The state has so far not received any applications from a number of floathouse owners contacted last autumn.
Since October, the Department of Natural Resources has been reaching out to identified owners of floating facilities anchored along the Stikine River’s tidal area, the land which is under its clear jurisdiction after resolving a longstanding dispute with the United States Forest Service last March.
The floathouses being targeted are those anchored within the tidal influence of the river, which ends just beyond the terminus of Shakes Slough. Letters have been so far sent to 13 owners and occupants of these facilities according to Steve Winker, Natural Resource Manager with DNR Southeast Region Office for the Division of Mining Land and Water, which is handling the matter.
One of these has been returned due to an invalid address, and the owners of other floathouses within the area have yet to be determined. Winker reported there were five additional cases where the occupant remains unknown, three others who have been identified but have not been contacted, and one where the facility has been subsequently removed from state land by its owner.
The state’s lands within the rivershed are managed under the division’s Central/Southern Southeast Area Plan, Region 4. Within the Wrangell Planning Region, several floathomes fall within undesignated areas, while others nearer to the Cottonwood Islands are designated as fish and wildlife habitat, undeveloped public recreation, and transportation. Under the plan guidelines in either case, floathouses and similar facilities are advised not to be allowed use along designated wilderness areas, such as those within the surrounding Tongass National Forest.
Owners were in the letters given 30 days to contact the DMLW office in order to either initiate the application process or else arrange to move the facility. Otherwise, the matter could be referred to the regional manager, with a recommendation to initiate legal proceedings to have the houses removed. As of yet, no such action has been initiated.
So far no applications have been submitted to DNR, though one contacted Wrangell resident is putting one together. Brenda Schwartz-Yeager is completing her packet for submission, which has required a hefty amount of paperwork. The application itself is 20 pages, requiring an additional USGS map of the site. A nine-page supplemental questionnaire is also required, covering the site’s dimensions, anchorage, discharge and expected effects, as well as a sketched-out site development diagram of the area. Applicants are also expected to obtain an Army Corps of Engineers permit, which has its own process to undergo.
“That’s a little bit time consuming, as well as tricky,” Schwartz-Yeager explained.
The process is also potentially costly. In addition to the $100 nonrefundable filing fee, permitting comes with a number of other costs: an annual use fee, with $500 per year for a floathouse that is kept on-site for six months or more; a performance guaranty bond, whose value is determined by a bonding matrix; and some form of liability insurance. Speaking with Petersburg-Wrangell Insurance, floathouse coverage is an annual policy and premiums would vary like other comparable policies, affected by value, size and location.
“That’s one thing they didn’t really disclose initially,” Schwartz-Yeager said of the letters.
In the event her application is accepted, she said she would have to weigh those costs against the use. For the past decade, her family’s floathouse has served a subsistence purpose, allowing them to more easily go about their fishing, hunting and trapping. If the cost of maintaining a house upriver outweighs that saved through subsistence, it ends up defeating the purpose.
“The whole purpose of subsistence is to provide your own food,” she explained. “It’s a lifestyle.”
Petersburg resident John Murgas is a former floathouse owner, and one of the main reasons he built it was “to play cat and mouse” with the state. He described the letters being sent to float house owners as a “repeat of what they did back in the 80s.”
Murgas said the Wrangell Ranger District wanted to eliminate float houses over two decades ago. A battle over tidelands and jurisdiction between the state and feds ensued, halting any talk of restricting floathouses at the time, he said.
Murgas said floathouses were a part of the Stikine River culture long before he started traveling there to recreate in the 70s. The structures might have even saved him more than once during winter emergency situations.
“That may be an exaggeration, but it might not be either,” he said. “I’d have engines fail and I’d manage to get to a floathouse, move in and spend a very comfortable night until someone came and rescued me, type of stuff.”
Looking back Murgas said he probably would have survived without the structure, but at the time, it was “a life saver.” He goes one step further and calls floathouses part of the aesthetic to the Stikine.
“I’ve never heard a complaint from anyone about them,” Murgas said. “They fit very well into the scenery and the way of life.”
Editor’s disclosure: Sentinel and Petersburg Pilot publisher Ron Loesch is among the Stikine floathouse owners contacted as part of the DNR’s ongoing action.
Reader Comments(0)