3.0 Affected Environment - Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Knik Arm Crossing DraftFinal EIS Affected Environment 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 Corporation, 3% Borough, 15% No Data, 1% Native Corporation, 4% 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
Knik Arm Crossing DraftFinal EIS Affected Environment 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
Page 1: Knik Arm Crossing DraftFinal EIS Af
Page 5 and 6: Knik Arm Crossing DraftFinal EIS Af
Page 61 and 62:
Knik Arm Crossing DraftFinal EIS Af
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99:
Page 103:
Page 107:
Page 111:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139:
Page 143:
Page 147:
Page 151:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157:
Page 161:
Page 165:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183:
Page 187:
Page 191:
Page 195:
Page 199:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211:
Page 215:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225:
Page 229:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307:
show all

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?