FEIS Summary - Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Knik Arm Crossing Final EIS Summary 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 Recommended Alternative 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 Knik Arm Crossing Final EIS Summary 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
Page 1 and 2: Knik Arm Crossing Final Environment
Page 3 and 4: Exhibit S‐1. Final EIS Document O
Page 5 and 6: Knik Arm Crossing Final EIS Summary
Page 15: Exhibit S‐22. Reasons for Preferr
Page 25 and 26: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Knik Arm Cr
Page 33 and 34: The preliminary design includes pla
Page 35 and 36: Summary Initial Construction (Phase

FEIS Summary - Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority

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

Delete template?

Save as template?