10 years ago
DOT: Road will boost economy
After crunching numbers, updating studies and considering an additional alternative, the Alaska Department of Transportation is still convinced building a 50-mile road from Juneau to the Katzehin River is the best option for transportation in the Lynn Canal.
DOT released its delayed Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Sept. 18, a nearly 700-page document identifying the $574 million road project as its preferred alternative.
In addition to 700 pages of main text, the document includes nearly 50 appendices, many of them hundreds of pages long.
The SEIS is DOT’s response to the U.S. District Court striking down its original environmental impact statement in 2009. The court determined the document was invalid for not fully considering an alternative that would improve ferry service in the region using existing ferry assets.
That alternative includes continuation of mainline service in the Lynn Canal, using the two new day boats, improving the vehicle and passenger staging areas at the Auke Bay and Haines terminals, and expanding the Haines terminal.
Unlike the “no action” alternative, the existing assets option would keep the Malaspina online as a summer shuttle after the second day boat is brought online. It would also reduce fares by 20 percent and extend hours of operation for the reservations call center.
Of all the alternatives, the east-side road “would create the largest economic benefits to the region,” DOT said.
According to the plan, construction of the road would create 60 traffic-related jobs in Haines and cause the population to rise by 90 people by 2020.
“Improved access in Lynn Canal would allow for better movement of goods and people to and within the northern reaches of Southeast Alaska, resulting in better connections among the economies of Juneau, Haines, Skagway, and Whitehorse,” the plan reads.
“As access is improved, independent visitors could shift their travel patterns, perhaps spending more time and money in currently remote communities in Southeast Alaska.”
According to the plan’s Socioeconomic Effects Technical Report, the road would lead to increased visitor spending in Haines. It acknowledges, however, that some of this would be offset by Haines residents spending more money in Juneau.
“Because goods and services are often less expensive in Juneau and because Juneau has a wider selection of goods and services, a high level of economic ‘leakage’ already occurs. Improved access to Juneau would result in more leakage from the Haines-area economy as more local residents take advantage of Juneau’s better-developed retail and service sectors. This also means improved access would play a role in reducing the cost of living in Haines,” the plan reads.
“Certain Haines businesses would benefit by improved access, while others might see a decline in business. Businesses that serve the visitor market, such as motels and hotels, restaurants, gift shops, convenience stores, and gas stations, would see an increase in business as a result of an overall increase in traffic. Stores that already compete with Juneau retailers, such as grocery, clothing, hardware, and lumber supply stores, are likely to see some decline in business as Haines residents take advantage of better access to Juneau.”
The socioeconomic report estimates the road would bring $6.9 million in additional visitor spending annually in 2020 and would generate $380,000 in additional sales tax revenue in Haines.
Plans for the east-side road require construction of several snow sheds and a protective berm for the ferry approach road. The proposed route navigates 41 avalanche paths, and a mitigation plan for avalanche hazards includes the release of unstable snow with explosives during highway closures.
The road plan would also require 32 acres of unvegetated intertidal and subtidal marine habitat to be filled or dredged. All anadromous fish streams would be crossed by bridges.
Sixty-one acres of wetland habitat would be lost, and 37 acres of essential fish habitat would be impacted. Construction would remove approximately 400 acres of old-growth forest.
The highway would be located within .5 miles of 136 bald eagle nests, and within 660 feet of 99 of those nests.
The road would also create potential danger to wildlife, the plan said. The road “would create a potential barrier between upland habitats and important marine fringe along the east side of Lynn Canal that would fragment the habitat of animals that tend to avoid roads. It would reduce available habitat for moose and brown bears and increase the potential for mortality from vehicle collisions. To reduce habitat fragmentation impacts, wildlife underpasses would be constructed at anadromous streams and other known high-use wildlife corridors.”
Still, DOT identifies the road as its preferred alternative because it balances “the identified needs, the economic costs and the impacts to the human environment.”
While annual operation costs are more for the east-side road ($20.4 million) than the $15.4 million cost of keeping the ferry system as-is, DOT spokesperson Jeremy Woodrow said so many more people would be using the road that the cost per traveler for DOT would be greatly reduced.
“Roads are far less expensive, and they move far more people for far less (DOT) dollars,” Woodrow said.
According to an updated traffic forecast, 730 vehicles per day would travel to and from Haines on the east-side road in the summer. Under the improved ferry system using existing assets, only 100 vehicles would travel that route per day.
The plan still doesn’t account for people who use the ferry without bringing a car on board. It is unclear how foot passengers would get from the unmanned Katzehin terminal to Auke Bay, though DOT likely won’t be providing anything.
“The Department of Transportation does not provide public transportation to any of its ferry terminals,” Woodrow said. “If the demand is there, just as you see with other alternatives, usually a private business will come in and provide alternative means if there is a demand for foot passengers.”
In 2006, DOT contacted bus operators in the region to gauge their response to this “market opportunity” of providing transportation from Katzehin to Juneau. Capital Transit, Juneau’s public bus operator, said it was unlikely to provide service.
However, the plan concluded “the potential Lynn Canal land transport market is of interest to the private sector. The operators interviewed said the market would be of interest to them if there was a demand and if it was shown to be financially lucrative… In addition, operators indicated that increased competition and lower gas prices have been driving the ground transportation business and cost to users down.”
Nancy Berland, a member of Lynn Canal Conservation who is combing through the document in preparation for sending in the group’s comments, said the hardest part of the document’s decision is its lack of regard for foot passengers.
“The most painful thing about reading any of these documents, whether it’s the Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan or the SEIS, is they blow off the walk-on passengers. They treat everyone like they are part of a vehicle. It just totally ignores what is going to happen to walk-on passengers,” Berland said.
The document is also very “Juneau-centric,” Berland said, and carries a heavy bias.
“They look for all of the positives of having a road and don’t value the positive aspects of ferry travel at all. It makes it a very hard document to read for that reason,” Berland said.
Emily Ferry, of the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, called the road project a “boondoggle” in a SEACC press release. SEACC, along with other conservation groups like Haines’ LCC, successfully challenged the original EIS in 2009.
Organizations can’t legally challenge the document until the Federal Highway Administration issues a Record of Decision, which should be out this winter.
“Even though 90 percent of the funding is from the feds on a project like this, it is entirely up to the state as to how we spend it,” said Ferry. “The FHWA can reject the EIS if the document does not meet legal standards. In that case, the solution is to go back and revise the flaws, unless the state determines it’s not worth it and decides to stop the project.”
“The evidence for canceling the road and sticking with one of the marine action alternatives is so compelling that we are hoping the state leadership and federal agencies will make the right decision,” Ferry added.
25 years ago
The discovery of the remains of an ancient man near the Tatshenshini River is being seen as an opportunity to establish closer ties between Yukon Natives and local Tlingits.
A dozen members of the Champagne-Aishihik First Nations met with approximately 40 Haines Natives Wednesday to present the latest information on the 500-year old corpse, clothing and tools found Aug. 14 on a glacier by a group of Canadian hunters.
The discovery caused a worldwide archeological sensation. It led to the Champagne-Aishihik assuming shared control over the remains and the discovery of more artifacts in the band’s 22,000 square miles aboriginal territory.
“It got the attention of the whole nation of Canada. All eyes in the field of archeology are on this find,” said Champagne-Aishihik heritage planner Sarah Gault.
The remains, currently under conversation and study at the Royal British Columbia Museum in Victoria, B.C., will be returned to the Champagne-Aishihik in December 2000 under an agreement between the Native band and the British Columbia government.
Control of the find, and the scientific and oral history search for its origin, is important to First Nations people in the region, said Champagne-Aishihik member Ron Chambers.
“It’s a focus for us here and in Alaska to resume the ties that we’ve let slip in the past years. The most important thing we have to trade is our culture, and this discovery is bringing our people together here to talk about our past and who this person is.”
Although DNA tests on the remains have not confirmed it, Chambers said he’s sure remains are those of an ancestor to the region’s Southern Tutchone and Tlingit Natives. “I’m sure of it, there’s no doubt. There was a village site on the Tatshenshini about ten miles west of there. He wasn’t too far from home.”
A map drawn by the powerful Klukwan Chief Koh-Klux in the 1850s shows the location of the now-extinct village.
An old Klukwan story tells of two men who disappeared on a glacier in the area, said Alaska Indian Arts administrator Lee Heinmiller. “If they find another person close to where they found this one, they could be the guys this story’s based on.”
Although many at Wednesday’s meeting agreed with Chambers that the remains were bound to be those of a local ancestor, band administrator Lawrence Joe said the Champagne- Aishihik will wait for more test results before taking an official position. “We do not claim ownership of the remains or the artifacts. We have no idea where this person came from.”
The find sparked new interest in the rich archaeology of the region, said Gault. Receding glaciers at 4,000-5,000 foot elevations have revealed a number of sites containing ancient tools and weapons such as a spear shaft carbon dated to be about 6,800 years old.
“We’re finding areas the size of football fields that used to be under glaciers, covered with caribou dung, that indicate enormous herds that used to live in the area. The Southern Tutchone area has been a hunting ground and a trade and transportation route for a long, long time.… The things we’re finding and learning about are stars in people’s eyes.”
50ish years ago
Haines got a “pilot-project-sized” taste late last week of the fascinating possibilities that oil development can bring to a port, when a cruise ship left an oil slick in Portage Cove and created a flurry of employment for local people.
Nowhere near the size of the problem that could arise in Valdez should a major spill occur from one of the super-tankers which will carry oil from Valdez to other West Coast ports, the spill occurred some time Thursday prior to the Royal Viking Star’s departure about 6 p.m.
First noticed about 7:30 p.m. and reported by fisherman Dan Hale, the oil had come into the Small Boat Harbor in sufficient quantity to cause concern among the fishing and boating community and prompt Harbormaster Ted Goebel to call the Coast Guard in Juneau.
The ship had notified the Coast Guard that it had inadvertently pumped “25 gallons of oil from bilges” over the side. While no official estimate of the size of the spill has been announced by the Coast Guard, estimates have run up to 500 gallons, and possibly 1,000.
Coast Guard officials said at press time that the evidence in the case has been gathered, that the case is still under investigation, and that a final verdict concerning responsibility has not yet been handed down.
If the ship is found guilty, a civil penalty will be assessed against the ship, a Coast Guard spokesman said. Maximum penalty is $5,000.
In addition, the owners are responsible for cleaning up the environment.
As a result of their responsibility, the insurance company for the ship asked for a local person who would coordinate clean-up efforts, and Allan Gregg was chosen.
“Had there been a containment boom in the area,” Gregg said, “efforts could have been successful to contain and isolate the oil and prevent its getting onto the beaches.”
However, the nearest boom available was brought by a Coast Guard helicopter Friday afternoon, and by that time oil had contaminated the beaches and some 67 boats in the harbor, of which 44 were commercial fishing boats.
Friday, Saturday and Sunday, Gregg directed efforts to clear the oil from the water by using boom and soaking up the oil with absorbent materials. At the same time, crews began to scrub the sticky oil from the boats in the harbor – crews of three went by skiff and two people scrubbed using solvent and emulsifier on scrapers and scrub brushes while the third person kept the skiff positioned.
By 10 p.m. Saturday, 17 commercial fishing vessels had been cleaned and were able to leave the harbor. Sunday work started again at 6 a.m. and by noon – the start of the weekly fishing period – only six commercial fishing boats were left to clean. By 1:30 p.m., all the fishing boats that intended to leave the harbor to fish were ready.
“We had a very good turnout of local people,” Gregg said. “In general, they seemed to feel that an important job had to be done, and they came out, rolled up their sleeves, and did a terrific job.”
Sunday afternoon, Mike Mitchell, oil clean-up expert from Machine Oil Pickup Service (MOPS) of Seattle, who had been engaged by the ship’s insurance company, arrived and took charge of the operation with Gregg as his executive.
Thursday, Mitchell said that the last few pleasure cruisers remained to be cleaned and that the boom had been removed from the water and scrubbed.
Oil in the rocks of the boat harbor jetty and the beach was set afire by torch, and while the rocks are still dark and discolored, Michell said that the residual oil should not come off into the water at high tide.
The cleanup job was monitored by Coast Guard. Lt. Bryant Nodine, and Brad Waite of the State Department of Environmental Conservation is also monitoring.
Jeff David of the Lynn Canal Gillnetters Association said that the ship’s insurance company has agreed to take care of fishermen’s claims resulting from the oil spill. David also said that while the association has secured legal advice, no suit is now contemplated.
“Allan Gregg has done an admirable job in getting the commercial fishermen out for the weekend fishing period,” David said.
City Council meets
At a meeting of the Haines City Council Thursday evening, the oil situation was thoroughly discussed with Mitchell, Lt. Nodie and Waite all in attendance.
In addition, captain Dennis Wolstenholme, marine surveyor, and David Ward of the Division of Harbors and Waters of the State Department of Public Works, were also present.
It was generally agreed that the oil-soaked gravel and rocks on the beach would have to be removed and the soil-darkened rocks on the boat harbor jetty would also have to be removed to prevent continuous leaching of oil which had been unable to be burned by torch. No one seemed certain of just how or when the jetty work could be done.
Inasmuch as the jetty is scheduled to be removed and the rock in it used in building a larger jetty when the boat harbor is enlarged – the target date for on the harbor expansion is the summer of 1975 – it was suggested that persons with the Corps of Engineers could be prevailed upon to begin work sooner so that the oil-soaked jetty could be removed this fall.
Want Federal Action
City officials agreed to request action from state and federal officials immediately.
Capt. Wolstenholme said that perhaps a continuous surveillance of the harbor would be necessary so that after each high tide any oil that had leached out of the jetty or off the rocks on the beach could be picked up from the harbor. He said that the requirements of the Department of Environmental Conservation would have to be met.
An inspection of the harbor was set for Friday morning, and city officials said they would make known to the public any information reported after the inspection.