157 



Southeast Alaska Conservation Council 



SEACC • TO. Box 021692 • Juneau, Alaska 99802 • (907-5866942) 



-.12/19/89 



'■ 





"-. 



Memo to: Key House and 

 ^ft ftam, Bart Koehler 



Subject: Lands Proposals and Transportation/Utility Corridors in the Tongass 



During the Conference Committee talks regarding the Tongass, the above topic 

 was discussed. I have attached a copy of a letter from the Alaska Dept. of 

 Transportation to Congressman Don Young, dated Aug. 24th, 1989 for your review. 

 Overall, a number of the statements were unfounded. Additionally, several 

 statements weren't even close to being accurate -- when compared to the actual 

 boundaries of H.R. 987. The following comments correspond to the numbered 

 paragraphs in the letter; I'd be happy to go over the details with you: 



1. Title XI could apply. Admittedly, the proposals for roads to Haines are 

 problematic. However, such a road will most likely prove to be a pipedream 

 (due to $200 million cost) especially when compared to improved ferry service. 



2. A careful review of the maps shows that Corridor #4 is located to the east 

 of the (Carta boundary. There is no conflict, even if the corridor is needed. 



3. This corridor (#8) is never likely to be built. If somehow it was needed 

 it would barely nick the area. Alternative routes to the South are feasible. 



4. # 42 is not needed, and should never be built. The City of Yakutat opposes 

 this road. It would have to be built up the Alsek thru Glacier Bay National 

 Park -- highly unlikely. The plan for servicing a mine in British Columbia 

 has been negated since the operators have selected another route in B.C., to 

 the east. The time frame for this proposed corridor is more than 20 yrs.in the 

 future, if ever. 



5. Utility Corridor #14 is not needed, however if it ever were, ANILCA 

 provides for construction of utility corridors within Wilderness Areas. It is 

 also more than 20 years off in the future. 



6. A careful look at the maps reveals that Corridor #20 would not be impacted 

 by this lands proposal. Furthermore, there is considerable opposition from 

 Petersburg residents to this road proposal, in the first place. 



7. Again, a careful review of the HR 987 boundaries for Sarkar Lakes and for 

 the Calder-Holbrook areas show that there is no conflict with the proposed 

 road corridor (#5) and/or upgrading of this route. Furthermore, Point Baker 

 and Port Protection don't want to a road system built to their communities. 



8. The Greens Creek Mine and the Corridor (#31) are not in the proposed area. 

 The map is not accurate as to the location of the mine. 



9. Utility Corridor #28 does not cross Trap Bay in any way, shape or form; to 

 avoid potential conflict with Kadashan -- simply re-route the proposed 

 corridor to the east, up the Corner Bay/Corner Creek road system, thru the 

 Kook Creek road system and then on to Sitkoh Bay. (if this were ever needed) 



PELICAN FORESTRY COUNCIL • FRIENDS OF BERNERS BAT, Juneau * URANGELL RESOURCE COUNCIL • SITKA CONSERVATION SOCIETY 



FALSE ISLAND-KOOK LAKE COUNCIL, Tenekee Springs * LYNN CANAL CONSERVATION, Haines * TAKU CONSERVATION SOCIETY, Juneau 



NARROWS CONSERVATION COALITION, Petersburg • FRIENDS OF GLACIER BAY, Custavus • TONGASS CONSERVATION SOCIETY, Ketchikan 



ALASKA SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTDUELLERS, Point Baker • JUNEAU CROUP SIERRA CLUB • YAKUTAT RESOURCE CONSERVATION COUNCIL 



?Q_RQ1 _ on _ A 



