DOCSLIB.ORG

Southeast Alaska Mid-Region Access Port and Ferry Terminal Technical Memorandum

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Southeast Alaska Mid-Region Access Port and Ferry Terminal Technical Memorandum S A M-R A P Ferr T T M Prepared for Fr Highw An Through R Pecci Associates, I. 825 Custer Avenue Helena, Montana 59604 (406)447-5000 www.rpa-hln.com Prepared by T Gos Associates, I. 1201 Western Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98101 www.glosten.com Pametri, I. 700 NE Multnomah, Suite 1000 Portland, OR 97232-4110 T. 503.233.2400 F, 503.233.4825 www.parametrix.com CITATION The Glosten Associates, Inc., Parametrix, Inc. 2011. Southeast Alaska Mid-Region Access Port and Ferry Terminal Technical Memorandum. Prepared by The Glosten Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington, Parametrix, Inc., Portland, Oregon. April 2011. Port and Ferry Terminal Technical Memorandum TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... ES-1 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Mid-Region Access Study ......................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Southeast Alaska Mid-Region Access Study Corridors ..................................................... 1-3 1.2.1 Bradfield Canal Corridor ....................................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2 Stikine River Corridor ........................................................................................... 1-5 1.2.3 Aaron Creek Corridor............................................................................................ 1-5 1.3 Characteristics of an Ideal Ferry Terminal ........................................................................ 1-6 1.3.1 Conventional Ferry Terminal................................................................................. 1-6 1.3.1.1 Shore Elevation and Bathymetry Characteristics................................................. 1-6 1.3.1.2 Wrangell Tides .................................................................................................. 1-7 1.3.1.3 Uplands ............................................................................................................. 1-8 1.3.2 ACV Ferry Terminal ............................................................................................. 1-8 1.3.2.1 ACV Landing Pads ............................................................................................ 1-8 1.3.2.2 Approaches to ACV Landing Pads ................................................................... 1-10 1.3.2.3 Road Access to ACV Landing Pads.................................................................. 1-10 1.3.2.4 ACV Hanger and Maintenance Facility ............................................................ 1-10 2 POTENTIAL CONVENTIONAL FERRY TERMINAL SITES ........................................ 2-1 2.1 Potential Mainland Conventional Ferry Terminal Sites ..................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Crittenden Creek ................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Berg Bay ............................................................................................................... 2-4 2.1.3 Kapho ................................................................................................................... 2-9 2.2 Potential Mitkof Island Conventional Ferry Terminal Site .............................................. 2-12 2.3 Potential Wrangell Island Conventional Ferry Terminal Sites ......................................... 2-16 2.3.1 Spur Road ........................................................................................................... 2-16 2.3.2 AMHS Terminal at Wrangell .............................................................................. 2-19 2.3.3 Wrangell Harbor at Peninsula Street .................................................................... 2-20 2.3.4 Log Transfer Station on Wrangell Island (near The Narrows) .............................. 2-24 2.3.5 Fools Inlet (East Side) ......................................................................................... 2-26 3 POTENTIAL ACV FERRY TERMINAL SITES ............................................................... 3-1 3.1 Potential Mainland ACV Ferry Terminal Sites ................................................................. 3-1 3.1.1 Iskut River (south) ................................................................................................ 3-2 3.1.2 Iskut River (north) ................................................................................................. 3-6 3.1.3 Stikine River opposite Great Glacier...................................................................... 3-9 3.2 Potential Mitkof Island ACV Ferry Terminal Sites ......................................................... 3-12 3.2.1 Blind Slough (adjacent to AMHS terminal) ......................................................... 3-12 3.2.2 Blind Slough – Olsen’s Landing .......................................................................... 3-16 3.2.3 Dry Strait (protected mud bay) ............................................................................ 3-19 3.2.4 Dry Strait (sandy beach) ...................................................................................... 3-20 Southeast Alaska Mid-Region Access iii April 2011 Port and Ferry Terminal Technical Memorandum 3.3 Potential Wrangell Island ACV Ferry Terminal Sites ........................................................ 3-22 4 POTENTIAL FERRY ROUTES ............................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Bradfield Canal Ferry Route ................................................................................................. 4-2 4.2 Stikine River Corridor Ferry Routes ..................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.1 Crittenden Creek Conventional Ferry Routes ........................................................... 4-3 4.2.2 Stikine River ACV Ferry Routes ............................................................................... 4-4 4.3 Aaron Creek Corridor Ferry Route ....................................................................................... 4-6 5 FERRY CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Conventional Ferry ............................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 ACV Ferry ............................................................................................................................ 5-5 5.2.1 British Hoverwork’s BHT-130 .................................................................................. 5-7 5.2.2 Designs under Development by the now Bankrupt Atlas ACV .............................. 5-11 6 POTENTIAL FOR COMMERCIAL PORTS ........................................................................ 6-1 6.1 Characteristics of a Commercial Port ................................................................................... 6-1 6.1.1 Commercial Vessel Characteristics ........................................................................... 6-1 6.1.1.1 Handysize ............................................................................................................... 6-2 6.1.1.2 Handymax .............................................................................................................. 6-3 6.1.1.3 Panamax ................................................................................................................. 6-3 6.2 Bradfield Canal Potential for Commercial Port .................................................................... 6-3 6.3 Eastern Passage ..................................................................................................................... 6-5 6.4 Blake Channel ....................................................................................................................... 6-6 7 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 7-1 List of Tables Table ES-1. Site Summary Table for Conventional Service ................................................... ES-2 Table ES-2. Site Summary Table for ACV Service ................................................................ ES-3 Table 1-1. Tidal variations at Wrangell ................................................................................... 1-7 Table 2-1. Crittenden Creek conventional ferry terminal site characteristics ......................... 2-2 Table 2-2. Berg Bay conventional ferry terminal site characteristics ..................................... 2-5 Table 2-3. Kapho conventional ferry terminal site characteristics .......................................... 2-9 Table 2-4. Blind Slough conventional ferry terminal site characteristics ............................. 2-13 Table 2-5. Spur Road conventional ferry terminal site characteristics .................................. 2-17 Table 2-6. AMHS Wrangell conventional ferry terminal site characteristics ....................... 2-20 Table 2-7. Wrangell Harbor conventional ferry terminal site characteristics........................ 2-22 Table 2-8. Log Transfer Station conventional ferry terminal site characteristics ................. 2-26 Table 2-9. Fools Inlet conventional ferry terminal site characteristics ................................. 2-28 Table 3-1. Iskut River south ACV ferry terminal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Holocene Tephras in Lake Cores from Northern British Columbia, Canada
    935 Holocene tephras in lake cores from northern British Columbia, Canada Thomas R. Lakeman, John J. Clague, Brian Menounos, Gerald D. Osborn, Britta J.L. Jensen, and Duane G. Froese Abstract: Sediment cores recovered from alpine and subalpine lakes up to 250 km apart in northern British Columbia con- tain five previously unrecognized tephras. Two black phonolitic tephras, each 5–10 mm thick, occur within 2–4 cm of each other in basal sediments from seven lakes in the Finlay River – Dease Lake area. The upper and lower Finlay tephras are slightly older than 10 220 – 10 560 cal year B.P. and likely originate from two closely spaced eruptions of one or two large volcanoes in the northern Cordilleran volcanic province. The Finlay tephras occur at the transition between deglacial sediments and organic-rich postglacial mud in the lake cores and, therefore, closely delimit the termination of the Fraser Glaciation in northern British Columbia. Sediments in Bob Quinn Lake, which lies on the east edge of the northern Coast Mountains, contain two black tephras that differ in age and composition from the Finlay tephras. The lower Bob Quinn tephra is 3–4 mm thick, basaltic in composition, and is derived from an eruption in the Iskut River volcanic field about 9400 cal years ago. The upper Bob Quinn tephra is 12 mm thick, trachytic in composition, and probably 7000–8000 cal years old. A fifth tephra occurs as a cryptotephra near the top of two cores from the Finlay River area and is correlated to the east lobe of the White River tephra (ca.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Tideland Surveys
    Alaska Tideland Surveys “Who, What, When, Where, How, Why” A Paper Presented at the th 37 Annual Alaska Surveying and Mapping Conference By Gerald Jennings, P.L.S., and Joe Kemmerer, P.L.S. February, 2002 State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Mining, Land and Water, Technical and Data Management 550 West 7th Ave, Suite 650 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3576 (907) 269-8523 Fax (907) 269-8914 ii ABSTRACT Alaska Tideland Surveys – the 5 w’s. Surveys of tideland parcels are unique in several ways. Typically all corners are monumented with witness corners. DNR is usually the fee owner of the parcel, and the landward boundary is usually the mean high water line. Frequently, the line is fixed and limiting, because of avulsion, or placement of fill. This paper will briefly discuss how an applicant applies for a tideland lease or conveyance and how to conduct the survey and obtain state approval. Presenter: Gerald Jennings The Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Technical and Data Management staff dealing with Alaska Tideland Surveys: Gerald Jennings, P.L.S., Statewide Platting Supervisor Joe Kemmerer, P.L.S., Coastal Boundary. William (Bill) Brown, P.L.S., Riparian Specialist iii Alaska Tideland Surveys Introduction – who what why? Title to most of the tide and submerged lands surrounding Alaska was vested in the State of Alaska under the Submerged Lands Act of May 22, 1953. Most of those lands remain in state ownership and in most cases, the state will lease, but retain fee title. As a surveyor, you will be contacted about Alaska Tideland Surveys (ATS) by a public or private party who desires to lease or acquire tidelands for various reasons such as construction of docks, bridges, harbors, log transfer facilities, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of the Hoodoo Mountain Area (NTS 104B/14W)
    Geology of the Hoodoo Mountain Area (NTS 104B/14W) by M.G. Mihalynuk1, A. Zagorevski2 and F. Cordey3 KEYWORDS: Hoodoo Mountain, Sphaler Creek, Stikine information is included herein; see Mihalynuk et al. assemblage, Stuhini Group, copper porphyry, Galore (2010, 2011a) for additional unit descriptions and Creek, Dirk prospect, Telena prospect, volcanic-hosted previous work. massive sulphide, Rock and Roll, Andrei Icefield, Iskut River LOCATION AND ACCESS INTRODUCTION Hoodoo Mountain area (NTS 104/14W) can be accessed either via the Bronson airstrip to the immediate Hoodoo Mountain area is located between the south, or via the Espaw camp located at kilometre 91 on enormous copper-gold resource defined at Galore Creek the incomplete Galore Creek access road, immediately and the past-producing gold deposits of the Bronson north of the map area. At the time of our field program, Camp. Reserves at Galore Creek in proven and probable both required air transport from Bob Quinn airstrip categories are 528 Mt grading 0.58% Cu, 0.32 g/t Au and located on Highway 37, approximately 400 km by road 6.02 g/t Ag (Gill et al., 2011). In the Bronson Camp, the from both Smithers and Terrace (Figure 1). Bob Quinn Snip mine produced 32 million grams of gold, 12 million airstrip is 60 km from both Bronson airstrip and Espaw grams silver and nearly 250 000 kilograms copper from Camp. about 1.2 million tonnes between 1991 and 1999; Johnny Mountain produced for less than two years with produced, proven, probable and “possible” categories totalling 0.622 Mt at 19.54 g/t Au (MINFILE, 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Kupreanof / Mitkof Province
    Kupreanof / Mitkof Province and northeastern Kupreanof. In the southwestern corner fringing Rocky Pass, extensive volcanic rocks underlie a rolling, boggy plateau. Other portions of the province have greater relief, but only in the northwest corner are there highly productive parent materials that once supported extensive large-tree forest. Mitkof Island has the northernmost redcedars on the archipelago. (A few occur to the north at Farragut Bay on the mainland.) Yellow-cedars are abundant throughout the province, yet a large proportion of cedar stands are currently experiencing a systematic die-off that is wide-spread throughout Southeast Alaska and northern British Columbia (Hennon et al. 1990, Hennon et al. 2005). Compared to island provinces such as East Chichagof and North Prince of Wales, where deeply dissecting fiords and more rugged relief create obstacles to wildlife connectivity, Kupreanof-Mitkof Province has a low degree of natural fragmentation. This province has a high number of mammal species; collectively, Kupreanof and Mitkof host 21 known mammal species, the second largest number (after Wrangell/Etolin) for any island province (MacDonald FIG 1. Kupreanof-Mitkof Province. and Cook 1999). This species richness certainly reflects proximity to the Stikine River which is a major The biogeographic province of Kupreanof and Mitkof corridor connecting wildlife from the interior with the Islands is located in central Southeast north of the coastal forests. Stikine River Delta (Fig 1). This province has one of Kake and Petersburg–the province’s two mid-sized the highest proportions (65%) of development lands of communities– are both dependent upon the any province in Southeast and only 5% of the lands are surrounding marine and terrestrial environment.
    [Show full text]
  • An#Integrated#Assessment#Of#The#Cumulative#Impacts#Of#Climate# Change'and'industrial'development'on'salmon'in'western'bc!! Stiki
    An#integrated#assessment#of#the#cumulative#impacts#of#climate# change'and'industrial'development'on'salmon'in'Western'BC!! Stikine and Upper Nass Current Social-Ecological Conditions Summary Prepared by: Christina Melymick, Consultant April 2013 The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the author and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions of the Bulkley Valley Research Centre or the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. [email protected] • Box 4274 Smithers, BC V0J 2N0 Canada An#integrated#assessment#of#the#cumulative#impacts#of#climate#change#and#industrial#development#on#salmon#in#Western#BC#! Acknowledgements Thank you to the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation for supporting this project. Thank you to Jim Pojar for his expansive knowledge and expertise, and for adding to the stack of resources used during research. Thank you to Dave Bustard for taking time from a busy schedule to lend his extensive local knowledge and expertise. Thank you to John Kelson for his eulachon knowledge. Thank you to Richard Overstall for his knowledge and support. Thank you to Rick Budhwa for his support and contribution to the cultural aspects of this report. Thank you to Johanna Pfalz for her support and for providing all the relevant maps. Thank you to Ken Rabnett for support, his breadth of knowledge on the study area. Thank you to Don Morgan for the opportunity to carry out the research and produce this report, and for constant patience, guidance and support through the course of completing this report. Credits Don
    [Show full text]
  • Canadiantechnical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No
    Variation in Biological Characters Among Sockeye Salmon Populations of the Stikine River with Potential Application for Stock Identification in Mixed-Stock Fisheries C. C. Wood, B. E. Riddell, D. T. Rutherford, and K. L. Rutherford Fisheries & Ccans Department of Fisheries and Oceans LIBP ARY Fisheries Research Branch Pacific Biological Station SEPi 1911: Nanaimo, British Columbia V9R 5K6 BIBLIO7 HÈQUE Pêc.:1:Ds Océins March 1987 Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 1535 Fisheries Pêches I 4* and Oceans et Océans Canadua. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Technical reports contain scientific and technical information that contributes to existing knowledge but which is not normally appropriate for primary literature. Technical reports are directed primarily toward a worldwide audience and have an international distribution. No restriction is placed on subject matter and the series reflects the broad interests and policies of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, namely, fisheries and aquatic sciences. Technical reports may be cited as full publications. The correct citation appears above the abstract of each report. Each report is abstracted in Aquatic. Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts and indexed in the Department's annual index to scientific and technical publications. Numbers 1-456 in this series were issued as Technical Reports of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Numbers 457-714 were issued as Department of the Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service, Research and Development Directorate Technical Reports. Numbers 715-924 were issued as Department of Fisheries and the Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service Technical Reports. The current series name was changed with report number 925.
    [Show full text]
  • Fact-Finding Mission
    MEMORANDUM State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Habitat TO: Jackie Timothy DATE: October 25, 2017 Southeast Regional Supervisor SUBJECT: Transboundary Mines Site Visits Trip Report September 11-13, 2017 FROM: Nicole Legere PHONE NO: (907) 465-6979 Habitat Biologist On September 11-13, 2017, I visited five exploratory, reclaimed, or active mine sites in the Unuk and Stikine transboundary watersheds in British Columbia (Figure 1) with Department of Natural Resources Office of Project Management and Permitting Associate Director, Kyle Moselle. Seabridge Gold, owner of the exploratory Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell (KSM) and Iskuta properties in British Columbia, hosted our tour of their properties. We also viewed the Snip Mine tailings management facility and the reclaimed Eskay Creek Mine site via helicopter, and toured the active Red Chris Mine site on the ground. On September 11, I flew to Hyder, Alaska with Mr. Moselle via commercial float plane where we were picked up by Kirsten Knutson, Matrix staff and logistical coordinator for Seabridge Gold, and Brent Murphy, Seabridge Gold Vice President of Environmental Affairs. We drove over the international border to Stewart, British Columbia where we transferred into an Astar helicopter to begin our tour. Included in the tour was Mary-Jane Piggott, Klohn Crippen Berger Project Manager, and Robert Simpson, PR Associates Owner. KSM Project The KSM Project is located in the coastal mountains of northwestern British Columbia, approximately 60 km northwest of Hyder, Alaska. The proponent proposes to mine the Sulphurets, Kerr, Mitchell, and Iron Cap deposits, establish mine support facilities in the non-fish bearing Mitchell and McTagg Creek valleys, and store and treat contact water before discharging the effluent into Sulphurets Creek which drains to the Unuk River.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska's Marine Highway Corridor Management Plan
    ALASKAíS MARINE HIGHWAY CORRIDOR PARTNERSHIP PLAN Celebrating the 40th Anniversary of the Nation’s Most Scenic Byway. Prepared for The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, as part of the submission materials required for the designation under the National Scenic Byways Program of the Federal Highway Administration Prepared by Jensen Yorba Lott, Inc. February 2002 With Whiteman and Taintor Christianson Communications, Inc. Assistance from Walsh Services Southeast Strategies The McDowell Group Gateway Technologies Alaskaís Marine Highway Corridor Partnership Plan January 22, 2002 Dear Reader, It is with great pleasure I endorse the proposal to Southcentral Alaska, as well as along the far-flung chain connections will be improved, allowing designate Alaska’s Marine Highway as a National of Aleutian Islands. It is a story about people who have recreational enthusiasts to go directly from ships Scenic Byway. One travel writer summed up the thrived for generations upon the richest landscape— to footpaths, to port communities, to hiking great power of Alaska’s Marine Highway this way: Native Alaskans, Russian settlers, Scandinavian trails, to other scenic byways, and beyond. “one of the world’s most scenic highways requires no fishermen, soldiers, miners, and timber harvesters. It is driving, no road maps, no expensive stops at the gas a story about marine and upland wildlife—humpback In 2003, Alaska’s Marine Highway turns 40 years station, and no automobile.” and killer whales, seals and sea lions, sea otters, salmon old. In honor of this milestone, the State of and a myriad of exotic fish, teeming colonies of Alaska is nominating the Marine Highway for As a water-based highway, Alaska’s Marine Highway seabirds, bears, deer, moose and wolves.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition to List the Alexander Archipelago Wolf in Southeast
    BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR PETITION TO LIST THE ALEXANDER ARCHIPELAGO WOLF (CANIS LUPUS LIGONI) IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA AS THREATENED OR ENDANGERED UNDER THE U.S. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT © ROBIN SILVER PETITIONERS CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, ALASKA RAINFOREST DEFENDERS, AND DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE JULY 15, 2020 NOTICE OF PETITION David Bernhardt, Secretary U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240 [email protected] Margaret Everson, Principal Deputy Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1849 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240 [email protected] Gary Frazer, Assistant Director for Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1840 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240 [email protected] Greg Siekaniec, Alaska Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, AK 99503 [email protected] PETITIONERS Shaye Wolf, Ph.D. Larry Edwards Center for Biological Diversity Alaska Rainforest Defenders 1212 Broadway P.O. Box 6064 Oakland, California 94612 Sitka, Alaska 99835 (415) 385-5746 (907) 772-4403 [email protected] [email protected] Randi Spivak Patrick Lavin, J.D. Public Lands Program Director Defenders of Wildlife Center for Biological Diversity 441 W. 5th Avenue, Suite 302 (310) 779-4894 Anchorage, AK 99501 [email protected] (907) 276-9410 [email protected] _________________________ Date this 15 day of July 2020 2 Pursuant to Section 4(b) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §1533(b), Section 553(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(e), and 50 C.F.R. § 424.14(a), the Center for Biological Diversity, Alaska Rainforest Defenders, and Defenders of Wildlife petition the Secretary of the Interior, through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”), to list the Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis lupus ligoni) in Southeast Alaska as a threatened or endangered species.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Resources Library & Information Services Anr
    Nl? 1- li4S~ FIELD INVESTIGATIONS OF THE HERPETOLOGICAL TAXA IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA , Bradford R. Norman1 and Thomas J. Hassler National Biological Service California Cooperative Fishery Research Unit Humboldt State University Arcata, California 95521 FINAL REPORT 29-95 ARLIS Alaska Resources Library & Information Services Anr.honu1f' Al~~k::l 1Present address: 3390 William Street, Eureka, California 95503 2 ABSTRACT Herpetological investigations were conducted at 285 transects from 28 March through 31 September 1992 in southeast Alaska. Key museum collections were examined and a complete review of the state of Alaskan herpetological literature was undertaken. The 1992 vouchers were inventoried and analyzed from 1993 through 1995. Several thousand individual specimen observations of six amphibian species were tabulated. The six herpetological species encountered in 1992 were: rough-skinned newt (Tariaha granulosa), western toad (Bufo boreas), long-toed salamander (Ambystoma maarodaatylum), spotted frog (Rana pretiosa), wood frog (R. sylvatiaa), and Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla). In many cases combinations of these species were found to breed sympatrically (i.e., at the same location and concurrently over the period of observations). Special attempts to trap and/or observe various additional herpetological taxa were made but with negative results. The herpetological species which were specifically searched for but which were not encountered were: the Alaskan slender salamander (Batraahoseps caudatus), northwestern salamander (Ambystoma gracile), Pacific giant salamanders (genus Diaamptodon), tailed frog (Asaaphus truei), Siberian salamanders (genus Hynobius), garter snakes (Thamnophis spp.), and sea turtles (Families: Cheloniidae and Dermochelyidae). The presence of garter snakes in the state of Alaska could not be verified during this study though considerable effort was put forth to this end.
    [Show full text]
  • Petersburg Borough Comprehensive Plan Update
    PETERSBURG BOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE February 22, 2016 Prepared by Agnew::Beck Consulting, Moffat and Nichol, and Northern Economics for the Petersburg Borough this page left intentionally blank ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Listed below are the many individuals, groups and organizations that have contributed to the Petersburg Borough comprehensive planning update process, beginning in the fall of 2014. THANK YOU for contributing your valuable time, knowledge of your community, the Borough, the region, and most of all, for your creative and innovative ideas on how Petersburg Borough can continue to be a great place to live, grow up, raise a family, start and own a business, build a career, and recreate. Your commitment to this process, including subsequent prioritization and implementation of key strategies and actions, is the key to the success of the plan, and the ultimate goal of sustaining the Borough by strategically building and expanding upon everything that makes Petersburg Borough great. Also – if we forgot someone in the list below, our apologies. We had so much great feedback from so many folks that we may have missed a name or two. Thank you, too! Petersburg Borough Residents – thanks to everyone that participated in the community survey, attended a planning event/meeting and/or shared your feedback in some other format. The Petersburg Borough Assembly • Mark Jensen, Mayor • Cindi Lagoudakis, Vice Mayor • Bob Lynn • Jeigh Stanton Gregor • John Havrilek (former) • Kurt Wohlhueter • Nancy Strand • Eric Castro The Petersburg Borough
    [Show full text]
  • Important Bird Areas in Southeastern Alaska
    Important Bird Areas in Southeastern Alaska Iain J. Stenhouse As the U.S. Partner for BirdLife International, a sites in their communities. To date, 46 states have global coalition of more than 100 organizations, the initiated IBA programs and more than 1,800 IBAs National Audubon Society is working to identify a have already been identified in the U.S. network of sites that provide critical habitat for birds. This effort, known as the Important Bird QUALIFICATION AS AN IBA Areas (or IBA) Program, recognizes that habitat loss IBAs are sites that provide essential habitat for and fragmentation are the most serious threats facing one or more bird species. They include sites for populations of birds across North America and breeding, wintering, and/or migrating, and range around the world. By working through partnerships, from sites of a few hundred acres to hundreds of principally the North American Bird Conservation thousands of acres. They are usually discrete sites Initiative (NABCI), to identify those places that are that stand out from the surrounding landscape, they critical to birds during some part of their life cycle, may include public or private lands, or both, and we hope to minimize the effects that habitat they may be protected or unprotected. degradation and loss have on bird populations. The To qualify as an IBA, a site must satisfy at least IBA program is a global effort to identify areas that one of the following criteria. The site must support: are most important for maintaining bird populations • species of conservation concern (species and focus conservation efforts at protecting these already considered threatened or endangered); sites.
    [Show full text]