Statter Harbor Improvements Project - City and Borough of Juneau

Statter Harbor Improvements Project 

Final 

Environmental Assessment 

Prepared for: 

PND Engineers, Inc. 

9360 Glacier Highway, Suite 100 

Juneau, Alaska 99801 

For: 

City and Borough of Juneau 

Docks and Harbors Department 

155 South Seward Street 

Juneau, Alaska 99801 

Prepared by: 

HDR Alaska, Inc. 

2525 C Street, Suite 305 

Anchorage, Alaska 99503 

December 2012

Contents 


Final Environmental Assessment 

Draft EA to Final EA: Summary of Revisions ........................................................................................ ix 

Additional Studies Performed .................................................................................................... ix 

Additional Off-site and Upland Alternatives Analysis ............................................................... x 

Design Criteria and Concept Screening ..................................................................................... xi 

Changes to the Proposed Action ................................................................................................ xi 

Additional Impact Categories Analyzed .................................................................................... xi 

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 

1.1 Project Area ...................................................................................................................... 1 

1.1.1 Existing Harbor Use in Auke Bay ............................................................................. 7 

1.2 Project Background .......................................................................................................... 8 

1.2.1 Site Selection to Satisfy Juneau’s Harbor Needs ...................................................... 8 

1.2.2 Improvements Identified for Statter Harbor ............................................................ 11 

1.3 The NEPA Process ......................................................................................................... 15 

1.3.1 Cooperating and Participating Agencies ................................................................. 16 

1.3.2 Determination of Issues/Non-Issues ....................................................................... 18 

2.0 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................. 21 

2.1 Purpose for Action .......................................................................................................... 21 

2.2 Need for Action .............................................................................................................. 25 

2.2.1 Safe Access to Harbor ............................................................................................. 25 

2.2.2 Improved Pedestrian Access ................................................................................... 26 

2.2.3 Adequate Onsite Parking ........................................................................................ 27 

2.2.4 Separate User Facilities ........................................................................................... 34 

2.3 Design Requirements ...................................................................................................... 35 

3.0 Alternative Development Summary ............................................................................................... 37 

3.1 Scoping Summary .......................................................................................................... 37 

3.1.1 The Formal Scoping Period .................................................................................... 37 

3.1.2 Response to the Scoping Process ............................................................................ 38 

3.2 Statter Harbor Offsite Upland Parking Alternatives ...................................................... 38 

3.2.1 Identification of Properties for Upland Parking Alternatives ................................. 39 

3.2.2 Screening Results for Reasonably Attainable Properties ........................................ 40 

3.2.3 Screening Results for Usability ............................................................................... 42 

3.2.4 Summary of Findings .............................................................................................. 42 

3.3 Design Concepts for Statter Harbor ............................................................................... 42 

3.3.1 Design Concepts and Features Considered ............................................................. 42 

3.3.2 Concept Criteria and Screening .............................................................................. 59 

4.0 Project Alternatives .......................................................................................................................... 69 

4.1 No-Action Alternative .................................................................................................... 69 

4.1.1 Description of the No-Action Alternative ............................................................... 69 

4.2 The Proposed Action ...................................................................................................... 73 

4.2.1 Description of the Proposed Action ........................................................................ 73 

4.2.2 Purpose of the Proposed Action’s Components ...................................................... 77 

HDR-249-R11012F 

i



4.2.3 Description of the Proposed Action’s Components ................................................ 77 

4.2.4 Permit Requirements ............................................................................................... 80 

5.0 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................................... 81 

5.1 Habitat ............................................................................................................................ 81 

5.1.1 Freshwater ............................................................................................................... 81 

5.1.2 Marine ..................................................................................................................... 86 

5.1.3 Terrestrial ................................................................................................................ 90 

5.2 Wildlife ........................................................................................................................... 91 

5.2.1 Fish and EFH .......................................................................................................... 91 

5.2.2 Marine Mammals .................................................................................................... 99 

5.2.3 Birds ........................................................................................................................ 99 

5.3 Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Special Concern ........................ 102 

5.3.1 Marine Mammals .................................................................................................. 102 

5.3.2 Birds ...................................................................................................................... 104 

5.4 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................... 104 

5.5 Water Quality (Ground and Surface Water) ................................................................. 106 

5.5.1 Municipal Water and Sewer .................................................................................. 107 

5.6 Cultural and Historical Resources ................................................................................ 107 

5.6.1 Prehistory and History of the Project Area ........................................................... 107 

5.6.2 Documented Cultural Resources and Previous Cultural Resource Studies in 

the Vicinity of the Project Area ............................................................................ 108 

5.6.3 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................... 110 

5.7 Sound ............................................................................................................................ 110 

5.8 Visual ............................................................................................................................ 111 

5.9 Land Use ....................................................................................................................... 113 

5.10 Recreation and Public Use ............................................................................................ 113 

5.11 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 114 

6.0 Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................................... 117 

6.1 Habitat .......................................................................................................................... 118 

6.1.1 Freshwater ............................................................................................................. 118 

6.1.2 Marine ................................................................................................................... 124 

6.1.3 Terrestrial .............................................................................................................. 128 

6.1.4 Fish and EFH ........................................................................................................ 128 


6.1.6 Birds ...................................................................................................................... 135 

6.2 Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern ..................................... 136 

6.2.1 Fish ........................................................................................................................ 136 


6.2.3 Birds ...................................................................................................................... 138 

6.3 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................... 138 

6.4 Water Quality (Ground and Surface Water) ................................................................. 143 

6.4.1 No-Action Alternative ........................................................................................... 143 

6.4.2 Proposed Action .................................................................................................... 143 


HDR-249-R11012F 

ii




6.4.5 Mitigation .............................................................................................................. 144 

6.5 Sound ............................................................................................................................ 144 








6.7 Recreation and Public Use ............................................................................................ 147 



6.8 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 148 



6.9 Indirect Impacts ............................................................................................................ 149 

6.10 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................................... 149 

6.10.1 Resources .............................................................................................................. 150 

6.10.2 Boundaries ............................................................................................................ 150 

6.10.3 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions .................................. 150 

6.10.4 Summary of Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................... 167 

7.0 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................................ 171 

7.1 Habitat .......................................................................................................................... 171 

7.1.1 Freshwater ............................................................................................................. 171 

7.1.2 Marine ................................................................................................................... 172 

7.2 Wildlife ......................................................................................................................... 173 

7.2.1 Fish and EFH ........................................................................................................ 173 


7.2.3 Birds ...................................................................................................................... 176 

7.3 Threatened & Endangered Species and Species of Concern ........................................ 176 

7.4 Wetlands and Coastal Wetlands ................................................................................... 176 

7.5 Water Quality ............................................................................................................... 177 

7.6 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 178 

7.7 Sound ............................................................................................................................ 178 

7.8 Visual ............................................................................................................................ 178 


7.10 Recreation ..................................................................................................................... 179 

7.11 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 179 

8.0 List of Preparers ............................................................................................................................. 181 

References ................................................................................................................................................ 183 

HDR-249-R11012F 

iii

Appendices 

 

Appendix A Draft EA Comment Summary Report, 2010 

Appendix B Uplands Alternative Analysis, PND 2011a 

Appendix C EFH Assessment, HDR 2011 

Appendix D Wetland and Intertidal Area Function Assessment, HDR 2010a 

Appendix E Preliminary Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation Report, JYL 2008 

Appendix F Cultural Resources Report, HDR 2009 

Appendix G Sound Study, PND 2008b 

Appendix H Scenery Resources Report, Corvus Design 2011a 

Appendix I Compensatory Mitigation Options Study, PND 2011b 



HDR-249-R11012F 

iv



Tables 

 

Table 1-1 Screening Summary of Alternative Locations for a Boat Launch Ramp .................... 10 

Table 1-2 Criteria Suggesting the Need to Prepare and EIS ........................................................ 16 

Table 1-3 Participating Agencies’ Jurisdiction/Expertise............................................................ 17 

Table 1-4 Impact Categories Excluded from EA Analysis .......................................................... 19 

Table 2-1 Summary of Purpose of and Need for Proposed Statter Harbor Improvements ......... 21 

Table 2-2 Summary of Existing Onsite and Offsite Parking for Statter Harbor Users ................ 29 

Table 2-3 Trailer Parking Stall Recommendation ....................................................................... 30 

Table 2-4 Car Parking Stall Recommendations Specific to Moorage Use .................................. 31 

Table 2-5 Summary of Design Criteria for Project Components to Meet Project’s Purpose and 

Need ............................................................................................................................. 36 

Table 3-1 Consideration of Additional Design Concepts and Project Features (Suggested by 

EPA) ............................................................................................................................. 59 

Table 3-2 Design Concepts Screening Summary ........................................................................ 61 

Table 3-3 Cost Estimates for Design Concepts ........................................................................... 65 

Table 4-1 Purpose of Components included in the Proposed Action .......................................... 77 

Table 4-2 Design Components of the Proposed Action............................................................... 78 

Table 5-1 Bird Species Observed in Auke Bay During the Great Backyard Bird Count in 2009 

.................................................................................................................................... 101 

Table 5-2 Protected Species in the Statter Harbor Project Area ................................................ 102 

Table 5-3 Summary of Grouped Wetland Functions ................................................................. 105 

Table 5-4 Previously Documented Cultural Resources in the Vicinity of the Statter Harbor 

Project Area ................................................................................................................ 109 

Table 5-5 The Decibel Scale – Sound Levels Compared to Typical Noises ............................. 111 

Table 6-1 Summary of Impacts by Alternative .......................................................................... 117 

Table 6-2 Impacts to Section 404 Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. ............................... 139 

Table 6-3 Summary of Past Action Impact Estimates in the Inner and Greater Auke Bay 

Assessment Areas....................................................................................................... 162 

Table 6-4 Summary of Direct Cumulative Impacts (Past, Present, Future) to Estuarine, Wetland, 

and Eelgrass Habitats and Water Quality from Marine Projects in the Statter Harbor 

Cumulative Impact Assessment Area ........................................................................ 170 

HDR-249-R11012F 

v



Figures 

 

Figure 1-1. Statter Harbor Improvements Project Area and Vicinity Map ..................................... 3 

Figure 1-2. Auke Bay and Existing Conditions at Statter Harbor .................................................. 5 

Figure 1-3. Alternative Boat Launch Ramp Locations Evaluated .................................................. 9 

Figure 1-4. Statter Harbor Master Plan (1995) ............................................................................. 13 

Figure 2-1. The Need for Improvements at Statter Harbor ........................................................... 23 

Figure 2-2. Existing Driveway Access to Statter Harbor from Glacier Highway ........................ 25 

Figure 2-3. DOT&PF Safety Issues at Statter Harbor Access Driveway (USKH 2004) .............. 26 

Figure 2-4. Statter Harbor Patrons Parked along Back Loop Road .............................................. 27 

Figure 2-5. Existing Condition of Boat Launch Ramp’s Concrete Ramp Planks ........................ 31 

Figure 2-6. Existing Boat Launch Ramp ...................................................................................... 32 

Figure 2-7. Non-motorized and Motorized Patrons Using a Single Launch Ramp ...................... 35 

Figure 3-1. The Area for Analysis of Upland Parking Alternatives ............................................. 40 

Figure 3-2. Parcel Map Showing CBJ Ownership and Lot Numbers for All Properties within 

0.25-mile Radius of the Proposed Action .................................................................... 41 

Figure 3-3. Design Concept 1 (Dismissed from Further Analysis) .............................................. 45 




Figure 3-7. Concept 10, Offsite Parking at Lots A77-79 with Minimal Fill Footprint at Horton 

Lot ................................................................................................................................ 57 

Figure 3-8. Numbers of Vehicle-Trailer Stalls and Estimated Costs of Design Concepts and 

Other Alaska Launch Ramp Projects ........................................................................... 65 

Figure 4-1. Existing Conditions at Statter Harbor (No-Action Alternative) ................................ 71 

Figure 4-2. The Proposed Action Alternative ............................................................................... 75 

Figure 5-1. Bay Creek, View Upstream........................................................................................ 81 

Figure 5-2. Biotic Resources in the Project Area ......................................................................... 83 

Figure 5-3. Estuarine Intertidal Habitat along the North Shore of Statter Harbor ....................... 87 

Figure 5-4. Eelgrass Beds near the Project Area (photo provided by Pat Harris) ....................... 89 

Figure 6-1. Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action ............................................ 121 

Figure 6-2. Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action to Wetlands ........................ 141 

Figure 6-3. Inner Auke Bay Cumulative Impacts Assessment Area .......................................... 151 

Figure 6-4. Greater Auke Bay Area Cumulative Impacts Assessment Area Existing Intertidal Fill 

and Mudflats .............................................................................................................. 153 

Figure 6-5. Inner Auke Bay cumulative impacts assessment area, 1929.................................... 156 

Figure 6-6. Inner Auke Bay cumulative impacts assessment area, 1926.................................... 157 

Figure 6-7. Cumulative Impacts Assessment Area, 1959 ........................................................... 159 

Figure 6-8. Inner Auke Bay Cumulative Impacts Assessment Area Existing Intertidal Fill and 

Overwater Structure Footprints .................................................................................. 163 

HDR-249-R11012F 

vi



 

ABL 

ABLF 

ABCOR 

ABTC 

ACMP 

ADA 

ADEC 

ADF&G 

AHRS 

AHRS 

ASCE 

AWC 

BCC 

BMP 

CBJ 

CEQ 

CFR 

cfs 

CGP 

Corps 

CPQ 

CWA 

dBA 

DCOM 

DMLW 

DNR 

DPS 

DOT&PF 

DZ 

EA 

EFH 

EHW 

ELW 

EO 

EPA 

ESA 

ESI 

FAA 

FONSI 

ft-lbs 

ft/s 

GBBC 

Habitat 

HDR 

HRAC 

HDR-249-R11012F 

Acronyms & Abbreviations 

Auke Bay Laboratories 

Auke Bay Loading Facility 

Auke Bay Corridor 

Auke Bay Towers Condominiums 

Alaska Coastal Management Program 

Americans with Disabilities Act 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

Alaska Heritage Resources Survey 

Alaska Heritage Resources Survey 

American Society of Civil Engineers 

Anadromous Waters Catalog 

Birds of Conservation Concern 

Best Management Practice 

City and Borough of Juneau 

Council on Environmental Quality 

Code of Federal Regulations 

Cubic feet per second 

Contractor’s General Permit 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Coastal Project Questionnaire 

Clean Water Act 

Decibels 

Division of Coastal and Ocean Management 

Division of Mining, Land, and Water 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources 

Distinct population segment 

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 

Distance Zone 


Essential Fish Habitat 

Extreme high water 

Extreme low water 

Executive Order 

(U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency 

Endangered Species Act 

Existing Scenic Integrity 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

Foot-pounds 

Feet per second 

Great Backyard Bird Count 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Habitat 

HDR Alaska, Inc. 

Historical Resource Advisory Committee 

vii



HTL 

ISA 

JSD 

MBTA 

MHW 

MHHW 

MLLW 

MLS 

MMPA 

MSFCMA 

NAAQS 

NEPA 

NMFS 

NOAA 

NPS 

NRHP 

NWI 

ORWAP 

OSMB 

PJD 

PND 

SHPO 

SIO 

SMS 

SOBA 

Sport Fish 

SSC 

SSD 

SSR 

SWPPP 

TIA 

USCG 

USDA 

USFWS 

USKH 

VAC 

VPR 

WC 

High tide line 

Inherent Scenic Attractiveness 

Juneau School District 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

Mean high water 

Mean higher high water 

Mean lower low water 

Multiple Listing Service 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

Magnuson Stevens Fishery and Conservation Management Act 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

National Environmental Policy Act 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

National Wetlands Inventory 

Oregon Rapid Wetland Assessment Protocol 

Oregon State Marine Board 

Preliminary jurisdictional wetlands delineation 

PND Engineers, Inc. 

State Historic Preservation Office or Officer 

Scenic Integrity Objective 

Scenery Management System 

States for Organized Boating Access 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish 

Species of Special Concern 

Stopping sight distance 

Scoping Summary Report 

Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan 

Traffic Impact Analysis 

U.S. Coast Guard 

U. S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USKH, Inc. 

Visual Absorption Capacity 

Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas 

Waterfront Commercial 

HDR-249-R11012F 

viii



DRAFT EA TO FINAL EA: SUMMARY OF REVISIONS 

The Statter Harbor Improvements Project Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) was released on 

April 1, 2010, and presented two alternatives—the Proposed Action and No-Action. There were 

88 public e-mails, comment forms, and letters and 11 agency e-mails and letters received during 

the comment period. More than 330 issue-specific comments were identified. 

Comments were classified as substantive, non-substantive, or editorial (a question or clarification 

required within the document). For the Statter Harbor Improvements Project, substantive 

comments are defined as “comments that are within the scope of the Proposed Action, that are 

specific to the Proposed Action, have a direct relationship to the Proposed Action, and that 

include supporting reasons for the Responsible Official to consider.” Comments classified as 

substantive received a response describing how that comment was addressed in the Final EA. A 

Comment Summary document summarizes all comments received and includes two tables that 

provide responses for each resource agency comment classified as substantive. The Comment 

Summary document is included as Appendix A to the Final EA. 

In response to comments received on the Draft EA, a number of changes were made during 

development of the Final EA. The CBJ collected and analyzed additional data; developed 

screening criteria based on project need and design guidelines; included and analyzed four 

additional impact categories; and updated the layout of the Proposed Action Alternative in the 

Final EA. The majority of revisions were made as a direct result of comments received. 

Revisions incorporated into the Final EA are summarized below. 

Additional Studies Performed 

The CBJ performed a number of studies in response to comment received on the Draft EA. The 

additional studies are listed below; information contained within each study has been 

incorporated in the Final EA. 

Launch Ramp Capacity and Efficiency Study (USKH 2011) – Provides additional information on 

boat launch demand, capacity, and efficiency to ensure improvements at Statter Harbor would 

meet current demand. Specifically, this study was conducted to determine 1) the Juneau area’s 

boat launch demand, 2) the existing launch facilities’ capacity, and 3) the effect that existing, 

limited on-site parking at Statter Harbor may have on boat launch operations at that facility and 

nearby Amalga Harbor. 

CBJ Launch Ramp User Survey and Demand Forecast (McDowell Group 2010) – Provides 

additional information on boat launch ramp use in Juneau. The study collected area-wide launch 

ramp usage data and boaters’ opinions about safety and physical conditions of local launch 

ramps through a mail survey sent out to CBJ launch ramp permit holders. The study incorporates 

the user data with capacity data (USKH 2011) to estimate current launch ramp capacity. 

Wetland and Intertidal Area Functional Assessment (HDR 2010a) – Provides supporting 

information regarding habitat function in the project area. This study describes the primary 

ecological functions and values those wetlands and intertidal habitats naturally provide in the 

project area. This study also provides a numeric estimate of the relative ability of those habitats 

to support a wide variety of functions and values important to society. This estimate may be used 

for comparison to potential mitigation sites during the permitting process. 

HDR-249-R11012F 

ix



Circulation Numerical Modeling (HDR 2011). – The circulation modeling study was developed 

to compare and assess the potential hydrodynamic impacts of the placing fill in estuarine habitat 

under the Proposed Action. Information from this report is used in the Final EA to assess 

potential impacts to habitat in the project area. 

Uplands Alternative Analysis (PND 2011a) – This report presents a comprehensive summary of 

analyses conducted to address agencies’ concerns regarding 1) alternative locations for the 

proposed project and 2) offsite upland locations in the vicinity of the proposed project for nonwater-dependent 

activities. This report is described in more detail below. 

Scenery Resources Report (Corvus Design 2011a) – Provides supporting information relative to 

existing scenery resources and potential visual impacts that would result from the Proposed 

Action. 

Mud Flat Delineation Report (Corvus Design 2011b) – Provides additional information on 

habitat in the project area. Mud flats are considered a “Special Aquatic Site” under Federal 

regulations (40 CFR 230). The purpose of this study was to delineate mud flats in the project 

area in order to assess potential impacts of the Proposed Action. The CBJ also performed a 

mudflat field delineation in the greater Auke Bay area, from Smuggler’s Cove west to Auke Nu 

Cove. 

Expanded Cumulative Impacts Analysis – Based on comments received from NMFS on the 

Corps’ Public Notice of the 404/10 permit application, the area of analysis for cumulative 

impacts was expanded to include the greater Auke Bay area from Smuggler’s Cove west to Auke 

Nu Cove. Cumulative fill amounts were calculated based on aerial imagery from 1962, as 

compared with current imagery. The extent of mudflats were mapped and included with mapped 

extent of eelgrass beds in the area (Harris et al. 2008). 

Additional Off-site and Upland Alternatives Analysis 

The Upland Alternatives Analysis (PND 2011a) was developed to present a comprehensive 

summary of analyses conducted to address agencies’ concerns regarding 1) alternative locations 

for the proposed project and 2) offsite upland locations in the vicinity of the proposed project for 

non-water-dependent activities. 

The report begins by differentiating between those project-components that would be considered 

water-dependent and those not considered water-dependent, based on Corps guidelines. The 

report defines design requirements for each project component (e.g., number of parking spaces; 

boarding float dimensions) in order to ensure the project’s purpose would be met. 

The second part of the report includes an analysis of locations considered (in addition to Statter 

Harbor) for potential development of the two-lane boat launch ramp and boarding float and 

associated parking. Recognizing the high demand at the Statter Harbor facility in light of existing 

congestion, as well as the distribution of the areas’ population, alternative facility locations 

between Mendenhall Peninsula and Indian Point were considered for this analysis. 

After examining other locations for siting a launch ramp facility, and finding no other locations 

useable or practicable, the third part of the analysis focuses on offsite upland parking alternatives 

for a facility at or near Statter Harbor. To guide the effort, properties were identified that could 

meet the needs of the overall project purpose by establishing a set of assumptions and criteria to 

HDR-249-R11012F 

x



determine 1) the extent of the area of analysis, 2) a property’s ability to be “reasonably 

obtained”, and 3) the usability of properties to be considered for alternatives. 

Multiple sites were identified and reviewed as potential alternative locations for the non-waterdependent 

components of the proposed project. Once useable properties were identified, 

preliminary site development plans were created to better determine whether they would still 

meet the project needs and to provide a basis for a preliminary analysis of potential impacts 

(PND 2011a). Ultimately, one property was found to be both reasonably available and usable. 

Development of lots A77-79 (i.e. Lindegaard property) is presented as Concept 10, and is 

screened in the Final EA. 

Design Criteria and Concept Screening 

The Final EA was updated to include design criteria of the project components (water dependent 

and not water dependent) necessary for the project to achieve its purpose and meet its stated 

needs. Design criteria were clarified to address comments regarding the development of 

alternatives, the full range of alternatives (concepts), and the establishment of the range of 

reasonable alternatives for detailed analysis. Design and logistical criteria for the proposed 

project are based on state and Corps guidelines, studies conducted for this project, and publically 

available data. Design criteria included requirements for 1) safe access: road width and stopping 

sight distances; 2) safe pedestrian access; 3) parking: dimensions and number of spaces; and 4) 

launch ramp and boarding float specifications: grade and tidal access, boarding float dimensions, 

and make-ready and tie-down areas. Design criteria are described in more detail in Section 2.2 

and Section 2.3. Results of the screening process are included in Section 3. 

Changes to the Proposed Action 

The layout of the Proposed Action alternative was changed slightly as compared to the Draft EA. 

The location of the access driveway was shifted slightly due to a DOT&PF request during a 

meeting on January 11, 2011 to relocate the proposed site access driveway directly opposite the 

Squire’s Rest driveway entrance. This relocation would provide a center turning lane on Glacier 

Highway and improve vehicular safety on the highway. 

Based on site-specific studies performed (McDowell 2010, USKH 2011) and updated guidelines 

(SOBA 2006), the Proposed Action was updated to provide vehicle-trailer parking stalls sized at 

12-feet by 50-feet in addition to vehicle-trailer parking stalls that meet minimum size 

requirements (e.g., 10-feet by 40-feet). Due to facility layout revisions, the revised Proposed 

Action’s intertidal footprint is 4.1 acres in the Final EA. Further, the Proposed Action does not 

propose to construct a restroom facility. 

Additional Impact Categories Analyzed 

The Final EA was updated to include the following impact categories not included in the Draft 

EA: Land Use (Sections 5.9 and 6.9); Recreation and Public Use (Sections 5.10 and 6.10); and 

Air Quality (Sections 5.11 and 6.11). These sections were included in response to agency 

comments. 

HDR-249-R11012F 

xi



This page intentionally left blank. 

HDR-249-R11012F 

xii



1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ) seeks to improve the safety and efficiency of its harbor 

operations by constructing a modern, double-lane boat launch ramp and associated parking at 

Statter Harbor in Auke Bay, near Juneau, Alaska (Figure 1-1). The CBJ and Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Division of Sport Fish (Sport Fish) have entered into a cooperative 

agreement (Coop. No. 08-015, ADF&G 2008a). Under this agreement, the Federal Aid in Sport 

Fish Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux) could provide 75% of the funding to 

develop a boat launch ramp, parking for vehicles with boat trailers, and other associated 

improvements on CBJ-owned and managed lands, and state-generated matching funds could 

generate the remaining 25%, if specific planning and permitting requirements are met. Under the 

agreement, the CBJ must prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA); produce preliminary 

designs; develop a project budget; obtain leases or conveyances of state or federally-owned 

uplands; and secure all necessary permits and approvals. 

This EA presents and screens a full range of alternatives (also identified as concepts) developed 

as a result of comments received during scoping. Eight of ten alternatives considered were 

screened and dismissed from more-detailed analysis for either not being feasible to build, or not 

meeting the project’s intended purpose and need. Two were carried forward as project 

alternatives for detailed analysis in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) NEPA Guidance to States participating in 

the Federal Aid Program. 

1.1 Project Area 

Statter Harbor is located approximately 12 miles west of downtown Juneau on the south side of 

Glacier Highway, near the highway’s intersection with the Mendenhall Loop Road (Back Loop 

Road; Figure 1-1). Statter Harbor is one of three moorage facilities in Auke Bay (Figure 1-2). 

The Statter Harbor floating breakwater in Auke Bay is oriented east-west, with the entrance to 

the three moorage facilities located at its western end. The existing Statter Harbor facility 

occupies the deep-water area immediately north of the breakwater and continues along the east 

shore of Auke Bay north to the boat launch ramp and parking area. The other two moorage 

facilities within the floating breakwater include DeHart’s Marina and Fisherman’s Bend Marina. 

DeHart’s Marina is located north of the Statter Harbor deepwater floats and west of the Statter 

Harbor boat launch ramp. Fisherman’s Bend Marina, a privately owned facility, is the westernmost 

moorage facility in Auke Bay. Fisherman’s Bend is, located north of the breakwater’s west 

entrance. 

The project area includes the existing Statter Harbor facility and DeHart’s Marina, both owned 

by the CBJ. The project area is bound by the CBJ Auke Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility and 

the Auke Bay Tower Condominiums (ABTC) to the west and Glacier Highway to the north and 

east. Land adjacent to the harbor along the south side of Glacier Highway consists of DeHart’s 

convenience store, two private residences, and two lots owned by CBJ (a vacant lot and the 

Horton Lot). The Horton Lot is currently used for parking. The uplands occupy approximately 

900 feet of frontage along Glacier Highway. Available uplands are limited and congested 

parking conditions persist along this segment of Glacier Highway. 

HDR-249-R11012F 1




HDR-249-R11012F 2

Statter Harbor 

MENDENHALL 

LOOP RD 

River 

Mendenhall 

Lake 

A L A S K A 


Improvements 

Project 

Project Area 

and Vicinity 

GLACIER HWY 

AMHS 

Ferry 

Terminal 

Auke Bay 

Loading Facility 

Auke 

Lake 

Mendenhall 

Gulf of Alaska 

Juneau 

! 

Figure 1-1 

LEGEND 

Project Area 

A u k e B a y 

Juneau International 

Airport 

EGAN DR 

M en d e n h al l 

P en i n su l a 

F r i t z 

C o v e 

N DOUGLAS HWY 

G a s t i n e a u C h a n n e l 

Klukwan 

! 

Skagway 

! 

CANADA 

Elfin Cove 

! 

Pelican 

! 

! 

Haines 


Gustavus 

! 

Hoonah 

! 

Juneau 

! 

Tenakee Springs 

! 

D o u g l a s I s l a n d 

JUNEAU 

! 

Ë 

Miles 

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 

Datum: NAD 1927 

Coordinate System: Albers 

Sources: DOT, HDR, GINA 

Author: HDR Alaska, Inc. 

Date: May 19, 2011 

!




HDR-249-R11012F 4

GLACIER HIGHWAY 

Auke Bay 

Elementary School 

Bay Creek 

Horton 

Lot 

Squire's Rest 

CBJ Shelter 

Lehnhart 

Property 

Deem's 

Property 

BACKLOOP RD 

DeHart's 

Convenience 

Store 




Auke Bay and 

Existing Conditions 

at Statter Harbor 

Figure 1-2 

LEGEND 

Auke Bay Tower 

Condominiums 

Boat 

Yard 

AUKE BAY 

HARBOR RD 

Stream 

Eelgrass Beds 

Fisherman's 

Bend 

Marina 

DeHart's 

Marina 

Boat Launch 

Parking Area 

Statter 

Harbor 


Note: Aerial photography 

provided by PND Engineers, Inc., 

dated June 9, 2006. 

Ë 

Feet 

Breakwater 

NOAA NMFS 

Auke Bay Laboratory 

0 100 200 300 400 


Coordinate System: AK State Plane Zone 1 

Sources: PND 


Date: May 19, 2011




HDR-249-R11012F 6



The upland properties are zoned Waterfront Commercial (WC); however, some of the properties 

are currently being utilized as residences. Though the proposed Statter Harbor improvements fall 

within the allowable land use code for the WC zoning district, the CBJ would still require a 

conditional land use permit. 

1.1.1 Existing Harbor Use in Auke Bay 

Recreational boating, commercial fishing, and sport fishing are significant summer activities in 

the CBJ, with boating activities occurring primarily in the waters north and west of Juneau. The 

area’s major harbors are located in downtown Juneau. Consequently, boats with permanent 

berths in Juneau often seek temporary moorage at private marinas or the public dock in Auke 

Bay. 

There are two public moorage facilities in Auke Bay (DeHart’s Marina and Statter Harbor); one 

private marina (Fisherman’s Bend); one public launching ramp (Statter Harbor); and one 

operational floating fueling station (DeHart’s Marina; Figure 1-2). Located west of Statter 

Harbor, the Auke Bay Loading Facility (ABLF; Figure 1-1) provides marine loading facilities for 

commercial operations. 

Facility use at Auke Bay is largely seasonal. During the winter, commercial vessels comprise the 

majority of boats utilizing the Auke Bay facilities. During the spring, the total number of vessels 

moored at the facilities is divided between commercial and recreational vessels. The number of 

temporarily-moored recreational vehicles increases significantly during the summer, while the 

number of commercial vessels declines. Conversely, the numbers of commercial vessels in Auke 

Bay increases substantially during in-season troll closures. 

The following activities occur at Statter Harbor: 

• Moorage (year-round) 

• Moorage for all types of boats, including pleasure, commercial, and fishing 

• Moorage for U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) emergency response and patrol vessels 

• Moorage for local emergency response vessels 

• Parking for moorage 

• Parking for local businesses 

Recreation (seasonal) 

• Yacht and fishing boat viewing (year-round) 

• Sport-fishing charter departures (spring, summer, and autumn) 

• Whale-watching charter and tour departures (spring and summer) 

• Kayak and canoe rental (summer) 

• Boat rental (summer) 

Miscellaneous (year-round) 

• Vessel sewage holding tank pump-out facility 

• Load/unload cargo and supplies from vessels 

• Marine service and repair 

HDR-249-R11012F 7

1.2 Project Background 



This section provides a brief history of the extensive planning efforts undertaken by the CBJ to 

provide infrastructure to support Juneau’s varied harbor needs. Section 1.2.1 summarizes 

previous planning efforts that ultimately identified the need to separate recreational and 

commercial users. Section 1.2.1 also summarizes the site selection process used to determine 

project locations and, more specifically, how Statter Harbor was ultimately chosen to serve 

recreational and light commercial users (e.g., passenger for-hire operators; Appendix B; PND 

2011a). Section 1.2.2 describes previous planning efforts that identified improvement needs 

specific to recreational and light commercial users at Statter Harbor. 

1.2.1 Site Selection to Satisfy Juneau’s Harbor Needs 

The CBJ assembly has acknowledged the inadequacy of the marine loading facilities for 

commercial operations in Juneau and the long history of congestion, conflicting uses, and public 

safety concerns at Statter Harbor (PND 2006). The CBJ held two public meetings in 2002 and 

four user group workshops in 2003 to identify and discuss key issues and facility needs (PND 

2006). The four user groups included light cargo (e.g., miscellaneous supplies, food, and 

construction material delivery), commercial fishing operators, recreational boaters, and 

passenger for-hire operators (e.g., whale watching tours, sport fishing charters). 

The new harbor site was originally envisioned to satisfy the needs of all four user groups. 

However, based on input gathered during the meetings and workshops, it was apparent that a 

two-site solution would be more appropriate to satisfy the community’s needs (PND 2006). The 

two-site solution would separate “industrial” from “recreational” users to increase safety; 

provide infrastructure to support commercial fisheries and related businesses in Juneau; allow 

tourism business to grow while keeping impacts separate from other harbor users; provide a safe 

and secure regional freight facility; and meet existing recreational user demand at Statter Harbor 

(PND 2006). 

The CBJ team evaluated multiple sites in the Auke Bay area from Mendenhall Peninsula to 

Indian Point for the proposed ABLF (2006). In addition to Statter Harbor, potential locations 

included Fritz Cove, Stabler’s Point, the Lindegaard Property (west of Statter Harbor), the 

Alaska Glacier Seafoods lot, and the Auke Bay Lot 1 and adjacent tidelands site. These locations 

were considered in part for their access to water and proximity to other facilities. 

The Assembly placed a bond issue on the October 2005 ballot to include, among other 

improvement projects, funds for development of a commercial loading facility in Auke Bay; 

Juneau voters subsequently approved the bond obligation. The Auke Bay Lot 1 and adjacent 

tidelands site in Auke Nu Cove was ultimately chosen for construction of the ABLF (PND 

2006). 

As part of the ABLF site selection process, it was determined that recreational and passenger forhire 

users would remain at Statter Harbor (PND 2006). However, the CBJ also considered other 

sites (alternative to Statter Harbor) to satisfy recreational users and passenger for-hire needs 

(PND 2011a). 

As part of the alternatives development process for this EA, CBJ re-evaluated alternative 

locations for the boat launch ramp. Each site’s geographical location relative to the center of 

Juneau’s greater population was an important consideration when determining which alternative 

site locations to analyze. In 2010, almost two-thirds of Juneau’s population lived between Lena 

HDR-249-R11012F 8



Cove and Salmon Creek. An estimated one-fifth of Juneau households used a CBJ launch facility 

in 2010, and Statter Harbor accounted for approximately one quarter of all launches in that year 

(McDowell 2010). Moreover, if the Statter facility were built to States for Organized Boating 

Access (SOBA) standards and not congested or considered unsafe by existing and potential 

users, Statter would likely have accounted for substantially more launches. 

Recognizing the high demand at the Statter Harbor facility in light of existing congestion, as well 

as the distribution of the areas’ population, alternative facility locations between Mendenhall 

Peninsula and Indian Point were evaluated (Figure 1-3; PND 2011a). 

Lena Cove 

Auke Nu Cove 

Lindegaard 

Property 


Indian Point 

Stabler’s Point 

Mendenhall 

Peninsula 

Fritz Cove 

Mendenhall 

Wetlands 

Salmon Creek 

Figure 1-3. Alternative Boat Launch Ramp Locations Evaluated 

The Upland Alternative Analysis (PND 2011a) provides a thorough discussion of locations 

evaluated. Based on results of the Upland Alternative Analysis, the CBJ confirmed that the 

Statter Harbor area the most feasible site for development of a boat launch ramp (PND 2011a). 

Table 1-1 summarizes screening results for the five alternative locations to Statter Harbor. After 

taking a hard look at other locations for siting a launch ramp facility, and finding no other 

locations useable or practicable, the Upland Alternative Analysis focused on upland alternatives 

for a facility at or near Statter Harbor, as summarized in Section 3.2 of this EA and provided in 

Appendix B. 

HDR-249-R11012F 9



Alternative 

Locations 

Stabler’s 

Point 

Lindegaard 

Property 

Mendenhall 

Peninsula 

(Fritz Cove) 

Auke Nu 

Cove 

Indian Point 

Highway access 

Difficult access due 

to steep grade, poor 

sight distances and 

high speed traffic. 

Poor sight distances, 

steep road grades 

difficult for access 

driveway 

development. 

No current access, 

requires road, 

utilities, and uplands 

area be developed. 

Introduces traffic to 

narrow residential 

road with insufficient 

shoulder width, etc. 

Accessible via 

Glacier Highway. 

Requires extensive 

access improvements. 

Table 1-1 Screening Summary of Alternative Locations for a Boat Launch Ramp 

Property Ownership, 

Zoning & Cost 

Limited uplands. 

Bathymetry shows steep 

subsurface. Site 

conditions require that a 

facility be created almost 

entirely of fill in waters 

of the U.S. Owned by 

CBJ. 

Three adjoining lots, not 

owned by CBJ. 

Shallow bathymetry 

would require extensive 

fill to reach waters below 

ELW. Surrounding land 

owned by the CBJ. 

Surrounded by ABLF, 

Auke Bay Ferry 

Terminal and Alaska 

Glacier Seafoods, Inc. 

Four parcels, most 

undeveloped, and 

Glacier Bay National 

Park facility, a cemetery, 

and recreational trail. 

Environmental & 

Other Concerns 

Significant exposure to waves 

(5-foot); fetch length 9 miles. 

Site conditions require that a 

facility be created almost 

entirely of fill in waters of the 

U.S. 

Significant exposure to waves 

(5-foot), wake, and chop; fetch 

length 9 miles. Requires wave 

barrier. Requires 4.85 acres of 

fill in Waydelich Creek estuarine 

delta. Impacts 0.8 acres of 

eelgrass beds. 

Near Mendenhall Wetlands State 

Game Refuge. Known Bald 

Eagle nesting trees. Requires fill 

in Mendenhall River. The CBJ 

anticipates significant objection 

to development near refuge. 

Eelgrass conservation easement 

in progress. 

The CBJ anticipates significant 

objection to development in or 

near areas of cultural 

significance. 

Reason for Dismissal 

Dismissed due to logistical challenges and cost of 

extensive access and upland improvements. Impacts to 

waters of the U.S. would be greater than the proposed 

Statter Harbor project. 

Impacts would be greater (relative to proposed Statter 

Harbor project) to waters of the U.S. and Waydelich 

Creek alluvial delta. Cost of development 

($14,856,000) considered excessive compared to other 

similar facilities constructed in Alaska. 

Dismissed due to logistical challenges and costs of the 

required extensive upland, utilities, and access 

improvements. Level of impacts to waters of the U.S. 

and the environment would be greater than that of the 

proposed Statter Harbor project. 

Development not possible due to conservation 

easement restrictions for 31.96 acres at Auke Nu cove 

(Corps Permit No. POA-2005-2019-2). 

Dismissed due to logistical challenges and costs of 

access improvements, and significant impacts to 

cultural resources (known native burial grounds and 

culturally modified trees). Site recommended for 

placement on the National Register of Historic Places. 

HDR-249-R11012F 10



1.2.2 Improvements Identified for Statter Harbor 

The CBJ has long recognized the need for improvements at Statter Harbor and has worked to 

accomplish that objective. Harbor usage has increased steadily over the last two decades due to 

the harbor’s location near a large population base and its popularity with locals and visitors. 

Harbor infrastructure and facility upgrades, however, have not kept pace with the demands of the 

harbor’s diverse commercial and recreational users. In 2001—2002, the parking area was 

expanded with a marine seawall, pedestrian improvements, and a new harbor office. Despite 

these improvements, the congestion, caused primarily by limited harbor space, often triggers 

conflicts between various patrons of the facility. 

In 2005, the Harbor Board purchased DeHart’s Marina for the potential development of moorage 

and a commercial tour loading facility at Statter Harbor. DeHart’s Marina is adjacent to Statter 

Harbor and was constructed in 1980. A detailed condition assessment of DeHart’s Marina 

concluded that most of the existing floats were considered to be in poor condition; some 

components were rated as fair 1 (PND 2004). The floats at DeHart’s Marina have reached the end 

of their operational life and some floats are sinking. The needs to upgrade, reconfigure, and/or 

replace existing facilities at Statter Harbor and DeHart’s Marina have been identified by the CBJ 

as a top priority. 

The CBJ formed a Steering Committee 2 to identify improvements for Statter Harbor and to 

provide direction to the CBJ Docks and Harbors Department. The Statter Harbor Master Plan 

was developed to address the needs of the facility’s recreational boaters and for-hire operators. 

The Master Plan received Steering Committee approval on June 7, 2005 and was subsequently 

adopted by the CBJ (2005b). 

The Master Plan outlines extensive and comprehensive improvements to address harbor use and 

issues, and to guide long term development of the area. The Plan incorporated a multi-use 

concept to serve the diverse user groups efficiently and safely, and to redevelop the uplands as a 

mixed marine, commercial, and public use area. Improvements outlined in the Master Plan 

included new moorage facilities; boat launch ramps; kayak ramps; tour bus staging and vessel 

loading areas; separated facilities for tour operations and boat moorage; expanded uplands to 

improve circulation and parking for automobiles, boat trailers, passenger vehicles, and buses; 

vessel haul-out services; trails and public open spaces; restrooms and telephones; retail 

enterprises; and beach access, a sea walk, and improved pedestrian corridors (Figure 1-4). 

1 PND (2004) defined “poor” condition as functional, but with significant deterioration and an estimated life of 2 to 

5 years, and “fair” condition as functional, but with damage and an estimated life of 5 to 10 years. The assessment 

included cost estimates for two scenarios: replacement and rehabilitation of the marina. 

2 The Master Plan Committee comprised representatives from the Parks and Recreation Department and Advisory 

Committee, the Harbors Board, tour industries, the Docks and Harbors Department, Jensen Yorba Lott consulting 

firm, the CBJ’s Community Development Department, and from various State of Alaska environmental permitting 

and project funding agencies. 

HDR-249-R11012F 11




HDR-249-R11012F 12





Master Plan (1995) 

Figure 1-4 

1995 Master Plan 

Parking Specifications 

102 Trailer Parking 

54 Passenger Vehicle Parking 

3 Charter Bus Parking 

2 Tour Bus Loading 

8 Boat Storage 

Ë 

Sources: PND, CBJ 


Date: May 19, 2011




HDR-249-R11012F 14



In summary, components of the Statter Harbor Master Plan are to: 

• Construct a modern double-lane boat launch ramp and associated parking 

• Construct a new access driveway from Glacier Highway for vehicles with trailers 

• Construct a sea walk trail near Bay Creek 

• Construct marine seawall to retain additional fill 

• Reconfigure vehicular access and traffic circulation in the harbor area 

• Segregate kayak launch operations from motorboat launch operations 

• Relocate the covered shelter and create a scenic overlook 

• Construct a restroom 

• Install landscaped buffer areas near adjacent properties 

• Maintain the existing boat launch ramp to accommodate kayak and light vessel use 

• Remove the DeHart’s Marina float system 

• Perform system maintenance on existing moorage floats, wave attenuator, and anchoring 

system 

• Expand moorage system with new main floats, dedicated stalls, and utilities to offset 

capacity losses at DeHart’s Marina 

• Provide fuel distribution at the new floats 

• Install a passenger for-hire boarding float to support tour and light commercial loading 

operations 

• Provide lease space for retail in the harbor area 

• Provide potential lease space for retail in the uplands adjacent to Glacier Highway 

The CBJ obtained funding from Sport Fish through Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux for portions 

of the Plan’s prescribed improvements. Due to the project cost and size, multiyear Federal Aid 

funding would be needed to meet the Sport Fish portion of the project costs. Because Federal 

funding is being used for this project, the project must comply with NEPA. Formal scoping was 

conducted to identify issues and this EA was prepared to evaluate various Statter Harbor 

improvement alternatives (HDR 2008). 

1.3 The NEPA Process 

The CBJ and Sport Fish have entered into a cooperative agreement, the purpose of which is to 

improve public recreational boating and sport fishing access to the marine waters of Juneau by 

completing planning activities for the future construction of a boat ramp and related facility at 

Statter Harbor. Because federal funding is involved, one of those planning requirements 

specified in the cooperative agreement is the preparation of an EA. The CBJ initiated this EA to 

analyze the proposed harbor improvements, in compliance with NEPA and in accordance with 

USFWS guidelines 3 . 

The guidance indicates that “if an action is not categorically excluded, an EA must be prepared 

to discuss alternative actions to meet the needs of the grants and to examine the effects of those 

actions with sufficient evidence and analysis to determine whether to prepare an [Environmental 

3 USFWS NEPA Guidance to States participating in the Federal Aid Program 

HDR-249-R11012F 15



Impact Statement] EIS”. If the action would have a significant impact on the environment, 

preparation of an EIS is required. If not, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be 

documented and an EIS is not necessary. The guidance indicates that the need to prepare an EIS 

is a matter of professional judgment, and there is no absolute guidance available regarding 

whether an action’s impact to the human environment would be considered significant. 

The guidance provides a set of criteria to help determine whether an EIS may be necessary, and 

the criteria are listed below in Table 1-2. Based on the answers in Table 1-2, an EIS is not 

necessary for this project. 

Table 1-2 Criteria Suggesting the Need to Prepare and EIS 

Does the following apply to this project? 

Controversy over environmental effects (e.g., major scientific or technical disputes over one or 

more environmental effects) 

Precedent-setting actions with wide-reaching or long-term implications (e.g., mineral 

extraction) 

Major alterations of natural environmental quality that may exceed local, state, or federal 

environmental standards 

Exposing existing or future generations to increased safety or health hazards 

Conflicts with substantially proposed or adopted local, regional, State, interstate, or Federal land 

use plans or policies, that may result in adverse environmental effects 

Adverse effects on designated or proposed natural or recreation areas, such as wilderness areas, 

parks, research areas, and wild and scenic rivers 

Removal of production of prime and unique agricultural lands, as designated by local, regional, 

state, or federal authorities 

Adverse effects on municipal, industrial, or agricultural water supply or quality; or major 

consumptive use of other long-term commitment of water 

Condemnation of property rights or fee title to land; or large-scale relocation of people, homes, 

commercial, industrial, or major public facilities 

Major proposals establishing new refuge system units, fish hatcheries, or major additions to 

existing installations 

Master or comprehensive conservation plans for major new installations, or for established 

installations, where major new developments or substantial changes in management practices 

are proposed 

Yes or No 

1.3.1 Cooperating and Participating Agencies 

Following NEPA guidelines, the project team has identified federal, state, and local agencies 

(referred to as “participating agencies”) that have jurisdiction by law or special expertise related 

to the various environmental issues. These agencies’ input was solicited during the scoping 

period to assess the project’s potential environmental impacts. Table 1-3 lists the participating 

agencies involved with this project. 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

HDR-249-R11012F 16

Participating Agency 

Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game (ADF&G) 

Division of Habitat4 (Habitat) 

Division of Sport Fish 

Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources (DNR) including: 

State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO) 

Division of Mining, Land and 

Water, Land Resources (DMLW) 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) Fisheries 

Protected Resources Division 

Habitat Conservation Division 

National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center Auke Bay 

Laboratories (ABL) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Table 1-3 Participating Agencies’ Jurisdiction/Expertise 



Jurisdiction/Expertise 

ADF&G is the State of Alaska department that manages Alaska’s fish and 

wildlife resources. 

The Division of Habitat protects Alaska’s fish and wildlife resources and 

their habitats. 

The Division of Sport Fish manages Alaska’s recreational fisheries and 

builds facilities for boater and angler access to those fisheries. 

DNR is the State of Alaska department charged with the development, 

conservation, and enhancement of natural resources. 

SHPO is consulted to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act and Executive Order (EO) 13175. 

DMLW oversees the use and protection of Alaska's state-owned land and 

water. 

The EPA has broad oversight and implementing responsibility for many 

laws, including the Clean Water Act. This includes Sections 402 and 404 of 

the Clean Water Act. Also, Section 309 of the CAA requires the review and 

written comment by EPA of major federal actions, which may include EAs. 

The EPA does not rate EAs, however, only EISs. 

The FAA regulates civil aviation to promote safety; encourages and develops 

civil aeronautics, including new aviation technology; develops and operating 

a system of air traffic control and navigation for both civil and military 

aircraft; researches and develops the National Airspace System and civil 

aeronautics; develops and implements programs to control aircraft noise and 

other environmental effects of civil aviation; and regulates U.S. commercial 

space transportation. 

NOAA Fisheries are responsible for the nation’s living marine resources and 

their habitat. 

NOAA’s Protected Resources Division is responsible for developing 

management and conservation programs for marine mammals under the 

guidance of: the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), the Fur Seal Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation Act. 

The Habitat Conservation Division oversees avoiding and minimizing 

adverse effects to living marine resources and essential fish habitat (EFH) 

resulting from human activities. 

The Alaska Fisheries Science Center is the research branch of the NOAA’s 

NMFS responsible for research on living marine resources in the coastal 

oceans off Alaska and parts of the west coast of the United States. The ABL 

conducts scientific research throughout Alaska on fish stocks, fish habitats, 

and the chemistry of marine environments involved in managing natural 

resources. 

The USFWS administers the ESA, manages migratory bird populations, 

restores nationally significant fisheries, and conserves and restores wildlife 

habitat such as wetlands. 

The Corps is responsible for the nation’s aquatic resources and administers 

4 DNR Office of Habitat Management and Permitting became the Division of Habitat, a part of ADF&G, effective 

July 1, 2008, as a result of Executive Order 114. 

HDR-249-R11012F 17



Participating Agency 

(Corps) 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 

Sector Juneau (17-37360) 

Jurisdiction/Expertise 

the Rivers and Harbors Act and the Clean Water Act. Regulatory authority is 

based on Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (22 USC 403), 

which prohibits the obstruction or alteration of navigable waters of the U.S.5 

without a permit from the Corps; and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 

which prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the 

U.S., including wetlands, without a Corps permit. 

The USCG is responsible for approval of the location and plans of bridges 

and causeways constructed across navigable waters of the United States. 

1.3.2 Determination of Issues/Non-Issues 

Issues to be addressed in the EA were determined through a project scoping process and by 

implementing steps outlined in the USFWS NEPA Guidance to States participating in the 

Federal Aid Program. 

The USFWS guidance identifies impact categories (i.e., issue categories) that could potentially 

be analyzed in the EA. The guidance indicates that the EA should only include descriptions of 

biological, physical, social, and economic conditions pertinent to the actions addressed in the 

alternatives section and the impacts addressed in the environmental consequences chapters. In 

other words, the EA should not include a description of the environment at large. 

Based on careful consideration of agency and public comments, and preliminary research and 

field investigations, some impact topics listed in the guidance document are not included in the 

EA. Table 1-4 lists those categories that were excluded from analysis in this EA because they 

either do not pertain to the project or have not risen to a level of importance to merit inclusion in 

the analysis. 

5 Waters of the U.S. include water bodies regulated by Corps, including wetlands, navigable waters, lakes, ponds, 

and streams. 

HDR-249-R11012F 18

Animal Welfare 

Coastal Barriers 

Coastal Zone 

Resource Category 

Economic Effects 

Energy/Mineral Resources 

Environmental Justice 

Exotic or Non-indigenous Species 

Farmland (prime or unique) 

Floodplains 

Indian Sacred Sites or Trust 

Resources 

International Effects 

Table 1-4 Impact Categories Excluded from EA Analysis 



Rationale for Exclusion 

The proposed project would not effect the treatment of dogs, cats and other 

animals used for research, experimentation, exhibition, sale purposes, or 

treatment of animals during transportation in commerce. 

There are no coastal barriers in Alaska. 

The proposed project lies within the coastal zone. The State of Alaska no 

longer has a coastal management program. Therefore, the proposed project 

will be reviewed for consistency with the Coastal Management Act. 

The harbor is adjacent to local business, a private harbor, and residents. 

There could be potential impacts to business, both positive and negative. 

However, because Statter Harbor is an existing facility, economic impacts 

would not be significant, so a detailed analysis will not be completed. 

The EA does not address impacts to energy/mineral resources because the 

project would not affect energy/mineral resources. 

The EA does not address environmental justice because there are no 

environmental justice populations that would be disproportionally or 

adversely affected by the project. 

The project would not promote the introduction of exotic or non-indigenous 

species to the project area. Fill material would be used during construction of 

the proposed improvements. Best management practices (BMPs) to avoid the 

introduction of exotic or non-indigenous species will be identified during the 

permitting phase. 

There are no unique or prime farmlands in the State of Alaska. 

The EA does not address impacts to floodplains because floodplain functions 

would not be impacted by the project. 

Indian Sacred Sites or Trust Resources are not located in the project area. 

The project would not have an international effect. 

Soil Effects 

The EA does not address impacts to soil because the project will not have an 

impact on soils. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers There are no wild and scenic rivers in the project area (NPS 2008). 

Wastes (hazardous and solid) 

The project will not generate hazardous or solid waste beyond the local 

landfill’s handling capability. 

HDR-249-R11012F 19




HDR-249-R11012F 20



2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 

2.1 Purpose for Action 

The purpose of the proposed Statter Harbor Improvements Project is to improve safety and 

reduce congestion by increasing harbor efficiency through incorporation of improvement plans 

identified in the Statter Harbor Master Plan. The project’s purpose to improve safety and 

efficiency is driven by the needs for: 

• Safe access to the harbor 

• Improved pedestrian access 

• Adequate onsite parking 

• Increased boat launch capacity and 

efficiency 

• Reduced congestion 

• Separated user groups 

Satisfying these needs would act to meet existing user demand. The need for proposed 

improvement plans are further illustrated in Figure 2-1. 

Under existing conditions, commercial boats, recreational motorboats, and kayaks share a 

deteriorated two-lane boat launch in a congested area, which creates unsafe conditions and 

results in long waiting times. The use of the existing launch facility is limited during low tides 

because the concrete ramp surface does not extend to sufficient water depth. The inability for 

boat launch operations to occur during extreme low tides causes traffic backups in the parking 

lot. Additionally, some of the harbor’s older moorage facilities are in need of repair or 

replacement. 

The Statter Harbor Improvements Project purpose and need and related concerns are summarized 

in Table 2-1. A detailed discussion of the improvement needs as identified during the planning 

process is summarized in the sections that follow. 

Table 2-1 Summary of Purpose of and Need for Proposed Statter Harbor Improvements 

Purpose Need Concern 

Provide safe access Existing access drive from Glacier Highway is unsafe. 

to harbor 

Improve 

Safety 

Reduce 

Congestion/ 

Increase 

Efficiency 

Improve safety of 

pedestrian access 

Provide adequate 

onsite parking 

Increase boat launch 

capacity 

Separate user groups 

The existing parking and facility layout does not provide adequate pedestrian 

walkways to separate automobile and pedestrian traffic and therefore 

presents safety concerns. 

Existing users are often forced to park offsite in potentially unsafe areas, 

such as along Glacier Highway, along the Back Loop Road, and across the 

highway at the Auke Bay Elementary School. These offsite parking options 

will not be available in the near future and only 22 trailer stalls are available 

onsite. 

Facility users experience long wait times to use the existing boat launch due 

to high use and inability to conduct launch operations during extreme low 

tides. 

Conflicts between “light” commercial users and recreational users often 

arise; separation would minimize this problem. 

HDR-249-R11012F 21




HDR-249-R11012F 22

Lack of pedestrian pathways to connect offsite 

parking to harbor creates safety concerns 

Insufficient vehicle/trailer parking stalls forces overflow 

parking onto Backloop Road and other offsite locations, 

causing unsafe conditions along roadways. It also 

increases time for launch and retrieve operations. 


!O 

rj 

Overflow parking from existing harbor 

spills onto Glacier Hwy, Backloop Rd, 

and Auke Bay Elementary School 

parking lot and creates safety concerns. 

BACKLOOP RD 




The Need for 


Figure 2-1 

LEGEND 

rj Conflict Areas 

Insufficient Parking 

!O Areas 

Overflow Parking 

Motorized and non-motorized boats launching from the same 

boat ramp causes conflicts and creates unsafe conditions 

Existing boat launch ramp cannot be used 

by motor boats during extreme low tides 

Intersection into harbor identified by ADOT&PF 

as a safety concern due to limited visibility 

and substandard stopping sight distances 

One-way access to boat launch ramp creates 

congestion and long wait times for users 

Lack of pedestrian/vehicle separation 

creates conflicts and safety concerns 

!O 

rj 

rj 

!O 

rj 


rj 

AUKE BAY 

HARBOR RD 

Ë 

Feet 

0 75 150 225 300 



Sources: PND, HDR, 


Date: May 19, 2011




HDR-249-R11012F 24



2.2 Need for Action 

2.2.1 Safe Access to Harbor 

The current access driveway into Statter Harbor, located next to the DeHart’s Convenience Store 

off Glacier Highway, has been a safety concern of Alaska Department of Transportation and 

Public Facilities (DOT&PF) for many years (DOT&PF 2008). The access driveway’s limited 

visibility and less than desirable stopping sight distance (SSD) cause unsafe conditions (Figure 

2-1). For example, the Statter Harbor driveway currently has an up-hill grade for vehicles exiting 

the facility, which results in slow-moving boat trailers entering Glacier Highway. These slowmoving 

vehicles pose a risk as they cross traffic onto Glacier Highway heading west, as well as 

those trying to accelerate up grade if heading east. These conditions are further exacerbated by 

the poor stopping sight distances at the driveway intersection. 

In addition to being located on a curve with poor stopping distances, the driveway’s location is 

further complicated by its proximity to the Back Loop Road intersection. The ABCOR study 

identifies the intersection of the existing access with Glacier Highway as an area of conflict for 

vehicular traffic (Figure 2-2). The intersection of the Glacier Highway and Back Loop Road has 

a high collision rate and significant rear-end collision frequency (USKH 2004). The ABCOR 

study identified the need to upgrade plans at the intersection by potentially constructing a 

roundabout (USKH 2004). The DOT&PF is currently developing a project that would include 

construction of a roundabout at the Glacier Highway and Back Loop Road 

intersection (USKH 2009). 

EXISTING ACCESS DRIVE 

Existing access to Statter Harbor is unsafe due 

to less than desirable stopping sight distances. 

Figure 2-2. Existing Driveway Access to Statter Harbor from Glacier Highway 

HDR-249-R11012F 25



The need for improved access to Statter Harbor, primarily as it relates to safety, has been 

identified through various planning efforts. The proposed project improvements for Statter 

Harbor would change the current traffic patterns in Auke Bay by relocating Glacier Highway 

access to the boat launch. A new driveway for vehicles with boat trailers would alleviate some of 

the safe access concerns shared by the DOT&PF. 

2.2.1.1 Design criteria 

Access driveways to boat launch facilities typically consist of two lanes totaling 24 feet in 

drivable width (PND 2011a). Additional width will be necessary for turning lanes, drainage 

ditches, shoulders, pedestrian walkways, etc. Access driveways should be designed provided to 

allow for maximum visibility and adequate stopping sight distances with grades less than 10% 

(PND 2011a). 

2.2.2 Improved Pedestrian Access 

The existing pedestrian access to and within Statter Harbor has been identified as a safety 

concern (Figure 2-3). The existing harbor parking and facility layout has few pedestrian 

walkways to separate automobile and pedestrian traffic. The ABCOR study identified safety 

concerns associated with pedestrian traffic crossing Glacier Highway; and indicated many 

pedestrians in the area are harbor users who park offsite (USKH 2004). 

Figure 2-3. DOT&PF Safety Issues at Statter Harbor Access Driveway (USKH 2004) 

As discussed below in Section 2.2.3, harbor users often park offsite due to limited onsite parking. 

The Auke Bay Elementary School, located on the north side of Glacier Highway, is used as 

overflow parking for vehicles with trailers. There are no pedestrian pathways to connect these 

unmarked offsite parking areas to Statter Harbor. The lack of pedestrian walkways causes the 

existing boat launch users to walk along the access drive from the boat launch ramp to Glacier 

Highway, walk west along the highway, and cross the highway to retrieve their vehicles. 

HDR-249-R11012F 26



Providing pedestrian walkways and a seawalk along the harbor and Bay Creek would improve 

safety conditions at Statter Harbor. 


Harbors need to provide pathways as a safe route for pedestrians moving from parking areas to 

harbor facilities. Pedestrian pathways at Statter Harbor should provide safe travel between 

parking areas and boat launch ramp, seawalk, and Bay Creek access trail. 

2.2.3 Adequate Onsite Parking 

Statter Harbor does not currently have adequate parking for harbor users. Onsite parking at 

Statter Harbor is often full and the existing insufficient parking facilities at Statter Harbor cause 

users to park in unsigned and/or non-delineated spaces, such as along the Glacier Highway 

(Figure 2-4), thereby creating safety concerns. Harbor users also commonly park along the 

eastern and western shoulders of Back Loop Road; in a gravel parking lot (i.e., Horton Lot area) 

on the south side of Glacier Highway; and at Auke Bay Elementary School, which is located on 

the north side of Glacier Highway. Insufficient onsite vehicle/trailer parking also increases time 

for launch and retrieve operations. The current parking configuration does not provide adequate 

onsite parking and safe access to the harbor for vehicles or pedestrians. 

Insufficient parking at Statter Harbor results in users parking 

in unsafe areas such as along Back Loop Road. View looking 

south toward Glacier Highway intersection. 

Figure 2-4. Statter Harbor Patrons Parked along Back Loop Road 

There are several reasons why the existing overflow parking situation for Statter Harbor users is 

inadequate. Most importantly, it is simply not safe for cars, trucks, and trailers to park on the 

shoulder of Glacier Highway and Back Loop Road. These roads were not designed to have 

vehicles parked on their shoulders and do not provide pedestrians with safe access to the harbor. 

The DOT&PF opposes use of these roads’ shoulders for parking (DOT&PF 2009). Moreover, 

DOT&PF plans to improve the roads near the harbor by increasing road widths and adding a 

roundabout (i.e., traffic circle) at the intersection of Glacier Highway and Back Loop Road 

(DOT&PF 2009). Continued use of the shoulders of these roads for overflow parking will not be 

provided as part of planned road improvements. 

HDR-249-R11012F 27



Although there has been ongoing use of the Auke Bay School parking lot by harbor patrons for 

years, the harbor does not have a formal agreement with the Juneau School District for this use 

(JSD 2009). The Juneau School District is unable to enter into any formal agreement with the 

Harbor that would allow permanent use of the school parking lot for overflow parking 

(JSD 2009). Furthermore, the parking lot will not be consistently available for overflow parking 

in the short term, due to upcoming remodeling activities planned for Auke Bay School 

(JSD 2009). Construction is scheduled to begin during the summer of 2011 and will continue for 

two to three years. During construction, the parking lot will be occupied by the building 

contractor and materials. In the long term, the school district is concerned with Statter Harbor 

overflow use of its facility and the conflicting needs of existing summer programs 6 (JSD 2009). 

Therefore, overflow parking at Auke Bay School will not be available during the short term or 

long term. 

PND conducted a preliminary parking assessment at Statter Harbor and adjacent offsite parking 

to determine the number of vehicle-trailer parking stalls necessary to meet existing parking 

demand (PND 2008a). PND gathered field counts of the existing parking spaces used or 

available in the harbor vicinity. Existing onsite parking includes the original Statter Harbor lot, 

DeHart’s Marina, and DeHart’s boat yard. Offsite parking areas include Horton’s Lot, Auke Bay 

Elementary School, and road shoulders of the Back Loop Road. 

At present, Statter Harbor can accommodate 22 vehicle-trailer combination stalls onsite and 

another 66 offsite7, for a total of 88 existing vehicle-trailer stalls (Table 2-2; PND 2008a). 

However, on busy weekends parking has been observed farther up Back Loop Road and along 

side streets, suggesting that peak parking demand is greater than 88 stalls 8 . Based on PND’s 

capacity estimates, existing onsite and offsite parking areas provide space for approximately 

209 9 passenger vehicles, 88 vehicles with trailers, 8 boats, and 6 vans (Table 2-2). It is important 

to note that the impact from the combined loss of Statter Harbor’s current offsite parking (i.e., 

Auke Bay School and DOT&PF road shoulders) will decrease Statter Harbor’s vehicle-trailer 

capacity to 30 stalls as early as summer 2011 (PND 2011a). 

6 Summer programs at Auke Bay School include RALLY (childcare), summer school classes, and BASE programs 

(for at risk students; JSD 2009). 

7 The locations where vehicles can park are not necessarily delineated as parking spaces, such as road shoulders; 

therefore, the number of spaces provided is only an estimate of vehicle capacity (PND 2008a). 

8 As part of the capacity study PND estimated that on a typical summer weekday, all of the onsite parking spaces 

and overflow parking spaces along the shoulders were occupied, and that approximately 75% of the parking spaces 

at Auke Bay School were occupied. 

9 PND did not determine how many passenger vehicles were using Statter Harbor at the time of the survey. It is 

probable that some portion of passenger vehicles parked in these areas were not using Statter Harbor. Therefore, the 

number of passenger vehicle spaces needed to accommodate Statter Harbor users may be fewer than 209. 

HDR-249-R11012F 28



Table 2-2 Summary of Existing Onsite and Offsite Parking for Statter Harbor Users 

Existing Onsite Parking Capacity 

Cars Trailers Boats Vans 

Original Statter Harbor Lot 92 22 — 3 

DeHart’s Marina and Boat Yard 23 — 8 3 

Onsite Parking Totals 115 22 8 6 

Existing Offsite Parking Capacity Estimate 


Horton Lot and ROW 63 8 — — 

Auke Bay Elementary School 25 30 — — 

Back Loop Road: East shoulder 3 18 — — 

Back Loop Road: West shoulder 3 10 — 3 

Offsite Parking Totals 94 66 — — 

Existing Parking Capacity Estimates for Statter Harbor Users 


Onsite Parking Totals 115 22 8 6 

Offsite Parking Totals 94 66 — — 

Total Parking Capacity 209 88 8 6 

Offsite parking contributes to the harbor’s overall inefficiency. For example, users who launch 

their boat at Statter Harbor but cannot park onsite must leave their boat tied up along the 

boarding float while finding an offsite parking space and returning to the facility. USKH (2011) 

estimated the extra time spent parking and retrieving vehicles reduces the capacity of each float 

by 0.9 boats per hour. This inefficient process results in congestion at the launch ramp and users 

having to wait longer than would otherwise be necessary to perform launch and retrieve 

operations. 


It is assumed that each boat launching activity that occurs at Statter Harbor will result in the need 

to park a vehicle trailer combination, and that this need should be provided as part of the new 

facility. Under the funding agreements for this project, the construction of a boat launch requires 

a minimum number of parking spaces for each boat launch lane. The ADF&G uses SOBA 

guidelines for Alaska facilities (2006). These guidelines recommend that 50 vehicle trailer stalls 

be provided for each lane of the boat launch ramp in high-use areas, such as Statter Harbor. 

Therefore, the proposed two-lane boat launch ramp would require a minimum of 100 vehicle 

trailer stalls. Additionally, the Oregon State Marine Board (OSMB) recommends meeting the 

peak day demand and the USKH (2011) and McDowell (2010) studies support expanding the 

existing 88 parking stalls to 100 to achieve this recommendation. The Corps recommends 

providing 100 pull-through lanes for a two-lane boat launch ramp. Based on well established 

guidelines and site specific studies conducted for this project, the proposed two-lane boat launch 

ramp should provide a minimum of 100 vehicle-trailer stalls (Table 2-3). These stalls would be 

in addition to passenger-only vehicle stalls. 

HDR-249-R11012F 29

Source 

ADF&G (2006) 

SOBA (2006) 

OSMB 

(1992, 2003) 

Table 2-3 Trailer Parking Stall Recommendation 

Trailer Stalls Recommended for 

Two-Lane Boat Launch Ramp 

40 minimum, 100 preferred 

60—100 depending on turnover 

rate (lower turnover rates, i.e., 

boats in the water for long periods 

of time, require more stalls) 

Meet peak day demand 



Comments/Rationale 

Meets ADFG design guidance for high 

use facility 

Low turnover rates at Statter Harbor 

would require the greater number of 

stalls 

USKH (2011) and McDowell (2010) 

studies support expanding inadequate 

existing 88 parking stalls 

Corps (1974) 100 pull-through lanes Meets Corps design guidance 

Recommendation 

for Trailer Stalls 

100 

Satisfies all established guidelines and 

site specific demand studies 

McDowell (2010) reports that 52% of the vessels launched in the CBJ are over 18 feet in length. 

Approximately 60% of the vehicles used to launch vessels greater than 19 in length (McDowell 

2010) 10 . Trailers used for transport are longer than the vessel hauled, and the boat motor 

typically adds a few feet to the vessel length. Therefore, trailer spaces on average should be 

roughly 5 feet longer than vessel length. Based on these findings, at least 75% of the vehicle 

trailer stalls should be sized 12 feet by 50 feet and the remaining stalls should be the minimum 

size of 10 feet by 40 feet (ADF&G 2006). 

The OSMB recommends providing passenger only vehicle stalls to support trailer operations. 

These guidelines recommend 30% of the total number of vehicle-trailer stalls should be provided 

for car parking stalls. Based on the recommendation that 100 vehicle-trailer stalls be provided, a 

total of 30 car parking stalls would be necessary (PND 2011a). 

In addition to passenger only vehicle stalls to support trailer operations, the Statter Harbor 

Improvements project will require an adequate number of car parking stalls to support vessel 

moorage use for both Statter Harbor and DeHart’s Marina. Based on design guidelines (Table 

2-4) the average recommended number of car parking stalls required to meet the moorage use 

demands of this site would be 208 stalls, or 238 stalls when both boat ramp and moorage users 

are considered. There is already capacity for 159 car parking stalls at Statter Harbor and 

DeHart’s Marina. Therefore, an additional 79 car parking stalls (49 for vessel slips and 30 for 

boat launch ramp) would need to be planned with the development of any onsite boat launch 

ramp at Statter Harbor. 

10 A mail survey was sent to a list of 2010 launch ramp permit holders in the CBJ; competed surveys were received 

from 204 launch ramp users (McDowell 2010). 

HDR-249-R11012F 30

Source 

ASCE 

DOT&PF 

Corps 



Table 2-4 Car Parking Stall Recommendations Specific to Moorage Use 

Car Stalls Recommended 

for Boat Ramp Use 

0.75:1 parking stalls: vessel 

stalls 

0.5 to 0.8 parking stalls: 

vessel stalls 

0.75:1 parking stalls: vessel 

stalls 

Recommendation for Car Stalls Specific 

to Moorage Use 

Application of Design 

Guidelines to Statter Harbor 

Comments/Rationale 

218 Meets ASCE design guidance 

188 Used average ratio = 0.65:1 

218 

Used Corps normal vessel 

distribution ratio(3:1 recommended 

for larger vessels) 

208 Average of all guidelines 

2.2.3.2 Increased Boat Launch Capacity and Efficiency 

Statter Harbor currently has a two-lane boat launch ramp that is in deteriorated condition. 

Concrete ramp planks are heavily spalled and exhibit exposed rebar. The ramp is too short and 

currently not usable at all tidal levels and the timber boarding float is at the end of its useful life 

(Figure 2-5). Statter Harbor’s boat launch ramp is situated in a congested area, near the base of 

the only existing access driveway into the harbor (Figure 2-1). Providing a modern double-lane 

boat launch ramp with sufficient ramp depth and length for launch and retrieve operations to 

meet current demand has been identified as a need for Statter Harbor. 

Existing boat launch ramp has spalled 

concrete ramp planks and exposed rebar. 

Figure 2-5. Existing Condition of Boat Launch Ramp’s Concrete Ramp Planks 

Permanent and temporary moorage slips and boat trailer, passenger, and commercial vehicle 

parking are located on either side of the existing boat launch ramp (Figure 1-2). A boat yard 

facility and boat haul-out are located just east of the boat launch ramp (Figure 1-2). The spatial 

location of the existing boat-launch ramp and its congested nature result in unsafe and inefficient 

conditions in the harbor. The process of launching and retrieving boats at the existing boat 

launch ramp is challenging and intimidating. 

HDR-249-R11012F 31



Harbor users are often required to wait for long periods to use the boat launch ramp, especially 

from May through September during sport-fishing and hunting seasons, weekends, and extreme 

low tides. The existing boat launch ramp cannot be used by motor boats during extreme low tides 

due to the limited extent of the ramp planks (Figure 2-6). Further, the lack of adequate makeready 

and tie-down areas results in longer queue times. 

Existing boat launch ramp does not extend into the lower tidal 

range, and cannot be used by motor boats during extreme low tides. 

Figure 2-6. Existing Boat Launch Ramp 

The CBJ first began charging fees for launching in 1985. Since 1985, boat launch use has 

increased dramatically, with most of the growth occurring during the late 1980s and 1990s 

(Stone 2009a). In 1986, 523 boat launch permits were issued for Statter Harbor. In 2008, the 

harbor issued 1,497 permits (Stone 2009a). This represents nearly a 300% increase since the 

original facility was built. 

In 1986, the State of Alaska replaced the float system and constructed the current Statter Harbor 

float system to accommodate the overall increase in harbor use. The harbor was upgraded to 

provide 300 stalls for boats compared to the previous capacity of 20 boats (Stone 2009a). 

Moorage activity has increased about 1,500% over the past 25 years (Stone 2009a). 

The CBJ recently collected additional launch ramp user information through a user survey 

(McDowell 2010) and capacity and efficiency study (USKH 2011). The intent of these efforts 

was to determine user demand and capacity in the overall Juneau area and specifically to 

evaluate efficiency and capacity at Statter and Amalga Harbors. The McDowell survey found 

that most launch ramp users (80%) agreed that the Statter Harbor launch ramp is overcrowded, 

with two-thirds (67%) of all survey respondents reporting that the Statter Harbor launch ramp is 

the CBJ’s most crowded launch facility (2010). When asked if CBJ launch ramp facilities needed 

more trailer parking, nearly three-quarters (73%) of all launch ramp users reported that Statter 

Harbor needed much more – by far, the highest percentage of any of the existing launch 

facilities. 

Additionally, nearly two-thirds of survey respondents (63%) reported that at least sometimes 

they use a different ramp than their preferred ramp because of overcrowding at Statter Harbor. It 

HDR-249-R11012F 32



is likely that some portion of launches at other facilities (especially at Amalga Harbor) would 

have taken place at Statter Harbor if not for issues such as crowding and low tides. Nearly half of 

all Amalga Harbor launch ramp users reported that the primary reason they used that harbor was 

that it was less crowded. Observations were made of west-bound vehicle-trailer users slowing on 

approach to Statter, viewing activity at the facility, then driving past, presumably to Amalga 

(USKH 2011). Moreover, USKH (2011) data also found substantial impacts on Amalga 

operations likely from avoidance or overflow from Statter Harbor. 

2.2.3.3 Design criteria – launch ramp and boarding floats 

While the launch ramp length is site dependent, it is important to provide adequate water depth at 

the lowest anticipated tide. In Juneau, extreme low water (ELW) is -5.0 feet mean lower low 

water (MLLW). The preferred toe of the launch ramp elevation is therefore -5.0 feet MLLW. A 

ramp in Juneau would require a minimum 10 feet of riprap runoff beyond the toe of the concrete 

ramp to maintain safe launching operations during all tidal stages and prevent scour. The grade 

of the boat launch ramp should be designed between 12 to 15% to allow for a steep enough slope 

to float a boat from the trailer before the tow vehicle tires reach the water, yet not so steep that 

ramp surface traction becomes an issue. 

Boarding floats are provided to expedite the launch and retrieval process and for the convenience 

of the boater loading passengers and gear. The minimum design width for the boarding float is 

60 inches with a clear travel path minimum of 36 inches (including all railings and projections). 

Internal pile hoops with 12-inch diameter piles will be necessary to moor the float while 

allowing for access on both sides of the float at all tidal levels. The boarding float is anticipated 

to be 96 inches wide to withstand wind, wave, current and impact loading. The boarding float 

should be designed to accommodate five spaces per ramp lane, or ten spaces for two-lane ramps 

at all tidal levels. The CBJ recently completed a capacity and efficiency study (USKH 2011) that 

suggested it may be acceptable to reduce this to three float spaces per lane at low tide to 

accommodate average traffic. 

2.2.3.4 Design criteria – make-ready and tie-down areas 

Boat launch facilities should be designed and constructed so that capacity is constrained only by 

the ramp operations, or launch and retrieve activities. That is to say, enough make-ready and tiedown 

space should be provided to accommodate traffic as quickly as it can move through the 

ramp. Adequate space for these activities allows for the highest possible usage of each ramp. 

For the make-ready and tie-down areas, it is important that these activities take place as close to 

the top of the ramps as possible. Adequate space to make several boats ready and safe to launch 

upon approaching the ramp from the access road is a fundamental need. Boats must be unlashed 

from their trailers, mooring lines must be readied, passengers and gear must be unloaded from 

the vehicles and safely transitioned to the boarding float before launching occurs. Upon retrieval 

from the water, boats are landed on the trailer and transported up the ramp to a tie down area. At 

the tie down area boats and equipment are secured and lashed properly to the trailer before 

leaving the harbor and safely transporting along a public highway. It should also be noted that 

while make-ready and tie-down activities can take place in the same general maneuvering areas 

at the top of the ramp, they may be occurring concurrently so each activity (make-ready and tiedown) 

would need its own, separate areas. 

HDR-249-R11012F 33



The CBJ’s capacity and efficiency study (USKH 2011) also included recommendations for the 

number of make-ready and tie-down spots for boat launch ramp facilities in the Juneau area. In 

order to make full use of the capacity of each ramp lane, harbor facilities should be sized as 

follows: 

• Two make-ready spots should be provided per ramp lane (three spots for two-lane ramps) 

• Two tie-down spots should be provided per ramp lane (three spots for two-lane ramps) 

Accordingly, the CBJ intends to include a minimum of three make-ready and three tie-down 

spots. 

An adequate maneuvering area at the top of the ramp is an important aspect of maintaining flow 

of vehicular-trailer traffic at boat launch facilities. Where a circle is used, it is recommended that 

a 60-foot minimum outside diameter travel way be constructed providing the driver with 

sufficient visibility within the ramp area. 

2.2.4 Separate User Facilities 

The need to separate user groups to increase safety and efficiency was identified during public 

meetings and key user workgroups held in 2002 and 2003 (ABLF planning efforts) and in 2005 

(Statter Harbor Master Planning efforts). As previously described, it was resolved through these 

planning processes to relocate the heavier loading operations away from Statter Harbor to the 

ABLF. The ABLF would serve commercial loading fishing operations and light cargo, while 

moorage, recreational and passenger for-hire users would remain at Statter Harbor (PND 

2006) 11 . 

User facilities separation was intended to: increase safety; increase infrastructure support for 

commercial fisheries and related businesses in Juneau; allow tourism business to grow while 

keeping impacts separate from other harbor users; provide a safe and secure regional freight 

facility; and allow an increase of recreational use of Statter Harbor. 

The need to separate the existing users at Statter Harbor has also been identified to increase the 

safety and efficiency of harbor operations. The existing boat launch ramp at Statter Harbor is 

currently used by commercial and recreational motor boats and non-motorized boats (Figure 

2-7). Shared use at this site presents safety concerns and often creates conflicts among the varied 

user groups. Commercial tour and passenger for-hire groups currently utilize the unoccupied 

portion of the Statter Harbor float system. To support use of the harbor by commercial tour 

groups, a commercial loading float, or passenger-for hire boarding float has been identified as a 

proposed improvement by the Master Plan. 

11 It is likely that relatively few commercial vessels would continue to use Statter Harbor once the ABLF is 

complete and the benefits resulting from the separation of users would be realized. 

HDR-249-R11012F 34



Non-motorized and motorized (commercial tour operators 

and recreational) users sharing the existing boat launch 

ramp. Photograph taken midday, during the week. 

Figure 2-7. Non-motorized and Motorized Patrons Using a Single Launch Ramp 

2.3 Design Requirements 

Table 2-5 summarizes design criteria of the project components (both water dependent and not 

water dependent) that are necessary in order for the project to achieve its purpose and meet the 

stated needs. These requirements are based on state and federal guidelines, site-specific studies, 

and publically available data. Criteria specific to parking were determined based on the 

following sources: 

• ADF&G boat ramp planning guide (ADF&G 2006) 

• Design handbook for recreational boating and fishing facilities (SOBA 2006) 

• OSMB layout and design guidance for recreational boating facilities (OSMB 1992, 2003) 

• Corps’ Coastal Engineering Research Center’s design , construction, and operation 

guidance for small-craft harbors (Corps 1974) 

• American Society of Civil Engineers planning and guidance for small craft harbors 

(ASCE Rev Ed) 

• Alaska DOT&PF’s coastal and harbor design procedures manual (2004) 

• CBJ launch ramp survey and demand forecast (McDowell 2010) 

• Launch ramp capacity and efficiency study (USKH 2011) 

HDR-249-R11012F 35



Project Component 

Access drive 

Pedestrian Access 

Parking 

Two-lane boat 

launch: 

Grade & tidal access 

Two-lane boat 

launch: 

Boarding floats 

Two-lane boat 

launch: 

Vehicle turnaround 

Two-lane boat 

launch: 

Make-ready and tiedown 

areas 

Table 2-5 Summary of Design Criteria for Project Components to Meet Project’s Purpose and Need 

Design Criteria 

Access drive to boat launch facilities typically consist of two lanes totaling 24 feet in drivable width 

Requires additional width for turning lanes, drainage ditches, shoulders, pedestrian walkways, etc. 

Access drive should allow for maximum visibility and adequate stopping sight distances with grades less than 10 percent 

Should provide safe travel for pedestrians between parking areas and harbor facilities 

Assumes each boat launching activity requires space for a vehicle trailer combination 

Provide 100 vehicle trailer stalls in addition to passenger vehicle stalls (SOBA and ADF&G guidelines recommendation that each boat 

launch ramp lane provides 50 vehicle trailer stalls in high-use areas, such as Statter Harbor) 

Vehicle trailers stall dimensions should be 12 feet by 50 feet where possible, otherwise 10 feet by 40 feet 

Provide 30 passenger-only vehicle stalls (OSMB guidelines) 

Replace 49 existing car parking stalls that support vessel moorage use (averages ASCE, Corps and DOT&PF guidelines) 

Provides access to adequate water depth at the lowest anticipated tide -5.0-feet MLLW in Juneau 

Requires 10-foot minimum riprap runoff beyond toe of concrete ramp to maintain safe launching operations at all tidal stages and 

prevent scour 

Ramp grade should be designed between 12-15 percent to allow for a steep enough slope to float a boat from the trailer before the tow 

vehicle tires reach the water, yet not so steep that ramp surface traction becomes an issue 

Minimum design width is 60 inches with a clear travel path minimum of 36 inches (including all railings and projections) 

Internal pile hoops with 12-inch diameter piles necessary to allow for access on both sides of the float at all tidal levels 

Anticipated that 96 inches wide would withstand wind, wave, current and impact loading 

Accommodate five spaces per ramp lane, or ten spaces for two-lane ramps at all tidal levels 

Adequate turnaround and/or maneuvering areas to maintain flow of vehicular-trailer traffic at boat launch facilities 

Recommends a 60-foot minimum outside diameter travel way in ramp area to provide driver with sufficient visibility 

Barrier-free areas should be a minimum of 15 feet by 56 feet 

Make-ready and tie-down spots need to occur close to the ramps; each requires its own, separate spot. 

Recommends two make-ready spots be provided per ramp lane (three spots for two-lane ramps; USKH 2011) 

Recommends two tie-down spots be provided per ramp lane (three spots for two-lane ramps; USKH 2011) 

HDR-249-R11012F 36



3.0 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY 

Based on previous planning efforts, public and agency scoping, and preliminary engineering, two 

build concepts 12 were originally developed. The two initial build concepts, Concepts 1 and 2, 

and a No-Action concept, Concept 3, were presented to agencies and the public for comment 

during the NEPA scoping period in 2008 13 . Section 3.1 provides a brief summary of the scoping 

process. 

Six additional build concepts were developed in response to comments received during the 

scoping period and subsequent review periods of the Preliminary Draft EA. Comments received 

on the Draft EA recommended an additional concept and multiple project features for 

consideration. Additionally, resource agency personnel requested that the CBJ analyze the 

feasibility of incorporating offsite or adjacent upland parcels to support parking needs. In 

response, the CBJ conducted the Uplands Alternatives Analysis under which a number of 

alternative locations were considered (PND 2011a, Appendix B). Section 3.2 summarizes the 

process undertaken to analyze the feasibility of using offsite or adjacent upland parcels to 

support parking needs. 

Section 3.3 describes the ten concepts (includes the no build concept) and project features 

considered. In addition to the eight build concepts analyzed in the Draft EA, this section 

describes the additional concept and project features considered after publication of the Draft 

EA. Section 3.3 also identifies the screening criteria for specific project components in an effort 

to determine which design concepts should be further developed for detailed impact analysis 

(i.e., determined to be feasible and met the project’s intended purpose and need). Finally, Section 

3.3 summarizes the results of the screening of the build concepts against each of the criteria. The 

conceptual design process found that development of one design concept (Concept 6) would not 

be feasible. Therefore, the remaining eight build concepts were carried forward for screening. 

Table 3-1 provides a summary of the eight build concepts considered and screened. 

In summary, two concepts were carried forward for detailed impact analysis. Concept 3 is the 

No-Action Alternative (Section 4.1) analyzed in this EA. Based on screening results, Concept 9 

was identified as the only build concept that would meet the project’s purpose and need, was 

considered feasible, and that could be designed to meet required or recommended design criteria. 

Therefore, Concept 9 is being analyzed as the Proposed Action (Section 4.2). 

3.1 Scoping Summary 

3.1.1 The Formal Scoping Period 

Scoping is the first stage in the development of an environmental document. Scoping activities 

are designed to provide an opportunity for the public, local governments, and interested agencies 

to discuss the proposed project with project staff and participate in project development and 

review. This process provides opportunity to identify the project specific issues, availability of 

relevant information, the range of alternatives to be considered, and impacts that will be assessed 

in the EA. 

12 “Concepts” are preliminary designs that represent a full range of alternatives to be screened; concepts carried 

forward for detailed analysis are considered “project alternatives”. 

13 The Statter Harbor Improvements Project Scoping Summary Report (SSR) contains detailed results of the 

project’s scoping effort (HDR 2008). 

HDR-249-R11012F 37



Scoping activities were undertaken by PND on behalf of the CBJ and Sport Fish in June and July 

2008. The project team met with agencies, local residents, and business owners to solicit their 

input and a public open house was held on June 18, 2008, to discuss the project. Additionally, 

written and verbal comments were accepted during a 30-day comment period that began on 

June 18, 2008. A Scoping Summary Report (SSR) was finalized in September 2008 and contains 

detailed results of the project’s scoping effort (HDR 2008). 

There were five key issues raised during the scoping process: 

• Reasonable Range of Alternatives 

• Harbor Layout and Design 

• Traffic Safety, Access, Parking 

• Biological/Wildlife Resources 

• Social Effects 

3.1.2 Response to the Scoping Process 

The majority of comments received during the formal scoping period shared a common thread: 

while most comments were in favor of improving the safety and efficiency of Statter Harbor, 

many indicated that the footprint could be decreased to minimize potential impacts to the 

environment and adjacent landowners. Comments indicated that the uplands area should be used 

to provide parking, not retail space; the intertidal fill footprint should be smaller; and impacts to 

Bay Creek and the eelgrass beds should be avoided or minimized to the greatest extent 

practicable. 

In response to comments received during the scoping period, the project team invited agency 

personnel (NOAA Fisheries, ADF&G Habitat, and USFWS) to discuss potential design changes 

that would minimize impacts to eelgrass beds and Bay Creek. There were also discussions of 

potential mitigation opportunities to offset unavoidable impacts. A field reconnaissance meeting 

was held at the proposed project location on December 16, 2008, and again August 27, 2009. 

The project team worked with NOAA Fisheries, ADF&G Habitat, and USFWS to identify 

additional design options based on comments received during the scoping process. 

The project team developed Concepts 4 through 10 by incorporating 1) comments and 

suggestions on minimizing or avoiding impacts to Bay Creek and eelgrass beds; 2) comments 

received during the Scoping period and subsequent meetings; and 3) portions of improvements 

identified in the Statter Harbor Master Plan. 

3.2 Statter Harbor Offsite Upland Parking Alternatives 

In response to agency comments on the Draft EA, the project team reevaluated other locations 

for siting a launch ramp facility (as summarized in Section 1.2.1; Appendix B; PND 2011a). 

Finding no other locations useable or practicable, the project team worked to identify other 

upland alternatives for a facility at or near Statter Harbor that could meet the needs of the overall 

project purpose. A set of assumptions and criteria were established to determine 1) a reasonable 

extent of the area to be included for analysis, 2) a property’s ability to be purchased or 

“reasonably obtained”, and 3) the usability of potential properties. 

HDR-249-R11012F 38

3.2.1 Identification of Properties for Upland Parking Alternatives 



The following assumptions and criteria were used to determine the area of analysis, attainability, 

and usability of properties in the project area: 

• Area of analysis – An area within a 0.25-mile radius (centered on the top of the ramp) 

was used to identify properties for potential offsite upland parking. This distance was 

based on user willingness to park and walk from existing offsite areas, the farthest of 

which is on Mendenhall Loop Road, approximately 0.25 mile away (see Figure 3-1). 

However, the distance a user would have to walk from a parking facility located at the 

edges of the area of analysis could be much more than 0.25 mile when walking along 

streets and roadways. 

• Reasonably attainable – The availability of a property was used to define this criteria and 

a property was considered reasonably attainable or available if it was 1) owned by CBJ, 

2) was for sale on the market (i.e., was listed on the Multiple Listing Service [MLS]), or 

3) if the CBJ was aware of a willing seller offering property at the fair market value. 

• Usability – This criterion was defined as a property’s ability to be developed for the 

purposes of the project. Aspects considered included size, steepness, access, and presence 

of existing structures as follows: 

o Size: The project need for at least 100 vehicle trailer parking stalls requires a lot 

be at least 3 acres, or more, depending on the characteristics of the lot (e.g., shape, 

access, topography). Where applicable, multiple lots were considered if they were 

adjacent and met the other usability criteria. 

o Steepness: To allow for proper drainage of rain and snowmelt, parking areas 

should be graded to a finish grade of 2% (1:50). Where parking spaces are 

required to meet ADA accessibility standards for accessible design, parking 

spaces and access aisles shall be level with surface slopes not exceeding 2% in all 

directions (ADA 2002). Therefore, parcels with steep slopes were not considered 

because they would require significant excavation and preparation to be useable 

and to meet drainage and accessibility standards. 

o Access: Safe access should be provided where facility access roads intersect 

public roads. Adequate sight distances provide safe visibility for users accessing 

the facility. The grade of any access roadway or aisle should not exceed 10%. If 

access would be parallel with an ADA-accessible route, the maximum slope 

would be 1:12 (approximately 8%). 

o Existing structures: Based on discussions with the Corps, properties with existing 

structures (e.g., condominium complex, single-family dwelling, and business) did 

not need to be considered as usable. In general, this criterion was considered in 

relation to the other usability criteria because properties with existing structures 

were typically either not available or were too steep or not large enough 

(including adjacent lots) for consideration. For example, Fishermen’s Bend 

Marina was considered, but the existing uses and the lot size (it consists of 

multiple lots) conflicted with or was insufficient to meet the overall purpose of 

the project. 

HDR-249-R11012F 39



Figure 3-1. The Area for Analysis of Upland Parking Alternatives 

Note: Area encompassed a 0.25-mile radius around the proposed boat launch ramp location. 

3.2.2 Screening Results for Reasonably Attainable Properties 

3.2.2.1 CBJ-owned properties 

Ten upland properties within the area of analysis (Figure 3-2) were identified as belonging to the 

CBJ. Two of them are the existing Statter Harbor facilities (lots A12 and A53). Four of these 

parcels (lots A61, A62, A68, and A59) are planned for use as part of the proposed project. Lot 

A59 was recently purchased by the CBJ from a willing seller at fair market value in order to 

increase the upland acreage of the proposed project and thereby avoid 0.41 acres of impacts to 

waters of the U.S. 

Four other CBJ-owned properties were within the area of analysis; however, none of these 

properties would be considered developable due to current uses on those properties. These 

parcels include A63, the site of the Auke Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility; A35, the Auke 

Bay Fire Department; and A32 and A33, the Auke Bay Elementary School. 

HDR-249-R11012F 40



Figure 3-2. Parcel Map Showing CBJ Ownership and Lot Numbers for All Properties within 0.25-mile 

Radius of the Proposed Action 

3.2.2.2 Properties for sale on the market 

An MLS search for properties between Lena Cove and Mendenhall Peninsula was conducted on 

December 13, 2010 (PND 2011a, Appendix B). The search identified 19 properties, of which six 

were undeveloped parcels ranging from 0.25 to 1.6 acres in size. However, no properties within 

or adjacent to the area of analysis were listed for sale on the MLS. 

3.2.2.3 Unlisted properties 

The CBJ identified or was made aware of additional properties within the area of analysis that 

were not listed on the MLS. These properties were considered for analysis to determine if they 

were capable of being developed to meet the overall project purpose. Property owners were 

contacted to establish if there were willing sellers offering the property at fair market value. 

Properties considered included lots A77-79 (the Lindegaard Properties), undeveloped properties 

along the Glacier Highway west of Statter Harbor; lot A64, otherwise known as Fishermen’s 

Bend Marina; and lot A27, an undeveloped parcel off of Mendenhall Loop Road. Of these 

properties, only lots A77-79 and lot A27 passed the usability screening discussed in the 

following section. Fishermen’s Bend Marina had insufficient acreage (less than 2 acres) and 

currently supports an operational business. 

HDR-249-R11012F 41

3.2.3 Screening Results for Usability 



Based on screening results, four properties were identified as reasonably attainable. Usability of 

these properties was determined by asking the following yes/no questions: 

• Does the parcel size meet the project need? 

• Is the parcel topographically usable? 

• Is the property vacant? 

Asking these questions resulted in only one property that resulted in a “yes” for all three 

questions, and thereby met the usability criteria: lot A27 on Mendenhall Loop Road, which does 

not have a willing seller. Usability results produced no viable lots, by size, even if the criteria for 

a single lot was expanded to include multiple, adjacent lots. However, if the area of analysis was 

expanded slightly beyond the 0.25-mile radius, the Lindegaard property would also meet the 

usability criteria and has a willing seller. 

3.2.4 Summary of Findings 

Multiple sites were identified and reviewed as potential alternative locations for the non-waterdependent 

components of the proposed project. Once useable properties were identified, 

preliminary site development plans were created to better determine whether they would still 

meet the project needs and to provide a basis for a preliminary analysis of potential impacts 

(PND 2011a). Ultimately, one property was found to be both reasonably available and usable. 

Development of lots A77-79 (i.e., Lindegaard property), presented as Concept 10, was included 

as a design concept. 

3.3 Design Concepts for Statter Harbor 

Section 3.3.1 describes the ten design concepts (includes the no build concept) and project 

features considered. Eight of the nine build concepts were carried forward for screening. Section 

3.3.2 identifies the screening criteria used to determine the feasibility of development. Table 3-1 

provides a summary of the eight concepts considered and screened. Finally, this section 

summarizes results for each set of criteria under which the eight build concepts were screened. 

3.3.1 Design Concepts and Features Considered 

3.3.1.1 Design Concepts 1 and 2 

Concepts 1 and 2 would address all aspects of the Statter Harbor Master Plan (Section 1.2.2). 

These concepts have the same footprint but differ primarily in the layout and site use. Concept 1 

includes a small vessel marine haul-out facility (hydraulic trailer) and would maintain the 

existing marine support services yard (“boat yard”), and proposes retail lease space in the harbor 

area (Figure 3-3). Concept 2 proposes retail lease space in the harbor area and would include 

space for lease in place of the existing boat yard. Each concept would provide parking spaces for 

a total of 70 vehicles with trailers and 6 bus stalls. Concept 1 would provide a total of 26 stalls 

for passenger vehicles, while Concept 2 would provide 44 stalls for passenger vehicles. 

Although both concepts would minimize impacts to estuarine habitat by making use of areas 

previously dredged or filled, both concepts would require that roughly 6.0 acres of estuarine 

habitat would be filled (includes 0.13 acres of eelgrass and 0.42 acres of wetland habitats). Under 

either concept, fill would eliminate a portion of Bay Creek’s active alluvial fan and require Bay 

Creek be rerouted and channelized. Rerouting Bay Creek’s active channel further west could also 

HDR-249-R11012F 42



result in adverse impacts to a larger eelgrass bed located west of Bay Creek’s existing channel. 

Additionally, 0.18 acres of mapped wetland habitat (above tidal influence) would also be 

eliminated under either of these concepts. 

3.3.1.2 Concept 3 

Concept 3 was presented to the public and agencies during the scoping period as the no build 

concept, under which a new boat launch ramp would not be built and no changes would be made 

to Statter Harbor. Concept 3 was carried forward per NEPA requirements and is being analyzed 

as the No-Action Alternative (see Section 4.1) although it would not meet the project purpose 

and need. 

3.3.1.3 Design Concept 4 

Concept 4 was developed in response to public and agency comments received during the 

scoping period and subsequent consultation with agency personnel. Concept 4 was designed with 

the intent to minimize impacts to Bay Creek’s active estuarine channel complex, the intertidal 

zone, and eelgrass beds by reducing the size of the intertidal fill footprint and utilizing upland 

areas for parking and non-water-dependent activities (Figure 3-4). Concept 4 would address 

many of the components identified in the Statter Harbor Master Plan (Section 1.2.2). Concept 4 

proposed to: 

1. Construct a double-lane boat launch ramp and associated parking 

2. Construct a new access driveway from Glacier Highway for vehicles with trailers 

3. Construct a sea walk trail near Bay Creek 

4. Construct an armored slope to retain intertidal fill 

5. Reconfigure vehicular access and traffic circulation in the harbor 

6. Segregate kayak launch operations from motorboat launch operations 

7. Maintain the existing boat launch ramp to accommodate kayak and non-motorized boat 

use 

8. Relocate the existing shelter to create a scenic overlook 

9. Perform temporary limited maintenance on DeHart’s moorage floats 

10. Construct a restroom 

11. Install landscaped buffer areas near adjacent properties 

Under Concept 4, a total of 4.4 acres of estuarine habitat would be eliminated due to the 

placement of fill (includes 0.12 acres of eelgrass and 0.42 acres of wetland habitats). The fill 

footprint would extend into and eliminate approximately half the width of Bay Creek’s active 

intertidal channel complex (HDR 2010b). Although the natural channel migration process of Bay 

Creek’s intertidal flow would continue (i.e., flow would not be channelized), the flow would be 

forced further west. A total of 0.19 acres of mapped wetlands above tidal influence would also be 

eliminated under Concept 4. This concept would provide a total of 85 parking spaces for vehicles 

with trailers and 69 stalls for passenger vehicles. 

HDR-249-R11012F 43




HDR-249-R11012F 44

PARKING AND OTHER 

SERVICES SUMMARY 

• 70 Trailer Parking 

• 185 Passenger Vehicle Parking 

• 6 Charter and Tour Bus Parking 

• 0.45 Acre Lease Space 

• 0.83 Acre Boat Yard 


Seawalk 

Bus Stop 

Restrooms 

Passenger Vehicle 

Parking 

Trailer Parking 

BACKLOOP RD 




Design Concept 1 

(Dismissed from Analysis) 

Figure 3-3 

LEGEND 

Pathway 

Charter & 

Touring Parking 

Lease Space 

Pathways 

Buildings 

Creek Rechanneled 

& Habitat Improvements 

Relocated CBJ Shelter/ 

Scenic Overlook 

Dredge Basin 

-15' MLLW 

Park 

Bus 

Drop-off 

Boat Yard 

AUKE BAY 

HARBOR RD 

Greenspace 

Concept Footprint 

Eelgrass Beds 

Bay Creek 

Boat Launch Ramp 

& Boarding Float 

Remove 

DeHarts Floats 

Boat Haulout & 

Kayak Launch 

Add New Main Floats (to Replace 

DeHarts Floats), Dedicated Stalls & Utilities 

Perform System Maintenance on 

Existing Moorage Floats, Wave 

Attenuator & Anchoring System 

Commercial 

Loading Float 


Provide Fuel Distribution 

to New Floats 

Ë 

Feet 

0 75 150 225 300 





Date: May 19, 2011




HDR-249-R11012F 46

PARKING SUMMARY 




Seawalk 

Vegetation Buffer 


Parking 


BACKLOOP RD 


Scenic Outlook 






Figure 3-4 

LEGEND 

Pathway 

Restrooms & 

Trash Receptacles 

Greenspace 

Pathways 

Buildings 


Armored Slope 

} 

} 

} } 

Existing 

Boat Yard 

AUKE BAY 

HARBOR RD 


Bay Creek 

Eelgrass Beds 



DeHart's Marina 

Non-motorized Boat 

Launch Area 


Ë 

Feet 

0 75 150 225 300 






Date: May 19, 2011




HDR-249-R11012F 48




Concept 5 was developed in response to FWS comments and would include similar components 

as Concept 4, except Concept 5 would be supported by piles to minimize the amount of fill 

placed in estuarine habitat. The team considered two options: Concept 5a would be fully 

supported by piles, while Concept 5b would consist primarily of fill but would be partially 

supported by piles on the western edge of the facility to minimize fill in the intertidal portion of 

Bay Creek. 

Concept 5a would avoid fill below a +20.8 elevation and would require only a minimal amount 

of intertidal fill. Concept 5b would be most similar to Concept 4, but would pull the intertidal fill 

footprint shoreward up to approximately 50 feet to avoid placing fill in approximately 0.37 acres 

of estuarine habitat. Concept 5b would still require placing roughly 3.5 acres of fill in estuarine 

habitat. Both options under Concept 5 would be designed to meet recommended parking criteria, 

which are 100 stalls for vehicles with trailers and 79 passenger vehicle stalls. 


Concept 6 would include similar components to those proposed under Concept 4; however, 

Concept 6 would consist of using the existing offsite parking instead of onsite parking. This 

concept was intended to minimize impacts to estuarine and eelgrass habitats and avoid impacts to 

Bay Creek’s active channel complex. Concept 6 would result in the loss of some intertidal 

habitat but considerably less than other design concepts. 

Use of the Auke Bay Elementary School parking lot was determined to not be a viable 

alternative. The school district confirmed that a formal agreement for long-term use would not be 

possible (JSD 2009). The school district indicated the lot would not consistently be available for 

parking due to remodeling activities planned beginning summer 2011 (JSD 2009). The school 

district also expressed concerns of conflicting needs of summer program participants and 

teachers and that priority would be given to programs using JSD facilities (JSD 2009). 

The project team also met with DOT&PF to discuss potential offsite parking areas near the 

harbor. Although Statter Harbor users currently park along road shoulders, the Back Loop Road 

and Glacier Highway were not designed for this use (DOT&PF 2009). The use of these shoulders 

conflicts with DOT&PFs planned improvements and the DOT&PF opposes the continued use of 

parking along these shoulders (DOT&PF 2009). The DOT&PFs’ funded Intersection 

Improvement Project may eliminate this use in the near future, and other future ABCOR 

developments will not allow parking along the shoulders of Glacier Highway. 

In response to agency comments on the Draft EA, the project team thoroughly investigated the 

use of offsite upland properties in the vicinity of Statter Harbor. As part of the Uplands 

Alternative Analysis effort (PND 2011a), the project team contacted landowners of offsite 

parcels that were deemed to be potentially suitable for parking development. No suitable nearby 

alternatives were identified (PND 2011a). Due to the fact that the Auke Bay Elementary School 

and shoulder parking along Back Loop Road will not be available in the future, Concept 6 was 

not carried forward to the screening process. However, the team expanded the search for suitable 

alternative upland sites, and as a result developed an additional design concept (Concept 10) as 

described below. 

HDR-249-R11012F 49

3.3.1.6 Design Concepts 7 and 8 



Concept 7 includes 14 of the 17 components identified by the Master Plan (Section 1.2.2). 

Concept 7 would use an armored slope to retain fill, would not provide lease space for retail in 

the harbor area or uplands, and would not construct a passenger for-hire boarding float (Figure 

3-5). The new boat launch ramp and boarding float would occupy previously impacted marine 

habitat. Concept 8 would be similar to Concept 7 but would construct a passenger for-hire 

boarding float and have a slightly different configuration (Figure 3-6). Concept 7 would 

eliminate approximately 2.5 acres of estuarine habitat, while Concept 8 would eliminate roughly 

2.8 acres (includes 0.02 acres of eelgrass and 0.42 acres of wetland habitats). Additionally, 

roughly 0.19 acres of mapped wetlands above the high tide line would be eliminated. Concept 8 

would also require that less than one acre of estuarine habitat be dredged. Under both concepts, 

the new boat launch ramp and boarding float would utilize an existing dredge basin in order to 

extend the ramp to a minus 5-foot elevation. 

Concept 7 was designed to avoid placing fill in Bay Creek’s active alluvial channels. The 

western edge of the intertidal fill footprint would be pulled shoreward and limit the fill to a +10- 

foot elevation near the Horton Lot. Due to this spatial configuration, Concept 7 would prevent 

the potential for future construction of a passenger for-hire boarding float (Figure 3-5). 

Unlike Concept 7, Concept 8 was designed to allow the construction of a commercial loading 

float (a component of the Master Plan) in order to replace use of the harbor by commercial tour 

groups. In an effort to minimize environmental impacts, the commercial loading float would be 

constructed in a relatively deep area to avoid the need to dredge. Therefore, Under Concept 8, 

the existing boat haul-out facility would be demolished. The function of the boat haul-out would 

be replaced by performing upgrades to the existing boat launch ramp and providing a hydraulic 

boat trailer. 

HDR-249-R11012F 50






Seawalk 


Parking 


BACKLOOP RD 








Figure 3-5 

LEGEND 

Pathway 

Restrooms & 


Greenspace 

Pathways 


} } 

Buildings 

Bay Creek 

Eelgrass Beds 

} 



} 

Existing 

Boat Yard 

AUKE BAY 

HARBOR RD 



Non-motorized Boat 

Launch Area 


Ë 

Feet 

0 75 150 225 300 






Date: May 19, 2011




HDR-249-R11012F 52




• 3 Charter and Tour Bus Parking 


Seawalk 


Parking 


BACKLOOP RD 








Figure 3-6 

LEGEND 

Pathway 

Restrooms & 


Greenspace 

Pathways 




} 

} 

} } 

Existing 

Boat Yard 

AUKE BAY 

HARBOR RD 

Buildings 

Bay Creek 

Eelgrass Beds 

Additional Mooring 

Floats 


DeHart's 

Marina 

Commercial 

Loading Float 


Ë 

Feet 

0 75 150 225 300 






Date: May 19, 2011




HDR-249-R11012F 54



In order for the boat launch ramp to extend to a sufficient elevation (-5 feet) and allow enough 

space for the commercial float to be constructed under Concept 8, the spatial configuration of the 

ramp would shift the head of the boat launch ramp to the east and toe of the ramp to the west 

(Figure 3-6). This would result in conflicting traffic patterns at the head of the boat launch ramp 

and a reduction of usable area in the boat yard under Concept 8. 

Concept 7 would provide a total of 49 parking spaces for vehicles with trailers and an 

insufficient number of stalls for passenger vehicles. Concept 8 would provide a total of 64 

parking spaces for vehicles with trailers, an insufficient number of stalls for passenger vehicles, 

and 3 bus spaces. 


Concept 9 was developed primarily in response to consultation with resource agencies 

subsequent to the scoping period. Concept 9 includes components similar to those proposed 

under Concept 4 but under a smaller footprint, and uses a marine seawall and armored slopes to 

retain fill. Concept 9 would demolish the existing shelter but provide benches along the harbor 

frontage seawalk to enhance scenic opportunities. Concept 9 would not construct a restroom. 

Concept 9 would eliminate nearly 4.1 acres of estuarine habitat (includes 0.11 acres of eelgrass 

and 0.42 acres of wetland habitats) and 0.19 acres of wetlands mapped above tidal influence. 

Concept 9 was developed to further minimize fill in Bay Creek’s active channel complex. In 

order for the boat launch ramp to extend to a sufficient elevation (-5 feet) under the spatial 

configuration of Concept 9, however, the fill footprint would extend into a small portion of Bay 

Creek’s lower active channel, between +1.0 foot and +0 foot elevation. This portion of Bay 

Creek intertidal channel is typically submerged, and the flow of Bay Creek would likely 

concentrate against the boat launch ramp toe of fill (HDR 2011). Model results predict that 

during low tide and peak flow events, velocities would be high enough to move sediment in the 

Bay Creek channel, potentially deepening the channel (HDR 2011). The model does not predict 

increases to velocities within the eelgrass beds (HDR 2011). 

Concept 9 would provide a total of 100 stalls for vehicles with trailers and 79 passenger-vehicle 

spaces. 


This concept was developed in direct response to agency comments received on the Draft EA, 

and includes components similar to Concepts 4 and 9. However, this concept incorporates offsite 

parking (Lindegaard Properties lots A77-79) to support development of infrastructure on the 

Horton Lot and intertidal areas for water-dependent activities at Statter Harbor (e.g., an access 

road, make-ready and tie-down areas, and a boat launch ramp facility; Figure 3-7). The 

combined offsite and onsite layout would provide 100 parking spaces for vehicles with trailers 

and 153 stalls for passenger vehicles. 

The offsite parking would be located 0.6 miles, by road, from the proposed launch ramp at 

Statter Harbor. Development at lots A77-79 for vehicle trailer parking would result in users 

walking 1.2 miles per boat launch and retrieval, with a total of 2.4 miles (walking and driving) 

for the four trips required to launch and retrieve a boat. A four-lane boat launch ramp would be 

developed to offset for the loss of efficiency resulting from the travel time required for users to 

get back and forth from the boat launch area to the parking area. Due to the offsite parking 

HDR-249-R11012F 55



layout, development of a four-lane ramp with two boarding floats would be necessary to meet the 

existing user demand and achieve the project’s purpose to alleviate congestion and increase 

harbor efficiency. 

The four-lane boat launch ramp would require roughly 0.25 acre of fill be placed in the active 

portion of Bay Creek’s intertidal channel and would redirect that portion of Bay Creek further 

north. Redirecting this portion of Bay Creek would result in loss of roughly 0.25 acre of the 

southern portion of a large eelgrass bed. This concept would eliminate over 4.7 acres of estuarine 

habitat (includes 0.17 acres of eelgrass; Figure 3-7). A minimum 0.41 acres of wetland habitat 

would be also eliminated. 

Development of lots A77-79 for parking would double the traffic onto Glacier Highway and 

would require a 6-foot-wide sidewalk with curb and gutter separation to allow for a safe route for 

pedestrians along Glacier Highway. 

HDR-249-R11012F 56



• 153 Vehicle Parking 





6ft Wide Sidewalk 

(partially provided by future 

DOT&PF improvements) 



Vehicle 

Parking 

Figure 3-7 

LEGEND 

Asphalt Lot 

and Parking Area 

Ramp 

Sidewalk 

Vehicle Parking 

Eelgrass Beds 

Bay Creek 


MAKE READY AREA 

TIE DOWN AREA 

Existing 

Boat Yard 

4 Lane Boat Launch 

Ramp w/ 2 Boarding Floats 

DeHart's 

Marina 

Feet 

Ë 

0 75 150 225 300 





Date: May 19, 2011




HDR-249-R11012F 58

3.3.1.9 Additional design concepts and features 



The EPA requested in their comments on the Draft EA that additional design concepts and 

features be considered in the Final EA (EPA 2010). Table 3-1 presents the design concepts and 

project features suggested by EPA and a summary of considerations provided by the design 

team. 

Table 3-1 Consideration of Additional Design Concepts and Project Features (Suggested by EPA) 

EPA’s Suggested Design Concepts and 

Project Feature 

Utilize existing ramp location for 

construction of the new boat launch 

ramp to the necessary length and width 

Realign or close Auke Bay Harbor Road, 

and the development of access at other 

locations besides the Horton Lot 

Reconfigure the existing uplands to 

provide additional parking spaces, and 

designate Horton Lot for particular users 

(e.g., short/long-term parking, trailers, 

etc.) 

Acquire specific additional upland 

parcels 

Include construction of multi-level 

parking structures within the existing 

footprint of the main parking lot. 

Design Team’s Considerations 

Existing Boat Ramp location does not allow for sufficient room for 

efficient use of the boat launch ramp facility and is the primary reason 

for proposing a new location. The existing ramp would however be 

utilized for kayaks and support of boat yard operations. 

Auke Bay Harbor Road would remain accessible for passenger-only 

vehicles using the Statter Harbor Moorage Facility. Trailered-vehicle 

access would be restricted to the new driveway and facility. The two 

parking lots would not be connected in order to maintain designated 

parking space allocations and to minimize user conflict and congestion. 

Closure of the Auke Bay Harbor Road was considered, however site 

conditions would not allow for an access road to the moorage facility 

without expanding the facility further into intertidal waters. 

Alternatives for utilizing the Horton Lot and reconfiguring the existing 

parking lot are included Concepts 9 and 10. Trailer stalls in the existing 

lot would be converted to vehicle-only stalls to meet moorage facility 

parking demand. 

Additional available uplands have already been acquired to 

accommodate parking. The CBJ purchased Lehnhart's residence and 

converted that uplands parcel into parking area for this project. Other 

upland properties on the harbor side of the highway are not currently 

available and no other suitable sites are available (PND 2011a). 

Construction of a multilevel parking facility is not considered viable due 

to cost, technical constraints, and height restriction covenants 

(DNR 1996). The cost to construct a multilevel parking facility would 

be roughly $38 million. The Horton Lot does not have a large enough 

footprint to provide adequate turning radius requirements for traileredvehicles 

to traverse drive aisles in the parking structure. The estimated 

height of a multilevel parking garage (64 feet) would conflict with the 

existing view protection covenant held by Squire’s Rest. 

3.3.2 Concept Criteria and Screening 

Design criteria were established to screen the full range of alternatives (concepts) in order to 

establish reasonable alternatives for detailed analysis. Design and logistical criteria were 

established based on state and Corps guidelines, studies conducted for this project, and publically 

available data. Design criteria included requirements for 1) safe access: road width and stopping 

sight distances; 2) safe pedestrian access; 3) parking: dimensions and number of spaces; and 4) 

launch ramp and boarding float specifications: grade and tidal access, boarding float dimensions, 

and make-ready and tie-down areas. Design criteria are described in more detail in Section 2.2 

and Section 2.3 and summarized in Table 2-5. 

HDR-249-R11012F 59



Additionally, the CBJ developed a set of logistical criteria in an effort to determine which design 

concepts would be feasible or practicable. Logistical screening criteria considered the cost of 

development (relative to similar facilities in Alaska) or acquisition of land (relative to other land 

transactions in the area). The CBJ determined that construction and property acquisition costs 

should be reasonable as compared to other similar boat-launch ramp projects and fair market 

value. 

Costs for other Alaska recreational boating and sport fishing boat launch ramps constructed 

between 1990 and 2010 were used to establish a standard cost for projects similar to the 

proposed project. This range was used to compare the design concepts to an industry standard. 

The average cost of a similar boat launch facility was $1.1 million (adjusted to 2009 dollars). 

Fair market value was determined through a review of recent land transactions in the area. 

Additional screening considerations included compatibility with reasonably foreseeable future 

projects, environmental issues, input from the public and/or agencies (i.e., “other 

considerations”), and the availability of funding. The eight build concepts (i.e., 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 

and 10) were screened. Table 3-2 summarizes the screening process used to determine whether 

components under each of the design concepts were sufficient to meet design and logistical 

considerations, and ultimately whether each concept would meet the project’s intended purpose. 

The sections that follow include supporting information regarding how each design concept 

either met or failed to meet requirements specific to each screening criteria. 

HDR-249-R11012F 60



Concept Design & Screening 

Criteria 

Meets project purpose 

Table 3-2 Design Concepts Screening Summary 

Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 4 Concept 5 Concept 7 Concept 8 Concept 9 Concept 10 

No. Would not improve 

safety or reduce 

congestion 



congestion 



congestion 



congestion 



congestion 



congestion 

Meets access drive criteria Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Provides adequate pedestrian access Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 

Provides sufficient parking No No No No No No Yes No 

Meets two-lane boat launch criteria: 

Grade & tidal access 

Boarding floats 

Vehicle turnaround 

Make-ready & tie-down areas 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Are costs reasonable? Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No 

Other Considerations: Compatible 

with Future Harbor-related Projects 

Other Considerations: 

Minimizes environmental impacts to 

estuarine environment including 

eelgrass habitat 

Should be advanced for further 

analysis 

Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes 

No. Eliminates 6.0 acres 

of estuarine habitat 

(includes 0.13 acre of 

eelgrass). Requires Bay 

Creek be channelized. 

Would directly impact 

large eelgrass bed 

(erosion and increased 

sedimentation). 




eelgrass). Requires Bay 

Creek be channelized. 

Would directly impact 

large eelgrass bed 






eelgrass), but eliminates 

roughly half of Bay 

Creek’s active alluvial 

channel due to fill. Would 

impact large eelgrass bed 



Concept 5a: Yes. 

Minimal fill-related 

habitat impacts. 

Concept 5b: Yes. 

Eliminates 4.0 acres of 

estuarine habitat. 

Yes. Eliminates 2.5 acres 



eelgrass). Avoids placing 

fill in Bay Creek’s active 

alluvial channel. 




eelgrass). Avoids placing 

fill in Bay Creek’s active 

alluvial channel. Requires 

dredging. 

Yes 




eelgrass). Avoids impacts 

to large eelgrass bed. 

Avoids placing fill in Bay 

Creek’s active alluvial 

channel above a +1.0-ft 

tidal elevation. 

No No No No No No Yes No 



congestion 

No. Eliminates roughly 

4.7 acres of estuarine 

habitat (includes 0.17 

acre of eelgrass). Fills 

0.25 acre of Waydelich 

Creek’s active channel; 

redirects flow and 

eliminates 0.25 acres of 

large eelgrass bed. 

HDR-249-R11012F 61




HDR-249-R11012F 62

3.3.2.1 Access road 



All eight design concepts screened would meet design requirements to provide vehicular access 

to the harbor. All eights concepts would alleviate at least some safety hazards present at the 

existing Auke Bay Harbor Road entrance. However, Concept 10, which incorporates offsite 

parking, would substantially increase traffic entering and leaving the harbor area, and thereby 

potentially have a higher risk of accidents (DOT&PF 2009). 

3.3.2.2 Pedestrian access 

Seven of the eight design concepts screened would provide safe travel for pedestrians moving 

from parking areas to and in between the boat launch ramp, along the seawall, and trail to Bay 

Creek. Safe pedestrian access would be difficult to achieve for Concept 10, which incorporates 

offsite parking. 

Although not ideal, a safe route of travel along Glacier Highway could potentially be developed 

under Concept 10. Design would include a 6-foot-wide sidewalk with curb and gutter separation 

to allow a safe route for pedestrians along Glacier Highway. However, this would still pose some 

pedestrian safety hazards as crosswalks would bisect drive lanes at the access road, the Horton 

Lot, and several other high traffic volume locations. 

3.3.2.3 Parking 

Only two of the eight concepts screened would be capable of providing at least 100 spaces for 

vehicles with trailers: Concepts 9, and 10. 

None of the remaining concepts would provide adequate parking to replace even the existing 88 

vehicle-trailer stalls. Concepts 1 and 2 would provide parking spaces for a total of 70 vehicles 

with trailers. Concepts 4 and 5 would provide 85 vehicle-trailer stalls. Concept 7 would provide 

49 vehicle-trailer stalls and Concept 8 would provide 64 parking spaces for vehicles with trailers. 

3.3.2.4 Two-lane boat launch ramp 

All eight design concepts screened would meet design requirements for a boat launch ramp that 

provides safe access to launch and retrieve boats during the lowest tidal elevation. Boat launch 

ramp requirements screened include boarding float dimensions, adequate room for vehicle 

maneuvering and turnaround in addition to grade and tidal access requirements. However, 

Concept 10 (the Lindegaard site) would require a four-lane boat launch ramp with two boarding 

floats in order to meet the overall project purpose to alleviate congestion and meet existing 

demand for the facility (PND 2011a). Four ramps would be necessary because of the travel time 

required for users to get back and forth from the boat launch area to the parking area (USKH 

2011). 

3.3.2.5 Make-ready and tie-down areas 

All eight design concepts screened would be capable of providing adequate make-ready and tiedown 

space to accommodate user traffic, as defined in Section 2. 

3.3.2.6 Purpose 

Two of the eight concepts screened would meet the overall purpose to improve safety and reduce 

congestion by increasing harbor efficiency: Concepts 5 and 9. Concepts 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, and 10 do 

not meet the project’s purpose, as described below. 

HDR-249-R11012F 63



Concepts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and Concept 8 would not provide adequate onsite parking for vehicles with 

trailers. Concepts 4 and 5 would provide 85 stalls, 15 stalls below the recommended number. 

Concepts 1 and 2 would provide 70 vehicle-trailer stalls, and Concepts 7 and 8 would provide 

considerably fewer stalls. Under these concepts, users would continue to park their vehicles 

along road shoulders and in other unapproved offsite parking areas and as a result be subject to 

unsafe conditions. This may also increase the need for enforcement activity. Furthermore, 

continued use of these unapproved offsite parking areas would perpetuate the inefficiency of 

launch and retrieve operations at Statter Harbor. These concepts would fail to meet the intended 

purpose of the project because these concepts would not reduce congestion or improve efficiency 

and safety. 

Development of Concept 10 would not meet the overall purpose to improve safety or improve 

efficiency. Although development of this concept would alleviate current safety hazards from 

use of the existing Auke Bay Harbor Road entrance, trailer traffic onto and off of Glacier 

Highway would essentially double as the result of offsite parking. Development of Concept 10 

would pose some pedestrian safety hazards as pedestrian crossing areas would be confined 

within drive lanes at the access road and the Horton Lot. 

3.3.2.7 Cost 

The CBJ determined that development costs (i.e., construction and property acquisition) should 

be reasonable based on the cost of other projects similar in scope and magnitude and the fair 

market value of available property needed to implement the project. The average cost of a similar 

boat launch facility was $1.1 million (adjusted to 2009 dollars), as described in PND 2011a 

(Appendix B). 

Costs for all concepts screened were at least an order of magnitude more costly than the average 

cost of other boat launch ramps in Alaska (e.g., providing the same function and serving a 

comparable number of users; Figure 3-8; Table 3-3). Only two of the eight concepts screened 

would meet the project’s intended purpose: Concepts 5b and 9. 

Costs associated with Concept 5a, which would develop a structure fully supported by piles, 

were estimated at $45 million. The cost of Concept 5b, a partially pile-supported structure in 

conjunction with use of a marine seawall (in order to avoid placing fill in approximately 0.37 

acres), was estimated at $14 million. The costs associated with the construction of pile-supported 

structures are reasonable when compared to the cost of constructing other pile-supported 

structures throughout Alaska. However, the cost to develop either option under Concept 5 

substantially exceeds the costs associated with development of other ramps in Alaska (e.g., 

serving a comparable number of users). 

HDR-249-R11012F 64



Cost of Facility ($ million) 

50 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Concept 1 

Concept 2 

Concept 4 

Concept 5a 

Concept 5b 

Concept 7 

Concept 8 

Concept 9 

Concept 10 

Other AK Facilities 

0 50 100 150 200 250 

Number of Vehicle-Trailer Parking Stalls 

Figure 3-8. Numbers of Vehicle-Trailer Stalls and Estimated Costs of Design Concepts and Other Alaska 

Launch Ramp Projects 

Table 3-3 Cost Estimates for Design Concepts 

Design Concept 

Concepts 1 & 2 

Concept 4 

Concept 5a / 5b 

Concept 7 

Concept 8 

Concept 9 

Concept 10 

Estimated Cost 

$29.5 million 

$10.3 million 

$45 million / $14 million 

$23.4 million 

$27.7 million 

$10.9 million 

$18.2 million 

When compared to these other Alaska projects, Concept 9 would be an order of magnitude more 

costly ($10.9 million), while the cost of the Concept 10 would be nearly 60% more expensive 

(than Concept 9), at a cost of $18.2 million (Figure 3-7). The substantially higher cost of 

Concept 10 is not considered reasonable. 

Concepts 1 and 2 include all components of the Master Plan and therefore have a much higher 

cost compared to the other design concepts. Additionally, Concepts 1, 2, and 8 would include the 

construction of the commercial loading float. Concepts 7 and 8 would not achieve the project’s 

intended purpose to improve safety. Costs associated with these four build concepts are not 

considered reasonable because other design concepts could meet the project’s intended purpose 

for much less cost. 

3.3.2.8 Other considerations 

Other considerations include compatibility with reasonably foreseeable future projects, 

environmental concerns, and logistical constraints. 

HDR-249-R11012F 65

Compatibility with reasonably foreseeable future projects 



The CBJ has identified a number of reasonably foreseeable future projects 14 (Master Plan) 

specific to the project area. In the reasonably foreseeable future, the CBJ would like to: 

1. Perform system maintenance on moorage floats, wave attenuator, and anchoring system 

2. Expand moorage system with new main floats, dedicated stalls, and utilities 

3. Secure fuel distribution to the new floats 

4. Install a for-hire passenger boarding float to support tour and light commercial loading 

operations 

Environmental concerns 

Although all concepts would adversely impact both upland and estuarine habitat, four of the 

eight concepts screened were found to have relatively minor environmental impacts associated 

with estuarine habitat, Bay Creek’s channel, and/or the large eelgrass bed west of Bay Creek. 

Concepts with minimal impacts included Concept 5a, 7, 8 and 9. The other five concepts had 

varying levels of environmental impacts, as discussed below. 

Concept 5a would have the least impacts on the estuarine habitat. Concepts 7 and 8 were also 

found to minimal impacts to estuarine habitat from fill (2.5 and 2.7 acres, respectively). All three 

of these concepts would avoid impacting Bay Creek’s alluvial channel and the large eelgrass 

bed. However, Concept 8 would require that estuarine habitat be dredged. Concept 9 would 

avoid placing fill in Bay Creek’s active channel complex above +1.0-foot elevation and avoid 

impacts to the large eelgrass bed. 

Concept 1 and 2 would have the most adverse impact on the environment. Concept 1 and 2 

would eliminate roughly 6.0 acres of estuarine habitat (includes 0.13 acres of eelgrass and 0.42 

acres of wetland habitats). Approximately 0.18 acres of wetlands mapped above the high tide 

line would also be eliminated. Under either concept, a portion of Bay Creek’s intertidal channel 

would need to be channelized. Resource agencies opposed channelizing Bay Creek and 

requested additional concepts be designed to reduce the intertidal fill footprint. 

Concept 4 would eliminate 4.4 acres of estuarine habitat (includes 0.12 acres of eelgrass and 0.42 

acres of wetland habitats). An additional 0.42 acre of wetland habitat (above the high tide line) 

would be eliminated. Under this concept the fill footprint would extend into and eliminate 

approximately half the width of Bay Creek’s active intertidal channel complex. Although the 

natural fluctuation process of Bay Creek’s intertidal flow would continue (i.e., flow would not be 

channelized), the natural fluctuation process would be forced to the west in the vicinity of a large 

eelgrass bed (near southwest portion of Bay Creek). Resource agency biologists expressed 

concern that alteration of the intertidal portion of Bay Creek’s flow could impact the large 

eelgrass bed (e.g. increase sedimentation and potential erosion) if the active channel was forced 

to the west. 

Concept 10 would increase the use of uplands for parking, however, due to the need for an 

access road and some onsite parking, adequate make-ready and tie-down, and a four-lane rather 

than two-lane boat launch, this alternative would eliminate more than 4.7 acres of estuarine 

habitat (includes 0.17 acres of eelgrass and 0.29 acres of wetland habitats). The environmental 

14 Section 6.13 lists additional reasonably foreseeable future projects that may occur in the cumulative impact 

assessment area in addition to those identified for the immediate project area. 

HDR-249-R11012F 66



concern associated with Concept 10 would be the placement of fill in both Waydelich and Bay 

Creeks’ active channels. The four-lane boat launch ramp necessary under this concept would 

also result in 0.25 acres of fill in the active portion of Bay Creek’s intertidal channel. 

3.3.2.9 Summary of Screening Results 

Concepts 1 and 2 

Concepts 1 and 2 would not provide adequate parking to replace the existing 88 vehicle-trailer 

stalls or meet the recommended design criteria of 100 vehicle-trailer stalls. Users would continue 

to park their vehicles along road shoulders and in other unapproved offsite parking areas and as a 

result be subject to unsafe conditions. The continued use of these unapproved offsite parking 

areas would also perpetuate the inefficiency of launch and retrieve operations. Therefore, 

Concepts 1 and 2 would fail to meet the project’s purpose to reduce congestion or improve 

efficiency and safety. Concepts 1 and 2 would have the most adverse impact on the environment 

relative to the other build concepts. Concepts 1 and 2 were not carried forward for further 

analysis. 

Concept 4 

Concept 4 would not provide adequate onsite parking for vehicles with trailers, which would 

lead to unsafe conditions and perpetuate existing inefficiencies of facility operations. Concept 4 

would not meet the project’s intended purpose. Concept 4 would pose environmental concerns to 

sensitive habitats that could otherwise be avoided. The fill footprint would extend into and 

eliminate approximately half the width of Bay Creek’s active intertidal channel complex. 

Although the natural fluctuation process of Bay Creek’s intertidal flow would continue (i.e., flow 

would not be channelized), the natural fluctuation process would be forced to the west and 

adversely impact the large eelgrass bed (near southwest portion of Bay Creek). Therefore, 

Concept 4 was not carried forward for further analysis. 

Concept 5 

Concept 5 would meet the overall purpose to improve safety and increase efficiency at Statter 

Harbor. However, costs associated with Concept 5 are not reasonable. Concept 5 was not carried 

forward for further analysis. 

Concepts 7 and 8 

Concepts 7 and 8 would cause minimal impacts to estuarine habitat from fill (2.5 and 2.7 acres, 

respectively) compared to other build concepts, and would avoid impacting Bay Creek’s alluvial 

channel and the large eelgrass bed. However, Concepts 7 and 8 would fail to meet the project’s 

purpose to reduce congestion or improve efficiency and safety. Neither concept would provide 

adequate onsite parking, which would lead to unsafe conditions and perpetuate inefficient 

operations. Concepts 7 and 8 were not carried forward for further analysis. 

Concept 9 

Concept 9 would provide adequate onsite parking and meet the project’s purpose to reduce 

congestion and improve efficiency and safety. Concept 9 would eliminate estuarine and eelgrass 

habitat. The fill footprint would extend into a small portion of Bay Creek’s lower active channel, 

between +1.0 foot and +0 foot elevation. However, Concept 9 would avoid significant impacts to 

spawning habitat within Bay Creek’s alluvial channel and to the large eelgrass bed. Since 

development of Concept 9 would meet the project’s purpose, has reasonable costs, and would 

HDR-249-R11012F 67



avoid significant impacts to the environment, Concept 9 was carried forward for detailed analysis 

as the Proposed Action. 

Concept 10 

Concept 10 would provide an adequate number of vehicle-trailer stalls, but would not meet the 

overall purpose to improve safety or improve efficiency. Although development of this concept 

would alleviate current safety hazards from use of the existing Auke Bay Harbor Road entrance, 

trailer traffic onto and off of Glacier Highway would essentially double as the result of offsite 

parking. Development of Concept 10 would also pose some pedestrian safety hazards. Concept 

10 would require the placement of fill in the vicinity of Waydelich Creek and Bay Creek. 

Further, costs to develop Concept 10 would not be reasonable. For these reasons, Concept 10 

was not analyzed further. 

HDR-249-R11012F 68



4.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

4.1 No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, no changes would be made to Statter Harbor and the purpose 

and need would not be met (Figure 4-1). This alternative would not meet the needs for: safe 

access to the harbor; improved pedestrian access; adequate onsite parking; increased boat launch 

capacity and efficiency; reduced congestion; and separated user groups. Considerable work 

would need to be done to the existing facility in order for it to remain operational. 

4.1.1 Description of the No-Action Alternative 

4.1.1.1 Access to harbor 

The existing access road to the boat launch ramp at Statter Harbor would continue to be 

congested and inefficient and would likely worsen in the future. Also, the inability for boat 

launch operations to occur during extreme low tides would continue to cause traffic back ups in 

the parking lot. 

The DOT&PF is developing a project that includes construction of a roundabout at the Glacier 

Highway and Back Loop Road intersection (USKH 2009). If DOT&PF constructs a roundabout 

at this location the intersection would operate at a higher level of service than existing conditions 

(USKH 2009). 

4.1.1.2 Pedestrian access 

Safety concerns would persist due to the lack of pedestrian walkways to separate automobile and 

pedestrian traffic. Harbor users are often forced to park offsite due to insufficient parking at the 

harbor, and pedestrians do not have a walkway that is separate from vehicular traffic that can be 

used to safely travel between the harbor and offsite parking. 

Onsite parking 

Statter Harbor boat launch patrons would continue parking offsite due to insufficient onsite 

parking. However, the availability of offsite parking at Auke Bay School will be significantly 

reduced or eliminated beginning in 2011 due to planned remodel activities (JSD 2009). Parking 

will be eliminated along the Glacier Highway in the near future due to DOT&PF’s planned 

ABCOR improvements (DOT&PF 2009). These proposed changes would reduce available boat 

trailer parking to the approximately 30 stalls by the summer of 2011. Offsite parking causes 

unsafe conditions due to harbor users parking in unsigned parking spots along the highway and 

the current lack of pedestrian walkways between the harbor and parking. Offsite parking also 

contributes to harbor inefficiency. 

Congestion 

The existing boat launch ramp at Statter Harbor would continue to be used by light commercial 

and recreational motor boats and non-motorized boats. The flow of traffic in the harbor 

driveway, parking area, and boat launch area would not be changed, and the boat launch ramp 

would continue to be congested, perpetuating the challenging process of launching and retrieving 

boats. 

HDR-249-R11012F 69



User groups 

The existing boat launch ramp at Statter Harbor would continue to be used by commercial and 

recreational motor boats and non-motorized boats. The shared use of the boat launch ramp would 

continue to cause safety concerns and to create conflicts between the varied user groups. 

HDR-249-R11012F 70


Auke Bay 

Elementary School 

Bay Creek 

Horton 

Lot 

Squire's Rest 

CBJ Shelter 

Lehnhart 

Property 

Deem's 

Property 

BACKLOOP RD 

DeHart's 

Convenience 

Store 




Existing Conditions 

at Statter Harbor 

(No-Action Alternative) 

Figure 4-1 

LEGEND 

Auke Bay Tower 

Condominiums 

Boat 

Yard 

AUKE BAY 

HARBOR RD 

Stream 

Eelgrass Beds 

Fisherman's 

Bend 

Marina 

DeHart's 

Marina 

Boat Launch 

Parking Area 

Statter 

Harbor 


Note: Aerial photography 

provided by PND Engineers, Inc., 

dated June 9, 2006. 

Ë 

Feet 

Breakwater 

NOAA NMFS 

Auke Bay Laboratory 

0 100 200 300 400 



Sources: PND 


Date: May 19, 2011




HDR-249-R11012F 72



4.2 The Proposed Action 

The project proposes to develop a boat launch ramp and parking for vehicles with boat trailers 

and implement other associated improvements identified by the Statter Harbor Master Plan on 

CBJ-owned and managed lands (Figure 4-2). The purpose of the project is to improve safety and 

reduce congestion by increasing harbor efficiency. 

4.2.1 Description of the Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action Alternative (Proposed Action) was developed in direct response to 

comments received during the scoping period and subsequent consultation with agency 

personnel. The Proposed Action was designed to accommodate a reduced scope of work (i.e., 

does not include all Master Plan components) under a smaller intertidal fill footprint with a 

different spatial configuration than the dismissed design concepts (Section 3.1). 

The Proposed Action was designed to: 1) meet the purpose and need of this project; 

2) incorporate improvements identified by the Master Plan; 3) minimize the size of the intertidal 

fill footprint; 4) significantly minimize impacts to Bay Creek’s active estuarine channel complex; 

5) minimize impacts to Bay Creek’s alluvial delta; 6) minimize impacts to eelgrass habitat; 

7) utilize upland areas for parking; 8) minimize visual and noise impacts to adjacent properties; 

and 9) be financially feasible. 

The Proposed Action would meet the needs for: safe access to harbor; improved pedestrian 

access; adequate onsite parking; increased boat launch capacity and efficiency; reduced 

congestion; and separated user groups. The Proposed Action includes many components 

identified in the Statter Harbor Master Plan by proposing to: 

1. Construct an armored slope and marine seawall to retain intertidal fill 

2. Construct a double-lane boat launch ramp and expand parking per Sport Fish design 

guidelines 

3. Construct a new access driveway from Glacier Highway for vehicles with trailers 

4. Construct a sea walk along the harbor frontage and trail access to Bay Creek 

5. Reconfigure vehicular access and traffic circulation in the harbor 

6. Segregate launch and retrieve operations (non-motorized boat [e.g., kayaks] would use 

the existing boat launch and motorized boats would use the new, double-lane boat launch 

ramp) 

7. Demolish existing shelter and provide scenic viewing opportunities along sea walk; 

8. Install landscaped buffer areas near adjacent properties. 

HDR-249-R11012F 73




HDR-249-R11012F 74



• 230 Vehicle Parking 


Seawalk 


Parking 


BACKLOOP RD 




Proposed Action 

Alternative 

Figure 4-2 

Viewing Platform 

LEGEND 

Retaining Wall 

with Lookouts 

Marine Seawall 

MAKE READY AREA 

Greenspace 

Pathways 


Footprint 

Bay Creek 


TIE DOWN AREA 

Existing 

Boat Yard 

Eelgrass Beds 

Armored Slope 

AUKE BAY 

HARBOR RD 





Ë 

Feet 

0 75 150 225 300 






Date: May 19, 2011




HDR-249-R11012F 76



4.2.2 Purpose of the Proposed Action’s Components 

The Proposed Action’s overarching purpose is to improve safety and reduce congestion by 

increasing harbor efficiency by incorporating improvements identified in the Statter Harbor 

Master Plan. Table 4-1 lists the purpose for each component included in the Proposed Action. 

Table 4-1 Purpose of Components included in the Proposed Action 

Proposed Action Component 

1 Construct armored slopes and a marine seawall to retain intertidal fill 

Construct new access driveway from Glacier Highway for vehicles with trailers through 

3 

coordination with DOT&PF improvement plans 

4 Construct a sea walk along the harbor frontage and trail access to Bay Creek 

Construct a double-lane boat launch and expand parking to meet ADF&G Sport Fish 

2 

design guidelines 

5 Reconfigure vehicle circulation, staging, and loading areas 

Segregate launch and retrieve operations (non-motorized boat use existing boat launch 

6 

and motorized boats use new, double-lane boat launch ramp) 

Purpose 

Improve 

Safety 

Reduce 

Congestion/ 

Increase 

Efficiency 

7 Demolish existing shelter and provide scenic viewing opportunities along sea walk Associated 

8 Install landscaped buffer areas near adjacent properties 

Activities 

All actions included in the Proposed Action were also identified in the Master Plan. Items 7 and 

8 are associated activities that have been identified as needs in the Master Plan. The existing 

shelter is currently underutilized and located in a relatively secluded area. Planting vegetative 

buffer areas near adjacent properties is proposed to help to minimize potential visual and noise 

impacts. 

4.2.3 Description of the Proposed Action’s Components 

The following section provides a description of each action proposed by this project. Table 4-2 

summarizes actions that would be taken to satisfy each component of the Proposed Action. 

HDR-249-R11012F 77



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Project Component 

Construct an armored slope 

and marine seawall to 

retain intertidal fill 

Construct a double-lane 

boat launch ramp and 

additional parking 

a) Place intertidal fill 

b) Drive piles 

c) Install boat launch ramp 

d) Install boarding float 

e) Provide parking 

Construct a new access 

driveway from Glacier 

Highway 

Construct a sea walk along 

the harbor frontage and 

trail access to Bay Creek 

Reconfigure vehicular 

access and traffic 

circulation in the harbor 

Segregate launch and 

retrieve operations 

Demolish existing shelter 

and provide scenic viewing 

opportunities along sea 

walk 

Install landscaped buffer 

areas near adjacent 

properties 

Table 4-2 Design Components of the Proposed Action 


The intertidal fill would be held in place by constructing an armored 

slope along the eastern extent of fill, and on either side of a marine 

seawall along the western extent. The marine seawall would be 

approximately 240 feet long. The armored slope would be constructed 

using large rocks or riprap. The armored slope would be approximately 5 

feet thick and have a slope of 1.5:1. 

a) Place fill in 4.1 acres of the intertidal zone 

b) Drive 6 galvanized steel piles to support a boarding float 

c) Construct concrete boat launch ramp; toe of ramp extends to a -6-foot 

tide 

d) Build boarding float constructed of pressure treated glue laminates; 

would be approximately 8 feet wide and 315 feet long 

e) Provide onsite parking for: 

100 vehicles with trailers 

79 passenger vehicles 

A new driveway would be built that would provide access from the 

Glacier Highway to the parking area. The driveway, which would 

intersect the Glacier Highway directly south of Auke Bay Elementary 

School, would provide access to the northeast corner of the new parking 

area. The driveway would provide sufficient sight distance for vehicles to 

safely enter and exit the parking area, and the configuration would allow 

vehicles with trailers to maneuver into the parking area. 

A sea walk trail, constructed of concrete, would be located along the edge 

of the marine seawall to provide pedestrians safe access within the harbor 

and to the harbor from Glacier Highway. The sea walk trail would also 

provide users with harbor viewing opportunities. The sea walk trail would 

connect to a smaller trail to provide access to and viewing opportunities 

of Bay Creek. 

The new parking area would be configured to allow vehicles, including 

those with trailers, to maneuver safely within the parking area. The 

proposed site layout would provide designated staging, and loading areas 

away from the boat launch ramp to increase efficiency. The inclusion of 

pedestrian walkways within the harbor would create safer conditions for 

both vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and would help improve efficiency 

of the harbor. 

Non-motorized boats would use the existing boat launch ramp, and 

motorized boats would use the new, double-lane boat launch ramp. This 

separation would allow varied users to launch boats into Statter Harbor 

safely and efficiently. 

The existing shelter, located along Glacier Highway, would be 

demolished. Scenic overlooks and benches would be constructed along 

the harbor frontage sea walk to enhance viewing and recreational 

opportunities. 

Vegetative landscape buffers will be used to minimize visual and noise 

impacts on residents adjacent to the project area. Buffers will be placed 

along the western edge of the intertidal fill footprint near the top of the 

armored slope and seawall, adjacent to residences and along Glacier 

Highway, as shown in Figure 3-2. 

HDR-249-R11012F 78

1. Place fill, construct armored slope and marine seawall 



The construction of the boat launch ramp and associated parking area would require placing fill 

across 4.1 acres of estuarine intertidal habitat. The intertidal fill would be held in place using a 

marine seawall and armored slopes. 

Along the west side of the footprint, fill would be held in place using armored slopes on either 

side of approximately 240 feet of marine seawall. The marine seawall would avoid the need to 

place fill in Bay Creek’s active channel complex (above +1.0-foot elevation), minimize impacts 

to Bay Creek’s active alluvial delta, and minimize impacts to eelgrass and intertidal and subtidal 

habitats. Armored slopes would be constructing using large rocks or rip rap. The armored slope 

would be approximately 5 feet thick and have a slope of 1.5 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical. 

2. Construct boat launch ramp and parking 

The boat launch ramp would be constructed of concrete, and the toe of the ramp would extend to 

a -6-foot MLLW tide so that launch and retrieve operations could occur throughout the tidal 

cycle; no dredging would be required. The boarding float associated with the boat ramp would be 

constructed of pressure-treated glue laminated timber and would measure approximately eight 

feet wide and 315 feet long. Approximately six galvanized steel piles would need to be driven 

into the intertidal zone to support the boarding float. 

Under the funding agreements for this project, the construction of a boat launch requires a 

minimum number of parking spaces be provided for each boat launch lane (ADF&G 1998, 

2006). The regulations require that 30 spaces for boats with vehicles be provided for each lane of 

the boat launch ramp; however, the ADF&G prefers that 60 spaces are provided for each lane 

(ADF&G 1998, 2006, 2008a). The Proposed Action is intended to meet ADF&G's preferred 

metrics for parking spaces per boat launch lane. The Proposed Action was designed to provide 

100 trailer-vehicle spaces and an additional 79 passenger-vehicle spaces onsite. 

Under the Proposed Action, car parking spaces in the original Statter Harbor would be 

reconfigured to accommodate changes in the spatial configuration. The OSMB guidelines 

recommend 30% of the total number of vehicle-trailer stalls be provided for car parking stalls, or 

a total of 30 at for the new facility. However, vehicle stalls will also need to be provided at 

Statter Harbor to support both boat launch and moorage activities at De Harts due to the 

reconfiguration of the facility. Therefore, an additional 79 car parking stalls (49 for vessel slips 

and 30 for boat launch ramp) need to be planned with the development of any onsite boat launch 

ramp at Statter Harbor. 

3. Construct new access driveway 

A new driveway would be built to provide access from the Glacier Highway to the harbor. The 

driveway, which would intersect the Glacier Highway directly south of Auke Bay Elementary 

School, would provide access to the northeast corner of the new parking area. The driveway 

would provide sufficient sight distance for vehicles to safely enter and exit the parking area, and 

the configuration would allow vehicles with trailers to maneuver into the parking area. 

4. Construct seawalk along harbor frontage and trail access to Bay Creek 

A sea walk, constructed of concrete, would be located along the edge of the marine seawall to 

provide pedestrians safe access within the harbor, and to the harbor from Glacier Highway. The 

HDR-249-R11012F 79



sea walk would also provide users viewing opportunities of the harbor and Bay Creek. The sea 

walk would connect to a smaller trail to provide access to Bay Creek. 

5. Reconfigure vehicular access and traffic circulation 

The new parking area would be configured to allow vehicles, including those with trailers, to 

maneuver safely within the parking area. The site layout under the Proposed Action would 

provide designated staging and loading areas away from the boat launch ramp to increase 

efficiency. The inclusion of pedestrian walkways within the harbor would create safer conditions 

for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and would help improve efficiency of the harbor. 

Improved circulation and additional parking would result in a more efficient harbor. 

6. Segregate launch operations 

Non-motorized boats would use the existing boat launch ramp, and motorized boats would use 

the new, double-lane boat launch ramp. The separation of users would allow varied users to 

launch boats safely and efficiently into Statter Harbor. 

7. Demolish existing shelter and provide scenic viewing opportunities 

The existing shelter located along Glacier Highway is currently located in a relatively secluded 

area and is underutilized by Statter Harbor patrons. In lieu of providing upland areas to replace 

the public use shelter, the Proposed Action would construct small scenic overlooks at several 

locations along the harbor sea walk trail. The design format has not been finalized but will likely 

include benches, kiosks, and environmental education signage. 

8. Install vegetative buffers 

Vegetative buffers will be used to minimize visual and noise impacts on residents adjacent to the 

project area. Vegetation will be planted between the parking area and adjacent residential 

property, and along Glacier Highway as shown in Figure 4-2. Vegetative buffers will also be 

planted roughly parallel to Bay Creek along the western edge of the intertidal fill footprint, near 

the top of the armored slope. Use of vegetative buffers was an improvement identified by the 

Master Plan. 

4.2.4 Permit Requirements 

The following major permits may be required depending on the final scope of harbor 

improvements. The permits will require local, state, and federal authorizations. If the No-Action 

alternative is selected, no permits would be necessary. 

• Corps—Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (Permit received) 

• Corps— Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (Permit received) 

• EPA and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC)— Section 401 of 

the CWA and Alaska Water Quality Standards, Certificate of Reasonable Assurance 

(Certificate received) 

• ADF&G Division of Habitat—Fish Habitat Permit for work below the ordinary high 

water mark of Bay Creek, per AS16.05.871 

• Local Fire Marshall Authorization(s) 

• Local CBJ Permits including Conditional Use, Building, and Grading permits 

• ADOT&PF Driveway Permit 

HDR-249-R11012F 80



5.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

5.1 Habitat 

5.1.1 Freshwater 

Bay Creek is the only freshwater stream in the project area (Figure 5-1, Figure 5-2). Bay Creek is 

the primary freshwater source for the estuarine habitat 15 within the project area, as its freshwater 

empties into the saltwater of Auke Bay between Fisherman’s Bend and DeHart’s marinas, 

adjacent to the ABTC. A small seepage channel east of Bay Creek, assumed to carry 

groundwater, also provides freshwater input to Auke Bay. This section focuses primarily on the 

freshwater habitat of Bay Creek. Tidally influenced portions of Bay Creek and the surrounding 

estuarine habitat are further described in Section 5.1.2. 

Figure 5-1. Bay Creek, View Upstream 

Bay Creek (ADF&G #111-50-10390) is listed by the Catalog of Waters Important for the 

Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes (commonly known as the Anadromous 

Waters Catalog, or AWC) as providing spawning habitat for both coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

and pink salmon (O. gorbuscha), and rearing habitat for juvenile coho salmon (ADF&G 2008b). 

Bay Creek also provides habitat for Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma; Bethers et al. 1995) and 

cutthroat trout (O. clarkia; Cameron 2011). Bethers et al. (1995) reports the capture of a single 

cutthroat trout was captured in 1990, while minnow traps set in 2010 confirmed the presence of 

multiple cutthroat trout within Bay Creek (Cameron 2011). Fish species that use Bay Creek are 

discussed in more detail in Section 5.2.1. 

15 An estuary is a semi-enclosed coastal body of water with one or more rivers or streams flowing into it, and with a 

free connection to the open sea (Pritchard 1967). 

HDR-249-R11012F 81




HDR-249-R11012F 82

! ! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

!! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! ! ! ! ! 


! ! 

WETLAND C 

! ! 

6 

! ! ! ! ! ! 

14.8 

! ! 

! ! 

! ! 

22 

! ! 

! ! 

! 

! 

! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! 

! ! 

! ! 

WETLAND B 

WETLAND D 

! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! 

! ! 

! 

! ! 

6 

WETLAND 

A 

! ! 

! ! 

! ! 

! ! 

! ! 

! ! 

! ! 

! ! ! 

14.8 

! ! 

! ! 

! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! 

22 

BACKLOOP RD 

AUKE BAY 

HARBOR RD 




Biotic Resources 

in the Project Area 

Figure 5-2 

LEGEND 

Mapped Wetlands 

(JYL 2008) 

Eelgrass Beds 

Mud Flats (PND 2011) 

Uplands 

Intertidal/Subtidal Line 

(elev. = -5 ft) 

6-foot Intertidal 

Elevation Line 

Mean High Water 

(elev. = +14.8 ft) 

! ! ! ! 

! ! 

Extreme High Water 

(elev. = +22 ft) 

! ! 

! ! 

Bay Creek 

-5 

-5 

! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! 

6 

! ! 

! ! 

! ! 

14.8 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! 

22 


Notes: The intertidal zone extends 

between the extreme high water line 

(22 ft) and the low water line (-5 ft). 

The boundary of the intertidal and 

subtidal zones is at an elevation of 

approximately -5 ft. Elevation contours 

are only shown for the immediate 

project area. 

Ë 

Feet 

0 50 100 150 200 



Sources: PND, HDR, NOAA 


Date: May 19, 2011




HDR-249-R11012F 84



Bay Creek is approximately half a mile in length (Bethers et al. 1995). The stream channel is 

approximately 2 to 5 feet wide and 7 to 16 inches deep and is contained within a single channel 

for most of its length (Bethers et al. 1995). Bay Creek has a moderate gradient (Bethers et al. 

1995); the creek descends from approximately 800 feet elevation over approximately half a mile 

(Bethers et al. 1995). Although Bay Creek has not been gauged, an approximate analysis of high 

flows was done using the Upper Montana Creek gage. The average high flow (occurs several 

times a year) is estimated to be 10 cubic feet per second (cfs), while the peak high flow (occurs 

once every 1 to 2 years) is estimated to be 100 cfs (HDR 2011). 

Juneau lacks the large rivers that have the capacity to produce great numbers of fish. Instead, 

Juneau has many small rivers whose fish runs when combined contribute to the overall salmon 

population (Bethers et al. 1995). Although Bay Creek is small, it is reported to be rather 

productive for its size; it is considered to have a moderate fishery value given its proximity to 

Juneau (Bethers et al. 1995). 

Bay Creek provides excellent fish rearing habitat with its numerous pools, overhanging banks, 

woody debris, and dense cover (Bethers et al. 1995). Excellent fish rearing habitat and spawning 

substrates are reported adjacent to the Auke Bay Elementary School (Bethers et al. 1995). 

Although small pockets of spawning substrates are also found in the stream’s upper reaches, 

spawning habitat is also reported within its intertidal channel (i.e., downstream of Glacier 

Highway; Bethers et al. 1995). The majority of intertidal spawning habitat extends from the base 

of the culvert downstream roughly 100 to 150 feet 16 (Bethers et al. 1995). 

Bay Creek currently passes under Glacier Highway through a corrugated metal culvert (USKH 

2004), at which point Bay Creek becomes subject to tidal influence. This serves as the transition 

zone between Bay Creek’s freshwater and Auke Bay’s saltwater habitats. Historically, Bay 

Creek’s channel was not confined as it flowed downstream of the Glacier Highway into Auke 

Bay (HDR 2010b). However, Bay Creek’s movement is currently constricted for over 300 feet in 

the intertidal zone, due to the placement of fill for what is now the Horton Lot. Intertidal 

spawning gravels are noted in this reach, from below Glacier Highway downstream to the 

southwestern extent of fill (Bethers et al. 1995). 

As Bay Creek flows past the southern edge of the Horton Lot footprint, Bay Creek turns east and 

is no longer confined to a single channel. Although bedrock along its western edge naturally 

restricts flow 17 , the path of the Bay Creek’s channel naturally migrates between multiple 

channels as it spreads across its active intertidal alluvial delta. 

Bay Creek currently occupies one to two main channels in this area of the intertidal zone. The 

area over which Bay Creek’s channels fluctuate appears to be relatively stable within this portion 

of the intertidal zone. Bay Creek’s channel has naturally fluctuated within essentially the same 

16 The AWC historical documents indicate that pink salmon spawn in the lower 50 feet of Bay Creek (ADF&G 

2008c). 

17 An apron of colluvium (poorly sorted chunks of fine-grained sedimentary rock) is adjacent to the bedrock 

outcrop along west side of Bay Creek. It is likely that the bedrock is near the surface beneath this apron and forms a 

barrier to channel migration. Fine silty mud (at least 2 feet deep) west of the active channel complex suggests the 

stream has not occupied this area in the recent past. 

HDR-249-R11012F 85



position for nearly 40 years, based on review of aerial photographs and features identified onsite 

in 2009 18 . 

The presence of small man-made dams on Bay Creek (upstream from Glacier Highway) may 

create fish passage barriers during low water levels (Bethers et al. 1995). The man-made dams 

slightly decrease habitat values for Bay Creek (Bethers et al. 1995). In 2003, baffles were 

installed in the five-foot culvert under the Glacier Highway to improve fish passage (ADF&G 

2008c). The Bay Creek culvert also receives water input from a 2-foot culvert on Glacier 

Highway (USKH 2004). 

5.1.2 Marine 

The seashores of southeast Alaska are largely influenced by the tidal cycle. The tides in Auke 

Bay are semidiurnal, having two high tides and two low tides per day. The times and heights of 

high and low water are relatively uniform along the shores of Auke Bay (Bruce et al. 1977). The 

tidal levels specific to the project area are listed below. 

• Extreme high water (EHW 19 ): 22.0 feet 

• High tide line (HTL 20 ): 20.3 feet 

• Mean higher high water (MHHW 21 ): 15.8 feet 

• Mean high water (MHW 22 ): 14.8 feet 

• Extreme low water (ELW 23 ): 5.0 feet 

The marine environment in the project area consists of estuarine habitat within two primary 

zones: the intertidal zone and the subtidal zone. The intertidal, or littoral, zone is the area 

between low and high tides along the shoreline; it is exposed to the air at low tide and submerged 

at high tide. The subtidal zone is located just below the intertidal zone, extending seaward from 

the level of the lowest low tide. Unlike the intertidal zone, the subtidal zone is constantly 

submerged. 

The intertidal zone in the project area extends between the high tide line, measured to be at an 

elevation of 20.3 feet; and the low water line, measured to be at approximately -5.0 feet (Figure 

5-2, Figure 5-3). In the project area, the boundary of the intertidal and subtidal zones is at an 

elevation of approximately -5 feet (Figure 5-2). Therefore, the majority of the project area that 

extends into estuarine habitat is located along the north shore of Auke Bay within the intertidal 

zone. 

18 A wave-formed ridge east of its active channel complex (intact in 2009, apparent in historic photographs) 

indicates Bay Creek’s channel has not occupied this area since the Horton Lot was constructed. 

19 EHW: highest elevation reached by the water; includes combined effects of tidal forces and storm surges 

20 HTL: the intersection of the land with the water at the surface of the extreme high tide 

21 MHHW: average of the higher of the two daily high tides over a given period of time 

22 MHW: average of all high tides over a given period of time 

23 ELW: lowest elevation reached by the water; includes combined effects of tidal forces and storm surge 

HDR-249-R11012F 86



Looking west toward Bay Creek; 

ABTC visible in background. 

Figure 5-3. Estuarine Intertidal Habitat along the North Shore of Statter Harbor 

Bay Creek is the primary source of freshwater input for estuarine habitat within the project area, 

as its freshwater empties into the saltwater of Auke Bay. A small groundwater seepage channel 

east of Bay Creek also provides freshwater input to Auke Bay. As the freshwater enters the 

saltwater, the salinity, and density differences between the two water sources create underwater 

turbulence and mixing (Geyer 2009). This estuarine mixing, or circulation, naturally flushes and 

energizes the nearshore environment, and minimizes pollution and stagnant water (Geyer 2009). 

Estuarine circulation typically results in productive ecological ecosystems, as nutrients and 

dissolved oxygen are resupplied from the ocean, and wastes are expelled in the surface water 

(Geyer 2009). The strength of the tides also independently effects estuarine circulation with 

stronger tides typically enhancing the process and biological productivity (Geyer 2009). 

Nearshore habitats typically provide food resources, important nursery and rearing habitat, and 

cover for many fish species. Gravels in the upper portion of Bay Creek’s intertidal channel also 

provide spawning habitat for pink salmon 24 (Bethers et al. 1995). 

Juvenile salmon typically use the brackish waters of the estuarine environment as refuge while 

their osmoregulatory systems adjust to the salinity before out-migrating to coastal waters. 

Estuarine habitat adjacent to Bay Creek’s active alluvial delta and its historical alluvial delta to 

the east is broad and flat and contains three small, fragmented eelgrass beds (Zostera marina). 

Habitat west of Bay Creek, which encompasses a large stand of eelgrass, is bordered by a steeper 

bank and so provides more complex and variable habitat (i.e., depth and cover). This estuarine 

habitat to the west is likely more valuable to out migrating and rearing fish than the broader, flat 

habitat to the east. Eelgrass habitat and functions are discussed in greater detail below. 

Anadromous and marine fish species that use habitat in Auke Bay are discussed in greater detail 

in Section 5.2.1. 

24 Bethers et al. (1995) indicates that Bay Creek has populations of coho and pink salmon and Dolly Varden but 

later erroneously reports that chum salmon spawn in Bay Creek. The AWC (ADF&G 2008c) indicates that Bay 

Creek provides habitat for coho and pink salmon, but not for chum salmon. 

HDR-249-R11012F 87



Bay Creek’s alluvial delta provides benthic habitat for a variety of clams and worms, and 

foraging habitat for birds (USFWS 2009). Great blue herons and various shorebirds feed in the 

intertidal area of the alluvial delta and within the adjacent mud flats 25 (USFWS 2009). Mud flats 

are considered a “Special Aquatic Site” under Federal regulations (40 CFR 230). Mud flat 

functions and values that warrant protection include water circulation patterns, periodic 

inundation patterns, and considerations relating to optimal growth of aquatic species or 

chemical/biological processes concerning exchange rates, photosynthesis, respiration, and 

decomposition, among others (OR-EVT-1SAS 2001). A recent survey delineated approximately 

0.95 acres of mud flat habitat in the immediate project vicinity (Corvus Design 2011b; Figure 

5-2). 

Exposed rocks and cobbles provide habitat for barnacles and colonies of invertebrates (e.g., blue 

mussels) in the intertidal zone (DES 1994). Invertebrates are an important food source for many 

predators (Harris et al. 2008). For instance, blue mussels are a food source for dabbling ducks 

(USFWS 2009). Nearshore estuarine and alluvial delta areas also provide habitat for plant 

communities that are adapted to brackish water (USFWS 2009, Zedler et al. 1992 in NOAA 

2005). 

Several eelgrass beds, all of which are considered to be healthy stands, are located in the vicinity 

of the proposed project (Figure 5-2; NOAA 2008, Harris et al. 2008). Eelgrass is a seagrass that 

creates ecologically-important nearshore habitat; it provides food, habitat, and nursery grounds 

for many species of fish, shellfish, and crustaceans (Harris et al. 2008, Sargeant et al. 2004). 

Eelgrass is used as a spawning substrate by Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii; Blankenbeckler and 

Larson 1982 in Harris et al. 2008). Eelgrass beds stabilize sediments and provide water column 

filtration and nutrient-fixing (Sargeant et al. 2004). Eelgrass beds are susceptible to degradation 

and loss due to coastal development and natural environmental changes (Harris et al. 2008). 

Eelgrass beds are considered a “Special Aquatic Site” under federal regulations (40 CFR 230). 

Eelgrass beds in the project area are found primarily within intertidal habitat, though some 

extend slightly into the subtidal waters (Figure 5-2). The largest eelgrass bed in the project area, 

located near the mouth of Bay Creek at the west extent of Bay Creek’s alluvial delta (Figure 5-2, 

Figure 5-4), was surveyed for faunal assemblage from 2004 through 2007. These beds were 

found to provide habitat for numerous non-commercial fish and invertebrate species (Harris et al. 

2008). Harris et al. (2008) identified 10 fish species from the 982 fish that were captured from 

the Bay Creek eelgrass beds. The largest eelgrass bed was estimated to cover nearly 1.4 acres 

(Harris et al. 2008). Eelgrass beds cover a total of approximately 1.5 acres in the project area 

(Harris et al. 2008). 

Eelgrass beds exist in intertidal areas with current velocities of less than 1 foot per second (ft/s), 

according to the results of a hydrodynamic circulation model (HDR 2011), although the edge of 

the eelgrass bed closest to Bay Creek is subject to velocities up to 3 ft/s at peak flood flows and 

low tide. 

25 Mud flats are broad flat areas along the sea coast and in coastal rivers to the head of tidal influence. When mud 

flats are inundated, wind and wave action may re-suspend bottom sediments. Coastal mud flats are exposed at 

extremely low tides and inundated at high tides with the water table at or near the surface of the substrate. The 

substrate of mud flats contains organic material and particles smaller in size than sand. They are either unvegetated 

or vegetated only by algal mats. 

HDR-249-R11012F 88



Eelgrass bed, looking toward Fisherman’s Bend from Bay Creek 

sample site (Harris et al. 2008); tide height less than -1 meter. Dark 

clumps are large feather duster worms (Scizobranchia insignis). 

Figure 5-4. Eelgrass Beds near the Project Area (photo provided by Pat Harris) 

Harris et al. (2008) captured 25 species of invertebrates in Auke Bay area; many of these were 

captured from the eelgrass beds located in the project area. Throughout the sample sites in the 

CBJ, one species, the large feather duster worm (Scizobranchia insignis) was observed only at 

the Bay Creek site (Harris 2009). 

Efforts have been undertaken in recent years to document the distribution of nearshore fish 

assemblages in southeast Alaska (Johnson et al. 2005; Harris et al. 2008). In one study, scientists 

collected fish presence data in the habitats within the nearshore environment: bedrock, eelgrass 

(Zostera marina), kelp (Laminaria saccharina), and sand/gravel (i.e., with no attached vegetation; 

Johnson et al. 2005). Seventy-nine fish species, many of commercial importance, were found to 

use shallow nearshore habitats (Johnson et al. 2005). Although some fish species exhibited a 

preference for other habitats, eelgrass beds were utilized more than any other habitat 26 (based on 

capture results; Johnson et al. 2005). 

The Nearshore Fish Atlas of Alaska (NOAA 2009a) lists five eelgrass bed sites sampled for fish 

presence in Auke Bay at different times throughout the last 10 years. Data is available for 

eelgrass beds in the project area (i.e., Bay Creek; Harris et al. 2008, NOAA 2009a) and for 

eelgrass beds outside of the project area: Waydelich Creek (Harris et al. 2008; NOAA 2009a) 

and Auke Nu Cove (Harris et al. 2008, Johnson et al. 2005, NOAA 2009a), located 

approximately 0.5 miles and 2 miles southwest of Statter Harbor, respectively. 

The eelgrass beds near Waydelich Creek were found to provide habitat for numerous fish 

species, including the commercially important Pacific herring (Clupea pallaasii; Harris et al. 

2008). Harris et al. (2008) identified 18 species from the 2,097 fish that were captured from 

eelgrass beds at nearby Waydelich Creek. 

26 For example, of the most 50 abundant fish species, mean catch per seine yielded highest for 30 species at eelgrass 

sites, 9 species at bare (sand/gravel) sites, 7 species at kelp sites, and 4 species at bedrock sites (Johnson et al. 2005). 

HDR-249-R11012F 89



In addition to eelgrass beds in the intertidal zone, emergent vegetation was noted in jurisdictional 

wetlands along portions of the project area’s shoreline (DES 2004). Vegetated intertidal and 

subtidal nearshore habitats are of particular concern because they typically provide high value 

habitat for fish and are vulnerable to human disturbance (North Pacific Management Council 

2002 in Johnson et al. 2005). Vegetated nearshore habitat provides food resources, important 

nursery and rearing habitat, and cover for many marine species (Gotceitas et al. 1997, Norcross 

et al. 1999, Dean et al. 2000, Spalding et al. 2003 in Johnson et al. 2005). Wetlands also perform 

a variety of important environmental functions. 

A functional assessment was performed by HDR (2010b) using the Oregon Rapid Wetland 

Assessment Protocol (ORWAP) adapted for the site (Appendix D). The functional assessment 

was completed for wetlands, a portion of the intertidal area between ELW (-5 feet) and EHW 

(20.3 feet), as well as a small portion of the active channel complex associated with Bay Creek. 

A high value score was received for the fish support group value because of habitat is designated 

as EFH. However, conversations with the primary author of the ORWAP method have indicated 

that a maximum score is not warranted based solely on the EFH designation because anadromous 

fish do not garner the same level of protection in Alaska as in Oregon (Adamus 2011). Because 

the assessment area does not support a directed fishery and Bay Creek is a relatively small 

stream that does not support a large run, the maximum score is likely not reflective of the actual 

value of this site when considered in the context of the Southeast Alaska fishery which consists 

of hundreds of similar small runs on small streams. 

The intertidal wetlands in close proximity to Bay Creek and the estuarine environment provide 

habitat for birds in addition to fish. Given the wetlands close proximity to a developed area (i.e., 

parking areas, Glacier Highway) these wetlands may also perform contaminant removal 

functions (e.g., sediment and toxicant retention). A discussion on wetlands in the project area and 

results of the functional assessment are provided in Section 5.4. 

flats are exposed at extremely low tides and inundated at high tides with the waterThe subtidal 

habitat in Auke Bay typically have more fully developed benthic invertebrate communities of 

infaunal invertebrates (e.g., polychaetes, clams, tubeworms, crustaceans) rather than the 

epifaunal invertebrates (e.g., amphipods, chitons, limpets, sea stars) that are typically found in 

intertidal habitat areas (Corps 1985). However, the northeast portion of Auke Bay, directly under 

the then existing harbor developments (i.e., Fisherman’s Bend and DeHart’s Marina), does not 

show the diversity and richness characterized in other areas of Auke Bay (Corps 1985). The lack 

of diversity and richness is attributed to the natural physical differences in sediments (e.g., grain 

size, carbon content) and/or higher concentrations of pollutants (e.g., heavy metals and oil) 

potentially present in these developed area (Corps 1985). However, it should be noted that the 

source of information (Corps 1985) referencing species diversity and richness specific to the 

subtidal zone in the project area was published nearly 25 years ago. Additional and more recent 

studies specific to the project area were not found to be available. 

5.1.3 Terrestrial 

The terrestrial vegetation surrounding Statter Harbor appears to be influenced by its location to 

nearby developments and disturbance. Upland plant communities within the project area include 

needleleaf forest, shrub thicket, and mixed forb/grass communities. Needleleaf forest is limited 

to a narrow vegetated strip along the western shoreline of Bay Creek and several smaller, 

isolated patches along the coast. Characteristics of this plant community include an overstory 

HDR-249-R11012F 90



dominated by Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) with a mixed understory of green alder (Alnus 

crispa), Pacific willow (Salix lucida), cow parsnip (Heracleum lanatum), and common horsetail 

(Equisetum arvense). 

Areas east of Bay Creek are covered with a mix of unvegetated developments, shrub thickets, 

and mixed forb/grass communities. The shrub thickets are dominated by a dense overstory of 

green alder and Pacific willow with a sparse understory comprised of cow parsnip, beach 

ryegrass (Leymus mollis), common horsetail, and Merten’s sedge (Carex mertensii). This cover 

type is common along upland areas immediately adjacent to the coast and provides a natural 

buffer between many of the upslope developments and the marine waters of Auke Bay. 

Intermixed within the shrub thickets and unvegetated areas are mixed forb/grass communities 

dominated by species that are resilient to frequent disturbances. Many of the disturbance-adapted 

forb/grass communities are not natural plant communities and commonly include non-native and 

weedy species. 

5.2 Wildlife 

5.2.1 Fish and EFH 

5.2.1.1 Anadromous and freshwater fish 

Anadromous fish are those fish that hatch in freshwater, eventually migrate to the saltwater 

where they spend a portion of their adult life, and return to the freshwater to spawn. Resident fish 

spend their entire lives in freshwater, though may migrate between connected freshwater 

systems. Some fish species, such as Dolly Varden char and cutthroat trout, can have both 

anadromous and resident populations. 

Anadromous and resident fish that use freshwater systems in the Juneau area to spawn include 

coho, pink, chum (O. keta), and sockeye salmon (O. nerka); cutthroat, rainbow (O. mykiss), 

steelhead, and eastern brook trout (S. fontinalis); and Dolly Varden char (Bethers et al. 1995). It 

should be noted that while Chinook (O. tshawytscha) salmon migrate through Auke Bay, they do 

not spawn in any one of the streams that drains into the bay (Corps 1985). Chinook salmon that 

were imprinted in net pens in Auke Bay as smolts return to Auke Bay as adults; however, no 

spawning occurs (Moran 2009, Joyce 2009). 

Five species of pacific salmon have essential habitat designated within the waters of Auke Bay 

and therefore within the project area (NOAA 2008), although the extent of use has not been 

quantified for each species. Coho and pink salmon use Bay Creek, the only freshwater stream in 

the project area, to spawn; and juvenile coho also rear in the creek (ADF&G 2008b, 2008c; 

Bethers et al. 1995). 

The presence of Dolly Varden char has been documented in Bay Creek (Bethers et al. 1995, 

Cameron 2011); the population is presumed to be resident. Recent sampling efforts and historic 

records confirm the presence of cutthroat trout (ADF&G 2008c, Cameron 2011) 27 . Auke Creek 

is the nearest stream listed on the AWC as providing habitat for anadromous Dolly Varden and 

cutthroat trout (ADF&G 2008b). 

Although Bay Creek is small, it is reported to be rather productive for its size. Bay Creek is 

considered to have a moderate fishery value given its proximity to Juneau (Bethers et al. 1995) 

27 A single cutthroat trout was captured from a minnow trap placed in Bay Creek in 1990 (Bethers et al. 1995). 

HDR-249-R11012F 91



and contributes to the overall salmon population in the Juneau area. Bay Creek has been 

documented to support populations of the following fish species: 

• Coho salmon 

• Pink salmon 

• Dolly Varden char 

• Cutthroat trout 

Coho salmon 

Coho salmon enter spawning streams in Alaska between July and November (Elliott 2007), 

usually during periods of high runoff. In the Juneau area, coho salmon typically enter their 

spawning systems from August through September and spawn from October through November 

(Bethers et al. 1995). 

Juvenile coho salmon typically emerge from the gravel in May or June (Bethers et al. 1995); and 

reside in freshwater streams from one to three years before out-migrating to sea (Elliott 2007, 

Bethers et al. 1995). Migration timing specific to Bay Creek is not available. Although juvenile 

coho salmon rear in Bay Creek, the duration of residence is not known. Minnow traps set in Bay 

Creek during June 2010 did not capture any coho salmon (Cameron 2011). 

Bethers et al. (1995) identifies two primary areas of spawning habitat in Bay Creek: one 

upstream from tidal influence (above the Glacier Highway culvert) and the other within Bay 

Creek’s intertidal channel. The majority of intertidal spawning habitat extends from the base of 

the culvert downstream roughly 100 to 150 feet 28 (Bethers et al. 1995). Additionally, small 

pockets of spawning substrate are reported to be present in the upper reaches of the stream 

(Bethers et al. 1995). 

Little is known about the ocean migrations of coho salmon (Elliott 2007), or how long juvenile 

salmon linger in estuarine, nearshore habitat prior to moving offshore. Bay Creek’s intertidal 

channel and active alluvial delta are relatively confined and shallow; and may provide minimal 

holding and rearing habitat for juvenile fish. Studies that document juvenile coho use specific to 

project area habitats have not been performed to date. However, estuarine habitat adjacent to Bay 

Creek more than likely provides suitable refuge for juvenile coho salmon during their outmigration 

to coastal waters. 

Adjacent estuarine habitat west of Bay Creek, which encompasses a large eelgrass bed, appears 

to potentially provide the most valuable habitat for migrating and rearing fish. However, it is 

likely that juvenile fish also use the estuarine habitat adjacent to Bay Creek’s historical alluvial 

delta to the east. Estuarine habitat is discussed in more detail in Section 5.1.2. 

It is generally accepted that juvenile salmon move along shoreline habitats to eventually migrate 

into deeper ocean environments. One report on the early marine ecology of juvenile salmon in 

Southeast Alaska indicates that juvenile coho salmon move more readily from intertidal habitat 

into open water compared to pink salmon (Heard et al. 2001). Adult coho salmon probably also 

follow the shoreline during their return migration to spawn in their natal stream. Additional life 

history information for coho salmon is provided in the EFH Assessment (Appendix C). 


2008c). 

HDR-249-R11012F 92



Recent surveys to document fish presence in the large eelgrass bed west of Bay Creek in mid- 

June, mid-July, and early August did not capture juvenile coho salmon (Harris et al. 2009). Small 

numbers of juvenile coho were captured from nearby Waydelich Creek and Auke Nu Creek 

while larger numbers were captured from sites farther out into Lynn Canal (Harris et al. 2009). It 

is possible the majority of juvenile coho salmon had already migrated out of inner Auke Bay by 

the time of the mid-June survey. 

Pink salmon 

In the Juneau area, pink salmon typically enter local spawning streams between late June and 

mid-August; however, spawning timing can vary (Bethers et al. 1995). Run-timing data specific 

to Bay Creek is not available. However, by mid-September in 2010, most pink salmon in Bay 

Creek had already spawned (HDR 2010c). 

Typically, most pink salmon spawn relatively low in the drainage (e.g., within a few miles of 

saltwater) and commonly spawn within intertidal stream channels near the mouth of streams 

(Kingsbury 2004, Bethers et al. 1995, Bailey 1969). Favored spawning habitat includes shallow 

riffles located in both freshwater and intertidal channels, where flowing water breaks over coarse 

gravel or cobbles, and in downstream ends of pools (Kingsbury 2004, National Academy of 

Sciences 1971). 

Pink salmon spawn upstream of tidal influence (above the Glacier Highway culvert) and within 

Bay Creek’s intertidal channel (HDR 2010c). The majority of intertidal spawning habitat extends 

from the base of the culvert downstream roughly 100 to 150 feet 29 (Bethers et al. 1995, HDR 

2010c). Since Bay Creek is a relatively short stream pink salmon may spawn throughout most of 

its length. 

While some pink salmon may spawn within the lowest portions of the intertidal channel, it is 

very unlikely that spawning is successful (Glynn 2009). Research has shown that spawning 

success is greatly reduced below a 6-foot tidal elevation (National Academy of Sciences 1971, 

Noerenberg et al. 1964 30 ). The placement of intertidal fill (Horton Lot) within Bay Creek’s 

historical alluvial fan has altered the landscape, and therefore the location of tidal elevations. 

However, successful intertidal spawning would not be expected downstream of a 4-foot to 6-foot 

tidal elevation, as shown in Figure 5-2. Therefore, if pink salmon do spawn in the lower tidal 

channel downstream of the Horton Lot, success is expected to be minimal to nonexistent. 

Juvenile pink salmon generally out-migrate to coastal waters soon after they emerge in the late 

winter and spring (Kingsbury 2004, Mortensen et al. 1999). In Juneau, juvenile pink salmon 

typically move downstream in April and May (Bethers et al. 1995, Mortensen et al. 1999). 

Throughout the spring and early summer, prior to moving offshore, juvenile pink salmon use 

Auke Bay as a nursery area and reside nearshore for up to several weeks while they adjust to 

salinity (Mortensen et al. 1999). Juvenile pink salmon are most abundant in near-shore areas of 

Auke Bay in late April and early May (Mortensen et al. 1999) 31 . Pink salmon tend to migrate 


2008c). 

30 Results of pre-emergent sampling of Alaskan pink salmon fry indicates that nearly all eggs sampled from 4-ft to 

6-ft tidal elevations do not survive, and that very few alevins (young salmon (or trout) that still has a yolk sac 

attached) from this tidal range are produced (National Academy of Sciences 1971; Noerenberg et al. 1964). 

31 Mortensen et al. 1999 conducted multiple years of both nearshore and off shore sampling in Auke Bay from 

March through July. 

HDR-249-R11012F 93



along long straight, smooth transition beaches but linger and feed along more protected nursery 

habitats (Heart et al. 2001). 

Bay Creek’s lower intertidal channel and adjacent estuarine habitat likely provides some refuge 

for juvenile pink salmon during their out-migration to coastal waters. However, the relatively 

confined, shallow nature of the intertidal channel does not appear to provide much holding 

habitat. Adjacent habitat east of Bay Creek likely provides some suitable refuge for pink salmon. 

However, fish may be vulnerable to predation given the relatively small amount of cover. Habitat 

immediately adjacent to Bay Creek to the west contains a large eelgrass bed that likely provides 

valuable habitat for migrating and rearing fish. 

No juvenile pink salmon were captured from the large eelgrass bed west of Bay Creek during 

recent surveys conducted in mid-June, mid-July, and early August (Harris et al. 2009). Only one 

juvenile pink salmon was captured, at Waydelich Creek, from the four sample sites located in 

Auke Bay during this timeframe. The lack of juvenile pink salmon presence at the Bay Creek 

eelgrass bed may indicate the majority of juvenile pink salmon had already moved further out 

toward Lynn Canal. Juvenile pink salmon were captured from eelgrass sites near Echo Cove and 

Bridget Cove (Harris et al 2009). Additional life history information for pink salmon is provided 

in the EFH Assessment (Appendix C). 

Other Juneau-area anadromous and resident fish 

Chinook, sockeye, and chum salmon are all found in Auke Bay. These three species have not 

been documented in Bay Creek and are not listed on the AWC as using Bay Creek (ADF&G 

2008b). The nearest streams documented to provide spawning habitat for chum salmon are 

Waydelich Creek and Auke Creek (ADF&G 2008b), located approximately half a mile to the 

southwest and southeast, respectively. Auke Creek is the nearest stream listed by the AWC as 

providing sockeye salmon habitat (ADF&G 2008b). 

Chinook salmon do not spawn in any one of the streams that flow into Auke Bay. To enhance 

fishing opportunities in Juneau, the ADF&G and the Douglas Island Pink and Chum 

Corporation, Inc., conduct a Chinook salmon enhancement program in which hatchery-produced 

Chinook salmon smolts are stocked in Auke Bay. The hatchery-produced smolts are held for 

imprinting near the mouth of Auke Creek and released from the net pens. The fish return to this 

area as adults, but do not spawn. The nearest stream documented by the AWC to provide habitat 

for Chinook salmon is Fish Creek, located roughly 4.5 miles southeast of Statter Harbor on 

Douglas Island (ADF&G 2008b). However, the Fish Creek Chinook salmon are also hatcheryproduced 

fish. The nearest wild Chinook salmon runs are on the Taku River on Admiralty Island 

and the Chilkat River (Teske 2010). 

While it is possible that adult sockeye, Chinook, and chum salmon enter the project area during 

their migration, their frequent presence in the project area in large numbers would not typically 

be expected. Sockeye salmon returning to spawn in the Auke Creek system typically stack up 

and hold near the mouth of the creek, until conditions, such as water levels and temperatures, are 

favorable for upstream movement (Joyce 2009). Chinook salmon are also observed in large 

numbers near the dock in front of the Auke Bay Laboratory (Joyce 2009). 

Capture results from nearshore beach seine surveys conducted in Auke Bay in the late 1980s 

consisted primarily of juvenile pink and chum salmon; and pink salmon was the most abundant 

salmon captured during off shore surveys (Mortensen et al. 1999). However, sampling was not 

HDR-249-R11012F 94



conducted in the vicinity of the project area at that time. During a recent 4-year study period, 

biologists conducted beach seine surveys in eelgrass beds near the mouths of Bay Creek and 

nearby Waydelich Creek in mid-June, mid-July, and early August (Harris et al. 2009). While 

juvenile chum salmon were captured from Waydelich Creek, no juvenile chum salmon were 

captured from the Bay Creek eelgrass beds. 

It is not likely that juvenile chum and sockeye salmon typically use Bay Creek’s intertidal 

channel or rely heavily on the project area’s adjacent estuarine habitat, given the proximity to 

spawning streams and lack of juvenile salmon presence at the Bay Creek eelgrass beds (Harris et 

al. 2008). 

The presence of Dolly Varden char has been documented in Bay Creek (Bethers et al. 1995, 

Cameron 2011); the population is presumed to be resident. Recent sampling efforts and historic 

records confirm the presence of cutthroat trout (ADF&G 2008c, Cameron 2011). Life history 

and habitat use for either species specific to Bay Creek is not available. Auke Creek is the 

nearest stream listed on the AWC as providing habitat for anadromous Dolly Varden and 

cutthroat trout (ADF&G 2008b). Anadromous Dolly Varden, steelhead trout, and resident 

rainbow trout have not been documented in Bay Creek. Auke Creek is the nearest stream listed 

as providing habitat for steelhead trout, cutthroat trout, and anadromous Dolly Varden (ADF&G 

2008b). The distribution of eastern brook trout is limited to the Salmon Creek Reservoir and 

specific streams where the trout were stocked (Bethers et al. 1995). Eastern brook trout are 

therefore not present in the project area. 

Species of concern 

The ADF&G maintains a list of species of special concern (SSC; ADF&G 2008d). An SSC is 

defined as “any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife or population of mammal or bird native 

to Alaska that has entered a long-term decline in abundance or is vulnerable to a significant 

decline due to low numbers, restricted distribution, dependence on limited habitat resources, or 

sensitivity to environmental disturbance.” 

ADF&G (2008d) considers the Snake River fall Chinook salmon to be an SSC for Southeast 

Alaska. However, Snake River fall Chinook salmon are not expected to use the project area 

(ADF&G 2009a). 

Salmon from several ESA-listed Evolutionary Significant Units along the west coast may occur 

in Alaska waters (NOAA 2008). The presence of these ESA-listed species has not been 

confirmed in the project area and is not likely (NOAA 2008). 

HDR-249-R11012F 95

Marine fish 



Harris et al. (2008) captured 10 fish species (listed below) from eelgrass beds near Bay Creek 

throughout a four-year study intended to document eelgrass habitat and faunal assemblages in 

the CBJ. Harris captured a total of 982 fish, representing six of the 17 families listed above. The 

family names are given in parentheses. 

• Pacific staghorns (Cottidae) • Starry flounder (Pleuronectidae) 

• Frog sculpin (Cottidae) • Yellowfin sole (Pleuronectidae) 

• Silverspotted sculpin (Cottidae) • Crescent gunnel (Pholididae) 

• Snailfish-juvenile (Liparidae) • Juvenile gunnel (Pholididae) 

• Threespine stickleback (Gasterosteidae) • Tubesnout (Aulorhynchidae) 

Although other species are likely present in the project area at various times throughout the year, 

no other species are documented as such in the available literature. 

During the 1980s, Auke Bay was considered among the most prolific and diverse bays for fish 

resources in northern southeast Alaska (Corps 1985). Auke Bay provides habitat for several 

important species, including species of Pacific salmon, Pacific herring, and king and Tanner crab 

(Corps 1985). 

Pacific herring has been considered an important species in Alaska due to its high productivity 

and its interaction with a large number of predators and prey. Herring are commercially 

harvested and are an important prey species for a variety of mammals, fish, and birds. In the late 

1970s, Auke Bay had the largest harvestable stock of herring in Alaska (Corps 1985). However, 

by 1982 the Lynn Canal herring stock had declined significantly (Pritchett et al. 2007). Although 

the herring fishery has rebounded in some areas in southeast Alaska, numbers of herring in Auke 

Bay remain relatively low (Moran 2009, Pritchett et al. 2007). 

Historically, significant numbers of herring spawned in intertidal and subtidal habitats along 

Auke Bay (Carls et al. 2008). During the 1970s, most herring spawned in the vicinity of Indian 

Point near Auke Nu Cove (Carls et al. 2008). In the 1980s herring spawning was concentrated 

closer to the project area, near the present-day Fisherman’s Bend Marina and Statter Harbor 

(Carls et al. 2008). Currently, most herring in Lynn Canal spawn near Berners Bay, roughly 30 

miles northwest of Auke Bay (Carls et al. 2008). Pacific herring still spawn in Auke Bay, but in 

very low numbers (Moran 2009, Pritchett et al. 2007). The extent of habitat in Auke Bay and 

specifically within the project footprint used by herring has not been documented. Lynn Canal 

herring, including herring that spawn in Auke Bay, are not markedly discrete from other 

populations of herring in southeast Alaska and in a recent evaluation were found not to be a 

distinct population segment (DPS) as defined by the ESA (Carls et al. 2008). 

Herring typically spawn in shallow, vegetated areas in intertidal and subtidal areas (ADF&G 

2007a). Spawning takes place from late April to early May in Lynn Canal (USDA in Carls et al. 

2008). Herring in Lynn Canal have been documented to spawn more heavily on large brown kelp 

(e.g., Laminaria, Alaria) than on eelgrass beds (Blankenbeckler and Larson 1987 in Carls et al. 

2008). However, historical spawning beaches in Auke Bay were located on or near eelgrass beds 

and overlap with public, private, and commercial development (Carls et al. 2008). 

HDR-249-R11012F 96



The reason for the decline of the Lynn Canal herring population is not clear, although 

contributing factors likely include geographic shifting of spawning aggregations, overfishing, 

water pollution, population growth of predators, and habitat degradation and disturbance in 

Auke Bay, (Pritchett et al. 2007). Shoreline development has been considered a factor in the 

decline, but the evidence does not support the hypothesis that human shoreline development has 

actually caused the population decline (Carls et al. 2008). A recent study indicates that although 

16% of Auke Bay’s shoreline has been altered (study area includes 52.1 km of shoreline between 

Lena Point and Outer Point on Douglas Island), this does not explain why populations have 

fluctuated in relatively undeveloped areas, such as Tenakee Inlet and Favorite Channel (Carls et 

al. 2008). 

Juvenile herring still use eelgrass beds in Auke Bay as rearing and overwintering habitat (Moran 

2009). Carls et al. (2008) report that more than 800 herring were captured in 11 of 39 beach seine 

hauls from 1999 to 2007 (cited as Nearshore Fish Atlas of Alaska 2007). No Pacific herring were 

captured from the Bay Creek eelgrass beds during the recent surveys (conducted on June 27, 

2005; July 24, 2005; and August 2, 2007; Harris et al. 2008). However, relatively large numbers 

(n=607) were captured from eelgrass beds at nearby Waydelich Creek, and low numbers (n=11) 

were captured from eelgrass beds near Auke Nu Cove Creek (Harris et al. 2008). Juvenile 

herring may also use other habitats in Auke Bay that have not yet been sampled (Carls et al. 

2008). 

The majority of fish species found in southeast Alaska are also found in Auke Bay during certain 

life stages and seasons (Corps 1985). Fish from the following list occur in Auke Bay and Auke 

Nu Cove during various life stages (NOAA 2009a, Harris et al. 2008, Johnson et al. 2005, Corps 

1985). The list below provides the common name followed by the family name in parentheses 

and specific species, when possible (NOAA 2009a, Harris et al. 2008, Johnson et al. 2005, Corps 

1985). 

While the marine fish grouped into the families listed below have been documented to occur in 

Auke Bay and Auke Nu Cove, only some of these fish have been documented in the project area. 

Salmon (Salmonidae) 

• Coho salmon 

• Chinook salmon 

• Pink salmon 

• Chum salmon 

• Sockeye salmon 

• Dolly Varden char 

Sculpins (Cottidae) 

• Pacific staghorn sculpin 

• Frog sculpin 

• Silverspotted sculpin 

• Northern sculpin 

• Padded sculpin 

• Buffalo sculpin 

• Manacled sculpin 

Snailfishes (Liparidae) 

• Snailfish-juvenile 

Poachers (Agonidae) 

• Tubenose poacher 

Gunnels (Pholididae) 

• Crescent gunnel 

• Gunnel-juvenile 

Tubesnouts (Aulorhynchidae) 

Pacific herring (Clupidae) 

Cods (Gadidae) 

HDR-249-R11012F 97



• Walleye pollock 

Greenlings (Hexagrammidae) 

• Pacific cod 

Lumpsuckers (Cyclopterida) 

Flatfishes (Pleuronectidae) 

• Pacific spiny lumpsucker 

• Starry flounder 

Rockfishes (Scorpaenidae) 

• Yellowfin sole 

Smelts (Osmeridae) 

• Rock sole 

Skates (Rajidae) 

Pricklebacks (Stichaeidae) 

Eelpouts (Zoarcidae) 

• Snake prickleback 

Sablefishes (Anoploplomatidae) 

• Arctic shanny 

Ronquils (Bathymasteridae) 

Sand lances (Ammodytidae) 

Wolffishes (Anarhichadidae) 

• Pacific sand lance 

Essential Fish Habitat 

The Magnuson Stevens Fishery and Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) defines 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) as “waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, 

feeding, or growth to maturity” (NOAA 2006) The MSFCMA notes that 

…for the purpose of interpreting the definition of essential fish habitat, ‘waters’ 

include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological 

properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by 

fish where appropriate; ‘substrate’ includes sediment, hard bottom, structures 

underlying the waters, and associated biological communities, ‘necessary’ means 

the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species’ 

contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and ‘spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth 

to maturity’ covers a species’ full life cycle. (NOAA 2006) 

The NOAA Fisheries classifies the marine waters of Auke Bay as EFH for five species of pacific 

salmon (NOAA 2008). The five species of Pacific salmon include coho, pink, sockeye, Chinook, 

and chum salmon. Bay Creek, the only freshwater stream in the project area, provides EFH for 

coho and pink salmon (NOAA 2008). Coho and pink salmon use Bay Creek to spawn; and 

juvenile coho also rear in the creek (ADF&G 2008b, 2008c; Bethers et al. 1995). The extent of 

use for the other EFH listed species in Auke Bay has not been quantified. Chinook, sockeye, and 

chum salmon may use project area waters during their migration, but frequent use of habitat 

within the project footprint is not expected, as discussed above. 

The MSFCMA directs federal agencies to consult with NMFS when any of their activities may 

have an adverse effect on EFH. An EFH Assessment was completed and is included in Appendix 

C. Life history information for species with EFH designated in the project area is included in the 

EFH Assessment. In accordance with the EFH requirements of the MSFCMA, the EFH 

Assessment presents information about the project, the affected fish habitat, an analysis of the 

impacts to the habitat, documentation of the agency consultation process, and an agency 

determination on the effect of the project on the EFH. 

Four species of Groundfish were captured from eelgrass beds near Bay Creek during a 4-year 

study (Harris et al. 2008). These fish include Pacific staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus), frog 

HDR-249-R11012F 98



sculpin (Myoxocephalus stelleri), silverspotted sculpin (Blepsias cirrhosus), and yellowfin sole 

(Limanda aspera). These four species have EFH designations in other areas but are not mapped 

as having EFH in this area, so are not considered EFH species for this project. 

5.2.2 Marine Mammals 

Marine mammal species in southeast Alaska include sea otters (Enhydra lutris kenyoni; 

Schneider and Ballachey 2008); Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) eastern and western 

DPSs; harbor seals (Phoca vitulina); harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and Dall’s porpoise 

(Phocoenoides dalli); and minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), killer whales (Orcinus 

orca), humpback whales (Megaptera noveaengliae), fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus), and 

sperm whales (Physeter catodon; NOAA 2008). All marine mammals are protected under the 

Marine Mammals Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 and some are protected under the ESA. The 

USFWS and NMFS share jurisdiction for marine mammals under the MMPA and ESA. 

Marine mammals that have been observed in the coastal waters of Auke Bay include: sea otters, 

Steller sea lions; harbor seals; harbor and Dall’s porpoise; and minke whales, killer whales, and 

humpback whales (Moran 2009, Savage 2009). These species are all year-round residents of the 

area, with the exception of the humpback whale. The availability of prey species influences 

marine mammal movement in Auke Bay. 

Humpback whales, harbor seals, and harbor porpoise are the most frequently observed marine 

mammals in the project area (Moran 2009, Savage 2009). Humpback whales have been observed 

in the project area numerous times (Moran 2009, Savage 2009) and harbor seals occur frequently 

in Statter Harbor (Moran 2009). Humpback whales are listed as endangered under the ESA; 

humpback whales and harbor seals are both listed as SSC by the ADF&G. Section 5.3.1 includes 

a more detailed discussion on humpback whales and harbor seals. Harbor porpoise can typically 

be observed in Auke Bay throughout the year, and commonly enter Statter Harbor (Moran 2009). 

Steller sea lions are most often observed in Auke Bay and more specifically the project area in 

the winter, presumably to feed on overwintering herring (Moran 2009). Sea otters are typically 

not expected to be present in the project area (USFWS 2005), although otters have been observed 

in the vicinity of the project area’s breakwater (Enriquez 2009). Steller sea lions are listed as 

endangered by ESA; Steller sea lions and sea otters are both listed as SSC by the ADF&G. 

Section 5.3.1 includes a discussion on Steller sea lions and sea otters. 

Minke whales, killer whales, and Dall’s porpoise are occasionally observed in Auke Bay, their 

presence is not frequent (Savage 2009). The presence of minke whale is least likely but still 

possible (Savage 2009). Killer whales have also been documented to enter Statter Harbor to prey 

on Steller sea lions and harbor seals (Savage 2009). Dall’s porpoise typically occur in more open 

water areas, although may use Auke Bay on occasion (Moran 2009). Dall’s porpoise may enter 

Statter Harbor, although they are not expected to use the project area (Moran 2009, Savage 

2009). 

5.2.3 Birds 

The open water of Auke Bay provides wintering habitat for a variety of water birds including 

surf scoter (Melanitta perspicillata), long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis), bufflehead 

(Bucephala albeola), common (Bucephala clangula) and Barrow’s goldeneye (B. islandica), and 

red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator; West 2002); and gulls Larus sp), mallard (Anas 

platyrhynchos), greater scaup (Aythya marila), harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus):, white- 

HDR-249-R11012F 99



winged scoter (Melanitta fusca), common merganser (M. merganser), pelagic 

cormorant(Phalacrocorax pelagicus), black turnstone (A. melanocephala), petrels (Oceanodroma 

sp), and murrelet (Brachyramphus sp.; Corps 1985). Eelgrass, marine algae, marine 

invertebrates, small fish, and post-spawned salmon provide overwintering food for these birds 

(Corps 1985). 

Pacific (Gavia pacifica) and common loons (G. immer), horned (Podiceps auritus) and rednecked 

grebes (P. grisegena), common murre (Uria aalge), pigeon guillemot (Cepphus 

Columba), and marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) are occasionally seen in the 

waters of Auke Bay (West 2002). 

Nesting waterfowl that may be found along or adjacent to Auke Bay include: Canada geese 

(Branta Canadensis), swans, loons, mergansers, mallards, white-winged and surf scoters, and 

harlequin ducks (Corps 1985). 

Rocky beaches and tide flats in Auke Bay attract staging shorebirds during spring and fall 

migration. Black oystercatchers (Haematopus bachmani), dunlins (Calidris alpine), ruddy 

(Arenaria interpres) and black turnstones, surfbirds (Aphriza virgata), rock sandpipers (Calidris 

ptilocnemis), greater (Tringa melanoleuca) and lesser yellowlegs (T. flavipes), and least 

sandpipers (Calidris minutilla) can be found feeding during mid-to-low tides on beaches 

throughout Auke Bay. Sea birds such as Arctic terns (Sterna paradisaea) are sometimes observed 

at the harbor in the spring and early summer (ADF&G 2009a). 

Breeding birds that inhabit deciduous forests and riparian areas in the vicinity of the project area 

include hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus), varied thrush (Ixoreus naevius), golden-crowned 

kinglet (Regulus satrapa), red-breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus rubber), brown creeper (Certhia 

americana), chestnut-backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens), winter wren (Troglodytes 

troglodytes), and yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata). Yellow- and orange-crowned 

warblers (Vermivora celata) may be found in the riparian willows and alders (West 2002). 

Each year, bird enthusiasts participate in the Great Backyard Bird Count (GBBC). The GBBC is 

an annual 4-day event that engages bird watchers in counting birds to create a real-time snapshot 

of where the birds are across the continent (GBBC 2009). The GBBC is a joint project of the 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology and the National Audubon Society (GBBC 2009). Juneau is the 

second most active community participating in the 2009 Great Backyard Bird Count, which 

occurred from February 13 to 16, 2009 (Juneau Audubon Society 2009). Juneau submitted 41 

checklists and observed 59 species. A total of ten checklists reporting 44 species (6,101 

individual birds) were submitted from Auke Bay (Juneau Audubon Society 2009). Table 5-1 lists 

the numbers of bird species observed and the number of participants that reported those 

observations during the 2009 GBBC. 

HDR-249-R11012F 100



Table 5-1 Bird Species Observed in Auke Bay During the Great Backyard Bird Count in 2009 

Mallard Red-throated loon Surfbird Common redpoll 

Harlequin duck Pacific loon Rock sandpiper Pine siskin 

Surf scoter Common loon Dunlin Song sparrow 

White-winged scoter Horned grebe Mew gull Lincoln's sparrow 

Long-tailed duck Red-necked grebe Thayer's gull Dark-eyed junco 

Bufflehead Pelagic cormorant Pigeon guillemot Northwestern crow 

Common goldeneye Great blue heron Common murre Common raven 

Common merganser Sharp-shinned hawk Marbled murrelet White-winged crossbill 

Barrow's goldeneye Black turnstone Hairy woodpecker American tree sparrow 

Steller's jay Bald eagle Brown creeper Black-billed magpie 

Red-breasted merganser Golden-crowned kinglet Glaucous-winged gull Chestnut-backed chickadee 

Sources: The GBBC 2009; Juneau National Audubon Society 2009 

Bird species protected under state or federal regulations are included below. 

Migratory birds 

Waterfowl and shorebirds migrate through Auke Bay, located along the Pacific Flyway, on their 

way to breeding grounds in the north and overwintering areas in the south (Corps 1985). Auke 

Bay provides important resting and feeding areas for migratory birds in intertidal zones and 

various stream deltas and coves (Corps 1985). 

Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. 703), it is illegal to “take” migratory 

birds, their eggs, feathers, or nests. “Take” includes any attempt at hunting, pursuing, wounding, 

killing, possessing, or transporting any migratory bird, nest, egg, or part thereof by any means or 

in any manner. The MBTA does not distinguish between intentional and unintentional take. All 

migratory birds are protected under the MBTA. Destruction of active bird nests, eggs, or 

nestlings that can result from construction activities would violate the MBTA. 

Bald eagles 

Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are common in Southeast Alaska and have been 

documented in the project area; however, there are no records of nesting eagles in the immediate 

project area. The nearest documented bald eagle nests are approximately 0.5 mile to the southsoutheast 

and 1 mile to the southwest (Schemp 2009). 

The Land Use Code (CBJ 49.20.250) prohibits development within 330 radial-feet of the nest 

during the eaglet incubation period, from March through August. Any proposed development 

within 330-foot setback would be further regulated. Outside of these months, the setback is 

reduced to 50 feet from the nest on private property but not reduced on public property. Based on 

the USFWS data (Schemp 2009) the setback for the nest nearest to the project area does not 

extend into Statter Harbor. 

Although bald eagles are no longer considered endangered or threatened under the ESA, they are 

protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. The Bald Eagle Protection 

Act provides for the protection of the bald eagle and the golden eagle by prohibiting, except 

under certain specified conditions, the taking, possession, and commerce of such birds. 

HDR-249-R11012F 101



5.3 Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Special Concern 

Table 5-1 outlines species that could occur in the project area that are listed as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA and listed by the ADF&G as endangered or an SSC (ADF&G 2008d). 

Table 5-2 Protected Species in the Statter Harbor Project Area 

Species Endangered Species Act Listing State of Alaska Listing 

Steller sea lion 

(Eumetopias jubatus) 

Humpback whale 

(Megaptera novaeangliae) 

Northern sea otter 

(Enhydra lutris kenyoni) 

Harbor seal 

(Phoca vitulina) 

Sources: ADF&G 2008d; NOAA 2008 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Not listed for southeast Alaska 

Not listed 

SSC 

Endangered 

SSC 

SSC 

Salmon (Oncorhynchus sp.) from several ESA-listed Evolutionary Significant Units along the 

west coast may occur in Alaska waters (NOAA 2008). The presence of these ESA-listed species 

has not been confirmed in the project area and is not expected (NOAA 2008). 

The Snake River fall Chinook salmon is considered an SSC for Southeast Alaska by the ADF&G 

(2008d). However, Snake River fall Chinook salmon are not expected to use the project area 

(ADF&G 2009b). 


In southeast Alaska, endangered marine mammals listed under the ESA include the Steller sea 

lion eastern and western DPS, fin whales, sperm whales and humpback whales (Megaptera 

noveaengliae; NOAA 2008). The only threatened and endangered marine mammal species listed 

under the ESA likely to found in the general study area are the endangered humpback whale and 

the eastern or western DPS of Steller sea lion (NOAA 2008). The ADF&G considers sea otters, 

harbor seals, and Steller sea lions as SSCs for Southeast Alaska (2008d), all of which have been 

documented in the project area. 

5.3.1.1 Humpback whales 

Humpback whales are listed as endangered under the ESA and by ADF&G and protected by the 

MMPA. Humpback whales are observed in southeast Alaska each month of the year, though 

numbers of individuals are low from December through May (NOAA 2009b). Humpback whales 

observed in southeast Alaska typically spend their summers feeding in Alaska and migrate to 

lower latitudes to overwinter (NOAA 2009c). However, humpback whales have been observed 

in Auke Bay in winter months (Corps 1985, NOAA 2009c). It is possible that the individuals 

observed during winter months follow a similar migration path, but are either departing later or 

returning earlier compared to the majority (NOAA 2009c); otherwise these whales may 

overwinter in southeast Alaska waters (Corps 1985). 

Humpback whales are most likely to be found in the general project area from May through 

November (NOAA 2008, 2009c). In recent years, local residents and agency biologists 

confirmed that humpbacks enter the project area (Savage 2009, Moran 2009, HDR 2008). 

Roughly two year ago, a humpback whale mother and calf were frequently observed in the 

HDR-249-R11012F 102



project area in May and June (Moran 2009, NOAA 2009c). Humpback whale occurrence is 

typically associated with the presence of their prey; humpbacks feed on crustaceans and schools 

of small fish, such as Pacific herring (NOAA 2009c). In the project area and the greater Auke 

Bay, humpback whales feed primarily on juvenile herring (Moran 2009). 

5.3.1.2 Steller sea lions 

Steller sea lions are listed as endangered under the ESA and are listed as an SSC by the ADF&G 

(2008d). This species is also protected under the MMPA. Steller sea lions do not typically 

migrate, but males and pups have been documented to disperse widely during the non-breeding 

season (NOAA 2009a). Breeding typically occurs in late May through early June throughout 

their range (NOAA 2009a). 

According to NOAA Fisheries, there are no haul-outs or rookeries for Steller sea lions in Auke 

Bay (NOAA 2009b). The nearest major rookery is the White Sisters rookery on Chichagof Island 

and the nearest major haul-out site is on Benjamin Island, located more than 125 

kilometers(approximately 78 miles) to the west and 25 kilometers (approximately 16 miles) to 

the northwest, respectively (NOAA 2009b). These areas have both been designated as critical 

habitat for Steller sea lions (NOAA 2009b). 

Steller sea lions have been observed in Auke Bay and within Statter Harbor (Moran 2009, 

NOAA 2009b, HDR 2008). Statter Harbor is listed as a good place to view Steller sea lions 

during the winter (ADF&G 2009a). Similar to the other marine mammals, Steller sea lions 

typically move into Auke Bay to feed on prey species. Steller sea lions are more commonly 

observed in the project area and surrounding Auke Bay during the winter, presumably to feed on 

overwintering herring. However, Steller sea lions may enter Auke Bay any time of year (Moran 

2009). 

5.3.1.3 Harbor seals 

Harbor seals inhabit coastal and estuarine waters from Baja California north along the western 

coasts of the United States, British Columbia, and Southeast Alaska; west through the Gulf of 

Alaska and Aleutian Islands, and in the Bering Sea north to Cape Newenham and the Pribilof 

Islands (NOAA 2009b). Harbor seals haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting glacial ice, 

and feed in marine, estuarine, and occasionally fresh waters (NOAA 2009a). 

Harbor seals are year round residents of Auke Bay, occur frequently in Statter Harbor, and 

typically do not migrate (NOAA 2009b). Local movements of harbor seals are associated with 

food availability and reproduction, and are influenced by the season, weather, and tides (NOAA 

2009b). The harbor seal breeding season follows a cline along the coast of North America, with 

pups born earlier in the south than in the north, with a few exceptions near inland waters of 

Washington (NOAA 2009b). 

5.3.1.4 Sea otters 

Sea otters are classified as a marine mammal and are under the regulatory authority of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2005). In Alaska, sea otters have been divided into three 

distinct stocks, based on geographic area, for management: the Southwest, Southcentral, and 

Southeast stocks (USFWS 2005). The sea otters that inhabit southeast Alaska are considered the 

Southeast stock. The Southeast stock of sea otters are listed as an SSC by the ADF&G (2008d), 

HDR-249-R11012F 103



and sea otters in the United States are also protected from hunting and harassment by the 

MMPA. 

It should be noted that the Southwest stock is currently listed as threatened by the ESA; however, 

sea otters in the Gulf of Alaska, primarily the southeast stock, are not currently listed by the ESA 

as threatened (USFWS 2005, ADF&G 2008d). The Southeast stock has continued to expand 

their range and increase in numbers following their re-introduction in the late 1960s following 

complete extirpation from commercial exploitation (Schneider and Ballachey 2008). 

Sea otters are typically not expected to be present in the project area (NOAA 2009b), although 

otters have been observed in the vicinity of the project area’s breakwater (Enriquez 2009). Sea 

otters live in shallow, nearshore areas typically within 3 miles of shore, and typically do not 

migrate (Schneider and Ballachey 2008, ADF&G 2008d). In Alaska, sea otter pups are typically 

born in late spring; however, breeding is not limited to one season (Schneider and Ballachey 

2008). Critical habitat for sea otters has not yet been identified (ADF&G 2008d). Work is 

currently underway to characterize important breeding and feeding habitat for northern sea otters 

in Alaska (ADF&G 2008d). 

5.3.2 Birds 

The ADF&G considers the American and Arctic peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum and 

tundrius, respectively), the northern (resident “Queen Charlotte”) goshawk (Accipiter gentilis 

laingi) as SSCs for southeast Alaska by the ADF&G (2008d). Based on general habitat 

preferences (ADF&G 2008d), it is unlikely that any of the three bird species listed as species of 

concern would be present in the project area. 

The USFWS maintains a list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC 32 ). The following species 

are listed as BCC by the USFWS and may occur in Auke Bay: black oystercatcher (Haematopus 

bachmani), black turnstone (Arenaria melanocephala), surfbird (Aphriza virgata), rock sandpiper 

(Calidris ptilocnemis), and marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris; USFWS 2002). 

5.4 Wetlands 

In 2008, JYL completed a preliminary jurisdictional wetland delineation report (PJD) for the 

project area (Appendix E). The extent of wetlands in the project area was delineated using 

guidelines set forth by the Corps 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and the 2008 Alaska 

Regional Supplement. The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) previously classified 

portions of the project area as wetlands, including a portion of the estuarine subtidal zone, and a 

portion of the low lying intertidal area (JYL 2008). 

The 2008 survey was completed to ground truth the NWI maps to a higher resolution. The total 

area surveyed was approximately 2.44 acres, of which approximately 0.68 of an acre was 

determined to be wetlands (JYL 2008). The 2008 ground survey identified four wetlands. Three 

are located in the subtidal zone of the harbor (Wetlands A, B, and C). The fourth is in the Bay 

Creek drainage (Wetland D, Figure 5-2). These would be classified as E1UBL ([E] Estuarine, [1] 

Subtidal, [UB] Unconsolidated Bottom, [L] Subtidal) for Wetland A, and E2AB/USN ([E] 

32 BCC are identified by the USFWS as species, subspecies, or populations of migratory nongame birds in need of 

conservation action. This designation resulted from an effort to identify species which, without conservation efforts, 

would likely end up on the Endangered Species list. 

HDR-249-R11012F 104



Estuarine, [2] Intertidal, [AB] Aquatic Bed/ [US] Unconsolidated Shore, [N] Regularly Flooded) 

for Wetlands B, C, and D. 

A significant portion of the Juneau area’s wetlands are located on undeveloped land (CJB 1997). 

It is highly likely that a larger portion of the project area was historically within wetlands (JYL 

2008). The large-scale fill operations for the creation of the Horton Lot parking area, however, 

have significantly altered the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of the area (Figure 5-1; JYL 2008). 

The PJD indicates that there are fewer wetlands on site than indicated on the NWI maps, likely 

due to the modifications to the original landscape on the Horton Lot and adjacent park shelter 

(JYL 2008). 

Wetlands perform a variety of important environmental functions. Wetlands provide habitat for 

fish, birds, and other wildlife; reduce flood damage, and abate water pollution (CBJ 1997). 

Coastal wetlands are typically among the world’s most dynamic habitats, serving as productive 

transition areas between the terrestrial and aquatic habitats (Ritchie et al. 1981). 

A function assessment was performed by HDR (2010b) using the ORWAP adapted for the site 

(Appendix D). This method evaluates wetland functions and values, and provides a score based 

on the individual functions as well as grouped functions. The function assessment was completed 

for an assessment area that included Wetlands A, B, and C (those directly affected by the 

proposed action), a portion of the intertidal area between ELW mark (-5.0 feet) and the EHW 

mark (20.3 feet), as well as a small portion of the active channel complex associated with Bay 

Creek. Table 5-3 summarizes the findings of the assessment based on the group functions. 

Table 5-3 Summary of Grouped Wetland Functions 

Function 

Grouped Functions 

Group 

Scorea,b 

Values Group 

Scorea,c 

Hydrologic Function 0.00 0.00 

Water Quality Group 6.04 5.54 

Carbon Sequestration 8.13 

Fish Support Group 8.32 10.00d 

Aquatic Support Group 7.75 5.00 

Terrestrial Support Group 5.08 6.67 

a Score of 10.00 is the maximum and 0.00 is the minimum score. 

b Functions are the ability of a wetland to perform the actual function based on various 

indicators or features. 

c Values are the opportunity for a wetland to perform a function and the significance 

(importance) of performing that function. 

d This score is not reflective of actual values of the site. The maximum score of 10.00 

for value was received because the assessment area is protected as essential fish 

habitat. However, conversations with the primary author of the ORWAP method have 

indicated that a maximum score is not warranted based solely on the EFH designation 

because anadromous fish do not garner the same level of protection in Alaska as they 

would in Oregon (Adamus 2011). Because the AA does not support a directed fishery 

and Bay Creek is a relatively small stream that does not support a large run, a 

maximum score of 10 is likely not reflective of the actual value of this site when 

considered in the context of the Southeast Alaska fishery which consists of hundreds of 

similar small runs on small streams. 

HDR-249-R11012F 105



The wetlands scored high for carbon sequestration and fish support group. The maximum score 

for the fish support group value was received because the assessment area is protected as 

essential fish habitat. However, conversations with the primary author of the ORWAP method 

have indicated that a maximum score is not warranted based solely on the EFH designation 

because anadromous fish do not garner the same level of protection in Alaska as they would in 

Oregon (Adamus 2011). Because the assessment area does not support a directed fishery and 

Bay Creek is a relatively small stream that does not support a large run, a maximum score of 10 

is likely not reflective of the actual value of this site when considered in the context of the 

Southeast Alaska fishery which consists of hundreds of similar small runs on small streams. 

Hydrologic functions were absent due to the tidal nature of the site and the inability of tidal 

wetlands to store and delay water. The remaining group functions had moderate scores. Based on 

the estuarine wetlands’ proximity to a developed area (e.g., parking areas, Glacier Highway), 

however, these wetlands may perform contaminant removal functions (e.g., sediment and 

toxicant retention) by receiving and storing pollutants from runoff and immobilizing pollutants 

by accumulation. Given the wetlands’ proximity to Bay Creek and the estuarine environment, 

these small intertidal wetlands may also provide habitat for fish and birds. 

5.5 Water Quality (Ground and Surface Water) 

In Alaska’s Final 2010 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, Auke Bay 

is listed as a “Category 3” water body. The Category 3 designation indicates that there is 

insufficient data available to determine if that particular water body attains the water quality 

standards for the designated use or if the water quality is impaired (ADEC 2010). Auke Creek, 

Auke Lake, Auke Nu Cove, and Auke Nu Creek are also listed as Category 3 water 

bodies (ADEC 2010). Bay Creek is not an impaired waterbody. According to the ADEC, there 

are no freshwater or marine water bodies within the project area that are listed as impaired (i.e., 

Category 4, 4a, or 5; ADEC 2010). 

The Bima Dock Waste Water Treatment Facility is permitted to discharge into Auke Bay 33 . 

There is a 100-meter (328-foot) radius mixing zone that has been authorized by ADEC (EPA 

2004). The Auke Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility located adjacent to the proposed project 

also discharges to Auke Bay, and a 30-meter (98-foot) radius has been authorized (EPA 2004) 34 . 

The 10-inch D.I.P. sewer outfall runs the length of Bay Creek and out in to the area between 

DeHart’s and Fishermen’s Bend harbors with a total length of pipeline being around 900 feet. 

Currently at the project location, storm water drains off the Horton’s Lot and DeHart’s Marina 

gravel parking areas. At Horton’s Lot, vegetated swales surround the lot, so the water passes 

through the vegetation before discharging to Statter Harbor. Surface water runoff from DeHart’s 

Marina is currently untreated. There is no vegetation at the front of the DeHart’s Marina parking 

area, so runoff can flow directly into Statter Harbor without first passing through vegetated 

swales. Storm water is currently untreated at the project site. There are no ditches along Glacier 

Highway, so sheet runoff flows off the highway and through vegetation along the highway 

before discharging into Statter Harbor. 

33 Allen Marine Tours, Inc. is permitted to discharge to Auke Bay through the Bima Dock Waste Water Treatment 

Facility under Alaska State Permit Number 9740DB001. 

34 The CBJ is permitting to discharge to Auke Bay under Alaska State Permit Number 0013DB004 (AKG-57-1000- 

013). 

HDR-249-R11012F 106

5.5.1 Municipal Water and Sewer 



The CBJ’s municipality obtains its water supply from the Last Chance Basin well field on Gold 

Creek and the Salmon Creek Reservoir (located in Gastineau Bay near Douglas), and is treated 

and piped to more than 90% of Juneau households, including the Auke Bay area (CBJ 2008). 

The CBJ’s piped sewage system serves almost 80% of residents and receives secondary 

treatment before being discharged into waterbodies. 

The Auke Bay wastewater facility is permitted to discharge treated wastewater under the general 

permit AKG-57-1000 that allows discharge to marine waters. The general permit has expired but 

has been administratively extended until the ADEC can renew the permit. Under this permit the 

facility is required to test the effluent discharge stream for parameters such as dissolved oxygen, 

fecal coliform bacteria, pH, and total chlorine. The permit sets limits for what the concentration 

minimum, maximums, and/or averages. Because the Auke Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility 

also has a permitted mixing zone, water quality parameters must be met at the perimeter of the 

30-meter (98-foot) mixing zone, located in Statter Harbor approximately 900 feet from the 

treatment facility. 

5.6 Cultural and Historical Resources 

Cultural resource investigations for this EA have been carried out under the Alaska Historic 

Preservation Act (AS 41.35.070), pursuant to Cooperative Agreement 08-015 between the 

ADF&G and the CBJ, to identify cultural resources that could be affected by public construction. 

Investigations of cultural resources were focused in the area to be directly and indirectly affected 

by the proposed project (Figure 3-1). Additionally, investigations adhered to the requirements of 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) to ensure that the project is in 

compliance should the project become a federal undertaking. 

Cultural resources in the project area were identified and evaluated by reviewing available 

literature pertaining to the prehistory, ethnography, and history of the project area as well as 

previous surveys and documented cultural resources in the immediate vicinity of the project area; 

conducting consultation; and conducting a reconnaissance survey of the project area (HDR 2009, 

Appendix F). 

Consultation was conducted under the Alaska Historic Preservation Act with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO), local Tribal organizations (Aukquan Traditional Council, Central 

Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, Douglas Indian Association, Goldbelt, Inc., 

and Sealaska Corporation), the CBJ Historic Resources Advisory Committee (HRAC), and local 

museums and historical societies (Juneau-Douglas City Museum and Gastineau Channel 

Historical Society) to obtain information on cultural resources and places that may be of 

traditional religious and cultural importance (Appendix F). These parties were also contacted as 

part of the NEPA scoping process. 

5.6.1 Prehistory and History of the Project Area 

The prehistory of the Auke Bay area is not well known. The first archaeological evidence of 

humans in southeastern Alaska occurs at least 9,500 years ago at the Ground Hog Bay site near 

Glacier Bay and the Hidden Falls site on Baranof Island, both within approximately 100 miles of 

Juneau (Davis 1990, Mobley 1996). Archaeological data indicate that approximately 5,000 years 

ago a change occurred in the archaeological record from smaller camps to larger winter villages 

with house remains and large middens, or a garbage mound that contains animal bones, shell, 

HDR-249-R11012F 107



artifacts, and other remains of human occupation. Auke Bay was occupied prehistorically, 

although known sites in the area, including the nearby fort site of Auk Noo and a fish trap site on 

Montana Creek, date to within the last 1,000 years. 

The occupation of the Auke Bay area continued into the historic period. The traditional winter 

village of the Auke people, one of the 13 Tlingit groups in southeast Alaska, is near Indian Point 

located nearly 2 miles southwest of the project area. The Auke Bay village contained totem poles 

and large multifamily houses. The Tlingit used large, dugout canoes for travel, fishing, and 

hunting marine mammals; used local beaches as access points for fish camps and inland access; 

and accessed nearby forests to hunt land animals, collect plants, and build cache pits for food 

storage. While population estimates in the mid-1800s ranged as high as 640 persons at Auke Bay 

village, by the end of the 1800s, most of the population had resettled in Juneau or at canneries 

and mines where wage work was available (McMahan 1987, Mobley 1996). 

The first Europeans in the region arrived because of the fur trade. During this early contact 

period, local Tlingit had contact with Russian, Spanish, English, and American explorers and 

traders. During the American period, other activities included commercial fishing and gold 

prospecting. Gold was found south of Auke Bay in 1880. Commercial fishing and mining 

required lumber, resulting in the growth of the commercial timber industry. In 1916, John L. 

Carson built a cannery in Auke Bay (Auke Bay Salmon Company). His sons built a second 

cannery a couple hundred yards to the south. The two canneries were sold at auction in 1925 and 

1926 after financial difficulties forced their sale. A road was built from Juneau to Eagle River 

around that time and brought residential development to Auke Bay; this road was named the 

Glacier Highway in 1922 (DeArmond 1997, Mobley 1996). 

5.6.2 Documented Cultural Resources and Previous Cultural Resource Studies in the 

Vicinity of the Project Area 

Based on the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) and National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) records, there are no documented sites in the immediate project area. There are 

ten documented sites located within one mile of the project area with the nearest cultural 

resource located less than one half mile to the south of the project area (Table 5-4). None of the 

cultural resources within one mile of the project area have been determined eligible for listing in 

the NRHP to date (DNR, OHA n.d.); however, Mobley (1996) recommended that JUN-00703, 

JUN-00704, and JUN-00706 are eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

HDR-249-R11012F 108



Table 5-4 Previously Documented Cultural Resources in the Vicinity of the Statter Harbor Project Area 

AHRS # Site Name Site Description Period/Date 

Distance 

from 


Area 

(miles) 

NRHP Status 

JUN- 

00043 

JUN- 

00239 

JUN- 

00299 

JUN- 

00703 

JUN- 

00704 

JUN- 

00705 

JUN- 

00706 

JUN- 

00707 

JUN- 

00708 

JUN- 

00709 

Mendenhall 

Peninsula 

Petroglyph (Fritz 

Cove Road) 

Auk Nu Shell 

Midden 

Stabler’s Cabin 

Auke Bay Salmon 

Cannery Remains 

John L. Carlson 

Cannery 

Watchman’s Cabin 

John L. Carlson 

Midden 

Winn Prospect 

Gold Mine 

(Coathanger Mine) 

Wooden Stakes in 

the Intertidal Zone 

Wooden Stakes in 

the Intertidal Zone 

Reported petroglyphs Prehistoric 1.00 No eligibility 

determination 

Moderate to high density 

shell midden near the mouth 

of Auk Nu Creek 

A 1 1/2-story, rectangular 

house built in 1924 by 

Juneau attorney Howard 

Douglas Stabler 

The Auke Bay Salmon 

Company was housed in a 

cannery built an operated by 

John L. Carlson. This site is 

likely the cannery’s northern 

complex. 

Cannery remains with two 

extant features: a standing 

structure (JUN-00705) and a 

deposit of historic artifacts 

and midden (JUN-00706) 

Frame house associated with 

the John L. Carlson Cannery 

(JUN-00704) 

Midden associated with the 

John L. Carlson Cannery 

(JUN-00704) 

A deposit staked by John 

Winn and his father Col. 

William Winn; remains 

include diggings, an adit, 

trenches, a cabin ruin, and 

domestic debris. 

A pair of wooden stakes 

approximately 2 feet apart 

A pair of wooden stakes 

approximately 1 foot apart 

Prehistoric 

(935±60, 

960±40) 

Historic 

(AD 1924) 

Historic 

(AD 1916— 

1923) 

Historic 

(AD 1919— 

1921) 

Historic 

(circa 

AD 1920) 

Historic 

(circa 

AD 1920) 

Historic 

(circa 

AD 1882, 

1909, mid- 

1930s, 1982) 

Prehistoric/ 

Protohistoric/ 

Historic 

Prehistoric/ 

Protohistoric/ 

Historic 

Sources: Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Office of History and Archaeology, n.d. 

0.60 No eligibility 

determination 


determination 


determination 


determination 


determination 


determination 


determination 


determination 


determination 

Many previous cultural resources surveys have been conducted in the vicinity of the project area, 

although no previous surveys have been conducted specifically in the project area. Previous 

cultural resource investigations in the vicinity include surveys at Auke Bay and Auke Cape for 

HDR-249-R11012F 109



the National Marine Fisheries Service by Charles M. Mobley & Associates in 1992, 1996, and 

1997 (Mobley 1992, 1996; Mobley and Betts 1997); surveys conducted by the Forest Service 

and other contractors in association with the Auke Bay Recreation Area and the Auke Bay 

Village Site (Bower and Brown 1992; Brown 1992a, 1992b, and 1994; Chattey 1988; Gilliam 

2003; Irish 1991a, 1991b, 1991c; Irish and Starr 1991; Loring Research 2007; Metcalf 1963; 

Moss 1980; Sackett 1979; Sealaska Corporation 1980; and Sobeloff 1963); and various other 

surveys and research in the Auke Bay region (Iwamoto 1999; Maier 1990; McMahan 1987; Price 

1992; Sealaska Regional Corporation 1975; Thornton 1997; Wiersum 1984; Williams, Bowers, 

and Betts 1995). 

5.6.3 Existing Conditions 

A reconnaissance survey was conducted in the study area in April 2009. The results of this 

survey are included in Appendix F and summarized here. During consultation, the CBJ Historic 

Resource Advisory Committee identified two buildings within the study area that are more than 

50 years old: the Lehnhart residence located at 11755 Glacier Highway and DeHart’s 

Convenience Store located at 11735/11687 Glacier Highway. During the April 2009 survey, 

cultural resources identified within the project area included: the Lehnhart residence (JUN- 

01090), a two-story, single family residence built in 1935; a concrete foundation from a 1935 

two-story, single family residence that was destroyed by fire in 1998 and has since been reused 

by CBJ as a foundation for a picnic shelter; and scattered concrete debris associated with fill 

activities. Cultural resources identified adjacent to the project area included: DeHart’s 

Convenience Store (JUN-01091), a two- and one-half-story commercial building constructed in 

1940; Squire's Rest (JUN-01092), a two story commercial building constructed in 1950; and a 

log feature of undetermined age and function comprised of partially buried log sections placed 

side by side, perpendicular to Bay Creek. Based on this survey, consultation, and research, none 

of these identified historic resources were recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP, and 

SHPO concurred with this finding on September 2, 2009 (Appendix F). Further discussion of 

these buildings and assessments of eligibility are included in Appendix F. 

5.7 Sound 

Noise and sound are essentially one in the same; however, noise is generally considered 

unwanted sound. Sound is a disturbance of mechanical energy that propagates through matter as 

a wave. Sound is characterized by the properties of sound waves; properties include frequency, 

wavelength, period, amplitude, and velocity or speed (PND 2008b). Traffic along Glacier 

Highway, overhead traffic, and boat launching and retrieving operations at the three public 

moorage facilities in Auke Bay all generate noise in the project area. 

In 2008, engineers (PND 2008b; Appendix G) completed a sound study in the vicinity of the 

project area to obtain current data regarding sound levels along the project corridor at Glacier 

Highway and ABTC. The study was conducted to determine the level of changes that may result 

from the construction of the proposed boat launch ramp facility. The first phase of the sound 

study involved collecting various sound level readings during current boat launch and retrieve 

operations at Statter Harbor and at various residences along the project corridor. The second 

phase of the sound study focused on measuring ambient sound levels at several locations along 

the project corridor and at ABTC. Sound measurements were recorded at both high and low 

tides. 

HDR-249-R11012F 110



The highest sound levels recorded at the monitoring sites were generated from vehicular traffic 

and overhead air traffic, with short sound bursts lasting less than 5 seconds, on average (PND 

2008b). Sound spikes were primarily attributed to slight wind gusts, birds, wind chimes, and 

passing vehicular traffic (PND 2008b). The average maximum levels of sound generated during 

the study period were at or below the 55dBA permissible city ordinance sound level for sound 

generated on waterfront commercial zoning at all hours of the day (PND 2008b). For 

perspective, Table 5-5 shows sound levels (decibels; dBA) typically created by familiar sounds 

in the home or community. 

Common Sound 

Table 5-5 The Decibel Scale – Sound Levels Compared to Typical Noises 

Jet engine (near) 140 

Sound Level 

(dBA) 

Shotgun firing 130 Threshold of pain 

Human Response 

747 jet taking off 120 Threshold of sensation 

Power saw 

Rock music band 

110 Regular exposure > 1 min. risks permanent hearing loss 

Garbage truck 

100 

Jackhammer 

Lawnmower 

Heavy truck 

Electric razor 85 

Medium truck 

Average city traffic noise 

90 Very annoying 

No more than 15 min. unprotected exposure 

recommended 

80 Annoying, interferes with conversation 

Hair dryer or passenger car 70 Intrusive, interferes with telephone calls 

Normal conversation 60 

Quiet office 

Suburban residential 

50 Comfortable 

Neighborhood 

Quiet living room 40 

Quiet rural setting 30 Very quiet 

Whisper 20 

Normal breathing 10 Just audible 

0 Threshold of hearing 

Source: PND 2008b; Appendix G 

5.8 Visual 

The visual character of Statter Harbor and surrounding landscape is varied with a majority of the 

landforms being lowland terraces and rounded mountains with small rounded valleys. The 

adjacent mountains are less than 3,000 feet with topography ranging from rolling lowlands in the 

immediate vicinity to rugged mountainous areas with icefields in the distant background. The 

vegetation patterns are uniform, low productive hemlock/spruce with occasional openings from 

meadows and alpine areas. Streams in the vicinity tend to be low gradient. The coastline has little 

energy due to smooth transitions between land and water with few vertical interfaces. The entire 

site is surrounded by a broad tidal area (Auke Bay) with a low gradient stream (Bay Creek). 

HDR-249-R11012F 111



Auke Bay serves as major transportation route and recreation use area. The project area is part of 

the Auke Bay neighborhood with its roads, buildings, and other structures that are dominant and 

very visible through and adjacent the site. 

In 2009, PND completed a viewshed analysis to document existing views from ABTC (PND 

2009). On July 3, 2008 and April 23, 2009, PND met with ABTC residents to document views at 

both low tide and high tide (PND 2009). Photographs were taken from both the east and west 

sides of the building and from the east end face (PND 2009). The photographs were digitally 

enhanced to create a panoramic view, including the footprint of the proposed Action Alternative, 

during each of the tidal stages (PND 2009). 

Data collection efforts to catalog existing scenic characteristics within the vicinity of Statter 

Harbor were subsequently expanded, in response to comments on the Draft EA, through the 

completion of a scenery resources study (Corvus Design 2011a; Appendix H). This scenery 

resources study was based on a simplified version of the USDA Forest Service’s Scenery 

Management System (USFS 1995). As part of the study, the existing visual characteristics as 

viewed from Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas (VPRs) were catalogued. Photographs 

were taken from key viewpoints along VPRs and were used to develop Visual Absorption 

Capacity (VAC) and Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) for the analysis area. Determination of 

the existing scenery attributes consisted of the following steps: 

• Determine landscape character type of analysis area 

• Determine scenic attractiveness of landscape based on character type 

• Verify distance zones from VPRs and use areas 

• Analyze existing scenic integrity (ESI) of existing landscape condition 

• Determine Visual Absorption Capacity (VAC) of the landscape 

• Determine Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) based on distance zones and CBJ Zoning 35 

The project area was identified as having the following scenery classification and attributes: 

• Landscape Character Type: Region 3, the Boundary Range and Icefields 

• Inherent Scenic Attractiveness Class (ISA): Indistinctive due to the following 

characteristics: 

o The Statter Harbor landscape has moderate diverse terrain with rounded peaks 

with a sheltered bay and beach with little contrast. 

o The landscape is subordinate to the background landscape of Admiralty Island 

with its angular and blocky peaks to the south and the intermittent viewed 

background of the peaks surrounding Mendenhall Glacier to the north. 

o Vegetation patterns tend to be uniform with little variety in color or texture. 

o The shoreline of Auke Bay has insignificant shore energy or contrast. 

• Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI): Very Low due to the high density development along the 

waterfront, the development of numerous marinas and docks on the water and the 

35 A component of SMS is determining the SIO. SIO is based on the Forest Service’s Land Use Designation (LUD). 

Because the project is not on Forest Service land there is no LUD assigned to the area. An acceptable publicly 

adopted equivalent would be the City and Borough of Juneau’s zoning designation for the area. 

HDR-249-R11012F 112



development corridor along Glacier Highway and Back Loop Road. These developments 

dominate the character type and landscape. 

• Distance Zone (DZ): The entirety of the Statter Harbor Improvements project area is 

viewed as foreground due to the high quantity of priority travel routes and use areas 

surrounding the entire site in close proximity. All portions of the project area are seen 

areas. 

• Visual Absorption Capacity (VAC): Intermediate due to the large portions of the site 

which can be viewed from VPRs as foreground and minimal terrain variety; however, its 

moderate to gentle slopes and vegetation diversity will allow the landscape to better 

accept alteration to the landscape. 

• Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO): Low such that the landscape appears moderately 

altered. Deviations may be dominant, but are shaped to borrow from the natural landform 

and other visual dominance elements (line, form, texture, color) and are subordinate to 

the characteristic landscape when viewed as background. 

These attributes are used as the basis for evaluating potential impacts to visual resources in the 

project area, as summarized in Section 6.8 and presented in detail in Appendix H. 

5.9 Land Use 

The CBJ Comprehensive Plan identifies a number of land use categories in an effort to guide 

development of Land Use Code zoning district land uses, development standards and guidelines 

(CBJ 2008). 

Uplands in the project area are zoned Waterfront Commercial (WC). The CBJ Comprehensive 

Plan states that WC lands are to be used for water-dependent commercial uses such as 

marinas/boat harbors, marine vessel and equipment sales and services; convenience goods and 

services for commercial and sport fishing; marine recreation and marine eco-tourism activities 

such as food and beverage services, toilet and bathing facilities, bait-and-ice shops; small-scale 

fish processing facilities; hotels and motels; and similar goods and services to support mariners 

and their guests (CBJ 2008). 

Currently, the project area is being used primarily as a boat harbor and parking area. However, 

local residents and visitors use the project area for other recreational activities such as bird 

watching, kayaking, enjoyment of open space, harbor viewing, and access to tidelands. 

Recreation and public use of Statter Harbor is discussed in more detail below (Section 5.10). 

Although uplands adjacent to the project area are zoned WC, other land use includes both single 

and multiple family residences (i.e., ABTC). Nearly 30% of the land within a 0.25 acre radius of 

the project area is zoned WC. The remaining land is zoned for multi-family use (24%), single 

family/duplex use (22%), general commercial (13%), or light commercial (12%). 

5.10 Recreation and Public Use 

Juneau’s steep terrain, located between the base of mountains and the seas, presents challenges to 

overland travel and to the development of recreational facilities. The easiest way to travel in 

Juneau is by boat or plane. Per capita, boat ownership in the Juneau area is very high (CBJ 

1996). Boating is an extremely important mechanism of travel and recreation, and fishing is 

considered Juneau’s second most popular recreational activity (CBJ 1996). 

HDR-249-R11012F 113



Boating activities occur primarily in the waters north and west of Juneau. The area’s major 

harbors are located in downtown Juneau. Consequently, boats with permanent berths in Juneau 

often seek temporary moorage at private marinas or the public dock in Auke Bay. 

Public and recreational uses in Auke Bay and specifically within Statter Harbor are similar to 

other bays within the Juneau area. People use Statter Harbor to house personal fishing and 

recreational boats, and as a launching point for commercial, recreational fishing, and whale 

watching charters. In addition, local residents and the general public use Statter Harbor for bird 

watching, kayaking, enjoyment of open space, harbor viewing, and access to tidelands. Although 

tide-pooling is not possible in the project area, the public can currently access the two small 

eelgrass beds located in the tidelands east of Bay Creek. 

Facility use at Auke Bay is largely seasonal. During the winter, commercial vessels comprise the 

majority of boats utilizing the Auke Bay facilities. During the spring, the total number of vessels 

moored at the facilities is divided between commercial and recreational vessels. The number of 

temporarily-moored recreational vehicles increases significantly during the summer, while the 

number of commercial vessels declines. Conversely, the numbers of commercial vessels in Auke 

Bay increases substantially during in-season troll closures. 

The CBJ constructed a small public use shelter using an existing foundation of a house destroyed 

in a fire. The small shelter is located in a relatively secluded area and is currently underutilized 

by the general public. However, residents have indicated that the shelter is most often used by 

people that produce noise and conduct questionable behavior and by homeless people. The 

parking lot provides general parking for the public that may use the overlook or other open 

spaces within Statter Harbor. No restrooms or other similar facilities are currently present at the 

project site. 

The project area (Statter Harbor and DeHart’s Marina) offers the only public moorage and 

launching facilities in Auke Bay. In summary, recreation and public use of Statter Harbor 

include: 

• Moorage for all types of boats, including pleasure, commercial, and fishing (year-round) 

• Moorage for USCG emergency response and patrol vessels (year-round) 

• Moorage for local emergency response vessels (year-round) 

• Parking for moorage (year-round) 

• Parking for local businesses (year-round) 

• Yacht and fishing boat viewing (year-round) 

• Bird and wildlife watching (year-round) 

• Sport-fishing charter departures (spring, summer, and autumn) 

• Whale-watching charter and tour departures (spring and summer) 

• Kayak and canoe rental (summer) 

• Boat rental (summer) 

5.11 Air Quality 

Juneau is currently in compliance with federal air quality standards (ADEC 2011). Statter Harbor 

is located within an air quality attainment area, which means air pollution levels for airborne 

concentrations of criteria pollutants do not exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

HDR-249-R11012F 114



(NAAQS). The EPA had previously listed the CBJ as out of compliance with its standards for 

fine particle pollution, also known as PM 2.5 (ADEC 2011). However, on October 8, 2009, the 

EPA announced that Juneau was no longer on the “nonattainment” list due to improvements in 

air quality in the Mendenhall Valley (ADEC 2011). 

The Mendenhall Valley area was listed as a moderate nonattainment area for coarse particulate 

matter (PM-10) in the early 1990s. However, after implementation of air quality plans Juneau 

has not violated EPAs PM10 standard since 1994 (ADEC 2011). 

HDR-249-R11012F 115




HDR-249-R11012F 116



6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

This section presents environmental impacts that may result from the proposed project 

alternatives. Only those impact categories with changes attributable to the project are discussed. 

Impact Topic 

Habitat 

(Freshwater, Marine, 

and Terrestrial) 

Wildlife 

(Fish and EFH, 

Marine Mammals, 

Birds) 

Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

(Fish and EFH, 

Marine Mammals, 

Birds) 

Wetlands 

(Wetlands and Waters 

of the U.S.) 

Water Quality 

(Ground and Surface 

Water) 

None 

None 

None 

None 

Table 6-1 Summary of Impacts by Alternative 

No-Action 

Alternative 

Untreated surface 

water and storm 

water runoff from 

existing parking 

areas and Glacier 

Highway would 

continue to 

discharge directly 

into Auke Bay. 


Alternative 

The Proposed Action would eliminate 4.1 acres of estuarine habitat 

(includes 0.11 acres of eelgrass habitat). The Proposed Action would 

place fill in a seldom-exposed portion of Bay Creek’s existing 

intertidal channel below the +1.0-foot tide level. The Proposed 

Action would not eliminate habitat unique to Auke Bay; similar 

habitats providing the same ecological function are found adjacent to 

the project footprint, including a much more extensive eelgrass bed 

to the west (outside of the project footprint). 

Coho and pink salmon, and a variety of other fish, marine mammal, 

and bird species use habitat within and adjacent to the proposed 

footprint. The Proposed Action would eliminate 4.1 acres of 

estuarine habitat, which is also considered EFH. Similar habitats that 

provide similar functions are located adjacent to the project footprint. 

Species would be expected to move into these nearby habitats. The 

Proposed Action would place fill in a seldom exposed portion of Bay 

Creek’s existing intertidal channel below the +1.0-foot tide level. 

This fill would have little to no impact on spawning success of Bay 

Creek pink salmon because spawning success has been shown to be 

substantially reduced below the 6-foot tide level (National Academy 

of Sciences, 1971, Noerenberg et al. 1964). The Proposed Action 

would not be expected to have significant adverse impacts on 

wildlife species at the population level. 

The only species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA 

that are known to occur in the project area are Steller sea lions and 

humpback whales. The Proposed Action would incorporate NMFSrecommended 

measures during construction to minimize potential 

impacts to these species. The Proposed Action would not have 

significant adverse impacts on threatened or endangered species. 

The Proposed Action would eliminate 0.61 acres of jurisdictional 

wetlands (0.19 acres of wetlands are located above the high tide 

line), and 4.1 acres of waters of the U.S. (includes the 0.42 acres of 

intertidal wetlands). 

The Proposed Action would result in an additional 4.52 acres of 

impermeable surface. An increase in the number of motored vehicles 

using the new parking area could result in additional pollutants in 

runoff. However, storm water and surface water runoff from 

impermeable surfaces would be directed through a storm drain 

system for treatment prior to discharge into Statter Harbor. The 

Proposed Action would not impact groundwater. 

The Proposed Action would increase efficiency and ease congestion, 

which could potentially lead to increased boat use in Statter Harbor. 

If boat traffic increases, higher concentrations of marine pollutants 

within the harbor could result. 

HDR-249-R11012F 117



Impact Topic 

Cultural & Historical 

Sound 

Visual 

Land Use 

Recreation & Public 

Use 

Air Quality 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

No-Action 

Alternative 


Alternative 

The Proposed Action would not have measurable impacts on cultural 

or historical resources in the project area. 

The Proposed Action would result in temporary noise impacts during 

construction; impacts would be short-term in duration. Noise impacts 

resulting from pile driving activities can be anticipated, but will be 

minimized using mitigation measures. 

The Proposed Action would not substantially increase sound after 

construction; neither boat nor vehicular traffic is expected to increase 

substantially. The Proposed Action would be within permissible 

levels for waterfront commercial zoning at all hours of the day (PND 

2008b). 

The Proposed Action would reflect a moderate degree of visual 

change on the landscape. Modifications resulting from the Proposed 

Action would visually dominate the landscape; however this meets 

the corresponding Low SIO for the project area. Visual impacts on 

adjacent property owners would be minimized through vegetative 

screening on the fill slopes, along the perimeter, and within the 

parking lot. The use of construction materials with similar size, 

color, and texture of existing rocks in the surrounding landscape for 

fill material and armoring rock would reduce visual impacts of the 

fill slopes. The Proposed Action would not conflict with restrictive 

covenant agreements held by adjacent landowners. 

The Proposed Action falls under the allowable land use code for the 

WC zoning district. The Proposed Action would result in the loss of 

tidelands. However, the Proposed Action would not significantly 

alter the existing land uses available at Statter Harbor. 

The Proposed Action would primarily result in beneficial impacts to 

recreation within the harbor and surrounding areas by improving an 

unsafe and congested facility in the most populated area of Juneau. 

However, the Proposed Action would result in the loss of a small 

area of tidelands, which are currently accessible to the public. The 

Proposed Action would not alter the types of recreation available at 

the harbor. 

The Proposed Action would not be expected to significantly impact 

or change air quality. 

6.1 Habitat 


Bay Creek provides spawning habitat for coho and pink salmon and Dolly Varden, and rearing 

habitat for juvenile coho salmon and Dolly Varden (ADF&G 2008b). The presence of cutthroat 

trout was recently confirmed (Cameron 2011). 

Bethers et al. (1995) identifies two primary areas of spawning habitat in Bay Creek: one 

upstream from tidal influence (above the Glacier Highway culvert) and the other within Bay 

Creek’s intertidal channel. Gravels within Bay Creek’s intertidal channel provide spawning 

habitat for salmon. The majority of intertidal spawning habitat extends from the base of the 

culvert downstream roughly 100 to 150 feet (Bethers et al. 1995). Downstream of its constriction 

with the Horton Lot, Bay Creek creates an alluvial delta as it migrates within a braided channel 

HDR-249-R11012F 118



system. Bay Creek currently occupies one to two shallow channels within its active channel 

complex. 

Juvenile salmon tend to reside nearshore for up to several weeks in the spring and early summer 

prior to moving farther offshore (Mortensen et al. 1999). Estuarine habitat provides a refuge for 

juvenile salmon while their systems adjust to the transition from freshwater and saltwater. Bay 

Creek’s intertidal channel and adjacent nearshore estuarine areas provides some nursery and 

rearing habitat for juvenile pink and coho salmon out-migrating from Bay Creek. Habitat 

features and functions of the nearshore environment and potential environmental consequences 

of project alternatives are summarized below. 

6.1.1.1 No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, conditions would exist as they currently do at Statter Harbor. 

No additional infrastructure would be constructed. No fill would be placed in intertidal or 

subtidal estuarine habitat and Bay Creek’s intertidal flow would not be interrupted. Habitat 

enhancements, such as improved fish passage or installation of small pools below the Glacier 

Highway culvert would not be conducted. 

6.1.1.2 Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action is not expected to have substantial adverse impacts on habitat in Bay Creek 

and is not expected to eliminate habitat that is unique to Auke Bay. The Proposed Action would 

use a marine seawall to retain fill adjacent to Bay Creek to minimize impacts to its active 

intertidal channel complex and adjacent nearshore estuarine environment. A portion of the fill 

would be placed in Bay Creek’s historical alluvial delta (Figure 6-1). However, the footprint 

would avoid the majority of Bay Creek’s nearshore active channel complex, thereby avoiding the 

need to reroute or channelize Bay Creek’s flow into a single channel. Bay Creek’s channel would 

be expected to continue meandering within the braided channel complex that it has occupied 

over the past 40 years. 

HDR-249-R11012F 119




HDR-249-R11012F 120

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! ! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! ! ! ! ! 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

• 6.2 acres Proposed Action Footprint 

• 4.1 acres Other Waters of the U.S. 

(includes 0.1 acre Eelgrass; 

0.4 acre Wetland) 

• 0.61 acre Mapped Wetlands 

• 0.87 acre Mud Flats 

• 0.9 acre Upland Habitat 

! ! 

! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

WETLAND D 

GLACIER HWY 

! ! 




Environmental 

Consequences of the 


Figure 6-1 

LEGEND 


Footprint 

! ! 

! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! 

! ! 

! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! 

! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! 

! ! 

! ! 

! ! 

! ! ! ! 

! ! 

! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! 

! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! 

BACKLOOP RD 

WETLAND 

A 


(JYL 2008) 

! ! ! ! 

! ! 

! ! ! 

WETLAND C 

WETLAND B 

Other Waters of the U.S. 

(below HTL 20.3') 

Uplands 

Eelgrass Beds 

Mud Flats (PND 2011) 

AUKE BAY 

HARBOR RD 

Active Channel Complex 

Extreme High Water 

(elevation = +22 ft) 

Mean High Water 

(elevation = +14.8 ft) 


(elevation = -5 ft) 

Bay Creek 

! ! ! 

! ! 

! ! 

! ! 

! ! 

! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! 

Ë 

Feet 

! ! ! ! 

0 50 100 150 200 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! 





Date: May 18, 2011




HDR-249-R11012F 122



In order for the boat launch ramp to extend into waters deep enough carry out launch and retrieve 

operations during low tides but also avoid dredging, fill would be placed in the lowest portion of 

the intertidal zone in which Bay Creek currently flows. The fill footprint would extend into a 

relatively small portion of Bay Creek’s existing channel complex between +1.0-foot and +0-foot 

elevation (MLLW). Although studies have not been conducted to determine if salmon spawning 

occurs in this area, success of spawning below a 6-foot tidal stage is minimal to non-existent 

(Glynn 2009, National Academy of Sciences 1971, Noerenberg et al. 1964). Environmental 

consequences to Bay Creek’s intertidal habitat are discussed further in Section 6.1.2. 

Mitigation 

Measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to Bay Creek include the following. 

Avoid channelizing Bay Creek. The spatial configuration of the intertidal fill was adjusted to 

avoid channelizing Bay Creek’s active intertidal flow. The natural fluctuation process of Bay 

Creek’s intertidal flow will continue; therefore, increased sedimentation in eelgrass beds and 

changes in circulation patterns that could result in unknown/unintended effects will be 

minimized. 

Avoid impacts to salmon spawning habitat. The Proposed Action avoids placing fill in Bay 

Creek’s known salmon spawning habitat. 

Avoid (creating) migration barriers to salmonids. At no time will the construction activities result 

in a migration barrier for adult and juvenile salmonids. This is a compliance measure required by 

state law, unless otherwise authorized by a permit. 

Minimize potential impacts to salmonids during critical life stages. Timing windows will be 

incorporated during construction activities for all in-water work to minimize potential adverse 

effects to salmon during critical life stages. In-water work will be timed to avoid those times 

when eggs are in the gravel and juvenile salmon are out-migrating. In the Juneau area, in-water 

construction is generally restricted from April 1 through June 15, although this timing window 

may be adjusted in permit stipulations. 

Minimize potential impacts to fish habitat, water quality, and drainage features in Bay Creek. 

The CBJ will add stream buffers along Bay Creek within the project area to maintain the natural 

fish habitat, water quality, and natural drainage features. 

Minimize impacts to estuarine habitat. Estuarine habitat is important for fish and wildlife. To 

reduce impacts, the footprint’s spatial configuration was adjusted to minimize the amount of fill 

that would be placed in estuarine habitat. However, approximately 4.1 acres of estuarine habitat 

would be eliminated. 

Avoid potential water quality impacts to Bay Creek through preparation of a Stormwater 

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP). The SWPP will identify best management practices (BMPs) 

to prevent erosion and manage stormwater run off, which is required by state regulatory 

processes. Surface water runoff will be directed away from Bay Creek through a storm drain 

system for treatment prior to discharge into Statter Harbor. Minimum set backs from the stream 

channel will be set in permit stipulations. 

Minimize potential water quality and run-off impacts during construction. The CBJ and Sport 

Fish will prepare or will require the construction contractor to prepare a SWPP and to comply 

HDR-249-R11012F 123



with that plan. BMPs will be used during construction to prevent erosion and runoff from 

entering Bay Creek. BMPs would include installing temporary erosion control measures such as 

wood excelsior mats, straw bales, and/or silt fencing, until re-vegetated plants can bind the soil 

and/or installing diversion dikes to channel rain water away from the disturbed soils. 

Avoid introduction of contaminated material during construction. The CBJ and Sport Fish will 

use contaminant-free embankment and surface materials during construction. Use of fill with 

toxic contaminants is forbidden by federal CWA regulations. 

Avoid and Minimize impacts from potential spills during construction. To minimize and prevent 

spills or leakage of hazardous materials during construction, standard spill-prevention measures 

will be implemented during construction. To mitigate for potential hazardous materials spills, 

spill clean-up equipment (e.g., oil-absorbent pads) will be available onsite during construction. 

Compensate for unavoidable impacts: Estuarine rearing habitat. The U.S. Corps of Engineers 

issued a permit for the proposed project on September 17, 2012. The permit requires the CBJ to 

provide compensatory mitigation for the unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States, 

within 6 months of the issuance date of the permit. The CBJ shall pay an In-lieu-Fee for the 

permanent filling of: 

• 0.11 acres of high functionally-rated estuarine waters consisting of eelgrass beds at a ratio 

of 6:1; 

• 0.95 acres of high functionally-rated estuarine waters consisting of mudflats at a ratio 3:1; 

• 0.61 acres of moderate to high functionally-rated waters consisting of estuarine and 

palustrine wetlands shall be mitigated for at a ratio of 2.5:1; and 

• 0.62 acres of moderate functionally-rated estuarine waters at a ratio of 2:1. 

6.1.2 Marine 

The marine environment in the project area comprises intertidal and subtidal estuarine habitat. 

Bay Creek is the primary source of freshwater input. Nearshore estuarine and alluvial deltas 

typically provide important food sources and habitat for fish and wildlife, and plant communities 

that are adapted to brackish water (USFWS 2009, Zedler et al. 1992 as cited in NOAA 2005). 

Gravels in the upper 100 to 150 feet of Bay Creek’s intertidal channel provide spawning habitat 

for salmon (Bethers et al. 1995). Studies have found that pink salmon typically do not 

successfully spawn downstream of a 6-foot tidal elevation (Glynn 2009). Therefore, successful 

spawning is not expected to occur within the lower portions of Bay Creek’s intertidal channel 

(Glynn 2009). 

Auke Bay serves as a nursery for juvenile salmon throughout the spring and early summer 

(Mortensen et al. 1999). The nearshore estuarine and Bay Creek’s alluvial delta (active and 

remnant) provides some rearing habitat for juvenile out-migrating pink and coho salmon. These 

areas likely provide habitat for other fish species migrating to and from other systems. However, 

their potential use or extent of use of habitat in the project area has not been documented. 

The nearshore environment adjacent to Bay Creek’s intertidal channel contains several eelgrass 

beds, all of which are considered to be healthy stands (NOAA 2008, Harris et al. 2008). Eelgrass 

beds provide a number of ecological functions, as described in Marine Habitat, Section 5.1.2. 

Although their presence was not documented in the project area during recent surveys (Harris et 

HDR-249-R11012F 124



al. 2008), juvenile Pacific herring still use eelgrass beds in Auke Bay as rearing and 

overwintering habitat (Moran 2009). 

The project area’s nearshore environmental contains intertidal emergent wetlands; and various 

substrates (DES 2004). A summary of wetland functions, including the intertidal area, is 

described in Wetlands, Section 5.4. In summary, the wetland and intertidal areas scored 

moderate to high for many functions including water quality, carbon sequestration, fish support, 

aquatic species support, and terrestrial species support. The project area provides benthic habitat 

for a variety of clams and worms; and foraging habitat for birds (USFWS 2009). Exposed rocks 

and cobbles provide habitat for barnacles and colonies of invertebrates (i.e., blue mussels) in the 

intertidal zone (DES 1994). 


Under the No Build Alternative, conditions would continue to exist as they currently do at Statter 

Harbor. No additional infrastructure would be constructed, and no fill would be placed in the 

marine environment. No changes would be made to the intertidal and subtidal estuarine habitats; 

therefore, existing habitat functions would be unchanged. 


The Proposed Action would eliminate approximately 4.1 acres of estuarine habitat in the 

intertidal zone due to fill placement (Figure 6-1). Although this estuarine habitat is not unique to 

Auke Bay or the project area, habitat eliminated does include 0.11 acres of eelgrass beds, which 

typically provide many important ecological functions and are considered a “Special Aquatic 

Site” under Federal regulations (40 CFR 230). Additionally, the Proposed Action would 

eliminate 0.87 acres of mud flat habitat, which is also considered a Special Aquatic Site. 

The 4.1 acres of estuarine habitat that would be eliminated is located east of Bay Creek, adjacent 

to its active alluvial delta and within its historical alluvial delta. Habitat under the direct footprint 

is broad and flat and contains relatively small, fragmented eelgrass beds (totaling 0.11 acres). 

While these are considered to be healthy they are isolated from the much larger bed (1.4 acres) 

immediately to the west of the project. Other than the small eelgrass beds, habitat under the 

direct footprint does not provide juvenile fish with much cover from predators. However, 

juvenile salmon likely use this habitat during their out-migration to coastal waters. Estuarine 

habitat under the direct footprint also provides important ecological functions to other fish 

species, birds, and other wildlife, in addition to functions such as sediment stabilization, as 

discussed in Sections 5.1.2, 5.2.1, and 5.4). 

While the Proposed Action Alternative would eliminate some estuarine habitat and ecological 

functions, nearby habitats capable of providing similar functions would remain. Adjacent 

estuarine habitat west of Bay Creek is bordered by a steeper bank and provides more variation in 

habitat parameters, such as depth and cover. Adjacent habitat to the west also encompasses a 

large stand of eelgrass habitat (1.4 acres), which likely provides cover important to rearing fish. 

Juvenile salmon are susceptible to predation from birds and fish, especially in areas that lack 

cover. Fish may be more vulnerable to predation in the estuarine habitat occupied by the project 

footprint due to minimal cover. Habitat to the west appears to be more valuable to fish than the 

broader, flat habitat under the direct fill footprint to the east and likely comprises the most 

valuable habitat in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. The Proposed Action avoids 

impacting this valuable estuarine and eelgrass habitat. Although estuarine habitat in the project 

HDR-249-R11012F 125



area would be adversely impacted, the Proposed Action would not impact habitat to the point of 

causing major adverse impacts to wildlife populations. A total of 2.4 acres of eelgrass habitat has 

been mapped in Auke Bay (calculated from Harris et al. 2008 GIS data). The loss of eelgrass 

(0.11 acre) from the project footprint comprises roughly 4% of the total eelgrass habitat mapped 

in Auke Bay. 

The Proposed Action would use a marine seawall to retain fill adjacent to Bay Creek to minimize 

impacts to Bay Creek’s active intertidal channel complex and adjacent nearshore estuarine 

environment. A portion of the fill would be placed in Bay Creek’s historical alluvial delta, as 

discussed above. However, the footprint would avoid Bay Creek’s nearshore active channel 

complex, and would avoid the need to reroute or channelize Bay Creek’s flow into a single 

channel. Bay Creek’s channel would be expected to continue meandering within the braided 

channel complex that it has established over the last 40 years. 

The fill footprint would extend into a relatively small portion of Bay Creek’s existing channel 

complex between +1.0-foot and +0-foot elevation (MLLW). This is well above the level at 

which successful salmon spawning is known to occur. Although studies have not been conducted 

to determine if any salmon spawning occurs in this area, success of spawning below a 6-foot 

tidal stage is minimal to non-existent (Glynn 2009, National Academy of Sciences 1971, 

Noerenberg et al. 1964). The flow of Bay Creek near the toe of fill for the boat launch ramp 

would be expected to remain along the base of the fill, where it currently has an entrenched 

channel. This portion of Bay Creek’s intertidal channel is usually submerged, and tidal processes 

dominate (HDR 2010b). 

At very low tides (i.e., from just above mean lower low water [+0.0 feet] to extreme low water 

[-5.0 feet]), this portion of Bay Creek’s intertidal channel is not submerged, and streamflow 

processes dominate. It is possible during these very low tides that Bay Creek’s channel would 

migrate closer to the eelgrass beds. However, this would require some secondary obstruction 

(aside from the proposed fill) to divert streamflow from the current steepest path down the 

channel. In addition, streamflows capable of causing erosion and channel migration occur 

infrequently enough (once every 1 to 2 years), that it is unlikely that a secondary obstruction, 

erosion event, and extreme low tide would occur simultaneous such that the large eelgrass beds 

will be substantially disturbed (HDR 2010b, 2011). 

HDR developed a MIKE21 HD FM numerical circulation model to assess the potential 

hydrodynamic impacts of a modern double-lane boat ramp and associated parking area (HDR 

2011). The model was developed to address concerns over the influence the proposed 

improvement may have on tidal circulation, erosion, and deposition within the intertidal zone. 

The model indicates that under existing conditions, high velocities (greater than 1 ft/s) are 

concentrated in the Bay Creek channel. Outside of the channel, tidal velocities are generally less 

than 1 ft/s. The exception is during peak floods and low tide, during which time the far eastern 

portion of the large eelgrass bed adjacent to the channel may experience velocities up to 3.4 ft/s 

(HDR 2011). 

The model predicts that the addition of fill will concentrate Bay Creek flow, and slightly 

increasing velocities. The velocities adjacent to the creek in the eelgrass bed increase a 

maximum of 0.05 ft/s in the peak flow/low tide condition, which is not enough to cause 

additional scour. The rest of the eel grass beds are exposed (not inundated) during the peak 

flow/low tide conditions that are capable of transporting sediment. During rising tides, high tides, 

HDR-249-R11012F 126



and falling tides, tidal and stream currents over the eelgrass beds are less than 0.1 ft/s -- too low 

to transport the fine, angular gravels that make up the majority of the bed surface. This is true 

under existing or proposed conditions. Although the model predicts that the proposed fill will 

redirect tidal circulation patterns in the vicinity of the Bay Creek channel, the magnitude of the 

velocities are predicted to change very minimally, thus no changes in erosion or deposition are 

expected outside of the Bay Creek channel (HDR 2011). 

Mitigation 

The Proposed Action’s impacts on the marine environment, which includes intertidal estuarine 

habitat and eelgrass beds in Statter Harbor, have been minimized to the greatest extent 

practicable by reducing the fill footprint and adjusting the spatial configuration such that the toe 

of the boat ramp would extend further out into the harbor into deeper waters to avoid the need for 

dredging. Measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to habitats in the marine 

environment include the following. 

Avoid dredging activities. The project would avoid dredging by extending the toe of the boat 

ramp further into the harbor to utilize the deeper water. 

Avoid filling the nearshore portion of Bay Creek’s active intertidal channel complex. A marine 

seawall would be used to retain fill adjacent to Bay Creek, to avoid placing fill in its active 

nearshore channel complex and minimize overall impacts to Bay Creek. 

Avoid impacts to large eelgrass bed. The project would avoid placing fill over the largest 

eelgrass bed in the project area, located west of the proposed boat launch ramp. Dredging 

activity will be avoided in order to avoid impacts to eelgrass beds and Bay Creek (based on 

NMFS comment: HDR 2008). 



Minimize impacts to eelgrass beds. The spatial configuration of the intertidal fill was adjusted to 

minimize impacts to Bay Creek’s active channel complex, which in turn minimizes impacts to 

eelgrass beds. At very low tides, impacts to eelgrass beds include increased sedimentation and 

changes in circulation that could result in unknown/unintended effects. 

Minimize impacts to estuarine intertidal/subtidal habitats. The spatial configuration of the 

intertidal fill was adjusted to minimize the amount of fill that would be placed in estuarine 

intertidal and subtidal habitats. 

Compensate for unavoidable impacts to eelgrass beds and estuarine intertidal/subtidal habitats. 

The U.S. Corps of Engineers issued a permit for the proposed project on September 17, 2012. 

The permit requires the CBJ to provide compensatory mitigation for the unavoidable impacts to 

waters of the United States, within 6 months of the issuance date of the permit. The CBJ shall 

pay an In-lieu-Fee for the permanent filling of: 






HDR-249-R11012F 127




6.1.3 Terrestrial 

The terrestrial vegetation surrounding Statter Harbor has been influenced by developments and 

disturbance. Upland plant communities include needleleaf forest, shrub thicket, and mixed 

forb/grass communities. Needleleaf forest is limited to a narrow vegetated strip along the western 

shoreline of Bay Creek and several smaller, isolated patches along the coast. The shrub thickets 

east of Bay Creek provide a natural buffer between upslope developments and the marine waters 

of Auke Bay. Mixed forb/grass communities are dominated by species resilient to frequent 

disturbances, many of which include non-native and weedy species. 


Under the No-Action Alternative, the terrestrial habitat in the project area would not be 

impacted. No project-related construction would take place, and the terrestrial habitat would not 

be changed. 


The Proposed Action would be constructed in an industrialized, developed area; therefore, much 

of the terrestrial habitat in the project’s vicinity has been previously disturbed. The project area 

was previously covered by 3 to 20 feet of engineered fill. Approximately 0.62 acres of upland 

habitat would be impacted by the Proposed Action Alternative. Given the relatively small 

footprint and previously disturbed nature of the habitat, the project would not substantially 

impact terrestrial habitat in the project area. 

Mitigation 

The Proposed Action would result in minor impacts to terrestrial habitat. Prior to construction, 

the CBJ would incorporate BMPs to prevent or reduce the establishment of invasive plants. For 

example, the presence of existing noxious weeds could be identified and if found, controlled 

prior to the use of construction equipment. During planting and revegetation activities, planting 

of invasive species (e.g., Prunus padus, Caragana arborescens) could be avoided. Further, the 

CBJ would follow the Cooperative Extension Service “DON’T plant in Alaska” list. 

Wildlife 

This section identifies the environmental consequences to wildlife in the Statter Harbor project 

area that would result from either of the two alternatives. Wildlife discussed in this section 

includes fish (including EFH species), birds, and marine mammals. 


Five species of pacific salmon have EFH in the project area (NOAA 2006). Coho and pink 

salmon use Bay Creek to spawn and juvenile coho also rear in the creek (ADF&G 2008b, 2008c; 

Bethers et al. 1995). The presence of cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden has also been identified in 

Bay Creek (Bethers et al. 1995, Cameron 2011). 

Juvenile pink and coho salmon that out-migrate from Bay Creek likely use the project area’s 

nearshore environment prior to moving off shore (Mortensen et al. 1999). Estuarine habitat in the 

project area is used by other managed fish species that have EFH designations outside of Auke 

Bay. For example, Harris et al. (2008) captured four species of sculpin from the large eelgrass 

HDR-249-R11012F 128



beds near Bay Creek. Sculpin are a non-target species that have EFH designations in other areas 

outside of Auke Bay (Harris et al. 2008, NOAA 2006). 

Adult and juvenile Chinook, sockeye, and chum salmon may use project area waters during their 

migration to and from nearby Auke and Waydelich creeks, although the extent of use has not 

been quantified. Adult sockeye and chum salmon stack up near the NOAA Auke Bay Lab dock 

until conditions permit their upstream migration into Auke Creek. Chinook salmon are also 

observed in this area. Chinook salmon are imprinted in Auke Bay as smolts; these fish return to 

Auke Bay as adults but no spawning occurs (Moran 2009, Joyce 2009). 

Although their presence was not documented in the project area during recent surveys (Harris et 

al. 2008), juvenile Pacific herring still use eelgrass beds in Auke Bay as rearing and 

overwintering habitat (Moran 2009). However, recent studies have not quantified the extent of 

herring use in Auke Bay or specifically within the vicinity of the project. The presence of other 

non-managed fish has been recorded in the Auke Bay but their potential use of habitat near 

Statter Harbor has not been studied (as discussed in Section 5.2.1). 


Under the No-Action Alternative, no construction would take place, and state of the EFH and 

those fish listed as having EFH would not be changed. Under the No-Action Alternative, 

potential improvements to fish passage and habitat in Bay Creek would not be carried forward as 

compensatory mitigation. 


Components included in the Proposed Action that would have the potential to impact estuarine 

habitat, EFH, and fish species include the following activities: 

• Placing intertidal fill 

• Adding overwater structures 

• Driving piles 

Placing intertidal fill—loss of estuarine fish habitat, EFH and function 

The Proposed Action would eliminate approximately 4.1 acres of estuarine habitat, also 

considered EFH, due to the placement of fill. Although this estuarine habitat is not unique to 

Auke Bay or the project area, habitat eliminated includes 0.11 acres of eelgrass beds, which are 

considered a “Special Aquatic Site” under federal regulations (40 CFR 230). Elimination of 

habitat would result in the loss of those habitats’ function. However, it is important to note that 

nearby habitats capable of providing similar functions would remain. 

The 4.1 acres of estuarine habitat that would be eliminated is located east of Bay Creek, adjacent 

to Bay Creek’s active alluvial delta within its historical alluvial delta. Habitat under the direct 

footprint is broad and flat and contains two relatively small, fragmented eelgrass beds (both of 

which are considered to be healthy). Eelgrass and estuarine habitats provide many important 

ecological functions, as discussed in Sections 5.1.2, 5.2.1, and 5.4. For example, estuarine 

habitats adjacent to Bay Creek likely provide refuge and rearing habitat for juvenile salmon 

during their out-migration to coastal waters and support food sources for other fish and wildlife. 

Eelgrass has been identified as important habitat for fish, such as Pacific herring. 

HDR-249-R11012F 129



The Proposed Action avoids placing fill over known salmon spawning habitat. Salmon spawning 

occurs in Bay Creek’s intertidal channel well upstream of the proposed toe of fill. The Proposed 

Action avoids placing fill over the largest eelgrass bed in the project area (located immediately 

west of Bay Creek). Estuarine habitat west of Bay Creek, which encompasses the large stand of 

eelgrass, is bordered by a steeper bank and provides a wider range of habitat conditions than 

those to the east. The estuarine habitat is likely more valuable to out migrating and rearing fish 

than the broader, flat, shallow habitat to the east which would be eliminated by fill. The large 

eelgrass bed and surrounding estuarine habitat immediately west of Bay Creek likely comprises 

the most valuable habitat in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. 

Although habitat in the project area would be adversely impacted, the Proposed Action would 

not impact habitat to the point of causing major adverse impacts to wildlife populations. Species 

would be expected to move successfully into similar habitat nearby (i.e., to the west), or compete 

within the confines of the smaller amount of habitat that would remain immediately adjacent to 

the footprint. Given the availability of estuarine habitat in relatively close proximity to Bay 

Creek, the Proposed Action is not expected to cause major or significant adverse effects to fish 

populations using these habitats. 

Placing intertidal fill—modify circulation patterns 

The addition of fill material in the intertidal area has the potential to modify existing water 

circulation and current patterns in the harbor. The fill would slightly concentrate flow in the 

intertidal portion of Bay Creek, resulting in about 7% higher velocities in the channel during the 

peak flow/low tide condition (HDR 2011). Horizontal eddies that form during rising and falling 

tide would be redirected by the fill. However, the potential change in circulation patterns that 

could result from placing fill under the Proposed Action would not be expected to have 

significant adverse impacts on EFH or fish. Tidal velocities are too low to actively rework 

sediment in the intertidal zone, according to both model results and evidence of poorly-sorted, 

fines-rich sediment on and near the surface during field observations. The circulation model 

indicates that fill would not increase or decrease tidal velocities by more than about 0.3 ft/s 

(HDR 2011). 

Placing intertidal fill—EFH in Bay Creek 

The Proposed Action footprint would avoid placing fill in Bay Creek’s nearshore active channel 

complex, and would avoid the need to reroute or channelize Bay Creek’s flow into a single 

channel. Bay Creek’s channel would be expected to continue meandering within the braided 

channel complex that it has established over the last nearly 40 years. 

However, the fill footprint would extend into a relatively small portion of Bay Creek’s existing 

channel complex between +1.0 foot and +0 foot elevation (MLLW). The flow of Bay Creek 

would likely concentrate against the boat launch ramp toe of fill. Model results predict that 

during low tide and peak flow events, velocities would be high enough to move sediment in the 

Bay Creek channel, potentially deepening the channel. The model does not predict increases to 

velocities within the eelgrass beds, though, thus no disturbance to the beds is predicted as a result 

of this fill (HDR 2011). 

The Proposed Action avoids placing fill over known salmon spawning habitat. Salmon spawning 

occurs in Bay Creek’s intertidal channel well upstream of the proposed toe of fill. The Proposed 

Action is not expected to have significant adverse impact on EFH in Bay Creek or EFH species 

HDR-249-R11012F 130



that use Bay Creek. Under the Proposed Action, enhancement opportunities for spawning, 

holding, and rearing habitat in Bay Creek would be considered as potential mitigation measures 

to offset unavoidable impacts, as discussed below. 

Dredging 

The Proposed Action does not require any dredging activity, and therefore would not require the 

disposal of any dredged material on- or off-site. 

Adding boarding float 

The Proposed Action would construct only one overwater structure: the double-lane boat launch 

ramp. The boarding float for the double-lane boat launch ramp would be approximately 8 feet 

wide and 315 feet long, would cover approximately 2,520 square feet of the intertidal zone. The 

concrete ramps would be located beneath the boarding float. Based on the relatively small 

footprint of overwater structures proposed and the fact that concrete ramp would occupy the area 

underneath the boarding float, the impacts to EFH resulting from the addition of overwater 

structures are expected to be minimal. 

Increased turbidity during construction 

Shallow-water environments and estuary habitats are more likely to be adversely impacted by 

increased turbidity than open-water habitats. This is due to their higher sustained biomass and 

lower water volumes, which decrease their ability to dilute and disperse suspended sediments 

(Gowen 1978 in NOAA 2005). Nearshore vegetated wetlands, which typically provide forage 

habitat for and protection of commercially important invertebrates and fish, are of particular 

concern. Increased soil erosion or siltation may eventually decrease productivity in these areas. 

Potential impacts to Statter Harbor during construction, such as increased turbidity, excavation 

near stream banks, potential in-stream scaffolding, and substrate disturbance, and the 

redistribution of potential contamination would be temporary in nature and minimized through 

implementation of construction and BMPs. For example, floating silt curtains would be used 

around fill areas during construction to minimize potential turbidity impacts. It should also be 

noted that a site assessment conducted for the project area revealed no evidence of recognized 

environmental conditions or potential sources of contamination (Carson Dorn 2008). 

The potential for construction activities associated with the proposed project to affect pink and 

coho salmon in Bay Creek or any of the five species of Pacific salmon in the vicinity of Statter 

Harbor is limited. Construction activities would be timed to take place when it is least likely that 

EFH species would inhabit these areas. Once construction has ceased, the proposed project is not 

expected to measurably impact EFH-listed fish populations in Statter Harbor estuarine habitat or 

in the Bay Creek drainage as a result of turbidity. 

Driving piles 

Galvanized steel pilings would be used to provide support for the proposed boarding float at the 

boat launch ramp. The piles would be driven into the substrate using a combination of 

techniques, as discussed in Section 6.2.2. Driving piles generate intense underwater sound 

pressure waves that would have the potential to displace, injure, or kill fish and marine 

mammals. However, measures would be included to minimize and avoid that potential to impact 

fish and marine mammals, as listed below. 

HDR-249-R11012F 131

Mitigation 



Measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to fish and EFH include the following. 

Avoid channelizing Bay Creek. The spatial configuration of the intertidal fill was adjusted to 

avoid channelizing Bay Creek’s active intertidal flow. The natural fluctuation process of Bay 

Creek’s intertidal flow will continue; therefore, increased sedimentation in eelgrass beds and 

changes in circulation patterns that could result in unknown/unintended effects will be 

minimized. 

Avoid filling the nearshore portion of Bay Creek’s active intertidal channel complex. A marine 

seawall would be used to retain fill adjacent to Bay Creek, to avoid placing fill in its active 

nearshore channel complex. 



Avoid (creating) migration barriers to salmonids. At no time will the construction activities result 

in a migration barrier for adult and juvenile salmonids. This is a compliance measure required by 

state law, unless otherwise authorized by a permit. 

Avoid dredging activities; minimize impacts to EFH. The spatial configuration of the intertidal 

fill footprint was designed to avoid the need to dredge the sea floor. Avoiding dredging activities 

minimizes impacts to EFH. 

Minimize potential impacts to salmonids and EFH species during critical life stages. Timing 

windows will be incorporated during construction activities for all in-water work to minimize 

potential adverse effects to salmon during critical life stages. In-water work will be timed to 

avoid those times when eggs are in the gravel and juvenile salmon are out-migrating. In the 

Juneau area, in-water construction is generally restricted from April 1 through June 15, although 

this timing window may be adjusted in permit stipulations. 

Minimize potential impacts to fish habitat, water quality, and drainage features in Bay Creek. 

The CBJ will add stream buffers along Bay Creek within the project area to maintain the natural 

fish habitat, water quality, and natural drainage features. A SWPP will identify BMPs to prevent 

erosion and manage stormwater run off. 

Minimize impacts to estuarine habitat; EFH. Estuarine habitat is important for fish and wildlife. 

The spatial configuration of the intertidal fill was adjusted to minimize the amount of fill that 

would be placed in the estuarine environment to reduce impacts. However, approximately 4.1 

acres of estuarine habitat, also considered EFH and used by other fish and wildlife, will be 

eliminated due to the placement of fill. 

Avoid potential water quality impacts to Bay Creek through preparation of a SWPP. The SWPP 

will identify BMPs to prevent erosion and manage stormwater run off, which is required by state 

regulatory processes. Surface water runoff will be directed away from Bay Creek through a 

storm drain system for treatment prior to discharge. The storm drain will discharge water into 

Statter Harbor after being treated. Minimum set backs from the stream channel will be set in 

permit stipulations. 

Minimize potential water quality and run-off impacts during construction. The CBJ and Sport 

Fish will prepare or will require the construction contractor to prepare and comply with a SWPP. 

HDR-249-R11012F 132



BMPs will be used during construction to prevent erosion and runoff from entering Bay Creek. 

BMPs would include installing temporary erosion control measures such as wood excelsior mats, 

straw bales, and/or silt fencing, until re-vegetated plants can bind the soil and/or installing 

diversion dikes to channel rain water away from the disturbed soils. 

Avoid introduction of contaminated material during construction. The CBJ and Sport Fish will 

use contaminant-free embankment and surface materials during construction. Use of fill with 

toxic contaminants is forbidden by federal CWA regulations. 

Avoid and Minimize impacts from potential spills during construction. To minimize and prevent 

spills or leakage of hazardous materials during construction, standard spill-prevention measures 

will be implemented during construction. To mitigate for potential hazardous materials spills, 

spill clean-up equipment (e.g., oil-absorbent pads) will be available onsite during construction. 

Compensate for unavoidable impacts: Estuarine rearing habitat. The U.S. Corps of Engineers 

issued a permit for the proposed project on September 17, 2012. The permit requires the CBJ to 

provide compensatory mitigation for the unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States, 

within 6 months of the issuance date of the permit. The CBJ shall pay an In-lieu-Fee for the 

permanent filling of: 







Minimize noise impacts from pile driving. The CBJ and Sport Fish will encourage the use of 

vibratory pile driving equipment as the primary installation method for the project. 

• Impact hammers shall only be allowed for piles that encounter soils too dense to 

penetrate with the vibratory equipment. 

• The specifications shall require the use of light duty cushion blocks. Use of a pile cushion 

between the impact hammer and the piling will help to attenuate sound. 

• The impact hammer energy will be limited to approximately 20,000 foot-pounds (ft-lbs) 

to minimize driving energy. 

• Timing for the installation of all piles shall consider sensitive fish habitat periods for 

juvenile salmon. 

• Small diameter piles will be used, when possible, to minimize potential harm to fish. 

• Driving will occur at low tide in an effort to minimize potential impacts to fish. 


Marine mammals that have been observed in the coastal waters of Auke Bay include: sea otters, 

Steller sea lions; harbor seals; harbor and Dall’s porpoise; and minke whales, killer whales, and 

humpback whales (Savage 2009, Moran 2009). These species are all year-round residents of the 

area, with the exception of the humpback whale. 

HDR-249-R11012F 133




Under the No-Action Alternative, conditions would continue to exist as they currently do at 

Statter Harbor. No additional infrastructure would be constructed, no fill would be placed in the 

marine environment; and pile driving activities would not be necessary. No changes would be 

made that would potentially impact marine mammals. 


Components of the Proposed Action would include the following activities: 



Placing intertidal fill – loss of habitat and function 

The Proposed Action would eliminate approximately 4.1 acres of intertidal estuarine habitat due 

to fill placement (Figure 6-1). This would result in the elimination of habitat function. Estuarine 

habitat in the intertidal zone supports prey species for marine mammals, such as fish. However, 

prey species would be expected to move successfully into similar habitat nearby. The availability 

of prey species influences marine mammal movement in Auke Bay. However, since the 

populations prey species are not expected to be measurably affected, adverse effects to marine 

mammals would also not be expected. 

Driving piles 

Galvanized steel pilings will be used to provide support for the proposed boarding float at the 

boat launch ramp. The piles will be driven into the substrate using a combination of techniques, 

as discussed below. Driving piles can generate intense underwater sound pressure waves that 

have the potential to disrupt migration and harass or injure marine mammals. Based on 

implementation of the conservation measures to avoid and minimize harmful effects, the 

likelihood for driving piles to negatively impact marine mammals is generally low. 

Mitigation 

Measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to marine mammals include the following. 







• The impact hammer energy will be limited to approximately 20,000 ft-lbs to minimize 

driving energy. 





HDR-249-R11012F 134



Avoid take of marine mammals. A marine mammal monitor will be assigned to the project 

during pile driving operations. The observer will begin to observe 15 minutes prior to pile 

driving and throughout the duration of each pile driving event. If marine mammals are observed 

within a 200-meter (656-foot) radius of the pile being driven, driving will cease until the animal 

is clear of the zone. If the marine mammal is observed during pile driving and appears to be 

disturbed by the noise/activity, pile driving will be discontinued and not resumed until the 

marine mammal is no longer observed. Methods will be confirmed through consultation with 

NOAA. 

6.1.6 Birds 

Bald eagles are common in Southeast Alaska and have been documented in the project area; 

however, there are no records of nesting eagles in the immediate project area. The nearest 

documented bald eagle nests are approximately 0.5 mile to the south-southeast and 1 mile to the 

southwest (Schemp 2008). 

Although bald eagles are no longer considered endangered or threatened under the ESA, they are 

protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. The Bald Eagle Protection 

Act provides for the protection of the bald eagle and the golden eagle by prohibiting, except 

under certain specified conditions, the taking, possession, and commerce of such birds. 

Under the MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703), it is illegal to “take” migratory birds, their eggs, feathers or 

nests. “Take” includes by any means or in any manner, any attempt at hunting, pursuing, 

wounding, killing, possessing or transporting any migratory bird, nest, egg, or part thereof. The 

MBTA does not distinguish between intentional and unintentional take. All migratory birds are 

protected under the MBTA. Destruction of active bird nests, eggs, or nestlings that can result 

from construction activities would violate the MBTA. 



Statter Harbor. No changes would be made that would have the potential to impact birds in the 

project area. 


The Proposed Action will not impact bald eagle nests, since there are no bald eagles nests in the 

project area. However, if a bald eagles nest is located in the vicinity of the project area at any 

time, agencies will be contacted and construction regulations will be followed. 


to the placement of fill. This would result in the elimination of habitat and function of this 

portion of the intertidal zone. Birds would be expected to move successfully into similar habitat 

nearby. 

Mitigation 

The Proposed Action is not expected to have impacts on bald eagles or migratory birds in the 

project area. However, the following measures will be taken: 

No vegetation clearing would occur between April 15 and July 15 in forest or woodland habitat 

and May 1 through July 15 for shrub or open habitat. Consultation with USFWS will be 

conducted prior to discussion to set timing windows for construction. 

HDR-249-R11012F 135



If active bird nests, eggs, or nestlings are observed during construction, USFWS agency 

personnel will be contacted for guidance. 

If a bald eagles nest is located in the vicinity of the project area at any time, agencies will be 

contacted and construction regulations will be followed. 

6.2 Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern 

6.2.1 Fish 

The presence of salmon from ESA-listed Evolutionary Significant Units along the west coast has 

not been confirmed in the project area and is not expected (NOAA 2008). The presence of the 

Snake River fall Chinook salmon, which is considered an SSC for Southeast Alaska by the 

ADF&G (2008d), is not likely to occur in the project area (ADF&G 2009b). 





made that would have the potential to impact protected fish species. 




• Adding overwater structures 

Driving piles 


to the placement of fill. This would result in the elimination of habitat and function. Adding 

overwater structures would eliminate or alter potential habitat for prey species. Driving piles can 

generate intense underwater sound pressure waves that have the potential to displace, injure, or 

kill fish. However, the occurrence of protected fish in the project area is unlikely. When 

considering the conservation measures for identified to minimize, avoid, or mitigate impacts to 

fish above, the Proposed Action is not expected to have adverse affects on fish populations in the 

project area. 

Mitigation 

The presence of threatened or endangered fish is not likely in the project area. However, 

mitigation measures listed Section 6.2.1 would be followed. 


The only threatened and endangered marine mammal species listed under the ESA likely to 

found in the general study area are the endangered humpback whale and the eastern or western 

DPS of Steller sea lion (NOAA 2008). The ADF&G considers sea otters, harbor seals, and 

Steller sea lions as SSCs for Southeast Alaska (2008d), all of which have been documented in 

the project area. 

HDR-249-R11012F 136







made that would potentially impact marine mammals. 





Placing intertidal fill – loss of habitat and function 

The Proposed Action would eliminate approximately 4.1 acres of estuarine habitat due to the 

placement of fill. This would result in the elimination of intertidal habitat and function. Estuarine 

habitat in the intertidal zone supports prey species for marine mammals, such as fish. However, 

prey species would be expected to move successfully into similar habitat nearby. The availability 

of prey species influences marine mammal movement in Auke Bay. However, since the 

populations prey species would not expected to be affected, measureable adverse effects to 

marine mammals would likewise not be expected. 

Driving piles 

Galvanized steel pilings will be used to provide support for the proposed boat launch ramp. The 

piles will be driven into the substrate using a combination of techniques, as discussed below. 

Driving piles can generate intense underwater sound pressure waves that have the potential to 

disrupt the migration and harass or injure marine mammals. Based on implementation of the 

conservation measures to avoid and minimize harmful effects, the likelihood for driving piles to 

negatively impact marine mammals is generally low. 

Mitigation 














HDR-249-R11012F 137



Avoid take of marine mammals. A marine mammal monitor will be assigned to the project 

during pile driving operations. The observer will begin to observe 15 minutes prior to pile 

driving and throughout the duration of each pile driving event. If marine mammals are observed 

within a 200-meter (656-foot) radius of the pile being driven, driving will cease until the animal 

is clear of the zone. If the marine mammal is observed during pile driving and appears to be 

disturbed by the noise/activity, pile driving will be discontinued and not resumed until the 

marine mammal is no longer observed. Methods will be confirmed through consultation with 

NOAA 

6.2.3 Birds 





made that would have the potential to impact birds in the project area. 


No birds listed by the federal ESA occur in the project area. Five species of birds that may occur 

in Auke Bay are listed as BCC by the USFWS. The proposed action would not be expected to 

impact the birds listed as BBC. 

6.3 Wetlands 

In 2008, JYL conducted a wetland delineation to determine the extent of wetlands in the project 

area. The total area surveyed was approximately 2.44 acres, of which approximately 0.68 of an 

acre was determined to be wetlands (JYL 2008). 


Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no project-related impacts to wetlands. 


The following project components would impact wetlands and other water bodies of the U.S. 

• Parking area 

• Boat launch ramp 

• Sea walk trail 

• Armored wall 

Under the Proposed Action, the placement of fill would eliminate approximately 0.61 acres of 

mapped wetlands (Table 6-2; Figure 6-2). Of these 0.62 acres, 0.42 acres occurs in wetlands 

below the high tide line in other waters of the U.S. Fill would be placed to construct a new 

parking area to serve harbor users, and the construction of an armored wall with a sea walk trail 

along the top. The boat launch ramp would extend into marine waters in order to allow boat 

launch and retrieval activities to occur at extreme low tides. 

The placement of fill into wetlands above and below the high tide line will result in the loss of 

the three wetlands (Wetlands A, B, and C) as well as the functions these wetlands perform. 

Placement of fill in other waters of the U.S. would also result in the loss of functions and values 

HDR-249-R11012F 138



at the location of the Proposed Action; however, this habitat is not unique in Auke Bay. 

Functions and values for water quality, fish support, aquatic support, and terrestrial support 

would still continue in the area immediately surrounding the Proposed Action. As the area 

impacted is small relative to the larger Auke Bay, functions and values would be minimally 

affected by the Proposed Action. 

Table 6-2 Impacts to Section 404 Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. 

Resources 

Waters of the U.S. (Section 404) 

0.61 acres of mapped wetlands 

0.95 acres of mudflats 

0.11 acres of eelgrass 

4.1 acres of other waters of the U.S. 

(includes 0.42 acres of wetland) 

Mitigation 

Quantity Eliminated 

4.26 acres 

(excludes overlap between wetlands and other water of the U.S.) 

Impacts to wetlands were minimized to the extent practicable through the implementation of the 

following measures: 

The intertidal fill footprint was minimized to the greatest extent practicable, which minimized 

impacts to project-area wetlands, Bay Creek, and other waters of the U.S. 

Some wetlands in the project were unavoidable and the following mitigation measures are 

proposed to offset wetland loss: 

The U.S. Corps of Engineers issued a permit for the proposed project on September 17, 2012. 

The permit requires the CBJ to provide compensatory mitigation for the unavoidable impacts to 

waters of the United States, within 6 months of the issuance date of the permit. The CBJ shall 

pay an In-lieu-Fee for the permanent filling of: 







HDR-249-R11012F 139




HDR-249-R11012F 140

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

TO WETLANDS 

• 6.2 acres Proposed Action Footprint 

• 4.1 acres Other Waters of the U.S. 

(includes 0.4 acre of Wetlands) 

• 0.61 acre Mapped Wetlands 

WETLAND D 

WETLAND 

A 

GLACIER HWY 

BACKLOOP RD 




Environmental 

Consequences of the 


to Wetlands 

Figure 6-2 

LEGEND 


Footprint 


(JYL 2008) 

WETLAND C 

WETLAND B 

Other Waters of the U.S. 

(below HTL 20.3') 

High Tide Line 

(elevation = 20.3 ft) 

AUKE BAY 

HARBOR RD 


(elevation = -5 ft) 

Bay Creek 

Ë 

Feet 

0 50 100 150 200 





Date: May 19, 2011




HDR-249-R11012F 142



6.4 Water Quality (Ground and Surface Water) 

6.4.1 No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, unobstructed runoff sheet flows from DeHart’s Marina gravel 

parking areas, the Horton Lot, and Glacier Highway would continue to discharge directly into 

Statter Harbor. 

6.4.2 Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, the construction of a new parking area adjacent to Statter Harbor 

would make additional parking spaces available. The construction of the parking area would 

result in an increase of 4.52 acres of impermeable surface. An increase in the number of motored 

vehicles using the new parking area could result in additional pollutants in the runoff from the 

project area. 

During the construction of the proposed action there would be potential for increased sediments 

and pollutants such as oil and fuel to enter the marine environment. However, mitigation 

measures such as BMP would be included under an SWPPP that would be required under any 

contractor’s Construction General Permit (CGP). These BMPs would help prevent pollutants 

(e.g., sediment, oil, gas,) from entering water on the project site and subsequent release to nearby 

water bodies. 

Storm water and surface water runoff is currently not treated at the project site. Under the 

Proposed Action, all runoff from impermeable surfaces, such as the newly constructed parking 

areas, would be directed through a storm drain system for treatment prior to discharge into 

Statter Harbor. The treatment will include an oil water separator/filter. This would likely 

improve water quality because the storm water would not be directly introducing pollutant 

directly into the waters of Statter Harbor. 

This project would increase efficiency and ease congestion at Statter Harbor by improving 

circulation and providing adequate onsite parking. While boat traffic is not anticipated to 

increase considerably, there could be an increase in the concentration of marina pollutants (oil, 

fuel, and other chemicals) due to potentially-increased boat use. Additional traffic could also 

potentially result in a decline in dissolved oxygen concentrations which would lead to a decrease 

in ecosystem health. Because the project would consist of an impermeable surface, no 

interference with groundwater is expected. Therefore, this project would not impact groundwater 

in the project vicinity. 

6.4.2.1 Mitigation 

The proposed project would avoid impacts to groundwater. The following mitigation measures 

have been implemented into the Proposed Action to mitigate potential impacts to surface water 

quality: 

Surface water runoff will be directed away from Bay Creek through a storm drain system for 

treatment prior to discharge. The storm drain will discharge water into Statter Harbor after being 

treated. Minimum set backs from the stream channel will be set in permit stipulations. 

Stream buffers will be installed on the west side of the intertidal fill to separate the project from 

Bay Creek. 

HDR-249-R11012F 143



The CBJ will work with the EPA to ensure surface water quality standards are maintained. The 

following mitigation measures would be implemented to mitigate impacts to surface water that 

would result from the construction of the proposed project: 

The proposed project would comply with the NPDES general permit for construction activities 

disturbing more than one acre. 

The contractor would prepare a SWPPP and implement BMPs identified during the permitting 

process to comply with the state regulatory processes. BMPs typically include installing 

temporary erosion control measures such as wood excelsior mats, turbidity curtains and/or silt 

fencing, until re-vegetated plants can bind the soil and/or installing diversion dikes to channel 

rain water away from the disturbed soils. 

Contaminant-free embankment and surface materials would be used during construction. 

To minimize and prevent spills or leakage of hazardous materials during construction, standard 

spill-prevention measures will be implemented during construction. To mitigate for potential 

hazardous materials spills, spill clean-up equipment (e.g., oil-absorbent pads) will be available 

onsite during construction. 

The team will also consider implementing a water quality monitoring program to attain baseline 

water quality data as potential mitigation for this project, as requested by the EPA. Specific 

mitigation measures and describe measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate (compensate) for 

unavoidable impacts will be identified in a mitigation plan during the permitting process. 

Cultural and Historical Resources 


There would be no impacts to cultural resources under the No-Action Alternative. 


The Proposed Action would require removal of the Lehnhart residence (JUN-01090), a historic 

building, and a 1935 concrete foundation currently being used for a modern picnic shelter. 

However, none of these resources are eligible for listing in the NRHP (see SHPO letter, 

September 2, 2009, Appendix F), and subsequently no historic properties will be affected by the 

proposed project. 

6.4.5 Mitigation 

It is anticipated that the Proposed Action would result in no effect on historic properties within 

the project area, and thus no further mitigation would be required for cultural and historic 

resources under the Alaska Historic Preservation Act. However, mitigation measures to address 

any effects to these resources under the NEPA could be developed in consultation with the 

SHPO, CBJ, and other interested parties prior to construction. 

6.5 Sound 


Under the No-Action Alternative, no improvements would be made to Statter Harbor; therefore, 

no changes to existing noise levels would be anticipated. Currently, the average maximum levels 

of sound generated in the project area are at or below the 55 dBA permissible level for sound 

HDR-249-R11012F 144



generated on waterfront commercial zoning at all hours of the day (PND 2008b), and it would be 

expected that sound levels would continue to be at or below the permissible sound level. 


Currently, the average maximum levels of sound generated in the project area are at or below the 

55 dBA permissible sound level for sound generated on waterfront commercial zoning at all 

hours of the day (PND 2008b). 

Use of the Statter Harbor facility is not expected to increase substantially as a result of the 

proposed Statter Harbor improvements; therefore, neither boat nor vehicular traffic is expected to 

increase substantially as a result of this project. Further, boat launch and retrieval operations did 

not produce sounds that were above the permissible level of 55 dBA. 

Construction noise impacts would be temporary and short term in nature, with impacts varying 

during the construction season. The construction noise will primarily be limited to the general 

vicinity of the project area; however, an elevation in noise during pile driving can be anticipated. 

To minimize noise from pile driving, the piles will be driven into the substrate using a 

combination of techniques, as discussed below. These noise impacts would be intermittent in 

nature, and are not expected to affect the activities at Statter Harbor adversely. 

The closest residences are the ABTC located adjacent to the project area. These residents and 

local businesses along Glacier Highway would experience elevated noise levels from pile driving 

and other construction activities. Other construction noise would be associated with traffic 

hauling construction material, and hauling fill for placement into the intertidal area. 


It is not expected that the Proposed Action would result in substantial noise impacts. However, 

the following mitigation measures will be implemented in order to minimize noise impacts: 

A vegetated buffer would be placed between the western side of the project footprint and Bay 

Creek. This would minimize the noise for the residences and businesses that are located directly 

west of the project. 

Construction: timing windows. Project construction would take place between the hours 

prescribed by local noise ordinances in order to minimize noise impacts on businesses and 

residences located in the project vicinity. 

Construction: pile driving. The CBJ and Sport Fish will encourage the use of vibratory pile 

driving equipment as the primary installation method for the project. 







HDR-249-R11012F 145



Visual 



no changes to existing viewsheds would be anticipated. The No-Action alternative would have 

no cumulative effects on scenery and would maintain the existing visual character of the 

landscape. 


Under the Proposed Action the landscape would reflect a moderate degree of visual change. 

Several factors would contribute to the degree of visual impact: 

• the location from where development is visible 

• the distance at which it is observed 

• the design and placement of the activity into the landscape, and 

• any mitigation implemented to reduce the visual impacts of the action 

The most pronounced visual effects would occur along the face of the fill slopes, marine seawall, 

and the boat launch facility viewable from Auke Bay and the Auke Bay Towers Condominiums. 

These modifications would occur where the SIOs are classified as Low. The visual impacts from 

a majority of the VPSs will be limited to the perimeter of the fill slopes, boat launch, and vertical 

marine seawall due to a majority of the modifications being a large, flat, horizontal paved area at 

an elevation of +25 foot. The land-based travel routes (Glacier Highway) are approximately at 

the same elevation as the large paved area with a vegetative screen between the roadway and the 

project. The water-based travel routes and use areas (e.g., Auke Bay, Statter Harbor, Fisherman’s 

Bend) are typically located at a viewing elevation below the finish grade of the proposed 

modifications and thereby limit views to the perimeter of the project and the fill slopes, seawall, 

and boat launch facility. 

The project has two VPRs that are at an elevated viewpoint above the final grade of the project. 

Squire’s Rest on the second floor of the commercial development on the north side of Glacier 

Highway (approximate elevation of +43 foot) and the upper floor of the ABTCs (approximate 

elevation of +55 foot). These VPRs have the ability to look at both the fill slopes and down on 

the large horizontal paved area. Without mitigation that includes vegetative screening between 

the viewpoint and the perimeter project, the visual impacts of project would likely not meet the 

Low SIO. 


Minimize impacts by planting vegetative buffers. Native plant material would be used to screen 

and buffer areas including the shot rock fill slopes, vertical rock wall, and viewing opportunities 

from VRPs into the harbor, with special attention to minimize view impacts from the ABTC and 

provide sufficient buffering within the site and the large paved area. Native vegetation would be 

planted around the perimeter of the project area to effectively screen year round views from the 

VRPs including along Glacier Highway, Bay Creek, Auke Bay, and along the east portion of the 

site. The CBJ would work with contractors to determine if native plant material could be placed 

within the shot rock fill slopes on the Auke Bay and Bay Creek sides to the high tide line. 

HDR-249-R11012F 146



Minimize impacts through selection of construction materials. Design and selection of fill 

material would be similar in size, color, and texture to existing rocks in the surrounding 

landscape to reduce the visual impacts. A variety of sizes and shapes found in the landscape 

(rather than uniform and angular rocks) would be used to minimize visual impacts of fill slopes. 




no changes to existing land use would be anticipated. 


The project area is currently zoned as waterfront commercial. Though the proposed Statter 

Harbor improvements fall within the allowable land use code for the WC zoning district, the CBJ 

would still require a conditional land use permit. The Proposed Action would result in the loss of 

tidelands, as described below in Section 6.10. Otherwise, the Proposed Action would not 

significantly alter the existing land uses available at Statter Harbor. 


The Proposed Action was designed to avoid and minimize impacts to land use. No mitigation is 

currently proposed. 

6.7 Recreation and Public Use 

Statter Harbor is currently used to house personal fishing and recreational boats, and as a 

launching point for commercial, recreational fishing, and whale watching charters. In addition, 

local residents and the general public use Statter Harbor for bird watching, kayaking, enjoyment 

of open space, harbor viewing, and access to tidelands. Although tide-pooling is not possible in 

the project area, the public can currently access the two small eelgrass beds located in the 

tidelands east of Bay Creek. 



no changes to existing recreation or public use would be anticipated. Local residents and tourists 

would continue to use Auke Bay and Statter Harbor for recreation and public uses including 

fishing, whale and wildlife watching, bird watching, kayaking, and hiking. 


The Proposed Action would result in filling some of the existing tidelands in Auke Bay. The loss 

of this area would diminish the ability to use it for pedestrian access to tidelands. However, areas 

adjacent to the project site and Bay Creek would remain available for public and recreational use. 

The Proposed Action would also require removal of an existing shelter currently located near the 

Horton Lot. In lieu of providing upland areas to replace the public use shelter, the Proposed 

Action would construct small scenic overlooks at several locations along the harbor sea walk 

trail. The design format has not been finalized but will likely include benches, kiosks, and 

environmental education signage. 

Development of the additional launch ramps under the Proposed Action would result in a 

beneficial impact to the local residents and tourists that utilize the Statter Harbor facilities to 

HDR-249-R11012F 147



launch boats for commercial, recreational, and personal use. Overall, the recreational and public 

use opportunities in Auke Bay would be enhanced. A seawalk and pathway down to Bay Creek 

would also be constructed for public use as part of the proposed project. Moreover, recreational 

opportunities for Amalga Harbor facility users would also likely be improved because improved 

efficiency and capacity at Statter Harbor would likely reduce crowding at Amalga (USKH 2011). 


The Proposed Action was designed to avoid and minimize impacts to recreation. No additional 

mitigation is currently proposed. 


Juneau is located within an air quality attainment area and is currently in compliance with federal 

air quality standards (ADEC 2011). 



no changes to existing air quality would be anticipated. 


The Proposed Action would not be expected to significantly impact or change air quality. 

However, during construction, the Proposed Action may cause short-term, localized impacts to 

air quality from an increase in particulate matter from construction activities and equipment. 

Such potential impacts could include an increase in dust (prior to paving) and emissions from 

diesel-powered construction equipment. Ground-disturbing activities such as vegetation removal, 

excavation, grading, and fill placement may temporarily generate fugitive dust. 

Sensitive receptor groups are locations of groups of individuals, including infants, children, and 

the elderly and chronically ill, that may be more susceptible than the general population to health 

risks from air pollution. Schools, day-care facilities, convalescent homes, and hospitals are of 

particular concern. The Auke Bay Elementary School may be considered a sensitive receptor 

group when children are present, due to its close proximity to Statter Harbor. However, 

construction-related impacts to air quality would not be likely to impact children at Auke Bay 

Elementary School. 

Operation of the improved facilities under the Proposed Action Alternative would not likely 

measurably change air quality. The existing Horton Lot, which is currently covered by gravel, 

would be paved. Therefore, dust emissions currently caused by the traffic within the Horton Lot 

may be reduced under the Proposed Action Alternative. 


It is not expected that the Proposed Action would result in substantial air quality impacts. To 

minimize potential impacts, airborne particles would be controlled as necessary by the 

application of water or other controlled materials for dust suppression in accordance with 

established BMPs. Construction timing windows could be established, if necessary, to take place 

outside of school hours. No other mitigation measures are proposed. 

HDR-249-R11012F 148

6.9 Indirect Impacts 



Indirect impacts are those impacts outside the immediate influence of construction and operation 

of the project. They may be physically some distance from the project or may occur later in time 

as a “spin-off” or induced effect of the project. 

Improved facilities could lead to additional use. The construction of parking spaces for 122 

vehicles with trailers and 87 passenger vehicles and a new double-lane boat launch ramp could 

result in an increase in users at Statter Harbor. This could also result in increased traffic on 

Glacier Highway. 

The DOT&PF is developing a project that may include construction of a roundabout at the 

Glacier Highway and Back Loop Road intersection (USKH 2004, 2009). USKH completed an 

analysis of traffic and safety issues based on existing conditions and projected changes relative to 

the improvements proposed under the Proposed Action to determine if a traffic impact analysis 

(TIA) would be required (USKH 2009). 

USKH analyzed the current capacity at the Glacier Highway and Back Loop Road intersection 

and compared that to the proposed roundabout project (USKH 2009). The analysis found that the 

Proposed Actions’ improvements do not appreciably degrade the level of service compared to 

existing conditions (USKH 2009). Furthermore, the Proposed Action is not expected to increase 

accident rates on this section of the Glacier Highway or otherwise detract from the safety of 

Glacier Highway (USKH 2009). If DOT&PF constructs a roundabout at this location the 

intersection would operate at a higher level of service than existing conditions; the Proposed 

Action would not degrade that level of service (USKH 2009). 

Indirect impacts could also include the loss of prey or a reduction in species fecundity, primarily 

associated with EFH and wetlands. However, the Proposed Action is not expected to change the 

fecundity of EFH species or result in a substantial loss of prey species that EFH species rely 

upon. The small loss of intertidal wetland habitat is not likely to result in substantial reduction of 

prey species or species fecundity. Indirect impacts are expected to be limited. 

6.10 Cumulative Impacts 

This section describes cumulative impacts that may occur due to the Proposed Action; other 

foreseeable development projects in the vicinity of Statter Harbor; and transportation-related 

projects in the Auke Bay area. The CEQ regulations define “cumulative impact,” also referred to 

as cumulative effects, as the “impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact 

of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions” (40 

CFR 1508.7). Cumulative effects can result from several individually-minor impacts, which may 

be collectively substantial over time. Cumulative impacts to be considered are based on the 

following criteria: 1) Effects occur, but are not localized to the same general area; 2) Effects to a 

resource are similar in nature; and 3) Effects are long-term rather than short-term in nature. 

Cumulative effects are typically evaluated as part of NEPA compliance along with the direct and 

indirect effects of the Proposed Action and No-Action alternatives. As with the direct and 

indirect impacts analyses, the No-Action Alternative serves as the baseline against which 

cumulative effects are evaluated. Since the No-Action alternative would not be expected to 

produce adverse cumulative impacts on the environment, this section does not include a detailed 

analysis of the No-Action alternative. Cumulative effects analysis inherently involves 

assumptions and uncertainties, as well as data sets that may be incomplete (CEQ 1997). 

HDR-249-R11012F 149

6.10.1 Resources 



This cumulative impact section includes a discussion for those resources identified in the vicinity 

of the project area as more sensitive to potential changes, such as habitats used by fish and 

wildlife. This section does not provide a detailed cumulative impact analysis for all resources 

potentially affected by the Proposed Action. Noteworthy adverse impacts to water quality, 

cultural and historical, sound, and visual resources were not identified as probable as a result of 

the Proposed Action. Therefore, cumulative impacts specific to water quality, cultural and 

historical, sound, and visual resources are not detailed in this document. However, based on 

comments received from the EPA, potential impacts to water quality are summarized in Section 

6.13.4. 

6.10.2 Boundaries 

The geographic scope included in cumulative impact assessments typically varies by resource. 

Defining an appropriate spatial extent in which to assess impacts to biological resources can be 

especially challenging since some species are mobile. For example, fish and wildlife migrate to 

and from various areas and are therefore not confined to one geographic location. Changes to 

habitats used by biological resources, however, can provide a sound basis from which to measure 

change over time that may affect specific species or resource groups. The initial geographic 

scope to assess cumulative impacts for this assessment will be referred to as inner Auke Bay, and 

is generally between the Glacier Highway and Auke Bay between Waydelich Creek 36 to the west 

and Auke Creek 37 to the east (Figure 6-3), at the direction of USFWS habitat biologists. 

Aerial imagery from 1959 through 2006 and historic photographs were used in this analysis. 

Temporal boundaries used to assess changes to physical attributes and biological resources 

extend from as far back as the early 1900s. However, given the lack of imagery prior to 1959, 

quantities associated with observable changes (i.e., intertidal fill) were estimated using data from 

1959. Temporal boundaries extend into 2035, 25 years beyond the baseline year of 2008. 

In response to comments received from NMFS on the Corps’ Public Notice of the applicant’s 

404/10 permit application, the area of analysis for cumulative impacts was expanded to include 

all of Auke Bay from Smuggler’s Cove, west to Auke Nu Cove. Cumulative fill amounts were 

calculated based on aerial imagery from 1962. The extent of mudflats in this area were mapped 

and included with known extent of eelgrass beds in the area (Harris et al. 2008). This additional 

assessment area is referred to as greater Auke Bay. 

6.10.3 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

The cumulative impact assessment must consider the lasting influence of past actions relevant to 

development in the Auke Bay assessment area, the effects of ongoing present actions, and 

probable future actions. 

6.10.3.1 Past actions 

Since the early 1900s (i.e., environmental reference point) the CBJ population has grown 

substantially. Continued population growth has spatially expanded development into areas 

beyond Juneau’s historical downtown area. 

36 Waydelich Creek provides habitat for chum salmon (ADF&G 2008b). 

37 Auke Creek provides habitat for coho, pink, chum, and sockeye salmon; cutthroat and rainbow trout, and Dolly 

Varden char (Bethers et al. 1995). 

HDR-249-R11012F 150

Bay Creek 




Cumulative Impacts 

Assessment Area 

Figure 6-3 

LEGEND 

Tidal areas 

Intertidal 

Subtidal 

Waydelich Creek 

Auke Creek 

Feet 

Ë 

0 150 300 450 600 


Coordinate System: State Plane 



Date: May 19, 2011




HDR-249-R11012F 152




Greater Auke Bay 



Figure 6-4 

LEGEND 

Fill 

Mudflat 

Intertidal 

Subtidal 

Feet 

0 600 1,200 1,800 2,400 





Date: May 17, 2012




HDR-249-R11012F 154



Rich herring and salmon stocks prompted development in Auke Bay as early as 1902 (Mobley 

1996). In 1918, construction of the Glacier Highway augmented residential development in the 

Auke Bay area. By 1941, upland habitats were cleared to accommodate approximately 35 houses 

in Auke Bay (Pioneer Book Committee 2001). By 1950 the population in Auke Bay was 295. 

The Auke Bay area has supported a variety of shoreline and estuarine development projects over 

the past 90 years. All of these past actions, incrementally and in combination, have led to 

continued development and have resulted in impacts to the physical, biological, and social 

environment. Historical activities that have shaped current conditions in Auke Bay (and the 

greater CBJ) and will continue to influence these areas include: 

• Fishing—led to population growth, expansion of development, construction in intertidal 

habitat (early 1900s), and biological species’ population declines (overfishing) 

• Mining—led to population growth, exploration, expansion of development 

• Timber harvesting—led to population growth, expansion of development, upland habitat 

alteration 

• Road construction—led to residential development in the mid 1900s 

• Harbor development—led to intertidal fill in the mid-1900s to present 

This impact assessment focuses primarily on actions associated with harbor-related 

developments in Auke Bay, such as placing fill in intertidal and wetland habitats. Impacts 

associated with fill placement include the direct loss of habitat and loss of habitat function(s). 

The placement of fill can also lead to the alteration of adjacent habitats and functions. For 

example, the addition of fill material in the intertidal area has the potential to modify existing 

water circulation and current patterns in the harbor, by creating an obstruction to water 

movement and modifying the existing high tide line in that area. The addition of overwater 

structures also eliminates or alters habitat. 

The next several paragraphs provide a chronological overview of past actions that have impacted 

shoreline habitats in the inner Auke Bay assessment area. The last paragraph presents a summary 

of quantifiable impacts (e.g., direct fill footprints) for the assessment area. Impact assessments 

for the purpose of this cumulative impact analysis are estimates based on available historical 

aerial photography. As such they cannot be verified in the field and are only estimates for 

comparative purposes, based on best available information and professional judgment. 

In 1892, John W. Waydelich claimed a 160-acre homestead that encompassed Waydelich and 

Bay creeks 38. Although vegetated upland habitat was cleared, the intertidal area was likely not 

altered. Early photographs of the area show that little development had occurred in the intertidal 

prior to 1929 (Figure 6-5). 

38 The 1892Waydelich house may have been on the beach below present-day DeHart’s Convenience Store (Davis 

1979). 

HDR-249-R11012F 155



Auke Bay; 1929 

Figure 6-5. Inner Auke Bay cumulative impacts assessment area, 1929 

In 1902, a small salmon hatchery was constructed to the east on Auke Creek; however, 

operations ceased and the structure was removed by 1905 (Mobley 1996). The location of the 

1902 hatchery has yet to be determined (Mobley 1996); therefore, it is unlikely the structure 

imposed significant impacts on terrestrial or aquatic habitats. 

By 1919, two canneries had been constructed along the shoreline of Auke Bay. The John L. 

Carlson Cannery was located at the southwest corner of the present NMFS tract while the Auke 

Bay Salmon Cannery was located farther north, on the present-day Dunn property (Figure 6-5 

and Figure 6-6; Mobley 1996). The two canneries’ buildings and docks extended out in Auke 

Bay, supported by piles in the intertidal zone and adjacent rock outcrops (Mobley 1996). 

Although the majority of buildings associated with the historic cannery sites no longer remain, 

remnants of each complex can be observed in both upland and intertidal habitats from the Dunn 

property to Auke Creek (Mobley 1996). The extent of impact to intertidal habitat is difficult to 

quantify due to lack of suitable aerial imagery from this time period. However, based on review 

of early photographs (i.e., 1926 and 1929), estimates indicate that intertidal habitat was impacted 

due the structures’ footprint. It is not currently known to what extent intertidal habitat in this area 

may have recovered from this initial impact. 

HDR-249-R11012F 156



Auke Bay; 1926 

Auke Bay 

Salmon Cannery 

John J. Carlson Cannery 

Photo Credits: P207-36-17, Alaska State Library, U.S. Forest Service Photograph Collection 

Figure 6-6. Inner Auke Bay cumulative impacts assessment area, 1926 

Upland habitats were the first to be developed in the vicinity of Statter Harbor, followed by 

intertidal habitats. By 1929, aquatic and terrestrial habitat in this area had not been significantly 

altered (Figure 6-5). In 1935, the Lehnhardt residence was constructed in upland habitat, 

followed by construction of the DeHart’s Convenience Store in 1940 39 . As of 1946, houses were 

present in and adjacent to the project area (Lots 2 through 5). 

The present-day Fisherman’s Bend marina was constructed sometime after 1929 but prior to 

1959 40 (Figure 6-6, Figure 6-7). Between these years, the marina underwent a number of 

improvements. It is likely that eelgrass beds and other important habitats were both eliminated 

and altered as a result of construction. Based on the existing direct footprint of the marina, an 

estimated 3.3 acres of estuarine habitat was directly impacted by the placement of fill and 

addition of overwater structures. The extent to which overwater structures associated with the 

marina may have impacted intertidal and subtidal habitats, including direct and indirect impacts, 

was not assessed. 

39 The DeHart’s store, originally adjacent to the Lehnhardt residence, was later moved to its present-day location. 

40 Images prior to 1959 were not available for this area. 

HDR-249-R11012F 157




HDR-249-R11012F 158


BACKLOOP RD 






1959 Aerial Photograph 

Figure 6-7 

Fisherman's Bend 

Marina 

LEGEND 

Direct Intertidal Fill 

(Approximate) 

DeHarts Marina 

Small Moorage Facility 


Ë 

Feet 

0 75 150 225 300 





Date: May 19, 2011




HDR-249-R11012F 160



The original DeHart’s dock and marina were constructed in 1955. It is unclear to what extent the 

original construction impacted the intertidal area. By 1959, a small moorage facility had been 

constructed in the area currently occupied by the Statter Harbor moorage floats (Figure 6-7). The 

original Statter Harbor boat launch and additional moorage were constructed sometime in the 

late 1960s or early 1970s (prior to 1974). This construction resulted in fill placement in the 

intertidal zone. In the early 1980s, improvements were made to the DeHart’s Marina; as a result, 

additional fill was placed in the intertidal area. 

As the population and associated residential development in the area continued to grow, the 

number of harbor users also increased. To accommodate increased harbor use, the State of 

Alaska replaced the float system and constructed the current Statter Harbor Float system in 1986. 

The harbor was upgraded to provide 300 stalls for boats compared to the previous capacity of 20 

boats (Stone 2009a). As a result, additional intertidal habitat was impacted. Due to harbor-related 

construction (DeHart’s Marina and Statter Harbor), an estimated 4 acres of intertidal habitat were 

eliminated from the 1950s through the 1980s. Additionally, overwater structures covered an 

estimated area of 5.6 acres (Figure 6-8). Although impacts due to overwater structures have not 

been assessed, estuarine habitat was likely altered or eliminated. 

Intertidal and subtidal areas continued to be filled as a result of other development in the Auke 

Bay area. Approximately 1.6 acres of fill 41 were placed in estuarine intertidal, alluvial delta and 

wetland habitats as a result of construction of the Horton Lot between 1962 and 1972. The 

placement of this fill constricted Bay Creek’s movement and significantly reduced the area over 

which its lower channels could fluctuate 42 . 

Prior to the placement of fill, Bay Creek’s active alluvial delta, or total area of immediate 

channel influence 43 , was estimated to be approximately 0.7 acres (or 95 feet wide from channel 

to channel 44 ; Appendix B). After the placement of fill, the area over which the channels were 

allowed to flow was reduced. Review of the 1974, 1977, 1982, 1988, and 2006 photographs 

indicate that the Bay Creek’s active channel complex has essentially been in the same position as 

the fan visible in the 1972 photograph 45 . 

Sometime in the early 1980s (after 1982 and prior to images recorded in 1984) land just east of 

Waydelich Creek was cleared and developed with the Spaulding Beach condominiums (Figure 

6-8). This development resulted in the placement of fill in the intertidal habitat and construction 

of overwater structures. Based on aerial photographs, the Spaulding Beach condominium 

footprint comprised an estimated 0.7 acres of intertidal habitat. 

41 The “Horton Lot” encompasses Lot 2, USS 3819; and ATS 121. It was filled using organics, stumps, rocks, and 

potentially demolition debris (Carson Dorn 2008). Gravel, concrete chunks with rebar, large logs, and root wads are 

visible near the stream channel today. 

42 The Horton Lot fill (circa 1962 to 1972) forced Bay Creek to turn south/southwest, and constricted its movement 

in the intertidal zone. At the constriction’s end Bay Creek turned east toward its pre-fill alignment. A new intertidal 

fan formed to the west that did not overlap the pre-fill (1959 and 1961) fan (HDR 2010b). 

43 Area occupied by channels or in between channels from bedrock shelf to where the channels rejoin 

(HDR 2010b). 

44 In the 1959 and 1961 photography (prior to fill placement), Bay Creek is visible passing under the Glacier 

Highway near its current location. The main creek channel flowed south/southeast while smaller subchannels (i.e., 

smaller channels in the alluvial fan) fanned out in the intertidal zone (HDR 2010b). 

45 The 1972, 1974, and 1977 photographs appear to show a similar configuration of Bay Creek, but are not at lowenough 

tide or high-enough resolution to map intertidal channels (HDR 2010b). 

HDR-249-R11012F 161



Within the greater Auke Bay area, there has been extensive intertidal fill in Auke Nu Cove since 

the 1960s. This fill is associated with the ABLF, Alaska Glacier Seafoods, and the Auke Bay 

Ferry Terminal, approximately 1.5 miles west of Statter Harbor. Approximately 7.1 acres of 

intertidal fill is associated with these facilities. 

Summary 

In summary, based on review of available imagery dating back to 1959, approximately 14.9 

acres of intertidal estuarine habitat have been eliminated in the inner and greater Auke Bay 

assessment area over the last 50 years (Table 6-3). Additionally, approximately 8.3 acres of 

overwater structures has either altered or eliminated intertidal and subtidal estuarine habitats in 

the inner Auke Bay assessment area. Under existing conditions, an estimated 34.6 acres of 

estuarine intertidal habitat and 56.5 acres of estuarine subtidal habitat remain in the inner Auke 

Bay assessment area, while an estimated 138 acres of estuarine intertidal and 1680 acres of 

estuarine subtidal habitat remain in the greater Auke Bay area (which includes estimated inner 

Auke Bay acres). 

Table 6-3 Summary of Past Action Impact Estimates in the Inner and Greater Auke Bay Assessment Areas. 

Development 

Direct Intertidal 

Fill (Acres) 

Spaulding Beach Condominiums 0.7 — 

Fisherman’s Bend Marina 0.7 2.6 

Horton Lot 1.6 — 

DeHart’s Marina & Statter Harbor 4.0 5.6 

Historic Carlson Family Canneries — — 

NOAA NMFS Auke Bay Lab 0.1 0.1 

Auke Nu Cove Developments 7.8 NA 

Totals 14.9 8.3 

Overwater Structures 

(Acres) 

HDR-249-R11012F 162

Fisherman's Bend Marina 

0.7 acres intertidal fill 

2.6 acres overwater structure 

Bay Creek 

Horton Lot 


DeHarts Marina and Statter Harbor 






Inner Auke Bay Area 

Direct Fill and 

Overwater Structures 

Figure 6-8 

LEGEND 

Direct Intertidal Fill 

Waydelich Creek 

Spaulding Beach 


Historic Auke Bay Salmon Cannery 

approximate location 

impacts unknown 

NOAA NMFS Auke Bay Lab 



Feet 

Historic John J. Carlson Cannery 

approximate location 

impacts unknown 

Auke Creek 

0 140 280 420 560 





Date: May 19, 2012




HDR-249-R11012F 164



Although it is accepted that eelgrass beds are not widely distributed in the nearshore waters of 

the CBJ, the lack of data (i.e., spatially geo-referenced mapping) prior to the Harris et al. (2008) 

study inhibits the ability to assess impacts to eelgrass beds from past development. Anecdotal 

evidence suggests that some eelgrass beds have changed over time in the CBJ, and that eelgrass 

beds in the CBJ are particularly sensitive to development (because construction is easier and less 

expensive on flat wetland terrain than much of Juneau's steep terrain) Harris et al. (2008). 

Anecdotal evidence also suggests that the large eelgrass bed to the west of the project area may 

have substantially increased in recent years due to the installation of the Auke Bay Wastewater 

Treatment Facility (Stone 2009b). 

Construction of the ABLF resulted in the placement of intertidal fill, and elimination of 

nearshore habitats, including eelgrass beds and mudflats. To compensate for impacts caused by 

the ABLF project, the CBJ will be acquiring 31 acres of nearshore intertidal habitat at nearby 

Auke Nu Cove, which includes eelgrass habitat, for protection under a conservation easement. 

Mudflat extent in the greater Auke Bay was mapped (PND 2012) to determine the relative 

impact of the proposed project and approximately 22 acres of mudflats were identified (Figure 

6-4). The proposed project would fill approximately 0.95 acres of mudflats, or about 4 percent of 

the existing mudflat habitat in the greater Auke Bay area. No historic mudflat distribution data 

exists for greater Auke Bay, so it is not possible to determine the cumulative impact of previous 

projects on mudflats within the project area. 

6.10.3.2 Present actions 

Examples of present actions that will continue to shape the physical, biological, and social 

resources in both the inner and greater Auke Bay in future years include: 

• Vehicular transportation improvements 

• Marine transportation/harbor improvements 

Vehicular transportation improvements 

In 2004, the DOT&PF and USKH completed the ABCOR study along Glacier Highway between 

Fritz Cove Road and the Auke Bay Ferry Terminal. The intent of the study was to identify ways 

to improve safety and efficiency along the study corridor. The study identified immediate, near 

term improvements and future, long-term improvements. The most recent information posted on 

the DOT&PF website indicates the project limits on the Glacier Highway are from Auke Bay 

Elementary School to Fritz Cove Road. Back Loop Road is also included from the intersection 

with Glacier Highway to the North UAS Access. As of March 10, 2011, immediate, near-term 

improvements identified as present actions would: 

• Construct roundabout at the intersection of Glacier Highway and Back Loop Road 

• Construct roundabout at the intersection of Glacier Highway, Fritz Cove Road, and UAS 

south entrance 

• Add sidewalks along both sides of the Glacier Highway from Fritz Cove Road to Auke 

Bay Elementary School 

• Add sidewalks on both sides of Back Loop Road from Glacier Highway to the North 

UAS Access intersection 

• Realign roadway at Auke Bay Lab and addition of a left turn lane at the Lab entrance 

HDR-249-R11012F 165



• Change access at DeHart’s 

• Reconstruct roadway to provide for two 11-foot driving lanes and 4-foot shoulders 

The DOT&PF recently received funding for their Intersection Improvement Project (DOT&PF 

2009) and the project is in the design stages of development. A roundabout at the Glacier 

Highway and Back Loop intersection will be constructed under the recently funded DOT&PF 

project. Construction of these projects would likely result in the addition of impermeable 

surfaces and could result in the elimination of upland and potentially wetland habitats. 

6.10.3.3 Reasonably foreseeable future actions 

Along with the past and current actions in the assessment area, reasonably foreseeable future 

actions that may contribute to cumulative impacts in both the inner and greater Auke Bay areas 

include: 

• Vehicular transportation improvements 

• Marine transportation/harbor improvements 

Vehicular transportation improvements 

In 2004, the DOT&PF and USKH completed the ABCOR study along Glacier Highway between 

Fritz Cove Road and the Auke Bay Ferry Terminal, as described above. Future, long-term 

improvements identified by the ABCOR study include: 

• Plan a complete bypass of the Auke Bay community that starts at Industrial Boulevard, 

follows the east side of Hill 560, crosses Back Loop Road at Goat Hill and continues 

behind the community of Auke Bay and connects Glacier Highway near Auke Nu Creek 

• Add a connection from the bypass to Back Loop Road at the north UAS access 

• Use a roundabout at the Back Loop Road, north UAS access and bypass intersection 

• Add sidewalks to both sides of the bypass connector from Back Loop Road to the 

UAS/National Guard Joint Use Facility 

• Construct bypass from Goat Hill to Stabler’s Point and provide a connection between the 

bypass alignment and the north UAS access to replace the UAS/National Guard Joint Use 

facility access road 

• Construct a seawalk/multi-use path between the Spaulding Meadows trailhead and the 

Ferry Terminal 

• Construction of these projects would likely result in the addition of impermeable surfaces 

and could result in the elimination of upland and potentially wetland habitats. 

Marine transportation/harbor improvements 

The Statter Harbor Master Plan, officially adopted by the CBJ in 2005, identifies a number of 

improvements planned for Statter Harbor (CBJ 2005). The Statter Harbor Master Plan is 

discussed in detail in Section 1.2. 

Although the Proposed Action incorporates many of the improvements identified in the Statter 

Harbor Master Plan, it does not address all improvements identified in the Master Plan. The 

following list identifies those components of the Master Plan that were not included in the 

Proposed Action; these components are considered reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

HDR-249-R11012F 166



Perform system maintenance on moorage floats, wave attenuator, and anchoring system 

1. Expand moorage system with new main floats, dedicated stalls, and utilities 

2. Secure fuel distribution to the new floats 

3. Install a for-hire passenger boarding float to support tour and light commercial loading 

operations 

4. Construct a restroom 

5. Provide lease space for retail in the harbor area 

6. Provide potential lease space for retail in the uplands adjacent to Glacier Highway 

Reasonably foreseeable future projects that could impact the estuarine habitat include items 1 

through 5. Construction of these components would likely result in the elimination of an 

additional 1.8 acres of estuarine habitat, including 0.1 acre of eelgrass habitat, in inner Auke 

Bay. 

6.10.4 Summary of Cumulative Impacts 

6.10.4.1 Estuarine Habitat: Intertidal, subtidal, and EFH 

Auke Bay is listed as providing EFH for five species of Pacific salmon. Bay Creek and its 

adjacent intertidal and subtidal habitats are known to provide EFH for coho and pink salmon. 

Juvenile pink and coho salmon use the nearshore environment throughout the spring and early 

summer prior to moving off shore (Mortensen et al. 1999). Estuarine habitat in the project area 

may be used by other managed fish species, such as various species of Groundfish (e.g., 

yellowfin sole, rock sole) and a number of forage species (NMFS 2012). 

Approximately 14.9 acres of intertidal estuarine habitat, or EFH, have been eliminated in the 

greater Auke Bay assessment area over the last 50 years, based on review of available imagery 

dating back to 1959. Additionally, an estimated 8.3 acres of overwater structures have either 

altered or eliminated intertidal and subtidal estuarine EFH in the inner Auke Bay assessment 

area. 

Under existing conditions, an estimated 138 acres of estuarine intertidal habitat remain in the 

greater Auke Bay area, while a subset of 34.6 acres of estuarine intertidal habitat and 56.5 acres 

of estuarine subtidal habitat, all of which is listed as EFH for Pacific salmon, remain in the inner 

Auke Bay assessment area. The Proposed Action Alternative would eliminate an additional 4.1 

acres of estuarine habitat (EFH), or roughly 3% of the available estuarine habitat within the 

greater Auke Bay assessment area’s intertidal zone. The Proposed Action would also alter an 

area of intertidal habitat due to construction of the boarding float associated with the proposed 

double-lane boat launch. The boarding float would cover approximately 2,520 square feet (or 

less than 0.1 acre) of EFH in the intertidal zone. Additionally, approximately 0.19 acre of 

wetland habitat mapped above the high tide line would be eliminated. 

The proposed project would fill approximately 0.95 acres of mudflats, or about 4 percent of the 

existing 22 acres of mudflat habitat in the greater Auke Bay area. 

Although EFH would be permanently eliminated due to the placement of fill, the project is not 

likely to adversely impact EFH fish species at the population level. The project footprint avoids 

the active channel of Bay Creek except a small portion located below the +1.0–foot tide level. 

Active spawning has not been observed at this level and spawning below the +6.0-foot tide level 

has low survival. As a result the project will have little if any affect on intertidal spawning of 

HDR-249-R11012F 167



Bay Creek salmon. Juvenile salmon that use the intertidal habitat lost by the project footprint will 

be displaced to nearby habitats including the large eelgrass bed to the west of the project. Habitat 

to the west is more complex (i.e., depth and cover) and is likely more valuable for juvenile 

salmon. After construction, the proposed project is not expected to measurably impact 

anadromous fish populations in the harbor or the Bay Creek drainage, or the marine mammals or 

birds in the project area that prey on these fish. 

The CBJ will work with resource agencies during the permitting process to offset unavoidable 

impacts. For example, the CBJ will consider mitigation measures to improve spawning, holding, 

and/or rearing habitat in Bay Creek to offset unavoidable impacts to EFH in the harbor. As 

compensatory mitigation for the ABLF project, the CBJ will be acquiring 31 acres of nearshore 

intertidal habitat, including 6 acres of eelgrass habitat at nearby Auke Nu Cove (just outside of 

the assessment area) for protection under a conservation easement. To offset unavoidable 

impacts to eelgrass beds resulting from the Proposed Action under this project, compensatory 

mitigation may include offsite conservation of other nearby eelgrass beds. 

6.10.4.2 Pacific herring 

In the late 1970s, Auke Bay had the largest harvestable stock of herring in Alaska (Corps 1985). 

However, by 1982 the Lynn Canal herring stock declined significantly (Pritchett et al. 2007). 

Although the herring fishery has rebounded in some areas in southeast Alaska, numbers of 

herring in Auke Bay remain relatively low (Moran 2009, Pritchett et al. 2007). 

Juvenile herring still use eelgrass beds in Auke Bay, and more specifically the project area, as 

rearing and overwintering habitat (Moran 2009). Carls et al. (2008) report that over 800 herring 

were captured in 11 of 39 beach seine hauls from 1999 to 2007 (cited as Nearshore Fish Atlas of 

Alaska 2007). No Pacific herring were captured from the Bay Creek eelgrass beds during the 

recent surveys (conducted on June 27, 2005; July 24, 2006; and August 2, 2007; Harris et al. 

2008). However, relatively large numbers (n=607) were captured from eelgrass beds at nearby 

Waydelich Creek, and low numbers (n=11) were captured from eelgrass beds near Auke Nu 

Cove Creek (Harris et al. 2008). Juvenile herring may also use other habitats in Auke Bay that 

have not yet sampled (Carls et al. 2008). 

The reason for the decline of the Lynn Canal herring population is not clear, although 

contributing factors likely include overfishing, habitat degradation and disturbance in Auke Bay, 

water pollution, geographic shifting of spawning aggregations, and population growth of 

predators (Pritchett et al. 2007). Shoreline development has been considered a factor in the 

decline, but the evidence does not support the hypothesis that human shoreline development has 

actually caused the population decline (Carls et al. 2008). A recent study indicates that although 

16% of Auke Bay’s (study area includes 52.1 kilometers [32 miles] of shoreline between Lena 

Point and Outer Point on Douglas Island) shoreline has been altered, this does not explain why 

populations have fluctuated in relatively undeveloped areas, such as Tenakee Inlet and Favorite 

Channel (Carls et al. 2008). The Proposed Action is not expected to result in substantive 

cumulative impacts to Pacific herring habitat in Auke Bay or to the Pacific herring population. 

6.10.4.3 Eelgrass and wetland habitat 

The amount of eelgrass habitat that has been altered or eliminated by past actions has not been 

quantified. Although it is accepted that eelgrass beds are not widely distributed in the nearshore 

waters of the CBJ, the lack of historic data (spatially geo-referenced mapping) inhibits the CBJ’s 

HDR-249-R11012F 168



ability to assess impacts to eelgrass beds from past development. Anecdotal evidence suggests 

that some eelgrass beds have changed over time in the CBJ, and that eelgrass beds in the CBJ are 

particularly sensitive to development (because construction is easier and less expensive on 

wetlands than most of Juneau's steep terrain). The geo-referenced data recently collected by 

Harris et al. (2009) provide a solid baseline from which future monitoring efforts can be 

compared but do not provide the historical data that would be necessary for a detailed cumulative 

impact assessment. 

A total of 8.08 acres of eelgrass habitat has been mapped in greater Auke Bay (calculated from 

Harris et al. 2008). The Proposed Action would eliminate approximately 0.11 acre of eelgrass 

habitat within the 4.1 acres estuarine fill, or roughly 1% of eelgrass habitat currently mapped in 

greater Auke Bay (Harris et al. 2008). Construction of a passenger for-hire boarding float at 

Statter Harbor, which has been identified as a reasonably foreseeable future action, would likely 

eliminate and/or adversely impact an additional 0.01 acre of eelgrass habitat in the project area 

(calculated based on the Harris et al. 2008 dataset). While the proposed and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions would eliminate eelgrass habitat and its function, it is important to 

note that the largest eelgrass bed (1.4 acres), located west of Bay Creek, would not be adversely 

impacted. 

The CBJ will work with resource agencies during the permitting process to offset unavoidable 

impacts, including potential impacts to eelgrass beds resulting from the Proposed Action. 

Compensatory mitigation may include offsite conservation of other nearby eelgrass beds. 

6.10.4.4 Summary 

In summary, the Proposed Action Alternative for the Statter Harbor Improvements Project, when 

considered with past, present, and other future actions, is not expected to have significant 

cumulative adverse effects on estuarine habitat, EFH, eelgrass habitat, wetland habitat, fish and 

wildlife, or water quality. Table 6-4 provides a summary of impacts of past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects within the area of analysis. 

HDR-249-R11012F 169



Table 6-4 Summary of Direct Cumulative Impacts (Past, Present, Future) to Estuarine, Wetland, and Eelgrass Habitats and Water Quality from 

Marine Projects in the Statter Harbor Cumulative Impact Assessment Area 

Impact Source 

Past Actions 


Foreseeable 

Future Actions 

(Auke Bay) 

Cumulative 

Impacts: 

Past, Proposed, 

and Future 

Actions (Auke 

Bay) 

Estuarine habitat (EFH) 

Roughly 7.1 acres eliminated & 

8.3 acres altered and/or 

eliminated by overwater 

structures within inner Auke Bay 

Roughly 4.1 acres eliminated 

(includes 0.42 acres of wetlands) 

and



7.0 MITIGATION 

This section presents a summary of the mitigation measures that would be implemented under 

the Proposed Action Alternative. Based on agency consultation the CBJ and Sport Fish propose 

the following conservation and mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse 

impacts associated with the Proposed Action Alternative. 

7.1 Habitat 


Measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to Bay Creek include the following. 

• Avoid channelizing Bay Creek. The spatial configuration of the intertidal fill was 

adjusted to avoid channelizing Bay Creek’s active intertidal flow. The natural fluctuation 

process of Bay Creek’s intertidal flow will continue; therefore, increased sedimentation 

in eelgrass beds and changes in circulation patterns that could result in 

unknown/unintended effects will be minimized. 

• Avoid impacts to salmon spawning habitat. The Proposed Action avoids placing fill in 

Bay Creek’s known salmon spawning habitat. 

• Avoid (creating) migration barriers to salmonids. At no time will the construction 

activities result in a migration barrier for adult and juvenile salmonids. This is a 

compliance measure required by state law, unless otherwise authorized by a permit. 

• Minimize potential impacts to salmonids during critical life stages. Timing windows will 

be incorporated during construction activities for all in-water work to minimize potential 

adverse effects to salmon during critical life stages. In-water work will be timed to avoid 

those times when eggs are in the gravel and juvenile salmon are out-migrating. In the 

Juneau area, in-water construction is generally restricted from April 1 through June 15, 

although this timing window may be adjusted in permit stipulations. 

• Minimize potential impacts to fish habitat, water quality, and drainage features in Bay 

Creek. The CBJ will add stream buffers along Bay Creek within the project area to 

maintain the natural fish habitat, water quality, and natural drainage features. 

• Minimize impacts to estuarine habitat. Estuarine habitat is important for fish and wildlife. 

To reduce impacts, the footprint’s spatial configuration was adjusted to minimize the 

amount of fill that would be placed in estuarine habitat. However, approximately 4.1 

acres of estuarine habitat would be eliminated. 

• Avoid potential water quality impacts to Bay Creek through preparation of a SWPP. The 

SWPP will identify BMPs to prevent erosion and manage stormwater run off, which is 

required by state regulatory processes. Surface water runoff will be directed away from 

Bay Creek through a storm drain system for treatment prior to discharge. The storm drain 

will discharge water into Statter Harbor after being treated. Minimum set backs from the 

stream channel will be set in permit stipulations. 

• Minimize potential water quality and run-off impacts during construction. The CBJ and 

Sport Fish will prepare or will require the construction contractor to prepare an SWPPP 

and to comply with that plan. BMPs will be used during construction to prevent erosion 

and runoff from entering Bay Creek. BMPs would include installing temporary erosion 

HDR-249-R11012F 171



control measures such as wood excelsior mats, straw bales, and/or silt fencing, until revegetated 

plants can bind the soil and/or installing diversion dikes to channel rain water 

away from the disturbed soils. 

• Avoid introduction of contaminated material during construction. The CBJ and Sport 

Fish will use contaminant-free embankment and surface materials during construction. 

Use of fill with toxic contaminants is forbidden by federal CWA regulations. 

• Avoid and minimize impacts from potential spills during construction. To minimize and 

prevent spills or leakage of hazardous materials during construction, standard spillprevention 

measures will be implemented during construction. To mitigate for potential 

hazardous materials spills, spill clean-up equipment (e.g., oil-absorbent pads) will be 

available onsite during construction. 

• Compensate for unavoidable impacts: Estuarine rearing habitat. Compensate for 

unavoidable impacts: Estuarine rearing habitat. The U.S. Corps of Engineers issued a 

permit for the proposed project on September 17, 2012. The permit requires the CBJ to 

provide compensatory mitigation for the unavoidable impacts to waters of the United 

States, within 6 months of the issuance date of the permit. The CBJ shall pay an In-lieu- 

Fee for the permanent filling of: 

o 0.11 acres of high functionally-rated estuarine waters consisting of eelgrass beds 

at a ratio of 6:1; 

o 0.95 acres of high functionally-rated estuarine waters consisting of mudflats at a 

ratio 3:1; 

o 0.61 acres of moderate to high functionally-rated waters consisting of estuarine 

and palustrine wetlands shall be mitigated for at a ratio of 2.5:1; and 

o 0.62 acres of moderate functionally-rated estuarine waters at a ratio of 2:1. 

7.1.2 Marine 

Measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to habitats in the marine environment include 

the following. 

• Avoid dredging activities. The project would avoid dredging by extending the toe of the 

boat ramp further into the harbor to utilize the deeper water. 

• Avoid filling the nearshore portion of Bay Creek’s active intertidal channel complex. A 

marine seawall would be used to retain fill adjacent to Bay Creek, to avoid placing fill in 

its active nearshore channel complex and minimize overall impacts to Bay Creek. 

• Avoid impacts to large eelgrass bed. The project would avoid placing fill over the largest 

eelgrass bed in the project area, located west of the proposed boat launch ramp. Dredging 

activity will be avoided in order to avoid impacts to eelgrass beds and Bay Creek. 



• Minimize impacts to eelgrass beds. The spatial configuration of the intertidal fill was 

adjusted to minimize impacts to Bay Creek’s active channel complex, which in turn 

minimizes impacts to eelgrass beds. At very low tides, impacts to eelgrass beds include 

increased sedimentation and changes in circulation that could result in 

unknown/unintended effects. 

HDR-249-R11012F 172



• Minimize impacts to estuarine intertidal/subtidal habitats. The spatial configuration of the 

intertidal fill was adjusted to minimize the amount of fill that would be placed in 

estuarine intertidal and subtidal habitats. 

• Compensate for unavoidable impacts to eelgrass beds and estuarine intertidal/subtidal 

habitats. The U.S. Corps of Engineers issued a permit for the proposed project on 

September 17, 2012. The permit requires the CBJ to provide compensatory mitigation for 

the unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States, within 6 months of the issuance 

date of the permit. The CBJ shall pay an In-lieu-Fee for the permanent filling of: 




ratio 3:1; 




• Terrestrial 

The Proposed Action would result in minor impacts to terrestrial habitat. Prior to construction 

activities, the CBJ would incorporate BMPs to prevent or reduce the establishment of invasive 

plants. For example, the presence of existing noxious weeds could be identified and if found, 

controlled prior to the use of construction equipment. During planting and revegetation activities, 

planting of invasive species (e.g., Prunus padus, Caragana arborescens) could be avoided. 

Further, the CBJ would follow the Cooperative Extension Service “DON’T plant in Alaska” list. 

7.2 Wildlife 


Measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to fish and EFH include the following. 

• Avoid channelizing Bay Creek. The spatial configuration of the intertidal fill was 

adjusted to avoid channelizing Bay Creek’s active intertidal flow. The natural fluctuation 

process of Bay Creek’s intertidal flow will continue; therefore, increased sedimentation 

in eelgrass beds and changes in circulation patterns that could result in 

unknown/unintended effects will be minimized. 

• Avoid filling the nearshore portion of Bay Creek’s active intertidal channel complex. A 

marine seawall would be used to retain fill adjacent to Bay Creek, to avoid placing fill in 

its active nearshore channel complex. 



• Avoid (creating) migration barriers to salmonids. At no time will the construction 

activities result in a migration barrier for adult and juvenile salmonids. This is a 

compliance measure required by state law, unless otherwise authorized by a permit. 

• Avoid dredging activities; minimize impacts to EFH. The spatial configuration of the 

intertidal fill footprint was designed to avoid the need to dredge the sea floor. Avoiding 

dredging activities minimizes impacts to EFH. 

HDR-249-R11012F 173



• Minimize potential impacts to salmonids and EFH species during critical life stages. 

Timing windows will be incorporated during construction activities for all in-water work 

to minimize potential adverse effects to salmon during critical life stages. In-water work 

will be timed to avoid those times when eggs are in the gravel and juvenile salmon are 

out-migrating. In the Juneau area, in-water construction is generally restricted from April 

1 through June 15, although this timing window may be adjusted in permit stipulations. 

• Minimize potential impacts to fish habitat, water quality, and drainage features in Bay 

Creek. The CBJ will add stream buffers along Bay Creek within the project area to 

maintain the natural fish habitat, water quality, and natural drainage features. 

• Minimize impacts to estuarine habitat; EFH. Estuarine habitat is important for fish and 

wildlife. The spatial configuration of the intertidal fill was adjusted to minimize the 

amount of fill that would be placed in the estuarine environment to reduce impacts. 

However, approximately 4.1 acres of estuarine habitat, also considered EFH and used by 

other fish and wildlife, will be eliminated due to the placement of fill. 

• Avoid potential water quality impacts to Bay Creek through preparation of a SWPP. The 

SWPP will identify BMPs to prevent erosion and manage stormwater run off, which is 

required by state regulatory processes. Surface water runoff will be directed away from 

Bay Creek through a storm drain system for treatment prior to discharge. The storm drain 

will discharge water into Statter Harbor after being treated. Minimum set backs from the 

stream channel will be set in permit stipulations. 

• Minimize potential water quality and run-off impacts during construction. The CBJ and 

Sport Fish will prepare or will require the construction contractor to prepare an SWPPP 

and comply with that plan. BMPs will be used during construction to prevent erosion and 

runoff from entering Bay Creek. BMPs would include installing temporary erosion 

control measures such as wood excelsior mats, straw bales, and/or silt fencing, until revegetated 

plants can bind the soil and/or installing diversion dikes to channel rain water 

away from the disturbed soils. 

• Avoid introduction of contaminated material during construction. The CBJ and Sport 

Fish will use contaminant-free embankment and surface materials during construction. 

Use of fill with toxic contaminants is forbidden by federal CWA regulations. 

• Avoid and minimize impacts from potential spills during construction. To minimize and 

prevent spills or leakage of hazardous materials during construction, standard spillprevention 

measures will be implemented during construction. To mitigate for potential 

hazardous materials spills, spill clean-up equipment (e.g., oil-absorbent pads) will be 

available onsite during construction. 

• Compensate for unavoidable impacts: Estuarine rearing habitat. The U.S. Corps of 

Engineers issued a permit for the proposed project on September 17, 2012. The permit 

requires the CBJ to provide compensatory mitigation for the unavoidable impacts to 

waters of the United States, within 6 months of the issuance date of the permit. The CBJ 

shall pay an In-lieu-Fee for the permanent filling of: 




ratio 3:1; 

HDR-249-R11012F 174






• Minimize noise impacts from pile driving. The CBJ and Sport Fish will encourage the 

use of vibratory pile driving equipment as the primary installation method for the project. 

o Impact hammers shall only be allowed for piles that encounter soils too dense to 


o The specifications shall require the use of light duty cushion blocks. Use of a pile 

cushion between the impact hammer and the piling will help to attenuate sound. 

o The impact hammer energy will be limited to approximately 20,000 ft-lbs to 

minimize driving energy. 

o Timing for the installation of all piles shall consider sensitive fish habitat periods 

for juvenile salmon. 

o Small diameter piles will be used, when possible, to minimize potential harm to 

fish. 

o Driving will occur at low tide in an effort to minimize potential impacts to fish. 














fish. 


• Avoid take of marine mammals. A marine mammal monitor will be assigned to the 

project during pile driving operations. The observer will begin to observe 15 minutes 

prior to pile driving and throughout the duration of each pile driving event. If marine 

mammals are observed within a 200-meter radius of the pile being driven, driving will 

cease until the animal is clear of the zone. If the marine mammal is observed during pile 

driving and appears to be disturbed by the noise/activity, pile driving will be discontinued 

and not resumed until the marine mammal is no longer observed. Methods will be 

confirmed through consultation with NOAA. 

HDR-249-R11012F 175

7.2.3 Birds 



The Proposed Action is not expected to have impacts on bald eagles or migratory birds in the 

project area. However, the following measures will be taken: 

• No vegetation clearing would occur between April 15 and July 15 in forest or woodland 

habitat and May 1 through July 15 for shrub or open habitat. Consultation with USFWS 

will be conducted prior to discussion to set timing windows for construction. 

• If active bird nests, eggs, or nestlings are observed during construction, USFWS agency 

personnel will be contacted for guidance. 

• If a bald eagles nest is located in the vicinity of the project area at any time, agencies will 

be contacted and construction regulations will be followed. 

7.3 Threatened & Endangered Species and Species of Concern 

The only threatened and endangered wildlife species listed under the ESA likely to found in the 

general study area are the endangered humpback whale and the eastern or western DPS of Steller 

sea lion (NOAA 2008). The ADF&G considers sea otters, harbor seals, and Steller sea lions as 

Species of Special Concern for Southeast Alaska (2008d), all of which have been documented in 

the project area. 













fish. 


• Avoid take of marine mammals. A marine mammal monitor will be assigned to the 

project during pile driving operations. The observer will begin to observe 15 minutes 

prior to pile driving and throughout the duration of each pile driving event. If marine 

mammals are observed within a 200-meter (656-foot) radius of the pile being driven, 

driving will cease until the animal is clear of the zone. If the marine mammal is observed 

during pile driving and appears to be disturbed by the noise/activity, pile driving will be 

discontinued and not resumed until the marine mammal is no longer observed. Methods 

will be confirmed through consultation with NOAA. 

7.4 Wetlands and Coastal Wetlands 

Impacts to wetlands were minimized to the extent practicable through the implementation of the 

following measures: 

HDR-249-R11012F 176



• The intertidal fill footprint was minimized to the greatest extent practicable, which 

minimized impacts to project-area wetlands, Bay Creek, and other waters of the U.S. 

Some impacts to wetlands in the project area were unavoidable and the following mitigation 

measures are proposed to offset wetland loss: 

• The U.S. Corps of Engineers issued a permit for the proposed project on September 17, 

2012. The permit requires the CBJ to provide compensatory mitigation for the 

unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States, within 6 months of the issuance date 

of the permit. The CBJ shall pay an In-lieu-Fee for the permanent filling of: 




ratio 3:1; 




7.5 Water Quality 

The proposed project would avoid impacts to groundwater. The following mitigation measures 

have been implemented into the Proposed Action to mitigate potential impacts to surface water 

quality: 

• Surface water runoff will be directed away from Bay Creek through a storm drain system 

for treatment prior to discharge. The storm drain will discharge water into Statter Harbor 

after being treated. Minimum set backs from the stream channel will be set in permit 

stipulations. 

• Stream buffers will be installed on the west side of the intertidal fill to separate the 

project from Bay Creek. 

The CBJ will work with the EPA to ensure surface water quality standards are maintained. The 

following mitigation measures would be implemented to mitigate impacts to surface water that 

would result from the construction of the proposed project: 

• The proposed project would comply with the NPDES general permit for construction 

activities disturbing more than one acre. 

• The contractor would prepare a SWPPP and implement BMPs identified during the 

permitting process to comply with state regulatory processes. BMPs typically include 

installing temporary erosion control measures such as wood excelsior mats, turbidity 

curtains and/or silt fencing, until re-vegetated plants can bind the soil and/or installing 

diversion dikes to channel rain water away from the disturbed soils. 

• Contaminant-free embankment and surface materials would be used during construction. 

• To minimize and prevent spills or leakage of hazardous materials during construction, 

standard spill-prevention measures will be implemented during construction. To mitigate 

for potential hazardous materials spills, spill clean-up equipment (e.g., oil-absorbent 

pads) will be available onsite during construction. 

HDR-249-R11012F 177



The team will also consider implementing a water quality monitoring program to attain baseline 

water quality data as potential mitigation for this project, as requested by the EPA. Specific 

mitigation measures and describe measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate (compensate) for 

unavoidable impacts will be identified in a mitigation plan during the permitting process. 

7.6 Cultural Resources 

Mitigation measures could be developed in consultation with the SHPO, the CBJ, tribal entities 

and other interested parties under NEPA to mitigate potential effects to identified historic 

resources, or providing public education on the historic and cultural use of the area, depending 

on the level of interest and concern from consulting NEPA parties. 

7.7 Sound 

It is not expected that the Proposed Action would result in substantial noise impacts. However, 

the following mitigation measures will be implemented in order to minimize noise impacts: 

• A vegetated buffer would be placed between the western side of the project footprint and 

Bay Creek. This would minimize the noise for the residences and businesses that are 

located directly west of the project. 

• Construction: timing windows. Project construction would take place between the hours 

prescribed by local noise ordinances in order to minimize noise impacts on businesses 

and residences located in the project vicinity. 

• Construction: pile driving. The CBJ and Sport Fish will encourage the use of vibratory 

pile driving equipment as the primary installation method for the project. 







7.8 Visual 

• Minimize impacts by planting vegetative buffers. Native plant material would be used to 

screen and buffer areas including the shot rock fill slopes, vertical rock wall, and viewing 

opportunities from VRPs into the harbor, with special attention to minimize view impacts 

from the ABTC and provide sufficient buffering within the site and the large paved area. 

Native vegetation would be planted around the perimeter of the project area to effectively 

screen year round views from the VRPs including along Glacier Highway, Bay Creek, 

Auke Bay, and along the east portion of the site. The CBJ would work with contractors to 

determine if native plant material could be placed within the shot rock fill slopes on the 

Auke Bay and Bay Creek sides to the high tide line. 

• Minimize impacts through selection of construction materials. Design and selection of fill 

material would be similar in size, color, and texture to existing rocks in the surrounding 

landscape to reduce the visual impacts. A variety of sizes and shapes found in the 

landscape (rather than uniform and angular rocks) would be used to minimize visual 

impacts of fill slopes. 

HDR-249-R11012F 178




The Proposed Action was designed to avoid and minimize impacts to land use. No mitigation is 

currently proposed. 

7.10 Recreation 

The Proposed Action was designed to avoid and minimize impacts to recreation. No additional 

mitigation is currently proposed. 


It is not expected that the Proposed Action would result in substantial air quality impacts. To 

minimize potential impacts, airborne particles would be controlled as necessary by the 

application of water or other controlled materials for dust suppression in accordance with 

established BMPs. Construction timing windows could be established, if necessary, to take place 

outside of school hours. No other mitigation measures are proposed. 

HDR-249-R11012F 179




HDR-249-R11012F 180



8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 

This NEPA document was prepared by the team members listed below. 

Project Management and Review 

PND Project Management 

Engineers, Inc. (PND) 

HDR Project Management 

Inc. (HDR) 


Environmental Scoping 

Preliminary Engineering 

Wetlands PJD 

Wetland and Intertidal Habitat 

Function Assessment 

Archaeological Survey 

EFH Assessment 

John Stone, PE, CBJ 

Gary Gillette, AIA, CBJ 

Valerie Blajeski, ADF&G Sport Fish 

Dick Somerville, PE, PND 

Michael Allwright, HDR Alaska, 

Erin Cunningham, HDR 

Michael Allwright, HDR 

Julianne Hansen, HDR 

Colleen Miller, HDR 

Sirena Brownlee, HDR 

Leandra Cleveland, HDR 

Elizabeth Grover, HDR 

Kirsten Anderson, HDR 

Robin Reich, HDR. 


Kate Pearson, HDR. 

Dick Somerville, PE, PND 

Kate Mickleson, PND 

Per’ Rasmussen, PND 

Chris Mertl, ASLA, Jensen Yorba Lott, Inc. 

Ann Erickson, HDR 

Leandra Cleveland, HDR 

Elizabeth Grover, HDR 

Kirsten Anderson, HDR 


Paul McLarnon, HDR 


James Brady, HDR 

HDR-249-R11012F 181



Uplands Alternative Analysis 

Technical Editing 

Production 

Graphics 

Dick Somerville, PND 

Kate Mickelson, PND 


Kathryn Prater, HDR 

Erin Begier, HDR 

Jon Schick, HDR 

Matt Cooper, HDR 

Tobin Lilly, HDR 

HDR-249-R11012F 182



REFERENCES 

Adamus, P. 2011. Personal communication between P. Adamus and Leandra Cleveland (HDR) 

regarding ORWAP methodology, January 31, 2011. 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 2010. Alaska’s Final 2010 

Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. 

—. 2011. New data shows Juneau meets federal air quality standards. As viewed on 28 February 

2011 at www.dec.state.ak.us/air/anpms/comm/jun_pm.htm 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 1998. Boat Ramp Facility Planning Guide. 

Division of Sport Fish Boating Access Program. 

—. 2006. Boat Ramp Facility Planning Guide, Revised 2006. Division of Sport Fish Boating 

Access Program 

—. 2008a. Cooperative Agreement between the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the 

City and Borough of Juneau for Statter Harbor Ramp Planning. Document 08-015. 

—. 2008b. Fish Distribution Database Mapping. As viewed on 12/1/08 at: 

http://gis.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/AWC_IMS/viewer.htm 

—. 2008c. Statter Harbor Improvements City and Borough of Juneau Project DH-081. Letter 

from ADF&G Division of Habitat, dated July 18, 2008. 

—. 2008d. Species of Special Concern. As viewed on 12/1/08 at: 

http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/special/esa/species_concern.php 

—. 2009a. Division of Wildlife Conservation: Wildlife viewing. Juneau Auke Bay website, 

viewed in April 2009. 

http://wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=trails.site&site_id=56&locale_id=1 

—. 2009b. Personal Communication (via email) between Sheila Cameron (ADF&G), David 

Bedford (ADF&G), Douglas Vincent-Lang (ADF&G), John Carlile (ADF&G), and Erin 

Cunningham (HDR) regarding the presence and occurrence of Snake River fall Chinook 

Salmon in the general project area. June 1, 2009. 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 1996. Agreement of Height Restriction. 

Howell, Diane, and Donald. Recorders Office, Juneau Recording District, First Judicial 

District, State of Alaska. 

—. n.d. Office of History and Archaeology. Alaska Heritage Resources Survey. Restricted 

access database located at the Office of History and Archaeology. Anchorage, Alaska. 

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF). 2004. Coastal and 

Harbor Design Procedures Manual, 18.40 Parking and 19.60 Launch Ramp(s). 

—. 2009. Comment letter from DOT&PF regarding parking and safety issues related to the 

Statter Harbor Improvements, dated December 4, 2009. From Victor M. Winters, 

Preconstruction Engineer (DOT&PF) to Per’Christian L. Rasmussen (PND Engineers). 

HDR-249-R11012F 183



—. 2008. Comment letter from DOT&PF regarding the Statter Harbor Improvements, dated July 

7, 2008. From Andy Hughes, Regional Planning Chief (DOT&PF) to John Stone, Port 

Direction (CBJ). 

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering 

Practice No. 50. Planning and Design Guidelines for Small Craft Harbors (Rev. Ed.). 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 2002. ADA Standards for Accessible Design. 

Bailey, J.E. 1969. Alaska’s fishery resources – the pink salmon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Bureau of Commerce Fisheries Leaflet 619. 

Bethers, M., K. Monk, and C. Seifert. 1995. Juneau fish habitat assessment. Revised June 1995. 

ADF&G, Division of Sport Fish, Douglas, Alaska. 

Bower, Patrick and Katherine Brown. 1992. Determination of Effect for Proposed Restoration of 

the Yax-Te Totem Pole, Auk Recreation Site, Juneau, Alaska. Tongass National Forest, 

Chatham Area. Sitka, Alaska. 

Brown, Katherine. 1994. Heritage Resource Literature Search for the KTOO FM and TV 

Television and Radio Tower on Auke Mountain, Juneau, Alaska. Project # 94-003. 

Tongass National Forest, Chatham Area. Sitka, Alaska. 

Brown, Katherine. 1992a. Determination of “No Adverse Effect”’ for the Proposed Ground 

Disturbing Activities at Auke Village Recreation Area and Campground. Project # 93- 

001. Tongass National Forest, Chatham Area. Sitka, Alaska. 

Brown, Katherine. 1992b. A Level III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Auke Bay Recreation 

Area and Campground Upgrade Project, Auke Bay, Alaska. Project # 93-001. Tongass 

National Forest, Chatham Area. Sitka, Alaska. 

Bruce, H.E., D.R McLain, and B.L. Wing. 1977. Annual physical and chemical oceanographic 

cycles of Auke Bay, southeastern Alaska. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech Rep. NMFS 

SSRF-712, 11 p. 

Cameron, Sheila. 2011. Email correspondence and data transfer between Sheila Cameron 

(ADF&G) and Erin Cunningham (HDR) on January 21, 2011. Data transfer included GIS 

data from minnow trapping surveys conducted in 2010 by ADF&G in Bay Creek. 

Carls, M. G., P. M. Harris, S.W. Johnson, M. R. Lindeberg, A. D. Neff and R. Waples. 2008. 

Status Review of Lynn Canal Herring (Clupea pallasii). 154 p. 

Carson Dorn. Inc. (CDI). 2008. Environmental Site Assessment for Statter Harbor Improvement 

Area. Auke Bay, Alaska. Prepared for PND Engineers. October, 2008. 

Chattey, Paul W. 1988. Information Concerning the Eligibility of the Auke Bay Recreation Area 

Civilian Conservation Corps Totem Pole and Shelters for the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ). 1996. Juneau Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, 

July 1996, Chapter 8, Revised, December 17, 2007. Adopted by the CBJ Assembly, 

Resolution No. 1824 on July 15, 1996. Chapter 8 Revisions Adopted by CBJ Assembly, 

Resolution No. 2433 on December 17, 2007. 

HDR-249-R11012F 184



—. 1997. Community Development Department (CDD). Juneau Wetland Management Plan. 

February 1997. As viewed on 4/21/11 at: 

http://www.alaskacoast.state.ak.us/District/FinalFinalPlans/Juneau.htmCity and Borough 

of Juneau (CBJ). 2005a. Memorandum regarding Auke Bay Commercial Loading 

Facility Site Selection. Sent to Budd Simpson, Chair, Docks and Harbors CIP/Planning 

Committee, by Mike Krieber, P.E., Port Engineer. March 23, 2005. 

—. 2005. Statter Harbor Master Plan. 

—. 2008. Community Development Department (CDD). Comprehensive Plan of the City and 

Borough of Juneau. October 20, 2008. As viewed on 4/21/09 at: 

http://www.juneau.org/cddftp/documents/2008CompPlan_Adopted_Final_000.pdf 

Corvus Design, Inc. 2011a. Draft Scenery Resources Report, Statter Harbor Improvements, Auke 

Bay, Juneau, Alaska. Prepared by Corvus Design, Inc. May 2011. 

—. 2011b. Mud Flat Delineation Report, Tidelands between ATS 759 and ATS 16, Statter 

Harbor Improvements, Auke Bay, Juneau, Alaska. Prepared by Corvus Design, Inc. May 

16, 2011. 

DeArmond, R.N. 1997. Old Gold: Historical Vignettes of Juneau, Alaska. Gastineau Channel 

Historical Society. Juneau, Alaska. 

Dunn Environmental Services (DES). 2004. Report on Intertidal Zone at Auke Bay Harbor. 

Elliott, Steve 2007. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Notebook Series: Coho 

salmon. Text by Steve Elliott; revised and reprinted 2007. As viewed on 12/1/08 at: 

http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/notehome.php 

Enriquez, Richard 2009. Personal Communication (via phone) between Richard Enriquez 

(USFWS) and Erin Cunningham (HDR) regarding the presence and occurrence of sea 

otters in the general project area. April 20, 2009. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Permit No.: AKG-57-1000, Authorization to 

Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System for Small Publicly 

Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and Other Small Treatment Works Providing 

Secondary Treatment of Domestic Sewage an Discharging to Marine Water. July 21, 

2004. 

—. 2010.Comment letter on the Statter Harbor Improvements Project Draft Environmental 

Assessment. Letter dated May 17, 2010, signed by Tracy DeGering. 

Geyer, Rocky 2009. Oceanus. The Online Magazine of Research from the Woods Hole 

Oceanographic Institute. Where the Rivers Meet the Sea: The transition from salt to fresh 

water is turbulent, vulnerable, and incredibly bountiful. As viewed on September 29, 

2009 at http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/printArticle.do?id=2486. 

Gilliam, Myra. 2003. Cultural Resources Project Clearance: Auk Rec Outhouse Replacement. 

USDA Forest Service. 

Glynn, Brian. 2009. Email communication between Brian Glynn (ADF&G) and Kate Mickelson 

(PND), Valeria Blajeksi (ADF&G), and Paul Cyr (ADF&G) regarding pink salmon 

spawning success and Bay Creek fish habitat, December 04, 2009. 

HDR-249-R11012F 185



Great Backyard Bird Count (GBBC) 2009. 2009 Results for Auke Bay, Alaska. Accessed at 

http://gbbc.birdsource.org/gbbcApps/report?cmd=showReport&reportName=CitySumma 

ry&city=Auke%20Bay&state=US-AK&year=2009. 

Harris, P.M, A.D. Neff, S.W. Johnson, and J.F. Thedinga. 2008. Eelgrass habitat and faunal 

assemblages in the City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska. U.S. Dep. Commer., National 

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Tech. Memo. NMFS- 

AFSC-182 

Harris, P.M. 2009. Email correspondence between Erin Cunningham, regarding invertebrates in 

the eelgrass beds at Statter Harbor. Patricia Harris is a biologist with National 

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) NMFS in Juneau, Alaska. 

Email dated 4/13/2009. 

Heard, William R., Joseph A. Orsi, Alex C. Wertheimer, Molly V. Sturdevant, James M. 

Murphy, Donald G. Mortensen, Bruce L. Wing, and Adrian G. Celewycz. 2001. A 

Synthesis of Research on Early Marine Ecology of Juvenile Pacific Salmon in Southeast 

Alaska. Auke Bay Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States 

Department of Commerce. Juneau, Alaska. 

HDR Alaska, Inc. (HDR). 2008. Statter Harbor Improvements Project Scoping Summary Report. 

Prepared for PND Engineers for CBJ. 

—. 2009. Statter Harbor Improvements Project Cultural Resources Report. Prepared for PND 

Engineers for CBJ. 

—. 2010a. Statter Harbor Improvements Project: Wetland and Intertidal Area Function 

Assessment. Prepared for PND Engineers for CBJ. 

—. 2010b. Statter Harbor Improvements Project Bay Creek Channel Change Analysis. Prepared 

for PND Engineers for CBJ. 

—. 2010c. Statter Harbor Improvements Project: Site Visit during Pink salmon spawning period. 

Prepared for PND Engineers for CBJ. 

—. 2011. Circulation Numerical Modeling for Statter Harbor Improvements Project. Prepared 

for PND Engineers for CBJ. 

Irish, Joel D. 1991a. Excavation and Analysis or Cremated Human Remains from the Auke Bay 

Village Site (49 JUN 025), Auke Bay, Alaska. Tongass National Forest, Chatham Area. 

Sitka, Alaska. 

—. 1991b. Determination of ‘No Effect’ on the Auke Bay Village Site (49 JUN 025) from the 

Auke Recreation Area/Lena Picnic Area Water Line Project, City and Borough of 

Juneau, Alaska. Tongass National Forest, Chatham Area. Sitka, Alaska. 

—. 1991c. Cultural Resource Inventory of the Auke Recreation/Lena Picnic Area Water Line 

Project in Juneau, Alaska. Project # 91-073. Tongass National Forest, Chatham Area. 

Sitka, Alaska. 

Irish, Joel D. and Clay H. Starr. 1991. Auke Bay Project Report. Tongass National Forest, 

Chatham Area. Sitka, Alaska. 

HDR-249-R11012F 186



Iwamoto, Karen. 1999. Archaeological Clearance for Alaska Army National Guard, 3rd 

Battalion, Sitka and Juneau Local Training Areas Special Use Permit. Report No. 2000- 

03-006. Tongass National Forest, Chatham Area. Sitka, Alaska. 

Jensen Yorba Lott, Inc. (JYL). 2008. Preliminary Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation Report. A 

portion of USS 3819 and 2664: Horton Lot and Statter Harbor, Juneau, Alaska. 

Johnson, S.W., A. Darcie Neff, and J.F. Thedinga. 2005. An Atlas on the Distribution and 

Habitat of Common Fishes in Shallow Nearshore Waters of Southeastern Alaska. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NFMS-AFSC-157. 

Joyce, John 2009. Personal Communication (via phone) between John Joyce (NOAA) and Erin 

Cunningham (HDR) regarding the presence and occurrence of fish in the general project 

area. April 21, 2009. 

Juneau Audubon Society. 2009. Local birding information website. Accessed at: 

http://www.juneau-audubon-society.org/. 

Juneau School District JSD. 2009. City and Borough of Juneau Juneau School District. Comment 

letter regarding the possibility of using Auke Bay School parking lot for overflow 

parking for Statter Harbor patrons. From Deborah Morse, JSD Facilities Planner to John 

Stone (CBJ). December 7, 2009. 

Kingsbury, Alan 2004. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Notebook Series: Pink 

salmon. . Text by Alan Kingsbury. As viewed on 12/1/08 at: 


Loring Research. 2007. Auke Village Campground Improvements Archaeological Report. 

Contract # AG-0109-C-05-0039. Tongass National Forest, Juneau Ranger District. 

Juneau, Alaska. 

Maier, Judith. 1990. Judith Maier’s Fifth Grade Class A Step Back into Old Auke Bay. Copy 

Works. Juneau, Alaska. 

McDowell Group. 2010. CBJ Launch Ramp User Survey and Demand Forecast. Prepared for 

PND Engineers. 

McMahan, J. David. 1987. Cultural Resources Survey along the Glacier Highway in the Auke 

Village Vicinity. Report Number 7. Office of History and Archaeology. Anchorage, 

Alaska. 

Metcalf, K.J. 1963. Auk Village Report. Tongass National Forest, Chatham Area. Sitka, Alaska. 

Mobley, Charles M. 1992. An Archaeological Reconnaissance at Indian Point near Auke Bay, 

Juneau, Alaska. For the National Maritime Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. Charles M. Mobley & Associates. Anchorage, Alaska. 

—. 1996. Cultural Resource Investigations at Auke Bay, Juneau, Alaska, for the National 

Maritime Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Charles 

M. Mobley & Associates. Anchorage, Alaska. 

Mobley, Charles M. and Robert C. Betts. 1997. Archaeological Investigations at Auke Cape, 

Juneau, Alaska, for National Maritime Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. Charles M. Mobley & Associates. Anchorage, Alaska. 

HDR-249-R11012F 187



Moran, John 2009. Personal Communication (via phone) between John Moran (NOAA) and Erin 

Cunningham (HDR) regarding the presence and occurrence of marine mammals and fish 

in the general project area. April 21, 2009. 

Mortensen, Donald, Alex Wertheimer, Sidney Taylor and Joye Landingham. 1999. The 

relationship between early marine growth of pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha, and 

marine water temperature, secondary production, and survival to adulthood. Manuscript 

accepted 29 November 1999. Fisheries Bulletin 98:319-335 (2000). 

Moss, Madonna L. 1980. Auke Village. In Cultural Resource Notes #1 (G.H. Clark, ed.) USDA 

Forest Service Alaska Region Report #116. 

National Academy of Sciences. 1971. The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964 – Biology. Prepared 

by the Committee on the Alaska Earthquake of the Division of Earth Sciences National 

Research Council. National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C., 1971. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries). 2005. Essential Fish 

Habitat (EFH) - Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act, Final EIS. 

Viewed http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/seis/final/Volume_II/Appendix_G.pdf 

—. 2006. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) - Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation Management 

Act. As viewed on 12/1/08 at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/efh.htm and http://akrmapping.fakr.noaa.gov/Website/EFH/viewer.htm?simple. 

—. 2008. Comment letter regarding Statter Harbor Improvements Project DH08-081. August 11, 

2008. 

—. 2009a. Nearshore Fish Atlas of Alaska. Available at: 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/fishatlas/ 

—. 2009b. National Marine Fisheries Service: Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Webpage: The 

Juneau Humpback Whale catalog. Viewed April 20, 2009. 

http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/abl/humpback/default.htm 

National Park Service (NPS). 2008. Wild and Scenic Rivers. As viewed on 12/1/08 at 

 

—. n.d. National Register of Historic Places. Database available at 

Noerenberg, Wallace, Robert S. Roys, Theodore C. Hoffman, Asa T. Wright, and Allen S. Davis, 

1964. Forecast Research on 1964 Alaska Pink Salmon Fisheries, Information Leaflet 36. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 

Oregon State Marine Board (OSMB). 1992. Layout and Design Guidelines for Recreational 

Boating and Launching and Transient Tie Up Facilities. Revised February 1992. 

—. 2003. Layout and Design Guidelines for Recreational Boating and Launching and Transient 

Tie Up Facilities. Revised March 2003.PND Engineers, Inc. (PND). 2002. The Auke Bay 

Commercial Loading Facility Site Reconnaissance Report, RFP No. E02-228. Prepared 

for the City and Borough of Juneau Engineering Department. Prepared by Petrovich, 

Nottingham, and Drage, Inc. 

OR-EVT-1SAS 2001. Documentation Guide for: Special Aquatic Sites, as viewed at://ftpfc.sc.egov.usda.gov/OR/Planning_Worksheets/OREVT1SAS.doc 

HDR-249-R11012F 188



PND Engineers, Inc. (PND). 2004. DeHart’s Marina Condition Assessment Inspection Report. 

042056.01. Prepared for Horan, Corak and Company by PND Engineers, Inc. 

—. 2006. Design Report for the Auke Bay Commercial Loading Facility. Prepared for the City 

and Borough of Juneau Docks and Harbors Department. Prepared by PND Engineers, 

Inc. 

—. 2008a. Preliminary Parking Assessment. Prepared for the City and Borough of Juneau Docks 

and Harbors Department. Prepared by PND Engineers, Inc. 

—. 2008b. Statter Harbor Improvements Sound Study. Prepared for the City and Borough of 

Juneau Docks and Harbors Department. Prepared by PND Engineers, Inc. 

—. 2009. Statter Harbor Improvements Aukey Bay Towers Condominiums Viewshed Summary. 

May 2009. Prepared for the City and Borough of Juneau Docks and Harbors Department. 

Prepared by PND Engineers, Inc. 

—. 2011a. Statter Harbor Improvements Project Uplands Alternatives Analysis,. Prepared for the 

City and Borough of Juneau Docks and Harbors Department. Prepared by PND 

Engineers, Inc. 

—. 2011b. Statter Harbor Improvements Project Compensatory Mitigation Options Study. March 

2009, Revised April 2011. Prepared for the City and Borough of Juneau Docks and 

Harbors Department. Prepared by PND Engineers, Inc. 

Price, Michael G. 1992. Level III Cultural Resource Inventory of Indian Cove Waterline 

Removal Project, Juneau, Alaska. Project # 92-041. Tongass National Forest, Chatham 

Area. Sitka, Alaska. 

Pritchard, D. W. 1967. What is an estuary: physical viewpoint. p. 3–5 in: G. H. Lauf (ed.) 

Estuaries, A.A.A.S. Publ. No. 83, Washington, D.C. 

Pritchett, M., S. Dressel, K. Monagle. 2007. Berners Bay Herring Research for 2005 and 2006 

Research Report, ADFG, Regional Report Series No. IJ07-01. Douglas Alaska. Ritchie 

R., Curatolo, J., and Batten A., 1981.Knik Arms Wetland Study, Final Report. USFWS, 

Western Alaska Ecological Services. Anchorage, AK. 

Sackett, Russell. 1979. National Register Nomination Form for Auke Bay Village, JUN-025. 

Office of History and Archaeology. Anchorage, Alaska. 

Sargeant, S.L., R.M. Thom, and M.C. Miller, 2004. Preliminary Assessment of Potential Impacts 

to Eelgrass from a Proposed Float and Ramp in Auke Bay, Alaska. Battelle Marine 

Sciences Laboratory. Sequim, Washington. 

Savage, Kate. 2009. Personal Communication (via phone) between Kate Savage (NOAA) and 

Erin Cunningham (HDR) regarding the presence and occurrence of marine mammals in 

the general project area. April 20, 2009. 

Schemp, Phil 2009. Alaska Bald Eagle Nest Atlas and Personal Communication between Erin 

Cunningham and Phil Schemp (USFWS) on December 1, 2008. Website: 

http://164.159.151.40/private/alaskabaldeagles/viewer.htm 

HDR-249-R11012F 189



Schneider, Karl and Brenda Ballachey 2008. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Wildlife 

Notebook Series: Sea Otters. Revised and reprinted 2008. As viewed on 12/1/08 at: 


Sealaska Corporation. 1980. Report of Investigation for Auke Bay Village Southeastern Alaska. 

BLM #AA-10503. National Park Service, Anthropology and Historic Preservation 

Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Alaska. Fairbanks, Alaska. 

Sealaska Regional Corporation. 1975. Native Cemetery and Historic Sites of Southeast Alaska. 

Report prepared by Wilsey and Ham, Inc. Seattle, Washington. 

Sobeloff, Walter. 1963. The Auke Bay Area Known by Tlingits as Ahnch-gal-tsoo. Tongass 

National Forest, Juneau Ranger District. Juneau, Alaska. 

States for Organized Boating Access (SOBA). Design Handbook for Recreational Boating and 

Fishing Facilities. 2nd Edition. May 2006. 

Stone, John. 2009a. Email correspondence between John Stone (CBJ) and Erin Cunningham 

(HDR) regarding increased harbor use since 1985. November 12, 2009. 

—. 2009b. Personal communication between John Stone (CBJ) and Michael Allwright (HDR) 

regarding eelgrass beds near Bay Creek. 

Teske, Dan. 2010. Personal communication between Dan Teske (ADF&G) and Erin 

Cunningham (HDR), October 6, 2010. 

Thornton, Thomas F. 1997. Traditional Cultural Property Investigation for Auke Cape, Alaska. 

Report prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 1974. Coastal Engineering Research Center, 

Small-Craft Harbors: Design, Construction, and Operation, J. Dunham and A. Finn, 

Special Report No. 2, December 1974. 

—. 1985. Final Environmental Impact Statement Auke Bay Breakwater and Related Marina 

Development. Corps Alaska District. 

United States Forest Service (USFS). 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery 

Management. Agriculture Handbook 701. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Forest Service. 

United States Fish Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Birds of Conservation Concern 2002. 

Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99 pp. [Online version 

available at http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/bcc2002.pdf 

—. 2005. Wildlife Biologue. Northern sea otter in Alaska (Enhydra lutris kenyoni). Marine 

Mammals Management Office, Anchorage, AK 99503. Available at: 

http://alaska.fws.gov/fi sheries/mmm/index.htm 

—. 2009. Letter from USFWS Acting Supervisor, Stephen Brockman, regarding the Statter 

Harbor Improvements, Auke Bay/Juneau; dated 8/5/2009. 

—. 2009. Comment letter from USFWS on the Statter Harbor Improvements Project Draft EA, 

dated August 5, 2009. 

HDR-249-R11012F 190



USKH. 2004. Auke Bay Corridor Study. Reconnaissance Study, Volume 1 of 2. Prepared by 

USKH, Inc. for the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities on April 

23, 2004. 

—. 2009. Statter Harbor Planning and Permitting Services Traffic and Safety Analysis. Dated 

May 20, 2009. 

—. 2011. Statter Harbor Improvements Launch Ramp Capacity and Efficiency Study Juneau, 

Alaska. Prepared for PND Engineers, Prepared by USKH. WO#1052500. 2011. 

West, G. 2002. A Birder’s Guide to Alaska. American Birding Association. 

Wiersum, Wayne E. 1984. A Cultural Resource Assessment of Auke Bay, Alaska. DNR, Office of 

History and Archaeology. Anchorage, Alaska. 

Williams, Catherine M., Peter M. Bowers, and Robert C. Betts. 1995. Cultural Resources Survey 

and Drilling Monitoring of the Glacier Highway Realignment, Indian Point to Point Louisa, 

Auke Bay, Alaska. Northern Land Use Research, Inc. Fairbanks, Alaska. 

HDR-249-R11012F 191




HDR-249-R11012F 192

Statter Harbor Improvements Project - City and Borough of Juneau

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?