3.0 Affected Environment - Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority

Knik Arm Crossing DraftFinal EIS 

Affected Environment 

3.0 Affected Environment 

This section inventories and characterizes the economic, environmental, and cultural 

resources that might be affected by construction and operation of the proposed KAC project. 

This information was drawn from technical studies and reports prepared to identify 

environmental impacts of the proposed project. Several reports have documented the 

previous public outreach efforts and public comments on alternatives for the proposed 

project. The original reports, listed in the References Section, should be consulted for more 

detail. 

To facilitate discussion of the spatial distribution of the effects of the proposed project on 

several components of the social environment for the large Study Area, the Study Team 

aggregated information into a set of regions (Figure 3.1). The Planning Areas in Anchorage 

represent those described in Anchorage 2020. The regions in the Mat-Su were developed 

from an aggregation of community councils in the Study Area. Southwest Mat-Su consists of 

three community councils. The boundary between East and West Mat-Su was selected 

because it roughly corresponds to the area where anticipated travel times to Anchorage, using 

either the proposed KAC project or the Glenn Highway, would be about equal. This 

boundary also indicates the sphere of influence for Wasilla and Palmer, with the regions 

established from the remaining community councils in the rest of the Mat-Su portion of the 

Study Area. Thus, west of this line, travelers would save time with the construction and 

operation of the proposed KAC project, and the area would likely experience an increasing 

rate of growth, assuming the project were built. To the east, little-to-no travel time savings 

would be anticipated, and the area would experience less rapid growth rates. North of this 

area, based on the commuter and housing survey (KABATA 2006b), construction and 

operation of the proposed project would have minimal effect on indirect growth rates because 

this northern extremity is beyond the commuting distance threshold for most travelers. In this 

way, the Study Team isolated the area most likely to see increasing indirect effects of growth 

attributable to the proposed crossing. 

3.1 Land Use 

Proper specification of the area that could be affected by the proposed project is important 

because economic and social effects vary depending on the scale and areas of focus. The 

magnitude of project effects could be radically different, depending on whether the area 

being examined is a neighborhood, city, metropolitan area, borough, or state. For example, 

the property value or fiscal effects of an individual transportation project are typically 

positive for some areas and negative for others. Some effects, such as noise or changes in 

community cohesion may be confined to a small area, whereas changes in business 

productivity or travel costs may occur over a much broader area. 

Several geographical levels of detail or areas of focus are used in this report. First are the 

areas that could experience the direct effects (in terms of place and time) of construction and 

operation of the KAC project. Areas included in the Study Area are the Government Hill 

neighborhood; Elmendorf; Ship Creek in the northwest portion of Anchorage, at the 

12/18/07 Page 3-1



Figure 3.1. Study Area regions 

Page 3-2 12/18/07



eastern terminus of the proposed project; and the Point MacKenzie census-designated place 

(CDP) in the southern part of the Mat-Su, at the western terminus of the proposed project. 

As discussed above, the Mat-Su is such a large jurisdiction that smaller regions were 

designated for this Study. Most of the effects of the proposed project on the pattern of land 

use, population density, and growth rate in the Mat-Su would be expected to occur in these 

portions of the borough. The regions include all of the Mat-Su south of Willow on the Parks 

Highway east to Sutton on the Glenn Highway, including the Point MacKenzie CDP and an 

unincorporated area between Palmer and Wasilla that has particularly high rates of 

population growth and development and is often referred to as the Core Area. 

A third level of detail includes the two broad jurisdictions affected by the proposed project— 

Anchorage and the Mat-Su. The socioeconomic data are presented at this level because of 

data availability issues and because it is likely that many of the indirect and cumulative 

effects of the proposed project would be experienced at this level. In many of the tables, data 

are also provided for the three incorporated areas located in the Mat-Su: the cities of 

Houston, Palmer, and Wasilla. A more detailed overview of the components of the affected 

area is provided in the sections below. The general boundaries of the affected area for the 

socioeconomic analysis are shown in Figure 3.1, which also illustrates the location of the 

regions, the Point MacKenzie area, the Anchorage Bowl Planning Areas, Elmendorf, Fort 

Richardson, and towns in the Study Area. A full discussion of the selection of the Study Area 

for land use is in the Land Use and Transportation Forecasting Technical Report 

(KABATA 2006b). Transportation modeling incorporated in the analysis also included 

reasonably foreseeable actions outside the Study Area, and land use and population modeling 

included the area where increased growth is projected to occur with implementation of the 

build alternatives. 

3.1.1 Land Use and Ownership 

The KAC Study Area is within Anchorage and the Mat-Su. Although Anchorage covers an 

area of 1,961 square miles including Chugach State Park, and the Mat-Su covers an area of 

24,683 square miles, the regional Study Area of cumulative and indirect effects and, 

therefore, the Study Area, is confined to those portions of Anchorage and the Mat-Su that 

would reasonably be affected, directly and indirectly, by implementation of the KAC project. 

The Mat-Su and Anchorage portions of the Study Area—83 and 77 square miles, 

respectively—are relatively small in comparison with the overall size of each jurisdiction. 

3.1.1.1 The Knik Arm Crossing project and federal, state, and local government 

planning regulations 

Within the KAC Study Area there are many different levels of government with varying 

transportation responsibilities, levels of planning authority, and regulations. This section 

discusses: 

• federal regulations regarding transportation planning in Anchorage, a Metropolitan 

Planning Organization (MPO), and in relationship to the proposed KAC project 

12/18/07 Page 3-3



• state regulations regarding powers of planning, platting, and land use regulations and 

provisions for transportation systems in Anchorage and in the Mat-Su, a second class 

borough 

3.1.1.1.1 Metropolitan Planning Organization regulations 

There are two distinctions between Anchorage, as an MPO, and other communities within 

the state (except for Fairbanks, also an MPO): 

• only these two MPOs receive a federal transportation funding allocation, established by 

the state, for transportation projects within the MPO boundaries 

• as MPOs, a set of federal regulations regarding planning must be followed 

An MPO, as defined in 23 U.S.C. § 134, is an urbanized area with a population of more than 

50,000 individuals. Under the authority granted to Anchorage with its MPO status since 

April 8, 1976, the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS) carries 

out transportation planning and programming and air quality conformity for the Municipality. 

AMATS consists of a Technical Advisory Committee and a Policy Committee. 

Transportation planning and programming is performed in cooperation with the state under 

an Inter-governmental Operating Agreement between the Municipality of Anchorage and 

ADOT&PF. 

Because the KAC project has been proposed as a “project of regional and national 

significance” and a portion of the project lies within the Anchorage MPO, there are four 

primary actions required by AMATS: 

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

Transportation Plan (LRTP) [23 U.S.C. § 134(g)(2)(A) and AS § 19.20.200] 

• the Anchorage LRTP must have a fiscally constrained financial plan with the KAC 

project included [23 U.S.C. § 134(g)(2)(B)] 

• Transportation air quality conformity is required on the LRTP amendment 

[23 U.S.C. § 134(g)(3)] 

• the project must be included in the AMATS Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 

[23 U.S.C. § 134(h)(3)(B)(i)] 

The Anchorage 2025 LRTP (2005) was approved by the AMATS Policy Committee on 

December 20, 2005. It includes the KAC project as far as its progress through the NEPA 

process. To secure a Record of Decision on the EIS, however, the KAC project must be 

included in the LRTP through the proposed project’s construction phase. An amendment to 

the Anchorage LRTP is required for inclusion of the proposed Knik Arm Crossing project, 

under 23 U.S.C. § 134(g)(2)(A). 

Although the Mat-Su is the fastest growing borough in Alaska, it has yet to meet the 

requirements to be classified as an MPO. The Mat-Su’s LRTP is written and is pending 

assembly approval though such a plan is not required by federal law and the Borough does 

not require a fiscally constrained financial plan. State law does provide, under 

AS § 29.35.210(a)(1), that the Mat-Su Borough, as a second class borough, has the power to 

Page 3-4 12/18/07



provide transportation systems. Unlike MPOs with a transportation funding allocation, 

transportation projects in the Mat-Su compete with other projects within the state for federalaid 

highway funds through the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) or are 

programmed into the Borough’s Capital Improvement Program. 

3.1.1.1.2 State and local planning 

AS §§ 29.35 and 29.40 define the authority of cities and boroughs to provide for planning, 

platting, and land use regulations. Planning powers are either mandatory or optional 

depending on the classification of the city or borough. The Mat-Su Borough, as a second 

class borough, is required to provide for planning, platting, and land use regulations on an 

area-wide basis (both inside and outside of cities) within the borough in accordance with 

AS § 29.40. The Borough may delegate these powers to a City within the borough 

(AS § 29.40.010). See Section 3.1.1.3 for the powers delegated to the three incorporated 

cities within the Mat-Su. Section 3.1.1.3, further discusses planning, platting, and land use 

regulations in the Mat-Su. 

Anchorage, a unified home rule municipality, has planning, platting, and land use regulation 

authority according to AS § 29.35. Anchorage 2020 is the comprehensive land use policy 

plan; the LRTP is the transportation element of the comprehensive plan. Further, Title 21, of 

the Anchorage Municipal Code, is the regulatory ordinance that implements 

Anchorage 2020. Title 21 sets forth the requirements for planning, platting and zoning and 

other development standards. 

AS § 35.30.020 states the relationship of the State with respect to compliance with municipal 

ordinances: “A department shall comply with local planning and zoning ordinances and other 

regulations in the same manner and to the same extent as other landowners.” Public projects 

within cities or boroughs with planning, platting, and land use regulations must comply the 

same as everyone else developing land within those boundaries. 

When KABATA was formed under AS § 19.75, however, an exemption from local 

regulation was written into the statute. AS § 19.75.911 states, “Notwithstanding any contrary 

provision of law, the activities of the authority are exempt from land use planning, zoning, 

permitting, or other similar governmental powers of political subdivisions of the state.” 

While both state and federal regulations require transportation planning and project 

development at both regional and local levels; neither governmental entity has any land use 

authority. Neither governmental entity has the authority to zone or otherwise implement any 

land use control. 1 ADOT&PF and FHWA have no regulatory authority to develop land use 

plans or implement zoning ordinances; this authority lies with the local government. 

1 FHWA and ADOT&PF do control right-of-way (ROW) access. Those wishing to gain access to a state-owned 

road from a driveway or subdivision road must apply for a permit from ADOT&PF. Higher classification 

roads, freeways, and major arterials have purchased controlled access through the ROW process, and access is 

allowed only at certain intersections. 

12/18/07 Page 3-5



3.1.1.2 Existing land use 

3.1.1.2.1 The Mat–Su 

Existing public and private land use in the Mat-Su is 

shown in Figure 3.2. Existing land use is described in 

the Borough’s most recently adopted plan, the 

Matanuska-Susitna Borough-Wide Comprehensive 

Plan, and in all the associated plans adopted into the 

Comprehensive Plan by the Borough Assembly. 

The Mat-Su portion of the Study Area has a mix of 

public recreation uses and wildlife habitat on State 

lands, low-density residential uses, light industrial 

uses, commercial enterprises, commercial and 

noncommercial aviation uses, forestry, agriculture, 

and mineral resource development. Land in the Study 

Area is also commonly used for sport hunting and 

fishing and for traditional hunting, fishing, and 

gathering. Recreation is one of the area’s major land 

uses. Wildlife habitat and water features are extensive 

in the Mat-Su (38 percent of land use), and the Study 

Area is the focus of high recreational use for Mat-Su 

and Anchorage residents and tourists. Figure 3.2 

compares land ownership at three geographic levels. 

Land use in the Mat-Su portion of the Study Area is 

also shown in Table 3-1, and ownership is shown in 

Table 3-4). 

Figure 3.2. Area of indirect effects, land distribution. 

This figure compares the existing distribution of land 

among several generalized use and ownership 

categories in the area of indirect effects with the state 

and the entire borough. Mat-Su Borough is about the 

size of West Virginia. The area of indirect effects, an 

area equal to 382 square miles (2 percent of the 

Mat-Su), is about the size of New York City. This figure 

shows that about 3 percent of the private land in Alaska 

is found in this area of indirect effects. 

BLM, 31% 

National Wildlife 

Refuge, 19% 

State, 58% 

Private, 32% 

Alaska Land Distribution 

Native 

Corporation, 10% 

National Park, 

12% 

State, 21% 

Matanuska-Susitna Borough 

Land Distribution 

Refuge, 29% 

Private or 

Municipal, 8% 

National Park, 

10% 

Area of Indirect Effects 

Land Distribution 

State, 9% 

Water Features, 

9% 

Private or 

Municipal, 1% 

National Forest, 

6% 

BLM, 20% 

Native 


Borough, 15% 

No Data, 1% 

Native 


The distribution of land in the area of indirect effects, 

described above as the area most likely to see 

increasing indirect effects of growth due to implementation of the proposed crossing, is in the 

Mat-Su and is shown in Figure 3.3. It is notable that 62 percent of the land in the Mat-Su 

portion of the study area is either protected for wildlife (29 percent), water features 

(9 percent) or otherwise regulated by the state (9 percent) or the Borough (17 percent). 

Page 3-6 12/18/07



Table 3-1. Existing land use in the Mat-Su portion of 

the Study Area 

Land use Acres Percentage 

Agricultural 3,953 8% 

Residential 15,708 29 

Commercial 1,039 2 

Community service 3,564 7 

Public service 701 1 

Industrial 1,811 3 

Undeveloped land 26,735 50 

Total 53,101 100% 

Source: Calculated by HDR Alaska, Inc., from MSB GIS Data 2005 

3.1.1.2.2 Anchorage 

Existing land use in Anchorage is described in Anchorage 2020 and shown in Table 3-2 and 

Figure 3.3. The area of the Anchorage Bowl is shown in Figure 1.1, and the Anchorage Bowl 

Planning Areas are shown in Figure 3.1. Land use for developable vacant land is shown in 

Table 3-3. Anchorage 2020 (2001a:44) describes the proposed KAC project broadly as “a 

connection across Knik Arm between Point MacKenzie and Anchorage, which would open 

up thousands of acres to development ….” 

Land in Anchorage is a mix of low-density residential uses, commercial enterprises, park, 

and military uses. Fifty percent of the vacant land in the Anchorage Bowl lies in the 

Southeast area; thus, most new residential development (5,447 acres) would occur in the 

Southeast area of the Anchorage Bowl. Existing land use in Anchorage is shown in 

Figure 3.2. 

12/18/07 Page 3-7



Figure 3.3. Existing land use 

Page 3-8 12/18/07



Table 3-2. Existing land use in the Anchorage Bowl 


Residential 17,595 36% 

Commercial 2,731 5 

Industrial 2,581 5 

Transportation a 2,442 5 

Institutional 3,773 8 

Parks/open space 10,823 22 

Rights-of-way and miscellaneous b 9,454 19 

Total land c 49,399 100% 

Source: Anchorage 2020: Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan (2001a:23) 

a Includes Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, Alaska Railroad, 

and the POA 

b Includes roads rights-of-way 

c in use, not including vacant land 

Table 3-3. Land use of developable vacant land in 

the Anchorage Bowl 


Residential 8,537 73% 

Commercial 421 4 

Industrial 934 8 

Public lands/Institutions 846 7 

Other 993 8 

Total land 11,731 100% 

Source: Anchorage 2020: Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan 

(2001:24) 

3.1.1.2.3 Government Hill 

As shown in the inset on Figure 3.2, Government Hill has predominantly residential uses 

supported by a section of commercial uses and a large area of parklands. Government Hill is 

isolated from the rest of Anchorage by transportation and industrial uses located below the 

steep bluff leading to Ship Creek. The industrial uses at the POA and Alaska Railroad lease 

properties define Government Hill on the south, while it is constrained on the north by 

Elmendorf. 

Between Ship Creek and Third Avenue, which is the southern extent of the proposed project, 

Anchorage has a mix of vacant land and commercial and institutional uses such as 

government buildings, with a small number of residential uses. This section of Anchorage is 

situated on a bluff overlooking Ship Creek and the POA. Farther south, the commercial and 

institutional land uses of Downtown Anchorage transition to more residential land uses 

transected by parklands connected with trails leading to Knik Arm and the Chugach 

Mountains, east of the urban area. 

12/18/07 Page 3-9



3.1.1.3 Land ownership 

Generalized land ownership types for the Mat-Su and Anchorage are shown in Figure 3.4. 

Affected lands include private, Borough, Native Corporation, State, Public University, 

federal, Elmendorf, Fort Richardson, and City lands as well as Alaska Mental Health Trust 

Lands. Figure 3.5 shows land ownership in Government Hill. 

Land ownership types are more fully described below. 

3.1.1.3.1 Private land 

For the purposes of this Draft EIS, private land holdings are properties owned by individuals 

or businesses, but not by Native Corporations, certified Alaska Native Allotments, municipal 

governments, or the state or federal governments. There are approximately 13 minority 

business owners in the Government Hill Commercial District. 

3.1.1.3.2 Borough land 

Borough-owned properties were conveyed by the State of Alaska as Municipal Entitlement 

Lands (MEL) and also were acquired through tax foreclosure, purchase, and donation. MEL 

lands are used to generate revenue through sales, leases, and permits; to provide sites for 

public facilities; and to offer public recreational opportunities. (Note: The legislature created 

the “Greater Anchorage Area Borough” in 1964. In 1975, the Greater Anchorage Area 

Borough unified and became the Municipality of Anchorage with its boundary from near the 

first Knik River Bridge to Portage, in the south, which is well beyond and is not shown on 

any of the figures in this study.) 

3.1.1.3.3 Native corporation land 

Under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Native Corporations were allowed 

to select lands from federal land holdings. These selections were then adjudicated and 

conveyed to the Native Regional and Village Corporations. Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated 

(CIRI), is the Native Regional Corporation for the Cook Inlet area. CIRI owns land within 

the Study Area. 

Page 3-10 12/18/07



Figure 3.4. Existing land ownership 

12/18/07 Page 3-11



Figure 3.5. Existing land ownership – Government Hill 

Page 3-12 12/18/07



3.1.1.3.4 State land 

The State of Alaska was granted over 100 million acres of land when it achieved statehood 

in 1959. The State owns land in portions of the Study Area. State lands include state parks 

and refuges, such as the Nancy Lake State Recreation Area, Susitna Flats State Game 

Refuge, Willow Creek State Recreation Area, Little Susitna State Recreation Area, Goose 

Bay State Game Refuge, and the Iditarod Trail route. State land also includes submerged and 

other land within the KAC Study Area. 

3.1.1.3.5 Alaska Mental Health Trust Lands 

State of Alaska Mental Health Trust Lands were granted to the territory by the federal 

government prior to statehood to generate revenue to support Alaska’s mental health 

programs. In 1978, the State Legislature waived the trust status of these lands, allowing land 

to be leased, sold, and transferred to municipalities. In the 1980s, mental health advocates 

sued, and the State was ordered to “reconstitute, as nearly as possible, the holdings which 

comprised the trust when the 1978 law became effective.” A new Mental Health Trust Land 

Office under the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) has been created to 

manage these trust lands. 

3.1.1.3.6 Public university land 

Land owned and managed by the University of Alaska was originally granted to the 

University by the federal government in accordance with two Acts of Congress dated 

March 4, 1915, and January 21, 1929. This property and other trust land that was 

subsequently deeded to the University by the State of Alaska are for the exclusive use and 

benefit of the University of Alaska and, therefore, are not State public domain land. 

3.1.1.3.7 Federal land 

Federal lands include nationally designated lands, such as wildlife refuges and national parks, 

as well as federal public lands. As shown in Figure 3.3, about 30 percent of the land in 

Mat-Su Borough is federal (national park and BLM), but there is no federal land in the area 

of indirect effects. 

3.1.1.3.8 Elmendorf Air Force Base 

Elmendorf is a federal military installation covering approximately 21 square miles of land 

adjacent to the Anchorage Bowl. 

3.1.1.3.9 Fort Richardson Military Base 

Fort Richardson is a federal military installation covering approximately 96 square miles of 

land adjacent to the Anchorage Bowl. 

3.1.1.3.10 City land 

City lands include land owned by the incorporated Cities of Houston, Palmer, and Wasilla. 

12/18/07 Page 3-13



3.1.1.3.11 Housing 

The Mat-Su and Anchorage share a common trait with regard to public and private lands as 

shown in Figure 3-4: In both areas, the amount of public land greatly exceeds the amount of 

privately owned land. An important difference between the two communities, however, is 

that most of the suitable land in the Anchorage Bowl is in committed uses and much of the 

remaining acreage is located in areas where development is expensive because of slope and 

wetlands. 2 Other lands within the Anchorage Bowl could be redeveloped to higher densities 

to meet future housing demand. The Municipality noted in its scoping comments for this 

Draft EIS that redevelopable and underdeveloped land could add space for 8,150 housing 

units within the Anchorage Bowl and that Turnagain Arm communities could house another 

5,000 persons. In addition, the Municipality has 18,700 acres available in the Chugiak-Eagle 

River area, of which 7,000 acres are currently zoned for residential use. Land and housing 

prices in the Anchorage Bowl are higher than in the Mat-Su, and, as a result, an increasingly 

larger share of regional residential and commercial development has been occurring in the 

Mat-Su, and this trend is expected to continue (Table 3-4). 

Table 3-4. Land ownership in the Mat-Su and Anchorage, 1998 

Area 

Anchorage 

(percentage) 

Anchorage 

(square miles) 

Mat-Su 

(percentage) 

Mat-Su 

(square 

miles) 

Private lands 10.4 203.8 1.4 332.8 

Public lands 89.6 1,751.9 98.6 23,440.6 

Source: Calculated by HDR Alaska, Inc., from Municipality of Anchorage and Mat-Su Borough 

geographic information system (GIS) data. 

A comparison of the data for Anchorage and the Mat-Su between 1990 and 2000 indicates: 

• Multiunit buildings are less common in the Mat-Su than in Anchorage. In Anchorage, 

single-family units accounted for roughly 57 percent of all housing units in 2000, while 

they accounted for 82.5 percent of all units in the Mat-Su. Both communities contain 

areas with higher portions of multifamily housing. For example, multifamily units 

accounted for 40 percent of housing units in Wasilla in 2000, while this type accounted 

for 79 percent of Government Hill housing units in 2000. 

• Vacancy rates dropped significantly in all areas between 1990, when the Alaska economy 

was still recovering from the recession in the late 1980s, and 2000. Between 1990 

and 2000, vacancy rates dropped by more than half in Anchorage and by roughly onethird 

in the Mat-Su. 

• Sales prices in the Mat-Su are increasing more quickly than in Anchorage. The average 

sales price for Anchorage homes increased by 2.7 percent annually between 1992 

and 2004, while the average sales price for Mat-Su homes increased by 3.6 percent 

(Alaska Multiple Listing Service, Inc. 2005). On average, however, Mat-Su home prices 

have remained roughly 25 percent below Anchorage home prices (Alaska Housing 

2 Personal communication, P. Palmer, Property Specialist, Prudential Vista of Anchorage, with Northern 

Economics, Inc., on May 26, 2005. 

Page 3-14 12/18/07



Finance Corporation 2005). In the third quarter of 2005, the average house price in 

Anchorage was $264,300, as compared with $220,272 in the Mat-Su. The major reason 

for this pricing difference is lower land costs in the Mat-Su because of the greater 

availability of land for housing development. 

The number of housing units increased in both the Mat-Su and Anchorage between 1990 

and 2000. 3 However, both the growth rate and the total number of housing units added during 

the period were greater in the Mat-Su than in Anchorage (Table 3-5). The rapid growth in the 

Mat-Su reflects the relative availability of larger parcels of land for residential development 

and lower costs of purchasing land and constructing a new home. 

Table 3-5. Number of housing units in the affected area, 1990 and 2000 

Anchorage 

Mat-Su 

Category 1990 2000 1990 2000 

Total housing units (number) 94,153 100,368 20,953 27,329 

Annual change — 0.64% — 2.69% 

Vacant units (number) 11,451 5,546 7,559 6,773 

Single-family unit portion 52.1% 57.2% 79.6% 82.5% 

Vacancy rate 12.1% 5.5% 36.1% 24.8% 

Median housing value $139,703 $160,700 $116,072 $125,800 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 

Both Anchorage and the Mat-Su have vibrant and thriving housing markets. These markets 

are, however, experiencing important changes. For example: 

• For years, Anchorage has seen more housing starts than the Mat-Su, but in 2004 the 

number of housing starts in the Mat-Su surpassed the number of starts in Anchorage for 

the first time. 4 For the past several years more multifamily housing has been developed in 

Anchorage than single-family housing. 5 In the Mat-Su, single-family home development 

is likely to remain the dominant housing product, but the number of multifamily homes is 

also expected to grow substantially. 6 

• Sales prices in Anchorage are increasing more slowly than in the Mat-Su. The average 

sales price for Anchorage homes increased by 2.7 percent annually between 1992 

and 2004, while the average sales price for Mat-Su homes increased by 3.6 percent 

(Alaska Multiple Listing Service, Inc. 2005). 

3 The U.S. Census Bureau defines a housing unit as a house, apartment, mobile home or trailer, or a group of 

rooms or a single room occupied as a separate living quarters. 

4 Personal communication, Kreiger, Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and 

Analysis Section. Lender’s survey data requested by Northern Economics, Inc. 

5 Personal communication, Vicki Portwood, Anchorage Homebuilders Association, with Northern Economics, 

Inc., May 24, 2005 

6 Personal communication, P. Palmer, Property Specialist, Prudential Vista of Anchorage, with Northern 

Economics, Inc., May 26, 2005 

12/18/07 Page 3-15



• An Anchorage-based household needs 1.47 wage earners to afford the average 

Anchorage mortgage. A family in the Mat-Su needs 1.48 average wage earners to afford 

that mortgage if those jobs are located in the Mat-Su. However, the same family needs 

only 1.14 wage earners if one wage earner works in Anchorage (Krieger 2005b). Roughly 

35 percent of Mat-Su residents work in Anchorage (MSB 2003a). 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Government Hill had 967 housing units in 2000, of 

which 205 units were single-family and the remainder multifamily. The vacancy rate in the 

area was 4.3 percent, a rate less than the 5.5 percent average for all of Anchorage. The Point 

MacKenzie CDP had 94 housing units in 2000, of which 53 were vacant. Ten of these units 

were mobile homes or trailers and the remainder were single-family buildings. 

3.1.1.4 Existing zoning 

Figure 3.6 shows generalized zoning in the region. All land development in the Mat-Su is 

subject to MSB 17.01 Acknowledgement of Existing Land Use Regulations. The 

Municipality of Anchorage’s zoning ordinances are found in Title 21. Title 21 is in the 

process of being rewritten to implement Anchorage 2020. The following discusses both the 

Mat-Su Borough and the Municipality of Anchorage’s zoning or development ordinances. 

3.1.1.4.1 Mat-Su Borough 

The Mat-Su Borough’s Planning Commission was established to perform the area-wide 

functions of planning, platting, and zoning. The Planning Commission’s recommendations 

are transmitted to the Assembly. According to MSB Chapter 15.24 Assembly, Zoning 

Functions, the Assembly has authority, with the Planning Commission’s recommendation, to 

establish building and land use regulations and create districts (MSB 15.24.015). With the 

assistance of the Planning Commission, the Assembly prepares and revises a comprehensive 

borough-wide plan of development. The Borough also has broad powers pursuant to 

AS § 19.30.151(b). 

Mat-Su Borough uses both borough-wide and special use district (SpUD) ordinances. 

Borough-wide ordinances employ setback standards, including a 75-foot water-body setback 

adopted by voter initiative; sanitary solid waste disposal sites; and mobile home park 

standards. SpUDs are tailored to a local community’s special conditions and are unique to the 

geographic boundary of each community. Local communities have the ability to redefine a 

particular borough-wide measure through their SpUD ordinances (MSB 2005d). 

To improve the level of compliance with existing Borough code, the Borough provides 

regulatory information to persons proposing development. The owner or developer signs a 

Statement of Acknowledgement of Existing Land Use Regulations, as provided in 

MSB Title 17, prior to the development activity. 

Page 3-16 12/18/07



Figure 3.6. Existing zoning. 

12/18/07 Page 3-17



The Cities of Houston, Palmer and Wasilla, each in the Mat-Su, are exceptions to boroughwide 

powers regarding land use regulations, planning, and zoning. The Borough has 

delegated these powers to the cities. 

3.1.1.4.2 The City of Houston 

The City of Houston is a second class city in the Mat-Su, and its responsibility for providing 

for planning, platting, and land use regulations is optional. Through MSB 17.40, the Mat-Su 

Borough delegated to the Houston City Council the authority to act as the City zoning board 

and to hear and decide on variances and conditional uses in the city of Houston. Houston is 

primarily a residential community, with some commercial uses along the Parks Highway and 

light industrial uses along the Alaska Railroad corridor. Lands classified as Public Lands and 

Institutions are set aside for schools and other public uses. Existing land uses in the city of 

Houston are described in the City of Houston Land Use Ordinance. Houston’s land use 

districts were established by Matanuska-Susitna Borough Title 17 (17.40.405) on 

December 15, 1987, and amended by Houston Ordinance 90-032 on May 1, 1990, 

Ordinance 98-046 on June 2, 1998, and Ordinance 98-085 on July 21, 1998. 

3.1.1.4.3 The City of Palmer 

The City of Palmer, as a home rule city in the Mat-Su, has land use regulatory powers for all 

areas within the city limits. Palmer is primarily a residential community, with some 

agricultural and commercial uses along the Glenn Highway and light industrial uses along 

the Alaska Railroad corridor. Lands classified as Public Lands and Institutions are set aside 

for schools and other public uses. Permissible types of land uses in the city of Palmer are 

described in the City of Palmer Land Use Ordinance. 

3.1.1.4.4 The City of Wasilla 

The City of Wasilla is a first class city in the Mat-Su. The Wasilla Planning and Utilities 

Commission acts as the City planning and land use regulatory authority, according to 

MSB 17.45. Wasilla is a residential community with strip commercial uses along the Parks 

Highway and cross streets. Some industrial uses occur along the Parks Highway and Alaska 

Railroad corridor as well. Lands classified as Public Lands and Institutions are set aside for 

schools and other public uses. Permissible types of land uses in the city of Wasilla are 

described in the City of Wasilla Land Use Ordinance. 

3.1.1.4.5 Port MacKenzie District 

The Mat-Su Borough has plans for the 9,000-acre Port MacKenzie District to provide 

services for bulk commodity storage (fuel, timber, sand and gravel, peat, grain), a floatplane 

base to serve Anchorage air taxi and private pilots, a ferry terminal, and a public boat launch 

ramp for companies and individuals based in Anchorage and statewide. The Port MacKenzie 

District area provides land for commercial, industrial, and recreational uses with lower land 

costs compared with the Anchorage Bowl. 

Page 3-18 12/18/07



3.1.1.4.6 Point MacKenzie Agricultural Area 

The Point MacKenzie Agricultural Area contains 14,893 acres, or 23 square miles, for the 

purpose of dairy farming and general agricultural use. The “Matanuska-Susitna Borough 

Agricultural Land Sale Programs Summary” updated August 24, 2004, describes the history 

and process for the conveyance of these lands for agricultural purposes. Land titles are 

subject to a recorded Declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CCRs) to 

promote agricultural use. The CCRs limit improvement sites, residential locations, and 

subdivision of the original farm unit. They also restrict use of some resources, such as gravel, 

to on-site development. 


The majority of land suitable for development in Anchorage has been developed, and the 

zoning of vacant land must be used to guide future development. Anchorage 2020 defines 

areas for more intensive commercial development as Major Employment Centers (3); 

Redevelopment/Mixed Use Areas (3); Town Centers (7), and Neighborhood Commercial 

Centers (10). A natural Open Space has been added as a new land use category to support a 

sustainable and accessible network of recreational facilities, parks, trails, and undeveloped 

land for the purpose of “preserving and enhancing the scenic vistas, fish, wildlife, and plant 

habitats and their ecological functions and values.” 

The inset in Figure 3.6 shows that the Government Hill neighborhood is primarily zoned for 

residential uses. The commercial and industrial zones are at the intersection of East Loop and 

East Bluff Roads. All of these are bordered on the south by a zone designated as “Public,” 

which corresponds to the location of the Government Hill Greenbelt, Harvard Park, and 

Sunset Park. 

Conservation of residential lands for housing is a high community priority, and the overall 

goal for residential development is “a variety of housing types and densities in safe, attractive 

neighborhoods that offer a choice of urban, suburban, and rural lifestyles ….” The zoning 

ordinance establishes residential development near the designated Redevelopment/Mixed 

Use area and the Town Centers with medium-to-high densities. 

A substantial amount of commercial and industrial land in use within the Anchorage Bowl is 

underdeveloped. For several decades, the Central and Southwest Areas of Anchorage have 

been, and remain, the key areas of industrial development. The Central Planning Area and 

Ship Creek Area contain a significant portion of the underutilized industrial property in 

Anchorage. Much of the existing industrial land use, such as the tank farm, requires marine, 

railroad, and road access. This area is unique in that it has access to the various 

transportation modes and is zoned “marine industrial” and “heavy industrial.” There are three 

Industrial Reserve Areas to ensure that strategically located land is predominantly used for 

industrial purposes. 

12/18/07 Page 3-19



3.1.1.5 Population density 

Population density in the region can be seen on Figure 3.7. The highest population densities 

occur in the Anchorage Bowl, Chugiak-Eagle River area, and the Mat-Su Core Area. 

By 2020, the population of the Anchorage Bowl is estimated to increase by 81,800, with a 

corresponding 31,600 additional housing units. By the year 2020, another 22,700 residents 

are forecast for the Chugiak-Eagle River area. This area is also expected to add another 

7,300 housing units (Anchorage 2020:58). The population in Anchorage is expected to 

reach 391,000 by 2030. Population in the Mat-Su is expected to reach 108,000 by 2030 

(ISER 2001). Anchorage 2020 (Table 8 of Anchorage 2020) overestimated the 

2005 population in the Anchorage Bowl at 238,300; actual 2005 Anchorage Bowl population 

was 229,400, a difference of 8,900 people, or about 4 percent lower than anticipated 

(KABATA 2006h). 

3.1.2 Land Use Plans and Policies 

The KAC project is currently not detailed in Anchorage 2020 or the Matanuska-Susitna 

Borough-Wide Comprehensive Plan. Each plan will require updating to recognize and 

effectively manage the implementation of the project. On October 18, 2005, the Anchorage 

Municipal Assembly passed a resolution supporting the Knik Arm Crossing project in 

furtherance of the goals of Anchorage 2020, subject to the resolution of the required 

economic and environmental issues. 

3.1.2.1 Mat-Su Borough plans 

3.1.2.1.1 Matanuska-Susitna Borough-Wide Comprehensive Plan 

Matanuska-Susitna Borough-Wide Comprehensive Plan (1970) was originally adopted 

in 1970. Since then, the plan has been updated and amended through the adoption of 

community-based plans, specific plans such as the Mat-Su Borough Long-Range 

Transportation Plan and Big Lake, Lake Management Plan (Big Lake Citizen’s Advisory 

Committee, USKH, Dames & Moore 1988), and plans prepared by the State of Alaska. 

New growth has also brought new industries and technologies to the Mat-Su. Some of these 

new industries and technologies, such as communication towers, waste incinerators, and oil 

and gas development, have created compatibility issues in residential neighborhoods and 

recreational areas. The Mat-Su Borough recently updated its comprehensive plan to address 

borough-wide population growth and development compatibility issues, as well as public and 

private infrastructure. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough Comprehensive Plan 2005 Update 

was adopted by the Borough Assembly in January 2006. The updated comprehensive plan 

will help in managing these and other land uses to enhance the quality of life of Mat-Su 

residents while also improving and diversifying the local economy. 

Page 3-20 12/18/07



Figure 3.7. Population density – 2000 

12/18/07 Page 3-21



AS § 29.40.030 requires that a local community’s comprehensive plan address, at a 

minimum, three issues: land use, transportation, and public facilities. The Mat-Su subarea 

comprehensive plans within the affected environment of the KAC project are described 

below. 

3.1.2.1.2 The Matanuska-Susitna Borough: Core Area Comprehensive Plan 

This plan (MSB 2003a) is being updated and has yet to be approved by the Borough 

Assembly. Until the plan is adopted by the Borough Assembly, it could be changed at any 

time. The Core Area is essentially the unincorporated areas between the cities of Palmer and 

Wasilla. Although the Core Area is outside of the KAC project’s Study Area it is useful to 

look at its land use issues, goals, and implementation recommendations. The plan describes 

land use issues, goals, and recommendations for implementation. It states that the diversity of 

the people living in the Core Area is recognized and should be addressed through 

encouraging a variety of residential opportunities, including housing types, densities, and 

styles. The plan states that a variety of safe, convenient, attractive, and efficient commercial 

areas are desired, and that these areas should be encouraged in places that have good access 

and visibility. The plan encourages the use of existing infrastructure and services by new 

industrial development. It also encourages location of these improvements in areas that 

minimize negative environmental impacts. The plan encourages the upkeep and enhancement 

of existing parks and recreational areas, and the use of lands for farming at a level 

determined by the marketplace and individual initiative. 

3.1.2.1.3 City of Houston Comprehensive Plan 

This plan (City of Houston 1999) presents existing conditions in Houston and specifically 

details how the residents and planners envision the city developing in the future. It outlines 

strategic implementation policies to guide development in the manner envisioned. The 

overall goal of development as defined by the City is to strive to encourage a moderate level 

of growth that will provide an economic base for employment opportunities, while becoming 

more independent of external governmental or economic factors and activities. To maintain a 

rural residential atmosphere, residential development is encouraged only in areas zoned for 

residential use. Low-density, large lot development would prevail, and specific areas are to 

be set aside for medium-density, affordable housing and rental property. To prevent strip 

malls, nonlinear patterns of development are encouraged, and commercial development is to 

occur only in designated commercial zones such as Neighborhood Commercial Zones; mixed 

commercial and residential land uses are to be avoided. To ensure that land is available for 

industrial development, but not adjacent to residential development, industrial land uses are 

encouraged to be located in areas that complement business and commercial services. The 

plan encourages the preservation of geological hazard areas and promotes that marginal lands 

with no existing development be converted to recreational uses or left undeveloped. In 

addition to expanding existing recreation areas, the development of more parks, greenbelts, 

and recreation areas is encouraged as part of the residential development process. 

Page 3-22 12/18/07



3.1.2.1.4 Knik-Fairview Comprehensive Plan 

This plan (MSB 1997a) is an outline to ensure that residents’ lives and natural and other 

environmental resources are not negatively affected by future growth. The plan encourages a 

minimum lot size of 1 acre for new development and infill of areas with vacant lots and roads 

and utilities. The overall goal is to maintain the existing pattern of low-density, rural 

residential settlement. The plan promotes commercial development around existing 

commercial uses, with conditional permitting on a limited basis outside these areas. It also 

notes that buffering should be used to minimize land use conflicts between incompatible 

uses. The plan calls for light industrial uses to be permitted within established industrial use 

areas and to be considered for conditional permits in other areas. Heavy industrial uses would 

be conditionally permitted within industrial use areas and would not be allowed in any other 

areas. Hazardous waste sites are prohibited from the entire area. The Palmer Hay Flats State 

Game Refuge is the main focus of the plan. The plan encourages a variety of recreational, 

educational, and scientific uses of the area, while protecting, preserving, and enhancing its 

habitat, fish, and wildlife populations. The plan also considers education, public safety, 

cultural and recreational facilities, water and sewer services, and transportation networks. 

The plan points out that the Knik-Fairview area functions as a residential suburb of Wasilla 

and Anchorage and is heavily dependent on those areas for employment, goods, and services. 

3.1.2.1.5 Big Lake Comprehensive Plan 

This plan (MSB 1995b) outlines a vision to maintain the residential and recreational 

character of the Big Lake area. Any development within the community should be 

compatible with maintaining and conserving the natural environment. The plan encourages 

developers of residential uses to apply for designation as residential land use districts and 

encourages the location of commercial development within an appropriate community core, 

where commercial activity will not interfere with other uses and will be supported by existing 

infrastructure. The plan supports regional industrial development within appropriate areas, 

but prohibits heavy industrial activity. The railroad corridor would make industrial 

development more viable. The plan recognizes Big Lake as a hub of recreational activities 

for the area and recommends that an additional plan be written that specifically addresses the 

parks and recreational activities. Water and sewer, electric power, telephone, solid waste 

disposal, natural gas, postal service, transportation networks, and timber resources on public 

lands are addressed. 

3.1.2.1.6 City of Palmer Comprehensive Plan 

This plan (City of Palmer 1993) concentrates on providing direction over a 5-year period, 

from 1993 to 1998 and provides general guidance beyond that time period. Palmer has 

continued to secure its position as the center for government in the Mat-Su. Both Palmer and 

the surrounding area have experienced continued growth in the commuting population that 

has coincided with decreasing state and borough support for civic services. The City has 

taken on increased responsibilities and is attempting to fill the gap left by the downsizing of 

other government agencies. Recommendations in the plan include increased economic 

development, tourism, continued high quality of life, continued growth of the city, 

transportation, and improved government services. 

12/18/07 Page 3-23



3.1.2.1.7 City of Wasilla Comprehensive Plan 

This plan (City of Wasilla 1986) is a compilation of information, projections, and policies, 

which is intended to be a general guide for future growth and development of the city of 

Wasilla. Continued growth of the area has made Wasilla the ninth-largest city in Alaska. The 

City Council and Planning and Utilities Commission use this plan as a resource for decision 

making. The plan includes chapters on physical characteristics, population and the economy, 

land use, public facilities and services, transportation, and implementation. Special emphasis 

was devoted to transportation planning for Wasilla’s new airport to and conceptual planning 

to prepare for the reuse of the town’s old airport. 

3.1.2.2 Plans in Anchorage 

Anchorage 2020 is extensively discussed throughout Section 3.1 as the current plan that 

influences land use in the Anchorage portion of the Study Area. The Municipality of 

Anchorage’s LRTP and the plan’s relationship to the proposed KAC project are discussed in 

Section 3.1.1.1. Besides these two plans, the following plan also influences land use in the 

Study Area: 

3.1.2.2.1 Port of Anchorage Intermodal Marine Facility (2002) 

This plan is an update to the Port of Anchorage Master Plan (POA 1999a) and calls for 

expansion of the port areas in phases to accommodate port users through 2020. The plans call 

for improving existing facilities, improving existing access, and expanding terminals 

dependent on actual versus forecast population increases. Two addenda to the master plan 

were prepared to consider ways to upgrade the port’s dock. They include the Intermodal 

Marine Facility and the Expansion Study under Phase I of the plan. 

3.1.2.2.2 Freight Mobility Study 

This study (MOA 2001b) provides insight into the physical and regulatory needs of the 

freight industry to promote reliable and cost effective means to circulate freight within the 

city and to other destinations served by the hub. The study presents the concept of developing 

a primary east-west corridor from the POA to a point on the Glenn Highway near Eagle 

River. The route would reduce some of the freight traffic going through the city. A general 

objective of the study is to support the coordination between transport modes to reduce 

conflicts and capital improvement costs. This study relates to freight movement within 

AMATS. 

3.1.2.2.3 Ship Creek Multi-Modal Transportation Plan 

This transportation plan for the Ship Creek area includes extension of the Ingra-Gambell 

Couplet, improved truck routing, and improved circulation. The plan (MOA 2000) includes 

protection of the livability of the Government Hill neighborhood. Further, the plan includes 

enhanced automobile circulation to benefit development and redevelopment of the area, 

maintenance of the integrity and operational effectiveness of the rail yard, and improvement 

of the pedestrian/recreational environment along Ship Creek. 

Page 3-24 12/18/07



3.1.2.2.4 Ship Creek Development Draft Master Plan 

The Ship Creek area has been the focus of several community improvement projects, as well 

as improvements by ARRC, which has its main yard facility in Ship Creek. The purpose of 

this plan (ARRC 1999) was to identify opportunities south of Ship Creek that could integrate 

this area into Downtown Anchorage. The plan proposes development of community 

apartments and condominiums, integration of retail and office development, and construction 

of a convention center and an intermodal transfer center. It also offers suggestions for 

pavilions and for a walking connection to Downtown. 

3.1.2.3 State and local management plans 

State and local land management plans that might affect the planning area include the 

following. Each addresses allowable uses and provides guidance for future development 

projects. 

• Big Lake Management Plan (MSB 1998) 

• Point MacKenzie Area Which Merits Special Attention Plan (MSB 1995a) 

• Susitna Basin Recreation Rivers Management Plan (ADNR 1991) 

• Matanuska-Susitna Borough 1990 Solid Waste Management Plan Update (MSB 1990) 

• Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Plan (MSB 1987) 

• Susitna Flats State Game Refuge Management Plan (ADF&G 1987) 

• Matanuska-Susitna Borough Comprehensive Development Plan: Public Facilities 

(MSB 1984b) 

• Matanuska-Susitna Borough Comprehensive Development Plan: Transportation 

(MSB 1984a) 

• Fish Creek Management Plan (ADNR 1984) 

• Willow Sub-Basin Area Plan (ADNR 1982) 

3.1.3 Farmland 

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 United States Code [U.S.C.] § 4201) and the Food 

Security Act (16 U.S.C § 3811) require federal agencies to consider the adverse effects of 

their projects on farmlands (including the extent to which prime, unique, and other farmland 

[of statewide or local importance] will be affected). As defined by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, there are no prime or unique farmlands in Alaska because soil temperatures do 

not meet the threshold established by Congress. No unique farmlands have been designated 

in Alaska, nor have any farmlands of statewide importance. The Palmer, Wasilla, and Upper 

Susitna Soil and Water Conservation Districts have adopted criteria for farmlands of local 

importance for lands within their district boundaries. The Point MacKenzie Agricultural 

Area, in the Mat-Su, meets these criteria. The proposed project road would lie along the east 

side of this protected area, on the alignment of the existing Point MacKenzie Road. 

3.1.3.1 Existing agricultural land 

The Economic Development Plan, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska (2002) identifies 

agriculture as one of the strengths in the borough’s economy. The Matanuska-Susitna 

12/18/07 Page 3-25



Borough: Core Area Plan (2003a) encouraged the use of lands for farming at a level 

determined by the marketplace and individual initiative. 

3.1.3.1.1 Point MacKenzie Agricultural Area 

Since Alaska’s early statehood, the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Area has been important in 

the Borough’s attempts to stimulate more local agricultural activity. The Point MacKenzie 

Agricultural Area (Figure 1.1) contains 14,893 acres (23.3 square miles) for dairy farming 

and general agricultural use. “Summary: Matanuska-Susitna Borough Agricultural Land Sale 

Programs” (2004) describes the history and process for the conveyance of these lands for 

agricultural purposes. The Mat-Su Borough acquired land from the State of Alaska as MEL, 

beginning with the borough’s formation in 1964. In 1970, a Borough ordinance provided for 

a Mat-Su Preferential Agricultural Land Program. This statute was repealed in 1974 and was 

replaced by one that provided for Agricultural Land Sales that had the effect of restricting 

future land uses to agriculture. A farm unit buyer purchased the agricultural rights. Fee 

simple acquisition of the land for a farm residence or other farm-related facility required an 

act of the Assembly. The Borough retained the development rights to the land for residential, 

commercial, or industrial uses. 

In the 1990s, the Borough expended considerable time and other resources recovering 

agricultural parcels that had been sold to individuals who later defaulted under the Borough’s 

terms of sale or lease. The soils proved not as favorable to agriculture as original soil tests 

had suggested. The Point MacKenzie soils are much drier than anticipated; adequate crop 

yields require irrigation systems that are expensive and, therefore, have not been undertaken 

to any substantial degree. The productivity of the land is also constrained by its low fertility, 

depth to sand, and relatively high late-summer precipitation (restricting access to fields and 

delaying harvest, thereby negatively affecting the quality and yield of crops). Dominant crops 

included timothy grass, oats, and barley as forage. The lands’ original primary agricultural 

use, dairy farming, has not provided farmers with a self-sufficient income. Damage from 

heavy snow loads on inadequately designed and constructed dairy buildings also has 

contributed to farm failures. 7 Because working dairy land is not that profitable (there are still 

five dairies in the Area), most hay production is currently being sold as horse feed. 8 

In 1994, the Borough repealed and replaced the 1974 ordinance with one under which the 

Borough’s fee estate is conveyed by quitclaim deed and the title becomes subject to a 

recorded Declaration of CCRs to promote agriculture use. The CCRs, among other effects, 

limit improvement sites, residential locations, and subdivision of the original farm unit. 

In 1997, Alaska Statutes 38.05.321 was amended (Chapter 20, Session Laws of Alaska 

[SLA] 1997—originally known as Senate Bill [SB] 109) to ease restrictions on the 

subdivision of agricultural lands. This served to allow farmers to subdivide their land into 

smaller farm parcels so that the resultant lots could be sold with the right to construct 

7 Personal communication, Kirk McGee, Vice President for Real Estate at Cook Inlet Region, Inc., in personal 

interview with William Chopyk, April 4, 2005. 

8 Personal communication, Larry Devilbiss, Division Chief in the State Division of Agriculture, in personal 

interview with Marcus Hartley, April 4, 2005. 

Page 3-26 12/18/07



housing. For the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Area, an appraisal at the farmer’s expense is 

required to determine the price the farmer must pay the Borough to acquire house 

construction rights. 

Thus, over the past 35 years, while the Mat-Su Borough has retained jurisdiction over the 

Point MacKenzie Agricultural Area, the Borough has gradually loosened requirements 

regarding restrictions on the land’s solitary use for agriculture. The anticipated economical 

feasibility of the land’s productivity for agricultural pursuits has not been realized. As 

discussed in Section 3.5.3.2, soils on the west side of Burma and Point MacKenzie Roads, 

including those associated with the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Area, exhibit some of the 

best conditions for construction of homesites and small commercial buildings. In the future, 

the land will likely be under continuing pressure to be designated for protection under its 

highest and best use, and agricultural applications may not be that use. 

3.2 Social Environment 

3.2.1 Neighborhoods, Community Cohesion, and Environmental Justice 

This section provides a socioeconomic picture of communities, neighborhoods and tribes in 

the Mat-Su and Anchorage for the KAC project. The communities, neighborhoods and tribes 

in the Study Area include Point MacKenzie, Knik Tribal Council, Native Village of Eklutna, 

Government Hill, and Elmendorf. The information presented includes a written or graphical 

depiction of community or neighborhood boundaries, a summary of socioeconomic 

conditions within the communities and neighborhoods, and a brief description of residents’ 

concerns and values within the different communities and neighborhoods. Executive Order 

(EO) 12898 requires federal agencies to incorporate consideration of environmental justice 

into the NEPA evaluation process. Therefore, this section also analyzes the demographics of 

those communities and neighborhoods in the Study Area for the KAC project that contain 

minority or low-income persons. Additional information about Point MacKenzie, Knik Tribal 

Council, Native Village of Eklutna, Government Hill, Elmendorf, and Anchorage can be 

found in other sections. Section 3.2.4 presents community facilities and public services, 

Section 3.2.5 presents population, and Section 3.4 presents the economic environment. 

3.2.1.1 Neighborhood and community characteristics 

3.2.1.1.1 Point MacKenzie 

Point MacKenzie has little residential or commercial development. As shown in Figure 3.7, it 

encompasses an area of about 148 square miles and has a population density of about 

1.4 people per square mile. 

In 2000, 56.4 percent of all housing units in the Point MacKenzie area were used mainly for 

recreational or seasonal purposes; no cohesive or well-defined neighborhoods, however, 

exist. Many of these seasonal-use homes are owned by Anchorage residents. Many of the 

year-round residents of the Point MacKenzie area were drawn to the area by the prospects of 

inexpensive land and the possibility of living far away from population centers. In 2000, 

92 percent of the area’s residents were White. Their median household income of $23,250 

in 1999 was only 45 percent of the median income of all Mat-Su residents. The percentage of 

12/18/07 Page 3-27



Point MacKenzie residents with incomes below the poverty level decreased from 

34.1 percent in 1989 to 22.7 percent in 1999, but the percentage in 1999 was still twice that 

of the entire Mat-Su. 

Community surveys indicate that a major attraction for residents of the Mat-Su is the ability 

to experience the qualities of rural Alaska within easy driving distance of Anchorage. 

Preservation of the rural nature of communities and the associated lifestyle is a high priority, 

especially in low-density, small communities such as Houston, Meadow Lakes, and Big 

Lake. Community surveys, however, indicate that residents of the more densely populated 

Palmer-Wasilla Core Area also continue to place a high priority on maintaining low-density 

residential subdivisions interspersed with undeveloped lands. Accompanying this desire to 

retain uncluttered landscapes and a rural character is a perceived need by some residents to 

place limitations on land development and population growth. One aspect of development 

that especially concerns Mat-Su residents is traffic congestion. 

3.2.1.1.2 Knik Tribal Council and Native Village of Eklutna 

Members of the Knik Tribal Council and the Native Village of Eklutna Tribes reside in Knik, 

Eklutna, Anchorage, the Mat-Su Valley, and elsewhere. 

Knik Tribal Council 

The Knik Tribal Council is a federally recognized tribe and its members are located on the 

northwest bank of Knik Arm northwest of Anchorage in the Mat-Su. By road, the Knik 

Tribal Council is located south of Wasilla, Big Lake, and Meadow Lakes, off of Knik-Goose 

Bay Road and Fairview Loop Road (Figure 3.1), a distance of 37 miles. Knik has long been 

home to Tanaina Athabascans; 8.7 percent of the population is Alaska Native or part Native. 

This community is relatively large—over 2,600 homes—and supports a diverse population. 

The 2000 U.S. Census identified 2,593 total housing units. Of the 218 vacant housing units, 

61 are used only seasonally. Although 2,789 residents were employed, the unemployment 

rate at that time was 13.45 percent (44.38 percent of all adults were not in the work force). 

The median household income was $52,113, per capita income was $20,895, and 

11.1 percent of residents were living below the poverty level (Alaska Division of Community 

Advocacy 2006). The low housing costs, the semirural lifestyle, and a tolerable commute to 

Anchorage have supported growth in the Mat-Su Valley. 

Native Village of Eklutna 

The Native Village of Eklutna is a federally recognized tribe located at the head of Knik Arm 

of Cook Inlet, at the mouth of the Eklutna River, 25 miles northeast of Anchorage 

(Figure 3.1). It is within the boundaries of Anchorage. The Eklutna area was the site of many 

Athabascan Indian villages as long as 800 years ago. Today’s residents are descendants of 

the Dena’ina tribe and continue to value their traditional lifestyle. Approximately 

65 residents are members of the Eklutna Village. The Native Village of Eklutna will 

strengthen its Tribal Nation by exercising its inherent powers to protect the past, present, and 

future of the Tribal membership. 

Page 3-28 12/18/07



The majority of non-Native residents are employed in Anchorage, with incomes averaging 

$31,679 per capita, according to the 2000 U.S. Census. Eklutna’s Dena’ina residents, 

however, have significantly lower incomes—averaging $19,494 per capita (Alaska Division 

of Community Advocacy 2006). 


Established in 1915, Government Hill is the oldest of Anchorage’s 37 designated 

neighborhoods. As can be seen in Figure 3.8, it is a well-defined neighborhood because of its 

geographical isolation from most of Anchorage by Ship Creek. It is bounded by Elmendorf, a 

bluff overlooking the POA fuel tank farm along the Knik Arm shoreline, and the Alaska 

Railroad rail yard. The small commercial district in the vicinity of the Sourdough Visitors 

Lodge, a motel used for daily and short-term housing, is characterized by small, locally 

owned shops and eateries. The only gas station and convenience store in the neighborhood 

are also located in this commercial district. The locations of the hotel and other buildings in 

Government Hill are shown in Figure 3.8. Most residences and community facilities (parks, 

schools, houses of worship, neighborhood-serving businesses, etc.) are accessible by an easy 

walk, bicycle ride, or short drive. None of the students attending Government Hill 

Elementary School ride a school bus; all students either walk or arrange alternative 

transportation. 

12/18/07 Page 3-29



Figure 3.8. Government Hill neighborhood 

Page 3-30 12/18/07



A variety of nonprofit community organizations in Government Hill offer services and 

programs to families residing in the immediate neighborhood or other areas of Anchorage. A 

listing of known facilities and services is provided in Table 3-6. 

Table 3-6. Nonprofit organizations in Government Hill offering social and 

recreational services 

Facility 

Calvary Baptist Church 

Cornerstone Baptist Church 

Lighthouse Christian Fellowship 

Church 

Lighthouse Christian Fellowship 

Church Childcare and Education 

Center 

Anchorage Square & Round Dance 

Club 

Anchorage Curling Club 

Catholic Social Services’ Beyond 

Shelter Program 

Source: Northern Economics, Inc., 2005 

Religious services 

Religious services 

Services provided 

In addition to providing religious services, the nondenominational church 

offers a youth tutoring program and participates in food distribution 

programs organized by Food Bank of Alaska. 

The Christian-based childcare center offers a range of services, including 

infant/toddler care, preschool, after-school care, and summer programs 

(ages K-12 years). 

The dance facility is used by many dance organizations in Anchorage for 

classes. 

The club offers classes and provides teams to participate in events 

sponsored by state and national curling associations. Members are from 

the greater Anchorage area. 

The program assists people in the transition from homelessness to 

permanent, independent living by providing case management and other 

supportive services. 

As shown in the inset on Figure 3.3, the predominant land use in this neighborhood is 

residential. According to U.S. Census Bureau data, residences in Government Hill were 

predominately renter-occupied, multifamily housing units in 2000; however, the 

development of single family housing increased between 1990 and 2000. In 1990, 86 percent 

of Government Hill housing was multifamily housing—particularly large apartment 

buildings. Figure 3.7 shows that the density of Government Hill is 476 to 719 persons per 

square mile, which is typical for the urbanized area of Anchorage and the Mat-Su. By 2000, 

79 percent of housing units were multifamily housing, while the number of single-family 

homes had increased 7 percent and the total number of units in large apartment buildings had 

fallen by roughly half. 

Figure 3.6 shows that the primary zoning district in Government Hill is residential. 

Redevelopment of lots in Government Hill (and other older Anchorage neighborhoods) 

occurred as people purchased lots with older, large buildings, tore down the buildings, and 

built new single-family or smaller, multifamily housing units. 9 

9 Personal communication, Vicki Portwood, Anchorage Homebuilders Association, with Northern Economics, 

Inc., May 24, 2005. 

12/18/07 Page 3-31



The proposed redevelopment of the 15-acre Hollywood Vista site, located on the eastern 

edge of Government Hill on the bluff overlooking the Ship Creek valley will add 80 to 

100 attached and detached single-family residences, of which 90 percent will be priced at 

market value and 10 percent will be offered as affordable housing (Hollywood Vista was 

formerly all affordable housing). This redevelopment project will increase economic 

diversity on the east side of Government Hill by increasing the inventory of high-value, 

single-family homes in an area which has traditionally been dominated by high-density, 

affordable housing. 

In 2000, the median value of owner-occupied housing units in Government Hill 

was $142,500, as compared with $160,700 for all Anchorage owner-occupied housing units. 

Unlike most areas in Anchorage, Government Hill experienced a decrease in the value of 

housing in real dollars between 1990 and 2000. In recent years, however, housing values 

have likely increased substantially with the gentrification of areas of Government Hill, 

particularly at the west end where there are views of Knik Arm. 10 The proximity of 

Government Hill to downtown Anchorage contributes to the current appeal of the 

neighborhood. 

3.2.1.1.4 Elmendorf 

Elmendorf is the largest military installation in Alaska and is one of two major military bases 

in Anchorage, the other being Fort Richardson. About two-thirds of the military personnel at 

Elmendorf reside off-base in the communities of Anchorage, Eagle River, Wasilla, and 

Palmer. However, there were 1,674 housing units at Elmendorf in 2000, and plans for 

Elmendorf housing include the renovation, demolition, and reconstruction of current housing 

stock, as well as the future construction of additional housing for the installation. Because of 

the frequent reassignment of military personnel to other duty stations, the average length of 

residency at Elmendorf is comparatively short. 

3.2.1.2 Community cohesion 


The geographic isolation and distance from neighbors have prevented a high degree of 

community cohesion among the few year-round residents of Point MacKenzie; however, it is 

likely that many residents have bonded over a shared appreciation of the natural beauty and 

undeveloped character of the area. 


The Knik Tribal Council and the Native Village of Eklutna share cultural and traditional ties 

with one another through their family lineage and the use of the land, water, and its 

resources. Although members of these two Tribes reside throughout Southcentral Alaska, 

geographically they are connected and have a historic practice of mutual respect for one 

10 Personal communication, Neil Thomas, Associate Broker, Coldwell Banker Fortune, with Donald Schug, 

September 16, 2005. 

Page 3-32 12/18/07



another’s ability to harvest for their families. Today these two Tribes are independently 

responsible for the wellness, education, and environmental health of their respective 

membership. 

Braund (KABATA 2004a) indicates that members of the Knik Tribal Council and Native 

Village of Eklutna Tribes place great value on maintaining cultural ties to traditional and 

historic places and activities in Knik Arm. Grave sites and other traditional sites in the 

general Study Area continue to be of cultural significance to the Tribes. In addition, the Knik 

Tribal Council and Native Village of Eklutna Tribes still consider the use of wild resources 

in the area to be of cultural, economic, and nutritional importance. Hunting, fishing, and 

gathering activities continue, as they have for centuries. 

The Knik Tribal Council and the Native Village of Eklutna Tribes have a long history of 

hunting and gathering in the Upper Cook Inlet area. Throughout their history they have 

placed a great deal of value on their family ties and their ties to the land and water where 

their traditional resources originate. To this day, fisheries, beluga whales, and the physical 

and natural environment remain highly valued. 


Government Hill is a relatively small and isolated neighborhood, with a sizeable portion of 

its population consisting of long-time residents with a deep appreciation of the 

neighborhood’s historic significance. These and other factors have given rise to a high degree 

of community cohesion—that is, many residents have a “sense of belonging” to the 

neighborhood and have a high level of commitment to the community and a strong 

attachment to neighbors. 

A qualitative analysis of existing secondary data from community-level surveys was 

conducted in the affected area (Agnew::Beck Consulting 2004; Integra Realty 

Resources 2005; MOA 2001a; Smith 2005; University of Washington 2005). Characteristics 

valued by Anchorage residents include the natural beauty and setting; trails, parks, 

greenbelts, and undeveloped areas; cultural facilities and events; small-town “feel” with bigcity 

amenities; friendly, caring people; educational facilities and programs; and economic 

development/employment opportunities. Traffic congestion was an expressed concern, along 

with the need to become a more pedestrian-friendly city. In addition, many residents 

expressed the view that if housing prices increased, they would consider moving. 

No specific information was found on the level of community cohesion at Elmendorf. 

However, more general studies have remarked on the high priority that the U.S. military 

places on fostering community cohesion among military personnel and their families. 

Van Laar (1999) noted that a sense of community is perceived as being especially important 

in the military because of the extra pressures the military way of life places on military 

members and their dependents. On-base housing is one important way to enhance a sense of 

community; proximity facilitates social interaction, and the more people interact, the more 

likely they are to feel attached to one another (Van Laar 1999). In addition, offering the Base 

as a place for social gatherings, community meetings, and support groups helps to bring 

family and community members together. Even people who do not live on Base are 

12/18/07 Page 3-33



encouraged to participate in on-base programs, particularly those involving family members, 

and to take advantage of on-base services, such as the commissary and Base exchange, 

although they may be redundant with programs and facilities off-base (Van Laar 1999). 

3.2.1.3 Environmental justice 

EO 12898 11 states: 

Each federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission 

by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on 

minority populations and low-income populations. 

The FHWA order “FHWA Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations” 12 contains the following definitions: 

• Low-Income: A household income at or below the poverty guidelines of the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services 

• Minorities: 

o Black (having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa) 

o Hispanic (of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other 

Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race) 

o Asian-American (having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, 

Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands) 

o American Indian or Alaskan Native (having origins in any of the original people 

of North America and who maintain cultural identification through tribal 

affiliation or community recognition) 

EO 12898 also defines a “disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and lowincome 

populations” as: 

An adverse effect that is predominantly borne by a minority population and/or a lowincome 

population; or will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income 

population, and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse 

effect that will be suffered by the non-minority population and/or non-low-income 

population. 

Note that “Hispanic” is not a race, but an ethnicity and is self-reported on Census forms. 

Hispanics, as defined above, are included as minorities for environmental justice purposes. 

Any disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations— 

environmental justice impacts—are identified in Section 4.2.1. 

11 Federal Register, February 11, 1994 [59(32):7629]. 

12 FHWA, Order on FHWA Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, December 2, 1980. 

Page 3-34 12/18/07




No minority or low-income populations were identified in the Point MacKenzie portion of 



Environmental justice is not solely about disparate health or economic effects—it also 

applies when the cultural and historic resources of minority and low-income populations may 

be affected by a project (FHWA 2005c). Braund (KABATA 2004a) notes that prior to the 

arrival of the first Europeans in the Anchorage area in the late 1700s, the indigenous 

Dena’ina Athabascans (Dena’ina) resided in fish camps and winter villages that dotted both 

shores of Knik Arm. The development of Anchorage since its inception in 1915 resulted in 

the displacement of Dena’ina from traditional camps and harvest locations. Throughout the 

history of development, non-Natives expended little effort to consult with tribal members 

about impacts to Dena'ina traditional uses of the area. 

Although, the Knik Tribal Council and Native Village of Eklutna Tribes do not qualify under 

federal or state regulations as subsistence users because the greater Anchorage-Matanuska 

Valley region developed around their traditional lands, and current federal and state 

regulations do not recognize “subsistence” in Knik Arm (KABATA 2004a). 13 The two 

Tribes, continue to participate in subsistence practices through the means of the State 

Educational Fish Permit program, “educational fisheries” permits with the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game to gain access to saltwater salmon. 14 According to the 

ADF&G “Policy & Requirements for Fish Resource Permits” (2004), a permit shall expire 

no later than December 31 of the year in which it is issued. A fish resource permit authorizes 

only the activities specified in the permit. See Section 3.2.5 for further details about the Knik 

Tribal Council and Native Village of Eklutna Tribes. 

13 Under federal regulation, an area has to be “rural” to qualify for subsistence. Knik Arm is not “rural” under 

federal regulations. Similarly, state regulations do not allow subsistence fishing or hunting in “nonsubsistence 

areas.” State “nonsubsistence areas” include the Cook Inlet basin, with exception of communities such as 

Tyonek, Nanwalek, and Port Graham. There is no official category in Alaska for tribes that became 

“engulfed” by urban development and growth (KABATA 2004a). 

14 The educational fishery may take place in the following locations: 1) in waters of Knik Arm immediately 

adjacent to the village site; 2) in waters of the Northern District between Point MacKenzie and the Little 

Susitna River and adjacent to Fire Island (no fishing on Mondays or Thursdays during commercial openings); 

and, 3) in waters within the Fish Creek Terminal Harvest Area, described in 5 AAC 21.364 as those waters 

within 1 mile of mean high water on the western shore of Knik Arm from a regulatory marker on the north 

shore of Goose Bay to Fish Creek. The educational fishery shall not take place in the tidal channel of Fish 

Creek at any stage of the tide or in Fish Creek (ADF&G 2004). 

12/18/07 Page 3-35




Government Hill is home for an ethnically and economically diverse group of residents, 

many of whom work in Downtown Anchorage or on adjacent Elmendorf. The neighborhood 

has a minority population percentage greater than the minority population percentage in the 

Anchorage general population. One of Anchorage’s pockets of low-rent housing where these 

families settled was Government Hill (Blankenship 2002). In particular, the east side of 

Government Hill was dominated by high-density affordable housing. For example, North 

Pointe Apartments along Richardson Vista Road is the largest apartment complex in Alaska. 

The complex consists of 19 buildings, with a total of 406 apartments on 33 acres of land. The 

complex is part of the federal low-income housing tax credit program, and a percentage of 

the apartments are certified low-income units. Located near North Pointe Apartments is 

Panoramic View Apartments, a 268-unit apartment building that also offers low cost housing. 

As described in Section 3.2.4, based on 2000 U.S. Census data, 53.2 percent of Government 

Hill residents are White, 8.7 percent are Alaska Native or American Indian, 7.0 percent are 

African American, and 12.5 percent are Asian. Individuals of Hispanic origin account for 

11.4 percent of the neighborhood’s residents. According to the Census, 46.8 percent of 

individuals in Government Hill indicate that they belong to a minority population; that is, 

they identified themselves as being all or part Alaska Native or American Indian, Black or 

African American, Asian, Hawaiian Native or Pacific Islander, or Hispanic. 

Block-level data from the U.S. Census indicate that the minority population of Government 

Hill is concentrated in the east end of the neighborhood (Figure 3.9). The block in which the 

North Pointe Apartments is located has a high minority percentage (62 percent) and is 

densely populated. The exception is the block between Bilbo and Erickson Streets, in which 

the Sourdough Visitors Lodge is located; 64 percent of this block’s residents belong to a 

minority population. However, the number of individuals living on the block is low. 

Page 3-36 12/18/07



Figure 3.9. Block-level percentage non-White population – Government Hill 

12/18/07 Page 3-37



Median income in Government Hill is relatively low—$30,825 in 1999 as compared 

with $55,546 for all of Anchorage (Figure 3.9). The low income may be related to the 

comparatively low education level of many residents—16.8 percent of residents 25 years of 

age or older have not completed high school (as compared with 9.7 percent for all Anchorage 

residents). In 1989, the number of Government Hill residents living in poverty was 

21.8 percent; by 1999, however, that number had dropped to 9.2 percent, which, while more 

than the Anchorage poverty rate of 7.4 percent, is closer to the statewide poverty rate of 

9.4 percent. A high percentage of the members of some minority populations in Government 

Hill also had incomes below the poverty level in 1999. For example, 100 percent of the 

Hispanic children 2 to 11 years old were living in households with incomes below the 

poverty level. Just under half of the students enrolled at Government Hill Elementary School 

receive free or reduced-priced meals under the National School Lunch/School Breakfast 

Program. An estimated 42 percent of the students are economically disadvantaged 

(Anchorage School District [ASD] 2005). 

In addressing potential environmental justice issues, one needs to consider minority or lowincome 

populations who use the affected area as well as those who reside in the affected 

area. Government Hill Elementary School, because of the Spanish two-way partial 

immersion program the school established in 1996, is attended by many members of 

Anchorage’s Hispanic community who reside outside of Government Hill. About half of the 

483 students attending Government Hill Elementary School are enrolled in the immersion 

program; only about 10 percent of the students enrolled in the program reside in Government 

Hill. 


In 2000, the racial/ethnic composition of the population residing at Elmendorf was similar to 

that of the entire Anchorage area. The median household income of Elmendorf residents 

($41,161) was lower than that of all Anchorage residents ($55,546), but the proportion of 

individuals residing at Elmendorf with incomes below the poverty level (3.5 percent) was 

lower than that of all Anchorage residents (7.3 percent). 

3.2.2 Transportation, Travel Patterns, Accessibility, and Highway and Traffic Safety 

Anchorage is a regional transportation center for Southcentral Alaska, and, as such, 

transportation services between Anchorage and communities within and outside of the region 

have an important economic influence on Anchorage. The Study Area’s transportation 

system includes road, rail, air, marine, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The system 

has been shaped not only by development and settlement patterns, but also by the physical 

constraints imposed by Cook Inlet, Knik Arm, Turnagain Arm, mountains, lakes, wetlands, 

and other topographic and environmental features. 

As much as natural and geographic features have shaped transportation in Anchorage, so 

have the federal requirements for transportation planning. On April 8, 1976, the Municipality 

of Anchorage became a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) under 23 U.S.C. § 134. 

With its status as an MPO, an urban area with a population of more than 50,000 individuals, 

Page 3-38 12/18/07



the Municipality of Anchorage created the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation 

Study (now called Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions) (AMATS), 

whose responsibility is to carry out transportation planning and programming and air quality 

conformity in Anchorage. AMATS is required, under the Transportation Equity Act for the 

21st Century (TEA21), to develop and update an LRTP every 3 years and a transportation 

improvement program (TIP) every 2 years. The LRTP includes major roads, transit, 

multimodal, and intermodal facilities that operate as an integrated metropolitan transportation 

system. The Anchorage LRTP was adopted in December 2005, and some of the projects in 

the plan are discussed in this section. More information about AMATS can be found in 

Section 3.1. 

Natural resources and geographic features have required integration of the region’s various 

transportation modes to meet the transportation needs of businesses and residents of 

Southcentral Alaska. Because Anchorage is distant from the contiguous 48 states, 

transportation to and from the Study Area is based as much on water and air transportation as 

it is on land-based transportation. Within the boundaries of the area for which AMATS is 

responsible, transportation planning plays a major role in effecting successful 

implementation of a safe, efficient transportation system that can support the future economic 

vitality of the metropolitan area; increase accessibility and mobility options; protect and 

enhance the environment; and enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation 

system, across and between modes, for both people and freight. 

Although Anchorage and the Mat-Su support transit and other transportation modes, the 

private automobile is the primary mode for day-to-day transportation. Figure 3.10 shows the 

regional transportation system, including rail lines, ports, major airports, and the regional 

highway network. Marine vessel routes are shown in Figure 3.11. 

3.2.2.1 Vehicular travel 

Roadways in the Study Area serve local, regional, and statewide traffic. The system is made 

up of both urban and rural roads. Traffic volumes range from very low on local and rural 

roads to very high on major highways and some urban roads. Performance ranges from 

excellent to unacceptable, with at-grade intersections generally contributing to the greatest 

congestion-related problems. 

Roadway and intersection performance and congestion can be measured 1) by the average 

daily traffic (ADT), a measure of the number of vehicles using the facility, which can then be 

compared to the lane-miles available to yield a volume-to-capacity ratio (“V/C,” the ratio of 

the volume of traffic using a facility in a given time period to the capacity of the facility) or 

2) by level of service (LOS). LOS is a term used to qualitatively describe the operating 

conditions of a roadway or intersection based on the ratio of traffic volume to the design 

capacity of the facility in consideration of a variety of factors such as speed, travel time, 

maneuverability, delay, and safety. 

12/18/07 Page 3-39



Figure 3.10. Regional transportation facilities in the Study Area 

Page 3-40 12/18/07



Figure 3.11. Anchorage transportation facilities 

12/18/07 Page 3-41



In 2002, 64 percent of all traffic collisions and 41 percent of all fatal crashes that occurred 

statewide took place in Anchorage, which has about 42 percent of the Alaska’s population 

(ADOT&PF 2002a). The percentage of collisions that resulted in fatalities (0.37 percent) was 

lower than the statewide percentage (0.58 percent). The Mat-Su, with about 10 percent of the 

state’s population, accounted for 14 percent of fatal crashes. The percentage of traffic 

collisions that resulted in fatalities decreased from the previous year (0.78 percent in 2002, 

1.12 percent in 2001) but remained higher than the statewide average (0.6 percent in 2002, 

0.5 percent in 2001) (ADOT&PF 2002a). Motor vehicle accident information in the affected 

area is provided in Appendix B of the Land Use and Transportation Forecasting Technical 

Report (KABATA 2006b). 

3.2.2.1.1 Mat-Su road system 

The Parks and Glenn Highways serve as the backbone of the Mat-Su vehicular transportation 

system. The Mat-Su road network includes a limited number of other arterial or collector 

roads. Generally, the urbanized area is served by paved local roadways and short 

discontinuous segments of paved collector roads because of the irregular and narrow pattern 

of urbanization along the Parks and Glenn Highways corridors and the large number of 

interspersed lakes and wetlands. 

The arterial and collector road network in the Mat-Su includes the Glenn Highway, the Parks 

Highway, the Palmer-Wasilla Highway, Point MacKenzie Road, Knik-Goose Bay Road, 

Palmer-Fishhook Road, the Old Glenn Highway, Wasilla-Fishhook Road, and Big Lake 

Road. The southern portion of the Mat-Su that is within the Study Area for the KAC project 

has a limited system of secondary and local roads. Mat-Su Borough and ADOT&PF are 

planning a substantial number of new and upgraded collector and arterial roads to serve the 

rapidly growing area. 

During a 4-year period, from 1999 through 2002, vehicular accidents ranged from 1,290 in 

1999 to 1,611 in 2001. On average, 68 percent of the accidents involved property damage 

only, 26 percent involved minor injuries, 5 percent involved major injuries and 1 percent 

involved fatalities. The city of Wasilla’s lowest accident numbers were 236 in 1999 and 

396 in 2001. On average, 69 percent of the accidents involved property damage only, 

27 percent involved minor injuries, 4 percent involved major injuries, and less than 

1 percent involved fatalities. Table 55 in the Socioeconomic Affected Environment Technical 

Report (KABATA 2006a) provides more information on accidents in the Mat-Su. 

The following sections provide a general description of the major facilities within the Study 

Area and important planned improvements to the vehicular transportation system. The 

roadways described can be seen on Figure 3.10. 

Specific facilities 

Parks Highway 

The Parks Highway is located in the northern portion of the Study Area. A segment of the 

National Highway System (NHS), it connects the state’s two largest population centers 

(Anchorage/Mat-Su and Fairbanks) and serves Denali National Park and Preserve. The Parks 

Page 3-42 12/18/07



Highway heads west and north from the Glenn/Parks Highway Interchange as a four-lane, 

paved, limited-access expressway. At Seward Meridian Road it becomes a four-lane 

highway, and at the west end of the city of Wasilla, the Parks Highway becomes a two-lane 

highway and continues north through the communities of Houston and Willow. The Parks 

Highway serves as the major commercial trucking route between Southcentral Alaska and 

Interior Alaska. The spring and summer months bring a high volume of recreational vehicles 

heading to and from Denali National Park and Preserve and other public lands. The Parks 

Highway, along with the Palmer-Wasilla Highway, also serves as the major commercial 

corridor within the Mat-Su. The 2004 ADT levels range from 29,200 on the Parks Highway 

at Knik-Goose Bay Road at the center of the city of Wasilla to 20,000 on the Parks Highway 

at the Glenn/Parks Highway Interchange. The high ADT in Wasilla is in large part because of 

the traffic demand created by commercial uses lining the Parks Highway near and within 

Wasilla. The section between Palmer/Wasilla Highway and Crusey Street had the highest 

ADT, at 33,270, and the second highest number of crashes. The highest incidence of 

accidents occurred between Church Road and Pitman Road, with an ADT of only 16,850 

(ADOT&PF 2002a). 

Point MacKenzie Road 

Point MacKenzie Road is a Mat-Su Borough major collector with paved and gravel surfacing 

that is designated as part of the Alaska Highway System. The road provides access to Point 

MacKenzie from the Parks Highway by way of Knik-Goose Bay Road. This road is primarily 

used by industrial users of Port MacKenzie, Mat-Su residents living along the road traveling 

to and from homes and work, and by recreational users of the Point MacKenzie area. 

Knik-Goose Bay Road 

Knik-Goose Bay Road is a two-lane, paved minor arterial with 4-foot shoulders operated and 

maintained by the ADOT&PF as part of the Alaska Highway System. The route provides 

connections from the rural areas to the south of the city of Wasilla to the Parks Highway. 

Average daily traffic counts on Knik-Goose Bay Road range from 5,700 in the sparsely 

populated area near Settler’s Bay Drive to 13,300 near the more populated area near the 

junction with the Parks Highway (ADOT&PF 2004a). 

Burma Road 

Burma Road, which connects Big Lake Road and Point MacKenzie Road, is a two-lane 

gravel facility with very low traffic volumes. Some road segments are substandard, and the 

southern segments of the road are little more than a pioneer track. Existing ADT on Burma 

Road is less than 500 vehicles (ADOT&PF 2004a). 

Big Lake Road 

Big Lake Road, which serves the residential and vacation home development in the Big Lake 

area and connects Burma Road to the Parks Highway, is a two-lane paved road with low 

traffic volumes. The 2004 ADT is less than about 5,500 at the north end, diminishing to less 

than 1,300 at the south end near its connection to Burma Road (ADOT&PF 2004a). Burma- 

Big Lake Road is on the Alaska Highway System. 

12/18/07 Page 3-43



Transit service 

Established on March 3, 1999, as a private nonprofit corporation, Matanuska-Susitna 

Community Transit (MASCOT) operates fixed-route service and flexible routes that meet 

specific needs (paratransit service) in the Mat-Su Borough. Local and commuter fixed-route 

service is provided in the Palmer/Wasilla area, with limited commuter service provided from 

the Mat-Su to the Anchorage Transit Center. In addition to the fixed-route and paratransit 

services, MASCOT provides trips to Medicaid clients, transportation to the Boy’s and Girl’s 

Club, and other transportation services for nonprofit agencies. No transit service is provided 

in the vicinity of Burma Road or Point MacKenzie. 

Mat-Su planned roadway system 

Future planned roadway improvements in the Mat-Su portion of the Study Area extend to a 

number of improvements to arterial and collector-level roads and are described in the Mat-Su 

Borough’s LRTP. Most of the improvements are in the Wasilla area. Improvements listed in 

the KAC project area are: 

• upgrading Burma and Point MacKenzie Roads, as described earlier 

• extending a new road west across Little Susitna River (West Mat-Su Access Road or 

Little Susitna Crossing) to access Borough lands as cited in the Matanuska-Susitna 

Borough Rail Corridor Study (MSB 2003d). 

3.2.2.1.2 Anchorage roadway system 

The Anchorage roadway system in the Study Area is a more complete urban roadway 

network than the rural network of the Mat-Su side of the affected environment. The road 

network LOS, as defined in Section 3.2.2.2, is generally good, with some key transportation 

system links in the network performing at fair-to-poor LOS, including portions of the Glenn 

Highway and Seward Highway. Anchorage has plans to make improvements that would 

result in enhancing the performance of these facilities. Based on analysis conducted for the 

Anchorage roadway system, intersection LOS appears to be the key determinant of 

congestion in Anchorage. Intersections at various critical locations along the Anchorage 

transportation network are often the cause of bottlenecks or delays. Many of the congested 

intersections are concentrated in the central part of the Anchorage Bowl where major eastwest 

and north-south arterial street segments are missing or cross each other. Intersection 

congestion is generally worse during the evening peak period (4:00 p.m.–6:00 p.m.). 

According to the 2005 Anchorage LRTP, traffic crashes increase with more vehicle miles 

traveled: “Roads and intersections with the highest traffic volumes and level of service 

(LOS) D, E, or F tend to be locations with the most crashes” (MOA 2005a:36). ADOT&PF 

reports that in 2002, three-quarters of all traffic collisions in Alaska occurred on urban roads. 

Fatal crashes were nearly equal between urban and rural locations. In 2002, Anchorage had 

the following percentages of statewide motor vehicle collisions: 

all collisions 64.0 involving moose 30.7 

fatal collisions 41.0 involving alcohol 62.3 

involving pedestrians 70.4 involving speeding 64.9 

involving bicyclists 75.8 

Page 3-44 12/18/07



ADOT&PF is compiling comparable data for 2003 and 2004 and reports that preliminary 

findings reveal essentially the same general patterns as recorded in 2002 (Alaska Traffic 

Collisions, ADOT&PF, 2002a). 

The Anchorage Traffic department produces an annual traffic report that lists the previous 

year’s total number of accidents by the top 50 locations (intersections). The Study Team 

reviewed 8 years of data, and the results as they relate to the Study Area in the specific 

facilities are included below (MOA 2004c). 

The following sections provide a general description of the major facilities within the Study 

Area and important planned improvements to the vehicular transportation system. These 

facilities can be seen in Figure 3.11. 

Specific facilities 

Glenn Highway/5th and 6th Avenue 

From Downtown heading toward Wasilla, the 5th/6th Avenue/Glenn Highway corridor is the 

primary vehicular transportation route. The 5th/6th Avenue/Glenn Highway heads northeast 

from Downtown Anchorage, carrying commuter traffic to and from Eagle River, Eklutna, 

and the Mat-Su. The route is on the NHS and operated and maintained by ADOT&PF. 

Between Downtown and Merrill Field, 5th and 6th Avenues operate as a couplet. From there, 

the couplet joins and operates as a four-lane arterial with a center turn lane (denoted East 

5th Avenue). The highway segment starts east of Merrill Field and is six lanes to Eagle River 

and four lanes from Eagle River to the junction with the Parks Highway near Wasilla. From 

the Parks Highway interchange, the Glenn Highway continues east to Palmer and beyond as 

a two-lane paved roadway. 

In 2004, ADT on the Glenn Highway east of Muldoon was 50,100 vehicles. On 5th and 

6th Avenues near Gambell Street, ADT was over 22,000. The portion of the corridor near 

Merrill Field carries over 47,000 ADT and is one of the most congested sections of roadway 

in Anchorage during peak periods (because of a current bottleneck condition where the lanes 

constrict from six to four, coupled with high commuting volumes from Eagle River and the 

Mat-Su) (ADOT&PF 2004a). 

There were 3,686 auto accidents, involving 5,499 vehicles, with 31 fatalities, 193 major 

injuries, and 1,658 minor injuries for the 10-year period from 1994 to 2003 on the Glenn 

Highway from Bragaw Street in Anchorage to the Palmer-Wasilla Interchange in the Mat-Su. 

This does not include accidents at the controlled intersections on either end. This is an 

average of one accident per day—resulting in a minor injury once every 2 days, and a death 

or major injury every 2-3 weeks. The accidents typically result in lane closures. 15 

15 Personal communication, Ron Martindale, ADOT&PF, e-mail of highway safety data spreadsheet specific to 

Glenn Highway, to John McPherson, 2005. 

12/18/07 Page 3-45



Seward Highway 

The Ingra-Gambell/Seward Highway corridor, operated by ADOT&PF, is a major northsouth 

route, on the NHS and serves the Anchorage Bowl as a continuous north-south 

connection down the center of the urbanized area of Anchorage. At its northern end, the 

corridor consists of the Ingra-Gambell Couplet. Between 3rd Avenue and Midtown, the 

corridor operates as a controlled access highway. Traffic volumes are very high. Average 

daily traffic on the Seward Highway has been recorded at 54,000 in Midtown 

(ADOT&PF 2004a). Most crashes on the Seward Highway take place in at-grade 

intersections and on the ramps of interchanges between Fireweed Lane and DeArmoun Road. 

The Seward Highway is on the “Top 50 Locations” list from 1997 through 2004 

(MOA 2004c). The majority of crashes occur in the urban section between Fireweed Lane 

and 36th Avenue. 

A-C Couplet/Port Access Road 

A and C Streets form a couplet that functions as a major arterial running north-south from the 

southern edge of Government Hill, through Downtown Anchorage and Midtown. The 

couplet becomes a single roadway (C Street) south of Midtown. A Street is the northbound 

roadway and C Street is the southbound roadway. Both A and C Streets are three-lane roads 

south of 3rd Avenue. North of 3rd Avenue, A and C Streets join to become a two-way, fourlane 

facility that crosses Ship Creek on a viaduct. The A-C Viaduct connects to Loop and 

Ocean Dock Roads at the north end and is commonly referred to as the Port Access Road. 

Most vehicles and trucks originating at or bound for the POA or Government Hill/Elmendorf 

area use this access route. Vehicles bound for Ship Creek businesses, the Alaska Railroad, or 

Ship Creek Point use either the A-C Viaduct/Port Access Road or E Street. ADT has been 

reported at 16,600 on the A-C Viaduct and 28,000 between 5th and 6th Streets (16,600 on 

C Street and 11,400 on A Street) (ADOT&PF 2004a). A and C Streets are constructed to 

accommodate four lanes in each direction. C Street between 5th and 6th Avenues has been 

consistently on the “Top 50 Locations” list from 1997 through 2004. The highest number of 

crashes, 46, occurred at the intersection of C Street and 6th Avenue in 2004 (MOA 2004c). 

The configuration of the intersection was changed in 2003 at the time of the construction of 

the National Parks building. In 2005, the intersection of C Street at 6th Avenue was 

improved. Parking was removed along with the dual left turns, and the parking lane became a 

left turn lane. A and C Streets are constructed to eventually accommodate four lanes in each 

direction. The 2005 Anchorage LRTP mentions an expansion to four lanes to accommodate 

expected growth in traffic demand (MOA 2005a). A-C Streets are operated and maintained 

by the ADOT&PF and are part of the NHS. 

Ingra and Gambell Streets 

Ingra and Gambell Streets are one-way major arterials running north (Ingra)-south (Gambell) 

from 3rd Avenue to the Seward Highway. They function in a manner similar to A and 

C Streets. Both Ingra and Gambell Streets are three-lane roads connecting Seward Highway 

to the eastern edge of Downtown Anchorage. They join south of 15th Avenue and become 

Seward Highway. Ingra and Gambell Streets at the intersections of 5th and 6th Avenues were 

consistently on the “Top 50 Locations” list between 1997 and 2004 (MOA 2004c). 

Page 3-46 12/18/07



Ocean Dock and Loop Roads 

Ocean Dock and Loop Roads are minor arterial roadways located north of Downtown 

Anchorage. Loop Road runs northeast and southwest from the A-C Viaduct to provide access 

to Elmendorf and the Government Hill neighborhood. Ocean Dock Road connects North 

C Street across the Ship Creek area and is the main road in and out of the POA. Ocean Dock 

Road is connected to the A-C Viaduct and Loop Road through a series of on- and off-ramps. 

Ocean Dock Road is on the NHS. Trucks use Ocean Dock and Loop Roads for access to the 

POA. An ADT of 2,400 has been recorded near the entrance to the POA (ADOT&PF 2004a). 

Whitney Road 

Whitney Road is a two-lane, east-west collector road located north of Ship Creek. It serves 

the Ship Creek industrial area and the Alaska Railroad rail yard. Fishermen and vehicles 

going to the Ship Creek area also use this road, which extends east from North C Street, 

under the A-C Viaduct. 

3rd Avenue 

3rd Avenue is an east-west minor arterial traversing the northern edge of Downtown 

Anchorage. West 3rd Avenue is a four-lane roadway between E and A Streets and a two-lane 

roadway west of E Street, with on-street parking and sidewalks on both sides. In 2004, ADT 

was 7,600 at A Street and 11,200 between Gambell and Ingra Streets (ADOT&PF 2004a). 

Ingra Street at the 3rd Avenue intersection was on the “Top 50 Locations” list only in 2003 

and 2004 (MOA 2004c). 

Erickson Street 

Erickson Street is a two-lane municipal collector road that provides access into the western 

portion of Government Hill by way of Loop Road. Government Hill is discussed in 

Sections 3.2.1, 3.2.3 and 3.2.4. Figures 3.3 and 3.8 show details of the land uses and facilities 

along Erickson Street. 

Degan Street 

Degan Street is a two-lane municipal road with low ADT that serves local neighborhood land 

uses. Government Hill is discussed in Sections 3.2.1, 3.2.3, and 3.2.4. Figures 3.3 and 3.8 

show details of the land uses and facilities along Degan Street. 

Transit services 

The Anchorage People Mover bus system provides fixed-route service for about threequarters 

of the area in the Anchorage Bowl. Ridership on the bus system has remained 

relatively stable, although in recent years has increased from about 10,000 to 12,000 riders 

per weekday. The People Mover is operated using 55 40-passenger buses on 3 express bus 

routes and 15 urban fixed routes. Service is provided for approximately 18 hours per 

weekday on most routes, with reduced hours on weekends. Other existing transit services 

within Anchorage include school district buses and the Anchorage-operated AnchorRIDES 

system for seniors and those with disabilities (MOA 2005a). 

12/18/07 Page 3-47



The People Mover’s Route 14—Government Hill—provides daily service from the Transit 

Center in Downtown Anchorage across the A-C Viaduct to Government Hill and Elmendorf 

(see Figure 3.11). In addition, the Ship Creek Shuttle provides public transportation to the 

Ship Creek waterfront area. The shuttle operates on a 30-minute schedule and serves various 

destinations in the Downtown Anchorage and Ship Creek areas. 

Anchorage planned roadway system 

A number of transportation studies and plans have been conducted during the last 10 years to 

assess the transportation system in Anchorage, including the 2005 Anchorage LRTP. These 

studies have suggested many modifications to improve traffic flow within Anchorage and in 

the vicinity of the Study Area. Specific issues addressed by the LRTP within the Study Area 

include congestion on primary roadways. The following paragraphs describe plans that are 

relevant to the KAC project. These plans are included in the transportation system used to 

develop transportation models. 

• The Whitney/Ocean Dock Road intersection, Downtown Anchorage, A-C Viaduct ramps, 

and the planned Highway-to-Highway Connection were areas of special system planning 

focus of the 2005 Anchorage LRTP. 

• The Ingra-Gambell Extension project is a planned project into which the proposed KAC 

project would tie. The Ingra-Gambell Extension is a new facility that would extend Ingra 

and Gambell Streets from 3rd Avenue to Whitney Road to provide circulation and access 

for freight movement in particular. Refer to the Anchorage LRTP for more information. 

• Long-range plans call for a connection of the Glenn Highway to the Seward Highway to 

meet travel needs in the corridor (Highway-to-Highway Connection project). Refer to the 

Anchorage LRTP for more information. 

• The 2003 Anchorage LRTP mentions an expansion of the A-C Viaduct to four lanes to 

accommodate expected growth in traffic demand. Refer to the Anchorage LRTP for more 

information. 

Congestion 

For the purposes of this Study for the proposed KAC project, roadway congestion has been 

characterized by ADT, as shown on Figure 3.12. Congestion levels are defined on the map 

using V/C, the number of vehicle trips per unit time compared with the capacity of each 

segment of roadway. Traffic levels for V/Cs are: 

• V/C greater than 1.0 = heavy congestion—traffic volume on the roadway is over capacity 

• V/C of 0.75–1.0 = traffic flow is approaching capacity, but not over 

• V/C of 0.5–0.74 = moderate traffic loads, given the capacity of the road 

• V/C of less than 0.5 = low or no congestion 

Page 3-48 12/18/07



3.2.2.2 Marine transportation 

Navigation routes in Knik Arm, as shown in Figure 3.11, connect Cook Inlet to the POA and 

Port MacKenzie. Lower Knik Arm is considered a major North American shipping channel. 

Vessel traffic heading north toward the Knik River is primarily composed of recreational 

boats, fishing boats, and personal watercraft. Although the settlement of Knik once served as 

the head of navigation in Knik Arm, there is now little commercial navigation north of Port 

MacKenzie apart from some barge traffic in and out of Anderson Dock, just north of Port 

MacKenzie. 

Marine traffic in Knik Arm consists primarily of ships and barges traveling to and from the 

POA and Port MacKenzie. Typically, during a 1-week period, this traffic consists of about 

seven vessels (four or five deep-draft container or roll on/roll off (RO/RO) trailer ships, two 

barges, and one deep-draft fuel barge) and tugs assisting the vessels’ travel to and from POA 

and Port MacKenzie. Commercial fishermen and recreational boaters use a small public boat 

launch ramp located at Ship Creek Point from May–October (weather permitting). The ramp 

is closed in the winter. Boats of all types, up to about 40 feet in length, use the launch area. 

Because of strong currents and cold, turbid waters, recreational boating is not common on 

Knik Arm. Of the estimated 4,515 vessels traveling Knik Arm annually, 511 are ship and 

barge calls to the POA and Port of MacKenzie. For more information, please refer to the 

Marine Navigation Technical Report (KABATA 2006i). 

All tidal waters are considered navigable by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 

Navigable waters are defined as waters that have been used in the past, are now used, or are 

susceptible to use as a means to transport interstate or foreign commerce up to the head of 

navigation (33 C.F.R. § 329). Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Clean 

Water Act Section 404 permits require approval from USACE prior to any work in, over, or 

under navigable waters of the United States, or which would affect the course, location, 

condition, or capacity of such waters. 

12/18/07 Page 3-49



Figure 3.12. V/Cs and travel volumes – Base Year. 

Page 3-50 12/18/07



3.2.2.2.1 Specific facilities 

Port MacKenzie 

Existing facilities 

As shown in Figures 3.10 and 3.11, Port MacKenzie is northwest of Downtown Anchorage 

across the Knik Arm in the southern Mat-Su near Point MacKenzie. The port is being 

developed as an intermodal freight facility with road and potential rail links to the north. Port 

MacKenzie consists of a 500-foot partition dock located 850 feet from shore with 9,000 acres 

of adjacent uplands that are available for commercial lease. A filter rock ramp adjacent to the 

north wing wall is useable 2 hours before high tide until 2 hours after high tide for vessels 

with ramps. This ramp allows heavy port equipment to be driven on and off the dock, which 

has a gravel surface with a load capacity of 1,000 pounds per square foot. In 2005, a deepdraft 

dock was constructed to accommodate Panamax-class ships to facilitate the export of 

bulk commodities such as wood chips. A conveyor system was built from the uplands to the 

deep water dock as a public-private partnership. It is being used to load wood chips on bulk 

carriers and is available to move other commodities. 

Planned improvements 

The Port MacKenzie District has received $6.75 million of federal, state, and borough 

funding to provide port offices and a ferry terminal, with commercial and work camp lands. 

A master planning effort has been initiated to identify how the port lands should be 

subdivided and parcels allocated by industry and use. Improvements are expected to attract 

increased use by cargo vessels. In 2006, POA estimates that the facility would serve eight 

Panamax-class cargo ships carrying wood chips and up to 100 barges carrying sand and 

gravel. 

Port of Anchorage 

The POA, shown in Figures 3.10 and 3.11, is located in Upper Cook Inlet and occupies 

approximately 129 acres. Immediately south of the POA are other port-related commercial 

activities that occur on about 111 acres of land predominantly owned by ARRC in the Ship 

Creek industrial area. The POA represents the major gateway for Alaska’s waterborne 

commerce and plays a vital role in the regional economy. 

Vessels can freely navigate up Knik Arm to dock at the POA. Ships berth at the POA during 

high tide, unload and load their cargo, and then typically sail at high tide. The POA supports 

load-on/load-off (LO/LO) container operations and roll-on/roll-off (RO/RO) operations in 

addition to handling petroleum products, cement, and other bulk carriers. In addition, the 

POA receives anywhere from one cruise ship (during the 2006 summer tourist season) to 

eight cruise ships (2003) per year. The number and frequency of cruise ship calls at the POA 

are expected to increase. 

The POA’s influence is felt throughout the region. The need for expansion has led to the 

development of a Marine Terminal Redevelopment project. When completed, the project 

would increase the POA’s capacity, efficiency, and security; provide capacity for 

transportation of goods through the port to Anchorage and Alaska through 2025; and allow 

12/18/07 Page 3-51



POA to meet its mission and goals. Construction activities for the proposed bridge and 

approach roads would have to be coordinated with construction activities for the POA. 

Cook Inlet Ferry 


The Cook Inlet Ferry is a programmed improvement anticipated to be operated by the 

Mat-Su Borough or a regional organization starting in 2008. As currently planned, the Cook 

Inlet Ferry system will include a terminal building, parking, and ferry landing at Port 

MacKenzie and parking, a ferry landing, and a small terminal facility in Anchorage. The 

Cook Inlet Ferry will be a Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull (SWATH) vessel. The vessel 

will have unique loading/unloading capabilities, which will provide greater service 

flexibility, shorter loading/unloading times, and faster transit times than traditional point-topoint 

ferries. The SWATH is slated to have the capacity of 135 passengers and 26-28 

passenger vehicles/light trucks or four semitrailer trucks. The SWATH is capable of 

operating in both “barge” and “high-speed” modes. The ferry is expected to complete one 

round-trip in an hour and make approximately16 round trips a day, although service will 

begin with only several trips per day and increase as demand builds. 

3.2.2.3 Rail transportation 

Anchorage and the Mat-Su are served by the Alaska Railroad, which provides an important 

rail link throughout Southcentral Alaska and into Interior Alaska. The Alaska Railroad lines 

within the Study Area are shown in Figures 3.10 and 3.11. 

3.2.2.3.1 The Mat-Su 


No rail line is available in the Point MacKenzie area. The existing rail line parallels the Parks 

Highway and passes through the cities of Wasilla and Houston. Alaska Railroad passenger 

services between Anchorage and Fairbanks pass through the Mat-Su and consist of one 

northbound and one southbound trip daily in summer, and weekly in winter. There are also 

special trains that pass through the area, such as trains that carry cruise ship passengers 

between Talkeetna and Whittier without stopping in Anchorage. 


ARRC is improving the safety and efficiency of its operations by upgrading and realigning 

its track between Anchorage and Wasilla. This project would reduce the severity of 

approximately 70 sharp curves and would decrease running time between Anchorage and 

Wasilla to under an hour. 

Mat-Su Borough, in cooperation with ARRC, has completed a feasibility study for extending 

rail service to Port MacKenzie. The recommended rail access would extend from Port 

MacKenzie north to intersect the Alaska Railroad mainline tracks north of Willow Creek, a 

distance of approximately 44 miles. The proposed route lies east of and parallel to Point 

MacKenzie Road. ARRC and Mat-Su Borough have indicated that they do not anticipate the 

Page 3-52 12/18/07



spur line to be operating by 2030. 



The main ARRC freight yard is located adjacent to Whitney Road in the Ship Creek area, 

southeast of the POA (see Figure 3.11). The freight main runs through the area and is used by 

all freight traffic running between Anchorage and points south, and for daily switching 

operations. A single rail spur leads from the ARRC operations center into the POA. Trains 

run through the yard at restricted speeds, between 5 and 15 mph. ARRC recently built a new 

operations center on Whitney Road and has plans for a new car shop. The main passenger 

line traverses the southern portion of the Ship Creek valley, serving all passenger trains and 

freight trains bypassing the freight yard. The Alaska Railroad mainline to points north out of 

Anchorage roughly parallels the Glenn Highway. The Alaska Railroad also transports 

passengers south to Whittier and Seward. A new intermodal transportation center (depot) is 

planned adjacent to the existing railroad depot. The railroad transports freight, jet fuel, 

gravel, coal, and other resources. The Alaska Railroad also transports a substantial numbers 

of passengers in the summer months through Wasilla to points north. 

ARRC’s Anchorage Terminal Reserve, which covers about 600 acres, includes a rail yard 

and other properties leased to tenants. It is bordered by Cook Inlet to the west, the 

Government Hill community and Elmendorf Air Force Base to the north, the Mountain View 

community to the east, and downtown Anchorage to the south. Much of the land including 

the rail yard, is near Ship Creek. 

The rail yard includes a track system, repair buildings, fueling area, steaming rack, 

warehouses, and office buildings. In 2005, ARRC completed construction of its Operations 

Center in the freight yard area. This state-of-the-art facility serves as the nerve center of the 

Alaska Railroad, bringing dispatch, transportation, safety, and operations together under one 

roof. The track network includes an estimated 170,000 linear feet of track, the most 

concentrated of which is north of Ship Creek in the main freight yard area located adjacent to 

Whitney Road, southeast of the POA (see Figure 3.11). In addition to the passenger main and 

freight main, which merge at the south end near Elderberry Park, there are more than 60 

tracks in the yard and surrounding area that are used for loading and offloading of freight, 

serving customers, switching cars and assembling trains. There are more than 15 additional 

tracks that serve maintenance and operations buildings. Two rail spurs lead from the ARRC 

Operations Center into the POA, along with other industrial spur tracks. The freight main is 

used by freight trains running between Anchorage and points north and south transporting 

freight, jet fuel, gravel, coal, and other resources. Trains run through the yard at restricted 

speeds (5 to 15 mph). 

The main passenger line traverses the southern portion of the Ship Creek valley and serves 

all passenger trains and fright trains, bypassing the freight yard. The Alaska Railroad 

transports a substantial number of passengers in the summer months through Wasilla to 

points north, and south to Whittier and Seward. 

12/18/07 Page 3-53




ARRC is in the design and engineering phase of an Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC) 

and associated improvements in the Ship Creek area adjacent to the POA. Planned 

improvements also include construction of additional tracks in the Ship Creek area and a new 

car shop in Anchorage. The purpose of the project is to facilitate connections from one 

transportation mode to another—rail, public transit, air, marine, bus, taxi, private vehicle, 

bicycle, and pedestrian—and to improve links to the central business district to meet 

passenger transit needs over the next 30 years. 

3.2.2.4 Air transportation 

There are five airports relevant to the Study Area: Sleepers Strip Airport at Point MacKenzie, 

Elmendorf, Sixmile Lake, Merrill Field, and Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport. 

Airport approaches and facilities in the Study Area that must be avoided are shown in 

Figure 3.11. 

3.2.2.4.1 Sleepers Strip 

Sleepers Strip landing area is located at Point MacKenzie, 46 miles south of the Parks 

Highway. Road. Access to the airport is by way of Point MacKenzie Road, which ends at a 

gravel four-wheel drive road heading into Sleepers Strip Airport. The airport is at an 

elevation of 125 feet. The single gravel runway is 1,600 feet long and 60 feet wide. Average 

annual flights are 110 aircraft per year, 91 percent of which are air taxis and the remainder, 

transient general aviation. 

3.2.2.4.2 Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport 

By the virtue of Alaska’s geographic position, Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport 

is a national and international transfer point for the movement of goods and people. In 2004, 

Anchorage was the number one cargo airport in the United States in terms of landed weight, 

exceeding the number two facility, which is in Memphis, by over 11 percent and all other 

U.S. airports by more than 100 percent. The airport is 4 miles southwest of Downtown 

Anchorage, at the entrance to Knik Arm. According to the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA), as of May 12, 2005, Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport was 

accommodating 793 aircraft per day. The airfield capacity from the current runway 

configuration and operations is approximately 363,000 annual aircraft operations (995 per 

day). 

In addition to serving large international and domestic aircraft, the airport is also home to the 

Lake Hood Seaplane Base, which is the largest and busiest seaplane base in the world. It 

averages approximately 40,000 aircraft operations per year, with up to 600 aircraft operations 

per day in the summer. There are 500 float plane berths at Lake Hood, and a waitlist of 230, 

which is estimated to be 6 years. 

Many aircraft flying from/to the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport complex 

traverse the area just west of Point MacKenzie. In 1969, the Division of Aviation submitted a 

quitclaim deed to the Division of Lands to reserve airport lands in this area. Between 1969 

and 1980, quantities changed and quitclaim deeds were resubmitted for approval, but were 

Page 3-54 12/18/07



never approved. In 1980, the Department of Natural Resources wanted to have an 

Agriculture Land Sale on the same parcels, so the case was closed. Although the aviation 

reserve was on plat maps, case ADL 51589 verifies that—although widely believed—an 

aviation reserve was never approved and does not exist in the Mat-Su. 


Elmendorf, located a mile north of Downtown Anchorage, is responsible for protecting the 

northern U.S. border. Equipped with 75 aircraft, Elmendorf is the largest Alaska Air Force 

Base. Elmendorf has two runways, a 10,000-foot-long by 200-foot-wide east-west runway 

and a 7,500-foot-long by 150-foot north-south runway, designed and built for sustained 

aircraft landings and takeoffs. The primary runway orientation and flight patterns place 

aircraft directly over Point MacKenzie and approximately perpendicular to Knik Arm on 

their approach to the east-west runway. 

3.2.2.4.4 Sixmile Lake 

The Sixmile Lake landing area is located near the shore of Knik Arm just north of the 

Elmendorf runway. The lake is designated for floatplane use. The water operating area is 

oriented northwest-southeast and is approximately 3,600 feet long by 300 feet wide. There is 

a floatplane dock and vehicle parking. In addition, there is a 1,600-foot by 50-foot gravel 

airstrip. There are approximately 20 float planes and 10 wheeled aircraft based at the 

facilities. Approaches and departures take planes over Knik Arm, north of the proposed 

crossing location. 

3.2.2.4.5 Merrill Field 

Merrill Field is a municipal general aviation airport located in north Anchorage along 

5th Avenue east of Gambell and Ingra Streets. Merrill Field has three runways, a north-south 

crosswind runway that is 2,640 feet long by 75 feet wide, a primary east-west runway that is 

4,000 feet long by 100 feet wide, and a 2,000-foot by 60-foot wide gravel runway. With 

around 900 based aircraft, Merrill Field is one of the busiest general aviation airports in the 

United States, and also has a 2,000-foot long by 60-foot wide gravel runway oriented 

northeast/southwest. Because of Merrill Field’s location in the complex airspace in the 

Anchorage vicinity, the primary routing of flights in and out of the Merrill Field takes planes 

through an airspace corridor that is just south of the proposed crossing location. 

3.2.2.5 Pedestrians and bicyclists 

3.2.2.5.1 The Mat-Su 

The Mat-Su has a large network of recreational trails to support dog sledding, skiing, 

skijoring (skiing while pulled by a dog), snowmachining, all-terrain vehicle (ATV) riding, 

biking, hiking, canoeing, and equestrian riding. These trails include the Iditarod Trail, Nancy 

Lake Canoeing Trail, and bicycle/pedestrian paths including a paved bike-pedestrian path 

that runs from the Parks Highway approximately 9 miles along the Knik-Goose Bay Road to 

West Carmel Road. A paved path also follows the Big Lake Road for 4 miles, from the Parks 

Highway to Hollywood Road, and a paved trail runs along the north side of the Parks 

Highway from Lucas Road to Willow for a length of approximately 26 miles. Other trails, 

12/18/07 Page 3-55



including abandoned trading routes, old mining routes, and logging roads, are now used for 

recreation. Figure 3.13 shows trails within the Study Area. The Iditarod Trail, now a National 

Historic Trail, started as a mail and supply route from the coastal towns of Seward and Knik 

to the Interior Alaska mining camps. A portion of the Iditarod Trail from Wasilla to Knik 

enters the Study Area south of Wasilla and parallels Knik-Goose Bay Road. 



The Anchorage trail system offers more than 400 miles of trails. The trails offer a 

recreational and transportation opportunity to all residents. Within the Study Area, the Ship 

Creek Trail runs along Ship Creek, through the Alaska Railroad rail yard. The Municipality 

of Anchorage began an expansion of the trail through the Ship Creek area in 1999, 

constructing a pathway from the CEA Dam to Post Road. Over the intervening years, 

construction of the trail has continued in segments, with a tunnel built under Post Road and 

an extension to William Tyson School in Mountain View. At its west end, the trail was 

constructed from North C Street, east to a bridge over Ship Creek. Pedestrians and bicycles 

are accommodated on most local roads in the Anchorage portion of the Study Area and on 

the A-C Viaduct. 


To avoid an at-grade crossing of the mainline Alaska Railroad track, a concept is being 

explored to route the trail on fill across the tidal flats, thereby creating a marsh with elevated 

boardwalks for viewing areas. 

According to the design study report (Corps of Engineers January 2006), the Port of 

Anchorage Marsh Project came out of the ARRC's Ship Creek Development Master Plan, 

which included the concept of creating a vegetated marsh area behind an extension of the 

Tony Knowles Coastal Trail, along the Anchorage shoreline south of the existing public boat 

launch ramp at Ship Creek Point. The trail is currently in the project development process. 

The Ship Creek Fishing Access project is part of the Municipality’s “Salmon in the City” 

initiative focused on sustaining the fishing experience near downtown Anchorage. Salmon 

restoration funds were used to remove the existing culverts and channel obstructions and to 

restore the open channel habitat, improve fish passage in Ship Creek and angler safety. 

Additional improvements will provide safe public access to this heavily used creek, while 

rejuvenating and rehabilitating critical stream banks. 

Page 3-56 12/18/07



Figure 3.13. Study Area trails 

12/18/07 Page 3-57



3.2.3 Community Facilities, Public Services, and Fiscal Conditions 

This section covers the major public facilities and services that might be affected by 

implementation of the KAC project and summarizes the fiscal condition of the local 

governments that might be affected by the project. 

Neighborhood and community cohesion, including environmental justice, is discussed in 

Section 3.2.1, and population and social groups are discussed in Section 3.2.5. The 

governments considered in this section include the Municipality of Anchorage; Matanuska- 

Susitna Borough; the Cities of Wasilla, Palmer, and Houston; and the State of Alaska. 

3.2.3.1 Provision of community facilities and public services 

A large number of community facilities and public services in the Mat-Su and Anchorage are 

provided by federal, state, and local governments in the affected area. This section focuses on 

some of the major facilities and services that could experience indirect effects from the 

project and includes education, emergency services, highway and road services, and public 

utilities, such as water, wastewater treatment, electrical utilities, and solid waste disposal. 

3.2.3.1.1 Educational services 

Educational services include the provision of primary and secondary education to area 

residents. Two public school districts operate in the affected area—Anchorage School 

District (ASD) and Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District (MSBSD); each provides 

prekindergarten through twelfth-grade education services. The largest single revenue source 

to the districts from the State is the Alaska Public School Funding Program. Revenue from 

this program is based on the number of students enrolled in the district and the type of 

educational services delivered. Local property taxes provide the other major revenue source 

for the districts. 

The Mat-Su 

MSBSD has been growing by an average of nearly 450 students a year for the past 5 years— 

the equivalent of one new school per year (Komarnitsky 2005). This growth has placed a 

significant strain on existing school facilities. No schools are located in the Point MacKenzie 

area and the anticipated growth area. The nearest elementary schools within the MSBSD are 

Big Lake Elementary and Goose Bay Elementary. The nearest junior and senior high schools 

are Houston Junior/Senior High and the junior and senior high schools in Wasilla 

(MSBSD 2005a). 

MSBSD manages 20 elementary schools, 5 middle schools and 5 high schools, 

1 junior/senior high school, 1 K–12 school, and 3 charter schools. Schools in Palmer and 

Wasilla had 5,468 and 6,677 students in prekindergarten through twelfth grade, respectively, 

and Houston had 837 middle and high school students. 

Page 3-58 12/18/07



Anchorage 

ASD manages 58 elementary schools, 9 middle schools, 8 senior high schools, and 5 charter 

schools (ASD 2005). The District has 4 schools on Elmendorf and 2 schools on Fort 

Richardson. During the 2003–2004 school year, ASD had an enrollment of 49,722, and 

MSBSD had an enrollment of 14,372. 

Government Hill 

Government Hill Elementary school had 480 students, and schools on Elmendorf had 

1,215 students. The location of Government Hill Elementary School is shown in 

Figure 3.6 (Section 3.2.1). 

Other than Government Hill Elementary, the nearest schools to the Government Hill area are 

Aurora and Orion Elementary Schools (located on Elmendorf), Denali Elementary 

(Montessori) School in Downtown Anchorage, Clark Middle School, and West High School. 

In the 2003–2004 school year, the elementary schools and West High School were under 

capacity. Clark Middle School was overcapacity. 

No children attending Government Hill Elementary School are bused to school. ASD policy 

states that students who live 1.5 miles or less from school must walk or arrange alternative 

transportation on their own. Government Hill middle school- children attend Central Middle 

School, and high school-age children attend West High School. These students are provided 

bus transportation or arrange alternative transportation. 

3.2.3.1.2 Emergency services 

This section describes the provision of police, fire, and emergency medical response services 

in the Study Area. 

The Mat-Su’s Department of Emergency Services began its Enhanced 911 system in 1993— 

in cooperation with Houston, Wasilla, and Palmer. The Borough now contracts with Palmer 

to provide the primary public safety answering point. 16 

A central 911-dispatch system serves all of Anchorage and coordinates police, fire, and 

emergency medical services responses to all areas of the municipality (MOA 2005d). 

Police services 

Law enforcement services in the affected area are generally provided by either city/municipal 

police departments or the Alaska State Troopers. 

16 According to the Palmer Police Department (City of Palmer 2005), the Palmer Police Emergency Dispatch 

Center (EDC) is the central dispatch facility for the Mat-Su and is staffed by 12 Police/Emergency 

Dispatchers and 1 Communications Supervisor. The Palmer EDC assists11 fire departments in a fire service 

area that covers approximately 625 square miles; 12 ambulance service departments, with 425 volunteers, 

covering an area of approximately 25,232 square miles; and 3 law enforcement agencies—the Palmer Police 

Department, the Wasilla Police Department, and back-up for “B” Detachment of the Alaska State Troopers 

working the Mat-Su. 

12/18/07 Page 3-59



The Mat-Su 

The Palmer Police Department has a Chief of Police and 10 sworn officers (City of 

Palmer 2005). The Wasilla Police Department has 19 commissioned officers (City of 

Wasilla 2005). As a second-class borough, the Mat-Su Borough has the authority to provide 

policing services within its boundary. Because it has not exercised this power, the area is, 

instead, policed by the Alaska State Troopers. 

The Alaska State Troopers consist of approximately 240 commissioned and 190 civilian 

personnel organized into five Detachments and a Criminal Investigation Bureau. The Alaska 

State Troopers’ “B” Detachment (Southcentral Alaska) is headquartered in Palmer, and 

“C” Detachment (Western Alaska) is headquartered in Anchorage. The State Troopers 

provide police services in the Mat-Su outside of Palmer and Wasilla and also provide 

assistance to Anchorage, Palmer, and Wasilla police departments. 

Anchorage 

The Anchorage Police Department provides law enforcement services in the municipality. 

The Anchorage Police Department has about 332 sworn personnel (MOA 2005d). The 

Department’s facilities include the headquarters building, 11 substations, and a regional 

training center. Expanded police headquarters and a Hillside substation are planned within 

10 years. By 2020, another substation may be needed in South Anchorage (MOA 2001a). 

There is only one full-time police station, which is at 4501 South Bragaw Street (south of the 

Tudor and Bragaw intersection). A substation is located in the 6th Avenue Parking Garage, 

but it is not open 24 hours and the facility is very limited. 

Fire protection and emergency medical response services 

The Mat-Su 

Fire protection in the Mat-Su is provided by eight fire service areas: Sutton, Butte, Greater 

Palmer, Wasilla-Lakes, Meadow Lakes, Big Lake, Willow, and Talkeetna. These are funded 

through taxes collected from property owners in these respective areas. Palmer and Houston 

have separate City-operated and -funded services. The nearest fire station to the Point 

MacKenzie area, Fire Station 64, is on Point MacKenzie Road near its intersection with 

Goose Creek Road. The station is approximately 10 miles north of Port MacKenzie (along a 

straight line). 

The Mat-Su Department of Emergency Services provides borough-wide emergency medical 

services through eight divisions of ambulance operations: District #1: Central; District #2: 

Big Lake and Meadow Lakes; District #3: Palmer; District #4: Talkeetna, Sunshine and 

Trapper Creek; District #5: Willow and Houston; District #6: Sutton; District #7: Butte; and 

Valley Transport (MSB 2005 1). The nearest station to Point MacKenzie is Station 61 (the 

Lucille and Seldon station), approximately 30 miles away. Some emergency medical services 

are provided by Fire Station 64, which is closer. The Mat-Su’s FY 2003 budget added 

over $925,000 to emergency response services, primarily for ambulance on-call responders 

to address the Borough’s increased demand for emergency medical services. There are no 

planned expansions. Any expansions will take place as needed to meet demand. 

Page 3-60 12/18/07



Anchorage 

The fire service area of the Anchorage Fire Department (AFD) covers the immediate 

100 square miles of the Anchorage Bowl. EMS coverage extends throughout the 

1,980 square miles of the entire municipality. The AFD Operations Division consists of over 

280 personnel covering three rotating 24-hour shifts in 13 fire stations (MOA 2005d). There 

are no known expansion plans. 

The nearest fire station to Government Hill is Fire Station 1 at 4th Avenue and Barrow 

Street, in Downtown Anchorage. The station is 1–2 miles away from all areas of Government 

Hill. Fire response vehicles use the A-C Couplet, but could wind through the Ship Creek 

roads if the primary access were not available. Fire response data are not readily available 

from the Anchorage Fire Department. However, a telephone survey conducted in late 

spring 2003 indicated that residents in the Government Hill area were very satisfied with the 

EMS, based on a sample of 7 respondents (Justice Center 2003). 

3.2.3.1.3 Highway and road services 

This section covers highway and road services in the Study Area and discusses the entities 

responsible for maintaining them. 

The Mat-Su 

The Mat-Su Department of Public Works maintains over 985 miles of roads within the 

borough (MSB 2005e). 

Anchorage 

Anchorage has several road service districts with different levels of service and different tax 

rates. The Municipality administers the Anchorage Roads and Drainage Service Area 

(ARDSA), which covers over two-thirds of the Anchorage Bowl. The ARDSA does not 

include the Chugiak-Eagle River area, Girdwood, and some areas in South Anchorage. In 

general, the State maintains freeways, expressways, most arterials, and some collectors, 

while the Municipality maintains all remaining public streets. Other roads are in Limited 

Road Service Areas or are privately maintained. 17 Streets in Chugiak-Eagle River are 

maintained through the Chugiak, Birchwood, Eagle River, Rural Road Service Area 

(CBERRRSA). In total, the Anchorage Maintenance & Operations Department, Street 

Maintenance Division, maintains over 1,250 lane-miles of roadway (MOA 2005e). 

State of Alaska 

ADOT&PF owns, maintains and operates the NHS, including the Parks, Glenn, and Seward 

Highways. The state also owns, maintains, and operates many arterials and some collectors 

within the Mat-Su and Anchorage. 

17 Limited Road Service Areas are service areas established by the Anchorage Assembly under Anchorage 

Municipal Code Title 27 to provide limited road maintenance services for rural roads on the Anchorage 

Hillside. There are 21 individual services areas serving Hillside. 

12/18/07 Page 3-61



3.2.3.1.4 Public utilities 

Public utilities include water, wastewater, electricity, and solid waste disposal services. This 

section discusses the availability of these services in the Study Area and the capacity of the 

existing infrastructure. 

Water supply 

The Mat-Su 

In Palmer, water is provided by three deep wells and is treated and stored in a million-gallon 

reservoir (Mat-Su Borough Rural Healthcare Network 2005a). Local schools and the Palmer 

Correctional Center operate individual well systems. The City is currently undertaking a 

water/sewer extension to the Palmer-Wasilla trunk line. In addition to serving a new 75-bed 

Matanuska Valley Medical Center with public water and sewer, several subdivisions along 

the alignment will also be served. 

The majority of homes in Wasilla use individual water wells, although the City operates a 

piped water and sewer system (Mat-Su Borough Rural Healthcare Network 2005b). Water is 

provided by a well at Spruce Avenue and two wells at Iditarod School, with a 2.3 milliongallon 

storage capacity. The public water system serves about 746 customers. Funds have 

been requested to develop an additional water source. Wasilla is also undertaking continued 

extension of water and sewer lines toward the Palmer-Wasilla trunk line. Construction of 

utilities along the Palmer-Wasilla Highway extension is intended to encourage development 

of the corridor between the Parks Highway and Knik-Goose Bay Road. 

Houston has no public water distribution system. About 60 percent of the city’s residents 

have individual wells and complete plumbing; other residents haul water (Mat-Su Borough 

Rural Healthcare Network 2005c). The school uses its own well water system. In the Port 

MacKenzie District there is also no public water distribution system. Most year-round homes 

in Point MacKenzie have individual water wells or catchment systems, with complete 

plumbing, while others haul water (Mat-Su Borough Rural Healthcare Network 2005d). 

Anchorage 

The Municipality owns and operates the Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility (AWWU), 

the largest water utility in Alaska, serving Anchorage, Chugiak-Eagle River, Peters Creek, 

Eklutna, and Girdwood (MOA 2005e). AWWU collects water from two major surface 

watersheds, Eklutna Lake (35 million gallons per day [mgd]) and Ship Creek (24 mgd), and 

several deep underground wells (20 mgd). Elmendorf currently supplements the water 

produced by its own network of wells with a water transmission main from Fort Richardson 

and purchased water from AWWU. Government Hill is on the AWWU water system. There 

are no wells in the Government Hill area. Although some private wells are still in use in 

Anchorage, the nearest active wells are located near the Mountain View area to the east and 

in Midtown to the south (Steckel 2005). 

Water is treated and piped throughout the municipality through 670 miles of transmission 

and distribution lines. AWWU has over 52,000 water customer accounts, which equate to an 

Page 3-62 12/18/07



approximate population base of 216,800 residents. It is estimated that the AWWU delivers 

water to about 80 percent of the population in the Anchorage Bowl (MOA 2005e). 

Treated water production capacity exceeds 80 mgd and treated water storage exceeds 

67 mgd, while average daily demand is 26 mgd (Anchorage Economic Development 

Corporation 2002). Existing capacity is expected to meet demand through 2020 

(MOA 2001a). The population threshold past which additional capacity would be needed is 

approximately 400,000 persons. 18 If needed, the Eklutna Water Facility could be expanded to 

supply additional water. 

Wastewater treatment 

The Mat-Su 

Palmer owns and operates a municipal wastewater treatment plant that began operations 

in 1972. The facility’s average design flow is 0.75 mgd and is currently discharging at a flow 

rate of 0.45 mgd. In 2002, the City received a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural 

Development Water and Waste Disposal Grant that the Mat-Su Borough will use for sewer 

system upgrades. 

The majority of homes in Wasilla use individual septic systems, although the City operates a 

piped water and sewer system (Mat-Su Borough Rural Healthcare Network 2005b). The 

public sewer system serves about 523 customers. Wasilla is expanding its water and sewer 

system west towards the Wasilla Municipal Airport, and east along Bogard Road, the 

Palmer-Wasilla Highway, and the Parks Highway. 

Houston does not have a public wastewater treatment system. About 60 percent of the city’s 

residents have septic tanks and complete plumbing; other residents use outhouses (Mat-Su 

Borough Rural Healthcare Network 2005c). 

The Port MacKenzie District does not have a public wastewater collection system. Most 

year-round homes in Point MacKenzie have private septic systems, with complete plumbing, 

while others use outhouses (Mat-Su Borough Rural Healthcare Network 2005d). 

Anchorage 

Anchorage’s wastewater treatment system is well-developed and available throughout the 

municipality. AWWU’s three wastewater facilities serve approximately 52,500 residential, 

commercial, and military accounts in Anchorage. Wastewater service is provided by 

750 miles of pipe, 30 lift/pump stations, and three wastewater treatment plants (Anchorage 

Economic Development Corporation 2002). The John M. Asplund Wastewater Treatment 

Facility, built in 1972, is Alaska’s largest wastewater treatment facility (MOA 2005e). The 

facility provides primary treatment of 35 million gallons of wastewater each day. The 

capacity is 58 mgd following an upgrade in 1989. Wastewater from Elmendorf and Fort 

Richardson is discharged to the AWWU sewer system. 

18 Personal communication, Kris Warren, with Northern Economics, Inc., September 29, 2005. 

12/18/07 Page 3-63



The collection system and treatment plant have adequate capacity through 2020 

(MOA 2001a). Future expansion into Southwest Anchorage is planned. 

Eagle River and Girdwood are served by tertiary treatment facilities. The Eagle River 

Wastewater Treatment Plant (ERWTP) was expanded in 1991 to 2.5 mgd, which was 

planned at that time for enough capacity to 2005. Operators of the ERWTP are working with 

an engineering group to decide if and when expansion would be necessary. The facility is 

reaching the high end of mid-capacity, but it still has the capacity to handle some additional 

growth (Womak 2005). 

Electric utilities 

The Mat-Su 

The Palmer-based Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) is the second-largest electric 

cooperative in Alaska (MEA 2005), serving nearly 50,000 retail customers in the Point 

MacKenzie, Eagle River, Chugiak, Palmer, Wasilla, Big Lake, Houston, Willow, Talkeetna, 

and Trapper Creek areas. It is currently an all-requirements wholesale customer of CEA, 

obligated to purchase all its power needs from CEA through the end of 2014. MEA is CEA’s 

largest customer, purchasing 25 percent of power sold. Power generation at the Eklutna and 

Bradley Lake hydroelectric facilities is assigned by contract to Chugach to manage on 

MEA’s behalf. MEA’s peak load in 2004 was 120 megawatts (MW). 

In 2004, MEA gave notice that it would not renew the all-requirements contract with CEA 

(MEA 2005). Negotiations between MEA and Usibelli Coal Company and other firms could 

lead to the construction of a gas- or coal-fired generation plant in the Mat-Su as early 

as 2015. 

Anchorage 

In Anchorage, electric power is provided by either Municipal Light & Power (ML&P) or 

CEA, depending on location. ML&P is owned by the Municipality and provides electrical 

power to approximately 30,000 residential and commercial customers in a service area of 

20 square miles in the northern portion of the municipality (MOA 2003). Within this service 

area is Alaska’s commercial, industrial, and transportation center as well as more than half 

the city’s residential population. It also provides power to Fort Richardson and sells 

electricity to other utilities for resale outside its service area. ML&P operates two power 

plants and 20 substations and is the south end controller of the Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie, 

a high-voltage transmission line that electrically links the Anchorage area with the Fairbanks 

area. ML&P is the majority shareholder (53.3 percent) of the Eklutna power plant, a 

hydroelectric facility. In total, ML&P has 350 MW of installed generation capacity 

(MOA 2005f). In addition to its own generation, ML&P purchases power from the stateowned 

Bradley Lake hydroelectric facility near Homer. Peak demand is 152 MW in winter 

and 142 MW in summer. 

Anchorage-based CEA is a member-owned electric cooperative and the largest electric utility 

in Alaska. CEA owns 17 power generating facilities in the Cook Inlet area and owns a 

Page 3-64 12/18/07



30 percent share of the Eklutna hydroelectric facility (CEA 2005). The cooperative has 

527 MW of installed generation capacity. CEA also purchases power from the Bradley Lake 

hydroelectric facility. 

The combined capacity of ML&P and CEA is adequate to meet near-term peak demands of 

Anchorage (MOA 2005f and CEA 2005). Additional capacity may be needed by 2015 

to 2020. 

Solid waste disposal 

The Mat-Su 

The Mat-Su Borough operates the Central Landfill, a Class 1 landfill located between 

Wasilla and Palmer. The Central Landfill serves businesses and approximately 

55,000 residents of the borough. The area designated for waste disposal is 620 acres in size. 

Existing municipal waste landfill cells are expected to reach design capacity around 2010 

(ADOT&PF 2002b). Additional landfill cells are planned. 

Three privately owned refuse collection companies (Raven Refuse, Valley Refuse, and 

Wasilla Refuse) operate in the Mat-Su’s Core Area. Palmer owns and operates a collection 

service (ADOT&PF 2002b). These companies provide residential and commercial service to 

a substantial portion of the borough’s businesses and residents. 

Anchorage 

The Anchorage Regional Landfill (ARL) near Eagle River is operated by the Anchorage 

Solid Waste Services Department and is the deposition point for collected municipal solid 

waste within the Anchorage municipal boundaries. The yearly intake rate is about 

350,000 tons. The landfill capacity is approximately 42.3 million cubic yards (about 

19.8 million tons). The facility is expected to provide for the disposal needs of the 

municipality through 2043 (MOA 2001a). The Municipality’s Solid Waste Services provides 

waste pickup in the original Anchorage boundaries (before the municipality was formed), 

including the Government Hill neighborhood. Other areas are served by privately owned 

refuse companies. 

Hazardous waste sites 

Known and potential hazardous waste sites in the Study Area were identified through review 

of federal and state databases and site reconnaissance. The database search included sites 

regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); state-listed spill sites 

and contaminated sites; and sites with leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs). 

Contaminated sites and hazardous wastes in the Study Area are discussed in detail in Section 

3.5.4. 

3.2.3.1.5 Health care services 

Health care is provided by a number of hospitals located in the Mat-Su and Anchorage: 

12/18/07 Page 3-65



The Mat-Su 

Medical care in the Mat-Su is provided primarily by Valley Hospital, which has a hospital in 

Palmer, a medical center in Wasilla, and a newly opened regional hospital between Palmer 

and Wasilla near the Parks Highway. Most of the medical care services in the Mat-Su are 

located in the Core Area, about 40 miles’ driving distance from Port MacKenzie. 

Anchorage 

Hospitals that serve the Anchorage area include Providence Alaska Medical Center, Alaska 

Native Medical Center, and Alaska Regional Hospital for medical care, and Alaska 

Psychiatric Institute and North Star Behavioral Health System for psychiatric care. Numerous 

medical clinics, doctor offices, and related services are located throughout the municipality. 

The hospitals are located east of the Seward Highway. Closest to Government Hill is the 

Alaska Regional Hospital, located near the intersection of Airport Heights Drive and DeBarr 

Road. The driving distance from Government Hill to the hospital is approximately 4–5 miles. 

3.2.3.2 Fiscal conditions 

This section considers the fiscal conditions of the Study Area’s local government entities that 

could be affected by implementation of the proposed project. Entities anticipated to be 

affected are the Matanuska-Susitna Borough; the Cities of Palmer, Wasilla, and Houston; the 

Municipality of Anchorage; and the State of Alaska. 

The Mat-Su is one of seven, second-class boroughs in the state and was incorporated 

in 1964. 19 Within the Mat-Su are three incorporated cities, several unincorporated 

communities, and 25 borough-recognized community councils. Community councils 

basically operate without any funding and depend on volunteer efforts and donations. 

Anchorage, with 45 community councils, is the most populous borough in Alaska and a 

home-rule borough. 20 

To a large extent, the Mat-Su is a bedroom community for employees who work in 

Anchorage (a substantial portion of the working population in Mat-Su commutes to 

Anchorage). Some of the reasons for this commute are that property in Mat-Su has 

historically been priced lower than comparable properties in Anchorage, especially in the 

Anchorage Bowl, and employment opportunities and salaries in Anchorage are much greater. 

3.2.3.2.1 Mat-Su Borough revenue sources and major expenditure categories 

The Mat-Su’s fiscal year (FY) 2005 approved budget is based on total revenues of over 

$200 million. Funding for education makes up more than 50 percent of the budget. Areawide 

general taxation is the largest noneducation revenue source. 

19 A second-class borough is similar to a first-class borough in its authority and powers, except that it requires 

voter approval for the authority to exercise many non-areawide powers. 

20 A home-rule municipality adopts a charter subject to voter approval and has all powers not prohibited by law 

or charter. 

Page 3-66 12/18/07



The Mat-Su’s average property tax rate, based on 27 service areas, is 11.483 mills. The 

Borough does not have a sales tax, but it collects a 5 percent tax on accommodations. The 

Mat-Su collected $55.5 million in local property taxes in 2004. Additional revenues were 

collected from oil and gas properties, which make up a small portion of the Borough’s 

property base. 

Land values in the Mat-Su have steadily increased over the last decade, causing property tax 

payments to increase. The mill rate has been decreasing, but not enough to offset increasing 

real estate values. To provide property owners in the Mat-Su some tax relief, the Mat-Su 

Borough Assembly approved a tax cap ordinance in August 2005 that mirrors the Anchorage 

tax cap described below. The tax cap does not apply to taxes on new construction or property 

improvements made during the current fiscal year; taxes required to fund additional services 

mandated by voter-approved ballot issues; special taxes authorized by voter-approved ballot 

issues; taxes required to fund the costs of judgments entered against the Borough or to pay 

principal or interest on bonds, including revenue bonds; and additional taxes collected in 

service areas under mill rates specifically approved by service-area residents. 

The Borough’s tax cap will go into effect with the 2007 Borough budget, which will be 

adopted in May 2006. After a 2-year period, the tax cap can be revoked by the Assembly or 

repealed by voter initiative. 

Fiscal year 2005 operating expenditures for the Borough are allocated to Borough operations 

($45.4 million), enterprise funds ($4.5 million), education operations ($148.9 million), and 

general operations ($7.4 million). 

The Borough’s capital improvement budget in FY 2005 consists of about $6.98 million. 

Selected budget items include: area-wide road program ($1.2 million), fire service areas 

capital projects ($1.1 million), road service area capital projects ($1.8 million), and solid 

waste capital projects ($450,000). 

Port MacKenzie’s FY 2006 budget includes projected revenues of $2.494 million and 

expenditures of $2.493 million (MSB 2005e). As of this writing, the budget for the port is 

break-even, but it is anticipated that with port growth, funding will become available for 

further port development. 

3.2.3.2.2 Palmer revenue sources and major expenditure categories 

The City of Palmer’s FY 2005 budget is based on total revenues of about $6.4 million. Sales 

taxes are responsible for a little more than half ($3.8 million) of the budgeted revenues. 

Palmer levies a 2.557 mill tax on properties located inside its boundary. It also charges a 

3 percent sales tax. Total property tax revenues for Palmer were $622,879 in 2004. During 

the 1998–2004 period, collections grew from $378,000 to nearly $623,000. 

Palmer’s expenditures for FY 2005 are $6 million. The Police ($2.5 million) and Public 

Works Departments ($1.3 million) are the two largest expenditure items, accounting for a 

12/18/07 Page 3-67



little more than half of the FY 2005 operating budget. The Fire Department is budgeted to 

receive $477,000. 

Palmer’s capital improvement budget for FY 2005 is $9.5 million, with nearly all of this 

amount ($8 million) targeted to the water and sewer fund. The airport fund and Palmer Ice 

Arena account for most of the balance of the budget. 

3.2.3.2.3 Wasilla revenue sources and major expenditure categories 

The City of Wasilla’s FY 2005 budget is based on total revenues of about $15 million. Sales 

taxes are responsible for more than half ($9.9 million) of the budgeted revenues. The general 

fund contributes nearly $10 million to the budget, which represents over half of the total 

revenues. 

Wasilla levies a 0.4 mill tax on properties located inside its boundary. It also charges a 

2.5 percent sales tax. The City’s property tax rate is being adjusted downward to 0.3 mills in 

the next budget, with the goal of keeping property taxes at an annual collection of about 

$200,000. The City levies a 2 percent sales tax that goes to the General Fund; the additional 

0.5 percent was adopted at the start of FY 2003 to fund the Multi-Use Sports Complex. The 

0.5 percent tax will sunset after 10 years, on June 30, 2012. 

Total property tax revenues for Wasilla were $273,619 in FY 2004. From 1998 to 2004, 

collections declined from over $455,000 to under $275,000. The decrease reflects the efforts 

of the City to keep property tax rates low while assessed property values have continued to 

grow. 

Wasilla’s FY 2005 budget shows total operating expenditures of $13.2 million. The budget 

has grown steadily over the last 4 years, increasing by a little under $2 million each year. 

In FY 2005, Wasilla’s budget allocates over $3.5 million to public safety, followed by 

$2.9 million for public works and $2.6 million for debt service. The capital improvement 

budget shows a beginning fund balance for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and 

Enterprise Funds of $3.3 million, revenues of $11.6 million, and total available funds of 

$14.8 million. Capital outlays of $13.7 million are budgeted, including $7.4 million from the 

CIP and $6.2 million from the Enterprise Funds. 

3.2.3.2.4 Houston revenue sources and major expenditure categories 

The City of Houston’s FY 2005 budget is based on total revenues of $986,000. A 2.5 mill 

roads tax levied on properties is responsible for 28 percent of the revenues, followed by the 

sales tax, which accounts for 24 percent. 

Houston levies a 2.557 mill tax on properties located inside its boundary. It also charges a 

2 percent sales tax that was implemented in 2004. Houston’s property tax revenues for 2004 

were $189,000. From 1998 to 2004, total tax collections doubled from $89,500. 

Page 3-68 12/18/07



Houston’s expenditures in FY 2005 are $481,000, up from $325,000 in FY 2004. Gross 

wages account for about one-half of the expenditures. Capital budget expenditures are not 

available as of this writing. 

3.2.3.2.5 Anchorage revenue sources and major expenditure categories 

Anchorage’s FY 2005 approved budget is based on total revenues of nearly $308 million, of 

which $189 million (61.4 percent) is generated from property taxes. About 21.2 percent of 

revenues is generated from other local taxes, interest, and a category termed “other,” and 

16.7 percent is from local programs. Combined federal and state revenues contribute the 

remaining 0.7 percent of projected revenues. Revenues to Anchorage from the State have 

fallen from $11.8 million in 2002 to less than $2 million in the FY 2004 and FY 2005 

budgets. 

The average property tax rate in Anchorage is 16.37 mills, based on an average of 44 service 

areas. There is an 8 percent bed tax, 8 percent car rental tax, a $1.30 tax on cigarette packs, 

and a 45 percent tax on the wholesale price of other tobacco products. To fund a new 

convention center, Anchorage voters recently approved a 4 percent increase in the bed tax, 

effective in 2006. Anchorage has no sales tax. 

Of the $189 million in total property taxes collected in 2005, just under $180 million came 

from the Municipality’s property tax. Property taxes collected from specific areas provide the 

other $9 million. There is a cap on property taxes, based on revenues from the preceding 

fiscal year plus the average percentage growth or loss in Anchorage population over the 

proceeding 5 fiscal years. 

Personal services (wages for Anchorage employees) are anticipated to grow 5.8 percent 

annually over the next 5 years. This is the largest category of expenditures shown. Set 

increases for public safety are anticipated to be $2.5 million per year for 2006 through 2008. 

Debt service expenditures are anticipated to increase 2.5 percent annually, and other 

expenditures are expected to grow 3 percent annually. 

The ASD budget for FY 2006 has revenues and expenditures at $569,588,806, an increase of 

8.29 percent over the prior fiscal year (ASD 2005). The revenues come from local taxes and 

other funds ($200.5 million), the State of Alaska ($300.6 million), and the federal 

government ($68.4 million). State funding amounts to $4,955 per student, and local property 

taxes provide $2,938 per student. 

The Municipality’s capital improvement budget spending is expected to be just over 

$97 million in FY 2005. Capital expenditures for the Anchorage Roads and Drainage Service 

Area are nearly $60 million. Ongoing projects in the budget are expected to require nearly 

$160 million of funding in 2006, followed by declining amounts through 2010. 

Project management and engineering funding accounts for over 75 percent of the capital 

improvement budget, followed by maintenance and operations (9 percent), and parks and 

recreation, library, and museum (5.5 percent). 

12/18/07 Page 3-69



The POA has 528 acres of developed or economically developable uplands and 1,000 acres 

of tidelands. Its 2004 Operating Budget included revenues of $9.8 million and expenses of 

$7.9 million. 

3.2.3.2.6 State of Alaska 

The State of Alaska’s FY 2006 Enacted Budget has projected revenues of $7.119.4 billion. 

Total authorized spending is $7.079.6 billion. Education funding is $887.4 million and the 

Alaska State Troopers are budgeted to receive $85.5 million (State of Alaska 2005). 

ARRC had revenues of $116 million in 2004, net income of $15.4 million, and an end-ofyear 

fund equity of $150 million. 

3.2.4 Population and Social Groups 

This section describes the demographic characteristics of the Study Area, including 

population size, ethnicity and race, and income, as well as the changing social and economic 

relationships of its communities. 

Any disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations— 

environmental justice impacts—are discussed in Section 4.3.6. 

3.2.4.1 Population size 

In 1975, the City of Anchorage merged with the Greater Anchorage Area Borough to form 

the Municipality of Anchorage (Anchorage). Although almost half of Alaska’s residents 

reside in Anchorage, only about 10 percent of the municipality’s 1,961 square miles is 

inhabited (ISER 2005). The population in 2004 was 277,498 (Figure 3.14). 

The Mat-Su is a second class borough 21 incorporated in 1964. It is the third-largest borough 

in the state, both physically and in terms of population. The borough is about 25,000 square 

miles, more than 12 times the size of Anchorage. Approximately 11 percent of that land is in 

private (including Native Corporation land) or municipal ownership and could be 

developed. 22 The Mat-Su is the fastest growing region of the state, largely because of its 

proximity to Anchorage. Most of the population resides in the Core Area, around the cities of 

Palmer and Wasilla, and within the three incorporated cities of Houston, Palmer, and Wasilla 

(MSB 2003a). The estimated population in 2004 was 70,148 (Figure 3.14). 

21 All boroughs in Alaska must provide educational services, levy taxes, and exercise their land use regulatory 

powers. A second-class borough has the option of providing transportation and road services, water and air 

pollution control, solid and septic waste regulation, and of exercising several other governmental powers. 

22 Data were calculated by HDR Alaska, Inc., from Mat-Su Borough geographic information system data. 

Page 3-70 12/18/07



Population 

(000s) 

400 

350 

300 

Matanuska- 

Susitna 

Borough 

250 

200 

150 

Municipality of 

Anchorage 

100 

50 

0 

1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 

Year 

Figure 3.14. Population of Municipality of Anchorage and Matanuska-Susitna 

Borough – 1980–2004. The Mat-Su share of the regional population has increased 

steadily over the past several decades. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2005; Alaska 

Department of Labor 2005a) 

Recent migration data show that Anchorage continues to be the state’s major hub of 

migration movement, both within Alaska, and to and from other states (Williams 2004). 

Shifting regional settlement patterns are changing the Anchorage Bowl’s relationship with 

outlying areas of the municipality and the Mat-Su. Between 1990 and 1998, the proportion of 

Anchorage residents living in satellite communities in the Chugiak-Eagle River area rose 

from about 7 percent to 12 percent. Since 1980, all areas within the Anchorage Bowl have 

experienced growth. The rate of growth, however, has been slower in Northeast and 

Northwest Anchorage (MOA 2001a). 

In recent years, no other area of Alaska has come close to the Mat-Su’s population growth 

rate (Fried 2003). During the 1990s, the movement of people from Anchorage to the Mat-Su 

was the largest single net migration flow in Alaska, accounting for about 1,000 persons a 

year. By 2004, the Mat-Su was home to 11 percent of Alaska’s population, up from 7 percent 

in 1990. 

3.2.4.2 Race 

Anchorage’s population is only slightly less racially and ethnically diverse than the state’s— 

70 percent White in 2000 versus 69 percent statewide (Table 3-7). A growing population of 

residents of Asian descent is a major contributor to the increased diversity in Anchorage. 

12/18/07 Page 3-71



Table 3-7. Racial/ethnic composition of the Study Area, 2000 and 1990 (%) 

Race/Ethnic group 

White (alone, non- 

Hispanic) 

Alaska Native or 

American Indian 

(alone, non-Hispanic) 

Black or African 

American (alone, non- 

Hispanic) 

Asian (alone, non- 

Hispanic) 

Hawaiian Native or 

Pacific Islander (alone, 

non-Hispanic) 

Anchorage 

Total 

Anchorage 

Government 

Hill (Census 

Tract 5) 

Mat–Su total 

Mat–Su Study 

Area 

Point 

MacKenzie 

Mat-Su 

City of 

Palmer 

Places 

City of 

Wasilla 

City of 

Houston 

69.92 53.18 86.27 86.55 91.89 79.31 83.85 82.86 

7.04 8.73 5.34 5.17 3.60 7.96 5.05 7.82 

5.64 7.03 0.67 0.59 0.90 2.01 0.46 0.33 

5.46 12.53 0.68 0.68 1.80 0.99 1.28 0.67 

0.90 0.77 0.11 0.11 0 0.26 0.13 0.33 

Other race 0.22 0.26 0.27 0.26 0 0.24 0.40 0.58 

Two or more races 5.14 6.11 4.16 4.05 1.80 5.71 5.16 5.07 

Hispanic origin (any race) 5.69 11.40 2.50 2.59 0 3.51 3.68 2.33 

Minority a 30.08 46.82 13.73 13.45 8.11 20.69 16.15 17.14 

White, 1990 80.74 58.02 93.11 93.28 93.86 88.59 92.55 95.12 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2005 

Note: All values are for 2000 except for those in the last row 

a 

Includes all individuals who self-reported as being all or part Alaska Native or American Indian, Black or African 

American, Asian, Hawaiian Native or Pacific Islander, or Hispanic. 

In the 2003–2004 school year, 43 percent of the students enrolled in the Anchorage School 

District were non-White (Alaska Department of Education and Early Development 2005), 

suggesting that the minority population will continue to grow in Anchorage. As a result of 

the rural-to-urban movement of Alaska’s Native population (Williams 2005), the Mat-Su saw 

a substantial increase in its Native population through in-migration from other parts of 

Alaska. In 2000, however, the Mat-Su’s population was still 86 percent White. In the 2003– 

2004 school year, only 18 percent of the students enrolled in the Mat-Su school district were 

non-White (Alaska Department of Education and Early Development 2005), suggesting that 

the Mat-Su’s population will continue to be predominantly White for a number of years. 

Page 3-72 12/18/07



3.2.4.3 Income characteristics 

Since 1969, per capita incomes in Alaska, Anchorage, and the Mat-Su were higher than the 

U.S. per capita income until the recessionary period experienced by Alaska in the 1980s. 

After the recession, per capita income in Anchorage and Alaska remained above the 

U.S. level, but per capita income in the Mat-Su fell below it (Figure 3.15). 

Per capita 

income (as 

percentage of 

U.S. income) 

Alaska Anchorage Mat-Su 

190 

180 

170 

160 

150 

140 

130 

120 

110 

100 

90 

80 

70 

1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 

Year 

Figure 3.15. Alaskan and regional personal per capita incomes as percentages of 

U.S. personal per capita income – 1969–2003. Over the past 25 years, personal 

income in Anchorage has consistently outpaced national, state, and regional incomes. 

State and regional incomes are no longer substantially above national income levels. 

(Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 2005) 

12/18/07 Page 3-73



As shown in Figure 3.16, the distribution of income is similar in Anchorage, the Mat-Su, and 

the state of Alaska, but there are distinctions. Anchorage has a higher percentage of 

households in the income categories above $75,000, while the Mat-Su has a greater 

proportion of households in the lower income categories, particularly in the less-than- 

$25,000 category. 

Households 

(percentage) Anchorage Mat-Su Alaska 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Less 

than 25 

25 to 50 50 to 75 75 to 

100 

100 to 

125 

125 to 

150 

150 to 

200 

More 

than 

200 

Income level ($000s) 

Figure 3.16. Income distribution in Alaska, Anchorage, and the Mat-Su – 1999. 

(Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2005) 

3.2.4.4 Poverty rate 

To determine who is considered poor, the U.S. Census Bureau uses a set of money income 

thresholds that vary by family size and composition. Poverty thresholds do not vary 

geographically, but are updated annually for inflation using the consumer price index. 

The percentage of people living below the poverty level increased in Anchorage and the 

Mat-Su between 1989 and 1999 (Table 3-8). However, certain areas, such as Government 

Hill, showed a substantial decrease. This decrease coincides with the demolition of the 

Hollywood Vista Apartments in 1996, which displaced 360 households from this highdensity 

housing complex. 

Page 3-74 12/18/07



Table 3-8. Percentage of individuals below the 

poverty level in the Study Area, 1999 and 1989 

Area 1999 1989 

Municipality of Anchorage 7.35 7.07 

Government Hill 9.16 21.84 

Matanuska-Susitna Borough 11.01 9.39 

Mat-Su Study Area 10.43 8.43 

Point MacKenzie 22.67 34.09 

City of Palmer 12.66 6.21 

City of Wasilla 9.59 10.85 

City of Houston 17.09 9.78 


3.2.4.5 Educational attainment 

Educational attainment is one indicator of the human resources available in a community and 

the level of labor force preparation. In general, income increases with advancing educational 

attainment. In 2000, just over 90 percent of Anchorage residents 25 years and older were 

high school graduates or higher, placing Anchorage among the top metropolitan areas in the 

nation in educational attainment. Educational levels at the bachelor’s degree level are lower 

in the Mat-Su than in Anchorage (18.3 percent compared with 28.9 percent) and have not 

changed significantly since 1990. Over 88 percent of residents, however, had earned a high 

school degree or higher degree. In Anchorage and the Mat-Su, approximately 3 percent of the 

population had less than a ninth-grade education. 

3.2.5 Subsistence 

Prior to the arrival of the first Europeans in the Upper Cook Inlet area in the late 1700s, the 

indigenous Dena’ina resided in fish camps and winter villages along both shores of the Knik 

Arm. The Dena’ina harvested local resources from the lands and waters within the Upper 

Cook Inlet basin. With the development of Anchorage since its inception in 1915 and 

population growth within the region, the Dena’ina have been displaced from traditional 

camps and harvest locations. Historic subsistence and cultural sites along Knik Arm, known 

to date are described in Section 3.6. Although some Dena’ina moved further from the 

Anchorage area (Tyonek and the Kenai Peninsula) in response to ongoing development, 

descendents of the Upper Inlet Dena’ina now live in Eklutna, Knik, Chickaloon, Anchorage, 

and portions of the Mat-Su. Cultural attachments to traditional and historic places and 

activities endure, and the Dena’ina continue to harvest local resources as they have for 

centuries (KABATA 2004a). 

3.2.5.1 Subsistence as defined under state and federal law 

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) requires that 

subsistence hunting and gathering be addressed for all projects on federal lands in Alaska. 

Subsistence is defined in ANILCA, Section 803, as “the customary and traditional uses by 

rural Alaska residents of wild, renewable resources” for noncommercial purposes. Hunting, 

fishing, trapping, and gathering natural resources are major elements of the cultural and 

economic life of many Anchorage and Mat-Su-area residents. However, federal law regulates 

12/18/07 Page 3-75



subsistence on federal land, state law regulates subsistence on state land, and the regulations 

differ. Federal law defines rural and nonrural areas, and a person must be a rural Alaska 

resident to participate in subsistence on federally owned lands under federal subsistence 

regulations. Under State law, however, all Alaska residents are eligible to participate in 

subsistence on State-owned lands, but only in State-defined subsistence use areas. 

The Knik Arm Dena’ina do not qualify as subsistence users under state and federal 

regulations because the greater Anchorage–Mat-Su Valley “urban” region encompasses their 

traditional lands and harvest areas, and current federal and State regulations do not recognize 

subsistence activities in Knik Arm. Under federal subsistence regulations established under 

ANILCA Title VIII, federal lands have to be classified as “rural,” and Knik Arm is not 

considered rural. Similarly, state regulations (AS § § 16.05.258 and 16.05.940) do not allow 

for subsistence in nonrural or nonsubsistence areas. The Cook Inlet basin is considered 

nonrural, with the exception of designated subsistence areas for Tyonek, Nanwalek, and Port 

Graham, which are outside of the Study Area (KABATA 2004a). 

3.2.5.2 Contemporary harvest patterns of the Cook Inlet Dena’ina 

Although there is no state- or federally-recognized subsistence in the immediate Study Area, 

the Cook Inlet Dena’ina harvest local resources, and depend on them both economically and 

culturally. Three major categories of fish and wildlife are found in the Study Area: salmon, 

moose, and beluga whale. Historically, salmon, moose and beluga whale have been harvested 

by the Dena’ina Athabascan. Information on harvest levels of fish and wildlife for the Upper 

Inlet Dena’ina communities is both limited and dated. While some traditional harvest 

information is available for Tyonek and Chickaloon, information is not available for the 

traditional harvest by Knik and Eklutna. Subsistence harvest information for the Dena’ina 

community of Chickaloon in 1982 indicates that over 50 percent of the total harvest—as well 

as the per capita harvest was moose and caribou, with salmon making up the next largest 

category, at 20 percent of the total harvest (ADF&G 2001). These figures provide an estimate 

of the tribal reliance on these fish and wildlife resources. 

3.2.5.2.1 Salmon 

Under AS 05 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 93.200, both the Knik Tribal Council and 

Native Village of Eklutna Tribes are allowed to harvest salmon for personal consumption 

under educational fishery programs. The Knik Tribal Council uses an educational fishery site 

on the west side of Knik Arm near Fish Creek. The Native Village of Eklutna uses a site on 

the east side of Upper Cook Inlet. Reported harvest levels for the educational fisheries are 

500 salmon for the Knik Tribal Council (ADF&G Permit SF 2005-101) and 1,000 salmon for 

the Native Village of Eklutna (ADF&G Permit SF 2005-133). 

3.2.5.2.2 Moose 

Moose are harvested by tribal members under sport hunting regulations. Moose hunting 

occurs primarily during the fall season in the general Study Area (KABATA 2004a). 

Page 3-76 12/18/07



3.2.5.2.3 Beluga whale 

An agreement to co-manage the 2005 harvest of the Cook Inlet stock of beluga whales has 

been negotiated with the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Commission (CIMMC) and is in the 

National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) clearance process. CIMMC operates 

under tribal resolution from eight tribal village governments or traditional councils in the 

Cook Inlet region. The agreement describes specific harvest practices that must be followed 

as conditions of the harvest permit (NMFS and CIMMC 2005). From 2005 to 2009, the 

annual strike 23 limitations are operating as an interim planning period and are set as follows: 

two strikes are allocated for 2005, one strike for 2006, two strikes for 2007, one strike 

for 2008, and two strikes for 2009. Beginning in 2010, harvest levels will be derived from 

abundance estimates averaged over the previous 5 years (NOAA 2004). 

3.2.6 Utilities 

This section provides general descriptions and locations of the utility systems in the Study 

Area. 

3.2.6.1 Water 

3.2.6.1.1 The Mat-Su 

No public water distribution system is located within the Study Area on the Mat-Su side of 

Knik Arm because of the low development density of the area. Property owners are 

responsible for their own water systems, which are primarily private wells. 

3.2.6.1.2 Southern Alignment 

No water utilities exist in the vicinity of the proposed Southern Alignment. The proposed 

Below-the-Bluff Roadway is located along the western perimeter of Elmendorf and along the 

eastern perimeter of the POA. Elmendorf supplements the water produced by its own 

network of wells with a water transmission main from Fort Richardson and purchased water 

from AWWU. The POA relies on water from AWWU, and is served by a 12-inch line that 

crosses Loop Road. 


AWWU operates the public water supply, treatment, and distribution system, which supplies 

water at an average rate of approximately 25 mgd to 52,000 residential, commercial, and 

military customers, including those in the Study Area. Figure 3.17 shows the current water 

distribution piping in the vicinity of the proposed KAC project’s Anchorage approach 

alternatives. 

23 A strike is defined as hitting a whale with a harpoon, lance, bullet, or other object. 

12/18/07 Page 3-77



Figure 3.17. Water utilities 

Page 3-78 12/18/07



3.2.6.2 Sewer 

3.2.6.2.1 The Mat-Su 

Because of the low development density in the Study Area on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm, 

there are no public sewer systems or wastewater treatment facilities. Property owners 

typically rely on private septic tank and leach field systems to treat and discharge 

wastewater. 

3.2.6.2.2 Southern Alignment, including the Below-the-Bluff Roadway 

There are no sewer utilities in the vicinity of the proposed Southern Alignment. Elmendorf 

maintains its own sewer system, but contracts with AWWU for conveyance and treatment. 

All wastewater from Elmendorf enters the AWWU sewer system at a metering station near 

the intersection of Arctic Warrior and West Bluff Drives in the Government Hill area. 

AWWU also provides sewer service to the POA. 


AWWU operates a public sewer system and three wastewater treatment plants, which collect 

and treat an average flow of 25 mgd from 52,500 customers. Figure 3.18 shows those sewer 

utilities near the proposed Anchorage approach alternatives. 

3.2.6.3 Gas and fuel lines 

3.2.6.3.1 The Mat-Su 

ENSTAR Natural Gas Company (ENSTAR) is the primary gas service provider to the 

Mat-Su. ENSTAR transports gas east through a 20-inch pipeline from the Beluga gas fields, 

across the Mat-Su, and then around Knik Arm to Anchorage (Figure 3.19). Service networks 

branch off from this pipeline at numerous locations along its length. The southernmost gas 

service on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm is at the Goose Bay Correctional Facility, 

approximately 7 miles north of the proposed KAC project. While discussions have taken 

place between Mat-Su Borough planners and ENSTAR regarding extending service 

southward to meet the needs of future development, no decision has yet been made to 

proceed. 


ENSTAR is the primary gas service provider to Anchorage and Elmendorf. ENSTAR gas 

service in Anchorage is well-developed, with an extensive piping network as shown in 

Figure 3.20. 

The POA lies directly adjacent to the proposed Below-the-Bluff Roadway portion of the 

Southern Alignment. Fuel lines extend from the tank farm at the POA toward the proposed 

roadway (Figure 3.19). 

12/18/07 Page 3-79



Figure 3.18. Wastewater utilities 

Page 3-80 12/18/07



Figure 3.19. Gas and electric utilities – the Mat-Su 

12/18/07 Page 3-81



Figure 3.20. Fuel lines and natural gas utilities – Anchorage 

Page 3-82 12/18/07



3.2.6.4 Electricity 

3.2.6.4.1 The Mat-Su 

Chugach Electric Association can transmit up to 300 MW from the Beluga power plant to 

Point MacKenzie. CEA owns transmission lines extending from Point MacKenzie north to a 

substation known as West Terminal Substation, which is located approximately 1 mile north 

of Port MacKenzie. CEA also owns transmission lines extending from Point MacKenzie 

north to a substation near Settlers Bay. CEA transmits electricity across Knik Arm using 

submarine cables from Point MacKenzie to Point Woronzof in Anchorage and from West 

Terminal Substation to East Terminal Substation located near Sixmile Lake. Although CEA 

owns all of the transmission lines south of Settlers Bay in the Mat-Su, it sells the energy from 

these lines to MEA. Refer to Figure 3.19 for a map showing all of CEA’s electrical utilities 

within the Mat-Su portion of the Study Area. CEA’s primary service area is roughly the 

portion of Anchorage lying south of Tudor Road. 

MEA is the primary electric service provider in the Mat-Su, including the Study Area, north 

as far as Talkeetna, east to the Matanuska Glacier, and south as far as Eagle River. As 

indicated above, MEA purchases some of its power from CEA. 


Anchorage Municipal Light and Power Company (ML&P) provides electricity for the 

northern portion of Anchorage and Elmendorf. Figure 3.21 shows ML&P’s electrical utilities 

located in the vicinity of the proposed Anchorage approach alternatives. 

3.2.6.5 Communications 

GCI, Matanuska Telephone Association (MTA), Alaska Communications Systems (ACS), 

and AT&T Alascom are the major providers of voice, video, and data communication 

services in the Mat-Su and Anchorage. MTA is currently the primary communications 

provider for the Mat-Su with its microwave connections from Eagle River to Point 

MacKenzie and to Port MacKenzie. 

3.2.7 Relocation 

As a means of providing uniform and equitable treatment for those persons displaced by 

federal or federal aid projects, the federal government passed the Uniform Relocation 

Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act). This 

legislation provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons displaced from their 

homes, businesses, or farms by federal and federally assisted programs, and establishes 

uniform and equitable land acquisition policies for federal and federally assisted programs. 

Whenever the acquisition of real property for a program or project using federal monies 

displaces anyone, the acquiring agency is required to reimburse the displaced persons 

(residential, commercial, and nonprofit) for moving and increased housing costs and to 

provide relocation planning assistance and advisory services. 

12/18/07 Page 3-83



Figure 3.21. Electrical utilities – Anchorage 

Page 3-84 12/18/07



Residents displaced by a federal program are generally relocated to existing housing in the 

community, although present market conditions may require relocation outside the 

community of present residence. Further, people asked to move because of transportation 

projects frequently choose to relocate into housing circumstances substantially different than 

their present housing. 24 Changes typically made are different communities, different housing 

styles and sizes, and different occupancy status between owner and renter. Businesses are 

generally relocated to similar business settings and in accordance with the Uniform Act. 

Homes and businesses affected by the project are discussed below and in Section 4.2.7. 

Although minimal disruption would take place in the Mat–Su community with 

implementation of the proposed Mat-Su approach alternatives, each of the proposed 

Anchorage approach alternatives would affect improved property. Vacant housing and 

business sites are generally available in Anchorage, if relocation would be required. 

3.2.7.1 The Mat–Su 

Up to 30 parcels exist along each of the proposed Mat-Su approach alternatives. No homes or 

businesses in the Mat–Su portion of the Study Area would be anticipated to be affected by 

the proposed KAC project. 

3.2.7.2 Southern Alignment 

The proposed Southern Alignment would require acquisition of controlled-access right-ofway; 

however, it is not anticipated that any homes or businesses would be affected by 

implementation of the proposed KAC project. 

3.2.7.3 Anchorage 

In the Anchorage portion of the Study Area, Phase 1of the proposed KAC project would 

traverse the Government Hill neighborhood along Degan Street or Erickson Street, as 

described in Section 2.0. While implementation of the tunnel design would minimize 

permanent displacements, proposed KAC project staging areas, construction techniques, and 

final tunnel design would affect the number of relocations and construction impacts. Phase 2 

of the proposed project would traverse parcels in the rail yard industrial area as well as 

parcels owned by the Municipality of Anchorage. 

3.2.7.4 Characteristics of affected community 

Family and other characteristics of the community affected in Anchorage, as identified in 

the 2000 U.S. Census data Block Group 1, Census Tract 5, show a neighborhood 

approximately evenly split between homeowners and renters, with over 90 percent of the 

households being four-person or smaller in size. The racial makeup of the population is 

estimated to be 72.6 percent White, 6.6 percent self-identified as Black or African American, 

24 Personal communication, various persons displaced by highway projects, in interviews conducted by Glenn 

Bridger, retired Field Services Reality Specialist for FHWA Office of Real Estate, Washington, D.C.; 

personal follow-up interviews conducted over a 38-year career. 

12/18/07 Page 3-85



9.3 percent self-identified as American Indian or Alaska Native, and the remaining 

11.8 percent claiming other racial heritage. 

The housing is among the older stock in Anchorage, with over half of the buildings 

constructed prior to 1960. Approximately 70 percent of those renting pay rents typically 

considered to be within their financial means, meaning they pay less then 30 percent of their 

gross income for housing. Only 7 percent of the residents in the community do not have a 

vehicle available to them for use, and over 90 percent of the residents who work commute by 

private vehicle. 

The characteristics set forth in the census data for this block group are consistent with the 

population characteristics observed during field reviews of the Study Area. It is estimated 

that there are approximately 13 minority business owners in the Government Hill commercial 

district. 

Field reviews of the Study Area did not identify any specific persons with physical 

impairments or other special needs when being relocated; individual interviews were, 

however, not conducted with persons who could be displaced by implementation of the 

proposed KAC project. Relocation practices for persons with special needs or impairments 

are further identified in Section 4.12. 

Other community characteristics are discussed in Sections 3.1.1 and Sections 3.2.1–5. 

3.2.7.5 Availability of property for relocations and displacements 

Research into available housing resources was conducted with a local real estate broker and 

through use of related databases of property listings as of September 2005. Data were also 

gathered on and near the Study Area from properties posted for sale and from leasing offices 

of apartment complexes. 

When the project implementation process would require property acquisition, the project 

proponent would initiate a specific search to identify homes comparable to those belonging 

to or rented by those who would require relocation, and supplemental housing payments 

would be offered based on the provisions in state and federal laws. Mitigation measures are 

further identified in Section 4.12. 

3.3 Joint Development 

According to FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A (1987), the EIS should identify and 

discuss joint development measures that will enhance an affected community’s social, 

economic, environmental, and visual values. This section describes the joint development 

existing conditions. 

In general, joint development measures deal with multiple ownerships and operations and 

maintenance of the transportation corridors that support the regional connection; a 

connection that spans jurisdictions and responsibilities. Joint development of the 

Page 3-86 12/18/07



transportation improvement would primarily benefit the traveling public, in general, and 

businesses and residential developments, economically. 

The Mat-Su Borough is planning to pave Point MacKenzie Road from the end of the existing 

paved surface to Port MacKenzie. Point MacKenzie Road is a Borough-operated and 

maintained facility. This construction will be accomplished with state funds ($15.4 million in 

FY 07) administered by the Mat-Su Borough under a State of Alaska Municipal Grant 

through the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development. 

Completion of construction is expected not later than June 2008 to coincide with the 

operation of the Cook Inlet Ferry between Port MacKenzie and the Ship Creek area on the 

east side of Knik Arm. Knik-Goose Bay Road, however, is a State-operated and maintained 

transportation facility. However, Knik-Goose Bay Road is a State-operated and maintained 

facility. Therefore the Borough and the State would coordinate with one another to jointly 

operate and maintain the transportation network in that area. 

Similarly on the Anchorage side, the Municipality of Anchorage and ADOT&PF have a joint 

project identified in the Anchorage Long-Range Transportation Plan (MOA 2005a) to 

extend Ingra and Gambell Streets on a viaduct as far as Whitney Road. This AMATSsponsored 

project provides an opportunity for joint development with KABATA in Phase 2 

of the proposed KAC project. For more information, see Section 3.2.2.1.2. 

3.4 Economic Environment 

Although inextricably linked, the economies of the Mat-Su and Anchorage are quite 

different. The Mat-Su’s derives its vitality from a variety of sources, the most prominent of 

which is its role as residence-of-choice for many people who work in Anchorage or on the 

North Slope. Commuter data show that 47 percent of Mat-Su workers are employed outside 

the borough, and 75 percent of these are employed in Anchorage (KABATA 2005a). 

Anchorage is Alaska’s largest city—the state’s financial, commercial, and cultural center as 

well as its major transportation hub. The POA, Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, 

the Alaska Railroad, and the highway system all combine to make Anchorage Alaska’s 

primary distributor of goods and people. 

In 2004, Anchorage experienced its 16th year of uninterrupted employment growth 

(Fried 2005). The economic landscape is gradually broadening, with more retail trade and a 

larger service sector. A wide range of economic and cultural opportunities associated with 

major metropolitan areas is available. In recent years, broad-based activity appears to have 

kept the economy on an even keel with no single project or handful of projects dominating 

the economy. 

The following sections provide additional information on the labor force and employment in 

the Study Area, employment and output by industry sector, a discussion of the major 

transportation facilities that might be affected by the proposed action, and a discussion of 

trends in supply of and demand for housing and land in the Mat-Su and Anchorage. 

12/18/07 Page 3-87



3.4.1 Labor Force and Unemployment 

The size of an area’s labor force provides a measure of potential employment and economic 

activity. The labor force is defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as the number of persons 

16 years of age or older, 16 being the age at which an individual is legally able to work. 

Employment levels are based on the number of people in the labor force that are working, 

while unemployment levels are based on the number of people in the labor force who are 

actively looking for work. The unemployment rate in Anchorage has always been 

considerably lower than the statewide Alaska and the Mat-Su averages. 

Table 3-9 shows the employment status of residents 16 years and over, including the 

percentage in the labor force, in the civilian labor force, or in the armed forces; the 

percentage unemployed; and the percentage not in the labor force. 

Table 3-9. Employment status of population 16 years old and over 

in the affected area, 2000 

Anchorage 

Mat-Su 

Anchorage total 


(Census Tract 5) 

Mat-Su total 

Mat-Su Study 

Area 

Point 

MacKenzie 

Palmer 

Places 

Wasilla 

Houston 

Population 16 years old 

and over 

192,782 1,467 42,705 34,201 59 3,248 3,893 881 

In labor force (%) 74.4 66.3 66.1 67 49.2 64.3 70.8 62.3 

In civilian labor force (%) 69.9 61.9 65.2 66.1 49.2 62.8 70.6 62.3 

In armed forces (%) 4.4 4.4 0.9 0.9 0 1.6 0.2 0 

Not in labor force (%) 25.6 33.7 33.9 33 50.8 35.7 29.2 37.7 

Employed (%) 65.2 59 58.5 59.5 49.2 56 62.8 51.3 

Unemployed (%) 34.8 41 41.5 40.5 50.8 44 37.2 48.7 

Unemployment rate a (%) 6.8 4.6 10.3 9.9 4.3 10.8 11.2 17.7 


a 

The unemployment rate is based on the number of people in the civilian labor force. 

There is large seasonal variation in the unemployment rate in Anchorage because of the 

seasonal nature of many economic activities, particularly commercial fishing, mining, and 

tourism. The unemployment rate is typically highest in January/February and lowest in 

July/August. In 2005, for example, the unemployment rate in Anchorage was 5.9 percent in 

January and 4.9 percent in August (ADOLWD 2005b). 

ISER has prepared a number of population and employment forecasts for Anchorage and 

other regions of Alaska over the past 20 years. The projections are based on a set of 

assumptions about future economic conditions at the national, state, and local levels. The 

assumptions are the primary drivers in arriving at population and employment forecasts. The 

2020 employment projections from the last six reports it has prepared are shown in 

Page 3-88 12/18/07



Table 3-10. The last three reports have also provided estimates for 2030. The 1996, 2001, 

and 2004 projections were prepared for CEA, which uses the projections for utility planning. 

The 1999 and 2003 projections were prepared for the Municipality of Anchorage as input to 

the Anchorage 2020 comprehensive planning process (2001a) and the Municipality’s longrange 

transportation planning process (2003). The 2005 projection was prepared for 

KABATA for this Draft EIS. 

Table 3-10. Employment projections for Anchorage 

Year 

2020 Employment (000s) 

forecast 

prepared Anchorage Mat-Su Region 

1996 163.8 19.4 183.2 

1999 172.9 18.3 191.2 

2001 160.3 20.7 181.0 

2003 160.4 20.6 181.0 

2004 159.1 26.6 185.7 

2005 164.7 34.7 199.4 

2030 Employment (000s) 

2003 178.0 27.1 205.1 

2004 181.1 39.1 220.2 

2005 181.8 50.0 231.8 

Sources: Goldsmith, 1996, 2001, 2004; ISER 2005; MOA 2001a; 

MOA 2003 

The employment forecasts have varied over time as economic conditions, assumptions, and 

perceptions about future economic activity have changed. Regional employment projections 

for 2030 have increased over the years, and the 2005 projection anticipates development in 

the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and a natural gas pipeline to the North American market, 

which would contribute to higher employment estimates than forecast in prior years. In the 

more recent projections, ISER has recognized and incorporated in the model the trend of an 

increasing Mat-Su share of regional population and employment growth. Anchorage 

employment projections made in 2005 for 2020 and 2030 are up slightly over earlier 

estimates, but 2020 and 2030 employment projections for the Mat-Su are up substantially. 

The 2004 projections also anticipate that the Mat-Su would account for a larger share of 

employment in 2030. 

3.4.1.1 Employment and output by industry sector 

The relative importance of various economic sectors in the Mat-Su and Anchorage can be 

described using estimates of employment and gross output (sales). Employment by industry 

sector in 2004 is shown for the Mat-Su and Anchorage in Table 3-11, and further described 

in Appendix C of the Land Use and Transportation Forecast Technical Report 

(KABATA 2006b). Government is the predominant employment sector in the Mat-Su and 

Anchorage, accounting for 21 percent of jobs in the Mat-Su and over 20 percent of jobs in 

Anchorage. The local school district, a component of the government sector, is the top 

employer in both the Mat-Su and Anchorage. 

12/18/07 Page 3-89



Table 3-11. Employment in Anchorage and the Mat Su, 

by 2004 industry sector 

Employment 

Industry Anchorage Mat-Su 

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting 116 69 

Mining 2,052 48 

Utilities 564 148 

Construction 9,146 1,736 

Manufacturing 1,754 214 

Wholesale trade 4,647 108 

Transportation and warehousing 10,373 543 

Retail trade 17,255 2,928 

Information 4,388 520 

Finance and insurance 5,446 372 

Real estate, rental and leasing 2,753 179 

Professional, scientific, technical services 8,226 435 

Mgmt. of companies and enterprises 933 42 

Administrative and waste services 6,700 417 

Educational services 1,204 263 

Health care and social assistance 17,090 2,161 

Arts, entertainment and recreation 1,718 272 

Accommodation and food services 12,919 1,645 

Other services 5,281 550 

Government (including schools) 28,947 3,426 

Unclassified establishments 101 10 

Total employment 141,613 16,086 

Source: (ADOLWD 2005) 

Note: Does not include military or self-employed (therefore, totals will not add 

comparably with Table 3-9). 

Based on the 2002 version of IMpact analysis for PLANning (IMPLAN), 25 total industry 

output or sales in the Mat-Su were $1.6 billion in 2002 compared with $19.9 billion in 

Anchorage in the same year. Government is the largest sector in terms of sales in the Mat-Su 

and Anchorage. In the Mat-Su, government accounts for $315.9 million, and in Anchorage 

$3.6 billion in output. In the Mat-Su, the second-largest sector in terms of output is 

construction, accounting for $266.8 million of output, followed by retail trade at 

$210.8 million. The transportation and warehousing sector is second in size in Anchorage at 

$2.1 billion, which can be attributed to air cargo and other activities at Ted Stevens 

International Airport, shipping at the POA, and freight and passenger transportation by the 

25 IMpact analysis for PLANning), an economic input-output database and software package developed by 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 

Page 3-90 12/18/07



Alaska Railroad. The third-largest sector in Anchorage is construction, accounting for 

$1.7 billion of output. 

3.4.1.2 Transportation 

The build alternatives could affect three transportation components of the area economy: Port 

MacKenzie, the POA, and the Alaska Railroad. This section discusses the roles these 

components play in the overall regional economy. 

3.4.1.2.1 Port of Anchorage 

The POA is owned and operated by the Municipality of Anchorage. The port serves 

80 percent of Alaska’s populated area, from Homer to the North Slope—including the major 

military installations—by means of rail, road, and air cargo connections, and handles more 

than 90 percent of all consumer goods sold in the state. In terms of economic impact, the port 

generates more than $750 million each year (POA 2005a). The POA provides employment 

for 21 municipal workers. 26 In addition, more than 1,400 people are employed in jobs related 

to port activities, such as shipping, stevedoring, and other occupations (USDOT 2005). 

To increase the efficiency of transporting goods into and out of Anchorage, the Municipality 

is preparing to undertake a 6-year port expansion and modernization project with cooperative 

funding from the federal government, state grants and bond guarantees, port profits, and port 

revenue bonds worth nearly $236 million (see Section 3.2.1.2.1) (POA 2005a). 

Although upland expansion is planned, POA facilities and land will be fully utilized by 2020 

(Northern Economics, Inc. [NEI] 2004). Sufficient berthing capacity will be available beyond 

that year, but the POA will not have space for further expansion. The POA expansion is 

designed to provide additional capacity for container cargo; thus, the port will continue to 

have limited capacity for handling bulk commodities. 

3.4.1.2.2 Port MacKenzie 

Port MacKenzie is a deep-draft marine port owned by the Mat-Su Borough. The port is 

located on Knik Arm across from the POA. The port consists of a 500-foot bulkhead and 

9,000 acres of adjacent uplands, which are available for commercial lease. A $13 million 

deep-water dock completed in 2005 augments a $7 million barge dock built by the Borough 

in 1999 (White 2005a). 

The first major user of the port facilities was Alutiiq Manufacturing Contractors, LLC, a 

builder of modular homes and portable buildings. 

In 2001, North Pacific Industries, Inc., executed a lease agreement with the Mat-Su for a 

wood chip loading facility at the port (Bauman 2005; White 2005b). In exchange for 

financial contributions toward the development of the port’s deep-water dock and conveyor 

26 Personal communication, Roger Graves, Government/Environmental Affairs, POA, with Donald Schlug, 

June 23, 2005. 

12/18/07 Page 3-91



belt system, North Pacific Industries was awarded a contract giving it sole rights to loading 

gravel, wood chips, peat, coal, and grain onto vessels. 

Economic development opportunities will increase because of Port MacKenzie’s extensive 

developable land area and upcoming ferry service, the paving of the Point MacKenzie Road, 

and the planned improvements to Burma Road between Port MacKenzie and the Big Lake 

area. 

3.4.1.2.3 Alaska Railroad Corporation 

ARRC is an independent corporation owned by the State of Alaska. ARRC operates 

466 miles of main line and 59 miles of branch line. It owns or leases 1,625 freight cars and 

42 passenger cars. A major transporter for the state, the Alaska Railroad handles both freight 

and passengers throughout the railbelt. In the summer months, the Alaska Railroad assists the 

visitor industry by transporting passengers to popular destinations such as Fairbanks and 

Seward. ARRC owns 36,000 acres, about half of which is used as right-of-way and for 

operations. The other half is available for leases or permits to generate revenue. 

ARRC has facilities in the Mat-Su and in Anchorage. The Alaska Railroad transports freight 

and passengers north and south through the Mat-Su and Anchorage. It also transports sand 

and gravel from the Mat-Su to Anchorage for private clients, such as Anchorage Sand & 

Gravel. The major ARRC facility in Anchorage, including the new passenger terminal, is in 

Ship Creek. ARRC owns extensive acreage in the Ship Creek area and commercially 

designated land in Government Hill. 

During 2004, approximately 67 percent of ARRC’s revenues came from freight and 

13 percent from passenger services. The majority of the remaining income is related to real 

estate activities and federal grant revenue. 

In 2004, ARRC experienced net earnings of $15.4 million on total revenues of 

$129.5 million. Railroad assets exceeded a half-billion dollars (ARRC 2005a). ARRC 

employed 716 persons in 2004. 

3.5 Physical Environment 

The following discussion provides information that should be useful in understanding both 

the physical and natural setting of the proposed KAC project as well as the potential impacts 

to the environment from construction and operation of the proposed project. 

Knik Arm is generally considered to begin at Point Woronzof (west of Ted Stevens 

Anchorage International Airport), from which it extends 3 miles to the east and then more 

than 25 miles in a north-northeasterly direction to the mouths of the Matanuska and Knik 

Rivers. At Point Woronzof, Knik Arm is about 2 miles wide, but significantly deeper 

(>100 feet) than the adjacent seabed of Upper Cook Inlet (



While the Knik Arm channel is narrowest at Cairn Point, the channel is also deepest at this 

point, with depths reaching 180 feet. This bathymetric depression, hereinafter referred to as 

the Cairn Point Trench, essentially defines the axis of Knik Arm through its extensions to the 

northeast and southwest. 

The Cairn Point Trench is remarkable in that its planform and bathymetric relief have 

remained essentially constant for more than 60 years; this is particularly remarkable when 

compared with other seabed features of Knik Arm (KABATA 2006c). From this, it is 

surmised that the Trench is not likely the result of or even significantly affected by modern 

hydrologic processes. Rather, the Trench is more likely a relict of prehistorical scour events 

such as the breaching of an ice dam during the period of the Naptowne glacial retreat. 

The typical cross section for Knik Arm consists of an entrenched inner passageway, with 

shelves of shallow water on both sides. In the northernmost part of the Arm, the shelves 

become shoals, which become tidal flats closer to the mouths of the Knik and Matanuska 

Rivers. The shelves are usually less than 20 feet below the mean lower low tide water line 

(MLLW). North of the Cairn Point Trench, the maximum depth of the thalweg in the inner 

trench is about -80 feet with respect to MLLW. 

The location of the proposed KAC bridge would be within a mile of the northern limit of the 

Cairn Point Trench. Shallow water in this area forms wing-shaped shelves on both sides of 

Knik Arm, which at its deepest, reaches to roughly 20 feet below MLLW. The trench in the 

center of Knik Arm in this area is typically around 65 feet below MLLW at its deepest. 

Tidal flats in the upper part of Knik Arm are defined as the surface within the banks at an 

elevation between MLLW and mean high water (MHW). 27 Nonvegetated, these tidal flats 

appear mostly in the upper end of Knik Arm, starting at Eagle River and becoming more 

predominant further north, as one approaches the mouths of the Knik and Matanuska Rivers. 

Below MLLW, such features are characterized as shoals, while above MHW, they are called 

“lowlands,” or raised tidal flats, as can be seen between the Knik and Matanuska River 

bridges and Palmer on the Glenn Highway. 

The dominant climate for Knik Arm, as for all of Southcentral Alaska, is classified as 

“maritime.” Summers and winters are milder than what is normally seen in continental 

climates of similar latitude, with average temperatures ranging from 64.8°F in July to 19.2°F 

in January (Table 3-12). In addition to mild temperatures, the maritime climate of Alaska is 

characterized by heightened precipitation and persistent winds. 

27 Mean high water: a tidal datum. The average of all high water heights (i.e., the maximum height reached by a 

rising tide) observed over the National Tidal Datum Epoch (Tide and Current Glossary, NOAA, 

January 2000). 

12/18/07 Page 3-93



Table 3-12. Study area climate 

Month 

Average 

maximum 

temperature 

(°F) 

Average 

minimum 

temperature 

(°F) 

Average 

total 

precipitation 

(inches) 

Average 

snowfall 

(inches) 

Average 

snow 

depth 

(inches) 

January 19.2 5.7 0.86 10.5 12 

February 24.4 9.6 0.94 12.9 13 

March 32.4 16.5 0.74 9.0 11 

April 43.5 28.8 0.57 4.8 3 

May 54.5 39.4 0.61 0.2 0 

June 61.8 47.8 1.07 0.0 0 

July 64.8 52.1 2.10 0.0 0 

August 63.1 49.9 2.58 0.0 0 

September 54.6 41.6 2.42 0.2 0 

October 39.2 27.6 1.78 9.6 1 

November 27.0 15.3 1.19 13.4 4 

December 20.9 8.6 1.30 16.5 9 

Annual 42.1 28.6 16.15 77.0 4 

Source: Alaska Engineering Design Information System, CRREL-UAA, 2004 

Winter in Anchorage typically extends from mid-October to mid-April, the period when 

measurable snow is likely to occur. On the winter solstice, the sun is above the horizon for 

only 5 hours and 28 minutes. Spring usually begins about mid-April, immediately following 

winter “break-up.” This season is brief, but characterized by warm, pleasant days and chilly 

nights; the mean temperature rises rapidly and there is generally little precipitation. 

Summer is from June through early September and is, in reality, two seasons of about equal 

length, the first of which is dry, the second wet. At summer solstice, possible sunshine 

amounts to approximately 19.5 hours. About mid-July, average cloudiness increases 

markedly, and the remainder of the summer usually accounts for about 40 percent of annual 

precipitation. 

Autumn is brief in Anchorage, beginning about mid-September and lasting until mid- 

October. The frequency of cloudy and rainy days generally drops sharply in early October. 

Measurable snowfalls are rare in September, but substantial snowfalls, sometimes in excess 

of 12 inches, occasionally occur in mid-October. 

Some of the stronger southerly winds, occasionally with damaging effects, occur in late 

summer and fall, as a result of postfrontal winds following the movement of storms from the 

southern Bering Sea or Bristol Bay, northeastward across Interior Alaska. Less frequent, but 

often more damaging, are the southeasterly “Chugach” winds that are funneled down the 

creek canyons on the NW slopes of the Chugach Mountains. With gusts of 80 to 

100 miles/hour, these winds have occasionally caused substantial damage to roofs, 

powerlines, and other structures in the Anchorage Bowl. 

Page 3-94 12/18/07



3.5.1 Air Quality 

The Anchorage area is currently designated as meeting the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) for four of the six criteria pollutants. The NAAQS are summarized in 

Table 3-13. Note that two forms of particulate matter are regulated: particles less than or 

equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM 10 ) and particles less than or equal to 2.5 microns in 

diameter (PM 2.5 ). The only “nonattainment” area with respect to the NAAQS in the 

Anchorage vicinity is in Eagle River, located approximately 10 miles northeast of 

Anchorage. Airborne concentrations of lead (Pb), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), ozone (O 3 ), and 

nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) are currently below the established NAAQS for each of these 

pollutants. The Anchorage area is designated a maintenance area for carbon monoxide (CO). 

While concern over CO emissions has generally decreased nationwide, there has been a 

greater concern over so-called mobile source air toxics (MSATs) on some large highway 

projects in recent years. MSATs of greatest concern from motor vehicles include benzene, 

toluene, and other organic compounds that are emitted from vehicle exhausts when there is 

incomplete combustion of all fuel components. While concern over MSATs has been rising, 

emissions of these compounds have probably fallen substantially over the past several 

decades, as CO emissions have fallen. There are no good long-term measurements to 

demonstrate this, but the same techniques of more complete combustion and catalytic 

oxidation that are being used to reduce CO emissions would also tend to reduce MSAT 

emissions. 

The EPA is the lead Federal Agency for administering the Clean Air Act and has certain 

responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs. The EPA issued a Final Rule for the 

Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Source: Federal Register, 

February 26, 2007). This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of the Clean Air 

Act. In its rule, EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile source 

emission control and fuel quality programs on emissions of MSATs, including the final rule 

referenced above. Between 1999 and 2030, EPA projects that even with an 88 percent 

increase in VMT, these control programs will reduce on-highway emissions MSATs (not 

including diesel PM) by approximately 60 percent 

3.5.1.1 Climatic conditions 

The winter climate of Anchorage with its relative lack of sunshine and its cold climate, 

promotes surface temperature inversions. These inversions tend to limit vertical mixing of 

the atmosphere near the ground and, because of the higher terrain surrounding most of 

Anchorage, keep emissions trapped near the ground. Also, during periods of cool 

temperatures and light winds, cold air tends to drain like a fluid into lower areas. Given these 

forcing factors, air quality impact analysis of CO emissions from vehicles and other nearsurface 

sources is generally focused on wintertime conditions. 

12/18/07 Page 3-95



3.5.1.2 Air quality conformity and State Implementation Plan 

In the past, a portion of the Anchorage Bowl, including the southernmost part of the Study 

Area, had been classified as a nonattainment area for CO. Effective July 23, 2004, the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) reclassified the Anchorage 

CO nonattainment area to a “maintenance” area, based on an Alaska State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submittal demonstrating that the area was meeting the NAAQS for CO (Federal 

Register, June 23, 2004 [34,935]). Figure 3.22 depicts the Anchorage CO maintenance area 

boundary. 

Under the existing, approved CO maintenance plan for Anchorage, the Municipality of 

Anchorage must follow plan requirements to ensure that the area does not revert to 

nonattainment for CO. A maintenance area is subject to the same project-level air quality 

analysis as required for a nonattainment area. The proposed KAC project would be in the 

northern fringe of the currently designated maintenance area for CO, as shown in 

Figure 3.22. 

Page 3-96 12/18/07



Figure 3.22. Anchorage carbon monoxide maintenance area boundary 

12/18/07 Page 3-97



3.5.1.3 Critical pollutants 

3.5.1.3.1 Carbon monoxide 

Motor vehicles are the primary source of CO in the Anchorage area. The highest levels 

of CO are emitted by vehicles in the first 5 to 10 minutes after start-up while the vehicle 

engine is cold. Anchorage’s cold winter temperatures increase the number and duration of 

“cold-start” emissions. Other sources of CO in the Anchorage area include combustion of all 

kinds, including heating of buildings, aircraft use, and wood burning. National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards are listed in Table 3-13. 

Table 3-13. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Pollutant Primary Secondary 

SO 2 

3-hour average a 1,300 μg/m 3 

24-hour average a 365 μg/m 3 

Annual average 80 μg/m 3 

PM 10 

24-hour average a 150 μg/m 3 150 μg/m 3 

Annual average 50 μg/m 3 50 μg/m 3 

PM 2.5 

24-hour average c 65 μg/m 3 65 μg/m 3 

Annual average d 15 μg/m 3 15 μg/m 3 

CO 

1-hour average a 

8-hour average a 

O 3 

35 ppm b 

9 ppm b 

8-hour average a 0.080 ppm 0.080 ppm 

NO 2 

Annual average 0.053 ppm 0.053 ppm 

Pb 

Calendar quarter average 1.5 μg/m 3 1.5 μg/m 3 

a Not to be exceeded more than once per year 

b 

Equivalent to 40 and 10 milligrams/m 3 for the 1- and 8-hour averages, respectively 

c Attained when 99th percentile value in 3-year period is below standard level 

d Standard is based on a spatial average of concentration on a neighborhood scale 

A 3-year summary of air quality data for monitors nearest the project area is provided in 

Table 3-14. CO is one of the pollutants of primary concern in the Anchorage and Mat-Su 

areas). CO is monitored only in the wintertime, when CO emissions and meteorology 

combine to produce the highest CO concentrations. 

Page 3-98 12/18/07



3.5.1.3.2 PM 10 

A 3-year (2002–2004) summary of air quality data for monitors nearest the project area is 

provided in Table 3-15. PM 10 , one of the pollutants of primary concern in the Anchorage and 

Mat-Su areas, is generally monitored year-round. There have been measured exceedances of 

the 24-hour NAAQS for PM 10 in 2003 at each of the three PM 10 monitoring sites in 

Anchorage, at the site in Eagle River, and at the Harrison Court site in Butte in the Mat-Su. 

These exceedances were associated with a week-long wind storm in March 2003 that 

included wind gusts to nearly 100 miles/hour (MOA 2005f). It is not uncommon for 

exceedances to be measured during the spring “break-up” period as snow and ice thaw, 

leaving behind accumulated particulate matter that can become airborne during high winds. 

An exceedance of the PM 10 24-hour NAAQS was also measured at the Harrison Court 

monitor site in 2004. This site is near Palmer, northeast of Anchorage, in an area that would 

expect to see reduced traffic if the proposed KAC project were to be constructed. 

3.5.1.3.3 PM 2.5 

A 3-year summary of air quality data for monitors nearest the Study Area is provided in 

Table 3-16. PM 10 is one of the pollutants of primary concern in the Anchorage and Mat-Su 

areas. While very fine particulate matter, measured as PM 2.5 , has been a concern in parts of 

the United States since issuance of the NAAQS in the late 1990s, the PM 2.5 monitoring data 

for the Anchorage and Mat-Su areas show that concentrations are well below the NAAQS for 

this size of particulate matter. 

USEPA recently published a proposed rule to modify the existing PM 2.5 NAAQS, as well as 

to revoke the existing PM 10 standard, and replace it with a coarse-particle standard for 

particle sizes generally between 2.5 and 10 microns in diameter (Federal Register, 

January 17, 2006 [71:2620]). The proposed level of the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS would remain 

constant, while USEPA has proposed to reduce the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS from 65 μg/m 3 to 

35 μg/m 3 . Compliance with the 24-hour limit is based on the 98th percentile of the 

concentration distribution. Also, compliance with the annual and 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS is 

based on an average of 3 years of monitoring data. According to the available PM 2.5 

monitoring data summarized in Table 3-16, it appears that the Anchorage and Mat-Su areas 

would be in compliance if the new, stricter 24-hour PM 2.5 standard is finalized. 

Because USEPA allows exclusion of episodes caused by high winds and other natural events 

such as volcano eruptions, it is likely that the monitored values used for determining 

compliance would be even lower than the values summarized in Table 3-16, because such 

natural events have affected particulate matter levels during some of the higher-impact 

episodes in Anchorage in recent years. Another factor expected to drive PM 2.5 concentrations 

even lower is a suite of new USEPA rules that will greatly reduce sulfur content of diesel 

fuels, along with SO 2 , NO x , and PM emissions from diesel-powered trucks, locomotives, and 

marine vessels. Two grades of diesel fuel are now sold in the United States, with fuel sulfur 

limits of 5,000 ppm for nonroad diesel fuel and 500 ppm for on-road diesel fuel. 

12/18/07 Page 3-99



Beginning later in 2006, the on-road diesel fuel sulfur limit will drop to 15 ppm and the 

nonroad diesel fuel limit will drop to 500 ppm. In 2011, the nonroad diesel fuel sulfur limit 

will also drop to 15 ppm. Because most PM 2.5 is related to combustion sources and because a 

significant portion of the PM 2.5 emissions from fuel combustion is related to sulfur, these 

new rules will drive PM 2.5 emissions lower nationwide. In addition, starting in 2007, new 

USEPA standards will require on-road trucks to reduce emission rates of NO x and PM by 

90 percent from the prior-year standards. 

Page 3-100 12/18/07



Table 3-14. Monitored carbon monoxide in Anchorage 

Monitor location 

Monitor 

I.D. 

Year 

Hourly 

observations 

1-hour 

value (ppm) 

Second 

maximum 

NAAQS 

Maximum 

Maximum 

8-hour 

value (ppm) 

Second 

maximum 

3000 East 16th (Trinity Christian Church) 020200018-1 2002 4,333 12.1 9.4 35 5.3 4.7 9 



3002 New Seward Highway 020200037-1 2002 4,215 8.4 5.8 35 4.4 4.2 9 



3201 Turnagain Street 020200048-1 2002 3,921 10.8 10.8 35 6.5 5.9 9 



8851 Jewel Lake Road 020200049-1 2002 1,794 4.0 3.8 35 3.0 2.9 9 

8851 Jewel Lake Road 020200049-1 2003 4,211 5.8 5.2 35 4.5 3.2 9 

8851 Jewel Lake Road 020200049-1 2004 2,173 7.3 5.9 35 5.0 4.9 9 

Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency. October 2005. “AIRS Air Quality Monitoring Database,” . 

NAAQS 

12/18/07 3-101



Table 3-15. Monitored particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter in Anchorage and Mat-Su areas 


Monitor 

I.D. 

Year 

Daily 

observations 

Maximum 

Second 

maximum 

24-hour value (μg/m 3 ) 

Third 

maximum 

Fourth 

maximum 

NAAQS 

Annual 

average 

3000 East 16th (Trinity Christian 

Church) 

020200018-1 2002 62 46 40 33 33 150 14 50 


Church) 

020200018-1 2003 61 226 57 40 39 150 19 50 


Church) 

020200018-1 2004 59 38 37 37 35 150 16 50 

1100 Muldoon Road 020200043-1 2002 85 63 58 51 49 150 28 50 

1100 Muldoon Road 020200043-1 2003 60 277 187 180 138 150 47 50 

1100 Muldoon Road 020200043-1 2004 35 83 55 49 48 150 28 50 

3335 East Tudor Road 020200044-1 2002 167 105 104 97 94 150 30 50 



Parkgate – Eagle River 020201004-2 2002 60 46 40 38 36 150 18 50 



Harrison Court – Butte (Mat-Su) 021700008-1 2002 109 37 36 33 30 150 9 50 




Note: Bolded data designate readings greater than NAAQS. Most were affected by a week-long windstorm in March 2003 

NAAQS 

(μg/m 3 ) 

3-102 12/18/07



Table 3-16. Monitored particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter in Anchorage and Mat-Su areas 


Monitor 

I.D. 

Year 

Daily 

observations 

Maximum 

Second 

maximum 

24-hour value (μg/m 3 ) 

Third 

maximum 

Fourth 

maximum 

NAAQS 

Annual 

average 

3000 East 16th (Trinity 

Christian Church) 

020200018-1 2002 122 17 17 16 16 65 6.0 15 



020200018-1 2003 118 25 19 16 16 65 5.9 15 



020200018-1 2004 122 44 32 32 32 65 7.0 15 

3335 East Tudor Road 020200044-1 2002 113 21 20 18 18 65 6.9 15 

S. Big Lake Road – Mat-Su 021700004-1 2002 115 14 12 10 9 65 3.5 15 

Harrison Court – Mat-Su 021700008-1 2002 116 40 37 35 23 65 5.6 15 




NAAQS 

(μg/m 3 ) 

12/18/07 3-103



3.5.2 Noise Levels 

Regulatory Overview 

Noise is defined as unwanted sound. It may consist of a variety of sounds of different 

intensities across the entire frequency spectrum. Noise is measured in units of decibels (dB), 

on a logarithmic scale. Because human hearing is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of 

sound, certain frequencies are given more “weight.” The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) 

corresponds to the sensitivity range for human hearing. A noise level change of 3 dBA is 

barely perceptible to average human hearing, whereas a 5-dBA change in noise level is 

clearly noticeable. A 10-dBA change in noise level is perceived as a doubling of noise 

loudness. Table 3-17 shows noise levels associated with common, everyday sources and 

places in context the magnitude of noise levels discussed here. 

Table 3-17. Common noise sources and levels 

Sound pressure level 

(dBA) 

Typical 

sources 

120 jet aircraft takeoff at 100 feet 

110 same aircraft at 400 feet 

90 motorcycle at 25 feet 

80 garbage disposal 

70 city street corner 

60 conversational speech 

50 typical office 

40 living room (without TV on) 

30 quiet bedroom at night 

Source: Environmental Impact Analysis Handbook, ed. by 

Rau and Wooten, 1980 

Environmental noise is typically expressed using a descriptor that characterizes both the 

volume (or intensity level of the noise) and the time associated with the noise event. L eq is 

the noise level that contains the same amount of acoustic energy as the time-varying levels of 

the actual measured (or modeled) noise event. In other words, it is an energy-based average 

noise level. This study uses the 1-hour equivalent level, or L eq(h) . 

FHWA established noise abatement criteria (NAC) to help determine the noise impacts 

associated with highway development projects. The NAC are noise levels assigned to various 

land uses (e.g., picnic areas, churches, commercial land, undeveloped land) grouped by 

sensitivity to traffic noise levels. The NAC represent the maximum traffic noise levels that 

allow uninterrupted use within each activity category. Table 3-18 lists the land activity 

categories included in the FHWA-established NAC and the sound level (occurring over a 

1-hour period, or L eq(h) ) that triggers noise abatement considerations for that land use 

category. Sound levels are reported in dBA. 

3-104 12/18/07



The FHWA definition of a traffic noise impact (23 C.F.R. § 772) contains two criteria; only 

one is required to be met. Traffic noise impacts are defined as impacts that occur when the 

predicted future traffic noise levels: 

• approach or exceed the NAC given in Table 3-18 (ADOT&PF has defined “approach” as 

described below) 

• substantially exceed the existing noise levels (ADOT&PF has defined “substantially 

exceed” as described below) 

Table 3-18. Noise abatement criteria 

Activity 

category 

A 

B 

C 

L eq(h) 

57 dBA 

(exterior) 

67 dBA 

(exterior) 

72 dBA 

(exterior) 

Description of activity category 

Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance 

and serve an important public need and where the preservation of 

those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its 

intended purpose. 

Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, 

parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and 

hospitals. 

Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A 

or B, above. 

D No limit Undeveloped lands 

E 

52 dBA 

(interior) 

Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, 

churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. 

Source: Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual 7-7-3, “Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction 

Noise,” 1982 

The ADOT&PF Noise Abatement Policy states that a noise level of 65 dBA approaches the 

NAC (for category B) and that a 10-dBA increase from existing noise levels is a substantial 

increase. 

3.5.2.1 Study Area land use 

The proposed KAC spans two distinct geographic regions in the Study Area: the Mat-Su and 

Anchorage. The few noise-sensitive land uses that exist in the Mat-Su portion of the Study 

Area consist of scattered, isolated residences along Point MacKenzie Road. A university 

agricultural research station has facilities for overnight sleep—although, at the time of a late 

summer 2005 Study Team reconnaissance, it did not appear to be in active use. For the 

purposes of the traffic noise analysis, the Study Team considered it to be a residential land 

use. 

Land use in the Anchorage portion of the Study Area is diverse. Land use in the vicinity of 

the proposed bridge touch-down area is undeveloped. The POA is an industrial facility and 

not considered noise-sensitive. Elmendorf is a large, active military campus with residential 

and administrative areas, including a heavily used airport facility. Additional residential areas 

exist off site of Elmendorf, primarily in the nearby Government Hill neighborhood. 

Occupying most of a peninsula-like area, Government Hill is almost entirely residential, with 

12/18/07 3-105



small areas of commercial land use and park lands; Harvard Park and Sunset Park, are of 

interest to this Study. Harvard Park includes facilities for tennis, dancing, and curling. This 

area exists between Harvard Avenue and Loop Road. Across Loop Road lies Sunset Park, an 

open space available for public recreation. Another residential area lies adjacent to this park, 

south of Elmendorf. Government Hill School, an elementary school, lies between Elmendorf 

and the residential areas of Government Hill. 

Moving south through the Anchorage portion of the Study Area, Ship Creek lies at the base 

of a steep but shallow valley. The Alaska Railroad passenger service train tracks and freight 

train tracks rail yard serving and the POA share the valley floor with Ship Creek, along with 

some commercial/light industrial land uses and a restaurant. To the south, terrain rises to 

meet densely developed Downtown Anchorage. Land use in the vicinity of the project 

terminus in Downtown Anchorage includes commercial businesses, hotels, parking lots, and 

some residences. 

3.5.2.2 Existing noise levels 

The ambient acoustic environment in the Mat-Su portion of the Study Area is dominated by 

aircraft noise and noise from intermittent roadway traffic. Traffic in this portion of the 

Mat-Su is very light and infrequent. The ambient acoustic environment in the Anchorage 

portion of the Study Area is dominated by frequent military, commercial, and recreational 

aircraft noise events; locomotive and freight train noise; noise from the POA; noise from 

traffic on existing roadways; and noise from other daily activities (lawn mowing, 

landscaping, recreation, etc.). Aircraft and train noise and noise from occasional local 

roadway traffic dominate the acoustic environment in the residential areas of Government 

Hill. Traffic noise and aircraft and train noise dominate the ambient acoustic environment in 

the southern portions of the Study Area (Downtown Anchorage). 

Table 3-19 shows existing noise levels measured in the Study Area during peak traffic 

periods. Noise levels are expressed using the L eq descriptor (explained above). Figure 3.23 

displays the locations of these noise measurements as well as other sites evaluated in this 

noise analysis. In addition to the eight noise measurement sites, eight additional noise 

receiver sites were evaluated for this noise study. All 16 noise receiver sites were evaluated 

for future noise conditions using the No-Action and build alternatives, as described in 

Section 4.5.2. 

3-106 12/18/07



Figure 3.23. Selected Study Area noise receiver locations 

12/18/07 3-107



Table 3-19. Existing noise levels in selected Study Area locations 

Receiver 

identification 

Description or location 

Receiver 

type 

Existing 

L eq 

(dBA) 

3 Private driveway off Point MacKenzie Road residential 57 

4 Government Hill School school 51 

6 309 Harvard Avenue residential 59 

9 Sunset Park south of Vine Avenue recreational 60 

13 C Street and 3rd Avenue commercial 63 

14 A Street and 3rd Avenue commercial 66 

15 Gambell Street and 3rd Avenue residential 64 

16 Ingra Street and 3rd Avenue commercial 67 

3.5.3 Geology/Soils/Seismic Hazards 

This section summarizes the affected environment for geology, soils, and seismic hazards in 

the Study Area. Additional details on these resources can be found in the Knik Arm Crossing 

Geotechnical Memorandum (KABATA 2006j) and the Knik Arm Crossing Seismic Studies 

Technical Report (KABATA 2006k). 

3.5.3.1 Geology and soils 

3.5.3.1.1 Physiographic setting 

Onshore physiography 

Knik Arm lies in the Cook Inlet-Susitna Lowland physiographic province. Numerous lakes, 

ponds, and wetlands associated with glacial tills and outwash deposits are found throughout 

this gently sloping area. The lowlands are fed by multiple drainages that originate in the 

surrounding mountains, several of which are large, glacially fed, braided rivers with heavy 

sediment loads that drain into Knik Arm (Nowacki et al. 2002; Wahrhaftig 1965). 

The shorelines of Knik Arm are characterized by large mud flats in the intertidal zones 

and 50- to 150-foot-high bluffs. Cairn Point on the eastern shore marks the southwestern 

extent of Elmendorf Moraine, which is an end moraine of the combined Matanuska and Knik 

glaciers that advanced during the Naptowne Ice Age. This major geomorphic feature extends 

across Knik Arm to the Susitna Lowlands, and was breached by rapid downcutting of 

outwash streams during a period of lowered sea level in the late Pleistocene. The waters of 

Cook Inlet then rose in response to a worldwide sea level increase, and melting glaciers 

flooded the valley, creating modern-day Knik Arm. 

Submerged landforms 

Landforms beneath Knik Arm near the proposed project consist of shallow tidal flats and 

gently sloping, hummocky benches that extend from shore to depths of about 20 to 30 feet 

below MLLW (see Figure 3.24). The deepest part of the channel in the middle of Knik 

3-108 12/18/07



Figure 3.24. Knik Arm bathymetry 

12/18/07 3-109



Arm, extending to depths of about 60 to 65 feet below MLLW, is steep-sided to the west and 

more gently sloping to the east. The channel deepens to about 180 feet below MLLW near 

Cairn Point along a narrow steep-sided depression (Harding Lawson Associates 1983; 

FHWA 2005a, Smith 2005; KABATA 2006a), a feature often referred to as the Cairn Point 

Trench (see Section 2.6.3.2.3). This feature may be an erosional remnant from a stream 

canyon that existed during the late Pleistocene lower sea level stand. 

3.5.3.1.2 Geologic units 

Poorly consolidated rocks of Tertiary age underlie most of the Anchorage area and the Cook 

Inlet-Susitna basin. Bedrock is likely deeper than 600 to 1,000 feet in the vicinity of the 

proposed project (Harding Lawson Associates 1983; Golder Associates 2003; 

KABATA 2006j). Older bedrock outcrops surrounding the basin are being considered for use 

as armor and filter rock in the proposed bridge approaches. Quarries in the Mat-Su and 

Eklutna-Peters Creek areas contain granite, graywacke, and greenstone bedrock of 

predominantly Jurassic age (PND 2005, Winkler 1992). Additional information on rock 

quarries is provided in the Knik Arm Crossing Potential Armor and Rock Quarries Technical 

Report (KABATA 2006l). 

Unconsolidated Quaternary deposits of glacial origin overlie the older bedrock in the 

Anchorage area (Figure 3.25). Deposits from the last two glacial events, the Knik and 

Naptowne Glaciations dating from 75,000 to 11,000 years ago, form most of the Quaternary 

units in the project area. These include 1) coarse-grained glaciodeltaic deposits interfingered 

with silty clay that are associated with the Pleistocene Knik Glaciation; and 2) the Bootlegger 

Cove Formation, the Elmendorf Moraine, and related outwash alluvium associated with the 

late Pleistocene Naptowne Glaciation. A sensitive silty clay unit within the upper half of the 

Bootlegger Cove Formation was responsible for major translational landsliding that occurred 

in Anchorage during the 1964 earthquake (Updike et al. 1988). 

Glacial and alluvial deposits 

The following Quaternary glacial and alluvial deposits occur on the west and east sides of 

Knik Arm: 

• Mat-Su approach alternatives and west bluff. The Mat-Su alternatives would cross 

surficial deposits composed chiefly of outwash alluvium, glacial till, morainal material, 

and peat deposits laid down during the Naptowne Glaciation. Where present, peat deposits 

typically extend up to depths of 5 feet (Mat-Su Borough 1995a; Natural Resources 

Conservation Service [NRCS] 1998). The 100-foot-high west bluff contains about 40 feet 

of sandy clay at the base of the bluff, overlain by 60 feet of silty gravelly sand and till-like 

sandy gravelly clay, all of which are likely the stratigraphic equivalent of the Bootlegger 

Cove Formation. Materials below the base of the bluff consist of clay and gravelly till of 

the Knik Glaciation (Mat-Su Borough 1995a; KABATA 2006j). Sands and gravels of the 

Elmendorf Moraine and Naptowne outwash deposits near Port MacKenzie and other 

Mat-Su Valley sites are being considered for use as fill material for the proposed project 

(Figure 3.26). 

3-110 12/18/07



Figure 3.25. Quaternary geologic map – Anchorage area 

12/18/07 3-111



Figure 3.26. Study Area gravel pit locations 

3-112 12/18/07



Additional information on these gravel sources is provided in the Knik Arm Crossing 

Gravel Findings Technical Report (KABATA 2006m). 

• East bluff and Anchorage alternatives. The upper part of the 70-foot-high bluff near the 

east end of the proposed bridge contains about 20 feet of interbedded sand, gravel, and 

peat associated with Elmendorf Moraine, which is underlain by sand and clay of the 

Bootlegger Cove Formation. The bluffs along the proposed Below-the-Bluff Roadway and 

Government Hill contain 20 to 85 feet of outwash sands and gravels from the Naptowne 

Glaciation, underlain by the Bootlegger Cove Formation (KABATA 2006j, 2006n; Updike 

and Carpenter 1986). The sensitive clay unit of the Bootlegger Cove Formation occurs 

between about mean sea level and 50 feet in elevation along the Knik Arm and Ship Creek 

bluffs (Updike and Carpenter 1986). Surficial deposits in Ship Creek valley consist of up 

to 25 feet of gravelly sand alluvium underlain by Bootlegger Cove silty clay 

(KABATA 2006n). 

Knik Arm subsurface sediment 

Like the deposits onshore, geologic units beneath Knik Arm mostly resulted from successive 

periods of glaciation, leaving behind a complex mix of Quaternary till, moraine, outwash, 

and marine deposits that exhibit limited lateral continuity (Figure 3.27). Deposits from the 

Knik and Naptowne Glaciations extend partially or completely beneath Knik Arm, and are 

overlain by younger marine sand. These deposits have been divided into four units in 

geotechnical studies completed in 2004 for the proposed KAC project. From roughly 

youngest to oldest, they include: 

• Marine sand. Shannon & Wilson (KABATA 2006j) indicate the presence of up to 40 feet 

of loose to medium-dense marine sand at the seafloor surface across much of the crossing. 

Locally, these deposits thin on the east side of Knik Arm to less than 10 or 15 feet, are 

very thin or absent in the deepest part of the channel, and are absent on the west side. The 

sands are somewhat mobile and tend to shift over time with changing currents and tides. 

This deposit likely formed during the Holocene sea level rise as sediments were deposited 

on top of the eroded Bootlegger Cove Formation seaward of the Knik Arm bluffs. 

• Glacial till or moraine deposits. A very dense glacial till-type of deposit underlies the 

marine sand on the west and east sides of Knik Arm, and appears to have been eroded 

away in the center of the channel. This unit extends into both bluffs and may be the 

equivalent of Knik Glaciation deposits on the west side of Knik Arm and the lower 

Bootlegger Cove Formation on the east side (MSB 1995a; KABATA 2006j; Updike and 

Carpenter 1986). 

• Glacial lake clays or marine/alluvial sands. A thick section of glacial lake clays and 

marine/alluvial sands underlie the till unit on the sides of Knik Arm and beneath the loose 

marine deposits in midchannel. This unit is thin or absent near the west bluff, thickens to 

over 200 feet of dense sand beneath the Knik Arm main channel, and 

12/18/07 3-113



Figure 3.27. Knik Arm geologic cross section 

3-114 12/18/07



transitions into a massive, very stiff-to-hard, silty clay beneath the east side of Knik Arm 

(Figure 3.27). The transition from sand to clay near the east side may be of an 

interfingering nature, or the sand unit may postdate the clay unit (Golder Associates 2003, 

KABATA 2006j). The latter interpretation is plausible in light of the likely origin of the 

submerged canyon (Cairn Point Trench) to the south, which lies at nearly the same 

elevation as the base of the sand unit. If the canyon is an erosional remnant of the late 

Pleistocene lower sea level stand, the sand unit may represent alluvium and marine sand 

filling the canyon as the sea level rose, and the interfingering part belongs to the older 

Bootlegger Cove Formation. It is also possible that the submerged bench at the head of the 

canyon (the only location where interfingering layers have been encountered) represents 

an early Holocene landslide deposit that slumped along a former east side bluff during a 

lower sea level. 

• Knik tills. The deepest unit encountered in borings beneath Knik Arm is predominantly a 

hard, gravelly, sandy clay that may be a glacial till deposit associated with the Knik 

Glaciation (KABATA 2006j). 

Landslide deposits 

Numerous landslide deposits occur along the Knik Arm and Ship Creek bluffs: 

• Knik Arm Crossing – West Bluff. The west bluff area is characterized by numerous 

shallow slump deposits as well as mud flows in the fine-grained units caused by spring 

seepage at the interface between the lower sandy clay unit and the upper coarse-grained 

deposits (KABATA 2006n). 

• Knik Arm Crossing – East Bluff. The bluffs at the east end of the proposed Southern 

Alignment and south to the POA exhibit multiple ravines, slough material, and localized 

slump deposits (KABATA 2006j, 2006n). The proposed alignment east of the POA and 

north of Government Hill would cross the toe of a 1964 earthquake-triggered deposit 

known as the Elmendorf landslide, about 0.25 mile north of Government Hill, as well as 

older landslide material consisting of wet, soft-to-loose, intermixed silts, clays, and sands 

near the toe of the slope (KABATA 2006j, 2006n; Updike and Carpenter 1986). 

• Anchorage approach alternatives. The Degan Alternative would cross primarily older 

landslide material along the north bluff of Ship Creek. The Erickson Alternative would 

cross a 1964 earthquake-triggered deposit known as the Government Hill Elementary 

School slide consisting of jumbled blocks that rotated along Bootlegger Cove clays and 

slurry flow material at the slide toe (Shannon & Wilson 1964, KABATA 2006n; Updike 

and Carpenter 1986). Both alternatives cross a 1964 landslide deposit at the south bluff of 

Ship Creek known as the First Avenue Slide (Shannon & Wilson 1994, 2005). 

Artificial fill 

A series of landfill deposits are located between Cairn Point and the POA. Elmendorf 

operated a surface dump at the top of the bluff in this area in the 1940s and 1950s, and debris 

from the landfill slumped down slope onto the beach. There are multiple locations along the 

base of the bluff where debris is visible and being eroded by tidal action (KABATA 2006j). 

12/18/07 3-115



A large extent of the tidal flats in the POA area is covered with 3 to 10 feet of fill introduced 

into the area for more than 70 years. The fill is generally composed of aggregate from nearby 

borrow pits in glaciofluvial or floodplain deposits. Following the 1964 earthquake, some 

landslide debris was hauled to the tidal flats as part of reconstruction, laid down in 1.5- to 

3-foot-thick layers, and graded and compacted (KABATA 2006j, Updike and 


Tideland sediment 

Knik Arm contains several types of bottom sediment, distinguished by transport processes 

and elevation. These include lower and upper active tidelands, dry mud flats, and small 

drainage channels (Bartsch-Winkler 1982; Colonell and Jones 1990). Lower tidelands consist 

primarily of sand with occasional gravel deposited under fast tidal current conditions, while 

upper tidelands or mud flats consist of finer sediments such as sandy silt and clays deposited 

by settlement and flocculation during high tides. In the vicinity of the proposed Southern 

Alignment and Cairn Point, there is little-to-no settlement of fines occurring because of 

currents and turbulence that keep finer sediments in suspension in this narrow part of Knik 

Arm (Smith 2005). Upper tidelands deposits are also thin-to-absent south of Cairn Point 

where geotechnical borings have encountered mostly stiff-to-hard clays at the surface 

(KABATA 2006j), which are likely part of the older Bootlegger Cove Formation. At Port 

MacKenzie dock, however, suspended sediment is being deposited on both the north and 

south sides of the structure, as both ebb and flood tidal currents slow around the dock 

(Aeromap 2001, 2002). A surficial deposit of gravel and boulders lies along the eastern shore 

of the Southern Alignment, apparently associated with active erosion of morainal till in the 

eastern bluffs (Golder Associates 2003; KABATA 2006j). 

3.5.3.1.3 Surface soils 

Surface soil types and building suitability in the Study Area have been by mapped by NRCS 

(1998, 2001) and are depicted on Figures 3.28 and 3.29, respectively, and summarized 

below. 

Mat-Su approach alternatives 

Soils along the northern part of the Upper Point MacKenzie Road consist primarily of 

Kashwitna series silt loam on glaciofluvial outwash plains and hills (Figure 3.28). These soils 

are typically well-drained and consist of up to 1.5 feet of silt loam over gravelly sand. 

Associated with the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Area, present uses of these soils include 

cropland, hayland, pastureland, homesites, and wildlife habitat (NRCS 1998). 

Soils along the southern part of the Upper Point MacKenzie Road and the proposed Northern 

Access and Point MacKenzie Road Alternatives consist of a mixture of well-drained 

Chilligan, Estelle, and Kichatna-Delyndia series soils and poorly drained Cryaquepts, 

Histosols, and Disappoint series soils. The well-drained soil types are mostly composed of 

sandy silt loam, while the poorly drained types consist of wet mucky silt loam and peat. All 

of these are derived from the glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine plains, hills, 

3-116 12/18/07



Figure 3.28. Study Area soil types 

12/18/07 3-117



Figure 3.29. Soil suitability for building – the Mat-Su 

3-118 12/18/07



and depressions left behind by the Naptowne Glaciation. Present use of these areas is 

primarily for wildlife habitat, with minor homesite use in the more well-drained soil zones. In 

addition, Kichatna-Delyndia soils are used as a sand and gravel source (NRCS 1998). 

NRCS soils data related to soil suitability for building (1998) incorporate the effects of 

wetness, ponding, low strength, frost action, and slopes into categories ranging from slightly 

to severely limiting for this purpose (Figure 3.29). Soils on the west side of Burma and Upper 

Point MacKenzie Roads, including those associated with the Point MacKenzie Agricultural 

Area, exhibit some of the best conditions for construction of homesites and small commercial 

buildings. Soils along the east side of Knik-Goose Bay Road have similar building suitability 

ratings. Soils in the remaining areas are rated as having moderate-to-severely limiting 

building suitability characteristics, largely because of the presence of wet hydric soils and 

low-strength peats and mucks. 

Anchorage approach alternatives 

Soils mapped along the steep slopes of Knik Arm and Ship Creek are composed of well 

drained Smithfa, Deception-Estelle-Kichatna, and Kashwitna-Kichatna complex sandy silt 

loams derived from gravelly till, outwash alluvium, and eolian deposits. In addition to soils 

on urban lands, the soils of Government Hill and the Ship Creek terraces are classified as 

Cryorthents. Cryorthents typically consist of very well-drained gravelly sandy loam derived 

from glacial outwash. Soils in Ship Creek bottom consist of poorly-to-moderately welldrained 

Moose River-Niklason complex derived from alluvium parent material 

(NRCS 2001). 

3.5.3.2 Seismic hazards 

3.5.3.2.1 Seismicity and ground shaking 

The Study Area is located in one of the most tectonically active regions of the world. The 

Upper Cook Inlet basin is characterized by numerous potentially active fault-cored folds 

located in between two major linear faults (Figure 3.30) and underlain by the subduction 

zone between the North American and Pacific plates. Historical seismicity in the region has 

come from several sources: 

• Megathrust and deeper earthquakes associated with the subduction zone, such as the 

1964 Alaska earthquake of magnitude 9.2 on the Richter scale. 

• Strike-slip earthquakes associated with the surficial transform boundary between plates, 

such as the Denali and Castle Mountain faults. 

• Shallow crustal earthquakes within the upper North American Plate, such as those which 

may be associated with the smaller structures on Figure 3.30. These are considered to be 

capable of earthquakes in the range of magnitude 6 to 7 (Crouse 2005; Haeussler et 

al. 2000; Martirosyan and Biswas 2004; KABATA 2006j). 

12/18/07 3-119



Figure 3.30. Regional potentially active faults and fault-cored folds 

3-120 12/18/07



Earthquake ground shaking hazards depend on earthquake magnitude, probability of 

occurrence (return period), and soil type. Several site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard 

analyses have been conducted for this Draft EIS to assess ground shaking hazards under local 

soil conditions and the relative potential contributions from different faults. The results of 

these analyses indicate that both deep subduction zone earthquakes and more nearby shallow 

crustal earthquakes would be the most significant sources of seismic hazard to the proposed 

project (Crouse 2005; Martirosyan and Biswas 2004, 2005). Detailed results of these 

analyses, including ground accelerations predicted by the different earthquake models for 

various return periods and soil types, are provided in the Knik Arm Crossing Seismic Studies 

Technical Report (KABATA 2006j). 

3.5.3.2.2 Surface faults 

No active surface faults are known to cross the proposed KAC alternatives. The closest 

potentially active surface fault to the Study Area is the Little Susitna River Scarp fault, 

located about 7 miles west of the Mat-Su alignments (Figure 3.30). This fault is suspected of 

offsetting late Pleistocene deposits (Plafker et al. 1993). 

Near-surface folding and reverse faulting of Tertiary and Quaternary strata are suspected to 

be actively occurring throughout the Cook Inlet basin (Haeussler et al. 2000). Several of the 

fault-cored folds along the west side of Upper Cook Inlet exhibit evidence of active 

deformation of the seafloor or ground surface in this area. A similar fold was mapped along 

the west side of Knik Arm and crosses the Mat-Su alternatives, referred to as the Lorraine- 

Alaska Gulf fold (Haeussler et al. 2000; Magoon et al. 1976). Based on its similarity to other 

well-studied features in Cook Inlet basin, it is possible that it could represent the site of nearsurface 

active folding or reverse faulting. 

3.5.3.2.3 Ground failure and liquefaction 

Earthquakes cause ground shaking that can result in ground failure and structural damage or 

loss. Ground failure in the event of a major earthquake can take several forms, such as 

landsliding, surface cracking, land spreading, liquefaction, and subsidence. Winterhalder et 

al. (1979) and the Municipality of Anchorage (2001a) mapped the relative potential for 

seismically induced ground failure in the Anchorage area based on a combination of the 

above causes and localized ground conditions (Figure 3.31). The Below-the-Bluff Roadway 

portion of the proposed KAC project and the Anchorage approach alternatives each cross 

areas of high-to-very high predicted ground failure (predictions based largely on the potential 

for translational landsliding). 

Liquefaction generally occurs during earthquakes in loose, saturated sands and silty sands, 

because of the rapid buildup of pore water pressure and resulting loss of strength and bearing 

capacity. Although most clay deposits typically have little-to-no liquefaction potential, 

sensitive clays (also known as quick clays) such as those within the Bootlegger Cove 

Formation (Section 3.5.3.1.2), can also produce an effect similar to liquefaction during an 

earthquake (Hungr et al. 2001; Noson et al. 1988). Failure of the Bootlegger Cove sensitive 

clays and resulting translational landsliding during the 1964 earthquake are 

12/18/07 3-121



Figure 3.31. Earthquake-induced ground failure hazards – Anchorage 

3-122 12/18/07



discussed further in Section 3.5.3.2.4. Sandy deposits above the Bootlegger Cove Formation 

are also potentially liquefiable where saturated from a perched aquifer (Updike and 


The loose-to-medium-dense marine sands encountered across much of Knik Arm have the 

highest liquefaction potential along the proposed bridge alignment. Several deep samples in 

older deposits beneath the marine sands were also determined to be liquefiable; these soils, 

however, are isolated within liquefaction-stable deposits. Little to no silty sand was 

encountered at the surface along the Below-the-Bluff Roadway (KABATA 2006j). During 

the 1964 earthquake, there were numerous examples of ground fissuring, lateral spreading, 

and slumping in the tidal flats offshore of the Government Hill area, but little evidence of 

liquefaction features such as sand boils or sand-filled fissures. The potential for liquefaction 

also exists in the bluffs along Knik Arm where sands above the fine-grained Bootlegger Cove 

Formation may be saturated from a perched aquifer (Updike and Carpenter 1986). 

3.5.3.2.4 Slope stability 

The bluffs along Knik Arm have been the sites of major catastrophic earthquake-induced 

landslides in the past, and similar landslides are likely to occur in the future. The ability of 

slopes to remain stable is continually altered by many geologic and man-made processes. 

Both the west and east bluffs of Knik Arm are in a state of marginal stability, because erosion 

from tides and currents are slowly cutting away the toes and slopes at an estimated rate of 

about 0.5 foot per year (KABATA 2006n). While the west bluff exhibits evidence of active 

slumping and mud flows, it is not known whether the sensitive clay unit of the Bootlegger 

Cove Formation extends to this area; thus, the likelihood of large-scale translational 

landsliding during an earthquake is unknown. 

The steep bluffs bordering the east side of Knik Arm and Ship Creek have been mapped by 

Dobrovolny and Schmoll (1974) as having mostly low-to-very low stability. The 

1964 Elmendorf and Government Hill Elementary School slides are mapped as having 

moderate stability because of the lower angles of the previously failed slopes. The Knik Arm 

bluffs from about 1 mile north of Cairn Point to Government Hill, as well as the Ship Creek 

bluffs, are mapped as having potentially large earthquake-triggered landslide risk because of 

the presence of the Bootlegger Cove sensitive clay unit in the lower parts of the bluffs 

(Dobrovolny and Schmoll 1974; Updike and Carpenter 1986). 

3.5.4 Hazardous Materials and Contaminated Sites 

An Initial Site Assessment (ISA) was prepared for the Study Area to determine the potential 

for encountering petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL)-contaminated sites or hazardous 

materials if construction and operation of the proposed KAC project were to occur. The 

objective of the ISA process is to evaluate, based on readily available information, whether 

there are likely to be hazardous materials or petroleum products along the proposed project 

alternatives or whether such materials or products would be likely to exist in the future 

because of on-site or nearby activities or problems. Hazardous materials include ordnance 

12/18/07 3-123



and explosives (OE) and soil and ground water contamination from leaking underground 

storage tanks, aboveground storage tanks, pesticides, and other chemical discharges. 

The ISA was prepared in general accordance with corridor screening guidelines as defined by 

the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in Hazardous 

Waste Guide for Project Development (1990) and FHWA guidance documents on hazardous 

materials (FHWA 1980). 

Known and potential hazardous material sites in the Study Area were identified through 

review of federal and State databases, agency interviews, aerial photography, and site visits. 

Also, readily available information regarding known contaminated sites on Elmendorf was 

obtained from Internet databases and other information repositories. Identification of 

minimum search distances and the types of databases required for review were based on 

ASTM International’s Standard E 1527-00, “Standard Practice for Phase I Environmental 

Site Assessment Process” (2000). Initially, all contaminated sites listed in federal and State 

databases within 0.5 mile of the proposed alternatives were identified. 

For the purposes of investigating hazardous materials concerns, the Study Area was defined 

as the area within 100 feet of the outer limits of the ROW for the proposed alternatives. The 

Study Area has been organized into three subareas, from west to east: 

• the Mat-Su approach alternatives between the Burma Road intersection and the west 

shore of Knik Arm (includes the Point MacKenzie Road and the Northern Access 

Alternatives) 

• the two Southern Alignment bridge lengths across Knik Arm 28 

• Anchorage approach alternatives (includes the Degan and Erickson Alternatives). 

In the ISA, the Study team rated each known and potential hazardous material location for its 

potential to affect the project. The Study Team rated the sites as having a high, medium, low, 

or negligible impact risk. High- and medium-impact risk ratings were assigned to known or 

potentially contaminated sites that could cause contamination of property within 100 feet of 

the proposed ROWs. High- and medium-impact risk-rated sites are presented below for each 

of the Study Area subareas. 

3.5.4.1 Mat-Su approach alternatives 

Based on the ISA screening process, no hazardous waste or contaminated sites were located 

within the KAC Study Area for either the Point MacKenzie Road or Northern Access 

Alternatives. However, both the Point MacKenzie Road and Northern Access Alternatives 

would directly affect the Former Susitna Gunnery Range (FSGR). Except for approximately 

1 mile at the northern terminus of the Study Area, all of the Mat-Su approach alternatives 

would be within the former FSGR. The 86,570-acre FSGR is located northwest of Elmendorf 

28 The 14,000-foot bridge length was found to not be financially feasible and did not meet Purpose and Need 

criteria, however, this alternative was carried forward solely for comparative evaluation based on requests 

from environment resource and permitting agencies. 

3-124 12/18/07



and was used as an impact area and buffer zone for 90- and 120-millimeter antiaircraft 

artillery training from 1952 to 1960. The range extends as far west as the Little Susitna River 

and north to the town of Willow. Most of the Mat-Su portion of the Study Area is located 

within the firing fan (see Figure 4.19), with the exception of Point MacKenzie Road, near the 

Burma Road intersection. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has completed an 

initial data archive review of the FSGR. A copy of the USACE archive report is included as 

Appendix B of the ISA. USACE timelines for completing assessment and potential 

unexploded ordnance (UXO) removal at the FSGR extend beyond 2010. OE are known to 

have been used within the KAC Study Area. Additionally, UXO has been verified in two of 

the USACE study areas, which are areas that could be affected by construction and operation 

of either the Point MacKenzie Road Alternative or the Northern Access Alternative. Property 

that would be affected by implementation of the proposed Mat-Su approach alternatives has 

been assigned a high-impact risk rating for OE. 

3.5.4.2 Southern Alignment 

The Southern Alignment includes the Study Area between the bluffs, including the west and 

east bridge approaches, the bridge, and the Below-the-Bluff Roadway alignment along the 

northwest coast of Anchorage that terminates near the POA. There is no difference between 

the two lengths from a hazardous materials or UXO involvement perspective. The western 

bridge abutment on the Mat-Su side of the project would be within the FSGR OE impact 

area. Therefore, the issues discussed previously for the two Mat-Su build alternatives would 

also be applicable to the western extent of the Southern Alignment. No assessment was 

completed by USACE to determine the presence of UXO within Knik Arm. Therefore, the 

UXO risk to the in-water bridge support pilings is unknown, but this risk would be expected 

to be low. 

The Below-the-Bluff Roadway alignment would parallel Elmendorf, which is a 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Priority List (NPL) site because 

of various environmental contamination issues related to ongoing and former military 

activity at the U.S. Air Force (USAF) installation. The Below-the-Bluff Roadway would 

come within 0.5 mile of three known Elmendorf contaminated sites (Sites LF04, WP14, 

and ST41, shown on Figure 4.20 and discussed in Section 4.5.4). Environmental and 

remediation studies by USAF have been completed at each of the three sites. 

3.5.4.3 Anchorage approach alternatives 

3.5.4.3.1 Degan Alternative 

Phase 1 

The following seven paragraphs describe sites that would affect the proposed Degan 

Alternative for Phase 1. Preliminary Site Investigations (PSIs) are recommended (see Table 2 

in the Initial Site Assessment Technical Report [KABATA 2006o]) at all seven sites to 

further define the potential ROW impacts for the alternative. 

12/18/07 3-125



Site OT92 – Abandoned Hydrant Lines – Medium Impact 

This site consists of former hydrant fuel lines associated with operations at Elmendorf (see 

Figure 4.21). No comprehensive investigations have occurred to date, but investigations are 

planned for 2007. The planned closure date is October 31, 2010 (USAF 2001). The primary 

concern with this site is the potential for undocumented petroleum hydrocarbon impacts from 

past leaks. This site was assessed as having a medium-impact risk to the project based on the 

possibility of petroleum contamination migrating from the site to the project search corridors. 

Site PL81 – POL Pipelines 81 – High Impact 

Site PL81, a CERCLA NPL site, crosses the Anchorage approach alternatives and is the site 

of abandoned POL lines that began at the POA fuel distribution system and terminated north 

of the east/west runway on Elmendorf (see Figure 4.21). The 10-inch jet fuel and aviation gas 

pipelines were damaged in the 1964 earthquake and abandoned shortly thereafter. To address 

the remaining soil and groundwater contamination at the site, an environmental Cleanup 

Plan 2005 was developed in cooperation with the ADEC to remove contaminated soil 

(ADEC 2005a). Additional excavations are planned for the area. PL81 could affect the 

project if contaminated soil were found to exist within the proposed project search corridors. 

This site was assessed as having a high-impact risk to the project because of known fuel 

contamination associated with the line and because the alignment would directly cross the 

site. 

Site SD52 – Cherry Hill Ditch/Ravine – Medium Impact 

Elmendorf site SD52, also known as the Cherry Hill Ditch or Ravine, would be crossed by 

both the proposed Erickson and Degan Alternatives north of the proposed cut-and-cover 

tunnel (see Figure 4.21). SD52 is a CERCLA site and, in 1994, low levels of polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs) were capped in the ditch. The ditch begins on Elmendorf and crosses 

perpendicular to the ROW corridor before reaching its terminus at the POA. The drainage 

ditch receives stormwater drainage from under the runway and possibly from shop drains on 

Base. Hydrocarbons, solvents, oils, and detergents are present. All contaminants have been 

dealt with to the extent practicable, and no further remedial action is required or planned 

(NFRAP 29 ) (ADEC 2005a). However, an NFRAP does not indicate that the site contaminants 

have been removed, only that the regulating agencies require no additional cleanup based on 

existing land use. Impacts on the area during construction would require management of 

contaminated soils. Additionally, if controlled-access ROW were acquired through the area, 

the new property owner might be exposed to future environmental liability issues, depending 

on the agreements made with the responsible party. This site was assessed as having a 

medium-impact risk to the project because the alignment would directly affect the site and 

because there is the possibility that residual contamination exists. 

29 NFRAP, or “No Further Remedial Action Planned” sites, are sites that have been removed from the 

CERCLIS list by USEPA. These sites are no longer considered a federal concern. Suspected hazardous waste 

sites throughout the United States are listed in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation 

and Liability Information System, or CERCLIS. This federal database contains information on preliminary 

assessments, potential and actual hazardous waste sites, site inspections, and cleanup activities. CERCLIS 

sites are candidates for addition to the federal and state Superfund lists. 

3-126 12/18/07



Site 2 – Tesoro Northstore #10 – High Impact 

Site 2 is located at 500 Hollywood Drive (see Figure 4.21). Gasoline and diesel 

contamination was found during a tank upgrade in 1996, and contaminated soil was 

excavated and thermally treated. Contamination that could not be excavated was treated 

using a passive soil vapor extraction system. ADEC issued an NFRAP letter for the site on 

February 26, 2003, conditional upon removal of the monitoring wells and soil vapor 

extraction system (ADEC 2005a). There are three underground storage tanks (USTs), 

installed in 1986, which are still in use (ADEC 2005b). The NFRAP determination rather 

than an NFA (No Further Action) determination typically indicates that there are still 

contaminants present at the site that could be removed but have not been (usually because of 

building conflicts). Removing the site structures would result in the new property owner 

being responsible for any residual petroleum contamination. Additionally, the site is used as 

a commercial gasoline station, and undocumented contamination may exist. Therefore, this 

site was determined to have a high-impact risk to the project. 

Site 15 – Anchorage Toll Center – Medium Impact 

Site 15 is located at 200 and 210 East Bluff Road (see Figure 4.21). Three USTs were 

removed from each site and soil contamination was reported. Cleanup operations were 

completed and ADEC issued the site an NFA determination. During the UST work, deeper 

contamination that appeared to be from an off-site source was found (ADEC 2005a). Three 

10,000-gallon diesel USTs are on the site (ADEC 2005b). The proposed Erickson Alternative 

alignment and the Degan Alternative off-ramp system would be immediately adjacent to and 

downgradient of this site. Because of the proximity of the site to the proposed project search 

corridors for the proposed Erickson and Degan Alternatives, the commercial quantities of 

fuel in use at the site, and the indication of off-site contamination sources, this site was 

assigned a medium-impact risk to the project. 

Site 36 – Former Unocal/Short’s Texaco – Medium Impact 

Site 36 is located at 566 East Bluff Road (see Figure 4.21). Four gasoline USTs were 

removed from the site in 1994, and soil and ground water contamination was discovered. A 

soil vapor extraction/bioventing remediation unit was installed in September 2004, and 

remediation and ground water monitoring continues at the site. The site is no longer a 

commercial gasoline station (ADEC 2005a). Because this site is approximately 50 feet 

upgradient from the proposed project search corridor, it would be possible that contaminated 

ground water could extend to the project search corridor. Therefore, this site was determined 

to have a medium-impact risk to the project. 

Site 99 – Defense Fuel Support Point – Anchorage (DFSP-A) – High Impact 

Site 99 is a 69-acre property located north of Bluff Drive that would be crossed by either the 

proposed Erickson Alternative or the Degan Alternative north of the proposed cut-and-cover 

tunnel (see Figure 4.21). Site 99 was formerly used by the U.S. Army Defense Logistics 

Agency (DLA) to store fuel in aboveground storage tanks (ASTs). Available aerial 

photographs of the site from 1960 to 1994 show several large ASTs. Soil and groundwater 

contamination have been documented at the site. The bulk of the soil contamination was 

removed in 2001 (ADEC 2005a). The U.S. Army is responsible for continued monitoring of 

contaminated ground water; any purchase of the property through controlled-access ROW 

12/18/07 3-127



acquisition, however, would result in the landowner assuming responsibility for any 

contaminated soil encountered in the future. Additionally, management of any contaminated 

soil encountered during construction through this site would be the responsibility of the 

proposed KAC project proponent (HDR 2004). This property has been assigned a highimpact 

rating because contamination has been documented on this property and because the 

site would be crossed by the proposed Erickson Alternative. This site was assessed as having 

a high-impact risk to the project because of known fuel contamination associated with the 

site and because the proposed ROW would affect a large area of this site. 

Phase 2 

In Phase 2 of the proposed projected, the area that would be crossed by the Ingra-Gambell 

Couplet is one of the original industrial areas in Anchorage. Implementation of the proposed 

Ingra-Gambell Couplet could be affected by the following medium- and high-impact sites 

described below. 

Site 5 – Alaskan Real Estate Parking Lot – Medium Impact 

Site 5 is located at 717 East 4th Avenue (see Figure 4.21). Soil contaminated with 

tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and diesel range organics (DRO) was excavated and thermally 

treated in 2004. PCE-contaminated soil and ground water remains on site, and studies are 

ongoing. This site has been assigned a medium-impact rating because undefined soil and 

ground water contamination remains and because the property is in the presumed upgradient 

direction of the proposed controlled-access ROW (ADEC 2005a). 

Site 14 – Lefever Property – 4th Avenue and Ingra Street – High Impact 

Site 14 is located at 901 4th Avenue (see Figure 4.21). Ten USTs were removed from this 

property in 1989. Soil and ground water contamination has been documented, and the 

contaminated ground water plume extends off site. This site would be upgradient of the 

proposed controlled-access ROW and has been assigned a high-impact rating because the 

property is known to be contaminated (ADEC 2005b). 

Within the Ship Creek area, the six sites discussed below were given high-site hazard ratings 

because of contamination resulting from PCBs, fuels, heavy metals, solvents, and various 

other chemicals. It is unlikely that the proposed Degan Alternative or the Erickson 

Alternative would, however, directly affect these sites because the proposed elevated viaduct 

structures would span the sites and the Ship Creek area. In all six cases, it is unlikely that 

ROW would be acquired. Land within the Anchorage Terminal Reserve needed for viaduct 

support structure piers would not likely require controlled-access ROW acquisition (i.e., 

easement, lease). Viaduct support piers should, however, be sited to avoid direct impact to 

any of the sites identified. If there were no direct impacts during construction (i.e., 

excavation of soils) or acquisition of any of these properties for controlled-access ROW 

purposes, then the risk to the project search corridors would be low for all six sites. All six 

sites would require a PSI, and the risk to the project search corridors would increase to high 

if controlled-access ROW were required or excavation were completed in the area of the six 

sites. All six sites are shown on Figure 4.21. 

3-128 12/18/07



Site 6 – Dean’s Auto Salvage 

Site 6 is located at 720 East Whitney Road and appears on the UST database as McDonald 

Industries. Currently, the property is used for an auto salvage yard. Dean’s Auto Salvage is a 

RCRA Small Quantity Generator with 12 reported violations. The ADEC UST database 

shows that the site formerly had three USTs, but all are listed as permanently out of use. 

Acquisition of this parcel for controlled-access ROW purposes or impacts on this site that 

might require excavation of potentially contaminated soil would result in an impact risk 

rating of high because of the site’s use as a salvage yard and the recommendation for a PSI at 

the site (ADEC 2005a; ADEC 2005b). 

Site 9 – Anchorage ML&P #1 

Site 9 is located at 821 East 1st Avenue and was the site of a 235,000-gallon diesel spill 

during the 1964 earthquake. Soils and ground water were contaminated with diesel fuel, and 

subsequent releases occurred on the site including PCBs from electrical equipment. Free 

product recovery and ground water monitoring is ongoing (ADEC 2005a). 

Site 11 – Alaska Railroad Yard Switches 

The proposed Ingra-Gambell Viaduct would cross a portion of the Alaska Railroad rail yard 

that is part of the Anchorage Terminal Reserve, a Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA 30 ) site occupying approximately 313 acres. The 

area has been used for fueling, painting, steam cleaning, loading freight onto rail cars, and 

maintenance and repair work on locomotives and railroad cars (USEPA 2005b). A 

1996 RCRA Facility Assessment of the property identified 73 solid waste management units 

(SWMUs). USEPA and the ARRC, under an Administrative Order on Consent, are 

conducting a remedial investigation of the Anchorage Terminal Reserve property. This 

generalized site has been assigned a high-impact rating because of past and ongoing 

industrial uses and because commercial quantities of petroleum products have been stored on 

site and releases have been documented (ADEC 2005a). 

Site 13 – Craig Taylor Equipment Company 

Site 13 is located at 733 East Whitney Road. Four underground storage tanks were removed 

from this property in 1989. Low levels of contamination were found and contaminated soil 

was landspread. ADEC closed the site in 1993 (ADEC 2005b). 

Site 44 – Arctic Cooperage 

Site 44 is located at 932 Whitney Road. In 1998, oil-stained soil, paint pools, and drums with 

unknown contents were documented at the property. The site was an alleged hazardous 

dumpsite for oil refining sludge and a barrel reconditioning operation from 1977 to 1988. 

Remediation and studies are ongoing, and a diesel UST was removed in 1996 

(ADEC 2005a). 

30 Commonly known as Superfund, CERCLA was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law 

created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provided broad federal authority to respond 

directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the 

environment. 

12/18/07 3-129



Site 48 – Aurora North Fuel Sales 

Site 48 is located at 1040 East 1st Avenue. Five USTs and 500 cubic yards of contaminated 

soil were removed from the property in 1990. Since then, additional contaminated soil has 

been removed and ground water contamination documented. An NFRAP letter was issued 

and institutional controls were established in 2004. Ground water monitoring is ongoing and 

contamination is known to extend off site to the north and west (toward the project search 

corridors) (ADEC 2005a). 

3.5.4.3.2 Erickson Alternative 

Phase 1 

The proposed Erickson Alternative would be affected by the same sites as the Degan 

Alternative, primarily because access ramps and associated road improvements for the Degan 

Alternative would affect Erickson Street. The primary difference is that the cut-and-cover 

tunnel for the Erickson Alternative would be closer to Sites 2, 15, and 36 than the Degan 

Alternative tunnel would be. 

Phase 2 

The proposed Ingra-Gambell Couplet for the Erickson Alternative would affect the same 

sites as the Degan Alternative connection to the Ingra-Gambell Couplet. 

For specific information on the ISA findings, ISA methodology, and identified hazardous 

materials sites, refer to the Initial Site Assessment Technical Report (KABATA 2006o). 

3.5.5 Energy Resources 

There are currently no commercially feasible energy resources in the Study Area. Table 4-35, 

in Section 4.5.5.4, shows expected 2010 vehicular fuel consumption for the Study Area under 

the No-Action Alternative. 

3.5.6 Ground Water Resources 

3.5.6.1 The Mat-Su 

Aquifers in the Mat-Su area are primarily situated within glacial till, glacial outwash, and 

fluvial deposits overlying sedimentary and low-grade metamorphic bedrock. Glacial deposit 

aquifers have been described as “irregular in distribution and highly variable both in 

composition and in their ability to provide water to wells” (Brabets 1999). Both confined and 

unconfined aquifers provide potable water throughout the Study Area. 

A single source of regional ground water resource information for the western portion of the 

Mat-Su is not currently summarized or available, although USGS is in the process of 

compiling a regional hydrogeologic map of the Mat-Su. 31 Existing ground water data within 

the Study Area were compiled from the Point MacKenzie, Houston, Big Lake, and the 

31 Personal communication, Ted Moran, USGS, with Elizabeth Shen, November 21, 2005. 

3-130 12/18/07



southern Wasilla areas, in addition to information from the State of Alaska’s on-line wells 

database (KABATA 2006l). Table 3-20 summarizes the number of wells identified within 


Table 3-20. Number of wells within the Study Area, located 

by township and range a 

Township – 

north 

Range – 

west 

Number of wells 

14 4 17 

15 4 17 

16 4 28 

17 4 94 

17 3 446 

16 3 79 

15 3 6 

14 5 3 

15 5 23 

15 5 6 

16 5 1 

Total 720 

a 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources Well Log Tracking System 

(ADNR 2005) 

3.5.6.1.1 Ground water quality and quantity 

In general, it is reported that wells situated in the glacial deposits have proven adequate for 

domestic supply. Community water for Wasilla is provided by four ground water wells 

tapping multiple unconfined aquifers. The wells range from 146 feet to 250 feet in depth. 

Raw water quality is very good, and the system does not require treatment other than routine 

chlorination. Typical domestic supply from the glacial deposits near Houston has met 

expectations of a range of 10 to 50 gallons per minute (gpm), while it is reported that yields 

as high as 1,000 gpm could be achieved through proper well design at locations near the 

Little Susitna River. Sandstone and coal layers at depth also provide potable water supply. 

Water quality concerns in the Houston area include incidental occurrences of high 

concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and conductivity, iron, total dissolved solids (TDS), and 

phosphorous. 

Few high-capacity wells have been attempted in the Mat-Su; however, a Palmer city supply 

well draws 500 gpm from an aquifer at a depth of 624 feet below ground surface (bgs). 

Houston-area well production rates ranged from about 2 gpm for domestic bedrock wells, up 

to 250 gpm in institutional wells (Maynard 1987). 

In the Big Lake portion of the Study Area, higher yields are typical from the confined 

aquifer, up to 110 gpm compared with approximately 5 to 50 gpm in the shallow deposits 

(Hogan 1995). Drinking water quality near Big Lake is generally good; however, some wells 

contain constituent concentrations that exceed regulatory standards. These include TDS (as 

12/18/07 3-131



high as 1,430 milligrams per liter [mg/L]), iron (as high as 7.2 mg/L), chlorides (700 mg/L), 

sulfates (130 mg/L) and manganese (0.46 mg/L). 

Shallow ground water close to the northwestern portion of the Study Area is reportedly 

brackish or salty. The water quality problem occurs in the vicinity of Nancy Lake, at depths 

as shallow as 50 to 100 feet bgs, or nearly 180 feet above sea level. The cause for the salinity 

has not been determined; however, it is believed to be attributable either to connate water 

(water trapped in the sedimentary rock at the time of its deposit) or to inundation of the area 

by an ancestral Cook Inlet. 

In the Point MacKenzie portion of the Study Area, unconsolidated materials are known to 

provide potable water from unconfined as well as from confined aquifer sources. Unconfined 

aquifer yield in this portion of the Study Area is estimated by Glass (1983) to be 5 to 35 gpm, 

while the confined aquifer yield may range widely from less than 1 gpm to more than 

300 gpm. Ground water quality in the Point MacKenzie area varies widely. High salinity was 

reported in a 300-foot-deep well west of Horseshoe Lake, close to the Little Susitna River. 

Water samples collected during test well drilling near Lake Lorraine indicate increasing 

chlorides with depth; however, concentrations meet drinking water quality standards. 

3.5.6.1.2 Ground water quality concerns 

Arsenic 

Conditions favorable to the occurrence of arsenic in ground water are found throughout the 

Study Area. These include the presence of iron oxide and sulfide minerals in the aquifer 

materials and phosphates and organic carbon in alkaline (high pH) ground water. Several 

wells in the Study Area were identified with concentrations of arsenic between 

10 micrograms per liter (µg/L) and 50 µg/L (USGS 2001a). USEPA’s maximum 

contaminant level for arsenic in drinking water is 10 µg/L. 

Contaminated sites 

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) on-line databases were 

searched for incidents of “open” leaking underground storage tank sites (ADEC 2005a) and 

“active” contaminated sites (ADEC 2005b) located in Big Lake, Houston, and Wasilla. No 

other location references from within the Study Area are used in the existing databases. The 

search resulted in the identification of seven sites in Big Lake, one site in Houston and 

32 sites in Wasilla. The locations of the Wasilla sites were not researched to determine the 

number of sites situated within the Study Area. 

3.5.6.1.3 Ground water recharge areas 

Regional hydrogeologic mapping has not previously been conducted for the Mat-Su. Based 

on general geological conditions in the Study Area, recharge to unconfined aquifers is 

through downward percolation of precipitation. Recharge to deeper aquifers is by infiltration 

of ground water through aquitards and “leaky” confining layers, by lateral migration from 

other aquifers, and/or by direct infiltration of precipitation where the till or other confining 

3-132 12/18/07



layers are absent. Ground water recharge occurs over most of the land surface, with discharge 

occurring locally to low-lying areas such as lakes, streams, and wetlands. 


The Anchorage portion of the Study Area is underlain by two primary freshwater aquifers 

within glacial outwash sands and gravel. The upper unconfined aquifer (0–50 feet bgs) is 

separated from the lower, confined aquifer (70–300 feet bgs) by impermeable clay deposits 

of the Bootlegger Cove Formation. These aquifers flow west and generally thicken with 

distance from the Chugach Mountains. 

Recharge of the Anchorage-area aquifers has been estimated at 75 mgd. Recharge primarily 

occurs from bedrock seepage (25 mgd); infiltration by perennial surface streams and seepage 

along the Chugach front and foothills (20 mgd); and through direct recharge of rainfall, 

snowmelt, and water body losses within the lowland areas (30 mgd) (Barnwell et al. 1972). 

Saltwater intrusion into the aquifers has been documented near Point Woronzof. 

Previous studies have used a value of 22 to 33 mgd for the ground water yield for the 

Anchorage Bowl. This number was originally obtained from a 1972 study (Barnwell et al.). It 

appears that the Barnwell study has been the basis for all Anchorage Bowl estimates of 

ground water yield since that time. Water quality is generally good; however, high arsenic 

levels have been found in some locations, Sand Lake area for example. 

3.6 Cultural Environment 

3.6.1 Archaeology and Historic Preservation 

3.6.1.1 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act consultation 

To conduct project consultation with SHPO, the Study Team combined compliance with 

NEPA regulations [43 C.F.R. § 1500.5(i)] with the process it used to comply with 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. § 470f, as 

amended). Section 106 requires that: 

The head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed 

Federal or federally assisted undertaking … take into account the effect of the 

undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or 

eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The head of any such Federal agency 

shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation … a reasonable 

opportunity to comment with regard to such undertaking. 

As lead federal agency, FHWA is carrying out this responsibility for itself and on behalf of 

USACE, USCG, and any other cooperating federal agency with the same legal requirements 

[43 C.F.R. § 1500.5(h)], but not including Elmendorf, or BLM acting on Elmendorf’s behalf, 

as it relates to the Anchorage approach. [see 36 C.F.R.§ 800.2(2)]. 

The regulations implementing Section 106 are found at 36 C.F.R. Part 800, Protection of 

Historic Properties. 

12/18/07 3-133



3.6.1.2 Agency and tribal consultation 

SHPO was invited and agreed to participate in the NEPA process as a cooperating agency 

(43 C.F.R. § 1501.6). Consultation under Section 106 was also initiated with SHPO, and the 

following were invited to be consulting parties under 36 C.F.R. § 800.3(c): Federally 

Recognized Alaska Native Governments and Native villages and regional corporations 

(Native Village of Eklutna; Eklutna Incorporated; Knik Tribal Council, Knikatnu Inc.; Native 

Village of Tyonek; Tyonek Native Corporation; Chickaloon Village Traditional Council; 

Chickaloon-Moose Creek Native Association; and the Cook Inlet Region, Inc.), the 

Municipality of Anchorage Certified Local Government (CLG), the Mat-Su Borough CLG, 

the Government Hill Community Council, the Chugiak-Eagle River Historical Society, the 

Wasilla-Knik-Willow Creek Historical Society, and the Cook Inlet Historical Society. The 

general public was also invited to participate through a series of public scoping meetings. 

SHPO, Federally Recognized Alaska Native Governments and organizations, and the two 

CLGs have participated throughout the process. Native Village of Eklutna Resolution 

No. 2005–24, Preservation of Historical and Cultural Resources, is provided in Appendix D. 

The Knik Tribal Council’s Historic and Cultural Protection Ordinance 2006-02 is also found 

in Appendix D. 

3.6.1.3 Identification of historic properties 

Stephen R. Braund & Associates (SRB&A) completed an inventory and evaluation of historic 

properties on behalf of FHWA for compliance with 36 C.F.R. § 800.4 (SRB&A 2006; Knik 

Arm Crossing, Section 106 Report, Volumes I and II, 2006). SRB&A conducted literature 

reviews for the Study Area, reviewed Alaska Heritage Resource Survey files (AHRS) for 

previously identified sites and then requested site numbers for documentation of properties 

within the general vicinity of the Anchorage approach, and conducted library, archival, and 

oral interviews to obtain further information about historic properties in the Study Area. 

Throughout the scoping process SRB&A conducted windshield surveys of various 

Anchorage approaches and completed a field inventory and testing program on both proposed 

alternatives in the Mat-Su . Site-specific inventories of the area of potential effect (APE) for 

the Degan and Erickson Alternatives were then completed. FHWA consulted with the 

SHPO, 32 who requested additional information regarding the possibility of establishing a 

historic district. SRB&A then inventoried all of the 281 buildings on Government Hill. 

SRB&A also conducted extensive interviews with elders from the Knik Tribal Council and 

Native Village of Eklutna for a Dena’ina fish camp called Tak’at (ANC-01337) and, with 

their assistance, prepared a traditional cultural property (TCP) recommendation for a 

determination of eligibility for the National Register (SRB&A 2006, Vol. I). 

Permission for access to complete inventories on Elmendorf land was not granted. If the 

proposed project is approved with a USDOT easement or title transfer, those portions of the 

Study Areas on Elmendorf property will be inventoried for Section 106 compliance prior to 

construction. 

32 In this document, the noun form “the SHPO” means “the State Historic Preservation Officer.” 

3-134 12/18/07



3.6.1.4 Evaluation of historic significance 

36 C.F.R. § 800.4(c) requires that the agency official 1) apply the National Register criteria to 

properties identified in the APE, in consultation with the SHPO and federally recognized 

tribes that may attach religious and cultural significance, and 2) determine whether a property 

is eligible. The criteria, set out in 36 C.F.R. Part 63, are: 

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, 

engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects 

that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, 

and association and 

(a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the 

broad patterns of our history; or 

(b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or 

(c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of 

construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic 

values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose 

components may lack individual distinction; or 

(d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory 

or history. 

National Register Bulletin 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting 

Traditional Cultural Properties, provides further instruction on how to apply the 

criteria to TCPs. Examples of properties possessing such significance include (among 

others) locations where a community or members of a community have traditionally 

carried out cultural practices or beliefs important in maintaining their historic identity. 

3.6.1.5 Determination of eligibility 

FHWA applied the National Register criteria to the properties identified by SRB&A, in 

consultation with the SHPO and appropriate Native Alaska governments, and made the 

following determinations. 

3.6.1.5.1 The Mat-Su 

The field inventory and testing program found no historic properties (SRB&A 2006, Vol. I); 

therefore, no identified historic properties would be affected by the implementation of any 

alternative presented in this Draft EIS. 


SRB&A inventoried all of the 281 properties on Government Hill (SRB&A 2006). 

Government Hill had two historic properties, the Brown’s Point Cottages, ANC-0048 and 

ANC-1205, already listed in the National Register. FHWA, 33 in consultation with SHPO, has 

determined that there are four historic districts and six additional individual properties that 

are eligible for the National Register and therefore meet the criteria for protection under 

33 Personal communication, Edrie Vinson, letter to Judith Bittner, June 23, 2006 (see Appendix D). 

12/18/07 3-135



Section 106 of NHPA and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (as 

amended). 34 The eligible districts and properties are (see Figure 3.32): 

• Government Hill Railroad Housing Historic District (ANC-2108) 

• Government Hill Quonset Hut Historic District (ANC-2111) 

• Government Hill Urban Renewal Historic District (ANC-2128) 

• Panoramic View Historic District (ANC-2126) 

• Quonset Hut (ANC-1843), 100½ West Cook Avenue 

• Wireless Station (ANC-0306), 124, 132, and 140 East Manor Avenue 

• Loxtave House (ANC-1860), 308½ East Manor 

• Weaver House, Atomic Ranch (ANC-1869), 301 East Harvard Avenue 

• Alaska Railroad Employees Club/Square & Round Dance Club (ANC-1932), 

32 East Harvard Avenue 

• Alaska Railroad Water Tower (ANC-1933), 232 East Harvard Avenue 

The basis for these eligibility determinations are documented in SRB&A 2006; Knik Arm 

Crossing, Section 106 Report, Volumes I and II, 2006 and in consultation letters between 

FHWA and SHPO, which are contained in Appendix D. 

AHRS site ANC-01337, a Dena’ina fish camp called Tak’at, is located north of Ship Creek 

near an eddy where fish congregate before migrating up local streams to spawn. This springsummer 

habitation site, the location of the traditional First Salmon Ceremony and of one of 

the last potlatch ceremonies in this area, was determined eligible by FHWA under 

criterion (a) as a TCP site. This place is where the peoples of the Knik and Eklutna Tribes 

traditionally gathered and preserved fish as a staple food source and participated in 

ceremonies important in maintaining their historic cultural identities (SRB&A 2006, Vol. I). 

The SHPO did not concur in the eligibility determination on Tak’at due to the presence of 

military debris and toxic wastes, as well as the port and military security preventing the site 

being used for traditional purposes. FHWA discussed the SHPO’s finding with the tribes, and 

advised them of their right to request an official determination by the Keeper of the National 

Register. 35 However, the tribes agreed that preservation in place was not possible, and that its 

importance to them was in having their story told. Therefore, while not considered eligible 

under Section 106, for the purposes of compliance, Tak’at is given special consideration here 

in light of its significant history to the tribes. 

34 Personal communication, Judith Bittner, letter to Edrie Vinson, July 17, 2006 (see Appendix D). 

35 Personal communication, Judith Bittner, State Historic Preservation Officer, letter to Edrie Vinson, March 28, 

2006 (see Appendix D). 

3-136 12/18/07



Figure 3.32. Government Hill Historic Districts 

12/18/07 3-137



3.6.2 Recreational Resources, Parks, and Wildlife Refuges 

The following sections summarize recreational resources, parks, and wildlife refuges in the 

Mat-Su, Knik Arm, and Anchorage areas that could be affected indirectly by the proposed 

action. See Section 3.7 of this Draft EIS and the accompanying Section 4(f) Evaluation for 

information on specific Section 4(f) resources. 

No lands in the project area were identified that are subject to provisions of Section 6(f) of 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCF Act) based on consultations with the 

State of Alaska’s designated LWCF Act Liaison. 


This section describes specific recreational facilities and resources in the Mat-Su that could 

be indirectly affected by the proposed project, including scenic roadways, state game refuges, 

wayside parks and campgrounds, fishing and hunting areas, and miscellaneous existing and 

planned recreational areas. The focus is on those facilities and resources in the Mat-Su that 

are within convenient travel distance of Anchorage and also readily accessible to Mat-Su 

communities (Figure 3.33). The analysis emphasizes recreational facilities and resources that 

are in natural settings. Heritage sites and museums are, however, also found throughout the 

region, including the Dorothy Page Museum and Frontier Village in Wasilla, Alpine 

Historical Park in Sutton, Knik Museum and Dog Mushers’ Hall of Fame on Knik Road, 

Palmer Visitor Center and Museum, Independence Mine State Historical Park near Hatcher 

Pass, and the Museum of Alaska Transportation and Industry in Wasilla. Community 

recreational facilities in the Mat-Su include five golf courses, three motor sports racing 

tracks, the Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex, Palmer Ice Arena, Palmer and Wasilla public 

pools, and numerous neighborhood parks, playgrounds, and ball fields (MSB 2003a). 

3.6.2.1.1 Scenic roadways 

Recreational resources that could be affected by implementation of the proposed project 

include certain scenic roadways in the Mat-Su. Driving on these roads may itself be 

perceived as a recreational activity. “Highway-oriented” recreational facilities along these 

roads include pull-outs, interpretative or information signs, designated fishing areas near 

bridges, and waysides. In addition, these roadways provide access to major natural, historic, 

and cultural attractions that provide recreational opportunities. The two major highways that 

traverse the Mat-Su are especially noteworthy: the Glenn Highway (a designated National 

Scenic Byway) and the Parks Highway (designated a National Scenic 

Byway in the northern Susitna Valley) as previously discussed in Section 3.2.2.1. A 135-mile 

portion of the Glenn Highway from Anchorage to the Little Nelchina River and a 16-mile 

portion of the Parks Highway from Denali State Park to Healy are designated by ADOT&PF 

as Alaska Scenic Byways. 

3-138 12/18/07



Figure 3.33. Recreational resources, parks, and wildlife refuges – the Mat-Su 

12/18/07 3-139



3.6.2.1.2 State game refuges 

A state game refuge (SGR) is a specially protected area managed by ADF&G. The Alaska 

State Legislature has deemed these areas essential to the protection of fish and wildlife 

habitat. Most SGRs provide for fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, and other seasonal 

recreational opportunities. Three SGRs are located within the Mat-Su: Susitna Flats SGR, 

Goose Bay SGR, and Palmer Hay Flats SGR. These units are dominated by wetlands and 

coastal estuaries that provide regionally important habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, and 

other wildlife. 

3.6.2.1.3 Parks and campgrounds 

Table 3-21 lists the major parks and campgrounds in the area of indirect effects. Fish Creek 

Parkis administered by the Mat-Su Borough. The Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor 

Recreation manages state recreation areas and related sites. There are also numerous 

privately operated campgrounds and recreational vehicle (RV) parks in the Mat-Su portion of 


Table 3-21. Major public parks and campgrounds in the Mat-Su 

Facility 

Location/Features 

Overnight 

visitor capacity 

Fish Creek Park (Big Lake) S. Big Lake Rd. at Fish Creek day use area 

Big Lake North State Recreation Site Mile 5 of N. Big Lake Road 60 campsites 

Big Lake South State Recreation Site Mile 5.2 of S. Big Lake Road 20 campsites 

Rocky Lake State Recreation Site Mile 3.5 of Big Lake Road; fishing; boating 10 campsites 

Little Susitna Public Use Facility Susitna Flats SGR; fishing; boating 40 campsites 

Sources: Mat-Su Borough, 2005e; Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 2005 

According to records maintained by the Mat-Su Borough Recreation and Library Services 

(MSB 2005g), none of the Borough recreational facilities is operating at full capacity on a 

regular basis. Trailheads for snowmachine access to the Susitna River are popular during 

winter weekends with optimal snow conditions. Day use parks are at full capacity on sunny 

and warm summer weekends and evenings. 

All the state parks in the Mat-Su are closed during the winter. Mid-July is generally the peak 

period for most of the parks. 

According to Heikes, 37 use of some state parks has declined in recent years for various 

reasons. 

37 Personal communication, Dennis Heikes, Superintendent, Mat-Su/Copper Basin Area, Alaska Division of 

Parks and Outdoor Recreation, with Donald Shug, Northern Economics, Inc., May 19, 2005. 

3-140 12/18/07



3.6.2.1.4 Fishing and hunting 

The Mat-Su portion of the Study Area lies within the Knik Arm Management Unit of the 

Northern Cook Inlet Sport Fish Management Area (NCIMA). Most of the freshwater rivers 

and streams in the Mat-Su are open to sport fishing; regulations vary by location. Open 

season is June 15 to April 14 for most of the Mat-Su portion of the Study Area. (The Little 

Susitna River is open year-round for all species except Chinook salmon.) Fishing and hunting 

are important recreational activities in the Point MacKenzie area and other parts of the 

Mat-Su. The Little Susitna River is the most heavily fished stream in the Knik Arm 

Management Unit (Sweet et al. 2003). The Little Susitna River produces all five species of 

Pacific salmon found in Alaska and is famous as one of the state’s best silver salmon streams 

(it has the second-largest freshwater harvest of silver salmon in Alaska). It is one of the 

Mat-Su’s most popular fisheries, receiving over 50,000 angler-days of use per year 

Game harvest data collected by the ADF&G for Game Management Unit 14A, which 

encompasses most of the Mat-Su including the Point MacKenzie area and Upper Cook Inlet, 

are presented in the Terrestrial Mammal Technical Report (KABATA 2006p). In 2002– 

2003, 2,910 individuals engaged in moose hunting, which is the primary hunting activity in 

the Mat-Su. Black bear is the other large game species hunted in the area. In 2000–2001, 

there were 137 black bear permittees in Game Management Unit 14 (Healy 2002). Waterfowl 

hunting and furbearer trapping also occur in the Mat-Su. 

3.6.2.1.5 Trails 

Trails play a key role in the recreation of residents and visitors throughout the Mat-Su 

(MSB 2003a). According to the Recreational Trails Plan prepared by the Mat-Su Borough 

(2000), 2,000 miles of regionally significant recreational trails cross much of the Mat-Su. 

These traditional trails provide for a wide range of functional and recreational activities, from 

dog mushing to snowmachining, skiing, hiking, biking, wood hauling, hunting, and trapping 

(Section 3.2.2.5). Some winter trails are groomed weekly for Nordic skiing, and several track 

and skate skiing trails are maintained throughout the winter. 

Many commonly used trails within the Mat-Su that are not dedicated. While some of these 

undedicated trails lie entirely on public lands, the Mat-Su Borough (2000) estimates that 

approximately 80 percent of the trails cross private land. Without legal public access, these 

trails can be closed at the discretion of the landowner. 

The Mat-Su Borough has established the Point MacKenzie Recreational Trailhead, an access 

point for snowmachiners where a major power transmission line crosses Point MacKenzie 

Road (Figure 3.34). The trailhead provides access to a series of informal, undesignated trails 

that are used by snowmachines in winter and by all-terrain vehicles in summer. It also 

provides access along the power line to the Susitna Flats SGR and points west, as well as to 

points east along the power transmission line easement. While the trails are not officially and 

formally dedicated, the trailhead was established expressly to provide recreational access. It 

was upgraded and formalized with funding from a 2002 Recreational Trails Grant 

administered by the State of Alaska and paid for principally with taxes on snowmachine and 

12/18/07 3-141



Figure 3.34. Recreational resources – Point MacKenzie Road 

3-142 12/18/07



off-road vehicle sales. FHWA determined that the Point MacKenzie Recreational Trailhead 

is a Section 4(f) resource; it is discussed in greater detail in Section 3.7. 

3.6.2.1.6 Iditarod Trail/Sled Dog Race 

The Iditarod National Historic Trail stretches from Seward to Nome. Alaska’s best known 

dog mushing contest, the 1,049-mile Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race, starts at Wasilla and 

follows the trail, crossing the Mat-Su portion of the Study Area from Wasilla to Yentna. 

Most of the National Historic Trail is usable only during winter, when rivers and tundra are 

frozen. Aside from the annual sled dog race, use of the Iditarod Trail is primarily recreational 

(e.g., ATV, snowmachining, cross-country skiing). 

3.6.2.2 Knik Arm 

Because of its heavy silt content, strong currents, high tidal fluctuations, and winter ice, Knik 

Arm is not considered a recreational resource. Nonetheless, fishing boats and pleasure craft 

are used in Knik Arm to fish off the mouth of Ship Creek, cross to Fire Island, or cross to the 

Susitna River flats. A small public dock and a boat ramp at the mouth of Ship Creek are used 

in summer, but Anchorage has no small boat harbor. Most pleasure or sportfishing boats 

owned by Anchorage or Mat-Su residents are moored in Whittier, Seward, or Homer. In 

comparison with these locations, use of Knik Arm for recreational boating is minimal. 


The Anchorage discussion begins with recreational resources in the broader geographic sense 

(Anchorage Bowl) and then focuses in and around the Anchorage portion of the Study Area 

(narrower focus). Recreational resources, parks, and wildlife refuges outside the Study Area 

are not expected to be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project. 

3.6.2.3.1 Anchorage Bowl 

The Anchorage Bowl, as shown in Figure 3.35, includes more than 10,800 acres of municipal 

parkland, 200 parks, 40 recreational facilities, and over 400 miles of trails (Section 3.2.2.5) 

linking neighborhoods with surrounding natural open space and wildlife habitat. Publicprivate 

partnerships and commercial enterprises are fast-growing components of 

Anchorage’s recreational activities. 38 Parks and open spaces in the Anchorage Bowl make 

important contributions to the quality of life for local residents. 

3.6.2.3.2 Anchorage portion of Study Area 

In the Anchorage portion of the Study Area, there are approximately 58 acres of parkland, 

open space, and greenbelt areas (Figure 3.36). All of these amenities were considered in the 

alternatives screening, alignment location and design, and further refinement and avoidance 

of the build alternatives discussed in Sections 2 and 4 and in the Draft Section 4(f) 

Evaluation. 

38 Park and trail information gathered from municipal Web sites: and . 

12/18/07 3-143



Figure 3.35. Recreational resources, parks, and wildlife refuges – Anchorage Bowl 

3-144 12/18/07



Figure 3.36. Recreational resources, parks, and wildlife refuges – Anchorage 

12/18/07 3-145



Table 3-22 summarizes the study area parks and features. 

Table 3-22. Parks and features in the Anchorage portion of the Study Area 

Facility 

Susan Nightingale McKay 

Memorial Park 

Government Hill Elementary School 

Playground 

Cunningham Park 

Government Hill Greenbelt (East and 

West Bluffs) 

Brown’s Point Park 

Al Miller Memorial Park 

Richardson Vista Park 

Alderwood Park 

Harvard Park 

Sunset Park 

Quyana Park 

Barrow Park 

Ben Crawford Memorial Park 

Location/Features 

Government Hill/open space 

Government Hill/playground 

Government Hill/open space 

Government Hill/open space, buffer 

Government Hill/open space, buffer 

Government Hill/open space, picnic area 



Government Hill/curling club and dance club 

buildings, basketball and tennis courts, 

Government Hill/playground, picnic tables, 

sledding area 

Ship Creek/open space, views, bluff 

Ship Creek/open space, views 

Ship Creek/open space, views 

About 46 acres of parkland are located in the Government Hill neighborhood. Harvard Park 

and Sunset Park are located closest to the alternatives evaluated in Section 4.6.2 and 

comprise about 10.1 acres of the total parkland. These and selected smaller parks in 

Government Hill are shown on Figure 3.36. Harvard and Sunset Parks have recreational open 

areas and amenities. Sunset Park includes a playground, picnic tables, sledding area, and a 

parking lot. Harvard Park includes a building used by the Anchorage Square & Round Dance 

Club and another building owned by the Anchorage Curling Club, as well as basketball and 

tennis courts. The Municipality of Anchorage permits use of the dance club building and 

leases land for the curling club building to the private nonprofit user groups. Therefore, those 

buildings do not receive Section 4(f) protection as park or recreation facilities, although the 

dance club building does quality for Section 4(f) protection as an historic site. In addition, 

not all parks and greenbelt areas in the project area qualify for Section 4(f) protection. See 

the separate Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation following this EIS for detail. 

About 12 acres of parkland are located in the Ship Creek area, including Ship Creek 

Overlook, Quyana Park, Barrow Park, and the Ben Crawford Memorial Park. Existing and 

planned portions of the Ship Creek Trail are also in the area. 

The Ship Creek Trail consists of existing and proposed trails along Ship Creek. When 

complete, it will connect the Mountain View neighborhood and existing Glenn Highway 

Trail with the existing Tony Knowles Coastal Trail (a National Recreation Trail). All three 

3-146 12/18/07



trails are designed as long-distance trails with minimal road and driveway crossings. A 

planned portion of the Ship Creek Trail would be located on land owned by ARRC, which. 

has granted a permit to the Municipality of Anchorage for construction and maintenance of 

this portion of the trail. This land was transferred to the state railroad for transportation 

purposes. On the basis of this factor and the terms of the permit, FHWA has determined that 

the portion of the trail that would be constructed on this ARRC parcel is not subject to 

Section 4(f) protection 

Details of the sites considered by FHWA to be Section 4(f) resources are discussed in 

Section 3.7 of this Draft EIS and are provided in greater detail in Sections 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 

and 1.2.5 of the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, located at the end of this document. 

3.6.2.3.3 Anchorage Bowl draft parks planning 

The (Draft) Anchorage Bowl – Park, Natural Resources, and Recreation Facility Plan, 

which was adopted by the Assembly in April 2006, (MOA 2005g) identifies the need to 

develop new facilities, parking, and play areas at two Government Hill Parks: Brown’s Point 

Park and Richardson Vista Park. The draft plan also identifies completion of the Ship Creek 

Trail as well as a Government Hill connection to the Ship Creek Trail as priorities. Other trail 

improvements identified in the draft plan near the Anchorage portion of the Study Area are 

development of the Midtown Trail along the C Street corridor and completion of 5th and 

6th Avenue improvements from C Street to Ingra Street. 

The draft plan also includes recommendations for research, signs, and reconstruction of the 

historically accurate Iditarod Trail. Connecting trails in the study area—part of the Iditarod 

National Historic Trail system—include routes along Ship Creek and from Ship Creek 

northward. . 

3.6.3 Visual Environment 

FHWA’s Environmental Impact Statement Visual Impact Discussion (n.d.) requires that a 

system be used to evaluate the visual character and quality of an area. The process used for 

this analysis is adopted from FHWA’s Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects 

(1981) and includes subdividing the corridor into landscape units and defining viewsheds, 

viewer groups, and the visual character and quality of the units. The results of the existing 

visual character and quality analysis provide the framework for comparing the visual impacts 

of the proposed project. 

3.6.3.1 Regional context 

Landscape components are the physical elements that make up the landscape, including 

landform, water, vegetation, and man-made development. The general landscape setting of 

the area is characterized by a broad, glacial-fed arm of Cook Inlet, bordered by bluffs that lie 

below relatively low upland areas. The upland areas tend to be flat to gently rolling, typical 

of remnant glacial landforms. 

12/18/07 3-147



The Study Area provides a full range of landscapes, from urban to undisturbed. The urban 

landscapes are generally industrial in nature in the Ship Creek drainage and industrial to 

residential and undeveloped on the bluff north of the Ship Creek drainage. Across Knik Arm, 

a seldom-traveled arm of Cook Inlet over which the proposed bridge would be located, they 

are of open water, tidal flats, and wooded bluffs. Along the western portion of the Study 

Area, landscape settings vary from rural to undisturbed. 

3.6.3.2 Viewsheds 

The Study viewsheds—the more or less linear areas from which it would be possible to see 

the proposed project—includes the Mat-Su, the Government Hill neighborhood, the Ship 

Creek area, locations south of Ship Creek, Downtown Anchorage, and local parks, as well as 

the proposed roadway and bridge. 

3.6.3.2.1 Landscape units 

To provide a framework for analyzing the visual environment, six landscape units have been 

identified based on the interaction of land use, land cover, and building form. Each unit has a 

distinct visual character and would be an important element in managing any visual effects of 

the proposed project. See Figure 3.37 for the landscape unit locations. 

Mat-Su Borough Uplands 

This landscape unit extends north from the bridge landing at the western edge of Knik Arm 

and includes all lands between the landing and Knik-Goose Bay Road. It is an area generally 

composed of upland boreal forest with smaller wetland areas interspersed throughout. The 

upland forest is characterized by mixed stands of paper birch and white spruce, with 

occasional balsam poplar, quaking aspen, willow, and alder. The interior lowlands are mostly 

wetlands of the bog and fen type, consisting of sedge and sphagnum mat with ericaceous 

shrubs and occasional stands of black spruce. Other than roadways and intermittent clearings, 

there is little disturbance to the natural setting. 

Knik Arm 

This landscape unit encompasses the water region that extends from the shore north of Port 

MacKenzie on the west to the bluff along the Anchorage side on the east. 

Eastern Bluff 

This landscape unit stretches from the landing where the proposed KAC bridge would 

connect with the bluff along the north edge of the POA. The unit generally is a steeply 

sloping (approximately 2:1, vertical-to-horizontal) bluff, varying from 50 to 150 feet in 

height, and generally wooded. 

3-148 12/18/07



Figure 3.37. Study Area landscape units 

12/18/07 3-149




This landscape unit includes the neighborhood north of the Ship Creek drainage composed of 

a predominantly residential neighborhood with some businesses located along East Loop 

Road; Hollywood Drive; and Erickson, Degan, and Bilbo Streets. 

Ship Creek/Port 

For the purposes of this study, this landscape unit includes the Ship Creek valley and the 

POA, bordered by the Government Hill neighborhood to the north and the Anchorage central 

business district to the south. The area is generally industrial in character, with the exception 

of some retail businesses on the south side of Ship Creek. It also includes arterial roadways 

that serve the POA, a rail yard, Elmendorf, and the hillside below the Government Hill 

neighborhood. 

Ingra-Gambell 

This landscape unit starts south of Ship Creek and is bound by 4th Avenue to the south, 

Eagle Street to the west, and Karluk Street to the east. This neighborhood is a mix of 

residential and commercial uses, with a large portion being a vacant lot. 

3.6.3.3 Viewer groups 

There are four major types of viewer groups in the Study Area. The groups were identified 

based on the existing land uses and travel routes. Table 3-23 identifies viewer groups who, 

according to Study Team assumptions, have the following expectations and values: 

Table 3-23. Viewer groups descriptions, expectations, and values 

Viewer group Description Expectations and values 

Tourists/Recreationists 

Government Hill residents 

Port of Anchorage and 

Alaska Railroad workers 

Motorists/Pedestrians 

Visitors from out-of-state, 

anglers, tourists in the Ship 

Creek area 

Residents of Government Hill 

neighborhood 

Workers at locations in the 

industrial district 

Residents and visitors using 

roadways within the Study 

Area 

Generally high appreciation for visual 

quality of an area and desire for undisturbed 

lands 

Generally a desire for protection of visual 

quality, including views from parks, trails, 

and individual residences; generally 

cautious concerning changes to visual 

environment 

Generally not focused on visual quality or 

character and usually accustomed to 

physical changes to visual environment 

High variability in visual values and the 

acceptance of changes to existing visual 

conditions 

3-150 12/18/07



3.6.3.3.1 Viewer response issues 

Viewer exposure 

Viewer exposure is expressed by the number, distance, duration, and speed of view for each 

of the viewer groups. 

While people reside in a given home, the pace and context of life is at a regional scale. 

People spend considerable amount of time out of their homes, traveling to and from 

neighborhood and city parks, schools, and work and retail centers. In pursuing these 

destinations—whether on foot, by bicycle, or by car or bus—the proposed project could be 

glimpsed from numerous locations and for variable lengths of time. 

Motorists and pedestrians would generally be exposed to the proposed project for the time 

during which they would transit the project. For motorists, the period of exposure would tend 

to be of short duration—measured in seconds—while for pedestrians, the exposure period 

would tend to be long, measured in minutes. For those using other roadways, the proposed 

project would generally be out of the frame of view of motorists, but would be more exposed 

to pedestrian viewers. 


Tourists and recreationists generally frequent the Downtown Anchorage area and Ship Creek 

area. Many arrive by the Alaska Railroad. These users number in the tens of thousands and 

are generally limited to the May-to-September period. They typically use the Ship Creek and 

Downtown Anchorage areas for periods of one to several hours and would have views of the 

proposed project of from 0.1 to 1.0 mile distance. Users of the Ship Creek Trail, which are 

expected to number in the hundreds of users per day, would travel directly under the 

proposed Ingra-Gambell Viaduct. Generally, trail users and/or tourists move at a relatively 

low rate of speed; thus, exposure time to the KAC project, if built, could be measured in 

terms of seconds, minutes, or hours, depending on whether the users would be walking, 

fishing, or shopping. 

Government Hill residents 

Approximately 158 residents located on the north side of the Ship Creek valley, north of the 

bluff, would have views of the proposed project from varying angles. 

Tourists/Shoppers 

The Ship Creek area is becoming a tourism destination with increasing restaurant and retail 

development along Ship Creek. This viewer group is generally located in the western portion 

of the Ship Creek valley, west of Cordova Avenue and removed from proximity to the 

proposed project. They would, however, have visual access to it. Typically, the group has a 

high level of appreciation for scenic quality, travels at a slow pace, and has time to view the 

full context of their settings’ foreground, middleground, and background points of interest. 

12/18/07 3-151




The Motorists/Pedestrians viewer group includes those using the proposed project as well as 

those using the A-C Viaduct and roadways in the Ship Creek area. 

3.6.3.3.2 Viewer sensitivity 

Viewer sensitivity is defined by expected viewer response to various levels of change to the 

visual environment. 


This viewer group is likely to have a high level of concern for aesthetic issues because 

expectations of a high-quality experience are what will have drawn them to Anchorage and to 

the Ship Creek area. Expectations are likely not as high in the Ship Creek area because of its 

proximity to nearby industrial development. 

Government Hill Residents 

This viewer group is likely to have a high level of concern about the effect of the roadway on 

foreground views and neighborhood character. 


Motorists are generally focused on the immediate travel path, although they would have 

interest in opportunities for views to Ship Creek and Knik Arm. Pedestrians tend to be more 

sensitive to views because the exposure period would be longer and there would be time to 

focus on the view beyond the limits of the proposed roadway itself. 

Port of Anchorage and Alaska Railroad Workers 

This viewer group is likely to have a low level of concern for views of the proposed project. 

3.6.3.4 Local values 

Anchorage residents generally have a high concern for visual quality, as evidenced by a long 

history of opposition to billboards, overhead utilities, and some types of signs. Also, 

residents in most neighborhoods have demanded that road projects provide enhancements 

such as landscaping and trails. 

Neighborhoods have become interested in and empowered to protect their own immediate 

environments as infrastructure projects are undertaken. In Government Hill, this has 

manifested itself through vocal community concerns for existing and proposed tank farm 

development and controls for the POA. The community has also been vocal in its concerns 

for solutions that will negate neighborhood impacts related to the proposed project. These 

concerns are often voiced in terms of aesthetic values such as the care residents take in 

maintaining and improving neighborhood parks at their own expense. 

Although Ship Creek is generally an industrial zone, the area has seen increased use by 

anglers, tourists, and trail users in recent years. In fact, the Ship Creek area has recently 

received rezoning with imposition of design guidelines and construction of a number of new 

3-152 12/18/07



visitor-related projects that recognize its future as a visitor destination transportation transfer 

area. This has raised the level of concerns for aesthetic issues within the area. 

3.6.3.5 Visual character and quality 

A “key view” approach, as detailed in FHWA’s Visual Impact Assessment for Highway 

Projects (1981), was used to assess the existing visual resources of the Study Area. Ten key 

views were selected to establish a baseline visual character and quality that were then used to 

evaluate the impacts of the proposed project (see Section 4.6.3). The key views are 

representative of what viewer groups can now see and what they could see if the proposed 

project were to be built. 

Visual character refers to the form, line, color, and texture of a key view’s landscape 

components. Visual quality refers to the qualitative appraisal of the relative excellence of a 

view. The approach used in the evaluation of visual quality includes using vividness, 

intactness, and unity criteria to indicate the quality of the landscape. The combined result of 

all three criteria indicates the degree of quality of the landscape. Key view locations are 

designated in Figures 3.38 and 3.39. Key view locations and visual quality results are 

summarized in Table 3-24. 

Table 3-24. Key view locations and their visual quality 

View 

number 

Key view location 

Visual quality 

1 Mat-Su gravel road Moderate 

2 East across Knik Arm from the Mat-Su High 

3 East Bluff Drive Low to moderate 

4 Erickson Street Moderate/Low 

5 Degan Street Moderate 

6 Harvard Park Moderate to high 

7 Sunset Park Moderate to high 

8 Port of Anchorage High 

9 Ship Creek Low to moderate 

10 3rd Avenue and Gambell Street Low to moderate 

12/18/07 3-153



Figure 3.38. Locations of key views – the Mat-Su 

3-154 12/18/07



Figure 3.39. Locations of key views – Anchorage 

12/18/07 3-155



Figure 3.40. Key view 1: Looking west-northwest along Point 

MacKenzie Road from near the bluffs above Port MacKenzie 

Figure 3.40, the first key view, is from a gravel road near Port MacKenzie. The road and 

landscape are typical of the undeveloped Mat-Su landscape in the Study Area. The open 

forest consists of white spruce, paper birch, black spruce, and quaking aspen with an 

understory of devil’s club, low- and highbush cranberry, Labrador tea, ledum, willow, 

bunchberry dogwood, bluejoint reedgrass, horsetail, prickly rose, etc. Scattered patches of 

moss cover the forest floor. The interior lowlands are mostly wetlands of the bog and fen 

type, consisting of sedge and sphagnum mat with ericaceous shrubs and occasional stands of 

black spruce. While undeveloped and natural in appearance, the view is of moderate quality. 

Kevin G Smith Photography 

Figure 3.41. Key view 2: Looking east-southeast from 

above Port MacKenzie, across Knik Arm 

Figure 3.41, the second key view, is a view from the bluffs north and above Port MacKenzie 

looking across Knik Arm at the bluffs north of the POA, visible across Knik Arm on the right 

side of the photograph. The Chugach Mountains are in the background from this view, and 

3-156 12/18/07



Anchorage Bowl is to the south. This vista offers a striking, often-photographed view of 

urban Anchorage with the mountain backdrop. Key view 2 roughly shows the area where the 

proposed KAC bridge would span Knik Arm. Overall landscape quality is high. 

Figure 3.42. Key view 3: East Cook Avenue and East Bluff 

Drive 

Figure 3.42, the third key view, is a view from East Bluff Drive to a vacant area that has 

served military and port uses in the past. Chugach Electric Association provides 

commercial/industrial building types visible in the right side of the photograph. In the 

distance are trees located on Elmendorf. To the right, in the background, are the Chugach 

Mountains. A chain-link fence with barbed-wire top provides a strongly institutional 

character. While the view to the open field provides a view of moderate landscape quality, 

the chain-link fence is a compromising element that contributes overall to a view of low to 

moderate landscape quality. 

12/18/07 3-157



Figure 3.43. Key view 4: Erickson (from Harvard Avenue 

intersection) 

Figure 3.43, the fourth key view, illustrates the Erickson Street character, showing residential 

use on the west side of the street and a hotel on the east side of the street. The west side 

shows mature vegetation on small, single-family home lots. Overhead utilities are also visible 

on the west side of the street. The view of the east side of the street is dominated by the hotel 

that occupies most of the streetfront; it has little vegetation or other elements that could 

provide landscape character. The west side of the street is a view of moderate visual quality. 

The hotel is a view of low visual quality. 

Figure 3.44. Key view 5: Degan Street (from intersection 

with Harvard Avenue) 

This view of Degan Street (Figure 3.44), the fifth key view, shows a residential district with a 

mix of relatively newer and older buildings. At the far end of the street, on the right side of 

the photograph, is a church served by a parking lot on the left-hand side of the street, out of 

view in the photograph. Overhead utilities are visible and vegetation is mature on many of 

3-158 12/18/07



the lots on the east side of the street. The street is primarily of neighborhood use, excepting 

church traffic. It is typical of many Anchorage neighborhoods and provides a moderate level 

of visual quality. 

Figure 3.45. Key view 6: Harvard Park (intersection of 

Harvard Avenue and Degan Street) 

The sixth key view (Figure 3.45) is of Harvard Park and the Anchorage Curling Club facility 

located near the intersection of Harvard Avenue and East Loop Road. The area is actively 

used for recreation, including tennis and curling. Harvard Park receives residential traffic and 

provides views to the Chugach Mountains in the distance. Foreground views are of the park 

and nearby residential development. The visual quality of this view is moderate-to-high, 

owing to the park setting and views to the Chugach Mountains. 

Figure 3.46. Key view 7: Sunset Park (intersection of Vine 

Avenue and Birch Street) 

12/18/07 3-159



Figure 3.46, the seventh key view, is of Sunset Park, in the Government Hill neighborhood. 

The view shows an open lawn area with picnic tables and play areas. The lawn is surrounded 

to the south by a forest of cottonwood trees that form a barrier to longer views to the south. 

Visual quality is moderately high given the pastoral setting provided by the lawn and 

bordering trees. 

Figure 3.47. Key view 8: Port of Anchorage, facing north 

The eighth key view (Figure 3.47) is from the western end of Ship Creek Point, which 

functions as the small boat harbor serving Anchorage boaters seeking access to Knik Arm. 

The location affords views to Knik Arm to the west and north, industrial development to the 

north and east, and the skyline of Anchorage to the east and south. The Chugach Mountains 

are visible in the background. The visual quality is high, given views to Knik Arm, adjacent 

wetlands and mud flats, and to the Anchorage skyline and the Chugach Mountains. The POA 

development imposes a conflicting visual element, but is below the skyline of Government 

Hill, which is in the middleground. 

3-160 12/18/07



Figure 3.48. Key view 9: Ship Creek, facing north from 

the creek’s southern bank 

Figure 3.48, the ninth key view, is from the southern bank of Ship Creek looking toward the 

north from a location that would be just west of the proposed bridge crossing over the creek. 

The view shows vegetation bordering Ship Creek in the immediate foreground, with an open 

area adjoining a commercial building barely visible behind the trees located in the right 

portion of the image. The density of vegetation precludes views to industrial areas north of 

Ship Creek. Ship Creek Trail, under construction, is located along the banks of Ship Creek, 

passing through the area in this view. 

The view is typical of those in the Ship Creek corridor, with second generation growth of 

alder and cottonwood. Even though Ship Creek is partly visible through openings in the 

cottonwood and alder brush, visual quality is low–to-moderate because of the restricted 

views to foreground elements of little interest and the character of the adjoining World Trade 

Center commercial/industrial development. 

12/18/07 3-161



Figure 3.49. Key view 10: Third Avenue toward Ingra and 

Gambell Streets, facing east 

Figure 3.49, the tenth key view, is of the 3rd Avenue and Gambell Street intersection. A 

vacant lot behind chain-link fencing in the foreground is the remnant of a hospital that was 

razed in the early 1990s. Beyond the open lot is a greenbelt of trees that follows the contours 

at the top of the bluff that frames the south side of the Ship Creek valley. The lot shown in 

the photo is atypical of the general area because almost all land within the immediate vicinity 

have been developed over many years, while this lot has remained undeveloped, in 

anticipation and accordance with the Official Streets and Highway Plan (MOA 1996b), that a 

roadway improvement project will extend Gambell and Ingra Streets into the Ship Creek 

area. The general area fronting 3rd Avenue, as shown in Figure 3.37, is typified by 

residential buildings transitioning to commercial use, as well as by small commercial 

structures that have in-filled where residences had been. Five-foot-wide sidewalks are located 

on both sides of 3rd Avenue. Visual quality is low-to-moderate, owing to the residential 

character of the general neighborhood and the distant views to the Chugach Mountains. 

Views are diminished in quality by the presence of overhead powerlines and the chain-link 

fencing with barbed-wire top. 

3.7 Section 4(f) Resources 

This section provides information on properties known as Section 4(f) resources, which 

include parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and publicly or privately 

owned historic properties. Section 3.6.1 provides greater detail on archaeology and historic 

preservation. Section 3.6.2 has more information regarding recreation resources, parks, and 

wildlife refuges in the Study Area. 

3-162 12/18/07



Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (1966) (as amended), 23 U.S.C. § 138, 

states: 

The Secretary shall not approve any program or project (other than any project for a 

park road or parkway under Section 204 of this title) which requires the use of any 

publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl 

refuge of national, State, or local significance as determined by the Federal, State, or 

local officials having jurisdiction thereof, or any land from an historic site of national, 

State, or local significance as so determined by such officials unless (1) there is no 

feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such program includes 

all possible planning to minimize harm to such park, recreational area, wildlife and 

waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such use. 

A separate Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, located at the back of this Draft EIS, responds to 

the Section 4(f) requirements. This section summarizes information on the Section 4(f) 

resources. 

The Study Team investigated all parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges 

in the Study Area and focused on those that would be affected by implementation of the 

alignments and their proposed access-controlled rights-of-way. In addition, Study Team 

history specialists reviewed the Study Area with a complete literature search, “windshield 

surveys,” and follow-up field research and investigations of hundreds of buildings, 

properties, and sites. FHWA, in consultation with SHPO, has concluded that four areas of 

Government Hill qualify as historic districts and that there are six individually eligible 

properties on Government Hill. Figure 3.50 shows the Government Hill Historic Districts and 

eligible properties, and the multiple parks considered. See Sections 3.6.1 and 4.6.1 of the 

Draft EIS regarding historic properties and applicability of NHPA Section 106 and 

EO 13175, which requires consultation and coordination with Indian or Alaska Native tribal 

governments. See also Sections 3.6.2 and 4.6.2 of the Draft EIS for related information 

regarding park, recreation, and wildlife refuge resources in and around the Study Area. 

FHWA has determined that two parks, one recreation area, one residential area that qualifies 

as a historic district, and one building individually eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places would be affected by implementation of the project alternatives and would be 

subject to Section 4(f) protection. These are listed in Table 3-25 and shown in Figures 3.51 

and 3.52. 

12/18/07 3-163



Figure 3.50. Section 4(f) Study Area 

3-164 12/18/07



Figure 3.51. Section 4(f) resources – the Mat-Su 

12/18/07 3-165



Figure 3.52. Section 4(f) resources – Anchorage 

3-166 12/18/07



Table 3-25. Applicable Section 4(f) resources: size, land status, and features 

Resource 

Point MacKenzie 

Recreational 

Trailhead 

Size 

(acres) 

Harvard Park 4.65 

Sunset Park 5.45 

ARREC/Square & 

Round Dance Club 


Urban Renewal 

Historic District 

a 

ARRC = Alaska Railroad Corporation 

Land status 

1.61 Mat-Su Borough land 

ARRC a lease to 

Municipality of Anchorage 

Parks 


Anchorage-dedicated 

park land 

ARRC owns the land, 


owns the building 

Privately owned 

residential parcels 

Features 

Gravel parking lot configured for 

snowmachine trailers, with 

informational kiosk 

Basketball court, tennis courts, 

automobile parking, open space areas 

Playground equipment, picnic shelter, 

picnic table area, sledding area, 

automobile parking, open space 

areas, historic site of school damaged 

by 1964 earthquake 

Historic social hall for Alaska Railroad 

families and teens. Contains dance 

hall, stage, meeting rooms. 

Residences 

FHWA determined that other potential Section 4(f) properties would not be affected by 

project alternatives. Further detail is included in the separate Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. 

3.8 Natural Environment 

3.8.1 Surface Water Resources 

Knik Arm, north of Point MacKenzie, draws on a total watershed of approximately 

4,570 square miles. The watershed consists of three main subwatersheds: the Knik- 

Matanuska Watershed, the Southeast Watershed, and the Northwest Watershed (Figure 3.53). 

The Knik-Matanuska Watershed encompasses the major portion of the area (3,250 square 

miles) and lies east of the upper end of Knik Arm and includes the Knik and Matanuska 

Rivers. The Southeast Watershed (725 square miles) includes Anchorage and the front range 

of the Chugach Mountains and is drained by Ship and Peters Creeks, the Eagle and Eklutna 

Rivers, and several smaller tributaries. The Northwest Watershed (385 square miles) includes 

Point MacKenzie and the Knik/Goose Bay area and is drained by Goose, Fish, Cottonwood, 

and Wasilla Creeks. The remainder of the area (210 square miles) is occupied by Knik Arm 

proper and the large delta at the mouth of the Matanuska and Knik Rivers (HNTB 1972). 

12/18/07 3-167




3.8.1.1.1 Water bodies (lakes, streams, ponds) 

Within the Mat-Su, three river systems, the Susitna, Matanuska, and Knik, provide the 

majority of the freshwater entering Upper Cook Inlet during spring, summer, and fall 

(Mat-Su Borough 2005f) (Figure 3.53). With their headwaters in the mountains, these large 

rivers are fed by glaciers. Other water bodies of importance for fisheries include Wasilla 

Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Willow Creek, Fish Creek, and Little Susitna River. The average 

discharge for these rivers is typically exceeded in the months of May through September, 

when rainfall, glacier melt, and snowmelt are at a maximum. Peak flows typically occur in 

June, July, and August. As temperatures decrease in October and precipitation turns to snow, 

the glacier melt and snowmelt are dramatically reduced. 

Lowest flows typically occur in February and March. All streams freeze over, and many of 

the smaller ones freeze to their bed. Streams in the Study Area typically begin to freeze over 

in late October or early November and do not break up until late April or May (Mat-Su 

Borough 2005f). 

There are over 22 lakes in the Mat-Su portion of the Study Area. The largest of these include 

Big Lake, Wasilla Lake, and Nancy Lake, which are all used for recreation (Mat-Su 

Borough 2005f). Most lakes feed small streams and, therefore, contribute to their flow 

regulation (Mat-Su Borough 2005f). 

Three surface water bodies exist within the immediate Mat-Su portion of the Study Area: 

Lake Lorraine, located approximately 1 mile west of Knik Arm and 500 feet north of the 

existing Point MacKenzie Road; Twin Island Lake, located approximately 1¾ miles 

northwest of Lake Lorraine and 1,000 feet east of Point MacKenzie Road; and Lost Lake, 

located approximately 1,000 feet north of Twin Island Lake and 3,500 feet east of Point 

MacKenzie Road (Figure 3.53). The three lakes are all partially bordered by wetland areas 

with no distinct inflow or outflow channels. The surface area of each of these lakes is 

approximately 0.2–0.3 square mile. Numerous smaller, unnamed lakes and ponds exist 

between Knik Arm and along Point MacKenzie Road. Two are located just south of Twin 

Island Lake and near Point MacKenzie Road, while several smaller lakes are located between 

Twin Island Lake and Lake Lorraine. Two additional smaller unnamed lakes are located 

northeast of Lake Lorraine. 

Existing mapping shows an unnamed stream crossing the Study Area in the vicinity of Twin 

Island Lake (Figure 3.53). Field investigations, however, determined that there was no 

discernable stream channel present (KABATA 2006q). The area is considered a wetland bog 

and is included in the discussion of wetlands in Section 3.8.2. 

3-168 12/18/07



Figure 3.53. Study area water bodies and streams 

12/18/07 3-169



3.8.1.1.2 Water quality 

While most water bodies in the Mat-Su portion of the Study Area are assumed to have good 

water quality, two water bodies in the Mat-Su area are reported as impaired in the Alaska 

Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (ADEC 2003). Cottonwood 

Creek and the Matanuska River are both identified as Category 5, Clean Water Act (CWA) 

Section 303(d) impaired water bodies requiring establishment of total maximum daily loads 

(TMDL). 39 

The entire 13-mile stretch of Cottonwood Creek is listed for nonattainment of the residues 

standard for foam and debris; this has been observed to be a recurring problem, with foam 

being observed in the creek in 1998, 2000, 2001, and 2002. The origin of the foam is 

unknown, but there are numerous homes along its course using septic systems. Urban runoff 

and urban development are listed as the most probable causes of degradation. 

A one-half-mile section of the Matanuska River is listed on the 2003 Section 303(d) list for 

nonattainment of the residues standard for debris. There is an active open dump located on 

and within the waters of the Matanuska River just north of Eagle River Drive in Palmer. 

Visible refuse includes vehicles, household refuse, fuel cans, possible 55-gallon drums with 

unknown contents, and miscellaneous metal debris. Sheens have also been observed on the 

river. 

Most water bodies within the Mat-Su portion of the Study Area have not been studied. 

However, USGS did conduct water quality sampling on Lake Lorraine in 1981 and 1982 

(Glass 1983). Based on the study, Lake Lorraine has a maximum depth of 24 feet and good 

water quality conditions. 

Existing pollutant sources 

Existing water pollutant sources in the Mat-Su portion of the Study Area are limited and are 

primarily nonpoint sources. Pollutant runoff from roadways, including deicing substances 

and vehicle fluids, exists in developed areas. Runoff from residential development could 

include nutrients and chemicals from lawns, illicit discharges of household hazardous waste, 

and gray water/sewage from faulty septic systems. Recreational activities on water bodies, 

such as boating and personal watercraft operation, have the potential to affect water quality 

through accidental fuel spills and output from two-stroke engines. 

39 A TMDL is a process through which pollution sources are identified. The study analyzes pollution sources of 

a water body and calculates the amount, or “load,” of that specific pollutant that the water can receive and still 

maintain Water Quality Standards. TMDLs are a necessary first step toward water body recovery and are 

required for a water body to be “delisted” from the Alaska 303(d) Category 5 Impaired Waters List 

(ADEC 2005). 

3-170 12/18/07




3.8.1.2.1 Hydrology – tides 

Knik Arm experiences the second-largest tidal range in the world—approximately 30 feet. 

Tides are semidiurnal, with two unequal high tides and two unequal low tides per day. The 

range of tides at Anchorage is 29 feet and the observed extreme low water is 6.4 feet below 

MLLW (Table 3-26). Tidal energy is the most dominant force driving water circulation in 

Knik Arm. Because of predominantly shallow depths, tides within Knik Arm have a much 

larger range than in the main body of Cook Inlet (KABATA 2006r). 

Table 3-26. Anchorage tidal data 

Tidal measure 

Abbreviation 

Magnitude 

(in feet with 

respect to MLLW) 

Highest observed water level (October 24, 1980) NA a 34.6 

Mean higher high water MHHW 29.2 

Mean high water MHW 28.4 

Mean sea level MSL 16.5 

Mean tide level MTW 15.3 

Mean low water MLW 2.2 

Mean lower low water MLLW 0.0 

Lowest observed water level (December 25, 1999) NA a -6.4 

a not applicable 

Source: NOAA 2004 

3.8.1.2.2 Hydrology – currents 

Currents in the Study Area are primarily influenced by tidal flow. However, freshwater 

inputs into the Knik Arm result in a stronger ebb (westerly) flow than flood (easterly) flow 

(KABATA 2006r). Maximum current speeds in Knik Arm, observed during spring ebb tide, 

exceed 7 knots (12 feet/second) and are approximately 6 knots (10 feet/second) within the 

Study Area. Maximum current speeds persist for about an hour before subsiding to near-zero 

speed and then reversing. The time between slack water times is about 6.2 hours. 

3.8.1.2.3 Hydrology –sea ice 

When air temperatures begin to drop below 20°F, sea ice begins to form in Knik Arm as 

frazil (loose, randomly oriented ice crystals), but will not persist because of wind or tidal 

mixing of the water column. By late November, ice in Knik Arm typically will be either new 

or frazil-formed “shuga,” or pancake ice sheets (up to 4 inches thick). Shuga ice can cover up 

to 50 percent of the area of Upper Cook Inlet by the end of December. In spite of the 

coverage, ice in Knik Arm rarely forms columnar layers of crystals because of tidal 

turbulence. Nonetheless, ice rafts (formed from fusion of these pancake ice sheets) and brash 

ice (ice that has been broken up by turbulent tidal movement) as thick as 2½ feet thick has 

been reported in the Upper Cook Inlet area (Mulherin et al. 2001). 

Ice forming in Knik Arm will typically not be as strong as the river ice entering from the 

Knik and Matanuska Rivers or from other contributing drainages, but will be comparably 

12/18/07 3-171



stronger than ice formed in the main body of the inlet, where salinity is greater 

(Michel 1978). Outgoing tides carry ice out of the Knik Arm and mix it with ice from other 

sources in the main body of Cook Inlet before it flows back into Knik Arm. Ice also develops 

on the tidal flats during tidal inundations, particularly as the tide flows out from the flats. The 

resulting frozen material comprises the majority of any land-fast ice that may be encountered 

in Knik Arm. 

Ice also forms on structures placed into either the tidal flats or offshore, much in the same 

manner as beach ice. Cold metal pilings are particularly susceptible to ice formation, and 

successive layers of structural ice coatings will form enlarged “ice collars” that increase the 

cross-sectional width of such pilings. When these “collars” thaw, they may release essentially 

intact and are thus capable of damage to their host structure (KABATA 2006r). 

3.8.1.2.4 Hydrology – sedimentation 

Bluff erosion and glacially fed rivers are the primary contributors to the sediment load of 

Knik Arm waters. The Knik and Matanuska Rivers contribute the largest suspended load to 

Knik Arm, with average summer loads (mid-May to mid-October) estimated at 6.84 million 

tons and 5.45 million tons, respectively. Additionally, the bluffs along Knik Arm are 

believed to provide a significant contribution to the inlet water sediment load 

(KABATA 2006r). The bluffs originally formed as a result of tidal forces cutting through the 

area following glacial withdrawal (Lade 1985), and are being continuously eroded by wind, 

rain, slope failure, and intermittent exposure of the toe to wave action. 

Smith et al. (2005) conclude that Knik Arm has two distinct types of sediment transport in 

the vicinity of the proposed crossing alignment. Sandy bed sediment is transported along the 

bed surface, and finer silt and clay particles remain in suspension and are carried past the 

corridor of the proposed crossing location by prevalent strong tidal currents. 

KABATA (2006r) and Smith et al. (2005) report that sand is the dominant material of the 

bed in the vicinity of the proposed crossing and is transported through this area in large 

patches of mobile sand waves. Areas of coarser material do exist (e.g., the west channel sideslope), 

which suggests that currents in this area are consistently strong enough to sweep 

smaller particles away. Little of the Study Area appears naturally prone to accumulation of 

silt and clay. Isolated areas dominated by silt appear in deeper areas of the channel and on the 

southeast tidelands of the proposed crossing corridor. 

In areas of the Knik Arm where water velocity is sufficiently low, such as areas of shallow 

water or around natural or human-made protrusions, suspended fines can settle from the 

water column and deposit on the seafloor. Protrusions into Knik Arm function essentially like 

groins, with sediment accumulating until stable “fillets” are formed on both sides. One 

example in the vicinity of the Study Area is the Port MacKenzie dock, which protrudes 

850 feet from the shoreline to a water depth of about 40 feet. The sediment fillets that formed 

on both sides extend about 1,000 feet along the original shoreline and appear to have reached 

a stable form within 2 years after dock construction. 

3-172 12/18/07



3.8.1.2.5 Sixmile Creek 

During low tide, Sixmile Creek flows within a confined intertidal channel within Knik Arm. 

Until recently, Sixmile Creek’s tideland channel was outside the Study Area, running directly 

westward and perpendicular to the coastal bluffs. However, for unknown reasons sometime 

after May 18, 2005 (most recent aerial photo coverage date) the course of the intertidal 

channel changed and now runs through the Study Area. It now flows south in a broad, 

dispersed, shallow channel approximately 150 to 300 feet seaward of the toe of the bluff for 

approximately 2.5 miles before reaching MLLW offshore from Cairn Point. This change in 

tideland channel location is unprecedented, based on observations from intermittent aerial 

photo coverage at low tide over the past 50 years. 


The waters of Knik Arm are generally described as brackish, with salinities ranging from 

10 to 12 practical salinity units (PSU, equivalent to grams of dissolved solids per kilogram of 

seawater) at Fire Island (Gatto 1976) and 4 to 6 PSU north of Cairn Point. Water 

temperatures in Knik Arm range from freezing (about 31°F) to 63°F or more (in surface 

pockets observed during the summer months). Measurements of suspended sediment at 

several locations from near the river mouths to Point Woronzof tend to be similar, showing 

concentrations of up to 1,000 mg/L between water surface and depths of 15 feet, then 

increasing to more than 4,000 mg/L at greater depths (Smith 2005). 

Water quality data were collected from Knik Arm at control locations north of Point 

MacKenzie and in the vicinity of Point Woronzof. These samples were taken as part of the 

AWWU Asplund Waste Water Treatment Facility (WWTF) National Pollutant Discharge 

and Elimination System (NPDES) permit receiving water monitoring program (Kinnetic 

Laboratories, Inc. [KLI] 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005). The main notable 

characteristic of all the surveys was that the water column was found to be vertically wellmixed 

from top to bottom. Measurements of temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, and 

trace metals and cyanide fell within the ranges specified in the State of Alaska Water Quality 

Standards (AWQS). 

Total aromatic hydrocarbons (TAH) analyses performed for AWWU’s Asplund monitoring 

program were determined by summing benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and total xylenes 

(BETX), as specified in the AWQS. Between 1999 and 2005, all total aromatic hydrocarbon 

results were less than the reporting limit and well below the receiving water standard. 

Concentrations of total aqueous hydrocarbons (TAqH), as defined in the AWQS, were also 

well below the receiving water quality standard. The average natural turbidity of Upper Cook 

Inlet and Knik Arm is typically in the range of 400 to 600 nephelometric turbidity units 

(NTUs) and, thus, naturally exceeds the State’s water quality criterion. 


Existing point source inputs into the Knik Arm region include Anchorage’s Asplund WWTF, 

Anchorage’s Eagle River WWTF, Palmer WWTF, and the discharges from Fort Richardson 

and Elmendorf. The Asplund WWTF discharges primary treated effluent from the Anchorage 

area into Knik Arm offshore of Point Woronzof; the Eagle River WWTF discharges 

12/18/07 3-173



secondary treated effluent into Eagle River, which enters Knik Arm; the Palmer WWTF 

discharges secondary treated effluent into the Matanuska River, which flows into Knik Arm; 

and the two military bases discharge into Anchorage’s wastewater treatment system, which is 

processed by the Asplund WWTF. Wastewater from the Wasilla WWTF is discharged to a 

State of Alaska-permitted, 9-acre drain field, and no pollutants from this source enter Knik 

Arm. 

Eight polluted water bodies flow into Knik Arm and serve as sources of water pollution into 

Knik Arm. Cottonwood Creek and the Matanuska River input near the head of Knik Arm. 

Eagle River inputs into Knik Arm north of Anchorage. Five creeks—Ship, Campbell, 

Chester, Fish, and Little Campbell—input into Knik Arm from Anchorage. Water quality 

information on these five water bodies is given below. 


3.8.1.3.1 Water bodies (lakes, streams, ponds) 

Major water bodies on the east side of Knik Arm (Anchorage area) include Ship Creek, the 

Eagle River, Peters Creek, Sixmile Creek, and the Eklutna River (Figure 3.53). The Eagle 

River is a glacial waterway that originates at the base of the Eagle Glacier in the Chugach 

Mountains. Eagle River discharge is generally high from June through September. A midsummer 

peak discharge coincides with the maximum melting of Eagle Glacier followed by a 

later peak in response to early fall precipitation (U.S. Army 2004). Lowest discharge is from 

December through April (USGS 2005). Important lakes within the Anchorage area include 

Sixmile Lake, Eklutna Lake, Mirror Lake, and Beach Lake. 

Perennial streams within the Anchorage portion of the Study Area include Ship Creek, the 

mouth of Sixmile Creek, and Cherry Hill Ditch. Ship Creek is a nonglacial stream that 

originates at Ship Lake in the Chugach Mountains and flows to Knik Arm. Numerous water 

diversions from Ship Creek occur as it flows through Fort Richardson, Elmendorf, and 

Anchorage. Sixmile Creek occupies a valley created by an old channel of the Eagle River. 

Sixmile Creek was once a spring-fed stream, and is now flooded for most of its length by 

Upper and Lower Sixmile Lakes (Rothe et al. 1983). Cherry Hill Ditch, a smaller stream 

draining the developed areas of Elmendorf, flows to the eastern side of the POA before being 

diverted into a storm drainage structure and flowing west into Knik Arm. 

Intermittent streams are present along the coastal bluff from the POA north to Cairn Point. 

These seasonal streams are typically high-gradient, low-flow streams with gravel or cobble 

streambed substrate. A small pond is also located north of Ship Creek and south of Whitney 

Road. Figure 3.53 shows the water bodies in the Anchorage and Mat-Su portions of the 

Study Area. 


According to ADEC’s Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report, five Anchorage-area 

creeks—Ship, Campbell, Chester, Fish, and Little Campbell—are identified as Category 5, 

CWA Section 303(d) impaired water bodies requiring TMDL (ADEC 2003). 

3-174 12/18/07



Ship Creek flows through the Study Area and according to ADEC (2003), the water quality 

of the creek is degraded as it flows from its source to its mouth. However, only the section of 

the creek from the Glenn Highway Bridge to the mouth is listed as impaired. This section of 

Ship Creek was originally placed on the 1990 Section 303(d) list and is now listed for 

nonattainment of the fecal coliform bacteria, petroleum hydrocarbon, and oil and grease 

water quality standards. Urban runoff from storm drain outfalls and industrial activity are 

thought to be major contributors to the degradation. Ship Creek water samples contained 

several metals; however, only aluminum was detected at concentrations exceeding the 

National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for freshwater. Other water quality 

constituents were all found to be below the method reporting limits (Hart Crowser 2004). 

According to the Anchorage Wetlands Atlas, four storm drains currently discharge into Ship 

Creek in the vicinity of the A-C Viaduct (MOA 2004d). 

Campbell Creek has been on the Section 303(d) list since 1990 for nonattainment of the fecal 

coliform bacteria standard. A water quality assessment was completed for Campbell Creek 

in 1994 that identified several additional parameters of concern, including temperature, 

turbidity, zinc, and lead. Urban runoff is thought to be the major contributor to the 

degradation to this creek. Chester, Fish, and Little Campbell Creeks have also been on the 

Section 303(d) list since 1990 for nonattainment of the fecal coliform standard 

(ADEC 2003). 

The Eagle River is listed in the report as a Category 4a water body, which is identified as 

impaired but not in need of a TMDL. The Eagle River is unique because it was never listed 

as a Section 303(d) water body; however, a total maximum daily load for ammonia and 

metals was completed by USEPA on April 12, 1995, for the wastewater treatment plant that 

discharges to the river (ADEC 2003). 


Pollutants and their sources have been studied extensively over recent years in Anchorage. 

Although many pollutants exist, the primary pollutants of concern are chloride, sediment, 

metals, petroleum products, oil and lubricants, toxics, and pathogens (MOA Watershed 

Management Services [WMS] 2004e). Chloride sources include street applications, primarily 

salt used in winter street sand, and magnesium chloride deicer. Particulate pollutants come 

from street and land development carried by stormwater runoff and in-stream channel 

erosion. Metals, petroleum products, oil and lubricants and toxics are pollutants that are most 

commonly found adsorbed to streets sediments. Although there are a wide range of potential 

sources for pathogens, the most probable source is pets and urban wildlife. 

Since January 5, 1999, Anchorage, with co-applicant ADOT&PF, has been operating under a 

permit to discharge from all municipal separate storm sewer outfalls (NPDES Permit 

No. AKS 05255-8 “NPDES Permit for Storm Water Discharges from the Municipal Separate 

Storm Sewer System of Anchorage Alaska”). The permit requires Anchorage to organize and 

manage programs to ensure receiving waters are protected from pollutants traveling through 

the Municipal separate storm sewer system. This permit expired, and USEPA, the 

12/18/07 3-175



Municipality, and ADOT&PF are drafting the new permit and conditions. In the interim, the 

original permit is in effect. 

In the vicinity of the POA, a number of nonpoint source inputs of pollution have been 

identified. The POA is operated under an NPDES permit (AK-05255-8) developed for the 

Municipality. POA uses specific pollution prevention measures during construction and 

operation and follows a stormwater management program that includes monitoring. POA is 

currently coordinating with USEPA for a site-specific NPDES permit (Anchorage Port 

Expansion Team [APET] 2005). There are four major stormwater drains on POA’s property: 

North TOTE (Totem Ocean Trailer Express Inc.), TOTE, Horizon/Cherry Hill, and Tesoro 

systems. The Horizon/Cherry Hill drainage system provides storm runoff for most of 

Elmendorf and drains through the POA on its way to Knik Arm (APET 2005). 

3.8.2 Wetlands 

EO 11990, “Protection of Wetlands,” and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act require FHWA 

to avoid and minimize adverse effects on wetlands. Implementation of the proposed KAC 

project must avoid harming wetlands unless there is no practicable alternative. If it must be 

located in wetlands, the proposed project must employ all possible measures to minimize 

adverse effects on wetlands. The regulatory definition of wetlands is “those areas that are 

inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to 

support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically 

adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 C.F.R. § 328.3[b]). Note that this narrow 

definition does not include unvegetated water bodies; those are described in Sections 3.8.1 

and 3.8.7.1. 

The Cook Inlet region has a transitional maritime-continental climate, and wetlands are 

common in the region. The cool climate, nearly-level topography, and glacial deposits 

characteristic of the region create conditions that promote the formation of abundant 

wetlands. Figure 3.54 shows the locations of wetlands, water bodies, and uplands 

(nonwetland) in the general Study Area, as mapped by the National Wetland Inventory. 

Identification of wetlands within most of the Study corridor was based on field surveys 

conducted by Study Team biologists in September and October 2005 (KABATA 2006q). For 

part of the Study Area located on Elmendorf lands—to which the Study Team could not gain 

access—an existing report (MOA, DEDP, and HDR 1991) and file notes from a past 

investigation were used to delineate and describe the wetlands. The Study Team identified 

wetland boundaries within an approximately 300-foot-wide corridor along each alternative, 

classified wetlands according to the system of Cowardin et al. (1979), and considered how 

those wetlands function within the natural environment. The wetland types in this “direct 

effects Study Area” are described below. 

A wetland’s ecological functions and social values depend on many variables, such as its 

topographic and geomorphic setting; how, when, and from what sources it receives water and 

how the water leaves the wetland; its vegetation structure and plant species; its macro- 

3-176 12/18/07



Figure 3.54. Study area wetland habitat types 

12/18/07 3-177



and microtopography; its position relative to other vegetation types and to human 

development; and its soil type. The functions and values often attributed to wetlands include: 

ground water recharge or discharge, flood attenuation, shoreline and sediment stabilization, 

pollutant retention, primary production and export of organic material to other sites, wildlife 

habitat, fish habitat, and human use for recreation, education, open space and aesthetics, and 

food harvest. Individual wetlands perform these functions, however, to different degrees—or 

not at all. Many of these functions are not unique to wetlands, and may also be performed by 

uplands. 


General wetland types found within the indirect effects Study Area are described briefly 

below, based on information developed by the National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS n.d.a). 

Wetland types in the more specific direct effects Study Area are also described. The direct 

effects Study Area is generally located on well-drained land, but does cross or skirt the 

margin of several large wetland complexes that occupy the lowest-lying areas. These 

wetlands are generally formed on large flats, with black spruce forests on the margins, 

grading into stunted black spruce scrub in slightly wetter areas and into open sedgedominated 

wetlands in the wettest areas. Generally, the wetlands are saturated to the surface, 

with some ponding of water between hummocks. 

3.8.2.1.1 Forested wetlands 

In the indirect effects Study Area, forested wetlands are common in two situations. 

Seasonally-flooded forests of balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera ssp. balsamifera) or black 

cottonwood (P. balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa) are often found on stream floodplains, often 

including tall willow and alder species, and sometimes paper birch (Betula papyrifera), or 

black (Picea mariana) or white spruce (P. glauca). Forested wetlands dominated by taller 

black spruce typically form a better-drained fringe along extensive shrub bogs or as tree 

islands within bogs (USFWS n.d.a). 

The forested wetlands in the direct effects Study Area are of the bog or nutrient-poor fen 

type, which are also sometimes referred to loosely as “muskegs.” These forested wetlands are 

dominated by black spruce and, within the Study Area, Sitka alder (Alnus sinuata) and paper 

birch are also common. Labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum), black crowberry (Empetrum 

nigrum), dwarf birch (Betula nana), and lowbush cranberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea) comprise 

the shrub understory. The groundcover is dominated by bluejoint reedgrass (Calamagrostis 

canadensis), cloudberry (Rubus chamaemorus), horsetail (Equisetum spp.), and mosses. 

The spruce-dominated wetlands are generally considered to be low in nutrients. Evergreen 

species dominate, and these provide browse of limited quality. Berry-producing shrubs, 

however, are common in these wetlands and the berries provide food for a variety of 

mammals and birds. Canopy cover of forested and scrub wetlands provides shelter to large 

and small mammals and songbirds. Some of the Study Area’s forested wetlands are ground 

water discharge areas, and release ground water into these and the adjacent scrub wetlands. 

3-178 12/18/07



Where located near roads or other ground disturbance, forested and scrub wetlands may filter 

pollutants from runoff before releasing the water to down slope wetlands. 

3.8.2.1.2 Scrub and shrub wetlands 

Wetlands dominated by shrubs and by scrub trees in the indirect effects Study Area include 

thickets of willow and alder on stream floodplains, alder swamps, extensive bogs with a 

dense and diverse cover of deciduous and evergreen shrubs, bogs with a dense sedge cover, 

patterned bogs with higher shrubby areas and lower flooded sedge-filled ponds, and bogs 

dominated by scrubby black spruce (“muskegs”). 

In the direct effects Study Area, most scrub or shrub wetlands are dominated by stunted black 

spruce and are similar to the forested wetlands described above. Additional species include 

sweetgale (Myrica gale) and shrubby cinquefoil (Dasiphora floribunda). Groundcover 

includes bluejoint reedgrass, meadow horsetail (Equisetum pratense), and marsh five-finger 

(Comarum palustre). The scrub spruce wetlands in the project corridor have functions similar 

to those of the spruce forested wetlands described above. One wetland dominated by shrubheight 

paper birch was located in the direct effects Study Area, with bluejoint reedgrass and 

meadow horsetail in the understory. 

3.8.2.1.3 Sedge and grass wetlands 

Wetlands dominated by sedges and grasses in the indirect effects Study Area include 

saturated bogs with dense sedge and moss cover, sedge-dominated fens similar to the bogs 

but where there is input of relatively mineral-rich water, and seasonally flooded marshes 

along streams and surrounding ponds. 

Bog- and fen-type sedge wetlands predominate in the direct effects Study Area. Tufted 

bulrush (Trichophoum caespitosum), sweetgale, shrubby cinquefoil, and sedges (Carex spp.) 

are dominant species in these broad flats. These sedge-dominated wetlands are often found in 

the lowest areas of extensive wetlands. Bluejoint reedgrass meadows also occur in the Study 

Area in small depressions. 

The open meadows provide travel corridors for large mammals such as moose and bear. 

Open water occurs in these meadows, providing habitat for waterfowl. Where near roads, 

sedge- or grass-dominated wetlands may filter pollutants from road runoff before releasing 

the water downstream. No creeks run through these wetlands, limiting the export of nutrients 

or organic matter by way of these water bodies. 


3.8.2.2.1 Sedge wetland 

A narrow fringe of coastal marsh occurs north of POA between the toe of the coastal bluff 

and unvegetated intertidal mud flats of Knik Arm. This wetland has been permitted to be 

filled during Phase 1 of the POA Expansion Project under Department of Army Permit 

POA-2003-502-2 and is not addressed further in this analysis. 

12/18/07 3-179




The Anchorage side of the direct effects Study Area is also primarily within uplands. 

Wetlands formed as a result of ground water discharge, however, are common on the slopes 

east of the POA. Also, riparian wetlands have formed along two drainage ways east of the 

POA and along Ship Creek. The water bodies in this area are discussed in Section 3.8.1.3. 

3.8.2.3.1 Forested wetlands 

A paper birch forest forms a wetland riparian corridor along drainage channels east of 

Terminal Road, on Elmendorf, that flow to the southeast corner of the POA (see Figure 4.31 

in Section 4.8.2.2). (Access to Elmendorf was not granted; it is possible that closer 

investigation would show that the riparian corridor is primarily upland.) Sitka alder and 

bluejoint reedgrass are also prominent in this area. 

This riparian forest may be subject to periodic flooding, and the streamside plants would 

stabilize the banks against erosion. During periods of high flows, plant material produced in 

these wetlands may be carried downstream and support the food web of Knik Arm. These 

forested wetlands also provide foraging and resting habitat for a variety of animals. 

3.8.2.3.2 Shrub wetlands 

Wetlands are formed on the slopes east of the POA where ground water is discharged to the 

surface at a complex of seeps between drier upland rises (Figure 3.54). These wetlands are 

primarily swamps, dominated by alders (Alnus species), bluejoint reedgrass, devil’s club 

(Oplopanax horridus), and ferns. Several culverts direct water from these wetlands through 

the POA to Knik Arm. 

The ground water released into these wetlands may pick up decaying plants and other organic 

matter and carry it to Knik Arm, where that material supports the marine food web. These 

wetlands may receive pollutants in the surface water runoff from nearby developed areas. To 

the degree the pollutants are bound by the wetland soils, the wetlands help protect the water 

quality of Knik Arm. The shrub vegetation may provide foraging, breeding, and resting 

habitat for a variety of birds and mammals, serving as a remnant of habitat within a highly 

developed area. 

3.8.2.3.3 Sedge and grass wetlands 

An emergent wetland has formed in a disturbed site between the POA and the western 

residential area of Government Hill (Figure 3.54). It supports cattails (Typha latifolia) and 

bluejoint reedgrass in the wetter low-lying depressions, and nonnative species including 

white clover (Trifolium repens) and annual bluegrass (Poa annua) in the drier areas. This 

wetland also drains through a storm drain system to Knik Arm. This wetland has functions 

similar to those described for the shrub wetlands above. 

A wetland next to Ship Creek support sedges (Carex spp.), the weedy marsh forget-me-not 

(Myosotis scorpioides), bluejoint reedgrass, and horsetails. Its ecological functions may 

include retaining pollutants it receives in storm water, slightly moderating the flow in Ship 

3-180 12/18/07



Creek, producing and exporting plant material, and providing limited wildlife habitat. The 

sedge wetland adjacent to a pond may provide resting and staging habitat for migratory 

waterfowl; however, habitat quality is limited in this urban environment. 

3.8.3 Floodplains 

Floodplains are defined in EO 11988 as “the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining 

inland and coastal waters including floodprone areas of offshore islands, including at a 

minimum, that area subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year” 

(Federal Register 1977). EO 11988 directs federal agencies, and the activities undertaken or 

authorized by them, to reduce the risk of flood loss and to minimize flood impacts to human 

inhabitants of an area. Additionally, a location hydraulic study (KABATA 2006c) has been 

prepared in accordance with 23 C.F.R. 650 Subpart A, to assess impacts from encroachments 

associated with implementation of the proposed KAC project. 


The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has mapped base flood elevations 

(i.e., 100-year flood elevations) along the Little Susitna River and Lucile Creek within the 

Mat-Su; however, FEMA maps are not available for the majority of the Mat-Su portion of the 

Study corridor. Unmapped floodplains exist within the Goose Creek tributaries and closeddrainage 

lakes along the Study corridor. Floodplain areas associated with these water bodies 

are small in area and immediately adjacent to the creek or lake. 

Inundation of these floodplains is generally associated with spring snowmelt or large 

precipitation events. Because the drainage basin of each water body is small, precipitation 

events that cause flooding are localized to the immediate area around the water body. 

Flooding adjacent to the creeks has a short duration because the creeks can drain quickly. 

Flooding in the closed-drainage lakes lasts longer because the lakes have no stream outlet 

and the water must percolate into the ground to dissipate. A detailed flood study would be 

required to determine the actual possible flood extents, but it is likely that most of these 

flood-prone areas are within 100 feet of either side of the stream bank or lakeshore. 


The Knik Arm shoreline within Anchorage is subject to tidal flooding and is mapped as base 

floodplain Zone A. This zonal type designates areas where the base flood elevations have not 

been determined. However, based on FEMA (2002) data, the Municipality of Anchorage 

established and regulates the coastal base flood elevation as 19 feet above its datum for 

coastal areas of Knik Arm north of Anchorage. This base flood elevation is approximately 

36.4 feet relative to MLLW. 

Flooding within these areas is associated with storm events, including high winds (but not 

waves) and extremely low atmospheric pressure. Inundated areas during these floods include 

nearshore lowlands and creek and river estuaries. Flood duration is short because the flood 

peak is associated with high tide. 

12/18/07 3-181




Within the Anchorage portion of the Study Area, FEMA maps show the POA as Zone X 

(FEMA n.d.). This zone designates areas determined to be outside the 0.2 percent annualchance 

floodplain. Ship Creek, up to the first dam, is mapped as base floodplain Zone A. 

Above the first Ship Creek dam, the flood hazard designation changes to Zone AE and 

consists of riverine flooding from flow in Ship Creek (FEMA n.d.). Inundation of the 

floodplain is generally associated with spring snowmelt or large precipitation events. 

Flooding adjacent to the Ship Creek in this area could have a long duration because the 

drainage basin is large and primarily within the Chugach Mountains. Precipitation events in 

the mountains can last for some time and take a long period to drain from the basin, causing 

lengthy floodplain inundation. 

Other floodplains within the Study Area in Anchorage include lakes in the Elmendorf. These 

floodplains are not mapped. While these areas are not mapped, the flood-prone areas usually 

exist immediately adjacent to the water body in hilly glacial topography and small 

watersheds. A detailed flood study would be required to determine the actual possible flood 

extents, but it is likely that most of these flood-prone areas are within 100 feet of either side 

of the stream bank or lake shore. 

3.8.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, (PL 90-542 as amended; 16 U.S.C. §§ 1271-87) 

established a method for providing federal protection for certain of our country’s remaining 

free-flowing rivers, preserving them and their immediate environments for use and 

enjoyment by present and future generations. Rivers are included in the system so that they 

may benefit from the protective management and control of the development for which the 

Act provides. 

The rivers and streams located within the Study Area are not designated Wild and Scenic 

Rivers (USGS 2001b). 

3.8.5 Coastal Barriers 

Coastal barriers include landscape features such as islands, mangroves, and spits, which can 

act to protect the mainland from wind, wave, and tidal forces. The intent of the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act of 1982 (16 U.S.C. § 3501) was to minimize loss of human life; 

wasteful expenditure of federal revenues; and damage to fish, wildlife, and other natural 

resources associated with the development of coastal barriers. 

There are no coastal barriers in Alaska, and, therefore, within the Study Area, as defined in 

16 U.S.C. § 3501 and as reauthorized in the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990. 

3.8.6 Coastal Zone 

The U.S. Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 in an effort to create a 

coastal resource management partnership among federal, state, and local governments. Five 

3-182 12/18/07



years later, the State of Alaska passed the Alaska Coastal Management Act (ACMA) to 

provide a standardized, statewide policy and guidance for projects proposed within the 

Coastal Management Boundary. The ACMA also served to guide the development of the 

Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) which promulgated statewide development 

standards. The ACMA called for creation of district coastal management programs and 

locally relevant coastal management plans consistent with the standards of the ACMP. Once 

approved, these local district plans become part of the ACMP and mandate that state and 

federal agencies administer permit requests within the Alaska Coastal Management 

Boundary consistent with both statewide and local policies. 

In 2003, the Alaska State Legislature passed House Bill 191, which amended the ACMA by 

revising ACMP regulations and requiring updates to all district coastal management plans 

(CMP) by July 2005. All CMPs are currently undergoing revision, and the deadline for 

updating CMPs was extended to March 2006 under House Bill 102. 

Most of the Study Area for the proposed KAC project is located within the coastal area (see 

Figure 3.55 in Section 3.8.7.3) and is, therefore, subject to the ACMP, the Matanuska-Susitna 

Coastal Management Plan (Mat-Su Borough 1983), and the Anchorage Coastal Management 

Plan (MOA 1987). 

3.8.6.1 Alaska 

3.8.6.1.1 Alaska Coastal Management Program 

Statewide standards serve as benchmarks for evaluating projects that are within or affect 

resources within the Coastal Management Boundary. Standards defined within the ACMP 

11 AAC 112) and subject to the program include nine major coastal uses or activities and 

three resources. Activities associated with the proposed KAC project would trigger a review 

under four of the nine uses and all three of the resources: 

Uses or activities 

• coastal development – the ACMP standards give priority to water-dependent and waterrelated 

development 

• natural hazard areas – the ACMP standards guide the appropriate siting, design, 

construction, and operation of facilities to ensure that the public safety, services and 

environment are protected from potential damage 

• coastal access – the ACMP typically requires projects to maintain or improve access to 

and from as well as along coastal waters 

• transportation and facilities – transportation and facilities projects are regulated to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate changes to surface and ground water drainage patterns, disruption 

of wildlife transit, and blockage of traditional access 

Resources 

• habitat – several coastal zone habitats are subject to ACMP standards including 

avoidance, minimization, or mitigation of alterations to water flow and drainage patterns 

of tidal flats 

12/18/07 3-183



• air, land, and water quality – the ACMP incorporates Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation statutes and regulations regarding protection of air, land, 

and water quality (AS § 46.40.040[b]), as guidance for protection of those resources 

• historic, prehistoric, and archaeological resources – the ACMP standards require 

compliance with AS §§ 41.35.010-240 and 11 AAC 16.010 to 11 AAC 16.900 for those 

areas within the coastal zone that have been designated by DNR as important to the study 

or project 

The ACMP standards are implemented through permit authorizations. The State of Alaska 

uses a multiagency project consistency review (11 AAC 110) to evaluate and process 

resource permits required for projects proposed within the coastal zone. During the 

consistency review process, project proposals are reviewed to determine the project's 

consistency with ACMP standards and the enforceable policies of district coastal 

management programs. The consistency review begins once a complete consistency review 

packet, consisting of a completed Coastal Project Questionnaire along with all applicable 

resource agency authorization applications, is deemed complete and the scope of the review 

has been determined. A copy of the review packet would then be made available to the public 

and the 50-day 40 consistency review process would start. A final consistency determination 

would be issued after any adverse comments have been resolved or when the application 

would become final. The Coastal Project Questionnaire for the proposed KAC project is 

included as an appendix to the permit application package submitted in conjunction with this 

Draft EIS. 


3.8.6.2.1 Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Plan 

The original Mat-Su Borough CMP was adopted in 1984 (Mat-Su Borough 1983), with 

minor amendments in 1988. The Mat-Su Borough CMP is currently undergoing revision to 

update resource information and to comply with the 2003 ACMA amendments and 

2004 ACMP regulatory changes. Enforceable policies within the draft 2006 Mat-Su Borough 

CMP reflect the 2004 ACMP changes. Because these policies have not been finalized, 

however, the more restrictive 1984 enforceable policies will be used as reference for this 

document. 

In 1993, the Point MacKenzie Area Which Merits Special Attention (AMSA) Plan, as 

designated by the Mat-Su Borough CMP, was adopted by the Mat-Su Borough (Mat-Su 

Borough 1983). The purpose of the plan was threefold: 

• facilitate development of a port, associated upland uses, and transportation corridors, 

including anticipating permit approval requirements 

• protect other important uses and values of the area, and minimize conflicts with port 

development 

40 Projects are subject to 50-day consistency reviews unless all required authorizations for the activities are 

included on the C-List of the List of Expedited Consistency Reviews. 

3-184 12/18/07



• plan for future development of the port district and wise utilization of its coastal 

resources 

The Point MacKenzie AMSA Plan identifies as one of its 12 issues, “providing access 

between Point MacKenzie and the Anchorage area.” To address this issue, the plan set forth 

Goal 2.5: “Develop a direct transportation connection between Point MacKenzie and the 

Anchorage urban area as the need arises.” 

The plan goes on to state that “The Knik Arm Crossing proposal … could in the future be 

very important to the future growth and development of the Point MacKenzie area by 

improving access to the heavily populated areas across Cook Inlet.” Applicable enforceable 

policies are listed and discussed in Section 4.8.6. 


3.8.6.3.1 Anchorage Coastal Management Plan 

The Municipality of Anchorage approved its first Coastal Management Plan in 1980 and 

subsequently updated the plan in 1982, with the addition of the Anchorage Wetlands 

Management Plan. In 1987, the Anchorage CMP was revised with additional maps but no 

substantive changes to the policies or standards (MOA 1987). The Municipality is currently 

revising its CMP to comply with the 2003 ACMA amendments and 2004 ACMP regulatory 

changes. A revised CMP is scheduled for release in March 2006. For this Draft EIS, the 1987 

enforceable policies will be used. Applicable enforceable policies are listed and discussed in 


3.8.7 Habitats 

3.8.7.1 Marine habitat 

3.8.7.1.1 Intertidal zone 

The most prevalent intertidal habitat types within Knik Arm are mud and sand flats, which 

usually begin at the mid- to lower intertidal zone. 41 From Eagle Bay and Goose Bay 

southwest, intertidal substrates vary above elevations of about +4 to +6 feet MLLW. In 

general, the middle and upper beaches north of the POA, on the southern shore, and north of 

Point MacKenzie, on the northern shore, consist of gravel and cobble mixes with occasional 

bands of sand at the high tide line and more widespread silt/clay deposits in the middle 

intertidal range. The extreme conditions of tide, currents, icing, and beach instability result in 

a very low primary productivity on the beaches and in the water column (e.g., Bakus et 

al. 1979; FHWA and ADOT&PF 1983a). 

Field observations completed for this project indicate that intertidal habitat and vegetation of 

the upper beach on the east side of Knik Arm consist of gravel and cobble with scattered 

larger boulders (KABATA 2005b). The middle beach is composed of soft or hard clay, while 

the lower beach often has large boulders and a broad and irregular gravel, boulder, and sand 

41 In general, the intertidal zone is the area between highest observed tide and lowest observed tide. 

12/18/07 3-185



reef at about +8 feet MLLW. To the north of Cairn Point, grain size is reduced and the reef 

broadens into a wide sand flat in the lower intertidal zone that continues north all the way to 

the south entrance to Eagle Bay. Intertidal vegetation is limited to small patches of bluegreen 

algal felt growing on the clay and scattered small green algae, Enteromorpha spp., 

including E. linza, mostly on cobbles. No algae were observed on the low intertidal bench. 

Observations from the west side of Knik Arm characterize the upper beach north of Port 

MacKenzie as a mix of sand and gravel with occasional large boulders. The middle beach 

consists of a band of relatively hard gray clay with some eroded ridges. The lower beach face 

is a coarse gravel and cobble substrate that grades into an irregular cobble bench extending 

several hundred feet offshore. Intertidal vegetation includes patches of blue-green algae on 

clay and scattered small green algae, E. linza, mostly on cobble but also on clay. 

E. intestinalis and E. prolifera are also present in the lower beach with rockweed 

(Fucus gardneri) found in relatively dense patches typically attached to cobbles. 

3.8.7.1.2 Subtidal zone 

The subtidal zone 42 of Knik Arm within the Study Area is characterized by flat, silty, and 

fine- to medium-grained sand bottoms as well as cobble and boulder bottoms in areas of 

greater relief (up to 10°). Tidal activity within Knik Arm provides insufficient time for 

flocculation and settlement of flocs within the deeper mid-sections of the channel 

(to -70 MLLW within the Study Area) where strong currents scour the seafloor clear of all 

but heavier sand particles (KABATA 2006r). Sand particles themselves are carried as bed 

load in saltation mode (rolling and hopping), creating sand waves in deeper faster water. 

These mobile sand waves have been measured to 6 feet high in the vicinity of the Study Area 

(FHWA and ADOT&PF 1983b). 

42 In general, the subtidal zone is that area below the lowest observed tide. 

3-186 12/18/07



3.8.7.2 Freshwater habitat 

3.8.7.2.1 The Mat-Su 

Freshwater habitat types within the Mat-Su portion of the Study Area include rivers, streams, 

lakes, ponds, and wetlands. (Section 3.8.1.1 describes the major water bodies of the Mat-Su, 

and wetlands are described in detail in Section 3.8.2.) The majority of these streams, rivers, 

and riparian areas are important for sustaining freshwater and anadromous fish populations 

(Mat-Su Borough 2005f). These habitats are also important to furbearers, and all terrestrial 

mammals described in Section 3.8.8 rely on freshwater habitats. 


Freshwater habitat within the Anchorage area includes rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, and 

wetlands. These habitats are important to all species of wildlife inhabiting the area. 

(Anchorage water bodies and wetlands are described in detail in Section 3.8.1.3 and 

Section 3.8.2.3, respectively.) 

3.8.7.3 Terrestrial habitat 

3.8.7.3.1 The Mat-Su 

Terrestrial habitat types were characterized during field efforts conducted for the proposed 

KAC project and using readily available existing information. Within a 300-foot-wide 

corridor centered on Mat-Su road alternatives, habitat types were examined in the field and 

described in detail (KABATA 2006q). Outside this area, in the indirect effects Study Area, 

mapping and plant type descriptions were derived from the Alaska Interim Land Cover 

Mapping Project (USGS 1999) (Figure 3.55). The habitat types described below for the 

direct effects Study Area are upland habitats, while those described for the indirect effects 

Study Area include both upland and wetland habitats. Wetland habitat types in the direct 

effects Study Area are described in Section 3.8.2. 

Needleleaf forest 

In the project direct effects Study Area, needleleaf forests are characterized by a canopy 

dominated by white spruce, with an understory composed of Labrador tea, prickly rose, 

fireweed, and horsetails (KABATA 2006q). This habitat type occurs across wide, flat areas 

with well-drained soil. 

In the indirect effects Study Area, these forests are dominated by white spruce in welldrained 

areas and by black spruce in poorly drained areas such as bogs and muskegs. 

Understory shrubs may include alders, willows, shrub birch, spirea (Spirea beauverdiana), 

Labrador tea, blueberry and cranberry (Vaccinium spp.), rusty menziesia (Menziesia 

ferruginea), devil’s club, currents (Ribes spp.), and mosses (USGS 1999). 

12/18/07 3-187



Figure 3.55. Study Area habitat types 

3-188 12/18/07



Broadleaf forest 

In the project direct effects Study Area, broadleaf forests are characterized by a canopy 

dominated by paper birch with an understory composed of prickly rose, highbush cranberry 

(Viburnum edule), fireweed, horsetails, and bluejoint reedgrass (KABATA 2006q). This 

upland habitat type occurs across wide, flat areas and on low hills with well-drained soils. 

In the indirect effects Study Area, broadleaf forests are characterized by a canopy of 

cottonwood, aspen, or paper birch. Understory vegetation is highly variable, and may include 

spirea, Labrador tea, tall blueberries, and rusty menziesia on more moist sites, and prickly 

rose, and highbush cranberry, on drier sites. Common forbs include bluejoint reedgrass, 

horsetails, and fireweed (USGS 1999). 

Mixed needleleaf/broadleaf forest 

In the project direct effects Study Area, mixed needleleaf/broadleaf forests have a canopy 

dominated by white spruce and paper birch, with an understory of highbush cranberry, dwarf 

dogwood (Cornus canadensis), lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina), prickly rose, and fireweed 

(KABATA 2006q). This upland habitat type is common throughout the direct effects Study 

Area, occurring over wide, flat areas with well-drained soil. 

In the indirect effects Study Area, mixed forests are composed of an upper canopy mix of 

paper birch, cottonwood, aspen, white spruce, and black spruce. Understory plant species 

may include Labrador tea, horsetails and bluejoint reedgrass on more moist sites, and prickly 

rose, highbush cranberry, dwarf dogwood, lady fern, and fireweed, on drier sites 

(USGS 1999). 

Tall and low shrub 

In the direct effects Study Area, tall shrub habitat occurs along roadsides and on the coastal 

bluff. This habitat type is dominated by a thick canopy of alder, with a sparse understory of 

devil’s club, lady fern, horsetail, and bluejoint reedgrass (KABATA 2006q). 

Dwarf shrub 

In the indirect effects Study Area, dwarf shrub areas are characterized by plants generally 

less than 1 foot tall and are dominated by dwarf birch and a variety of heath species. This 

habitat type is common in peatland. Mosses (primarily Sphagnum sp.) are common in 

peatland types (USGS 1999). 

Dry and moist herb 

Upland herb meadows are common throughout the direct effects Study Area, occurring 

within the existing transmission line corridor. The dominant plant species is bluejoint 

reedgrass, with prickly rose, devil’s club, red raspberry (Rubus idaeus), and red elderberry 

(Sambucus racemosa) also present (KABATA 2006q). 

12/18/07 3-189



In the indirect effects Study Area, this habitat type is dominated by sedges (primarily Carex 

aquatilis and C. bigelowii). Most sites have other grasses, sedges, or rushes as well as 

scattered willows. Mosses and lichens also may be present in varying amounts in the 

understory (USGS 1999). 

Wet and aquatic herb 

This habitat type is described in the direct effects Study Area for wetlands described in 


In the indirect effects Study Area, wet herb habitat is generally found in low basins, such as 

tidal areas, that are saturated throughout the growing season. Common species include the 

grass Arctophila fulva, bluejoint reedgrass, sedges, and buckbean (Menyanthes trifoliata). 

Aquatic herbs typically grow in shallow to deep water, such as along pond and lake 

shorelines. Plants may include sedges, Arctophila fulva, mare’s tail (Hippuris vulgaris), pond 

lilies (Nuphar sp. and Nymphaea tetragona), duckweed (Potamogeton sp.), and marsh 

fivefinger (USGS 1999). 

Agricultural areas 

This type of habitat includes hay and grazing fields, as well as grain fields (USGS 1999). 

Developed areas 

In the direct effects study area, this type includes roads, trails, fill embankments, and all other 

barren or sparsely vegetated areas subject to human disturbance. Plant species colonizing 

these areas are typically composed of invasive or weedy species adapted to frequent 

disturbance regimes. 

In the indirect effects Study Area, this type includes roads, trails, parking lots, gravel borrow 

sites, fill embankments, and all other barren or sparsely vegetated areas. 

Invasive species 

An invasive species is defined in EO 13112 as “an alien species whose introduction does or 

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

directs federal agencies to address their actions that are likely to influence the presence of 

invasive species. Agencies are further directed to develop programs and authorities to 

prevent the introduction of invasive species, monitor populations, and provide for restoration 

of native species and habitats that have been invaded. 

Most nonnative invasive plants are pioneering species that prefer highly disturbed sites such 

as areas along rivers and streams, trails, trailheads, roadsides, construction sites, wildlife 

bedding grounds, and campgrounds (Sheley and Petroff 1999). Studies have shown that the 

presence of exotic plant species highly correlates with sunlit soil and frequent, severe 

disturbances, such as those resulting from road traffic and from road maintenance activities 

(e.g., grading, mowing) (Parendes and Jones 2000). Once nonnative invasive species 

colonize an area, they often crowd out or prevent the establishment of less aggressive native 

3-190 12/18/07



plants and plant communities. In some cases, once established, invasives can alter the habitat 

and behavior patterns of birds and other wildlife. 

The Alaska Natural Heritage Program (ANHP) has identified 114 nonnative species in 

Alaska, and has ranked them for invasiveness. 43 The ANHP uses a numeric ranking system 

(0 to 100) to classify nonnative species’ invasiveness based on potential ecological impact, 

biological characteristics and dispersal ability, ecological amplitude and distribution, and 

feasibility of control. Thirty-one of the 114 species are found within the Study Area 

(Table 3-27). It should be noted that not all nonnative species reported as existing within the 

Study Area have been ranked using this system and not all nonnative plant species are 

considered to be invasive. The ANHP has, however, established that the species displayed in 

Table 3-27 generally include the top 20 invasive species of concern within the Study Area. 44 

Invasive species are generally not regulated as such by law at the state or federal 45 level. 

Noxious weeds 46 are, however, regulated at the federal level and by the State of Alaska, and 

include many nonnative invasive plant species. The State of Alaska has identified and 

regulates 31 plant species as noxious weeds (11 AAC 34.020) or as being weed seed as 

agricultural seed (11 AAC 34.030). State law prohibits the sale, transport, or planting of 

agricultural or vegetable seed that contains prohibited weed seed or restricted noxious weed 

seed in excess of the permissible tolerances. Eight of the state’s 31 regulated noxious weeds 

are found within the Study Area and are listed in Table 3-28 by their ANHP invasiveness 

ranking. Federally funded transportation projects may use federal dollars to control noxious 

weeds. 47 

43 Personal communication, Matt Carlson, Alaska Natural Heritage Program, with Michael Allwright, June 23, 

2006. 

44 Personal communication, Matt Carlson, Alaska Natural Heritage Program, e-mail to Patrick Blair, June 8, 

2006. 

45 The National Invasive Species Act of 1996 calls for preventing the spread of nuisance aquatic vegetation 

species (e.g., Eurasian watermilfoil, hydrilla, water hyacinth, water chestnut) by regulating and managing 

shipping vessel ballast waters. The Act does not regulate any specific aquatic species or terrestrial invasive 

plant species. 

46 Noxious weeds are defined under the Plant Protection Act as “any plant or plant product that can directly or 

indirectly injure or cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or plant products), livestock, poultry, or 

other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public 

health, or the environment.” [7 U.S.C. § 7701 et seq.] 

47 The SAFETEA-LU, signed into law in 2005, added a provision at 23 U.S.C. § 329 that makes activities for 

the control of noxious weeds and the establishment of native species, eligible for NHS and STP funds. The 

new provisions not only provide for federal-aid eligibility for weed control, but also support ongoing 

vegetation management prior to and following the construction of a project funded with federal transportation 

dollars. 

12/18/07 3-191



Table 3-27. Alaska Natural Heritage Program invasiveness 

ranking of nonnative plant species found within the Study Area 

Scientific name 

Common name 

Invasiveness 

ranking 

(0–100; low– 

high) 

Centaurea maculosa spotted knapweed 88 

Phalaris arundinacea reed canary grass 83 

Impatiens glandulifera ornamental jewel 

weed 82 

Melilotus officinalis white sweetclover 80 

Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife 79 

Bromus tectorum cheatgrass 78 

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle 76 

Vicia cracca bird vetch 75 

Hieracium aurantiacum orange hawkweed 71 

Caragana aborenscens Siberian pea shrub 65 

Melilotus alba yellow sweetclover 65 

Hordeum jubatum foxtail barley 63 

Linaria vulgaris yellow toadflax 63 

Senecio jacobaea ragwort 63 

Bromus inermis ssp. smooth brome 62 

Taraxacum officinale common dandelion 62 

Cirsium vulgare bull thistle 61 

Leucanthemum vulgare 

Lam. 

ox-eye daisy 

61 

Elymus repens quackgrass 59 

Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum barley 57 

Stellaria media common chickweed 57 

Tanacetum vulgare common tansy 57 

Trifolium hybridum alsike clover 57 

Phleum pratense Timothy grass 56 

Sonchus arvensis perennial sowthistle 56 

Lupinus polyphyllus large-leaf lupine 55 

Hypericum perforatum St. John’s-wort 52 

Poa annua annual bluegrass 51 

Polygonum convolvulus black bindweed 51 

Source: Data adapted by HDR Alaska, Inc., from the ANHP nonnative plant invasiveness 

ranking dataset provided by Matt Carlson, Alaska Natural Heritage Program. The dataset 

was updated as of June 2006. 

3-192 12/18/07



Table 3-28. Regulated noxious weed species found in 

the Study Area, as ranked for invasiveness by the 

Alaska Natural Heritage Program 


Common name 

Invasiveness 

ranking 

(0–100; low– 

high) 

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle 76 

Vicia cracca bird vetch 75 

Linaria vulgaris yellow toadflax 63 

Taraxacum officinale a common dandelion 62 

Sonchus arvensis perennial sowthistle 56 

Lupinus polyphyllus a large-leaf lupine 55 

Poa annua annual bluegrass 51 

Polygonum convolvulus black bindweed 51 

a According to 11 AAC 34.030, when occurring in agricultural and vegetable 

seeds, seeds of these species are identified as weed seeds. 


Several upland habitat types occur within the Anchorage portion of the direct effects Study 

Area. These include upland broadleaf forest, upland tall shrub, upland herbaceous meadow, 

and urban areas. 

Upland broadleaf forest 

Upland broadleaf forest is common throughout the Anchorage Bowl. This habitat type is 

characterized by an upper canopy dominated by paper birch and an understory composed of 

alder, devil’s club, highbush cranberry, prickly rose, mountain ash (Sorbus sitchensis), tall 

fireweed, and bluejoint reedgrass. 

An important feature of this habitat type is its multilayered forest canopy. The upper tree 

canopy provides bird nesting habitat and perch locations for raptors and owls. The midcanopy 

provides protective cover for wildlife and supports a variety of plants used for food. 

The lower canopy provides cover for many small mammals and birds, den sites, and resting 

locations for larger mammals. The annual quantity of biomass exported from this habitat type 

is typically high, supplying nutrients to the overall food web. Export of leaf litter, berries, 

and decomposed woody material to downstream habitats provides streams, wetlands, and 

water bodies with important detritus used by a variety of plant and animal species. 

Upland tall shrub 

Upland tall shrub habitat is common along the coastal bluff, areas adjacent to developments, 

and along stream corridors. Dominant plant species include alder, devil’s club, salmonberry, 

red elderberry, cow parsnip (Heracleum lanatum), and tall fireweed. 

This habitat type provides cover for both mammals and birds, generally supporting excellent 

nesting opportunities for songbirds. Along the toe of the coastal bluff north of the POA, this 

12/18/07 3-193



habitat type likely reduces coastal bluff erosion by its plant roots’ binding soil and protecting 

against erosional forces from intermittent streams and ground water discharge. Within the 

developed portions of Anchorage, this habitat type acts as a protective visual and audible 

buffer for undisturbed natural areas and developed areas. 

Upland herb 

Upland herbaceous meadows are common in disturbed areas (previously cleared lots, areas 

adjacent to developments, etc.) in Anchorage. These sites are typically dominated by 

invasive plant species that colonize naturally or are planted during reseeding efforts 

following ground-disturbing construction. 

Because of the proximity of this habitat type to developed areas, its habitat use potential is 

marginal. Some open fields are used by migratory birds as resting and staging locations in the 

spring and fall. The open fields within and nearby Anchorage parks are used heavily by 

recreationists. 

Developed areas 

Barren and sparsely vegetated areas, such as roadways, parking lots, buildings, and yards, are 

abundant throughout the developed portions of Anchorage. These sites likely provide littleto-no 

habitat value for most wildlife. 

3.8.8 Wildlife 

3.8.8.1 Marine invertebrates 

Pelagic primary productivity within the estuarine waters of Upper Cook Inlet decrease with 

progression up the Inlet (Larrance et al. 1977; Speckman et al. 2005), and marine 

invertebrates are generally limited by low primary productivity resulting from high 

suspended sediment loads, variable salinities, and water temperatures near freezing 

(KABATA 2005b). Invertebrates most important in the food web of Knik Arm are primarily 

epibenthic and possibly planktonic—zooplankton that appear to depend on organic matter 

produced outside the Knik Arm environment (e.g., organic detritus from rivers and marshes 

adjacent to the Knik Arm) for an energy source (KABATA 2005b). Despite the general low 

primary productivity of Knik Arm, the nearshore waters of the intertidal zone and offshore 

waters in the central Knik Arm support substantial numbers of invertebrates and fish. 

Beach seine sampling in and near the Study Area captured nine taxa of invertebrates, 

including at least two species of Crangon shrimp, two species of gammarid amphipods, three 

species of shrimp from the Mysidae family, the isopod, Saduria entomon, and one species of 

polychaete worm (KABATA 2005b). A similar study in 1983 produced a comparable list of 

seven epifaunal crustacean species (FHWA and ADOT&PF 1983a). Species composition 

was relatively similar in nearshore (beach seine) and offshore (tow net) samples. Several 

species, commonly believed to be benthic or epibenthic, were taken in the surface tow net 

samples where water was over 80 feet deep. This may suggest that severe vertical turbulence 

in Knik Arm makes it difficult for invertebrates (and fish) to maintain position relative to the 

3-194 12/18/07



shoreline or to the bottom or that their nutriment sources in Knik Arm are not restricted to 

benthic habitats. 

Beaches within the Study Area are devoid of obvious macroinvertebrate infauna. 48 Intertidal 

benthic core samples taken in the vicinity of the Study Area found only two species of 

invertebrates, the most abundant being a nereid polychaete (Neanthes limnicola) and the 

small bivalve, M. balthica (KABATA 2005b). 

Little information is available on the subtidal benthic fauna in the Study Area, but one 

investigation near Point Woronzof suggests that subtidal infauna are essentially nonexistent 

(Bakus et al. 1979). Mobility of the surface layer may act to limit sessile fauna establishment 

within deeper portions of the subtidal zone. Attempts to sample the bottom with a trawl have 

had limited success both in 1983 (FHWA and ADOT&PF 1983a) and 2004–2005 

(KABATA 2005b), primarily because of the presence of large cobbles or boulders in areas 

where sampling was attempted. Invertebrates taken included only a few representatives of 

those taxa also taken in the beach seines. 

3.8.8.2 Fish and essential fish habitat 

3.8.8.2.1 Essential fish habitat 

Essential fish habitat (EFH) is defined under the Magnusen-Stevens Fishery and 

Conservation Management Act (PL 94-265), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act 

of 1996 (PL 104-267), as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, 

breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” EFH designations emphasize the importance of 

habitat protection to healthy fisheries and serve to protect and conserve the habitat of 

federally managed marine, estuarine, and anadromous finfish as well as certain mollusks and 

crustaceans. Under the definition of EFH, necessary habitat is that which is required to 

support a sustainable fishery and the managed species’ contribution to a healthy ecosystem. 

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) is responsible for designating 

EFH. In the case of anadromous fish streams (principally salmon), NOAA Fisheries has 

designated the anadromous fish maps prepared by ADF&G as the definition of EFH. Mapped 

anadromous fish streams exist in the Study Area on the east side of Knik Arm. The Study 

Area also includes marine EFH in Knik Arm waters. These areas are summarized below and 

detailed in the EFH Assessment in Appendix F. 

Most of the fishes with designated EFH within the Study Area are important as sport or 

commercial fishery species within Cook Inlet as well as being prey species for beluga 

whales. Sport fisheries in the Study area are described in Section 3.6.2, commercial fisheries 

are discussed in the Socioeconomic Affected Environment Technical Report 

(KABATA 2006a), and a description of beluga diet is found in Section 3.8.8.4. 

48 Infauna refers to species living in sediment within soft substrate areas such as shallow mud flats and sand 

flats. 

12/18/07 3-195



Consultation with NOAA Fisheries and ADF&G confirmed that the following three 

groundfish, one forage fish, and five Pacific salmon species have designated EFH within the 

Study Area. 49 

Groundfish 

• Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) 

• Sculpin (Cottidae spp.) 

• Walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) 

Forage fish 

• Eulachon (Thaleichtys pacificus) 

Pacific salmon 

• Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

• Chum salmon (O. keta) 

• Coho salmon (O. kisutch) 

• Pink salmon (O. gorbuscha) 

• Sockeye salmon (O. nerka) 

The Mat-Su 

No anadromous fish streams, and thus no EFH-designated waters, are located within the 

Mat-Su portion of the Study Area (Figure 3.56). However, there are numerous anadromous 

fish streams within the Mat-Su, but outside of the study area that contribute to anadromous 

fish populations within Knik Arm. These streams and rivers include Goose Creek, Fish 

Creek, Willow Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Wasilla Creek, the Matanuska River, and the Knik 

River (ADF&G 2005a). 


Life stages of the EFH species present within Knik Arm are given in Table 3-29. Detailed 

life cycle and habitat information for all of these fishes is provided in the Essential Fish 

Habitat Assessment (Appendix F) conducted for the proposed KAC project. A summary of 

the Assessment findings is provided below. 

49 Personal communication, Larry Peltz, Fisheries Scientist, NOAA Fisheries, phone conversation with John 

Burnett, September 19, 2005 

3-196 12/18/07



Figure 3.56. Essential fish habitat 

12/18/07 3-197



Table 3-29. Essential fish habitat designations and presence in the Knik Arm 

portion of the Study Area 

Groundfish and 

forage fish 

species 

Egg 

Larvae 

Late 

juvenile a, b Adulta, b Spawning 

Pacific cod • c • c 

Sculpin spp. • c • 

Walleye pollock • • c 

Eulachon • • 

Pacific Salmon 

species 

Egg and 

larvae 

(fresh 

water d ) 

Juvenile 

(fresh 

water d ) 

Juvenile 

estuarine b ) 

Adult 

(marine 

waters b ) 

Spawning 

(freshwater 

only d ) 

Chinook salmon • • 

Chum salmon • • 

Coho salmon • • • 

Pink salmon • • • 

Sockeye salmon • • • 

a 

NOAA Fisheries, 2005 

b 

KABATA, 2005 

c 

Designated as EFH, but not captured in any studies in Knik Arm 

d 

ADF&G, 2005 

Juveniles and adults of all five Pacific salmon species are present in Knik Arm as well as in 

more than a dozen streams and rivers that discharge into Upper Cook Inlet. Analysis of 

length, frequency, and timing patterns suggests that juvenile pink and chum salmon move 

through Knik Arm relatively quickly and do not grow much in this environment. On the other 

hand Knik Arm may be important rearing habitat for the juvenile coho, chinook, and sockeye 

salmon emerging from streams and rivers that discharge into Knik Arm. Juveniles of these 

species appear to be feeding and growing actively in Knik Arm into August (FHWA and 

ADOT&PF 1983a; Moulton 1997; KABATA 2005b; Pentec 2005). 

Juvenile salmon use of both shoreline and mid-channel habitats in Knik Arm differs from 

that of juvenile salmon use of clearwater estuaries (KABATA 2005b), where early 

out-migrants are found primarily residing in nearshore habitats (see reviews by Salo 1991; 

Sandercock 1991; Healey 1991). A comparison of beach seining and tow net data as catch 

per unit effort (CPUE), which accounts for bias in relative effort for differences in sampling 

efficiency associated with various sampling gear types, suggests a shoreline or intertidal 

preference by juvenile chinook and coho salmon. Juveniles of chum and sockeye salmon 

appear to use both nearshore and mid-channel habitats, with a markedly higher occurrence in 

mid-channel habitat. Juvenile pink salmon were primarily found in mid-channel habitat 

(KABATA 2005b). 

3-198 12/18/07



High turbidity and active vertical mixing within Knik Arm limit primary productivity; 

however, allochthonous 50 carbon contributions (factored into the primary productivity of 

streams and rivers) appear to provide sufficient energy inputs to Knik Arm to sustain growth 

and development of juvenile salmon migrating through Knik Arm. For example, substantial 

numbers of invertebrates have been found within the waters of Upper Cook Inlet and Knik 

Arm (FHWA and ADOT&PF 1983a; Moulton 1997; Pentec 2005; KABATA 2005b) despite 

decreasing euphotic zone depth and marine primary productivity with progression up Cook 

Inlet (Larrance et al. 1977; Speckman et al. 2005). This suggests that an alternative source of 

carbon input, other than from pelagic primary productivity, is available. Moreover, stomach 

assays of juvenile salmon within mid-channel waters found that the majority of these fishes 

had full bellies and were feeding primarily on terrestrial winged insects (FHWA and 

ADOT&PF 1983; Moulton 1997; Pentec 2005), further stressing the potential importance of 

allochthonous sources of energy for the subsistence of juvenile salmon within Knik Arm. 

Eulachon (hooligan) likely move through Knik Arm in early spring to reach spawning 

grounds within freshwater streams and rivers. While smelt habitat is not documented within 

the Study Area or in any streams or rivers emptying into Knik Arm (ADF&G 2005b), 

eulachon have been observed within Knik Arm waters. KABATA caught gravid eulachon in 

April 2005 and post-spawn eulachon were subsequently caught in May. The lack of juvenile 

eulachon captured in sampling efforts may suggest that they move quickly through Knik Arm 

after hatching in mid-summer. No eulachon were observed during Knik Arm sampling 

during July through November of 2004 or 2005 (KABATA 2005b). 

The unconsolidated silt, sand, and cobble bottom areas of Knik Arm are expected to provide 

suitable habitat for groundfish species such as Pacific cod, sculpin, and pollock. Prey species 

such as epibenthic crustaceans and pelagic small fish are available within Knik Arm. 

However, recent trawl and beach seine sampling within Knik Arm produced only three 

Pacific staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus), three walleye pollock, and no Pacific cod 

(KABATA 2005b). 

The Knik Arm portion of the Study Area includes one anadromous stream, Sixmile Creek 

(247-50-10090) (Figure 3.56). During low tide, Sixmile Creek flows within a confined 

intertidal channel within Knik Arm. The lower section of the creek and Sixmile Lake 

includes spawning and rearing habitat for Dolly Varden char and sockeye and coho salmon, 

and spawning habitat for pink salmon (ADF&G 2005b). However, because the intertidal 

channel is very shallow (less than 6 inches), it is unlikely that migrating fish use it during low 

tide. Once the tide is high and the intertidal channel is indistinguishable from the rest of Knik 

Arm, fish likely move into Sixmile Creek. 51 

50 Allochthonous refers to something that originates outside of or is not originally produced within a system. In 

this instance allochthonous carbon sources include things such as organic detritus and vegetative mats that are 

transported into the estuarine system by the rivers and streams that discharge into Knik Arm. 

51 Personal communication, Jim Glaspell, Environmental and Planning Group Manager, URS Corporation, 

e-mail message to Robin Reich, November 27, 2005 

12/18/07 3-199



Anchorage 

The Anchorage portion of the Study Area contains a single anadromous fish stream, Ship 

Creek (ADF&G No. 247-50-10060) (Figure 3.56). Ship Creek runs approximately 29 miles 

from its headwaters at Ship Lake in Chugach State Park and drains approximately 123 square 

miles. The Ship Creek estuary extends from the stream mouth to approximately river 

mile 0.7, where a dam prevents further tidal influence. According to ADF&G (2005b), four 

species of Pacific salmon are present in Ship Creek: chinook, coho, chum, and pink (Table 

3-30). As a result, Ship Creek is EFH for these four Pacific salmon species. However, only 

chinook and coho salmon are documented to use the creek for rearing of young. Only 

chinook are documented to use the creek for spawning, but spawning by pink and coho is 

likely. Spawning by chum is also possible. 

Table 3-30. Essential fish habitat designations in the Anchorage 

portion of the Study Area 

Salmon 

species 

Egg and 

larvae 

(freshwater 

a ) 

Juvenile 

(freshwater 

a ) 

Juvenile 

(estuarine b) 

Spawning 

(freshwater 

only a ) 

Chinook salmon • • • • 

Chum salmon 

• 

Coho salmon • • • c 

Pink salmon • • c 

Sockeye salmon 

• 

a 

ADF&G, 2005 

b 

KABATA, 2005x 

c 

Matt Miller, Fisheries Biologist, ADF&G, phone conversation with John Burnett, October 19, 2005 

Each year, eggs from both chinook and coho adults are harvested by ADF&G and used for 

hatchery production of smolts, which are subsequently released into Ship Creek. As a result, 

both stocks are enhanced in large part, if not completely, by ADF&G hatchery plantings. 

Coho and chinook smolt out-migrate in the spring. 

Chinook adults are present in Ship Creek from late May through mid-July, while coho adults 

are present from mid-July through September. Harvests of pink and chum salmon from Ship 

Creek are much smaller than those of either chinook or coho. These species are expected to 

inhabit the Creek in small numbers, with little-to-no successful reproduction. 52 

52 Personal communication, Matt Miller, Fisheries Biologist, ADF&G, phone conversation with John Burnett, 

October 19, 2005 

3-200 12/18/07



3.8.8.2.2 Anadromous fish 

The Mat-Su 

There are no anadromous fish streams crossed or adjacent to the Mat-Su portion of the 

proposed KAC project; therefore, no anadromous fish are expected within this portion of the 

Study Area. 


The 2004 and 2005 shoreline and mid-channel sampling collected both juveniles and adults 

of all five Pacific salmon species. Juvenile salmon numbers peak within Knik Arm from May 

into August, depending on species, and juvenile salmon use both nearshore and mid-channel 

habitats in Knik Arm during out-migration to marine feeding areas in lower Cook Inlet and 

the Gulf of Alaska (Moulton 1997; KABATA 2005b, Pentec 2005). Adult salmon migrate 

through Knik Arm between May and September to reach spawning grounds in more than a 

dozen anadromous streams that empty into Knik Arm (KABATA 2005b). The Essential Fish 

Habitat Assessment (Appendix F) provides additional information on the life history and 

habitat requirements of anadromous salmonids in Knik Arm as well as their distribution in 

the vicinity of the Study Area. 

Longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) and eulachon are seasonally common in Knik Arm. 

Longfin smelt were the second and third most abundant species caught during the 2004 

and 2005 Knik Arm fish and benthos study (KABATA 2005b). Longfin smelt were observed 

throughout the summer in the lower and middle portions of Knik Arm, with peak abundances 

in October 2004 and June 2005. Eulachon move through Knik Arm in early spring (April and 

May) to spawn in area streams. No eulachon were observed from July through 

November 2004 or 2005. More discussion of eulachon can be found in The Essential Fish 

Habitat Assessment (Appendix F). 

Two species of anadromous sticklebacks (threespine and ninespine; Gasterosteus aculeatus 

and Pungitius pungitius, respectively) are seasonally common in Knik Arm. Threespine 

stickleback has been the most abundant species overall in all systematic sampling programs 

conducted north of the Foreland Islands in Lower Cook Inlet (FHWA and ADOT&PF 1983; 

Moulton 1997; KABATA 2005b; Pentec 2005). In Knik Arm, densities peaked in June and 

July with recruitment of large numbers of very small (0.5 to 1.0 inch) young-of-the-year fish 

(KABATA 2005b; Pentec 2005). Presence of these small fish in offshore as well as 

nearshore sampling suggests that they, like smaller juvenile salmonids, are being passively 

transported by strong currents. 

Subadult Bering cisco (Coregonus laurettae), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and 

Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus malma) were also occasionally taken in beach seine sampling 

in and near the Study Area (KABATA 2005b). 

Anchorage 

Anadromous fish within the Anchorage portion of the Study Area include Dolly Varden char 

and four Pacific salmon species discussed in the EFH section, above. 

12/18/07 3-201



3.8.8.2.3 Marine fish 

Previous studies have identified 15 nonsalmonid species of marine fish known to inhabit the 

waters of the Upper Cook Inlet (FHWA and ADOT&PF 1983; USEPA 1990; 

Moulton 1997). Of these, longfin smelt, eulachon, Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi), walleye 

pollock, saffron cod (Eleginus gracilis), two species of stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus 

and Pungitius pungitius), Bering cisco, Pacific staghorn sculpin, and ringtail snailfish 

(Liparus rutteri) were present in beach seine and tow net samples in the Study Area and 

vicinity (KABATA 2005b). KABATA (2005b) also found snake prickleback (Lumpenus 

sagitta), a species not identified in previous studies. 

Attempts to sample subtidal demersal fish have had limited success both in 1983 (FHWA and 

ADOT&PF) and 2004–2005 (KABATA 2005b), primarily because of the presence of large 

cobbles or boulders in areas where sampling was attempted. A few clingfish (Liparis rutteri) 

and starry flounder (Platichthys stellata) were the only fish captured in trawls. 

3.8.8.2.4 Freshwater fish 

The Mat-Su 

The Mat-Su has major fisheries for rainbow trout, Dolly Varden char, Arctic char (Salvelinus 

alpinus), Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus), lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), northern 

pike (Esox lucius), burbot (Lota lota), whitefish (Coregonus and Prosopium spp.), 

landlocked salmon (Oncorhyncus spp.), and eulachon (Sweet et al. 2003). Northern pike are 

considered nonnative to the area as a result of illegal introductions into the waters of the 

Mat-Su. Other freshwater fish inhabiting the lakes, rivers, and streams include sticklebacks, 

suckers, and sculpins (MSB 2005b). 

Anchorage 

Creeks and rivers in the Anchorage area typically support one or more of the Pacific salmon 

species. In addition to salmonids, resident fish that may be found in area freshwater lakes and 

streams include rainbow trout, Dolly Varden char, Arctic char, Arctic grayling, lake trout, 

and northern pike. 

3.8.8.3 Birds 

3.8.8.3.1 Freshwater birds 

Freshwater bird habitats in the Mat-Su portion of the Study Area include lakes and large 

ponds, small intermittent and perennial streams, and vegetated wetlands. These wetlands 

include sedge and grass bogs, and fens; shrub thickets, swamps, and bogs; and forested 

wetlands. 

Bird species that utilized these habitats in the Study Area are common to both sides of Knik 

Arm and include loons and grebes, Canada geese (Branta canadensis), several species of 

dabbling and diving ducks, sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis), and migrant and summer 

resident shorebirds, such as greater and lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes), short-billed 

3-202 12/18/07



dowitchers (Limnodromus griseus), Wilson’s snipe (Gallinago gallinago), spotted sandpiper 

(Actitis macularia), and least sandpiper (Calidris minutilla) (Rothe et al. 1983; Scher 1993; 

West 2002; USGS n.d.). Belted kingfishers (Ceryle alcyon) utilize both the freshwater 

habitats and the waters of Knik Arm (KABATA 2006s). 

The diversity of freshwater habitat in the Anchorage portion of the Study Area is generally 

similar to that of the Mat-Su portion of the Study Area; the habitat may have been degraded, 

however, by development or proximity to development. Bird species utilizing these areas are 

similar. 

3.8.8.3.2 Terrestrial birds 

The Mat-Su and Anchorage 

Terrestrial bird habitats in the project area include the common vegetation communities, such 

as closed and open mixed needleleaf/deciduous forest and woodlands, tall shrub communities 

of Sitka alder and willow, herbaceous meadows, and agricultural and developed areas. 

Barren and vegetated coastal bluffs along Knik Arm also provide habitat for birds. 

Terrestrial bird species are expected to be similar between the east and west sides of Knik 

Arm and include both resident and migrant species (Scher 1993; West 2002; Andres 2005). 

Of the approximately 98 bird species that occur in the Study Area, 14 species are year-round 

residents and 44 are confirmed breeders (Roush and Andres 1994). Roughly 40 species of 

songbirds, or passerines, and neotropical migratory birds 53 inhabit terrestrial habitats of the 

Study Area. Some of the common types include raptors (hawks and owls), woodpeckers, 

flycatchers, swallows, corvids (crow family), chickadees and kinglets, thrushes, warblers, 

sparrows, and finches. The primary upland game bird is the spruce grouse (Falcipennis 

canadensis), although the ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) has been introduced to the Goose 

Bay area. 54 

3.8.8.3.3 Marine birds 


Marine bird habitats in the KAC Study Area include estuarine open water habitats of Knik 

Arm, intertidal unconsolidated sand/gravel beaches and mud flats, and a small area estuarine 

salt marsh north of the POA. 55 

Marine birds include species that nest on land but forage in marine waters at least part of the 

year. Based on field surveys of Knik Arm bird use conducted for the proposed KAC project 

in April–September 2005 (KABATA 20056s), small numbers of loons, grebes, waterfowl, 

53 Neotropical migratory birds are those species that nest in the United States and Canada during the summer, 

then migrate south to the tropical regions of Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean for the 

nonbreeding season. 

54 Personal communication, Steen, N. Retired Wildlife Biologist, ADF&G, with R. Raymond, September 2005. 

55 This wetland area is permitted to be filled during Phase I of the POA Expansion Project under the 

U.S. Department of the Army. 

12/18/07 3-203



shorebirds, and raptors and moderate numbers of several gull species use the Study Area 

within Knik Arm. Four species of gull—herring gulls (Larus argentatus), glaucous-winged 

gulls (L. glaucescens), mew gulls (L. canus), and Bonaparte’s gulls (L. philidelphia)—are the 

primary marine birds using these estuarine habitats within Knik Arm. Other species, 

including small numbers of sea ducks, primarily greater scaup (Aythya marila) and scoters 

(Melanitte spp.), and occasionally dabblers, such as mallards (Anas plattyrhynchos), 

American wigeon (Anas americana), and green-winged teal (Anas crecca), occasionally 

make use of open water habitat. Arctic terns (Sterna paridisaea), listed as a Bird of 

Conservation Concern (USFWS 2002), are present on a regular basis on both sides of Knik 

Arm in early summer. Other studies have documented 24 species of marine birds within 

Eagle River Flats and other tidal salt marshes just north of the Study Area (USDOA 2003). 

There were very few observations of shorebirds using the tidal flats in the Study Area during 

the 2005 field survey (KABATA 2006s). On the west side of Knik Arm, a few spotted 

sandpipers (Actitis macularia) were observed along the shore. Several flocks of red-necked 

phalaropes (Phalaropus lobatus) and small numbers of red phalaropes (Phalaropus fulicaria) 

were seen flying and swimming off the western shore during migration. One group of 

12 small sandpipers (“peeps”) landed on the east side flats during spring migration but flew 

off within a few minutes. A pair of greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca) was observed at 

the outflow of Sixmile Creek on a number of occasions, and probably nested nearby. At 

Cairn Point, one semipalmated plover (Charadrius semipalmatus) and a few spotted 

sandpipers (Actitis macularia) were observed. In comparison, during the peak spring and fall 

migration periods the tidal flats near Westchester Creek were host to dozens of Hudsonian 

godwits (Limosa haemastica), semipalmated plovers, greater and lesser yellowlegs, and 

hundreds of dowitchers (Limnodroma griseus), all actively foraging or resting on the mud 

flats. 

The osprey (Pandion haliaetus) is a raptor that occasionally forages in the off-shore and 

nearshore estuarine waters on both sides of Knik Arm (KABATA 2006s). A pair of osprey 

nested on a transmission tower south of Sixmile Creek on Elmendorf in summer 2005. 56 

The waters of Knik Arm, with its heavy silt load, provide little foraging habitat for many 

marine birds. However, marine birds have been observed foraging along the tidal rip in Cook 

Inlet (Moulton 1997). This behavior was also observed with phalaropes in the fish survey 

conducted for this Study in August 2005 (KABATA 2005b). The scarcity of infaunal and 

epifaunal invertebrates in the exposed tidal flats provide little food for waterfowl and 

shorebirds (KABATA 2005b). Based on field studies conducted for the proposed KAC 

project, estuarine habitats in lower Knik Arm are primarily used by birds for moving between 

Upper Cook Inlet and areas farther up Knik Arm and to a lesser extent for resting or foraging. 

In contrast, tidal flats off Ship Creek and at Westchester Lagoon at the mouth of Chester 

Creek near Anchorage (outside the Study Area) provide habitat for moderate numbers of 

migrating shorebirds and waterfowl (KABATA 2006s). 

56 Personal communication, Herman Greise, Wildlife Biologist, Elmendorf, telephone conversation with David 

Erikson, September 2005. 

3-204 12/18/07



3.8.8.3.4 Special status species 

Special status bird species were identified as an issue during the scoping process. 

Table 3-31 lists species that have been listed as Birds of Conservation Concern for the 

Southcentral and Interior Alaska Regions by USFWS and species of special concern by the 

State of Alaska. These lists cover the appropriate regions but include a broader range of 

habitat types than occur in the Study Area. Only four of the terrestrial-based species regularly 

occur in the Study Area—olive-sided flycatcher, gray-cheeked thrush, Townsend’s warbler, 

and blackpoll warbler (USGS n.d.; Sauer et al. 2005). Four species of marine-oriented birds 

are found near the Study Area. 

The terrestrial based species are all neotropical migrants that appear to nest in low densities 

in the Study Area, but no local abundance or trend information is available 

(Rothe et al. 1983; Scher 1993; USGS n.d.; Andres 2005; Sauer et al. 2005). All of these 

species arrive in Alaska in May or early June, forage on insects during the breeding season, 

and start their southward migrations in August. A major conservation concern for these 

species is habitat loss in both nesting and wintering areas due to logging, fire suppression, 

and road building. Pesticide contamination and increased predation as a result of habitat 

fragmentation are also concerns (Boreal Partners in Flight 1999). 

There are hundreds of marine bird species that have been documented to either reside in or 

migrate through the Upper Cook Inlet area (Scher 2002; West 2002), including ten marineassociated 

species that are listed as Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2002). These 

are species that have experienced a long-term decline in abundance or are vulnerable to 

environmental disturbance in limited habitats. There is little known of the use of marine 

habitats in Knik Arm by these species, despite the area’s proximity to the major population 

centers of Anchorage and the Mat-Su. This can be partially attributed to the lack of public 

access to the east side of Knik Arm because of the military bases. Public access is also 

somewhat limited on the west side of Knik Arm. 

12/18/07 3-205



Table 3-31. Bird species of special status that could occur in the Study Area 

Common name 

Terrestrial-based species 


USFWS Birds 

of Conservation 

Concern 

State of Alaska 

species of special 

concern 

American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum • • 

Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus Rufous • 

Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi • • 

Gray-cheeked thrush Caltharus minimus • • 

Arctic warbler Phylloscopus borealis • 

Townsend’s warbler Dendroica townsendi • • 

Blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata • • 

Marine-oriented species 

Arctic tern Sterna paradisaea • 

Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus • 

American golden-plover Pluvialis dominica • 

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus • 

Hudsonian godwit Limosa heamastica • 

Black turnstone Arenaria melanocephala • 

Surfbird Aphriza virgata • 

Red knot Calidris canutus • 

Rock sandpiper Calidris ptilocnemis • 

Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus • 

Source: USFWS 2002; ADF&G 2005 

Bird species of special concern which appeared in the 2005 survey or other surveys are 

summarized below. 

Olive-sided flycatcher 

The olive-sided flycatcher is considered a special status species in the Study Area. The 

flycatcher is primarily found in coniferous forest biomes throughout North America, but is 

occasionally found in mixed deciduous/coniferous forests. The olive-sided flycatcher is 

associated with openings, including muskegs, meadows, disturbed burned and logged areas, 

streams, beaver ponds, bogs, and lakes. The olive-sided flycatcher is recognized by USFWS 

as a National Species of Management Concern (USFWS 1995) and by ADF&G as a species 

of special concern (ADF&G 2005c). The olive-sided flycatcher is listed as “rare” at 

Elmendorf and Fort Richardson, but occurs in low numbers in the greater Anchorage area 

(Rothe et al. 1983; Scher 1993; Andres 2005). Olive-sided flycatchers have been recorded in 

small-to-moderate numbers every year in all local breeding bird surveys (Sauer et al. 2005). 

Gray-cheeked thrush 

Gray-cheeked thrush nest in shrubs and low trees in mixed deciduous/coniferous woodlands. 

Gray-cheeked thrush are listed as “rare to uncommon” at Elmendorf and Fort Richardson 

3-206 12/18/07



(USGS n.d.), but have not been recorded in breeding bird surveys along Burma Road or the 

military bases (Sauer et al. 2005). 

Townsend’s warbler 

Townsend’s warblers nest in coniferous forests, muskegs, and occasionally along rivers in 

red alder thickets. Large, continuous areas of mature coniferous forests with tall trees are 

preferred nesting habitat. Townsend’s warblers are listed as “uncommon” at Elmendorf and 

Fort Richardson (USGS n.d.) but they have not been recorded in breeding bird surveys along 

Burma Road or the military bases (Sauer et al. 2005). 

Blackpoll warbler 

Blackpoll warblers nest in wet coniferous forests and mixed deciduous/coniferous 

woodlands. Blackpoll warblers are listed as “uncommon” at Elmendorf and Fort Richardson 

(USGS n.d.) and have been recorded in small to moderate numbers every year in all local 

breeding bird surveys (Sauer et al. 2005). 

Arctic tern 

Arctic terns are present on a regular basis on both sides of Knik Arm in early summer 2005. 

Small numbers of Arctic terns were present on the east side of Knik Arm through July, 

usually flying along the water’s edge. This species was more common on the west side, but 

individuals were not present after July (KABATA 2006s). 

Hudsonian godwits 

Hudsonian godwits are common during migration in the Ship Creek and Chester Creek flats, 

but not in the Study Area (Gill and Tibbitts 1999; ASWG 2000; KABATA 2006s). 57 

Short-billed dowitchers 

Short-billed dowitchers are also common during migration in the Ship Creek and Chester 

Creek flats, but not in the Study Area (Gill and Tibbitts 1999; ASWG 2000; 

KABATA 2006s). 

Rock sandpiper 

One winter resident shorebird, the rock sandpiper (Calidris ptilocnemis), ranges throughout 

Upper Cook Inlet and may use marine habitats in Knik Arm (Gill and Tibbitts 1999; 

ASWG 2000). Flocks of rock sandpipers typically return to Cook Inlet in late August or early 

September (Gill and Tibbitts 1999), but were not observed during the 2005 study 

(KABATA 2006s). 

57 Spring migration usually occurs around the last week of April and first week of May. Mid-summer and fall 

migration occurs between the end of July and end of September. 

12/18/07 3-207



Bald eagles 

Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) reside and breed in the Study Area. They are 

commonly seen either perched in trees in forest habitat adjacent to the shoreline or flying 

along both sides of Knik Arm. Nesting territories occur on both sides of Knik Arm and 

include one nest just north of Cairn Point and one near Sixmile Creek (KABATA 2006s; 

Shempf 1995) (Figure 3.57). An October 2005 survey conducted within the Study Area 

documented one additional nest on the north side of Knik Arm, on a small lake inland from 

the coast north of Anderson Dock. After the breeding season, bald eagles congregate where 

food is available and may continue to roost near their nest trees. 

The bald eagle is protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act (BEPA) of 1940 as amended 

(16 U.S.C. §§ 668-68d) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 

(16 U.S.C. §§ 703-12). The Bald Eagle Protection Act prohibits anyone from “taking” bald 

eagles, their eggs, nest or any part of these birds. The Act defines “taking” as “to pursue, 

shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb.” USFWS 

recommends a primary 330-foot buffer zone and a secondary 660-foot buffer zone around 

eagle nest trees. The management objective of the primary zone is to provide protection of 

the juvenile eagles in the nest tree and to buffer the tree from human activities during nesting 

season (March through August), when nests are most vulnerable to disturbance by human 

activity such as logging and construction. The management objectives of the secondary zone 

are to protect the nest from noise and obstructive activities and to protect nesting habitat 

within the primary zone. The secondary zone extends from the primary zone to a distance of 

660 feet from the nesting tree. When topography or vegetation does not adequately protect 

the nest from human disturbance, the buffer zone may be increased by ¼ to ½ mile. 

However, the actual size of the buffer zone could vary depending on the eagle’s tolerance for 

human disturbance (USFWS n.d.). 

3-208 12/18/07



Figure 3.57. Bald eagle nest locations 

12/18/07 3-209



The bald and golden eagles were delisted as an endangered species in the Lower 48 states on 

August 8, 2007 by an amendment to 50 CFR Part 17 (72 Federal Register [FR] 37346 at 

37372, July 9, 2007). 58 Bald and golden eagles were not listed as an endangered or 

threatened species in Alaska. Accordingly, there is no change in their status under the 

Endangered Species Act. However, in connection with the delisting in the Lower 48 states, 

the USFWS has proposed a rulemaking to establish criteria for issuance of a permit to 

authorize activities that would ‘‘take’’ bald eagles under the BGEPA (72 FR 31141, June 5, 

2007). The rule is not yet final. A new regulatory definition of "disturb" at 50 CFR 22.3, 

implements the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (72 FR 31132 June 5, 2007). The 

USFWS has issued National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines dated May 2007 to: (1) 

Publicize the provisions of the BGEPA and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act that continue to 

protect bald eagles to reduce the possibility that the law will be violated, (2) advise 

landowners, land managers, and the general public of the potential for various activities to 

disturb bald eagles, and (3) encourage land management practices that benefit bald eagles 

and their habitat. 

3.8.8.4 Marine mammals 

Marine mammals that may occur in the Study Area include the Cook Inlet beluga whale 

(Delphinapterus leucas), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), killer whale (Orcinus orca), 

Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), and the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina). The Cook Inlet 

beluga whale is the most abundant marine mammal in the Study Area. Harbor porpoises and 

killer whales have been observed in Knik Arm, but are considered rare. There have been no 

published sightings of Steller sea lions in Knik Arm, but a single adult male was documented 

in the Susitna Flats area 59 approximately 25 miles from the proposed KAC project area. See 

KABATA (2006t) in Appendix F for further discussion of other marine mammals. 

58 “This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) to remove the bald eagle in the lower 48 States from the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and also removes the special rule for the bald eagle at 50 CFR 

17.41(a). The prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act [ESA], particularly sections 7, 9, 

and 10 no longer apply to this species. Federal agencies will no longer be required to consult with us under 

section 7 of the Act in the event that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect the bald eagle. 

Critical habitat was not designated for the bald eagle, so the delisting will not affect critical habitat 

provisions of the Act.” 72 FR 37346, 37372 July 9, 2007. 

59 Personal communication, Matthew Eagleton, NMFS, with LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., 2005. 

3-210 12/18/07



During a year-long beluga whale study conducted for this project, 22 sightings of harbor 

seals were observed in September and October 2004 and June through September 2005. 

Fourteen of the sightings occurred within the general project area. An additional four 

sightings were reported during boat-based studies of the Eagle Bay and Sixmile Creek areas 

during August through October 2005 (Appendix F). Two of the boat-based sightings were in 

the general area of the proposed KAC project. In Alaska, pups are born between May and 

mid-July. After about a month, they are weaned and separated from their mothers. Molting 

generally occurs in late summer (Kinkhart and Pitcher 1994). There are no known harbor seal 

haul-out sites in Knik Arm. 60 The closest established haul-out site to the Study Area is in the 

West Foreland approximately 72 miles southwest of Point MacKenzie. However, harbor 

seals have also been reported to haul-out intermittently near Susitna Flats and Turnagain Arm 

at Chickaloon Bay. 61 When harbor seals are observed, they are most likely transiting through 

the Study Area, following prey, such as eulachon and salmon, into Knik Arm. There are no 

known ongoing studies being conducted on harbor seals in Upper Cook Inlet. 62 

In 2000, the Cook Inlet beluga whale stock was listed as “depleted” by NOAA Fisheries 

(NMFS 2000) under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). In 2006, NOAA Fisheries 

changed the listing of the Cook Inlet beluga whale from Species of Concern under the ESA 

to a Candidate Species under the ESA. Currently, the stock being considered for listing as 

endangered or threatened under ESA (NOAA Fisheries 2006x-protected resources Species of 

Concern). The status review was completed in November 2006 (NOAA Fisheries 2006xstatus 

review). From 1994 to 1998, it is estimated that the population decreased from 653 

to 347, approximately 14 percent annually during that period (Hobbs et al. 2000; NOAA 

Fisheries 2005b). The decline in population was likely the result of a combination of factors, 

including strandings (possibly due to avoidance of killer whales), predation by killer whales, 

and overhunting (Geraci et al. 1999; Huntington 2000; Mahoney and Sheldon 2000). For the 

past several years the population is was thought to have stabilized, with an estimated 300 to 

500 beluga whales now inhabit Cook Inlet (NOAA Fisheries 2005b). Based on the 2006 

population estimates completed by the National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML), the 

population is currently estimated at 302 individuals (95 percent confidence limits 200-410; 

NOAA Fisheries 2007). This estimate is slightly higher than the previous year’s estimate of 

278 individuals (95 percent confidence limits 194-398; NOAA Fisheries 2006a). Lowery et 

al. (2006) suggests there is a 71 percent probability that the population growth rate of Cook 

Inlet belugas is negative, with the best estimate indicating that the population is declining by 

1.2 percent per year. However, NOAA Fisheries estimates that from 1999-2006 annual 

estimates indicate an average decline of 4.1 percent per year (NOAA Fisheries 2007). 

60 Personal communication, Tim Markowitz , Marine Mammal Scientist, LGL Alaska Research Associates, 

Inc., telephone conversation with Lindsey Kendall, October 5, 2005. 

61 Personal communication, Dave Rugh, Fisheries Scientist, NOAA Fisheries, personal communication 

(unpublished data) with LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., 2005. 

62 Personal communication, Dave Rugh, Fisheries Scientist, NOAA Fisheries, email message to Lindsey 

Kendall, October 11, 2005. 

12/18/07 3-211



In March 2005 NOAA Fisheries prepared the Draft Conservation Plan for the Cook Inlet 

Beluga Whale. The document reviews and assesses the known and possible factors 

influencing the Cook Inlet beluga whale and develops and presents a Conservation Strategy 

to guide federal and other actions toward the goal of recovering this stock to a population of 

no fewer that 780 whales. The document also maps beluga whale habitat within Cook Inlet, 

including Knik Arm and the Study Area. The Study Area falls within Type 1 habitat termed 

“High Value/High Sensitivity” and Type 2 habitat termed “High Value.” NOAA Fisheries 

believes habitat considered “High Value/High Sensitivity” are areas most important and 

sensitive areas for the Cook Inlet beluga whale. “High Value” habitat includes summer 

feeding areas and winter habitat in water where whales typically occur in lesser densities or 

in deeper waters, where they may be less prone to harassment and disturbance (NOAA 

Fisheries 2005). 

In August 2006, NOAA Fisheries released their review of a petition to list the Cook Inlet 

beluga whale as an endangered species (NMFS 2006). NOAA Fisheries found that the 

petition contained sufficient scientific or commercial information to warrant further action. 

Within 1 year of receipt of the petition, and pending completion of a status review initiated in 

April 2006, NOAA Fisheries will issue a finding whether or not to list Cook Inlet beluga as 

an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531). 

Long-term aerial surveys and satellite tracking conducted by NOAA Fisheries indicate 

seasonal patterns of movement for beluga whales within Cook Inlet. Beluga whales are 

mostly sighted in the inlet north of Kalgin Island. They tend to reside in Knik Arm in late 

summer-autumn and in Turnagain Arm/Chickaloon Bay in autumn. During the winter, they 

are often found in the middle of Cook Inlet, while in spring-early summer they occupy the 

Susitna/Beluga River area (NOAA Fisheries 2005). 

A year-long baseline study of beluga whale use of Knik Arm conducted for this EIS suggests 

that beluga whale use of Knik Arm is correlated with seasons and tides (KABATA 2006t). 

Seasonal use of Knik Arm is high during the fall (August–October), less frequent and 

random during April–July and November–March. Beluga use of Knik Arm is infrequent 

during other times of the year (mid-December–March). During the fall, beluga whales transit 

between Eklutna, Eagle Bay, and Sixmile Creek. They tend to move to the head of Knik Arm 

on the flood tide and out as far as Sixmile Creek on the ebb tide. They occasionally leave 

Knik Arm during the fall. At other times of the year, there were more infrequent whale 

sightings and a less noticeable pattern of tidal movements. 

Although observed throughout the year, beluga whale sightings were generally lower in the 

Study Area compared with other parts of Knik Arm. Belugas were seen most often in the 

Study Area during fall and spring and at low tide. They were observed less often during the 

winter and summer and high tides. Many of the Study Area sightings were associated with 

the whales transiting in and out of Knik Arm. Whales were observed diving more often and 

resting less often while in the Study Area. See KABATA (2006t) for information collected 

during the beluga study on behavioral activities, sighting rates, and group composition. 

3-212 12/18/07



The beluga whale baseline study (KABATA 2006t) indicates that the Eklutna and Palmer 

Slough area may be important for calves, resting beluga whales, and as a refuge from 

predation, especially around high tide. Huntington (2000) described similar observations of 

females and calves using the Cottonwood Creek area as a nursery. At lower tides, beluga 

whales may gather at Eagle Bay and the mouth of Sixmile Creek to feed. Belugas have also 

been observed by the mouth of Ship Creek when fish are present (Huntington 2000) 

Beluga whales are opportunistic feeders known to feed on a wide range of prey including 

octopus, squid, crab, shrimp, clams, mussels, snails, sandworms, and fish such as capelin, 

cod, herring, smelt, flounder, sole, sculpin, lamprey, lingcod and salmon (Perez 1990; Haley 

1986; Klinkhart 1966). In addition, Alaskan Natives have reported belugas feeding on 

freshwater fish including trout, whitefish, and northern pike. Beluga whales primarily feed on 

fish, during the spring and summer (Huntington 2000). They forage throughout the water 

column, on the sea floor, and near the mouths of rivers and streams where there are high 

concentrations of fish (Kingsley et al. 2001; Martin 1996; Hazard 1988; NOAA 

Fisheries 2005). Belugas feed intensively, especially on salmon and eulachon. Belugas will 

often trap eulachon in an area and heavily feed on them. They have been observed chasing 

salmon and hunting down one salmon at distances of 600 feet (Huntington 2000). Adult 

males tend to feed on larger fish (e.g., adult salmon), while adult females feed on smaller 

fish, and younger whales feed on very small prey such as shrimp (Lowry et al. 1985). Very 

little is known about their winter foraging habits (NOAA Fisheries 2005). 

During the Marine Fish and Benthos Studies in Knik Arm (KABATA 2005b), data were 

collected at sites where belugas had been observed moving through the area shortly before 

the samples were gathered. In August 2004, fish samples were collected at the south entrance 

to Eagle Bay, the north entrance to Eagle Bay, and west of Fire Creek. In May 2005, 

sampling occurred near the north entrance to Eagle Bay, the north entrance to Goose Bay, 

and west of Fire Creek. On two other occasions, after fish samples had been collected with a 

relatively poor catch, belugas moved through sampling stations near Port MacKenzie and the 

POA. Additional fish population studies near suspected beluga feeding areas need to be 

conducted to confirm the beluga diet in Knik Arm. FHWA is seeking authorization from 

NOAA Fisheries for the accidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals under its 

jurisdiction. 63 

Generalizations can be made regarding the diet of beluga whales in Knik Arm (Table 3-32) 

based on a comparison of fish found in stomach analyses of Cook Inlet beluga whales 64 and 

fish species observed in Knik Arm (KABATA 2005b). The common fish species were 

salmon, eulachon, and saffron cod. 

63 Federal Register, August 23, 2006, [7(163).49.433-49.436] 

64 Personal communication, Daniel Vos, NOAA Fisheries, e-mail message to Lindsey Kendall, February 13, 

2006. 

12/18/07 3-213



Table 3-32. A comparison of fish found in the stomach 

analyses of Cook Inlet beluga whales and fish observed in 

Knik Arm (beluga prey species in Knik Arm) 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

Cook Inlet beluga 

stomach analysis a,b 

saffron cod 

walleye pollock 

pacific cod 

eulachon 

polychaete jaws 

eggs 

crab 

shrimp 

unidentified salmon spp. 

eulachon 


coho salmon 


coho salmon 

chum salmon 

yellowfin sole flounder 


saffron cod 

coho salmon 

cod 

unidentified cod spp 

saffron cod 

pacific staghorn sculpin 

yellowfin sole flounder 

starry flounder 

Beluga prey species 

in Knik Arm c 

saffron cod 

eulachon 

chinook salmon 

eulachon 

saffron cod 

chinook salmon 

saffron cod (questionable) 

pink salmon 

chum salmon 

sockeye salmon 

coho salmon 

coho salmon 

saffron cod 

saffron cod 

longfin smelt 

saffron cod 

longfin smelt 

saffron cod 

a e-mail from Daniel Voss, NOAA Fisheries, February 13, 2006 

b stomach analyses throughout Cook Inlet; many species listed in this study 

have not been observed in Knik Arm 

c 

KABATA 2005b 

3.8.8.5 Terrestrial mammals 

The relatively undisturbed nature of the Study Area in the Mat-Su provides habitat for 

numerous mammal species, including large and small game, furbearers, and various nongame 

species. The main big game species found in the area include black bear (Ursus americanus), 

brown bear (Ursus arctos), and moose (Alces alces gigas). 65 

65 Scoping comments received from ADF&G, ADNR OHMP, and the public as part of the proposed KAC 

project indicated that moose and bears are of particular concern. Therefore, these species are the focus of the 

terrestrial mammal discussion. 

3-214 12/18/07



Fifty two species of mammals are found in the Anchorage area (ADF&G 2000). Because of 

resource and public interest, moose and bears are the primary focus of the terrestrial mammal 

discussion for the Anchorage area. Recent field surveys indicated that the beach extending 

north from the POA is used as a wildlife movement corridor for many Anchorage area 

mammal species. During field investigations conducted for the proposed KAC project, 

mammal tracks were observed along this stretch of beach, including those of bear, moose, 

fox, and coyote. In addition, a bear cache of a moose carcass was observed. It is likely that 

mammals use one of the existing small drainages to descend from the top of the bluff and use 

the beach for easier movement. Other incidental observations of mammals in this area were 

made during beluga whale observations (KABATA 2006t) and are included in the Terrestrial 

Mammal Technical Report (KABATA 2006p). 

3.8.8.5.1 Black bear 

The Mat-Su 

The exact size of the black bear population in the Mat-Su portion of the Study Area is not 

known, but speculated to be between 500 and 1,000 within Game Management Unit 

(GMU) 14 (Figure 3.58, McDonough 2002). 66 Black bear distribution during spring, 

summer, and fall is largely determined by food availability. Dense populations are found in 

the Susitna Valley, along the Susitna River west of Willow, and at the Susitna River mouth 

north to Susitna Station (Mat-Su Borough 2005f). Black bears are opportunistic feeders that 

will eat both plant and animal foods, including carrion. Black bear habitats in the Mat-Su 

include broadleaf forest, mixed needleleaf/broadleaf forest, tall and low shrub, sedge and 

grass wetlands, and alpine tundra plant communities (Mat-Su Borough 2005f). Of these, 

broadleaf forest and mixed needleleaf/broadleaf forest types dominate the habitat in the 

Study Area. 

The hunting season for black bear is open all year in GMU 14A, with a limit of one black 

bear per licensed hunter per year (ADF&G 2005d). The average annual black bear harvest 

was 106 in GMU 14 and 45 in GMU 14A between 1996 and 2000 (McDonough 2002). The 

average annual harvest in GMU 14 increased to 116 bears between 1999 and 2004 (ADF&G 

2005e). From July 1998 to June 2001, there were 20 reported nonhunting kills of black bear 

in GMU 14A (McDonough 2002). These were primarily kills from defense of life or 

property. 

66 The Study Area is found within ADF&G Game Management Unit (GMU) 14. The Mat-Su and Anchorage 

portions of the Study Area are within GMU 14A and 14C, respectively (Figure 3.62). 

12/18/07 3-215



Figure 3.58. Southcentral Alaska Game Management Units 

3-216 12/18/07



Anchorage 

Approximately 250 black bears inhabit the Anchorage area (including Chugach State Park) 

and approximately one-third of these bears spend at least part of the summer in or adjacent to 

residential areas in the Anchorage Bowl (ADF&G 2000). Black bears in Anchorage prefer 

forested habitat, including stream corridors, and can easily become attracted to human food 

sources such as trash, pet food, and birdseed. 

Black bear hunting regulations within GMU 14C vary by Management Area. There is no 

open season for black bear within Elmendorf, Fort Richardson, Anchorage, Birchwood, and 

portions of the Eagle River Management Areas. Other Management Areas of GMU 14C have 

restricted seasons, while others are open all year (ADF&G 2005d). The average annual black 

bear harvest in GMU 14 was 116 bears from 1999 to 2004 (ADF&G 2005e). From 1996 

to 2000, total annual black bear harvest in GMU 14C ranged from 34 to 51 bears 

(McDonough 2002). From July 1998 to June 2001, there were 28 reported nonhunting kills 

of black bear in GMU 14C (McDonough 2002). These were primarily kills from defense of 

life or property. 

3.8.8.5.2 Brown Bear 

The Mat-Su 

Brown bear are generally less common than black bears in the Mat-Su. The population in 

GMU 14 was last estimated to be between 125 and 232 bears (Del Frate 2003). Brown bears 

are usually found along river drainages searching for fish and have similar feeding habitats as 

the black bear (Mat-Su Borough 2005). In the spring, they also use the salt marshes and 

sedge meadows at Susitna Flats as feeding habitat (ADF&G 2003a). 

Hunting regulations allow for the harvest of one brown bear per licensed hunter every four 

regulatory seasons, 67 between September 1 and May 31 in GMU 14A (ADF&G 2005d). The 

average annual brown bear harvest from 1999 to 2004 for GMU 14 was 22 bears (ADF&G 

2005e). Brown bear harvest data specific to GMU 14A were not available. In GMU 14, there 

were seven nonhunting mortalities in 2000 and two in 2001, one killed by a vehicle collision 

and the rest in defense of life or property (Del Frate 2003). Six of those kills were in 

GMU 14A (Del Frate 2003). 

Anchorage 

Approximately 60 brown bears inhabit the Anchorage area (including Chugach State Park) 

and 4–5 are regularly seen in residential areas each summer (ADF&G 2000). Brown bears 

are opportunistic feeders, which brings them into contact with human development to feed at 

garbage dumps and other sites (Pasitschiak-Arts 1993). They are also occasionally attracted 

to the Anchorage Bowl by winter-killed moose, abundant moose calves in the spring, and 

spawning salmon in the streams (ADF&G 2000). 

67 A regulatory season begins July 1 and continues through June 30 the following calendar year. 

12/18/07 3-217



In GMU 14C, there is no open season for brown bear in the Eagle River, Fort Richardson, 

Elmendorf, Birchwood, and Chugach State Park Management Areas (ADF&G 2005d). The 

5-year (1999–2004) average brown bear harvest for GMU 14 was 22 bears (ADF&G 2005e). 

Brown bear harvest data specific to GMU 14C were not available. No brown bear 

nonhunting mortalities were documented in GMU 14C from July 2000 to June 2002 (Del 

Frate 2003). 

3.8.8.5.3 Moose 

The Mat-Su 

About 6,560 resident and migratory moose inhabit GMU 14A (Figure 3.59). With a winter 

moose population of between 10 and 20 moose per square mile, the Point MacKenzie area, 

including the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Area, hosts some of the highest concentrations 

of moose in Alaska (Del Frate 2004a). Moose populations are high, especially during winter, 

because of browsing opportunities and the opportunity for relief from high snow. Moose feed 

on early successional species, including willow, birch, aspen, poplar, alder, cottonwood, and 

a variety of herbaceous species (Mat-Su Borough 2005). 68 The Point MacKenzie Agricultural 

Area and the 37,000-acre area burned during the 1996 Big Lake fire are ideal habitats for 

moose browsing because of the subsequent return of early vegetation. It is not known what 

proportion of the moose in the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Area and the Big Lake fire area 

are migratory and where the migratory individuals spend nonwinter months (Del 

Frate 2004a). 

Moose in the Study Area primarily winter in lowland riparian and wetland areas, and on 

south-facing alpine slopes and other upland areas supporting willow, birch, and other forage 

species (Mat-Su Borough 2005). Many moose winter in the Susitna Flats seeking food and 

refuge from the snow (ADF&G 2003a). Each spring, moose calving occurs outside the Study 

Area in the inland portions of Goose Bay SGR, north of Point MacKenzie, and the brushy 

thickets of Susitna Flats (ADF&G 2003b). Moose spend summer and fall in lowlands 

throughout the Study Area. Figure 3.59 shows moose habitat in and around the Study Area. 

Hunting regulations in GMU 14A allow for residents and nonresidents to harvest one bull 

moose per season, with residents having the option to harvest one antlerless moose instead. 

Open season typically runs from early August to the end of September, with the season 

beginning with a bow-and-arrow-only period (ADF&G 2005d). Moose harvest in GMU 14A 

ranged from 319 to 590 per year between 1998 and 2003 (Del Frate 2004a). 

68 Plant succession refers to the change in the plant species composition of an area over time, often following a 

disturbance (e.g., fire). The first plant species to establish in an area following a disturbance would be 

considered early successional species. 

3-218 12/18/07



Figure 3.59. Study Area moose habitat 

12/18/07 3-219



Among the fastest growing areas of the state, the Mat-Su is characterized by land clearing 

activities associated with settlement and road construction. These activities promote the 

growth of moose browse and in turn increase the number of moose/human conflicts 

(Del Frate 2004a). Accidental human-caused moose mortality during the 5-year period 

1998-2002 averaged 166 moose killed by highway vehicles and 15 by train (Del 

Frate 2004a). In 1995, the Glenn Highway (from the Matanuska River north to the junction 

with the Parks Highway) and the Knik-Goose Bay Road ranked fifth and sixth, respectively, 

for highest moose accident rates in the state (ADOT&PF 1995). Accident rates on the Glenn 

Highway along the Palmer Hay Flats SGR have decreased since those reported in 1995. For 

the period 1988-1992, the accident rate for this Glenn Highway segment exceeded 

1.00 accident per million vehicle miles (MVM) for its entire length (ADOT&PF 1995). The 

maximum accident rate for this segment for the period 1999-2003 was 0.32 accidents per 

MVM (Terrestrial Mammal Technical Report [KABATA 2006p]). The Big Lake fire in 1996 

likely reduced the movement of moose through that area, which has contributed to the lower 

moose-vehicle accident rate in that highway segment. 

Anchorage 

Moose were uncommon in the Anchorage area before the 1940s. However, the development 

of Anchorage and Fort Richardson in the late 1940s resulted in the creation of moose browse 

which increased moose population in the area (Sinnott 2004). Currently in the Anchorage 

Bowl, approximately 200–300 moose inhabit the area year-round and 700–1,000 inhabit the 

area during the winter (ADF&G 2000). In GMU 14C, prime browse occurs in opencanopied, 

second-growth willow, birch, and aspen stands on burned-over military lands, and 

on several hundred acres of military lands that have been rehabilitated during the last 

2 decades (Sinnott 2004). Several thousand acres of lowland moose habitat are on military 

lands between lower Ship Creek and Eagle River (Sinnott 2004). Moose in Anchorage are 

primarily found in parks, greenways, and undeveloped space, and frequently visit suburban 

neighborhoods where browse is available (ADF&G 2000). Figure 3.59 shows moose habitat 

in and around the Study Area. 

Hunting regulations vary; moose may be hunted, however, in every Management Area within 

GMU 14C (ADF&G 2005d). The average annual moose harvest for GMU 14 from 1999 

to 2004 was 587 moose (ADF&G 2005e). About 100 moose are harvested annually in local 

hunts, most of which occur on the military reservations (ADF&G 2000). 

An average of about 156 moose were killed each year in vehicle collisions in the entire 

Anchorage area between 1994 and 1999 (ADF&G 2000). The high number of moose-vehicle 

accidents in 1994–1995 (about 240) resulted from a severe winter that forced record numbers 

of moose into the Anchorage area seeking relief from deep snow. 

3-220 12/18/07



3.8.8.5.4 Other mammals 

The Mat-Su 

Numerous furbearers and small game species are found in the Mat-Su, including beaver 

(Castor canadensis), coyote (Canis latrans), ermine (Mustela erminea), northern flying 

squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus), Arctic ground squirrel (Spermophilus parryi), river otter 

(Lontra canadensis), lynx (Lynx canadensis), hoary marmot (Marmota caligata), mink 

(Mustela vison), martin (Martes americana), muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), red fox (Vulpes 

vulpes), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), weasel (Mustela nivalis), wolf (Canis 

lupus), and wolverine (Gulo gulo) (Mat-Su Borough 2005). Most furbearer species are found 

in riparian, wetland, or forested areas, which are abundant in the Mat-Su Study Area. 

Anchorage 

Other mammals in the Anchorage area include beaver (approximately 150 in the Anchorage 

Bowl), wolves (two active packs in the Anchorage Bowl), wolverine, coyote, lynx, snowshoe 

hare (Lepus americanus), red fox, mink, weasel, martin, porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), red 

squirrel, northern flying squirrel, hoary marmot, little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), and 

mice, voles, and shrews (Sorex spp.; ADF&G 2000). There are also hundreds of feral rabbits 

(Oryctolagus cuniculus), descended from tame rabbits released by humans and adapted well 

to survival in urban and suburban environments. 

3.8.9 Threatened or Endangered Species 

Currently, USFWS and NOAA Fisheries indicate that there are no threatened or endangered 

species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the Study Area. 69 The Cook Inlet 

beluga whale stock is listed as “depleted” under the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA). In August 2006, NOAA Fisheries released their review of a petition to list the 

Cook Inlet beluga whale as an endangered species (NMFS 2006). NOAA Fisheries found 

that the petition contained sufficient scientific or commercial information to warrant further 

action. Within 1 year of receipt of the petition, and pending completion of a status review 

initiated in April 2006, NOAA Fisheries will issue a finding whether or not to list Cook Inlet 

Beluga as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531). In 

addition, NOAA Fisheries changed the listing of the Cook Inlet beluga whale from Species 

of Concern to a Candidate Species because the stock is actively being considered for listing 

as endangered or threatened under ESA (NOAA Fisheries 2006x-protected resources Species 

of Concern). The stock’s status review was completed in November 2006 (NOAA Fisheries 

2006x-status review). Detailed information regarding beluga whales is found in 

Section 3.8.8.4. 

69 Personal communications: James W. Balsiger, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Fisheries, letter to Edrie Vinson regarding listed endangered or threatened species in the Study Area and 

Gregory Risdahl, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), letter to Edrie Vinson regarding listed 

endangered or threatened species in the Study Area, 2005. 

12/18/07 3-221



No State Listed Endangered Species are found within the Study Area. Four bird species, the 

olive-sided flycatcher, the blackpoll warbler, the Townsend’s warbler, and the grey-cheeked 

thrush—are each listed as an Alaska species of special concern and may be found in the 

Study Area. Five state species of concern, however, may be found in the Study Area. These 

species include the Cook Inlet beluga whale, the olive-sided flycatcher, the blackpoll 

warbler, the Townsend’s warbler, and the grey-cheeked thrush (ADF&G 2005c). These bird 

state species of concern are addressed in detail in Sections 3.8.8.3 and 3.8.8.4. 

3.8.10 Permits 

Development of the KAC Project will require permits, reviews, and consultations by federal, 

state, and municipal resource and regulatory agencies. FHWA has relied on the guidance 

provided in “Applying the Section 404 Permit Process to Federal-Aid Highway Projects” 

(FHWA 1988) for the proposed project. Cooperating agencies (listed in Section 7) have been 

consulted throughout the process and will continue to be involved as permit applications are 

finalized and submitted. 

Draft permit applications and requisite supporting documentation, including a consistent, 

comprehensive project description, have been prepared for the Preferred Alternative. As 

design details for the proposed KAC project mature, permit applications will be finalized and 

submitted to the appropriate agencies. 

Federal, state, and local laws authorize agencies to issue permits, review plans, and provide 

consultations on possible project impacts. Table 3-34 identifies the statutes, regulations, and 

executive orders that govern permits, consultation, coordination, and review requirements 

that have been identified as pertinent to the proposed KAC project. 

3-222 12/18/07



Table 3-33. Applicable federal, state, and local legislation 

Relevant legislation Agency Description 

Federal 

Rivers and Harbors Act, 

Section 10, 33 U.S.C. § 403; Clean 

Water Act (CWA), § 404, 

33 U.S.C. § 1344 

Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 9, 

33 U.S.C. § 403; General Bridge Act 

of 1946 

Department of Transportation Act 

of 1966 (as amended), Section 4(f), 

49 U.S.C. § 303; 

23 U.S.C. § 138 Regulations: 

23 C.F.R. § 771.135 

National Historic Preservation Act, 

Section 106, 16 U.S.C. § 470 et 

seq. 

Marine Mammal Protection Act, 

16 U.S.C. § 1631; Incidental 

Harassment Authorization, 

16 U.S.C. § 1374 

Bald Eagle Protection Act, 

16 U.S.C. §§ 668-68d, as amended 

Endangered Species Act, 

Section 7(a)(2), 

16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-44 

USACE 

USCG 

FHWA 

FHWA in 

consultation with 

SHPO 

National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric 

Administration 

(NOAA) 

Fisheries and 

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) 

USFWS 

NOAA Fisheries 

and USFWS 

Prevents unauthorized obstruction or 

alteration of navigable waters of the 

United States (Section 10). 

Authorizes the Department of the 

Army to issue permits (Section 404) 

for the discharge of dredged or fill 

material into the waters of the United 

States at specified disposal sites 

USCG has jurisdiction over bridges 

and structures crossing navigable 

waters of the United States that relate 

to location, clearances of bridges, 

bridge permits, construction activities, 

navigation lights, and signals at 

bridges 

The intent of the Section 4(f) statute 

and the policy of USDOT is to avoid 

the use of significant public parks, 

recreation areas, wildlife and 

waterfowl refuges and historic sites 

as part of a project, unless there is no 

feasible and prudent alternative to the 

use of such land. 

Provides for the identification and 

protection of historic properties. 

Requires federal agencies to avoid 

and minimize impacts to properties in 

or eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

Regulates 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. 

Provides protection of the bald eagle 

and golden eagle by prohibiting, 

except under specified conditions, the 

taking, possession, and commerce of 

such birds 

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. Consultation 

(informal or formal) is required. 

EIS sections 

and 

appendixes 

Sections 3.2.2. 

2, 3.8.12 

and 4.8.12 

Section 3.2.3.2 

Section 3.7 

Sections 3.6.1, 

4.6.1 

and 4.9.4.6.1 

Sections 

3.8.8.4, 4.8.8.4, 


Sections 

3.8.8.3, 4.8.8.3 



4.8.9, and 

4.9.4.8.11 

(continued on next page) 

12/18/07 3-223



Table 3-33. Applicable federal, state, and local legislation (continued) 


Federal 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and 

Management 

Act/Sustainable Fisheries 

Act, 

16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 

16 U.S.C. §§ 703-12 

Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act, 

16 U.S.C. § 662 

Clean Air Act, 

40 C.F.R. § 60 

Uniform Relocation and 

Real Property Acquisition 

Act, 42 § 4601 et seq. 

43 C.F.R. §§ 2800 

and 2880 

State 

Clean Water Act, 

Section 401, 

33 U.S.C. § 1344; 

18 Alaska Administrative 

Code (AAC) 15 

National Historic 

Preservation Act, 

Section 106, 

16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq. and 

Alaska Historic 

Preservation Act, Alaska 

Statutes 

(AS) § 41.35.010-240 

NOAA Fisheries 

USFWS 

NOAA Fisheries, 

USFWS, FHWA 

USEPA 

FHWA 

BLM 

Alaska 

Department of 

Environmental 

Conservation 

(ADEC) 

Alaska 

Department of 

Natural 

Resources 

(ADNR) Office of 

History and 

Archaeology; 

State Historic 

Preservation 

Officer (SHPO) 

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). 

Necessary conservation measures 

may be identified by NOAA. 

Prohibits taking of migratory birds 

unless specifically exempted or 

authorized. Taking can include loss 

of habitat 

Requires federal agencies to consult 

with wildlife agencies on project 

effects to fish and wildlife 

USEPA regulates airborne pollutants 

from project construction activities 

and project operation. 

Requires agencies that must use 

private property to acquire it at fair 

market value and assist in any 

necessary relocation of residences or 

businesses. 

BLM may own portions of the bluff 

where the POA borders Elmendorf. 

These locations may require BLM 

ROWs. 

State authority to grant, deny, or 

condition certification of CWA 

Section 404 permits; Rivers and 

Harbors Act Sections 9 

and 10 permits; a state-issued 

401 Certificate of Reasonable 

Assurance must accompany the 

Sections 10 and 404 permit. 

Section 106 requires review of 

federal projects by SHPO and the 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation. The Alaska Historic 

Preservation Act contains a similar 

provision mandating that any project 

with State involvement be reviewed 

in a related manner. 

EIS sections and 

appendixes 

Sections 3.8.8.2, 

4.8.8.2, and 

4.9.4.8.8 

Sections 3.8.8.3 

and 4.8.8.3 

Sections 3.8.8.2, 

4.8.8.2, and 

4.9.4.8.8 

Sections 3.5.1 


Section 3.2.7 

Section 3.1.1 



Sections 3.6.1, 4.6.1 



3-224 12/18/07





State 

Alaska Fishway Act, 

AS § 41.14.840 and 

Anadromous Fish Act 

AS § 41.14.870 

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(until federal 

approval of new 

statewide standards 11 

AAC 112.200-990). 

Tideland Easement, 

Best Interest Finding, 

AS § 38.05.850; 

Submerged Land Act 

and Public Law 31 

Permit to Cross Alaska 

Railroad Corporation 

(ARRC)-Owned Land 

and ARRC Road 

Crossing Permit; 

AS § 42.40.285 (d) 

Noxious Weeds 

Management 11 AAC 34 


Right-of-way, Anchorage 

Municipal Code 

(AMC) 21.67; Flood 

Hazard Permit, 

AMC 21.60 

ADNR Office of 

Habitat 

Management and 

Permitting 

(OHMP) 

ADNR Office of 

Project 

Management and 

Permitting 

(OPMP), 


Anchorage, 

Matanuska- 

Susitna Borough 

ADNR Division of 

Mining, Land and 

Water (MLW) 

ARRC 

(Independent, 

public corporation 

and instrument of 

the State within 

the Department of 

Commerce, 

Community and 

Economic 

Development) 

ADNR Division of 

Agriculture 


Anchorage 

Project must notify and obtain 

authorization and approval for all 

activities within or across streams used 

by resident fish and/or anadromous fish. 

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), NOAA. 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. 

OPMP issues a Coastal Consistency 

Determination to certify compliance with 

these standards. 

Tideland easement authorizes use of 

State land for commercial and 

noncommercial purposes. 

Permits to cross ARRC-owned land, 

including Government Hill Greenbelt, 

Harvard Park; permit to place viaduct 

piers within the ARRC rail yard. 

To prevent the importation and spread 

of pests, diseases, or toxic substances 

that are injurious to the public interest, 

and for protection of the agriculture 

industry. 

A right-of-way permit is required for 

filling and grading in a Municipality of 

Anchorage-platted right-of-way or public 

easement. A flood hazard permit is 

necessary for construction within a 

regulated floodway. 


appendixes 

Sections 3.8.8.2 and 

4.8.8.2 

Sections 3.8.6, 4.8.6 


Sections 3.8.8.2 and 

4.8.8.2 

Sections 3.7 and 4.7 

Section 3.8.7.3.1 

Sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 

3.2.3, 3.8.1.4, 4.1.1, 

4.2.3 and 4.8.1.4 


12/18/07 3-225




Relevant legislation 

Agency 

Matanuska-Susitna Borough 

Port MacKenzie District Mat-Su Borough 

Use Permit, 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 

Description 

Public easement and rights-of-way 

permits are required for construction. 

For projects occurring within the Port 

MacKenzie District, a use permit is 

required, and the voluntary 

Acknowledgement of Existing Land Use 

regulations will be completed at the 

request of the Borough. 


appendixes 

Sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 

3.2.3, 4.1.1, 

4.1.2 and 4.2.3 

3-226 12/18/07



Table 3-34. Executive Orders pertaining to NEPA 

Number Title Description EIS section 

EO 11988 Floodplain Management To avoid to the extent possible longand 

short-term adverse impacts 

associated with the occupancy and 

modification of floodplains and to avoid 

direct or indirect support of floodplain 

development wherever practicable 

alternatives exist 

EO 11990 Protection of Wetlands To minimize the destruction, loss, or 

degradation of wetlands, and to 

preserve and enhance the natural and 

beneficial values of wetlands 

EO 12898 

EO 13175 

EO 13186 

Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low- 

Income Populations 

Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments 

Responsibilities of Federal 

Agencies to Protect Migratory 

Birds 

Designed to focus federal attention on 

environmental and human health 

conditions in minority and low-income 

communities for environmental justice. 

Promotes nondiscrimination in federal 

programs substantially affecting human 

health and environment; provides 

access to public information and 

opportunity for public participation in 

matters relating to human health and 

the environment 

To establish regular and meaningful 

consultation and collaboration with 

tribal officials in the development of 

federal policies that have tribal 

implications, to strengthen the 

U.S. government-to-government 

relationships, and to reduce the 

imposition of unfunded mandates 

Directs executive departments and 

agencies to take certain actions that 

shall promote the conservation of 

migratory bird populations 

EO 13112 Invasive Species This EO directs federal agencies to 

address their actions that are likely to 

influence the presence of invasive 

species. Agencies are further directed 

to develop programs and authorities to 

prevent the introduction of invasive 

species, monitor populations, and 

provide for restoration of native species 

and habitats that have been invaded. 

EO 13166 

Improving Access to Services 

for Persons with Limited 

English Proficiency 

This EO directs that individuals who 

are not proficient in the English 

language be provided meaningful 

access to federal processes. 

Sections 3.8.3, 4.8.3 



4.8.2, and 4.9.4.8.2 



Sections 3.2.5, 4.2.5 

and 4.9.4.2, 

Sections 3.8.8.3 

and 4.8.8.3 

Sections 3.8.7.3.1 


12/18/07 3-227

3.0 Affected Environment - Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority

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

Delete template?

Save as template?