BIA decides to build a road to nowhere

CORDOVA, AK—A  Decision has been signed by the Department of the Interior choosing the controversial Shepard Point location for a proposed road and port, according to tribal and government sources.  Even with a Decision, it is far from certain whether any actual construction will occur. Internal squabbling, legal and financial troubles continue to dog the project.

 The counter-productive and illegal Decision would build 4.5-miles of coastal road, and a deepwater port, in eastern Prince William Sound near Cordova.  The selected location would actually hurt oil spill response, while handing corporations a deepwater port to use for heavy industry. Hopefully, this Decision is the last gasp of  a bad idea.

No public notice or copy of the decision has been issued. We expect it to be posted on the official project website shortly: www.cordovaresponsefacility.com. 

The Decision  is certain to prove contentious. In choosing Shepard Point locations, BIA passed up several several alternative locations in-town,  that were endorsed by  project critics. Selection of the Shepard Point location comes at the insistence of Eyak corporate officials, who also just happen to own that land, and who hope to steamroll the project through opposition from their own members, local fishermen, oil spill responders, conservationists, and the Army Corps of Engineers. 

This project has been bouncing around one stage or another of planning for over twenty years, has failed repeatedly and I predict will again. Three major unanswered questions face BIA on issuing this decision:

1. Who will pay?

At last count they were about $20 million short on funds for construction. This is even after tapping the Exxon Valdez state settlement for $10 million, and another $8 million of taxpayer transportation dollars. 

2. How does the Decision get around the Clean Water Act?

The BIA-selected alternative is illegal under the Clean Water Act, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency. That's because it would destroy critical wetlands, when there are "practicable" alternatives that would achieve the same purpose. Construction can't happen without Corps permits.

3. What is the real agenda?

Is this Decision actually about oil spill response?  If it is, then why does the selected location slow down initial oil spill response time, which experts agree is by far the most important? 

If it is, then why aren't any oil spill responders onboard? One would expect Alyeska SERVS and the Coast Guard would be involved in  the project, but none are. SERVS has said they would not use a facility at Shepard Point, even if it is built for them. 

BIA claims oil spill response requires a deepwater port. That is not true. There are no deep draft spill response vessels for Cordova, where the shallow-water Delta is actually the top oil spill concern. (More on that in other posts). What does require deepwater ports are large ships, such as those that would ship coal or timber off of Chugach Corp's holdings on the Copper River Delta, or cruise ships.

Stopping this project remains Cascadia's top priority in Alaska.   The port, with deepwater capacity in private hands, would be the lynchpin for a generation's worth of resource extraction schemes threatening the Copper River Delta.  Project opponents, including the local fishermen's union, enthusiastically endorse several alternative locations that would better achieve oil spill and economic development goals.

If they are serious about oil spill response, BIA will embrace one of the consensus alternatives, not push a polical pork machine. Their own studies identify three affordable alternatives, that could better achieve the same oil spill response benefits for all the same spill response vessels, faster, for less than half the cost, and without any environmental controversy. 

—GWS

For more information, call our field office in Cordova at 424-3835, or gscott@cascwild.org.