In order that the community may be provided with necessary facilities for water transportation, it is of great importance that plans be immediately undertaken for (1) construction of a small boat harbor, and (2) construction of a deep water harbor at Kenai, Increasing traffic and expanding use of water craft in the area require these facilities. It will be deeply appreciated if you will have prepared the resolutions necessary for adoption by the Senate Public Works Committee to initiate action on these projects. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Cordially yours, ERNEST GRUENING, U.S. Senator. JULY 17, 1968. Hon. R. L. BARTLETT, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR BARTLETT: This is in further reply to your request for a report on the status of Nensi small-boat harbor survey. Special engineering problems relative to the turbidity of the water in Cook Inlet have been instrumental in delaying our conclusion concerning the feasibility of constructing a small-boat harbor at Nensi. Because of the severe shoaling conditions in this area, it would appear that the cost of maintaining such a project would be excessive. However, every effort is being made to develop a feasible plan of improvement. This requires an analysis of additional data now being collected. Since sufficient authority is available to complete the investigations, adoption of a Public Works Committee resolution is not required. Sincerely yours, LEWIS A. PICK, Jr., Lt. Colonel, Corps of Engineers, Assistant Director of Civil Works for Pacific Divisions. EXCERPTS FROM WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, BY U.S. CORPS OF PG. 27, HEADING, "SURVEYS UNDERWAY" Kenai Small Boat Harbor covers the need for and feasibility of constructing small-boat facilities at Kenai to shelter commercial fleet of 250 boats. Presently being considered is a 10 acre basin to be dredged in the tidal flats immediately north of the entrance of Kenai River into Cook Inlet. Kenai Deep-Draft Channel covers practicability and feasibility of dredging a turning basin in the Kenai River at a point approximately two miles from its mouth. A channel approximately four miles long would connect the Turning Basin with deep water. The study was authorized by the Flood Control Acts of 1948 and 1950, while formal public hearings have been conducted and field and economic surveys have been completed, further studies of potential sedimentation problems resulting from the high silt content of Cook Inlet waters have delayed completion of the report. PG. 29, HEADING "NAVIGATION" Surveys not started. Authorized but unfunded. Project: Kenai-Authorized: 1968. JULY 27, 1973. Mr. HOWARD HACKNEY, DEAR HOWARD: Please find enclosed a copy of a letter I recently received from the Corps of Engineers regarding the status of the Kenai small-boat and deep water harbors study. I hope you find this letter informative and explanatory of the Corps attention to this study. In regard to funding to initiate the harbor investigation, the Senate Public Works budget, which was passed by the Senate appropriated $35,000 for FY 1974. The bill, unfortunately, was referred to a House-Senate Conference Committee, and that Committee agreed to retain only $17,500 in the final budget. This will permit the investigation to be started next spring. Should you have further questions on this matter, please don't hesitate to write. With best wishes, Cordially, TED STEVENS, U.S. Senator. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, Hon. TED STEVENS, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR STEVENS: This is in further reply to your recent letter inclosing a copy of a letter from Mr. Howard Hackney of Kenai, Alaska, regarding smallboat harbor improvements in the Kenai River. Navigation improvements for Kenai previously were being studied by the Corps of Engineers as a part of the review of Interim Report No. 2-Cook Inlet and Tributaries, a comprehensive review of the entire Cook Inlet drainage basin. Sedimentation studies completed in 1968 in the course of this review were not sufficient to resolve technical questions concerning construction and maintenance costs and the related economic feasibility of harbor construction at Kenai. On September 9, 1968, the Senate Public Works Committee adopted a resolution for the study of small-boat and deep-water harbors at Kenai, As a result, and because of the need for extensive sediment research, the Kenai harbor studies were withdrawn from the review of "Interim Report No. 2" and will be accomplished as a separate study under this new study authority. Research involving evaluation and prevention of shoaling in proposed smallboat harbors with high potential for sedimentation, such as at Kenai, was included in the Research and Development Program of the Coastal Engineering Research Center, Corps of Engineers, beginning in Fiscal Year 1971. Appropriate portions of the research are being performed by the Corps' Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, and by the Alaska District. The University of Alaska is also participating in the research. Hon. TED STEVENS. JULY 10, 1973. Since 1971, sedimentation research funds have been expended in evaluation of the sedimentation potential in the upper reaches of Cook Inlet. A tank simulating a scaled down prototype boat basin was installed in Knik Arm and the rate of sediment accumulation was measured under varying suspended sediment load conditions. The variations in suspended sediment are being correlated to tidal velocity, wave climate, and seasonal variations in fresh water flow. When the data from the test tank at Knik Arm is compiled and analyzed, we hope to be able to correlate this with data from the Kenai area to evaluate the potential for sediment in harbor improvements at Kenai. The Coastal Engineering Research Center in developing a mathematical model to predict shoaling rates based on analyses of this data. If this procedure cannot analyze the existing data from Kenai, a very expensive and lengthy study of the sedimentation conditions in the Kenai River will then become necessary. No funds have been appropriated for initiation of this study and none are included in the President's budget for Fiscal Year 1974. Careful consideration will he given to the need for inclusion of funds in future budget requests to initiate this study. Its inclusion in a future budget will, of course, be dependent upon budgetary objectives and the needs of other worthy studies throughout the nation. The city of Kenai was apprised of the above status at an informal public meeting held 9 May 1973 at Kenai. Sincerely yours, PAUL C. DRISCOLL, for Pacific Divisions. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED MOORING BUOYS, KENAI RIVER, ALASKA, HELD IN KENAI, ALASKA, AUGUST 20, 1968 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ALASKA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Anchorage, Alaska, August 13, 1968, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The application of the KENAI PACKERS Company for a Department of the Army permit to authorize the annual placement of mooring buoys in the Kenai River will be considered at a public hearing to be held by the undersigned in the Commons Area of the Kenai Central High School at 1:00 p.m. on 20 August 1968. All interested parties including those contemplating use of the buoys or any additional means of mooring vessels in the Kenai River are invited to be present or to be represented at the above time and place. They will be given opportunity to express their views upon the suitability of the location and to suggest changes considered desirable. Oral statements will be heard, but for accuracy of record important facts and arguments should be submitted in writing. Written statements may be handed to the undersigned at the hearing. The plans submitted by the applicant show the placement of four large 6-ton Boldt Liberty Ship anchors attached to can mooring buoys, and 12 smaller 1⁄4-ton Boldt Navy type anchors attached to can mooring buoys in the general vicinity of the Kenai Packers dock. E. L. HARDIN, Jr., REPORT ON PUBLIC HEARING Colonel HARDIN. Ladies and gentlemen, I am Colonel Hardin, the Alaska District Engineer. With me today, I have Miss Aurora Loss, Chief of the Permit Section of the Alaska District; Mr. Dick Griffith, one of the engineers of the Engineering Division of the Alaska District and Commander Ray Bernhardt of the U.S. Coast Guard. The purpose of this hearing is to review the application of the Kenai Packers Company for a permit to place buoys in the Kenai River. I know that in the mind of each of you is that the meeting would not be necessary if Kenai had a suitable boat harbor. I have been on the job for one year and I am sure a day hasn't gone by that someone has not jabbed me about a small boat harbor in Kenai, usually it is your City Manager. I met with the City Council on the 17th of April and briefed them on the status of the small boat harbor and since most of you were not present, I would like to review what was told the City Council at that time so you will know where we stand. We were authorized in July 1958 to make a deep draft study of the Kenai River. This study was later combined with a study to review navigation and flood control in the Cook Inlet area. Funds were made available beginning in FY 1960. In the summer of 1960 we began field and hydrologic surveys of the Kenai River, and in November of that year we held a public hearing on a deep draft harbor for Kenai. In the spring of 1962 we did foundation surveys in the area. It was apparent, at that time, that a deep draft harbor was out of the question, nature didn't deal very kindly with you. We decided, though, that we had the basis for pushing ahead for a small boat harbor. During the summer of 1963, we submitted our draft report on the small boat harbor. At that time Kenai was a very poor community and there was some question that the city would be able to come up with the local participation required by the law in order for them to build a small boat harbor. So we recommended in our report that the city be excused from the local participation requirement. Well, this didn't go over very well. We were asking something for Kenai that wasn't allowed elsewhere in the United States and we were literally sent back to the drawing board. Well, we were interrupted slightly by the earthquake, but we had the next study in the summer of 1966. Unfortunately something had happened in Dillingham-we had built a small boat harbor and before one year was out it had silted in completely and was unusable. The people at our higher headquarters at Portland and in Washington were gun-shy about small boat harbors in Alaska and they were not going to approve any further boat harbors until it could be proved that the silt could be controlled and that the local community could provide the dredging necessary to keep the basin usable. They directed that we perform a series of sedimentation studies. These studies were conducted in the summer of 1967 and were evaluated by the Alaska District and by North Pacific Division, our higher headquarters located in Portland, last winter. We estimated that the basin, if built, would silt up to four feet per year. Now the rule is that the government is responsible for dredging the entrance channel and the maneuver area. The community is responsible for dredging the berthing area. We estimated that it would cost the city about $13,000 per foot to remove this silt, so at four feet it would be in the neighborhood of $52,000 per year. One of my purposes for being here in April was to talk with the City Council to see if they felt this was out of line with what the city could afford. I was assured, by them, that the prices mentioned were not too great, considering Kenai's current rate of development. Now, everything we work on we have to request the funds from Congress and Congress approves it by name. In 1963, when we requested funds for our budget, we told them that we would not ask for any more money for the Cook Inlet study. Those funds were spent on our draft report of 1966 and, at this point, we have no additional money to spend on Kenai. So, we are stalled right now as far as completing the study for lack of funds. One of the purposes of the meeting on the 17th of April was to plot a strategy by which the city, the congressional delegation and ourselves could get the thing moving again. We are working in that direction now. But, we recognize that to get the money to complete the study, to get the project authorized, budgeted, designed and to get construction funds to let the contract to build the small boat harbor, under the very best circumstances, will take a minimum of five years. It usually takes more; for example, the Fairbanks Flood Control Project took 20 years, but let's say that we are going to do better here. Because of this, we realize that there is not going to be a small boat harbor right away. The situation that has developed this spring and summer, which was pointed out to us in April, is going to require a solution and an agreement of minds as to what the requirements are; what we are going to do here; and what the needs are for both sides. So with this in mind. I am here today because of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 which charges the Secretary of the Army with the preservation of navigation. The Secretary of the Army has delegated this responsibility to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We carry out our responsibility by requiring anyone who would place any sort of construction in navigable waters to obtain a permit. Those of you who have worked with us know that Aurora is responsible for the issuance of these permits. Based on what we learned with our meeting with the City Council in April, we wrote to Kenai Packers and told them that they must apply for a permit for the continued installation of the mooring buoys. The application for the permit was submitted to us on the third of June and notices of the proposed work was sent out to interested persons on June 11th. On July 1st, we received an objection from the Inlet Company stating that their protest was based on the fact that as recently as June 30 they had asked ship owners to move their boats out of the channel to allow their barge to pass up the river to their docking facility. They went on to say that there was so much congestion in the river at that time that to allow any more obstructions would almost render the river impassable for any large barge or tug. On July 9, the Alaska Barite Company wrote saying that their operations required the movement of 12,000 to 25,000 tons of raw barite annually from their Castle Island operation to the old Army dock which their company has leased from the City of Kenai. The first shipment of 4,000 tons was due on the 15th of July. It was reported that when the 280-foot vessel which houses their plant was installed on the 16th of June, they had no difficulty bringing the vessel in at that time, but only two of the mooring buoys were in place then. They went on to say that they plan to use 180- by 45-foot barges and believed that space was somewhat limited for safe navigation. It is their contention that the placement of the buoys will make it difficult to navigate and to handle their barges and tugs. In July the Inlet Company contacted the Coast Guard and stated that fishing vessels were obstructing the channel on July 18 and 23 and that barges were delayed in entering the Kenai River. On July 30, the Inlet Company confirmed a conversation with the Coast Guard in which their carrier, the Northland Marine Lines, had refused to use their facilities on the Kenai River unless the boats anchored in the channel were moved. Following these reports, of course you know, the Coast Guard issued the citations, and they cited Title 33, U.S. Code 409, Section 15, of the Rivers and Harbors Act which reads as follows: "It shall not be lawful to tie up or anchor any vessels or other craft in navigable channels in such a manner as to prevent or obstruct the passage of other vessels or craft...." This is where we came into the act, because we are responsible for enforcement of the Act of 1899. We have not taken steps to prepare a case, however, for the U.S. Attorney, mainly because if you go ahead and read all the Statute, it says that there is no absolute prohibition of the anchorage of vessels in navigable channels but that the Act is intended to prevent their anchorage in such a way as to monopolize such channels and is not violated when sufficient passageway is left for other vessels. So our purpose in being here today is to try and decide what is sufficient for both uses of the river and to try and set some rules by which this sufficient channel can be operated, until such time that we have a small boat harbor. We are not interested in putting anyone out of business or imposing undue hardship on any person. We feel that it is our responsibility, under the law, to put together some form of workable solution which you as fishermen or shippers will support. I would like to ask for frank and open expression of your views. The Department of the Army will consider all views and will weigh all the evidence which pertain to the case. I would like to develop all the controversial points fully, we are not trying to sweep anything under the rug. Let's bring it up to the surface and discuss it, so that we can try to develop both sides. If you do not have information here and you have something else that you want to add later on, of course, you can submit it. But we would rather have it here while we have a chance for all people to discuss it. In particularly, we want to develop fully the requirements for mooring fishing vessels in the river as well as the use of the river for barge traffic. In a matter such as this, decision is not based upon how many are for and how many are against; but really, what is fair and just in the case. We are interested in developing all the views, we don't want to restrict your testimony, but there is a limit to time so there is no reason to repeat testimony if it has already been given. Since Mr. Griffith is making a tape recording so that we can make a transcript of the meeting and to have a record to go with the testimony, we would like to ask you to use the microphone when you speak and to identify yourself as to your name and what your occupation is and what company, organization or business you represent, if you are representing someone else. We would like to have a good clean recording. As a starting point in our hearing, we have displayed a chart which is based on the permit application which was submitted by the Kenai Packers. I understand that this is the general scheme that has been used for about 15 years in the river. It is perhaps more familiar to you than anything else. It will be a good point of departure in our hearing if we have a discussion first of the permit application as received. Is there a representative here from the Kenai Packers? Yes, would you tell us about the permit and your point of view and your interest here? Mr. FRED M. MCGILL. I am Fred McGill and I am secretary of Kenai Packers and for the past 15 years or so we have been mooring our boats out in this area here. (Pointing to general location of buoys as shown on permit plan.) Although these little orange circles represent the buoys, they are not placed exactly as we attempt to place them. We feel it is the only way to put the boats out there because they are on large anchors and if you nest a group of boats together on a large anchor, there is less chance that they will drag in high tide with the swift currents. If you have a lot of small boats and they are anchored throughout the channel on their small anchor gear, oftentimes boats will drag-then you'll have a mess out there. They get all tangled up. We put the buoys out about the 25th of June and by August 10th the boats are up and the buoys are out, as they are right now. It would unduly restrict our operations if we could not anchor throughout this area during the month of July as well as many other boats that do not fish for us. This is the only safe anchorage on the east side of Cook Inlet between the Homer Spit and Anchorage. It would work an undue hardship on all the boats |