Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Chuck Tobin

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED – This map shows the location of the Kwanlin Dün First Nation’s plan to develop land for a card-lock gas station across the Alaska Highway from the Erik Nielsen Whitehorse International Airport lands. Some Hillcrest residents have expressed concerns. Photo courtesy Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board

Comment period extended for gas station project

The public has been given more time to comment

By Chuck Tobin on October 27, 2017

The public has been given more time to comment on a proposal by the Kwanlin Dün First Nation to develop land for a card-lock gas station across the highway from the airport lands.

Communication officer Rob Yeomans of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board (YESAB) explained the assessment officer granted more time because of interest in the project.

There were two submissions to the assessment board raising concerns with the proposal as of this morning.

But Yeomans explained Thursday that staff with the board and staff with the Yukon government’s development assessment branch have been receiving calls asking for more time.

The original deadline to comment was Oct. 20. It has been extended to Nov. 14.

Kwanlin Dün and its development corporation are planning to clear 3.2 hectares of the First Nation’s 21.55-hectare block of category B settlement land to provide for the card-lock service.

The fuel facility proposal also includes the provision for a 6,300-square-foot operation headquarters provided by a tent-type structure sitting on a concrete floor.

The block of settlement land runs along the Alaska Highway, on the opposite side of Hillcrest Drive from the SKKY Hotel.

Client preference

The location for the proposed gas station at the south east corner of the claim block was selected because of the preference indicated by the lease client, says the proposal.

The proposal indicates the card-lock is likely to be the first of more commercial development on the settlement land.

CEO Chris Milner of Chu Níí Kwän, the First Nation’s development corporation, said that parcel of land was chosen by Kwanlin Dün in the land claims process for its potential to provide for commercial and residential projects.

Chieftain Energy, with Air North as its majority share holder, will be using a portion of the 3.2 hectares to be cleared with the remaining portion available for other commercial interests, he said.

The western boundary of the claim block abuts up against the Paddy’s Pond/Ice Lake Park.

Among the concerns expressed by the two Hillcrest residents is the impact on local trails, the forested area and wildlife.

A concern about more highway traffic exiting and entering the Alaska Highway along a stretch that is already heavily congested with entrances and exits was also raised as a concern.

Vice-president Frederik Robert of the Hillcrest Community Association said Thursday the association has not formulated a position on the proposal.

The association is currently gathering information to inform a discussion in the near future, he explained.

Ben Ryan of Chieftain Energy said the intent is to establish a straightforward card lock service with storage tanks for gasoline and diesel on the site.

The proposal for a large tent structure that could be used to shelter highway and in-town trucks is more of a concept at this point, he said.

Card-lock infrastructure

The investment in the card-lock infrastructure – storage tanks, three pumps – is around $200,000, depending on whether the company goes with a new or used card-lock service, he explained.

Ryan said the company has a card-lock facility on Tlingit Street in the Marwell industrial area but it wanted a site closer to the headquarters of Air North, its parent company.

Chieftain, he pointed out, purchased five highway fuel trucks and five in-town trucks this past summer with the goal of expanding in business in the home-heating market.

Milner said while Chu Níí Kwän initially targeted this fall for clearing the land, the schedule was revised to next spring in consideration of the permitting process.

The First Nation’s self-government agreement provides for this type of development, he explained.

“But you still have to go through the proper processes of development with permitting and YESAB, and that is what we are going through now,” he said.

Milner explained the development corporation is taking a cautious approach to the overall development of the settlement parcel, starting with a small section and seeing how it goes from there.

Communications officer Heather McKay of the Department of Highways and Public Works said Thursday any future plans to expand the Alaska Highway corridor through that stretch would not affect the development proposal.

Initial plans by the government to expand the highway to four lanes through that stretch have been cancelled but even if there were four lanes, the development would not be affected, she said.

Comments (10)

Up 0 Down 0

Jonathan Colby on Nov 2, 2017 at 7:35 pm

As long as they have good-ish food to go, I support this.

Up 4 Down 4

YukonMax on Nov 2, 2017 at 12:02 pm

The Stuarts of the Land... Actively involved in the fossil fuel business.

Up 7 Down 8

Hugh Mungus on Nov 1, 2017 at 3:41 pm

Whitehorse needs another gas station like it needs another hole in its head. What a mindless idea for that piece of land. There are a million better uses that could be in that location.

Up 7 Down 14

Just Sayin' on Oct 31, 2017 at 4:08 pm

I have concerns in regards to the lack of studies which have been completed in their submission. First, anyone who has wandered around the area knows that there are old WWII artifacts in the area; has an arch study been completed? Has a species study been completed? Anytime there is a wetland, there tends to be a diverse ecosystem; has the potential impacts for this ecosystem been studied? Have they studied the local groundwater to ensure the impacts of any potential fuel spills will not impact the groundwater and/or any other hydrology in the area? Have they submitted a spill plan? What is the max volume which will be located in the area? How will they mitigate against potential vandalizes?
With the reduction of green space, an increase in noise will be proliferated through the local residences; has a noise study been completed? My other issue is Chieftain energy with a variety of owners has had non-compliance issues before. Look up the national environmental registry of infractions. You can find McKenzie Petroleum and North of 60... I wonder if they are a part of Chieftain energy (durrrr). I want the due diligence done by all parties involved as if one was developing a mine in the area. The ecosystems are so so sensitive and the potential impacts can effect the area for a very long time.. look at the tank farm.

It is amusing though with the impending carbon tax, that green space is going to be removed to sell fossil fuels. HAHAHA

Up 31 Down 6

Really? on Oct 31, 2017 at 11:33 am

I'm all for looking into potential environmental impacts of having fuel in this area, it's only responsible to explore this. But why do people get a say as to whether a lot which has been zoned for use can actually be used by it's owner for said purpose?

Also, the argument that you will lose trails is invalid. If you are on this property enjoying trails then you are trespassing. Yes, the owners have allowed use of these trails, but they do not have to. You are not entitled to march all over someone else's property and you have no right to impede development by the owner because you like to walk your dog or ride your bike there.

Good for KDFN for looking forward to opportunities to generate revenues. I wish you the best of luck in this venture.

Up 22 Down 9

Yukon Watchdog on Oct 31, 2017 at 9:08 am

@ steve. Maybe they could relocate the Alaska Highway just for you. I'm sure you might have a case as to who was there first - the historic Alaska Highway or historic Hillcrest. Did the highway come first or the houses that were built to accommodate those building the highway? No sympathy here. Hillcrest residents seem to think they're special in every way.

Up 8 Down 5

Walter on Oct 31, 2017 at 3:47 am

@Steve: Take the bus. Bwahahahaha! No seriously great letter, no one thinks about all the real things happening but they are there as you point out. If it does go ahead I would like to make sure that it starts far enough back to allow the four lane through without another move. Minimum.

Up 7 Down 13

Capitan on Oct 30, 2017 at 1:42 pm

Seems odd that they think a gas station is needed there. Two gas stations shut down in that vicinity in the past few years, I believe because they're just not viable. Three if you count the old Shell station south of the South Access. Then there's the remediation problems that decommissioned gas stations have left behind, as on 4th Avenue and elsewhere.

I agree there's already a lot of traffic and some pretty dicey intersections, with people going to the airport and Hillcrest, hotels etc. Then there's the threat of forest fire and the issue of emergency routes -- is (another) fuel storage unit near an airport and the highway and standing between a residential neighbourhood and the highway really something we want to deal with?

Up 20 Down 14

Josey Wales on Oct 30, 2017 at 12:09 am

Oh no....someone trying to build something!
I often wonder how it would go here in Whitehorse if the Birkenstock company wished to build a mega factory, maybe Thule....?
Would the push back be epic?
Would the therapy industry see a spike in clientele torn between two worlds?
.....or Remington rifles, think they could breach the NIMBY line?
Imagine the hysteria - crazy it would be!

Up 12 Down 42

steve on Oct 27, 2017 at 5:37 pm

As a Hillcrest resident I have a number of concerns relating to this project.
First, and potentially most seriously, there is already a large amount of local concern regarding access between the highway, airport, and the Hillcrest neighbourhood. We already have several uncontrolled road junctions in this area, combined with heavy traffic, industrial vehicles, motorists in recently rented vehicles etc. The highway also sees a change in speed limit, and several turning lanes which are, at best, minimally marked or observed. Add to this the total lack of safe pedestrian access along or across the Alaska highway, and I would strongly suggest the last thing this area needs is another vehicular access to the highway. One can further speculate that in the near future there may be changes to the highway to mitigate some of the above questions, and it would be a further shame to see infrastructure developed for this project, only to see it overtaken by highway changes which would necessitate a disruptive and expensive series of changes.
My second concern pertains to quality of life for those of us who use the trail infrastructure in this area. There are a number of commonly used public access routes that cross this area and see traffic by walkers, cyclists, runners and those with dogs. It would be a shame to lose this excellent community resource. As a bare minimum I'd like to see a full trail inventory of thoroughfares impacted by this development, and developer plans to ensure no net loss of trail access. On a connected note the new road crosses a designated motorized access trail - this inevitably raises the danger to those using this trail, and will increase pollution (both noise and vehicle emissions) as off road vehicles slow and speed up to negotiate the crossing. One can further imagine the potential for accidents and their attendant litigation. Furthermore, is the development to be accessed year round? If so, plowing operations, gravel etc. will have a detrimental impact on those using snowmobiles on this crossing.
Fourthly - what is the purpose of this site? The documents are vague, but I am concerned that most operations will result in a significant increase in light and noise pollution, and a deterioration in local air quality. It would be good to know what the developer is planning to do with the site, hours of operation, decibel levels of machinery involved etc. Given the project's location in Whitehorse greenbelt land, does the developer have a plan for replacing the trees and vegetation that will be destroyed in this development? I would further add that the encroachment by developed land into this existing green area is not only a potential eyesore, but also would detract from the natural appeal of this historic neighbourhood.
On a final note, given that this area is predominantly in wetlands, I would argue strongly that it is an extremely poor location for fuel storage as outlined in the project plan. Cleanup costs in these environmentally sensitive areas will obviously be significant.

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.