its completion.
Traffic Flow
This · section addresses impacts that the alternatives would have on
efficient operation of the regional highway system. The impacts were
evaluated link-by-link using a level-of-service {LOS) rating system as
defined in Table III-2. Levels-of-service A through C are considered
acceptable traffic flows, while LOS D through F indicate unacceptable and
progressively poorer traffic flow characteristics.
Figure IV-1 presents the traffic flow characteristics for each Crossing
Alternative within the Anchorage bowl. No significant difference in traffic
volumes and, therefore, traffic flow characteristics would occur between the
No-Action. and the other· two No-Crossing Alternatives within the Anchorage
bowl. Also, a sensitivity analysis was co~ducted to determine the impacts
upon the Anchorage bowl of not providing a Seward Connector by year 2001
and 2010. Thus, all traffic to and from the Downtown Crossing would use
only the I/L ramps for access to downtown Anchorage. The results also are
shown in Figure IV-1. Only roads which would operate at LOS D, E, and F
are shown on Figure IV-1. Those roadways for which the LOS is not shown
would operate at LOS C or better. The traffic volume/capacity ratio (V/C)
also is shown for each roadway link which would have an LOS D or worse.
The following discussion summarizes differences between the Crossing
Alternatives, Glenn/Parks Improvement, Hovercraft; and No-Action.
Flow on Anchorage Bowl Streets. Traffic flow changes in the Anchorage bowl
for the Crossing Alternatives would be:
0 Downtown/West Anchorage Bowl
Traffic flow along 5th/6th Avenues would be slightly worse with
the Downtown Project. The impact would be greater without the
Seward Connector. However, traffic would already operate at LOS
E and F on 5th/6th Avenues with No-Crossing, indicating that
measures would be necessary to improve traffic flow with or
without a Crossing.
Traffic flow along the I/L Couplet and Minnesota Drive would
worsen from LOS C or better to LOS D with the Downtown Project in
2010. Without the Seward Connector, most of the additional
IV-13
./
No-Crossing
Level-of-
Service
A,B,C
D
E
Year
2001 2010
II IIIII 1111111 ·--•11111!1•·
F ...._-
Note:Numbers indicate volume
capacity
Downtown (Mid-Range)
Oe8or; RocJd
Figure IV•1
Level-of-Service
[~
[
[-~
-/
c
[
f'
L
[
[
[]
B
0
c
[
[
[
c
l
L
-[
r
r
u
I,
I u
r-~
I
L-i
r
i
Downtown (High)
Level-of-
Service
A,B,C
D
E
F
Downtown Without
Seward Connector
"' "' ~
"' 0
Year
2001 2010
I HUH II IIIII
111111111111111 111111111111. -
0 E. Northern U
Figure IV-1
Level-of-Service
I
Elmendorf (Mid-Range)
Level-of-
Service
A,B,C
D
E
2001
II IIIII ·--
Year
2010
IIIII II ·--
F -
Note: Numbers. indicate volume
capacity
Elmendorf (Low)
Figure IV-1
Level-of-Service
r L
r L
c
[
r
L
[
[
c
E
0
[
[
[
c
[
[
L
tj
n
I:
r··
i-::
0
0
0
traffic would divert to the A/C Couplet through downtown instead
of further increasing traffic on Minnesota Drive.
The Downtown Project would slightly worsen the traffic flow along
Spenard Road in 2001 and 2010. This would be a result of greater
traffic volumes on Minnesota.
Traffic flow along the A/C Couplet would improve with the
Downtown Project except that without the Seward Connector,
traffic flow would worsen slightly since it would be diverted
frdm the I/L Couplet to the A/C Couplet.
Traffic flow either would remain at acceptable levels with the
Elmendorf Project or in the case of 5th/6th would remain at less
than acceptable levels but improve slightly.
Central Anchorage Bowl
With the Downtown Project, traffic flow along the Seward Highway
north of Tudor Road would be slightly worse than with No-Action.
The E-lmendorf (mid-range) would have somewhat less impact than
the Downtown Project. The Downtown Project (without the Seward
Connector) would result in improved traffic flow along the Seward
Highway due to use by Crossing traffic of the I/L and A/C
Couplets instead of the Seward Highway. . .
Traffic flow along Tudor Road would be improved by the Downtown
Project and slightly worsened with the Elmendorf Project.
However, the traffic flow along Tudor Road would operate at LOS F
with or without a Crossing and, therefore, would require measures
to improve traffic flow characteristics in any case.
East Anchorage Bowl
Traffic flow along Muldoon Road would worsen slightly with the
Elmendorf (mid-range), but would be improved with the Downtown
Project.
Boniface Parkway and the central Northern Lights Boulevard area
would have improved traffic flow with any Crossing Alternative
except the Elmendorf (low), which would cause similar traffic
. flow to the No-Action Alternative.
Far North Anchorage Bowl
Traffic flow along the Glenn Highway would be improved with the
Downtown Project, but would not change significantly with the
Elmendorf Project, although improvement on some links would be
evident in 2010 with the mid-range growth shift.
Traffic flow along the planned Northside Bypass would worsen
slightly with the Elmendorf (mid-range) in 2001 and 2010.
Traffic flow along this corridor would be improved with the
Downtown (mid-range) even without the Seward Connector.
IV-17
0
./
South Anchorage Bowl
Traffic flow along C Street south of Tudor Road, when compared to
the No-Action Alternative, would improve significantly with
either the Downtown Project or the Elmendorf (mid-range) in 2001.
In 2010, the improvement in LOS ratings would not be as signifi-
cant.
Traffic flow along the Seward Highway south of Tudor Road would
be slightly worse in 2001 and 2010 with either the Downtown
Project or the Elmendorf (mid-range).
No major effects would be evident along Dimond Boulevard. Only
slight LOS improvement would occur by 2010 with a Crossing.
Flow on Outside the Anchorage Bowl Highways. Traffic flow changes outside
the Anchorage bowl for the Crossing Alternatives would be:
0
0
0
Parks Highway
Traffic flow along the Parks Highway between Wasilla and the Glenn/
Parks Highway junction, which would operate at LOS F with No-Action,
would be significantly improved with either a Crossing Alternative or
the Glenn/Parks Improvement. In 2001, traffic flow would be
maintained at LOS c or better with either the Downtown (mid-range),
the Elmendorf Project, or the Glenn/Parks Improvement. Downtown
(high) would improve traffic flow to LOS D. The Hovercraft
Alternative would improve traffic flow only slightly~ it would remain
at LOS F.
In 2010, traffic impacts would be similar to those in 2001, except
that traffic flow would worsen to LOS D with either the Elmendorf
(mid-range) or the Glenn/Parks Improvement.
Glenn Highway
Traffic flow along the Glenn Highway (LOS E north of Eagle River
and LOS D south of Eagle River with No-Action) would be improved
significantly with either a Crossing Alternative or the Glenn/Parks
Improvement. Most alternatives would have LOS C or better in 2001.
The Hovercraft Alternative would improve traffic flow only slightly.
In 2010, traffic would operate at LOS F along this corridor with
No-Action. Again, traffic would be improved significantly, to LOS D,
with either a Crossing Alternative or the Glenn/Parks Improvement.
The Downtown Project would provide the greatest improvement in Glenn
Highway traffic flow~ the Hovercraft Alternative would provide little
improvement.
Houston Connector
Traffic along the Houston Connector would operate at LOS C or better
with either the Elmendorf Project, the Downtown (mid-range), or
Hovercraft in both 2001 and 2010. Traffic would operate at LOS D
IV-18
[
r~
L
c
[
[
[
c
[
[
L
[
[
[
L
L
L
[
~~
l '
' ' <-v'
[
r~
l
[
[
[
r L~
[
/
0
along most of the Houston Connector by year 2010 with Downtown (high),
LOS C in 2001.
Crossings
All crossings would operate at LOS C or better in 2001. In 2010, the
Downtown Crossing would operate at either LOS D (mid-range) , or LOS E
(high).
Area-wide Flow Change. Table IV-4 presents daily VMT (vehicle-miles of
travel) in the project area and in only the Anchorage bowl for each
alternative by LOS rating. This analysis indicates to what degree traffic
flow within the project area wc:mld become better or worse compared to
No-Action.
In the entire project area, for year 2001, the VMT at LOS F (the most
unacceptable LOS rating) would be reduced by approximately 24 to -28 percent
with any alternative except Hovercraft. For LOS D, E, and F combined,
Downtown (mid-range) and Elmendorf (low) would show the greatest traffic
improvement with a 64 percent reduction in VMT from No-Action. Either the
Downtown or the Elmendorf Projects would have a VMT increase of 46 to 4 7
percent in LOS A, B, and C combined (the range of traffic flow rating
considered to be acceptable).
In 2010, ~he Downtown (mid-range) would show the greatest VMT decrease in
LOS D to F of approximately 29 percent. Thus, Downtown (with a mid-range·
growth allocation) would be most effective in improving overall traffic flow
within the project area.
Within the Anchorage bowl, no change in LOS would occur with either
Glenn/Parks Improvement or Hovercraft since travel demand and traffic
volumes would not change from No-Action. In year 2001, Downtown
(mid-range) would produce slightly more congested traffic than No-Action.
The number of vehicles affected by congested traffic (VMT with LOS D to F)
would not increase, however a significant shift would occur from LOS D to
LOS E, indicating longer delays for those experiencing congested traffic.
Elmendorf (mid-range) would result in a substantial increase in the number
of vehicles affected by congested traffic.
In 2010, Downtown (mid-range) would cause
approximately 20 percent in VMT in the LOS
change would occur with the Elmendorf.Project.
a substantial decrease
D to F category. Almost
of
no
Intersection Operational Efficiency. Table IV-5 presents a comparison of
selected intersection volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios by alternative for
the year 2010. The V/C ratio would be an indication of the level-of-
service (LOS) and operational efficiency of an intersection. As the V/C
ratio would decrease, the LOS and the operational efficiency of the
intersection would increase. The table compares the V /C ratios of each
Crossing Alternative to the V/C ratios of No-Action by indicating the
percentage of change. There was no change from No-Action to the other
No-Crossing Alternatives. Forecast daily two-directional volumes from the
Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (AMATS) traffic model were
IV-19
Table IV-4
DAILY VEHICLE-MILES OF TRAVEL (VMT) IN THOUSANDS
BY LEVEL-OF-SERVICE (LOS) RATING
No-Crossing Alternatives Crossing Alternatives
No-Glenn/Parks Downtown Downtown Elmendorf Elmendorf
LOS Action Improvement Hovercraft ----(Mid-Range) (High) (Mid-Range) (Low)
PROJECT AREA
2001
A=C 1,982 2,467 (+24) 1,921 (-3) 2,923 (+47) 2,903 (+46) 2,888 (+46) 2,956 (+49)
D 781 788 (+1) 770 (-1) 78 (.-90) 373 (-52) 245 (-69) 155 (-80)
E 466 113 (-76) 457 (-2) 167 (-64) 81 (-83) 195 (-58) 108 (-77)
F 501 362 (-2~) 493 (-2) 382 (-24) 378 (-25) 382 (-24) 371 (-26)
D-F 1,748 1,263 (-28) 1,719 (-2) 627 (-64) 832 (-52) 822 (-53) 634 (-64)
Total 3,730 3,730 <or 3,640 . (-2) 3,550 c::sr 3,735 (0) 3,710 "'T-Tl 3,570 (.:4)
2010
A-C 1,742 1,742 (0) 1,681 (-4) 2,1·38 (+23) 1,531 (-12) 2,027 (+16) 1,987 (+14)
D 716 1,356 (+89) 718 (0) 1,274 (+78) 1,741 (+143) 1,420 (+98) 1,534 (+114)
E 74 74 (0) 74 (0) 89 (+20) 395 (+433) 251 (+239) 81 (+9)
F 1,998 1,358 (-32) 1,947 (-3) 619 (-69) 680 (-66) 673 (-66) 608 (-70)
D-F 2,788 2,788 (0) 2,739 (-2) 1,982 (-29) 2,816 (+1) 2,343 (-16) 2,223 (-20)
Total 4,530 4,530 <or 4,420 (-2) 4,120 (::9) 4,347 (:4) 4,370 (-4) 4,210 (::7)
A.'>CHORAGE BO~IL ONLY
2001
A-C 1,230 1,230 (0) 1,230 (0) 1,111 (-10) 1,124 (-9)' 1,073 (-13) 1,216 (-1)
D 159 159 (0) 159 (0) 78 (-51) 162 (+2) 246 (+55) 155 (-3)
E 113 113 (0) 113 (0) 168 (+49) 81 (-28) 196 (+73) 108 (-4)
F 362 362 (0) 362 (0) 383 (+6) 377 (+4) 383 (+6) 371 (+2)
D-F 634 634 (0) 634 (0) 629 (-1) 620 (-2) 825 (+30) 634 {0)
Total 1,864 1,864 (Of 1,864 (Of 1,740 (-7) 1,744 (-6) 1,878 """'(+'2f 1,850 (-1)
2010
A=C 838 838 (0) 838 (0) 1,119 (+33) 957 (+14) 878 (+5) 770 (-8)
D 623 623 (0) 623 (0) 123 (-80) 303 (-51) 366 (-41) 649 (+4)
E 74 74 (0) 74 (0) 89 (+20) 184 (+148) 251 (+239) 81 (+9)
F 600 600. (0) 600 (0) 619 (+3) 514 (-14) 673 (+12) 607 (+1)
D-F 1,298 1,298 (0) 1,298 (0) 831 (-36) 1,000 (-23) 1,290 (-1). 1,337 (+3)
Total 2,136 2,136 (Of 2,136 (Of 1,950 (-9) 1,957 T-8T D68 """'(+'2f 2,107 (-1)
NOTES
'Niiiiibers in parentheses are the percentage change from No-Action.
LOS signifies level-of-service. See Chapter II, Table III-2 for definition of level-of-service ratings.
Low, mid-range, and high refer to the growth allocation scenarios described in Chapter IV "Urban Growth and Economic
Development".
IV-20
r
[
c
[
c
L
[
c
[
[
L
[
[
L
L
1: -
~
I
N ......
l ,-.~ c' c-1 '' } L., ,, J l .. :. j l. J ) li ,,.J L , J
Table IV-5
2010 INTERSECTION VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (V/C) COMPARISON
Downtown Downtown Elmendorf Elmendorf
(Mid-Range) (High) (Mid-Range) (High)
No-. Percent Percent Percent Percent
Intersection Action V/C Change V/C Change V/C Change V/C Change
Boniface Parkway/Northern
Lights Boulevard 1.26 1.04 -17 1.01 -20 1.11 -12 1.37 +9
DeBarr Road/Muldoon Road
Road 1.98 1.82 -8 1. 75 -12 2:os +4 1.90 -4
Lake Otis Parkway/Northern
Lights Boulevard 1.03 .84 -18 .80 -22 .93 -10 1.02 -1
c Street/Tudor Road 1.99 1.66 -17 1.62 -19 1.92 -4 1.95 -2
15th Avenue/Gambell Street .97 1.00 +3 1.02 +5 1.09 +12 1.00 +3
15th Avenue/Ingra Street 1.11 1.16 +5 1.17 +5 1.18 +6 1.17 +5
C Street/Dimond Boulevard 3.44 2.81 -18 2.74 -20 2.96 -14 3.30 -4
Minnesota Drive/Northern
Lights Boulevard 1.16 1.31 +13 1.29 +11 1.25 +8 1.23 +6
NOTES
V/C signifies ratio .of volume to capacity; see Table III-2 for relationship of V/C to level-of-service ratings.
Percent Change is relative to No-Action.
"
I
·i
allocated by direction and turn movements, and then proportioned to the
peak hour b.ased upon current intersection traffic patterns. A critical
movement analysis procedure was used to compute intersection V/C.
Most of the selected intersections would operate at LOS F, indicating a
very poor efficiency needing substantial improvement. The Boniface
Parkway/Northern Lights Boulevard, DeBarr Road/Muldoon Road, and Lake Otis
Parkway/Northern Lights Boulevard intersections in the east Anchorage bowl
would be improved with the Downtown Project while the Elmendorf Project
would provide less improvement or a slight decrease in intersection
efficiency.
In the central Anchorage bowl, the C Street/Tudor Road intersection V /C
would be improved by approximately 17 percent with Downtown (mid-range) and
19 percent with the Downtown (high), while the Elmendorf Project would
provide only marginal improvement (approximately two to four percent).
The Ingra/Gambell Couplet/15th Avenue intersections each would decrease
slightly in operational efficiency with a Crossing. Elmendorf (mid-range)
would cause the greatest V /C decrease of approximately 12 percent at 15th
Avenue/Gambell Stree~ and about six percent at 15th Avenue/Ingra Street.
In the south Anchorage bowl, the C Street/Dimond Boulevard intersection V/C
would improve with any Crossing Alternative by approximately four to 18
percent, with Downtown (mid-range) causing the greatest improvement.
In the west Anchorage bowl, the Crossing Alternatives would decrease
operational efficiency of the Minnesota Drive/Northern Lights Boulevard
intersection V/C by about six to 13 percent, with Downtown (mid-range)
causing the greatest decrease.
Although some improvements would occur with the Crossing Alternatives, none
of the intersections in Table IV-5 would operate at an acceptable level-of-
service, with or without a crossing, by the year 2010.
With some exceptions, traffic flow at intersections along streets which
would be directly connected to Crossing access points would get worse, while
the efficiency of intersections along ~treets which would not directly
approach crossing access points would improve in 2010.
Area-Wide Traffic Mitigation. The fol~owing measures could be incorporated
in area transportation planning to mitigate traffic congestion which would
be caused by a Crossing Alternative. No measures would be required for
either Hovercraft or Glenn/Parks Improvements.
1. . Promote downtown Anchorage bypass route (Northside Bypass, see "Street
and Highway Plan").
2. Continue promotion of transit and carpool/vanpool use -This measure
would apply regionally, and particularly to the Glenn/Parks Highway
and Crossing commute corridors.
IV-22
L
[
c
c
[
[
[
c
·E
L
[
[
[
L
L
[
[
[
[
[
[
f~
L
L
[
c
[
E
[
[
c
L
L
L
3.
/
Work to establish staggered or flexible work hour programs -This
measure would help to reduce peak-hour traffic congestion within and
outside the Anchorage bowl.
Other mitigating measures which would not be recommended include:
1. Earlier construction of the Seward Connector of the Downtown Project
--Although construction of the connector prior to 2001 would relieve
traffic congestion in the vicinity of I/L Streets and along 5th/6th
Avenues through downtown, construction would be scheduled to minimize
competition for Federal-Aid Highway financing of projects within the
2001 Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Anchorage bowl (Municipal-
ity of Anchorage Community Planning Department, July, 1983).
2.
3.
4.
Seward Connector interchange with A/C Couplet Although an
interchange with the A/C Couplet would mitigate adverse impacts on
IlL/Minnesota and on the Seward Highway, an A/C interchange would not
be recommended since it would contribute to traffic congestion through
the downtown area. An A/C interchange could be warranted if the
Seward Highway improvement between Tudor Road and 3rd Avenue (see
Chapter III, "Street and Highway Plans") was not built prior to the
Seward Connector.
Implement a second couplet of east-west one-way avenues through
downtown Anchorage, i.e., 7th/8th, 8th/9th, or 9th/10th --A second
set of one-way avenues would relieve 5th/6th Avenue traffic congestion
which woula be caused by construction of a Downtown Project without
the Seward Connector. However, the Seward Connector would provide the
needed traffic distribution without the disruption which would be·
associated with conversion to one-way avenues.
Increase the capacity of the Elmendorf Crossing/Oilwell Road inter-
change by providing directional ramps (no traffic signal) for
southbound crossing traffic to eastbound Oilwell Road/Muldoon Road and
for westbound Oilwell Road/Muldoon Road traffic to northbound
crossing. Travel forecasts indicate directional ramps would not be
warranted by 2010 unless Northside Corridor improvements were not
built before the crossing.
_ Traffic Flow at Crossing Termini and Mitigation. The Glenn Highway would
have adequate capacity at Muldoon Road/Oilwell Road to handle Elmendorf
Crossing traffic. The same would be true at the Parks Highway end of the
Houston Connector. However, modifications would be required to I and L
Streets and 3rd Avenue ·for a Downtown Crossing. Modifications also would
be required at Ingra and Gambell Streets at the end of the Seward
Connector.
Street modifications that would accompany the Downtown Project are:
0 Downtown Crossing (L Street southbound ramp):
The two-lane southbound ramp would enter L Street, adjacent to
Resolution Park, at a slight angle.
IV-23
0
3rd Avenue would continue to be one-way westbound. One lane of
westbound traffic along 3rd Avenue would curve southbound onto L
Street, along with the two ramp lanes, which would provide three
lanes of traffic continuing south on L Street. The first L
Street traffic signal would be at 5th Avenue except for the
existing red flashers for westbound traffic approaching L Street
along 4th Avenue.
Parking would be removed along I Street between 3rd and 7th
Avenues, along L Street between 3rd and 5th Avenues, and along
the south side of 3rd Avenue between K and L Streets.
Driveway access would be eliminated along L Street between 3rd
and 5th Avenues.
Northbound traffic would reach the Crossing from I Street, which
would consist of four lanes at 3:rd Avenue~ two through lanes, a
left-turn lane, and a right-turn lane.
A traffic signal would be added to the I Street/3rd Avenue
intersection.
A free-right-turn lane would be provided for westbound traffic on
3rd Avenue turning onto the Crossing.
Downtown Crossing (I Street southbound ramp):
The two-lane southbound ramp would enter 3rd Avenue, between I
and K Streets, with two free-right-tum lanes.
Westbound 3rd Avenue traffic would be confined to a single
one-way lane between I and L Streets. The 3rd Avenue traffic
lane would join the two southbound ramp lanes _and continue as
three lanes turning south onto L Street. The first L Street
traffic signal would be at 5th Avenue except for the existing red
flashers for westbound traffic approaching L Street along 4th
Avenue.
Parking would be removed along I and L Streets
5th Avenues and along 3rd Avenue between I and K
way access would be eliminated along the same
except for the alley south of 3rd Avenue between
between 3rd and
Streets. Drive-
street segments
K and L Streets.
Northbound traffic would reach the Crossing from I Street the
same as with the L Street southbound ramp.
A traffic signal would be added to the I Street/3rd Avenue
intersection.
A free-right-turn lane would be provided for westbound traffic on
3rd Avenue turning northbound onto the crossing.
IV-24
[
[
c
[
f',
L
L
[
c
[
L
L
[
[
l
L
I-
I -
.--.
I
i "
L.
r,
r-
L
0
0
Seward Connector (Gambell Street southbound ramp):
The two-lane southbound ramp would extend between the sites of
two main buildings of the Alaska Native Medical Center. This
alternative would not be implemented unless the Medical Center
has moved. A free-right-turn lane would be provided onto 3rd
Avenue for westbound traffic.
3rd Avenue would continue to have one-way, westbound traffic. A
free-right-tum and merge lane would be provided from 3rd Avenue
to the northbound ramp.
Two northbound througli-lanes would be provided on Ingra Street
for traffic to the Crossing. There also would be a left-turn
lane for traffic turning west onto.3rd Avenue.
Seward Connector (Ingra Street southbound ramp):
The two-lane southbound ramp would be aligned parallel to the
northbound ramp until it curves westward to provide two free-
right-tum lanes into 3rd Avenue between Ingra and Hyder Streets.
One through-lane and one optional through/left-turn lane would
continue west on 3rd Avenue.
~estbound 3rd Avenue traffic would be restricted to one.lane at
Ingra Street. A traffic signal would be installed at 3rd Avenue
and Ingra. West of Ingra, westbound 3rd Avenue traffic would
merge with ramp traffic and be required to turn left at Gambell
Street to avoid conflicts between through traffic and left turn
traffic.
Two left-tum lanes would be provided for westbound 3rd Avenue
traffic onto southbound Gambell Street (one lane would be an
optional through-lane as noted above).
Two northbound through-lanes would be provided on Ingra Street
for traffic to the Crossing. There also would be a left-tum
lane for traffic turning west onto 3rd Avenue.
Traffic signals would be installed at 3rd Avenue and Ingra
Street.
A free-right-turn and merge lane would be provided from 3rd
Avenue onto the northbound ramp.
Freight Movement
Two criteria were used to evaluate Project impact on regional freight
movement: truck ton-miles traveled and truck vehicle-miles traveled. Both
analyses based on these criteria indicate there would be significant
benefit to truck movement between Anchorage and points north with a
crossing and greater benefit from a Downtown Project than from an Elmendorf
Project.
IV-25
/
Table IV-6 presents truck freight movement between Anchorage and Willow by
alternative (No-Crossing, Downtown Project, and Elmendorf Project). for
2001 and 2010. Local truck traffic was not included. Total tons
(including container, neo-bulk, dry bulk, and liquid bulk freight
movement), direction of freight movement (northbound and southbound), year,
and length of route associated with each alternative were considered. It
was assumed that the amount of transported freight tonnage would stay the
same for each alternative, with only the routes changing. In each year,
the Downtown Project would offer a 30 percent reduction in ton-miles and
VMT, while the Elmendorf Project would provide a reduction of about 17
percent. These percentages also would represent time savings on the part
of the operator.
Principal truck trip or~g~ns and destinations within Anchorage currently
are concentrated in the Port of Anchorage, the industrial zone along Ship
Creek and within the industrial zones along the Alaska Railroad between
International Airport Road and Minnesota Drive. Intercity truck movement
to and from these areas is principally along A and C Streets, emanating
from the Port to 5th/6th Avenues and along 5th/6th Avenues and the Glenn
Highway to the northeast, and along the Seward Highway through central
Anchorage. The Downtown Project would provide direct truck access to the
Ship Creek port and industrial area from interior Alaska (there would be no
need to pass through downtown) and would encourage truck use of Minnesota
Drive, particularly prior to Seward Connector construction. The Elmendorf
Crossing would tend to encourage greater use of the planned North~ide
Corridor improvements and Seward Highway as truck routes.
None of the alternatives would affect freight movement by rail.
Public Transportation
Regional Transit Ridership. Table IV-7 indicates expected regional transit
ridership in the year 2001, the latest year transit use has been forecast
by Anchorage and Mat-Su planning agencies.
The Crossing Alternatives would reduce transit demand in the Anchorage bowl
and Eagle River in proportion to the amount of growth that would shift to
the Mat-Su Borough. A reduction in future transit demand would reduce the
Municipality of Anchorage's need for additional transit routes and buses.
The reductions in transit riders, shown in Table IV-6 for the alternatives
under consideration, represent maximum anticipated reductions since many
current and projected riders may be "captive" (without alternative
transportation available). Although there is no current data on captive
transit riders, many of them would reside in the Anchorage bowl rather than
in the Borough because of their need for transit. Therefore, the reduction
of transit riders with a Crossing Alternative might be less than shown in
Table IV-7. With a Crossing Alternative, the Point MacKenzie and Big Lake
areas would have increases in population great enough to justify transit
service; see Table IV-7. Because of long travel distances, relatively good
transit travel time, and cost competitiveness with the automobile, it is
likely that an express bus system with few stops would develop. A
local/feeder bus system would be less likely because of anticipated low
population densities. Highway bus stops and park-and-ride lots at Houston
IV-26
[
[
c
[
[
[
c
c
[
[
L
c
[
[
l
L
I ~
I,
L--l.
u
!'
I
YEAR 2001
No-Crossing
Downtown Project
Elmendorf Project
YEAR 2010
No-Crossing
Downtown Project
Elmendorf Project
ASSUMPTIONS
Table IV-6
TRUCK FREIGHT MOVEMENT
(Anchorage to 1.8 miles north of Willow)
Total Annual
Tons
(thousands)
260
260
260
330
330
330
Total Annual
Ton-Miles
(thousands)
18,800
13,100
15,500
23,800
16,600
19,700
Total Annual
Truck Loads
(Vehicles)
12,900
12,900
12,900
16,400
16,400
16,400
20 tons average truck load.
Total Annual
Truck Miles
(VMT)
940,000
650,000
780,000
1,190,000
830,000
990,000
Mileage measured from 1.8 miles north of Willow on Parks Highway to
downtown Anchorage:
No-Crossing
Downtown Crossing
Elmendorf Crossing
-72.7 miles
-50.6 miles
-60.1 miles
VMT denotes Vehicle-Miles of Travel.
IV-27
~
I
N
())
Anchorage Bowl
Eagle River/Chugiak
Palmer/Wasilla
Point MacKenzie/
Houston/Big Lake
Total
NOTES
Table IV-7
CHANGE IN
REGIONAL TRANSIT RIDERSHIP IN 2001
FROM NO-ACTION
(Daily One-Way Trips)
No-Crossing Alternatives
No-Glenn/Parks Downtown
Action Im.12rovement Hovercraft (Mid-Ran2e)
102,9001 +0 +0 -5,150
9,2001 +0 +0 -500
800 2 +0 +0 +0
0 +0 +310 +610
112,900 +0 +310 -5,040
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Elmendorf Elmendorf
(High) (Mid-Range) (Low)
-9,050 -3,600 -1,850
-700 -300 -100
+0 +0 +0
+660 +440 +400
-9,090 -3,460 -1,550
Low, mid-range, and high refer to the growth allocation scenarios described under "Urban Growth and Economic Develop-
ment".
1
2 Source:
Source:
Municipal~ty of Anchorage, Community Planning Department, July 1983.
DOWL Engineers, February 1983 (1988 projections extrapolated to 2001 based upon dwelling unit forecasts).
,---,
• .1
r...,
I L_,
n
__ ;
[
[
[
[
F"l
I
[
[
Connector intersections likely would be part of the express bus system.
Based on current experience in the Anchorage bowl, Eagle River, and
Wasilla/Palmer areas and their growth objectives, about eight percent of
peak-hour trips from .the Point MacKenzie and Knik/Goose Bay areas would be
by bus. About four percent of peak-hour trips from the Big Lake/
Houston, Willow, and Fish Creek areas would be by bus·. Virtually no
transit demand would occur during non-peak periods.
Currently forecast transit demand from Wasilla and· Palmer would not be
significantly affected.
Comparing Mat-Su Borough transit ridership increases with decreases that
would occur in the Anchorage bowl and Eagle River area, it can be seen in
Table IV-7 that a Crossing Alternative would result in a net decrease in
area-wide transit usage. This reduction would be due to the shifting of
growth from the Anchorage bowl/Eagle River area to the Mat-Su Borough.
Borough growth would be at a lower density, reducing the efficiency of
transit service and creating a heavier reliance on the automobile for
transportation. 'r}le Glenn/Parks Improvement and Hovercraft Alternatives
would not significantly affect No-Action transit ridership. However,
transit travel times from Palmer and Wasilla to Anchorage would be reduced
by approximately six minutes with the Glenn/Parks Improvement and one to
two minutes with the Hovercraft Alternative.
By 2001, approximately 310 passengers daily (without automobiles) would use
the Hovercraft Alternative. Of those passengers, approximately 230 (or 75
percent) would utilize Hovercraft during the peak period, while about 80
passengers (or 25 percent) would ride during the off-peak period. Because
bus transit service from Wasilla and Palmer would not change significantly
with the Hovercraft Alternative, the Hovercraft riders would represent an
increase in transit use between the Mat-Su Borough and the Anchorage bowl.
Although transit service would not change significantly within the
Anchorage bowl, some additional service in the form of shuttles for Hover-
craft passengers to and from downtown would be required. Moreover, some of
the Hovercraft passengers would transfer to Anchorage buses destined
outside downtown.
Transit Service Outside Anchorage Bowl. Table IV-8 presents forecast
transit use and vehicle requirements in 2001 on the Glenn Highway and the
Crossing for the alternatives under consideration. No-Action requirements
of 29 buses in the peak hour, peak direction on the Glenn Highway would not
be reduced with either Hovercraft or Glenn/Parks Improvement. Bus
requirements would be reduced only 2 to 14 percent by a Crossing
Alternative. Peak-hour, peak direction bus flow would be one bus every two
minutes, approximately, and about one-third of these buses would originate
in the Mat-Su Borough and two-thirds in the Eagle River/Chugiak area.
Bus requirements on the Houston Connector with the Crossing Alternatives
would be four to six buses in the peak-hour, peak direction, considerably
lower than on the Glenn Highway. There would be only half the population
and lower ridership rates along the Houston Connector compared to the Glenn
Highway.
IV-29
1 w
0
Table IV-8
GLENN HIGHWAY AND CROSSING TRANSIT USE
AND VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS, 2001
No-Crossing Alternatives Crossing Alternatives
No-
Action
Glenn/Parks Downtown
(Mid-Range)
Downtown Elmendorf Elmendorf
(Low) Hovercraft Improvement (High) (Mid-Range)
GLENN HIGHWAY
(Scalehouse)
Daily Passengers
Buses in Peak Hour,
Peak Direction
CROSSING
Daily Passengers
Buses in Peak Hour,
Peak Direction
NOTES
5,000
29
Daily Passengers represents round-trips.
5,000
29
310
2
5,000 4,500 4,300
29 27 26
480 580
6 6
Assumes: -AMATS 2001 transit ridership projections of 4,600 round trips from Eagle River
buses) (Municipality of Anchorage, Community Planning Department, July 1983).
Ridership projections based on 1988 Mat-Su Borough Comprehensive Development Plan
trips from Palmer and Wasilla and 10 buses by year 2001) (DOWL Engineers, February
4,700 4,900
28 29
360 360
4 4
area for. No-Action (19
projections (400 round
1983).
Low, mid-range, and high refer to the growth allocation scenarios described under 11 Urban Growth and Economic Develop-
ment ...
r----'1
t I
-·-'
_j
'
_,
"""'
I L~
The combined transit use on the Houston Connector and the Glenn Highway
would be almost the same for any Alternative except Hovercraft., which would
be higher, the reasons for which were discussed previously. However, more
buses would be required with a Crossing Alternative to serve the same
number of riders. Thus, a Crossing Alternative would reduce the efficiency
and increase the cost of non-Anchorage bowl transit service.
Auto Use in Congested Areas. Auto use would increase with a Crossing
because of the growth shift from Anchorage to· the Mat-Su Borough and the
more limited availability of Ma.t-Su transit. However, several factors
would limit increases in auto commuting and parking demand in downtown
Anchorage:
0
0
0
Average vehicle occupancy would increase with length of trip;
potential for carpooling would be increased.
Many current and projected transit riders are transit "captives" and
would remain in the Anchorage bowl. Experience in other cities shows
that those dependent on transit would tend to live close-in to
·employment.
A bridge toll would constitute an incentive for transit and carpool
use and a dis-incentive for single occupant auto use. Toll discounts
or free passage could be offered to buses and carpools as an even
great~r incentive for use of high occupancy vehicles.
Transit Sub.sidy.
subsidy. Should
expenditures would
(Anchorage transit
Most transit systems require substantial financial
ridership decrease due to a Knik Arm Crossing,
be adjusted so the subsidy per rider would be unchanged.
staff, personal communication, June 1984).
Mitigation of Transit Impacts. Bus service would complement any Crossing
or No-Crossing Alternative, and would contribute to achievement of regional
transportation and air quality objectives. The Crossing Alternatives
would be des·igned to accommodate bus service, although funding of buses and
bus operations would not be a part of the crossing project. Table IV-9
lists measures that would be incorporated with each alternative to promote
transit usage and thus mitigate anticipated reductions in transit use.
Pedestrians and Bicycles
Currently, there are no provisions for pedestrians and bicycles planned
with any of the alternatives. Both the Downtown and Elmendorf Projects
would be constructed as limited-access facilities. The Houston Connector
would have sufficient right-of-way for the addition of pedestrian and
bicycle facilities at a later date. This would be the only location with
provision for future pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Provision of a
pedestrian/bicycle lane across either bridge would be prohibitively
expensive. An 8-foot-wide lane would cost about $20 million for either
alternative.
IV-31
Mitigating Measure
Sites for park-and-ride lots
in right-of-way ·
Bus/carpool turnouts at
·highway interchanges
Bus/carpool toll lanes at
toll booths
Bus/carpool preferential
parking
Sites for ramp metering with
preferential bus/carpool
lanes entering freeway
right-of-way
NOTES
Table IV-9
MITIGATION OF TRANSIT IMPACTS
No-Crossing Alternatives
No-Glenn/Parks
Action Hovercraft Improvement
G
K
G
G signifies Glenn/Parks Highway Corridor.
K signifies Crossing/Houston Connector.
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Elmendorf
Project Project
K K
K K
K K
[
c
[
[
[
[
[
[
c
E
[
[
[
[
[
L
r ..__
Pedestrian and bicycle movement within the Anchorage bowl would not be
affected significantly by either Crossing Alternative because current and
planned bicycle and pedestrian trails would remain separated from major
traffic flow. There would be two exceptions. First, the Downtown Project
would increase traffic at 3rd Avenue and L Street which would inhibit
pedestrian access to Resolution Park. Additional details on this impact
and mitigating measures are included in Chapter v, "Section 4 (f)
Evaluation". Second, a coastal trail has been proposed that would pass
through the area where the I and L Street ramps of the Downtown Crossing
would be located. Additional detail on impacts is included in "Land Use
Plans".
The only impact outside the Anchorage bowl would result from the Glenn/
Parks Improvement Alternative. This alternative would affect the bikepath
that follows the Glenn Highway for seven miles from Eagle River to just
east of the North Birchwood interchange. Widening the northbound lanes of
the Glenn Highway would result in the loss of the length of the bikepath.
However, the widening project would include replacement of lost portions of
the bikepath by re-constructing it within the highway right-of-way. The
new bikepath would equal or improve upon the existing conditions such as
separation from the highway, grades, surfacing, and width. It would be
separated from the highway by a buffer where possible. During construc-
tion, the bikepath would be closed to users for up to two seasons.
Street and .Highway Plans
Table IV-10 lists impacts which would occur to the major planned street and
highway improvements (noted in Chapter III, Table III-4) as a result of the
alternatives under consideration. Those improvements which would incur no
significant impacts are not included in the table. The improvements listed
would be consistent with the No-Action Alternative. The Hovercraft and the
Glenn/Parks Improvement Alternatives would not affect current street and
highway plans with two exceptions. First, Hovercraft would incorporate a
Houston Connector, and impacts attributed to the Houston Connector in Table
IV-10 thus also would occur with Hovercraft. Second, the ro.ad widening
included in the Glenn/Parks Improvement would slightly alter the design of
the entrance to the Eklutna Frontage Road described in the AMATS
Transportation Improvement Program, FY 84 (ADOT/PF, September 1983) and
scheduled for construction in 1985.
Table IV-10 indicates that none of the Crossing Alternatives would have
significant impacts on most street and highway improvements planned within
either the Anchorage bowl and Mat-Su Borough. Although some roadways would
experience a decrease in traffic volume as a result of a crossing, the
decrease would not be significant enough to eliminate need for the planned
improvement. Neither would the traffic volume reductions justify reducing
the level of improvement of those projects. However, with either a
Crossing or the Glenn/Parks Improvement, traffic flow on the Parks Highway
east of Wasilla would be improved sufficiently to delay need for a Wasilla
Bypass until well after 2001.
In addition to the above street and highway plans, the Seward Connector
would affect some of the alternatives being considered as a part of
ADOT/PF's Major Corridors Study:
IV-33
Table IV-10
CROSSING IMPACTS ON MAJOR STREET AND HIGHWAY PROJECTS
Plan/Improvements
A¥ATS Transportation Improvement Program FY 84
Glenn Highway-Muldoon Road to Eagle River -Widen the
Glenn Highway from 4 to 6 lanes.
Lena-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) For the Anchorage
Bowl 1983 -2001
Glenn Highway-Northside Corridor -This 2.3 mile
6-lane facility from approximately Hyder Street .to
Bragaw Street, north of the Glenn Highway/5th/6th
Avenue corridor ~ould provide an upgraded route
connecting the Glenn Highway and the Seward High-
way corridors. (Also one alternative in ADOT/PF
Hajor Corridors Study.)
seward Highway Corridor -3rd Avenue to Tudor Road
upgrade this corridor to a 6-lane, grade-separated
highway with major interchanges at 36th Avenue,
Benson/Northern Lights Boulevards, 15th Avenue and
other avenues north to 3rd Avenue. The highway
would follow approximately its current alignment
between Tudor Road and· 15th Avenue and then along
Hyder Street between 15th and 3rd Avenues. (Also
one alternative in ADOT/PF Major Corridors Study.)
Seward Highway Corridor Extension -This 1-mile,
4-lane facility would connect the Seward Highway
to the Northside Corridor. (Also part of one
alternative in ADOT/PF Major Corridors Study).
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Comprehensive Development
Plan -Transportation
Houston Right-of-Way -This corridor is' south and
west of Houston. It runs generally in a north-south
direction and would provide a connection to the
Point MacKenzie area. The right-of-way should
provide space for utilities, rail, and the roadway.
Point MacKenzie Access Road (Phase III) -An
extension to provide access to a potential
Point MacKenzie Port site.
IV-34
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Elmendorf
Traffic reduced: no
impact on design.
Traffic reduced;
see Major Corridors
Study discus-sion in
text for design im-
pact.
Some change in
directional flow
of traffic: see
Major Corridors
Study discussion
in text for design
impact.
See Major Corridors
Study discussion in
text for design
impact.
Right-of-Way (ROW)
realigned as
Houston Connector.
To be part of
Houston Connector.
Traffic reduced: no
impact on design.
Traffic would in-
crease with mid-range
growth scenario: no
design impact.
Some change in
directional flow of
traffic: no impact
on design.
No Impact.
ROW realigned as
Houston Connector.
To be part of
Houston Connector.
[
[
[
c
r
L
[
[
c
[
[
[
c
[
[
[
[
[
[
E
[
[
[
L
L
Table IV-10 (continued)
CROSSING IMPACTS ON MAJOR STREET AND HIGHWAY PROJECTS
Crossing Alternatives
Plan/Improvements
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Comprehensive Development Plan
-Transportation (continued)
Fish Creek Access Road-This 2.7 mile east-west pro-
ject would be the first element of the Chuitna Corri-
dor, which would ultimately provide access to the
Beluga Coal Fields area. (First segment is Little
Susitna Recreation Access Road included in 6-year
improvement plan.)
~ Burma Road -This 6-mile roadway woUld connect the
existing South Big Lake Road and Point MacKenzie
Access Road. It is planned as an arterial with con-
trolled access. (Included in 6-year improvement
plan.)
North Big Lake Road - a 5.5 mile roadway which would
complete the loop around Big Lake.
Briggs Road-A 1.7 mile road providing access
between Horseshoe Lake Access Road and North Big
Lake Road. (Included in 6-year improvement plan.)
Wasilla Bypass -This approximately 9+ mile highway
project would provide alternative access between the
Parks Highway, west of Wasilla, to the Parks Highway,
east of Wasilla.
Willow Sub-Basin Plan
Chuitna Right-of-Way -An extension leading westerly
from approximately Point MacKenzie Access Road (along
the north side of Susitna Flats State Game Refuge)
with bridges crossing at the Little Susitna River
and Fish Creek.
Fish Creek Management Plan
Chuitna Right-of-Way -See description above.
NOTES
Downtown Elmendorf
An intersection
with the Houston
Connector will be
added.
Two-thirds to be part
of Houston Connector.
An intersection
with the Houston
Connector will be
added.
To be part of
Houston Connector.
Reduced traffic
volumes on Parks
Highway may delay
need for this im-
provement until 2010.
An intersection with
Houston Connector
will be added.
See description above.
An intersection
with the Houston
Connector will be
added.
Two-thirds to be part
of Houston Connector.
An intersection
with the Houston
Connector will be
added.
To be part of
Houston Connector.
Reduced traffic
volumes on Parks
Highway may delay
need for this im-
provement until 2010.
An intersection with
Houston Connector
will be added.
See description above.
Impacts for Hovercraft and Glenn/Parks Improvement are addressed in the text.
These plans represent planned improvements/modifications associated with the No-Action Alternative.
IV-35
0
0
0
Northside Corridor
3rd/Sth Avenues Couplet with High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes.
With the Gambell. Street southbound raJ!Ip alternative, the number
of lanes available for use by 3rd Avenue through-traffic would be
reduced by the free-right-turn lane from the Seward Connector.
With the . Ingra Street southbound ramp alternative, southbound
Connector traffic also would be added to 3rd Avenue, as well as
left-tum lanes from 3rd to Gambell Street, further reducing
available unused capacity of 3rd Avenue.
Freeway Extension to Ingra Street; same impacts as to the 3rd/Sth
Avenues couplet.
Freeway Extension to C/E Streets and G/I Streets. The Seward
Connector could serve as the Ingra to C/E and G/I segment of this
alternative. The ramps at C/E and G/I could be added to the
Connector.
Seward Highway Corridor
Freeway Extension to Chester Creek; no impact.
Freeway Extension to 12th Avenue. No impact, but consideration
would need to be given to altering the Seward Connector to
c;onnect with Hyder Street, which would become the southbound
lanes of a Hyder/Ingra couplet.
Freeway to Northside Corridor. No impact, but Ingra Street
southbound ramp would be most compatible since a southbound ramp
at Gambell Street would not connect directly into the planned
freeway.
15th Avenue Bypass.
Connector.
There would be no impact from the Seward
Traffic volumes and congestion through the Northside Corridor would be
increased by the Elmendorf Project (approximately five years ahead of
No-Action for mid-range traffic growth) and would be reduced by. the
Downtown Project (traffic growth approximately five years behind
No-Action). Total north-south traffic in the Anchorage bowl would not be
increased by either a Downtown or an ~lmendorf Project, however the Seward
Connector of the Downtown Project would focus and increase traffic in the
Seward Highway Corridor. Similarly, an Elmendorf Crossing with Northside
Corridor improvements would increase Seward Highway Corridor traffic.
Seward Highway traffic would not increase over No-Action if the Northside
Corridor were not improved; rather the traffic increase on Muldoon and
Tudor Roads would be greater than that described under "Traffic Volumes".
As indicated in the "Traffic Volume" and "Traffic Flow" sections, a
Crossing Alternative would reduce traffic volumes on some streets within
the Anchorage bowl and would increase traffic volumes on other streets. As
a result, some scheduled street and intersection improvements might be
deferred while others might need to be accelerated.
. IV-36
[
[
[
c
[
[
E
[
[
[
[
L
L
[
[
[
[
[
B. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The following areas of interest are discussed under social and economic
impacts: Urb~n growth and economic development, land use plans,
dislocation and relocation, urban and military function and operation, and
government finance.
Urban Growth and Economic Development
Urban growth and economic development impacts have been measured in
dwelling units and employment (jobs). Impacts were estimated in four
separate tiers to distinguish direct project effects: allocation of
forecast employment and residential growth in response to crossing-enhanced
accessibility; and additional new growth attributable to the crossing,
termed 11 induced 11 development. The four tiers are:
0
0
0
0
Project Employment Impact and Associated Residential Growth -1985 to
2000 construction, operations and maintenance, and related employment
directly and indirectly attributable to a crossing. Residential
growth (in dwelling units) resulting from this employment (in terms of
full-time annual equivalents) also was estimated and allocated to
communities for the Crossing Alternatives in the years 2001 and 2010.
Redistribution of Anticipated Residential Growth and Residential-Serv-
ing Employment -Year 2001 and 2010 dwelling units and associated
residential-serving employment was re-allocated among communities in
the Anchorage/Mat-Su region, in response to crossing-enhanced
accessibility.
Redistribution of Region-Serving Employment Growth and Associated Res-
idences -Forecast year 2001 and 2010 region-serving employment growth
which would transfer from Anchorage to the Mat-Su area in response to
crossing-enhanced accessibility. Dwelling units associated with this
additional employment transfer were estimated and allocated to
communities for the Crossing Alternatives in the years 200~ and 2010.
Induced Employment -additional new regional employment resulting from
new development opportunities created by a crossing, with residential
growth in the years 2001 and 2010.
The following text discusses the above growth changes. The results of
analyses of crossing-induced changes in residential land values and
resultant impacts on housing opportunities and the residential market are
also included.
Project Employment Impact. Direct employment resulting from either the
Downtown or the Elmendorf Project is presented in Table IV-11. Direct
employment estimates were based on construction schedules presented in
Chapter II, labor requirements of similar projects elsewhere, and estimates
of the proportion of construction that would take place in Alaska versus
outside Alaska. The Elmendorf bridge and the deck-truss and multi-girder
IV-37
[
[
Table IV-11
DIRECT PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, OPERATING, AND [
MAINTENANCE EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS
(number of employees) [
Downtown Project Elmendorf Project [ Seward Houston Houston
Year Crossing Connector Connector Total Crossing Connector Total
1985 25 0 ·a 25 15 0 15 [
1986 175 0 0 175 150 0 150
1987 185 0 0 185 210 0 210 L 1988 175 0 0 175 145 50 195
198·9 155 0 50 205 105 50 155
1990 65 0 50 115 25 0 25
1991 25 0 0 25 25 0 25 [ 1992 25 0 0 25 25 0 25
19.93 25 0 0 25 25 0 25
1994 25 0 0 25 25 0 25 r 1995 25 0 0 25 25 0 25
1996 25 0 0 25 25 0 25
1997 25 0 0 25 25 0 25
1998 25 0 0 25 25 0 25 c 1999 25 0 0 25 25 0 25
2000 25 100 0 25 25 0 25
2001 25 100 0 25 25 0 25 c 2002 25 0 0 25. 25 0 25
2003 25 0 0 25 25 0 25
2004 25 0 0 25 25 0 25
2005 25 0 0 25 25 0 25 E 2006 25 0 0 25 25 0 25
2007 25 0 0 25 25 0 25
2008 25· 0 0 25 25 0 25 [ 2009 25 0 0 25 25 0 25
2010 25 0 0 25 25 0 25 --
Total Man-L Years 1,280 200 100 1,380 1,150 100 1,250
o Construction 780 200 100 880 630 100 730 [
o Operation and
Maintenance 500 0* 0* 500 520 0* 520 [
[
* One or two would result; number rounded to the nearest five.
[
IV-38
L
--
.J
E
[
[
[
spans of the Downtown bridge across Knik Arm likely would be built with
steel manufactured and fabricated in the Far East and floated into place.
Construction of the cable-stayed spans for the Downtown bridge likely would
take place on-site.
Labor required for either the Downtown or the Elmendorf Project (inclusive
of connector roads) would peak in 1987 at either 185 or 210 employees,
respectively. All construction labor skills for the crossing would be
available in the Anchorage/Mat-Su area. The demand for iron workers (75 in
the peak year) and earth moving equipment operators (25. in the peak year)
might require importation of labor from the Lower 48, depending on the
number of similar projects underway during the same timeframe, e.g.,
Susitna Hydroelectric· Project, major buildings.
Indirect employment impact would result from the need that construction
workers and their families, as well as construction contractors, would have
for goods and services. Monies spent by construction workers and
contractors in the local economy would create an employment "multiplier"
effect, which in the Anchorage area and for the type of project proposed,
would be about 0. 8 to 1. 2 times the number of local construction jobs.
Local construction employment plus multiplier effect would cause less than
a one-half percent increase in the local labor force during any one year.
Table IV-12 presents estimated dwelling units which would be associated
with total project construction and operations employment (direct and
indirect),. allocated to communities according to the project team's growth
allocation model. Impacts would be extremely modest, in accordance with
the relatively small number of new full-time annual jobs.
Redistribution of Anticipated Residential Growth and Residential-Serving
Employment. The allocation of currently forecast residential development
would change with construction of a Knik Arm crossing and the improved
access from Anchorage jobs and other job opportunities to less expensive,
yet highly developable, residential sites in the Mat-Su Borough. The
principal shift in residential activity would be from Anchorage to a
suburban Point MacKenzie/ Houston corridor. A second residential shift
would be from Palmer/Wasilla to the Point MacKenzie/Houston corridor.
The Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER), under contract with
the Municipality, and the Knik Arm crossing project team both calculated
2001 dwelling unit forecasts for the Elmendorf and Downtown Projects, but
by different methodologies. The starting point for both forecasts was a
"No-Crossing" scenario consisting of dwelling unit forecasts used in the
Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Anchorage bowl (Municipality of
Anchorage, Community Planning Department, July 1983); outside the bowl, the
official Anchorage and Mat-Su Borough planning forecasts were used. The
"No-Crossing" scenario with 126,000 dwelling units (excluding military) and
158,900 jobs (including military) would reflect "high economic growth" as
designated by ISER.
Table IV-13 summarizes the range of 2001 and 2010 dwelling unit forecasts
prepared by ISER and the project team. Four scenarios are presented; these
were used in travel forecasting and other impact analyses. First, the
project team forecasts for the Elmendorf and Downtown Projects were
IV-39
Table IV-12
ALLOCATION OF DWELLING UNITS REPRESENTED BY PROJECT CONSTRUCTION,
OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE-RELATED EMPLOYMENT
(Number of Employees)
2001 2010
Downtown Elmendorf Downtown Elmendorf
Mat-Su Borough 55 10 14 12
Municipality of Anchorage
0 Anchorage Bowl 159 33 29 31
0 Eagle River 23 5 5 5
• 0 Turnagain Arm 4 1 1 1
SUBTOTAL 186 39 35 37
TOTAL 241 49 49 49
NOTES
Total employment is equal to (2.1 x direct employment) x either 1.13
jobs/DO (2001) or 1.09 jobs/DO (2010), allocated to communities accord-
ing to project team's growth allocation model.
Turnagain Arm is not in project area. It is included so that area totals
will equal Municipality of Anchorage subtotal.
IV-40
[
[
[
c
[
[
[
[
[
E
.[
[
[
[
[
L
L
r-' '
.J L. J J
Table IV-13
DWELLING UNIT ALLOCATION WITH CROSSING
(Number of Dwelling Units)
2001 2010
Downtown Elmendorf Downtown Elmendorf
No-(~lid-Downtown (Mid-Elmendorf No-<md-Downtown (Mid-Elmendorf
Crossin2 Range) (High) Range) (Low) Crossing Ran2e) (High) ·Range) (Low)
MAT-SU BOROUGH ..
1. Point MacKenzie 369 +4,600 +5,440 +3,330 +3,010 600 +B,200 +9,720 +6,230 +5,630
2. Knik/Goose Bay 1,609 +1,930 +2,560 +l,lBO +940 2,700 +3,320 +4,390 +2,040 +1,640
3. Fish Creek 331 +1,220 +1,490 +1,130 +1,010 500 +i-, 950 +2,390 +1,B70 +1,660
4. Willow/Nancy Lake 1,299 +390 +690 +190 +60 2,000 +550 +1,010 +200 0
5. Big Lake/Houston 3,607 +650 +1,400 +270 -60 5,400 +720 +1,790 +100 -370
6. Wasilla/Fishhook 7,B46 -B60 +370 -600 -1,240 11,000 -2,460 -970 -1,B60 -2,660
7. Palmer/Sutton 6,642 -B50 +150 -5BO -1,120 9,700 -2,370 -1,110 -1,770 -2,500
B. Other Mat-Su 3,200 +20 0 -20 0 5,100 0 0 0 0
MAT-SU SUBTOTAL 24,903 +7,100 +12,100 +4,900 +2,600 37,000 +9,910 +17,220 +6,B10 +3,400
~ I 14UNICIPALITY OF If>. .... ANCHORAGE
9. Northeast 31,614 -1,200 -2,630 -B50 -590 35,100 -1,6BO -3,750 -1,1BO -775
10. Ship Creek 1,63B 0 0 0 0 l,BOO 0 0 0 0
11. Downtown 7B2 0 0 0 0 BOO 0 0 0 0
12. Northwest 23 t 134 -500 -2,150 -350 -420 24,700 -700 -3,060 -490 -550
13. Central 14,25B -1,200 -1,560 -BOO -340 17,400 -1,6BO -2,210 -1,110 -440
14. Sand Lake 11,1B4 -900 -1,270 -650 -250 12,700 -1,250 -1,B10 -900 -330
15. Ocean View 9,B77 -500 -590 -350 -BO 10,BOO -700 -B40 -490 -100
16. Hillside 13,953 -1,000 -1,170 -700 -250 15,300 -1,400 -1,660 .-970 -330
17. Eagle River 16,B70 -1,BOO -2,630 -1,200 -590 20,700 -2,500 -3,750 -1,670 -775
1B. Turnagain Arm 2,729 0 -100 0 -BO 3,BOO 0 -140 0 -100
'ANCHORAGE SUBTOTAL 126,039 -7,100 -12,100 -4,900 -2,600 143,100 -9,910 -17,220 -6,B10 -3,400
TOTAL 150,942 0 0 0 0 100,100 0 0 0 0
modeled; they reflect a middle range of residential allocation change and
incorporate the difference in accessibility afforded by the two alternative
crossing locations. They are considered the most likely growth scenarios.
Two additional scenarios developed by ISER, Elmendorf low and Downtown
high, were modeled to reflect the full range of residential relocation
activity and density which would be possible in the southern end of the
Mat-Su Borough.
Results of the 2001 modeling indicate Anchorage as a whole would have 2,600
to 12,100 fewer dwelling units (2 to 10 percent. less) with a Knik Arm
crossing than without a crossing. These units transferring to the Borough
would be equivalent to a 10 to 49 percent increase in Mat-Su dwelling units
compared to No-Crossing. Based on the mid-range forecasts, the Downtown
Project would generate about 45 percent greater impact than the Elmendorf
Project.
The allocation of year .2001 dwelling units to the communities (see
Figure III-3) within Anchorage and the Mat-Su Borough varied by growth
scenario, reflecting differences in methodology. Within Anchorage, the
mid-range forecasts generated by the project team model (based on
accessibility to jobs and available land carrying capacity) anticipate that
introduction of a cross~ng would slow dwelling unit growth principally in
the Northeast, Central, Sand Lake, Hillside, and Eagle River communities of
Anchorage, see Figure III-3. The high and low forecasts modeled by ISER
(based on ~vailable carrying capacity and residential density considera-
tions) indicate a similar pattern of impact, but the Northwest community
also would be in the principal impact category. Maximum impact would occur
in Eagle River under the Downtown high scenario; this community would have
16 percent fewer dwelling uni t:s than anticipated without a crossing-.
Within the Mat-Su Borough, 2001 forecasts indicate that principal impacts
would be in Point MacKenzie at the southern end of the Borough. This area
would attract 3,000 to 5,400 more dwelling units with a crossing than
without a crossing. The majority of these Point MacKenzie units would be
transferred from Anchorage, but there would also be a residential shift
from the Palmer/Wasilla· area to communi ties along the Houston Connector.
With the mid-range forecasts, the crossing impact on Palmer and Wasilla
would be relatively modest --8 to 13 percent fewer dwelling units in 2001
than without a crossing. The Downtown high scenario would reflect no shift
from the Palmer/Wasilla area. The Elmendorf low scenario would reflect a
greater shift from the Palmer/Wasil;J..a area to the southern end of the
Borough.
Estimates of urban growth impact in 2010 were extrapolated from 2001, based
on two percent per annum average regional growth and growth modeling to
allocate dwelling units within the region. Thus, the pattern of 2010
impact would remain generally the same as for 2001, although the magnitude
of impact would increase. By the year 2010, Anchorage as a whole would
have 3,400 to 12,400 fewer dwelling units (3 to 14 percent less) with a
crossing than without. For the Borough, this transfer would represent a 9
to 47 percent increase compared to the No-Crossing Alternative. The
Downtown Project would generate approximately 46 percent greater impact
than the Elmendorf Project.
IV-42
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
L
[
[
[
L
[
[
L
[
[
[
[
r,
L
Within Anchorage the greatest impact in 2010, as in 2001, would be on the
Eagle River community --a maximum 18 percent fewer dwelling units with the
Downtown high forecast. Within the Mat-Su Borough, the major impacts would
be at Point MacKenzie, which would receive 5,600 to 9, 700 dwelling units
more with a crossing than without. The Palmer/Wasilla area would receive
up to 26 percent less growth with a crossing.
A limited amount of residential-serving commercial development would
relocate within the Anchorage/Mat-Su region in response to (and in
proportion to) the dwelling unit allocation change. A conservative
residential-serving employment rate of 0.13 employees per dwelling unit was
applied to the dwelling unit forecasts shown in Table IV-13 to derive this
employment allocation change (see Table IV-14). Total current employment
rates are 0.53 employees per dwelling unit for the Mat-Su Borough, 0.35
employees per dwelling unit for Eagle River, and 1. 34 employees per
dwelling unit for Anchorage.
Table IV-14 (re-allocation of residential-serving employment only)
indicates that by the year 2001, approximately 300 to 1,600 fewer employees
would be in Anchorage with a crossing than without. By 2010, this impact
would increase to 400 to 2, 200 fewer employees. This would represent no
more than about one percent of Anchorage's total employment, and this
slight reduction in jobs would be spread throughout the Municipality. The
only exception would be in the Downtown/Ship Creek area, where ISER
estimates forecast employment would increase slightly; the crossing would
attract employment growth to the Ship Creek area that might have located
elsewhere in the Municipality. Within the Borough, employment impact would
be distributed in proportion to dwelling unit impacts forecast
employment would increase in Point MacKenzie and along the Houston
Connector; forecast employment would decrease in the Palmer/Wasilla area.
Redistribution of Region-Serving Employment Growth and Associated
Residences. An estimate was also developed for a broader range of
industrial and commercial activities to relocate or expand to the Mat-Su
Borough (instead of Anchorage) in response to a crossing. A panel of
experts in commercial/industrial real estate, finance, and market economics
assisted in developing this estimate.
The panel's forecast was based on the year 2001 with a Downtown Project,
mid-range allocation scenario, and assuming no rail service or port in
Point MacKenzie. Extrapolations were derived by the project team from
panel results for the year 2010, Downtown high, and both Elmendorf
scenarios. These estimates are presented in Table IV-15. They include the
residential-serving change shown in Table IV-14.
The panel predicted that the employment shift from Anchorage to the Borough
with the Downtown Project (mid-range) would be approximately 3,300 jobs in
the year 2001, which would represent a two percent reduction for Anchorage
and a 27 percent increase for the Mat-Su Borough. The employment transfer
would be less with an Elmendorf Project than with a Downtown Project owing
to the lower rate of residential development and the additional 16 minutes
travel time between the Borough and Anchorage. The range of forecasts,
shown in Table IV-15, would be from 1,200 to 5,600 fewer forecast jobs in
IV-43
Table IV-14
EMPLOYMENT ALLOCATION WITH CROSSING
(Number of Employees)
2001 2010
Downtown Elmendorf Downtown Elmendorf
No-(Mid-Downtown (Mid-Elmendorf No-(Mid-Downtown (Mid-Elmendorf
Crossinc;z Ranc;zel (Hic;zhl Ranc;zel (Low) Crossinc;z Range) (High) Ranc;zel (Low)
MAT-SU BOROUGH
1. Point MacKenzie 210 +600 +710 +430 +390 400 +1,070 +1,260 +810 +730
2. Knik/Goose Bay 917 +250 +330 +150 +120 1,400 +.430 +570 +270 +210
3. Fish Creek 189 +160 +190 +150 +130 300 +250 +310 +240 +210
4. Willow/Nancy Lake 740 +50 +90 +25 +10 1,100 +70 +130 +30 +10
5. Big Lake/Houston 2,055 +80 +180 +40 -10 2,900 +90 +230 +10 -50
6. Wasilla/Fishhook 4,471 -110 +50 -80 -160 5,800 -320 -130 -240 -350
7. Palmer/Sutton 3,785 -110 +20 -75 -160 500 -310 -140 -230 -320
a. Other Mat-Su 1,800 0 0 0 0 2,900 0 0 0 0
H MAT-SU SUBTOTAL 12,367 +920 +1,570 +640 +340 15,300 <l +1,280 +2,230 +890 +440
I
~
~
HUNICIPALITY OF
ANCHORAGE
9. Northeast 21,878 -ao -140 -60 -30 24,847 -110 -200 -80 -40
10. Ship Creek 24,494 +40 +70 +30 +10 27,818 +60 +100 +40 +10
11. Downtown 17,678 +30 +50 +20 +10 20,077 +40 +70 +30 +10
12. Northwest 44,195 -180 -300 -120 -60 50,192 -250 -430 -170 -70
13. Central 19,249 -260 -440 -190 -100 21,861 -360 -620 -265 -130
14. Sand Lake 7,467 -10 -20 -10 -10 8,480 -10 -30 ~1o -10
15. Ocean View 14,797 -150 -260 -100 -50 • 16,.805 -210 -370 -140 -70
16. Hillside 2,225 -30 -50 -20 -10 2,527 -40 -70 -30 -10
17. Eagle River 5,936 -280 -480 -190 -100 6,742 -400 -680 -265 -130
18. Turnagain Arm 973 0 0 0 0 1,105 0 0 0 0
ANCHORAGE SUBTOTAL 158,892 -920 -1,570 -640 -340 180,454 -1,280 -2,230 -890 -440
TOTAL 171,259 0 0 0 0 195,754 0 0 0 0
rn
r---1 t I ..i
Table IV-15
REGION-SERVING EMPLOYMENT GROWTH SHIFT FROM
ANCHORAGE WITH CROSSING, BY SECTOR
(Number of Employees)
2001 2010
Downtown Elmendorf Downtown Elmendorf
Standard Industrial No-(Mid-Downtown (Mid-Elmendorf No-(Mid-Downtown (~lid-
Classification Crossing Range) (High) Range) (Low) Crossin2: Range) (High) Ran2el
Agricultural, Forestry,
and Fisheries 500 -32 -55 -22 -12 570 -35 -63 -25
Mining 6,030 -39 -67 -30 -14 6,850 ~44 -77 -31
Manufacturing 4,200 -297 -507 -210 -110 4, 770 -337 -587 -234
Construction 7,800 -509 -869 -355 -188 8,860 -sao -1,007 -402
Transportation and
Public Utili ties 14,700 -290 -495 -202 -107 16,690 -330 -575 -229
Wholesale Trade Durable
Goods 6,000 -187 -319 -130 -69 6,810 -212 -369 -147
1 Wholesale Trade Non-
Durable Goods 3,900 -105 -179 -73 -39 4,430 -120 -209 -83
.&::. Retail Trade 32,600 -850 -1,450 -590 -.314 37,020 ~965 -1,680 -671
lJl Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate 11,900 -237 -402 -165 -88 13,510 -270 -469 -187
Services 38,300 -549 -937 -380 -203 43,500 -624 -1,088 -434
Government 40,800 -205 -350 -143 -76 46,340 -233 -406 -162
TOTAL 166,730 -3,300 -5,630 -2,300 -1,220 189,350 -3,750 -6,530 -2,605
NO'l'E
Number of employees is based on panel estimates of total employment transfer to Mat-Su for 2001, Downtown Project,
and mid-range growth allocation scenario1 includes residential-serving employment presented in Table IV-14.
No-Crossing Anchorage employment is included for comparison only1 no shift to Borough with No-Crossing Alternative.
Elmendorf
(Low)
-12
-15
-120
-200
-113
-73
-40
-332
-90
-215
-80
-1,290
J I
J
Anchorage (a maximum three percent reduction) and up to a 46 percent'
increase in the Borough.
The year 2010 forecasts would range from 1,300 to 6,500 Anchorage jobs
transferred (reduction up to three percent), with an increase of from eight
percent to 43 percent in the Borough.
Local residential-serving jobs (retail, banking, personal services, etc.)
would be about one-half of the total estimated transfer to the Mat-Su
Borough, approximately 1.75 times the assumption in the geographic
allocation alone (Table IV-14). The balance of the transfer would be in
industries that would benefit from a Borough location, particularly from
the availability of large, less expensive sites in proximity to Anchorage
markets and transportation. Industries with the highest propensity to
transfer would be:
0
0
0
0
0
Horticultural-(greenhouses, nurseries)
Sand and gravel quarrying
Concrete and metal fabrication
Trucking and warehousing
Heavy construction
Industries strongly linked to rail transport and municipal utilities would
be the least likely to transfer.
In order to assess the full impact of this employment transfer, the project
team estimated the number of dwelling units associated with relocating
employment, and allocated them to communities in accordance with the team's
growth allocation model. This allocation is presented in Table IV-16.
Dwelling units · were estimated on the basis of an overall regional
multiplier of 1.13 jobs per dwelling unit in 2001, and 1.09 jobs per
dwelling unit in 2010. The change over time would reflect an increase in
smaller (one and two-person) households. The total growth shift would
range from 800 to 3,600 Anchorage households (2001) relocated to the Mat-Su
Borough, principally to Point MacKenzie and along the Houston Corridor.
This transfer would represent up to a three percent decrease in forecast
Anchorage dwelling units in addition to the residential growth
re-allocation presented in Table IV-13 for a total transfer of as much as
13 percent. The total transfer would increase forecast Borough employment
by 63 percent. Year 2010 forecasts would be proportionately higher,
indicating from 800 to 3,900 households relocating to the Borough (chiefly
to Point MacKenzie), for a total transfer of up to 15 percent of Anchorage
dwelling units. The increase in the Borough would range up to 57 percent.
Induced Employment. The project team estimated induced employment from two
perspectives. The first was employment based on specific industrial
development proposals and opportunities for area growth which would have
little or no chance of occurring by 2001 without a crossing. The second
was the added residential and infrastructure construction employment
which would be associated with crossing-induced changes in residential
[
[
c
r
L
[
[
[
[
[
[
c
[
r---,
l J
J
Table IV-16
ALLOCATION OF DWELLING UNITS RESULTING FROM
REGION-SERVING EMPLOYMENT GROWTH ~HIFT
(Number of Dwelling Units)
2001 2010
Downtown Elmendorf Downtown Elmendorf
No-(Mid-Downtown (Mid-Elmendorf No-(Mid-Downtown (Nid-Elmendorf
Crossing Range) (High) Range) (Low) Crossin2 Range) (High) Range) (Low)
MAT-SU BOROUGH
1. Point MacKenzie 369 +1,440 +1,620 +1,000 +900 600 +1,670 +2,210 +1,440 +1,290
2. Knik/Goose Bay 1,609 +510 +760 +350 +290 2, 700. +760 +1,000 +460 +380
3. Fish Creek 331 +460 +440 +340 +310 500 +450 +540 +430 +360
4. Willow/Nancy Lake 1,299 +60 +200 +60 +20 2,000 +130 +240 +50 0
5. Big Lake/Houston 3,607 +120 +420 -80 -20 5,400 +160 +410 +30 -so
6. \~asilla/Fish Hook 7,646 -260 +110 -160 -380 11,000 -560 -220 -430 -610
7. Palmer/Sutton 6,642 -250 +40 -170 -340 9,700 -540 -240 -410 -580
a. Other Mat-Su 3,200 -10 0 -10 0 5,100 0 0 0 0
H MAT-SU SUBTOTAL 24,903 +2,110 +3,590 +1,470 +780 37,000 H,270 +3,940 +1,570 +780 <l
I
ol::> MUNICIPALITY OF
-....1 ANCHORAGE
9. Northeast 31,614 -360 -780 -250 -180 35,100 -390 -860 -260 -180
10. Ship Creek 1,638 0 0 0 0 1,800 0 0 0 0
11. Downtown 782 0 0 0 0 600 0 0 0 0
12. Northwest 23,134 -140 -640 -110 -130 24,700 -160 -700 -110 -130
13. Central 14,258 -360 -460 -240 -110 17,400 -390 -510 -260 -110
14. Sand Lake 11,184 -270 -370 -190 -70 12,700 -280 -410 -220 -70
15. Ocean View 9,877 -140 -170 -110 -20 10,800 -160 -190 -110 -20
16. Hillside 13,953 -300 -350 -210 -70 15,300 -320 -380 -220 -70
17. Eagle River 16,670 -540 -780 -360 -180 20,700 -570 -860 -390 -180
16. Turnagain Arm 2, 729 0 -40 0 -20 3,800 0 -30 0 -20
ANCHORAGE SUBTOTAL 126,039 -2,110 -3,590 -1,470 -780 143,100 -2,270 -3,940 -1,570 -760
TOTAL 150,942 180,100
NOTE
Dwelling units were calculated from region-serving employment (excluding the amount presented in Table IV-14) divided by
either 1.13 (2001) or 1.09 (2010) jobs/dwelling unfts.
development costs. (These housing market impacts are discussed in detail
under "Housing Impacts", below.)
Induced Industrial Employment: Several land-extensive industrial
activities have been proposed within the region. These activities
chiefly would involve development of Mat-Su Borough natural resources,
either for export to greater Alaska and elsewhere or to substitute for
current imports. The feasibility of such proposals would depend in
part upon improved access attributable to a crossing. Other primary
factors would include availability of capital and raw materials,
access to transportation, and in several instances, prior development
of related industrial or power projects.
The project team attempted to quantify only that proportion of the
employment which would be strictly attributable to a crossing. To
assist in this process, the panel of experts described earlier was
used. The panel assisted in estimating the probability of the
industrial developments~ith and without a crossing.
Table IV-17 summarizes forecast employment for each major industry. A
total of 177 jobs would be directly attributable to a crossing; total
employment would be 443 jobs, using a multiplier of 2.5. These jobs
would be distributed primarily over four categories: agricultural-
related, mining, manufacturing, and tourism. Potential industrial
projects were obtained from prior studies for the Borough (NORTEC,
March 1981; DOWL Engineers, February 1983); for the Alaska Department
of Natural Resources and the Port of Anchorage (TAMS Engineers, 1983);
for the Dow-Shell Group, (September 9, 1981); and for Yukon-Pacific
(Mead Treadwell, Corporate Secretary, Personal Communication).
Agricultural projects would include more extensive use of Point
MacKenzie agricultural lands, additional fish processing, timber
harvesting and processing, port facilities for fertilizer, and
development of the Fish Creek Agricultural project. This latter
proposal is currently pending appropriation of funds for access roads.
In general, crossing-provided accessibility to Anchorage would enhance
agriculture-related development. The 50 jobs which would be
attributed to the crossing would be part of a maximum of 350 agricul-
ture and related jobs that could possibly occur in the region by 2001.
Crossing-enhanced accessibility also would increase the development
potential for mining, chiefly sand and gravel and Beluga coal. Some
33 jobs of 225 forecast mining jobs would be attributed"directly to
crossing completion (83 total jobs with multiplier).
Development of land~extensi ve manufacturing plants, such as for
cement, concrete products, millwork and other wood products, and metal
fabrication, would be enhanced by crossing accessibility to large
tracts of low-cost lands in the Mat-Su Borough. Since many of these
employment activities also would be capital-intensive, however, the
impact attributable to a crossing would be somewhat limited. About 36
jobs of a total 290 manufacturing jobs which would be likely to occur
IV-48
[
r
L
[
r
L
L
[
r L
L
[
L
[
L
L
Table IV-17
INDUSTRIAL SECTOR INDUCED EMPLOYMENT, 2001
(Number of Employees)
Industry/Sector
Agricultural-Related
Fish Creek Agricultural Project, Point
MacKenzie Agricultural Project, agri-
cultural processing, timber harvesting
and ·processing, fertilizer, fish
processing
Mining
Sand and gravel and Beluga coal
Manufacturing
Concrete products and cement plant,
wood products manufacturing, metal
fabrication, foundry
Oil and Gas Related
Port at Point MacKenzie
Gas pipeline and pump stations, LNG
plant and feedstocks, petro-chemical
plant
Tourism
TOTALS
NOTES
Direct Induced
Employment
50
33
36
0
0
58
177
Total Induced
Employment
125
83
90
0
0
145
443
Total induced employment is 2.5 times direct.induced employm~nt to account for jobs created to
provide goods and services demanded by the induced industries.
Mining excludes employment at Beluga immediately outside Mat-su Borough.
There is no net regional increase for a port at Point MacKenzie because employment is assumed
to develop at Seward without a crossing.
j
in the region by 2001 would be directly attributable to crossing-
enhanced development; total manufacturing employment was calculated at
90 jobs {36 times the 2.5 multiplier) attributable to a crossing.
Finally, crossing-enhanced accessibility and forecast growth would
contribute to development of added recreational and tourist-related
businesses {motels, lodges, boat harbors, dude ranches, restaurants,
etc.). Some 58 jobs of an estimated 200 recreation and tourist-
related jobs which possibly could occur in the region by 2001 would be
directly attributable to crossing-enhanced development; total future
tourist-related employment attributed to a crossing would be 145 jobso
Development of oil and gas-related activities, such as an LNG plant
and feedstocks, a petrochemical plant, and expansion of the Port of
Anchorage at Point MacKenzie, were also considered. The panel and
project team ultimately rejected the possibility that a crossing would
appreciably enhance the development of either a major petrochemical
plant or other oil and gas-related activitieso Moreover, the
estimated direct employment of such facilities was so large that even
a very low probability of cross~ng-induced development would yield a
substantial employment impact. For these reasons, it was decided to
exclude oil and gas-related jobs from estimated crossing-induced
employment.
In contrast, since many export industries would depend upon expanded
port facilities, development of a port at Point MacKenzie, · to the
extent'its development would be aided by a crossing, was included in
the estimates of crossing-enhanced development for specific
industries. Port employment was not considered attributable to a
crossing, since expansion likely would take place at Seward or
elsewhere in Southcentral Alaska by 2001 without a crossing.
Other assumptions governing the estimates of crossing-induced employ-
ment included the absence of rail facilities either in place or on the
cros~ing itself. Employment estimates previously described were
derived for the region in 2001, projected to 2010, and allocated to
the Borough and Anchorage bowl based on project team residential
allocation modeling. These projections were added to estimates of
crossing-induced residential construction and infrastructure
employment, discussed next, to yield total induced employment~
Induced Residential and Infrastructure Construction Employment: The
housing market analysis, described in "Housing Impacts", shows that
decreases in residential development cost as a result of a Knik Arm
Crossing would allow residents to purchase larger homes on larger lots
than without a crossing. The project team estimated the employment
impacts of increased residential and infrastrUcture construction
caused by the demand for larger units and lots as an effect of a
crossing. The estimate was based on lot size and dwelling unit size
info:rm.ation and on cost of construction and site preparation in
individual communities. Estimated person-years of employment were
then calculated and converted to full-time annual equivalents. Con-
struction costs were converted to person-years based on Goldsmith
IV-50
[
L
r
[
[
.r
L
.~l'_
-
~-
L
[
[
L
l _,_
]
--~
j
0
--,
J
n l ,_
:.-"'
-1 J
J
B
"J]
,_
"j
I I
._)
J
and Rowe (April 1983) • Total employment was estimated from direct
employment using a multiplier of 2.5. This estimate included direct
construction employment, plus induced employment due to local produc-
tion of construction materials as well as goods and services demanded
by those earning income in these activities.
The effects of induced construction employment would be small, as
shown by the full-time annual equivalent jobs below:
2001
2010
Direct Employment
14
17
Total Employment
35
43
Total Induced Employment: Table IV-18 presents total crossing-
induced employment (industrial/tourism and residential construction
and infrastructure) and dwelling units, distributed to communities in
proportion to the ISER/project team growth allocation forecasts and
allocation model. Projected households associated with these induced
jobs were calculated at 1.13 jobs/dwelling unit (2001) and 1.09
jobs/dwelling unit (2010). The procedure used here underestima~ed the
portion of induced employment that would be in the Borough by perhaps .
150 to 200 employees and correspondingly overestimated the portion of
induced employment in Anchorage. A small under (over) estimate of
Mat-St;l (Anchorage) dwelling units also could be expected from the
allocation procedure used here. This lack of precision in estimating
crossing-induced employment would not be significant because induced
employment would compose only five to 10 percent of total Point
MacKenzie employment.
Summary of Effects on Economic Development. Table IV-19 presents a summary
of the impacts of the Crossing Alternatives in terms of relocated and
induced employment. The major impact would be in the shift of new
employment out of the Anchorage bowl and into the Point MacKenzie and Parks
Highway-south areas of the Mat-Su Borough. A smaller impact also would be
felt in the shift of activities from Palmer/Wasilla to the southern
Borough. Induced development (in the form of added industrial and
construction employment and direct project employment) would be small in
comparison to the estimated employment transfer, and thus would have little
effect on the general pattern of urban development.
From 1,300 to 5,700 additional jobs would occur in the Mat-Su Borough (an
increase of from nine percent to 40 percent) by 2001, and between 1,300 and
6,600 added jobs would be forecast by 2010. The maximum impact would be
with the Downtown Project, high growth allocation scenario. The Point
MacKenzie area would receive the greatest single increment, with from 1,400
to 2,500 added jobs projected by 2001, and from 2,100 to 3,700 shifted and
new jobs by 2010.
The projected reductions in future Anchorage employment would be small when
considered in the context of regional growth and expansion of Anchorage's
market area. The employment transfer from Anchorage to Mat-Su under the
highest scenario, Downtown Project would be only four percent. Moreover,
IV-51
1
lJl
N
EMPLOYMENT
(Number of employees)
Mat-Su Borough
Municipality of
Anchorage
• Anchorage Bowl
o Eagle River
o Turnagain Arm
MOA TOTAL
TOTAL
DI:/ELLING UNITS
No-
Crossing
NA
NA
NA
(Number of Dwelling Units)
Mat-su Borough NA
Municipality of
Anchorage
o Anchorage Bowl
o Eagle River
o Turnagain Arm
MOA TOTAL
TOTAL
NOTES
NA
NA
Table IV-18
ALLOCATION OF INDUCED EMPLOYMENT AND DWELLING UNITS
Downtown
(Mid
Range)
38
422
15
3
440
478
34
373
13
3
389
423
2001
Downtown
(High)
39
421
15
3
439
478
35
373
12
3
388
423
Elmendorf
(Mid-
Range)
36
424
15
3
442
478
32
375
13
3
391
423
Elmendorf
(Low)
424
16
3
443
478
31
375
14
3
392
423
No-
Crossing
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Downtown
(Mid-
Range)
46
480
17
3
500
546
42
440
16
3
459
501
2010
Downtown
(High)
49
477
17
3
497
546
45
438
15
3
456
501
Elmendorf
(Mid-
Range)
45
480
18
3
501
546
41
440
17
3
460
501
Elmendorf
(Low)
44
480
19
3
502
546
40
440
18
3
461
501
Total employment is estimated at 2.5 x direct employment. Dwelling units are estimated at either 1.13 (2001) or 1.09
(2010) jobs. Dwelling units are allocated to communities according to ISER/project team growth shift forecasts and alloca-
tion model.
NA signifies Not Applicable.
Turnagain Arm is not in project area. It is included for clarity so area subtotals would equal Municipality •of Anchorage
total.
r ., [___} • 1 c:;L ~ , [__,~-·~· 'LJ CJ c---J (,;-. I _..,.., r .... _,_ .... -o ,...___,.-·' .1 <.~ ~} .~_] ' ....... ___ )
1..-' '---,-· ' ' L---' '----" ' . ' ~ ~ ""-::-' ·,~
Table IV-19
SUMMARY OF EMPLOYMENT CHANGES WITH CROSSING
(Number of Employees)
2001 2010
Downtown Elmendorf Downtown Elmendorf
No-(Mid-Downtown (Mid-Elmendorf No-(Mid-Downtown (Mid-Elmendorf
Crossin2 Range) (Hi2h) Range) (Low) Crossin2 Ran2el (High) Range) (Low)
Mat-Su Borou2h
Point MacKenzie 210 +2,153 1+2,543 +1,552 +1,401 403 +3,~44 +3,695 +2,363 +2,143
Big Lake/Houston/
Knik/Goose Bay 3,909 +1,945 +2,855 +1,321 +912 5, 720 +2,460 +3,652 +1,630 +1,139
Palmer/Wasilla 8,289 -:141 +284 -539 -1,059 10,900 -1,832 -772 -1,353 -1,953
Other Mat-Su 1,808 +8 +8 +6 +5 2,913 +9 +9 ~ +9
1 Mat-Su Subtotal 14,216 +3,359 +5,690 +2,340 +1,259 19,936 +3,781 +6,584 +2,649 +1,338
Ul Municiealiti of w Anchorage
North Anchorage 135,556 -1,108 -2,219 -771 -221 153,721 -1,372 -2,799 -861 -201
South Anchorage 77 -539 -1,039 -378 -168 19,337 -682 -1,223 -441 -171
Eagle River 20 -956 -1,697 -663 -342 6,762 -1,151 -1,971 -750 -359
Turnagain Arm 4 -4 -4 -3 -3 1,108 -3 -3 -3 -3
Anchorage Subtotal 135,657 -2,607 -4,959 -1,815 -734 180,928 -3,208 -5,996 -2,055 -734
TOTAL 149,873 +752 +731 +525 +525 200,864 +573 +588 +594 +604
NOTES
North Anchorage includes Northeast, Ship Creek, Downtown, and Northwest communities, see Figure III-3. South Anchorage in-
eludes Central, Sand Lake, Ocean View, and Hillside communities.
the transfer would be from projected future emploYJ;D.ent; no reductions in
present employment levels would occur as a result of a crossing.
Similar qualifications should be applied to the shifts that would occur
from the Palmer/Wasilla areas. That is, the forecast employment shift to
Point MacKenzie and other areas south of the Parks Highway would be from
future growth. No reductions in present employment would occur as a result
of a crossing. An increasing percentage of business customers would come
from the rapidly growing local market, and a declining percentage from
recreational and other through traffic. Specific businesses might relocate
southward in response to shifting growth, however Wasilla would remain the
Borough's chief population center, and Palmer would grow as the seat of
Borough government. Forecast growth rates in the Palmer/Wasilla area
between 2001 and 2010 would be reduced only modestly by crossing-induced
shifts in growth.
Table IV-20 presents a summary of the change in regional dwelling units
caused by crossing-enhanced accessibility, employment transfer, and induced
jobs. The allocation of dwelling units among communities reflects the
employment pattern in accordance with the ISER/project team forecasts and
the allocation model.
Housing Development Impacts. Crossing enhanced accessibility to a greater
supply of lower-cost land in the Mat-Su Borough would increase housing
developmen~ opportunities in the Anchorage/Mat-Su region. The added land
supply wou~d reduce housing development pressure in the Anchorage bowl and
other areas close -to central Anchorage, and would allow for a slower rate
of increase in land and housing prices than without a crossing. Lower
dwelli~g unit prices would permit households in the project area to
purchase or rent larger dwellings on larger lots without increasing their
total housing cost. These benefits would vary only modestly among the four
Crossing Alternatives/growth scenarios.
The impact of a crossing was forecast using a basic model of households'
and housing developers' behavior in response to variations in the prices of
land and structures. The model used two facts: (1) when housing
(combinations of land and structure) becomes less expensive relative to
other goods and services, people buy or rent more of it, and {2) when land
becomes less costly relative to the cost of dwellings, people will place a
given size dwelling on a larger lot (similarly, if land costs rise , less
land will. be used with a given size dwelling). The analysis focused on
five geographic areas: the Anchorage bowl, Eagle River, Point. MacKenzie,
Wasilla/Palmer, and Big Lake/Houston/Knik/Goose Bay. The model drew on
estimates of household and developer responses to cost and price changes
previously developed in empirical studies in many cities throughout the
United States. The model also incorporated specific Anchorage/Mat-Su
information about construction costs and land prices, the size of dwellings
and lots typically purchased currently, the amounts households spent on
housing, and past cost and price changes. It also drew on the estimates of
household growth and allocation just described in this section.
IV-54
9 J
]
J
"1
j
. ,:_ l ; i
~.1
J
n
'l
J
1
J
r--7:: __ .. , .. ,..
Table IV-20
SUMMARY OF DWELLING UNIT CHANGES WITH CROSSING
(Number of Dwelling Units)
2001 2010
Downtown Elmendorf Downtown Elmendorf
No-(Mid-Downtown (Mid-Elmendorf No-(Mid-Downtown (Mid-Elmendorf
Crossing Range) (High) . Range) (Low) Crossing Range) (High) Range) (Low)
·Mat-Su Borough
Point MacKenzie 377 +6,050 +7,070 +4,330 +3,910 610 +w,o8o +11,940 +7,680 +6,930 '
Big Lake/Houston/
Knik/Gobse Bay 6,859 +5,410 +7,990 +3,610 +2,560 10,623 +8,060 +11, 790 +5,200 +3,630
Palmer/Wasilla 14,507 -2,190 +710 -1,510 -3,060 20,712 -5,910 -2,520 -4,450 -6,330
Other Mat-Su 3,206 +20 +10 -20 +10 5,107 +10 +10 0 0
H Mat-Su Subtotal 24,949 +9,290 +15, 780 +6,410 +3,420 37,052 +12,240 +21,220 +8,430 +4,230 <l I
l11
l11 MuniciEalit:t: of
Anchorage
North Anchorage 82,934 -4,480 -9,460 -3,110 -1,760 92,768 -6,160 -12,940 -4,150 -2,210
South Anchorage 23,965 -1,850 -2,160 -1,280 -330 92,672 -2,470 -2,970 -1,690 -420
Eagle River 16,884 -2,300 '-3,370 -1,540 -750 20,705 -3,050 -4,590 -2,040 -930
Turnagain Arm 2,731 +10 -130 0 ---· -100 3,801 0 -170 0 -120
Anchorage Subtotal 126,514 -8,620 -15,120 -5,930 -2,940 209,946 -11,680 -20,670 -7,880 -3,680
TOTAL 151,463 +670 +660 +480 +480 246,998 +560 +550 +550 +550
NOTES
North Anchorage includes Northeast, Ship Creek, Downtown, and Northwest communities, see Figure III-3. South Anchorage in-
eludes Central, Sand Lake, Ocean View, and Hillside communities.
The following key assumptions were made, in part based on the above kinds
of information:
0
0
0
0
0
Household income would rise at about the same rate as inflation over
the analysis period.
Total household spending on housing would stay about the same when
housing prices change. That is, people would buy ·or rent a larger
dwelling/land combination if housing prices decrease (just enough
larger to offset the price decline). This corresponds, in economists'
terms, to a price elasticity of demand for housing of -1, which
reasonably reflects the empirical studies noted in the previous
paragraph.
The cost of construction of dwellings, in general, would increase at
the inflation rate (and so be unchanged in constant dollars).
Neither a significant number of existing dwellings would be demolished
nor would land be redeveloped at changed densities (in response to
housing price changes).
Households and developers would be highly responsive to shifts in land
and structural prices in choosing how much land to combine with a
given size dwelling. In particular, in economists' terms, an
elast~city of substitution between land and structure of • 75 was
assumed, reflecting the empirical studies.
Between 1983 and 2001, with No-Crossing, demands for housing from growing
numbers of households would continu~ to cause prices of developed land in
the Anchorage bowl and Eagle River areas to increase faster than inflation,
though less rapidly than in the past decade because of slower expected
population growth. For the 1983 to 2001 period, the housing model
indicated a 25 percent real increase would occur in Anchorage bowl land
prices (after eliminating the effects of inflation) and there would be a 30
percent-real increase in Eagle River prices in the absence of a crossing.
These are total increases over the 18 years and represent 1975 to 1983
trends extrapolated to 2001 and dampened to reflect a relatively slower
growth rate forecast in the Anchorage bowl. In the Mat-Su Borough, land
prices would increase at the inflation rate.
The results of household and developer responses to these changing
circumstances, which would be due to a crossing, are shown in Table IV-21.
In 2001 with No-Crossing, housing added in the Anchorage bowl and Eagle
River to serve population growth would be slightly smaller in size, and
each dwelling unit would have significantly less land, compared to 1983.
No such change would occur in the Mat-Su Borough (because land and
construction costs would not change in real terms).
A crossing would reduce Anchorage bowl land prices by 10 percent and Eagle
River land prices by· 15 percent in 2001, compared to No-Crossing. That
means that between 1983 and 2001 only about half of these areas' expected
increase in land prices (in excess of inflation) with no crossing would
IV-56
[
r\
L
L
L
['
r
t
L
L
L
H <: I
U1
..J
l __ TJ t---,I'
lJ -...:... ,[ l.i t .... : . J '"\ .. J Q.l
Table IV-21
HOUSING IMPACT, 2001
Size of Lot (sq. ft.) Size of Dwelling Unit (sq. ft.)
2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
1983 No ... crossing Crossing Change 1983 No-Crossing Crossing Change ---
Anchorage Bowl 4,060 3,740 4,060 +8% 915 900 910 +1%
Eagle River 5,470 4,500 5,120 +14% 930 915 930 +1%
Point MacKenzie 19,600 19,600 5,120 -74% 1,650. 1,650 930 -44%
Wasilla/Palmer 19,600 19,600 19,600 0% 1,650 1,650 1,650 0%
Big Lake/Houston/Knik/
Goose Bay 19,600 19,600 19,600 0% 1,650 1,650 1,650 0%
Total (weighted) 7,480 8,390 +12% 1,070 1,110 +3%
NOTES
Sizes shown reflect a mix of single family, multi-family/condominium and multifamily rental units.
Sizes with a Crossing assume the Downtown mid-range scenario; impact of an Elmendorf Crossing would be less due
to less dwelling unit shift.
Source: Housing model based on: (1) 1975-83 trends extrapolated to 2001, (2) dampening of historic price
increases of land in areas with slower dwelling unit growth rate. Estimated change in price of de-
veloped land with a Crossing: -10% in Anchorage Bowl; -15% in Eagle River; Point Mackenzie increasing
to Eagle River; no change in Palmer/Wasilla or Big Lake/Houston/Knik.
occur with a crossing (60 percent for Anchorage bowl, 50 percent for Eagle
River). In reaching these conclusions, a range of land price assumptions
was explored. Higher and lower land prices generally would correspond to
higher and lower amounts of household location-shifting in response to a
Crossing Alternative. Point MacKenzie land prices would increase to Eagle
River levels as a result of comparable travel times given a crossing.
Point MacKenzie's initially lower construction costs would increase to
Anchorage bowl and Eagle River levels, as similar higher density construc-
tion took place. Wasilla/ Palmer and Parks Highway south land prices would
not be affected by a crossing.
In the Anchorage bowl and Eagle River areas, the quantity of land per
(newly built) dwelling would increase significantly with a crossing. This
largely would offset the otherwise continuing economic pressure for smaller
lots shown for No-Crossing. The small decreases in dwelling size expected
between 1983 and 2001 for No-Crossing in the Anchorage bowl and Eagle River
also would be offset if a crossing were built. In Point MacKenzie,
dwelling and lot sizes would decrease sharply compared to No-Crossing in
response to rapidly rising raw land, infrastructure, and construction costs
that would occur as travel time to Anchorage would decrease. In the rest of
the Mat-Su Borough, the housing situation would be essentially unchanged.
The average regional dwelling unit would be slightly larger and on
substantially more land with a crossing.
A comparable analysis was performed to estimate the impacts of a crossing
for the year 2010. Assumptions were the same as for 2001, except that
Anchorage bowl and Eagle River land prices were assumed to grow more slowly
from 2001 to 2010 than earlier, as rates of population growth currently
forecast for the area further slowed. The results are shown in Table
IV-22. Crossing .impact on lot si~e would be slightly greater in 2010 than
in 2001, while impact on dwelling unit size would be substantially the same
in both years.
To test the sensitivity of housing impacts to the number of households
which would relocate in response to a crossing, a steeper decline· in
Anchorage bowl and Eagle River land prices was tested. In this testing, it
was found that there would be housing benefits, i.e., there would be an
opportunity for the average resident to purchase a larger lot and house
with a given budget. Notably, housing impacts would not be very sensitive
to growth shift assumptions.
Land Use Plans
Table IV-23 describes the impact of the alternatives under consideration on
current land use plans including comprehensive development plans, coastal
zone management plans, and resource development plans. Only aspects of the
plans that would be affected by the alternatives are addressed. All plans
were underway or complete before the State Legislature authorized the
current analysis of a Knik Arm Crossing. Consequently a crossing was not
included as an assumption in the plans~ althou-gh several discuss the
possibility. Thus, the No-Action Alternative would be compatible with all
of the land use plans.
IV-58
r
r
r ~ ..
t
c
f.\
r t
c
r:
L
[-.-,•
H
f
U1 w
r-. -1 [ J
Table IV-22
HOUSING IMPACT, 2010
Size of Lot (sq. ft.) Size of Dwelling Unit (sq. ft.)
2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010
1983 No-:-Crossing Crossing Change 1983 No-Crossing Crossing Change
Anchorage 4,060 3,210 3,530 . +10% 915 900 910 +1%
Eagle River 5,470 4,210 4,840 +15% 930 910 920 +1%
Point MacKenzie 19,600 19,600 4,900 -75% 1,650 1,650 925 -44%
Wasilla/Palmer 19,600 19,600 19,600 0% 1,650 1,650 1,650 0%
Big Lake/Houston/Knik/
Goose Bay 19,600 19,600 19,600 0% 1,650 1,650 1,650 0%
Total (weighted) 9,835 11,170 +14% 1,190 1,240 +4%
NOTES
Average lot and dwelling unit size~ reflects a mix of single-family, multi-family/condominium and multi-family
rental units.
Reflects Downtown mid-range scenario, impact of an Elmendorf crossing would be less due to reduced impact on
dwelling unit shift within the region.
Source: Housing model based on: (1) 1975 to 1983 trends extrapolated to 2010~ (2) dampening of historic price
increases of land in areas with dwelling unit growth rate slower than historic rate. Estimated
change in price of developed land with a Crossing: -10% in Anchorage Bowl, -15% in Eagle River7 Point
MacKenzie increasing to Eagle River, no change in Palmer/Wasilla or Big Lake/Houston/Knik/Goose Bay.
Table IV-.23
COMPATIBILITY WITH LAND USE PLANS
No-Crossing Alternatives Crossing Alternati~es
Plan No-Action
Anchorage Bowl Com-No Impact.
prehensive Develop-
ment Plan (revision)
Glenn/Parks
Improvement
No Impact.
Anchorage CBD Com-No Impact. No Impact.
prehensive Develop-
ment Plan
Port of Anchorage
Marketing and
Development Plan,
Phase II
Anchorage Coastal
Zone Management
Plan
No Impact. No Impact.
No Impact. No Impact.
r-,-,
' 1, ~'
~
l
Hovercraft
Supports mass
transit. See
"Public Trans-
portation".
No! Impact.
No Impact.
Landing site is
consistent with
Port of Anchorage
Area Meriting
Special Attention
(AMSA) designated
waterfront use1
consistent with
Alaska Coastal
Zone Management
Program.
Downtown Project
The rate of development of the bowl
would be slowed. Planned develop-
ment patterns would not be affected,
however housing densities would de-
cxease. Would reinforce develop-
ment of downtown as a multi-use
center. Would reduce use of mass
transit (see "Public Transporta-
tion") •
Would reinforce infill development.
Impact on view fro~ proposed ·
Anchorage Historic Development
Project for Quyana Park and from
proposed "view walk" park at lrd
Avenue and H Street would be
insignificant because character
of existing view would not change.
Would support development of com-
plementary port facility for bulk
materials At Point ~lacKenzier would
eliminate likely need for Muni-
cipality to build access to Fire
Island for development of bulk
materials facility. Direct ramps
between port and points north
would not affect plans for site
or recreational access to shore-
line.
Crosses Port of Anchorage AMSA1
elevated roadway is consistent with
the designated industrial water-
front use to the maximum extent
practicable.
Elmendorf Project
The impact would be similar to Down-
Project, although less significant
because of smaller growth shift to
Borough.
No Impact.
Same as Downtown, except new access
north not provided.
No Impact.
,,.•.
l
...
Plan
I .,
l.-,,__/
Anchorage Wetlands
Management Plan
(revision),
Coastal Scenic
Resources and Pub-
lie Access Plan
· Coastal Trail
Plan: ShiE
Creek to
Eklutna
Eagle River-
Chuqiak-Eklutna
Comprehensive
Plan
i I ,. ' L .i.':r J u )
Table IV.-23 (continued)
COMPATIBILITY Wl'l'll LAND USE PLANS
No-Crossing Alternatives Crossing Alternatives
Glenn/Parks
No-Action ImErovement
No Impact. No Impact.
No Impact. No Impact.
No Impact. See Pedestrians
and Bicycles"
for impact to
existing Glenn
Highway bike
path from Eagle
River to Mirror
Lake, North of
Mirror Lake
planned trail
could be de-
signed to paral-
lel roadway.
No Impact. No Impact.
Hovercraft
Terminal within
tidelands, see
"Wetlands" and
Appendix B.
No Impact.
No Impact.
No Impact.
Downtown Project Elmendorf Project
Crosses "Conservation/Preservation"
wetlands along Ship Creek as well
as tidelands. Impact limited since
on elevated structure, see "Wet-
lands" and Appendix B.
Would not change course of proposed
trail or affect its use. It would
be a dominant visual presence be-
tween Ship Creek dam and Resolu-
tion Park, but impact is insignifi-
cant because existing character of
area would not change. Elevated
roadway would shade approximately
1,000 feet of proposed Coastal
Trail between the dam and C Street.
~lith I Street southbound ramp al-
ternative, one of three access
points from trail to downtown would
be eliminated.
Elevated roadway would not change
trail's proposed course or affect
its use. From trail within pro-
posed Ship Creek linear park, road-
way would be dominant element, but
impact would be insignificant be-
cause existing character of area
would not change.
Would slow forecast growth, but not
affect the proposed pattern of
growth.
No Impact.
No Impact.
Proposed trail would cross Ship Creek
at same point as alignment. Final
design of bridge would include
provision for Trail.
Same as Downtown.
--------~P~l~a~n~-------No-Action
Matanuska-Susitna
Borough Comprehen-
sive Plan
Matanuska-Susitna
Borough Comprehen-
sive Plan: Public
Facilities
Matanuska-Susitna
Borough Coastal
Zone Management
Plan
No Impact.
No Impact.
No Impact.
~ l : ... )
Table IV-23 (continued)
COHPATIBILIT'l WITH LAND USE PLANS
No-Crossing Alternatives Crossing Alternatives
Glenn/Parks
Improvement
No Impact.
No Impact.
Crosses Palmer
Hay Flats AMSA;
widens existing
route; is con-
sistent to the
maximum extent
practicable with
the Alaska Coast-
al Zone Manage-
ment Program.
Hovercraft
Improvement in
access to Anchor-
age would aid
development plans
in Point MacKenzie
to a limited ex-
tent. Improvement
limited since
limited capacity.
No Impact.
Same as Downtown
plus landing site
is consistent to
maximum extent
practicable.
Downtown Project
Access to Anchorage reinforces pro-
posed develppment of Point ~lacKen
zie port/industrial area and the
development of natural resources,
including agriculture (see "Urban
Growth and Development" and "Natural
Resource Development"). Residen-
tial development on private lands
would be at higher densities than
now"planned and also would occur in
rural areas rather than existing
developed areas (e.g., area from
Big Lake south would draw growth
from Palmer/Wasilla area). De-
velopment around Big Lake would be
greater than intended, and planned
core conmtunity likely would shift
to west side. Tourism would: be
encouraged. See Chapter V for
impact to Iditarod Trail.
Would be increased demand for fa-
'cilities commensurate with in-
creased development resulting
from reduced travel.time to
Anchorage. See "Urban and Mili-
tary Function and Operation".
Crosses Point MacKenzie Industrial
AMSA using existing road and
transportation corridor; is con-
sistent with designated industrial
use; and is consistent to the max-
imum extent practicable with the
Al.aska Coastal Zone Management
Program,
.-..-..
l '
Elmendorf Project
Similar to, but to a lesser degree
than Downtown Project.
Same as Downtown, but to a lesser
degree since travel time reduction
would be less.
Same as Downtown.
L ... l) \
_,..JI . .J ~. ' J}
Table IV-23 (continued)
COMPATIBIT,ITY WJTH LAND USE PLANS
No-Crossing Alternatives Crossing Alternatives
Glenn/Parks
--------~P~l~a~n~------No-Action Improvement
City of Houston
Comprehensive De-
velopment Plan
Willow sub-basin
Area Plan
Fish Creek Manage-
ment Plan •
No Impact. No Impact.
No Impact. No Impact.
No Impact. No Impact.
Hovercraft
No Impact.
No Impact.
No Impact.
Downtown Project
Decreased travel time to Anchorage
(approximately 45 minutes) would
increase rate of forecast growth,
but would not change planned de-
velopment pattern since access is
limited to Parks Highway intersec-
tion.
Supports goal to increase resource
development and develop proposed
Point MacKenzie port/industrial
site. Would increase demand, on
recreation areas such as Lake
Lorraine, Little Susitna River,
Big Lake, and Horseshoe Lake.
Residential development would be
at greater densities than planned
in area south of Big Lake. See
Chapter V for impact to Idit'arod
Trail.
Would permit more rapid develop-
ment of planned Moraine Ridge
development assuming the planned
connecting road is completed.
Would support implementation of
proposed agricultural development
(see "Urban Growth and Economic
Development"). Travel time to
Anchorage would be approximately
75 minutes less.
Elmendorf Project
Same as p_jwntown, but to a lesser
degree because decrease in travel
time is less (approximately 22
minutes).
Same as Downtown.
Same as Downtown but time would be
approximately 60 minutes less.
The Downtown and Elmendorf Projects would be generaily compatible with land
use plans with the exception of some site specific impacts, see Table
IV-23. The Glenn/Parks Improvement and Hovercraft Alternatives also would
be compatible with the plans except for one site specific impact with the
Glenn/Parks Improvement.
All of the alternatives except No-Action would require a determination of
consistency with area Coastal Zone Management Plans by the State Office of
Management and Budget.
Chapter III noted three planned projects warranting special mention: the
Point MacKenzie port and industrial complex, the Susi tna Hydroelectric
Project, and the State Courts expansion. As indicated in Table IV-23, any
alternative would be compatible with the :!?oint MacKenzie development. A
crossing would reinforce port development plans although the development is
proposed with or without a crossing. Land use plan options take into
account the crossing Alternative alignments (Kasprisin-Hutnik Partnership,
June 21, 1984). Higher residential densities than indicated in current
planning would be expected. None of the alternatives would have any impact
on the implementation of either the Susitna Hydroelectric Project or the
State Courts expansion.
Dislocation and Relocation
This section summarizes the "Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan", Appendix c.
Table IV~24 identifies the estimated number and type of households,
·businesses, farms, and military facilities that would be displaced with
each alternative, as well as relocation opportunities and the anticipated
effect on the community.
The most costly and difficult relocations would occur with the Elmendorf
Project as a result of its displacement of two antennas. The greatest
displacement of homes and businesses would occur with the Glenn/Parks
Improvement, principally due to interchange modifications on the Glenn
Highway. New houses and commercial structures would ·have to be built to
provide for relocation. The only other relocation that would be difficult
would be a home on the Houston Connector applicable to both Crossing
Alternatives and Hovercraft. The rural home which would be taken is on
lakefront property and includes an airstrip. Lake front property with
unobstructed air access for an airstrip would be difficult to replace. The
Connector location at this point would result in the least disruption to
the Big Lake residential area, despite the dislocation.
If the office building proposed by private developers at L Street and 3rd
Avenue is built, it would be displaced by the L Street southbound ramp.
IV-64
r ·t-
r
L
'f', L:l
.['
[
[
L
L
l
....
Alternative
No-Action
Glenn/Parks
Improvement
Hovercraft
Downtown
Project
Elmendorf
Project
[
Households
0
8 single-family
7 mobile homes
1 single-family
with air strip
and outbuildings
1 single-family
with air strip
and outbuildings
1 single-family
with air strip
and outbuildings
",i. 1
Businesses
0
15 businesses
serving nearby
community
0
1 freight opera-
tion,
1 private parking
lot
1 Floor and wall
operation
1 marina
1 Trucking firm
0
.-
l .. I ) .J ,----I
I._. .,J
Table IV-24
DISLOCATION AND RELOCATION
Farms
0
0
0
0
0 1
1
1
1
1
1
Military
Facilities
0
0
0
0
Sanitary landfill
portion of Defense
Property Disposal
Office storage yard
Borrow area
Aeronautical re-
ceiver antenna
Federal Aviation
Administration
Antenna
Gate
J 1 .. -..J . ) -j
Effect of Relocation on the Community
No effect
Adequate land available for commercial relocations,
but limited available commercial structures. No
difficulty in mobile home relocation. Replacement
housing in same area limited, and single-family
residents may have to build replacement dwellings
Household could relocate to
with no effect to community,
locate lakefront property
access for air strip
available rural land
would be difficult to
with unobstructed air
Relocation of floor and wall operation and trucking
firm, even out of the immediate area, would not
disrupt the community. Relocation of freight op-
eration and parking lot from immediate area would
adversely affect the community, however adjacent
railroad land would be sought. Marina is for sale
and probably would not relocate, could be relocated
without adverse affect. Household could relocate
to available rural land with no effect to communi-
ty, would be difficult to locate lakefront proper-
ty with unobstructed air access for air strip
Relocation of the land fill, gate, borrow area,
and storage yard could be readily accomplished and
would not adversely affect military operations.
Relocation of the.two antennas likely would be off-
base resulting in increased travel time from center
of Base activity. An in-depth study would be re-
quired to identify a replacement site. Household
could relocate to available rural land with no
effect to community, would be difficult to locate
lakefront property with unobstructed air access
air strip
Urban and Military Function and Operation
Neighborhood and Business Community. Either the Downtown Project or the
Elmendorf Project would have limited indirect, long-term impacts on
Anchorage neighborhoods through changes in patterns of traffic operation.
Similar traffic-related impacts would not oc~~r with the No-Crossing
Alternatives.
The Downtown Project would increase traffic significantly on the I/L Street
Couplet and the Ingra/Gambell Couplet between 5th Avenue and -15th Avenue.
The I/L couplet is currently the major north/south arterial for the west
side of Anchorage and the Ingra/Gambell Couplet serves the same function
for central Anchorage. The two couplets pass through residential
communities, and homes are immediately adjacent to the couplet and/or face
the streets between lOth and 15th for I/L and between 9th and 15th for
Gambell. The additional traffic on these streets would further isolate
homes between I and L and west of Gambell from their neighbors.
Difficulties in getting out of driveways would be increased. ·
With the Elmendorf Project, there would be increases in traffic on Muldoon
and Tudor Roads as well as on the Ingra/Gambell Couplet between 8th and
15th Avenues. Both Muldoon and Tudor Roads are boundaries between
neighborhoods and are major arterials, so no disruption to
intra-neighborhood circulation would occur. The increase in traffic on
Gambell St~eet would not be as g~eat as with the Downtown Project, but the
impact would be similar.
Other indirect impacts to neighborhoods and the business community would be
changes in noise levels and air pollution. These impacts are addressed
elsewhere in this chapter under "Noise" and "Air Quality".
None of the alternatives would have a direct impact on residential
neighborhoods. The Elmendorf Crossing would have an impact only on
military facilities which are discussed in the next section. The Downtown
Crossing and Seward Connector would have the following community impacts:
0
0
The I/L ramps would cross an area of the Arm now being filled by York
Steel. The builder has indicated that the elevated ramps would not
disrupt use of the site which is indefinite at this time. The freight
and passenger main lines of the Alaska Railroad would be crossed but
with a pier design and at sufficient height such that no disruption of
servi_ce would result. Ramp construction would be planned so as not to
disrupt rail service. One freight operation and a parking lot would
be displaced. See "Displacement and Relocation". Visual and noise
level impacts would occur where the ramps approach 3rd Avenue. See
the "Visual" and "Noise" sections of this chapter.
The Port of Anchorage access ramp would pass across a boat facility
and a trucking operation. Both would be dislocated~ see "Dislocation
and Relocation".
IV-66
c
L
[
(',
I I
'· 0
L
L
L.
x--
'l.-·"
L
L
·[
l\
r~
L
l-
~_;
.--,
L~
c J
r--
L~·
f'
t-, 0
[:. ..
A'
I '-..::'
[' ' ~·
r -
l_,
L
L
0
0
0
0
From Station 142 to 155 (See Appendix A), the Seward Connector would
pass over an industrial railroad spur. Although it might have to . be
moved slightly during construction, its usefulness would not be
impaired by the completed overhead roadway. Its users would be
consulted during design and prior to·construction to minimize adverse
impacts.
From Station 162 to 170, the Connector would pass over storage areas
for new automobiles and for steel pipe. The automobile storage would
have to be moved to another location, perhaps on Alaska Railroad lands
elsewhere in the area, during Seward Connector construction. Although
the materials would likely need to be arranged to accommodate piers,
the steel pipe operation could remain during construction. Both uses
could readily continue underneath the completed structure.
At Station 77, a business would be displaced. See "Dislocation and
Relocation". Also, in this area, the Connector would follow a
railroad spur and cross the Alaska Railroad main passenger line. The
impact would be similar to the railroad crossings described earlier.
The same mitigating measures would be used.
The southbound Gambell Street ramp alternative for the Seward
Connector would pass between the administration and hospital buildings
of the Alaska Native Medical Center. Since the driveway at this
locat~on leads to the main entrance of both buildings, vehicular and
pedestrian access would be adversely affected. There would also be a
noise impact, see "Noise". D~sc-..1ssions with Medical Center staff
suggest that relocating the main entrance and modifying the facility's
internal circulation patterns would not be feasible. An estimated
2,000 pedestrians per day, in addition to ambulatory and wheelchair
patients conveyed by the Medical Center's van-based patient transpor-
tation program, currently use the main entrance to enter the hospital.
A pedestrian overpass would be used to mitigate some circulation
problems, but only for· pedestrian traffic between the two buildings,
not for_persons arriving and departing. Parking space and access to
it would also be affected. Parking is currently limited, and access
to the northern lot, already difficult, would be adversely affected by
eliminating the hospital's main driveway for a Gambell Street ramp.
Deli very and emergency services access on the hospital' s east side
would not be adversely affected. Only placing the ramp in a tunnel or
relocating the medical center would fully mitigate the above impacts •
Both would have unacceptably high cost. Two million dollars has been
appropriated but not yet passed down to the Indian Health Service for
relocation of or improvements to the existing hospital, which is
number one on the u.s. PUblic Health Service's National Priority List
for replacement. This ramp alternative would be selected only if the
Public Health Service decides to proceed with replacement of the
hospital on another site as part of their own planning. The south-
bound Ingra ramp and northbound ramp alternatives would pass north and
east of the hospital and there would be no significant impact.
IV-67
/
The Houston Connector would pass through primarily publicly-owned
undeveloped parcels. The principal impact would be the splitting of
privately-owned parcels (including native-owned lands). Most parcels are
40 acres and larger. This impact would be mitigated by providing access
to both parts of the large split parcels via frontage roads and
underpasses. See the drawings in Appendix A. Undevelopable remnants of
both large and small parcels would be purchased as a part of right-of-way
acquisition. A final impact would result from placing the Houston
Connector through the Big Lake/Horseshoe Lake community. The character
of the area would be altered by its proximity to the road and changed
proximity to Anchorage. The pace of development in the area would
increase, the number of full-time residents would increase, and the core of
growth likely would shift from the east side of Big Lake to the west side;
see "Land Use Plans".
None · of the No-Crossing Alternatives would affect the functioning of
neighborhoods or the business-community.
Military. Only the Elmendorf Crossing would affect military facilities.
Impacts to Elmendorf AFB facilities are listed below, and impacts to
emergency services are discussed later in this section. Impacts to
recreation facilities are discussed in Chapter V. The station numbers
referenced are shown on the drawings in Appendix A. The impacts would be:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
At St~tions 34 and 53, unpaved roads/trails would be severed, but an
access road from Walton Road would be provided to restore' access.
At Station 57, Walton Road would be crossed.
Crossing approach would be provided.
A · bridge over the
At Station 61, an unpaved road would be severed, however access would
be provided via the overpass at Station 50+80.
At Stations 86, 97, 101, and 108, roads into the adjacent ammo dump
would be severed, however all are overgrown and presently unused. The
principal access into the dump would not be affected.
At Station 93, the Crossing would pass through the middle of an active
sanitary land fill which would need to be relocated elsewhere on the
Base.
From Station 104 to 112, the Crossing would pass through the edge of a
"suspect vehicle parking area" . That designation requires that all
vehicles parked in the area be considered suspect until examined. No
adverse impact would result since the Crossing would be fenced and
there would be no opportunity for Crossing users to enter the area not
used for the roadway.
From Station 106 to 116, the Crossing would pass through the Defense
Property Disposal Office storage yard (east side). Space would be
available to relocate stored materials south of the western portion of
the storage yard.
IV-68
L
[
r
r·
I:
L
L
L
[
[
n
[
c
r L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
From Station 106 to 116, the Crossing would displace an unpaved road
from the south into the Defense Property Disposal Office site. It
would be relocated to serve the altered storage yard.
At Station 130, a road would be crossed and a bridge over the Crossing
approach would be provided.
At Station 138, the unpaved east-west runway centerline road would be
crossed just to the east of the Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN)
facility. A bridge ·over the Crossing approach would be provided
at the runway centerline.
At Station 159, a corner of the ARCS radio-controlled model flying
site would be within the Crossing right-of-way. The area would be
replaced by expanding the site to the east.
At Station 164, a road leading to the ARCS site and the ground-to-air
transmitter/receiver would be crossed and a bridge across the Crossing
approach would be provided.
At Station 17l,_the Alaska Railroad would be crossed. The Crossing
approach would be on a bridge over the Railroad.
At Station 174, Ladue Road would be crossed. The Crossing approach
would.be on a bridge and the road would be moved slightly.
From Station 174 to 184, the Crossing would split a borrow _area; 40
percent of its area would be displaced. Another site would be
developed on the Base.
At Stations 187 and 200, the Crossing would sever two overgrown
roads/trails. A large culvert would be provided to restore access at
Station 187 and a road from Hubble Road would be provided at Station
200 to restore access.
At Station 204, Hubble Road would be crossed. It would be relocated
and the Crossing approach would pass over it on a bridge.
At Station 239, and from Station 260 to 172, sections of overgrown
road/trails woul:dbe severed, however 1:arge culverts would be prov±ded
at Stations 242 and 265 to restore access.
At Station 273, Loop Road would be crossed by the Crossing approach on
a bridge.
At Station 289, an overgrown road/trail would be severed, however a
large culvert would be provided for access.
The Aeronautical Antenna Receiver and Federal Aviation Administration
-antenna site would be displaced; see "Dislocation and Relocation". The
road to the site at Station 292 would be severed and a road would be
built parallel to the Crossing approach to restore access.
IV-69
0
0
/
At Station 312, the gravel Mountain Road would be severed, but the
access road described in the previous note would be extended to
Mountain Road to restore access.
Although the Elmendorf Project would meet ~n~mum distance separation
requirements for electromagnetic interference and radio frequency
interference for the Air Force's Circularly Disposed Antenna Array
(CDAA) and it would not require relocation, the construction phase of
the project could cause interference problems. Machinery, vehicles,
and equipment used in the construction would need to be modified to
limit interference and would be subject to testing by an Air Foree
approved agent. Faulty equipment would have to be either modified
immediately or removed from the sites.
Schools. As discussed earlier, the Downtown Project would increase traffic
on I/L Streets and Ingra/Gambell Si::r:eets. _The_ Elmendor:f; Project would
increase traffic on Muldoon and Tudor Roads, as well as on Ingra/Gambell
Streets.
The roads just described all would cross elementary school attendance
boundaries. The increase in traffic on these roads would not have an impact
on students going to and from school since these streets are already
designated as hazardous for walking students and bus transportation or
adult crossing guards are provided.
Changes in regional growth patterns with the Crossing Alternatives would
decrease school needs in Anchorage and increase school needs in the Mat-Su
Borough. Since changes in growth patterns would involve primarily a growth
shift of children from one school district to another, the effect would be
one of changing where schools would be needed -not an increase in how many
would be required. Schools are financed by bonds issued by the local
school district. Most of the debt service is paid by the State with an
annual appropriation from the general fund.
Anchorage currently has 0.5 public school students per dwelling unit.
School District forecasts predict this percentage to continue for a least
the next ten years (Anchorage School District, December 1983 and project
team dwelling unit forecasts). Using the changes in dwelling units from
Table IV-20 in 2001, the following changes in forecast students would
occur:
2001
Anchorage
Mat-Su Borough
2010
Anchorage
Mat-Su Borough
Downtown
(Mid-Range)
4,310
4,645
5,840
6,120
Downtown
(High)
7,560
7,890
10,335
10,610
IV-70
Elmendorf
(Mid-Range)
3,000
3,205
3,940
4,215
Elmendorf
(Low)
1,470
1,700
1,840
2,115
r-
t..
r··
t
e
L
[
['
t
L
[
r
L
[
-c
--~
l ~
[
(i
L
r
l_/
L
[
[
[
Using grade distribution for Anchorage in 1993 to 1994 (the last year
currently forecast by the school district) (Anchorage School District,
December 1983) , the growth change would include he following ranges of
number of students:
Downtown Elmendorf
2001 2010 2001 2010
Kindergarten - 6
2,583 -4,388 3,403 -5,900 945 -1,782 1,176 -2,344
7-8 754 -1,280 993 -1,722 216 -520 343 -684
9~12 1,233 2,094 1,624 2,815 451 851 561 1,118
Special Services 75 -128 100 -1,173 28 -52 35 -69
Total 4,645 -7,890 6,120 -11,610 1,700 -3,205 2,115 -4,215
Using the Mat-Su Borough design criteria of a 525 student capacity for
suburban elementary schools, 600 for junior high schools, and 1, 200 for
senior high schools (Mat-Su Borough, March 1984a), the number of new schools
that the Borough would need beyond those that would occur with No-Action
are:
Downtown Elmendorf
2001 2010 2001 2010
Kindergarten - 6
4.9 -8.4 6.5 -11.2 1.8-3.4 2.2 -4.5
7-8 1.3 -'2.1 1.7'-2.9 0.5 -0.9 0.6 -1.1
9-12 1.0 -1.7 1.4-2.3 0.4 -0.7 0.5 -0.9
Total 7.2-12.2 9.6-16.4 2.7 -5.0 3.3 -6.5
At Station 22 of the Elmendorf Crossing, a driveway to parking at Bartlett
High School would be partially taken. It would ·be restored east of its
present location.
Emergency Services. Neither a Crossing nor a No-Crossing Alternative would
affect significantly the operation of area (Municipal, Borough, and
military) emergency services. In general, access to areas now served would
be unchanged. Response time for the Emergency Medical Service vehicle from
Houston to the Horseshoe Lake and west Big Lake area would be reduced.
Joint agreements. between the Municipality of Anchorage and Mat-Su Borough
would have to be reached for providing emergency services on a crossing. An
assistance agreement would also be needed between Elmendorf AFB and the
Municipality with the Elmendorf Crossing. Facilities for fire fighting on
~e bridge would be determined in consultation with representatives from the
Municipality Fire Department and the Borough during final design.
The principal impact of a Crossing Alternative would come from the shift of
planned growth from the Municipality to the Mat-Su Borough. Except in
Palmer, fire service is provided in the Mat-Su Borough by Fire Service
Areas along the Parks Highway and at Big Lake, staffed primarily by
volunteers. In general, citizens petition for fire service and the Borough
reacts. The level of service provided is based on demand and citizen
willingness to support operating costs and provide volunteers. The areas
expected to receive the greatest shifted growth would be the Point MacKenzie
IV-71
and the Knik/Goose Bay areas. Neither area has fire service. Within 10
years of project completion, the Knik-Goose Bay area would have a population
similar to the current population in the Palmer area, and Point
MacKenzie Is population would be similar to the current population in the
Wasilla area. Thus, fire service would need to be quickly mobilized in
these areas following crossing completion in order not to leave significant
areas of development unprotected. The Borough would organize the new Fire
Service areas and the State would bear the cost of equipment and buildings.
This cost likely would not be offset by savings in Anchorage, since its
current facilities plus one station under construction are considered
adequate to meet Municipal needs until 2000.
Emergency Medical Service (EMS) also would be required in the Knik/Goose Bay
and Point MacKenzie areas. Again the vehicles would be purchased by the
State at the request of the Borough, which provides EMS or ambulance service
to the entire Borough. Anchorage plans to expand EMS service as Anchorage
grows, so it is likely that the extra cost in the Borough would be offset by
savings in Anchorage.
Port of Anchorage and Navigation Clearance. The Downtown Project is the
only alternative that would affect port-related activities. The Project
would not affect current port and private dock road access, and would
improve access upon completion of the Seward Connector by providing direct
ramps from the port to the bridge. -This would eliminate the need for
northbound port trucking to pass through downtown Anchorage.
Conversations with the Port of Anchorage and users of the Port and private
docks to the south indicate that the Crossing would not adversely affect
their ability to approach berths and to dock once they have passed under the
bridge. However, concern was expressed about the potential for striking
bridge piers. Vertical navigation clearance ( 150 feet above mean higher
high water) and span location are viewed as appropriate, and the span width
(1,000 feet) is viewed as adequate under normal operating conditions.
However, currents and ice in the Arm make navigation difficult. Ships and
barges have in the past been trapped in ice reducing the amount of control
their operators have. Operators· differ in opinion on whether or not this
difficulty in combination with a Downtown bridge is manageable. The u.s.
Coast Guard presently views the bridge as having a substantial risk of
vessel collision. Means of minimizing the potential for ship collision and
minimizing_ damage if a collision occurs are described in Chapter II, and
they would be examined in detail during project design.
The Elmendorf Crossing and Houston Connector would be the only other
alternatives with navigation impacts. The Elmendorf bridge would have
500-foot spans and would be 31 feet above mean higher high water. Chugach
Electric -Association has indicated that this would be adequate for their
maintenance barge. The Coast Guard views this clearance as acceptable for
any existing or reasonably forseeable marine traffic and has indicated that
such traffic would present very little risk of collision with the bridge.
Provisions for commercial navigation would not be required. With the
Houston Connector, a height for navigation of approximately 50 feet would be
provided across the narrows between Mirror Lake and Big Lake.
IV-72
r
r·
I
[
[
L
r ~
c
l
L
l
/
r-•
L
c
.-_....,
Q
'-.'
r -,
L.
r
L
The u.s. Coast Guard will determine bridge clearance requirements for Knik
Arm and Mirror/Big Lakes. This determination will be reported and taken into
account in the Final EIS. The determination will be based in part on
comments made at the EIS public hearing. The Coast Guard may hold
individual hearings which solely would address navigation clearance.
Aviation Clearance. The only alternative that would encroach on aviation
clearance zones is the Downtown Crossing. The bridge's towers would
penetrate approximately 30 feet into the aviation clear zone for Merrill
Field. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will determine the
acceptability of the encroachment prior to completion of the Final EIS. The
determination will be reported and taken into account in that document.
Conversations with the FAA indicate that the encroachment will probably be
found acceptable. Obstruction lighting would be provided in conformance
with FAA requirements.
Utilities. The following utilities have facilities within the construction
limits of the Crossing Alternatives:
0 Municipality of Anchorage
-Anchorage Telephone Utility
-Municipal Light and Power (ML&P)
-Anchorage Water and Waste Water Utility
0 ENSTAR_Natural Gas
0 Multivisions (Cable TV)
0 Tesoro
0 Chugach Electric Association
It is anticipated that all of the buried utilities within the limits of
either Project except sewer and water would have to be adjusted/relocated
due to their_shallow depth. If substantial fills or cuts are required in
the vicinity of sewer or water mains, these also would have to be adjusted
or relocated. Utility involvement would be approximately the same for the
various Downtown Project ramp alternatives.
_Significant utility facilities affected by the Downtown Crossing and Seward
Connector would be:
0
0
Tesoro's 8-inch high pressure multipurpose line in the vicinity of the
Ocean Dock Road Access Ramp. However, bridge piers could be designed
to avoid an impact.
ML&P's aerial transmission line which goes north along H Street
crossing the mud flats and the Seward Connector to the Anchorage marine
area. Six to eight line structures would be relocated with either I/L
ramp alternative.
IV-73
0
0
0
0
0
Anchorage Water and Waste Water Utility has a 36-inch RC sewer trunk
paralleling the railroad tracks, Tesoro's facility, and the proposed
Port access ramp. However, bridge piers could be designed to avoid an
impact.
A major double-circuit transmission facility· belonging to Chugach
Electric Association is between stations 79 and 88 (see Appendix A).
Approximately five line structures would need to be relocated slightly
to the north.
ML&P has a double-circuit transmission facility along the northside of
3rd Avenue. A few line poles would need to be relocated since street
lights for the new intersection would interfere with the lines. The
impact would be similar for both Ingra/Gambell ramp alternative.
An ENSTAR 12-inch HP natural gas main goes along the south side of 3rd
Avenue east of Ingra Street and ties into an 8-inch main along the west
side of Ingra. The project would be designed to avoid impacts.
An 1,800-pair buried telephone cable lies along the north side of 3rd
Avenue east of Ingra, it then turns south along the west side of Ingra.
The project would be designed to avoid impact.
Other smaller, miscellaneous utility facilities would also have to be
adjusted with the Downtown Crossing and Seward Connector.
Significant utility facilities affected by the Elmendorf Crossing would be:
0
0
Along the south side of Glenn Highway there is a ML&P aerial 115 KIT
transmission circuit with 12.5 KIT distribution underbuilt and 2
communication cables attached. It would be relocated slightly to the
south to accommodate the ramps to the Glenn Highway.
At approximately station 21 (see Appendix A), the roadway would cross
an -aerial military power facility. ML&P has a 115 KIT transmission
circuit on top with the military' s 34. 5 Kll transmission and 12. 5 KIT
distribution underbuilt. The lines would have to be raised over the
elevated road.
There are other various smaller aerial and buried military utilities which
would be encountered throughout the base such as communication cables,
power distribution circuits, and water and sewer mains that would be
adjusted.
Significant utility facilities affect~d by the Houston Co~nector would be:
0 The road would pass under Chugach Electric Association's 138 Kll aerial
transmission facility at station 140, but the facility would be
unaffected. So that right-of-way access would not be severed, a road
would be provided across the Connector at this point for use by Chugach
personnel only.
IV-74
[
c
F
l_'
c
[
L
[
c
c
L
-'
u
0
0
/
A new 20-inch natural gas transmission main from Beluga (ENSTAR Natural
Gas) would also cross the Connector. The line would be protected under
the Connector.
In the Horseshoe Lake area, the Connector would cross Matanuska
Electric Association's aerial 115 KV transmission circuit. The impact
and mitigating measure would be the same as for the Chugach line
discussed above.
There are other aerial and buried power and telephone distribution circuits
for local consumers belonging to Matanuska Electric Associaeion and
Matanuska Telephone Association that also would be adjusted.
Utilities impacts for the Hovercraft Alternative would be those for the
Houston Connector which is included in that. alternative. The Glenn/Parks
Improvement would affect the following major utilities along the Glenn
Highway:
0
0
Approximately 19 miles of the ENSTAR gas line, currently under
construction, would be affected. Where the line is at the top of
existing cut slopes, it would require relocation. In other areas, it
would be covered over with new fills.
Matanuska Electric Association presently has a 69 KV transmission line
adjacent to the highway through the Eklutna Flats area. Appr~ximately
2~ miles of this line probably would need to be relocated.
No major utility lines are within the limits of the portion of the Parks
Highway that would be widened.
All utilities affected by the alternatives under consideration would be
relocated or modified as required. Costs would be paid by the project.
ADOT/PF would work closely with the organizations whose facilities would be
affected to develop a strategy for utility modification that would not
significantly_affect customer service.
It is expected that water and sewer service for new development in the
Mat-Su Borough would be provided privately either by household wells and
septic systems or by cooperatively owned wells and package waste treatment
systems. Mat-Su Borough subdivision regulations (Mat-Su Borough, March
1982) regulate sanitary waste disposal of new subdivisions to assure a
hazard is not created. No sewage system can be closer than 100. feet to any
water body or water course.
Matanuska Electric Association would serve the area south of the Parks
Highway where increased growth would occur. The association gets its power
from Chugach Electric and could arrange for the needed power. Chugach
generation needs would not be significantly affected since it generates
power for the entire project area, and most of the new growth in the Borough
would be shifted from the Anchorage bowl. The extension policy described in
Chapter III would be applied to new Mat-Su Borough development. However, in
the Point MacKenzie area a new trunk system would be required and not merely
extension. The consumer charging system for paying for the new system would
thus be complex to administer.
IV-75
Matanuska Telephone Association (MTA) would serve new growth in the Borough.
MTA probably would need to finance a new switch and office to serve the
Point MacKenzie area. The way service is provided and the amount invested
would depend on the anticipated number of subscribers and anticipated
return. Subscribers ultimately would pay the cost of the new service by
fees from the new subscribers. ENSTAR readily could provide service to new
growth south of the Parks Highway from the new gas line which will pass just
north of the Point MacKenzie area. Distribution lines would be built when
requested by developers at the developer's cost.
Finally, utility lines could be accommodated on either Crossing Alternative.
ADOT/PF would work closely with utilities during crossing design to meet
their needs. All costs of adding utilities to a Knik Arm bridge'would be
paid by the utili ties. During the corridor studies, Chugach Electric
Association, Anchorage Tele]?hone Utility, ENSTAR Gas Company, and Alaska
Power Authority indicated an.interest in placing lines on a crossing.
Minorities, Low Income, Elderly. None of the alternatives would directly
affect concentrations of minorities, low-income persons, or the elderly.
None of the alternatives would pass through residential communities.
Displacement of businesses and homes would be minor and relocation would not
be a problem; see "Displacement and Relocation".
The only impact to residential neighborhoods would be an indirect impact
resulting f~om changed traffic patterns with the two Crossing Alternativ.es.
As discussed under "Neighborhood and Business Community", traffic would
increase on the I/L Couplet and the Ingra Street portion of the
Ingra/Gambell Couplet with the Downtown Project, and on Ingra Street with
the Elmendorf Project. Both these major arterials would pass through
residential neighborhoods. Racial, income, and age characteristics for
block groups in the affected areas from the 1980 Census of Population and
Housing are:
Percent Minorities
Percent Aged, 62 and over
Percent of Households Below
the Poverty Level
Municipality
of Anchorage
15
3
6
1
2 Census tract 10, block group 2
Census tract 12, block group 2
Ingra Stfeet
Area
22
9
17
I/L Stre2ts
Area
3
19
7
The Ingra Street area has a_higher percentage of minorities and households
below the poverty level than the Municipality as a whole. The I/L Street
area has a higher percentage of elderly, primarily because the Anchorage
Pioneer Home for elderly Alaskans is between I and L Streets on 11th Street.
IV-76
r
r·
l
[
[
C
[
[
L
[
[~
[
L
l
l .. ./
r:
L
l.,.;
However, minorities, low income persons, and the elderly do not predominate
in either area. Thus, it is concluded that none of the alternatives would
have an adverse impact on minority, low income, and elderly communities
which would require separate consideration in this document, special
community coordination, or special efforts to assure their ability to
participate fully in public hearings.
Government Finance
This section begins with a discussion of impacts on local government revenue
and operating costs. It concludes with a discussion of competiti~n for
funding with other proposed capital projects. See "Urban and Military
Function and Operation" for a discussion of how utilities and emergency
services would be provided for new development in the Mat-Su Borough.
Table IV-25 presents the change in local government costs and revenues that
would result from each Crossing Alternative/growth allocation scenario,
without and with added induced development. "Without induced development"
takes into account shifts in residential and business growth due to improved
accessibility to the Mat-Su Borough. "With Induced Development" adds new
regional employment that would be generated by a Crossing, see "Urban Growth
and Economic Development". The methods used to calculate these amounts were
developed in the corridor level analysis~ see the "Final Corridor
Alternatives Analysis" report (USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF, December 5, 1983).
Revenue figures are based on average current (1983 to 1984) local property
taxes collected for residential real and personal property, per dwelling
unit; average current revenue collected for commercial real and personal
property, per employee~ and average other local revenues and service fees,
per dwelling unit. Cost figures are based upon average current costs for
schools and local government, per dwelling unit. These are shown in Table
III-10. They are the most recent figures available for a single time
period. They are in 1983 dollars; estimate 1985 dollars by adding about 10
percent.
Mat-Su Borough Operating Revenue and Cost. In the Mat-Su Borough, the
current cost per dwelling unit is $4, 343 (for a locality where
areawide, nqn-areawide, and fire service district taxes apply), of which 29
percent is paid from locally-generated funds, and 71 percent, or $3,090 must
be generated from non-local sources (see Table III-6). Without any induced
industrial development, new local revenues from residential development and
employment shifted to the Borough as a result of either Crossing Alternative
would pay only about 19 percent of the local costs generated by this shift.
The Borough would need to either obtain additional revenue to meet the
shortfall or reduce services provided. The absolute dollars of revenue
shortfall (difference between local revenue projected and revenue required
to cover 29 percent of costs) would be:
Crossing
Alternatives
Downtown
Mid-range
High
Elmendorf
Mid-range
Low
IV-77
Revenue Shortfall
(millions)
$5.09
$8.85
$3.50
$1.75
H <:
I
.....:1
00·
Table IV-25
GOVERNMENT FINANCE, 2010
(millions of dollars)
Municipality of Anchorage Matanuska-Susitna Borough Total Region
Change In Change In Change In
Change In Local Change In Local Change In Local
Alternative/Scenario Total Cost Revenue Total Cost Revenue Total Cost Revenue
Downtown (Mid-Range) ·
Without induced development -62.81 -18.77 +52.90 +10.25 -9.91 -8.52
With induced development -60.43 -18.03 +53.11 +10.30 -7.32 -7.73
Downtown (High)
Without induced development -109.37 -33.21 +91.98 +17.83 -17.39 -15.38
With induced development -106.95 -32.62 +92.16 +17.87 -14.74 -14.75
Elmendorf (Mid-Range)
Without induced development -43.10 -12.86 +36.44 +7.07 -6.66 -5.79
With induced development -40.77 -12.22 +36.61 +7 .11 -4.16 -5.11
Elmendorf (Low)
Without induced development -21.47 -6.32 +18.20 +3.53 -3.27 -2.79
With induced development -19.04 -5.65 +18. 37 +3.57 -0.67 -2.08
NOTES
Based on average current Municipal or Borough expenditures per dwelling unit; average current revenue collected for
residential real and personal property per dwelling unit; average current revenue collected for commercial real and
and personal property per employee; and average current other local revenues collected per dwelling unit.
Low, mid-range, and high refer to the growth allocation scenarios described under "Urban Growth and Economic Develop-
ment".
In 1983 dollars, add about 10 percent to estimate 1985 dollars.
,-.-,
,,.i
r--.. ,.--;
l ) j, ------.,
I
,..-,
i
L;
r~
1__:
I
L.,
/
Low, mid-range, and high refer to the growth allocation scenarios presented ·
under "Urban Growth and Economic Development".
These estimates are based on the State's continuing to provide its current
share of local costs. Should future State revenue shortages require that
local sources cover a larger share of costs, the estimated shortfall would
increase commensurately. The relative difference between alternatives would
not be affected by such shifts in State support. Rising tax rates due to
non-crossing related growth also would not influence the relative difference
between alternatives.
The share of local costs paid from local revenues would not vary signifi-
cantly with induced development. Costs would continue to exceed revenues
generated. The fiscal benefits that would be gained from the very limited
non-residential development added would be offset by the residential
development that would accompany the induced jobs. The absolute dollars of
shortfall between local revenues and· costs would remain at $1.75 million to
$8.85 million.
The projected revenue shortfall could be met by increasing Borough millage
rates, selling Borough lands, or increasing the State share of local costs.
Some sales of Borough land would be required in order to provide for the
estimated growth shifts and induced development~ see "Urban Growth and
Economic Development". Alternatively, Borough financial requirements could
be reduced py requiring subdivisions to be responsible for road and utility
services through resident associations or local improvement districts~
Municipality of Anchorage Operating Revenue and Cost. In the Municipality
of Anchorage, public serv~ce costs would decrease more rapidly than revenues
for any Crossing Alternative/growth allocation scenario. This effect
reflects the movement of residential growth out of Anchorage while substan-
tial numbers of employees remain, with or without induced development. The
reduction in costs would be over three times higher than the reduction in
revenues from shifted residential development and employment.
Current local cost per dwelling unit for the Municipality of Anchorage is
$5,174, of which 38 percent is generated locally, leaving 62 percent, or
$3,200 to be funded from non-local sources. The revenue gains that would be
realized by the movement of forecast population and employment growth out of
Anchorage (that is, the difference between revenue lost and revenue equal to
38 percent of reduced costs) would vary_as follows for the different Cross-
ing Alternatives/growth allocation scenarios without induced development:
Crossing
Alternatives
Downtown
Mid-range
High
Elmendorf
Mid-range
Low
IV-79
Revenue Gain
(millions)
$5.10
$8.35
$3.52
$1.84
The Municipality's financial picture would not be negatively affected by
including induced development with any Crossing Alternative; gains would be
only slightly less.
Total Regional Operating Revenue and Cost. With or without induced
development, a Crossing would reduce costs regionwide under any Alternative/
scenario; see Table IV-25. The cost reduction generally would be in excess
of local revenue loss. Shifts in forecast growth and induced development
would reduce non-local as well as local revenue requirements. Assuming no
increase in Borough costs per dwelling unit, each household moving from
Anchorage to the Mat-Su Borough would reduce the burden on non-local sources
by $110. Using the number of dwelling units that would move from Anchorage
to the Borough in 2010 without induced development, the following burden
would be lifted from non-local sources for each Crossing Alternative/
scenario:
Crossing
Alternatives
Downtown
Mid-range
High
Elmendorf
Mid-range
Low
Cost Reduction
(millions)
$1.34
$2.32
$0.91
$0.45
Competition with Other Capital Projects. If legislative appropriations
and/or Federal highway participating funds are used to complete all or part
of one of the alternatives under consideration (see Appendix F), an alterna-
tive would be competing for funds with other proposed capital projects, both
road and non-road.
Competition for Federal highway funds would be reduced by the project
scheduli~g described in Chapter II. The Houston Connector, Seward
Connector, and Glenn/Parks Improvement most likely would be financed with
Federal highway funds. However, the construction would be scheduled to
start after completion of the Anchorage accelerated road program.
Construction of the Houston Connector and Glenn/Parks Improvement would not
begin until 1988 or 1989 towards the end of the current short-range
transportation planning period (1989); see "Street and Highway Plans".
Construction of the Seward Connector would not begin until 2000, near the
end of the current long-range planning period (2001). By scheduling
Crossing projects at the end of planning periods, neither short-teJ;'Ill nor
long-term planned projects would be delayed more than a year or two and most
would be completed on schedule. Yet, the Crossing-related projects ·still
would be completed in time to serve Crossing traffic.
It is impossible to predict what other capital projects might be delayed by
the use of ·State general funds since funding recommendations and decisions
are made on an annual basis. Undoubtedly, the use of State funds for one of
the alternatives would delay the implementation of other desirable capital
projects. However, no commitment has been made to fund any of the
alternatives using State general funds. Thus, in funding decisions by the
IV-80
r
[
r·
[
c
c
[
L
L
[
·-t.,
L
-c
L
b
r--;
I
legislature, a selected alternative would be competing with other capital
projects on its own merits. A decision could be made to delay
implementation of a selected alternative if implementation of other capital
projects was found to be of greater importance.
The use of toll revenues, land value capture, and private financing are
being considered for use in building the Crossing Alternatives so that use
of State and Federal monies can be minimized; see Appendix F.
C. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS
The following areas of interest are discussed under natural resource
impacts: Biological resources, wetlands, water quality and hydrology,
floodplains, natural resource development, Iditarod Trail, air quality,
noise, energy, and visual.
Biological Resources
Impacts are discussed within terrestrial, marine, and freshwater
environments. Within each of these sections, impacts resulting either
directly or indirectly from construction and operation of the alternatives
are discussed, followed by a discussion of secondary impacts -that is,
those impacts resulting from shifted or induced development. Separate
sections discuss changes to uses of fish and wildlife and impacts to
threatened and endangered species.
Terrestrial Habitats. The surface areas of habitat that would be directly
altered by the alternatives under consideration are· presented in Tables
IV-26 amd IV-27. These groupings of habitat types are consistent with the
system used in the Willow Sub-basin study program (U.S. Department of
Agriculture, October 1981). Habitat mapping procedures are described in
Technical Memorandum No. 16, "Freshwater and Terrestrial Habitat Studies"
(USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF, January 27, 1984) • Table IV-27 shows surface area
altered ~ith_ respect to wildlife value.
As indicated by Table IV-26, when right-of-way impacts alone are considered,
the Elmendorf Project would disturb more natural habitat than would the
Downtown Project because of the length of roadway passing through Elmendorf
AFB. The opposite is true when secondary impacts are considered (as
discussed below). The primary habitat type which would be disturbed by
either Crossing Alternative would be mixed coniferous/deciduous upland
forest. This forest type, although valuable for moose and other upland
species (see Table III-11), is widespread. There are 286,110 acres in the
Wili;ow Sub-basin (Bob Bennett, ADNR, personal connnunication), and the
Houston Connector would take 0.2 percent of it. Removal of this habitat as
a result of road construction probably would not affect wildlife populations
significantly with the possible exception of the southern portion of
Elmendorf AFB which is known to be valuable moose winter range (Rothe et
al., 1983). Interference with the movement of moose might be a significant
impact of the Elmendorf Project since the portion of the roadway within
Elmendorf AFB would be fenced at the right-of-way boundaries. This barrier
would prevent moose from reaching the southwest portion of the Base where
IV-81
No-
No-crossing
Table IV-26
DIRECT TERRESTRIAL HABITAT IMPACTS
(Acres of Habitat)
Downtown Project
Hovercraft Crossing
(includes (North
Glenn/Parks Houston Bridge Seward Houston
Elmendorf Project
Crossing Crossing
(South (North
Bridge Bridge Houston
Habitat Type Action Improvement Connector) Approach) Connector Connector ~ Approach) Approach) Connector Total
Coniferous and
mixed deciduous/
coniferous forest
Low shr.lb scrub
(part wetland)
Closed black
spruce
(part wetland)
Sedge/grass
meadow (wet
and dry)
(mostly wetland)
Tall shr.Jb and
deciduous forest
Salt marsh
(wetland)
Intertidal mudflat
(wetland)
Disturbed areas
TOTAL
Total wetlands
NOTES
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90.2 611.6 122.4
0 90.0 0
0 99.3 0
0 9.3 0
0 40.3 0
35.4 0 0
0 10.0 0
0 285.5 0
125.6 1,146.0 122.4
35.4 125.5 0
7.3 611.6 741.3 210.2
0 90.0 90.0 0
0 99.3 99.3 15.6
0 9.3 9.3 18.4
0 40.3 40.3 34.0
0 0 0 0
18.7 0 18.7 0
65.4 285.5 350.9 50.6
91.4 1,136.0 1,349.8 328.8
18.7 115.5 134.2 8.4
Vegetation types and fish and wildlife values for each habitat type are shown in Table III-11.
53.8 611.6
0 90.0
0 99.3
0 9.3
0 40.3
0 0
0 0
0 285.5
53.8 1,136.0
0 115.5
Roadway acreages are based on total right-of-way width: 300 feet for Elmendorf AFB segment and 400 feet for all other
Crossing Alternative roadways. Glenn/Parks Improvement is for improvements beyond those already planned (No-Action).
Action). Two 12-foot lanes added to outside of 4-lane Glenn Highway~ two 12-foot lanes and left turn lanes added to·
Parks Highway to Wasilla.
Habitat values within Elmendorf Air Force Base were interpreted from vegetation mapping by Rothe et al., 1983.
IV-82
875.6
90.0
114.9
27.7
74.3
0
0
336.1
1,518.6
123.9
r
[
r
[
[
[
E
[
L
l
L
i[ --~ ,-~-"1\
·'
No-
Action
Moose
0 Year-round food and
cover 0
o Year-round food,
limited covel; 0
o Marginal year-round
food and cover 0
0 Supplemental spring,
summer, fall food 0
TOTAL 0
Black Bear
° Food and cover 0
° Food 0
o Marginal year-round
H food and cover 0 <: o Supplemental spring, I
00 summer, fall food 0 w TOTAL 0
Snowshoe Hare
• Year-round food and
cover 0
0 Year-round food,
limited cover 0
• Marginal year-round
food and cover 0
o Low quality or
inadequate food 0
TOTAL 0
Red Squirrel
• Year-round food and
cover 0
o Low quality or
inadequate food 0
TOTAL 0
Fur Bearers -
important feeding 0
,..------,
~. " J
,--) I ' lo., o).J
Table IV-27
(-----,
J L.l
DIRECT TERRESTRIAL HABITAT IMPACTS BY WILDLIFE VALUE
(Acres)
No-Crossing Downtown Project
Hovercraft Crossing
(Includes (North
Glenn/Parks Houston Bridge Seward Houston
Im~rovement Connector) A~~roach) Connector Connector Total
90.2 611.6 122.4' 7.3 611.6 741.3
0 90.0 0 0 90.0 90.0
0 139.Ei 0 0 139.6 139.6
0 9.3 0 0 9.3 9.3
90,2 850.5 122.4 7.3 850.5 980.2
90.2 611.6 122.4 7,3 611.6 741.3
35.4 90.0 0 0 90.0 90.0
0 99.3 0 0 99.3 99.3
0 9,3 0 0 9.3 9.3
125.6 810.2 122.4 7.3 810,2 939.9
90.2 611.6 122.4 7.3 611.6 741.3
0 90,0 0 0 90.0 90.0
0 99.3 0 0 99.3 99.3
0 40.3 0 0 40.3 40.3
90.2 841.2 122.4 7.3 841.2 970.9
90.2 710.9 122.4 7.3 710.9 840.6
0 40.3 0 0 40.3 40.3
90.2 --=rsr:2 122.4 7.3 751.2 880,9
35.4 0 0 0 0 0
Elmendorf Project
Crossing CJ;ossing
(South (North
Bridge Bridge Houston
AEproach) Approach) Connector Total
210.2 53.8 611.6 875.6
0 0 90.0 90.0
49.6 0 139.6 189.2
18.4 0 9.3 27,7
278.2 53.8 850.5 1,182.5
210.2 53.8 611.6 875.6
0 0 90.0 90.0
15.6 0 99.3 114.9
18.4 0 9.3 27.7
244.2 53.8 810,2 1,108.2
210.2 53.8 6ll.6 875.6
0 0 90.0 90.0
15.6 0 99.3 114.9
34.0 0 40.3 74.3
259.8 53.8 841.2 1,154.8
225.8 53.8 710.9 990.5
34.0 0 40.3 74.3
259,8 53.8 751.2 1,064.8
0 0 0 0
Table. IV-27 (continued)
DIRECT TERRESTRIAL HABITAT II1PACTS BY WILDLIFE VALUE
(Acres)
No-Crossing Downtown Project Elmendorf Project
Hovercraft Crossing Crossing Crossing
(Includes (North (South (North
No-Glenn/Parks Houston Bridge Seward Houston Bridge Bridge Houston
Action ImErovement Connector) AEEroach) Connector Connector Total AEEroach) AEproach) Connector Total
SEruce Grouse
• Year-round food and
cover 0 90.2 611.6 122.4 7.3 611.6 741.3 210.2 53.8 611.6 875.6
0 Marginal year-round
food and cover 0 0 99.3 0 0 99.3 99.3 15.6 0 99.3 114.9
o Low quality or
inadequate food 0 0 40.3 0 0 40.3 40.3 34.0 0 40.3 74.3
TOTAL 0 90.2 751.2 122.4 7.3 751.2 880.9 259.8 53.8 751.2 1,064.8
Song Birds -nesting
habitat (shrub nesting
only) 0 90.2 841.2 122.4 7.3 841.2 970.9 259.8 53.8 841.2 1,154.8
H Muskeg Nesting Birds 'f
00 (e.g. greater yellowlegs)
,J::. -breeding habitat 0 0 9.3 0 0 9.3 9.3 18.4 0 9.3 27.7
Waterfowl and shore
~(e.g., lesser
Canada goose, Tule
white-fronted goose,
mallard, pintail, sand-
hill crane) -
important migration
and nesting 0 35.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 o· 0 0
Note: Table is derived from the information presented in Tables III-11 and IV-26
,.----;-
' :, )
I~ .. J
t
.... -"'
some of the best winter range is located _(Rothe et al. , 1983) • Winter range
on the Base and Fort Richardson is already heavily grazed, and a decrease in
range availability could decrease the local moose population or cause
degradation of remaining winter range through overgrazing. The other
habitat types that would be altered are generally less valuable than the
mixed forest, with the possible exception of the meadow and low shrub types
which are less widespread but provide important habitat diversity and winter
moose food. The Houston Connector would take 0.06 percent of the 178,960
acres in the Willow Sub-Basin. The latter habitat groups would be contacted
to a minor extent by the· Houston Connector, but again, significant effects
on wildlife populations would not be expected from habitat alteration alone.
Because of uncertainty regarding location and design of construction staging
facilities, habitat disturbance from these facilities and their access roads
was not included in Tables IV-26 and IV-27. A staging yard on the Anchorage
waterfront could involve dredge and fill of up to 15 acres of unvegetated
intertidal mudflats. The fill would be within an industrial area and
filling of the mudflats likely would occur regardless of Crossing
Alternative implementation since permits have already been obtained by a
private developer for the filling. A staging area north of Knik Arm at
either of the two locations described in Chapter II would involve eithe:t
clearing about 15 acres of mixed coniferous/deciduous forest on the bluff
top or filling about 15 acres of intertidal mudflat/gravel beach area.
Access roads to the north shore sites would cause the alteration of upland
forest habitat, however the greater portion of these roadways would be
coincident ·with the southern portion of the Houston Connector and Crossing
north approach roads, thus little additional habitat would be al.tered. The
road to a staging area in the Point MacKenzie area would add about 25 acres
(assuming a 100-foot right-of-way) of upland forest habitat to the total
altered by the project.
Up to 15 acres of additional wetland (unvegetated mudflat) could be altered
by filling in the intertidal zone for construction staging facilities at one
of the three locations described.
Little direct impact to waterfowl would occur as a result of habitat
alteration from either of the Crossing Alternatives. Most wetlands
traversed either north or south of Knik Arm are of the bog type. Bog-type
wetlands are used to some extent by waterfowl, especially when connected to
open water. Most of the wetlands crossed are not associated with open
water, and their significance to waterfowl is minor, particularly when
compared to coastal wetlands. The Seward Connector would cross intertidal
mud flats that are utilized by some species of dabbling ducks for feeding in
summer and fall. These birds would be disturbed during construction, but
since this portion of the roadway would be elevated, there would be little
long-term impact.
Direct impacts from the Hovercraft Alternative would include habitat use for
terminal facilities (approximately 10 acres) and for the Houston Connector,
see· Tables IV-26 and IV-27. Moose mortality would be less than with a
Crossing Alternative because traffic on the Connector would be considerably
less.
IV-85
/
The Glenn/Parks Improvement would expand the width of the existing highway
from Eagle River to Wasilla, and thus would alter some natural terrain
adjacent to areas already disturbed; see Tables IV-26 and IV-27. The impact
of upland habitat alteration on wildlife probably would be insignificant.
The impact would be more significant on the wetland habitats in the Eklutna
and Palmer Hay Flats areas; the amount of available habitat for waterfowl
and moose use of these coastal marshes would be reduced.
Of greater significance to large mammals (such as moose and black bear) than
direct habitat loss, would be the disturbance caused by highway noise and
human presence. This disturbance would decrease usable habitat beyond .the
area taken by the roadway. As far as is known, there have been no studies
comparing the density of large mammals adjacent to highways with their
density away from highways in northern wooded environments. Various studies
of the behavioral response of wildlife to noise suggest that most species
act to avoid loud intez:mi.ttent noises, but reaction to constant moderate
noise is variable and noise accommodation often occurs (Dufour, 1980).
Human presence also acts to deter some animals, however vegetation growing
within cleared right-of-ways often attracts some species such as· moose and·
snowshoe hare, and some species learn to be attracted by roadway noise.
Thus, it would be likely that the density of birds (especially nesting
birds) and mammals would be somewhat lower adjacent to the proposed highways
than in non-highway areas. Using noise levels presented in Table IV-35, and
the factors for noise drop-off of 4.;5 dB per doubling distance for a
vegetated site (FHWA, December 1978) and five dB per 100 feet of dense
forest, either Crossing Alternative would cause increased noise levels for
about 1,200 acres of wildlife habitat. The type of habitat affected-would
be similar to that taken by project right-of~way. This disturbance would
occur along the Houston Connector with. the Downtown Project and both along
the Houston Connector and in the undeveloped portion of Elmendorf AFB with
the Elmendorf Project. Along the Houston Connector with the Hovercraft
Alternative, traffic volumes would be lower and only about 250 acres would-
be disturbed. No additional wildlife disturbance would· occur with the
Glenn/Parks Improvement.
Mortality of moose from vehicle collisions would probably be a significant
impact along non-fenced portions of the proposed highways, judging from the
high mortality that has occurred along the Glenn Highway adjacent to Fort
Richardson and Elmendorf AFB (Rothe et al., 1983). The Elmendorf Project
probably would cause less mortality than the Downtown Project because
traffic volumes on the unfenced Houston Connector would be less with
Elmendorf. Winter concentrations of moose could occur in lowland areas
along the Houston Connector north of Big Lake, and mortality likely would be
heaviest in that area. Either Crossing Alternative would reduce traffic on
the Glenn and Parks Highways, reducing mortality. Little mortality would
occur on Elmendorf AFB, even though moose tend to concentrate in the winter
in the southeastern portion of the base because of pockets of good quality
winter range (Rothe et al., 1983), since the roadway would be fenced. Moose
mortality also would occur along the Houston Connector with the Hovercraft
Alternative but the impact would be much less than with a Crossing due to
significantly lower volumes. The Glenn/Parks Improvement would have no
~pact on moose mortality.
IV-86
[
[
[
[
[
c
c
[
c
[
L
No-Action would not directly affect the terrestrial ~abitats.
Secondary impacts could occur to terrestrial biota {plants and animals)
either as a result of development induced by the Crossing Alternatives or as
a result of altered patterns of human activity. The Crossing
Alternatives would greatly increase the development opportunities north of
Knik Arm and would provide convenient access into areas previously
accessible only with difficulty. Secondary impacts that could occur to
wildlife resources and their habitats would include: Direct withdrawal of
habitat as a result of residential, commercial, and industrial development
and Tocal access road construction; and increased hunting and trapping
pressure. The former will be discussed here and the latter in a subsequent
section.
Withdrawal of habitat for development would ~e a long-term impact and would
be similar but more extensive than direct impacts from the Crossing
Alternatives themselves. The extent of secondary impacts on the terrestrial
-environment would depend on which Alternative · is. implemented. No
significant secondary impacts would occur with No-Crossing, although a
limited amount of increased development would occur with Hovercraft.
Tables IV-19 and IV-20, under "Urban Growth and Economic Development ... ,
indicate the amount of additional Mat-Su Borough residential and non-
residential growth expected for several growth allocation scenarios. Acres
of development can be calculated using those figures and. the ;following
residential and employme~t densities: ·
Point MacKenzie
Knik/Goose Bay
Fish Creek
Willow/Nancy Lake
Houston/Big Lake
Wasilla/Fishhook
Palmer/Sutton
Dwelling Units
Per Acre
2
1.5
1
1
2
2
1.5
Employees
Per Acre
0.48
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.48
0.48
These densities were judged to be those most likely to occur by the project
team in consultation with the Mat-Su Borough.
A-maximum of between 8,200 and 14,000 acres would develop by 2010 with the
··Downtown Project beyond that which would develop with No-Crossing. This
would be 3,100 to 5,800 acres with the Elmendorf Project. New growth would
be the greatest in the Point MacKenzie area. Significant growth also would
occur in the Knik/Goose Bay, Big Lake/Houston, and Fish Creek areas. The
development would tend to occur on land easily developed, e.g., well drained
soils and gentle topography. More than enough of this type of land exists
to fill development needs; over 350,000 acres are classified by the Willow
Sub-Basin Study as having moderate to high capability for moderate to high
density development {U. s. Department of Agriculture et al., October 1981).
Development in wetlands might occur either in specific high demand areas
(such as near lakes) or on small intermittent wetlands in areas generally
dry, but upland areas would be developed first, see "Wetlands".
IV-87
/
In 1981, the Borough had 18,374 acres of developed land excluding
agricultural (DOWL Engineers, February, 1983). In 2010, with No-Crossing
the number of dwelling units in the Borough would be ~.8 times that in 1981.
Multiplying this number times the 1981 acres of developed land would
indicate that the Borough would have an estimated 88,000 developed acres in
2010 with No-Crossing. Thus, using the numbers described in the previous
paragraph, the Elmendorf Project would increase the amount of developed
acreage in 2010 by 3.5 to 6.6 percent over No-Crossing. The increase would
be 9.3 to 15.9 percent with the Downtown Crossing.
Table IV-28 breaks down the additional acres which would be developed in the
Mat-S~ Borough by the same habitat types as used in Table IV-26. Table
IV-29 shows the additional acres which would be developed with respect to
habitat value. Mapping showing 34 categories of vegetation prepared by the
U. s. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and Alaska Department of Natural
Resources (ADNR) for the Willow Sub-basin was used to identify area habitat
. (Bob Bennett, ADNR, personal communication). Development was assumed to
cluster in the vicinity of intersections and to occur on land with moderate
to high capacity for development. The two forest habitats where development
is indicated would be the only two habitats on the SCS and ADNR maps that
would be both suitable for development and in the area where shifted growth
would be located. Salt marsh and intertidal wetlands are also shown on
these maps but it was judged they would be unlikely to develop. As with the
direct impact, the primary habitat disturbed would be mixed coniferous/
deciduous forest. Additional development with the Elmendorf Project would
take 0.9 to 1.8 Eercent (2,600 to 5,100 acres) of the 286,100 acres of this
·habitat type in the Willow Sub-basin. The take would be 2.6 to 4.4 percent
(7,300 to 12,600 acres) with the Downtown Project. Additional development.
with the Elmendorf Project also would take 3.8 to 5.4 percent (500 to 700
acres) of the 13,000 acres (Bob Bennett, ADNR, personal communication) of
closed black spruce habitat in the Willow Sub-basin. The take would be 6.9
to 10.8 percent (900 to 1,400 acres) with the Downtown Project.
Secondary impacts would be substantially more extensive than direct impacts,
however several factors need to be considered to put secondary·impacts into
perspective:
0
0
0
The area developed would be that area where future Borough development
is expected to be concentrated even with No-Crossing. This expectation
is based on the findings of the Borough Draft Comprehensive Plan (DOWL
Engineers, February 1983).
Safeguards exist to protect critical habitat via the State of Alaska
Coastal Zone Management Plan, as well as the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Section 40~ permitting procedure (regulating the excavating
and filling of water bodies and wetlands), and the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game anadromous fish stream permit program.
Substantial areas of critical habitat already have been set aside in
this part of the Borough, including three State game refuges and a
State park, see Chapter II , "Urban and Military Function and
Operation". In addition, Alaska Department of Natural Resources
IV-88
r
[
[
[
[
c
c
[
[
[
L
L
L
l;
L
L~
[
,,
I
;
I
'--•
Habitat Type
Coniferous and
mixed deciduous/
coniferous forest
Low shrub scrub
(part wetland)
Closed black
spruce
(part wetland)
Sedge/grass
meadow (wet
and dry)
(mostly wetland)
Tall shrub and
deciduous forest
Salt marsh
(wetland)
Intertidal mudflat
(wetland)
Disturbed areas
TOTAL
NOTE
Table IV-28
GROWTH ALLOCATION
IMPACT ON TERRESTRIAL HABITAT IN MAT-SU BOROUGH
BY HABITAT TYPE 2010
(Acres)
No-Crossing
Alternative
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Project Elmendorf Project
0 7,300 to 12,600 2,600 to 5,100
0 0 0
0 900 to 1,400 500 to 700
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 8,200 to 14,000 3,100 to 5,800
Vegetation types and dominant wildlife values for each habitat type are shown in
Table III-11.
IV-89
Table IV-29
GROWTH ALLOCATION
IMPACT ON TERRESTRIAL HABITAT IN MAT-SU BOROUGH
BY HABITAT VALUE (2010)
(Acres)
Habitat Value No-Crossing Alternative
Moose
~r-round food and cover
o Year-round food, limited cover
o Marginal year-round food and cover
o Supplemental spring, summer, fall food
TOTAL
Black Bear
o Food and cover
o Food
0 Marginal year-round food and cover
• Supplemental spring, SUII1Dier, fall food
TOTAL
Snowshoe Hare
• Year-round food and cover
• Year-round food, limited cover
• Marginal year-round food and cover
• Low quality or inadequate food
TOTAL
Red Squirrel
o Year-round food and cover
• Low quality or inadequate food
TOTAL
Fur Bearers -important feeding
Spruce Grouse
• Year-round food and cover
• Marginal year-round food and cover
• Low quality or inadequate food
TOTAL
Song Birds -nesting habitat
Muskeg Nesting'Birds (e.g. greater yellowlegs)
-breeding hab~tat
Water Fowl and Shore Birds (e.g., lesser Canada
goose, Tule white-fronted goose, mallard,
pintail, sandhill crane) -important migration
and nesting
NOTE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table is derived from information in Tables III-11 and IV-28.
IV-90
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Project Elmendorf Project
7,300 to 12,600
0
900 to 1,400
0
8,200 to 14,000
7,300 to 12,600
0
0
0
7,300 to 12,600
7,300 to 12,600
0
900 to 1,400
0
8,200 to 14,000
8,200 to 14,000
0
8,200 to 14,000
0
7,300 to 12,600
900 to 1,400
0
8,200 to 14,000
8,200 to 14,bOO
0
0
2,600 to 5,100
0
500 to 700
0
3,100 to 5,800
2,600 to 5;100
0
0
0
2,600 to 5,100
2,600 to 5,100
0
500 to 700
0
3,100 to 5,800
3,100 to 5,800
0
3,100 to 5,800
0
2,600 to 5,100
500 to 700
0
3,100 to 5,800
3,100 to 5,800
0
0
r L
L
c
[,
[i
c
[
c
L
L
I L -
l~'
L..i
I
I
'-•
L~
/
planning calls for the maintenance of the Little Susitna River as a
wilderness/recreation corridor permitting access only at the Parks
Highway, Holstein Drive, and the proposed Chuitna Highway Corridor, see
Chapter III~ "Land Use Plans".
Additional measures to mitigate impacts will be investigated jointly by
FHWA, ADOT/PF, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (in consultation with
other interested local, State, and Federal agencies) prior to release of the
Final EIS.
Marine Habitats. Construction of a staging dock and construction of a
bridge at either the Downtown or Elmendorf locations would cause temporary
disturbance to marine biota. Dredging for bridge piers would cause
localized mortality of organisms associated with the sea bottom in the
dredge area. Benthic infauna (animals living in the bottom sediments) are
uncommon in the project area (Bakus et al., 1979) ; however, epifaunal
(animals living on or near the bottom) crustaceans such as shrimp are
common, as indicated in Technical Memorandum No. 15, Marine Biological
Studies (U.S. DOT/ADOT/PF, December 20, 1983), and likely would be affected
during construction. Most fish would move away from the areas of
disturbances. The area to be excavated would be very small relative to the
total area of Knik Arm and mortality to marine invertebrates would not be
significant in terms of the total ecosystem. The epifauna are mobile and
would quickly re-colonize dredged areas. Increased suspended sediment as a
result of dredging probably would not affect the biological community, since
organisms are adapted to extreme turbidity, high sediment loads, and
continually changing conditions.
Noise and activity associated with pile ·driving and dredging could interfere
with the movements of fish and possibly Beluga whales. Of particular
concern would be out-migrating juvenile salmon and in-migrating adult
salmon. Other migratory species such as eulachon ("hooligan") and
stickleback also could be affected. At any given time, construction would
be occurring within only a limited portion of Knik Arm, therefore ample area
would be available for fish passage, and impact on adult salmon would be
minimal and short-term. Of greater concern would be the less mobile,
smaller fish (juvenile salmon, eulachon) that typically migrate along the
shoreline. Construction activity occurring within the intertidal zone could
block movement or cause direct mortality during periods when the tide stage
corresponds with the activity zone. Evidence suggests that most juvenile
salmon move out of Knik Arm within a period of a few days. Delays in this
outmigration as a result of construction activities could cause young salmon
to expend addi tiona! energy and postpone feeding thus increasing overall
mortality rates. Species that form large schools such as chum and pink
salmon, eulachon, and sticklebacks would be especially vulnerable to direct
mortality from dredging in shallow water. These impacts would be
mitigated by limiting activity in the intertidal zone to low tide during the
sensitive period May 1 to July 1. Disturbance of marine-oriented water
birds also could occur as a result of construction activity. However, such
birds are uncommon on Knik Arm, as indicated in Technical Memorandum No. 15,
Marine Biological Studies (USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF, December 20, 1983) and thus
a significant impact would not occur.
IV-91
Long-term impacts to marine biota from either bridge alternative would be
minimal. The bridge piers would create eddies, where existing currents are
normally strong, which could be beneficial to fish by increasing habitat
diversity and adding areas of refuge from the current. Temporary ice
pile-up against the piers could cause scour, especially in shallow areas,
and possibly decrease marine invertebrate survival in these areas during the
winter. Means to minimize ice pile-up would be considered during bridge
pier design.
The magnitude. of direct marine biological impacts from the Downtown or
Elmendorf Projects would be similar. Construction impacts would occur over
a longer time period for the Downtown Project because of the additional
construction time required.
No direct impacts to marine biological resources would occur as a result of
either No-Action or the Glenn/Parks Improvement. Hovercraft would disturb
animals such as seabirds and marine mammals that are oriented to the water
surface. Both these categories of animals are uncommon along Knik Arm, and
impacts could be minimized if Hovercraft operators would watch for and avoid
the animals when they are seasonally present.
Secondary impacts to the marine environment could occur to the extent that
a Crossing Alternative would help to induce the development of port
facilities in the Point MacKenzie area, as currently conceptualized in
Mat-Su Borough planning documents, see "Land Use Plans". Impacts to the
biological community from such a development probably would be substantially
greater than the direct impacts from construction and operation of a Knik
Arm bridge. The kinds of impacts to marine biota that could occur as a
result of a major port development include:
0
0
0
0
Localized water pollution from spills of petroleum products, sanitary
wastes, and other hazardous substances could decrease marine
productivity.
Shoreline structures such as bulkheads and piers could interfere with
migrating fish, and smaller fish such as juvenile salmon could be
subjected to additional predation due to forced exposure to deep water
conditions.
Noise and activity associated with shipping could decrease populations
of marine birds and mammals in the vicinity of the port.
Intertidal habitats would be displaced.
No secondary impacts would occur with No-Crossing.
IV-92
r
[
f'
L
L
L
r
[
r
L
[
L
L
L
l
_;
/
Aquatic Habitats. Table IV-30 shows the important fish streams and lakes
which would be crossed by each alternative. Table IV-31 shows the same
information by habitat value. Direct adverse effects on fish or other
components of aquatic ecosystems would be minimal with the Downtown Project.
Only one water body, Mirror Lake, would be crossed by the proposed roadways
along the Houston Connector portion of the project. Construction of the
400-foot Mirror Lake bridge would involve working in the water and thus
would disturb fish in the immediate vicinity. Mirror Lake, at the crossing
location, is shallow with a soft bottom and is not used by spawning fish
(Robert Chlupach, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, personal communication).
Some rearing of juvenile salmonids would be expected in the area. Temporary
displacement of resident fish would occur in the construction area and
increased turbidity could interfere temporarily with fish feeding activity
within the affected area. Bridge construction activities would be
coordinated with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to minimize impacts.
Construction adjacent to Ship Creek associated with the Seward Connector
could cause short-term siltation or turbidity and minor adverse impacts to
fish resources. Long-term direct impacts to freshwater fish resources would
not be anticipated as a result of the Downtown Project.
The Elmendorf Project-would have direct impacts similar to those of the
Downtown Project since they both would utilize the Houston Connector on the
north. The south approach to the bridge would cross Ship Creek via a single
span bridge. Direct disturbance to the stream probably would not occur
during construction since access would be available to the stream from both
sides, and all work would occur from the banks. No adverse effects on fish
or the aquatic-ecosystem of Ship Creek would be expected.
No impact to freshwater biota would occur as a result of either the
No-Action or the Hovercraft Alternative. The Glenn/Parks Improvement would
have considerable potential for direct impact since the improvements would
affect six major streams and several minor streams, nearly all of which
contain anadromous fish resources. Impacts which resulted from the existing
Glenn and Parks Highways have not been examined in detail, but there is no
reason to believe tha't7 severe impacts have occurred to fish populations.
Single span bridges would be used where feasible to avoid instream work and
alteration of stream channels. Structure design and instream work would be
closely coordinated with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to assure
IIU.m.mum damage to aquatic habitats and provide for fish passage.
Nevertheless, the potential for direct impact to aquatic biota would be
substantially greater for this Alternative than for the other Alternatives.
Secondary impacts could occur to aquatic biota as a result of development
induced by the Crossing Alternatives or as a result of altered patterns of
human activity. .A Crossing Alternative would significantly increase
development opportunities north of Knik Arm and would provide convenient
access into areas previously accessible only with difficulty. The kinds of
secondary impacts that could occur to fish resources and their habitats
would include:
0 Increased fishing pressure and harvest in the lower Little Susitna
River, its tributaries, and lakes adjacent to the Houston Connector
route
IV-93
Streams
Little Susitna River
Fish Creek
Goose Creek
Ship Creek
Eagle River
Peters Creek
Eklutna River
Knik River
Matanuska River
Spring Creek
Rabbit Slough
Wasilla Creek
Cottonwood Creek
Meadow Creek
Lakes
Mirror Lake/Big Lake
Table IV-30
CROSSING OF IMPORTANT FISH STREAMS AND LAKES
No-Crossing Alternatives
No-
Action
Glenn/Parks
. Improvement
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hovercraft
(including
Houston
Connector)
X
* Parallels but does not cross Ship Creek
IV-94
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown
Project
X*
X
Elmendorf
Project
X
X
[
r
[
r: L
[
[
[
[
[
r
L
c
[
l
L
L
Table IV-31
CROSSING OF IMPORTANT FISH STREAMS AND LAKES
BY HABITAT VALUE
-, (Number of Crossings)
o _ _,_.
No-Crossing Alternatives Crossing Alternatives .--,
Hovercraft
(including
No-Glenn/Parks Houston Downtown Elmendorf
Habitat Value Action Improvement Connector) Project Project
STREAM HABITAT
Chinook Salmon
-0~ Spawning 0 2 0 1* 1 --·
0 Rearing 0 0 0 1* 1
0 .Migration 0 1 0 0 0
Coho Salmon
0 Spawning 0 5 0 1* 1
0 Rearing 0 5 0 1* 1
.! 0 Migration 0 3 0 0 0
Pink Salmon
l": 0 Spawning 0 0 0 1* 1
0 Rearing 0 0 0 0 0
0 Migration 0 2 0 0 0
L_,i Chum Salmon
0 Spawning 0 2 0 0 1 .-, 0 Rearing 0 0 0 0 0 t 0 Migration 0 1 0 0 0
Sockeye Salmon
0 Spawning 0 0 0 0 0
'-~ .J 0 Rearing 0 1 0 0 0
0 Migration 0 3 0 0 0
... -...... Rainbow Trout
0 Spawning 0 0 0 0 0
.,.., 0 Rearing 0 0 0 0 0
Dolly Varden
0 Spawning 0 0 0 0 0
0 Rearing 0 0 0 0 0
IV-95
Table IV-31 (continued)
CROSSING OF IMPORTANT FISH STREAMS AND LAKES
BY HABITAT VALUE
(Number of Crossings)
No-Crossing Alternatives Crossing Alternatives
Habitat Value
No-
~ction
LAKE HABITAT
Coho Salmon -
rearing
Sockeye Salmon -
rearing
Rainbow Trout
0
0
Rearing
Habitat for
stocked
Dolly Varden -
rearing
Diving Birds (e.g.
common loon, golden
eye trumpeter swan) -
feeding and nesting
0
0
0
0
0
0
Glenn/Parks
Improvement
0
0
0
0
0
0
* Parallels but does not cross Ship Creek
NOTE
Hovercraft
(including
Houston
Connector)
1
1
1
0
1
0
Downtown
Project
1
1
1
0
1
0
Table was derived from information contained in Tables III-11 an~ IV-28
IV-96
Elmendorf
Project
1
1
0
0
1
0
[
[
r
L
{'
L
[
[
r
[
[
f~'
c
[
L
L
0
0
0
0
0
Decrease in habitat quality or water quality .as a result of direct
alteration of stream systems from residential or industrial develop-
ment, road proliferation, etc. --small streams used as rearing habitat
by coho salmon and other salmonids may be the most vulnerable
Loss of stream bank habitat as a result of fishing pressure -trampling
and littering
Decrease in lake shore habitats due to development -loss of salmonid
rearing habitat
Blockage of fish passage as a result of inadequate stream crossing
design on local access roadways subdivision roads are often not
built to State design standards
Adverse impacts to water supply as a result of surface and groundwater
demands, altered surface drainage, and wetland development
The above secondary impacts . would be long-term and would be much more
significant than the direct impacts from the Crossing Alternatives
themselves. Increased fishing pressure and harvest is addressed in the next
section. The extent of development resulting from the Crossing Alternatives
was described under "Terrestrial Environment". There is no way to estimate
the extent to which new development in the Borough would occur adjacent to
lakes and streams. Lakeside or streamside homes are viewed as desirable,
and much o~ the development occurring south of the Parks Highway now is
around area lakes. The Mat-Su Borough places limitations on "shoreland"
development in subdivision regulations (Mat-Su Borough, March 1982) which
would help minimize adverse impacts from development along lakes and
streams. The regulations specify that no structure (except a dock or
related) can be closer than 75 feet from the high water mark of the stream
or lake. Also, lots must be at least 140 feet in width at the water line
unless community sewerage is provided and then they can be as narrow as 85
feet. No part of a subsurface sewage disposal system can be closer than 100
feet from any-body of water or watercourse. No significant secondary impact
would result from a No-Crossing Alternative, although a limited amount of
increased development could occur with Hovercraft.
Use of Fish and Wildlife. Probably the most significant indirect effect of
either of the Crossing Alternatives relates to the increased access to the
area between Knik Arm and the Little Susi tna River. The proposed Houston
Connector, in combination with existing and -probable future roads, would
allow residents of the Anchorage metropolitan area to reach key recreational
areas in 30 to 60 minutes. This would provide enhanced hunting and fishing
opportunity north of Knik Arm and would relieve pressure on other heavily
used areas near Anchorage. A Crossing Alternative would shift already
forecast hunting and fishing demand, and in addition, improved access would
serve latent demand. The Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan (ADNR, Division of
Parks, 1981) shows that fishing and hunting are among the !!lOSt popular
activities of Southcentral residents. Reasons given for lack of
participation often include high transportation costs, lack of hunting and
fishing sites, areas too crowded, and areas inaccessible by car.
IV-97
Fishing pressure in the lower portion of the Little Susitna River and other
fish streams would increase greatly. The Little Susitna drainage is already
heavily fished in its upper reaches. Increased fishing in the lower river
would_require more rigid management measures to protect salmon stocks, and a
heavily managed fishery such as now occurs on the Kenai River could result.
Competition between sport and subsistence fishermen for salmon would
intensify, and salmon stocks could be reduced if escapement to spawning
areas would not be sufficient to sustain population levels. Fishing
pressure on the lakes adjacent to the Houston Connector also would increase.
Waterfowl hunting and harvest would increase in two key areas: The Goose
Bay State Game Refuge and the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge. The Susitna
Flats is a highly productive area which currently has no ground access other
than all-terrain vehicle trails. A Crossing Alternative would not provide
ground access but would bring the refuge closer in terms of travel time to
Anchorage. Ground access to the periphery of the Goose Bay State Game
Refuge does exist, and an influx of urban hunters could cause significant
impact on fall migrant birds. The extent of impact would be dependent on
the ultimate location and number of roadways resulting from development in
the Point MacKenzie area and their proximity to good hunting areas in the
refuges. Increased management of both refuges would be required to respond
to hunter demands and the end result probably would be little or no impact
to waterfowl populations.
Pressure fqr harvest of moose, bear, spruce grouse, and other similar
species also would increase in the area north of Knik Arm with the greatest
pressure occurring near roads. These animals are widely dispersed through
the area and hunting pressure probably would be less affected by convenient
access than for fish and waterfowl that are concentrated in special habitat
areas. Trapping pressure and furbearer harvest also would increase adjacent
to access points. Increased management of the area would be required to
respond to hunter demands and the end result probably would be little or no
impact to animal populations.
Threatened or Endangered Species. No impact to threatened or endangered
species would occur as a result of any of the alternatives.
Wetlands
Table IV-26 presents the surface area and Appendix C describes the location
and type of wetlands that would be directly disturbed by the various
components of either the Downtown or the Elmendorf Project. Appendix C also
presents additional detail on wetlands (that would be directly affected by
the alternatives under consideration) and mitigating measures. Wetlands
compose 10.1 and 8.2 percent of the total area that would be disturbed
directly by the Downtown and Elmendorf Projects, respectively. In routing
the connecting roadways, especially north of Knik Arm, wetlands were avoided
to the greatest degree feasible as is evidenced by the large percentage of
wetland (42 percent) (U.S. Department of Agriculture et al., October 1981)
in the Willow Sub-basin (where most of the wetland impact would occur)
compared to the percentage that would be disturbed by a Project.
IV-98
[
[
[
[
c
[
[
[
[
L
[
L
[
[
L
f L
.,
'
Some plant and animal productivity would be lost as a result of highway fill
and clearing of wetlands. In addition, wetland structure and function could
be altered by blockage of natural drainage patterns. This latter impact
would be mitigated by use of bridges, culverts, and other drainage
structures to retain natural drainage as much as possible. No significant
impacts on local hydrological regimes and nutrient chemistry would occur
because wetland encroachments proposed for the Crossing Alternatives would
be small relative to the total area of wetland. No wetlands known to be
used for salmon rearing would be affected.
Impacts to wetlands caused by Hovercraft would include disturbance of
intertidal mud flats at the two terminal locations and alteration of
wetlands by the Houston Connector. Less than 10 acres of relatively
unproductive intertidal area would be altered along with about 40 acres of
interior wetland along the Houston Connector.
The Glenn/Parks Improvement would traverse about 8.3 miles of productive
coastal marsh wetland in the Eklutna Flats and Palmer Hay Flats areas.
Widening the Glenn Highway from four to six lanes would require filling 35
acres of wetland to provide the needed roadbed. This would be a substantial
loss of productive marsh. In addition, the roadway could alter the movement
of fish and salt water within the remaining marsh and could affect the
composition of vegetation by altering salinity. However, the likelihood of
this impact would be low since an existing roadway would be widened and no
new barrier to fish and water movement would be created. Existing
provisions for water flow under the highway would be maintained. Wildlife
impacts are discussed in the terrestrial habitats section of "Biological
Resources".
As a result of changing development patterns in the Mat-Su Borough that
would occur with a Crossing Alternative, the area of wetlands that would be
developed (in addition to that with No-Action} would be small. Wetlands
that would be developed as a result of new Mat-Su growth would be
intermittent, small wetlands in areas that generally would be dry. High
demand areas; such as near lakes and streams, also would be likely places
for some wetlands development, but uplands would develop first. There is no
reason to expect that large areas of wetland would be developed, because the
Willow Sub-basin has a large area of non-wetland available for development
(over 350,000 acres of land with moderate to high capability for development
according to the ADNR data base for the Sub-basin}. As discussed under
"Biological Resources", area wetlands would be protected from unacceptable
harm due to development by the Corps of Engineers 404 permit program and the
State of Alaska's Coastal Zone Management review process. Mitigation of
wetlands disturbance by new Borough growth will be considered in the
mitigation program to be developed in cooperation with the u.s. Fish and
Wildlife Service, as described under "Biological Resources".
Water Quality
Marine Environment. Construction of a Knik Arm bridge with either the
Downtown or the Elmendorf Crossing would cause some temporary, localized
alteration to the water quality of Knik Arm. Excavation of the sea bottom,
using either a suction dredge or a clamshell, might be required to set the
IV-99
concrete base structure of each pier. This activity would cause some
increase in suspended sediment in the pier vicinity even if done within a
cofferdam. The very high level of natural suspended sediment in Knik Arm
(Kinney et al. , 1970) and the stropg tidal currents would tend to obscure
the impacts of construction-induced sediment suspension, and impacts would
not be noticeable except in the immediate vicinity of ongoing excavations.
In some coastal areas, dredging has caused release of contaminants into the
water column because of disturbance of polluted sediments. Analysis of
sediments in the Point Woronzoff shoreline ar·ea near the Anchorage sewer
outfall indicated no unusual chemical characteristics but did show some
contamination by fecal coliform bacteria, an indicator of the presence of
pollution (U.s. Army Corps of Engineers, 1979). Contamination of sediments
near the Knik Arm Crossing locations would not be anticipated, however
sediment samples from selected locations would be collected and analyzed
prior to construction. If contaminants were shown to be present, then
dredge and spoil disposal techniques that would minimize water pollution
would be selected. Also, during construction, some minimal contamination of
Knik Arm by petroleum products would be inevitable from the various vessels
and equipment employed. Careful operation, adequate maintenance, and spill
cleanup contingency plans would be utilized to minimize this source of
pollution. Construction impacts would be similar for the two bridges except
that the Downtown bridge would require an additional year of construction
and thus impacts would occur over a longer time period.
Long-term illlpacts to marine water quality from either the Downtown or the
Elmendorf Crossing would be minimal. Water runoff from the bridge surfaces
likely would contain small quantities of oil, grease, and de-icers, but the
tidal flushing of Knik Arm would prevent buildup and no significant
pollution from this source would occur. There is a remote possibility
that a vehicle accident on the proposed bridge would cause significant
quanti ties of fuel or other hazardous substances to ·be spilled into Knik
Arm. In the event of a spill, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation would evaluate the situation and
initiate cleanup procedures. If the spill were large, the Regional Response
Team, an-alliance of Federal agencies, would be activated to aid clean-up
and minimize environmental damage.
No short-term or long-term impact to marine water quality would be caused by
either the No-Action or the Glenn/Parks Improvement Alternative. Hovercraft
also would have little impact on water quality except that a minor increase
in suspended sediments could occur in localized areas of Knik Arm during
terminal construction, depending on terminal location and design. Hover-
craft fueling operations could increase the risk of fuel spills into Knik
Arm, however the vehicles would be fueled on land and terminal design would
provide for containment of runoff from fueling stations.
Freshwater Environment. Either the Downtown Project or the Elmendorf
Project could alter water quality within the project area's several
watersheds. Water quality impacts, as a result of highway construction and
operation, might include: Increased suspended solids in stream or wetland
waters from soil erosion and in-stream construction work~ sediment
deposition and stream siltation~ pollution from road runoff (fuel, oil,
IV-100
[
[
[
c
[
[
[
[
E
e
[
[
[
[
c
L
-r
L
de-icer, etc.); and pollution from accidental spil)..s of oil or hazardous
substances. Water resources impact, regardless of impact type, would be
related directly to the extent of exposure to these resources; that is, the
proximity of the project to streams, lakes, and wetlands a+ong with local
topographic characteristics would determine to a large extent whether or not
pollution originating from roadways would be significant.
The Seward Connector would cross primarily urban or disturbed terrain. The
roadway would closely parallel Ship Creek for much of its length, but would
not interfere directly with the creek. The proximity to the creek suggests
that muddy water generated during construction of the roadway could enter
Ship Creek. Although care would be taken to minimize this pollution source,
it is likely that the suspended sediment content of Ship Creek water
would increase adjacent to and downstream from construction areas,
especially during rainfall and spring breakup. Construction impacts would
be controlled by a variety of mitigation measures including drainage ditches
and settling· basins as well as by timing ·construction to. avoid sensitive
periods such as breakup. Even so, small spills of fuel, oil, -and grease
could spill into Ship Creek during construction. Standard spill cleanup
procedures would be employed to ·minimize damage from these pollution
sources. In the long term, runoff from the roadway surface, possibly
containing small amounts of oil, grease, and de-icing salts, also could
enter Ship Creek. However, all of the Connector's drainage would be
collected and introduced into the Municipality's storm drainage system, so
very little.adverse impact to Ship Creek actually would occur.
The south approach of the Elmendorf Crossing would cross relatively
undisturbed terrain on Elmendorf AFB. Only one stream, Ship Creek, would be
crossed by the road. The roadway would cross Ship Creek via a pre-cast
bridge that would span the entire creek. Access would be available on both
sides of the creek, therefore little or no in-stream work would be required.
Erosion at abutments and staging areas could cause a small quantity of
sediment-laden water to enter Ship Creek during construction and prior to
stabilization of disturbed surfaces. The roadway would pass close to
several small lakes and thus some pollution from road runoff could occur.
However, at least a 500-foot distance would be maintained, and runoff from
roads (passing over or briefly adjacent to water bodies) has not been shown
by any known studies to be a significant source of pollution in Alaska. As
with the Seward Connector, small amounts of pollutants might enter the
streams during construction. Construction methods discussed above would be
utilized to either reduce or eliminate this potential impact.
The Houston Connector was located carefully to minimize impacts to streams
and other water resources. The Connector would cross only one water body, a
narrow portion of Mirror Lake just west of Big Lake, on a 400-foot bridge
with several sets of piers in the water. Disturbance of the lake bottom
during in-water work would cause an increase in suspended sediment in
Mirror Lake during construction and for a short period thereafter. Runoff
from abutment areas and staging areas also could contribute sediment to the
lake until stabilized by revegetation and other measures.
IV-101
Most of the remainder of the Houston Connector would traverse well-drained
upland terrain, consequently there would be little significant impact to
water resources. Some erosion of fresh cut and fill slopes would occur,
especially during spring breakup, and sediments could enter wa_ter bodies
depending on local topographic features. Drainage and erosion control, as
well as revegetation, would minimize this potential impact and eliminate
long-term effects. Such mitigation measures would be implemented as soon as
possible after ground disturbance to assure that such impacts, if they
occur, would be short-term. The Houston Connector also would cross several
wetland areas; possible impact to these areas is discussed under "Wetlands".
No significant long-term impacts to water quality would be expected from the
Houston Connector. As with the other roadway segments, road surface runoff
could carry small quantities of pollutants, but impacts would not be
significant, especially in view of the minimum exposure to water bodies.
Among the No-Crossing Alternatives, neither No-Action nor Hovercraft would
have a direct impact on freshwater resources. However, the Glenn/Parks
Improvement would involve drainage structures over six major streams and
several minor streams (described under "Biological Resources"), therefore
direct impacts to freshwater resources clearly would be greater for this
alternative than for the other alternatives under consideration. Impacts
would be minimized through proper design of stream crossings and drainage
facilities and through careful construction procedures.
Secondary impacts could occur to water resources as a result of development
induced by the Crossing Alternatives or as a result of altered patterns of
human activity. Neither the No-Action nor the Glenn/Parks Improvement
Alternative would alter current trends in development. A Crossing
Alternative would increase development north of Knik A~ and probably would
caus~ long-term impact to water resources in selected locations. The extent
of this development is described under "Biological Resources". A limited
increase in development would result from the Hovercraft Alternative. Past
trends in the Mat-Su Borough suggest that lakes.and streams would be a focus
for development, thus a Crossing Alternative would increase the impact on
water resources. The impacts would be greatest for the Downtown Crossing,
which would have the greatest shift of growth to the Mat-Su Borough. The
kinds of impacts that could occur over the long term would include:
0
0
0
Gradual increase in nutrients within the waters of lakes with heavily
developed shorelines, causing an acceleration of the eutrophication
(aging) process and altering plant and animal life within the lakes
Siltation or increased turbidity of streams and lakes as a result of
soil erosion from various development activities such as road building,
shoreline fills, and drainage from industrial facilities
water pollution from industrial or agricultural effluents
Existing State and Federal regulatory and permitting programs would minimize
the above impacts but probably not prevent them completely. In addition,
the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Plan requires State review
IV-102
[
r L
L
[
[
[
[
L
L
L
L
L
L
[·
r
L __ •
I -
'--J
L,
[
[
c
I
L;
[
[
l
[
of all major development plans for consistency with the CZM program; see
Table III-9. This also would help prevent major impacts to water resources.
Mitigation of possible water quality impacts by new Borough growth will be
considered in the mitigation program to be developed in cooperation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as described under "Biological Resources".
Hydrology
Marine Environment. Very little impact to the hydrology of Knik Arm would
occur from either of the Crossing Alternatives. Bridge piers would cause
changes in the patterns of currents and sediment deposition in the immediate
vicinity of the piers, but they would not affect the hydrology of Knik Arm
as a whole. Short-term ice pile-up could occur on the upstream side of the
piers, possibly causing scour of the sea bottom adjacent to the pier,
especially in shallow water. The piers would be designed to deflect ice,
and neither ice damming nor serious scour would be expected.
The No-Crossing Alternatives would not affect the physical characteristics
of marine environments.
Freshwater Environment. Roadways associated with the Downtown and Elmendorf
Projects would alter to a small degree the hydrological characteristics of
several watersheds. Hydrologic impacts that might occur would include:
alteration of stream dynamics as a result of culverts, bridges, and other
structures;. damming or diversion of surface water flow; pending; and altered
soil moisture leading to either drying of wetlands or flooding of dry areas.
The Seward Connector would be mostly elevated and thus would have little
impact on hydrologic regimes. The south approach of the Elmendorf Crossing
would traverse relatively undisturbed terrain, most of which is upland.
Except for the crossing of Ship Creek, there would be little interference
with surface water drainage patterns. The Ship Creek bridge would span the
stream and thus would not affect stream characteristics. See "Floodplains".
The Houston Connector would cross only one water body, Mirror Lake, and the
alignment also would avoid wetlands as much as possible. Much of the route
would be aligned on ridges near the top of drainage divides which would
m~nJ.I[I~ze impacts from altered surface water flow. However, substantial
wetlands would be crossed north of Big Lake and drainage patterns could be
altered in this area. During final design, cross drainage problems would be
minimized by frequent use of culverts and careful surveys of elevations to
locate culverts in the lowest areas.
Neither No-Action nor Hovercraft would have a direct effect on freshwater
resources. The Glenn/Parks Improvement would cross six major streams,
several minor streams, extensive wetlands, and tidally influenced areas, and
therefore impact to hydrologic regimes could be significantly greater for
/this alternative than for the others. Well designed bridges, culverts, and
other cross drainage measures would minimize these impacts.
IV-103
As discussed in the previous section, secondary impacts to water resources
as a result of long-term development in the area north of Knik Arm probably
would be significant. The kinds of impacts that could occur over the long
term include:
0
0
0
Altered stream flow as a result of changes in groundwater or surface
water hydrology caused by water wells, wetland fills, and other terrain
alterations
Decreased groundwater supplies as a result o£ water wells and filling
of wetland recharge areas
Diversion of stream flow for industrial or agricultural purposes
Existing State and Federal regulatory and permitting programs would minimize
the above impacts. In addition, the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Zone Management
(CZM) Plan requires State review of all major development plans for
consistency with the CZM program~ see Table III-9. This also would help
prevent major hydrology impacts.
Floodplains
The Seward Connector of the Downtown Project, the Crossing south approach
road of the Elmendorf Project, and the Glenn/Parks Improvement Alternative
would be tbe only alternatives to cross or closely parallel streams or
drainage channels.
The Seward Connector generally parallels the Ship Creek floodplain (see
Figure III-7) and encroaches upon it beginning at approximately the
intersection of 1st Avenue and Barrow Street. It remains within the
floodplain until reaching the tidelands at the mouth of Ship Creek. The
Connector would be built when required to distribute 2001 (and beyond)
Downtown traffic on two different north-south arterials and thus reduce
congestion on I/L Streets. The location selected for the Seward Connector
would minimize impac~ to existing Ship Creek area structures, rights-of-way,
utilities, and streets. There would be no encroachment in the regulatory
floodway.
The Connector would be an elevated structure with only its pier foundations
encroaching on the floodplain. Consequently, the structure would have
negligible impact upon channel capacity and flood flows. The amount of
water displaced would be minimal and would not raise flood levels. Flood
waters would be able to flow freely around the foundations, and they would
be designed to withstand both the erosive effects of flood flows and the
impacts of floating debris.
There would be minimal damming due to debris wedging around piers and
columns. The encroachment would not take place in the floodway, rather it
would be in an inundated area where velocities would be low. Moreover, any
dam created behind a pier would represent a small portion of the total
stream cross-section.
No other streams or drainage channels would be crossed by the Seward
Connector.
IV-104
[
[
r
L
L
[
[
[
[
[
L
L
[
L
L
_j
The Elmendorf Crossing south approach would cross Ship Creek (see Figure
III-B) via a bridge having piers within the floodplain. This would create a
narrowing of the floodplain at the crossing, but the bridge would be
designed to accommodate flopdwaters at a rate adequate to minimize any
upstream backwater effect. The bridge would have no impact on the
floodplain outside its immediate vicinity. Erosion at the bridge would be
avoided by use of armor stone and by foundation design. No other streams or
drainage channels would be crossed by the Elmendorf Crossing.
The Glenn/Parks Improvement would require widening of bridges over Peters
Creek, Eklutna River, Knik River, Matanuska River, Wasilla Creek, and
Cottonwood Creek. No impact on their floodplains would occur. Either new
bridges or widened existing bridges would be designed not to constrain the
flow more than existing bridges. Other drainages now passing under the
highways would be retained with the same capacity.
It is conceivable that some of the development shifted from· the Anchorage
bowl to the Mat-Su Borough would occur in floodplains. No records are
available on the current extent of development in floodplains , however
Borough subdivision regulations (applicable Borough-wide) do not permit
structures (except docks and related) closer than 75 feet from the high
water mark of a stream or lake (Mat-Su Borough, March 1982). Thus, there is
no reason to believe development in the floodplain would be significant.
Natural Resource Development
Farmlands of State or Local Importance. Right-of-way for the Houston
Connector, included in the Downtown Project, Elmendorf Project, and
Hovercraft Alternative would require the acquisition of approximately 55
acres of farmland of State or local importance. The alignment for the
Connector would pass adjacent to farmland designated in the Willow Sub-basin
Plan (ADNR, October 1982) in the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Area and cross
lands designated for small farms in the Pear Lake area (northwest of Big
Lake). In. the Point MacKenzie area, the State owns and has designated a
600-foot wide transportation corridor~ the Connector would stay within this
corridor, so no right-of-way acquisition from agricultural lands would be
necessary. In the Pear Lake area, the alignments would cross the southeast
corner of the area designated for small farms. The area that would be
acquired is approximately one mile in length and includes about 55 acres of
designated farmland. ·However, this acquisition would not include Class II
or III soils, and due to the nature of the designated use, small farms, the
area would accommodate division by a roadway without leaving parcels that
would be unusable due to size or shape. In addition, the Willow Sub-basin
Plan designates 5,500 acres for small farms~ the Houston Connector would
take only one percent of that total. During final design, efforts would be
made to reduce the take by narrowing the right-of-way to the greatest extent
possible while still leaving room for future widening and utilities. There
would be no encroachment on non-small farm development due to increased
growth, because the designated farmlands are owned by the State or Borough,
both of which could control future use.
Neither the Glenn/Parks Improvement nor the No-Action Alternative would
affect farmland of State or local importance.
IV-105
Agriculture Marketing and Processing. Either Crossing Alternative would
support the Point MacKenzie Agriculture Project by providing improved access
to Anchorage, the local market, and it would support implementation of the
proposed Fish Creek Agricultural Project once planned road access is
complete. A Crossing also would support development of a port/industrial
complex in the Point MacKenzie area, and, if the complex were developed, a
Crossing would provide part of the infrastructure needed to export
agricultural products, produce fertilizer, and handle agricultural
processing (e.g., freezing and canning, tanning hides). This would increase
the incentive for and profitability of local agriculture.
With the Hovercraft Alternative, the access provided would not improve
farm-to-market access to Anchorage and would be unlikely to increase
agricultural productivity. The likelihood of port/industrial development
would not be increased with this alternative, but, were the development to
occur, the benefits to agriculture would be similar to those described above
in relation to a Crossing Alternative.
Neither the Glenn/Parks Improvement nor the No-Action Alternative would have
an impact on agriculture productivity.
Other Surface Resources. A Crossing Alternative would affect the.
development of timber, fish and wildlife, and recreation resources. The
timber cleared from the right-of-way could be salvaged for firewood,
however muc~ of the right-of-way would not be accessible except through the
construction area, and most contractors would be unwilling to allow
salvagers access. In addition, accommodating salvagers in the construction
area would reduce efficiency and increase project cost. A Crossing would
improve access between Anchorage, the major local market, and areas
designated for timber. A Crossing would also support development of a
port/industrial facility at Point MacKenzie which, if developed, could
provide opportunities to process and export wood products.
A Crossing Alternative would affect fish and wildlife habitat and use
through both Project completion and resulting increased development in the
Borough, see "Biological Resources"·.
Access to recreation resources, also would be increased. For example,
travel time from Anchorage to the Nancy Lakes Recreation area would be
reduced by almost 40 percent (92 to 54 minutes) with the Downtown Project,
and approximately 20 percent (92 to 71 minutes) with the Elmendorf Project.
The reduction in travel time would be even greater to planned recreation
areas south of Big Lake and to the Iditarod Trail (to which a new point of
access would be provided).
The Willow Sub-basin Plan indicates that the current combination of heavy
use and limited facilities creates congestion, reduces user satisfaction,
and causes management problems at Willow sub-basin recreation areas. This
is a problem particularly during salmon fishing season when few road
accessed areas exist to accommodate many users. In addition, many
recreational activities in the sub-basin, especially hunting and fishing,
occur on or across private lands. Increased development of private lands as
well as pressure to dispose of public lands would reduce public recreational
opportunities and create trespass problems.
IV-106
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
L
[
[
[
l
r
I
I_~
,.,
[
[
[
r
L
L~
[
[
r.
l_,
[
The Willow Sub-basin Plan identifies several critical, important, and
notable needs for recreation facilities and designates specific lands to be
manC~.ged for recreation (see Chapter III, "Natural Resource Development").
The growth shift resulting from the Crossing Alternatives ~ould increase the
demand for recreation opportunities and facilities in the sub-basin beyond
what would occur with No-Action. Demand also would shift southward from the
Parks Highway area. This would require increased government investment in
the development of recreation facilities and intensified management to
assure that their value would not be depleted· by overuse. However, it is
expected that the new demand in the sub-basin would result partially from a
shifting of · demand · from other areas since the Crossing Alternatives
primarily would alter development patterns rather ·than generate new
development. The new "closeness" of recreation to the user would generate
use that would not have occurred otherwise. The 1981 Alaska Outdoor
Recreation Plan (ADNR, Division of Parks, 1981) shows a need for recreation
activities closer to Anchorage. Fishing is by far the activity in highest
demand in Southcentral Alaska. Tent camping and hunting, respectively, have
the next largest demands. These demands would be partially met by bringing
Borough recreation areas closer to Anchorage. Thus, pressure on Borough
streams and lakes would be increased and they would require more intensive
management.
The Hovercraft Alternative, which would include the Houston Connector, would
take wildlife habitat and affect -fish resources, although increased
development in the Borough and resulting impacts would be minimal. Fish and
wildlife use increases also would be less; see discussions related to these
impacts under "Biological Resources". The timber cleared from the
right-of-way could be salvaged for firewood, but resource-to-market access
improvements would not occur for timber. As with a Crossing Alternative,
the use of Borough park and recreation resources would be increased due to
reduced travel time from Anchorage. The Hovercraft impact would be less
than with a Crossing due to a longer travel time across the Arm, the cost of
crossing with a vehicle, and limited capacity.
The Glenn/Parks Improvement could provide salvage timber from the widened
right-of-way, but otherwise it would not have any impact on resource
development. No-Action would not have any impact on development of timber,
fish and wildlife, or recreation resources.
Subsurface Resources. A Crossing Alternative would support the development
of coal, oil and gas, and particularly sand and gravel. Construction and
maintenance of either alternative would require considerable quantities of
sand and gravel. Due to the high cost which would result from long hauling
distances, known but as yet unused sources within five miles of the Houston
Connector normally would be developed. Improved access likely would
increase interest in developing the existing oil and gas leases in the area.
Since there are potentially more productive coal fields outside the project
area (see "Western Alaska Resources"), it would be unlikely that a Crossing
would induce development of local coal deposits. The development of a
port/industrial facility at Point MacKenzie supported by Crossing
development could further encourage subsurface resource development by
providing processing and/or export capability.
IV-107
The Houston Connector portion of the Hovercraft Alternative also would
require sand and gravel and would induce the development of known, but as
yet unused, gravel sources within five miles of the Connector.
The Glenn/Parks Improvement would require sand and gravel, but there are
known borrow sites within five miles of the route, and this alternative
would not have any other impact on subsurface resource development.
No-Action would not have an impact on the development of subsurface
resources.
Western Alaska Resources. A Crossing Alternative would support development
of the Beluga coal field and oil and gas reserves by shortening the distance
to Anchorage if roads should be developed west of the Houston Connector and
beyond the project area to Beluga. Travel time would be reduced by 45
minutes to one hour depending on the project selected. A Crossing would
also support development of a port/industrial facility at . Point MacKenzie
which could. provide infrastructure necessary to process and/or export coal,
oil, and gas.
The passenger/auto service provided by Hovercraft would have no impact on
the development of Western Alaska resources. Neither the Glenn/Parks
Improveme~t nor No-Action would have an impact on the development of Western
Alaska resources.
Iditarod Trail
The Idi tarod Trail would be crossed by the Houston Connector. The trail
crossing would occur at a natural clearing, so removal of vegetation would
be unnecessary.· A bridge over the Houston Connector would be built to
accommodate users of the Iditarod Trail. It would be designed to be easily
negotiated by mushers and other trail users. A minimum ten-foot wide trail,
with grades not exceeding eight percent, would cross the road. Low walls on
the sides of the bridge would help to keep snow on the trail during the
winter. Assuring snow on the bridge would be an added responsibility for
those presently maintaining the trail. Vehicle pullouts and signs also
would be provided to increase accessibility and visibility.
Air Quality
The air quality analysis consisted of estimating motor vehicle emissions
which would be associated with each ·alternative and air quality impacts
which would result from these emissions. This section summarizes a more
detailed description of the air quality analysis and its conclusions
contained in Appendix D.
Traffic forecasts were based on the five different growth allocation
scenarios presented under "Urban Growth and Economic Development". They
are:
0
0
0
0
0
No-Crossing (applicable to all No-Crossing Alternatives)
Downtown Project (mid-range growth allocation)
Downtown Project (high growth allocation)
Elmendorf Project (mid-range growth allocation)
Elmendorf Project (low growth allocation)
IV-108
[
[
r
L
[
[
[
[
[
[
r
[
[
. ...,
Emissions were calculated for major arterial streets and highways in the
project area, including the Mat-Su Borough, Eagle River/Chugiak/Eklutna
area, and the north Anchorage. bowl (north of International Airport
Road/Tudor Road) • This is the area where significant changes in traffic
volumes would occur with each alternative. The specific links used are
shown in Figure III-1.
The following four years were considered in the analysis:
1. 1982 -Present case based on most recent available data
2. 1990/91 -Anticipated project opening year
3. 2001 -Year of project opening plus 10
4. 2010 -Design year
Emissions Analysis. Emissions of primary concern from motor vehicles in the
Anchorage area are carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NO). There
are National and State ambient air quality standards (AAQS) -for eo and for
nitrogen dioxide (N0 2 ) which is formed from NO • The Anchorage bowl
experiences periodic violations of the 8-hour stan~ards for CO. Although
extensive N0 2 monitoring has not been conducted, the area is considered to
be in attainment for N0 2 (i.e., the N0 2 standards are met).
Emission estimates were calculated with the EPA-developed MOBILE2 model.
Vehicle operating assumptions are described in Appendix D. All emi~Jsions
calculations were made for peak-hour traffic which was assumed to :...: 10
percent of average weekday daily traffic (AWDT).
CO emissions for each alternative and growth scenario are shown in Table
IV-32. With the exception of Downtown (high) in 1990/91, lowest emissions
would be associated with the Downtown Project. Highest emissions generally
would be associated with th~ Elmendorf Project and No-Crossing Alternative.
Highest emissions would exceed the lowest by 11 to 13 percent in the north
Anchorage bowl and by 9 to 12 percent in the entire project area. The
significance of these emissions differences on air quality would be Largely
a function of bow well they would be distributed on the street system within
the Anchorage bowl.
Within the north Anchorage bowl, co emissions would drop by approximately
half from 1982 to 1990 under any alternative. This drop would be primarily
due to reductions in per vehicle co emissions as a result of modernization
the vehicle fleet and implementation of an Inspection and Maintenance (I&M}
program. Further drops would occur by 2001 due to further fleet
modernization. Emissions would increase again by 2010 because per vehicle
emission rates are not expected to change from 2001 to 2010, and traffic
(vehicle-miles of travel} would increase. Outside the Anchorage bowl,
emissions would increase steadily from 1990 through 2010 because traffic
volumes would grow at a faster rate than per vehicle emissions would
decline.
Estimates of NO emissions are shown in Table IV-33. Future NO emissions
would drop someJhat from present levels under any alternative. R~nking from
lowest to highest would depend on the year and area considered. Lowest NO
X
IV-109
Table IV-32
CARBON MONOXIDE
ESTIMATES OF PEAK-HOUR EMISSIONS
co Emissions (lb/hr)
Alternative 1982 1990/91 2001
No-Crossing
North Anchorage Bowl 78,900 36,800 30,700
Outside Anchorage Bowl 4,100 3,800 6,000
Total 83,000 40,600 36,600
Downtown (Mid-Range)
North Anchorage Bowl 36,100 28,900
Outside Anchorage Bowl 3,400 5,600
Total 39,500 34,400
Downtown (High)
North Anchorage Bowl 40,200 28,600
Outside Anchorage Bowl 3,800 6,200
Total 44,000 34,800
Elmendorf (Mid-Range)
North Anchorage Bowl 39,300 31,900
Outside Anchorage Bowl 3,500 5,600
Total 42',800 37,600
Elmendorf (Low)
North Anchorage Bowl 38,800 30,600
Outside Anchorage Bowl 3,400 5,400
Total 42,300 36,000
NOTES
Estimates are for peak-hour traffic.
2010
36,400
7,400
43,800
33,000
6,600
39,600
33,400
7,400
40,800
37,400
6,800
44,200
36,200
6,500
42,700
Emissions for north Anchorage bowl are based on 100 percent cold start mode.
Emissions for outside Anchorage bowl are based on 100 percent hot stabilized
mode.
Low, mid-range, and high refer to the growth allocation scenarios described
under "Urban Growth and Economic Development" •
IV-110
[
[
[
[
f'
L
L
[
[
[
[
[
[
L
[
[
L
l
'="'
----·
Table IV-33
NITROGEN OXIDES
ESTIMATES OF PEAK-HOUR EMISSIONS
NO Emissions (lb/hr)
X
Corridor 1982 1990/91 2001
No-Crossing
North Anchorage Bowl 1,200 900 800
Outside Anchorage Bowl 800 600 700
Total 2,000 1,500 1,500
Downt.own (Mid-Range}
North Anchorage Bowl 900 700
Outside Anchorage Bowl 600 700
Total 1,500 1,400
Downtown (High)
North Anchorage Bowl 1,000 700
Outside Anchorage Bowl 600 700
Total 1,600 1,400
Elmendorf (Mid-Range}
North Anchorage Bowl 900 800
Outside Anchorage Bowl 600 700
Total 1,500 1,500
Elmendorf (Low}
North Anchorage Bowl 900 800
Outside Anchorage Bowl 600 700
Total 1,500 1,500
NOTES
Estimates are for peak-hour traffic.
2010
900
900
1,800
800
800
1,600
800
800
1,600
900
800
1,700
900
800
1,600
Emissions
Emissions
for
for
north Anchorage bowl are based on 100 percent cold start mode.
outside Anchorage bowl are based on 100 percent hot stabilized
mode.
Low, mid-range, and high refer to the growth allocation scenarios described
under "Urban Growth and Economic Development".
IV-111
emissions generally would be associated with Downtown {mid-range).
Elmendorf Project NO enlissions generally would be higher than for the
Downtown Project. Hi~hest emissions estimates would exceed lowest by 7 to
13 percent overall. Year-to-year trends would be similar to those for CO
and for the same reasons. Emissions of NO within the bowl would be
comparable to those outside the bowl. This xcontrasts with CO emissions
which would be much higher within the bowl. The reasons for this are given
in Appendix D.
Air Quality Impact Analysis. Using the emissions data discussed above, air
quality modeling was conducted to estimate co concentrations which would
result from the various Crossing Alternatives. Concentrations of CO were
calculated with the CALINE3 dispersion model developed by the California
Department of Transportation. CALINE3 is specifically formulated to
calculate concentrations due to vehicle emissions from roadways.
Dispersion calculations were made for the same years and alternatives/
growth scenarios as in the emissions analysis. The north Anchorage bowl and
the area outside the bowl were modeled separately. Assumed meteorological·
conditions are described in Appendix D.
Concentrations were calculated at several representative receptor lo9ations
to estimate air quality impacts. In the north Anchorage bowl area,
receptors were selected at 14 locations as follows:
0
0
0
Two monitor receptors -one at each of two CO monitors operated by the
Municipality of Anchorage. These are Spenard Road and Benson Boulevard
and 7th Avenue and C Street. These monitors are adjacent to roads
included in the traffic and emissions analyses. The Garden Stree·t
monitor was not included because traffic on the roads adjacent to this
monitor was not included in the traffic data used for modeling.
Therefore, local emissions, which are of greatest importance in
determining concentrations, were not accounted for. The Raspberry Road
monitor, near the airport, was not included because it is south of the
north Anchorage bowl area of analyses. ·
Four special receptors -
1) Alaska Native Medical Center on 3rd Avenue between Ingra
and Gambell Streets;
2) Bartlett High School north of Glenn Highway at Muldoon Road;
3) Resolution Park at 3rd Avenue and L Streets; and
4) 918 West 2nd Avenue, an historic structure.
Eight roadside receptors 10 meters from the road along selected traffic
links, including the most heavily traveled.
Receptor locations are shown in Figure D-1 of Appendix D.
IV-112
[
[
[
[
r~
I
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
L
L
L
[
[
c
I
L
[
[
[
[
CALINE3 is designed to estimate 1-hour average concentrations. Therefore,
it was necessary to apply a factor to model predictions to estimate 8-hour
average concentrations. The average ratio of 8-hour maximum to 1-hour
maximum CO concentrations in Anchorage was determined to be 0. 67. Thus,
calculated 1-hour maximum concentrations at each receptor were multiplied by
0.67 to obtain estimates of 8-hour concentrations.
The results are compared against Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) of 35
ppm for 1-hour average concentrations and 9 ppm. for 8-hour average
concentrations.
t4odeling results are shown in Table IV-34 for selected representative
receptors. Complete results are given in Appendix D. Predicted
concentrations at the two monitor locations considered (Spenard and Benson;
7th and C) and at the Anchorage Native Medical Center would be below the
8-hour AAQS (9 ppm) for any alternative in any year. Concentrations for the
Downtown (high) and Elmendorf (low) would approach the AAQS at Spenard and
Benson in 1990. Concentrations at Resolution Park would exceed the AAQS in
1990 and 2"010 for any alternative and in 2001 for the Downtown Project.
Higher concentrations associated with the Downtown Project would be the
result of southbound traffic feeding into L Street from the Downtown bridge.
Imp~cts at Resolution Park for No-Crossing and the Elmendorf Project would
be approximately the same.
Of all rec~ptors considered, highest concentrations would occur along the
Seward Highway. Highest concentrations on this link would be associated
with the Downtown Project, and high growth shift impacts would be greater
than mid-range impacts. Lowest concentrations on this link would be
associated with the No-Crossing Alternative and they would be less than
Downtown (high) concentrations by up to 30 percent.
In general, the best and worst alternatives from an air quality standpoint
w0uld vary by receptor location and year. In order to find a common ground
for comparing alternatives, two sets of statistics were compiled based on
the 14 receptors considered in the analysis. These are:
0 average concentration over all receptors
0 number of receptors with predicted AAQS violations
These statistics.are shown at the bottom of Table IV-34. Average concentra-
tions should not be interpreted as average worst-case concentrations
throughout the north Anchorage bowl because receptors were generally chosen
at areas of expected high concentrations.
In 1990, average Downtown (high) concentrations would be highest and
No-Crossing concentrations would be lowest with a difference of about 20
percent. Predicted average concentrations for other alternatives in 1990
would be essentially equal and between the low and high. The number of
receptors with predicted AAQS violations would differ by only one. This may
not be a significant difference since the difference would be small enough
that a different choice of receptors likely would have produced slightly
IV-113
Table IV-34
MAXIMUM PREDICTED CO CONCENTRATIONS
IN THE NORTH ANCHORAGE BOWL
Maximum 8-Hour
Receptor and Alternative 1990/91
Spenard and Benson
No-Crossing 7.8
Downtown (mid-range) 8.0
Downtown (high) 8.7
Elmendorf (mid-range) 8.0
Elmendorf (low) 8.6
7th ·and c
No-Crossing 5.7
Downtown (mid-range) 5.6
Downtown (high) 6.1
Elmendorf (mid-range) 6.0
Elmendorf (low) 6.2
Alaska Native Medical Center
No-Crossing 3.6
Downtown (mid-range) 4.1
Downtown (high) 4.7
Elmendorf (mid-range) 4.1
Elmendorf (low) 4.0
Resolution Park
No-Crossing 10.5
Downtown (mid-range) 15.5
Downtown (high) 17.4
Elmendorf (mid-range) 10.5
Elmendorf (low) 10.8
New Seward Highway
No-Crossing 20.5
Downtown (mid-range) 26.5
Downtown (high} 29.5
Elmendorf (mid-range) 24.5
Elmendorf (low} 24.9
Overall Average*
No-Crossing 8.5/6
Downtown (mid-range) 9/1/5
Downtown (high} 10.2/6
Elmendorf (mid-range) 9.2/6
Elmendorf (low) 9.2/6
Concentrations (ppm)
2001 2010
6.5 7.0
6.2 6.8
6.2 6.9
6.4 7.3
7.1 7.8
4.6 5.8
4.4 4.8
4.5 5.2
4.8 5.9
4.6 6.0
2.9 3.6
3.4 3.8
3.4 3.9
3.2 3.8
3.0 3.6
8.4 10.9
12.1 15.3
12.5 15.7
8.2 10.5
8.3 10.6
17.8 20.4
20.4 23.1
21.0 26.1
19.1 21.5
18.9 21.3
7.1/4 8.6/6
7.2/5 8.4/5
7.3/5 8.8/5
7.4/4 8.8/6
7.2/4 8.7/6
* Numbers after slash indicate number of receptors out of 14 considered
which showed violations of the 8-hour AAQS under worst-case conditions.
IV-114
[
[
[
[
[
L
[
[
[
[
[
l
L
[
[
L
l
fo~•
r-
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
L
different results. On the basis of receptor averiiged concentrations and
predicted AAQS violations, differences among alternatives would n~t be
significant in 2001 and 2010. Concentrations would be higher in 2010 than
in 2001 due to increased traffic volume which would not be offset by slight
improvements in average per vehicle emission rates.
Outside the Anchorage bowl, maximum 8-hour roadside concentrations were
predicted to occur along the Glenn Highway on the first link out of the
Anchorage bowl, Muldoon Road to Eagle River. Maximum concentrations (ppm)
on this link are shown below. These concentrations include modeled
background due to emissions in the Anchorage bowl.
1990 2001 2010
No-Crossing 4.2 5.4 6.7
Downtown (Mid-Range) 3.4 4.3 4.7
Downtown . (High) 3.9 4.3 4.8
Elmendorf (Mid-Range) 3.5 4.6 5.2
Elmendorf (Low) 3.5 4.6 5.3
Maximum predicted concentrations would be associated with the No-Crossing
alternative and lowest concentrations would be associated with the Downtown
Project in most cases. However, differences between the Downtown and
Elmendorf Projects would be minor. In no case would there be a violation of
the 8-hour.standard. Maximum predicted concentrations in the Mat-Su Borough
would be less than 1.5 ppm in any year; see Appendix D.
Impact on Anchorage Air Quality Plan. The Anchorage Air Quality Plan
includes expansion of existing traffic improvement programs and
implementation of a vehicle I&M program (Municipality of Anchorage, 1982a).
Traffic improvements would include synchronization of traffic signals to
improve traffic flow and reduce time in the acceleration, .deceleration, and
idle modes, thereby reducing CO emissions. Several road and highway
constructio~ projects also have been proposed to improve traffic flow. In
addition, encouragement of carpooling, transit use, and variable work hours
are included in the Air Quality Plan. The vehicle I&M program has been
proposed to reduce per vehicle emissions by requiring periodic vehicle
exhaust inspection. Vehicles not meeting exhaust requirements would be
required to undergo maintenance to bring them into compliance.
Most of the Anchorage bowl air quality non-attainment area has
transportation control measures in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) which
was conditionally approved by the Environmental Protection Agency in
September 1982. The Anchorage measures for control of CO were noted in
Chapter III. The No-Action and Glenn/Parks Improvement Alternatives only
include bowl projects found within the area's long-range transportation plan
and transportation improvement program. The Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA)" has determined both to conform to the SIP. Thus, pursuant to 23 CFR
770 both of these alternatives would conform to the SIP.
IV'-115
The Hovercraft Alternative and Crossing Alternatives are not in bowl
transportation plans. To be in conformance with the SIP, the Anchorage Air
Quality Control Plan (Municipality of Anchorage, 1982a) indicates these
alternatives must:
0
0
Provide a net areawide air quality benefit and not delay attainment of
National Air Quality Standards
Reflect reasonable progress in implementing those transportation
control measures called for in the SIP to meet air quality standards
and not include any actions that would reduce the effectiveness of
those measures
Neither Hovercraft nor a Crossing Alternative would adversely affect
implementation of the traffic improvements, inspection/maintenance program,
carpool/variable work hours program, or transit improvements described in
the Anchorage Plan. As discussed under "Public Transportation", a Crossing
Alternative would reduce transit use in the bowl but only because fewer
people would be living in the bowl compared to No-Action. The percentage of
travelers using transit in the bowl would not be affected. In fact, the
percentage may rise because those households making the decision to live in
the Borough due to a crossing, rather than the bowl, would likely not be
transit users anyway and captive transit riders likely would not move to the
Borough where transit service would be less frequent.
The Hovercraft Alternative would not significantly affect traffic patterns
or flow in the bowl and thus would not change· CO emissions. Therefore,
Hovercraft would not change the effectiveness of bowl transportation control
measures.
As indicated in Table IV-32, the Downtown Project (with the most likely
mid-range growth allocation) would reduce total CO emissions in the north
Anchorage bowl (six percent in 2001, nine percent in 2010). Thus, the
Downtown Project would provide a net air quality benefit and increase the
effectiveness of transportation control measures for the bowl.·
For the Elmendorf Project (with the most likely mid-range growth
allocation), total CO emissions in the north Anchorage bowl would rise four
percent in 2001 and three percent in 2010 compared to No-Action. Thus, the
Project would provide a small net air quality decrease and lessen the
effectiveness of transportation control measures in the bowl. This would
occur for two reasons:
1.
2.
As indicated in Table IV-4, the Elmendorf Project would increase total
vehicle-miles of travel in the bowl slightly, two percent in 2001 and
1.5 percent in 2010.
As shown on Figure IV-1, the traffic pattern resulting from the Project
adds traffic to streets which would be congested under No-Action,
slowing traffic further arid increasing emissions. Table IV-4 shows an
increase of 30 percent in 2001 of vehicle-miles traveled at less than
acceptable levels-of-service (D to F). However, a decrease of only one
percent occurs in 2010.
IV-116
[
[
L
[
[
[
[
[
r L
[
[
L
[
L
L
L
L
r,
In light of the above, it is concluded pursuant to 23 CFR 770 that the
No-Crossing Alternatives and the_Downtown Project would conform to the State
Implementation Plan. Without mitigation of the emissions impact described
above, the Elmendorf Project would not conform. The small percentage
increase in emissions could be mitigated by a re-evaluation of the area's
Long-Range Transportation Plan (Municipality of Anchorage, Community
Planning Department, July 1983) to take into account the changed pattern of
area-wide traffic flows resulting from the Elmendorf Project. Planning
could be altered such that congestion and increases in emissions which would
result from the changed traffic patterns would be minimized (e.g.,
incorporating traffic improvements on roads feeding into the crossing such
as the Glenn Highway), and the Elmendorf Project in combination with a
revised Long-Range Transportation Plan would achieve the same level of
emissions or better as the current Transportation Plan. Specific changes
that could be made will be analyzed and presented in the Final EIS if the
Elmendorf Project is selected as the preferred alternative.
A final determination of conformance will be
Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (AMATS) Air
based on the air quality analysis in this document.
be presented in the Final EIS.
Noise
made by the Anchorage
Quality Policy Cornm1ttee
This determination will
The following analysis is a summary of a more detailed discussion of the
noise analysis found in Appendix E.
Noise Sensitive Areas. The primary noise-sensitive land use in the Mat-Su
Borough and in the Eagle River-Chugiak-Eklutna area is low density
residential along the Houston Connector and the Glenn and Parks Highways.
The majority of these residences lie along the Glenn Highway.
In the urbanized Anchorage bowl area, noise-sensitive land uses include
residences, hospitals, schools, and parks.
Noise Abatement Criteria. "Noise Abatement Criteria" have been promulgated
by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, July 1982) to control the noise
of roadway projects. An hourly average A-weighted sound level (L ) of 67
decibels (dB) has been set as the limit for this exposure duringe~e peak
traffic hour in residential areas and for parks, schools, hospitals, and
many other noise sensitive areas. A noise impact severe enough to warrant
mitigation would occur if the sound level including traffic in the project
design year (2010) would exceed this criterion.
An FHWA study (FHWA, June 1982) recommends that a noise impact also be
considered severe enough to warrant mitigation if increased noise levels
meet the following criteria:
IV-117
dB's
Below Noise
Abatement Criteria
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10+
dB
Increase
from No-Action
10
12
13
14
14
15
15
15
15
16+
This abatement criteria is also used in this analysis to determine the need
for mitigation at noise sensitive sites where the FHWA "Noise Abatement
Criteria" would not be exceeded.
As a further measure of noise impact, the "Level Weighted Population"
(National Academy of Sciences, 1977) is used to compare sound levels
associated with a variety of alternatives for which there are different
numbers of people exposed to different levels of sound. The level weighted
population (LWP) is a count of the number of people exposed to different
levels of sound, with a weighting employed in the counting which increases
with increasing magnitude of sound. Thus, both the extent and the severity
of noise exposure are taken into account in the level weighted population.
The level weighted population utilizes the . day-night average sound level
(L ) as the measure of noise exposure. The L is a measure of average 24~our noise exposure that has nighttime leve~ weighted to acc.ount for
heightened sensitivity to noise during this period. For most roadways of
interest, the Ldn and the peak-hour L are numerically equal. eq
Impact Analysis Results. P·eak-hour average sound levels (and equivalently,
day-night average sound levels) were estimated for all the major roadway
links in the rural area and in the Anchorage bowl. All sound levels used in .
this document are A-weighted levels, in units of decibels (dB). Table IV-35
lists for key links and each alternative the projected peak-hour average
sound level at 100 feet from the roadway centerline.
The table shows that for those roadway links outside the Anchorage bowl with
moderate to heavy existing traffic (Glenn and Parks Highways), the three
No-Crossing Alternatives generally would provide the highest noise exposure
of any of the Alternatives under consideration. This would be due to a
higher traffic volume on these roadways than would occur if a Crossing
Alternative were built. However, the differences are often insignificant
because differences in noise exposure of 3 dB or less typically are
imperceptible to the average person.
For those roadway links where traffic would be light or non-existent with
No-Crossing, implementation of a Crossing Alternative would result in a
significant increase in noise exposure. The estimated sound levels at 100
feet would exceed the 6 7 dB FHWA criterion along most of the Houston
Connector.
IV-118
[
[
[
[
f~
L
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
L
,----.,
l
Link
ID
1
4
7
10
13
15
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
32
35
36
37
38
42
43
44
45
49
50
52
53
56
58
60
61
62
63
64
65
68
69
70
73
76
77
r----,
l ' ,J II .· .,.~; L , ,_j
Table IV-35
PROJECTED PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS FOR THE YEAR 2010
Roadway (location)
No-Glenn/Parks
Action Improvements
Parks Highway (from Willow north) 65
Parks Highway (just east of Big Lake Road) 68
Parks Highway (Glenn/Parks Highway junction to Wasilla) 69
Glenn Highway (from Palmer north) 69
Glenn Highway (Eklutna to Knik River) 74
Glenn Highway (Eagle River to Peters Creek) 75
Glenn Highway (Muldoon Road to Eagle River) 76
Houston Connector (Parks Highway to Horseshoe Lake Road)
Houston Connector (Horseshoe Lake Road to South Big Lake Road)
Houston Connector (South Big Lake Road to Point MacKenzie Access Road) 51
Houston Connector (Point MacKenzie Access Road) 61
Houston Connector (Point MacKenzie Access Road to Crossing)
Big Lake Road (Parks Highway to Big Lake Road) 58
Knik-Goose nay Road (just south of l~asilla) 66
Point MacKenzie Access Road (east-west segment) 62
Glenn Highway (Boniface Parkway to Muldoon Road) 72
Glenn Highway (Bragaw Street to Boniface Parkway) 70
Northside Bypass (planned between Old Seward Highway & Bragaw Street) 69
5th/6th Avenues (C Street to Seward Highway) "64
5th/6th Avenues (L Street to C Street) 64
Muldoon Road (Glenn Highway to DeBarr Road) 69
DeBarr Road (Boniface Parkway to Muldoon Road) 69
15th Avenue (Seward Highway to Lake Otis Parkway) 65
15th Avenue (C Street to Seward Highway) 64
Muldoon Road (DeBarr Road to Northern Lights Boulevard) 69
Northern Lights Boulevard (Boniface Parkway to Muldoon Road) 67
Northern Lights Boulevard (Seward Highway to Lake Otis Parkway) 66
Northern Lights/Benson Boulevards Couplet (Minnesota Drive to C Street) 70
Muldoon/Tudor Roads (Northern Lights Boulevard to Boniface Parkway) 68
Tudor Road (J,ake Otis Parkway to Boniface Parkway) 68
Tudor Road (Seward Highway to Lake Otis Parkway) 66
Tudor Road (Old Seward Highway to Seward Highway) 66
Tudor Road (C Street to Old Seward Highway) 67
Tudor Road (Minnesota Drive to c Street) 67
International Airport Road (Spenard Road to Minnesota Drive) 68
Boniface Parkway (Glenn Highway to DeBarr Road) 68
Boniface Parkway (DeBarr Road to Northern Lights Boulevard) 67
Bragaw Street (DeBarr Avenue to Northern Lights Boulevard) 65
Lake Otis Parkway (Northern Lights to Tudor R9ad) 65
Seward Highway (5th/6th Avenues to 15th Avenue) 70
65
68
71
69
75
75
75
51
61
58
66
62
72
70
69
64
64
69
69
65
64
69
67
66
70
68
68
66
66
67
67
68
68
67
65
65
70
Noise Level In Decibels (dB)
Downtown
(Mid-
Hovercraft Range)
65
68
69
69
74
74
76
53
57
59
61
61
56
64
59
72
70
69
64
64
69
69
65
64
69
67
66
70
68
68
66
66
67
67
68
68
67
65
65
70
65
63
69
69
72
74
75
65
69
68
71
72
59
55
62
72
69
69
74
64
70
68
66
63
69
66
65
70
68
68
66
66
67
67
67
69
67
65
65
70
Downtown
(High)
65
64
68
68
73
74
75
65
68
68
71
71
59
56
62
72
69
69
74
64
70
68
66
63
69
66
66
69
69
67
66
66
67
66
67
69
66
65
65
70
Elmendorf
(Mid-
Range)
65
64
68
69
72
74
76
64
67
67
70
70
59
55
61
72
69
69
64
64
70
69
66
64
69
66
66
69
68
68
67
66
68
67
67
68
67
65
65
70
Elmendorf
(Low)
65
63
68
69
72
74
76
64
67
67
70
70
59
54
61
72
70
69
64
64
69
68
66
64
69
66
66
69
68
68
66
66
67
67
67
68
67
65
65
69
~
' -
I
1-'
N
0
Table IV-35 (continued)
PROJECTED PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS FOR THE YEAR 2010
Noise Level In Decibels (dB.)
Downtown
Link No-Glenn/Parks (Mid-Downtown
ID Roadway (location) Action Improvements Hovercraft Range) (High) .---
78 Seward Highway (15th Avenue to Northern Lights Boulevard) 66 66 66 66 65
80 Seward Highway (just north of Tudor Road) 70 70 70 69 69
81 Seward Highway (just south of Tudor Road) 70 70 70 71 70·
82 Old Seward Highway (36th Avenue to Tudor Road) 65 65 65 66 65
84 C Street or A/C Couplet (5th/6th Avenues to 15th Avenue) 66 66 66 66 65
86 C Street (Northern Lights Boulevard to Tudor Road) 68 ' 68 68 67 67
88 I/L Street Couplet (5th/6th Avenues to 15th Avenue) 67 67 67 67 67
89 Minnesota Drive (15th Avenue to Northern Lights Boulevard) 67 67 67 68 68
90 Minnesota Drive (Northern Lights Boulevard to Spenard Road) 68 68 68 68 68
92 Minnesota Drive ·(Northern Lights Boulevard to Tudor Road) 68 68 68 69 69
93 Minnesota Drive (Tudor Road to International Airport Road) 68 68 68 69 69
94 Sperlard Road (Minnesota Drive to International Airport Road) 63 63 63 62 63
101 I/L Street ramps of Downtown Crossing 72 72
104 seward Connector 72 72
105 Elmendorf Crossing
106 Downtown Crossing 74 75
107 Hovercraft
NOTE
Low, mid-range, and high refer to the growth allocation scenarios described under "Urban Growth and Economic Development".
-l
Elmendorf
(Mid-Elmendorf
Range) (Low)
66 66
69 67
71 70
66 65
66 66
68 68
66 67
67 67
67 68
69 68
68 68
63 63
74 73
L~
L.
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
l
L
For areas outside the Anchorage bowl, aerial photographs were examined to
identify residential structures within 500 feet of major roadways.
Estimates were made of the peak-hour average sound level for each residence.
Table IV-36 lists the number of residences with expected L in excess of
67 dB for each alternative. The table shows a decrease irf~e number of
such residences for the Crossing Alternatives and an increase for
Glenn/Parks Improvement relative to No-Action. All but four of the homes
listed would be along the Glenn and Parks Highways. For that area, the
decrease shown in Table IV-36 reflects for the Crossing and Hovercraft
Alternatives an absolute reduction in the number of homes which would exceed
the criteria. It does not reflect a net reduction that would include some
homes with increased levels and others with reduced levels. Thus, along the
Glenn and Parks Highways no mitigation would be required for those
alternatives. The remaining four homes are on the Houston Connector~ and
noise levels would be one dB over the 67 dB criteria and would represent a
substantial increase over current levels. All four homes are in the Point
MacKenzie area where the measured noise level was 42 dB: see Table III-15.
The impact would be mitigated either by maintaining vegetation on the
right-of-way to reduce noise levels or by moving the alignment away from the
homes during final design.
For the Glenn/Parks Improvement, since the increased noise level for the
homes along those roads would be one dB or less (see Table IV-35), no
mitigation would be incorporated into project design.
The level weighted population was determined for each alternative and also
is listed in Table IV-36. As a way of comparing the level weighted
population values among alternatives, the relative change in impact (RCI) is
also listed. The RCI represents the percentage change in LWP relative to
the LWP of No-Action. Any of the Crossing Alternatives would provide a
decrease in noise impact except the Glenn/Parks Improvement.
Where the Houston Connector would cross the Idi tarod Trail, the FHWA
criteria of 67 dB would be exceeded beginning about 100-feet from the
center-line of the road during the peak hour. This noise level would be a
significant increase . over existing levels since the trail is in an
undeveloped area. The impact would be mitigated by maintaining as much
vegetation as possible at the trail so the area of impact would be
minimized. Manmade sound barriers would not be in keeping with the trail's
natural character
Within the Anchorage bowl, there would be two types of impacts to be
considered. The first type would be the direct impact of traffic using the
crossing and its .various connectors, while the second type would be the
indirect effect of changes in traffic flow ori arterial streets within
Anchorage. The Elmendorf Project would come near Elmendorf AFB Hospital, an
area of Elmendorf housing, an area of Elmendorf recreation facilities, and
Bartlett High School. However, at each of these locations the projected
peak-hour average sound level would be well below 67 dB, and increases above
the present levels (measured during the field survey, see Chapter III,
"Noise") would not be significant enough to require mitigation.
IV-121
No. 67 dB 4
LWP 5
RCI 6
NOTES
No-
Action
681
647
Table IV-36
PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL NOISE IMPACT OUTSIDE THE ANCHORAGE BOWLl
FOR THE YEAR 2010
Number of Residences 2 '3
No-Crossing Alternatives Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Elmendorf
Glenn/Parks (Mid-Downtown (Mid-
Improvements Hovercraft Range) (High) Range)
728 536 591 594 551
693 631 566 572 563
+7% -2% -13% -12% -13%
1. Mat-Su Borough and Eagle River-Chugiak-Eklutna.
Elmendorf
(Low)
551
564
-13%
2. Total number of residences within 1,000 feet of all roadways examined in rural areas is approximately 1,060.
3. Low, mid-range, and high refer to the growth allocation scenarios described under "Urban Growth and Economic
Development".
4. Number of residences with projected peak hour L greater than 67 dB. eq
5. Level weighted population.
6. Relative change in impact, compared to the No-Action Alternative.
r----"1 L .........
L.
L
[
[
[
[
L
[
[
l
The levels would be:
Elinendorf
Existing Project
(24-Hour LdJ_ (Peak-Hour L )
q-
Base Hospital 58 57
Base Housing 63 57
Base Recreation
0 Family Camp 58 65
0 Green Lake 55 62
0 Spring Lake 62 62
Bartlett High School 53 57
For the Downtown Project, the Seward connector would intersect with Ingra
Street in the vicinity of the Alaska Native Medical Center. The estimated
sound level resulting from traffic on this connector would be 65 dB, below
67 dB, and comparable to levels already existing in the area. However, the
alternative southbound ramp which would intersect with Gambell Street and
would run between the two major buildings of the Medical Center would cause
sound levels greater than 67 dB and greater than existing levels. The
Gambell Street ramp would not be completed unless the Medical Center had
moved to another location as is planned. Homes closest to the Seward Con-
nector would experience sound levels of 64 dB, also below 67 dB. The
increase above present levels (measured during the field survey) would not
be significant enough to require mitigation.
The I/L Ramps of the Downtown Crossing would adversely affect noise levels
at Resolution Park, Hostetler Park, and four historic structures. This
noise impact is addressed in Chapter v, "Section 4(f) Evaluation".
The indirect effects of the project on noise-sensitive land uses along the
arterial street" system in urban Anchorage can be seen in Table. IV-35.
Typically, peak-hour average sound levels would vary by only 1 to 2 dB among
alternatives, and in many cases would be lower for a Crossing Alternative
than for a No~Crossing Alternative. Therefore, no impact would occur at any
noise-sensitive site in the Anchorage area as a result of changes in traffic
flow on the street system.
Construction activity would not cause a major impact due to its temporary
nature and the scarcity of noise-sensitive sites along the alternatives.
In summary, a Crossing Alternative generally would have either a negligible
or a beneficial impact at noise-sensitive locations throughout the Anchorage
bowl. Outside the Anchorage bowl, the decrease in traffic along existing
roadways would provide a decrease in noise exposure from that with a
No-Crossing Alternative. Areas of significant adverse noise impact would be
at four homes and the Iditarod Trail on the Houston Connector, at parks and
historic structures at the I/L ramps of the Downtown Crossing (see
Chapter V), and at the Alaska Native Medical Center· with the southbound
Gambell ramp.
IV-123
Energy
Energy consumed by transportation facilities and operations is of four
types:
1. Direct vehicle: Energy used by transportation vehicles, based on
number of vehicles, vehicle mix, miles per gallon of fuel used, speed
and other operating characteristics, and roadway characteristics.
2. Indirect vehicle: Energy required to manufacture and maintain the
transportation vehicles.
3. Indirect maintenance: Energy required to maintain transportation
facilities such as streets and highways.
4. Indirect construction:
facilities.
Energy required to construct transportation
Energy consumption estimates in this section were calculated using
consumption factors from the 1978 California Department of Transportation
Report, "Energy and Transportation Systems" (Apostolos et al., 1978), as
applied in the Illinois Department of Transportation's Highway Energy
Handbook (1981).
The estimates take into account:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average daily traffic for automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks
Major street and highway mileage in the project area, including the
north Anchorage bowl, Glenn and Parks Highways to Houston, and the
alternatives under consideration
Average daily speed
Federal automobile fuel economy requirements
Variations in fuel consumption due to roadway curvature and grades for
the alternatives under consideration and the Glenn and Parks Highways
Construction energy consumption spread over the exp~cted life of the
alternative
Variations in maintenance energy consumption by pavement type and
number of lanes
The estimated energy consumption for the No-Crossing and Crossing
Alternatives is presented in Table IV-37. Energy is shown in British
Thermal Units (BTU's) used annually and total equivalent barrels of oil per
day. The rates shown are the average levels of consumption that would occur
from 1990/91 (year of project opening} to the year 2010. The traffic
volumes used were those calculated by the project team and AMATS and they
are described in the "Traffic Volumes" section of this chapter. With the
model used, a difference in energy consumption is considered significant
only if it is greater than 10 percent.
IV-124
[
[
[
r~
L
[
[
[
[
E
[
[
[
[
[
[
L
Table IV-37
ANNUAL AVERAGE (1990-2010) ENERGY CONSUMPTION
PROJECT AREA ARTERIALS
(billions of BTU's except as noted)
Equivalent
Direct Indirect Alternative Barrels of
Vehicle Vehicle Construction Maintenance Total Oil/Day
NO-CROSSING
1. No-Action
-North Anchorage bowl 2,300 2,500 33 4,800
-Glenn/Parks Highway 3,200 3,000 35 6,200
TOTAL 5,500 5,500 68 11,000 5,200
2. Glenn/Parks Improvement
H
"f -North Anchorage bowl 2,300 2,500 33 4,800
1-' -Glenn/Parks Highway
1\.)
l1l (including Project) 3,300 3,000 29 50 6,400
TOTAL 5,600 5,500 29 83 11,200 5,300
3. Hovercraft
I
-North Anchorage bowl 2,300 2,500 33 4,800
-Glenn/Parks Highway 3,000 2,800 42 5,800
-Project 200 57 8 300
TOTAL 5,500 5,300 57 83 10,900 5,200
CROSSING
1. Downtown Project
(M;i.d-Range)
North Anchorage bowl 2,300 2,400 33 4,700
-Glenn/Parks Highway 2,200 2,000 42 4,200
-Project 800 700 240 13 1,700
TOTAL 5,300 5,100 240 88 10,600 5,000
f
1-'
N
0'1
Table IV-37 (continued)
ANNUAL AVERAGE (1990-2010) ENERGY CONSUMPTION
PROJECT AREA ARTERIALS
(billions of BTU's except as noted)
Direct
Vehicle
Indirect
Vehicle
Alternative
Construction Maintenance Total
2. Downtown Project
(High)
-North Anchorage bowl 2,200 2,400 33 4,600
-Glenn/Parks Highway 2,400 2,200 42 4,600
-Project 900 BOO 240 13 2,000
TOTAL 5,500 5,400 240 BB 11,200
3. Elmendorf Project
(Mid-Range)
-North Anchorage bowl 2,400 2,600 33 5,000
-Glenn/Parks Highway 2,400 2,100 42 4,500
-Project BOO 700 190 16 1,700
TOTAL 5,600 5,400 190 91 11,200
4. Elmendorf Project
(Low)
-North Anchorage bowl 2,300 2,500 33 4,BOO
-Glenn/Parks Highway 2,300 2,000 42 4,300
-Project 700 600 190 16 1,500
TOTAL 5,300 5,100 190 91 10,600
NOTES
Hovercraft Alternative includes direct vehicle consumption by the Hovercrafts. Indirect vehicle
is not included since the amount of consumption is unknown and is insignificant.
Barrels of
Oil/Day
5,300
5,300
5,000
consumption
Low, mid-range, and high refer to the dwelling unit and employment growth allocation scenarios described under
"Urban Growth and Economic Development."
r---l ,j
,....----,
..
L •
[
c
[
[
L
L
L
Table IV-37 shows that the direct, indirect, and total energy consumption
for the seven alternatives would differ from low to high less than seven
percent, an insignificant amount. Thus, the No-Crossing and the Crossing
Alternatives should be considered identical in terms of energy consumption.
The differences that would occur result from differences in traffic volumes
and highway geometry of individual links rather than general trends for the
complete alternative road systems. Of course, construction energy
consumption would be higher for those alternatives involving completion of a
crossing structure. Maintenance energy would be higher for all alternatives
relative to No-Action because of the additional roadway and structures to be
maintained; however, these energy items account for only a small portion of
the total energy consumption.
Visual
This analysis evaluates the changes in scenic quality created by each
alternative including views of the alternatives from vantage points
considered to be significant (see Chapter III, under "Visual") and views
from the alternatives. Figures IV-2, IV-3, and IV-4 illustrate some of the
significant views of the alternatives.
Both the Elmendorf Project and the Downtown Project would have an adverse
effe·ct on visual quality. The Elmendorf Project would pass through
Elmendorf AFB recreation lands which are heavily used by base residents and
valued for . their natural setting. The Downtown Project would adversely
affect views where it would be close enough to viewers to be a dominant
element, including views from several residences and businesses. The
Houston Connector would have minor visual impacts; most views of the road
and from the road as it passes through the Mat-su Borough would be limited
oy vegetation cover and topography.
Downtown Project. The bridge structure would be visible from numerous
points along the southern coast of Knik Arm. However, from most points the
distance between the viewer and the bridge and the view angle are such that
the bridge w~uld appear as a thin horizontal line across the Arm blending in
with the existing landscape which is dominated by the horizontal lines
created by the water's edge, the bluff, and the mountains.
In the area of downtown Anchorage, the bridge would be a dominant element.
Views from the north side of downtown would be significantly altered with a
southbound ramp alternative at either I or L Streets. The southbound L
Street ramp alternative would dominate and adversely affect views from the·
Elevation 92 restaurant, which has a location capitalizing on views of Knik
Arm. Views would be enclosed on both sides by the ramps, limiting views of
Knik Arm. The ramps would be approximately 15 feet above the diner's
line-of-sight. The I Street Southbound Ramp would dominate views and would
obscure views of Knik Arm but would not enclose views. Resolution Park is
also on the Arm and views from the Park to the northwest would be changed
(see Figures IV-2 and IV-3) with either of the ramp alternatives. However,
views from the Park are more spectacular looking west and southwest; these
vistas would not be affected by the ramp. The I Street ramp would become a
dominant visual element for several residences and small offices on 2nd and
IV-127
, ...
z
Susitna Flats
Stene Game
Refuge
-· .,
,-·--···········,!! !·"'-: _____ .... j
c:..:;.,~~-'==~ u [ ................................ .
AFB
Figure IV-2
Illustration Locations
L
r
L
r
r:
L
[
c
[
[,
[
L
[
[
L
L
[
[
L
c
D
[
G
G
c
0
[
L
[
View From Resolution Park
View From Quyana Park
Figure IV-3
Views of Downtown Crossing/
Seward Connector _
View From Elmendorf AFB
View R'om Mirror Lake Shore
Figure IV-4
Views of Elmendorf and
Mirror Lake Crossings
[
L
[
r
J
L
[
[
__....
L
[
l
L
I.
L
n . \
:)
[
r:
Li
[)
L
L
3rd Avenues. Four o~ the structures are eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places. A more detailed visual impact analysis for these
structures is presented in Chapter V, "Section 4(f) Evaluation". From the
Quyana Park area, the Seward Connector would be visible, but would blend
into the industrial character of the area (see Figures IV-2 and IV-3). The
industrial character of Ship Creek would not be visually affected by the
Seward Connector, however views from the Ship Creek Overlook would be
dominated by the Connector. The ramp alternatives joining either at Gambell
or at Ingra Streets would be visible from the Alaska Native Medical Center
because of the proximity to the Seward Connector, however views would not be
blocked. The Connector would be at the same elevation as the ground floor
of the Medical Center and would be below the line-of-sight. The Gambell
Street ramp would not be built unless the Medical Center was relocated by
the u.s. Public Health Service.
From the Crossing, panoramic views of the Alaska Range and Mount Susitna
would be seen by northbound motorists as they cross Knik Arm. The potential
distraction created by the view would not be a safety hazard because the
crossing would be straight and near level. Entering the Mat-Su Borough,
views would be dominated by long cut slopes on either side of the roadway.
These would extend for the first half mile from the bluff's edge and average
about eight feet high. Slope contouring and revegetation would be used to
create a natural character.
The Houston Connector then would pass through a hilly area which would
include several deep cuts and high fills for short stretches along the
alignment. An average width of 220 feet .would be cleared. Most views
toward the road and from the road would be of adjacent vegetation. However,
there are occasional views of the Chugach and Talkeetna mountains. Severe
cuts that would dominate views from the road would occur along the Elmendorf
Moraine near Lost Lake, where high cut slopes would extend for 0.5 to 0.75
miles. Few changes in visual character would occur where the road would
meet with and follow the Point MacKenzie Access Road.
Beginning where the Point MacKenzie Access Road turns east, a 120-foot
corridor would be cleared which would pass through vegetated areas, open
wetland areas, and manmade clearings. Up to South Big Lake Road, cuts would
not exceed 2,000 feet in length and would be widely spaced. There would be
very few views of the road in this area; they would be screened by
surrounding vegetation. A change of view for the motorist would occur with
vistas of Mirror Lake from the 400-foot bridge which would pass over the
narrows linking Big Lake and Mirror Lake. Views from adjacent recreational
property would be adversely affected by the road; see Figure IV-2 and IV-4.
Fill slopes would be 40 feet high and over 150 feet wide on each side of the
roadway. The impact would be partiaily mitigated with revegetation. From
the Big Lake area to the Parks Highway, the road would follow the existing
topography with little cut and fill except for one 3,000 foot section that
would have cuts averaging around ten feet high. This cut would only be
visible to roadway users and would blend into the natural surroundings with
revegetation and slope contouring.
IV-131
/
In general, views from the road north of Point MacKenzie Access Road would
be similar to those described south of the Access Road, in that most views
wou~d be dominated by adjacent vegetation. Long, hypnotic segments of
straight roadway shown in the conceptual drawings found in Appendix A would
be eliminated in final design refinements.
Elmendorf Project. Within Elmendorf Air .Force Base, the roadway would
occupy a 300-foot right-of-way which would be fenced at the edges. Adverse
visual impacts would result from deep cuts and high fills, as well as from
the presence of the road. Viewers most affected would be persons pursuing
recreational activities; see Figures IV-2 and· IV-4. Recreation is
concentrated around the Family Camp, Hillberg Ski Area, Hillberg and Green
Lakes, and Spring Lake which are all presently in a natural setting. The
roadway would be below grade as it passes the Family Camp area, so there
would be little visual impact. At the top of Hillberg Ski area, the roadway
would be visible as it passes by Spring Lake and as it crosses Knik Arm,
however it would not be a dominant visual element since it would be
partially obscured by the topography and vegetation. Both Hillberg and
Green Lakes are surrounded by vegetation and gentle hills that would block
views of the proposed road. Views of the road from Spring Lake would be
partially hidden by existing vegetation, however fill slopes would be
visible where the proposed road would cross Loop Road (at Station 273, see
Appendix A}.
Views from the roadway typically would be of the birch and spruce forests
with large clearings where base facilities have been developed. Severe cuts
that would dominate views would occur for short intervals crossing Elmendorf
Moraine and at the bluff ~t Knik Arm. The highest cuts (up to· 25 feet}
would be on the Moraine.
To mitigate visual impacts created by cut and fill, slopes would be
contoured and revegetated with standard seed mixes as well as nursery stock
plant materials to help create a natural appearance.
As the roadway crosses Knik Arm, panoramic views would be available to users
of the road, particularly those on the upper deck. Again, the bridge would
be straight and . nearly level, minimizing safety hazards resulting from
driver distraction. Views from the lower deck would be constrained by the
upper deck. Beginning at the bluff on the Arm's western shore, 15 to 90-
foot high cut slopes on each side of the road would dominate views for the
first half mile, however the slopes would be contoured and .. revegetated.
Views then would be dominated by vegetation adjacent to the road.
Northward, up to Houston, visual impacts .. would be the same as those
described for the Downtown Project.
IV-132
r
r
r
[
(
~
L
[
c
['
.
L
L
r
L
n
:..__;
r
L
c
c
I'
b
[ .
D
c
u
[
l
A.
Chapter V
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
SECTION 4(f) REQUIREMENTS
In compliance with section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of
1966, as amended, 23 U.S.C 138, this chapter evaluates impacts to cultural
resources, alternatives to avoid impacts, and mitigation of impacts.
Section 4 (f) states that "the ·secretary (of Transportatio_n) shall not
approve any program or project which requires the use of any publicly owned
land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge
of national, State, or local significance as determined by the Federal,
State, or local officials having jurisdiction thereof, or any land from an
historic site of national, State, or local significance as so determined by
such officials unless (1)· there is no feasible and prudent alternative to
the use of such land, and ( 2l such program includes all possible planning
to minimize harm to such park,· recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl
refuge, or historic site resulting from such use."
This 4 (f) evaluation also provides information required by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation for a "Preliminary Case Report" under
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended,
16 u.s.c. 470f. Section 106 states that a Federal agency, before approving
the, expenditure of _Federal funds or issuing a license (such as a permit),
must "take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district,
.site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for
inclusion in the National Register".
B. DESCRIPTION OF 4(f) RESOURCES
The 4 (f) resources in proximity to the project are shown in Figure V-1.
Included are four buildings eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, two parks in the downtown Anchorage area, and a recreation area in
Elmendorf Air Force Base. Each of these resources is described in detail
below. These resources and their characteristics were identified through
interviews with government officials, existing surveys of historic
resources and plans for their use, and the parks component of area
comprehensive plans. In addition, an archeological survey was conducted of
the corridor followed by the Houston Connector. This survey found no
significant archeological resources and is documented in Knik Arm Crossing
Technical Memorandum No. 17, Survey of Archeological and Historic Resources
(USDOT/FHWA,_ ADOT/PF, January 27, 1984). If previously uni~entified
archeological resources are encountered during construction, work that
would affect the resources would cease and the Alaska State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Federal Highway Administration would be
immediately notified. The SHPO considers the four historic strUctures to
be eligible for the National Register. The Keeper of the National Register
was asked to make a final determination of eligibility in a letter dated
June 27, 1984 and made that determination for two of the four structures on
July 16; see Appendix G. Eligibility of the other two structures is still
under consideration.
V-1
/' ..
,.,./ '\
\ t:. :;:!~:~.~,
:,~ .. C;t:' ,:;t:~
'·····-·····.;
1
,{:'
\).. \ v
'
Picnic/Play
/
~
\. J North
r
[
'---/. ., ............... ~P.~~~rns;....--~---__
;:/r~~,,::::~;,;--,; :·· , ••.. [
[
[
:eait~~~"9'!:C··-' ... --r"::tKi Loclg'e:. ··
"
G)
®
@
0
®
@
0
®
Resolution Park
Hostetler Park
918. West 2nd Avenue
935 West 3rd Avenue
f' ""~
[
' .
c
[~
L
[~
L
r t
813 West 3rd Avenue r
813Y2 West 3rd Avenue ·'
Planned Coastal Trail
Planned Anchorage
Historic Development
in Quyana Park r l
Figure V-1 l
4(f) Resources ·
Project Area L
·"
\
u
I ' L
L~
Facilities planned but not now existing are also described briefly in this
section. These include the coastal trail, the Ship Creek greenbelt, and
the Anchorage Historic Development in Quyana Park (see Figure V-1).
918 West 2nd Avenue
918 West 2nd Avenue is a privately-owned single-family house built on a 130
foot by 50 foot lot on Anchorage's original townsite. The house was built
in 1916 and is a white wood frame structure with bungalow style architec-
ture. There are no plans for enhancing or changing the structure, and it
is not currentiy considered a historic attraction. However, this house is
considered significant historically because there are very few buildings on
their original townsite locations remaining in Anchorage. There is both
pedestrian and vehicle access to the house. Similar residences in the area
include 813~ West 3rd Avenue. The SHPO in a May 29, 1984 letter and the
Keeper of the National Register in a July 16, 1984 letter (see Appendix G)
have determined that 918 West 2nd Avenue is eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places.
935 West 3rd Avenue
This is a white wood-frame one and one-half story building on its original
townsite lot. Its high gable roof and arched dormer windows are unique in
Anchorage. It was built in 1936 as a residence and later owned by Walter
J. Hickel,· a former Governor. The building is . now owned by the Hickel
Investment Company and is used for office space. It is part of a walking
tour developed by the Anchorage Convention and Visitors' Bureau (Anchorage
Convention and Visitors' Bureau, 1984), however the building is not open to
the public. There are no current plans to enhance the building or change
the type of use. Its significance is due to its location on an original
townsite lot, its unique architecture, and its ownership by a prominent
public figure. Similar structures in the area include the Christensen
House on the corner of E Street and 2nd Avenue, the Leopold David House a
block west on 2nd Avenue and F Street, and the Edes House, also at 2nd
Avenue and F Street. There is both pedestrian and vehicular aycess to 935
West Jrd Avenue. The SHPO in a May 29, 1984 letter (see Appendix G)
indicated that this house is considered eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places.
813 West 3rd Avenue
This is a· privately-owned two-story apartment building that faces 3rd
Avenue. ·· The original building was built in Chickaloon ( 40 miles east of
Palmer) in the early 1920's and used as offices. After being disassembled
and moved by train to Anchorage in 1935, it was remodeled into a seven-unit
apartment building. It is still used for apartments and it shares a 140
foot x 50 foot lot with. 813~ West 3rd Avenue. The building reflects the
"Art Moderne" architectural style popular in the mid 1930's and 1940's in
Anchorage. It is square with a white and pink stuccoed facade and has a
flat roof with no eaves. It is not considered a historic attraction and
there are currently no plans to make it so. It is significant because of
its style and because few buildings remain in Anchorage that reflect this
period of architecture. The few similar buildings in the area that reflect
the "Art Moderne" style include the Old Federal Building on 4th Avenue
V-3
/
between F and E Streets and the 4th Avenue Theatre across the street.
There is both pedestrian and vehicular access to 813 West 3rd Avenue. The
SHPO in a May 29, 1984 letter (see Appendix G) indicated that this struc-
ture is considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
813~ West 3rd Avenue
This is a long, rectangular, one-story, wood-frame house built on a bench
overlooking Ship Creek. It is on an original townsite lot and was first
built as a four-unit rental property in circa 1916. It is now privately
owned and used as a single-family residence. The building is not a histo-
ric attraction.and there are currently no plans to make it so. Its signi-
ficance is its location on an original townsite lot. A similar residence
is 918 West 2nd Avenue described above. There is both pedestrian and
vehicular access. The SHPO in a May 29, 1984 letter and the Keeper of the
National Register in a July 16, 1984 letter (see Appendix G) have deter-
mined that this house is eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places.
Resolution Park
Resolution Park is a small, approximately 1.1 acre park that overlooks Knik
Arm from the bluff southwest of Ship Creek. The park conunemorates the
200th anniversary of Captain James Cook's exploration of Cook Inlet. A
bronze statue of Captain Cook stands high on a pedestal in the center of a
large view platform. The, view platform is a wood deck structure with a
series of terraced decks that are connected with ramps. The structure is
built into a slope and extends out over the terrain, with an elevation
difference between ground and view platform of over 30 feet. Benches,
trash bins, two high-powered telescopes, and interpretive plaques make up
the park's facilities. A short wood railing surrounds the view platform
and also follows the sidewalk on either side of the entrance, preventing
access to the natural and landscaped areas around and below the structure.
Landscape planting is limited to the small level area between the railing
and the steep slopes of the park. Street trees have been planted between
the sidewalk and the guard rail along the curve of 3rd Avenue and L Street.
Steep and heavily vegetated slopes make the land beneath the structure
unusable. Views from the top platform are excellent and include the
Chugach mountains on the east, the Talkeetnas to the northeast, and views
of the Alaska Range toward the west. Use of the park is by tourists and
residents alike. Activities are passive and include historic
interpretation,_ looking at views, and resting on benches. There are no
official park attendance figures;· however, the park is heavily used for
short periods -of time by tourists. During the peak tourist season
(mid-June to September), between 10 and 15 tour buses stop each day on L
Street, where a special bus parking zone has been provided. The park is
reconunended as a part of the "Walking Tour" in the 1984 Visitors' Guide
(Anchorage <;onvention and Visitor's Bureau, 1984) and is also part of
several organized walking tours.
There are several parks in the downtown area including Hostetler Park
(described below), Elderberry Park, Nulbay Park, and Delaney Park. How-
ever, Resolution Park is unique in character and location. Both Elderberry
V-4
[
[
I,
L
r ·L
:·
~(
,_--·
r : l~·
c
l·""
.....
[
/
Park and Nulbay Park provide excellent views, although they are not central-
ly located and do not provide intrepretive activities. Delaney Park is
more a local attraction, used as a lunch and resting area for downtown
workers.
Resolution·Park is owned and maintained by the Municipality of Anchorage.
Proximity to downtown, the terraced view platform and intrepretive fea-
tures, and the excellent views make the park a valuable attraction to both
tourists and users of the downtown area. There is both pedestrian and
vehicular access. Parking is limited but is available along 3rd Avenue on
both sides of the street except immediately in front of the park.
Land and Water Conservation Funds were used in the appropriation and
development of Resolution Park. Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conser-
vation Fund Act of 1965, as amended, P.L. 95-42 states that:
"No property acquired or developed with assistance under this
section shall, without the approval of the Secretary (of Interior),
be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses. The
Secretary shall approve such ·conversion only if he finds it to be
in accord with the then existing comprehensive statewide outdoor
recreation plan and only upon such conditions as he deems neces-
sary to assure the substitution of other recreation properties of
at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent use-
fulness and location" • .
Hostetler Park
Hostetler Park is a small park (approximately 0.2 acres) across L Street
from Resolution Park. It is dedicated to Chet Hostetler, a respected and
active civic leader of the 1950's. Facilities include a picnic table, a
trash bin, and a commemorative plaque centrally located in a planted bed in
the center of the park. The park is flat with a grass ground cover. A
birch tree, a spruce, and a small mixed clump of birch and spruce make
up the major·vegeta~ion in the park. The park is identified as part of the
walking tour in the 1984 Visitors' Guide (Anchorage Convention and
Visitors • Bureau, 1984)... Uses
commemorative plaque, and resting.
the park.
include picnicking, reading the
There are no official use figures for
Several characteristics of the park reduce its value as a usable space,
including its location between two tall buildings that shade it, parked
cars that surround the park, and noise from L Street traffic. Views from
the park are dominated by parked cars and traffic.
Of all the parks in the downtown Anchorage area, Hostetler Park is the
smallest. Its major value is as a commemorative park and a visual amenity.
It fits in visually with Resolution Park across the street, and the
landscaped area along the west edge of L Street. Access to Hostetler Park
is both pedestrian and vehicular. The park is owned and maintained by the
Municipality of Anchorage.
V-5
Elmendorf Air Force Base Recreational Facilities
Several recreational facilities on Elmendorf Air Force Base are within
the vicinity of the Elmendorf Crossing and are shown in Figure V-1. Two
recreation areas are at the southeast corner of the Base. The Family
Camp is a heavily used campsite. It has 39 vehicle and motor home pull-ins
set in a densely vegetated area north of the Base hospital off of Walton
Road.
Each space has a picnic table and fire pit. Laundry facilities, Base
water, and electricity are also available. North of the Family Camp is a
day~use picnic area on the edge of Ship Creek. Facilities include picnic
tables and trash cans. The area is accessible by road and trail.
Numerous recreation areas and facilities are on the north side of the Base
including the area around Triangle and Fish Lakes, Hillberg Ski Area, and
Hillberg and ·Green Lakes. These areas serte the Base 1 s main recreation
needs. In the summer, activities include hiking, horseback riding, three-
wheeling (all terrain cycling) , picnicking, fishing, bird watching, and
camping. In winter, activities include snowmachining, cross-country
skiing, and downhill skiing. Facilities in the area include trails,
recreational CabinS 1 fishing dOCkS 1 picniC tableS 1 Children IS playgrOUnd
equipment, and Hillberg Ski Area facilities which include runs, two lifts,
and the lodge. Snow making equipment has just been added to the ski area.
Use of the just described area is intense, including both day users and
overnight users. Use is mostly by people living on Base and Air Force
people living in nearby areas. The cabins average 150 users per month for
every month of the year~ the ski area averages 1,230 lift tickets per
month between mid-November and the end of March. Figures are not available
for trail use. The lakes are stocked by the Alaska Department of· Fish and
Game.
Located just north of Green Lake is a Girl Scout camp that is used during
the summer. Facilities include picnic and tent sites, outhouses, and
trails. The Knik Bluff Trail begins at Green Lake and follows the bluff to
the Cairn Point area. It is a popular summer trail and is also used by
cross-country skiers. Spring Lake, just north of Hillberg Lake, is used
primarily for fishing. It is a shallow lake, 300 feet off the nearest
road, and is accessible by trails. Further north, Six Mile Lake is heavily
fished. It is used by several sportsman clubs and has recreational lodges
along the shore. It also accommodates a seaplane base.
Access to north-side recreation facilities is mostly by private vehicles
and is provided by several roads leading into the area including Loop Road
and Burns Road (Figure V-1). Other transportation to the area is provided
by Base buses. Parking occurs at the ski facility, at the entrance to
Green Lake, and randomly along roads.
There are no similar areas of open space on the Base that provide the same
recreational opportunities and experiences as those facilities described.
However, within the Anchorage area similar recreational opportunities are
plentiful and include Arctic Valley (10 miles east) , Hilltop Ski Area (12
miles southeast), Kincaid Park (13 miles south), Flattop Moun·tain (15 miles
V-6
L
f
[
c
r t.
r L
r L
L
1
L
.-,
! ,·
[
[
/
southeast), and innumerable hiking areas. Lakes offering similar facili-
ties and recreation opportunities are not found in the Anchorage area.
The recreation areas are all Elmendorf Air Force Base lands. These lqnds
are Federally controlled by the Department of Defense. If the Department
of Defense declares the land as excess, ownership would be conveyed jointly
to Eklutna, Inc. and the Municipality of Anchorage, under Section 1425 of
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) •
Planned Activities
There are three recreation facilities planned within the project area that
would be affected by, alternatives under consideration if they were
completed prior to the beginning of alternative construction. A coastal
trail, the Ship Creek Greenbelt, and the Anchorage Historic Development
project are planned by the Municipality of Anchorage (see Figure V-1),
however they are not currently in the jurisdiction of the Municipal Park
and, Recreation Department and are not 4 (f) .. resources. The coastal trail
would begin at the Ship Creek Dam, join the bluff near the Alaska Railroad
station, and then continue around Knik Arm. Ship Creek greenbelt would
include a bike/pedestrian path that is planned to follow Ship Creek,
beginning at the Dam and going northeast to Eklutna (approximately 28
miles), connecting with other planned bikepaths. The Anchorage Historic
Development project will be built on the corner of 3rd Avenue and E Street.
These projects are described in Chapter III under "Land Use Plans".
Impacts are discussed in Chapter IV under the same heading.
c. IMPACTS OF EACH ALTERNATIVE
4(f) resources would be affected by the Crossing (I/L ramps) and the Seward
Connector segments of the Downtown Project, and the Crossing (south
approach) segment of the Elmendorf Project. The following discussion
describes those impacts. The Section 106 criteria of effect and criteria
of adverse affect (36 CFR 800) was used in considering historic structure
impacts • .
Downtown Crossing/Seward Connector
Approximately 0.03 acres (1,300 square feet) of Resolution Park would be
taken by the L Street southbound ramp alternative (Figure V-2). The I
Street southbound ramp alternative would not take park land. No other 4(f)
resources would be displaced by the Downtown Crossing/Seward Connector.
The portion of Resolution Park that would be taken is a small triangular
area along 3rd Avenue where the ramp would connect to L Street. This would
include the area taken by the ramp plus a 20.-foot wide strip on both sides
of the ramp where vegetation would be removed. The taking of Resolution
Park lands would require replacement with lands of equal value and useful-
ness in accordance with Section 6(f) requirements of the Land and Water
Conservation Act. Replacement lands would be appraised to assure equal
fair market value. Inunediately following release of the Draft EIS, this
4 (f) evaluation, along with additional required legal documentation on
Resolution Park, will be submitted to the Municipality for an initial
review to determine if replacement lands are of equal value. Concurrence
by the Municipality would be followed by a request to the National Park
v-7
State Courts Building
4th Avenue I rT ..... l ........................ r=---, ··rll f11
I --~-. r~' rr-:> ,.,._J
Parking Garage
/
/
./
/ /
{_
~Notth ---.---Foot
100
I r·· ··--.. ··· I r-......... 11 I
Figure V-2
DowntQwn Project
and 4(fJ Resources
'_c,
_\
c
L
(
L
r -
L
Service (Alaska branch) for approval. The approval would be documented in
the Final EIS if the Downtown Project with the L Street southbound ramp is
selected for implementation.
Access to Resolution Park would be adversely affected by increased traffic
with either southbound ramp alternative. Due to increased traffic,
pedestrians would be able to safely cross L Street only at the corner of
5th and L at the signal instead of at 3rd and L. In addition to reducing
pedestrian access, parking along 3rd Avenue and L Street would need to be
eliminated to accommodate increased traffic, greatly reducing tour bus and
vehicle accessibility. With the L Street southbound ramp, eight parking
spaces would be displaced as well as the tour bus parking. With the I
Street southbound ramp, 33 parking spaces would be displaced as well-as-bus-
parking. Access .would be made more circuitous to 918 West 2nd Avenue and
to 935 West 3rd Avenue since crossing K Street at 3rd Avenue would be more
difficult with the I Street southbound ramp due to increased traffic
volumes on 3rd Avenue. The most likely route that would be taken to avoid
crossing K Street would be via H Street and Christiansen Drive to the alley
between 2nd and 3rd Avenues. Parking in front of 935 3rd Avenue also would
be lost.
Increased traffic would raise design year sound levels for both Resolution
and Hostetler parks from 61 decibels (dB) to 67 dB. This would match the
FHWA noise abatement criterion for residences and parks (67 dB, see Table
E-1 in Appendix E). The noise increase criteria described in Appendix E
would not be exceeded. However, the increased sound levels would be
noticeable and would affect the quality of park experience, espe~ially upon
entering and using the first level platforms of Resolution Park.
Sound levels also would be increased at the other 4 (f) resources with
either southbound ramp alternative. With the I Street southbound ramp
alternative, the residential FHWA criterion of 67 dB would be exceeded only
for 918 West 2nd Avenue. The FHWA criterion of 72 dB applies to 935 West
3rd Avenue since it is used for offices~ the criterion would not be
exceeded. The noise increase criteria described in Appendix E would not
be exceeded. Sound levels (dB) at each location and with each alternative
are shown below (methodology and assumptions are described in Appendix E,
"Noise Report").
Resolution Park upper
deck
918 West 2nd Avenue
935 West 3rd Avenue
813 & 813~ West 3rd
Avenue
No
Action
61
57
64
59
L Street
Southbound
Ramp Alternative
67
65
65
63
I Street
Southbound
Ramp Alternative
65
68
71
65
Note: Shown are peak-hour L or Ldn, in dB for year 2010~ see Appendix E.
All levels include oni~ surface traffic. Noise from rail, aircraft,
and industry are not included in estimates.
V-9
Air quality would be-adversely affected by the Downtown Crossing/Seward
Connector with either the I or the L Street southbound ramps. At
Resolution Park, the eight-hour EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(AAQS) for carbon monoxide (9 ppm) would be exceeded by 3.1 to 3.5 ppm (see
Appendix D). A similar concentration level would occur at Hostetler Park
where traffic volumes and distance from the road would be about the same as
at Resolution Park. With the I Street southbound ramp, similar co
concentrations also would occur at 935 West 3rd Avenue. Eight-hour CO
levels would increase {4.2 to 6.1 or 6.8 ppm) at 918 West 2nd Avenue, but
would not exceed AAQS (see Appendix D). CO levels. at 813 and 813~ West 2nd
Avenue would be even less than at 935 West 3rd Avenue due to their greater
distance from the road. Changes in air quality would not increase the
deterioration of any of the buildings.
Visual impacts to 4 (f) resources would occur at Resolution Park, and at
buildings on 2nd and 3rd Avenues (see Chapter IV, "Visual") • The bridge
would be visible from the view platform in Resolution Park, but it would
not dominate or detract from existing views (see Fi~res IV-2 and IV-3 in
Chapter IV) • The L Street southbound ramp would change northward views .
from the park entrance. However, views from the park are more spectacular
west and southwest and these vistas would not be affected. Views from
Hostetler Park are of low quality, mostly of parked cars and traffic, so
the crossing would not have an adverse impact on existing views. With
either southbound ramp alternative, views would be of traffic along L
Street.
With either of the southbound ramp alternatives, views from 918 West 2nd
Avenue and 935 West 3rd Avenue would be affected, however the I Street
southbound ramp would leave views open to the west, whereas the L Street
southbound ramp also would obscure views to the west across Knik Arm.
Views from 918 West 2nd Avenue would be dominated by the bridge which would
be approximately ten feet above the line of sight with either ramp
alternative. From 935 West 3rd Avenue, the road would be at eye level with
either ramp alternative. Views would be affected to a lesser extent at 813
and 813~ West 3rd Avenue because the ramps would be further from each of
the buildings. At 813 ·West 3rd Avenue, first floor views would be eye
level with the ramps and views of Knik Arm would be obscured. Second floor
views would be over the ramps leaving views of Knik Arm open but dominated
by the ramps. Views from 813~ West 3rd Avenue would be dominated by ramp
piers and the underside of the roadway. Knik Arm would be visible,
although obscured, through the piers.
Temporary construction impacts on Resolution Park and historic structures
would include increased noise levels, dust, and interference with access.
In summary, both ramp alternatives would result in similar types of impact;
however, their degree would differ. The L Street southbound ramp
alternative would have the greatest impact on views from the 4(f)
resources. With the I Street southbound ramp, the impact on views would be
less, but impacts that affect the functioning of the 4(f) resources would
be greater, including decreased accessibility, less parking availability,
and increased noise and co levels.
V-10
r
r
[i
c
r·
[
[,
l
r
[
L
L
L
l L
=l
' )
,~
I
f--,
I ,
L
__ ,
r :
lr
[
[
L
L
l
Elmendorf Crossing
The Project would take approximately 18 acres of land for road right-of-way
in the recreation area on Elmendorf Air Force Base (16 percent of an
estimated 115 acres used for recreation}; see Figure V-3. Recreational
quality in the area would be affected by changes in visual character,
increased noise levels, and proximity of the road. The proposed alignment
would pass between the Family Camp and the picnic area by Ship Creek.
However, the road would be located below existing grade (depressed} and the
Family Camp would be separated by a buffer o.f approximately 50 feet of
mixed birch and spruce forest. There is a width of over 100 feet of
existing vegetation that would provide a buffer for the picnic area. The
depressed road and the vegetation buffers would eliminate any noise and
visual impacts.
Impacts would occur wher,e the road would pass south of Spring Lake, and
north of Green Lake, but access to all recreation areas would be maintained
and trails would be unaffected. Large culverts would carry existing trails
under the roadway, however visual, noise, and proximity impacts would
occur. Cut and fill slopes would be visible as the road passes through
Elmendorf Moraine. Twenty-five foot high cuts would be visible from Spring
Lake, Hillberg Ski Area, and Loop Road.
Extensive fill slopes and a right-of-way fence also would be visible from
Spring Lake, Hillberg Ski Area, and Loop Road.
Sound levels would be increased, however they would not exceed either the
FHWA 67 dB criteria or the increase criteria. Sound levels (dB) would be:
Family Camp
Green Lake
Spring Lake
Existing
58
55
62
See Appendix E for methodology and assumptions.
Elmendorf
Project
65
62
62
There would be no impact to air quality around any of the recreation
facilities on Elmendorf AFB (see Appendix D). Temporary construction
impacts on Elmendorf recreation facilities would include increased noise
levels, dust, and the blocking of recreation trails.
D. AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES
Downtown Crossing/Seward Connector
Alternatives that would avoid displacement ~f a portion of Resolution Park,
traffic impacts, and ramp-related visual impacts include: Replacement of
ramps at I or L Streets with north and southbound ramps connecting to 6th
Avenue and L Street; ramps connecting to E and G Streets at 3rd Avenue; or
V-11
.. ---L
r-----~------------~~====~----~1
Note: Only those recreation facilities in the vicinity
of the Elmendorf Project are shown.
[;
1/2 1 Mile r
~North [
Figure V-3
Elmendorf Project &
Recreation Facilities
f {.
[
t
r
[
['
r
[,
r
c
L
L
L
L
l
)',
u
('
I ,
l..;}
L
[
ramps connecting to the C Street viaduct. A single connection of the
project to the Anchorage street system at Ingra and Gambell Streets also
would minimize impacts. The first three alternatives are discussed in
Chapter II. and were eliminated from consideration either for major
disruption and dislocation reasons or because resulting traffic operations
would be unacceptable.
The final alternati~e, a single connection to Ingra and Gambell, would
not adequately serve forecast traffic. By the year 2001, increased traffic
would require a second connection to the Anchorage street system to
disperse traffic, otherwise congestion would result in a reduced
level-of-service and unacceptable traffic flow. Thus, the I/L ramps would
be required within ten years of crossing completion anyway. Building the
I/L ramps first would keep initial crossing costs lower, making financing
easier.
Combining the southbound and northbound ramps at L Street (under
consideration, its impacts were described earlier) would eliminate the
Resolution Park displacement and some ramp related visual impacts.
However, the traffic related impacts on Resolution Park would remain since
southbound traffic would use 3rd Avenue to reach L Street. Routing of
traffic down either. I Street or I and K Streets to 4th and 5th Avenues
would avoid these traffic impacts. However, I Street is not wide enough to
handle the traffic at an acceptable level-of-service. Widening I Street
to handle additional traffic would require removing parking on either side
of I. Street and would affect pedestrian access to the parking garage on· I
and 3rd; see Figure V-2. Traffic signals would be required at 4th and 5th
Avenues, which would slow traffic movement to unacceptable levels. Moving
the southbound traffic on to K Street would create unacceptable impacts to
the "pedestrian mall" atmosphere of K Street, as well as slow traffic
movement and reduce the level-of-service in a manner~similar to that just
discussed for I Street. K Street is landscaped with mature trees and
planting beds, and widening would require removal of the landscaped area.
Heavier traffic also would adversely affect pedestrian movement between the
Captain Cook Hotel (5th Avenue and K Street) and its parking garage (which
includes shops) across K Street.
Elmendorf Crossing
The current alignment would minimize total impacts to Base facilities.
Changes in the alignment would require a more costly relocation of
facilities and would cause greater impacts as discussed in Chapter II
under "Selection of Alternatives".
E. MITIGATING MEASURES
Downtown Crossing/Seward Connector
Mitigating measures proposed for impacts to 4(f) resources caused by the L
Street southbound ramp alternative are shown in Figure V-4. These measures
would be:
V-13
.......
1.,, --
I
I
....
41
41 .. .... en ...
.... ··
)".---··················· /
\ .. ··
•••••••••• ..J ................... -.. l. .......... /!0 ...... -_ ... 1.. •...•.•.••• \\. •·•··•·• ,.-)• ~
......... ~.! ..................... _ .. __ ....... l ........ __ ,. ......... i~~:::·~:·::·::~::.' ...... ,:.::··.·~~~-:~·-·: :·. . .. •'
/ ... ···•··
-·, IW}ll 935 w 3rd · Parkfng··t~ Avenue
..... I
3rd Avenue
........... , ... :: .................. .
, ........................... _----...:::. ............... ] .. .
State Courts Building
j ...... , J""
;I I ............................. .
.......... !... ...................... -.. -
... ·· _' ,J,.
r ,-···-· "··"-·l··
~---------Pa-r-ki-ng_G.arage-----l~
! .................. I
-·-l ................... o''
l:::===========::::l en 0 ................. -......... -................................. I
·····,
..........
4th Avenue ~ .. .._.
rr--m-............. -....... -r-·····::·i··--··--····-.._.,nllllrrr--h"'"·l·~-~:j·-~1 1
~: , ' ' '
Figure V-4
Mitigation of Impacts
L Street Southbound Ramp
~I ~
' .I -!
-,
I ' L.cj
L
(
L
0
0
Replacement of land taken from Resolution Park with adjacent land to
the northeast of the Park to meet the requirements of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund Act. The replacement lands would be appraised
to assure that they are of equal ma~ket value to the land taken. The
replacement lands would be a useful addition to the park because
pedestrian access would be improved. A path would cross the
replacement lands joining the parking area with Resolution Park
Location of ramp piers out of line-of-sight as much as possible to
reduce visual impacts
o Revegetation and landscaping of construction affected are?-s, added
-~--park land, and plant groupings under ramps and around piers to reduce
perceived mass of bridge and piers
0
0
0
Construction of peqestrian path to lower level of park, wheelchair
access, and connection to planned coastal trail
Provision of eleven spaces of angle parking along 3rd Avenue
Construction of bus pull-in (one bus) on 3rd Avenue
Impacts that would not be mitigated would include:
0
0
0
0
0
--Pedestrians would have to cross L Street at 5th Avenue where cross-
walks and traffic signals wou1d provide the closest safe crossing
Four parking spaces (including two loading spaces) would be lost
Visual impacts upon entering park and views from houses would be
dominated by the road
Increased noise levels (noise levels match the FHWA criterion of 67 dB
for parks)
Temporary construction impacts~ noise, dust, etc.
Mitigation proposed for impacts created by the I Street southbound ramp
alternative would include four alternatives to provide pedestrian access to
Resolution Park. These are shown in Figure V-5 and are described below
with a list of their advantages and disadvantages:
1. Pedestrian tunnel under L Street between Hostetler Park and Resolution
Park would include 150-foot path with seven percent grades through
Hostetler Park. The path could connect to either the lower or upper
deck of Resolution Park. Within Hostetler Park, the path would cut
across an existing sidewalk which would be relocated. There would be
a bus pull-in adjacent to Hostetler Park. Advantages of this
mitigation alternative include:
V-15
/
/
/
/
/
/
-1 e -·0
·....~ r:· ' l LJ ....... _
4th Avenue
1. Tunnel under L Street
/
/
/
4th Avenue
3. Bridge over L Street
with Stairs ·
~North
·I I
/
(
!
/
.. /'
/
/
/
r-1 ! I
L__j··-···· ···--
4th Avenue
2.. Bridge over L Street
with Ramps
//
//
(
i
/
/
4th Avenue
I
I
L
I
L
4. Bridge over L Street with
Land Acquisition
Figure V-5
Alternative Mitigation of Impacts
I Street Southb-ound Ramp
L
r
r
[
f~
,{
I
~-
l
..
.,
r
[:
·[
t~
[
L
L
[
L
L
L
l
I ~
[
[
l
L
[
l_
2.
3.
0 Direct pedestrian and wheelchair access would be maintained
0 Minimum visual impacts
0 Bus pull-in would be provided close to both parks
Impacts that would not be mitigated and impacts created by the above
mitigation would include:
0
0
0
Path would be out of view and could be a security problem for
users
Would take approximately • 03 acres ( 14 percent) of Hostetler
Park; park would need to be redesigned and rebuilt
Thirty-nine
off-street
maintenance
of 935 West
parking spaces would be lost including six public
parking spaces, two Qff-street spaces for park
vehicles, and 31 spa~es of on-street parking in front-
3rd Avenue and on L Street
Pedestrian bridge over L Street between Hostetler Park and Resolution
Park would include 230 feet of ramps with 7. 5 percent grades for
wheelchair access. There would be a bus pull-in adjacent to Hostetler
Park. Advantages of this mitigation alternative would include:
0
0
Pedestrian and wheelchair access would be maintained
Path would be highly visible, lower likelihood of security
problems than with the first alternative
Impacts that would not be mitigated and impacts .created by the above
mitigation would include:
0
0
0
Bridge would be visually dominant element from Hostetler Park
Would take approximately .05 acres (28 percent) of Hostetler Park
including some vegetation
Thirty-nine
off-street
maintenance
of 935 West
parking spaces would be lost including six public
parking spaces, two off-street spaces for park
vehicles, and 31 spaces of on-street parking in front
3rd Avenue and on L Street
Pedestrian bridge over L Street between Hostetler Park and Resolution
Park would include stairs to reduce land take. Wheelchair access
would be provided at 4th Avenue and L Street where curb cuts and
signals would be provided. A bus pull-in would be provided adjacent
to Hostetler Park. Advantages of this mitigation alternative would
include:
0 Direct pedestrian access would be maintained
V-17
4.
0
0
Bridge would be highly visible, lower likelihood of security
problems than the first alternative
Would require least land (approximately 0.007 acres)
vegetation take; use of Hostetler Park would be unaltered
anCl
Impacts that would not be mitigated and impacts created by the above
mitigation would include:
0 Indirect wheelchair access
0
0
Bridge would be visually dominant element from Hostetler Park
Thirty-nine parking spaces would be lost including six off-street
public parking spaces, two off-street spaces for park maintenance
vehicles, and 31 spaces of on-street parking in front of 935 West
3rd Avenue and on L Street
Pedestrian bridge over L Street with 250 feet of ramps at seven
percent grades. Location of ramp would be on land adjacent to
HostetJ:er Park (south side) which would be acquired. Advantages of
this mitigation alternative would include:
0
0
0
0
Would not take land from Hostetler Park
Pedestrian and wheelchair access would be maintained
Bridge would be highly visible, lower likelihood of security
problems than the first alternative
20 C?ff-street public parking spaces would be provided plus two
for park maintenance
Impacts that would not be mitigated and impacts created by the above
mitigation would include:
0
0
0
Acquisition of private land, loss of 20 private parking spaces
Bridge would be visually dominant element from Hostetler Park
Seventeen on-street parking spaces would be lost including
parking in front of 935 West 3rd Avenue and on L Street
Adverse impacts to Resolution Park resulting from any of these mi tigati.on
alternatives would be insignificant. The connecting trail from the tunnel
temporarily would take vegetation, the bridge landing would be in an unused
portion of the park land and would not affect use or views.
Measures to mitigate other impacts on 4 (f) resources resulting from the
combined ramps at I Street would include:
0 Location of piers out of line-of-sight as much as possible to reduce
visual impacts
V-18
[
r:
c-
L
L
[
[
t
L
L
L
r~
(~
I
I
L_,
i
'-i
[
0 Revegetation and landscaping of construction affected areas and plant
groupings under ramps and around piers to reduce perceived mass of
bridge and piers
There are impacts that would not be mitigated by any of the above
alternatives. These would include:
0
0
0
0
0
Access to 935 West 3rd Avenue and 918 West 2nd Avenue would be more
circuitous
Proximity of road to. 935 West 3rd Avenue. Structure would be within
15 feet of front entrance with accompanying noise and air quality
impacts
Visual impacts to houses by dominance of roadway structure
Increased noise levels would exceed FHWA criterion at 918 West 2nd
Avenue. Mitigation could include a 600-foot long, 6-foot high, solid
barrier. However, this would reduce noise levels by only 2 to 3 dB.
The low reduction of noise levels would not justify the cost of the
barrier.
Temporary construction impacts~ noise, dust, etc.
Elmendorf Crossing
Mitigation for impacts to the recreation area on Elmendorf AFB primarily
would involve revegetation of areas disturbed during construction.
Portions of the roadway that would be visible from Green and Spring Lakes
would be planted with larger plant materials that are native to the area.
The linear character of the road and fence would be broken with randomly
spaced group plantings. Where appropriate, cut-and-fill slopes would be
varied to blend into the existing terrain. Variable slopes would decrease
visual impacts by creating an irregular line that more closely :resembles
natural terrain. Uniform fill slopes would tend to reinforce the linear
character of the road by creating a long, even band at the road's edge.
Noise mitigation would not be required since noise levels would be below
FHWA criteria and the noise increase criteria. Construction impacts also
would not be mitigated.
F. AGENCY COORDINATION
Overall coordination during the development and evaluation of alternatives
is described in Chapter VIII. The following agency coordination was
conducted in connection with the 4(f) evaluation:
0
0
State Historic Preservation Office staff (2/16/84, 3/28/84, 5/11/84,
7/12/84)
Elmendorf Air Force Base (5/8/84)
V-19
0 Municipality of Anchorage -Parks and Recreation (5/11/84)
0 Municipality of Anchorage -Planning (5/29/84)
A determination of eligibility was requested from the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) for several potentially eligible historic
resources that were identified by the project team. The need for an
eligibility determination was confirmed in the February 16, 1984 meeting
with representatives of the SHPO. The May 29, 1984 letter from the SHPO
indicated that the following are eligible for placement on the Register of
Historic Places, see (Appendix G):
0
0
0
0
918 West 2nd Avenue
935 West 3rd Avenue
813 West 3rd Avenue
"813~ West 3rd Avenue
On July 12, 1984, a meeting was held with representatives of the SHPO to
discuss impacts to historic resources and mitigating measures. Formal
meetings held with the Municipality of Anchorage planning staff and the
Department of Parks and Recreation (5/29/84 and 5/11/84, respectively)
addressed impacts to Resolution and Hostetler Parks and possible mitigating
measures.
An evaluation of the Knik Arm Crossing was prepared by the· Planning
Assistance Team for Elmendorf AFB (Planning Assistance Team, September
1983). This evaluation was used by the project team to identify impacts
and possible mitigation of impacts to Base recreation facilities. During
the May 8, 1984 meeting with Elmendorf AFB, road alignment and existing
recreation facilities were discussed.
The 6(f) coordination with the Municipality Parks and Recreation Department
discussed under "Impacts of Each Alternative", will occur after release of
the Draft and prior to release of the Final EIS. This process is required
as a result of impacts to Resqlution Park. A Memorandum of Agreement for
mitigating impacts to the historic resources will be developed with the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation during the same time period.
V-20
[
r
{
l
L
[
[
L
L
L
f.
L
[.
l
L
L
-·'
Chapter VI
PROVISION FOR FUTURE RAILROAD ON THE BRIDGE
A. PURPOSE AND NEED
The major focus of this EIS is on a highway crossing of Knik Arm, however a
major structure over the Arm would lend itself to. joint use for other
purposesr e.g., utilities and railroad. This chapter addresses the poten-
tial inclusion of railroad on the Knik Arm highway crossing. The railroad
option would be to structurally reinforce and configure the Knik Arm
highway bridge to permit future addition of rail trackage. The incremental
cost of providing for future railroad operations would be funded separately
from the Knik Arm highway crossing project.
The Alaska Railroad has played an important role in the growth of Alaska,
especially the City of Anchorage. The existing railroad route around Knik
Arm to Fairbanks by present day standards is slow due to tight curves and
at-grade highway crossings, especially the route between Anchorage and
Wasilla. The Final Corridor Alternatives Analysis (CAA) found significant
railroad benefits would be derived from in~luding it on a crossing
(USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF, December 5, 1983).
Additional·benefits from a rail crossing of Knik Arm would be derived from
providing access to proposed industrial and port development in Point
MacKenzie. Evaluation in the Final CAA indicated substantial benefit to
Point MacKenzie development would be attributable to a rail line across
Knik Arm (USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF, December 5, 1983).
Either the Downtown or the Elmendorf highway bridge could.be reinforced and
configured to permit addition of a single railroad track at some future
date. Providing for future railroad addition to a highway crossing would
be substantially less expensive than a separate railroad bridge (a factor
of five to ~ix difference in cost).
An important policy issue from a State perspective would be whether or not
added near-term investment in a Knik Arm crossing highway bridge to accom-
modate future rail operations would pay sufficient long-term railroad
benefits. That issue is being addressed by ADOT/PF's currently on-going
Cook Inlet Transportation Study. This chapter presents design concepts for
reinforcing and altering the configuration of either the Downtown or the
Elmendorf highway bridge to accommodate future railroad track and analyses
of the direct impact on the natural and human environment. Placing rail-
road track on the bridge and building railroad approaches to the bridge are
not considered herein and would require a separate EIS.
B. ALTERNATIVES
Downtown Project
Alignment Description. The location of the bridge would not change from
that with the highway only, see Figure II-3. To maintain shipping channel
VI-1
clearance of 150 feet above mean higher high water, the roadway deck would
need to be higher than the highway only bridge by about 40 feet in the main
span of the cable-stayed structure. The roadway deck would be at the same
height for both bridges at the Mat-Su end, but the bridge with provision
for railroad would be 33 feet higher at the Anchorage side. The Seward
Connector would also be 33 feet higher at its western end.
Design Features. The span length of the cable-stayed bridge configuration
would not differ from the highway only bridge. The 2, 240-foot long ca-
ble-stayed configuration with a railroad would consist of a double-level
truss in which the upper level would provide for four lanes of highway
traffic and the lower level would provide for a single-track railroad with
a trainman's walkwayi. see Figure VI-1. Due to additional deck height and
weight, the two towers supporting the cable-stayed spans would project
about 55 feet into the aviation clear zone for Merrill Field, 25 feet
higher than the highway-only bridge.
The number of piers and length of spans would be the same as for the
highway only bridge. The spans adjacent to the cable-stayed spans would
consist of double-level trusses in which the highway lanes would be atop
the railroad level. The superstructure and substructure would have a
larger mass to provide for the additional railroad loading. Construction
time, labor, and materials for a highway bridge with· railroad would be
about 10 percent greater than for the highway bridge described in Chapter
II.
Cost. The additional estimated 1985 costs to provide for a future railroad
on the Downtown highway bridge would be about $60 million.
Elmendorf Project
Alignment Description. The bridge alignment would be identical to the
alignment of the highway-only bridge; see Figure II-3. The upper roadway
deck would be about ten feet higher than the highway-only bridge.
Design Features. The number of bridge piers and the span lengths would be
the same as for-the highway-only bridge. The highway bridge with a rail~
road would consist of a double-level truss in which the upper level would
provide for four highway lanes. The lower level would provide for a
single-track railroad with a trainman's walkway; see Figure VI-1. The
·trusses and piers would have a larger mass than the highway-only bridge to
account for the additional railroad loading. Construction time, labor, and
materials for a highway bridge with railroad would be about 10 percent
greater than for the highway-only bridge.
Cost. The additional estimated 1985 cost to provide for a future railroad
on the Elmendorf highway bridge would be about $50 million.
VI-2
r
c
t:
(
L
L
[
L
L
r
!
l
f'
L
L
l
":
I
L,.....;
r l_,
.-":
L.
l_;
30 1 301
Bridge Cables
_Downtown Project
Cross Sections of Truss Spans ' .
Elmendorf Project
Figure Vl-1
Bridges with 8'' Railroad
C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Changes in bridge height and structural dimensions would affect con-
struction employment, port and industrial development planning, aircraft
clearance, marine biology and wetlands, construction energy, and visual
impact. The affect on total average energy consumption between 1990 and
2010 would be insignificant.
Construction Employment
Construction employment would be approximately 10 percent greater with
provision for future addition of railroad on the Knik Arm highway crossing,
i.e., 15 employees more per year for either a Downtown or an Elmendorf
location. Applying a 2.0 multiplier to account for indirect employment
increase, regional impact of the railroad option would be 30 employees per
year during construction. This would translate to approximately 27 addi-
tional dwelling units within the region.
Port and Industrial Development Planning
The provision for future addition of railroad on the Knik Arm highway
crossing would be compatible with Anchorage and Mat-Su Borough port and
industrial planning to the extent that the rail option supports planned
facilities. Both jurisdictions recognize the need to expand regional port
facilities-outside the confines of the current Port of Anchorage site along
Ship Creek, particularly to accommodate export and industrial uses in
proximity to a port. Both jurisdictions also recognize in their plans the
importance of rail access as infrastructure for the port.
Aircraft Clearance
The towers for the cable-stayed bridge (Downtown Project) would project
approximately 55 feet into the aviation clear zone surrounding Merrill
Field. This would be approximately 25 feet higher than for the highway-
only option. Federal Aviation approval would be required but would be
likely. Several structures in downtown Anchorage penetrate Merrill Field
airspace to a similar extent. Elmendorf AFB and Anchorage International
Airport clear zones would not be encroached upon. Bridge towers would be
lighted in conformance with FAA requirements.
Marine Biology and Wetlands
The size of either Downtown or Elmendorf bridge piers and footings would be
increased approximately 10 percent to accommodate future railroad
operations. Hence, the amount of disturbance of coastal wetlands and the
bottom of Knik Arm would increase approximately 10 percent compared to a
highway-only bridge.
The number and location of bridge piers and footings and duration of
construction would not be changed. Since much of the marine impact of a
crossing is attributable to the presence of construction rather than the
extent of the area involved, prov~s~on for future railroad would not
significantly alter marine impacts.
VI-4
f t
L
r~
c:
[
[
L
L
L
I ___ i
I L__.i
Construction Energy
Crossing construction energy requirements would be increased approximately
10 percent with provision for future railroad at either the Downtown or the
Elmendorf locations. This is based on an estimated 10 percent increase in
materials and labor at either location. The effect on total average energy
consumpti~n between 1990 and 2010 would be insignificant.
Visual
Railroad on a bridge would change the visual character of the bridge for
either the Downtown or the Elmendorf Project.
Downtown Project. Views of the crossing from Anchorage would be affected
by the addition of the railroad. The bridge would be taller, having towers
25 feet higher and top of deck 40 feet higher, and more massive, having an
additional deck and slightly larger structural members and support piers
(average five percent wider than highway dimensions). However, the in-
creased mass would not change the overall proportion of the bridge. For
this reason distant views of the bridge would not change significantly.
Views from the bridge would not be affected.
Elmendorf Project. Adding a railroad to the Elmendorf bridge would have an
insignificant affect on views of the bridge. The depth of the structure
would not be changed significantly, and the location of the roadway on top
of the structure would not create a dominant visual element.
Views from the roadway would be significantly improved with the location of
the roadway on top of the bridge. Views outward would be open and unob-
structed by structural members.
VI-5
L--"
L-•
Chapter VII
LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS
TO WHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENT WERE SENT
This document has been circulated to, and comments have been requested
from, the following agencies, organizations, and persons:
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Washington, D.C.)
u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District -Environmental Coordinator,
Chief Regulatory Function, and Chief Floodplains Management (Anchorage)
u.s. Department of the Air Force -Elmendorf Air Force Base (Anchorage)
u.s. Department of the Army -Fort Richardson (Anchorage)
u.s. Department of-Agriculture
-Chugach National Forest (Anchorage)
-Soil Conservation Service -Director, Agricultural Research Services and
State Conservationist (Palmer)
-Farmer's Home Administration (Palmer)
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion -National Marine Fisheries Service Anchorage Field Office, Regional
Director (Anchorage), and Office of Ecology/Conservation (Washington, D.C.)
U.S. Depart~ent of Defense -Pentagon (Washington, D.C.)
u.s. Department of Energy
-Alaska Field Office (Anchorage)
-Division of NEPA Affairs (Washington, D.C.)
-Federal Energy Administration (Washington, D.C.)
u.s. Department of Health and Human Services -Director, Office of Environmental
Affairs (Washington, D.C.)
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency
-Office of Federal Activities (Washington, D.C.)
-Environmental Review Branch (Seattle)
u.s. Federal Emergency ~~agement Agency (Bothell, W~shington)
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
-Alaska Area Office and Manager (Anchorage)
-Environmental Officer (Seattle)
u.s. Department of the Interior
-Alaskan Geology Branch (Anchorage)
Bureau of Indian Affairs -Area Director (Juneau) and Superintendent
(Anchorage)
-Bureau of Land Management -Anchorage District Manager and Alaska State
Director (Anchorage)
-Director of Environmental Project Review (Washington, D.C.)
-Fish and Wildlife Service -Area Director (Anchorage) and Western Alaska
Ecological Service (Anchorage)
-Geological Survey -Public Inquiries Office (Anchorage)
-National Park Service -General Superintendent, Alaska Group (Anchorage)
-Office of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs
(Washington, D.C.)
-Office of the Secretary (Anchorage)
VII-1
U.S. Department of Transportation
-Alaska Railroad -General Manager (Anchorage)
-Federal Aviation Administration (Anchorage)
-u. s. Coast Guard (Anchorage)
STATE AGENCIES
Alaska Power Authority (Anchorage)
Alaska State Department of Commerce and Economic Development -Office of
Industrial Development (Juneau)
Alaska State Department of Community and Regional Affairs (Juneau)
Alaska State Department of Environmental Conservation -Regional Supervisor
(Anchorage)
Alaska State Department of Fish and Game (Juneau) and Habitat Division
(Anchorage)
Alaska State Department of Natural Resources
-Division of Commerce and Economic Development (Juneau)
-Division of Development (Anchorage)
-Division of Forestry (Anchorage)
-Division of Lands -Director (Anchorage)
-Division of Land and Water Management (Anchorage)
-Division of Mineral and Energy Management (Anchorage)
-Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Historic Preservation Officer
(Anchorage)
Alaska State Department of Public Safety -State Troopers (Anchorage)
Alaska State Housing Authority -Executive Director (Anchorage)
Alaska State Office of Coastal Management -Division of Policy Development and
Planning (Juneau)
Alaska State Office of Management and Budget
-Division of Strategic Planning (Juneau)
-Division of GOvernmental Coordination (Juneau)
Office of the Governor (Juneau)
University of Alaska
-Geophysical Institute
-Institute of Social and Economic Research (Anchorage)
-School of Engineering (Anchorage)
LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
Alaska Pacific University (Anchorage)
Anchorage Air Pollution Control Agency
Anchorage Community Councils
-Federation of Councils
Advisory Board
Abbott Loop
Airport Heights
Bayshore/Klatt
Birchwood
Campbell Park
Chugiak
VII-2
[
[
('
I l.
L
L
c
c
[
[
[
[
c
l
L
Downtown
Eagle River
-Eagle River Valley
-Eklutna
-Fairview
Girdwood Valley
-Glen Alps
Government Hill
-Hillside East
-Huffman/O'Malley
Mid-Hillside ·
Northeast
-North Mountain View
-North Star
-Old Seward/Oceanview
-Rabbit Creek
-Rogers Park
-Russian Jack
-Sand Lake
-Scenic Park Area
-South Addition
-South Fork (Eagle River)
-Spenard
-Taku/Campbell
-Tudor Area
Turnagain
-Turnagain Arm
Anchorage Economic Development Commission -Community Planning Department
Anchorage Geotechnical Advisory Commission
Anchorage Municipal School District
-Assistant Superintendent
-Educational Facilities Planning
-Management Informati~n Systems
Anchorage Parks and Recreation Commission
City of Houston
City of Palmer
City of Wasilla
Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Palmer)
-Historical Preservation and Restoration Commission
-Planning Department
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District (Palmer)
Matanuska-Susitna Community College (Palmer)
Municipality of Anchorage
-Department of Community Planning -Anchorage Urban Beautification,
Director, Division of Community Planning, Planning and Zoning Commission,
Transportation Planning Division, and Water Quality Management
-Department of Health and Environmental Protection -Director
Department of.Parks and Recreation
-Department of Property Management and Right-of-Way
-Department of Public Works -Director
-Land Use Planning Commission
-Municipal Clerk
-Water and Wastewater Utility
VII-3
Nancy Lake Association (Willow)
Port of Anchorage
Water Utility Advisory Commission (Anchorage)
STATE LEGISLATORS
Representative Mitchell Abood
Representative Albert P. Adams
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Robert Bettisworth
Representative Charlie Bussell
Representative Bette M. Cato
Representative Donald Clocksin
Representative John Cowdery
Representative Mike Davis
Representative Jeff Day
Representative Jim Duncan
Representative Joe Flood
Representative Milo H. Fritz
Representative John G. Fuller
Representative Walt Furnace
Representative Peter Gall
Representative Ben Grussendorf
Representative Joe L. Hayes
Representative Adelheid Herrmann
Representative Vernon L. Hurlbert
Representative Niilo Koponen
Representative Barbara Lacher
Representative Ronald L. Larson
Representative John Lindauer
Representative John J. Liska
Representative Hugh Malone
Representative Terry Martin
Representative Jack McBride
Representative Mike Miller (Juneau)
Representative Mike Miller (North Pole)
Representative Sam Pestinger
Representative Randy Phillips
Representative John Ringstad
Representative Richard Schultz
Representative Mike Szymanski
Representative Mae Tischer
Representative Rich Uehling
Representative Anthony Vaska
Representative Jerry Ward
Representative Ron Wendte
Representative Fred F. Zharoff
Matanuska-Susitna Legislative Information Office
VII-4
r
r·
c·
L
[
[
[
,[·'·
--
[
L
~ -L
l
L.:
[
c
[
L
[
Senator Don Bennett
Senator Richard I. Eliason
Senator Bettye Fahrenkamp
Senator Jan Faiks
Senator Frank R. Ferguson
Senator Paul Fischer
Senator Vic Fischer
Senator Donald E. Gilman
Senator Rick Halford
Senator Joe P. Josephson
Senator Tim Kelly
Senator Jalmar M. Kerttula
Senator Pappy H. Moss
Senator Bob Mulcahy
Senator Fritz Pettyjohn
Senator Bill Ray
Senator Patrick M. Rodey
Senator John c. Sackett
Senator Arliss Sturgulewski
Senator Robert H. Ziegler,
CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION
Mr. John Katz,
Special Counsel,
State/Federal Relations
The Honorable Ted Stevens,
United States Senate
Sr.
The Honorable Frank H. Murkowski,
United States Senate
The Honorable Donald E. Young,
House of Representatives
-~
KNIK ARM CROSSING STEERING COMMITTEE
The Honorable Edna Armstrong,
Mayor, Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Colonel Richard 0. Bennett,
Vice Commander, Alaska Air Command
Elmendorf Air Force Base
Mr. Tyler Jones,
Port Director·
Municipality of Anchorage
VII-5
Mr. Riley Snell
Director of Planning and Programming
Alaska State Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
Alaska Center for the Environment (Anchorage)
Alaska Federation of Natives (Anchorage)
Alaska Federation of Women's Clubs (Anchorage)
Alaska Jaycees, Inc. (Anchorage)
Alaska Public Interest Research Group (Anchorage)
Alaska Rifle Club (Anchorage)
Alaska Society of Professional Engineers -Professional Design Council
(Anchorage)
Alaska State Rifle and Pistol Association (Eagle River)
Aleut Corporation (Anchorage)
American Institute of Architects (Anchorage)
American Society of tivil Engineers (Anchorage)
Anchorage Audubon Society
Anchorage Board of Realtors
Anchorage Chamber of Commerce
Anchorage Convention and Visitors Bureau
Association of General Contractors (Anchorage)
Calista Corporation (Anchorage)
Chugach Natives, Inc. (Anchorage)
Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (Anchorage)
Denali Citizen's Committee (McKinley Park)
Eklutna, Inc. (Anchorage)
Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs (Fairbanks)
Friends of the Earth (Fairbanks)
Highway Users' Federation of Alaska (Anchorage)
Homebuilder's Association of Alaska, Anchorage
Iditarod Trail Blazers (Wasilla)
Kiwanis-Club (Anchorage)
Knik Village Corporation (Wasilla)
League of Women Voters (Anchorage)
National Audubon Society (Anchorage)
Palmer Chamber of Commerce
Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc. (Anchorage)
Sierra Club (Anchorage)
·Talkeetna Chamber of Commerce
Teamsters Union Local 959 (Anchorage)
Trustees for Alaska (Anchorage)
Tyonek Native Corporation (Anchorage)
TSA Senior Citizens (Eagle River)
United Food and Commercial Workers Union (Anchorage)
Wasilla Chamber of Commerce
VII-6
[
c
r t
c L
[~
c
[
r_·
L
[
[
L
L
L
PUBLIC REVIEW LOCATIONS
Alaska Resources Library (Anchorage)
Anchorage Public Libraries
-Chugiak/Eagle River Branch
Scott and Wesley Gerrish Library (Girdwood)
Grandview Gardens Branch
Z.J. Loussac Library
Mountain View Branch
Samson Dimond Branch
Sand Lake Branch
-Spenard Community Branch
Big Lake Community School
Houston City Hall
Kenai Peninsula Borough Libraries
-Joyce K. Carver Memorial Library (Soldotna)
-Homer Public Library
-Kenai Community Library, Inc.
Ninilchick Community Library
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Community College Library
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Public Libraries
-Palmer
-Sutton
-Talkeetna
-Wasilla
-Willow
Tyonek Community Center
University of Alaska, Anchorage Library
Whittier City Clerk's Office
VII-7
n
I -
I
L._"
L_
L
Chapter VIII
COORDINATION
A. AGENCY COORDINATION
Coordination with Federal, State, and local government agencies, as well as
private organizations, was conducted informally and formally as a part of
seeping, data gathering, and Draft Environmental Impact Statement
preparation.
Seeping
"Seeping" is the term applied to the activities required by Federal
regulations (40 CFR 1501. 7) to initiate preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). Knik Arm crossing seeping activities included:
0
0
0
0
0
Publication of a Notice of Intent to File an Environmental Impact
Statement (Federal Register, December 3, 1982)
Preparation of a Seeping Document (USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF, November 29,
1982) identifying project alternatives to be evaluated, impact
assessment procedures, and a schedule for environmental document
preparation
Establishment of lines of communication with Federal, State, and local
ag~ncies and organizations with interest in the project
Seeping meetings with agencies as well as the public providing
information on project alternatives and impact assessment. Four
seeping meetings were held on January 12 and 13, 1983, two for the
public (January 12 in Wasilla, January 13 in Anchorage) and two for
government agencies (both on January 13 in Anchorage)
Performance of initial technical analyses to aid in refining key
·design and environmental issues, project alternatives, and assessment
procedures
The seeping process and its results are documented in a Seeping Report
(USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF, March 8, 1983). ·Included in that document are: copies
of agency and organization correspondence, sUIIUnary of seeping meeting
comments, description of initial technical analyses, final list of corridor
alternatives, and final list of evaluation issues.
The following Federal agencies agreed to serve as cooperating agencies:
0
0
0
u. s. Air Force
U. s. Army Corps of Engineers
U. s. Coast Guard
VIII-1
0
0
0
0
0
U. s. Department of Agriculture
-Forest Service
-Soil Conservation Service
U. s. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U. s. Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
National Park Service
u. s. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Meetings
Meetings were held with representatives of interested Federal, State, and
local government agencies, as well as private organizations throughout the
EIS preparation process.
A chronological summary of the major contacts and/or meetings occurring
during this timeframe follows:
0 FEDERAL AGENCIES
-Alaska Native Medical Center
-Alaska Railroad
(4/24/84, telephone)
(11/13/81, 2/7/83, 5/10/83, 2/1/84,
2/8,84)
-Bureau of Land Management (2/9/84)
-Corps of Engineers (3/21/84, 4/12/84, 4/23/84,
4/26/84)
-Federal Aviation Administration (4/22/83)
-Soil Conservation Service (11/9/82)
-u. s. Army (11/22/82)
-U. s. Air Force (3/3/82, 10/21/82, 11/2/82, 4/2/83,
9/26/83, 9/29/83,12/1/83,
12/14/83, 1/23/84 I 'S/8/84)
-U. s. Coast Guard (12/21/82, 1/4/83, 2/24/84)
-u. s. Fish and Wildlife Service (11/9/82, 12/10/82, 11/16/83,
1/2/84, 4/16/84, 4/17/84, 5/4/84,
5/10/84
VIII-2
L
f
r
l
L
r
[
c
[
L
L
l
l
L
0
l -
0
I
L->
=
~-!
0
STATE AGENCIES
-Department of Fish and Game (12/9/82, 1/12/84)
-Department of Natural Resources (12/1/82, 10/17/83, 11/15/83,
2/16/84, 3/2/84)
-Office of the Governor (4/15/83, 3/8/84)
-Senate Transportation Committee (4/27/83, 8/29/83, 3/8/84, 4/24/84)
-State Historic Preservation
Officer
-University of Alaska, Institute
(2/16/84, 3/28/84, 5/11/84,
7 /12/84)
of Social and Economic Research (10/5/83)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
-Anchorage Metropolitan Area
Transportation Study
-Anchorage School District
-City of Houston
-Matanuska-Susitna Borough
-Matanuska-Susitna Borough
School District
-Port of Anchorage
-Municipality of Anchorage
UTILITIES
-Alaska Power Authority
-Chugach Electric Association
VIII-3
(3/1/82, 10/19/82, 5/11/83,
5/17/83, 8/24,83, 9/20/83,
9/27/83, 9/29/83, 1/16/84,
2/16/84, 3/20/84, 2/2/84)
(3/9/84)
(12/13/83, 4/26/84)
(2/24/82, 3/2/82, 10/14/82,
11/23/82, 12/9/82, 12/14/82,
12/20/82, 1/24/83, 5/5/83,
5/12/83, 9/21/82, 10/19/83,
10/21/83, 12/13/83, 2/8/84,
3/13/8~, 4/9/84, 5/21/84)
(5/13/84)
(8/30/83, 12/17,83, 4/2/84)
(12/1/82, 12/12/83, 1/16/84,
1/30/84, 2/22/84, 3/12/84,
3/19/84, 3/22/84, 5/11/84,
5/17/84, 5/21/84, 5/29/84)
(5/29/84)
(4/21/83, 5/10/83)
0
0
0
0
-ENSTAR Natural Gas Company (5/9/83)
-Matanuska Electric Association (5/12/83, 2/21/84)
-Matanuska Telephone Association (5/12/84)
KNIK ARM CROSSING STEERING (1/6/83, 3/17/83,
COMMITTEE 2/16/84)
CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE
-Anchorage (2/24/84)
-Palmer (5/9/84)
-Wasilla (9/27/83)
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
-American Institute of Architects (12/9/83)
-American Planning Association
-American Public Works
Association
-American Right-of-Way
Association
-American Society of Civil
Engineers
-Construction Specification
Institute
-Society of American Military
Engineers
-Society of Real Estate
Appraisers
INDUSTRY
-Brown and Root
-
-Calista Corporation
-Chevron
VIII-4
(10/24/83)
(7/27/83, 5/23/84)
(3/15/84)
(6/21/83)
(7/19/83)
(9/30/82)
(4/12/84)
(2/21/84)
(2/23/84, 3/14/84)
(4/11/84)
7/1/83, 9/13/83,
[
['
[
[
[
c
[
[~
L
L
L
l
--)
-<
l_.
-Crowley Maritime (4/17/84)
-Kaiser Cement (4/10/84)
McCool-McDonald Architects (4/17 /84)
-Multi Systems International {10/83)
Pacific Western (4/11/84)
-Samwhan Corporation {2/10/84)
-Sealand {4/24/84)
-Stone, Ltd. (6/27/83)
-Suneel Alaska Corporation {9/2/83)
-Tote {4/25/84, 5/31/84)
-Union Oil Company (9/23/83)
-URS Company, Inc. (6/3/83)
B. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
Public involvement opportunities have been a continuing part of the Knik
Arm crossing EIS preparation. Public meetings were held in Wasilla and
Anchorage on January 12 and 13, 1983 {Seeping) and on September 14 and 15,
1983 (Draft Corridor Alternatives Analysis review). Throughout the
analysis, a newsletter covering ongoing activities and progress was
published and distributed to all who expressed an interest. The following ·
summary indicates the dates and major topic of each newsletter:
0 Number 1 -January 1983
Seeping
o Number 2 -June 1983
Economic Feasibility
0 Number 3 -September 1983
Draft Corridor Alternatives Analysis
0 Number 4 -January 1984
Final Corridor Alternatives Analysis
0 Number 5 -April 1984
Crossing Alignments to be analyzed.in EIS
A public information and exhibit display booth was provided during the
Anchorage Fur Rendezvous in February of 1983.
VIII-5
Further information regarding public involvement and agency coordination is
included in the Scoping Report (USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF, March 8, 1983) and
Final Corridor Alternatives Analysis (USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF, December 5,
1983).
VIII-6
r
L
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
c
[
L
L
L
L
l ___ .J
L~
l~:
[
[
[
r -
L_,
l~
Chapter IX
LIST OF PREPARERS
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by the u.s. Depart-
ment of Transpor:tation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT/PF).
Assistance was provided by EMPS/Sverdrup and principal associates DeLeuw,
Cather and Company and Tryck, Nyman and Hayes. The following FHWA per-
sonnel were involved in EIS preparation:
0 Barry Morehead Division Administrator
0 Kurt Dunn Area Engineer
0 Tom Neunaber Environmental Coordinator
0 Steve Moreno Transportation Planner
0 Gary Wilson Right-of-Way Officer
0 Charles Seslar Structural Engineer
0 Karen Tennison EEO Coordinator
The technical analyses were performed by or under the direction of the
persons listed on the following pages, who are referred to as the "project
team" in document text.
IX-1
H
Name and Degree
ADOT/PF
John B. Olson,
BSCE, MSCE,
MS Environmental
Engineering, Ph D
Civil/Environmental
Engineering
Jerry Hamel,
BSCE
Chris Storey, BA
Anthropology,
Geography
Larry Munson
~ rv Joey Hartley,
BBA
Responsibility
Project Director
Project Manager
Environmental Consistency
Review
Utilities Impact Analysis
Stage Relocation Study
SVERDRUP & PARCEL AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Gordon R. Pennington,
BSCE
R. Jack Allen,
BSCE, MSCE
Robert A. Wokurka,
BSCE
Gerhard Joehnk,
MSCE
Consultant Project Exec-
utive, member Consultant
Executive Committee
Consultant Project
Manager .
Knik Arm Bridge Design
Knik Arm Bridge Design
Experience
17 years, Civil/
Environmental Engineering
10 years, Civil Engipeering7
6 years, Project Management
4 years, Environmental
Impact Analysis
15 years, Utilities Engineer
1 year, Right-of-Way
Assistant
35 years, civil, structural,
and transportation
engineering
30 years, structural
and civil engineering
10 years, civil and
structural engineering
30 years, bridge
engineering
I~ ,, I
,---.
' '
Professional Discipline
Director, Major Project
Management; P.E.
Design Manager
Environmental Assistant
Civil Engineer
Right-of-Way Agent
Structural Engineer, P.E.
Structural Engineer; P.E.
Structural Engineer; P.E.
Structural Engineer, P.E.
...---.
i -I
r---: ~:
Name and Degree
EMPS
Warren E. Wild,
BSCE
John c. Becker,
BSCE
David W. Roden
1-. -]
Responsibility
Chairman, Consultant
Executive Committee
Houston Connector ijighway
Design
Houston Connector Highway
Design
DeLEUW CATHER AND COMPANY
Lawrence D. Hazzard,
BS Architectural
Engineering
~ w , Paul F. Holley,
BSCE, MUP
John M. Page, BS,
MUP
Ronald V. Sherwood,
BS, MS Urban Plan-
ning
M. Elise Huggins,
BA, Landscape
Architecture
Member Consultant
Executive Committee
Consultant Deputy Project
Manager; Urban growth and
economic development analysis
Document production; urban and
military function and
operation, land use plans,
government finance, natural
resource development, energy
analysis
Traffic forecasts;
transportation analysis
4(f) Evaluation; parks and
recreation, visual,
pedestrian and bicycle
analyses; and graphics
~~ .... -J c
Experience
Over 30 years,
transportation engineering
25 years, highway
engineering
30 years, highway design
22 years, civil
engineering
18 years, transportation
economics, planning, design,
and impact assessment
10 years, land use planning,
socioeconomic, air, noise,
and energy analysis
8 years, transportation and
traffic engineering
5 years, landscape design
and environmental impact
analysis
L ,tJ . .J
Professional Discipline
Civil Engineer; P.E.
Civil Engineer; P.E.,
R.L.S.
Highway Design Engineer;
C.E.T.
•
Civil Engineer; P.E.
Transportation Engineer;
P.E., and Community and
Environmental Planner;
AICP
Community and
Environmental Planner;
AICP
Transportation Planner
Landscape Architect
Name and Degree
Pat M.· Gelb, BS,
MS
Jean L. Jenkins,
BA, History
TRYCK, NYMAN & HAYES
Frank Nyman,
BSCE, MSCE
James Lake,
BSCE, MSAE
Robert Culross,
BS Geology
Denise Bousley,
BA, MSW
Responsibility
Urban growth and economic
development, and government
finance analysis
Land use plans and natural
resource development analysis
Member Consultant
Executive Committee
Project Manager for Seward
Connector and Elmendorf south
approach design
Highway Engineer for Seward
Connector and Elmendorf south
approach design
Public Involvement
community planning
HARDING LAWSON ASSOCIATES
Jay M. England,
BSCE
Donald E. Bruggers,
MSCE
Mark R. Musial,
MSCE
--
Project Director for
geotechnical engineering
Project Manager for
geotechnical engineering
Project Engineer for
geotechnical engineering
Experience
13 years, urban and
transportation planner
8 years, environmental
analysis
Over 40 years, civil
engineering
8 years, project management
civil engineering
21 years, highway design
4 years social work and'
4 years public relations
25 years, highway, geo-
technical, and arctic
engineering
7 years, geotechnical
engineering
3 years, geotechnical
engineering
r-1 ' '
Professional Discipline
Transportation Planner
Environmental Planner
Civil Engineer1 P.E.,
R.L.S.
Civil Engineer7 P.E.
Geologist7 Highway
Engineer
Social Work -Community
Organization
Civil -Geotechnical
Engineer, P.E., R.L.S.
Civil -Geotechnical
Engineer7 P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer
,..---,
I
H
Name and Degree
J. P. Singh, PhD,
Civil Engineering
DM·1ES AND MOORE
John Morsel!, MS
Alex w. Bealer,
BS Mathematics,
MS Atmospheric
Science
T BOLT BERANEK & NEWMAN
Ul
Myles Simpson, BS
Physics, MS
Physics
1.~ J c l L . .I
Responsibility
Principal Engineer for
earthquake engineering and
site-response analysis
L L
Natural environment studies;
ecological impact analysis
Air quality impact modeling and
analysis
Measurements of existing
sound levels, sound level
prediction calculations, noise
impact analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS
M. Yarborough, MA
Linda Yarborough,
MA
Archeological identification
and impact analysis
Archeological identification
and impact analysis
L. • J <· "·· .J}
Experience
17 years, soil mechanics,
soil dynamics, earthquake
engineering, and engineering
seismology
16 years, biological
research, impact analysis,
mitigation planning ·
10 years, air quality impact
modeling
16 years, noise analysis and
control
9 years, inventory and anal-
ysis of archeological sites
9 years, inventory and anal-
ysis of archeological sites
Professional Discipline
Civil -Geotechnical
Engineer; P.E.
Northern Regions
Ecologist
Meteorologist
Noise Specialist
Archeologist
Anthropologist
.1
Name and Degree
OTHERS
Patrick L. Burden,
BS Business
Administration,
MS Economic
Geography
Neil s. Mayer, BA
Economics, Ph D
Economics
,-,
,)
Responsibility
Economic development analysis
Housing market analysis and
economic development
analysis methods
Experience Professional Discipline
14 years, economics Economist
9 years, economics Economist
r-,1
Appendix A
Engineering Drawings.
[.' J c L L ~, [ J L•·J C. J .J ... . ) . " .
··--····· ......... ''''''"']'''''''''""''''''''''''"'''''''''''''''''''""'"''''''······-·~
I
! :
"'!{
I
\
"l
I
}
/
Note: Plates 5 to 8 contain profll"es of plans found In Plates 1 to 4.
... :J . J
North
•••11~2 --11111•••••11!2 Miles
Index to Plates
Susitna Flats
State Game
Refuge
ts~
jJ ~
~ ., I
-"({0.\'l. ••••••••• ~ •••
-~ .:.·· ~? •••••• ~·· ~w • '<.,
V"'t
[
(~
L
[
o/i [' v'/ l
I
~l) L
\Jf/
~
[
! . L
~~ [
--~------111! -lllll SMiles 0 1 2
Index to Plates
L
L
L
L
L [-J [ [. . .1 L J
~CROSSING
c J ) li
u' ,U
Plate 1
Downtown Crossing & Seward Connector
(with L Street Southbound Ramp)
~CROSSING Plate 2
Downtown Crossi:ng & Seward Connector
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~ith I Stre~ Southbound Ram~
lr--' ,-,
,J
l. . .J j L L. [. u J l. . . .D
rr~ r: ·r f~~~~~
Wr .....
>. •• . ~-r~:.~.\.~::1.
Plate 3
KNIKARMc __ R_o_s_s_I_N_G------------------------~~~Coo~~m (with Gambell Street Southbound Ramp}
,...-.
I I~ :-"'!
100
80
60
20
0
SEWARD CONNECTOR
I
I
riiii'~
I
(
90tM------;;_~ft~.T -- -[lOtdO - - - -... ~~----llO+tR>----'il~1J I;KltOO 140+00
~~C::R~O;S~S~I~N~G~----------------~-----------------------------------
[] ,]
100 .. g
i
--------------------+1-i'~
20
180•00
Plate 5
Seward Connector Profile
l
-l cl l ] J
]
]
J
]
J
J
J I I~
-1
I'll
X
I
::j c01
"' ..
3:: ,
c} en J CD
~
I» ... ] c.
0
0 = J = CD
~
0 ...
J ., ., ... -o a = CD
J
i"<»
J
0 0 0 ! 0 g g ~ g ~ I I I MATCH LINE STA.I60•00
:!1 i!l ..
0 g Cl g
~ 0 0
8
(II m ~ "' c:r n 0 z z m· ~
"'
I I I I I I I I I ·~ '~ I I I I I I ~ ~~ ~
I
- -I g 0 I
RIR SEWARD CONNECTOR I
li) STA. IBI+OO•INGRA \
&:._-R/R CONNECTOR I
~ BUTTRESS HAUL RD. I
--------\ -....,_ ~ ~----~ g~ ------~
~~ ' \
1"11111 I \ ~:::: \ '
§!., I \. ~ . ~
'* o,~
• ~l
\
~
8
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
>I ~~
I
I
..
0
.. o. ..
0 g
'""'-
GAMBELL ST. CONN. j STA. 192+2&
BEGIN PORT EXIT RAMP 6+ K:::AA WA ao;:c;..._gx STA.O+OO•~·-... -T.,...
..
0 g
' ' '
..
0
' Ill.
"'"' ' ' '
..
5? g
..
0
' ~
g
' ' ' '
..
0
' ' ~~ \~ ......
CD
0
' ',,
0 0
INGRA CONNECTOR
STA.IBI+OO• SEWARD
CONNECTOR
\~\ INGRAS't
~ CONNECTOR
\ STA.I9S+:SO
\
I
I
I li 10
BEGIN PORT ENTRANCE RAMP
STA. 0+00• STA. 133~0
~
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-~ ~I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
c::::I: SEWARD CONNECTOR
CI: SEWARD CIIHNEC-
I
!> ..
"
EXIT RAMP STA. 21+:!0
ENTRANCE RAMP STA.I2+30
OCEAN DOCK RD.
CONNECTOR STA. 29+20
;!! :a
-1
"' z
-1 :a
J» z n
"' :0 ..
3:: ,
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 ~ 8~
I
I
I
ENTRANCE RAMP STA. 12+30•
EXIT RAMP STA.21+30
100
80
••
40
20
120f00
,,,.J l. ..... L. . :.J L ,, . J
I:N+ ... ...~g
wt=; z-~~! ~~ t-z. ~"~----~·~··=~·------------------~~L_--~ .... ~~~ .. I -0.5% 0
'-
-------------------------7 --1 ! ~
§ /
I I
8 /
------~"-
130•00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
fi
--~---------'
"L.' STREET RAMP
120t00
. .J l:
'I' STREET RAMP
140100
I
..J
~ Plate7
.=.!!!!_C~R;..,;;o_s;..s_•N_o ____________ L Street Southbound and 1 Street Northbound Ramp Profile
~ ..
i
iil
IZO!
~ ..,
... ..
lj
Q
I ... ..
100 II! r-------------------------~0-~0%~------------------------~~--------~ I -O.G% _i-0~~..,...-
eo
60
40
20
-----~------
0 --120.00 _,1~,~ ____ /,,...
-------~iN/ST/1----
130+00
f'
..-~' ("
I ,
.. --" . I
~I
~~
;.I
I
,JJ
I
kt
I
I
-~_,..------~
140+00
120
100
80
60
80' .
20
0
Plate 8
KNIKARM c __ R_o_s_s_I_N_o _________________ _ I Street Southbound and Northbound Ramp Profile
i----"l
~ J."
• il
!!
Ill ..
8g aN
210 e~
220
/£~OSTING Q60UND
----·---
:tD.5011. , :
"FI71SH PROF!~£ O~AI?£ :
RAMP iNO. "I!"
i
.~ 10+00 20~
C... J [ .n c: .. " c...
0+00
J .J
2GO
i--~::~:0-:wND 220
1-!!~!!!!l!~!L.J~
RAMP NO. 2
3000
Plate 9
Elmendorf Crossing
e -1100
. 'I
i
.. '
--'
t
t
'd
.;
" I :
I
j.
7
. -
I
I
80
i
i.
I
i I
!
i'
I
t
~ a Q
~..;~ :>
ii: ~ "' ...
--..... '. -r--... .... ~~----:-.
··I i
.i I
i I
:I
!l
i! C,
.. I. ?/ "',\ {' ,.., ·. fJ' ~ .· •., .l;i: ., ..
il 0 ,.: r
.-· ~ I)~· . ~·::, ' / ... ~ '<
;
~~~ ~ t;!!l .. ~li ~ .. ui ~~
II~ ,;-
~~ ~:.
.:..~:":".;..·--r-----,_--~-~--------· .... --.----~---.... -----.... :""':"-
I. ..
·r
' I
. O.T5
I .• :eQQ
-!' i .,
I
.. !.
i I
I i
-
130 UIO
Plate 10
Elmendorf Crossing .
I~
l L.
.~
' I~ 1110
' ''
l. ; J 1 .....
210
I
'J
. t
,.
. '
' '.
'' .~
I'
280
\i. ..J
I I
I
I
';
Plate 11
:::::.:::=.:.:::::::.:::...----------------------Elmendorf Crossing
/"'''--~---
i 2150 2 270 2 0
Plate 12
Elmendorf Crossing
,r:--J
[ [ ' L, , [, J ,[ J l, I J l 'I ,,
, -"----"----·-::-:--:2__4127---·-"----~--• \ TI~'NH4WS.M. BLUFFACCESSROA~--::..~~-~<:_·_;.::: -~-=.I;,:~~~?:~.·-::_ .1. .-• ,-·\ '
0
UNDERCROSSINO .... --......_, ________ _._ •-.1:.,....-------..--~.:.~~ HIU.N~S
....... 1./ ,_ -·----/' '\ · f·. ·· 1. -,----R•S500
.....,-
30 ---:--~ TOLLPL~ZA '~-/ NBLAN£S '··-t· \~ ~-~s~s·
~=:~~:~· ''~-------.-, -
NBLANES
R•l&OO'
L•2!12'
DOWNTOWN
.............. ~/
.D
150 -UNOCRC/fOSS/NG · ~0.5 " / -~ .. -··:;;;~;~ .. -· ..... , ............ , ........................... , ............ ' "------------f':=J!:;:sL:u:~~~A::c:•s~s:;a:o:,COf--"-"-'""~'-------""'"""'·~ ~:~.~:·.·:·~_. .. .o,.·;F,;=:··co,_.,-~~u;•oo=:·:::::C:oc:co-"""'l'~~~' .. :f. .. c. ... ;,.c .. o .. r; .. c .. o .•. c .. o .. r~.o .. o ... o ... o .. j~.c. ... o ... o .. o .. , .. o.:.c. .. c. ... ..< .. .......... -·· ...................................... .
100
50
0
250
200
150
100
50
0
i
l
i
. ./
10 20
10
............ _NORTHBOl/ND LANE$
20 30
eo
NOTE:
HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL DATUM
SHOWN IS BASED ON U.S.G.S.
QUADRANGLES. 1:25,000 SCALE
50 60
90
26 27
70
100+00. 119 120 130
J
1~2.$0
N
0
"':·.'
-·---1 I JI~Q.I
I I I i
!IQQ I
! I
I
:~Q I
i
. :Q
.?00.
150
100
50
:o
~C~R:O:S::S:I:N:G:_----------------------------~------------------Plate 13
Downtown /Elmendorf _Crossing
\.
200
150
100.
50
90
200
I .. . \ ,_ ~ -I
\~:
\ ·-~ ~: ..
I. . i .. h.
\'. -~. ----·,,
\.'..-\----' .
~-~!
... i
·t
.......................... , .......................... .
IOOtOO 110 120
WL3
130 ··; .. .
·-.. .
.........:•"''''"''''"'"'''''····
150
100
50
IOOO'VC ' ~~~ .....................................
NOTE:
HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL DATUM
SHOWN IS BASED ON U.S.G.S.
QUADRANGLES 1:25,000 SCALE
240 250 260 270 280 290
\
140
············· ·····
300
\
310
HI LANES
R•I&OO'
L•lt57'
160
TI4N, B4W S.M .
170
HILANts
R•IIOO'
L•ll05'
180
\ TJ4N, fi4W S.M.
·······················
320 330 340
\
2ootoo 210
·································
IOOO'VC
350 360 370
220
0 2fl0 500 1000
230
N8LANES
R•2865'
L•IZ715'
1500
; !99 .. i
50.
TJ.5N, B4W S.M. a(/
...... ...
380
6 ., l&iO
HI LANES
R•IBOO'
L•l~l9'
1500
200
-0.21)~ ..
·• ..... , .......... : .. "'""150
100
50
3.90 400
~c--R_o_s __ s_•_N_o __________________________________________________ ___
Plate 14
Houston Connector Segment 1
,,...._...., rr-J
HIUHES
ft•ISOO'
L •1019'
r: [
NORTH LOST LAKE A.C
L J I J
·ri5N, R4W S.M.
r, ,, (, J II ,, l
HOLSTEIN HEIGHTS ACCESS
1000 15001
I
200, ~~~~~~!_ __ .__J~~~~~~~~~~~~-.r-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~a~.o~o~*~.r.r.~~~~~~~~~~--~~;t;:··~-~-·~--~i~~~~~+-~;TJ~··~·~·,~··~·~·~··~·-~·~·-~·~·-~·;-~·~~~-:----~~~ ~ -0.20" /OOO'VC :a~.1 ~. ····· • •···········.···• 3'o'iJ.1 Vfi''''~''''."'''~····.····~·· .................. ····~····. .. ·········~· ..... : .... , .... ········:· ·· /; ····· ... ; .... , .•.. ~ .... .>/: +(!.$
6
1f
150·············· .. •••·•·•·••·••··•••••• ~ -
100
50
400 410
205.0
420
HBU.NES
A•1251'
L•791'
r-~" ORIGINAL GROUNDLINE SHoWN FOR THIS AREA REPRESENTS
GROifflOLIHE BEFORE' CO~STUCTIOH or PHASE 11; POINT MACKENZIE ACCESS'ROAD
430 440 460 470 480 490
TI5N, H4W S.M.
t NORTHBOUHO LANES -------na -------ro--------1619
;----+0.50* • 200 .•.•.. :":0:!.~~ .... 1 ........................................................ .
-o..u* . .................................. !~~:~: .... .f·"
150
100
5Q
NOTE:
HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL DATUM
SHOWN IS BASED ON U.s.G.S.
QUAORANGLES. 1:25,000 SCALE
NOT£• ORIGINAL GROUNOLI~E SHOWN FOR THSAREA F£PhESENTS
GROUNDLINE BEFORE CONSHtUCTION Of PHASE 0, POINT MACKENZIE ACCESS ROAD
500 :>10
\
a 5
94
560 570 580 590 600 610 620 630 640 650 660 670 ~c--R_o __ s_s_•_N_o __________________________________________________ __
~20
680
536
PT. MAC KENZIE ROAD ACCESS \ \~
~\I· =~~:::.• 't\1~
L•IOB2' \\\
1\
. -1
690
50
550
,200
,150
,100
50
Plate 15
Houston Connector Segment 1
12LANE
250
\ CANPCNTCfl ) ~LAKC ,.
•' ~·-......_/
R•4000'
l•l466'
250
200:"
150
:----~~~~~~~--~~~------------~=~-~·~-•~·~ .. ~-~--~--~"~"~··~···~--~·~~_;-~~~.8~1~Y.~·~·----~~--~~~~~--~~~~------~~~~~:=~~~~~~~~~~~(~'="~u~•~~~~~~~~-~~:~~~-~~~~·~+~0~.4~0~Y.~·~~-·:'·="~·-~ .. ~-·~·'i"i"'~"~"~-~~200.
·4o ................. ,,......... 'tOOO'VC ~ . ~· ••..•.• , •• / 1 IOOO'~C '•' ----························ ......... .
100
410 420 430
•ro
AOAO CLOSURE
---------------~;--
250
200
// ,l~,,,,,,,:::::.-.0~~=:::::.''
,:/'
0.00% ···········''\,
150 •·•·• ............................... ··"
NOTE:
·· ..... ·
100 HORIZONTAL AND VERIICAL DATUM
SHOWN IS BASED ON U.S.G.S.
QUADRANGLES. 1:25,000 SCALE
440
,. ....... ··········· .. .
IOOO'VC
570 580 590 600+00
~CROSSING
450 460 480 490
'rJON,"4WJM
,.-:·
640 :---:..·/"~-oo-=:::.
........................................... .......... ··· ···· ............. ···
IOOO'VC , •• •··•• .•
610 620 630 640 650
,150
IQO
500+00 510 520 530 540 550 560 579
660
-•-.,~, ~-·-~ IOOOz(> I·~'' WL8 0 200 000 1000 !''•('>. , __ 1, ~~
A•I),OOO' ~~:-~~1\, ~ L•1134' '\~ ·'},--;-./( .. ?
130 670 '· ~ .690 690 700i00 110 720
l.~) (() 4~
0 {JJ
250
.. ··
..... ~'-...
.. ·· ···· ... -... ··.
200
-0.$/% ~···· ....
,.. ...... ,
··'-0.11%\· .......
1000 vc ........ ·· 150
·· ............................................ ·· ··;ooo'~c ·················
660 670 680
100
690 700t00 710 720 730
Plate 16
Houston Connector Segment 2
\
I
' \ '-_j
~.:~.ooo'
-----... L•lll4'
J ·-··' I
I
200 1 . !
I
100'
200
200
:· i
I
+0.08%
150 ~ ............ ~······· .... :"' ....... ··· ............... ~ .................... •• ...... ~· .... : ........... ; ................... .
NOTE:
too HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL DATUM
SHOWN IS BASED ON U.S.G.S.
QUADRANGLES. I :25,000 SCALE
890 900+00 910 920 930
-~IOOOQl
0 200~ ~
. . .
_.., ........... . .;.o.Rov.;:
":'''"'•'"···!···········~····
................. ~ ................. , ...... , .....•... ............
980 990 ,,_J
Plate 17
Houston Connector Segment 2
R•IIOOO'
L •11~70'
(
\
/
:I ---· -=:~,.=~ -~~.:~--~ /~~ ~;;;VE"R TAIL LAKE" J .. ~ ~--:::"_ '1 ~=-::""" ..._
0!"":2~50~500'!!:" ..... -.1000~"""~,500 1, Q
Tl8N,R3W S.M
BEAVER LAKES ACCESS
250·~;--'"~'-"e--«CCOCC.C'"'"~~,--------------r--;w;.;;--r---"""""""""""~~c. .. _. .. _._. .. -.---------"~~-----------'~!!------------_.--,_.,,--------+"a".w"-------250 +o.,$" tooo'vc
+~~~~.·.................. ... :toop:rE..
200• 200
·+O.ft" · 'tool>'vc·
100 'v~ ..... . .. ..... _, ...... ~ ..................... ·-.
150.
100.
1040
150.
!90.
1000 '1060
NO~E:
HOfliZONTAL AND ~ERTIC~L OAT~M
SHdWN.IS BASED dN U.S.G.I), . :
QUIIDRANGl-ES. 1:2:5,0PO ~CALE .
. i
1210 1190 1200t00
1!)70 lOBO
i
I
!
I . ~~~p
I~ 119QtOQ IIIQ 1120 1130 1140 lliiO
Tl!lN, F!3W S.M
\ PONO /
\. /
-----~---
211.0
·+0.,~--~
i
!
~c--R_o __ s_s_•_N_o ________________________________________________ _. __ _
r--.......
..... __
j
i
. i.._.
!~!Q
1170 1180 119Q
_150
_100
,_wl
kfl
K>OO I~!
JQQ
I
I
I
_I
I
Plate 18
Houston Connector Segment 2
i
l-
r,
I
i -
r .
I
l_
l_
r
L
f
I. -
AppendixB
Wetlan·ds Report
L
[
[
[
L
[
L
[
[
L
[
L
Appendix B
WETLANDS REPORT
Executive Order 11990, "Protection of Wetlands", requires Federal agencies
". • • to avoi4 to the extent possible the long-and short-term adverse
impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to
avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever
there is a practicable alternative •••• " This appendix examines the direct
wetlands impact that would occur with the various alternatives under
consideration. The information in this appendix will provide the basis for
a "Wetlands Findings Report" to be included in the Final EIS after a
preferred alternative has been selected.
A. GENERAL WETLANDS DESCRIPTION
(
Wetland areas crossed by, or immediately adjacent to Crossing Alternatives
are shown and numbered on the drawings in Appendix A. Table B-1 provides
wetland type for each numbered area. Wetland types are from Cowardin et.
al. (1979) and are consistent with those used in the National Wetlands
Inventory Program. Wetland types affected by the No-Crossing Alternatives
also are described in Table B-1.
B. .DOWNTOWN PROJECT
Seward Connector
The Seward Connector, an elevated roadway, would conflict with two wetland
areas. The intertidal mudflats (wetland 1) that would be traversed by the
west end of the connector are relatively unproductive. They are bare of
vegetation except algal growth in summer and intertidal invertebrates are
sparse (Bakus et. al., 1979). Dabbling ducks and gulls feed in the algal
zone during summer and late fall. These mudflats are classed in the
"Conservation" category in the Municipality of Anchorage Wetland Plan. The
other wetland area (wetland 2) that would be adjacent to the Seward
Connector (but not directly affected) consists of riparian (riverine)
habitat along Ship Creek. The vegetation within these wetlands serves the
important function of maintaining stream bank stability and preventing
erosion. Some filtration of urban runoff probably also occurs thus helping
to prevent pollution of Ship Creek. Wildlife values along lower Ship Creek
a~e limited because of the urban setting. The Ship Creek wetlands near the
Seward Connector are classed in either the "Conservation" or the
"Preservation" categories in the Municipal· Wetland Plan depending on
location.
The primary mitigation measure which would be employed to protect the above
wetland areas would be the use of elevated roadway. Thus, most long-term
impact would be avoided. Shading of the mudflat could reduce primary
productivity under the road and therefore reduce waterfowl use in a very
small area. Activities would be monitored to prevent disturbance of the
Ship Creek riverine wetland during construction of the overhead structure.
B-1
Alternative
Downtown Project
Seward Connector
Houston.Connector
including Crossing
north approach
TOTAL
Elmendorf Project
Elmendorf Crossing
(south approach)
Wetland
Number or
Location
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Houston Connector see above
TOTAL
Glenn/Parks Eklutna
Improvement Flats
TOTAL
Hovercraft
Terminal
Facilities
Houston
Connector
TOTAL
and Palmer
Hay Flats
Near Port of
Anchorage
Point MacKenzie
Shoreline
see above
Table B-l.
WETLAND AREAS AFFECTED
Wetland Type(s)
(as per Cowardin et al. 1979)
Intertidal mudflat and
intertidal emergent
persistent
Upper perennial riverine
Forested needle-leaved
evergreen
Scrub-shrub broad-leaved
deciduous with subdomi-
nant emergent persistent
Same as 4
same as 4
Same as 4
Same as 4
sallie. as 4
Same as 4
Same as 4
Same as 4
Same as 4
Same as 4
Scrub-shrub needle-leaved
evergreen
Forested needle-leaved
evergreen
Upper perennial riverine
Scrub-shrub broad-leaved
deciduous
Scrub-shrub broad-l.eaved
deciduous with subdominant
emergent persistent
Emergent persistent
Scrub-shrub broad-leaved
deciduous with subdominant
emergent persistent
Approximate Surface
Area That Would be
Altered (acres)
18.7
no direct impact
2.9
19.3
3.9
1.0
2.1.
3.8
1.0
18.6
1.6
18.6
2.9
22.3
17.5
134.2
3.5
1.4
0.7
2.1
0.7
115.5
m:9
35.4
Intertidal mudflat and intertidal
emergent persistent
5.0
Intertidal mudflat 5.0
115.5
NOTES: SCS signifies u.s. Soil Conservation Service.
USFWS signifies u.s. Fish & Wildlife Service.
B-2
scs
Code
12/13/14
21
1
5/6
5/6
5/6
5/6
5/6
5/6
5/6
5/6
5/6
5/6
5/6
4
1
21
5
5/6
6
5/6
12/13/14
14
USFWS
Code
E2EM1/
E2FL3
R3UB1
PF04
PSS1/PEM1
PSS1/P~!1
PSS1/PEM1
PSS1/PEM1
PSSl/PEMl
PSS1/PEM1
PSS1/PEM1
PSS1/PEM1
PSS1/PEM1
PSS1/PEM1
PSS1/PEM1
PSS4
PF04
R3UB1
PSS1
PSSl/
PEMl
PEMl
PSS1/
PEMI
E2EM1/
E2FL3
E2FL3
[
[
L
r ,.
[
r
L
[
[
L
l
L
L
I'
I
[
c
I
l ~
[
[
c
[
L
c
[
L
L
l
Houston Connector
The Houston Connector would be designed as a conventional roadway and would
cross about 13 separate wetland areas of varying size (see Appendix A} •
Twelve of the 13 wetland areas (numbers 4 to 15} have been classed by the
National Wetland Inventory Program as being dominated by the scrub-shrub
wetland type with the emergent ~ersistent type as subdominant. In reality,
these two types intergrade and are hard to separate. The scrub-shrub and
emergent wetland types are very common in the Willow Sub-basin, covering
15.8 percent of the total area or 153,850 acres (U.S. Department of
Agriculture et. al. , October 1981} • Taken as a whole, these wetlands
perform numerous important functions including:
0
0
0
0
0
Storage of huge quantities of water, thus moderating stream flow and
flooding potential
Groundwater recharge
Nutrient cycling -Chemical reactions that occur within the wetland
environment may affect water quality and have regional ecological
implications. The relatively high rate of decay that occurs within
the organic matter underlying this type of wetland may accelerate the
exchange of materials between water and sediment and thus release
nutrients into the waters of the area
Primary productivity -Although less productive than other kinds of
wetland communi ties, these interior muskeg wetlands contribute sub-
stantial organic matter to the ecosystem
Wildlife habitat -These wetlands provide important feeding habitat
for moose and breeding habitat for muskeg ·nesting.birds (see Chapter
III, "Biological Resources"}
Wetland 3 is the forested needle-leaved evergreen type (black spruce
muskeg). The importance of this type is similar to that described for the
scrub-shrub-except that productivity is probably lower and wildlife values
somewhat less. This type grades into the scrub-shrub type as soil moisture
increases. The Willow Sub-basin contains 21,450 acres of this wetland type
(2.2 percent}.
Although on an areawide basis the scrub-shrub/emergent and forested wet-
lands are important, the actual area of wetland that would be affected by
Houston Connector right-of-way would be very small relative to the total
area of this type of wetland in the Willow Sub~basin, about 0.06 percent.
The primary mitigation measwo::e available to mitigate wetland impacts,
avoidance in alignment planning, already has been employed. The Houston
connector alignment was routed to avoid wetlands to the greatest degree
practicable. In addition, culverts would be installed where necessary in
wetland areas to assure adequate cross drainage and perpetuation of
existing soil moisture levels. Where elevations are poorly defined,
surveys would establish low points to aid in culvert placement during final
design. Monitoring of drainage would occur post-construction, and if
B-3
problem areas developed, steps would be taken to solve the problem (e.g.
installation of additional culverts).
C. ELMENDORF PROJECT
Elmendorf Crossing (South Approach)
Five very small wetland areas of several different types would be affected
by the Elmendorf segment (Table B-1). Three of the five wetlands (numbers
18 to 20) are of the scrub-shrub or emergent types. The importance of
these types is as described above for the Houston Connector except that the
ratio of wetland to upland is much lower for the Elmendorf area then for
the Willow Sub-basin. Therefore, each individual wetland may be more
important to the functiqning of physical and biological systems. Wetland
16 is of the forested needle-leaved evergreen type and would be immediately
adjacent to the area already disturbed by the Glenn Highway. Wildlife and
other values are probably minimal at this location. Wetland 17 consists of
the riverine area within the Ship Creek channel. As discussed for the
Seward Connector, vegetated riverine wetlands serve the important function
of soil stabilization and erosion protection as well as contributing to
aquatic habitat productivity.
--Impacts and mitigation measures relative to forested, scrub-shrub, and
emergent wetland types would be similar to those described for the Houston
Connector. The route of the Elmendorf south approach was selected to avoid
wetlands where feasible, although the principal emphasis was on avoiding
impact to military facilities and operations, and the area of wetland that
would be disturbed would be very small. Carefully installed culverts would
be used where necessary to preserve natural drainage patterns. The Ship
Creek riverine wetlands would be preserved by using a"single span bridge to
completely span the creek. Construction in the creek bed would not be
required.
Houston-Connector
Wetland aspects would be identical to those described for the Downtown
Project.
D. GLENN/PARKS IMPROVEMENT
The Glenn Highway traverses large wetland areas in the Eklutna Flats and
Palmer Hay Flats. These wetlands are classed in the scrub-shrub/emergent
persistent type under the National Wetlands Inventory program. However,
these are coastal wetlands with some saltwater influence and consequently
are ecologically different from the interior wetlands of the same type as
described under the Houston Connector section. The wetlands of the Palmer
Hay Flats are made up of several different communities depending on salin-
ity and soil moisture (Ritchie et al., 1981). These coastal wetlands
perform several important functions:
0 Primary production -coastal wetlands are among the more productive
ecosystems and thus produce a disproportionate amount of organic
matter relative to other ecosystems
B-4
r
L
r
c
I
l
r
[
[
[
I-,
-~
l
L
~'
'.
r··
[
[
u
L
[
0
0
0
0
0
Contribution of organic matter to the marine.ecosystem through tidal
flushing
Nutrient cycling and probable release of nutrients to marine waters
Waterfowl feeding and breeding habitat
Moose winter feeding habitat and calving habitat
Prevention of coastal erosion
Expansion of the existing roadway would involve only increasing the width
of the existing wetland fill by about 34 feet. Therefore, the overall
impact in addition to what is already present would be relatively minor.
The primary mitigation measure employed. would be maintenance of the
existing highway cross drainage to prevent any additional hydrological
alteration and thus maintain the existing soil moisture regime in areas
adjacent ~o the highway.
E. HOVERCRAFT
Terminal Facilities
Terminal facilities for the Hovercraft Alternative would affect intertidal
mudflat ~ype wetlands in both the Port of Anchorage vicinity and near Point
MacKenzie. As described in the Seward Connector section, mudflat wetlands
adjace~t to Knik Arm are relatively unproductive but do provide some
feeding habitat for ducks and shorebirds. Terminal facilities would be
designed to m1n~ze impact to wetland areas by using available uplands to
the maximum feasible extent.
·Houston Connector
This two-lane roadway would be essentially identical in route to the
Houston Connector described under the Downtown Project. Wetland impacts
and mitigation measures would be the same as previously described for the
Houston Connector.
B-5
. I
I'
I
~ ,j
I l.
r,,
I-
I
i I
l'
l-
I l.
l ..
r
l -
r
l -
/
Appendix C ·
. Conceptual Stage
Relocation Plan
L~
[
[
[
[
[•
-~
Appendix C
CONCEPTUAL STAGE RELOCATION PLAN
It is the purpose of this appendix to identify the estimated number of
households, businesses, and farms which would be displaced as a result of
the alternatives analyzed in this document. Further, this appendix
identifies the availability of replacement housing and relocation advisory
services, the effects of relocation on the community, and the results of
consultation with local social agencies, officials, and community groups.
This conceptual stage analysis was performed by Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities relocation personnel May 18 and 21,
1984. No contact was made with the potential relocatees.
A. DOWNTOWN CROSSING
Dislocation with the Crossing portion of the Downtown Project would be
associated with the completion of the I/L Streets ramps. Dislocation
would be identical for both southbound ramp alternatives.
Number of Displaced Households
0 Households
Number of Displaced Businesses and Farms
0 Farms
1 Freight operation
1 Private parking lot
Effect of Business Relocation on the Community
The parking area and freight operation are dependent on their downtown
locations. Removal of these operations from their downtown location could
adversely affect the community. Alaska Railroad lands would be evaluated
for available lease areas following a final design.
Results of Consultations
Local .social agencies identified no social impacts from the proposed··
project. Comments from local officials and community groups were generally
favorable. Negative comments were singularly related to priorities in
funding; see Chapter IV, "Government Finance".
B. SEWARD CONNECTOR
Dislocation with the Seward Connector portion of the Downtown Project
would occur near its eastern end where it would cross Warehouse Avenue.
C-1
Number of Displaced Households
0 Households
Number of Displaced Businesses and Farms
0 Farms
1 Floor and wall operation
1 Marina
1 Trucking firm
Effects of Business Relocation on the Community
There is currently an excess of commercial space available in the Anchorage
area. The floor and wall operation could relocate anywhere within the
Municipality without a negative impact on the community. The trucking firm
does not appear to be a freight operation a.J1d also could be relocated
without disrupting the community. The marina is dependent on its location,
however it is now for sale and it is not likely this particular business
would be relocated. In any case, relocation of a small marina would not
adversely affect the community.
C. ELMENDORF CROSSING
Several military facilities would be displaced with the Crossing portion of
the Elmendorf Project. All displacement would be in connection with the
Crossing's south approach.
Number of Displaced Households
0 Households
Number of Displaced Military Facilities
1 Sanitary land fill
1 Defense Property Disposal Office storage yard (part)
1 Borrow area
1 Aeronautical receiver antenna
1 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) antenna
1 Gate
Effect of Relocation on Military
The sanitary land fill and borrow area would be relocated elsewhere in the
undeveloped portion of the Base. The eastern portion of the Defense
Property Disposal Office yard would be displaced, but it would be relocated
immediately to the south of the portion not taken. The Oilwell Road gate
would be relocated to the west. No significant adverse effect on military
operations would occur with these four relocations.
There does not appear to be an adequate site on Base to relocate either the
aeronautical antenna receiver or the FAA antenna. An in-depth study would
C-2
rc
:l \._ ,'
[
L
r L
Jl
L.
" L
L
L
--i
l!
n
1-..,_;
f' -t
L..
r~ I .
lJ
c
[
I
be required to determine an off-base site for the antennas that would meet
military and FAA requirements. This study would be conducted in
cooperation with the military. Replacement antennas would be.operational
prior to the de-activation of the current antennas. Military and FAA
operations would be altered because of the longer travel time required to
reach the new off-base facility. compared to the old one.
Results of Consultations
The U. S. Air Force is a. cooperating agency and has been involved in
project development from its beginning. The Crossing location through the
Base is vi~wed by the military as the most reasonable at this time. They
are in the process of selecting a consultant to develop their preferred
alignment through the Base beginning in the Fall of 1984.
D. HOUSTON CONNECTOR
The Houston Connector is included as a part of the Downtown Project,
Elmendorf Project, and the Hovercraft Alternative. Dislocation would occur
only with Segment 2 where it would cross the Mirror/Big Lake narrows.
Number of Displaced Households
1 Single·family residence with airstrip and outbuildings at Mirror Lake
Number of Businesses and Farms
0 Farms
0 Businesses
Effect of Relocation on the Community
Removing the identified household from the project area would have no
effect on the community as a whole. The availability of rural land would
allow a single family to relocate without a negative impact on the
community.
Availability of Replacement Housing
Local realtors were interviewed to determine the current and projected
availability of housing and land in the project area. It was the consensus
of those interviewed that available land and housing were currently more
than adequate to absorb numerous displaced households. However, the
airstrip would pose a unique relocation problem. The replacement property
must be lake front and also afford unobstructed air access. Further, those
interviewed agreed that the project would increase real estate values but
not result in housing shortages.
Available Advisory Services
There would be a full range of services available within the Wasilla area
to deal with any special needs identified during the Acquisition Stage
Study.
C-3
Results of Consultations
Local social agencies identified no social impact from the proposed
crossing, however a variety of concerns were related by local officials and
community representatives. Borough officials advanced concerns regarding
the ability of the City of Houston to accommodate unplanned growth. It was
suggested that even though the City of Houston was planned as an urban
community, that the City and Borough should begin as soon as possible to
plan for the growth that would occur should the proj~ct connect at Houston;
see Chapter IV, "Land Use Plans". Community· sentiment was generally
favorable, however there were expressed concerns regarding public safety.
Further, it was suggested that an intersection which would allow traffic to
bypass Houston would be preferred to the proposed design; see Chapter II,
"Selection of Alternatives".
D. GLENN/PARKS IMPROVEMENT
Dislocation with this alternative would occur solely along the Glenn
Highway, primarily at interchanges that would have to be rebuilt or
substantially modified to accommodate the added lanes. No displacement
would occur along the Parks Highway.
Number of Displaced Households
15 Households
Number of Displaced Businesses and Farms
0 Farms
15 Businesses
Effect of Relocation on the Community
Business relocations would be limited to the North Birchwood, Peters Creek,
and Eklutna interchanges. An estimated 15 businesses which vary is size
and type would require relocation. Because the businesses serve the
communities near the interchanges, they would need to be relocated within
these communities. There would be adequate land available in these areas
for these relocations, however there would be limited existing commercial
structures available and businesses could be required to build
replacements.
An estimated eight single-family residences between Peters Creek and
Eklutna would require relocation, and seven mobile homes also would be
displaced. Because zoning is not very restrictive, there should be no
difficulty in the mobile home relocation. Existing replacement housing in
these areas would be limited and occupants of single family residences
could be required to build replacement homes.
C-4
[
r· L
r L
·r L
r
I
)
L~
\
L~
Appendix D
. Air Qu-ality Report
l:f
. '
\
L)'
('.
L
Appendix D
AIR QUALITY REPORT
This appendix describes in detail the analysis conducted to estimate the
impact on air quality of the alternatives under consideration. The
analysis consisted of estimating motor vehicle emissions associated with
each alternative and calculating air quality impacts (concentrations)
resulting from these emissions. The following. sections describe existing
conditions, calculated motor vehicle emissions, and calculated air quality
impacts of each alternative.
A. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Air quality is evaluated based on maximum pollutant concentrations in an
area and their relation to ambient air quality standards (AAQS). State of
Alaska and National, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , AAQS are
identical for both carbon monoxide {CO) and nitrogen dioxide (N0 2). The
AAQS for CO are 35 parts per million (ppm) (1-hour average) ana 9 ppm
(8-hour average). These standards specify concentrations which may be
exceeded no more than once per year. The AAQS for N0 2 is 0.05 ppm (annual
average).
CO Concentration Measurements
CO concentrations are measured on a continuous basis by the Municipality of
Anchorage at four locations. Available data, which include the months
October through March, are summarized in Table D-1. October through March
are the months when high co concentrations occur. High concentrations
generally are due to light winds and relatively stable atmospheric
conditions which minimize dispersion of pollutants. These conditions
generally oc;cur in the winter months and are caused by the lack of solar
radiation. The atmosphere usually is less stable in urban areas than rural
areas because of the de-stabilizing effects of heat generated within the
urban area.
Data in Table D-1 indicate that, of the four monitoring sites, the highest
CO concentrations occur at the Benson Boulevard and Spenard Road site. The
8-hour AAQS is exceeded at all sites. However, at the 7th Avenue and C
Street and Raspberry Road sites, this standard was exceeded only once in
the 1982 to 1983 season. The 1-hour AAQS has been exceeded on a single day
in December 1980 at the Benson and Spenard site and has not been exceeded
at the other sites. Maximum concentrations generally are associated with
morning and evening rush hour traffic when automobile emissions are
greatest. It is difficult to detect any trends from the data in Table D-1.
Differences from year to year may depend as much or more on meteorological
conditions than on emissions.
D-1
Table D-1
SUMMARY OF WINTER CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS
IN THE ANCHORAGE NON-ATTAINMENT AREA
Measured CO Concentrations (ppm)
1-Hour 8-Hour Days with Exceedance
[
L
[
Site and Season Mean Maximum Maximum of 8-Hour Standard f-.
16th and Garden
1979-1980
1980-19811
1981-1982
1982-1983
7th and C
1976-19772
1977-19782
1978-1979
1979-1980
1980-1981
1981-1982
1982-1983
Benson and Spenard
l978-19793
1979-1980
1980-1981
1981-1982
1982-1983
3340 Raspberry
1980-1981
1981-1982
1982-1983
NOTES
2.2
2.7
2.4
3.2
2.7
3.3
2.8
2.1
1.9
2.2
1.4
s.o
4.0
4.2
4.7
4.6
1.3
1.4
1.8
25 18.9
23 17.1
21 15.6
26 14.9
21 11.5
23 16.0
21 13.1
33 16.5
20 12.9
16 10.0
15 9.1
30 20.0
30 27.4
43 26.3
31 21.6
24 18.1
23 14.0
18 12.6
21 16.6
Season includes October through March except where noted.
8-hour State and National Ambient Air Quality Standard is 9 ppm.
1
2 February data are missing.
3 October data are missing.
October and November data are missing.
D-2
12
17
12
22
4
18
5
9
4
3
1
32
27
36
51
42
6
8
1
L
L·
[
c
r L
[
f L
t
~~
I.
[
[
r~
L
c
L
An air quality moni taring program was conducted by Anchorage Municipal
Power and Light Company at a site on the east side of Anchorage about
one-half mile southeast of the intersection of the Glenn Highway and
Muldoon Road. The maximum 1-hour average CO concentration in 1982 was 6
ppm, which is substantially less than maximum concentrations in the
downtown area. The annual average N0 2 concentration measured in 1982 was
0.012 ppm, which is less than 25 percent of State and National AAQS. (Rob
Wilson, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, personal
communication).
Although monitoring data are not available, air quality north of Knik Arm
in the Mat-Su Borough is considered better than in Anchorage because
automobile emissions are much less. It is unlikely that AAQS are exceeded
in the Borough. The Glenn and Parks Highways are the primary generators of
pollutant emissions in the northern part of the project area.
Anchorage Air Quality Plan
The Municipality of Anchorage has an active program, presented in the
Anchorage Air Quality Plan (Municipality of Anchorage, 1982a), to address
air quality problems. Functions of the program include air quality
monitoring of CO, as discussed above, and input to transportation planning.
A vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program has been approved by the
Municipal Assembly and is scheduled to be implemented in July 1985. It is
anticipated that this I/M program will reduce automobile CO emissions
through proper engine tuning. The plan's strategy to control air pollution
also includes traffic signal improvements, street and highway improvement
plans (see "Street and Highway Plans" in this chapter), encouraging
carpooling and variable office hours, and public transit improvements.
B. TRAFFIC RELATED EMISSIONS
Traffic related emissions generally consist of nitrogen oxides (NO), CO,
and hydrocarbons (HC) which result from the use of gasoline orxdiesel
powered internal combustion engines. As discussed under "Existing
Conditions", the Anchorage area is currently in non-attainment with EPA
standards for co. Therefore, the following analyses focus on emissions and
air quality impacts from CO concentrations.
NO analyses were restricted to only emissions, for several reasons.
Fi~st, air quality models are not available for estimating annual average
impacts from NO emissions for comparison to the annual AAQS. In addition,
if appropriate xmodels were available, there would be a great deal of
uncertainty in converting primary nitrogen oxide (NO) emissions, which the
models would estimate, to N0 2 since this conversion depends on complex
atmospheric chemistry.
Unlike CO and No 2 , there are no EPA standards for HC. However, HC is a
precursor to ozone formation (for this reason, ozone is called a secondary
pollutant). Since Anchorage is designated as "attainment" for ozone, and
HC emissions are not a direct indication of ozone potential, no analyses of
HC were performed.
D-3
Alternatives and Analysis Years
Emission and air quality analyses were performed for the following
alternatives:
0
0
0
0
0
No-Crossing Alternative
Downtown Project -Mid-range growth allocation
Downtown Project -High growth allocation
Elmendorf Project -Mid-range growth allocation
Elmendorf Project -Low growth allocation
Traffic volumes and speeds for the three No-Crossing Alternatives are not
different enough to significantly affect analysis results, thus only one
No-Crossing analysis was done. No-Action volumes and speeds were used for
No-Crossing calculations.
The following four years were analyzed:
1. 1982 -Present case based on most recent available data
2. 1990/1991 -Anticipated project opening year
3. 2001 Year of opening plus 10 years
4. 2010 -Design year
Emission Factors
Emission factors contained in the MOBILE2 (U.S. EPA, 1981) model were used
to calculate CO and NO emissions (in grams/vehicle/mile). MOBILE2 is an
EPA-developed computer ~rogram which calculates an average vehicle emission
rate based on user-supplied input data. These input data include:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
vehicle type (auto, medium truck, heavy truck)
temperature
vehicle speed
calendar year (restricted to 1970 through 2020, inclusive)
Inspection and maintenance (I/M) program requirements
vehicle loading
vehicle operating mode (cold start, hot start, and hot stabilized)
MOBILE2 was updated as described in Appendix C of the model User's Guide
(U.s •. EPA, 1981). This update corrected emission rates for non heavy-duty
vehicles when using operating modes other than the Federal Test Procedure.
Input data available with MOBILE2 were selected in order to calculate, as
much as possible, realistic worst-case conditions. As mentioned under
"Existing Conditions" , the EPA standards for CO are exceeded in Anchorage
during the winter season. Therefore, a temperature of 0 °F was assumed
since this is the coldest temperature allowed by MOBILE2. Because vehicle
emissions increase with decreasing temperatures, this results in maximum
emission rates calculated by MOBILE2. Based on climatic data for Anchorage
(USDOC/NOAA, 1982), the daily minimum temperature is expected to be 0°F or
below approximately 35 days during a typical year. The average daily
minimum temperatures for the months of December, January, and
D-4
r
[
r
r t
[
r
r L
c
f,
1 ...
t
L
i, __ ,
L-
l
l
c
[
[
[
L
[
February are 5.3°F, 3.5°F, and
temperature of 0°F to MOBILE2
worst-case conditions.
8.9°F, respectively. Thus, an input
represents a reasonable assumption for
Emissions were calculated by MOBILE2 using non-California low altitude
emission factors. Vehicle age distributions and annual mileage accrual
rates included in MOBILE2 were used. No vehicle loading factors (such as
trailer towing or air conditioning) were used for light-duty gasoline
vehicles.
The mode of vehicle operation was assumed to be cold start for all vehicles
in the Anchorage bowl. Because CO and NO emissions are highest in this
mode, this represents a worst-case assumpt~n and reflects evening commuter
traffic leaving the area with all vehicles having recently started.
Outside the Anchorage bowl, a hot stabilized mode of vehicle operation was
used assuming that all vehicles on the road had already warmed up. These
assumptions were recommended by Sierra Research (G. S. Rubenstein, Sierra
Research, personal communication), consultants to the State of Alaska for
vehicle I/M programs. No data were available to assign more rigorous
percentages to vehicles in the cold-start, hot start, and hot stabilized
modes.
A recent study has indicated that cold start co emissions are
underestimated using assumptions in MOBILE2 (Austin et al., 1983).
Inclusion of this information in emissions calculations was beyond the
scope of tbis study. These possible underestimates may be compensated for
somewhat because of the assumption that all vehicles in the Anchorage bowl
would be in the worst-case cold start mode, an overestimate of actual
conditions. In any event, emissions for all alternatives were calculated
on a common basis. Therefore, differences in emissions should be
adequately reflected in this analysis.
Vehicle type mix was based on Alaska Department of Transportation Vehicle
Registration Summaries for the Anchorage Census District for 1977 through
1981 (G. s. Rubenstein, Sierra Research, personal communication, 1984).
These vehicle mix percentages are given in Table D-2. An I/M stringency
level of 30 percent with required mechanic training was also assumed. This
is consistent with the currently proposed I/M program for Anchorage (G. s.
Rubenstein, personal communication). The program is not scheduled to start
until 1985, therefore I/M assumptions were not used in calculating 1982
emissions.
Calculated CO emission factors are given for the four years identified
earlier in Table D-2. Large differences between the Anchorage bowl and
outside the bowl reflect higher emissions for the cold start mode of
operation used for the Anchorage bowl._ Year by year emission factor
decreases in both areas reflect implementation of an I/M program and
modernization of the vehicle fleet with newer vehicles having more
stringent emission controls.
Calculated NO emission factors are given in Table D-3. As with CO,
emission fac~rs are highest for the cold start operation assumed for the
D-5
Average
Table D-2
CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSION FACTORS
(grams per vehicle-mile)
Vehicle Anchorage Bowl Outside Anchorage Bowl
Speed (mph) 1982 1990 2001 2010 1982 ' 1990 2001 2010
10 641 223 152 149 89 51 48 47
15 455 165 114 112 63 38 36 35
20 367 136 95 93 50 31 30 29
25 302 113 79 77 41 26 25 24
30 247 92 64 63 34 21 20 20
35 207 77 53 53 28 18 17 17
40 182 68 47 47 25 16 15 15
45 172 65 46 45 24 15 14 14
50 170 65 46 45 24 15 14 14
55 156 59 42 41 22 14 13 13
MOBILE2 Assumptions
Temperature -oop
Vehicle Mix: Light duty gas vehicles -68.9%
Light duty gas trucks less than 6,001 lbs. -19.8%
Light duty gas trucks greater than 6,000 lbs. 8.9%
Heavy duty gas vehicles 1.7%
Light duty diesel vehicles 0.2%
Light duty diesel trucks 0.1%
Heavy duty diesel vehicles 0.4%
100 percent cold start -Anchorage bowl
100 percent hot stabilized -outside Anchorage bowl
Inspection and maintenance stringency level -30% {1990, 2001, 2010 only)
Mechanic training required for I/M (1990, 2001, 2010 only)
D-6
r,
r
[
l
L
c
-c
Table D-3
NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSION FACTORS
(grams per vehicle-mile)
J
*1.
Average
Vehicle Anchorage Bowl Outside Anchorage Bowl
Speed (mph) 1982 1990 2001 2010 1982 1990 2001 2010
10 3.3 1.9 1.4 1.4 2.7 1.4 1.0 1.0
;.' 15 3.5 2.0 1.5 1.5 2.9 1.5 1.1 1.1
20 3.8 2.2 1.7 1.6 3.2 1.7 1.2 1.2
25 4.1 2.5 1.8 1.8 3.4 1.9 1.3 1.3
30 4.4 2.7 2.0 2.0 3.7 2.0 1.5 1.4
35 4.7 2.8 2.1 2.1 3.8 2.1 1.5 1.5
40 4.8 2.9 2.2 2.2 4.0 2.2 1.6 1.6
-~ 45 5.0 3.0 2.3 2.2 4.1 2.3 1.7 1.6
-...-~
50 5.2 3.2 2.4 2.3 4.3 2.4 1.7 1.7
55 5.;6 3.4 2.5 2.5 4.6 2.6 1.9 1.8
NOTE
~ For MOBILE2 assumptions, see Table D-2
I
::>'
L
D-7
Anchorage bowl. However, percentage differences between the two areas are
much less for NO than for CO indicating that cold start operation has much
less effect for ~0 • Grams per vehicle-mile increase with increasing speed
because NO emissi~ns from internal combustion engines are highest when the
engine is xat full power. Emissions decrease from year to year due to
implementation of an I/M program and modernization of the vehicle fleet.
Emission factors for CO and NO were combined with link-by-link traffic
data to estimate total emissiozf for each year and alternative. Traffic
data needed for this calculation were peak-hour traffic volumes (assumed to
be 10 percent of average weekday daily traffic), length of the road link
and average speed during peak hours. Estimates are based only on the major
traffic links included in the traffic analysis. Therefore, not all
emissions are accounted for. However, since the links studied represent
the major traffic arteries, most emissions should be accounted for. Since
all emissions calculations were made for the same road network, these
estimates provide a good basis for comparison of alternatives.
co Emissions
CO emissions for each alternative are given in Table D-4. Only major
arterials in the north half of Anchorage (north of International Airport
Road/Tudor Road) were included in Anchorage bowl calculations since none of
the alternatives under consideration would significantly affect traffic on
south Ancnorage streets~ see Chapter IV, "Traffic Volumes". With the
exception of the Downtown (High) in 1990, lowest emissions would be with
the Downtown Project. Highest emissions generally would be with either the
Elmendorf Project or a No-Crossing Alternative. Highest emissions
estimates exceed lowest estimates by 11 to 13 percent in the north
Anchorage bowl and by 9 to 12 percent in total. The significance of these
emissions differences on air quality is largely a function of how well they
are distributed within the Anchorage bowl. The effect due to distribution
is considered later under ''Air Quality Impact Analysis".
Within the north Anchorage bowl, CO emissions would drop by approximately
half from 1982 to 1990 under any alternative·. This drop would result
primarily from · reductions in CO emissions due to modernization of the
vehicle fleet and implementation of an I/M program. Further drops would
occur by 2001 due to further fleet modernization. Emissions would increase
again by 2010 because although emission rates would not change significant-
ly from 2001 to 2010, traffic volume would increase. Outside the Anchorage
bowl, emissions would increase steadily from 1990 through 2010 because
traffic volumes would grow at a faster rate than vehicle emissions would
decline.
NO Emissions
-~-----
Estimates of NO emissions are shown in Table D-5. Future NO emissions
would drop som~hat from present levels under any alternativ~. Ranking
from lowest to·highest depends on the year and area considered. Lowest NO
X emissions generally would be associated with Downtown (Mid-Range) .
D-8
[
[,
[
[
[
[
[
[
l
L
[
L-
_,. r.
I L,
[
r' -,
!
L
r.
l __ _,
Table D-4
CARBON MONOXIDE
ESTIMATES OF PEAK-HOUR EMISSIONS
co Emissions (lb/hr)
Alternative 1982 1990 2001
No-Crossing
North Anchorage Bowl 78,900 36,800 30,700
Outside Anchorage Bowl 4,100 3,800 6,000
Total 83,000 40,600 36,600
Downtown (Mid-Range)
North Anchorage Bowl 36,100 28,900
Outside Anchorage Bowl 3,400 5,600
Total 39,500 34,400
Downtown (High)
North Anchorage Bowl 40,200 28,600
Outside Anchorage Bowl 3,800 6,200
Total 44,000 34,800
Elmendorf (Mid-Range)
North Anchorage Bowl 39,300 31,900
Outside Anchorage Bowl 3,500 5,600
Total 42,800 37,600
Elmendorf (Low)
North Anchorage Bowl 38,800 30,600
Outside Anchorage Bowl 3,400 5,400
Total 42,300 36,000
NOTES
Estimates are for peak hour traffic.
2010
36,400
7,400
43,800
33,000
6,600
39,600
33,400
7,400
40;800
37,400
6,800
44,200
36,200
6,500
42,700
Emissions for north Anchorage bowl are based on 100 percent cold start mode.
Emissions for outside Anchorage bowl are based on 100 percent hot stabilized
mode.
Low, mid-range, and high refer to the growth~allocation scenarios described
in Chapter IV under "Urban Growth and Economic Development" •
D-9
Table D-5
NITROGEN OXIDES
ESTIMATES OF PEAK-HOUR EMISSIONS
NO Emissions (lb/hr)
X
Corridor 1982 1990 2001
No-Crossing
North Anchorage Bowl 1,200 900 800
Outside Anchorage Bowl 800 600 700
Total 2,000 1,500 1,500
Downtown (Mid-Range)
North Anchorage Bowl 900 700
Outside Anchorage Bowl 600 700
Total 1,500 1,400
Downtown (High)
North Anchorage Bowl 1,000 700
Outside Anchorage Bowl 600 700
Total 1,600 1,400
Elmendorf {Mid-Range)
North Anchorage Bowl 900 800
Outside Anchorage Bowl 600 700
Total 1,500 1,500
Elmendorf (Low)
North Anchorage Bowl 900 800
Outside Anchorage Bowl 600 700
Total 1,500 1,500
NOTES
Estimates are for peak hour traffic.
2010
900
900
1,800
800
800
1,600
800
800
1,600
900
800
1,700
900
800
1,600
Emissions for north Anchorage bowl are based on 100 percent cold start mode.
Emissions for outside Anchorage bowl are based on 100 percent hot stabilized
mode.
Low, mid-range, and.high refer to the growth allocation scenarios described in
Chapter IV under "Urban Growth and Economic Development".
D-10
r-
[
L
[
r
r t
[
L
[
L
[
L
r
L
L
L
t L-
r--: I -
~J
L._.
L~
Elmendorf Project NO . emissions generally would be higher than for the
Downtown Project. Hi~est emissions would exceed lowest by 7 to 13 percent
overall. Year-to-year trends would be similar to those for CO and for the
same reasons.
Emissions of NO within the bowl would be comparable to those outside the
bowl. This contrasts with CO emissions which would be much higher within
the bowl. This is due to two factors. First, cold start CO emissions
(assumed for north Anchorage bowl calculations) are greater than hot
stabilized emissions by a· factor of about seven, while cold start NO
emissions are higher than hot stabilized emissions by only about 20
percent. This accentuates the difference between CO emissions in the bowl
and those outside the bowl to a much greater degree than for NO emissions.
Second, CO emissions decrease with increasing speed whereas Na emissions
increase with increasing speed due to the nature of internal X combustion
engines. Since average vehicle speeds would be_ greater outside the bowl
than within the bowl, CO emissions would be greatest inside the bowl while
NO emissions would be greatest outside the bowl. X .
C. AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
Using the emissions data discussed above, air quality modeling was
conducted to estimate CO concentrations resulting from the various
alternatives. Concentrations of CO were calculated with the CALINE3
dispersion model developed by the California Department of Transportation
(Benson, 1979). CALINE3 is specifically formulated to calculate
concentrations due to vehicle emissions from roadways. No attempt was made
to calculate air quality impacts due to link intersections because the
information necessary (such as cycle time, queue lengths, green time for
each approach lane, etc.) for such an analysis was not available.
CALINE3 is a Gaussian dispersion model, with highway segments represented
as a series of finite line sources positioned perpendicular to the wind
direction •. The model treats the region directly over the highway as a zone
of uniform emissions and turbulence. This "mixing zone" is assigned an
initial vehicle dispersion due to mechanical turbulence created by moving
vehicles and thermal turbulence created by hot vehicle exhaust. CALINE3
has the capability to model elevated highways (either embankment or bridge
types) and depressed highways, as well as the normal at-grade type of
highways. For elevated or depressed highways, the height of the highway
above or below the local terrain is limited to a maximum of 10 meters.
Model Inputs and Assumptions
CALINE3 requires input data for the characteristics and dimensions of each
roadway link. Roadway links considered are shown in Chapter III, Figure
III-1. It was assumed that all links were composed of 12-foot wide lanes,
medians were included as appropriate, and a width of three meters was added
to each side of every link as required by CALINE3. This accounts. for
mechanical and thermal turbulence in the highway vicinity.
D-11
Couplets are links which are actually composed of two separate one-way
roadways, usually separated by more than one city block. Each road in
north Anchorage bowl couplets was modeled individually, with couplet
traffic divided evenly between the two roads. The Seward Connector was
modeled as an elevated roadway, as we:r.e the bridges over Knik Arm. The
maximum height of 10 meters was assigned to these links.
In CALINE3, roadways must be modeled as str~ight segments, not to exceed 10
kilometers in length. Therefore, some links were divided into smaller
segments in order to approximate an irregularly shaped link or to restrict
modeled links to 10 kilometers in length.
Dispersion calculations were made for 1990, 2001, and 2010 for each of the
two Crossing Alternatives, with their two growth shift scenarios, and the
No-Crossing Alternative. The north Anchorage bowl and the area outside the
bowl were modeled separately.
Surface roughness, which affects dispersion, is a measure of the mechanical
turbulence generated by air movement over features of the earth's surface,
such as trees, buildings, etc. A surface roughness of 15 centimeters was
chosen for modeling the area outside the Anchorage bowl. This surface
roughness is used in most EPA models (U.S. EPA, 1983) and represents a
reasonable estimate for rural areas. The surface roughness was assumed to
be greater within the Anchorage bowl primarily due to the presence of
coxmnercial .and residential buildings within the bowl. A surface roughness
of 150 centimeters was chosen for the bowl, which is representative of city
areas primarily composed of residential and office buildings.
Because road links in the area have varying orientations, modeling
calculations were made for each of 36 wind directions (10 to 360 degrees by
10 degree increments). This was done in order to determine concentrations
using a worst-case wind angle at each receptor. Worst-case conditions near
a given link are generally-associated with winds approximately parallel to
the link.
Worst-~ase meteorological conditions outside the Anchorage Bowl were
assumed to be atmospheric stability Class F (very stable) with a wind speed
of one meter per second (mps). This is consistent with the rural nature of
the area where, in the absence of significant heat generating sources,
stable (low dispersion) conditions usually would prevail during winter
months.
For the north Anchorage bowl, worst-case conditions were assumed to be
stability Class D (neutral) with a wind speed of one meter per second.
This choice was based on a model performance assessment, discussed later,
whereby use of these conditions showed close agreement with maximum
measured concentrations in the area. Use of· ·class D conditions as least
dispersive for an urban area is consistent with EPA recommendations
(U.s. EPA, 1979) and reflects the de-stabilizing effects of heat generated
within the urban area.
Other inputs to CALINE3 were an averaging time of 60 minutes and zero
deposition and settling velocities (deposition/settling velocities are
appropriate for particulate emissions only).
D-12
r
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
t~
r L
[
L
L
L
I~
L
[
i
L
Representative Receptors
Concentrations of pollutants were calculated at several representative
receptor locations to estimate air quality impacts. In the north Anchorage
bowl area, representative receptors were selected at 14 locations as
follows:
0
0
0
Two monitor receptors -one at each of two CO monitors operated by the
Municipality of Anchorage. These are at Spenard Road and Benson
Boulevard and at 7th Avenue and C Street. The monitors are adjacent to
rC?ads -included in the traffic and emissions analyses. The Garden
Street monitor was not included because traffic on the roads adjacent
to this monitor was not included in the data used for modeling.
Therefore, local emissions, which are of greatest importance in
determining concentrations, would not be accounted for. The Raspberry
Road monitor, near the airport, was not included because it is outside
the north Anchorage bowl.
Four special receptors:
1. Alaska Native Medical Center on 3rd Avenue between Ingra and
Gambell Streets
2. Bartlett High School north of-Glenn Highway at Muldoon Road
3. Resolution Park at 3rd Avenue and L Street
4. Historic residence at 918 West 2nd Avenue
Eight roadside receptors 10 meters from the road along selected
traffic links including the most heavily traveled
Receptor locations are shown in Figure D-1. Receptors outside the
Anchorage bowl were placed at 10 meters from the edge of the road.
Two ramp alternatives are under consideration at I/L Streets with the
Downtown Project. For purposes of modeling, the I Street southbound ramp
configuration was assumed. This choice would not significantly affect
calculated concentrations with the possible exception of the historic
structure on 2nd Avenue because it is in the vicinity of the ramp lanes.
Concentrations at the historic structure would probably be lower under the
L Street southbound ramp configuration because inbound and outbound
emissions would be spread out more than for the configuration modeled.
Relation of 1-Hour and 8-Hour Concentrations
CALINE3 is designed to estimate 1-hour average concentrations. Therefore,
a multiplier was applied to model 1-hour predictions to estimate 8-hour
average concentrations. The average ratio of 8-hour maximum to 1-hour
maximum CO concentrations in Anchorage was determined by the project team
(see Chapter IX) to be 0.67. Thus, calculated 1-hour maximum
concentrations at each receptor were multiplied by 0.67 to obtain estimates
of 8-hour maximums.
D-13
toad
Dimond
'0 • 5
3::
!I>
(f)
Avenue
Lights Boulevard
Rood
U> •.t:
0
~.:;,
(f) '
~
0
0 .... en
Tudor Rood e
:;:..,
0
3t
~ ....
0
•
a. DeBarr Road
!I>
(,)
0 .... ·c:
0 en
E. Northern Lights •
Elmendorf
Crossing
"0
0
0 ex.
c:
0
0
'0
:::l :z:
eBarjlett
lgh School
North
Figure D-1
Representative Receptor Locations
'~ 1
1.
l J
,-,
L
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
Model Performance
Model performance in the north Anchorage bowl was evaluated by calculating
concentrations at two CO monitor locations in Anchorage using emission
estimates based on 1982 traffic data. Three types of meteorological con-
ditions were modeled to assess which conditions resulted in best agreement
between modeled and measured concentrations. Conditions modeled were
stability Classes D, E, and F, each with a wind speed of one meter per
second. Results are given in Table D-6 and are compared to measured
concentrations in 1981 to 1982 from Table D-1.
These results indicate that measured maximum 1-hour and 8-hour
concentrations are best predicted by CALINE3 using Class D conditions.
Under these conditions, maximum 1-hour concentrations are overpredicted by
8 percent at Spenard and Benson and by 13 percent at 7th and c. Results
are similar for 8-hour average concentrations. The percentage of
overprediction by Class E and F conditions was substantially greater due to
the lesser ·amount of dispersion assumed for these stable cases. Due to
uncertainties in both emissions estimates and meteorological conditions
associated with maximum measured concentrations, it cannot be said that the
model is necessarily predicting dispersion within the accuracy indicated
for Class D conditions. However, the good agreement between predicted and
measured concentrations indicates that CALINE3 using Class D stability is a
useful tool for assessing the relative differences in air quality impacts
due to various traffic scenarios. Based on this analysis, future year
traffic scenarios in the north Anchorage bowl were modeled using Class D
stability and a wind speed of one meter per second.
CO Concentration Analysis Results
Modeling results are shown in Tables D-7, D-8, and D-9 for 1990, 2001, and
2010, respectively.
Anchorage Bowl. In 1990, no AAQS violations would occur at the two
monitoring ;Locations modeled. However, concentrations at Spenard and
Benson would be only slightly below the 8-hour standard (9 ppm) for
Downtown (High) and Elmendorf (Low). Of the special receptors, 8-hour AAQS
violations would occur at Resolution Park for all alternatives with the
most significant violations occurring with the Downtown Project. This
would reflect inbound traffic passing by Resolution Park after crossing the
Downtown bridge. Predicted violations at Resolution Park would not be
significantly different for either a No-Crossing Alternative or the
Elmendorf Project.
At the roadside receptors, violations of the 1-hour AAQS (35 ppm) would
occur in 1990 near New Seward Highway under all but a No-Crossing
Alternative. Downtown Project concentrations would be the highest.
Violations of 8-hour AAQS would occur at several roadside receptors for all
alternatives. In general, concentrations at these receptors would be
lowest for the No-Crossing and Downtown Project (Mid-Range).
D-15
Table D-6
CALINE3 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
Monitor Location
Concentrations (ppm) Spenard and Benson 7th and C
1-Hour Maximum
Measured 31 16
Predicted
Class D 33.6 18.0
Class E 43.2 26.2
Class F 71.2 42.5
8-Hour Maximum
Measured 21.6 10.1
Predicted
Class D 22.5 12.1
Class E 28.9 17.6
Class F 47.7 28.5
NOTES
Maximum concentrations were measured in the 1981 to 1982 and 1982 to 1983
winter seasons.
Predicted concentrations are based on stability class indicated and a wind
speed of one meter per second. Wind direction was based on worst-case
alignment for each receptor determined by considering 36 different
directions.
D-16
[
r
f'
1
L
[
[
[
c
[
L
r
L
L
L
L
I :
L.
r·
Table D-7
CALINE3 RESULTS FOR YEAR 1990
Predicted co Concentrations (ppm)
Downtown Downtown Elmendorf Elmendorf
No-Crossing (Mid-Range) (High) (~!id-F.ange) (Low)
ReceEtor Location 1-hr 8-hr 1-hr 8-hr 1-hr 8-hr ~ 8-hr 1-hr 8-hr
North Anchorage Bowl
spenard and Benson 11.7 7.8 11.9 8.0 13.0 8.7 12.0 8.0 12.-9 8.6
7th and C 8.5 5.7 8.3 5.6 9.1 6.1 9.0 6.0 9.2 6.2
Native Medical Center 5.4 3.6 6.1 4.1 7.0 4.7 6.1 4.1 6.0 4.0
Bartlett High School 1.3 0.9 1.3 0.9 1.3 0.9 1.4 0.9 1.5 1.0
Resolution Park 15.7 10.5 23.1 15.5 25.9 17.4 15.6 10.5 16.1 10.8
Historic Structures 6.2 4.2 9.1 6.1 10.1 6.8 6.2 4.2 6.3 4.2
Link 36 -Glenn Highway 15.2 10.2 11.4 7.6 15.3 10.3 16.7 11.2 16.7 11.2
Link 38 -Planned Northside
Bypass 21.0 14.1 21.0 14.1 25.6 17.2 25.5 17.1 22.8 15.3
Link 53 -Northern Lights
Boulevard 3.9 2.6 3.4 2.3 3.6 2.4 3.6 2.4 3.7 2.5
Link 61 -Tudor Road 21.7 14.5 21.3 14.3 22.0 14.7 23.2 15.5 23.2 15.5
Link 63 -Tudor Road 22.9 15.3 23.2 15.5 25.4 17.0 24.3 16.3 23.4 15.7
Link 67 -International
Airport Road 4.5 3.0 4.1 2.7 4.4 2.9 4.2 2.8 4.5 3.0
Link 78 -New Seward Hwy. 30.6 20.5 39.5 26.5 44.0 29.5 36.6 24.5 37.1 24.9
Link 86 - c Street 9.1 6.1 6.9 4.6 7.1 4.8 8.0 5.4 9.4 6.3
Average -All receptors 12.7 8.5 ·13.6 9.1 15.3 10.2 13.7 Sl.2 13.8 9.2
No. of AAQS Violation.s 0 6 1 5 1 6 1 6 1 6
Outside Anchorage Bowl
Link 7 -Parks Highway 1.9 1.3 1.1 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.0 0.7 1.1 0.7
Link 12 -Glenn Highway 2.1 1.4 1.5 1.0 1.6 1.1 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.0
Link 13 -Glenn Highway 1.9 1.3 1.3 0.9 1.7 1.1 1.3 0.9 1.2 0.8
Link 14 -Glenn Highway 1.6 1.1 1.2 0.8 1.5 1.0 1.2 0.8 1.1 0.7
Link 15 -Glenn Highway 3.7 2.5 2.7 1.8 3.4 2.3 2.8 1.9 2.7 1.8
Link 16 -Glenn Highway 6.2 4.2 s.o 3.4 s.8 3.9 5.2 3.5 5.2 3.5
Link 22 -Houston Connector 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4
Link 23 -Houston Connector 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.7 o.8 0.5 o.8 0.5
Link lOS Elmendorf
Crossing 1.4 0.9 1.4 0.9
Link 106 -Downtown
Crossing 1.4 0.9 1.4 0.9
NOTES
Low, mid-range, and high refer to the growth allocation scenarios described in Chapter IV under "Urban Growth and
Economic Development".
Receptors for all links placed at 10 meters from edge of road.
1-hour AAQS = 35 ppm; 8-hour AAQS = 9 ppm.
Only those links outside the Anchorage bowl with 1-hour concentrations predicted to be greater than 2 ppm for any
year or alternative are shown.
A dash (-) signifies that this link does not exist for this alternative or year.
D-17
Table D-8
CALINE3 RESULTS FOR YEAR 2001
Predicted CO Concentrations (ppm)
Downtown Downtown Elmendorf Elmendorf
No-Crossing (Mid-Range) (High) (Mid-Range) (Low)
Receetor Location 1-hr 8-hr 1-hr 8-hr 1-hr ~ 1-hr 8-hr 1-hr 8-hr
North Anchorage Bowl
Spenard and Benson 9.7 6.5 9.3 6.2 9.2 6.2 9.5 6.4 10.6 7.1
7th and C 6.8 4.6 6.5 4.4 6.7 4.5 7.2 4.8 6.9 4.6
Native Medical Center 4.4 2.9 5.1 3.4 5.1 3.4 4.8 3.2 4.5 3.0
Bartlett High School 1.2 o.8 l.l 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.2 o.8 1.2 o.8
Resolution Park 12.6 8.4 18.1 12.1 18.6 12.5 12.2 8.2 12.4 8.3
Historic Structures 5.0 3.4 7.6 5.1 7.6 5.1 4.9 3.3 5.0 3.4
Link 36 -Glenn Highway 12.3 8.2 9.6 6.4 10.9 7.3 13.0 8.7 12.7 8.5
Link 38 -Planned Northside
Bypass 16.7 11.2 16.2 10.9 18.2 12.2 21.3 14.3 17.4 11.7
Link 53 -Northern Lights
Boulevard 3.0 2.0 2.5 1.7 2.5 1.7 2.9 1.9 2.7 1.8
Link 61 -Tudor Road · 19.2 12.9 18.1 12.1 15.5 10.4 20.1 13.5 19.7 13.2
Link 63 -Tudor Road 18.3 12.3 18.4 12.3 18.0 12.1 19.7 13.2 18.4 12.3
Link 67 -International
Airport Road 4.0 2.7 3.1 2.1 3.1 2.1 3.2 2.1 3.8 2.5
Link 78 -New Seward Hwy. 26.6 17.8 30.5 20.4 31.3 21.0 28.5 19.1 28.2 18.9
Link 86 - C Street 7.5 5.0 5.3 3.6 5.1 3.4 6.2 4.2 7.5 5.0
Average -All receptors 10.5 7.1 10.8 7.2 10.9 7.3 11.1 7.4 10.8 7.2
No. of AAQS Violations 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 4 0 4
Outside Anchorage Bowl
Link 7 -Parks Highway 3.2 2.1 1.4 0.9 1.7 l.l 1.4 0.9 1.3 0.9
Link 12 -Glenn Highway 3.4 2.3 2.0 1.3 2.3 1.5 2.0 1.3 1.9 1.3
Link 13 -Glenn Highway 3.1 2.1 1.8 1.2 2.1 1.4 1.8 1.2 1.7 1.1
Link 14 -Glenn Highway 2.9 1.9 1.8 1.2 2.0 1.3 1.8 1.2 1.7 1.1
Link 15 -Glenn Highway 5.8 3.9 4.2 2.8 4.4 2.9 4.4 2.9 4.3 2.9
Link 16 -Glenn Highway 8.1 5;.4 6.4 4.3 6.4 4.3 6.8 4.6 6.8 4.6
Link 22 -Houston Connector 0.1 0.1 2.1 1.4 2.5 1.7 1.4 0.9 1.2 0.8
Link 23 -Houston Connector 2.2 1.5 2.6 1.7 1.7 l.l 1.6 1.1
Link lOS -Elmendorf
Crossing 2.8 1.9 2.6 1.7
Link 106 -Downtown
Crossing 3.5 2.3 4.0 2.7
NOTES
Low, mid-range, and high refer to the growth allocation scenarios described in Chapter IV under "Urban Growth and
Economic Development".
Receptors for all links placed at 10 meters from edge of road.
1-hour AAQS = 35 ppm~ 8-hour AAQS = 9 ppm.
Only those links outside the Anchorage bowl with l-hour concentrations predicted to be greater than 2 ppm for ~y
year or alternative are shown.
A dash (-) signifies that this link does not exist for this alternative or year.
D-18
r
[
r
L
L
L
r-
L
[
[
I
L
L
L
L
t
Table D-9
CALINE3 RESULTS FOR YEAR 2010
....,
J Predicted CO Concentrations Cp;eml
Downtown Downtown Elmendorf Elmendorf
No-Crossing (Mid-Range) (High) (Mid-Range) (Low)
._:.; Receptor Location 1-hr 8-hr 1-hr 8-hr 1-hr 8-hr 1-hr 8-hr 1-hr 8-hr
North Anchorage Bowl
Spenard and Benson 10.4 7.0 10.1 6.8 10.3 6.9 10.9 7.3 11.6 7.8
7th and c 8.6 s.8 7.2 4.8 7.8 5.2 8.8 5.9 8.9 6.0
Native Medical Center 5.4 3.6 5.6 3.8 5.8 3.9 5.7 3.8 5.4 3.6
Bartlett High School 1.5 1.0 1.2 o.8 1.3 0.9 1.6 1.1 1.4 0.9
Resolution Park 16.2 10.9 22.8 15.3 23.4 15.7 15.6 10.5 15.8 10.6
Historic Structures 6.4 4.3 9.4 6.3 9.8 6.6 6.1 4.1 6.2 4.2
~J Link 36 -Glenn Highway 17.2 11.5 11.0 7.4 12.2 8.2 17.8 11.9 .17.5 11.7
Link 38 -Planned Northside
~ Bypass 21.4 14.3 18.3 12.3 22.0 14.7 24.9 16.7 21.8 14.6
Link 53 -Northern Lights
Boulevard 3.7 2.5 2.6 1.7 2.7 1.8 3.3 2.2 3.2 2.1
Link 61 -Tudor Road 22.1 14.8 20.1 13.5 19.1 12.8 23.3 15.6 22.8 15.3
Link 63 -Tudor Road 22.5 15.1 21.8 14.6 21.7 14.5 23.4 15.7 22.1 14.8
Link 67 -International
Airport Road 4.5 3.0 4.0 2.7 3.9 2.6 4.1 2.7 4.2 2.8
Link 78 -New Seward Hwy. 30.5 20.4 34.5 23.1 39.0 26.1 32.1 21.5 31.8 21.3
Link 86 -C Street 8.6 s.8 6.1 4.1 5.9 4.0 6.9 4.6 8.5 5.7 ...,
Average -All receptors 12.8 8.6 12.5 8.4 13.2 8.8 .13.2 8.8 12.9 8.7
-~ No. of AAQS Violations 0 6 0 5 1 5 0 6 0 6
Outside Anchorage Bowl
~ Link 7 -Parks Highway 3.6 2.4 1.5 1.0 1.9 1.3 1.7 1.1 1.5 1.0
Link 12 -Glenn Highway 4.0 2.7 2.1 1.4 2.5 1.7 2.3 1.5 2.1 1.4
~-
Link 13 -Glenn Highway 3.7 2.5 1.9 1.3 2.3 1.5 2.1 1.4 1.9 1.3
Link 14 -Glenn Highway 3.5 2.3 1.9 1.3 2.1 1.4 2.0 1.3 1.9 1.3
Link 15 Glenn Highway 7.1 4.8 4.7 3.1 4.8 3.2 5.1 3.4 4.9 3.3
~ ' Link 16 -Glenn Highway 10.0 ri.7 7.0 4.7 7.1 4.8 7.7 5.2 7.9 5.3
Link 22-Houston Connector 0.2 0.1 2.8 1.9 3.6 2.4 l.B 1.2 1.6 1.1
Link 23 -Houston Connector 2.8 1.9 3.4 2.3 2.2 1.5 2.0 1.3
Link 105 -Elmendorf
Crossing 4.2 2.8 3.8 2.5
Link 106 -Downtown
Crossing 4.6 3.1 5.4 3.6
NOTES
~mid-range, and high refer to the growth allocation scenarios described in Chapter IV under "Urban Growth and
---• Economic Development".
Receptors for all links placed at 10 meters from edge of road.
1-hour AAQS = 35 ppm~ 8-hour AAQS = 9 ppm.
Only those links outside the Anchorage bowl with 1-hour concentrations predicted to be greater than 2 ppm for any
year or alternative are shown.
A dash (-) signifies that this link does not exist for this alternative or year.
D-19
The. number of predicted AAQS violations in 1990 would be approximately the
same for all alternatives. When concentrations are averaged over all north
Anchorage bowl receptors, lowest concentrations would be associated with
the No-Crossing Alternative and highest concentrations would be associated
with the Downtown Project with the high growth shift. Average
concentrations for the other growth scenarios would be approximately equal.
Concentrations in the north Anchorage bowl in 1990 would increase under
either Crossing Project with all growth shift scenarios compared to the No-
Crossing case. With the exception of Downtown (High) , these increases
would be less than 10 percent.
However, these receptor average concentrations are
concentrations within the bowl. Most of the receptors
purposely chosen at areas of expected high concentrations.
are presented solely as a means of comparing alternatives
basis.
not average
averaged were
These averages
on a relative
In 2001, predicted concentrations indicate a general improvement over 1990
for all alternatives (Table D-8). Fewer AAQS violations would occur and
average concentrations would decrease by 20 percent or more. This
improvement would be primarily due to lower vehicle emissions rates
associated with newer vehicles. Concentrations for the Crossing
Alternatives would decrease more than for the No-Crossing Alternative
between 1990 and 2001. On the average, air quality impacts in 2001 would
not differ. significantly among the alternatives.
In 2010, concentrations would increase over 2001 levels (Table D-9).
Overall average concentrations in 2010 would be comparable to those in
1990. However, unlike 1990, concentrations would not differ significantly
among alternatives. Increased concentrations in 2010, as compared to 2001,
would be due to increased traffic which would more than offset slight
improvements in per vehicle emission rates.
A sensitivity analysis was performed for the north Anchorage bowl roadside
receptors to show concentration as a function of distance from the road.
The sensitivity analysis was performed for the No-Crossing Alternative in
1990. Results of the sensitivity analysis are shown in Table D-10.
Concentrations were reduced by approximately 30 percent at 25 meters from
the road edge (as compared to results for the receptor 10 meters from the
road edge). At approximately 50 meters from the road, roadside
concentrations are decreased to half of the corresponding concentrations at
10 meters.
Outside Anchorage Bowl. Outside the Anchorage bowl, maximum 1-hour and
8-hour roadside concentrations would occur along the Glenn Highway on the
first link out of the Anchorage bowl area (Muldoon Road to Eagle River).
Maximum concentrations for links outside the Anchorage bowl are also given
in Tables D-7 through D-9. All links with a 1-hour CO concentration
greater than 2 ppm for any year or alternative are shown in Tables D-7
through D-9. As the tables indicate, no violation of the 1-hour or 8-hour
CO standards would occur. Maximum predicted concentrations would be
D-20
[
[
[
[
[
L
[
[
[
L
r
L.
[
[
L
l
L"'
r-·
I
/
Table D-10
NORTH ANCHORAGE BOWL ROADSIDE CONCENTRATIONS
AT VARIOUS DISTANCES FROM ROAD
Receptor Distance From Road Edge (meters)
Receptor Location 10 25 50
Link 36 -Glenn Highway 15.2 10 .• 6 7.8
Link 38 -Northside Bypass 21.0 14.2 10.1
Link 53 -Northern Lights
Boulevard 3.9 2.9 2.3
Link 61 -Tudor Road 21.7 14.5 10.0
Link 63 -Tudor Road 22.9 15.9 11.6
Link 78 -New Seward
Highway 30.6 20.0 13.7
Link 86 - C Street 9.1 7.0 5.7
Average Reduction
from 10 Meter Concentration 31% 49%
NOTE
Values are CALINE3 1-hour CO concentrations (in ppm) for No-Crossing
Alternative in 1990.
D-21
100
5.5
7.1
1.9
6.5
8.6
9.2
4.7
64%
associated with the No-Crossing ~ternative and lowest concentrations would
be associated with the Downtown Project in most cases. However,
differences between the Downtown and Elmendorf projects would be minor.
D. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Air quality impacts due to construction activities would be caused by:
0
0
An increase in on-road vehicle emissions near areas of construction
due to the decreased speeds caused by detours and the construction
activity
Emissions from heavy duty diesel construction equipment, fugitive
particulate emissions due to the dust stirred up by construction
activity
Construction vehicle operations would not be of sufficient magnitude to
significantly affect areas of maximum modeled concentrations (i.e., the
north Anchorage bowl). Operational techniques, such as watering of dusty
construction areas, would be used to minimize construction impacts.
E. ANCHORAGE AIR QUALITY PLAN IMPACT
The Anchorage Air Quality Plan includes expansion of. existing traffic
improvement programs and implementation of a vehicle I/M program
(Municipality of Anchorage, 1982a). Traffic improvements would· include
synchronization of traffic signals to improve traffic flow and to reduce
time in the acceleration, deceleration, and idle modes, thereby reducing CO
emissions. Several road and highway construction projects have also been
proposed to improve traffic flow. In addition, encouragement of
carpooling, transit use, and variable work hours are included in the Air
Quality· Plan. The vehicle I/M program has been proposed to reduce
emissions by requiring periodic vehicle exhaust inspection. Vehicles not
meeting exhaust requirements would be required to undergo maintenance to
bring them into compliance.
Most of the Anchorage bowl air quality non-attainment area has
transportation control measures in the State Implementation Plan (SIP),
which was conditionally approved by the Environmental Protection Agency in
September 1982. The Anchorage measures for control of co were noted in
Chapter III. The No-Action and Glenn/Parks Improvement Alternatives only
include bowl projects found within the area's iong-range transportation
plan and transportation improvement program. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has determined both to conform to the SIP. Thus,
pursuant to 23 CFR 770 either of these alternatives would conform to the
SIP.
The Hovercraft Alternative and Crossing Alternatives are not in bowl
D-22
c
[
L
[
[
t~--
·"
L
[
L
L:
l
l
L..
-I
/
transportation plans.
Quality Control Plan
alternatives must:
To be in conformance with the SIP, the Anchorage Air
(Municipality of Anchorage, 1982a) indicates these
0
0
Provide a net areawide air quality benefit and not delay attainment of
National Air Quality Standards
Reflect reasonable progress in implementing those transportation con-
trol measures called for in the SIP to meet air quality standards and
not include any actions that would reduce the effectiveness of those
measures
Neither Hovercraft nor a Crossing Alternatives would adversely affect
implementation of the traffic improvements, inspection/maintenance program,
carpool/variable work hours program, or transit improvements described in
the Anchorage Plan. As discussed under "Public Transportation", the
Crossing Alternatives would reduce transit use in the bowl but only because
fewer people would be living in the bowl compared to No-Action. The
percentage of travelers using transit in the bowl would not be affected.
In fact, the percentage may rise 'because those households making the
decision to live in the Borough due to a crossing, rather than the bowl,
likely would not be transit users anyway, and captive transit riders likely
would not move to the Borough where transit service would be less frequent.
The Hovercraft Alternative would not affect traffic patterns or flow in the
bowl significantly and would not change CO emissions. Thus, Hovercraft
would not change the effectiveness of bowl transportation control measures.
As indicated in Table IV-32, the Downtown Project (with the most likely
mid-range growth allocation) would reduce total CO emissions in the north
Anchorage bowl (six percent in 2001, nine percent in 2010). Thus, the
Downtown Project would provide a net air quality benefit and would increase
the effectiveness of transportation control measures for the bowl.
For the Elmendorf Project (with the most likely mid-range growth
allocation) , total CO emissions in the north Anchorage bowl would increase
four percent in 2001 and three percent in 2010 compared to No-Action.
Thus, the Project would provide a small net air quality decrease and lessen
the effectiveness of transportation control measures in the bowl. This
decrease would occur for two reasons:
1. As indicated in Table IV-4, the Elmendorf Project would increase total
vehicle-miles of travel in the bowl slightly, two percent in 2001 and
·1.5 percent in 2010.
2. As shown on Figure IV-1, the traffic pattern resulting from the
Project would add traffic to streets already congested under
No-Action, which would slow traffic further and increas emissions.
Table IV-4 shows an increase of 30 percent of vehicle-miles traveled
in 2001 at less than acceptable levels-of-service (D to F). However,
a decrease of only one percent would occur in 2010.
D-23
In light of the above, it is concluded pursuant to 23 CFR 770 that the
No-Crossing Alternatives and the Downtown Project would conform to the
State Implementation Plan. Without mitigation of the emissions impact
described above, the Elmendorf Project would not conform. The small
percentage increase in emissions could be mitigated by a re-evaluation of
the area's Long-Range Transportation Plan (Municipality of Anchorage,
Community Planning Department, July 1983), whose projects are listed in the
Anchorage Air Quality Plan, to take into account the changed pattern of
area-wide traffic flows resulting from the Elmendorf Project. Planning
could be . altered such that congestion and increases in emissions which
would result from the changed traffic patterns would be minimized (e.g.,-
incorporating traffic improvements on roads feeding into the crossing such
as the Glenn Highway}. The Elmendorf Project, in combination with a
revised Long-Range Transportation Plan, then would achieve the same level
of emissions or better as the current Transportation Plan. Specific
changes that could be made will be_analyzed and presented in the Final EIS
if the Elmendorf Project is selected as the preferred alternative.
A final determination of conformance will be made by the Anchorage
Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (AMATS} Air Quality Policy Committee
based on the air quality analysis in this document. This determination
will be presented in the Final EIS.
D-24
r
[
c
[
[
[
[
L
c
[
L
L
L
Appendix E
·Noise Report
/
Appendix E
NOISE REPORT
A. INTRODUCTION
This appendix documents the noise impact assessment for the alternatives
under consideration in the year 2010. The assessment is based primarily
on an estimate of the number of people exposed to various levels of noise,
that is, the impact of noise on residential land use. The appendix is
divided .into the following sections:
0 Description of noise criteria on which the impact analysis is based
0 Results of field measurements of existing noise levels
0 Documentation of the procedures for forecasting noise levels
0 Noise impact of each alternative
0 Construction noise impact
B. NOISE·IMPACT CRITERIA
Fundamental Concepts of Noise
Three characteristics of noise affect people's reaction to the noise
environment. These are:
0 intensity or level
0 frequency spectrum
0 time-varying character
Sound levels (intensity) are measured on a logarithmic scale and are
expressed in decibels {dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the
threshold of sensitivity of hearing.
Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below
atmospheric pressure. The "frequency" of a sound refers to the number of
complete pressure fluctuations per second in the sound, and the unit of
measurement is the cycle pe.r second or hertz (Hz). Most of the sounds
which are heard do not consist of a single frequency, but of a broad band
of frequencies, differing in relative level. Many rating methods have been
devised to permit comparison of sounds having quite different frequency
characteristics. Fortunately, the simplest method correlates with human
response almost as well as the more complex methods; this method consists
of weighting the various frequency components in a manner similar to the
characteristics of the human ear. This type of frequency weighting
reflects the fact that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies
E-1
and extreme high frequencies than in the frequency midrange. The weighting
curve most often used is called "A" weighting, and the level so measured is
called the "A-weighted sound level".
In practice, the A-weighted level of a sound source is conveniently
measured using a sound level meter that includes an electrical filter
corresponding to the A-weighting curve. All U.S. and international stan-
dard sound level meters include such a filter. Figure E-1 shows the
A-weighted levels of typical outdoor and indoor sounds.
Although the A-weighted level may adequately describe environmental noise
at any instant, the noise level varies continuously. Most environmental
noise includes a conglomeration of distant noise sources creating a rela-
tively steady background noise in which no particular source is identifia-
ble. These distant sources may include traffic, wind in trees, industrial,
or farming activities, etc. These noise sources are relatively constant
from moment-to-moment, but vary slowly from hour-to-hour as natural forces
change or as human activity follows its daily cycle. Superimposed on"this
slowly varying background is a succession of identifiable noisy events of
brief duration. These may include nearby activities or single vehicle
passages, aircraft -flyovers, etc. , which cause the environmental noise
level to vary from time to time.
One way to describe sounds which vary with time is to analyze them statis-
tically, to determine sound levels which ~re exceeded for _some percent of a
specified time. The median sound level is the level exceeded 50 percent of
the time and is designated L50 • Similarly, the level exceeded 10 percent
of the time is designated L10 ; this is the statistical measure preferred by
the FHWA (see next section).
In the interests of avoiding a complicated description of the fluctuations
of noise at a location and thereby simplifying the description of noise
exposure, a single number average sound level has recently become popular.
The average sound level is the steady noise level that would convey the
same noise energy as the actual time-varying noise at the site in the same
time period. This "equivalent steady noise" is designated L • The time
periods over which the average sound level usually is expfe~sed are by
hour, by day (defined as the hours from 7:00 AM to 10: 00 PM) , by night
(defined as the hours from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM), and by 24-hour day.
A modification of the 24-hour average ··sound level is the "Day-Night Average
Sound Level" which incorporates a lOdB penalty for all noise occurring
during the night-time between the hours of 10: 00 PM and 7: 00 AM. The
"Day-Night Average Sound Level" (L ) has been adopted by many Federal and
local age~cies as the descriptor t~e used for general noise that affects
a community over the full 24-hour day.
Abatement Criteria
In this appendix, noise impact will be defined in two different ways. The
first relates to increases at specific sites. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has promulgated "Noise Abatement Criteria" (FHWA,
July 1982) listing levels which, if exceeded by roadway traffic, must be
mitigated when it is reasonable and feasible to do so. The levels vary for
E-2
c
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
L
[-_.
-"
[
r
L
L
L
r~
c~ I
I .
I l __ .J
[
[
l ..
[
[
[
[
A-WEIGHTED
NOISE LEVEL (dB)
OUTDOOR NOISE LEVELS INDOOR NOISE LEVELS
JET FLYOVER AT 1000 FT
GAS LAWN MOWER AT 3 FT
DIESEL TRUCK AT 50FT
NOISY URBAN DAYTIME IL10>
GAS LAWN MOWER AT 100FT
QUIET URBAN DAYTIME IL10l
QUIET URBAN NIGHTTIME (L10)
QUIET SUBURB~N NIGHTTIME (L1Q)
QUIET RURAL NIGHTTIME IL10l
110 ROCK BAND (L1Q)
100
90
80
NEWSPAPER PRESS
FOOD BLENDER AT 3FT
GARBAGE DISPOSAL AT3 FT
SHOUTING AT 3FT
70 VACUUM CLEANER AT 10FT
NORMAL SPEECH AT 3FT
60
LARGE BUSINESS OFFICE
50 DISHWASHER NEXT ROOM
40 SMALL THEATRE, LARGE
CONFERENCE ROOM (BACKGROUND)
30
20
10
0
LIBRARY
BEDROOM AT NIGHTTIME
CONCERT HALL (BACKGROUND)
BROADCAST AND RECORDING
STUDIO
THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Figure E-1·
Typical· Noise Levels .
different land uses: Table E-1 reproduces these noise abatement criteria.
The table lists maximum noise levels for different land use categories in
term? of two noise exposure measures related to forecast peak-hour traffic
flow, the L10 and the L levels. Typically, for roadways with moderate to
high traffic flows, thl~eak-hour L is numerically 3 decibels less than
the peak-hour L10 , thus the crite~¥a listed in the table for the two
measures are equ1valent, and in the remainder of this appendix only the
peak-hour L will be cited. The table shows that for most land uses of
interest (r~~idences, schools, hospitals, churches, etc.), the peak-hour
L should not exceed 67 dBo eq
A FHWA study (FHWA, June 1982) recommends that a noise impact also be
considered severe enough to warrant mitigation if increased noise levels
meet the following criteria:
dB's
Below Noise
Abatement Criteria
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10+
dB
Increase
from No-Action
10
12
13
14
14
15
15
15
15
16+
Both these abatement criteria were used in this analysis to determine the
need for mitigation at noise sensitive locations.
The above criteria indicate that mitigation would be required when either
the noise exceeds a certain level or the increase in noise is substantial.
However, the criteria do not describe a way in which to compare impact
along several proposed corridors where there are different numbers of
people exposed to different levels of noise exposure, all above the
criterion level. In order to permit such a comparison, a second procedure
for defining noise impact has been developed by the National Academy of
Sciences (National Academy of Sciences, 1977) called the "fractional impact
methodology". This methodology has the advantage that it takes into
-account both the absolute level of the noise environment, as well as the
level of the existing noise environment.
The fractional impact methodology uses as its base the day-night average
sound level, L d • Several social surveys have been conducted in which
people' s reactiJhs to their noise environment have been determined as a
function of the day-night sound level occurring outside their homes. The
curve in Figure E-2 shows the results of many of these surveys (Schultz,
August 1978). Community response to noise is measured by the percentage of
the sampled population who indicated that they were "highly annoyed" with
their noise environment. This curve has been found to be appropriate for a
variety of noise sources, ranging from aircraft to surface transportation
to railroad noise.
E-4
r
[
L
L
[
c
r
L
[
L
L
L
I :
L
[
L.
[
L
L
r-
1
L~
Activity
Category
A
B
c
D
E
Table E-1
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
(Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level-decibels (dB))
L eq
57 (Exterior)
67 (Exterior)
72 (Exterior)
52 (Interior)
Description of
L10 Activity Category
60 (Exterior) Lands on which serenity
and quiet are of
extraordinary significance
and serve an important
public need and where the
preservation of those
qualities is essential if
the area is to continue to
serve its intended
purpose.
70 (Exterior) Picnic areas, recreation
areas, playgrounds, active
sports areas, parks,
residences, motels,
hotels, schools, churches,
libraries, and hospitals.
75 (Exterior) Developed lands,
properties, or activities
not included in Categories
A or B above.
Undeveloped lands.
55 (Interior) Residences, motels,
hotels, public meeting
rooms, schools, churches,
libraries, hospitals, and
auditoriums.
Source: FHWA, July 1982
E-5
100
90
80
70
"0
~ 60
0 c c <
; sp
.El -c
~ 40
~ cu
Q.
30
20
10
I
Response Curve --..___
Based on Social ---..,
Survey Data
Day-Night Average Sound Level -decibels
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Figure E-2
Community Response
to Noise
c
f
r
,,,
L
[
[
L
[
[
[
t
L
[
[
r-
r.
L
!
L
__ __;
While the day-night sound level is a measure of the 24-hour noise environ-
ment, and the L used in the Federal Highway Administration Noise Abate-
ment Criteria i~~ measure of a single hour, for many roadways the L and
the peak-hour L are numerically equal. Comparing the Federal H~~way
Administration C~~teria with Figure E-2 shows that a peak-hour L (and an
Ld ) of 67 dB would result in approximately 18 percent of the ~gpulation be~ng highly annoyed. (It should be recognized that in any noise environ-
ment some people will always indicate annoyance, and some people will never
indicate annoyance regardless of noise level.) The Federal Highway Admin-
istration criterion is in fact just 2 dB higher than the L value of 65 dB
endorsed by several other Federal agencies (U.s.. Departme8f of Housing and
Urban Development, u.s. Department of Defense, etc.) as a general dividing
·line between an unacceptable and an acceptable noise environment for
residential land use (Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise, June
1980) •
The fractional impact methodology employs the curve in Figure E-2 as a
weighting function, which is normalized to one at an L of 75 dB (see the
right-hand scale on Figure E-2). For practical applic~ion of the method-
ology, the linear approximation · to the curve shown in the figure may be
used with reasonable accuracy. Thus, in the impact analysis, the number of
people exposed to different Ld levels is determined, and then these
populations are weighted in acco~dance with the linear weighting function
of Figure E-2, starting at an L value of 55 dB. For example, the number
of people .exposed to an Ld . vgpue of 60 dB is weighted by a factor of
0.25. The number of people ~xposed to an L value of 70 dB is weighted by
a factor of 0.8. These "fractional popula~ons" are then added together,
to provide a single number known as the level weighted population, LWP.
The LWP is the number of people that experience an impact at an equivalent
sound level of 75dB.
The impact analysis was conducted for existing conditions projected into
the future, i.e. the No-Act~on Alternative, to determine the level weighted
population for ex~sting noise sources. An analysis was then conducted for
each propos~d No-Crossing and Crossing Alternative. The differences in LWP
among the various alternatives indicate the relative impact of one
alternative versus the other.
In summary, the fractional impact methodology permits the assessment of
noise impact by collapsing to a single number the noise exposure of the
population for existing and proposed conditions.
C. NOISE SURVEY
In order to document the existing noise environment along the alternatives
under consideration, a field measurement survey was conducted in February
and March, 1984. During the survey, noise levels were monitored for a
continuous 24-hour period at five noise sensitive locations. Short-term
measurements of noise were collected at an additional four locations. In
addition to measuring noise levels, the survey provided information on the
sources of noise occurring at each location.
E-7
/
Two of the 24-hour monitoring locations were selected on Elmendorf Air
Force Base along the proposed Elmendorf Project corridor. Two additional
locations were selected in downtown Anchorage, along the Downtown Project.
The fifth 24-hour measurement location was in Eagle River, adjacent to
the Glenn Highway, to document the existing conditions at a location which
would experience increased noise levels under the No-Action and other
No-Crossing Alternatives.
Short-term measurements included two locations in the Mat-Su Borough along
the Houston Connector and two additional locations within Anchorage.
Figure E-3 shows.each selected measurement location.
All measurements were obtained using a DAI Model 607 Environmental Noise
Analyzer. At each of the 24-hour locations, the DAI 607 monitored the
noise· levels continuously, and each hour it printed the hourly average
noise level. From these hourly values, the Ldn was computed. At the four
additional short-term locations, the average sound level occurring during
shorter periods (typically 10 to 30 minutes) was measured.
Table E-2 summarizes the results of these measurements, and it includes a
listing of the major noise sources occurring at each location.
Figure E-4 shows a plot of the hourly average sound levels measured at each
of the five 24-hour monitoring locations. At Location 3 near the Glenn
Highway i!) Eagle River, the , normal pattern of noise levels which follows
the pattern of traffic flow can be seen. This same pattern can be seen to
a lesser extent at Location 4, the Alaska Native Medical Center, where
local traffic noise is a major contributor to the noise environment. At
the other three locations, miscellaneous discrete noise sources such as
aircraft, rail, and industrial sources provide irregularities to the
24-hour patterns shown on the figure.
Except for Location 3 in Eagle River, aircraft noise (from military air-
craft, light aircraft, and helicop.ters) is a major contributor to the noise
environment. For those locations south of the Ship Creek area, rail noise,
industrial noise, and power plant noise are major noise sources. Traffic
noise is also important except for sites on Elmendorf Air Force Base and at
the locations on the Mat-Su Borough side of the Arm. At these locations
(Locations 1, 2, 8, and 9), in the absence of aircraft noise the noise
environment is low, particularly in the Mat-Su Borough. Artillery firing
at Fort Richardson also affects the noise environment on an irregular basis
in the northeastern portion of Anchorage.
D. NOISE EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
Peak-hour L values (and, equivalently, L values) have been estimated
using trafff~noise prediction procedures (tHwA, December 1978) and traffic
flow information for projected 2010 traffic volumes for the alternatives
under consideration. These estimates have been made on a street and
highway link-by-link basis, corresponding to the links for which traffic
data have been tabulated.
E.-8
[
[
L
[
[
[
[
[
L
[
L
[
L
L
L
L
L
L-"
l __ ,
······················--~---··-··-·····-··-·····-····--·--·········-··-····-···--------·-···-···············-·-··-···-··-----·····-... ---····----·-:i--,
'""···
~--::•~.;-;:;~: .. :::::"
'··l ; ... ~\
-'~ ... ~ ; __
. '"!f\.•. <..,.:--~-
.. ··'"''
_,·.:'V"<"'-v.r··-::..·.r--;
~r
~\
·$-,~:::::: :':;a.
'-·~:~ -,::··~: :'~:::(,;~
1 ;
~ .... ---..... ~~ ..........
''v
... _......,.,.;;.~-,.(
--~ .,;-,,~
\.t:~~'-
'"-,
·.: .. :.: .. ~:~ ...
~ ' • ~on!'l! ',J
·----·---·---·-----·
Figure E-3
Measurement Locations
Table E-2
SUMMARY OF NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
Location
No. Description
L or
L dn(dB)
-eq
24-Hour Measurements
1 Elmendorf AFB Hospital
2 Elmendorf AFB Housing Unit
24-334
3 Residence, 136 Breckinridge,
Eagle River
4 Alaska Native Medical Center
5 Office, 211 H Street
Short-Term Measurements
6
7
a-
9
Resolution Park
Bartlett High School
Point MacKenzie Agricultural
Area (Eastern Boundary) ,
Mat-su Bor<?ugh
South Big Lake Road, Mat-Su
Borough
E-10
58
63
68
65
58
60
53
42
52
Major Noise Sources
Aircraft
Aircraft
Traffic (Glenn Highway
100 feet away)
Traffic, Rail, Industry,
Power Plant, Aircraft
Traffic, Rail,
Construction, Industry,
Aircraft
Traffic, Rail, Industry,
Aircraft
Aircraft, Ventilation
Equipment
Aircraft
Aircraft
[
[
[
f'
t
L
[
[
[
[
L
[
[
[
L
[
L
r L c ' J l. -~ .LJ l ! ' 1
~;f.r-----------------------------------------------------------------~
'-, :z ~~
Site 1 Anchorage
U'l~ -~----------------------------.. ------------'
w u a o·c:o w"
">o
<l"'
58.1 Ldn
10 II 12 1J I~ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 n 2J 2q I 2 l q 5 6 8
HDUR OF DAY
~~.--------------------------------------------------------------.
Site 3 Anchorage 68.3 Ldn
fEB 29
10 21 22 23 2~ I 5 6 B 9 10 II 12 ll I~ IS 16 1'1 I~
HDUR Of DAY
~~~--------------------------------------------------------------------~
Cl z
-::JCl
Oo
Site 5 Anchorage 57.8 Ldn
VlC I .. ,. ..................................... ----.......... ,.. .... • .... • • • • • .............. • ................ •• • .......... •• • • .............. •• • ...... • ...... •
"' ....
() cr o·c.-,
111° ..,....;
a~·
.... . ~
o:n ""~ 12 -)·· ""~ ll
~~l-~--~~~~~~--~~--~~~~~~--~~--~~--~~~~~~--~~--t
ll ll 1q 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 l~ I 2 J 5 6 8 9 10 II 12 ll
HOUR OF DAY
J L '
~~.---------------------------------------------------------------~
....
(.)
Cl" o.g w. >n a:Ul
>-
...J
Site 2 Anchorage
0:0 ""P. 12 :-::~<>
63.0 Ldn
HAR ll
~~+--r--r-~~~~~--~-r--r-~~~~~--T--?--r-~~~~~--,.-,-4
ll I~ 15 16 U II 1!1 20 21 22 2J 2.. I 2 J ~ I 9 10 II 12
HOUR Of DAY
~£.-------------------~------------------------------------------~
Site 4 Ancborag• 64.8 Ldn
(.) z ~~·~-----
tl'\4.)
"' "'' u cr
Q'O
w<>
">ci aU>
>-....
o:o "AP. 12 -::>n HAR IJ
~g·f-~--~-r~~~~--~~--~-r--r-~~--~~--~~~r-~~--~~~
11 12 u 1' 15 " 11 1e 1s 20 21 u 2J · 2' 1 2 ~ 5 6 e 9 10
HOUR Of DAY
Figure E-4
Hourly Average Sound Levels
The noise exposure estimates take into account total traffic volumes, heavy
truck volumes (assumed to be one half of total truck volumes), and average
speed. Table E-3 lists the estimated L at 100 feet from each of the
roadway links. L values would diminisf9by 3 dB for each doubling of the
distance from the e'foadway centerline. The 3 dB reduction is applicable
principally to developed areas. For undeveloped areas the reduction would
be 4.5 dB per doubling distance. Heavy forest vegetation would reduce
sound levels further at an additional rate of 5 dB per 100 feet of forest.
A projected noise exposure of 67 dB typically would occur within 300 feet
from the roadway segment, except in the immediate vicinity of the Glenn
Highway ~~d the Elmendorf and Downtown Crossings, where a projected noise
exposure of 67 dB typically would occur within 600 feet of the roadway.
E. IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Outside Anchorage Bowl
Table E-3 shows that for those roadway links outside the Anchorage bowl
with moderate-to-heavy existing traffic (Glenn and Parks Highways), the
three No-Crossing ATternatives would provide the highest noise exposure of
the alternatives under consideration. This would be due to the increased
traffic flow on these roadways compared to the situation which would occur
if a Crossing were built. However, differences· in noise exposure of up to
3 dB typically are imperceptible to the average person and therefore do not
represent a significant difference.
For those roadway links· where traffic would be light or non-existent,
implementation of a Crossing Alternative would result in a significant
increase in noise exposure~ the projected noise exposure values at 100 feet
would exceed the 67 dB FHWA criterion for most of the Houston Connector.
For this area outside the Anchorage bowl, aerial photographs were examined
to identify residential structures within 500 feet of important roadways.
Estimates were made of the peak hour average sound level for each resi-
dence. Table E-4 lists the number of residences with expected L in
excess of 67 dB for each alternative under consideration. Out of apfftbxi-
mately 1, 060 residences in a 1, 000-foot wide corridor along the various
alternatives, 68l.would be exposed to levels in excess of 67 dB in the year
2010 with No-Action. The table shows a decrease in the number of resi-
dences for either a Crossing or a Hovercraft Alternative, and an increase
for the Glenn/Parks Improvement, all relative to the No-Action Alternative.
All but four of the homes listed as being exposed to levels in excess of 67
dB would be along the Glenn and Parks Highways. For that area, and for the
Crossing and Hovercraft Alternatives, Table E-4 shows a reduction in the
absolute number of homes which would exceed the criteria. This is not a
net reduction that would include some homes with increased levels and
others with reduced levels. Thus, along the Glenn and Parks Highways no
mitigation would be required for those alternatives. The remaining four
homes are on the Houston Connector, and would be 1 dB over the 67 dB
criteria, which would represent a substantial increase over current levels.
All four homes are in the Point MacKenzie area where the measured noise
level is 42 dB~ see Table E-2. The impact would be mitigated either by
E-12
[
L
[
r~
L
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
L
L
L
l
Link
Number
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
[ ',J [ [ l :-) u .-! J l-'.1
Table E-3
PRO,JECTED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS FOR TilE YEAR 2010
(Peak-hour L in dB at lPO feet from Roadway Centerline) eq
No-Crossing Alternatives
Roadway (location)
Parks Highway (from Willo1~ north)
Parks Highway (Houston to Willow)
Parks Highway (Big Lake Road to Houston)
Parks Highway (just east of Big Lake Road)
Parks Highway (between Wasilla and Big Lake Road)
Parks Highway (just west of Wasilla)
Parks Highway (Glenn/Parks Highway Junction to Wasilla)
Glenn Highway (from Palmer north)
Glenn Highway (Glenn/Parks Highway Junction to Palmer)
Glenn Highway (Knik River to Glenn/Parks junction)
Glenn Highway (Ek1utna to Knik River)
Glenn Highway (Peters Creek to Eklutna)
Glenn Highway (Eagle River to Peters Creek)
Glenn Highway (Muldoon Road to Eagle River)
Chuitna Corridor (to Fish Creek Agricultural Area)
Houston Connector (Parks Highway to Horseshoe La.ke Road)
Houston Connector (Horseshoe Lake Road to South Big Lake Road)
Houston Connector (South Big Lake Road to Point !~acKenzie Access Road)
Houston Connector (Point MacKenzie Access Road)
Houston Connector (Point MacKenzie Access Road to Crossing)
Big Lake Road (Parks Highway to Big Lake Road)
South Big Lake Road (from east side of Big Lake)
South Big Lake Road (east of Houston Connector)
Knik-Goose Bay Road (just south of Wasilla)
Knik-Goose Bay Road (north of Knik)
Knik-Goose Bay Road (south of Knik)
Point MacKenzie Access Road (east-west segment)
Glenn Highway (Boniface Parkway to Muldoon Road)
Glenn Highway (Bragaw Street to Boniface Parkway)
Northside Bypass (planned between Old Seward Highway & Bragaw Street)
Bragaw Street (Penland Parkway to Glenn Highway)
Penland Parkway (Bragaw Street to Airport Heights Road)
5th/6th Avenues (Airport Heights Road to Seward Highway)
5th/6th Avenues (C Street to Seward Highway)
5th/6th Avenues (L Street to C Street)
Muldoon Road (Glenn Highway to DeBarr Road)
DeBarr Road (Boniface Park~1ay to Muldoon Road)
DeBarr Avenue (Bragaw Street to Boniface Parkway)
DeBarr Avenue (Airport Heights Road to Bragaw Street)
DeBarr Avenue (Lake Otis Parkway to Airport Heights Road)
15th Avenue (Seward Highway to Lake Otis Parkway)
15th Avenue (C Street to Seward Highway)
18th Avenue (Minnesota Drive to C Street)
Muldoon Road (DeBarr Road to Northern Lights Boulevard)
Northern Lights Boulevard (Boniface Parkway to Muldoon Road)
Northern Lights Boulevard (Bragaw Street to Boniface Parkway)
No-Glenn/Parks
Action Improvements Hovercraft
65
65
68
68
68
67
69
69
68
74
74
74
75
76
58
51
61
50
62
50
66
66
66
62
72
70
69
65
65
66
64
64
69
69
66
65
66
65
64
60
69
67
60
65
65
68
68
68
67
71
69
68
75
75
75
75
75
58
51
61
58
62
50
66
66
66
62
72
70
69
65
65
66
64
64
69
69
66
65
66
65
64
60
69
67
68
65
65
68
68
68
68
69
69
68
74
74
74
74
76
58
53
57
59
61
61
56
61
49
64
64
64
59
72
70
69
65
65
66
64
64
69
69
66
65
66
65
64
60
69
67
68
I .. ~
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown
(~lid
Range)
65
65
61
63
63
58
69
69
69
72
72
72
74
75
64
65
69
68
71
72
59
63
48
55
56
56
62
72
69
69
65
63
65
65
64
70
68
65
65
65
66
63
59
69
66
66
Elmendorf
Downtown (Mid-
(High)
65
66
62
64
64
58
68
68
68
73
73
73
74
75
63
65
68
68
71
71
59
64
49
56
56
56
62
72
69
69
65
63
66
65
64
70
68
64
65
65
66
63
59
69
66
66
Range)
65
65
61
64
64
58
68
69
68
72
72
72
74
76
63
64
67
67
70
70
59
63
49
55
55
55
61
72
69
69
65
63
66
64
64
70
69
65
66
66
66
64
60
69
66
67
Elmendorf
(Low)
65
65
61
63
63
58
68
69
69
72
72
72
74
76
63
64
67
67
70
70
59
63
48
54
54
54
61
72
70
69
64
65
66
64
64
69
68
66
66
66
66
64
60
69
66
67
Link
Number
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
101
104
105
106
NOTE
Table E-3 (Continued)
PROJECTED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS FOR TilE YEAR 2010
(Peak hour L in dB at 100 Feet From Roadway Centerline) eq
No-Crossing Alternatives
Roadway (location)
Northern Lights Boulevard (Lake Otis Parkway to Bragaw Street)
Northern Lights Boulevard (Seward Highway to Lake Otis Parkway)
Northern Lights/Benson Blvds, Couplet (C Street to Seward Highway)
Northern Lights/Benson Blvds, Couplet (Spenard Road to C Street)
Northern Lights/Benson Blvds. Couplet (Minnesota Drive to Spenard Road)
Muldoon/Tudor Roads (Northern Lights Boulevard to Boniface Parkway)
Tudor Road (Lake Otis Parkway to Boniface Parkway)
Tudor Road (Seward Highway to Lake Otis Parkway)
Tudor Road (Old Seward Highway to Seward Highway)
Tudor Road (C Street to Old Seward Highway)
Tudor Road (Minnesota Drive to C Street)
International Airport Road (C Street to Old Sewqrd Highway)
International Airport Road (Minnesota Drive to C Street)
International Airport Road (Spenard Road to Minnesota Drive)
Boniface Parkway (Glenn Highway to DeBarr Road)"
Boniface Parkway (DeBarr Road to Northern Lights Boulevard)
Boniface Parkway (Tudor Road to Northern t.ights Boulevard)
Bragaw Street (Penland Parkway to DeBarr Avenue)
Bragaw Street (DeBa·rr Avenue to Northern Lights Boulevard)
Airport Heights Road (DeBarr Avenue to Glenn Highway)
Lake otis Parkway (15th Avenue to Northern Lights Boulevard)
Lake Otis Parkway (Northern Lights Boulevard to Tudor Road)
Seward Highway (5th/6th Avenues to 15th Avenue)
Seward Highway (15th Avenue to Northern Lights Boulevard)
Seward Highway (just south of Northern Lights Boulevard)
Seward Highway (just north of Tudor Road)
Seward Highway (just south of Tudor Road)
Old Seward Highway (36th Avenue to Tudor Road)
Old Seward Highway (T~dor Road to International Airport Road)
c Street or A/C Couplet (5th/6th Avenues to 15th Avenue)
C Street (15th Avenue to Northern Lights Boulevard)
C Street (Northern Lights Boulevard to Tudor Road)
c Street (Tudor Road to International Airport Road)
I/L Street Couplet (5th/6th Avenues to 15th Avenue)
Minnesota Drive (15th Avenue to Northern Lights Boulevard)
Minnesota Drive (Northern Lights Boulevard to Spenard Road)
Spenard Road (Northern Lights Boulevard to Minnesota Drive)
Minnesota Drive (Northern Lights Boulevard to Tudor Road)
Minnesota Drive (Tudor Road to International Airport Road)
Spenard Road (Minnesota Drive to International Airport Road)
I/L Street ramps of Downtown Crossing
Seward Connector
Elmendorf Crossing
Downtown Crossing
No-Glenn/Parks
Action Improvements Hovercraft
65
66
68
70
67
68
68
66
66
67
67
65
67
68
68
67
67
65
65
64
65
65
70
66
70
70
70
65
66
66
68
68
69
67
67
68
65
68
68
63
65
66
68
70
67
68
68
66
66
67
67
65
67
68
68
67
67
65
65
64
65
65
70
66
70
70
70
65
66
66
68
68
69
67
67
68
65
68
68
63
65
66
68
70
67
68
68
66
66
67
67
65
67
68
68
67
67
65
65
64
65
65
70
66
70
70
70
65
66
66
68
68
69
67
67
68
65
68
68
63
Crossing Alternatives
Downtown Elmendorf
(Hid-Downtown (Mid-
Range) (High) Range)
64
65
67
70
68
68
68
66
66
67
67
65
66
67
69
67
66
64
65
63
65
65
70
66
71
69
71
66
66
66
68
67
68
67
68
68
65
69
69
62
72
72
74
64
66
67
69
67
69
67
66
66
67
66
64
66
67
69
66
66
65
65
63
65
65
70
65
71
69
70
65
65
65
68
67
67
67
68
68
65
69
69
63
72
• 72
75
65.
66
68
69
67
68
68
67
66
68
67
65
66
67
68
67
67
65
65
64
65
65
70
66
70.
69
71
66
65
66
69
68
68
66
67
67
65
69
68
63
74
Low, mid-range, and high refer to the growth allocation scenarios described in Chapter IV, "Urban Growth and Economic Development".
~
(
r--,
' J
,,----,
.( .
Elmendorf
(Low)
65
66
68
69
67
68
68
66
66
67
67
65
66
67
68
67
67
65
65
64
65
65
69
66
70
67
70
65
66
66
68
68
69
67
67
68
65
68
68
63
73
Table E-4
PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL NOISE IMPACT OUTSIDE THE ANCHORAGE BOWL
FOR THE YEAR 2010
No-Crossing
Alternatives Crossing Alternatives
No-Glenn/Parks Downtown Downtown Elmendorf Elmendorf
L
~---·
Action Improvement Hovercraft (Mid-range) (High) -(Mid-range)
No. of
Res. 681 728 536 591 594 551
LWP 647 693 631 566 572 563
RCI +7% -2% . -13% -12% -13%
NOTES
Total number of residences within 1000 feet of all roadways examined in rural
areas was app~oximately 1,060.
Low, mid-range, and high refer to the growth allocation scenarios described in
Chapter IV, "Urban Growth and Economic Development".
"No. of Res." is the number of residences with projected peak hour
than 67 dB.
LWP signifies level weighted population.
L greater eq
!' RCI signifies relative change in impact, compared to the impact of the No-Action
L-Alternative.
E-15
(Low)
551
564
-13%
maintaining vegetation on the 400-foot right-of-way adequate to reduce
noise levels or by moving the alignment away from the homes during final
design.
For the Glenn/Parks Improvement, since the increased
homes along those roads would be one dB or less
mitigation would be incorporated into project design.
noise level for the
(see Table E-3) , no
The level weighted population (LWP) was determined for each alternative and
is listed in the table as well. As a way of comparing the LWP values among
alternatives, the relative change in impact (RCI) is also listed. The RCI
represents the percentage change in LWP relative to the LWP of the No-
Action Alternativeo As can be seen from the table, any of the Crossing
Alternatives would provide a decrease in noise impact, but an increase in
impact is indicated for the Glenn/Parks Improvement Alternative.
Where -the Houston Connector would cross the Idi tared Trail, the FHWA
criterion of 67 dBA would be exceeded beginning about 100 feet from the
center-line of the road during the peak hour. This noise level.would be a
significant increase over existing levels since the trail is in an
undeveloped area. The impact would be mitigated by maintaining as much
vegetation as possible at the trail so the area of impact would be
minimized. Man-made barriers would not be in keeping with the trail's
natural character.
Anchorage Bowl
Within the Anchorage bowl, there would be two types of impacts to be
considered. The first type would be the direct impact of traffic on a
Crossing and its· Connectors, and the second type would be the indirect
impact of changes in traffic flow on the urban arterials within Anchorage.
With regard to the direct impact, for the Elmendorf Project the roadway
would come in proximity to the Elmendorf AFB Hospital, Elmendorf AFB
housing, an area of Elmendorf recreation facilities, and Bartlett High
School. · However, at each of these locations the projected peak-hour
average sound level would be well below 67 dB, and increases above measured
levels would not be significant enough to require mitigation. The levels
would be:
Elmendorf
Existing Project
(24-hour Lcml (peak-hour L ql
Base Hospital 58 57
Base Housing 63 57
Base·Recreation
° Family Camp 58 65
0 Green Lake 55 62
o Spring Lake 62 62
Bartlett High School 53 57
For the Downtown Project, the Seward Connector would intersect with Ingra
Street in the vicinity of the Alaska Native Medical Center. The estimated
sound level resulting from traffic on the Connector would be below 67 dB,
E-16
[
r
r-
l
['
L
[
f
[
L.
L
L
L
L
L
[
and comparable to levels already existing in the area. However, the
Gambell Street southbound ramp alternative, which would run between the two
major buildings of the Medical Center would cause sound levels greater than
67 dB and greater than existing levels. The Gambell Str~et southbound ramp
alternative would not be built unless the Medical Center has moved to
another location, as is planned. Homes closest to the Seward Connector
also would experience sound levels below 67 dB (64 dB). The increase above
present levels (measured during the field survey) would not be significant
enough to require mitigation.
The I/L Ramps of the Downtown Crossing would adversely affect noise levels
at Resolution Park, Hostetler Park, and four historic structures. The
impact is addressed under "4(f) Resources".
The indirect impact of the alternatives on noise sensitive land uses along
the street system in Anchorage can be seen in Table E-3. Typically,
peak-hour average sound levels would vary by only 1 to 2 dB among the
alternatives, and in many cases would be lower for a Crossing Alternative
than for a No-Crossing Alternative. Thus, no substantial impact would be
expected at any noise sensitive land use in the Anchorage bowl as a result
of changes in traffic flow.
4(f) Resources
In addition to the sensitive land uses in the Anchorage bowl discussed
above, several sensitive 4 (f) resources have been identified, including
Resolution Park, several historic buildings, and selected camping and
recreation areas.
Downtown Project. Noise levels were estimated for three alternatives for
the year 2010, see Table E-5. The first alternative is the No-Action·
Alternative, the second is the L Street southbound ramp alternative, and
the third is an I Street southbound ramp alternative.
Since the estimates of noise exposure for the No-Action Altern~tive include
only the noise of traffic on surface streets, they are likely understated.
· Other noise sources in the northwestern portion of Anchorage, including
aircraft, rail vehicles, industrial, and construction activities add to the
noise environment. Thus, comparisons of ramp alternatives to the No-Action
Alternative based solely on the noise levels presented in Table E-5 would
provide somewhat misleading conclusions.
Table E-5 shows that the FHWA criterion of 67 dB (applicable to residences)
would be exceeded only at Location 3 for the I Street southbound ramp
alternative. Location 2 contains offices, thus it falls under Category C
(Table E-1) for which the noise abatement criterion is 72 dB. This
criterion is not exceeded. For Location 3, mitigation could be implemented
in the form of a barrier wall six feet high above roadway level; such a
wall could be either attached to or part of the guard rail. However, for a
solid, continuous barrier 600-feet long centered at the residence, the
resulting noise reduction would be only 2 to 3 dB (this relatively low
reduction would be caused by the changing elevation of the ramp relative to
the residence.).
E-17
Location
1
2
3
4
NOTE
Table E-5
PROJECTED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS IN 2010 AT 4(f)
RESOURCE LOCATIONS, DOWNTOWN PROJECT
Description
Resolution Park
935 w. 3rd Avenue
910 w. 2nd Avenue
813 and 813 1/2 w.
3rd Avenue
No-Action
61
64
57
59
Peak-Hour L or Ld eq n
L Street
Southbound Ramp
67
65
65
63
(dB)
I Street
Southbound Ramp
71
68
65
All levels include only surface traffic. Noise from rail, aircraft, and industry are
not included.
E-18
[
[
[
L
L
L
[
[
[
[
[
L
[
L
L
L
[
! -
L
At Resolution Park, the FHWA criterion of 67 dB would be just met for the L
Street southbound ramp alternative, at the upper level. Noise levels at
the lower level likely would be the same or less than at the upper level.
In no case is the increase criteria exceeded.
Elmendorf Project. For the three locations shown in Table E-6, in the
absence of the Elmendorf Project there would be no traffic noise. The
major contributor to the noise environment at these locations would be
aircraft operations at Elmendorf AFB~ the existing noise levels listed in
Table E-6 are based upon extrapolations of the · day-night average sound
level contours provided by the Air Force for aircraft operations at the
Base. The family camp area is fairly close to the Base Hospital, where
noise measurements indicated a day-night level of 58 dB.
As can be seen from the table, the estimated noise exposure levels for the
Elmendorf Project would be below FHWA criteria, although at Locations 1 and
2 the projected noise levels would be 7 dB higher than existing levels.
The higher level would not exceed the increase criteria described earlier
and would not warrant mitigation.
F. CONSTRUCTION NOISE
Construction is one of the major noise sources in urban areas. Building
construction and public works projects coupled with traffic have created an
almost perpetual din in many cities. The noise and vibration from con-
struction of a roadway can disturb quiet areas and further affect areas
that are already too noisy.
Noise from construction .activities would be of concern near sensitive
locations where sleep or speech interference would be a consideration (for
example residences, motels, schools, etc.) • Sustained A-weighted noise
levels over 90 dB at such locations would be likely to be disruptive to
normal acti:vities during daytime hours. Night-time construction noise
would be expected to be most objectionable in residential areas. Typical
noise emission levels for construction equipment are listed in Table E-7.
In order to make detailed estimates of construction noise impact at
different locations, a scenario describing the number, type, location, and
operating cycle of each machine would be required. At the present stage in
the environmental analysis and planning for the Knik Arm crossing, however,
such a scenario cannot be developed, and a detailed estimate of
construction noise effects cannot be prepared.
Guidelines are available for minimizing construction noise impact. Min-
imizing construction noise in residential areas and other sensitive areas
would require consideration of best available equipment during the
construction planning stage. Such consideration would include a
well-written set of noise specifications to which contractors would be
required to comply. The noise specification should include guidelines to
E-19
Location
1
2
3
NOTE
Table E-6
PROJECTED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS IN 2010 AT 4(f)
RESOURCE LOCATIONS, ELMENDORF PROJECT
Description Existing
Family Camp 58
Green Lake 55
Spring Lake 62
Elmendorf
Project
65
62
62
No-Action levels are based on extrapolations from aircraft Ldn contours.
E-20
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
r-
[
L
L
L
I
b
[
[
[
E
[
[
[
[
[
[
Table E-7
AVERAGE NOISE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT .
Average Noise Level
Equipment Type at 50 feet (dB)
Air Compressor 81
Backhoe 85
Concrete Mixer 85
Concrete .Pump 82
Concrete Vibrator 76
Crane, Derrick 88
Crane, Mobile 83
Dozer 87
Generator 78
Grader 85
Jackhammer 88
Loader 84
Paver 89
Pile Driver 101
Pneumatic Tool 85
Pump 76
Rock Drill 98
Roller 80
Saw 78
Scraper 88
Shovel 82
Truck 88
E-21
enable contractors to bid properly. These guidelines would give the
maximum noise emission levels for specific equipment, combination effects
of various mixes of equipment, and distances from the machinery to the
property line. Quieted machinery would be available to contractors, which,
if used, would result in considerable reduction in construction noise.
Construction noise would be reduced also by planning and by proper
selection of the most quiet way in which to perform an operation. The use
of pile drilling rather than pile driving would be one example. Such a
technique would also greatly reduce vibration impact. An example of proper
planning would be placement of equipment to maximize the distance between
noisy equipment and the property line. Moreover, temporary noise control
barriers could be placed around some of the noisiest operations.
E-22
[
[
[
[
[
l
[
[
[
·[
[
[
[
[
L
L
1._.
AppendiX F
Knik Arm Crossing
Project Financing
Overview
Appendix F
KNIK ARM CROSSING
PROJECT FINANCING OVERVIEW
The estimated cost of a Knik Arm crossing is $484.4 million to $557.5
million (1985 dollars) for the bridge and approach ramps, plus $62.6
million to $185.4 million (1985 dollars) for the connectors. For a project
of this magnitude, financing is an important consideration for decision
makers.
All practical types of financial vehicles which might be used to fund the
Knik Arm Crossing are being explored. These include tax-exempt revenue
bonds, private financing, tax-exempt general obligation bonds, legislative
appropriations, Federal highway matching funds', and others. If one of the
Crossing Alternatives is' selected for implementatiqn, a financing plan will
be completed prior to the next session of the-State legislature (convenes
in January 1985) along with other information that· will compose an
implementation plan.
A. SOURCES OF REVENUE
The choice-of financing vehicles for use in the recommended plan of finance
will depend on the nature and timing of revenues available to the project.
Projects sponsored by the State of Alaska typically are paid for through
State construction appropriations or, if debt or othe~ financing is used,
repaid through State leases or debt service payments. In these cases, the
ultimate source of payment is the general revenue of the State, such as
Statewide taxes and royal ties, and revenues from the Federal government.
Two• additional sources are being examined for the Knik Arm Crossing: toll
revenues, and land value capture.
B. TOLL REVENUES
The State of Alaska is considering the use of toll charges to assist in
financing the bridge. Automobile and truck traffic between Anchorage and
points north should be willing to pay a toll to cross the bridge because of
savings in distance and time which would be made possible by the Crossing.
A bill in the State legislature to grant toll-charging authority to the
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT/PF) has
passed the Legislature and has been signed by the Governor. Under this
law, a Crossing financing program, in which ADOT/PF would issue bonds to be
repaid through collection of tolls, could be applied for financing a
portion of bridge cost's. Bond sale proceeds would be used to finance
project construction costs.
The maximum size of the bond issue would be determined by the forecast of
toll revenues and the degree of certainty of that forecast. Under the
present forecasts of toll revenues, it is likely that toll-backed revenue
bonds could finance only a portion of the Crossing costs.
F-1
[
Additional amounts of money can be borrowed, possibly at better interest
rates, if the State of Alaska offers a guarantee such as a specified r·
traffic volume over the Crossing or a direct credit guarantee of the bonds. l _
Such State guarantees probably constitute the equivalent of State
general-obligation debt, however, and would require legislative and voter ['.
approval. Therefore, although the use of a State guarantee could enhance ..
the financing of the Crossing, its use is by no means assured.
An alternative to the State guarantee is a type of lease or service [-:
contract in which the State agrees to pay for use of the bridge for a
certain number of years, with payment subject to annual legislative
appropriation. Under this system, if the legislative appropriation is not f'
made, the State is not obligated to make the specified payment to the L
Crossing.. This arrangement is less than a full State guarantee, and it
should not constitute general-obligation debt. The use of a lease or l-..
service contract will be explored for applicability to the Knik Arm ...
Crossing, including the possibility of its use in conjunction with toll
revenues.
C. LAND VALUE CAPTURE
The improved accessibility of land immediately north of Knik Arm in the
Point MacKenzie area is expected to increase dramatically the value of
property for commercial, industrial, and residential development. The great
majority of developable land immediately north of the Crossing Alternatives
belongs to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and negotiations with the Borough
might allow capturing the increases in land value which would be made
possible by a C~ossing. The proceeds would be used to repay a portion of
the financed bridge construction costs.
D. FINANCING OF CONNECTORS
[
[
[
[
Highway connectors to the bridge would be financed through Federal highway [-
participating funds, under administration of the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). Each region of the State 'receives a periodic ·
allocation of these funds for highway construction. The funds can be used [·.
for certain types of highway projects, with the State providing matching
funds. In Alaska, the ratio between Federal money and State money in this
program is approximately 90 percent to 10 percent, respectively. Uses for
FHWA funds generally are planned several years in advance, with the ['
projects proceeding as funds become available. At present, neither the -~
Houston nor the Seward Connector are programmed into the FHWA funding
process, and this would be a necessary step in financing the connectors if J ·
FHWA funds are to be used. l
A Crossing itself also would be eligible for FHWA funding, however the L.-
construction cost of the bridge is far in excess of the size of the FHWA
funding allocations. In addition, Federal rules would restrict the
charging of bridge tolls if FHWA funds were used for Crossing construction
(although use of FHWA funds only for the Connectors would not place such a L.
L
F-2
l=..o
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
l
[
[
restriction on Crossing tolls). For these reasons--cost of the project
and toll restrictions --it is lik~ly that FHWA funds would be used only
for the Connectors.
E. PRIVATE FINANCING
Private financing may be a part of a larger plan whereby a firm or
consortium provides a total package of design, construction, operation, and
financing. In such a plan, the amount and terms of financing could be an
element of competition in a competitive bid. As part of financial plan
development, this alternative will be explored with potential bidders and
assessed for feasibility.
F. STATE FUND FOR LARGE PROJECTS
The State has recently given attention to the concept of a constitutional-
ly-established fund for investment in large capital projects. The fund
would be capitalized from periodic legislative appropriations or a
constitutionally-dedicated stream of revenue. The fund would inve~t in
capital projects meeting certain size or other criteria, and collect
principal repayments, and possibly interest, over the subsequent years.
Under this concept, projects could be insulated from the extremely high
interest rates present in today's financial markets (if the interest
charged by the fund was below market) while still being required to. meet
the costs of operations, maintenance, and debt service.
F-3
I '0
r-
I -
l Appendix G.
Correspondence
t
[
I l.
I'
L
[
[
~
L.
[
L
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
l
/
Appendix G
CORRESPONDENCE
The following correspondence was received from government agencies during
Draft EIS preparation and is included in this Appendix:
From
Alaska Department
of Fish and Game
Alaska Department
of Natural Resources
City of Houston
Matanuska-Susitna
Borough
Municipality of
Anchorage
u.s. Department of
Air Force, Head-
quarters Alaskan
Air Conunand
u.s. Department of
Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service
u.s. Department of
Army, Corps of
Engineers
Date
5/16/84
5/29/84
6/11/84
4/9/84
5/21/84
5/8/84
5/16/84
5/14/84
5/22/84
4/19/84
5/15/84
G-1
Subject
Review of Draft
EIS working draft
National Register
eligibility of five
buildings and Iditarod
Trail
National Register
eligibility of Iditarod
Trail
Houston Connector
Terminus at King Arthur
Road
Review of Draft
EIS working draft
Downtown Project impact
to Resolution Park and
section 4(f) implications
Review of Draft
EIS working draft
Review of Draft
EIS working draft
Prime and unique farmlands,
and farmlands of Statewide
and local importance
Permit jurisdiction
Review of Draft
EIS working draft
G-3
G-4
G-6
G-7
G-8
G-11
G-12
G-22
G-24
G-25
G-27
From
u.s. Department of
Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service
u.s. Department of
Interior, National
Park Service, Keeper
of the National
Register
U.S. Department of
of Transportation,
Fec'!.eral Highway
Administration
u.s. Department of
Transportation,
Coast Guard
Date
5/14/84
6/22/84
7/16/84
6/27/84
6/11/84
Subject
Review of Draft
EIS working draft
Knik Arm crossing miti-
gation statement; attach-
ments include letters of
consultation from the
Alaska Deparment of Fish
and Game {5/29/84), u.s.
Environmental Protection
Agency ( 5/18/84), and
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administra-
tion (5/17/84)
National Register eligibi-
lity determination for two
homes
G-34
G-40
G-59
Request for National Register G-61
eligibility determination
Navigation clearance on G-62
Knik Arm
In April 1984, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facili-
ties provided several agencies with a working draft of the Draft EIS. This
working draft contained early text of the "Highway Accessibility", "Traffic
Volumes", "Traffic Flow", "Urban Growth and Economic Development" {part) ,
"Urban and Military Function and Operation", "Biological Resources",
"Wetlands", "Water Quality and Hydrology", "Noise", and "Visual" sections
of Chapter IV. Drafts of Chapters I, II (except Table II-1) , and III,
Appendices A and. C~ and "Description" and "Impacts" sections of Chapter V-
were also provided. Outlines of sections, Chapters, and Appendices planned
but not in the working draft were also provided. The working draft was
distributed as a means of obtaining response to early findings as an aid in
refining and focusing the analyses. The agencies which examined the
working draft and made suggestions for improving it were those for whom the
crossing would cause particularly significant impacts. These agencies are
listed in the correspondence table above. Where appropriate, notes follow
the letter to which they apply.
G-2
[
[
~-~
[
[
L
l
L
,-
L__
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
l
L
L
[
[
~ u
I
l_
L
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
May 16, 1984
Knik Arm Crossing
430 C Street, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Attention: Mr. Jack Allen, Project Manager
Gentlemen:
BILL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR
.333 RASPBERRY ROAD
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99502
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has completed a review of the
working draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Knik Arm Crossing
project. As stated in our meeting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
on Thursday May 10, 1984, the narrative sections describing the existing
natural resources and the anticipated impacts to these resources should be
expanded. We have provided our general and specifi£ comments in the margins
of the enclosed working draft to assist you in the development of the review
draft EIS. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document and we
hope you find our comments useful. If you have any questions please call
Gary Liepitz of the Habitat Division at 267-2281. We look forward to
reviewing your proposal for the development of an acceptable analysis of
secondary impacts associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Dennis D. Kelso, Deputy Commissioner
~·-~~r
BY: Philip J. Brna
Habitat Biologist
Habitat Division
267-2284
Enclosure
cc: M. Hayes, ADNR
B. Martin, ADEC
B. Bowker, USFWS
B. Lawrence, EPA
G-3
/
DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION
May 29, 1984
Re: 3130-2 (DOT/PF)
Mr. Jerry Hamel
Project Manager, DG III
Central Region
Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities
4111 Aviation Drive, Pouch 6900
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Hamel:
BILL SHEFFIELD. GOVERNOR
225A CORDOVA STREET
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501
PHONE: (907) 276·2653
The determinations of National Register of Historic Places eligibility for
five buildings and a portion of the Iditarod Trail within the proposed right-
of-way for the Knik Arm Cross:i.ng are as follows:
918 West Second Avenue: Because this building is within the original Anchor-
age townsite and was built in 1916 this structure is determined to be eligible.
910 West Second Avenue: This structure has had several modifications and has
been determined to be ineligible.
935 West Third: Because this structure has unique architectura~ features,
including arched dormers and has associations with persons of local and state
significance, this structure is declared eligible.
(j
813 West Third Avenue: Buildings that have been moved are not normally eli-
gible for the National Register, had this building remained in Chickaloon it
would probably be eligible Chickaloon. Because it"was moved to Anchorage more
than SO years ago and because it was modified to the Art Moderne-Art Deco
style, it has acquired a unique character and age which make it eligible in
Anchorage for the National Register.
813~ West Third Avenue: This building is declared eligible for the National
Register because of its association with the early Anchorage townsite and
because of its long, narrow plan that is unique to early Anchorage architecture.
G-4 · .......
r-·
L
L
[
r L_
[
L
r:
L
r·
r-
1
l
L
L
[
[
[
r:
n
L~
r'
L
[
[
[
l
L
Mr. Jerry Hamel
May 29, 1984
Page 2 -
Iditarod Trail (Portion): Because of its association with elements of Alaska's
history, including migration, gold rush, trade, homesteading, transportation,
and the town of Knik (already on the National Register), portions of this
trail may be eligible for the Register. The uncertain location of the ori-
ginal trail appears to extend from one mile east of Sevenmile Lake to the
west. Additional information and on-site photography of the proposed site(s)
of crossing will be helpful to determine what level of integrity remains, if
·the o.riginal location is to be affected and ownership of the property in
question.
We look forward to reviewing the determinations of effect on the appropriate
properties.
Sincerely,
Neil C. Johannsen
Director
T~-1--n A~~~-v(
By: Tim Smith, Acting Chief
Office of History and Archaeology
PWC:clk
G-s·
ALASKA STATE PARKS
Let's Put Them on the Map!
·oEPAilT:tiEST OF SATUK.L\.L ll·ESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION
June 11, 1984
Re: 3440 (FHA)
3130-2 (DOT)
Elise Huggins
Knik Arm Crossing
430 C Street, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Ms. Huggins:
BILL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR
~~900QX>X-9<~U< Pouch 7001
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA ~~)0{ 99510
PHONE: (907) 276·2653
We have reviewed our letter to Jerry Hamel concerning the Determination of
Eligibility on the Knik Arm Crossing. The section concerning the Iditarod
Trail is, as you pointed out, a little unclear. Paul Chattey has reevaluated
that portion of the letter and has come up with a Determination of Eligibility
for the trail.
.That section of trail to be potentially affected by the crossing is not con-
sidered eligible for the National Register. The primary concern is that the
trail location is unknown in this area -only a general location can be given
for this section of trail. We still feel that all sections of the trail are
important and that the concept of a continuous trail from the Kenai Peninsula
to the northern parts of the state should not be forgotten or otherwise layed
aside.
We urge DOT/PF to consider a pull-out or wayside near a probable crossing of
the Iditarod. Trail to commemorate the trail's long history and contribution to
Alaska's economy. An interpretive sign at the wayside would be a very ap-
propriate way to tell visitors about the Iditarod Trail.
If you have any questions, please contact Diana Rigg at 265-4139 or Paul
Chattey at 265-4111.
Sincerely,
Neil C. ·Johannsen
Director.
By: Tim Smith
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
cc: Jerry Hamel, DOT/PF
DR: elk G-6
ALASKA STATE PARKS
Your Accessible Par~ System
[
[
f'
L
r
\ ~~
[
r-
L
r·
L
l
·~-
r·
L~
[
[
[
[
[
I
it.
r'
I-h
[
[
~ L,;
[
L
[
[
[
r~
u
c
[
[
J -
L
Robert J. Lemoine, Mayor
April 9,1984
Denvy·saxowsky, Chairman
Planning Commission
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Box B
Palmer,_Alaska 99645
RE: KNIK ARM CROSSING ALIGNMENT
Dear Sir:
Recently, the Houston City Council voted to ask that the alignment of
the Knik Arm Crossing terminus at Houston be adjusted to co-ordinate
with the terminus of King Arthur Road at the Parks Highway.
This vote was based upon a concern which has been expressed by citizens,
as well as the City Engineer, that the proposed alignment will cause
that traffic exiting King Arthur to enter the Knik Arm Crossing to make
a left onto the Parks Highway, and an immediate right onto the Knik Arm
Crossing. The reverse would be true for that traffic leaving the Knik
Arm Crossing to enter King Arthur.
It is realized that the requested change would necessitate a railroad
crossing, but the Council was of the opinion that the safety factor is
important enough to make that change.
As you are aware, King Arthur Drive is the major entry to the populated
area of Houston now, and will eventually be the terminus of the Bo~ough's
Parks-Pittman Connector. This proposed Parks-Pittman Connector will
funnel traffic from the Meadowlakes area onto the Knik Arm Crossing, thus
making the proper co-ordination very important.
Further, we request that in the series of public hearings which your
Commission will likely plan on this issue, that at least one hearing
be scheduled for Houston.
Sincerely,
-~ A1_ @·~r
Elsie M. O'Bryan
City Clerk
G-7
P.O. BOX 27 • HbUSTON,ALASKA 99694 • 892-6869
/
Matanuska · Susltna Borou4h
BOX B. PALMER. ALASKA 99645 • PHONE 745-al®lf
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LANO MANAGEMENT-PLAITING -PLANNING
Hay 21, 1984
Mr. John Olson, Director of Major
Projects Management
Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities
Pouch 6900
Anchorage, AK 99502
Dear Mr. Olson-:
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough appreciates the opportunity to
review the Working Draft E.I.S. Knik Arm Crossing document
dated 4/25/84. Following are our general comments and then
a summary, by page ,number, of specific comments we have
identified.
There appears to be a basic, underlying assumption of this
study: The opening up of land within the .lvlatanuska-Susitna
Borough, for massive suburbanization or residential
development. While this assumption, tp some degree, would
be inevitable with a Knik Arm Crossing, it should be
considered a low priority goal for the Borough.
Also, there are numerous references to an Anchorage -Mat-su
commuter service including bus service, bus lanes, park and
ride stops, etc., which are contrary to recent Borough
Assembly action to discontinue the subsidy of the existing
Borough commuter bus service. This recent action should be
reflected in the study. Our specific comments follow.
Pg. I-3. While the Phase I -Point MacKenzie Port/Park Land
Management Plan dated March 23, 1984 did state that the
"crossing_would justify deyelopment of the proposed
industrial port/park complex", a more accurate Borough
statement would insert "help'' before the term justify.
While the crossing would have a significant impact on the
development of a port/park complex at Point MacKenzie, it is
not the sole variable involved in its continued development.
Pg. II-19. The Assembly adopted Transportation Element of
the Borough Comprehensive Deyelopment Plan, dated March
G-8
r·
t
r
['
[
r L
[
r·
L.
[
~ L
r
l
[
[
[
[
r,
L
l
[
1984, is the official capital improvement plan for the
Borough and should be recognized as such.
Pg. III-7. A grant proposal for the purchase of two
additional buses was brought before the Borough Assembly
some months ago. The Assembly voted not to endorse the
proposal and went on record as not favoring a
Borough-subsidized commuter bus program between Anchorage
and the Mat-Su Borough.
Pg. III-9. See comments on Pg. II-19 regarding the Borough
adopted 6-Year and 20-Year Transportation Plan dated March
1984.
Pg. III-15. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal
Management Plan recommended the designation of six (6)
AMSA's: The Susitna Flats Game Refuge; The Goose Bay Game
Refuge; The Palmer Hay Flats Game Refuge; The Knik/Matanuska
River Floodplains Area(s); The Nancy Lake. Recreation Area;
and the Point MacKenzie Industrial Port/Park Site.
Pg. III-20. In the Mat-Su Borough, fire service is provided
by several Fire Service Areas along the Parks Highway and at
Big Lake.
Figure III-7~ The criteria for prime agricultural lands has
not been included and would be helpful in the review of the
significance of this figure.
Pg. III-37. The Point MacKenzie agricultural area(s) should
also be considered a visual unit within the Borough.
Pg. IV-16-17. Again, the basic underlying assumption of
this study concerning concentrated residential development
at Point MacKenzie is not a high priority goal of the
Borough~
Pg. IV-24. "Industries strongly linked to rail transport
and municipal utilities would be the least likely to
transfer." This study has not referenced a railroad
crossing of the Knik Arm, including any design
considerations. Rail capability of any crossing site is a
high priority for the Borough and as such would interest
industries within the Mat-Su Borough with rail needs for
transportation of goods ~nd services.
Pg. IV-31. Same comment as Pg. III-20 regarding Houston and
Palmer Fire Service.
Pg. IV-40. Safeguards to protect critical habitat exist via
the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Plan, the Army Corps
of Engineers permitting programs, the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game permitting program and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife ·service.
G-9
Pg. IV-41. I suggest wording the third complete paragraph
"indirect or secondary impacts to the marine environment
could occur to the extent that Crossing Alternatives help to
induce the development of port facilities in the Point
MacKenzie area • . • .
Pg. IV-43. The Susitna Flats is a highly productive area
which currently has no road access. However, there are a
number of all terrain vehicle and snowmobile trails as
ground access into the refuge.
Pg. IV-44. Same comment as Pg. IV-40 concerning the
protection of biological resourceso
Pg. IV-47. The Borough agrees that water and coastal
resources within ~he Borough will continue to be the focus
of development proposals, especially if the Knik Arm
Crossing is constructed.
Pg. VI-60. Altnough a potentially more pleasant experience,
if one has a good regional view from the bridge while
crossing, it may become a safety hazard if not designed
properly.
This completes our initial review comments on the Working
Draft E.I.S. Thank you again for the oppor~unity to fine
tune this draft document.
Sincerely,
~~~
Michelle R. Stearns
Senior Planner
rnu
G-10
r:
r~
[
r1
L
[
['
[
[
E
r
[
l'
L
I'
I L_;
L~
--:" ..,. ~ ;.J
~. \ : ·~ '\ : t~·: i>-.. ... -..... ~ .,.,..._ .....
. • : ~=-· .:..-:.~....). •. ~ .. .._..· ........ ·-.-... ._:. ·.J ...
... . ..
May 8, 1984
Elise Huggins
Knik Arm Crossing Project
430 C Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Ms. Huggins:
Thank you for your inquiry regarding potential impacts to
Resolution Park for one of the Knik Arm Crossing alter-
natives. As related to you, the purpose of that park, in
addition to its role in commemorating Captain Cook's voyage,
is to provide a place for a respite, to find solitude from
typical downtown activities. As such, with its multiple
decks a person can go to the park and enjoy the Inlet,
changes in the day and seasons in a relatively noise free
environment. The alternative to use the L Street alignment
will certainly impact the park, not only in using a piece of
park land, but also in a situation in which the park's soli-
tude would be violated. It is my initial reaction that this
would result in a serious impact and has implications
regarding Section 4f of the Federal Highway and
Transportation Act.
Thank you for your investigation of this matter early~on. I
trust that Parks and Recreation Department may also have
provided you with information in this regard.
Sincerely yours,
-~kl~·~
Michael E. Carberry
Senior Planner
cc: Ron Crenshaw, Parks & Recreation Department
mcll/nl7
G-11
May 16, 1984
Jo.hn Olson
State of Alaska
;;~
{:-';,·· ·. -
·~·-
DEPA;:;TMENT OF PLANNING
Department of Transportation
& Public Facilities
Pouch 6900
4111 Aviation Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99502
Dear Mr. Olson:
POUL-rl 6-650
ANCHO:=i.A.GE. AU•.SK~. 995C:2-0c5·:.
(907) 23~-~ 111
TO."-!~',.,: .. r:: : .. _E ~ .
. ~~A ·~·c:Fi·
Enclosed are comments and questions for you to consider as
you revise the Knik Arm Crossing: Environmental Impact
Statement (Working Draft) of April 25, 1984. Included are
both issue-related and technical comments from several
Municipal agencies, specifically, the Departments of
Community Planning, Parks and Recreation, Transit, Public
Works and the Port. We appreciate the energy and dedication
required of you, your staff, and the consultants in pro-
ducing an EIS for this complex project. We sincerely hope
you will accept our contributions as constructive concerns
and suggestions. ·
Our critique of the report is organized in two levels. The
first level cites concerns or questions of a more strategic
or generic nature, related to the intent, scope, assump-
tions, and comprehensiveness of the project and the EIS.
The second level identifies technical corrections needed and
areas of discrepancy with Municipal studies, plans, reports.
Please feel free to call us to discuss any or all of our
response.
;;;c:;::::?~
Kathryn Carssow, Acting Director
Department of Cowmunity Planning
kac/ il1
Enclosure
G-12
[
r·
[
r,
L r,
L
,.r·
L
L
r {__,
[
[
[
r
[,
['
L
L
L
L
L
-~j
I L __
,.,
I
I
6
l
.··--...
Municipality of Anchorage
Response to Preliminary EIS
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement leads us to
conclude the State is committed to building a bridge across
Knik Arm. This statement and the other preliminary reports
focus narrowly on the bridge with minimal analyses and
discussions of elements tangential to its feasibility,
construction, placement, operations, and regional impact.
From a sound decision making perspective, a very expensive
solution is being promoted without a defined problem and
without thoroughly examining the financial, social, and eco-
nomic feasibility· of other less costly alternatives. Noting
'the State's history of cost estimating for large scale capi-
tal projects, the KAC project personnel observed that a 100
percent overrun in bridge construction costs would not be
unus~.:il •. And, while earlier reports suggested the project
would be built with private funds, the more recent state~
ments reflect considerable public underwriting and expense.
Hence, the economic, social, and fiscal ramifications of the
$1 billion Knik Arm Crossing project warrant in-depth analy-
ses and public discussion.
The foremost objective of the EIS process is to fully inform
the public.of a pending decision, the alternatives, and the
quantifiable and unquantifiable costs associated with those
alternatives. Recognizing the decision to build or not to
build the crossing rests in the political arena, this objec-
tive is paramount. This project will directly affect all
Anchorage residents and many others throughout Southcentral
Alaska. To be responsible, the public hearing process must
go beyond merely "taking comments" to presenting visually
and in writing the information Alaska's citizens need to
thoroughly understand the project as proposed and to assist
them in fo~ing and expressing knowledgeable opinions.
STRATEGIC CONCERNS
1. Unclear Definition of the Problem
The EIS contains no clear description of the problem(s)
the crossing is designed to solve. Page I-1 refers to
the population, land supplies and limited access to and
from Anchorage but does not identify o.r discuss specific
problems related to any of these. Neither is mention
made of problems in the Mat-Su Borough calling for a
bridge. The origin of the four goal statements on page
I-1 is not clear. Numbers 1, 3, and 4 seem to relate to
Anchorage but are not derived from the Municipal
Comprehensive Plan, Central Business District Plan,
Coastal Zone Management Plan or any other local policy
document.
G-13
(NOTE 1)
2.
If the perceived problem is a lack of available land in
Anchorage to accommodate projected population growth,
the Municipality suggests that existing ·undeveloped
acreage in the bowl, redevelopment opportunities (at
higher densities), and vacant lands (over 19,000 acres)
· held by Eklutna Native Corporation and the federal
railroad offer a sufficient land supply till well after
the year 2000. If, however, moving the greatest number
of people per structure dollar is the objective, we
suggest you consider more thoroughly other alternatives
such as light rail and an expansion of Glenn Highway to
six lanes, including at least one HOV lane. These
alternatives would result in comparable travel time from
Apchorage to the Palmer-Wasilla area at considerably
less cost than the bridge.
And last, if the real objective for the bridge is to
hasten Mat-Su Borough's ability to develop their needed
industrial/commercial base, we suggest that purpose be
clearly stated during.the public hearing process.
Lack of Detailed Plan for Project Phasing of
Construction and Financing
The Draft EIS lacks a detailed description of the pro-
ject plan and the relationships between the following
eleme~ts: activities prior to, during and after the
bridge comes online, corresponding financing activities,
sources and short and long range pay back modes, and
funding concommitant activities related to other major
state, regional and local capital projects (e.g.,
Anchorage Northside Corridor, port expansion, etc.).
The report will benefit from including a projected sche-
dule for investment payback via user tolls. It needs to
show how and when tolls will accommodate operating and
maintainance costs as well.
There are many different perceptions of the bridge
project's potential to divert funds from other needed
projects. The next EIS should clarify the amounts to be
diverted, the projects to be effected, and the revised
schedule, plan or policies that will supercede existing
schedules, plans, or policies. Though there are state-
ments such as the one found on I I-14 " ••• so as not to
interfere with programmed projects for which the use of
·Federal funds is already planned," there is no explana-
tion of how such interference can or will be avoided.
The next report needs to include responses to potential
contingencies such as, What if residential development
doesn't occur as readily as projected? What if Mat-Su
cannot afford to build a $10 million secondary
G-14
(NOTE 2)
(NOTE 3)
[
[
r:
[
[
[
[
~
[,...
[
[
[
[
[
r L
[
[
[
L
3.
4.
wastewater treatment plant at Pt. MacKenzie? What if
population growth rates decline unexpectedly? The
current draft EIS lacks descriptions or considerations
of possible down-side risks.
Lack of Detailed Determination of Financial Feasibility
of the Bridge
Consistent with comments #1 and #2, the bridge, as a
solution to a generalized land supply problem, or
transportation problem is very expensive. The EIS, or
some other document available within the public review
process, should describe in detail for alternative
approaches to the problem --the method, levels, and
-time lines related to financing the project o A detailed
break-even point analysis is needed to determine when
and under what circumstances the bridge can pay for
its_elf. A .discussion of the cost of th.e bridge must
include opportunity costs from both Anchorage and
Mat-Su, alternative financing scenarios, and the costs
of redeveloping areas surrounding the ramps or bridge
connections.
The report needs to clarify current confusion over the
source of financing. While it may indeed be built by
privat~ sector firms, the draft EIS cites limited State
funds from other State programs as part of the funding
sources. These should be identified.
Limitations of Demographic Variables
A project of this magnitude sh0uld be based on a range
of demographic projections using a variety of action
assumptions. The population series provided by the
Municipal Planning Department and ISER are several years
old. M~ny of the underlying assumptions are no longer
true. If the financial viability of this project is
contingent upon a projected fixed level of use, any
change ·in that pattern could negativly effect the
state's ability to meet its debt obligations. The
Municipality suggests the report provide an assessment
of the elasticity of the proJections used. Develop
several population growth and dispersement scenarios
based upon a range of population projections. Discuss
the impact on project feasibility of each scenario. We
would further suggest carrying projections of population
and other impacts to a time beyond 2010, possibly to
that point in time when the bridge is operating at suf-
ficient capacity to pay for programmed operating and
maintenance costs. '
G-15
(NOTE 4)
(NOTE 5)
5. Limited Discussion of the Projected Socio-Economic
Impacts on Anchorage
The Draft EIS contains little or no analysis of the
socio-economic impacts likely to accrue to Anchorage and
to Mat-Su valley residents. This discussion needs to
include the following:
0 A description of the impact on Anchorage's infrastruc-
ture as new Mat-Su residents, many of whom will work
in Anchorage, thereby increasing local demands on
government, are excluded from the local (Anchorage)
tax paying population.
o A description of the compatibility of the project with
local land use policies, plans and preferences. ( NOTE 6)
0 An artist's rendering of the bridge as proposed at
each site. The public should have a good sense of
bridge's proportion and total visual impact on the
the
inlet's view range. ·
o A description of economic and operational impact on
the municipal port and port plans.
0 A comparison of the projected economic development
with ·municipal .traffic projections.
0 An analysis of the increased congestion pollution,
required parking and roadway expansion resulting from
an auto-only crossing.
A whole series of questions arise relating to the
report's assumptions about the mutual benefit of the
bridge and the Mat-Su Borough land use goals and objec-
tives. How will Mat-Su finance services and infrastruc-
ture needed to support the residential development
proposed to occur at Pt. MacKenzie as a result of the
bridge? Is the bridge to be built to facilitate deve-
lopment of a Mat-Su commercial-industrial base or is
such a base developing, creating the need for the
bridge? If the latter, how is the need being defined?
How does the planned port and industrial park relate to
the municipality's port, the new port at Seward? How
will it be financed? How will the bridge enhance deve-
lopment now occuring along Glenn Highway between Eagle
River and Wasilla?
What is the regional impact of the bridge? The current
EIS focuses predominantly on the physical impacts on
areas immediately adjacent to the bridge while social
and economic impacts throughout Southcentral Alaska are
certain. ·
G-16
(NOTE 7)
(NOTE SJ
(NOTE 9)
(~OTE 10)
(NOTE 11)
(NOTE 12)
r~
l
[~
L
r
L-
[
[
r
L
[
[
[
L
L
L
L-C>
l~
[
r
[_,
[
[
l
[
TECHNICAL CONCERNS
Suggestions and comments of a more technical nature are pre-
sented below.
1. The EIS should improve and enhance visual presentations
for better public understanding of the project and its
impact. Specifically:
a. Include areawide maps showing Pt. MacKenzie and
Pt. Cairn (Figure I-1 should label these points).
b. Improve the legibility of Figure III-1; increase
the size to include the entire bowl and label with
forecasted tri~s which are more meaningful to a
viewer than co e numbers.
c.
d.
e.
2. III-8
Include on the same map level of service indicators
so the viewer will be able to tell immediately
where over and under capacity impacts are created;
also depict volume/capacity ratios.
Show local traffic circulation patterns for the No
Crossing alternative and for each crossing and ramp
alternative, and for Northside Corridor.
Include an artist's depiction of each crossing from
several viewing angles.
Reference the Anchorage Comprehensive Plan.
(NOTE 13)
3. III-14 Change the status of comprehensive plan to
"adopted."
4. I I I-16 "Not Applicable". comment is misleading.
S. III-17 Include Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan.
6. IV-13 Include Analysis of pedestrian/bicycle path on
western side of bridge.
7. IV-15 Include detailed discussion of such elements as:
a. Traffic evaluation especially related to I/L
connection further south than depicted on
current maps. MOA model indicates over-
capacity effects in mid-town and other ares.
b. Signalization.
c. Altered circulation patterns throughout the
bowl and along Glenn Highway corridor; com-
pare to circulation of No Crossing scenario.
(NOTE 14)
G-17
8. IV-27
9. IV-34
d.
e.
f.
A/C couplet access; design should not
preclude but should include as part of pro-
ject phasing.
Analysis of Ingra/Gambell connection with
Northside Corridor; also part of project
alternative analysis and phasing.
Using MOA traffic analysis for no crossing
and alternative scenarios, examine other
planned highway and roadway projects.
g. Impact of the timing of project construction
on AMATS Long-Range Element Projects~
h.
i.
A probability or sen~itivity analysis of the
benefit cost analysis for the crossing and
AMATS Long-Range Element Projects.
(NOTE 15)
(NOTE 16)
Detailed description of sources, uses and
schedule of uses of all federal, state and
local highway project monies.
(NOTE 17)
j. Detailed analysis of the benefit/cost ratios
other strategies to enhance traffic flow and
reduce travel time along Glenn Highway.
Corridor, such as Alaska Railroad improve-
ments, and for other projects in the region.
Note: Recent market survey shows a positive
attitude about a high speed rail along
railroad corridor. Though expensive, the
cost to upgrade rail and construct amenities
may be far less than $500 million -
$1 billion for the bridge alternative.
(Passenger/freight carrying capacities indi-
cate that 2 rail tracks are roughly equiva-
lent to 12 lanes of highway.) EIS should
evaluate in light of rail, widened Glenn
Highway with associated HOV lanes to deter-
mine capacities and relative costs.
Include in analysis reference to the
Municipality's CBD, Comprehensive and Coastal
Zone Management plans.
Anchorage Water and Wastewater utility is con-
cerned about the last statement on this page.
Revenues from AWWU rate-payors cannot be used to
pay for utility projects outside its service
area. How will Mat-Su finance the probable
secondary treatment plant (about $10 _million),
G-18
(NOTE 16)
r-
~
[
[
r~
L,
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
L
[
[
L
L ., -
L
,~
I
i . ~
and the anticipated required outfall necessary
to accommodate wastewater needs of the Pt.
MacKenzie development? Without MOA subsidy,
residential rates for Girdwood (tertiary
treatment) ·would be $80 per month, Eagle River
(secondary treatment) $60 per month.
10. IV-35 Include detailed discussion of impact on planned
projects such as Glenn and Seward Highways iden-
tifying funding sources, phasing, transitions,
etc. Explain comments found in toll authority
(SB211) which cites funding sources as " ••• any
other money that state legislature may provide
exclusive of any state tax or license." Will
funds be diverted from other state programs to
finance?
11. IV-50 ,51 Include impact on air quality of anticipated
Pt. MacKenzie Port/Industrial Park (proposed
use of low grade coal-fired energy generator
for the park).
(NOTE 18)
12. Plate 2 DowntoWn Approach -Traffic Engineering comments
indicate that it is impossible to design a reverse curve
at 40 mph.; prefer Plat 1 alternative to accommodate
off-ramp speeds and angles.
13. Without an acceptable A/C access, project unnecessarily
forces traffic through downtown. Strongly recommend
developing project phasing plan.
14. Identify access onto Gambell St., moving south. Note:
Third and Ingra currently experiences 2nd highest acci-
dent rate in bowl.
15. Include a detailed table of contents.
Thank you for giving.us the opportunity to comment.
kac/ irs1
G-19
(NOTE 19)
(NOTE 20)
NOTES: MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE (5/16/84)
1. See strategic concern responses, notes 2 through 12.
2. As indicated on page I-1, the focus of the crossing analysis is how
best to provide for the future growth of the Anchorage metropolitan
area. The EIS focuses on the trade-offs between a Crossing and
No-Action, as well as two other No-Crossing Alternatives. The objec-
tives listed (page I-1) are State objectives. The Glenn/Parks
Improvement Alternative is addressed beginning on page II-24 and
throughout the document. The potential for HOV lanes is addressed
with the Transportation Systems Management Alternative on page II-7.
3. See Appendix F. A financing plan is being developed for use by the
State legislature in deciding whether or not to build the crossing.
4. The implications of a lack of users on financing will be included in
the financing plan noted in Note 3. A range of growth forecasts was
included in the working draft and beginning on page IV-37 of this
document. See the utilities discussion on page IV-75.
5. The population series used in the working draft and this document are
the latest available consistent with Anchorage Metropolitan Area
Transportation Study (AMATS) travel forecasts. The 20-year time-frame
is considered appropriate for transportation planning by the Federal
Highway Administration and Alaska Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities.
6. See page IV-58; a land use plan compatibility section was outlined in
the working draft.
7. See page IV-60; the intent to identify impacts to port plans was noted
in the working draft.
8. The impacts to air quality are addressed beginning on page IV-108;
this section was outlined in the working draft. The impacts to street
and highway plans are addressed beginning on page IV-33; this section
was outlined in the working draft. Measures to encourage the use of
transit on the crossing are addressed on page IV-32.
9. The bridge would be built to satisfy several needs; see Chapter I.
10. See the Borough's current planning report for the Point MacKenzie area
(Kasprisin-Hutnick Partnership, June 21, 1984).
11. As indicated in the working draft, a crossing would slow growth in
both the Eagle River and Wasilla areas; see pages IV-55 and IV-57 of
this document.
12. Significant impacts are not expected beyond the project area defined
in Chapter I with the exception of an enhancement of Beluga area
resource development opportunities; see page IV-108.
G-20
['
[
[
r:
[
[
t:
L
t
t_
---
--..,
-'
_..,
-.J
L~
l
13. The plan was referenced in the working draft~ see page III-22 of this
document.
14. This comparison was presented
substantially expanded and is
document.
in the working draft~ it has been
on pages IV-13 to IV-25 of this
15. See pages IV-33 to IV-36~ Anchorage bowl traffic forecasts for both
the No-Crossing and Crossing Alternatives are based on traffic fore-
casts made by the AMATS forecast model.
16. ADOT/PF, in cooperation with FHWA, has decided that an extensive
benefit-cost analysis, beyond the general analysis presented in the
Final Corridor Alternatives Analysis (USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF, December 5,
1983) , would not be useful enough to the decision-making process to
warrant the time and expense of preparing it. Although not in terms
of dollars as demanded by a benefit-cost analysis, all relevant
trade-offs necessary for selecting among the alternatives under
consideration are included in this document~ see pages II-31 to II-49.
17.
18.
This description is not provided for reasons indicated on page IV-80.
The Borough's plans for the point MacKenzie area are incomplete and
only conceptual plans are now being prepared. There is no reason to
believe a coal-fired generator would be built.
19. Posted ramp speed limits would be appropriate to the ramps' design
speed.
20. The ramps to I/L Streets and Ingra/Gambell Streets would keep through
traffic out of downtown; see pages II-6 and IV-17. Construction
timing of various Crossing Alternative segments is discussed in
Chapter II.
G-21
Mr John B. Olson
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS ALASKAN AIR COMMAND
ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE, ALASKA 99606
Director, Major Projects Management
State of Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities
4111 Aviation Avenue
Pouch 6900
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Dear Mr Olson
14 MAY 19~M
In response to your letters of April 9 and April 27, we appre-
ciated the effort by your staff and consultants to develop a
crossing alignment which appeared to eliminate or mitigate many
of the relocation impacts identified by the Planning Assistance
Team. Also, we would like to assure you that we recognized that
the revised Elmendorf Crossing project segment presented to
Alaskan Air . Command's Knik Arm Crossing study group in December
1983 was a result of the Air Force Planning Assistance Team study.
Our preliminary assessment of the proposed alignment through
El.mendorf depicted in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) has surfaced the following major concerns.
-The alignment does not provide a minimum one mile separate
distance from the perimeter of the Circularly Disposed Antenna
Array (CDAA). Maintenance of the minimum separation distance is
imperative to protect this system from the effects of radio fre-
quency or electromagnetic interference (RFI/EMI).
-The placement of a highway immediately adjacent to the shore
of Green Lake will destroy the recreational and visual values of
this area. It is noted in Chapter V of the DEIS that there are
no similar areas on the base that provide the same recreational
opportunities and experiences, and further, that lakes offering
similar facilities are not found in the Anchorage area.
-The proposed alignment would significantly degrade the recre-
ational opportunities available to the military community at
Hillberg Ski Area. Although there are other ski areas within the
Anchorage bowl, Hillberg is the only area accessible by military
personnel who live on base and do not own vehicles. Hillberg is
al.so unique because it generates income which supports other Air
Force morale, welfare and recreation programs.
G-22
Top Cover for America
r
L
[
L
L
L
- A mJ.nl.mum separation distance of 4, 800 feet is required to
provide an electromagnetic interference-free zone for the HF
radio receiver site and antenna field. The proposed alignment
falls within this "clear zone" as measured from Bldg 62-250.
The conclusion of our preliminary assessment is that any corridor
passing through Elmendorf on the south side of Triangle Lake,
Green Lake, and Hillberg Ski Area would have unacceptable impacts
on the Circularly Disposed Antenna Array and base recreation
facilities. We are fully aware that the alternatives would have
major-impacts on the numerous communications facilities located
to the north of Green Lake, and that corridor construction would
entail relocation of all or most of these facilitieso
On balance, it appears that the possibility of an Elmendorf cor-
ridor alignment between Station 210 and the Knik Arm bluff,
depicted within the fan-shaped area on the enclosed map, deserve
close examination. We offer this information as a preliminary
assessment for your planning purposes only, and with the mutual
understanding that it is subject to substantial refinement or
revision upon completion of our consultants efforts. We antici-
pate that our consultants will provide a detailed evaluation of
the facilities relocation impacts for a corridor alignment within
this area.
·Concerning your question on the status of our consultants study,
we have advertised in the Commerce Business Daily for submittal
of proposals, and anticipate contract award by 6 August.
We appreciate the opportunity to identify our concerns and issues
that should be addressed in the DEIS. We trust that this pre-
liminary assessment will enable project development to progress.
Sincerely
~~<J. ~G..~ .,atl-
-RICHARD 0. BENNETT
Colonel, USAF
Vice Commander
2
G-23
1 Atch
Base Plan, Elmendorf AFB
cc: R. J. Knapp,
Commissioner, DOT&PF
~ United States
((W)) Department of ~ Agriculture
John Page
Soil
Conservation
Service
Knik Arm Crossing Office
430 c Street, Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 99508
Dear John:
Professional Center -Suite 129
2221 East Northern Lights Boulevard
Anchorage, AK 99504 (907) 276-4246
May 22, 1984
Enclosed is a copy of the Soil Conservation Service "Farmland Protection
Policy". Ther.e is no prime or unique farmland within the Knik Arm Crossing
approach corridors. However, there are lands determined to be of statewide
and local importance by the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and
the Matanuska Susitna Borough (MSB). These lands are: (1) Those identified
by DNR in the Willow Subbasin Area Plan and classified for agriculture and
(2) Those lands owned by MSB that have been classified as II & III soil by
the SCS and lay in blocks of 40~ II & III within 40 acres.
If I can be of any further assistance, please call.
/r /-'/ . /~ . ., ... 2_2-< . v!' .r.r:./..'l.-:.....4 ~ .. ~ ·... ,"!
'; sterling Powell
Asst. State Conservationist
G-24
r~
L
[
r·
l
L
[
r-·
'----
[
L
[
[
[
L
L
[
L
l>
i
1 .....
[
L
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ALASKA DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
POUCH 898
RI!:P~Y TO
ATTENTION OF:
Regulatory Branch
Compliance Section
Mr. Robert A. Wokurka
Knik Arm Crossing
4111 Minnesota Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Dear Mr. Wokurka:
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99506
Ap ri 1 19 , 1984
This letter is in response to your April 16, 1984 request for a
jurisdictional determination for the Knik Arm Crossing Project.
The bridge crossing is under the jurisdiction of the U.S~ Coast Guard
pursuant to Section·9 of the River and Harbor Act. Associated fills and
structures (i.e. cofferdams, abutments, foundation seals, piers and access
fills) which are authorized by the Coast Guard bridge permit will be
similarly authorized by Department of the Army (DA) nationwide permit [33
CFR 330.5(9)(15)] provided the enclosed special conditions and management
practices are satisfied. You may contact Mr. Mark Millea, 17th Coast
Guard District, Aids to. Navigation Branch, Box 3~5000, Juneau, Alaska
99802 concerning the bridge permit.
The associated road construction from Houston to Anchorage will cross
numerous wetlands under the Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. Discharge of
dredged or fill material into the wetlands will require an individual DA
permit. An application for a permit is enclosed for your use.
Thank you for your interest in our program. If you have any questions
concerning the jurisdictional determination, you may contact Mrs. Godfrey,
Regulatory Branch, Compliance Section, at (907) 552-4942.
Enclosure
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Mark Millea
17th Coast Guard District
Aids to Navigation Branch
Box 3-5000
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Sincerely,
. ~-.
-'William M. Fowler
G-25
Chief, Compliance Section
Regulatory Branch
... ·.: .·~.
Environmental Protection Agency
Room E535, Fed. Bldg.
701 C Street, Box 19
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Alaska Department of Envirornmental
Conservation
Second Floor, 437 E Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
G-26
[ ..
l~
~
[
[
f'
L.
[
[
~
l-
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
L
l "
..
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ALASKA DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
POUCH 898
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99506
May 15, 1984
REPL.Y TO
ATTENTION OP:
Regulatory Branch
Special Actions Section
Jerry Hamel, Project Manager
Alaska Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities
4111 Aviation Avenue, Pouch 6900
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Dear Mr. Hamel:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment of the Preliminary Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS) fo~ the Knik Arm Crossing Project.
Our review is for general compliance of the. document with NEPA and
specific compliance with the Corps of Engineers• regulations for
implementing NEPA.
We have identifed some deficencies in your document and have provided
them as Enclosure 1. We would also appreciate the opportunity to comment
on any subsequent preliminary drafts which you prepare since many of your
sections were not completed for review at this time. Of particular
concern is the coverage of wetlands impacts in chapters II I, IV, and
Appendix B. It is necessary that sufficient information is presented
which will address the issues to be considered in the 404(b)(l)
evaluation. Enclosure 2 provides a copy of the 404(b)(l) guidelines (40
CFR Part 230) for clar.ification of these issues. If sufficient
information is not included, it may be necessary for the Corps to
supplement the final EIS which would result in a considerable delay in
processing the permit.
In addition, we would like to provide clarification of the following
information which will outline the permit review process which the Corps
will undertake. Once a preferred crossing alternative is identified and
prior to publication of the FEIS, a formal application for a permit should
be submitted to the Corps. At that time a Public Notice and 404(b)( 1)
evaluation will be prepared for inclusion in the FEIS. In order to
facilitate processing of the permit, it is requested that the lead agency
prepare the 404(b)(l) evaluation. Enclosure 3 provides an example of a
similar document and the Corps comments which is being prepared for
another EIS in which the Corps is a cooperating agency. The publication
of the FEIS which includes our Public Notice will begin the commenting
period for the Corps Public Notice. This will last for 30 days and will
run concurrent with the 30 day requirement set forth by NEPA for review of
the FEIS. Should any public hearings be held during the review of either
the DEIS or FEIS, the Corps requests that they be joint public hearings
and the Corps will provide representatives to attend. At this time, we
have no plans to hold a separate public hearing.
G-27
-2-
In order for a permit decision to be made at that time, it is
necessary that the FEIS is adequate with respect to the Corps permit
requirements in order to avoid the necessity of supplementing the EIS. We
appreciated the opportunity to work with you during the preparation of
this document in order to avoid any delay. Should you have any questions
concerning our comments or need any additional information, please contact
Ms. Carol Gorbics of the Special Actions Section, Regulatory Branch at
( 907) 552-2554.
Enclosures
G-28
Sincerely,
~--~·~
Larry L Reeder
Chief, Special Actions Section
Regulatory Branch
I .
L
[
[
r-
L
[
L
['
t
L~
[
L
L
L
L~.
__ ;
~
L
[
l
[
[
[
r
L
[
[
[
r,
L,
ENCLOSURE 1
General Comments
The cover sheet should clearly identify the Corps of Engineers as a
cooperating agency.
The abstract should include reference to the major Federal permits
required particularly by cooperating agencies. The reference to the Corps
should be similar to "the proposed action requires issuance of a
Department of the Army permit under the authority of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," and include a
similar statement for the action by the U.S. Coast Guard pursuant to
Section 9 of the River and Harbor Act.
It should also be noted that an EIS is being prepared because it has been
determined that issuance of the permits by the U.S. Coast Guard, the Corps
of Engineers ( and any other Federal permits) would be major Federal
actions significantly affecting the human environment. This could be
appropoiately included in the summary section which would precede your
chapter 1.
Heading Title and Subtitle treatments are not consistent and this causes
confusion to the reader (i.e. use of capitals and underscoring).
Numbering the sections and paragraph would make it easier to identify
section and. address future comments (i.e., 1.0, 1.1, 1.2. 1.2.1 etc.)
{NOTE 1)
Chapter I
Sections A through D could all be treated under a heading of "Background
Information" which would make this chapter more succinct.
{NOTE 2)
In the "History and Authority" section it would be useful to list (or
refer to an Appendix that lists) all the reports previously prepared
pertining to the project (i.e. Marine Biological Studies, Freshwater and
Terrestrial Habitat Studies, Final Corridor Alternatives Analysis, etc.)
Also it would be appropriate to list (perhaps in tabular form) all the
legislative actions, authorities and appropriations and dates of each.
It is necessary that the DEIS identify the involved State and Federal
agencies, their required permits or approvals, and the authorities of such
permits, which would be necessary in order to authorize the project
including (but certainly not limited to): Corps of Engineers, Coast
Guard, FAA, OMS (Coastal Zone), ADEC, ADNR, ADFG, DOT and others. The
State Division of Governmental Coordination may be able to help define the
State permits required. Although, many of. these agencies are identified
in the text it would be helpful to see them listed in one place for
clarity.
p. II -12.
indicate that
if necessary,
the State.
{NOTE 3)
Paragraph 8, under Construction should be reworded to
labor would be first solicited from w/in Alaska, and then,
additional labor expertise would be acquired from outside
{NOTE 4)
G-29
If mitigation measures have been identified or are identified in the DEIS
review, they should be incorporated into the 11 Alternative 11 chapter and a
discussion of their impacts (or reduction of impacts) inc 1 uded in the
11 Environmental Consequences .. chapter. (40 CFR 1502.14(f)).
Although it is c 1 ear that cons i derat i ens beyond measurab 1 e costs wi 11 be
considered when choosing the preferred alternative, it seems appropriate
to include a cost-benefit analysis comparing the various alternatives.
(40 CFR 1502.23)
(NOTE 5)
The 11 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 11 section is a critical portion
of this chapter. It should. clearly compare the alternatives against one
another showing the relative merits of each. A table or chart is
preferred for this presentation in order to provide an easy, side by side,
analysis of the impacts of the alternatives. Only those features which
are significant and comparable should be included in such a chart. It is
important that this section reflect the information in the 11 Environmental
Consequences .. chapter.
(NOTE 6)
Chapt~r III
A section in subheading B should include 11 Pedestrains and Bicyclists 11 to
correspond to the chapter 4 section. It should be noted that many of the
existing major roads w/in the municipality include bicycle/pedestrian
trails and their importance to the community.
Subheading C, Social and Economic Characterestics
Cultural resources needs to be thoroughly addressed including the known
pre~ence of or potential ·presence of archeological sites.
Recreational use of the project area must be thoroughly addressed as there
is potential for impact.
Subheading D, Natural Resource Characteristics
Wildlife-use of the project area must be thoroughly addressed as t~ere is
potential for impact.
Hydrology of the project areas must be thoroughly addressed as there is
potential for impact.
Hunting would be more appropriately addressed in the Recreation section
which recommended under subheading C.
(NOTE 7)
Mineral Resources need to be much more thoroughly addressed particulary as
exploitation of the mineral resources is used under the project purpose
section. A separate section with some specific information on the
locations, amounts and accessability of the deposits should be included.
(NOTE 8)
Chapter IV
Sections corresponding to those in Chapter III and those recommended for
addition to Chapter III should be included in this chapter: Wetlands,
Cultural Resources, Recreational Use, Wildlife, Hydrology, and Mineral
Resources.
G-30
(NOTE 9)
[
[
~~
[
['
r-
l
r·
[
[
[
[
[
r--
L
[
L
l
L
r I
=
[
l~
[
[
[
I
L
[
L.
r-
l_
[
Under the recommended section Cultural Resources, it is necessary to note
that if during construction or development a previously unidentified
archeological or other cultural resource is encountered within the project
area that might be eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places, work that could affect these cultural resources will
cease and the District Engineer, A 1 ask a District Corps of Engineers wi 11
be immediately notified. Appropriate action will be taken to avoid any
loss before construction will resume.
Page IV-4, heading and paragraph 2, sentence 1-11 Travel 11 should be
11 traffic 11
•
page IV-32, paragraph 4. It should be noted that the Coast Guard is
responsible for navigation and that an appropriate determination will be
made by them in order to ensure that the final proposal represents a
structure with no unsafe navigation threat.
Page IV-38, 39, and IV-40. Much of this discussion should be included
under impacts to Land Use. The habitat impact discussion should identify
the types of habitat that would be lost as a result of the land-use
changes and the importance of the habitat loss when compared with
abundance and density of similar habitat types in the project area. The
impacts of the habitat loss of wildlife should be included under a
Wildlife subheading.
IV-43 paragraphs 1 to 5. Impacts to the fisheries should be included
under a Fisheries subheading in order to correspond to the subheading in
Chapter III. Impacts to wildlife should be included under a Wildlife
subheading. (NOTE 10)
IV-44 paragraph 5. The U.S. Coast Guard does not administer the 404
permit program. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does. The Coastal Zone
Management review process is undertaken by a State agency (Department of
Governmental Coordination) rather than the Borough. Although the
Municipality of Anchorage must review the proposal for consistency with
their approved CZM plan and make recommendations and comments, it is the
State of Alaska who must m~ke the final consistency determination.
Page IV-45. Water Quality and Hydrology. Although it is acknowledged
that these topics interact with each other, it would be more appropriate
to address them separately and add a corresponding Hydrology section in
Chapter III.
Chapter V
The Draft section 4(f) Evaluation would be more appropriatley addressed in
an appendix. The descriptions .of the historic places and recreational
facilities should ·be addressed in conjunction with the 11 Affected
Environment .. and 11 Environmental Consequences .. chapters. (NOTE 11)
Chapter VI .
This information should be included in the 11 Alternatives 11 chapter, or at
the least, the 11 Alternatives 11 chapter should acknowledge the railroad
potential and refer the reader to this chapter. The justification for not
including the railroad crossing in the prc-ject alternatives should be
clearly stated.
G-31
Appendix B
In conjunction with the information in Appendix B, Draft Wetlands Finding
Report, it would be appropriate to also include a draft evaluation under
the Section 404(b)(l) guidelines. Enclosed is a copy of the EPA
Guidelines (40 CFR part 230).
G-32 ',
r -
l
[ :
['
r·
L
[
L
[
t ~
[
r
L
[
L
l
l
I u
l~
[
~~
r~
L
NOTES: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS (5/15/84)
1.
2.
The confusion was due to the incompleteness of the working draft;
headings and subheadings are used consistently in this document.
Chapter I has been reorganized; the "Needs" section, beginning on page
I-4, contains the requested information.
3. Required permits and approvals are listed on pages II-15, II-16,
II-20, II-23, II-28, and II-29.
4. This change was made on pages II-13, II-16, II-20, II-23, and II-27.
5. ADOT/PF, and FHWA have decided that a benefit-cost analysis would not
be useful enough to the decision-making process to warrant the time
and expense of preparation.
6. See pages II-31 to II-49; the intent to prepare such a section was
indicated in the working draft.
7. Most impacts to recreation are discussion in Chapter V, "Section 4 (f)
Evaluation". Hunting is not 4(f) so it is addressed separately under
"Biological Resources" on pages IV-97 and IV-98.
8. The purpose of mineral development has been removed from Chapter I. A
discussion on mineral development at a level of detail commensurate
with the expected impact is on page III-53.
9. "Wetlands" can be found on page IV-98. As preferred by the Federal
Highway Administration, cultural resource and recreation impacts are
addressed in Chapter V, "Section 4(f) Evaluation"; see also "Iditarod
Trail" on page IV-108 and "Use of Fish and Wildlife" on page IV-97. A
separate "Hydrology" section has been added to Chapter IV on page
IV-103._ Mineral resource impacts are minimal and do not warrant a
separate section; they are discussed under "Natura'! Resource Develop-
ment", "Subsurface Resources", on page IV-107. Wildlife is addressed
under "Biological Resources" by terrestrial, marine, and aquatic
habitat. The wildlife habitat and wildlife impact discussions are
combined in this document since the principal impact to wildlife is
loss of habitat.
10. Fisheries are discussed under "Biological Resources", "Aquatic Habi-
tats", since the largest impact to fisheries would be habitat
encroachment.
11. The EIS structure that includes the Section 4 (f) evaluation as a
separate chapter, is preferred by the Federal Highway Administration.
G-33
United States· Department of the Interior
N REP\. Y REFER TO:
WAES
Jerry Hamel
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Western Alaska Ecological Services
605 W. 4th, Room G-81
Anchorage,--Alaska ·· 99501·
Alaska Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities
4111 Aviation Avenue
Pouch 6900
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Dear Mr.. Harne 1, ·
Nay 14, 1984
We have reviewed the working copy of the Knik Arm Crossing Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as agreed upon in our meetings of
May 4, and May 10, 1984. -The following comments and recommendations are
offered as means of improving the document.
PURPOSES AND NEED FOR ACTION, pa~e I-l. It would be helpful if scime
figures could be provided regard1ng the amount of land in the
Municipality that can support development activities. This would provide
a basis. of comparison for development opportunities in the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
B. PORT, INDUSTRIAL AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, page I-3. Previously both
the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and the Knik Arm Crossing Project team have
consistently asserted that the port and industrial park at Point
MacKenzie is being planned regardless df whether a crossing project is
built. While it is true-a crossing would facilitate the realization of
these plans, it seems prudent to maintain the separate identity of the
two projects. Otherwise, the issue of project costs and benefits for the
crossing may become clouded.
in. Costs, ~age II-12. It is unclear whether these figures are calculated
1984 do lars and whether inflation has been factored in. Without this
information, it is impossible to know the true cost of the project.
Consequently, there is a need to define both the cost figures here and in
subsequent sections.
Design Features, eage II-14. An indication of the amount of wetlands
along the road al1gnment of Segment 1 of the Point MacKenzie to Houston
corridor would be appropriate.
Table III-4, page III-11. It is unclear whether the data in this table
reflect trends that will occur with the project or without it.
Clarification is needed.
G-34
[
r
L.
[
[
[
r~
[
[
L
l
f'
L.
-{
L
l=
[
~ L,.
E
c
[
[
[
[
[
[
L
[
Biological Resources, page III-23. This section needs to be expanded to
more adequately describe the available habitats and associated fish and
wildlife species. The cursory treatment given here does not provide
sufficient detail to document the existing resources or to enable an
~valuation of project impacts.
Terrestrial Habitats, page III-23. Descriptions of habitats for
part1cular spec1es wh1ch are representative of the full range of
terrestrial habitats in the project area are needed. The habitats
identified in the list of evaluation species in the Fish and Wildlife
Service Mitigation Statement is recommended for your consideration.
Similarly, their value to species other than moose and generic waterfowl
need to be examined in order to provide an ecological perspective.
It is unclear whether the habitats described apply to Elmendorf Air Force
Base as well as the north side of Cook Inlet. Identification of habitats
that occur in this part of the project is needed.
A6uatic Habitats, ege UIII-23. This section does not adequately describe
t e aquat1c hab1ta s of the project area or the fishery resources they
support. It should be expanded considerably to.describe the kinds and
extent of habitats and the distribution and abundance of salmonids, as a
minimum.
Marine Habitats, page III-23. It would be appropriate to mention marine
birds, even through they are not particularly abundant in Knik Arm.
Fisheries Utilization, page III-27. This discussion would be improved
considerably by including harvest data for each of the species indicated
in the Aquatic Habitat section. In most cases, figures are probably
available by drainage system. This kind of information is needed if
impacts are to be adequately assessed in later portions of the document.
In addition, subsistence use should be described, as should availability
of access to the various drainages.
Threatened or Endangered S~ecies, page III-27. There are three
subspecies of peregrine fa con in Alaska. The arctic peregrine falcon is
classified as threatened, the American peregrine falcon is endangered,
and the Peale's peregrine falcon is unlisted. Both the arctic and, more
often, the American subspecies occasionally migrate through the project
area. Inclusion of this information would strengthen this section.
Hunting, page III-27. Figures indicating the level of hunting and
trapping pressure should be available from Alaska Department of Fish and
Game. Relating the level of pressure to the carrying capacity of the
habitat would be appropriate as it would later facilitate the analysi~ of
secondary impacts of the project. ·
Wetlands, pages III-27-28. The discussion would be improved by including
furbearers among the w1 ldlife species utilizing wetland habitats and by
identifying waterfowl species associated with the freshwater wetlands.
Marine Waters, page III-28. Although dispersion of pollutants by high
tidal currents and freshwater inflow may minimize impacts of pollutants
in the Point MacKenzie area, to suggest that, therefore, there is no
pollution problem ignores the fact that the pollutants go somewhere
else. It also overlooks the fact that pollution levels are likely to
G-35
.·
increase as development proceeds and, at some point, could become a
localized problem. It is recommended that this section be changed to
reflect these concerns.
Freshwaters, page III-28. The meaning of the statement that "Some
deter1orat1on 1n water quality would be expected ••• " is not clear.
Clarification is needed to indicate whether deterioration is presently
occurring, or whether it will occur in the future? --
Floodplains, page III-29. While the statement that no floodplains along
streams are located in the vicinity of project alternatives may be true
if consideration is limited to the approach roads, it would be inaccurate
when the secondary impacts area is identified. Inclusion of the area
encompassing secondary impacts is recommended.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSE UENCES, a e IV-l. The intent of the statement
easures to m1 1ga e negat1ve 1mpacts are proposed. All other impacts
are considered unavoidable" is· ambiguous. Mitigation has been defined by
the Council on Environmental Quality as "a) avoiding-the ~impact
altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; b)
minimizing impacts by.limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and
its implementation; c) rectifying the impact by repairing,
rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; d) reducing or
eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action; and e} compensating for the
impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments."
(40 CFR Part 1508.20 (a-e}). From this definition, it is evident that
there are means of mitigating even unavoidable impacts of the proposed
project, and that doing so is a legitimate part of a project.
Consequently, the statement that "All other impacts are considered
unavoidable" is unnecessary.
Hifihway Accessibility, page IV-1. Clarification is needed as to why
ve icle hours of travel and vehicle miles of travel are computed for all
alternatives in 1990 when the downtown alternative is not planned for
completion un~il 1991.
Redistribution of Anticieated Residential Growth, page IV-15. An
indication of the compat1bility of the two different methodologies used
by the Institute for Social and Economic Research and Knik Arm Crossing
project team is needed.
Terrestrial Environment, page IV-36. It should be clearly stated that
more habitat will be disturbed by the Elmendorf crossing than the
downtown crossing when direct impacts only are considered. This,
apparently, is not the case when secondary impacts are included in the
analysis, and should be so indicated.
This discussion does not adequately assess the impacts to the moose
populat1on of Elmendorf Air Force Base. This highway corridor would
traverse winter range which is in limited supply in the Anchorage Bowl.
It is therefore incorrect to state that "This forest type ••• is
widespread and removal ••• would probably not affect wildlife populations
significantly." There has also been no discussion of the impact of the
highway in relation to the moose migration corridor between winter range
on the Base and the more abundant, dispersed summer range.
G-36
[
r~
I
l
[
[
r-
l
[
L
r
L
[
[
[
L
[
[
L
L
r -
' L
l
I
I
[
[
[
[
c
E
[
[
L
[
[
[
L
[
[
..
The third paragraph should be expanded to discuss other secondary impacts
such as hunting pressure, poaching, conversion of habitat to other land ·
uses, and degradation of habitat due to its juxtaposition .to secondary
development. The present discussion underrates the magnitude and extent
of these kinds of impacts.
The statement that "Most wetlands traversed either north or south of Knik
Arm are of the bog type with little value to waterfowl" has not been
substantiated either by field studies or analyses_of primary and
secondary impacts. Without such documentation it is questionable whether
this statement is supportable and should be retained in the statement.
Table IVCI-1, page IV-37. This table should be modified to include
impacts along the corridor as discussed in our meeting of May 10, 1984.
Withaut inclusion of the area incurring indirect impacts, a considerable
portio~ of the highway right-of-way is unaccounted for. The impact to
the corridor. would, therefore, be underrepresented.
In addition, the analysis is heavily weighted toward upland species, with
no consideration of fisheries or wetland species. While this may be
generally appropriate for analysis of direct impacts for the highway
corridor because of the routing, a wider ~ange of fish and wildlife
resources should be examined for secondary impacts, as agreed upon.
Page IV-38. The impacts for both the Hovercraft and the Glenn/Parks
Improvement Alternative need to be quantified in order to compare results
with those for the crossing alternatives. These impacts should also be'
related to habitat uses of evaluation species selected as indicators for
the fish and wildlife commnunities of the project area.
A major deficiency of the document is the absence of a quantified
analysis of secondary impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Such an
analysis should be comparable to analyses done for other project issues
such as traffic volumes and levels of service, employment, and urban
growth. Without a comparable analysis for wildlife, an informed
trade-off analysis.cannot be made nor can mitigation measures be
formulated on the basis of accurately assessed impacts. The scenarios
defining residential and non-residential growth are the first step to
developing a quantified analysis of secondary impacts for the project.
The next is to draw correlations between acres developed and fish and
wildlife hab1tat. Using the classification scheme occurring in Table
IVCl-1 on page IV-37, numbers of acres for each habitat type should be
delineated for each project alternative.
Page IV-39. While development in wetlands would be less prevalent than
on upland sites, at least initially, it is predictable that as fewer
upland sites remain, development presssure on wetlands will i~crease. It
is also noteworthy that even with current levels of development in the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough wetland development is already occurring. This
assumption should therefore be qualified.
Pale IV-40. ~~ile the information is presented that could be used to
ca culate the number of additional acres to be developed with the
crossing alternatives, it would be more convenient for the reader if the
percentage increase presented were supplemented by actual acreage figures.
G-37
·-..
To state that ..... secondary impacts are not considered unacceptable
because ..... is to represent one perspective and not necessarily the
broad range of public view points. The Draft EIS will help ascertain
whether or not this is a concensus opinion. It would be best to delete
this statement from this document.
It is also interesting to note that it is recognized that secondary
impacts will be more extensive than direct ones. This reinforces the
conclusion that a secondary impacts analysis needs to be conducted.
Marine Environment, 5ages IV-40 and IV-41. Because of the value of the
resources, 1t would.e appropr1ate to elaborate on the impacts
anticipated to both juvenile and adult salmonids. Similarly, definition
of the "substantially greater" impacts resulting from port development at
Point MacKenzie is needed.
Freshwater Environment, page IV-41. Once again, it is recommended that
secondary 1mpact be assessed. Perhaps more difficult to quantify then
those for terrestrial habitats, a minimal effort would entail a
comprehensive description of the kinds of impacts anticipated. Among
these would be increased human access and fishing pressure, associated
degradation of aquatic habitat, flow alterations, and loss of tributary
streams.
Page IV-42. The statement that •• ••• there is no reason to believe that
h1ghway 1mprovements would cause unacceptable impacts ••• •• is not
necessarily true. Although the initial impacts were deemed acceptable
either because they were minimal, mitigated, or otherwise unidentified
and unquantified, the added increment of impacts is not automatically
acceptable. When the increased magnitude of the impact is applied to a
decreasing quantity of the environmental resource or a more valuable
parcel of habitat, the cumulative impact may be unacceptable. This is
the reason a quantified and thorough impact analysis needs to be
conducted.
The statement concerning acceptable levels of impact in the last
paragraph is inaccurate for the same reason given in the terrestr-ial
section and should be modified accordingly.
Chanaes in Use of Fish and Wildlife, ~afie IV-43. This section contains
an a equate qual1tat1ve descr1pt1on ount1ng and fishing pressure for
tne alternatives. However, it is not sufficient as the only indication
of secondary environmental impacts. A more comprehensive description of
these is needed as well as quantification of fish and wildlife habitat
that will be converted to other uses, i.e., the analysis agreed upon May 10.
Wetlands, paRe IV-44. The need exists here also to examine secondary
1mpacts, bot qual1tatively and quantitatively.
The Hovercraft Alternative should have the impact of approach roads
included in the analysis.
The statement 11 No significant secondary impacts are expected with any of
the alternatives ..... is unsubstantiated. Only after a quantified
analysis has been conducted can statements such as this legitimately be
made. In addition it should be noted that the Corps of Engineers, rather
than the Coast Guard, administers the Section 404 permit program of the
Clean Water Act. G-38
[
r
l
L.
r L
c
[
~--
L
l
r·
[
L
L
L
l
[
[
(-',
I ~
c.
[
L
[
L
l
[
L
[
L
l
L
L
Marine Environment, eage IV-45. The possibility should be explored that
construct1on act1v1t1es would d1sturb polluted sediments. If this could
be a problem, then the impact of uactivatingu these sediments needs to be
discussed.
Page IV-46. The statement that "Water resources impact, regardless of
impact type, is directly related to the extent of exposure to these
resources ••• u is vague • More specificity is needed.
The statement that •• ••• all of the Connector•s drainage would be caught
and piped into Municipality•s storm drainage system 11 suggests that this
is an actual project feature. However, there does not seem to be any
indication of this in the project description section. A clarification
is needed.
Page IV-47. It is unclear whether drainage and erosion control, as well
as revegetation, are planned as mitigation features of the project, or
whether they would minimize the impacts if they were incorporated. This
section should show what will be done as-opposed to what could be done.
Page IV-58. Again, mitigation measures are couched in terms of could
rather than will. ·
We hope these comments assist you in preparing a Draft EIS which will
require a minimum of revisions. We recognize that some of the secondary
impact analysis may not be fully developed in time to include it in the
Draft EIS. However, we understand that this work will be completed and
published in the Final EIS along with a completed mitigation plan.
We look forward to continued participation in project planning.
cc: FWS-AHR (ROES)
Kurt Dunn, FHWA, Juneau
Gary Liepitz, ADFG, Anchorage
Jack ALLen, EMPS-Sverdrup
John Morsell, Dames and fvloore
Sincerely, _
-;fJ~J ;§?.--.--.)~
Field Supervisor
G-39
Unit~d States Department of the Interior
IN REP\. Y REFER TO:
WAES
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVlCE
Western Alaska Ecological Services
605 W. 4th, Room G-81
Anchorage, Alaska ··99501
John B. Olson, Director
Major Projects Management
Alaska Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities
4111 Aviation Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Dear Mr •. 01 son:
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has prepared the enclosed Knik Arm
Crossing Mitigation Statement to provide guidance for evaluating and
mitigating impacts of the proposed project to fish and wildlife
resources. This statement has been formulated in accordance with the FWS
Mitigation Policy and in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), the Environmental Protection Agency {EPA), and·the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). Letters of concurrence are enclosed.
This statement·reflects the relative value of fish and wildlife resources
by considering both the abundance and quality of habitat in the project
area. By using it in conjunction with the analysis of primary and
secondary impacts, specific mitigation measures can be developed. We
recognize that some mitigation has already been accomplished which will
effectively reduce impacts to fish, wildlife, and associated habitat. To
complete the mitigat1on plan, however, means of mitigating unavoidable
impacts need to be identified and incorporated into project plans.
The preparation of a complete mitigation plan would best be accomplished
by a team of resource agency personnel, the consultants, and the project
sponsor representatives. In thi$ way, all legitimate concerns can be
addressed and a plan formulated whi.ch will be supported by all of the
participants. This approach has been effectively used in other planning
efforts to reduce conflicts and to facilitate the processing of State and
Federal permits. We highly recommend its application in this instance.
We anticipate continued active participation in the planning for the Knik
Arm Crossing project. We look forward to working closely with your staff
and otHer interested individuals and agency personnel in developing a
mitigation_plan that will conserve important fish and wildlife resources
of the project area.
·sincerely,
~~
Field Supervisor
Enclosures
G-40
[
l.
I
L
c L
[
[
L
L
L
[
[
l
, ___ :;;,
L
[
r
I
L-
l
r,
L.
l~
cc. FWS, AHR, with enclosures
Kurt Dunn, FHWA, Juneau, with enclosures
Jack Allen, EMPS Sverdrup, with enclosures
John Morsell, Dames and Moore, with enclosures
Bill Lawrence, EPA, Anchorage, without enclosures
Richard Thiel, EPA, Seattle, without enclosures
Brad Smith, NMFS, Anchorage, with en·closures
Larry Reeder, CE, Anchorage, with enclosures
Gary Liepitz, ADFG, Anchorage, without enclosures
Jerry Hamel, ADOT/PF, Anchorage, with enclosures
Merlyn Paine, ADOP/PF, Anchorage, with enclosures
Michelle Stearns, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, with enclosures
G-41
Knik Arm Crossing
Mitigation Statement
Under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) ana the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) has responsibilities to insure that project-related losses
to fish and wildlife resources are identified and mitigated. As part of
our participation in the planning and evaluation of the Knik Arm
Crossing, the following mitigation statement has be·en developed in
accordance with the FWS Mitigation Policy (FR Vol. 46, No. 15, January
23, 1982) and in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NtiJFS), the En'fironmenta 1 Protection Agency (EPA), and the A 1 aska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). It has been prepared to provide
guidance for evaluating and mitigating impacts of the proposed ~reject to
fish and wildlife.
The Knik Arm Crossing mitigation statment has been developed by first
selecting important fish and wildlife habitats from among the full range
of habitats occurring within the area to be impacted by both direct as
well as indirect impacts. These were chosen either because they
represent resources which are most characteristic of the area or because
the Fish and Wildlife Service has mandated responsibilities for them. By
narrowing th.e scope in this way, the ana lyses can focus on areas where
significant changes are most likely t0-9Ccur and not be unduly burdened
by inclusion of areas with low wildlife value.
After identifying important habitat~, evaluation species, which function
as indicators of habitat quality and quantity, were chosen. Selection of
evaluation species has an important role in determining the extent and
type of mitigation achieved. A combination of two sets of criteria is
typically used to choose species for this purpose. The first is to pick
species with high public interest, subsistence, or economic values while
the second is to .. select species which utilize habitats having significant
ecological values.
Fish and wildlife habitats were then assigned to one of the four Resource
Categories delineated in the FWS Mitigation Policy (Table 1).
Designation of habitat into Resource Categories ensures that the level of
mitigation recommended is consistent with the value of that habitat and
its relative abundance on an ecoregion or national basis.
Fifteen species or guilds of species, i.e., species that use closely
associated ecological niches, have been selected as the basis for
evaluating ·impacts and formulating mitigation requirements for the Knik
Arm Crossing project (Table 2). Available information indicates that
high value habitat for each evaluation species is found within the
project area but that none is considered unique or irreplaceable.
Therefore, the habitat for all species have been assigned to Resource
Categories 2 or 3.
G-42
L
r-
L
r
L
l
L
[
[
r
lJ
[
[
[
[
[
[
Resource
Category
1
2
3
4
Table 1. Resource Categcrfes and
f•lftfgatfon Plannfng Goals • .!!
Desf~natfon
CrHer'fa
Hab'ftat to be 'impacted 'is of
hfgh value for evaluat'fon
species and is un'fque and
irreplaceable on a natfonal
basis or in the ecoregfon
section.
Habitat to be impacted is of
hfgh value for evaluatfon
spec'fes and is relatively
-scarce or becoming scarce on
a national basis or in the
ecoregion section.
Hab'ftat to be impacted is of
h'fgh to medium-value for
evaluation species and is
relatively abundant on a
national baSis.
Habitat to be impacted is of
medium to low value for
evaluation species.
Mftf~atfon Plann'fny
Goal
No loss of existing
habitat value;
No net loss of
in-kinci habitat
value.
No net loss of
habitat value while
minim'fzing loss of
in-kind habitat
value.
Minimize loss of
hab'ftat value.
~ l/Taken from FWS Mitigatfon Polfcy {FR Vol. 46, No. 15, 23 January 1981).
[
[
[
L
L
l
G-43
Table 2.
Common Name
Moose
Black bear
Beaver
Common Loon
Trumpeter swan
Lesser Canada goose
Mallard/Pfntafl
Spruce grouse
Evaluation speciesl/ for the Knfk Arm Crossing
Project and Resource Category Designations for
Assocfated Habftat.
Scient'if1c Name
Alces alces
Ursus amer1canus
castor canadens1s
Gav1a immer
Cygnus buccinator
Resource Cate~ory of
Assoc1ated Habitat
Lesser sandhill crane
Yellowlegs
Branta canadens1s 7arvipes
Anas platjThynchos A. acuta
oenaragapus canadensis
Grus canadens1s canadensfs
TrTriga sp.
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus k1sutch
Oncorhynchus nerka
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
Chinook salmon
Coho salmon
Sockeye salmon
Rainbow trout
Do 11 y Varden
Salmo 2a1rdnen
Sa lv.elmus malma
1/The bald eagle meets several of t~ese tests but was not 1ncluded as an
evaluatfon specfes for mftf~ation purposes because it is specifically
protected by the Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c).
G-44
r
r
r '
[
r
\';
l
r·
r
L
t
[
r
L
[
L
L
-~
Fi
Lj
[
L
The determ1nat'ion of the relative scarcity or aLundance of evaluation
species habitat from the national perspective is based upon (1) the
historical range and hab'itat quality and (2) the current status of that
habitat. A significant reduction in either the extent or quality of
habitat for an evaluation species indicates that it is scarce or b~con1in~
scarce, while maintenance of historical quantit~ and quality is the basis
for considering it abundant.
Specffic ways to achieve the miti!:jation goal for Resource Cate~ory 2 when
loss of habitat value is unavoidable include, 11 (1) physical modification
of replacement habitat to convert it to the same type lost;
{2) restoration or rehabilitation of previously altered habitat;
(3} increased management of simflar replacement ha~itat so that the
in-kind value of lost habitat is replaced; or (4) a combination of these
measures. By replacing habitat value losses wtth sfmtlar habttat values,
populations of species associated wtth that habitat may remain relatively
stable in the area over time ... .!!
The mitigation goal of in-kind replacement of lost habitat, however,
cannot always be achieved. When opposition to a project on that basis
alone is not warranted, deviation from this goal may be appropriate. Two
such instances occur when either different habitats and species available
for replacement are determined to be of greater value than those lost, or
when in-kind replacement is not physic~~ly or biologically attatnable in
the ecoregion. In either case, replacement involving different habitat
kinds may be recommended, provided that the total value of the lost
habitat is compensated.
For Resource Category 3, in-kind replacement of lost habitat is preferred
though not always possible. Substituting different habitats or
increasing management of different habitats so that the value of the lost
habitat is replaced may be ways of achieving the planning ~oal of no net
loss of habitat value._
Identification of evaluation species and desi~natton of Resource
Categories represent the first of several steps to be taken toward the
completion of a mitigation plan. Using socio-economic trend analysis,
the types of fish and wildlife habitats potentially impacted by project
induced growth may be delineated and quantified, which will perrnit
secondary, as well as direct, impacts to be evaluated. Upon completion
of an analysis that quantifies impacts, a data base will be available
from which a mitigation plan can be formulated.
l/FWS Miti~ation Policy
G-45
Appendix. Knik Arm Crossing Project Evaluation Species
Terrestrial Species
1. Moose (Alces alces). Mocse habitat, relative to its historical
range, 1s cons1aered abundant from both a national and ecoresional
basis.
In terms of hunting pressure, moose is probably the most important
big game species in Alaska. Historically, moose were a source of
food, clothing, and implements alony the maJor rivers. On a local,
regional, and state-wide basis, this species continues to be an
important source of food and recreation. Spendin~ by· moose hunters
results in benefits th.roughout the State's economy and is compounded
by the number of non-resident hunters. r4oose also have a hi~h
non-consumptive value in that observations are valued by
photographers and hikers.
Because of potential susceptibility to project impacts, moose will
serve as a good evaluation spedes. ~1oose are common throughout the
project area, being most closely associated with upland shrub
riparian zones, lowland bo~ climax communities, and seral communities
created by fire and glacial or fluvial action. Although post-project
habltat riJanipulations could potentially beneflt moose, a long-term
adverse impact is anticipated as a result of habitat loss to
secondary development and degradation of habitat from the approach
roads and increased human distu~bance.
t: ~
2. Black bear (Ursus americanus). Black bear are widespread in Alaska
as well as in the 48 conterminous states and habitat is considered
abundant on a national and ecoregion basis. Black bear are
considered fairly common throughout the project area, particularly in
alder -thicket and riparian habitats.
Seasonal availability of foods strongly determine the occurrence of
black bears in a particular area. Movement occurs from spring
green-up areas, to salmon streams in sumr.1er, and then to
berry-producing shrubland in summer/early fall.
The project could directly impact black bear through modification of
medium to high value habitats. Habitat losses through reductions in
both quality and quantity are expected.
3. Beaver (Castor canadensis). Althou~h neither unique to Alaska nor
scarce nat1ona1ly or 1n the ecoregion, beaver play important economic
and ecological roles. Beaver trapping in Alaska continues to be an
integral component of traditional lifestyles, providing a source of
revenue for bush residents. Similar'fl.h trapping of the species
provides recreational benef'fts to wore urban resioents. Beaver have
an important ecological function in modifying habitat in ways that
benefit other wildlife spec'fes, e.~., waterfowl and moose.
G-46
r
L
r L
[
[
L
L
[
[
l L
L
l
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
I'
L'""
[
D
[
r·-
Beaver are dependent upon both aquatic and riparian habitats.
Stud'fes for Chakachamna hydroelectric project have found beaver to IJe
common 'in the hall'itats class'if'ieo as Black Cottonwood Riparian,
Willow Thicket Riparian, and Black Spruce Ri~arian (Bechtel 1983).
Impacts of the Kn'ik Arm Cross'ins Pro,Ject to these haL'itats would
effect ueaver d'fstr'ibution ana po~ulation levels, as well as species
associated \v'ith beaver; so11Je ueaver habitat may be createa uy the
project wh'fle other exis~ing habitat would be lost.
4. Common loon (Gavia imr.ler). Common loons nest throu~hout the lake
country of the northern Uniteo States and Canaua 'fn both open and
forestea habitats. Habitats used by common loons are abundant
throughout the state anci w'fth'fn the project area; but are decl'fn'fng
on a nationwide bas'fs, especially in the ~ortheastern United States.
Loons use water that is tieep enough for escape-div'fn9 from enem'fes
and large enough to take flight. Lakes with many 'islands are
preferred nesting sites, especially where there is a minimun chance
of disturbance by people in summer cabins or boats. The occurrence
of-loons is, therefore, an indication of wilderness qual'fty (Terres
1980).
Loons have h'fgh non-consumpt'fve value for b'frdwatchers,
photographers, and recreational boaters. More 'importantly, they
function as mon'ftors of lake and spruce bog habitats wh'fch could be
subject to heavy development pressurl:s associated with the project,
as private lakeshore property is popular fur residential and
recreational uses. Much of this~habftat in the project area is in
prfvate ownership and is subjectrto m'fn'fmal land use controls.
5. Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator). Although never considered
abundant, trumpeter swans were h1storically found throughout much of
northcentral North America in summer and alon~ the f41ssissippi River
and the Atlant'fc, Gulf, and Pacific Coasts in winter (Bartonek
1983}. As a result of commercfal and sport hunting and habitat
destruction during the 19th Century, trumpeter swans were nearly
extirpated from Canada and the 48 contiguous states (Banko 1960).
Their favorable response to recent management efforts and, perhaps,
amelioration of climate has made removal from the Threatened and
Endangered Species list possible. The 1980 census 'fnd'fcated 7,696
trumpeter swans, representin~ 8b percent of the world population,
were on the breedins grounds in Alaska {King and Conant 1981).
Swans in Alaska nest and rear in wetlanus and ponds fauna, primarily,
along the major river ~ystems in the southern half of the state.
Trumpeter swans are very susceptible to disturuance 'impacts during
nesting and rearing of cygnets, and 'in the Cook Inlet area
particularly, the species 'fs rapidly being excluded by recreational .
developments from larse lakes formerly used for nestin~ {Timr•i anci
Woject 1978). Approx'fmately two-thirds of a11 trumpeter swan habitat
in Alaska is held in private ownership and therefore potentially
avaflable for development. Similar land ownership patterns occur in
the project area.
G-47
Trumpeter swan surveys taken in the Cook Inlet reyion in 1~68, 1975,
and 1980 indicate that the population ~s expantiing. The western
portion of the project area has availaLle habitat capable of
supportin~ this species which may be adversely impactea by
development pressures of the project.
6. Lesser Canad.a goose (Branta canadensis parvipes). Two sliuspecies of
small Canada geese, B. c. parv1pes ana B. c. taverneri, collectively
called lesser Canada-goose, nest throu~nout liiuch of Alaska and Yuko'l
Territory at elevations below 2,000 feet. Only the former of these
subspecies is found in the Cook Inlet region, where coastal marshes
are used as nesting habitat. Large lake systems which provide for
seclusion are used for moltingo Washington, Oregon, California, and
British Columbia are the principal wintering grounds (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1983).
Recreational hunting is the greatest use of lesser Canada ~eese.
Between 1974 and 1978, an average of 5,500 lesser Canada geese were
harvested in Alaska while an estimated 49,000 geese were taken in
Oregon and Washington (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983). Of the
approximately 2,500 lesser Canada geese which inhabit Upper Cook
Inlet, an estimated 300-400 are harvested in the Pacific Flyway (B.
Campbell, personal communication). Little is known about the
subsistence harvest, although widely scattered nesting su~gests that
it is small {U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983). Public viewing in
the Pacific Northwest and near Ancho~age is an important
non-consumptive use.
Secondary impacts from the const~uction of a Knik Arm Crossing will
reduce and/or degrade nestin~ habitats for lesser Canaaa geese.
7. Mallard (Anas platrhynchos)· and Pintail (Anas acuta). The most
widely di~utea and numerous game duck-rn-Nortfi America, the
mallard occurs throughout much of Alaska. From 1~72 to 1~81. the
average breeding population in surveyed areas in Alaska was
approximately 250,000. This represents less than 3% of the
continental population (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983).
Depending upon production in a given year, pintails are either the
second or third most abundant duck in North ·America. They are more
abundant than mallards in the Pacific Fl)~ay and in Alaska (Bellrose
1976).
Mallards breed in low densities in many forest and tundra wetland
habitats. Nesting sites are usually selected at the ed9e of sloughs,
lakes, and reservoirs,' but sometimes may be. far from water on hif,her
ground. Pintails select open areas for their nests where vesetation
is either low or sparse. Nest sites also tend to ue farther from
water than other species of ground nesting ducks.
Interest in the mallard and pintails is hi~h because of their value
for hunting and viewing. Approximately 35% of all ducks harvested in
the Pacific Flyway are mallards (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983)
and 16% are pintails (Carey et al 1983), and even with strict
regula tory measures, demand exceeds the supply. I~lanagement efforts
G-48
c
[
r
r
L
r
[
[
L
L
l.
r
[
[
{, L
r
are directed at satisfying as much of the demand as possible wfthfn
the constraints of habitat losses and other conflicts (U.S. f.ish and
Wildlife Service 1983).
Hab'itat for mallards and pintafls 'is fafrly comr.ion within the project
area and of medium to high value. Of concern, however, are the 1982
population estfmates for pintails in Alaska which showed a 46%
decrease from the 1981 figures and were 30% below the ten year
avera9e. It is uncertain whether this declfne is signfffcant, as
pintails tend to disperse north in drought years on the prairies and
several drought years are included in the average (King and Conant
1983) .•
8. Spruce grouse (Dendragapus canadensis). The spruce grouse, an
'inhabitant of the boreal con1ferous forest, ran9es over much of
Alaska except the Alaska Peninsula and the northern, western, and
southeastern coasts. ~luch of the up land terrain in the project area
consists of spruce-birch cover type.
Spruce grouse use medium to open density spruce-birch stands for nest
sites. Upland stands of eithe~ white spruce-birch or black spruce
with understories of 9rasses, spirea, blueberry, and cranberry
provide cover and food; white spruce needles are a ma,Jor component of
their winter diet (Konkel et. al. 1980).
Spruce grouse are a popular upland -gar11e bird for recreational
hunters. Dependent upon forest habitats, this species will act as an
indicator of habitat changes to areas prone to be developed because
of good drainage. i
9. Lesser sandhill crane (Grus canadensis canadensis). The lesser
sandhill crane nests throughout Alaska, as well as northcentral and
northwestern Canada and northeastern U.S.S.R. Approximately
91 percent of the cranes in Alaska belong to the fvlid-continent
population while the remaining nine percent belong to the Pacific
Flyway population. Cranes nesting in the Upper Cook Inlet produce a
portion of the latter group (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983).
Preferred nesting habitats are sedge/grass meadow and wet marsh
tundra which afford an unobstructed view on all sites. Standing
water is nearby (Konkel et.al. 1980).
The primary use of Pacific Flyway cranes is non-consumptive in the
form of bird-watching and photographing. Other than Wyoming which
has an experimental season to reduce depredation, sport huntfng 'is
legal only in Alaska where an average of 229 were harvested annually
between 1971 to 1980 (U.S. Ffsh and Wildlife Servfce 1983). Of the
estimated 1,746 sandhill cranes sport harvested in Alaska in 1982,
31% occurred 'in Cook Inlet {Campbell 1984). Subsistence hunting on
the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta was estimated at 1,000 cranes in 1964 and
1,477 in 1981 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1~83).
G-49
-'
Boise (1977) concluded that "human activity above minimal levels
appears incompatible with crane nesting, as reflectea in nest
desertion as a result of human actfvfty. Loss of nestfn~ habitat as
a result of land development is a further threat to the population's
stability. u
10. Yellowlegs (Tringa sp.). Common shorebir:as of the muskeg and tundra,
the greater yellowlegs has a summer range froru the lower Yukon Delta
River Va 11 ey south and east a 1 ong the coast -into southeast A 1 aska,
while the lesser yellowlegs breed from the Kobuk River Valley south
to Yakutat Bay. Ye 11 owl e~s nest in depress:ions on the ground in
timbered muskeg and lightly wooded areas. They feed in lakes, ponds,
and tidal flats.
Yellowlegs are valued as a non-consumptive resource, pri~arily for
viewing and photographing. They are also useful as an evaluation
species for wetland habitats which support a diverse array of other
fish and wildlife species.
Aquatic Species
1. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Chinook salmon are
distributed from southern California north to Point Hope, Alaska.
Development of hydroelectric potential in the northwestern United
States has resulted in the loss of a~significant portion of the
salmon spawning habitat. On a national basis, interest is very high
in minimizing losse~ to chinook salmon~ and, if possible, expanding
e.x:isting stocks. ~laximizing popofJlations of this prized commercial,
recreational, and subsistence species is also desired by State anti
local entities.
Within the project area, the Little Susitna River provides both
spawning and rearing habitat for chinook salmon. Recreational
fishing has resulted in the harvesting of approximately 700-1,000
chinook annually in recent years. The Little Susitna River also
contributes to the Tyonek subsistence catch which has averagea about
2,000 fish.
Ready access to the Little Susitna River because of a Knik Arm
Crossing will result in habitat degradation due to heavy use by
recreational fishermen. Intensity of use similar to that on the
Kenai and Russian Rivers are anticipated by Alaska Department of Fish
and Game biologists. ·
2. Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). On a national level
hydroelectric development in the Northwest United States has resulted
in a significant,depletion of coho salmon stocks. The 1981
commercial harvest of cohos for the upper Cook Inlet was JUSt uncier
500,000 while the 1982 commercial harvest attributable to upper Cook
Inlet was 777,000 cohos (Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G)/Su Hydro 1982). Coho salmon is also a highl~ .. prized sport
fish.
G-50
r
[
{"
r
L.
[
c
[
[
[
[
r
[
L
L
t
L
l
L __ _,
p
I
l "
n
[
[
[
C
[
[
[
[
c
L
r .
w
r .
L
[
The Little Susitna River prov1aes important spawning ha~itat for coho
salmon as well as some rea~ing habitat. Much of the rearin~,
however, occurs in lateral triuutaries and lakes throushout the
project area. In the recent past, there has been an avera~e
escapement of G,OOO -7,000 coho salmon in the Little Susitna River.
About an equal number of fish were harvested I.Jy the recreational
fishery while double that were harvested by commercial fishermen (L.
Engel, Alaska Depart111ent of Fish ana Game, Persona 1 Communication).
Again, habitat degradation of both riverine and wetlanu areas
resulting from a crossing is anticipated. The two ,years required for
rearing make this life stage particularly vulnerable to losses of
wetlands and tributary streams.
3. Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Past depletion of sockeye
salmon stocks in the Pacific Northwest, as well as in Alaska, has
resulted .in major interest in this species. Restoration programs
have been ongoing in Alaska for several years. Thus, there is
considerable national, state, and. local interest in avoiding adverse
impacts to sockeye, the most commercially important of the Pacific
salmon. The 1982 upper cook Inlet sockeye commercial catch was 3.2
million (ADF&G/Su Hydro 1982). Sockeye salmon is also considered an
important species to sport and subsistence fishing interests.
Fish creek is a maJor producer .of sockeye salr.1on within the pro.ject
area. In 1983, there was an escapement of about 119,000 sockeye; in
recent years prior to that, the escapement has ranged between 30,000
and 60,000 fish. Sockeye salmon;spawn in both lakes and streams and
rear for 1-2 years in lakes, especially Big Lake. Commercial harvest
to escapement occurs at an estimated·ratio between a 1:1 and 2:1.
Most of the recreational use occurs in the Little Susitna River, with
only limited harvesting occurring in Big Lake and Fish Creek {L.
Engel, Personal Communication).
Conversion of stream-and lakeside habitat to residential,
commercial, and/or industrial sites will decrease their value for
sockeye salmon. Heavy use by recreational fishermen will also
degrade these areas.
4. Rainbow trout {Salmo gairdneri). This species is one of the most
sought-after sport fishes m North America, if not the world. The
original range of the rainbow trout is from northern Mexico to the .
Kuskokwim River, Alaska, and west of the continental divide. Rainbow
trout have been introduced to every continent except Antarctica and
most major islands. The species is now present in every state except
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida and has been planted in several
lakes in ·interior Alaska {Morrow 1980). Interest in this species, on
a national and state basis, is high and habitat is considered
abundant in comparison to historical levels.
G-51
The Big Lake system consisting of Meadow Creek with associated small
lakes as the inlet and Fish Creek as the outlet supports a naturally
reproducing population of rainbow trout where 9,369 fish were causht
in 1982. The Little Susitna River also produces rainbow trout; the
1982 recreational harvest totaled 1,551 fish (L. Engel, Personal
CotmJunication).
Increased developn1ent pressures around water bodies, especially Big
Lake, and intensified use due to a crossing will result in total loss
of some areas and decreased quality of other remainin9 rainbow trout
habitat.
5. Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma). What is considered the historical
range of this spectes depends upon whether or not Dolly Varden are
considered to be a separate species from the Arctic char (S. alpinus)
and the bull char (S. confluentus) (~iorrow 1980). For the-purposes
of this document, Kruger's (1981) definition of Dolly Varden is
accepted: it states that "Dolly Varden char are defined as those
fish which occur south of the Arctic char and north of the bull
char." The range of this species in North America, is thus from the
arctic coast of Alaska south to southern British Columbia. Both
anadromous and resident populations are found throughout its range.
current habitat is of high quality and considered abundant compared
to that of historic levels.
Resident Dolly Varden occur in Big lake. An important sport fish,
8,793 were harvested in Bi~ Lake durin~ 1982 while 1,331 were taken
from the Little Susitna River (L~ Engel, Personal Communication).
Reduced habitat value is expected as a result of constructin~ a Knik
Arm crossing.
G-52
L
r
[
[
[
L
L
r.
L
l
L
l
L
=
,.
I
Lfterature Cfted
Alaska Department of F1$h and Game/Susitna Hydro Aquatfc Studfes. 1982. Stock
Separation Feasibilfty Report, Adult Anadromous Fisheries Project. Phase I
Final Draft Report, Subtask 7.10. Susitna Hydroelectric ProJect. Alaska
Power Authority. Anchorage, A 1 ask a.
Banko, W.E. 1960. The Trumpeter Swan. North Amerka Fauna, No. G3.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.
Bartonek, J. 1983. Mangement Plan for Pacific Coast ana Mid-Continent
Population of Trumpeter Swans (Draft). Pacific Fl)~ay Technical Committee.
Bechtel Ctvil and Ntnerals Inc. 1983. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project
Interim Feasibiltty Assessment Report. Alaska Power Authority. Anchorage,
Alaska.
Bellrose, Frank C. 1976. Ducks, Geese and Swans of North America. Stackpole
Books. Harrisburg, Pennsylvanfa.
Boise, C.M. 1977. Breeding biology of the lesser sandhill crane, Grus
canadensfs canadensfs (L.) on the Yukon-Kuskokwtm Delta, Alaska.
M.S. Thes1s, On1vers1ty of Alaska, 79 pp.
Campbell, Bruce H. 1984. Annual Report:-of Survey-Inventory Activtties:
Part V. Waterfowl. Alaska Department of Ffsh and Game. Juneau, Alaska.
Carey, S.N., ~l.F. Sorenson, and E.~I.IIvlartin. Waterfowl Harvest Hunter Act ivfty
fn the Unfted States durin~ the 1982 Huntfng Season. U.S. Ffsh and Wildlife
Servfce Admtntstratfve Report, June 21, 1983. Offtce Of Mtgratory Bfrd
Management. Laurel, Maryland.
King, J.G. and.B. Conant. 1983. Alaska-Yukon Waterfowl Breedfng Pafr
Survey, May 18 to June 13, 1982. Ffsh and Wfldlffe Service. Juneau, Alaska.
Kfng, J.G. and B. Conant. 1981. The 1980 Census of Trumpeter Swans on Alaska
Nesting Habitats. Amerfcan Birds Vol. 35, No. 5: 789-793.
Konkel, G.W., L.C. Shea, K.E. Bulchis, L.C. Byrne, D. Pengflly, and
K.S. Lourfe. 1980. Terrestrial Habftat Evaluatfon Crfterfa Hankbook -
Alaska (Review Copy). u.s. Ffsh and Wildlife Servfce. Anchorage, Alaska.
Kruger, S.W. 1981. Freshwater Habftat Relationships Dolly Varden Char
(Salvelinus malma (Walbaum)). Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Anchorage, Alaska.
Morrow, J.E. 1980. The Freshwater Fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest
Publishing co: Anchorage, Alaska.
G-53
Terres, John K. 1980. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North Amer'fca
Birds. Alfred A. Knopf. New York, New York.
T'fmm, D. and L. Wojeck. 1978. Trumpeter Swans. F'fshta'fls and Game Trails.
Alaska Department of F'fsh and Game. Juneau, Alaska Nov. pp. 4-6.
U.S. F'fsh and W'fldl'ffe Service. 1983. Alaska Regional Resource Plan (Draft).
Anchorage, Alaska.
G-54
[
r
L
[
r
[
f
[
r L
[
l
L
-c
/
n
-~IJ&Tf[ @W &~£~~£ I DE~ART~~T OF FISH ·""'D GA.~ I
OFRCE OF THE COMMISSIONER
BIU SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR
P.O.BOX 3-2000
JUNEAU. ALASKA 99802
PHONE: (907} 465-4100
,. May 29, 1984
c
[
[
[
[
[
Dr. Robert Putz, Regional Director
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
1011 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 9-9503
Dear Dr. Putz:
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has reviewed
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Knik
AI:m Crossing Mitigation Statement which provides guidance
for the evaluation and mitigation of fish and wildlife
resource losses potentially resulting from the construction
of the Knik Arm Crossing.
We recognize that your agency's nationwide responsibility
for the protection of fish and wildlife resources must
reflect concerns for habitat that may be unique or scarce on
a national basis. Because the ADF&G is principally
responsible for fish, wildlife and habitats within Alaska,
our priority of attention to species may vary slightly from
the priorities of the USFWS. Nevertheless, your mitigation
statement appear~ to address the full range of important and
indicator species in the affected area as we would define
them, and accurately describes the habitat associated with
these species. Furthermore, your mitigation policy is
generally in accord with the department' s-in the sense that
it first seeks to avoid and minimize impacts and, if impacts
cannot be minimized, only then considers compensatory
actions which emphasize in-kind and in-place actions. Your
mitigation policy should provide an adequate foundation for
subsequent mitigation planning.
G-55
• Dr. Robert Putz -2-May 29, 1984
Thank you for providing the department an opportunity to
comment on the Knik Arm Crossing Mitigation Statement.
Sincerely,
Commissioner
G-56
[
L
t'
l
i
I '
!_ u
Lr'
'I
I
[
r--
/
U. 5. E N V I R 0 N M E N TAL P R 0 T E C T I 0 N A G E N C Y
REGION X
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
REPlY TO
ATIN OF: M/S 443
Mr. Robert Bowker
Field Supervisor
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service
605 West 4th, Roam G-81
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
RE: tJiitigation Statement -Knik Arm Crossing
Dear Mr. Bowker:
We have received the Knik Arm Crossing Mitigation Statement. It provides
guidance for evaluating and mitigating Dnpacts of proposed Knik Arm
Crossing alternatives in Anchorage, Alaska.
We concur with the Mitigation Statement. We also share your concern for
secondary development bnpacts to fish ana wildlife habitat and wetlands
in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. We believe it should be the policy
of involved resource agencies that P9tential adverse secondary Dnpacts be
minimized through appropriate devel~nt controls. This will reduce the
need for in-kind replacement or restoration of lost habitat.
Thank you for including us in the review of the Mitigation Statement.
Should you need assistance in the future, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Evaluation Branch
cc: Bill Lawrence, AOO
G-57
May 17, 1984
.~. :r. ~~DDert ?.c:1ker
?ish a.nc1 't·Jildlife Se:.rvice
i!estern P.~c.ska, Ecological Services ·
:::05 ~:. 4t.,."1., :?.ocr!l. G-81
-:·.:-:.~t.0rc.r;.re, .~~asi~a 99501
Decrr i ~. ::;a·rker:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atm;lspheric Administration
NationaZ Marine Fisheries Service
P.O. Box 1668
Juneau 3 AZaska 99802
....... _..:.·
~·!.::; :ha.w~ recaiv.ed ~tour let·b=·r o~ l';pr:U 26 1 1984, -3!.ld c:D::o>~cl1::r:1..:.1g
I:~ ·:.ig~~·C.c:~1 St:.:!..ta-rr==.rrt J.Js.ga.:cC.; ·r~~r t:he prc,rosed IZ!1Dc A:.n Cro~sil1g. . ....
::-er~~i~z;·~ · ·ei1e-: i:."1"pJrt_~"!.C~~ of ·=st:ablislili1.g a. :~rcr,::=.\JDr!c :i:rorrt r:li1ich p~ir!-ar:=
a.nc1 S2~0:."'lo.a.rJ L.·-r~x.1.cts ca11 be ids;.tifiec1 .?..!lc1 effed:ive mi:tig2:ti ve
:rr1ec.sures developed. ·He concur 'tvith those e-c.iaJ.uation species selected
a:r.o.d 'Hi th t.l-J.e resource categor.{ desig:!"..ations presenJcec1 for ·t.~e5.r
respeoti ve habitats.
SLTlcerely,
. _ .. c~~~L
/h··RObP .. rt W~ H.cV&-J.
/ !)irector, Al2.ska F.egion
G-58
L
L
r
L
L
r L
r L
C'
L
L
L
r .
'\
I
'--'
r.
Js REPLY RI!.FEJt TO:
lfl_3
/
United States Department of the Interior
!'I:ATIQ::-;AL PARK SERVICE
WASHI.:--:GTO);, D.C. 20240
JUL ! 6 i984
The Director of the National Park Ser-vice is pleased to mform you of' our
determ:itlation pursuant to the National Historic PreserV-ation Act, as amended, and
Executive Order 11593 in response to your request for a determi."lation of elig:i.bjlity for
inclusion i."l t.'l).e National Re~..er of Historic ?laces. Our determination appears on the
enclosed material.
As you know, your request for our professional j.ldg m ent constit.utes a part of the
Federal plal'ln:it'lg process. W.e urge that this information be integrated into the National
Enyo;..ron:1ental Policy Act analysis and the analysis required under section 4 {f) of the
Department of Transportation Act, if this is a transportation project, to bring about the
best possible program dec:isions.
This determ.i..'"lation does not serve in any manner as a veto to uses of' prope..""":y, with
or without Federal participation or assista.."lce. The responsib:ility for program pla.nn:ing
conce!"Il!r.g properties eligible for the N at:ional Register lies with t.~e agency or block
'grant recipient after the Advisory Counc:U on Historic Preservation has had an
opportunity to com m ent.
We are pleased to be of assistance in the consideration of historic resources in t.~e
planning process.
Attachment
G-59
'Eo1·
DETERMINA110N OF EUGIBIUTY NOriFICATION
National Register of Historic Places
National Park Service
Proiect Nome: Knik Arm Crossing
·location: Anchorage
-Request submitted by: DOT/FHWA Barry F. Morehead
State: AK
Date Received: 7-2-84 Additional information received:
Nome of property
_918 West 2nd Ave.
813 1/2 West 3rd Ave.
36 CPR Part B32
Determination Eligibility
SHPO
opinion
Eligible
Eligi.bl~
Secretory of the
Interior's opinion
Eligible
Eligible
Criteria
~ '( . ~ I I • • ~· YK~r
WAS0-27
G-60
Tie ... ~-. .!:!. '-<:> ... !:::.ned Eligi.;le
Date:
r
. f ·,
.r
r -r,
-r
r
r L
[
r L
L
r L
[
r
If 1 '·--·
L
l
L
/' .. '\..
r-
L~
\
... :,.·;·.,;· . . ....
. -~'":": ·· ..
June 27. 1984
.... :
Ms. Carol Schul . ·· · · ···
Keeper of the National Reg1ste..-
National Park Service
1100 ,.L" Street Northwest
\~ashingtor.$: o.c. : 20240 .... ·
·'"·:···. ... . .
Alaska Project A-81021
Knik Arm Crossing
/
(
HFO-AK
734.2
NEUI'IABER
RUBY
The Federal Hig~~~ay Administration {FHWA} and the Alaska Depar-tment of Jransporta-
tion and Public Facilities a·re in the process of developing a nighway project
between /mchorage and the ParK.s High\'lay including a bt~idge across Knik Arm •.
A survey of the project area \otas r.mde. to determine if there are an; items eligible
for the tiational Register of Histor·ic Places. In. consultation with the State
Historic Preservation Officer and ADOT/?F, the National Register criteria
~;ere applied to six sites and it is our opinion that four of these sites appear
to ~eet these criteria. We are requesting a determination of eligibility for these
four sites based on the enclosed information.
An expeditious review and cc~uent from the· Secretary as to the eligibility of
inclusion in the National Register would be appreciated., ·
Enclosure
KCDunn:seb
Sincerely yours,
Is! BARRY F. MOREHEAD
Barry F. Morehead
Division Adwinistrator
G-61
r lARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
. Knik Arm Crossing
Attn: Mr. Robert Wokurka
430 C Street, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Address reply to:
COMMANDER (oan)
Seventeenth Coast Guard District
P.O. Box 3-5000
Juneau. Alaska 99802
(907) 586-7368
16590
RE: Proposed Knik Arm
Crossing
Dear Mr. Wokurka:
This is in reply to your letter of 28 February 1984 concerning
the proposed Knik Arm crossing. As you indicate, a subsequent
formal determination by the Coast Guard about navigational
clearance considerations will be required. In the interim, an
informal review of the alternatives is provided at your request
as follows:
a. Elmendorf Crossing, north of Cairn Point, with the
proposed clearances of 500 feet horizontal and 31 feet above
Mean Higher High Water vertical, is acceptable for any existing
and reasonably forseeable marine traffic. Such marine traffic
would present very little risk of collision with the bridge.
b. The Downtown Crossing, regardless of clearance, would
have a substantial risk of vessel collision. This intuitive
judgement is reinforced by the recent study of the National
Research Council, "Ship Collisions with Bridges". Many of the
comments herein are based on that study.
c. A comparison of the relative costs of the two crossings
would be unrealistic if it did not include the costs of
suitable structural and vehicle traffic protection against ship
collision for the Downtown Crossing. Since the majority of
~erious collisions take place outside of normal navigation
channels anywhere a vessel in ballast can float at high water,
nearly all the in-wat~r portions of the Downtown bridge are at
risk.
d. The navigation route you show is as recommended in the
Coast Pilot, and is a reasonable approach to the Port of
Anchorage. It would be beneficial if a bridge span over it
were perpendicular to the route, as this provides a clearer
picture to the approaching mariner.
G-62
[
_[
r
L
[
L
L
[
L
L
l
r
[ '
[
[
[' _,
[
r--,
L
[
[
[
c
[
[
[
C'
.,>
[
[
[
L
L
~--·
e. The clearance you show is 140 feet above Mean Higher High
Water (MHHW) vertical and 1000 feet horizontal. In our letter
of 3 August 1983 we did not specify clearances at the downtown
location, since we recommended against any bridge there. In
that letter, user recommendations of up to 200 feet MHHW and
2000 feet horizontal were given. The methodology by which the
clearances were determined is not known, and therefore the
validity is open to question.
f. A Coast Guard approved navigational clearance will
require the following information from you:
1. An analysis of current vessel traffic using the area,·
and a projection of the vessels likely to be in use over the
life of the bridge, with the vertical and horizontal clearances
they require, both for normal approaches and for extreme
circumstances. Note that deeper draft vessels, which may well
have higher masts, tend to approach Anchorage at higher tide
stages so they can clear Knik Arm Shoal.
2~ An analysis of various horizontal clearances and the
attendent risks of bridge collisions. Possibly methods
discussed in the National Research Council Study could be
employed in this. Possibly, too, the circumstances at this
site are too complex to be subjectable to rational analysis,
which would_ tend to give greater weight to the comments of
users.
3. Comments you have received from users.
4. Your conclusions, based on the above and any other
factors that perta~n, including economics.
g. We will ask the users to comment on your recommendations
and the reasoning behind them, and then be in a position to
make a decision on your recommendations.
When two bridge sites exist across the same body of water, one
of which has almost no effect on marine and land transportation
safety, and the other of which is in an area where the
conditions of nature on vessel operation tend to produce a
substantial risk of bridge collision, there is no question that
the Coast Guard would prefer the safer location.
Sincerely,
5fti!iJP.---
Commander, u. S. Coast Guard
Chief, Aids to Navigation Branch
Seventeenth Coast Guard District
By direction of the District Commander
G-63
Appendix H
Bibliography
I :
Appendix H
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acres American, Inc. September 1981.
Tidal Power, Phase I, Volume I.
the Governor.
Preliminary Assessment of Cook Inlet
For the State of Alaska, Office of
Acres American, Inc. February 1983. Susitna Hydroelectric Project,
Volume 8. For the Alaska Power Authority.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. 1980. State Air Quality
Control Plan, Final Report.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G). 1973. Alaska's Wildlife and
Habitat: Vol. I. Juneau, Alaska.
ADF&G. 1978a. Alaska • s Fisheries Atlas: Vol. I and II. Juneau, Alaska.
ADF&G. 1978b. Alaska's Wildlife and Habitat: Vol. II. Juneau, Alaska.
ADF&G. February 1984. Annual Report of Survey-Inventory Activities, Part
V, Waterfowl.
ADF&G. 1982. An Atlas to the Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning,
Rearing and Migration of Anadromous Species.
ADF&G. 1980a. Susitna Flats Refuge Management Plan. Anchorage, Alaska.
ADF&G. (No date-a). Draft Goose Bay Refuge Management Plan.
ADF&G. (No date-b). Draft Palmer Hay Flats Refuge Management Plan.
ADF&G. 1980b. A Synthesis and Evaluation of ADF&G Fish and Wildlif~
Information for the Willow and Talkeetna Sub-basins. For USDA Soil
Conservation Service Interagency Cooperative, Susitna River Basin
Study.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). 1981. Alaska Outdoor
Recreation Plan.
ADNR. 1983. "Iditarod Trail Location Survey, Goose Creek to Susitna
Station", ASLS 83-001, map.
ADNR. April 1984. Fish Creek Management Plan, draft. In cooperation
with the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
ADNR. May 1982. Land Use Issues and Preliminary
For the Matanuska-Susitna-Beluga Cooperative
Resource Inventory.
Planning Program.
ADNR. 1983. Susitna Area Plan Public Meetings. For the Matanuska-
Susitna-Beluga Cooperative Planning Program.
H-1
ADNR. 1980. Susitna Basin Land Use/Recreation Atlas.
ADNR. October 1982. Willow Sub-basin Area Plan.
ADNR et al. 1970. Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan, Volume 2, Outdoor
Recreation in Alaska.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks. 1981.
Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan.
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT/PF).
1982a. "Anchorage and Vicinity 1982 Average Daily Traffic", map.
ADOT/PF. April, 1981. Anchorage International Aixport Master Plan Study.
Anchorage, Alaska
ADOT/PF. 1982. Boniface Interchange Location and Design Study Report,
RF-042-1 (66). Anchorage, Alaska.
ADOT/PF. 1982. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for New Parks
Highway, Wasilla, Alaska.
ADOT/PF. 1983. Highway Preconstruction Manual Chapter 11 Design.
Juneau, Alaska.
\
ADOT/PF. April 15, 1983. Knik Arm Crossing Economic Feasibility.
Anchorage, Alaska.
ADOT/PF. September, 1983. "105 Program" FY 1984.
ADOT/PF. February 24, 1982. 1981 Highway Cost Index. Juneau, Alaska.
ADOT/PF. 1982b. 1982 Tra~el Inventory-Central Region.
ADOT/PF -and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). March 1984. Major
Corridors Study -Seeping Document.
Alaska Housing Authority. 1969. Timber Resources in the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough. For Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
Alaska Power Authority. (no date) • 1982 Year-End Report.
Alaska Power Authority. February 1984. Susi tna Hydroelectric Project,
Economic and Financial Update. (draft report)
Alaska Road and Recreation Maps. 1981. "Big Lake and Vicinity."
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). 1965. A Policy on Geometric Design of Rural Highways.
Washington, D.C.
AASHTO. 1973. A Policy on Geometric Design of Urban Highways and Arterial
Streets. Washington, D. c.
H-2
['
[
[
f
l
r
E
L
L
[
[
r
L
L
L
i L_.
r~
L
I
L~
[
[
r-,
L
AASHTO. 1977. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, and the 1978
to 1982 ASHTO Interim Specifications.
Anchorage Air Pollution Control Agency. (no date). Air Quality Summaries
for the Municipality of Anchorage, unpublished.
Anchorage Convention and Visitors Bureau. March 1984. Anchorage Visitors
Study.
Anchorage Convention and Visitors Bureau. 1984. 1984 Visitors Guide.
Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (AMATS). 1982.
Transportation Improvement Program FY 83. Anchorage, Alaska.
AMATS. September 1983. .Transportation Improvement Program FY 84 -FY 88.
Anchorage Real Estate Research Committee. Fall 1982/Spring 1983.
Anchorage Real Estate Research Report, Volume IX.
Anchorage School District. 1983. Financial Plan, FY 1983-84.
Anchorage School District. December 1983. Ten-Year Capital Improvement
Program -Analysis and Recommendations, July 1, 1984 -June 30, 1994.
Apostolos,-J. A. et al. December 1978. Energy and Transportation Systems.
California Department of Transportation.
Arneson, P.D. 1981. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Annual Progress Report,
Big Game Studies, Part II: Moose-Downstream. For Alaska Power
Authority.
Austin, T.C., G.S. Rubenstein, L.D. Verrelli, T.E. Moyer. 1983. Light
Duty CO Emissions During Cold Weather. Paper presented at the Fuels
and Lubricants Meeting, San Francisco, October 31-November 3, 1983,
Sponsored by Society of Automotive Engineers.
Bakus, G. J., M. Orys and D. J. Hendrick. 1979. ·"The Marine Biology and
Oceanography of the Anchorage Region, Upper Cook Inlet, Alaska,"
Astarte, Vol. 12, no. 1. pp 13-20.
Battelle Pacific Northwest Industries. December 1982. Railbelt Electric
Power Alternatives Study: Evaluation of Railbelt Electric Energy
Plans. For the Office of the Governor, State of Alaska.
Bell, M. c. 1973 (rev. 1980). Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Require-
ments and Biological Criteria. For Fisheries Engineering Research
Program, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northern Pacific Division,
Portland, Oregon.
Benson, Paul E. 1979. CALINE3 - A Versatile Dispersion Model for
Predicting Air Pollutant Levels near Highways and Arterial Streets.
California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, California.
H-3
Berman, M. and T. Hull. Alaska Statewide and Regional. Economic and
Demographic Systems: Effects of OCS Exploration and Development.
Social and economic studies program, Technical Report No. 106.
Prepared for Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Office.
University of Alaska, Institute of Social and Economic Research,
Anchorage.
Blackburn, J. E. 1978. Pelagic and Demersal Fish Assessment in the Lower
Cook Inlet Estuary System. Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
Bloch, Ivan & Associates. 1955. Preliminary Appraisal of Proposed Knik
Ann Causeway.
Bomhoff & Associates. 1982. Extension of the Alaska Railroad to Point
MacKenzie. For the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
Braund, S.R. 1980. Cook Inlet Subsistence Salmon Fishery. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Subsistence Division, Tech Paper No. 54.
Britch, R. 1976. Tidal Currents in Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska. M.S.
Thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic-Sciences. 1983. Proceedings of
the Symposium on the Dynamics of Turbid Coastal Environments.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic-Sciences, Vol. 40,
Supplement No. 1.
Carberry, Michael E. 1979. Patterns of the Past: An Inventory of
Anchorage's Heritage Resources. Municipality of Anchorage, Historic
Landmarks Preservation Commission.
Colorado Division of Highways. 1977. Benefit-Cost Analysis Report.
Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
Wetlands ~d Deepwater Habitats of the United States. For the u.s.
Fish and Wild Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C.
DeLaguna, F. 1975. The Archeology of Cook Inlet, Alaska. Alaska Histori-
cal Society, Anchorage.
-The Dow-Shell Group. September 9, 1981. Report to the State of Alaska,
Volumes 1, 2, 5, and 7.
DOWL Engineers. June 1982. City of Houston Comprehensive Development
Plan •.
DOWL Engineers. May 1982. Growth Potential, Development Issues,
Settlement Patterns. For the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Comprehensive
Planning Program and the Matanuska-Susitna-Beluga Cooperative Planning
Program.
DOWL Engineers. February 1983. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Comprehensive
Plan, draft. For the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska.
H-4
[
r
r L
L
[
[
[
L
L
L
l
L
L
L~
c
[
r
L,
[
Dufour, P.A. 1980 Effects of Noise on Wildlife and Other Animals, Review
of Research Since 1971. For the u.s. Environmental Protection Agency.
By: Informatics, Inc., Rockville, MD.
Dumond, D. F. and R.L.A. Mace. 1968.
again Arm," APVA, Vol. 14, no. 1.
"An Archeological Survey Along Turn-
pp. 1-21.
Environmental Services, Ltd. 1978. Point MacKenzie Industrial Siting
Study. For Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
Evans, C. D., E. Buck, R. Buff1er, G. Fisk, R. Forbes, and w. Parker.
1972. The Cook Inlet Environment: A Background Study of Available
Knowledge. For U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1978. Western LGN Project -Final
Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I: Construction and Operation of
an LNG Liquefaction Terminal at Nikski, Alaska.
Federal Highway Administration {FHWA). December 1978. FHWA Highway
Traffic Noise Prediction Model, Report FHWA-RD-77-108.
FHWA. July 1982. Procedures For Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and
Construction Noise.
FHWA. June 1982. Report of Field Review -Highway Traffic Noise Impact
Identification and Mitigation Decision-making Process.
Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise. June 1980. Guidelines for
Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and Control.
"First QUarterly Cost Roundup," Engineering News-Record, Volume 210,
No. 12. March 24, 1983. pp. 77-121.
Gibson, D. E.
Highway,"
40-54.
1980. "Cultural Resource Survey Along the Palmer-Wasilla
Archeological Survey Projects 1978, Series No. 22. pp.
Goldsmith, s. and P. Rowe. April 1983. The Economic Impacts of Capital
Construction E=penditures in Alaska. Institute of Social and Economic
Research, University of Alaska.
Goldsmith, s. October 1978. Important Economic Relationships in the
Alaskan Macroeconomy. University of Alaska.
Goldsmith, s. {no date). Alaska Economic Multiplier Experiments with the
MAP Model. University of Alaska.
Hendrick, T. D., G. T. Bakus and staff. 1977. Water Quality Study, Knik
Arm and Upper Cook Inlet, Alaska, Tetra Tech Report TC827.
Highway Research Board. 1965. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 87.
H-5
Howard, Needles, Tammen & Bergendoff. 1972. Basic Research, Analysis and
Exploratory Investigations, Knik Arm Highway Crossing. For the State
of Alaska Department of Highways, Anchorage. Alaska.
Howard, Needles, Tammen & Bergendoff. November 1982. Matanuska-Susitna
Borough Transportation Plan.
Illinois Department of Transportation. 1981. Highway Energy Handbook.
Joyce, M. R., L. A. Rundquist, L. L. Moulton. 1980a. Gravel Removal
Studies in Arctic and Subarctic Floodplains in Alaska -Technical
Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska.
Joyce, M. R., L. A. Rundquist, L. L. Moulton. 1980b. Gravel Removal
Guidelines Manual for Arctic and Subarctic Floodplains, FWS/OBS-80-09.
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Service Program.
Kasprisin-Hutnik Partnership. March 1984. Phase I, Point MacKenzie Port/
Park Land Management Plan, draft. For the Matanuska-Susitna Borough,
Alaska.
Kasprisin-Hutnick Partnership. June 21, 1984. Point Mackenzie Area
Meriting Special Attention Phase II Summary Report. For the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska.
Kessel, B. and G. Gibson. 1978. Status and Distribution of Alaska Birds,
Studies in Avian Biology No. 1.
Kinney, P. T., T. Grove, and D. K. Button. 1970. Cook Inlet Environmental
Data R/V Acona Cruise 065 -May 21-28, 1968, Report No. R-70-2.
University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science.
Loeffler, B. 1980. Water Supply and Demand in the Susitna Basin. Alaska
Department of Natural Resources.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough. 1981a. Coastal Management Program, Phase I
Completion Report. Alaska Coastal Management Program.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough. March 1984a. Comprehensive Development Plan -
Public Facilities (draft).
Matanuska-susitna Borough. March 1984b. Comprehensive Development Plan -
Transportation.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough. March 3, 1981. Dow/Shell Information Response
to Point MacKenzie Siting, Book 1 of 2. Alaska
Matanuska-Susitna Borough. 1983. 1983-84 Annual Budget (Preliminary) •
Alaska.
Matanusak-Susitna Borough. September 1983. 1983 Sample Census
Matanuska-Susitna Borough. 1983. Service Areas 1983-84 Annual Budget
(Preliminary). Alaska.
H-6
[
[
[
r,
L
L
L
[
L
[
r_
[
L
L
l
i.
[
[
[
[
[
r
L
[
Matanuska-Susitna Borough. March 1982. Title 16, Subdivisions.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough. 198lb. Unpublished study reports for the Goose
Bay-MacKenzie Point Road.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Planning Department. August 1983. Matanuska-
Susitna Borough Coastal Management Plan.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District. February 24, 1983. School
Board Approved Budget 1983-84.
Maynard & Partch, Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1981. Matanuska-Susitna
Borough Coastal Management Program, Phase I, Completion Report.
Maynard & Partch, Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1982. Matanuska-Susitna
Borough Coastal Management Program, Phase II, Completion Report.
Maynard NBBJ Alaska. (no date). Housing Report --Part of the Comprehen-
sive Plan and Zoning Ordinance Revision, Municipality of Anchorage,
Alaska. For the Municipality of Anchorage.
McCormick, J., and w. Pichon. 1978. Wetlands of Potter Marsh-Point
Campbell to Potter-Final Report. Wapora, Inc., for Alaska District,
u.s. Army Corps of Engineers.
Mills, M.J. 1982. Statewide Harvest Study, Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration, July 1, 1982 -June 30, 1983. Vol. 24~ Alaska
Department of Fish and Game.
Mishan, E.V. 1976. Cost-Benefit Analysis. Praeger Publishers, New York.
Morrow, J. E. 1980. The Freshwater Fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest
Publishing Company, Alaska.
Muir, Robert G., & Associates. August 1979. "Fort Richardson Master
Plan/Future Development Plans," maps. For the u. S. Army Engineer
District, Alaska.
Municipality of Anchorage. June 1979. Alternative Land Use Study Techni-
cal Report.
Municipality of Anchorage. 1982a. Anchorage Air Quality Plan, 1982 SIP
Revisions. Prepared by the Air Quality Technical Committee, adopted
May 27, 1982.
Municipality of Anchorage. 1980. Anchorage Coastal Zone Management Plan.
Municipality of Anchorage. 1982b. Anchorage Transit Technical Study -
Preliminary Evaluation Report.
Municipality of Anchorage. (no date). Coastal Scenic Resources Plan.
Municipality of Anchorage. June 1982. Coastal Trail Plan: Ship Creek to
Eklutna.
H-7
Municipality of Anchorage. May 1983. Fact Sheet 1983 Approved Budget
(After Mill Levy Revision). Anchorage, Alaska.
Municipality of Anchorage. November 1982. Fiscal Trends Report 1978-1988.
Anchorage, Alaska.
Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities. March 1984. Anchorage Accelerated Road Program.
Municipality of Anchorage, Community Planning Department. Fall 1983.
Anchorage CBD Comprehensive Development Plan.
Municipality of Anchorage, Community Planning Department. May 1983.
Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan.
Municipality of Anchorage, Community Planning Department. July 1983.
Long-Range Transportation Plan. for the Anchorage Bowl, 1983-:2001,
draft. For the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Study.
Municipality of Anchorage, Community Planning Department. November 1983.
Official 1983 Population Estimates and Methodology.
Municipality of Anchorage, Planning Department. March 1982. Anchorage
Bowl Comprehensive Development Plan (Revision).
Municipality of Anchorage, Planning Department.
River-Chugiak-Eklutna Comprehensive Plan.
September 18, 1979.
Alaska.
Eagle
Municipality of Anchorage, Planning Department. August 1980. Land Use and
Vacant Land Analysis of the Anchorage Bowl. Alaska.
Municipality of Anchorage, Planning Department. September 1981. 1981
Long-Range Element Update. For the Anchorage Metropolitan Area-
Transportation Study, Alaska.
Murray D. 1980. Threatened and Endangered Plants of Alaska. u.s. Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management, joint publication.
National Academy of Sciences. 1977. Guidelines for Preparing Environ-
mental Impact Statements on Noise.
Northern Technical ·services
Development Profiles
Alaska.
(NORTEC).
Volume I.
March 1981. Draft Industrial
For the Matanuska-Susitna Borough,
Osgood, C. 1966·. "The Ethnography of the Tanaina," Anthropology, No. 16.
Pamplin, W. L. 1979. Construction-Related Impacts of the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline System on Terrestrial Wildlife Habitats, Joint Fish and
Wildlife Advisory Team Special Report No. 24. u.s. Fish and Wildlife
Service Joint State/Federal Fish and Wildlife Advisory Team, Alaska.
Potter, L. 1963. A Study of a Frontier Town in Alaska: Wasilla to 1959.
Thetford Center, Vermont.
H-8
[
[
f'
l
L
[
L
[
[
[
L
L
L
{_
L
l_:_
[
Real Estate Research Corporation. 1974. Costs of Urban Sprawl. For the
U. s. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D. c.
Reger, D. P. 1977. Excavations on the Beluga Point Site, unpublished M.S.
thesis.
Reger, D.P. (no date). Prehistory of the Northwest Kenai Peninsula
Area, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation proposal.
Reger, D. P. 1980. ''Report of Archeological Field Survey in Willow-
Wasilla Area," Archeological Survey Projects 1978, Series No. 22.
Ritchie, R., J. Curatolo, and A. Batten. 1981. Knik Arm Wetlands Study.
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service, WAES. Anchorage, Alaska.
Rosenberg, D. H., D. c. Burrell, K. v. Natarajan, and D. w. Hood. 1967.
Oceanography of Cook Inlet and Special Reference to the Effluent from
the Collier Carbon and Chemical Plant, Report No. R67-5. University
of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science.
Rothe, T.C., S.H. Lanigan, P.A. Martin, and G.F. Tande. 1983. Natural
Resource Inventory of Elmendorf Airforce Base, Alaska. For: 21st
Combat Support Group/DEEV, Elmendorf Airforce Base. By: U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Special Studies, Region 7.
Rummel, B. 1980. Susitna Basin Planning Background Report: Water
Quality. For Alaska Department of Natural Resources in cooperation
with u.s. Soil Conservation Service.
Scott, M.J. and staff. 1979. Southcentral Alaska's Economy and
Population, 1965-2025, A Base Study and Projections. Institute for
Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska, Anchorage.
Sellers. 1979. Waterbird Use and Management Considerations for Cook Inlet
State Game Refuge, unpublished report. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, Anchorage.
Sharma, G. D. and D. C. Burrell. 1970.
Sediments of Cook Inlet, Alaska, "
Geologists Bulletin.
"Sedimentary Environment and
American Association of Petroleum
Shultz, T. J. August 1978. "Synthesis of Social Surveys on Noise Annoy-
ance," JASA, Vol. 64, No. 2.
Timm, Dan. 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980. Report of Survey and
Inventory Activities of Waterfowl. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, Juneau, Alaska.
Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton (TAMS Engineers). July 1983. Anchorage
International Airport Surface Transportation Study, Phase III Report.
TAMS Engineers. May 1, 1975. Phase I Feasibility Study Proposed Knik Arm
Crossing Utilizing a Ferry System. For the State of Alaska.
H-9
TAMS Engineers. 1983. The Port of Anchorage Marketing and Development
Plan --Phase II Final Draft Report. For the Port of Anchorage,
Alaska.
Transportation Research Board. (no date) • National Cooperative Highway
Research Program Report 187.
u. s. Air Force. 1979. "Master Base Plan Elmendorf Air Force Base," maps.
Elmendorf, Alaska.
u. s. Air Force, Planning Assistance Teams. September 1983. Knik Arm
Crossing Proposals, An Air Force Evaluation.
u. s. Army, Alaska. 1974. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Con-
struction and Operation -Parachute Drop Zone and Short Field Assault
Landing Strip. Fort Richardson, Alaska.
u. s. Army Corps of Engineers. 1979a. Metropolitan Anchorage Urban Study.
Alaska District, u. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
u. s. Army Corps of Engineers. 1979b. Metropolitan Anchorage Urban Study.
Vol 3. Water Quality, Knik Arm, Upper Cook Inlet. For Municipality
of Anchorage.
u. s. Army.Corps of Engineers. 1979c. Metropolitan Anchorage Urban Study.
Vol 5. Storm Water Quality Management For Existing Areas. For
Municipality of Anchorage.
u. s. Army Corps of Engineers. 1975. South Central Railbelt Area Alaska
Upper Susitna River Basin Interior Feasibility Report, Appendix I,
Part I, Section A -Hydrology.
u. s. Army Corps of Engineers. 1975/1980 update. Special Flood Hazard
Report For Ship Creek, Anchorage, Alaska.
u. s. Army Corps of Engineers. 1982. Special Flood Hazard Information For
Ship Creek, Elmendorf Air Force Base, Anchorage, Alaska.
U. s. Coast Guard. "Cook Inlet, Fire Island to Goose Bay," Map No. 16664.
u. s. Coast Guard. January 1981. "Pacific and Arctic Coast, Alaska,"
Pilot 9, lOth edition.
u. s. Department of Agriculture et al. October 1981. Willow Sub-basin,
Susitna River Basin Study-Alaska. Anchorage.
u.s. Department of Commerce (USDOC), Coast and Geodetic Survey. April 7,
1970. Tidal Bench Marks. Anchorage, Alaska.
U. s. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion (USDOC/NOAA). 1982. Local Climatological Data. Anchorage,
Alaska.
H-10
[
[
L
[
r
[
[
(
L
l
L~
[
[
I L~
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
.u. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration
(USDOT/FAA). March 4, 1972. Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77,
Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace.
U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (USDOT/
FHWA). 1974. "Urban Trip Distribution Friction Factors," Trip
Assignment. Washington, D. c. ----
u. s. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and
Alaska_Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (USDOT/FHWA,
ADOT/PF). December 5, 1983. Knik Arm Crossing Final Corridor
Alternatives Analysis.
USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF. November 29, 1982. Knik Arm Crossing Scoping
Document.
USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF. March 8, 1983. Knik Arm Crossing Scoping Report.
USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF. February 1983a. Technical Memorandum No. 1, Corridor
Evaluation Methodology.
USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF. February 1983b. Technical Memorandum No. 2, Marine
Seismic Reflection Survey.
USDOT/FHWA; ADOT/PF. November 21, 1983. Technical Memorandum No. 3,
Onshore Geotechnical Analysis.
USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF. March 8, 1983a. Technical Memorandum No. 4, Public
Involvement Plan.
USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF. March 8, 1983b. Technical Memorandum No. 5, Scoping
Corridor Evaluation.
USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF. March 5, 1983. Technical Memorandum No. 6, Scoping
Sessions.
USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF. August 12, 1983a. Technical Memorandum No. 7, Urban
Growth Forecasts, Corridor Alternatives Analysis
USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF. August 12, 1983b. Technical Memorandum No. 8, Design
Concepts and Costs, Corridor Alternatives Analysis.
USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF. August 12, 1983c. Technical Memorandum No. 9, Travel
Forecasts, Gorridor Alternatives Analysis.
USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF. August 12, 1983d. Technical Memorandum No. 10,
Environmental Impact, Corridor Alternatives Analysis.
USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF. August 12, 1983e. Technical Memorandum No. 11,
Benefit-Cost Analysis, Corridor Alternatives Analysis.
USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF. December 1, 1983. Technical Memorandum No. 12,
Cost-Effectiveness, Corridor Alternatives Analysis.
H-11
USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF. August 12, 1983f. Technical Memorandum No. 13,
Financing, Corridor Alternatives Analysis.
USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF. October 21, 1983. Technical Memorandum No. 14,
Public Involvement, Corridor Alternatives Analysis.
USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF. December 20, 1983. Technical Memorandum No. 15,
14arine Biological Studies.
USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF. January 27, 1984a. Technical Memorandum No. 16,
Freshwater and Terrestrial Habitat Studies.
USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF. January 27 1 1984b. Technical Memorandum No. 17,
Survey of Archeological and Historic Resources.
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981. Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors: Highway Mobile Sources.
u. s. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Dispersion Model User's
Guide, Volume 1. Report No. EPA-450/4-79-030. Industrial Source
Complex (ISC) •
u. s. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Regional Workshops on Air
Quality Modeling - A Summary Report. Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
u. s. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981. User's Guide to MOBILE2
(Mobile Source Emissions Model), Report No. EPA-460/3-81-006. Motor
. Vehicle Emission 'Lab, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service. (No Date). Distribution and Abundance of
Swans in Alaska. Anchorage.
u. s. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Technical Appendix -Fish and
Wildlife Resources. Susitna River Basin Cooperative Study, Willow
Sub-basin Portion.
u. s. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Drainage Area," unpublished.
Wetlands Inventory Program.
1982. "Wetland Maps for the Susi tna
U. s. Fish and Wildlife Service Natipnal
u. s. Forest Service. 1979. Roadway Drainage Guide for Installing
Culverts to Accommodate Fish, Alaska Region Report No. 12. u. s.
Department of Agriculture, Alaska.
u. s. Soil Conservation Service. 1979. Alaska Rivers Cooperative Study,
Susitna Basin, Willow, and Talkeetna Sub-basins -Plan of work.
u. s. Soil Conservation Service. 1982. "Vegetation Maps for the Susitna
Basin Area, " unpublished. u. s. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service Interagency Cooperative, Susitna River Basin
Study.
H-12
r-
[
f'
L
[
[
[
L
[
[
L
L
L
~.)
,,
L
i I L
[
,-
l
[
r L~
[~
[
[
f"
l
Viereck, L. and c. Dyrness. 1980. A Preliminary Classification System for
Vegetation of Alaska. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
General Technical Report PNW-106.
Yarborough, L. 1979a. Report of Archeological Survey on the Goose Bay-
MacKenzie Point LSR&P Project, Phase I. For Matanuska-Susitna
Borough.
Yarborough, L. 1979b. Report of Archeological Survey on Goose Bay-
MacKenzie Point LSR&P Project, Phase II: North Portion. For
Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
Yarborough, L. 1980. Report of Archeological Survey on Goose Bay-
MacKenzie Point LSR&P Project, Phase II: South Portion. For
Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
Yarborough,_M. R. 1983. An Aerial Reconnaissance and Limited
Surface Survey of the Proposed Houston and Wasilla Corridors of the
Knik Arm Crossing Project. Report prepared for Dames and Moore,
Anchorage.
H-13
I ~
i
l.~
I
L
r:
I .
r·
L
l"
r-
I
l .
r.
I
i l ~
r-
! L __
Index
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
L
[
[
INDEX
Agencies, Organizations, and Persons
Sent Copies of the Statement VII-1
Agency Coordination VIII-1
Affected Environment III-1
Agriculture III-48, IV-105
Air Quality III-55, IV-108, D-1
Aircraft Clearance III-32, IV-73, VI-4
Alaska Railroad III-7, III-32, IV-26,
IV-66, IV-67, VI-1
Alignment Alternatives II-4
Alignment Selection Analysis II-4
Alternative Comparison II-30
Alternative Description:
Downtown Project,
Crossing II-8
Houston Connector II-17
Seward Connector II-15
Elmendorf Project,
Crossing II-21
Houston Connector II-23
Glenn/Parks Improvement II-27
Hovercraft II~28
No-Action II-24
Alternatives II-1
Alternatives, Reasonable II-1
Ambient Air Quality Standards III-55,
D-1
Archeological Resources V-1
Aquatic Habitat III-41, IV-93
Authority for Project Planning I-5
Bibliography H-1
Bicycles; see "Pedestrians and Bicy-
cles"
IN-1
Big Lake Corridor Alternative II-3
Biological Resources III-34, IV-81
Bridge/Causeway Crossing Configuration
Alternative II-3
Bus Service:
Downtown Project,
Crossing II-8
Houston Connector II-17
Elmendorf Project,
Crossing II-21
Houston Connector II-23
Glenn/Parks Improvement II-27
Hovercraft II-29
Impacts IV-26
No-Action II-24
Service description III-7
Comparison of Alternatives II-30
Capital Projects, Affect to IV-80
Carbon Monoxide III-55, IV-109, D-1,
D-4, D-8, D-15
Causeway Crossing Configuration
Alternative II-3
CO; see "Carbon Monoxide"
Coal Resources III-53, IV-107
Coastal Trail III-9, III-23, IV-33,
IV-61
Coastal Zone Management Plans III-18,
IV-58
Commuter Rail Alternative II-4
Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan C-1
Configuration (Crossing) Alternatives
II-3
Congestion; see "Traffic Flow"
Construction:
Downtown Project,
Crossing II-13
Houston Connector II-20
Seward Connector II-16
Elmendorf Project,
Crossing II-22
Houston Connector II-23
Glenn/Parks Improvement II-27
Hovercraft II-29
Construction Staging Areas:
Crossing Alternatives II-13, II-23,
IV-85
Coordination:
Agency VIII-1
Public Involvement VIII-5
Correspondence G-1
Cost:
Downtown Project,
Crossing II-12
Houston Connector II-19
Seward Connector II-16
Elmendorf Project,
Crossing II-22
Houston Connector II-24
Glenn/Parks Improvement II-27
Hovercraft II-29
Railroad on Crossing VI-2
Design Features:
Downtown ·Project,
Crossing II-8
Houston Connector II-17
Seward Connector II-16
Elmendorf Project,
Crossing II-21
Houston Connector II-23
Glenn/Parks Improvement II-27
Hovercraft II-28
Railroad on Crossing VI-2
Dislocation and Relocation IV-64, C-1
Downtown II Corridor Alternative II-3
Downtown Crossing (description) II-4,
II-8
Downtown Project (description) II-4,
II-7
IN-2
Draft Corridor Alternatives Analysis
I-6
, Dwelling Units:
Current and Forecast III-14
Induced IV-51
Redistribution of Forecast IV-39
Total Impact IV-51
Eagle River Corridor Alternative II-3
Economic Development III-14, IV-37
Elmendorf Crossing (description) II-6,
II-21
Elmendorf Project (description)·II-6,
II-20
Emergency Services III-30, IV-71
Employment:
Construction II-12, II-16, II-20,
II-22, II-23, II-27, II-29, IV-37,
VI-4
Current and Forecast III-14
Induced IV-46, IV-48, IV-50, IV-51
Redistribution of Forecast IV-43
Total Impact IV-51
Energy IV-124, vi~5
Engineering Drawings A-1
Environmental Consequences II-30, IV-1
Existing Land Use III-18
Existing Roadway Network III-1
Farmlands of State or Local Importance
. III-48, IV-105
Final Corridor Alternatives Analysis
I-6, II-1
Financing:
Downtown Project,
Crossing II-15
Houston Connector II-20
Seward Connector II-16
Elmendorf Project,
Crossing II-23
Houston Connector II-23
Glenn/Parks Improvement II-28
Hovercraft II-29
[
[
L
[
[
[
[
[
l
L
L
[
I'
l_.
[
[
[
[
L
[
[
[
L
L
L
Financing Overview F-1
Fish and Wildlife Use III-41, IV-97,
IV-106
Floodplains III-48, IV-104
Fort Richardson Corridor Alternative
II-3
Freight Movement III-7, IV-25
Freshwater Environment III-47, IV-100,
IV-103
Fund for Large Projects, State F-3
Gas Resources III-53, IV-107
Glenn/Parks Improvement (description)
.II-7, II-27
Government Finance III-34, IV-77
Growth Forecasts III-14, IV-37
HOV; see "High Occupancy Vehicle"
Habitat; see "Terrestrial", "Marine",
or "Aquatic Habitat"
High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes II-7
Highway Accessibility IV-1
Historic and Archeological Resources
V-1; see "Iditarod Trail"
History of Project Planning I-5
Housing Development IV~54
Houston Connector (description) II-4,
II-6, II-17, II-23
Hovercraft II-7, II-28
Hunting and Fishing III-41, IV-97,
IV-106
Hydrology III-47, IV-103
Iditarod Trail III-9, III-54, IV-108
IN-3
LOS; see "Level-of-Service"
Land and Water Conservation Fund V-5,
V-20
Land Use Plans III-18, IV-58
Land Value Capture F-2
Level-of-Service III-3, IV-13
Local Government Finance III-34,
IV-77
Maintenance and Operation:
Downtown Project,
·crossing II-14
Houston Connector II-20
Seward Connector II-16
Elmendorf Project,
Crossing II-23
Houston Connector II-23
Glenn/Parks Improvement II-28
Hovercraft II-29
Marine Environment III-46, III-47,
IV-99, IV-103
Marine Habitats III-34, IV-91, VI-4
Military Function and Operation III-31,
IV-68
Minorities, Low Income, Elderly IV-76
N0 2 ; see "Nitrogen Dioxide"
Nancy Lake Corridor Alternative II-3
Natural Resources III-34, IV-81
Natural Resource Development III-48,
IV-105
Navigation Clearance III-31, IV-72
Need for Project I-4
Neighborhood and Business Community
Operations IV-66
Nitrogen Dioxide III-55, IV-109, D-1,
D-4
No-Action Alternative (description)
II-7, II-24
No-Crossing Alternatives {description)
II-7, II-24
Noise III-57 IV-117, E-1
Noise Abatement Criteria IV-117, E-2
North Approach Corridor Alternatives
II-3
Oil Resources III-53, IV-107
Operating Revenue and Cost:
Anchorage III-34, IV-79 ·
Mat-Su Borough III-34, IV-77
Regional III-34, IV-80
Park-and-Ride III-9, IV-31
Pedestrians and Bicycles III-9, IV-31
People Mover III-7; see "Public Trans-
portation"
Permits and Approvals:
Downtown Project,
/ Crossing II-15
Houston .Connector II-20
Seward Connector II-16
Elmendorf Project,
Crossing II-23
Houston Connector II-23
Glenn/Parks Improvement II-28
Hovercraft II~29
Plans:
Land Use III-18, IV-58
Street and Highway III-10, IV-33
Point MacKenzie Corridor Alternative
II-3
Point MacKenzie Port/Industrial Site
III-27, IV-64, VI-4
Population I-4, III-14; see also
"Dwelling Units"
Port of Anchorage III-31, IV-72
Preparers, List of IX-1
Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands
III-48
Private Financing F-3
Project Area I-1
Project Location I-1
Project Team IX-1
Public Involvement Program VIII-5
Public Transportation III-7, IV-26
Purpose and Need I-1
Railroad on Crossing VI-1
Reasonable Alternatives II-1
Recreation Resources III-53, IV-106,
V-4, V-27, V-11, V-13, V-19
IN-4
Regional Setting III-1
Relocation; see "Dislocation and Re-
location"
Revenue Sources F-1
Roadway Network, Existing III-1
Sand and Gravel III-53, IV-107
Schools IV-70
Section 4{f) Evaluation V-1
Section 6{f), Land and Water Conserva-
tion Fund V-5, V-20
Seward Connector {description) II-4,
II-15
Social and Economic III-10, IV-37
State Fund for Large Projects F-3
Stream Modification IV-93
[
[
[
r·
L
L
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
L
[
Street and Highway Plans III-10, IV-33
Subsurface Resources III-53, IV-107
Summary S-1
Susitna Hydroelectric Project III-27,
IV-12, IV-64
Terrestrial Habitats III-34, IV-81
Threatened and Endangered Species
III-44, IV-98
Timber III-53, IV-106
Tolls:
Revenue F-1
Effect on Traffic Volumes IV-12
Traffic Flow III-3, IV-13
Traffic Volumes:
Change to Forecast IV-5
Current and.Forecast III-3
Downtown Project,
Crossing II-8
Houston Connector II-17
Seward Connector II-16
Effect of Susitna Hydroelectric
Project IV-12
Effect of tolls IV-12
Elmendorf Project,
Crossing II-21
Houston Connector II-23
Glenn/Parks Improvement II-27
Transit; see "Public Transportation"
Transportation III-1, IV-1
Transportation System Management Al-
ternative II-7
Truck Freight III-7, IV-25
TSM; see "Transportation System Manage-
ment"
Tunnel Crossing Configuration Alterna-
tive II-3
IN-5
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act
IV-64
Unreasonable Alignments II-3
Urban Function and Operation III-27,
IV-66
Urban Growth III-14, IV-37
Utilities III-32, IV-73
Vertical Take-off and Landing Aircraft
Al.ternative II-4
Visual III-57, IV-127, VI-5
Was~lla Corridor Alternative II-3
Water Resources and Quality III-46,
IV-99
Western Alaska Resources III-54, IV-108
Wetlands III-46, IV-98, VI-4, B-1
Wildlife; see "Fish and Wildlife"
Willow Corridor Alternative II-3