FEIS Summary - Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority

Knik Arm Crossing 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Summary 

Introduction 

This Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for the Knik Arm 

Crossing (KAC) Project reports the 

identification of a Recommended 

Alternative, presents any modifications to 

the project, provides updated information 

on the affected environment and on 

changes in the assessment of impacts, 

identifies mitigation measures and 

commitments for the Recommended 

Alternative, reports regulatory findings, 

and discloses the results of coordination 

and comments received on the Knik Arm 

Crossing Draft EIS and Draft Section 4(f) 

Evaluation (Draft EIS), along with 

responses to all comments. This Final 

EIS also documents, to the extent 

possible, compliance with all applicable 

environmental laws, regulations, and 

Executive Orders, or provides reasonable 

assurance that their requirements 

will be met. 

The Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) and Knik Arm Bridge and Toll 

Authority (KABATA) prepared and 

published the Draft EIS on September 15, 

2006, for public availability, review, and 

comment. The 45-day Draft EIS comment 

period required by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) was 

extended from October 30, 2006, to 

November 17, 2006, which extended the 

comment period to 63 days. Following 

circulation of the Draft EIS and 

consideration of comments received on 

the document, FHWA and KABATA have 

prepared this Final EIS. 

Document Organization 

The basis of this Final EIS is the text of 

the Draft EIS in its entirety, with 

Overview of Final EIS Summary 

Introduction S-1 

Document Organization S-1 

The Proposed Action S-4 

Purpose and Need for the Project S-4 

Alternatives Considered S-4 

Decription of the S-8 

Recommended Alternative 

(see supporting exhibits on pages S-21 to S-31) 

Reasons for Selection of S-10 


(see supporting exhibits on pages S-32 to S-35) 

Environmental Impacts of S-16 


(see supporting Exhibit S-23 on pages S-36 to S-52) 

Mitigation and Commitments S-16 


Findings, Compliance, and Permits S-17 


Other Related Government Actions S-17 

Principal Areas of Controversy S-18 

Unresolved Issues S-18 

Comments and Coordination S-18 

Final EIS Availability S-20 

Statute of Limitations S-20 

changes made as appropriate throughout 

the document. Two new sections have 

been added: 1) a Final EIS Summary 

and 2) Section 8: Comments and 

Coordination Following Approval of the 

Draft EIS (see Exhibit S-1). The 

remaining sections of this document are 

the same as the Draft EIS, but they do 

reflect changes made in response to 

public, agency, and tribal comments 

received on the Draft EIS. For easy 

identification by the reader, all 

important additions to the Draft EIS text 

are highlighted and underlined. All 

important deleted text is shown in 

highlight and in strikethrough format. 

S-1

Knik Arm Crossing Final EIS 


Exhibit S‐1. Final EIS Document Organization 

Section and topics covered 

Final EIS Summary. This summary provides an 

update on the project since the publication and 

release of the Draft EIS. It reviews the proposed 

action; identifies the reasonable alternatives 

considered in the Draft EIS; identifies, describes, and 

provides reasons for selecting the Recommended 

Alternative; identifies the environmental impacts of 

and mitigation and commitments for the 

Recommended Alternative; reports regulatory 

findings and compliance with laws and executive 

orders; discloses areas of controversy and unresolved 

issues; and reports other governmental actions and 

permits needed. 

Draft EIS Executive Summary. This section 

provides a summary of the Draft EIS. It explains the 

purpose of an EIS; provides an overview of the 

proposed action; identifies related actions and 

projects by local, state, and federal agencies in the 

area; summarizes the alternatives development and 

screening process, including the reasonable 

alternatives evaluated in detail in the Draft EIS; 

discusses the preferred alternative; summarizes the 

beneficial and adverse impacts of the reasonable 

alternatives; identifies preliminary mitigation and 

preliminary commitments for addressing project 

impacts; discusses areas of controversy and 

unresolved issues; and identifies related federal 

actions necessary. 

Section 1: Purpose and Need. This section 

discusses the proposed action and the 

transportation problem that it addresses. 

Section 2: Alternatives. This section discusses in 

detail the project’s logical termini and study area; the 

range of alternatives developed and evaluated; the 

reasonable alternatives fully evaluated in the Draft 

EIS; the general design features and estimated costs 

and impacts of reasonable alternatives; and 

components of the preferred alternative. 

Section 3: Affected Environment. This section 

presents an inventory of economic, environmental, 

and cultural resources in the Project Area. 

New or revised section 

This is an entirely new section, one that was not 

published in the Draft EIS. For readability, this addition is 

not displayed in highlighted text. 

This section remains unchanged. 

Some additions and revisions have been made for clarity. 

Additional information has been added regarding land 

and housing values. 

Revisions have been made to the “Summary of Impacts” 

table further refining or clarifying impacts on the natural 

environment as well as on Section 106 and Section 4(f) 

properties. 

Text has been added to provide more detail regarding 

additional planning documents that influence the 

project. 

Information on existing facilities in the Project Area has 

been modified or added. The section on essential fish 

habitat (EFH) includes additional information on fish 

habitat preference from the EFH Assessment technical 

report. 

Regarding the Cook Inlet beluga whale, additional 

information has been added on its regulatory status, 

population estimates and trends, habitat, and diet. 

(Continued on next page) 

S-2

Exhibit S‐1. Final EIS Document Organization (continued) 

Section and topics covered 

Section 4: Environmental Consequences. This 

section presents the environmental consequences of 

the No-Action and reasonable alternatives, including 

preliminary measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

impacts. 



New or revised section 

Text has been added to clarify project compatibility with 

existing land use plans and policies. 

Updates to tables reporting traffic impacts have been 

slightly modified. 

Other principal changes include additional information 

on hydrology, anadromous fish use of Knik Arm and 

impacts associated with anadromous fish, and the status 

of the beluga whale. 

Additional mitigation measures have also been included. 

Additions/modifications regarding mitigation and 

commitments are also in Exhibit S‐24 in the Final EIS 

Summary. 

Section 5: List of Preparers 

Section 6: Draft EIS Distribution 

Section 7: Comments and Coordination [Scoping]. 

This section presents a summary of the scoping 

activities with agencies, tribes, and the public, and 

scoping comments. It also includes information on 

Draft EIS comment opportunities. 

Section 8: Comments and Coordination Following 

Approval of the Draft EIS for Public 

Availability. This section provides an overview of 

notification and coordination (meetings and 

correspondence) with agencies, tribes, and the public 

following the release of the Draft EIS. Comments 

received on the Draft EIS—and responses to those 

comments—are also included in this section. 

Additional appendixes support this new section. 

Final Section 4(f) Evaluation. Attached to the 

Final EIS is a final report on the effects of the action 

on those resources afforded protection under 

provisions of Section 4(f) of the Department of 

Transportation Act of 1966 (as amended), 23 United 

States Code (U.S.C.) § 138. 

Appendix F: Preliminary Alaska Coastal 

Management Program Consistency 

Appendix G: Notices of Availability of Draft EIS 

and Notices of Public Hearing 

Appendix H: Public Hearing Material 

Appendix I: Public Hearing Transcripts 

Appendix J: Records of Other Meetings Held and 

Conclusionary Documents/Correspondence 

Appendix K: Draft EIS Comment Database Reports 

Appendix L: Comments Submitted on Draft EIS 

Appendix M: Wetlands and Floodplains Findings 

Updates have been made to the “List of Preparers” table. 

Additions have been made to the Draft EIS distribution 

list. 

This section remains largely unchanged. 

This is an entirely new section, one that was not 

published in the Draft EIS. For readability, this addition is 

not displayed in highlighted text. 

Additions and revisions have been made to the Draft 

Section 4(f) Evaluation, primarily related to identification 

of the overall least net harm alternative selection and 

mitigation. 

Supporting material not published in the Draft EIS has 

been added in a series of appendixes. 

S-3



The Proposed Action 

As explained in detail in Section 1.0 of 

the EIS, the KAC Project will construct a 

new means of improved access between 

the Municipality of Anchorage 

(Anchorage) and the Matanuska-Susitna 

Borough (Mat Su) through an efficient 

and financially feasible crossing of Knik 

Arm, including adequate connections to 

the committed roadway network. Exhibit 

S-2, on page S-5, shows the vicinity of 

the KAC Project and the location of 

various features pertinent to preparation 

of the Draft EIS. The project’s 

environmental and engineering analyses 

have been a joint effort of KABATA and 

FHWA. 

KABATA, the project sponsor, was 

established in 2003 by the Alaska 

Legislature as a public corporation and 

an instrumentality of the State of Alaska 

within the Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities 

(ADOT&PF). The specific purpose of 

KABATA is “. . . to develop, stimulate, 

and advance the economic welfare of the 

state and further the development of 

public transportation systems in the 

vicinity of the Upper Cook Inlet with 

construction of a bridge to span Knik 

Arm and connect the Municipality of 

Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna 

Borough” (Alaska Statutes 19.75 [AS 

19.75]). The Alaska State Legislature 

authorized KABATA to undertake the 

permitting, design, financing, and 

construction and then to own, operate, 

and maintain the Crossing as a toll road. 

FHWA is the lead federal agency 

overseeing the development of the Knik 

Arm Crossing EIS and Section 4(f) 

Evaluation. 

Purpose and Need for the Project 

The purpose and need for the project, 

discussed at length in Section 1.3 of the 

EIS, is to further the development of 

transportation systems in the Upper 

Cook Inlet region by providing improved 

vehicular access and surface 

transportation connectivity between 

Anchorage and the Mat-Su through the 

Port MacKenzie District, with a 

financially feasible 1 and efficient 2 

crossing to meet the needs for: 

1. Improved regional transportation 

infrastructure to meet existing and 

projected population growth and 

locally adopted economic development, 

land use, and transportation 

plans, and as directed by the Alaska 

State Legislature in AS § 19.75 

2. Regional transportation connectivity 

for the movement of people and the 

movement of freight and goods to; 

from; and between Anchorage, the 

Mat-Su, and Interior Alaska 

3. Safety and transportation system 

redundancy for alternative travel 

routing and access between regional 

airports; ports; hospitals; and fire, 

police, and disaster relief services for 

emergency response and evacuation 

Alternatives Considered 

As Section 2 of the EIS discusses, a wide 

range of possible alternatives (reflecting 

multiple transportation modes, crossing 

methods, and corridors) was considered 

during the EIS process. Section 2 provides 

an overview of the alternatives 

development and screening process and 

the results of that process: the reasonable 

alternatives carried forward for 

detailed analysis in the Draft EIS. 

1 

Financial feasibility is based on the ability to 

finance a total estimated project cost not to 

exceed $600 million for initial construction costs 

of the facility, Phase 1, and does not include 

ultimate build-out capacity that would be funded 

through toll-backed financing. 

2 

Efficient means a measure of traffic operating 

conditions that occurs when such factors as travel 

demand, effects on connecting transportation 

networks, facility length, travel time, and operating 

speed are collectively considered. 

S-4



Exhibit S‐2. Vicinity of the KAC Project. 

S-5



The alternatives evaluated in the Draft 

EIS were: 

• No-Action Alternative 

• Point MacKenzie Road – Degan 

Alternative (with the Southern Alignment, 

8,200-foot and 14,000-foot 

bridge lengths, cut-and-cover tunnel 

under Degan Street) 

• Point MacKenzie Road – Erickson 

Alternative (with the Southern Alignment, 

8,200-foot and 14,000-foot 

bridge lengths, cut-and-cover tunnel 

under Erickson Street) 

• Northern Access – Degan Alternative 

(with the Southern Alignment, 8,200- 

foot and 14,000-foot bridge lengths, 

cut-and-cover tunnel under Degan 

Street) 

• Northern Access – Erickson Alternative 

(with the Southern Alignment, 

8,200-foot and 14,000-foot bridge 

lengths, cut-and-cover tunnel under 

Erickson Street) 

As the list above indicates, the build 

alternatives evaluated in detail in the 

Draft EIS did not constitute entirely 

separate routes or unique designs; 

instead, they were unique combinations 

of components (and their common 

elements) that offered obvious 

advantages in terms of overcoming 

geographic, socioeconomic, physical, 

environmental, and financial constraints 

while minimizing common impacts. (See 

Section 2 of the EIS for details on the 

identification of reasonable alternatives.) 

Exhibit S-3, on page S-7, shows the build 

alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIS in 

terms of their major, shared components 

and their variations. There are three 

different sections associated with the 

build alternatives: the Mat-Su side, the 

Crossing, and the Anchorage side. 

Shared components for the build 

alternatives on the Mat-Su side or the 

Mat-Su Approach Alternatives include a 

9.5-mile alignment of Point MacKenzie 

Road from the northern terminus of the 

KAC Project (the intersection of Point 

MacKenzie and Burma Roads) to the Port 

MacKenzie District boundary. Shared 

components for the Crossing section, 

which accounts for all proposed in-water 

construction work within Knik Arm, 

include the same bridge crossing 

alignment (identified as the Southern 

Alignment) from the Mat-Su bluff to an 

Anchorage-side landing at the future 

expansion limits of the Port of Anchorage 

(POA). Shared components for the build 

alternatives on the Anchorage side or 

Anchorage Approach Alternatives include 

a short Below-the-Bluff roadway segment 

to the east of the POA; a cut-and-cover 

tunnel through Government Hill under 

either Degan Street or Erickson Street; 

and a connection to the A Street-C Street 

(A C) Couplet (Phase 1) and the Ingra- 

Gambell Couplet (Phase 2) when traffic 

volumes would warrant its completion. 

The variations among the alternatives 

(also depicted in Exhibit S-3) include the 

road routing of the Mat-Su Approach 

from the Port MacKenzie District 

boundary to the Mat-Su bluff associated 

with either the Point MacKenzie Road 

Alternative or the Northern Access 

Alternative; the Crossing with bridge 

lengths of either 8,200 feet or 14,000 feet; 

and the road routing of the Anchorage 

Approach Alternatives, with a cut-andcover 

tunnel under either Degan Street 

(Degan Alternative) or Erickson Street 

(Erickson Alternative), with associated 

variations that would affect the 

connection to Loop Road and local routes 

in Government Hill. See a more detailed 

comparison of these alternatives in 

“Reasons for Selection of Recommended 

Alternative,” below. 

Phased Construction 

Under any alternative, the KAC Project 

would be constructed over time to 

provide needed capacity as traffic 

S-6



Exhibit S‐3. Build alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIS begin at the intersection of Point MacKenzie Road 

and Burma Road and end in Downtown Anchorage. Components common to all alternatives are noted by 

the labeled call-out boxes. Variations among alternatives are noted by the variously colored lines. 

volumes grow. The EIS fully discloses 

the environmental impacts anticipated 

to result during the 20-year design life of 

the project (through 2030) and describes 

the anticipated timing of project 

elements in two phases. These phases 

include an initial minimum two-lane 

Crossing (8,200-foot bridge structure 

and connecting roadway sections on 

gravel fill) and a connection to the A-C 

Couplet in Phase 1 (anticipated in 2010). 

By the design year 2030, traffic modeling 

indicates the need to expand the bridge 

Crossing and Mat-Su and Anchorage 

Approach Alternatives to four lanes and 

to connect to the Ingra-Gambell Couplet 

facility in Phase 2. 

Phase 1 construction will include 

improvements to existing roadways and 

development of the Mat-Su Approach 

Alternative; construction of the Crossing 

(8,200-foot bridge structure and 

S-7



connecting roadway sections on gravel 

fill) ; construction of the Anchorage 

Approach Alternative, a road below the 

bluff, around Cairn Point, and east of 

the Port of Anchorage (POA); and 

construction of a cut-and-cover tunnel 

under Government Hill. A toll plaza and 

lanes will also be included in the initial 

construction. The southeast end of the 

project in Phase 1 would connect to the 

A-C Couplet by way of Loop Road. 

Phase 2 construction would include full 

build-out to four lanes in the Mat-Su, 

expansion of the Crossing to four lanes, 

and extension of the project to the Ingra- 

Gambell Couplet by way of a bridge 

structure (the Ingra-Gambell Viaduct) 

across the Ship Creek rail yard. 

The timing of the need for elements 

described in Phase 2 is based on the best 

available traffic modeling and economic 

information available at this time. As an 

example, traffic studies have shown that 

the A-C Couplet currently has capacity 

available for additional traffic until 

about 2023. When traffic increases to the 

point that additional capacity would be 

required, Phase 2 would be constructed. 

It should be noted that if traffic grows 

faster than anticipated, elements 

described for Phase 2 could be 

constructed earlier and conversely, if 

traffic grows slower than anticipated, 

the need for additional capacity could 

occur later than currently anticipated. 

Moreover, based on constructability or 

project economics, certain elements 

from Phase 2 (e.g. initial four-lane 

construction of portions of the roadway 

or bridge or full construction of the 

tunnel under Government Hill) could 

occur as part of Phase 1. 

Description of the Recommended 

Alternative 

The FHWA identified the following 

alternative as the Preferred Alternative 

in the Draft EIS: 

• Northern Access – Degan Alternative 

or Erickson Alternative (with the 

Southern Alignment, 8,200-foot 

bridge length, and cut-and-cover 

tunnel under Degan Street or Erickson 

Street) 

The FHWA has identified the following 

alternative as the Recommended 

Alternative in the Final EIS: 

• Northern Access – Erickson Alternative 

(with the Southern Alignment, 

8,200-foot bridge length, and cutand-cover 

tunnel under Erickson 

Street) 

The Recommended Alternative for the 

KAC Project is a roadway and bridge 

crossing of Knik Arm, with roadway 

connections between Mat-Su and 

Anchorage. The Recommended 

Alternative is displayed, from the Mat-Su 

to Anchorage, in the series of maps in 

Exhibits S-4 to S-14, beginning on page 

S-21. Exhibit S-4 provides a key to the 

location of each exhibit in this series. 

The following subsections describe the 

Recommended Alternative in more detail 

according to 1) its three geographical 

sections (Mat Su approach, Crossing, 

and Anchorage approach) and 2) its two 

phases of construction. 

Mat‐Su Approach 

The Draft EIS identified the Northern 

Access Alternative as the preferred Mat- 

Su Approach Alternative, and it is 

retained as the Recommended 

Alternative. As noted in Exhibits S-5 to 

S-8, the roadway will begin at the 

intersection of Point MacKenzie Road 

and Burma Road and follow the existing 

road alignment south about 9.5 miles 

until it reaches the boundary of the Port 

S-8



MacKenzie District (see southern edge of 

map in Exhibit S-7), where an 

intersection will be constructed to allow 

controlled access to the port. At the 

western end of the Port MacKenzie 

District, the roadway will diverge from 

the existing Point MacKenzie Road and 

traverse the uplands north of Lake 

Lorraine, heading in a southerly direction 

to the bluff line, and then ending on the 

eastern side of the Port MacKenzie 

District in an area approximately 7,200 

feet north of Port MacKenzie Dock and 

1,500 feet south of Anderson Dock. Before 

reaching the shoreline, a toll plaza and 

intersection would be constructed to 

control access to and from Port 

MacKenzie. 

The existing Port MacKenzie Road on the 

Mat-Su side currently provides one travel 

lane in each direction. The Mat-Su 

Borough is scheduled to upgrade the 

existing Point MacKenzie Road in 2008 

independent of the KAC Project. Phase 1 

construction will include required 

roadway improvements and development 

of the new alignment connection to the 

bridge approach. Phase 2 construction 

would upgrade the Northern Access to a 

four-lane divided highway (providing two 

travel lanes in each direction) and will 

include frontage roads and a pedestrian 

pathway. The road right-of-way (ROW) 

will be designated “controlled access,” 

meaning that intersecting roads or 

driveways will be permitted only at 

limited points. ROW for Phase 2 

construction would be purchased during 

Phase 1. This route will cross 28 land 

parcels, but will involve no residential or 

business acquisitions. 

Crossing 

The Draft EIS identified the Southern 

Alignment 8,200-foot Bridge Alternative as 

the preferred crossing alternative, and it is 

retained as the Recommended Alternative 

for crossing Knik Arm. As noted in 

Exhibit S-9 and S-10, to cross Knik Arm, 

the Recommended Alternative will begin 

at the shoreline on the Mat-Su side of Knik 

Arm between the Port MacKenzie Dock 

and Anderson Dock and reach the 

shoreline on the Anchorage side 

approximately 1 mile north of Cairn Point. 

The roadway will follow the Anchorage 

shoreline and western perimeter of 

Elmendorf Air Force Base (Elmendorf) at 

the bottom of the bluff to south of Cairn 

Point. Construction of this roadway 

section will include placement of as 

much as 2 miles of armor protected 

intertidal fill. 

The bridge will be pier-supported, with 

approach embankments. On opening day, 

the bridge will have a minimum of one 

lane in each direction. When travel 

demand would warrant, Phase 2 

construction would expand the bridge to 

include two lanes in each direction along 

with a multiuse pathway. 

Anchorage Approach 

With information obtained from the Draft 

EIS review process, FHWA identified the 

Erickson Alternative as the Recommended 

Alternative for the Anchorage approach 

(Exhibits S-10 to S-14). 

From the vicinity of Cairn Point, the 

Anchorage approach will continue south, 

closely following the natural curvature of 

the shoreline. In the vicinity of the Cherry 

Hill bluff, the roadway will climb slightly 

on an area of fill supported by retaining 

walls at the base of the bluff to provide 

grade separation for security and 

operational purposes between the roadway 

and the edge of the POA property. From 

this point, the roadway will follow the 

alignment of Erickson Street to connect to 

the A-C Couplet (Phase 1) and then, when 

warranted by traffic volumes, to a new 

Ingra-Gambell Viaduct in Phase 2. 

Because the roadway will run close to 

sensitive areas, it will be isolated from 

military and POA operations by security 

fencing. All access to Elmendorf or Fort 

S-9



Richardson from the roadway will be 

controlled access. The roadway will 

include construction of an intersection to 

allow northern access to the POA. 

Exhibits S-10 through S-14 show the ROW 

to be acquired, the locations and types of 

structures that will be the subject of 

relocation decisions, and the entities that 

will have the option of being acquired 

(with compensation) or of being 

temporarily relocated during construction. 

Right-of-way acquisitions for Phase 2 are 

not scheduled until future development of 

the Anchorage Approach, however, 

advance ROW acquisition and relocation 

may be made available during Phase 1 for 

hardship cases, protective purchases, or 

property owners requesting advanced 

acquisition. In Phase 1, the cut-and-cover 

tunnel will be a minimum of two lanes 

wide (Exhibits S-11 and S-12). Roadway on 

and off-ramps will be constructed north 

and south of Government Hill. Traffic will 

flow freely between East Loop Road and 

the roadway (i.e., no traffic signal will be 

required). 

In Phase 2, the cut-and-cover tunnel to be 

constructed along the Erickson Street 

alignment during Phase 1 would be 

expanded to the east (Exhibits S-13 and 

S-14) to accommodate an additional four 

lanes of traffic for the increased traffic 

volume and to facilitate connection with 

the Ingra-Gambell Viaduct. The first two 

lanes would continue to provide free-flow 

traffic through the tunnel to and from 

East Loop Road. The additional four lanes 

would provide free-flow traffic through 

the tunnel to and from the Ingra-Gambell 

Viaduct. On- and off-ramps would be 

expanded north of Government Hill. No 

direct access would be available between 

Government Hill and the Ingra-Gambell 

Couplet. 

Note that the Phase 1 design calls for a 

sidewalk along the west side of the 

roadway from the cut-and-cover tunnel 

south to the existing A C Viaduct. In Phase 

2, that sidewalk would be connected to a 

multiuse path which will be constructed 

on the west side of the roadway, and which 

would extend north over the cut-and-cover 

tunnel, to the bridge, and along the 

roadway on the Mat-Su side. No sidewalk 

or path is planned as part of the Ingra- 

Gambell Viaduct in Phase 2. 

Reasons for Selection of 


The EIS provides a detailed discussion 

of each reasonable alternative’s direct, 

indirect, cumulative, and construction 

impact on the natural and human 

environment. The discussion that follows 

presents distinguishing characteristics 

of the reasonable alternatives and 

reasons for the selection of the 

Recommended Alternative. This 

information is presented tabularly and 

graphically in Exhibits S-15 through 

S-18, beginning on page S-32. 

Mat-Su Alternatives 

Comparison of Impacts 

The EIS evaluated two Mat-Su approach 

alternatives: the Point MacKenzie Road 

Alternative and the Northern Access 

Alternative (see Exhibit S-15). Wetlands 

impacts, ROW impacts, and construction 

costs are similar across both 

alternatives, as summarized in the “Key 

Costs and Impacts” table included on the 

exhibit. Of the 92,580 acres of wetlands 

in the Mat-Su Borough, only 0.004 

percent would be affected by the project. 

Both alternatives were located to avoid 

wetlands and minimize impacts to 

wetlands when avoidance was not 

possible. Because of the undeveloped 

nature of this area, no residential or 

business acquisitions or relocations 

would be required under either Mat-Su 

side alternative. 

S-10



FHWA identified the Northern Access 

Alternative as the Preferred Alternative 

in the Draft EIS for the alternative’s 

consistency with Mat-Su Borough and 

Port MacKenzie planning objectives 

(wetland impacts, ROW impacts, and 

construction costs are similar under 

both the Point MacKenzie Road 

Alternative and Northern Access 

Alternative). The Northern Access 

Alternative will remove through-traffic 

from Port MacKenzie operations, will be 

more conducive to Port MacKenzie 

development, and is favored by Mat-Su 

Borough and Port MacKenzie officials. 

Identification of Recommended 

Alternative 

No adverse comments were received 

during the Draft EIS comment and 

review period regarding the 

identification of the Northern Access 

Alternative as the Preferred Alternative. 

The Northern Access Alternative has 

been identified as the Recommended 

Alternative for the reasons noted in the 

“Comparison of Impacts” section, above. 

Crossing 


Two bridge crossing lengths were 

evaluated for the Southern Alignment 

Crossing of Knik Arm: a 14,000-foot, 3 

pier-supported bridge spanning the 

entire width of the arm, and an 

8,200‐foot, pier-supported bridge with 

armored, 4 gravel-fill roadway sections 

3 

The 14,000-foot bridge length was found to not be 

financially feasible and did not meet stated 

purpose and need criteria. This alternative was, 

however, carried forward solely for comparative 

evaluation based on requests from environmental 

resource and permitting agencies. 

4 

Armor rock (3–5 feet in diameter) will be placed on 

the slopes of the gravel-fill roadway sections to 

prevent undercutting and erosion resulting from 

tidal currents, storm surges, wave run-up, and ice 

floes. 

completing the Crossing. 5 Either bridge 

length (see Exhibit S-16) could cross the 

intertidal zone perpendicular to the 

shoreline and connect to either Mat-Su 

side alternative. 

In the EIS, the Study Team considers the 

project’s impact to hydrologic and 

sedimentation processes of Knik Arm. 

Through alteration of natural tide-driven 

flows in their immediate vicinity, both 

bridge crossings studied are capable of 

disturbing hydrologic and sedimentation 

processes. Neither bridge alternative, 

however, is expected to affect tidal flows 

or naturally occurring sedimentation in 

the vicinity of the POA. 

As the table on Exhibit S-16 shows, 

construction costs, construction time 

and methods, the use of and impact 

from more fill versus the driving of more 

piers, and impacts to essential fish 

habitat and to beluga whales, are key 

impact categories evaluated in the EIS. 

While the 8,200-foot Bridge Alternative 

will have a lower construction cost and 

will be easier to construct, it will also be 

associated with more marine fill placed 

in essential fish habitat (including 

subtidal waters, estuarine shores, and 

mudflats). More fill, however, means 

fewer piers to be driven. The 8,200-foot 

Bridge Alternative will require only 

about half the number of piers as would 

the 14,000-foot Bridge Alternative. Fewer 

piers also means a shorter duration of 

pile-driving noise, a key consideration 

5 

An intermediate single-embankment option was 

also considered, consisting of a 1,400-foot, gravelfill 

portion of the bridge crossing on the west side of 

Knik Arm with a 12,500-foot pier-supported bridge 

linking to the eastern shoreline. This option was not 

carried forward for further evaluation because of 

high operation and maintenance costs and because 

its estimated cost-to-impact ratio suggests that it 

would likely achieve only a marginal cost savings as 

compared with the 14,000-foot bridge alternative 

and would do so without reducing environmental 

impacts below an intermediate level. For more 

information please refer to KABATA’s Crossing 

Options Technical Report (2005d in the Draft EIS). 

S-11



regarding this alternative’s potential to 

adversely affect beluga whales. 

FHWA identified the 8,200-foot-long 

pier-supported bridge as the Preferred 

Alternative in the Draft EIS because, in 

addition to its constructibility (lower 

construction costs, shorter construction 

time), a shorter bridge will have fewer 

piers, resulting in less construction noise 

and shorter in-water construction time. 

Less noise and shorter construction time 

mean less potential to disrupt beluga 

whale behavior and movement patterns. 

As discussed above, this bridge 

alternative is not expected to affect tidal 

flows or naturally occurring 

sedimentation in the vicinity of the POA. 


Alternative 

FHWA identified the 8,200-foot-long 

Bridge Alternative as the Recommended 

Alternative for the reasons noted in the 

“Comparison of Impacts” section, above. 

Based on agency comments on the Draft 

EIS and results from additional 

hydrodynamic modeling, close agency 

coordination will continue during the 

design and permitting stages. 

Anchorage 

Description of Anchorage Alternatives 

The Draft EIS evaluated two Anchorage 

approach alternatives: Degan Alternative 

and Erickson Alternative. As Exhibits 

S-17 and S-18 depict, the logical termini 

for both alternatives is the intersection of 

the A-C Couplet with 3rd Avenue during 

Phase 1 (opening day) and the 

intersection of the Ingra-Gambell Couplet 

with 3rd Avenue during Phase 2. For 

either alternative, construction of Phase 2 

would occur as traffic volumes warrant. 

Exhibit S‐19. Transportation Features and Traffic Flow Characteristics 

Degan Alternative 

Erickson Alternative 

(Recommended Alternative) 

Phase 1 

Includes a 790-foot-long, four-lane, cut-and-cover 

tunnel under Degan Street, connecting to East Loop 

Road with an at-grade signalized intersection south of 

the existing intersection with Hollywood Drive. 

Motorists use East Loop Road to drive to the 

A-C Couplet. 

Traffic from the KAC bridge has access to Government 

Hill through the at-grade signalized intersection with 

East Loop Road south of the existing Hollywood Drive 

intersection. 

The alternative, up to the intersection, has a design 

speed of 50 mph. 

Controlled-access ROW varies along the alignment as 

necessary. Intersections and ramps vary from 125 to 

1,000 feet. 

Includes a 790-foot-long, two-lane, two-way, cut-andcover 

tunnel under Erickson Street, connecting to the 

A-C Couplet by way of East Loop Road. Ramping would 

be provided to allow access to the Government Hill 

neighborhood. 

East Loop Road is modified for the south tunnel 

approach. To maintain free-flow traffic, two on/off 

ramps are constructed between East Loop Road and 

Government Hill. 

Traffic from the KAC bridge has access to Government 

Hill through two on-off-ramps constructed on the 

north side of the two-lane, two-way, cut-and-cover 

tunnel. 

The design speed is 70 mph, transitioning to 50 mph 

north of Government Hill prior to the tunnel. 

Controlled-access ROW varies along the alignment. 

Intersections and ramps vary from 125 feet to 600 feet. 

(continued on next page) 

S-12



Exhibit S‐19. Transportation Features and Traffic Flow Characteristics (continued) 




Phase 2 

Phase 2 modifies Phase 1 construction to allow a 

connection to a viaduct traversing the Ship Creek 

industrial area to tie into the future Glenn-Seward 

Highway-to-Highway Connection (proposed by the 

Municipality of Anchorage in its 2025 LRTP) at the 

Ingra-Gambell Couplet and 3rd Avenue (EIS 

Figure 2.35). 

The signalized intersection constructed in Phase 1 is 

removed and East Loop Road is elevated to cross over 

the Degan Alignment to facilitate free-flow traffic from 

the proposed KAC bridge to the Ingra-Gambell Couplet. 

Government Hill and A-C Couplet through-traffic has 

access to or from the KAC bridge by way of ramps on 

the north side of the tunnel. 

Mat Su and A-C Couplet through-traffic uses Government 

Hill surface streets and a signalized intersection at Loop 

Road and Hollywood Drive to continue down East Loop 

Road and gain access to the A-C Couplet. 

Traffic traveling north from the Ingra-Gambell Couplet 

uses ramps to gain access to Government Hill. 

Phase 2 necessitates an additional tunnel with four 

more lanes. The tunnel expansion (two additional 

parallel tunnels with six total lanes needed for Phase 2) 

then connects to the proposed viaduct that traverses 

the Ship Creek industrial area and ties into the future 

Glenn-Seward Highway-to-Highway Connection 

(proposed by the Municipality of Anchorage in its 

2025 LRTP) at the Ingra-Gambell Couplet intersection 

with 3rd Avenue. 

Some alignment modifications of the initial 

construction and additional ramp construction are 

necessary to allow free-flow of traffic to the termini at 

the A-C and Ingra-Gambell Couplets. 

Government Hill traffic gains access to or from the 

KAC bridge by way of ramps on the north side of the 

tunnel. A-C Couplet through-traffic has access to the 

KAC bridge through the two-lane, two-way, cut–andcover 

tunnel, bypassing Government Hill. 

Mat Su and A-C Couplet through-traffic uses the 

free-flow condition, two-lane, two-way tunnel through 

Government Hill to gain access to the A-C Couplet. 

Traffic heading north from the Ingra-Gambell Couplet 

does not have direct access to Government Hill. 

Northbound Government Hill traffic needs to travel 

west to the A-C Couplet and then use ramps from the 

A-C Couplet to gain access to Government Hill. 

The existing lanes of the southbound East Loop Road 

at Hollywood intersection are not changed from what 

presently exist—two lanes, with the left lane having a 

left turn or through-movement and the right lane 

allowing a right turn onto Erickson Street or a throughmovement. 

The alternatives’ locations were selected 

because their topographic and site 

conditions would be conducive to 

constructing a cut-and-cover tunnel less 

than 800 feet long (a controlling design 

feature). A cut-and-cover tunnel is 

proposed to minimize impacts to the 

Government Hill community. 

The Draft EIS did not identify either 

Anchorage approach alternative as 

preferred, and, during the Draft EIS 

review phase, FHWA requested comment 

on the Anchorage approach alternatives 

to assist the agency in selecting an 

alternative. 

Comparison of Traffic Characteristics 

Exhibit S-19, on pages S-12 through 

S-13, describes the alternatives in more 

detail by comparing the key features and 

S-13



Exhibit S‐20. Degan Alternative: Advantages and Disadvantages 


Advantages 

Originally designed to traverse Government Hill at its narrowest section, thereby minimizing impacts to 


• During the Draft EIS process and discussions with the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC), it was identified 

that the viaduct across the Ship Creek rail yard (Phase 2 alignment) needed to be rerouted so that pier locations 

would not adversely affect rail operations. As a result, the advantages of this alternative were diminished. With 

the Degan alignment shifted to the east, additional impacts to residences and Sunset Park resulted. 

Furthermore, the revised Degan Alternative required roadway geometrics that were less desirable than the 

Erickson Alternative. 

Disadvantages 

• Access through Government Hill would require a stop and a turn at the intersection of East Loop Road, 

adversely affecting the neighborhood with additional surface traffic and opportunities for vehicle-pedestrian 

conflicts. 

• The signalized intersection at East Loop Road and Degan Street is located on a curve and a hill, making stopping 

difficult. 

• This alternative would require 400 feet more ROW than the Erickson Alternative at its widest point. 

• Geometrics to connect to the Ingra-Gambell Couplet are more circuitous. 

• This alternative would take 65 percent of Harvard Park, 59 percent of Sunset Park, and would adversely affect 

the Anchorage Square & Round Dance Club. 

Exhibit S‐21. Erickson Alternative: Advantages and Disadvantages 



Advantages 

• The Erickson Alternative allows free-flow of traffic through a cut-and cover tunnel, avoiding local streets. 

• This alternative reduces ROW requirements by 400 feet (compared with the Degan Alternative) for ramps north 

of Government Hill. 

• The geometrics of the Erickson Street alignment connecting to the Ingra-Gambell Couplet are more direct. 

• Government Hill would have improved access to downtown and to the Mat-Su through use of both north and 

south ramps. 

Disadvantages 

• Phase 2 expansion would require new tunnels, causing a second period of construction impacts to Government 

Hill residents. 

• Construction management and traffic control would be challenging because construction activities would 

disrupt the main route through Government Hill and to the military bases. 

• The Erickson Alternative would adversely affect the Government Hill Urban Renewal Historic District, including 

three contributing structures, and would take 2 percent of Harvard Park and 31 percent of Sunset Park. 

• The cost for Phase 1 would be $6.4 million more than that for the Degan Alternative and the cost for Phase 2 

would be $16.4 million more than that of the Degan Alternative. 

flow of traffic under each alternative. 

Exhibit S-18, on page S-35, also 

facilitates understanding of the two 

alternatives’ relative traffic flows. 


As Exhibit S-17, on page S-34, shows (and 

the EIS discusses in detail), both 

Anchorage approach alternatives are 

associated with impacts to residential, 

commercial, and industrial land; and 

Section 4(f) properties (Harvard and 

S-14

Exhibit S‐22. Reasons for Preferring Degan or Erickson in Public Comments 

Support for/Advantages of . . . 

• No specific comment received. 

Support for/Advantages of . . . 

• Erickson offers the better choice—fewer impacts on 

neighborhoods and better use of space. 

• Erickson is preferred over Degan because it does not 

require a “stop and turn” as Degan does. 

• The Erickson cut-and-cover tunnel is more logical 

than the Degan cut-and-cover tunnel. 

• Of the two proposed alternatives, the Erickson route 

is less disruptive to the Government Hill 

neighborhood. 

Public Comment on Degan Alternative 

Public Comment on Erickson Alternative 




Opposition to/Disadvantages of . . . 

A Degan Alternative would: 

• Eliminate the Anchorage Square & Round Dance Club. 

• Adversely affect people’s homes. 

• Result in safety issues from locating a traffic signal at 

the bottom of one of the steepest, iciest, and most 

accident-prone hills in Anchorage. 

• Under Phase 2, cause Sunset Park to lose the majority 

of its recreational attributes. 

• Involve a very large ROW take. 

• Introduce new traffic patterns on Government Hill 

that would adversely affect all properties, including 

historic properties, located there. 

Opposition to/Disadvantages of . . . 

An Erickson Alternative would: 

• Remove an existing playground and picnic shelter in 

Sunset Park, as well as a sledding area. 

• Adversely affect the suburban feel, design, and 

setting of the historic district. 

• Adversely affect people’s homes. 

• Cut Sunset Park in half. 

• Under Phase 2, isolate the remaining central core of 

Sunset Park from the Government Hill community. 

• Emerge from the tunnel in the immediate vicinity of 

the historic district. 

Sunset Parks and historic properties); and 

historic properties. Exhibits S-20 and S-21, 

on page S-14, further compare these 

impacts in terms of each alternative’s 

advantages and disadvantages. 

Comparison of Public Comment 

During the Draft EIS review phase, 

FHWA requested comment on the 

Anchorage approach alternatives to 

assist the agency in selecting an 

alternative. Public comments received 

included opposition to both alternatives, 

but some also provided specific 

comments on each alternative. Agency 

comments did not specifically address a 

preference related to Anchorage-side 

alternatives. See Section 8 of the EIS for 

public, agency, and tribal comments and 

response summaries. 

Exhibit S-22, above, provides a summary 

of reasons provided by the public for 

preferring one alternative over another. 


Alternative 

To identify the Recommended 

Alternative, FHWA considered all of the 

factors discussed above: transportation 

features and traffic flow characteristics; 

impacts to residential, commercial, 

industrial, and Section 4(f) properties; 

cost; and comments received from the 

public, agencies, and tribes during the 

Draft EIS review period. 

S-15



FHWA identified the Recommended 

Alternative in Anchorage as a cut-andcover 

tunnel through Government Hill 

beneath Erickson Street to connect with 

the A-C Couplet and, when traffic 

volumes warrant, with the Ingra- 

Gambell Couplet and the Highway-to- 

Highway Project. FHWA identified the 

Erickson Alternative as its recommended 

Anchorage approach alternative because 

it had the least net harm to Section 4(f) 

properties and, on balance, it was 

superior in terms of minimizing 

environmental, stakeholder, and 

community impacts. 

Environmental Impacts of 


Exhibit S-23, beginning on page S-36, 

displays a summary of the 

environmental impacts anticipated to be 

associated with the construction and 

operation of the Recommended 

Alternative. It includes socioeconomic 

impacts, as well as physical and natural 

impacts. The exhibit is structured to 

address impacts both by resource or 

issue and by geographic area: the 

Northern Access Alternative portion of 

the Recommended Alternative (Mat Su 

side), the Crossing (8,200-foot bridge and 

connecting roadway sections on gravel 

fill) within Knik Arm, and the Erickson 

Alternative (Anchorage side). The impact 

types and other terms defining impacts 

are described below. 

Direct impacts are those that occur as a 

direct, immediate, and local result of a 

project. They may be either permanent 

or temporary. If permanent, a direct 

impact is continuing as a result of the 

existence and operation of a project. 

Such impacts from a transportation 

project could include permanent 

conversion of land and wildlife habitat to 

the transportation use, noise and air 

pollutants from vehicles, degradation of 

the visual environment by construction 

of a roadway, and the benefit of an 

improved travel corridor that is safe and 

convenient. 

Construction impacts are a subset of 

direct impacts, those that are temporary, 

and that result from project construction 

activities. Typically such impacts include 

temporary disturbance of land and 

wildlife habitat, noise and air pollutants 

from operation of construction 

machinery and vehicles, traffic detours 

and congestion, degradation of the visual 

environment by large construction 

equipment, and the economic benefits of 

additional jobs in the construction 

sector. 

Indirect impacts are those effects related 

to the project that are reasonably 

foreseeable, but occur later in time than 

do direct impacts. For example, the 

construction of a road in an undeveloped 

area might have indirect impacts such as 

land development made possible by 

roadway access. 

Cumulative impacts are those that 

“result from the incremental 

consequences of an action when added 

to other past and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions.” The future actions are 

projects for which planning has 

progressed and implementation is 

reasonably foreseeable. 

Mitigation and Commitments 

Exhibit S-24, beginning on page S-53, 

summarizes the planned mitigation 

measures to be undertaken to address 

impacts associated with the 

construction and operation of the 

Recommended Alternative. It is 

structured by resource or issue. The 

majority of KABATA and FHWA 

responses to agency comments involved 

mitigation measures or commitments. 

Exhibit S-24 presents the mitigation 

measures and commitments for the 

Recommended Alternative. 

S-16

Findings, Compliance, and Permits 

Exhibit S-25, on page S-61, captures, in 

one table, the relevant Executive Orders, 

federal legislation, federal regulations, 

and state and local laws and regulations 

that apply to the permitting, 

construction, and operation of the KAC 

Project. 

Other Related Government Actions 

Several major actions of local, state, and 

federal agencies in the Upper Cook Inlet 

region are being undertaken 

independently of the KAC Project and 

could affect the same areas and 

resources. These actions are described in 

various plans and studies. The actions 

related to the project and the specific 

contents of applicable planning 

documents are briefly described below. 

Port MacKenzie Development 

Mat Su Borough began planning to build 

a deep-water dock facility in the Point 

MacKenzie area in the late 1970s. This 

project was intended to facilitate 

economic development in the borough 

and provide an alternative to 

transporting materials by way of the 

highway or rail systems from Anchorage. 

An area of about 9,000 acres has been 

designated as the Port MacKenzie 

District (Port District). The barge dock 

was completed in 2000, the deep-draft 

dock was completed in 2005, and port 

offices and a ferry terminal are planned. 

The key studies for these actions are 

Point MacKenzie Area Which Merits 

Special Attention Plan (Mat Su Borough 

[MSB] 1993a in the EIS) and Point 

MacKenzie Port Master Plan (MSB 1987 

in the EIS). 

Port of Anchorage Expansion 

The 129-acre POA is the major gateway 

for Alaska waterborne commerce and 

plays a vital role in the regional 

economy. A planned Marine Terminal 



Redevelopment project is expected to 

increase POA capacity, efficiency, and 

security. The existing and future uses of 

the POA through 2020 are examined in 

the Regional Port of Anchorage Master 

Plan (POA 1999a in the EIS). 

Future Land Use for Communities 

and the Region 

Several plans for the Upper Cook Inlet 

Region describe existing constraints 

and objectives for land use and 

transportation. The primary planning 

documents that focus on the needs of 

and actions in the Project Area are: 

• Matanuska-Susitna Borough-Wide 

Comprehensive Plan (MSB 1970 in the 

EIS) 

• Matanuska-Susitna Borough: Core 

Area Comprehensive Plan, Draft 

(MSB 2003a in the EIS) 

• Matanuska-Susitna Borough Economic 

Development Plan (MSB 2002 

in the EIS) 

• Anchorage 2020: Anchorage Bowl 

Comprehensive Plan (MOA 2001a in 

the EIS) 

• Freight Mobility Study (MOA 2001b in 

the EIS) 

• Anchorage Long-Range Transportation 

Plan (LRTP) (MOA 2005a in the EIS) 

Proposed Ferry Service for Knik Arm 

The Mat-Su Borough is developing a 

ferry link between Port MacKenzie and 

the POA. The Cook Inlet Ferry (formerly 

known as the Knik Arm Ferry) is 

expected to begin operation in 2008, 

accommodating foot passengers, tractortrailers, 

and automobiles. Planned 

improvements include parking facilities 

and ferry landings on both sides of Knik 

Arm and a terminal building at Port 

MacKenzie. 

Planning studies that document the 

transportation need for a ferry crossing 

are the Knik Arm Ferry Environmental 

S-17



Assessment (MSB 2003b in the EIS), the 

Cook Inlet Ferry Demand Analysis (MSB 

2005a in the EIS), and the Knik Arm Ferry 

System Feasibility Study (MSB 2005b in 

the EIS). 

Connecting Transportation 

Improvement Projects 

In addition to the infrastructure projects 

identified above, several roadway projects 

planned for the Project Area will provide 

upgrades to facilities that are integral to 

the KAC project. These key proposed 

transportation improvements are Point 

MacKenzie Road, Burma Road, and 

Knik-Goose Bay Road for the Mat-Su, and 

the Glenn-Seward Highway-to-Highway 

Connection and Ingra-Gambell Extension 

to Whitney Road, for Anchorage. 

Principal Areas of Controversy 

The principal areas of controversy, based 

on comments received on the Draft EIS 

and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, 

generally focused on the following eight 

issues: 

• alternatives analysis 

• beluga impacts 

• bridge length 

• funding and cost 

• Government Hill and Downtown 

impacts 

• hydrology and sedimentation in 

Knik Arm 

• indirect and cumulative impacts in 

the Mat-Su 

• transportation connections and 

logical termini 

See Section 8 for more detail on 

comments received and responses to 

those comments. 

Unresolved Issues 

The unresolved issues are as follows: 

Historic Properties Municipality of 

Anchorage – A draft Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA) to mitigate adverse 

effects to historic properties, pursuant to 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, has been developed 

with the State Historic Preservation 

Office (SHPO) and the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation (ACHP). The 

draft MOA is being disseminated to all 

consulting parties with this Final EIS 

(see Appendix J). Comments received 

from consulting parties during this 

review will be considered as the Section 

106 process is concluded. 

Park Impacts – FHWA has presented 

mitigation measures to the Municipality 

of Anchorage (letter dated May 04, 2007) 

for impacts to Harvard and Sunset Parks 

on Government Hill. Additional 

coordination will be conducted with the 

Municipality of Anchorage during the 

design phase to further detail mitigation 

plans. 

Comments and Coordination: 

Draft EIS Public Availability and 

Review 

An essential element of the NEPA process 

is agency, tribal, and public participation. 

During the review period for the 

Knik Arm Crossing Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) and Draft Section 

4(f) Evaluation, the document was published, 

made available for review, and 

comments were solicited. Comments 

received ranged from simple statements 

of support or opposition to complex 

technical discussions of project alternatives, 

study methods, determination and 

characterization of impacts, and recommendations 

for mitigation measures. 

FHWA used these comments in its 

decision-making process to help determine 

the Recommended Alternative and 

assist in the development of mitigation 

measures. 

S-18



The public availability and review process 

for the Knik Arm Crossing Draft EIS 

and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation helped 

to ensure that agencies, tribes, and the 

public had an opportunity to comment 

on the proposed action and environmental 

impact assessment. The process 

included the following key elements: 

• Notifications were prepared to announce 

the release of the Draft EIS 

and Draft 4(f) Evaluation, establish a 

comment/review period, advertise 

public hearing and open house 

events, announce the limited English 

proficiency program, and invite 

comment. 

• Copies of the Draft EIS and Draft 

Section 4(f) Evaluation and all supporting 

technical reports were available 

free of charge on a compact disk 

(CD) for electronic viewing. The 

document was also made available 

for viewing on the project Web site, 

. 

• Paper copies of the Draft EIS and 

Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation were 

made available for viewing at the 

following public libraries: 

Mat‐Su – Big Lake Library, Palmer 

Public Library, Wasilla Public 

Library, and Willow Public Library 

Anchorage – Alaska Resources 

Library and Public Information 

Services (ARLIS), Muldoon Public 

Library, Samson-Dimond Public 

Library, University of Alaska 

Anchorage Consortium Library, 

and Z.J. Loussac Public Library 

Paper copies were also available for a 

fee of $200 (KABATA paid one-half of 

the $400 printing cost). A paper copy 

was able to be provided within 

10 days of processing the request. 

• Two public hearing and open house 

events, one each in Anchorage (October 

16, 2006) and the Mat-Su (October 

18, 2006) were held. 

• One-on-one agency meetings were 

held with FHWA and KABATA. 

• Written and oral comments and oral 

testimony provided by agencies, 

tribes, and the public were collected 

and reviewed, and responses to those 

comments were prepared. 

The 45‐day Draft EIS and Draft 

Section 4(f) Evaluation comment 

period required by CEQ began on 

September 15, 2006, and was extended 

from October 30, 2006, to November 17, 

2006—a total comment period of 63 

days. The extension was based on 

requests from agencies and the public. 

FHWA and KABATA received comments 

as noted below from federal and state 

agencies, local governments, tribes, and 

the public, including nongovernmental 

organizations (NGOs). 

The following federal agencies provided 

written comments: the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA); USACE; the U.S. Department 

of the Interior (USDOI) National Park 

Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), and Geologic Service (USGS); 

NOAA Fisheries; and the Marine 

Mammal Commission. 

• Five out of the ten Cooperating 

Agencies provided written comments, 

including USACE, NOAA Fisheries, 

BLM, the Mat-Su Borough, and the 

Municipality of Anchorage. 

• State of Alaska comments were 

received from the Alaska Railroad 

Corporation and the Alaska Department 

of Natural Resources (ADNR), 

which provided consolidated comments 

for State of Alaska resource 

agencies, including the Office of 

Project Management and Permitting 

(OPMP), the Office of Habitat Management 

and Permitting (OHMP), the 

Department of Fish and Game 

(ADF&G), the Division of Mining, 

S-19



Land and Water (DMLW), SHPO, and 

the Department of Environmental 

Conservation (ADEC). 

• Written comments were received 

from two local governments, the 

Mat-Su Borough and the Municipality 

of Anchorage (including the POA). 

• Both of the affected tribes, Knik 

Tribal Council and Native Village of 

Eklutna, provided written comments. 

• Public comments received included 

263 separate individual or NGO 

written comments or oral testimony. 

• Comment letters, emails, or testimony 

often contained more than one 

comment or issue. 

All comments received have been 

documented and responded to in this 

Final EIS and are discussed in Section 8 

and referenced appendixes. 

Final EIS Availability 

The entire Final EIS and Final Section 4(f) 

Evaluation is available free of charge on 

CD for viewing electronically. The 

document can also be viewed on the 

project Web site, . Bound versions of the document 

are available for public review at these 

locations: 

Mat-Su 

Palmer Public Library 

Wasilla Public Library 

Willow Public Library 

Big Lake Public Library 

Betty Fauber at Knik Arm Bridge and 

Toll Authority 

550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1850, 

Anchorage, Alaska 99501 

telephone: (907) 269‐6698 

e‐mail: dot.knik.bridge@alaska.gov 

Statute of Limitations 

In accordance with the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA-LU), a federal agency 

may publish a notice in the Federal 

Register, pursuant to 23 USC § 139(l), 

indicating that one or more federal 

agencies have taken final action on 

permits, licenses, or approvals for a 

transportation project. If such notice is 

published, claims seeking judicial review 

of those federal agency actions will be 

barred unless such claims are filed 

within 180 days after the date of 

publication of the notice, or within such 

shorter time period as is specified in the 

federal laws pursuant to which judicial 

review of the federal agency action is 

allowed. If no notice is published, then 

the periods of time that otherwise are 

provided by the federal laws governing 

such claims will apply. 

Anchorage 

Alaska Resources Library and Public 

Information Services (ARLIS) 

Muldoon Public Library 

Samson-Dimond Public Library 

University of Alaska Anchorage 

Consortium Library 

Z. J. Loussac Public Library 

For information on obtaining a CD or 

bound version of the Final EIS, contact 

S-20



LOCATOR MAP 

# Map index number 

Map extent 

Military land 

Port MacKenzie District 

Point MacKenzie Agricultural Area 

Park or refuge 

Miles 4 

0 0.5 1 2 

U P P E R 

C O O K I N L E T 

M A T - S U 

B O R O U G H 

BURMA RD. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

8 

7 

PT. MACKENZIE RD. 

K N I K 

A R M 

5 

6 

KNIK-GOOSE 

BAY RD. 

GL EN N 

HWY. 

Exhibit S-4 Recommended Alternative — Map key 

SEWARD 

A N C H O R A G E 

HWY. 

Exhibit S-4 Recommended Alternative – Map key 

S-21



AYRSHIRE RD. 

E N S T A R G a s l i n e 


! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

MAP 1 

Phase 1 road 

Phase 2 road 

Right-of-Way (ROW) 

Parcel boundary 

Gas line 

! ! Power line 

0 250 500 1,000 

Imagery Source: Mat-Su Borough. June 2004. 

Feet 

1 inch = 1,000 feet 

or 

1:12,000 

Path 


Goose Bay State Game Refuge 

Point MacKenzie 

Agricultural Area 

3 

N 

E 

W 

S 

PROJECT PHASES 

PHASE 1 

# 

# 

PHASE 2 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

ROW 

PATH 

FR ON TA GE 

M 

A 

I 

N 

L 

I 

N 

E 

FR ON TA GE 

ROW 

LOCATOR MAP 

4 

3 

2 

1 

M AT - S U 

BO R O U G H 

4 

7 

8 

KN I K 

5 

AR M 

6 

AN C H O R A G E 

PT. MACKENZIE RD 

G O O S E B A Y 

S T A T E G A M E R E F U G E 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

P O I N T M A C K E N Z I E 

A G R I C U L T U R A L A R E A 

Exhibit S-5 Recommended Alternative — Map 1, Mat-Su Side 


S T A T E G A M E R E F U 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

Exhibit S-5 Recommended Alternative – Map 1, Mat-Su Side 

S-22



! ! ! ! ! ! ! 


S T A T E G A M E R E F U G E 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

MAP 2 

Phase 1 road 

Phase 2 road 



Gas line 


0 250 500 1,000 


Feet 

HOLSTEIN AVE 


or 

1:12,000 

Path 





3 

N 

E 

W 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

S 


PHASE 1 

# 

# 

PHASE 2 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

W. ASLOP RD. 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

ROW 

PATH 

FR ON TA GE 

M 

A 

I 

N 

L 

I 

N 

E 

FR ON TA GE 

ROW 

LOCATOR MAP 

4 

3 

2 

1 

M AT - S U 

BO R O U G H 

4 

7 

8 

KN I K 

5 

AR M 

6 


! ! ! ! ! 



! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 




S-23

! 



! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! 

Lost 

Lake 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

MAP 3 

Phase 1 road 

Phase 2 road 





Gas line 


Path 






E 


PHASE 1 

# 

# 

PHASE 2 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

ROW 

PATH 

FR ON TA GE 

M 

A 

I 

N 

L 

I 

N 

E 

LOCATOR MAP 

3 

2 

1 

M AT - S U 

BO R O U G H 

4 

Twin Island 

Lake 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

KN I K 

5 

AR M 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

PT. MACKENZE RD. 

! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

P O R T M A C K E N Z I E D I S T R I C T 


3 

0 250 500 1,000 


Feet 


or 

1:12,000 

N 

W 

# 

# 

FR ON TA GE 

ROW 

4 

7 

8 

6 


S 


S-24

! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 



! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

MA P 4 


Phase 1 road 

Phase 2 road 


Gas line 


0 250 500 1,000 


Feet 

MAP 3 


or 

1:12,000 

Path 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! 

PT. MACKE NZIE RD. 


N3 

E 

W 

S 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 


PH A SE 1 

# 

# 

# 

# 

PO I N T M A C K E N Z I E 

T R A I L H E A D 

PH A SE 2 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

ROW 

PATH 

FRONTAGE 

M 

A 

I 

N 

L 

I 

N 

E 

FRONTAGE 

ROW 

P O R T M A C K E N Z I E D I S T R I C T 

LOCATOR MA P 

4 

3 

2 

1 

M A T - S U 

B O R O U G H 

4 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

7 

8 

K N I K 

5 

A R M 

6 


! ! ! ! 

Lake 

Lorraine 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

GR AVE L 

EXTR A C T I ON / S TOR A G E 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

TO L L 

PL AZA 

! ! ! ! ! 


! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 


S-25



MAP 5 


LOCATOR MAP 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

MAT-SU 

SIDE 

! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

# 

# 

P o r t M a c K e n z i e 

D o c k 

Frontage roads to tie 

into future Mat-Su 

development plan 

THE 

CROSSING 


Phase 1 road 

Phase 2 road 



0 250 500 1,000 


Feet 

K N I K A R M 

MAP 3 


or 

1:12,000 

Path 

Fill 


W3 

N 

S 

E 

PHASE 1 

# 

# 

PHASE 2 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

ROW 

PATH 

FRONTAGE 

M 

A 

I 

N 

L 

I 

N 

E 

FRONTAGE 

ROW 

4 

3 

2 

1 

M A T - S U 

B O R O U G H 

4 

7 

8 

K N I K 

5 

A R M 


C i r c u l a r l y D i s p o s e d 

A n t e n n a A r r a y 

6 

Exhibit S-9 Recommended Alternative — Map 5, The Crossing 

Exhibit S-9 Recommended Alternative – Map 5, The Crossing 

S-26



MAP 6 

CAIRN POINT 

THE CROSSING 

Phase 1 road 

Phase 2 road 


Path 

Port of Anchorage expansion 


0 250 500 1,000 


Feet 


or 

1:12,000 

# 

N3 

E 

W 

# 

S 

ANCHORAGE SIDE 


PHASE 1 

# 

# 

# 

# 

P O R T O F A N C H O R A G E E X PA N S I O N 

PHASE 2 

# 

# 

# 

# 

ROW 

PATH 

M 

A 

I 

N 

L 

I 

N 

E 

ROW 

See detailed maps of 


(maps 7 and 8). 

LOCATOR MAP 

4 

3 

2 

1 

4 

M A T - S U 

B O R O U G H 

7 

8 

K N I K 

5 

A R M 

6 


Exhibit S-10 Recommended Alternative — Map 6, Anchorage Side 

Exhibit S-10 Recommended Alternative – Map 6, Anchorage Side 

S-27

EAST BLUFF DR 

1ST AVE 

2ND AVE 



MAP 7-P1 

Right-of-Way acquisitions 

Temporary relocation 

(Adversely affected entities have the 

option to be acquired or temporarily 

relocated, and will be compensated.) 

Permanent acquisition/relocation 

Relocation type 

Business structure 

Industrial structure 

Church structure 

Residential structure 

!( B 

!( I 

!( C 

!( R 

WXR Recreational (nonprofit) structure 

K N I K A R M 

ERICKSON ALTERNATIVE: PHASE 1 

PRELIMINARY DESIGN 

Road 

Right-of-Way 


Cut/Fill (terrain dependent) 

Cut-and-cover tunnel 

Sidewalk 

Park 

Greenbelt 

ARNOLD DR 

P O R T O F A N C H O R A G E 

TIDEWATER RD 

3 

0 300 600 

150 450 Feet 

N 

E 

W 

E L M E N D O R F 

Government Hill 

Elementary School 

playground 

A I R F O R C E B A S E 

TERMINAL RD 

GULL AVE 

S 

ARNOLD DR 

School 

playground 

ARCTIC WARRIOR DR 

SEE MAP 8-P1 

BILBO ST 

R 

B 

B 

ER ICK SON ST 

Suzan Nightengale 

McKay Memorial 

Park 

BIRCH ST 

R 

EAST BLUFF DR 

èéëíì 

B 

B 

DEGAN ST 

CUNNINGHAM ST 

B 

Harvard 

Park 

Al Miller 

Memorial 

Park 

Sunset 

Park 

G O V E R N M E N T H I L L 

WEST BLUFF DR 

ELM ST 

DOGWOOD ST 

HOLLYWOOD DR 

MANOR AVE 

COOK AVE 

OCEAN DOCK RD 

ASH PL 

HARVARD AVE 

CEDAR ST 

VINE AVE 

BOYD ST 

ANDERSON ST 

BROWN ST 

HARVARD AVE 

Alderwood 

Park 

Government Hill Greenbelt 

COLWELL ST 

DELANEY ST 

Browns 

EAS T L OOP RD 

Point Park 

A L A S K A 

R A I L R O A D 

WHITNEY RD 

S h i p 

C r e k 

NORTH C ST 

INGRA ST 

GAMBELL ST 

CORDOVA ST 

Exhibit S-11 Recommended Alternative – Map 7-P1, Anchorage Side in Phase 1 

SHIP CREEK AVE 

1ST AVE 

1ST AVE 

EAGLE ST 

3RD AVE 

3RD AVE 

BARROW ST 

A ST 

C ST 

Exhibit S-11 Recommended Alternative — Map 7-P1, Anchorage Side in Phase 1 

S-28



School 

MAP 8-P1 

playground 









!( B 

!( I 

!( C 

!( R 

WXR 




Recreational (nonprofit) 

structure 

ERICKSON ALTERNATIVE: PHASE 1 INSET 


Road 

Right-of-Way 




Sidewalk 

Park 

Greenbelt 

3 

N 

0 50 10 0 Fee t 

E 

W 

S 

BILBO ST 

R 

B 

B 

ERICKSON ST 

BIRCH ST 

R 

èéëíì 

DEGAN ST 

B 

B 

HOLLYWOOD DR 

B 

MANOR AVE 

ASH PL 

HARVARD AVE 

VINE AVE 

H a r v a r d 

P a r k 

S u n s e t 

P a r k 

G o v e r n m e n t H i l l G r e e n b e l t 


(enlarged) 

Exhibit S-12 Map 8-P1, Anchorage Side in Phase 1 (enlarged) 

S-29

K N I K A R M 

EAST BLUFF DR 

1ST AVE 

2ND AVE 



MAP 7-P2 



(Adversely affected entities 

have the option to be acquired 

or temporarily relocated, and 








!( B 

!( I 

!( C 

!( R 

WXR 

Recreational (nonprofit) structure 

ERICKSON ALTERNATIVE: PHASE 2 


Road 

Right-of-Way 




Path 

Park 

Greenbelt 

ARNOLD DR 

P O R T O F A N C H O R A G E 

TIDEWATER RD 

3 

N 

0 300 600 

150 450 Feet 

E 

W 

S 

E L M E N D O R F 

A I R F O R C E B A S E 

TERMINAL RD 

GULL AVE 

ARNOLD DR 


Elementary School 

playground 

School 

playground 

ARCTIC WARRIOR DR 

SEE MAP 8-P2 

BILBO ST 

R 

B 

B 

ER ICK SON ST 

Suzan Nightengale 

McKay Memorial 

Park 

R 

EAST BLUFF DR 

ASH PL 

BIRCH ST 

èéëíì 

DEGAN ST 

MANOR AVE 

B 

B 

B 

R R R R 

R 

Harvard 

Park 

G O V E R N M E N T H I L L 

WEST BLUFF DR 

ELM ST 

DOGWOOD ST 

HOLLYWOOD DR 

CUNNINGHAM ST 

COOK AVE 

OCEAN DOCK RD 

R 

CEDAR ST 

HARVARD AVE 

VINE AVE 

BOYD ST 

ANDERSON ST 

Al Miller 

Memorial 

Park 

Sunset 

Park 

BROWN ST 

Alderwood 

DELANY ST 

Park 


Greenbelt 

R 

R 

COLWELL ST 

Government Hill Greenbelt 

Browns 

Point Park 

RI I 

A L A S K A R A I L R O A D 

EAST L OOP RD 

I 

WHITNEY RD 

S h i p 

C r e e k 

I 

I 

NORTH C ST 

I 

SHIP CREEK AVE 

1ST AVE 

1ST AVE 

EAGLE ST 

3RD AVE 

3RD AVE 

INGRA ST 

GAMBELL ST 

CORDOVA ST 

BARROW ST 

A ST 

C ST 


Exhibit S-13 Map 7-P2, Anchorage Side in Phase 2 

S-30



MAP 8-P2 






!( B 

!( I 

!( C 

!( R 

WXR 




School 


playground 



Recreational (nonprofit) structure 

ERICKSON ALTERNATIVE: PHASE 2 INSET 


Road 

Right-of-Way 




Path 

Park 

Greenbelt 

3 

N 

0 50 10 0 Fee t 

E 

W 

S 

BILBO ST 

R 

BIRCH ST 

ASH PL 

B 

B 

ERICKSON ST 

B 

R 

DEGAN ST 

MANOR AVE 

èéëíì 

HOLLYWOOD DR 

B 

B 

R 

R 

CUNNINGHAM ST 

R 

R 

H a r v a r d 

P a r k 

HARVARD AVE 

R 

VINE AVE 

S u n s e t 

P a r k 

Exhibit S-14 Map 8-P2, Anchorage Side in Phase 2 (enlarged) 

R 

R 

Exhibit S-14 Recommended Alternative — Map 8 P2, Anchorage Side in Phase 2 

(enlarged) 

A L A S 

K 

S-31



The preliminary design includes plans for 

potential future expansion (Phase 2) when 

traffic volumes would warrant its completion. 

In the Mat-Su, the project’s controlled-access 

right-of-way 1 would be large enough to expand 

to two lanes in each direction, including 

accommodations for a pathway. 

Proposed right-of-way (Phase: 1 and 2), typically 400 to 450 feet wide 

Future expansion (Phase 2) Proposed Mat-Su roadway (Phase 1) 

Future expansion (Phase 2) 

1 

a designation that allows intersecting roads or driveways at 

only limited points to promote safety and travel efficiency 

Future pathway 

Future two-way 

frontage road 

Future divided 

roadway expansion 

Future two-way 

frontage road 

Point MacKenzie Road Alternative 

Sources: Imagery from SMB June 2004 

MSB GIS, HDR Inc. 

0 0.5 1 Mile 

Key Costs and Impacts for Mat-Su Approach Alternatives 

Costs 

Construction 

Design, engineering, and construction 

administration 

Contingency 

Total (by phase) 

(Note that Phase 2 would include 

future build-out of project.) 

Point MacKenzie Road 

Alternative 

Phase 1: $33.7M 

Phase 2: 31.2M 

Phase 1: 4.9M 

Phase 2: 4.5M 

Phase 1: 7.0M 




Northern Access Alternative 


Phase 1: $34.2M 


Phase 1: 5.0M 

Phase 2: 4.2M 

Phase 1: 7.2M 




Controlled-Access Right-of-way (ROW): A designation that allows intersecting roads or driveways at only 

limited points to promote safety and travel efficiency. 

ROW costs $0.8M $0.6M 

Affected land parcels 30 28 

ROW acquisitions/relocations 

Section 4(f) Recreational Properties 

Businesses: 0 

Residences: 0 

Businesses: 0 

Residences: 0 

Point MacKenzie Recreational Trailhead 0.55 acre of trailhead used 0 acres of trailhead used 

Wetlands 

Forested 14.2 acres 9.7 acres 

Sedge and grass 17.3 acres 15.5 acres 

Scrub/shrub 5.9 acres 3.3 acres 

Total 37.4 acres 28.5 acres 




0 0.5 1 Mile 

Exhibit S-15 Mat-Su Side Alternatives 

Because many impacts are relatively equal, FHWA prefers the Northern Access Alternative for 

its consistency with Mat-Su Borough and Port MacKenzie planning efforts. 

As part of the Recommended Alternative, the Northern Access Alternative: 

• will remove through-traffic from Port MacKenzie 

• will be more conducive to Port MacKenzie expansion plans 

Exhibit S-15. Mat-Su Side Alternatives 

S-32

The preliminary design includes plans for potential future expansion (Phase 2) when 

traffic volumes would warrant its completion. For the crossing, two more lanes of 

bridge decking could be added, without having to install additional piers. 

This section rendering gives an idea of what the bridge might 

look like. Final bridge design has yet to be determined. Future expansion (Phase 2) 



Proposed crossing (Phase 1) 

Mat‐Su side 

Mat-Su 

~8,200 feet 

50 foot clearance 250 feet 

Anchorage side 

Anchorage 

Navigation channel 

Add two lanes and pathway 

for future expansion 

14,000-foot Bridge Alternative 1 

2 

Key Costs and Impacts for Bridge Alternatives 

8,200-foot Bridge Alternative 

North 

North 




0 0.25 0.5 Mile 

14,000-foot bridge 

approach 1 

Costs 

Construction 

Design, engineering, and 

construction administration 

Contingency 


(Note that Phase 2 includes future 

build-out of project through 2030) 

In-Water Construction Methods 

14,000-foot Bridge Alternative 1 

Phase 1: $478.8M 

Phase 2: 174.3M 





Phase 1: 641.4M 

Phase 2: 262.7M 

Barges and temporary 

construction trestles in mud flats 

(would require fill) 

8,200-foot Bridge Alternative 


Barges only 

Phase 1: $319.3M 






Phase 1: 426.8M 

Phase 2: 129.5M 

Construction Time 3 construction seasons 2 construction seasons 

Number of Piers 66–76 piers 33 piers 

Marine Fill ~ 45 acres total ~ 90 acres total 

Beluga Whale 

(Pile driving is a key concern 

because pile-driving noise will 

adversely affect belugas most.) 

Essential Fish Habitat 

Estimated Sedimentation 

(silt accumulation over time around 

bridge approaches) 

• 440–508 hours pile-driving 

noise 

• Less fill in habitat 

• Subtidal waters ~ 0 acres filled 

• Estuarine shores and mud flats: 

~ 45 acres would be filled 

• 220 hours pile-driving noise 

• More fill in habitat 

• Subtidal waters ~ 8 acres filled 

• Estuarine shores and mud 

flats: ~ 82 acres would be filled 

20 acres around abutments 260 acres around abutments 

North 

North 



0 0.25 0.5 Mile 


8,200-foot bridge 

approach 

Exhibit S-16 The Crossing Alternatives 


The 8,200-foot Bridge is part of the Recommended Alternative because: 

• installation of fewer piers will reduce in-water noise and other construction 

impacts on species inhabiting Knik Arm waters within the Project Area 

• shorter construction time (two construction seasons will be required) 

• construction cost ($426.8M total will be reasonable) 


1 

The 14,000-foot Bridge Alternative was found to not be financially feasible and did not meet stated purpose and need criteria; however, this alternative was carried forward solely for comparative evaluation based on requests from environmental 

resource and permitting agencies. 

2 

Only one or the other bridge approach alternative would be constructed—i.e., the portion of the “Y” corresponding to each respective approach alternative. 

Exhibit S-16 The Crossing Alternatives 

S-33


Degan Street Alternative 

Key Costs and Impacts for Anchorage Approach Alternatives 

Erickson Street Alternative 

North 

0 0.5 1 Mile 

Costs 

Construction 

Design, engineering, and construction administration 

Contingency 


(Note that Phase 2 would include 

future build-out of project through 2030) 


Phase 1: $38.9M 

Phase 2: 144.7M 

Phase 1: 5.6M 





Phase 2: 218.0M 


Phase 1: $43.5M 

Phase 2: 155.3M 

Phase 1: 6.3M 





Phase 2: 234.4M 

Controlled-Access Right-of-way (ROW): A designation that allows intersecting roads or driveways at only limited points to promote safety 

and travel efficiency. 

ROW costs $18.0M $11.5M 

Affected land parcels 42 40 

Permanent ROW acquisitions (relocations) 

(The number of acquisitions may be less than the number of 

relocations because a single building acquired may mean multiple 

families/businesses are relocated) 

Temporary ROW impacts 

(Adversely affected entities have the option of being acquired or 

temporarily relocated, with compensation) 

8 residences (14 families) 

2 businesses (2 businesses) 

2 nonprofits (2 organizations) 

5 industrial buildings 

(6 businesses) 


1 nonprofit (1 business) 


4 businesses (4 businesses) 

5 industrial buildings 

(6 businesses) 

1 business (1 business) 

Total potential relocations 28 (Phases 1 and 2) 27 (Phases 1 and 2) 

Hazardous waste/Contaminated sites 

Historic properties 


Harvard Park 

Sunset Park 

Wetlands 

3 high-risk sites 

4 medium-risk sites 

3 low-risk sites 

Adversely affects Anchorage 

Square & Round Dance Club 

65% of park used 

3.0 acres of ROW acquired 

1.65 acres remaining 







Adversely affects Government 

Hill Urban Renewal 

Historic District including 3 

contributing structures 


0.10 acre of ROW acquired 





Forested 1.6 acres 1.3 acres 

Sedge and grass 1.1 acres 2.2 acres 

Scrub/shrub 7.9 acres 7.6 acres 

Total 10.6 acres 11.1 acres 

North 

0 0.5 1 Mile 

Exhibit S-17 Anchorage Side Alternatives 

Exhibit S-17 Anchorage Side Alternatives 

S-34


Initial Construction (Phase 1) Potential Future Expansion (Phase 2) 

to BRIDGE 

to BRIDGE 

to BRIDGE 

Degan Cut-and-Cover Tunnel 

• Includes a four-lane, cut-and-cover tunnel. 

• Access to/from the facility would require a stop 

and a turn. 

• A traffic signal would control the intersection with 

East Loop Road. 

EAST LOOP ROAD 

Erickson Cut-and-Cover Tunnel 

• Would include a two-lane, cut-and-cover tunnel. 

• On/off ramps constructed north and south of 


• Traffic would flow freely between East Loop Road 

and the facility (no traffic signal required). 

The preliminary design includes plans for potential future expansion (Phase 2) when traffic volumes would 

warrant its completion. In Anchorage, expanding the project would mean adding a connection to the 

Ingra‐Gambell Couplet and the future Highway-to-Highway Project with the Glenn and Seward Highways. 

These potential future expansions are noted above. 


Degan Cut-and-Cover Tunnel 

to INGRA - 

GAMBELL 

• Signal intersection at East Loop Road would be replaced with a grade 

separation, allowing traffic to flow freely (no stops) through the tunnel 

and to/from the Ingra‐Gambell Couplet. 

• No direct access would be available between Government Hill and the 

Ingra‐Gambell Couplet. 

• Traffic to/from East Loop Road would gain access to the facility by way 

of Erickson Street and ramps north of Government Hill. 


Erickson Cut-and-Cover Tunnel 

to INGRA - 

GAMBELL 

• Would expand to a six-lane, cut-and-cover tunnel. 

• A wider tunnel would allow main line traffic to flow freely through the tunnel 

to/from the Ingra‐Gambell Couplet, as well as ramp traffic to flow freely 

through the tunnel to/from East Loop Road. 

• On/off ramps would be expanded north of Government Hill. 

• No direct access would be available between Government Hill and the 

Ingra‐Gambell Couplet. 

Exhibit S-18 Anchorage Side Alternatives – Traffic flow 

Exhibit S-18 Anchorage Side Alternatives – Traffic flow 

S-35



Exhibit S-23 Environmental Impacts Associated with Construction and Operation of the Recommended Alternative 

Impact category 

Land Use Impacts 

Land Use and Ownership Changes 

Direct impacts 

Construction impacts 

Indirect impacts 

Cumulative impacts 

Consistency with Land Use Plans and Policies 





Farmland Impacts 





a 

N/A = not applicable 


(Mat-Su Side) 

Right-of-way (ROW) Acquisition of Structures 0 structures 

Affected Land Parcels 28 

ROW Costs $0.6M 


Southern Alignment Crossing with 8,200-Foot Bridge and Connecting 

Roadways on Gravel Fill 

(The Crossing) 

Some tideland properties converted to transportation use. 

The existing land use of some parcels could be changed temporarily to stage construction equipment and supplies. 

Increased demand for residential land uses; increased demand for 

transportation, commercial, and industrial land uses. 

Improved access provided by Knik Arm Crossing (KAC) Project will 

contribute to an increase in demand for port-related development. 


(Anchorage Side) 

ROW Acquisition of Structures 18 structures 

• 9 residential (16 families) 

• 4 commercial (4 businesses) 

• 5 industrial (6 businesses) 



Less aggressive demand for residential land uses; increased demand for 

transportation, commercial, and industrial land uses. 

Cumulative impacts in the Mat-Su would result in increases in developed land. About 25% of developable land would be developed by 2030.Of the approximate 158,000 acres of 

developable land in the Mat-Su modeled area, including approximately 10,000 acres already developed, cumulative land impacts total approximately 40,000 acres. 

The project is consistent with Mat-Su Borough plans including the 2005 Mat-Su Borough-Wide 

Comprehensive Plan. The Knik Arm Crossing project was evaluated by the Mat-Su Borough as part of their 

LRTP, which was adopted in 2007. Various economic development plans and resolutions of support of the 

project by the Mat-Su Borough Assembly are also in place. 

ROW acquisition from parcels located in the Point MacKenzie Agricultural 

Area. 

None. 

N/A a 

N/A 

In compliance with 23 U.S.C. § 134 Metropolitan Planning, an amendment 

for the inclusion of the KAC Project into the Long-Range Transportation Plan 

(LRTP) through Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions 

(AMATS) was approved by the AMATS Policy Committee on April 12, 2007. 

An Air Quality Conformity determination was also approved by the AMATS 

Policy Committee on the same date. Full details of the amendment and air 

quality conformity processes may be found in the Land Use and 

Transportation Forecast Technical Report addendum. 

In compliance with 23 U.S.C. § 134(h) Transportation Improvement 

Program, the Municipality’s Transportation Improvement Program 

amendment and accompanying Air Quality Conformity determination were 

approved by the AMATS Policy Committee on June 27, 2007. 

The recommended alternative and other development in the Mat-Su Borough would create conditions suitable for the lifting of agricultural covenants in the Point MacKenzie Agricultural 

Area, leading to subdivision for residential and commercial uses. 


Exhibit S-23 Environmental Impacts Associated with Construction and Operation 

S-36



Exhibit S-23 Environmental Impacts Associated with Construction and Operation of the Recommended Alternative (continued) 


Impacts on the Social Environment 


(Mat-Su Side) 

Neighborhoods, Community Cohesion, and Environmental Justice Impacts 





Transportation Impacts 



Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion 

Southwest Mat-Su population will benefit from shorter, more convenient 

access to Anchorage. 

Because of changes in the sense of solitude some residents will likely relocate 

out of the Project Area. 

Development of new neighborhoods with year-round residents will create 

new social networks. 

Environmental Justice 

No disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low income 

populations were found. 

Could have temporary, short term delays during construction activities to 

those traveling to Port MacKenzie and adjacent properties. 






Increase in residential and commercial development in Southwest Mat-Su will change the rural character. Past trends will continue in Anchorage. 


No disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low income populations were found. 

The project has been designed in cooperation with the Mat-Su Borough to 

maintain accessibility to port lands and sized with sufficient capacity to 

meet both short- and long term traffic demands. 

Construction of a multiuse pathway adjacent to the KAC vehicle route could increase access for pedestrians and bicyclists between Anchorage and the Mat-Su. 

Direct impacts on transit operations and users will be limited; access will, however, be improved for transit users between Anchorage and the Mat-Su. 

The Recommended Alternative will have no direct impacts on air transportation or air transportation facilities. 

Increase in truck traffic and interruption of vehicular travel on Point 

MacKenzie Road. 

The delivery of construction materials would increase marine traffic. 

N/A 

N/A 

None 

None 




Relocation of homes and businesses would cause: 

• disruption to social networks in the Government Hill neighborhood 

• changes in traffic patterns and accessibility 


No disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low income 

populations were found. 

Vehicular and pedestrian travel, including movement between Loop Road 

and local roads in Government Hill and between the east and west sides of 

Erickson and Degan Streets will be interrupted. 

Noise effects such as that produced by pile-driving equipment and effects 

on the visual environment during the construction phase will be temporary. 

The project has been designed to integrate into the existing and planned 

roadway network to minimize any traffic congestion or traffic impacts. 

The Recommended Alternative will affect the rail yard in locations where 

piers are proposed for construction in Phase 2. 

Vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle movements, will be interrupted at times, 

particularly between Loop Road and local roads in Government Hill, 

between the east and west sides of Erickson and Degan Streets in the 

Government Hill neighborhood, and between surface streets in Government 

Hill and the A-C Viaduct. 



S-37








(Mat-Su Side) 

VMT b and VHT c will increase in Mat-Su compared with the No Build. 

A shift in population will cause an increase in traffic on some roads in the 

Mat-Su and a decrease on others between Palmer and Wasilla. 

Impacts on Community Facilities, Public Services, and Fiscal Conditions 





Impacts on Population and Social Groups 





Subsistence Impacts 


b 

VMT (million vehicle miles traveled) 

c 

VHT (million vehicle hours traveled) 





The Recommended Alternative has been designed to be compatible with a future rail alignment crossing Knik Arm. 

No indirect impacts on air transportation will occur. 

Increased opportunity for transit operations between Anchorage and the Mat Su. 

The depth of Knik Arm currently limits the development or expansion of commercial marine operations north of the project and the project will have minimal effect on future 

development or expansion. 

None 



VMT and VHT will decrease in Anchorage compared with the No Build. 

Improved access to Southwest and West Mat-Su will increase residential, commercial, and industrial development and supporting infrastructure. More truck freight traffic and more 

recreation-related traffic will follow. 

Increased traffic volumes and VMT will cause increased pressure to widen and pave roadways in West Mat-Su. 

Pressure for construction of a spur railroad line from Wasilla and/or the Parks Highway to Port MacKenzie to serve freight and commuters may increase. 

Short-term impacts include staging of construction materials, preconstruction facilities, and mobilization areas. These short-term preconstruction activities will have beneficial financial 

effects from revenues. 

Land purchases for the project will reduce the taxable value of the property and future tax revenues associated with the land. 

Land lease revenues of the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) will be reduced for land that will be taken. 

Growth in the Mat-Su will pose fiscal challenges to the Borough. 

Additional residential growth in the Mat-Su area will result in increased expenses for education and other public services. 

Increase in population will increase demand for public services of the Borough and the cities of Wasilla, Palmer, and Houston. Transportation linkages and utility connections will follow 

areas of growth. 

Population growth in Anchorage can be accommodated by existing and planned capacity of public services and facilities. 

As a result of the loss of business, residential, and other property within the ROW on Government Hill, a small loss of population from the Government Hill neighborhood could occur. 

The influx of construction workers will generate temporary effects on populations in the region. 

Regional population growth will be similar to the case without the KAC Project; there will, however, be impacts on spatial allocation of population across the region. 

Operation of the KAC Project and its associated traffic will result in some 

long-term displacement of hunting activities along the road corridors. 

Operation of the KAC Project and its associated traffic will affect moose, 

primarily by increases in mortality through vehicle collisions. 

N/A 

None None . 



S-38








Impacts on Utilities 





Relocation Impacts 





Joint Development Impacts 






(Mat-Su Side) 

Construction activities will displace moose (short-term) and traditional 

moose hunting activities in the immediate vicinity. 





Short-term localized direct effects on both adult and juvenile salmon during 

construction could alter fish movement patterns. 

Short-term construction activities in marine and nearshore environments 

could affect beluga behavior, movement patterns, and foraging success 

through noise disturbance as well as through effects on their prey. 

Fish and wildlife populations used for traditional harvest will experience some minor adverse effects from development projects. 

Development on west side of Knik Arm could make it more difficult for Knik Arm Dena’ina to gain access to their hunting grounds and educational fishery. 

Several surface and subsurface utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electric utilities, communications, and fuel lines will require relocation prior to construction. 



Indirect and cumulative demand on utilities will result in a more dispersed, regional development pattern; larger total infrastructure commitment; and greater gas, electric, water and sewer, 

and communication needs. 

The new bridge will provide an option for utility companies to lease space beneath the bridge decking for hanging pipes or cables for passage over Knik Arm to connect the Mat-Su and 

Anchorage. 




None 

N/A 

N/A 

None 


• 9 residential (16 families) 

• 4 commercial (4 businesses) 

• 5 industrial (6 businesses) 



Temporary Relocation 

• 1 business 

Indirect and cumulative impacts will be negligible. Property acquisitions and relocations will effectively reduce the housing supply in Anchorage to a relatively small degree and may be 

offset by new housing opportunities in the Mat-Su. 

None 



S-39





Economic Impacts 

Impacts on Employment 





Impacts on Economic Sectors 





Impacts on the Physical Environment 

Air Quality Impacts 



(Mat-Su Side) 





Project-related design and engineering activity ($30M to $37.5M) will occur before construction. This will mean 300 to 400 part- and full-time jobs, over a two-year period prior to 

construction, primarily in the architectural and engineering sectors. Labor income from such activities will range from $19M to $24M. 

60 part- and full-time jobs will be supported during the project’s operational phase, with a labor income of $2.7M. 



Dislocation impacts (four businesses and seven industrial properties) and 

possible loss of employment will be focused on the Government Hill 

neighborhood. 

Temporary and short-term interruptions of business activity will occur. 

Anticipated level of construction-related spending in region will be $220M to $280M. 

4,400 to 6,200 part-and full-time construction jobs will be needed over 24 months or 2,200 to 3,100 jobs per year. Total income for construction jobs will be $309M to $328M. Workers for 

the 1,700 to 3,100 jobs per year will be nonlocal hires. 

About 150–200 indirect jobs will be generated in the regional economy during design and engineering stages of the KAC Project, with a labor income of $5.3 to $7.1M. 

During construction, 2,160–3,080 indirect jobs, with a labor income of $67.1 to $94.2M, will occur. 

In the operation phase, about 50 indirect jobs will be generated, with a labor income of $2M. 

An increasing share (about 2%, or 6,700 jobs, compared with a projected 2030 level without the project) of retail and services employment growth in the region will be allocated to the 

Mat-Su. 

The KAC project will create economic efficiencies for locations in the Mat-Su of warehousing, transportation services, industrial land uses, and accommodations of residential population 

growth. 

Operation of the project will add about $8M in operation and maintenance activities and repair sector as well as state and local government sectors. 

Construction spending is expected to create an increase in economic activity $210 to $285 million in the local construction sector during the construction phase of the project. 

Multiplier effects of project spending in the regional economy will be expected in the construction, engineering and architectural, and state and local government sectors, These will 

further propagate into the retail, professional and business services, and personal services sectors. 

Purchase of construction materials (e.g., structural steel) from out-of-state will involve an indirect economic benefit for local wholesale, water, air, and truck transportation sectors. 

Nonlocal hires during construction are expected to spend $55M in the local retail and personal services sectors. 

New gravel extraction sites could be opened in the southwest Mat-Su and offer new transportation and marketing opportunities such as direct truck delivery of gravel from quarries to the 

north end of Anchorage. 

A modest shift in basic sector activity, limited to warehousing and other businesses that require large tracts of land, could occur from Anchorage to Point MacKenzie. 

Paving of unpaved roads in the Mat-Su Borough is expected to reduce fugitive dust emissions. 

Expected to reduce vehicle miles traveled in the existing carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance area; therefore, the KAC Project will maintain compliance with the NAAQS for CO in 

Anchorage. 

No exceedances of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are expected. 



S-40







Impacts on Noise Levels 





Geology/Soils/Seismic Impacts 






(Mat-Su Side) 





A direct effect from earthmoving activities and construction equipment traveling over unpaved areas will be the release of particulate matter into the immediate environment. 

Construction equipment engine exhaust effects will occur, such as gaseous pollutants, and will include sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, CO, and volatile organic compounds. 



The air quality evaluation conducted for the project accounts for the cumulative air quality impacts of the project together with other projects of regional significance. The project and 

other projects of regional significance would not cause any exceedances of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

There will be a 6- to 7-dBA increase over existing noise levels at noise 

sensitive receptors; however, the project will not approach or exceed noise 

abatement criteria. 

There will be short-term noise impacts. 

Impacts Relating to Hazardous Materials and Contaminated Sites 





Impacts on Energy Resources 





Impacts on Ground Water 


Conversion of undeveloped land to residential, retail, educational, 

commercial, industrial, etc., uses will increase background noise levels and 

create sensitive receptors where they currently do not exist. 

Seismic risk will be minimized by adherence to Alaska-specific and national design codes. 

No known contaminated sites. There is a possibility of encountering 

unexploded ordnance (UXO). 

None 

There will be short-term noise impacts and strong pulses of underwater 

sound due to pile-driving. 

Negligible impacts 

The Below-the-Bluff Roadway will have potential impacts on 3 low-risk 

hazardous materials sites. 

The eastern bridge abutment may affect known ordnance and explosives 

(OE) from the Former Susitna Gunner Range (FSGR). 

Short-term impacts will result from fuel consumption during construction and embedded energy in construction materials. 

None 


There will be a 2- to 5-dBA increase over existing noise levels at noise 

sensitive receptors; however, the project will not approach or exceed noise 

abatement criteria. 

There will be short-term noise impacts. 




The KAC Project and reasonably foreseeable future actions will result in a more dispersed regional development pattern and greater total fuel consumption than would occur without the 

project. 

None 



S-41








Impacts on the Cultural Environment 

Impacts on Archaeology and Historic Preservation 





Impacts on Recreational Resources, Parks, and Wildlife Refuges 




(Mat-Su Side) 







Temporary increases in nonpoint and point source contamination could occur during construction as a result of improper storage or spills of hazardous materials within aquifer recharge 

areas. 

Increased residential and business development may adversely affect the 

area including: 

• aquifers through both point source and nonpoint source 

• street maintenance practices such as oiling roads for dust control 

affecting nearby shallow groundwater resources 

• increased vulnerability to bacteria, viruses, nitrates, and nitrites in areas 

with shallow ground water 

• bacteria and nutrients from livestock or pet wastes 

• sediment from mining or construction 

• fertilizers from agricultural and new residential areas 

N/A 

A deceleration in development growth will likely reduce water use within 

the Anchorage Bowl and reduce the rate of increase of drawdown of 

Anchorage-area aquifers. 

The KAC Project, along with reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Mat-Su Borough, will add to the general decline in ground water quality. Wastewater generation and residential 

water consumption will approximately triple existing rates by 2030. The prevalence of community or municipal stations will be critical for ground water resources. 

None 

Indirect and cumulative impacts will occur due to shifts in growth and development. 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

Direct impacts on the Government Hill Urban Renewal Historic District 

could include visual and audible elements as part of Phase 1 and 2. Noise 

impacts will not exceed FHWA abatement criteria. 

Three contributing properties in the Government Hill Urban Renewal 

Historic District will be adversely effected as part of Phase 2 due to 

acquisition. 

Harvard Park 

The KAC Project would result in: 


0.10 acre of ROW acquired 


Sunset Park 





Harvard and Sunset Parks 

Parks may be temporarily unavailable to the public during construction. 



S-42







Impacts on the Visual Environment 





Impacts on the Section 4(f) Environment 



(Mat-Su Side) 





Increased utilization of recreational resources due to shifts in growth and development, and ease of access. 

Recreational use of other Government Hill neighborhood parks will increase because of Sunset Park’s becoming less available. 

The proposed project would include several key components that would impose changes to the existing visual environment: 

• an upgraded and widened Point MacKenzie Road that would connect to an embankment roadway section on the west side of Knik Arm 

• a piling-supported bridge crossing of Knik Arm 

• a fill embankment placed in Knik Arm at the east and west approaches of the Southern Alignment alternative over Knik Arm 

• a cut/fill section connecting the crossing approach to Government Hill 

• a cut-and-cover tunnel structure under a portion of Government Hill 

• the approaches and bridge crossing of Ship Creek connecting the Government Hill neighborhood to Ingra and Gambell Streets 

Construction will be expected to cause visual quality impacts due to construction equipment and materials and roadway cuts. 

Some currently undeveloped space will be developed and vegetation will be removed. 

Light pollution from new population growth will occur. 

Viewsheds will be altered in minor ways because of already ongoing urban/commercial development. 

Bridge crossing opens the area to visual experiences previously unavailable. 

None 

None 





Harvard Park: 2% of park used 



Sunset Park: 31% of park used 



Section 4(f) Historic Properties 

Will adversely affect three contributing buildings in the Government Hill 

Urban Renewal District due to acquisition. 

Construction impacts None None Harvard and Sunset Parks may be temporarily unavailable to the public. 



None 

None 

Increased use in other Government Hill neighborhood parks because of 

Sunset Park’s unavailability. 

Implementation of reasonably foreseeable future actions, such as the Highway-to-Highway connection, expansion/development of Port MacKenzie, upgrading roads in Southwest Mat Su, 

and the Mat-Su Access Project (Little Susitna River Crossing) could improve access to Section 4(f) resources (including connecting recreational trails) and influence use. 



S-43





Impacts on the Natural Environment 

Impacts on Surface Water Resources 





Impacts on Wetlands 



(Mat-Su Side) 

None 

Water Bodies and Water Quality 

Two unnamed lakes north of Lake Lorraine may be adversely affected due to 

stormwater runoff. 

Increased sediment runoff. 

Temporary increases in suspended solids, turbidity, and pollutants from 

construction equipment. 


Increased development near water bodies will result in encroachment on 

riparian areas, additional runoff, increased nutrient loading, fecal coliform 

contamination, increases in hydrocarbons, and increases in the extent of the 

area’s impervious surfaces. 

Fill in wetlands would result in loss of the following wetland types: 

Forested: 

9.7 acres 

Sedge and grass: 15.5 acres 

Scrub/shrub: 

3.3 acres 

Total: 

28.5 acres 





Fill in estuarine shores and mud flats: 82 acres 

Fill in subtidal waters: 

8 acres 

Placement of 33 piers 

Hydrology 

Impacts mostly related to erosion and accretion of sediment (total area of 

sediment accumulation will be approximately 60 acres on the west and 200 

acres on the east side of Knik Arm): 

• minimal tidal-phase lags 

• impedance of flow (delay in high tide of less than 1 minute) 

• lag in ebb tide (delay in low tide of less than 6 minutes) 

• mid-channel current speeds will increase approximately 0.5 foot per 

second 

• central portion of channel’s average depth could increase 1–2 feet 

• constriction scour could increase to 5–6 feet next to abutments 

Water Quality 

There will be few direct impacts to water quality from the 8,200-foot bridge. 

Due to fast currents and assimilative capacity of Knik Arm, the impacts of 

stormwater runoff will be negligible. 


Increased sediment runoff 

Temporary increases in suspended solids, turbidity, and pollutants from construction equipment. 

Water Quality 

Increased development and access could adversely affect water quality by 

wastewater outfalls, additional nonpoint stormwater outfalls, and marine 

vessel or watercraft fuel spills. 



8 acres 





Installation of culverts and the placement of fill will directly affect numerous 

drainages along the bluff north of the POA and Cherry Hill Ditch. 

Ship Creek will be crossed during Phase 2; neither phase, however, will 

adversely affect the creek. 


Increase in traffic will cause an increase in pollutant contributions. 

Increases of nonpoint sources of pollution from reasonably foreseeable 

future actions in the vicinity of the POA. 

Fill in wetlands would result in loss of the following wetland types: 

Forested: 

1.3 acres 

Sedge and grass: 2.2 acres 

Scrub/shrub: 

7.6 acres 

Total: 

11.1 acres 



S-44








Impacts on Floodplains 





Impacts on Wild and Scenic Rivers 





Impacts on Coastal Barriers 






(Mat-Su Side) 

Four acres of forested, scrub/shrub, and sedge or grass wetlands will be affected. 

Soil will be disturbed, deposition of sediments and other pollutants will increase, 

and vegetation will be permanently altered by such disturbance. 

Wildlife use of the areas of vegetation disturbance will be temporarily adversely 

affected. 





Additional wetland area eliminated by 2030 due to development in the Mat-Su, relative to loss under the No-Action Alternative: 

Forested: 

70 acres 

Sedge and grass: 260 acres 

Scrub/shrub: 

120 acres 

Total: 

450 acres 

None 



Two acres of forested, scrub/shrub, and sedge or grass wetlands will be affected. 

Soil will be disturbed, deposition of sediments and other pollutants will increase, 

and vegetation will be permanently altered by such disturbance. 

Wildlife use of the areas of vegetation disturbance will be temporarily displaced. 

The total cumulative reduction of 819.6 acres includes 808.5 acres (0.9% reduction) in total Mat-Su Project Area wetlands which would not alter Mat-Su regional wetland functions and 

values. 

None 

Stream crossings by roads caused by indirect growth will have the potential 

to adversely affect floodplains unless unrestricted flow will be maintained. 

Development pressure in the Mat-Su Borough would be more aggressive, 

increasing the cumulative impact potential of residential and commercial 

development on marginal floodplain areas. 

There are no designated Wild and Scenic Rivers located within the Project Area. 

A 0.3 inch decrease in the extreme high-tide level north of the bridge could 

occur during extreme high-tide events. 

None 

As identified under the Coastal Barriers Resource Act, there are no coastal barriers in the Project Area. 

N/A 

None 

Development pressure in the Anchorage Bowl would be less aggressive, 

alleviating the cumulative impact potential of residential and commercial 

development on marginal floodplain areas. 



S-45





Impacts on Coastal Zone 





Impacts on Habitats 


Marine Habitat 

None 

Freshwater Habitat 

None 


(Mat-Su Side) 





KAC Project will include construction in Alaska’s coastal zone and will be consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management Program 

and both the Anchorage and Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Plans (CMPs). 

Development in the Mat-Su Borough will occur in the coastal zone and will be regulated by the Mat-Su Borough CMP. 

Terrestrial Habitat 

The project would result in loss of the following terrestrial habitat types: 

Needleleaf forest: 

1 acres 

Broadleaf forest: 

36 acres 

Mixed needleleaf/broadleaf forest: 398 acres 

Tall shrub: 

14 acres 

Dry herb: 

36 acres 

Developed: 

133 acres 

Total upland impacts: 

618 acres 


Placement of bridge piers and placement of fill and armor rock: 



8 acres 


Roadway will adversely affect upper intertidal habitat functions by altering 

ground water discharge (eliminating freshwater seeps located along the 

bottom of the coastal bluff), eliminating limited wildlife habitat, and 

deterring wildlife from using the coastal area as a movement corridor. 

The placement of fill for the abutments will result in permanent loss of 

subtidal habitat, but will not result in trophic-level effects since this is not a 

highly productive habitat. 


N/A 


Construction of the Below the Bluff Roadway north of the future POA 

expansion will result in loss of intertidal habitat used as a terrestrial mammal 

movement corridor along Knik Arm. 


None 




Installation of culverts and the placement of fill will directly affect numerous 

drainages along the bluff north of the POA and Cherry Hill Ditch. 


The project would result in loss of the following terrestrial habitat types: 


17 acres 

Dry herb: 

5 acres 

Developed: 

13 acres 

Total upland impacts: 

35 acres 



S-46







Cumulative Impacts 


None 


None 


(Mat-Su Side) 


Temporary habitat impacts attributable to equipment working outside the 

project footprint. Some habitat regrowth would be expected. Habitat 

functions, including support for wildlife, would be temporarily or 

permanently lost. 


N/A 




contamination, increases in hydrocarbons, and increased extent of 

impervious surfaces. 

Reductions in water quantity and quality will occur. 


The difference between the No-Action and the KAC Project will result in 

permanent loss of approximately 14,650 acres of natural upland habitats due 

to indirect growth: 

Needleleaf forest: 

1,385 acres 


9,810 acres 

Mixed needleleaf/broadleaf forest: 2,500 acres 

Tall and low shrub: 

335 acres 

Dwarf shrub and related communities: 5 acres 

Dry or moist herb: 

80 acres 

Wet herb: 

65 acres 

Agriculture: 

470 acres 

Total: 

14,650 acres 

KAC Project will contribute to the general decline in quantity and quality of 

terrestrial habitat. 






Staging area: gravel-filled pad on west side of Knik Arm will result in the loss 

of approximately 3 acres of marine habitat. 

Because of movement and placement of sediment and rock in shoreline 

areas, turbidity will increase. 


N/A 


None 


The KAC Project will result in total fillet formation (sediment accumulation) 

of 260 acres on both sides of the approaches. 

Increased marine use as a result of growth in shipping traffic at Port 

MacKenzie will adversely affect intertidal and subtidal habitat. 


N/A 


None 


None 




Increased sediment runoff 

Temporary increases in suspended solids, turbidity, and pollutants from 

construction equipment. 


Temporary habitat impacts attributable to equipment working outside the 

project footprint. Some habitat regrowth would be expected. Habitat 

functions, including support for wildlife, would be temporarily or 

permanently lost. 


N/A 




contamination, increases in hydrocarbons, and increased extent of 

impervious surfaces. 

Reductions in water quantity and quality will occur. 


Wildlife displaced may have the opportunity to occupy nearby undeveloped 

areas, depending on carrying capacity of these areas. 



S-47





Impacts on Wildlife 


Marine Invertebrates 

N/A 

Fish and Essential Fish Habitat 

N/A 

Anadromous Fish 

N/A 

Marine Fish 

N/A 

Freshwater Fish 

None 


(Mat-Su Side) 

Freshwater Birds 

There will be a loss of wetland habitat and habitat quality that may lead to 

changes in the local abundance and distribution of bird species, but will not 

likely lead to long term adverse effects on any populations of freshwater 

birds. 

Terrestrial Birds 

There will be a loss of habitat, food sources, cover, breeding grounds, and 

roosting sites. 

Marine Birds 

N/A 






Negligible impacts. 


EFH will be lost due to fill: 

Subtidal waters: 

~8 acres 

Estuarine shores and mud flats: 

~82 acres 

33 piers will be placed; tidal channel portion of Sixmile Creek within Knik 

Arm will be altered. 


Intertidal mud flats and subtidal areas will be filled. 

Placement of bridge approaches will adversely affect the movement, feeding, 

and growing of adult and juvenile salmon by creating a movement barrier of 

high-current speeds. 

Fill will also displace fish and permanently eliminate foraging habitat 

Marine Fish 

Intertidal mud flats and subtidal areas will be filled. 

Placement of bridge approaches will adversely affect the movement, feeding, 

and growing of marine fish by creating a movement barrier of high-current 

speeds. 

Fill will also displace fish and permanently eliminate a small fraction of 

benthic habitat in Knik Arm caused by the 90 acres of infill and 33 piers. 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 

Marine Birds 

Loss of habitat from the placement of piers and from the placement of fill. 

Disturbance from vehicular traffic. 

Direct mortality from collisions with vehicles or structures. 

Loss of intertidal feeding habitat which could change foraging patterns of 

the bald eagles in the area. 


N/A 


None 




Some contaminants, such as automotive fluids and metals from vehicle 

brake dust, could reach drainage pathways to Ship Creek (an anadromous 

fish stream) and Knik Arm. 

Marine Fish 

N/A 


None 


None 


Loss of food sources, cover, breeding grounds, and roosting sites. 

Small loss of common upland vegetation types east of the POA. 

Marine Birds 

N/A 



S-48





Direct impacts (continued) 



(Mat-Su Side) 

Harbor Seals, Steller Sea Lion, Harbor Porpoise, Killer Whale 

N/A 

Beluga Whales 

N/A 

Terrestrial Mammals 

A large increase in wildlife (mainly moose)-vehicle accidents could result in 

traffic increases on Port MacKenzie Road since Point MacKenzie Road lies 

between areas highly utilized by mammal species. 

During Phase 2, fencing and the 4-lane roadway would create a physical 

barrier to terrestrial mammal movement and could result in reduced access 

to habitat, fragmented habitat, and subdivided animal populations. 


N/A 


None 


None 

Marine Fish 

N/A 






None 

Beluga Whales 

Bridge approaches extending into Knik Arm could create barriers for beluga 

whale transit and could change their movement patterns. Placement of the 

bridge piers could affect whale movement by creating in-water obstacles. 


N/A 


Negligible impacts. 


See impacts on anadromous fish, below 


The 2-year construction period may adversely affect anadromous fish 

(salmon) resulting in depressed annual returns. 

Filling in nearshore habitats could kill, injure, or isolate fish. 

Noise from pile driving would produce underwater noise and vibrations that 

might displace or harm anadromous fish. Juvenile pink, chum, and sockeye 

salmon would be the most vulnerable; however, the percentages of fish 

exposed would be well within the annual variations in adult salmon returns 

for Knik Arm drainages. 

Underwater noise and vibrations will risk displacing or harming small or 

juvenile fish. 

No adverse impacts from pile driving are expected for adult salmon. 

Construction activity might lead to excessive energy expenditure and 

increased stress on rearing fry and smolt. 

Marine Fish 

Underwater noise and disturbance of substrate will cause adverse effects. 

Sound pressure from pile driving might displace or harm marine fish. 

Mortality of some fish is expected during pile driving. 




N/A 

Beluga Whales 

N/A 


Habitat of marginal quality to terrestrial mammals associated with the 

Government Hill greenbelt wooded areas will be lost. 


N/A 


None 


Equipment movement and noise will cause temporary impacts to both upand 

down-stream migration of Pacific salmon. 

Turbidity increases could occur in Ship Creek due to construction of the 

clearspan bridge (short-term) in Phase 2; Ingra-Gambell Viaduct. 

Marine Fish 

N/A 



S-49





Construction impacts (continued) 







(Mat-Su Side) 


Breeding birds will be displaced. 

Clearing of vegetation and nest abandonment will result in mortality to eggs 

and nestlings of breeding birds. 

Marine Birds 

N/A 


N/A 

Beluga Whales 

N/A 


There will be temporary or permanent displacement of mammals due to 

increased noise levels during construction. 

Mortality could result from construction activities. 






N/A 


N/A 


N/A 

Marine Birds 

Construction activities, such as pile driving, placement of fill, and marine 

vessel traffic related to the project, may result in short-term displacement of 

marine birds in both open water and on tidal flats. 

Visual and auditory disturbances from construction and operations could 

affect the bald eagle nesting near Cairn Point. 


None 

Beluga Whales 

Adverse effects of construction activities could include avoidance, changes 

in resting or feeding cycles, displacement from habitat, alertness, masking of 

sounds and changes in vocal behavior, changes in swimming or diving 

behavior, altered direction of movement, and physical injury. 


N/A 




Equipment movement and noise will cause temporary impacts to both upand 

down-stream migration of Pacific salmon. 

Turbidity increases could occur in Ship Creek due to construction of the 

clearspan bridge (short-term) in Phase 2; Ingra-Gambell Viaduct. 


None 


Breeding birds will be displaced. 

Clearing of vegetation and nest abandonment will result in mortality to eggs 

and nestlings of breeding birds. 

Marine Birds 

N/A 


N/A 

Beluga Whales 

N/A 


Fillets (sediment accumulation) on either side of nearshore fills projecting from the shoreline could provide habitat for enhanced production of organic matter and invertebrates. 


See section on anadromous fish below. 


Future construction and development activities could result in filling of EFH, 

increased water turbidity, and localized disturbance of aquatic habitat. 

Increase in the Mat-Su population could increase recreational activities in 

fish streams increasing the risk of direct disturbance to adult and juvenile 

salmon, pollutant spills, and boat wake impacts on shorelines. 


Fillets (sediment accumulation) along bridge approaches may result in less 

deep-water habitat. Fillets may provide more habitat and create more 

primary productivity due to a greater abundance of food sources. 

Increased port vessel traffic will increase the effects on fish through the 

release of toxic chemicals. 


Increased noise levels may result in temporary or permanent displacement 

of mammals. 


None 



S-50





Indirect impacts (continued) 



(Mat-Su Side) 







Marine Fish 

Fillets (sediment accumulation) creation would replace rearing and foraging habitats impacting long-term effects on some fish species (such as saffron cod and longfin smelt) that depend 

on the middle- to upper intertidal and subtidal zones for rearing. 


Impacts would be the same as those described above for anadromous fish. 

Increase in Mat-Su population will decrease the pressure on sport fisheries in the Anchorage area. 

Freshwater and Terrestrial Birds 

Resident bird populations could be fragmented into smaller subpopulations, causing increased demographic fluctuation, inbreeding, and loss of genetic variability. In addition, habitat 

fragmentation could lead to an increase in predation at the perimeter of habitat patches. 

Marine Birds 

Loss of nesting and perching habitat of bald eagles due to development. 

Intertidal foraging areas for bald eagles could be adversely affected. 


None 

Beluga Whales 

Increased boat and personal watercraft use due to increase in population could increase accidental or intentional harassment of marine mammals. 

Additional marine vessel traffic could cause accidental fuel spills and increased noise from operations. 


27,543 acres of moose habitat in the Mat-Su could be affected by development. 

Large increase in wildlife-vehicle accidents could result from traffic increases on the Point MacKenzie and Knik Goose Bay Roads. 

Enhanced access in the Mat-Su, combined with an increase in the number of hunters, will result in a decrease in game populations. 

Habitat will be lost in the Mat-Su because of habitat fragmentation and reduced effectiveness. 

Increase in wildlife-human conflicts will result in some wildlife mortality incidents. 

Reduced development pressure on the remaining tracts of wildlife habitat in Anchorage. 


Negligible impact 


Negligible adverse cumulative impacts. 

Resuspension and redisposition of sediments disturbed by human activity 


Negligible adverse cumulative impacts; could cause a decline in local abundance of a given species 


Negligible adverse cumulative impacts; could cause a decline in local abundance of a given species 

Marine Birds 

Negligible cumulative effects on population of marine bird species in the project area 



S-51





Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Species 






(Mat-Su Side) 

Marine Mammals 

There could be an adverse cumulative effect on the Cook Inlet population of beluga whales. 








KAC Project and cumulative effects of reasonably foreseeable future actions will contribute to decline in terrestrial mammal habitat quantity and quality and lead to changes in the local 

abundance and distribution of mammal species. Increased mortality from vehicle collision, barriers to movement between habitats, and increased hunting pressure could lead to local 

population decline and changes in game management plans for moose, brown bear, and small animals. 

In accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and with concurrence from both USFWS and NOAA Fisheries, there are no species listed as threatened or endangered in the Project 

Area. On April 20, 2007, NOAA Fisheries listed the Cook Inlet beluga whale as a proposed endangered species under the ESA. Depending on the status of the Cook Inlet beluga whale, 

Conference or Consultation, as appropriate, with NOAA Fisheries may occur. 

None 


S-52



Exhibit S-24. Mitigation Measures and Commitments for the Recommended Alternative 

EIS 

section 

4.1 Land Use Impacts 

Environmental Conseq uences 

section title 

Mitigation Measures and Commitments 

4.1.1 Land Use and Ownership Changes 

4.1.2 

Consistency with Land Use Plans and 

Policies 

To mitigate indirect and cumulative impacts, FHWA and KABATA have agreed to help fund a new staff position in the Mat-Su Borough for up to $100,000 per year for 2 years. This position will help develop a 

consolidated permitting process (“one-stop shopping”) and facilitate appropriate land use, development, and environmental planning efforts in the Borough associated with projected economics and population 

growth. In addition, FHWA and KABATA will help fund up to $70,000 to be used by the Mat-Su Borough for other priority work identified by the Mat Su Borough and other agencies to facilitate orderly land use 

planning and economic development. 

4.1.3 Farmland Impacts None 

4.2 Impacts on the Social Environment 

4.2.1. 

4.2.2 

4.2.2.1 Vehicles 

Neighborhoods, Community Cohesion, and 

Environmental Justice Impacts 

Transportation, Travel Patterns, 

Accessibility, and Highway and Traffic Safety 

Impacts 

None 

FHWA proposes mitigation measures to address the impacts of implementation of a build alternative through Government Hill. During design, Context Sensitive Solutions measures will be evaluated to reduce or 

mitigate impacts to Government Hill. 

A cut-and-cover tunnel will be designed and built to place all through-traffic below the Government Hill neighborhood. 

Best management practices (BMPs) will be undertaken to minimize fugitive light emissions and noise pollution during construction. 

During construction, safe access to school will be maintained for neighborhood children. 

Architectural details, including vegetation, lighting, and signs, will be designed to maintain the appearance of the neighborhood. 

Adversely affected and appropriately qualified property owners will be assured of fair compensation, as provided by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as amended, and 

the Alaska Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Practices, Alaska Statutes (AS) 34.60.010 et seq. 

See 4.2.2.1 through 4.2.2.6 below. 

A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) that outlines specific alternatives for routing construction traffic to minimize the temporary effects of traffic on congested routes and intersections will be developed prior to 

construction. The TMP will: 

• Be designed to minimize construction-related motorist delays, queuing, and accidents through effective application of traditional traffic handling practices and through innovative approaches. 

• Aim to relieve congestion and maintain traffic flow on detour routes and surrounding roadways. 

• Evaluate traffic mitigation strategies for the duration of construction, address lane closure requirements, and provide information to motorists and other members of the public. 

• Implement traffic management strategies that will include a public awareness campaign, traffic systems and signs, and traffic support and safety elements. 

• Require that neighborhood and business owner meetings be held to discuss traffic routing options to help minimize and avoid construction-related traffic effects. 

KABATA will continue to coordinate with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) Central Region and local governments during future project stages to schedule roadway 

improvements and connections as part of system-wide improvements to the National Highway System (NHS) in direct association with the KAC Project. 

4.2.2.2 Marine Mitigation measures for construction impacts related to navigation and safety will be developed as part of the USCG permitting process and coordinated with the Port of Anchorage and Port MacKenzie. 

4.2.2.3 Rail 

Mitigation measures for construction impacts to the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) operations will be developed in cooperation with ARRC prior to construction. Mitigation measures will be incorporated 

into the construction contract specifications. 

A preliminary bridge design has been proposed across the Ship Creek rail yard as part of the proposed connection to the Ingra-Gambell Couplet in Phase 2. KABATA would continue to coordinate with ARRC 

during future project phases to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to ARRC/Ship Creek Industrial Area facilities and operations. 

Exhibit S-24 Mitigation Measures and Committments 

4.2.2.4 Air Transportation 

Mitigation measures for construction impacts to Elmendorf will be developed prior to construction and will be incorporated into the construction contract specifications. 

Construction operations in the vicinity of Elmendorf will conform to FAA regulations and advisory circulars and will be coordinated with Elmendorf. Notices to air traffic controllers and proper lighting and marking of 

construction equipment will be used to minimize risk to aircraft. 

Lighting on the KAC Project in the vicinity of Elmendorf will conform to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations and advisory circulars and will be coordinated with Elmendorf officials during the project 

design stage to ensure compatibility of lighting systems with aircraft operations. 

4.2.2.5 Transit During construction, safe pedestrian routes through the construction zone to transit stops will be provided. 


S-53



Exhibit S-24. Mitigation Measures and Commitments for the Recommended Alternative (continued) 

EIS 

section 


section title 


4.2.2.6 Pedestrian and bicyclists KABATA will continue to coordinate with the ADOT&PF Central Region, the Mat Su, Anchorage, and AMATS for future pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements and connections. 

4.2.3 

Impacts on Community Facilities, Public 

Services, and Fiscal Conditions 

None 

4.2.4 Impacts on Population and Social Groups 

Adversely affected and appropriately qualified property owners will be assured of fair compensation, as provided by the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as 

amended, and the Alaska Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Practices, Alaska Statutes (AS) 34.60.010 et seq. 

4.2.5 Subsistence Impacts See Section 4.8.8.2.2 Essential Fish Habitat (and Anadromous Fish) Marine Fish 

4.2.6 

4.2.6.1 

4.2.6.2 

4.2.6.3 

4.2.6.4 

4.2.6.5 

4.2.6.6 

Impacts on Utilities 

4.2.7 Relocation Impacts 

4.3 Joint Development Impacts 

Joint Development Impacts 

4.4 Economic Impacts 

Relocation of utilities will be conducted in cooperation with Anchorage, the Mat-Su Borough, AWWU, ENSTAR, CEA, MEA, ML&P, major communications service providers, POA, and Elmendorf. 

Owners of property proposed for acquisition will be eligible for payments provided under the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as amended, and the Alaska 

Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Practices, Alaska Statutes (AS) 34.60.010 et seq. Individuals, families, and businesses displaced by the KAC Project will be eligible for relocation advisory services 

and payments. Under this law, property owners will be paid the fair market value of real property acquired for rights-of-way (ROW) or easements. Property affected by the KAC Project will be appraised by an 

independent appraiser to determine fair market value. Owners will be offered compensation accordingly. 

4.4.1 Employment None 

4.4.2 Economic Sectors None 

4.5 Impacts on Physical Environment 

4.5.1 Air Quality Impacts 

4.5.2 Impacts on Noise Levels 

4.5.3 Geology/Soils/Seismic Impacts 

4.5.4 

Impacts Relating to Hazardous Materials 

and Contaminated Sites 

None 

Construction boundaries will be clearly marked to limit disturbance areas. To control fugitive dust emissions, the construction contractor shall implement BMPs such as watering disturbed soils and reseeding and 

revegetating as soon as possible after completion of the particular slope or segment. 

The construction contractor shall adhere to local noise ordinances. If required, a permit will be obtained if Anchorage construction operations occur between the hours of 10 P.M. and 6 A.M. The Mat-Su Borough 

does not restrict hours of operation for construction projects. 

Seismic risk will be minimized by adherence to Alaska-specific and national design codes. 

Detailed geotechnical investigations will continue during the design stage. 

Avoidance of contaminated sites on Elmendorf is incorporated into the KAC Project design by moving the roadway out onto the beach. 

Unexploded ordnances (UXO) will present a risk to construction crews. To mitigate this risk and to ensure worker safety, KABATA will retain UXO clearance personnel to clear the construction corridor of UXO 

prior to intrusive work in the area. A Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) in the form of a UXO clearance assessment, management plan, and coordination with USACE prior to ROW acquisition or construction will 

occur. 

KABATA will complete a UXO construction contingency management plan. The plan will describe procedures for dealing with any UXO encountered during construction activities. 

Known contaminated sites will be further evaluated during the design phase of the project as Phase II site assessments. 

Hazardous materials used during project construction will be stored and handled according to state and federal regulations. The contractor will follow Sections 641 (Hazardous Material Control Plan [HMCP] 

Requirements) and (Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure [SPCC] Plan Requirements) in Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (ADOT&PF 2004b). These formal submittals (when approved by 

the State Engineer) 1) specify the contractor’s detailed responsibilities for preventing pollution stemming from the use, containment, cleanup, and disposal of hazardous material, including petroleum products 

generated by construction activities and equipment; and 2) detail the contractor’s planned use of oil spill prevention and control measures. 



S-54




EIS 

section 


section title 


4.5.5 Impacts on Energy Resources None 

4.5.6 Ground Water See Section 4.8.1 Water Bodies (lakes, streams, ponds) and Water Quality below. 

4.6 Impacts on the Cultural Environment 

4.6.1 

4.6.2 

Impacts on Archaeology and Historic 

Preservation 

Impacts on Recreational Resources, Parks, 

and Wildlife Refuges 

4.7 Impacts on Section 4(f) Resources 

4.7 Impacts on Section 4(f) Resources 

A draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to mitigate adverse effects on historic properties, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, has been developed with the State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). The draft MOA will be disseminated to all consulting parties with this Final EIS (see Appendix J). Comments received from 

consulting parties during this review will be considered as the Section 106 process is concluded. 

FHWA and KABATA are committed to working with the Knik Tribal Council and Native Village of Eklutna to acquire land for a replacement fish camp site in an effort to recognize the importance of Tak’at. 

Once access has been granted, a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior Standards subject to II.B, shall conduct a cultural resource survey of lands within Elmendorf AFB identified as falling under the 

area of potential effects (APE) for the project. These surveys will be conducted in consultation with the Native Village of Eklutna and the Knik Tribal Council to ensure thorough identification and documentation of 

any additional potential historic properties within the APE on Elmendorf AFB lands. 

FHWA has provided alternative measures to the Municipality of Anchorage to mitigate impacts to Sunset and Harvard Parks [refer to 4.7 for details]. 

A draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to mitigate adverse effects on historic properties, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, has been developed with the State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). The draft MOA will be disseminated to all consulting parties with this Final EIS (see Appendix J). Comments received from 

consulting parties during this review will be considered as the Section 106 process is concluded. 

FHWA has selected the Erickson Alternative as its Recommended Alternative in part because it has the least-net-harm to park and recreation resources. FHWA has provided to the Municipality of Anchorage all 

possible planning to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) properties including: 

• Refinements to the remaining Sunset Park lands after right-of-way is acquired; the disturbed land would be recontoured for park uses. 

• Cunningham Park Expansion. 

In addition, subject to consultation with the Municipality during the project’s final design, KABATA will work with the Municipality to investigate the potential of vacating the far northern end of the 

Cunningham Street right-of-way and adding the vacated land to Cunningham Park, which is currently too small to be of practical use. The vacated portion of Cunningham Street would be a segment 

approximately 80 feet long between East Cook Avenue and West Bluff Drive. This would add 0.13 acre to the existing Cunningham Park (0.05 acre), for a total of 0.18 acre. Although this is technically smaller 

than the 1-acre minimum guideline for “mini parks” in Anchorage, it would be large enough for development of a minor park (e.g., overlook bench and small play area) and is much larger than the existing 

Cunningham Park. 

• Tunnel “lid” park amenities 

• Greenbelt trail construction 

• Payment for the loss of Sunset Park to the Municipality of Anchorage 

Impacts to three properties determined to be contributing elements of the Government Hill Urban Renewal Historic District would will be mitigated per the requirements of a Memorandum of Agreement 

between FHWA, SHPO, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and KABATA created under procedures of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (see draft MOA in Appendix E). A 

draft agreement has been circulated and is the subject of continuing consultation. It is the final Memorandum of Agreement that will govern mitigation efforts. Key elements of the draft MOA, subject to review by 

Consulting Parties and final agreement by the Signatories, include the following: 

• Architectural Documentation: KABATA will complete architectural documentation of the affected historic buildings and prepare site plans following Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American 

Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) standards. 

• Historic Preservation Fund. Prior to moving into the final design activities, KABATA will provide funds as seed money to establish an Historic Preservation Fund to be administered by SHPO. This funding would 

be made available through the Certified Local Government (CLG) Program for the Municipality of Anchorage for historic preservation activities that promote public awareness of Alaska heritage and of the 

neighborhood characteristics and values that were identified through the Historic Preservation Plan previously initiated and funded by this project in 2006. 

• Historic Properties Relocation. Prior to those construction actions that could disturb the Government Hill Urban Renewal Historic District, KABATA will investigate the structural integrity and the availability 

of suitable land to make recommendations on the feasibility of moving any adversely affected historic properties. 

• Character Defining Features: SHPO has identified the existing system of straight roads and sidewalks as important character defining features (CDFs) of the Government Hill Urban Renewal Historic District 

and has requested that the project incorporate compatible road and sidewalk design features to minimize the adverse effect on the neighborhood. KABATA will provide “Plans-in-Hand” review design plans 

incorporating these features to the extent practicable to SHPO for review and comment and will respond to comments received during the review period. 

• Other: KABATA will construct a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill, and has paid $71,000 through SHPO to the Municipality, and $71,000 through SHPO to the Mat-Su Borough for historic 

preservation fund planning and development. 



S-55




EIS 

section 


section title 

4.8 Impacts on the Natural Environment 


4.8.1 Impacts on Surface Water Resources 

Water Bodies (lakes, streams, ponds) and 

Water Quality 

KABATA or its contractors will develop an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) to meet Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) and USEPA requirements of the Clean Water Act. The 

ESCP will be prepared by a registered engineer and included in the contract plan set. 

• The ESCP will become the basis of the USEPA Notice of Intent and the contractor’s SWPPP, which will be implemented during project construction to minimize soil disturbance. 

• The ESCP will direct contractors to reduce construction impacts, particularly those impacts that would result in destabilization of adjacent slopes and in possible siltation. 

The following mitigation measures will be undertaken to limit sediment disturbance from construction activities: 

• BMP erosion and sediment control measures, such as furrow ditches, check dams, and detention basins, will be used, as appropriate. 

• To protect critical areas around freshwater bodies and wetlands sites from potential exposure to sediment plumes, appropriate BMPs will be employed that allow passage of water but capture sediment. 

• Erosion will be reduced during and after construction by seeding cut and fill slopes as soon as practically possible with both fast-growing annual species (to establish a root mass) and with native species (for 

long-term growth and soil stabilization). 

The contractor shall comply with USEPA’s General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities, including preparing and implementing a detailed SWPPP. The SWPPP will be prepared by a 

registered engineer to direct the contractors’ efforts to minimize construction impacts on water quality and it would be implemented and adjusted during project construction. The plan will describe BMPs 

developed in accordance with ADOT&PF’s Alaska Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Guide and USEPA’s Stormwater Management for Construction Activities: Developing Pollution and Prevention Plans and 

Best Management Practices. 

Impacts to water quality will also be minimized through the use of BMPs that minimize erosion, temporary water quality impacts from construction activities, and the introduction of suspended sediment and 

siltation. 

BMPs that will be employed include: 

• Coarse rock rubble to stabilize toes of slopes at ponds and stream crossings to prevent the erosion of fine-grained material into adjacent waters and wetlands. 

• Roadside swales designed to detain surface water to allow sediment-laden water to clear before being discharged to adjacent wetlands and waters. 

Construction-related BMPs that will be employed include: 

• Clearly demarcating clearing limits prior to construction to ensure impacts are confined within the project footprint near water bodies and wetlands and within 20 feet of the footprint in other areas. 

• Performing regular visual inspections of all slopes to monitor for slope erosion. 

• Locating all fueling, and equipment-servicing operations at least 100 feet away from all streams and wetlands. 

• Having spill-response equipment readily available and ensuring that construction personnel are trained in spill response to contain accidental leaks of oil or fuel from construction equipment. 

All roads will be designed to maintain existing surface water courses and will incorporate grass-lined ditches and swales. In areas where curb-and-gutter storm drains would be required, enclosed collection systems 

will be incorporated to minimize the effects of runoff. Alterations to surface drainage and hydrology that could adversely affect nearby water bodies will be avoided or minimized through incorporation of 

appropriately designed, sized, and placed culverts under the roadway. 

KABATA will hold meetings with the construction contractor and agencies to ensure implementation of mitigation commitments. 

The drainage design of the road through Government Hill will incorporate all feasible measures to detain water on site or in other designated areas and to avoid direct routing of stormwater to creeks. 

The KAC project will incorporate a clear-span structure to cross Ship Creek. 

All required permits and agency approvals will be obtained prior to construction, and any permit stipulations will be incorporated into the construction contract specifications. All applicable state and federal 

permit conditions will be adhered to throughout the construction stage. 

Marine Hydrology 

In 2007, KABATA conducted supplemental field studies, reconfigured the hydrologic model, and gathered additional information on Knik Arm marine hydrology. This information was submitted to the USACE. 

KABATA will continue to coordinate with the USACE during the design and permitting phase of the project. 



S-56




EIS 

section 


section title 


4.8.2 Impacts on Wetlands In compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the following actions will be taken to avoid and minimize potential impacts to wetlands in the project corridor: 

1. Design the project to avoid impacts 

The preliminary design of the KAC Project largely avoids impacts to wetlands by: 

Incorporating the existing road prism of the Port MacKenzie Road section of the Northern Access Alternative. 

Locating the northernmost wetland crossing at the wetland’s narrowest point. 

2. Incorporate measures to minimize adverse impacts 

Minimization of adverse impacts will be achieved by: 

Using properly sized and designed culverts in appropriate locations to maintain natural flow patterns for surface water to ensure that timing and inflows to adjacent wetlands and waters will be retained. 

3. Restore sites that must be temporarily affected by the project 

To protect hydrologic and water quality functions that will be temporarily disturbed but not destroyed by implementation of the KAC Project, affected wetland areas will be recontoured and revegetated with 

plant species indigenous to the Cook Inlet area. 

4. Compensate for unavoidable impacts through preservation, restoration, or creation of wetlands 

In areas where wetlands will be filled or fragmented and functions lost, the Anchorage Debit/Credit Methodology will be used to determine the appropriate level of compensation needed to offset the wetland loss. 

As design progresses, KABATA will work with USACE to determine the area of wetlands adversely affected, the appropriate relative ecological value (REV) of affected wetlands, and compensation to be provided to 

the Great Land Trust or appropriate organizations. 

All required permits and agency approvals will be obtained prior to construction, and any permit stipulations will be incorporated into the contract specifications. 

4.8.3 Impacts on Floodplains None 

4.8.4 Impacts on Wild and Scenic Rivers None 

4.8.5 Impacts on Coastal Barriers None 

4.8.6 Impacts on the Coastal Zone 

4.8.7 Impacts on Habitats 

KAC Project will include construction in Alaska’s coastal zone and will be consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management Program and both the Anchorage and Mat Su Borough Coastal Management Plans 

(CMPs). 

Conditions of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Consistency Determination will be adhered to throughout the project. 

4.8.7.1 Marine Habitat See mitigation measures listed in this table under Essential Fish Habitat. 

4.8.7.2 Freshwater Habitat See mitigation measures listed in this table under Water Bodies (lakes, streams, ponds) and Water Quality. 

4.8.7.3 Terrestrial Habitats 

To protect the integrity of the natural plant communities and to prevent the introduction of invasive species, the following BMPs will be incorporated into construction activities: 

• Minimize the removal or disturbance of roadside vegetation during construction. 

• Minimize contact with roadside sources of weed seed that could be transported to other areas. 

• Use only certified weed-free straw and mulch or weed-free fiber roll barriers or sediment logs as part of the BMPs employed for erosion control. 

• When conducting project-related revegetation, use only plant species native to Southcentral Alaska, except that noninvasive annual grasses may be used to provide initial soil cover; only seed meeting certified 

standards pursuant to 11 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 34.075 will be used. 

• Final project design will seek to minimize direct impacts on vegetation by defining narrow clearing limits (except in areas of known high-moose traffic) and using already-disturbed areas when possible. 


4.8.8 Impacts on Wildlife 

4.8.8.1 Marine Invertebrates None 


S-57




EIS 

section 

4.8.8.2. 


section title 



Marine Fish 


4.8.8.3 Birds 

Freshwater birds 

Terrestrial birds 

Marine Birds 

Shore birds 

Bald eagles 

Other marine bird species 


Based on extensive agency consultation, FHWA and KABATA will employ the following conservation and mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts to essential fish habitat (EFH): 

• To reduce the risk of directly covering fish during the months of April through August and to minimize the amount of fill lost to tidal erosion, initial fill for intertidal roadway and bridge approach construction 

activities will be placed when the construction area is dewatered. Intertidal construction techniques that help minimize fish entrapment and loss of fill to tidal erosion will be employed. 

• Any in-water filling in the subtidal areas during the months of April through August will be accomplished during the 3 hours on either side of low tide—when volumes and currents would be lowest—to reduce 

the risk of directly covering fish and to minimize the amount of loss of fill due to erosion. To the extent practicable, filling in the subtidal areas will be accomplished during the months of September through 

March, when juvenile and adult salmon will be less likely to be present. 

• Pile driving would be conducted, to the greatest extent practicable, during the December to mid-August time period. 

• Between August 15 and November 15, pile driving in subtidal waters will not be conducted 1.5 hours before or after low tide. 

• A “soft start” technique will be used at the beginning of each pile-driving installation to allow anadromous fish in the area to leave before impact pile driving reaches full energy. 

• BMPs, developed in accordance with ADOT&PF’s Alaska Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Guide (ADOT&PF 2004 in the EIS) and USEPA’s Stormwater Management for Construction Activities: Developing 

Pollution and Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices (USEPA 1992 in the EIS) will be employed to minimize the introduction of suspended sediment and silt to Knik Arm. 

• To minimize and prevent spills or leaks of hazardous materials during construction, standard spill-prevention measures will be implemented in accordance with the contractor’s approved “Spill Prevention, 

Control and Countermeasures Plan.” 

• All construction fueling and servicing operations will be kept a minimum of 100 feet from wetlands, freshwater bodies, and Knik Arm. 

• Contaminant-free embankment and surface materials will be used in construction. 

• The use of BMPs that minimize dust, erosion, and sediment runoff will mitigate any temporary, adverse, water-quality construction-related impacts to freshwater EFH. The contractor shall be responsible for 

developing a SWPPP to meet ADEC and USEPA requirements under the Clean Water Act. 

• While the Anchorage Debit/Credit Methodology does not apply to tidal flats within Knik Arm, this general approach would be used to determine the appropriate level of compensation needed to offset 

intertidal EFH loss. KABATA would work with USACE to determine the area of tidal flats adversely affected, the appropriate relative ecological value (REV), and the compensation to be provided to Great Land 

Trust or other appropriate organizations. 

• To avoid and minimize area-wide indirect and cumulative impacts to anadromous streams, FHWA and KABATA have agreed to help fund a new staff position in the Mat-Su Borough for up to $100,000 per year 

for 2 years. This position will help develop a consolidated permitting process (“one-stop shopping”) and facilitate appropriate land use, development, and environmental planning efforts in the Borough 

associated with projected economics and population growth. In addition, FHWA and KABATA will help fund up to $70,000 to be used by the Mat-Su Borough for other priority work identified by the Mat Su 

Borough and other agencies to facilitate orderly land use planning and economic development. 

• KABATA is committed to following the evolution of sound attenuation technologies and will evaluate the suitability of future technologies for applicability during the construction stage of the project. 

Sixmile Creek 

To avoid impacts to anadromous fish in the tidal portion of Sixmile Creek, filling of the intertidal portion of Sixmile Creek will be restricted to lower tidal stages when fish would be less likely to be present. To avoid 

entrapping fish, temporary diversions will be designed so that the flow of the water body will not be impeded. 

Ship Creek 

Construction runoff would be intercepted to prevent direct discharge to Ship Creek, and the drainage system of the completed Anchorage approach would be designed to prevent direct discharge of stormwater 

runoff to the creek. 

Eagles 

To minimize the impact on bald eagles nesting near Cairn Point, detailed mitigation measures will be developed during the design and permitting phase of the project to ensure compliance with the Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection Act. Mitigation measures for construction of the project will be incorporated into the construction contract specifications and any mitigation measures for operation of the project, if 

applicable, will be implemented as required. The following conservation measures, some of which are based on the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007) are currently proposed to avoid, 

minimize, and mitigate impacts to bald eagles. These are general measures that will be modified to specifically address details of the Recommended Alternative through further coordination with USFWS during 

design and permitting: 

• Prior to construction, a survey will be conducted to reassess the activity of the nests in the Study Area and to determine whether other nests have been constructed in the Study Area. 

• Construction activities adjacent to the single known nest near Cairn Point will occur, to the greatest extent practicable, only during October through February, when eagles would not be nesting. 

• If determined necessary, FHWA, KABATA and USFWS will assess the risk for tree blow-down with the single known nest tree and adjacent trees. 

• FHWA and KABATA will work with USFWS to develop a detailed nest monitoring plan to detect disturbance from construction and pile-driving activities. 

• Nest monitors will be formally educated in the biological sciences and experienced in recognizing bald eagle behavioral patterns and any changes to those patterns; these monitors will have the ability to record 

such data in a scientific manner. 

• If obvious disturbance is observed, construction will cease until a further evaluation can be conducted to determine appropriate and necessary measures. 

Migratory birds 

Clearing of vegetation on lands for project-related development will occur before or after the nesting season (from May 1 to July 15 in Southcentral Alaska) to meet the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act (MBTA). 



S-58




EIS 

section 


section title 


4.8.8.4 Marine Mammals (belugas) Construction of this project will comply with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), adhere to applicable laws and regulations, and follow specific permitting stipulations prescribed by NOAA Fisheries. 

Coordination with NOAA Fisheries has been ongoing during KAC project development. The following conservation measures will be incorporated to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to marine mammals. 

These are general measures that will be modified to specifically address details of the Recommended Alternative through further coordination with resource agencies during the permitting and design stages of the 

project: 

• Impact pile driving will be conducted, to the greatest extent practicable, during the December through mid-August time period, when beluga whale numbers in Knik Arm are generally low. 

• During the fall, when beluga whales are present in the Arm in greater numbers (August 15 to November 15), impact pile driving in subtidal waters will not be conducted 1.5 hours before or after low tide, when 

whales are most likely to be in or near the construction area. 

• A “soft start” technique will be used at the beginning of each piling installation to allow any marine mammal that may be in the area to leave before impact piling reaches full energy. 

• Initially the marine mammal safety zones will be defined based on measurements made by the Project Team at the nearby Port MacKenzie dock reconstruction—with allowance for differences in pile size and 

pile-driver energy. 

• Sound generated by the pile driver will be measured and used to refine the radii of the safety zones for the marine mammals. 

• The safety zone around the pile-driving activity will be monitored for the presence of marine mammals before, during, and after pile-driving activity. The safety zone will be monitored for 30 minutes prior to 

initiating the soft start for pile driving. 

• If the safety radius is obscured by fog or poor lighting conditions, pile driving will not be initiated until the entire safety radius is visible. 

• No boat launch ramp facility will be constructed in association with the KAC Project. No direct access to tidelands will be provided. 

• If marine mammals are present in the safety zone (as confirmed by the monitors), the start of pile driving will be delayed until the animals leave the area. 

• If marine mammals enter the safety zone during pile driving, pile driving will cease until the animals leave the area (as confirmed by the monitors). 

• Two experienced marine mammal observers will be positioned at sites appropriate for monitoring whales and seals within and approaching the safety zone and the larger area where marine mammals might be 

disturbed by pile-driving operations. 

• Two trained boat-based marine mammal observers will survey Knik Arm and adjacent areas by boat once per week during pile driving to inform construction and shore-based observation personnel of whale 

group locations and the whale group’s exposure to the risk of approaching and/or entering the safety zone. 

• KABATA will develop and implement a Bridge Construction Monitoring and Reporting Plan. 

• KABATA is committed to following the evolution of sound attenuation technologies and will evaluate the suitability of future technologies for applicability during the construction stage of the project. 

4.8.8.5 Terrestrial Wildlife/Mammals 

4.8.9 

Impacts on Threatened or Endangered 

Species 

4.9 Cumulative Effects 

KABATA and FHWA may enter Conference or Consultation, as appropriate, with NOAA Fisheries depending on status of the Cook Inlet beluga whale. 

KABATA will coordinate all activities with local authorities (Anchorage and the Borough), communities (Anchorage and residents in the Point MacKenzie area), and subsistence users. A Plan of Cooperation will be 

developed between KABATA and the subsistence users in the region. This will ensure that construction and operational activities will not interfere with the hunting of beluga whales and harbor seals and will ensure 

that all activities are conducted safely. 

KABATA has committed $50,000 for additional study of moose in the Mat-Su project area (Point MacKenzie study area). Results from the moose study will be considered to determine what mitigation measures 

would be needed to avoid and minimize moose moose-vehicle accidents on Point MacKenzie Road. Measures might include: 

• identification of locations where appropriate warning signs could be erected 

• identification of areas where more extensive roadside clearing would improve lines-of-sight 

• the installation of lights to illuminate moose migration corridors 

In accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and concurrence from both USFWS and NOAA Fisheries, there are no species listed as threatened or endangered in the Project Area. On April 20, 2007, NOAA 

Fisheries listed the Cook Inlet beluga whale as a proposed endangered species under the ESA. Depending on the status of the Cook Inlet beluga whale, KABATA and FHWA may enter Conference or Consultation, 

as appropriate, with NOAA Fisheries. 

To mitigate indirect and cumulative impacts, FHWA and KABATA have agreed to help fund a new staff position in the Mat-Su Borough for up to $100,000 per year for 2 years. This position will help develop a 

consolidated permitting process (“one-stop shopping”) and facilitate appropriate land use, development, and environmental planning efforts in the Borough associated with projected economics and population 

growth. In addition, FHWA and KABATA will help fund up to $70,000 to be used by the Mat-Su Borough for other priority work identified by the Mat Su Borough and other agencies to facilitate orderly land use 

planning and economic development 


S-59



Exhibit S‐25. Findings, Compliance, and Permits 

Relevant Executive Orders, 

Legislation, and Regulations 

NEPA 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969, Public Law 91 190, 42 

United States Code (U.S.C.) §§ 4321 et seq. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 

40 Code of Federal Regulation (C.F.R.) 

Parts 1500-1508 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

23 C.F.R. Part 771 

Land Use 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, 

43 C.F.R. Chapter II, Subchapter C 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA) of 1976, as amended, 43 C.F.R. 

Groups 2700 through 2900 

Permit to Cross Alaska Railroad 

Corporation (ARRC)-Owned Land, AS 

42.40.285(d) 

Tideland Easement, Best Interest Finding, 

Alaska Statutes (AS) § 38.05.850 

Submerged Land Act, 43 U.S.C. §§1301- 

1315 

Right-of-way, Anchorage Municipal Code 

(AMC) 24.30 

Port MacKenzie District Use Permit, 

Matanuska Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough 

Chapter 17.23 

Construction within a Public Easement or 

Right-of-Way, AS 35.30, Mat-Su Borough 

Chapter 17.61 

Acknowledgement of Existing Land Use 

Regulations, Mat-Su Borough Chapter 17.01 

Agency Description EIS Findings/Compliance Permits Required 

U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

(USDOT) 

FHWA 

U.S. Department of the 

Interior Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) 

ARRC (Independent, 

public corporation and 

instrument of the State 

within the Department 

of Commerce, 

Community and 

Economic 

Development) 

Alaska Department of 

Natural Resources 

(ADNR), Division of 

Mining, Land and Water 

(DMLW) 

Municipality of 

Anchorage (MOA) 

Mat‐Su Borough 

NEPA is a national mandate for the protection of the environment, requires full 

consideration of reasonable project alternatives that potentially minimize adverse 

impacts on the human and natural environment, and provides public disclosure of 

the environmental impacts associated with federal actions. 

Environmental documents must be prepared in accordance with CEQ regulations 

and FHWA regulations and guidelines for implementing NEPA. 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, as amended will 

require transfer of an interest in land, the nature of which is to be determined, for 

right-of-way across some BLM lands for which compensation has not yet been 

determined by BLM. 

To the extent that the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 applies, the Project will 

conform to its requirements. 

Permits to cross ARRC-owned land, including Government Hill greenbelt, and 

Harvard Park are required; permit to place viaduct piers within the ARRC rail yard 

are also required. 

Tideland and submerged land easements authorize use of State land for 

commercial and noncommercial purposes. 

A permit to fill and grade in a Municipality of Anchorage-platted ROW or public 

easement may be required. 

Public easement and rights-of-way (ROW) are required for construction. For 

projects occurring within the Port MacKenzie District, a use permit may be 

required, together with a voluntary Acknowledgement of Existing Land Use 

regulations. 

The project complies with NEPA, CEQ regulations, and FHWA regulations and 

guidelines. 

Consultation and coordination of impacts related to the BLM-owned land on 

Elmendorf Air Force Base was conducted with the BLM and the U.S. Air Force in 

accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act and FLPMA. Further coordination will 

occur during the permitting and design phase. 

Consultation and coordination of impacts related to ARRC-owned land was 

conducted with ARRC and the Municipality of Anchorage in accordance with 

permitting requirements. 

Coordination of impacts related to easements on tidelands and submerged land 

was conducted with the ADNR, DMLW in accordance with the land management 

requirements. 

Consultation and coordination of impacts related to ROW acquisition was 

conducted with Municipality of Anchorage. 

Coordination of impacts related to land use and ROW acquisition was conducted 

with the Mat-Su Borough. 

None 

None 

ARRC Crossing Permit 

None 

MOA ROW Permit 


Use Permit 

Exhibit S-25 Findings, Compliance, and Permits 


S-60



Exhibit S‐25. Findings, Compliance, and Permits (continued) 



Social Environment 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12898, Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental Justice 

in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq. 

Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, 

42 U.S.C. 7506(c), 40 C.F.R Part 93 

Transportation Air Quality Conformity, 

42 U.S.C. 7506(c), 40 C.F.R. Part 93, 23 

U.S.C. § 134 (23 C.F.R. 450) 

Long-Range Transportation Plan, 

23 U.S.C. § 134 (23 C.F.R. 450) 

Transportation Improvement Program, 

23 U.S.C. § 134 (23 C.F.R. 450) 

Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance 

and Real Property Acquisitions Policy Act 

of 1970, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§4601 et 

seq. 

Alaska Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Practices, AS 

34.60.010 et seq. 

Cultural Environment 

E.O. 11593, Protection and Enhancement 

of the Cultural Environment 

National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), Section 106, 16 U.S.C. § 470 

FHWA 


Alaska Department of 

Transportation and 

Public Facilities 

(ADOT&PF) 

USEPA 

FHWA, USDOT 

FHWA, USDOT 

FHWA, USDOT 

FHWA 

ADOT&PF 

FHWA 

ADNR, Office of History 

and Archeology, State 

Historic Preservation 

Office (SHPO) 

E.O. 12898 mandates that each federal agency shall make achieving environmental 

justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high 

and adverse human health and environmental effects of its programs, policies, and 

activities on minority and low-income populations. 

Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in 

programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. 

USEPA regulates airborne pollutants from project construction activities and 

project operation. 

The project must have an approved Air Quality Conformity determination in 

carbon monoxide maintenance areas. 

The project must be included in Municipality of Anchorage’s Long-Range 

Transportation Plan (LRTP). 

The project must be included in Municipality of Anchorage’s Transportation 

Improvement Program (TIP). 

Requires agencies that must use private property to acquire it at fair market value 

and assist in any necessary relocation of residents or businesses. 

E.O. 11593 specifies that federal agencies provide leadership in preserving and 

maintaining the historic and cultural environment of the nation, directing policy 

for maintenance and preservation of federally owned sites and encouraging the 

preservation of nonfederally owned sites. 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires that federal agencies take into account impacts 

to historic properties (i.e., archaeological, cultural, and historic sites listed in or 

eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places) and afford an 

opportunity for the SHPO, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation as 

appropriate, and consulting parties an opportunity to review and consult on 

identification and evaluation of historic properties potentially affected by 

federally funded or federally permitted projects. 

Implementation of Knik Arm Crossing (KAC) Project would not have a 

disproportionately adverse effect on minority or low-income populations. 

Coordination of impacts related to air quality was conducted with Alaska 

Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) and the MOA in accordance 

with the CAA. 

The LRTP amendment with the inclusion of the KAC project and air quality 

conformity was approved by the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation 

Solutions (AMATS) Policy Committee on April 12, 2007. 

The Municipality’s Transportation Improvement Program amendment and 

accompanying Air Quality Conformity determination was approved by the 

AMATS Policy Committee on June 27, 2007. 

All property owners, without discrimination, will be compensated for their loss of 

property at fair market value, and all displaced persons will be moved at no 

expense. Relocations will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform 

Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and the 

Alaska Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Practice, as amended, 

and relocation assistance will be made available to all businesses and residential 

property owners affected by the project. 

Consultation with the Government Hill Community Council, Anchorage Historic 

Properties, the Knik Tribe, the Native Village of Eklutna, and the Alaska Office of 

History and Archaeology was conducted for the project to identify and evaluate 

potential effects to historic properties. A Memorandum of Agreement to address 

adverse effects in accordance with Section 106 of NHPA is being finalized. 

None 

None 

None 

None 


Alaska Historic Preservation Act (AHPA), 

AS 41.35.010-.240 

Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation 

(ACHP) 

The AHPA contains a similar provision to that specified under Section 106, 

mandating an assessment of potential impacts to historic properties by projects 

under State funding or involvement. 


S-61






E.O. 13166, Improving Access to Services 

for Persons with Limited English 

Proficiency (LEP) 

E.O. 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Tribal Governments 

Section 4(f) Resources 

Department of Transportation Act of 1966 

(as amended), Section 4(f), 49 U.S.C. § 303, 

23 U.S.C. § 138, 23 C.F.R. § 771.135 

Natural Environment 

E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands 

Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 

U.S.C. § 403 

Clean Water Act (CWA), § 404, 33 U.S.C. § 

1344 

CWA, Section 401, 33 U.S.C. § 1341 

FHWA 

FHWA 

FHWA 

FHWA 

USEPA 

18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 15 ADEC 

Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 9, 33 

U.S.C. § 403 

General Bridge Act of 1946 

E.O. 11988, Floodplain Management 

Flood Hazard Permit, AMC 21.60 


U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) 

U.S. Coast Guard 

(USCG) 

FHWA 

MOA 

E.O. 13166 mandates improving access to federally conducted and federally 

assisted programs and activities for persons who, as a result of national origin, are 

limited in their English proficiency. 

E.O. 13175 establishes regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with 

tribal officials in the development of federal policies with tribal implications to 

strengthen the U.S. government-to-government relationships and to reduce the 

imposition of unfunded mandates. 

The intent of the Section 4(f) statute and the policy of USDOT are to avoid the 

use of significant public parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and 

historic sites eligible for the National Register as part of a project unless there is no 

feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land. 

E.O. 11990 mandates minimizing the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands 

to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. 

Section 10 prevents unauthorized obstruction or alteration of navigable waters of 

the United States. 

Section 404 authorizes the Department of the Army to issue permits for the 

discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands and waters of the United States 

at specified disposal sites. 

Section 401 gives State authority (18 AAC 15) to grant, deny, or condition 

certification of CWA Section 404 permits and Rivers and Harbors Act Section 9 

and 10 permits. 

USCG has jurisdiction over bridges and structures crossing navigable waters of the 

United States, including location, clearances of bridges, bridge permits, 

construction activities, navigation lights, and signals. 

E.O. 11988 prevents federal agencies from contributing to adverse impacts 

associated with occupancy and modification of floodplains and the direct and 

indirect support of floodplain development. 

Jurisdiction for floodplain management lies with the local government authority 

(MOA) where the development action occurs within a regulated floodway. 

The KAC EIS public involvement process was conducted in compliance with E.O. 

13166. Posters in seven languages were used to announce public hearings and to 

invite comments. A toll-free number was used to provide call-back information in 

seven languages for more information on the project. Interpreters were available 

for public hearings. 

In accordance with E.O. 13175, consultation and coordination with the Knik Tribe 

and the Native Village of Eklutna was conducted during the project planning and 

the NEPA process. 

Analysis in the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation found there is no prudent and feasible 

alternative to use of Sunset and Harvard Parks and historic sites. Mitigation 

measures described in the Section 4(f) Evaluation and in Sections 3.7 and 4.7 of 

the Final EIS include all possible planning to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) 

properties. Coordination with the Municipality of Anchorage will continue during 

the design stage. A Memorandum of Agreement is being finalized with the ACHP 

and SHPO for impacts to historic properties. 

There is no practicable alternative to construction in wetlands, and the 

Recommended Alternative includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to 

wetlands and waters of the United States that may result from the project, in 

accordance with E.O. 11990. 

A detailed Wetlands Finding is located in Appendix M of the Final EIS. 

Coordination of impacts related to the bridge structure was conducted with USCG in 

accordance with Rivers and Harbors Act Section 9 and the General Bridge Act. Bridge 

vertical and horizontal navigation span clearances above mean higher high water have 

been identified, and further coordination will occur during permitting and design. 

No floodplains mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

will be affected by the project. As stated in the Final EIS, the project will be 

designed to FHWA standards regarding flood elevations. The finding is that no 

FEMA floodplains will be affected. This satisfies the need for a floodplain finding 

under Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management. 

A detailed Floodplains Finding is located in Appendix M of the Final EIS. 

None 

None 

None 

USEPA NPDES General Permit 

for stormwater discharge 

during construction 

USACE - Department of Army 

Sections 10 and 404 permits 

for structures placed within 

navigable waters of the United 

States and for discharge of fill 

in wetlands, respectively 

ADEC - Section 401 Certificate 

of Reasonable Assurance – 

Water Quality Certification 

USCG Section 9 Bridge Permit 

MOA Flood Hazard Permit 



S-62






Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 

16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq. 

Alaska Coastal Zone Management Act, 

AS 46.40, AS 44.19; 

11 AAC 110,112, 114; 

6 AAC 80.900; statewide standards 11 

AAC 112.200-.990. 

E.O. 13112, Invasive Species 

Noxious Weeds Management 11 AAC 34 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act/Sustainable 

Fisheries Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq. 

Alaska Fishway Act, AS 41.14.840 

Anadromous Fish Act, AS 41.14.870 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 

16 U.S.C. §§ 661-666c 

E.O. 13186, Responsibilities of Federal 

Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 

16 U.S.C. §§ 703-12 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 

16 U.S.C. §§ 668-668d, as amended 

Marine Mammal Protection Act, 

16 U.S.C. §§ 1631 et seq. 

Incidental Harassment Authorization, 

16 U.S.C. §§ 1371, 1374 


ADNR, Office of Project 

Management and 

Permitting (OPMP) 

MOA 

Mat-Su Borough 

FHWA 

ADNR, Division of 

Agriculture 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) 

Fisheries 

ADNR, Office of 

Habitat Management 

and Permitting (OHMP) 

NOAA Fisheries 

USFWS 

OHMP 

ADF&G 

FHWA, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) 

USFWS 


USFWS 

Federal consistency with the CZMA requires that federal actions that are likely to 

affect any land or water in the coastal zone must be consistent with the State’s 

coastal management program, as approved by the Office of Coastal Resource 

Management (OCRM). 

The State requires addressing effects on coastal uses or resources that are the 

result of federal actions. Permissible land and water uses within the coastal zone 

are identified in the statewide standards of the Alaska Coastal Management 

Program (ACMP) and the approved district coastal management plans. 

Construction within the coastal zone is subject to consistency review under both 

the Municipality of Anchorage and Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Plans. 

E.O. 13112 directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species; 

provide for their control; and minimize the economic, ecological, and human 

health impacts that invasive species cause. 

Under E.O. 13112, an invasive species is “an alien species whose introduction does 

or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” 

The Noxious Weed Management regulations were developed to prevent the 

importation and spread of pests, diseases, or toxic substances that are injurious to 

the public interest, and to protect the agriculture industry. The State of Alaska has 

identified and regulates 31 plant species as noxious weeds (11 AAC 34.020) or as 

being weed seed incidentally found in agricultural seed (11 AAC 34.030). 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act establishes national standards for fisheries 

conservation and management. Federal agencies must consult with NOAA 

Fisheries and assess the effects of their actions on essential fish habitat (EFH). EFH 

is defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act as “those waters and substrate necessary 

to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” 

To satisfy the conditions of the Alaska Fishway and Anadromous Fish Acts, the 

project must notify and obtain authorization and approval for all activities within 

or across streams used by resident and anadromous fish. 

The act requires federal agencies to consult with wildlife agencies regarding 

project effects on fish and wildlife. 

E.O. 13186 directs executive departments and agencies to take certain actions that 

shall promote the conservation of migratory bird populations. 

MBTA prohibits taking of migratory birds unless specifically exempted or 

authorized; taking can include loss of habitat. 

The act provides protection of the bald eagle and golden eagle by prohibiting— 

except under specified conditions—the taking, possession, and commerce of such 

birds. 

The legislation requires regulation of the take of any marine mammal species in 

U. S. waters. Take includes harassment, attempt to harass, or annoyance that has 

potential to injure or disrupt behavior patterns. 

Coordination of impacts related to the coastal zone was conducted with OPMP, 

MOA, and the Mat-Su Borough in accordance with the Coastal Zone Management 

Act and the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Act. Based on the information 

contained in the Final EIS, technical reports, and Appendix F, FHWA finds the 

project to be consistent to the maximum extent practicable at this stage of 

project development. According to consultation with OPMP, a more detailed 

analysis is not required until submittal of the actual permit applications. 

The Natural Resource Conservation Service was contacted for information 

regarding invasive species in the Project Area. Further coordination with ADNR 

Division of Agriculture, landowners, and ADOT&PF will occur during design and 

construction to prevent the introduction or spread of invasive species in 

accordance with E.O. 13112 and Noxious Weed Management. 

In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, coordination of impacts related to EFH was conducted with NOAA Fisheries. 

Coordination of impacts related to the fish habitat was conducted with NOAA 

Fisheries, USFWS, OHMP, and Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) in 

accordance with the Alaska Fishway Act and Anadromous Fish Act. Further 

coordination will occur during permitting and design. 

Coordination of impacts related to fish and wildlife was conducted with federal 

(NOAA Fisheries, USFWS) and state (OHMP and ADF&G) resource and regulatory 

agencies in accordance with Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. § 

661-666c. Further coordination will occur during permitting and design. 

Coordination of impacts related to birds and vegetation clearing was conducted 

with USFWS in accordance with E.O. 13186. Clearing of vegetation on lands for 

project-related development will adhere to USFWS-recommended timing 

guidelines to protect migratory birds and comply with the MBTA. 

Coordination of impacts related to bald and golden eagles was conducted with 

USFWS to comply with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Mitigation 

measures have been developed and will be further coordinated prior to 

construction. Protection stipulations will be incorporated into the construction 

contract specifications. 

In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act, coordination of impacts 

related to marine mammals including beluga whales was conducted with NOAA 

Fisheries. Further coordination will occur during permitting and design. A NOAA 

Fisheries Letter of Authorization (LOA) to allow the conditional taking of marine 

mammals (Cook Inlet beluga whales) has been submitted for the project. 

ADNR, OPMP Coastal Zone 

Consistency Determination 

None 

OHMP Fish Habitat Permit 

None 

None 

None 

NOAA Fisheries Letter of 

Authorization 


S-63 

Findings, Compliance, and Permits





Endangered Species Act (ESA), Section 

7(a)(2), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-44 



USFWS 

Federal agencies that permit, license, fund, or otherwise authorize activities must 

ensure that their actions will not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed 

species. An ESA consultation is required. 

In accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, consultation and coordination of 

impacts related to threatened or endangered species was conducted with USFWS 

and NOAA Fisheries. Concurrence was received from both USFWS and NOAA 

Fisheries that no species listed as threatened or endangered occur in the Project 

Area. On April 20, 2007, NOAA Fisheries listed the Cook Inlet beluga whale as a 

proposed endangered species under the ESA. Depending on the status of the 

Cook Inlet beluga whale, KABATA and FHWA may enter Conference or 

Consultation, as appropriate, with NOAA Fisheries. 

None 


S-64

FEIS Summary - Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?