Why the state Division of Parks recently built a gate on the Chilkoot River Road remains clouded.

Amid questioning last week by the Haines Borough Planning Commission, state Park Ranger Travis Russell could offer few details of what use the gate served and why it was installed without public comment or notice.

In the end, the committee requested Russell and his supervisors supply the borough with all agency internal emails and meeting minutes involved in the decision, although that might be a dead end.

In an interview, Russell’s supervisor Mike Eberhardt said that no such documents exist. Eberhardt said the gate is for counting visitors.

The stout metal gate, erected in late October just beyond a private lodge on the road, immediately raised hackles. The riverside road is a magnet for tours, an often crowded viewing area when a dozen or more bears feed along the river starting in mid-summer.

Residents have asked why they weren’t consulted on the gate and why it was needed.

Russell, who attended the Thursday night commission meeting by telephone, at times struggled to come up with answers to pointed questions by the commission and residents.

He repeatedly deferred to management decisions made above his head.

Russell described his agency’s plans to build public viewing platforms along the road. A plan to surface the road also is in the works.

Russell spent several moments explaining why the new gate would never be closed. “It was put there in case of an emergency where we need to restrict access,” he said. “Right now, I can’t see a reason to close it.”

One commissioner asked about the people who have private property on the far side of Chilkoot Lake and who use the road as access.

Russell said the gate, if closed at all, would remain shut for only a short while.

“Only for a few hours, maybe half a day,” he said. “It’s not our intent to restrict access to people’s properties. It will only be closed in the case of an emergency.”

But what, asked commissioner Larry Geise, constituted an emergency?

“Nothing comes to mind,” Russell answered. “If we have a traffic accident, we might have to close it. But with the low speeds there, I don’t see that as the case.”

A hiker who fell from a mountainside at Chilkoot Lake last summer was mentioned, but all agreed there would be no reason to close the road for that event.

Russell said the management’s intention was to have the ability to close the gate. But he added that if people rent space at the campground, they have a legal access to their space. “It’s like a hotel,” Russell said. “We can’t impede access.”

Geise also wanted to know about the timeline of state parks’ plans at the park.

“Why start a development project by putting a gate up first?” he asked. “That defies logic.”

Russell said parks officials wanted to build the gate when bears weren’t present. He added that future work there would take place either next spring or fall – before or after bear high-season.

“We wanted to get that gate up before we dove into the whole project,” Russell said.

Planning commission members also questioned whether any road work or construction at the park would disturb Chilkoot Native archaeology or human remains found there. “Skulls have rolled out of the hillside 50 feet from that gate,” said committee member Lee Heinmiller.

Russell said there would be Alaska Native observers on hand. “If the contractors do uncover anything, they’ll have to stop immediately,” he said.

Since most work involved road resurfacing, he said he didn’t think it would be a problem.

But, mostly, the commission and public wanted answers on why the gate was built in the first place. “The gate was never on any plans that went out to the public hearing process,” said Pam Randles, president of the Alaska Chilkoot Bear Foundation.

“Why was that changed?” she asked. “It was supposed to be an informational kiosk, not a gate. A kiosk would have been a much smaller footprint.”

Added commission member Brenda Josephson: “This is a significant change. People don’t put in gates without the intention of closing them. I think you can understand. The community is concerned about a lack of disclosure.”

She then instructed Russell to supply all documents that might explain why the gate was installed without a pubic permit process.

In an interview, Eberhardt, Alaska Department of Natural Resources Southeast Area superintendent, said he understands the negative public reaction.

He said the division of parks last year assumed responsibility for the road into the area from the state Department of Transportation.

“The area hasn’t been monitored in the past and suddenly here’s big brother putting in a gate,” he said. “I get that.”

Eberhardt said that previously there was no way to gauge how many visitors came to the area to watch bears. “There might be several hundred people on a weekend night and, 12 hours later, nobody,” he said. “We needed a way to establish those numbers and a kiosk-gate greeting area was a way to do that.”

He said the agency would turn over all emails and meeting minutes compiled in making the gate decision. Except that there are none, Eberhardt said.

“It’s like when you buy a house and you think a fence should be there,” he said. “You just build it. That’s what you do.”

Asked to explain the confusion over the gate, he said, “I can’t control people’s misunderstandings. There’s always been a kiosk gate planned for that area.”

At last week’s meeting, Russell said state parks couldn’t close the gate if it wanted.

“The pins are too short to put the locks in,” he said. “So the gate couldn’t be locked even if we needed to close it.”

Author