Opinions

More quarries along Turnagain Arm a lousy way to manage a National Scenic Byway

Donna Jefferson believes a good argument can overturn a bad decision. As proof, she met me at a forested knob perched above Turnagain Arm and led me into the woods along well-worn moose and bear trails to show off 300-year-old white spruce and cottonwood trees.

This is the hill the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities wants to turn into a quarry for material to realign the Seward Highway. Touching the massive bole of an ancient spruce, Jefferson summed up her arguments for protecting the site.

"It's magic," she said.

Just one catch

DOT wants a quarry because it plans to straighten the Seward Highway between miles 105 and 107, near Windy Corner, by shifting both the highway and the adjacent Alaska Railroad more than 400 feet into Turnagain Arm.

Moving the highway that far onto the mudflats will require 2.2 million cubic yards of material, enough to fill Yankee Stadium four times. Highway planners insist the project is feasible only if the rock is excavated as close to the project as possible. The quarry site they've selected is two miles from the project area, substantially reducing transportation costs.

There's just one catch: The quarry would be in Chugach State Park.

If that doesn't bother DOT, I told Jefferson, no amount of ancient trees, moose, bears or lost recreational opportunities will sway them. There are, however, at least four documents that might prevent DOT from excavating another quarry in Chugach State Park.

ADVERTISEMENT

Value Engineering Study

DOT commissioned a Value Engineering Study, completed by URS Corp. in 2011, which examined the three most feasible alternatives. Of these, DOT appears to have chosen the most expensive alternative, requiring the most fill. Another supposedly feasible route, one that hugs the shore more closely, would have been cheaper, in large part because it would require much less fill.

The need for the quarry in the park is driven by DOT's preference for the most expensive option. I wasn't able to find any justification for this decision in the documents on the project's website.

By including crash statistics dating back to 1977, DOT creates the impression that Windy Corner is the deadliest stretch along Turnagain Arm. However, the agency has improved highway safety in recent decades, which has helped reduce collisions.

Since 1996, according to DOT figures, two crashes in the project area resulted in two deaths. One motorist died in 1997 after falling asleep and driving into a ditch. The other crash, in 2003, was attributed to inattention; the driver hit a guardrail. Inattentiveness and drowsiness are not conditions easily remedied by adding more lanes and straightening curves.

In 2006, DOT designated the route along Turnagain Arm a "traffic safety corridor," which provided funding for increased education and enforcement.

Is Windy Corner still one of the most dangerous stretches of the Seward Highway? One can't tell from the data DOT is using to justify the project.

National Scenic Byway

The U.S. secretary of Transportation designated the Seward Highway a National Scenic Byway in 1998. The designation was sought by DOT because it provided federal funding for highway-related planning and development.

DOT has received millions of dollars of special funding for Alaska's scenic byways. The Seward Highway alone has garnered at least $3 million.

Nominated for its scenic and recreational values, the Seward Highway was Alaska's first National Scenic Byway. As required by the Federal Highway Administration, a Seward Highway Corridor Partnership Plan was completed with DOT's oversight. The plan was intended "simply to ensure that communities seeking national recognition for a particular route have taken the time to assess the intrinsic qualities that make their route unique."

The plan "does not require, mandate, or regulate activities by agencies" and is not meant to impede future highway construction. However, it is "a way in which to study changes and resolve conflicts before the great scenic quality of the route is lost." The plan concluded that "recreational use and highway safety are both important" and "will require careful planning, broad visions, and creative thought."

This all sounds touchy-feely and a bit toothless until you realize that $80,000 of scenic byway funding was used to leverage a visitor marketing campaign worth more than $1 million, according to "An Action Plan for Marketing Alaska's Seward Highway," which was commissioned by DOT and published in 2000.

It's surprising, but also telling, that the Seward Highway Corridor Partnership Plan is not listed on DOT's project website. Maybe the highway planners forgot about it. Or maybe they hope we've forgotten about it. Regardless, its absence speaks volumes to the level of planning, vision and thought that have gone into the proposed highway project so far.

Land and Water Conservation Act

In July, DOT completed an environmental assessment required by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act. Because Alaska accepted federal grants to establish and develop Chugach State Park, DOT must petition the grant administrator, the National Park Service, before converting the park's land into something else.

Although DOT has been assuring the public that there's enough rock — about 2.3 million cubic yards —  in the proposed Rainbow quarry for the Windy Corner realignment, the assessment asks the Chugach State Park and the National Park Service to give them not one quarry in the park but two. Because the second site is near Mile 104, just west of Indian, let's call it the Indian quarry.

Although the two quarries will be more than six times the size of the existing Bird Creek quarry and parking area, the DOT's website describes the Indian quarry is "a backup material site" that is "not anticipated to be needed."

If the Windy Corner project doesn't need the Indian quarry, reclassifying it now will save DOT a lot of trouble when it wants to excavate material for the next Seward Highway project. This is exactly what opponents of the Rainbow quarry feared. DOT seems hell-bent on taking rock from the park for every upcoming realignment.

In its environmental assessment, DOT asked that 39 acres of the park protected by Section 6(f) be converted to use as a transportation facility. In addition, it's asking for another 26 acres of the park, out on the mudflats, not protected by Section 6(f). For those 65 acres of park, DOT has offered 17 acres in the existing Seward Highway right-of-way. The agency considers this a fair trade because an appraisal deemed land adjacent to the highway several times more valuable than undeveloped parkland.

ADVERTISEMENT

More valuable to who? DOT. Such a blatant raid on parklands is something Section 6(f) was intended to quash.

The park’s firewall: Section 4(f)

The public and state's interest in protecting scenic and other intrinsic values of the Seward Highway corridor were exemplified by the creation of Chugach State Park and the national scenic byway. But the corridor plan isn't enforceable on its own, and while the Alaska Division of Parks and Recreation must issue a permit for the quarry — a use that clearly doesn't meet Chugach State Park's legislative purpose — it's likely to fold under political pressure.

Fortunately, the Federal Highway Act includes a firewall to protect public parks from transportation projects. It's called Section 4(f).

DOT is getting federal funding for the realignment; therefore, it must conform to the provisions of the Federal Highway Act. Section 4(f) prohibits transportation projects in parks unless there is no feasible or prudent alternative.

Because the highway is already in the park, any realignment will also be in the park. No one is questioning that. But the quarry is another matter. As the Value Engineering Study demonstrated, there are feasible alternatives to DOT's preferred choice that obviate the need for another quarry in the park.

According to Federal Highway Administration guidelines, "If an avoidance alternative is determined to be feasible and prudent, it must be selected."

The Federal Highway Administration is expected to make a decision on Section 4(f) this summer. DOT and the Federal Highway Administration are aware of these documents, including the provisions of Section 4(f), but won't acknowledge them until their feet are held to the fire. This will only happen if an attorney well versed in the provisions of Section 4(f) steps up to help Jefferson and others petition for a ruling that saves the park from its latest "improvement."

Without Section 4(f), no park would be safe from the next transportation project. And parks are just as valuable as roads.

Rick Sinnott is a former Alaska Department of Fish and Game wildlife biologist. The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News. Contact him at rickjsinnott@gmail.com

The views expressed here are the writer's and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com or click here to submit via any web browser.

Rick Sinnott

Rick Sinnott is a former Alaska Department of Fish and Game wildlife biologist. Email him: rickjsinnott@gmail.com

ADVERTISEMENT