Candice Snow, Natural Resource Specialist

Department of Natural Resources

Division of Mining, Land & Water, Southcentral Region, Land Office

550 W. 7th Ave., Suite 900C

Anchorage, AK 99501-3577

Dear Candice Snow:

The purpose of this letter is to present the comments of the Alaska Quiet Rights Coalition (AQRC) concerning LAS # 28297, an application for a five-year permit for The Alaskan Wet Dog Race submitted by John Lang.  DNR should deny this permit. This race is such a bad idea that it is difficult to know where to start in listing the myriad of reasons why it should be denied.

AQRC is a state-wide non-profit organization which seeks to preserve the values of natural quiet and natural sounds on our public lands (and waters) for the benefit of quiet recreationists, homeowners and wildlife. We find that in most cases multi-use trails and areas on our public lands do not work for the non-motorized user. We seek a fair and balanced allocation of areas and trails for both the non-motorized and motorized user.

Specific AQRC Concerns

1. 1. Disturbance/harm to Wildlife due to noise and presence of PWCs

First, PWCs have special capabilities for maneuver, thrust, and buoyancy,  distinguishing them from other watercraft, which enable sustained intrusion into wildlife areas in shallow waters close to shore. Secondly, this is a race in the ocean which will cause machines to go at their top (and loudest) speeds, bounce in/out of waves thereby broadcasting their noise and require persistent revving of the engine to keep stable. The speed, noise and maneuverability will, at a minimum, disturb, if not harm, the wildlife, including marine and other mammals, birds and fish which the racers will encounter on land and in the water over the 2000 mile race. For example, NOAA commented “Scientific research and studies across the United States (e.g., California, New Jersey, Florida) have produced strong evidence that (M)PWC present a significant and unique disturbance to marine mammals and birds different from other watercraft.” And, to counter the argument that DNR is certain to get from Mr. Lang, the comment goes on to state: “Though some other studies have found few differences between (M)PWC and small motor-powered boats, they have not presented evidence to invalidate the studies detecting significant impacts.” (73 CFR 70521, Nov. 20, 2008). Further, while it is true that newer PWCs are quieter than older models, it is unlikely that a lessening of the overall decibel level by manufacturers will prevent the flushing of birds, and disturbance of marine mammals and other wildlife when startled by the noise and sight of racing PWCs.

Secondly, though sound is of vital importance for most marine vertebrates there is a lack of in-depth scientific studies/knowledge about the biological effects of man-made sounds on seabirds, wildlife and fish and how effective mitigation measures are. See the 1/13/2009 report “Addressing the Effects of Human-Generated Sound on Marine Life” An Integrated Research Plan for U. S. Federal Agencies which states “There is considerable scientific uncertainty regarding the nature and magnitude of the actual impacts of anthropogenic sound on the marine environment, as well as the most appropriate and effective mitigation measures which effects have been demonstrated or are likely.”

The third way this race will cause disturbance or actual harm to the wildlife is that the necessity to refuel about every 50 miles and take a safety break about every 50 miles means that there will be multiple intrusions of man and machines in pristine, undisturbed areas on and along the shoreline where birds, fish and mammals rest, feed, breed. Further, while the supplemental material indicates that racers may not harass wildlife and must avoid all places identified as sensitive wildlife areas by state or federal agencies, there are no monitors observing the racers. In fact, the proposed rules state that a racer may follow any route between checkpoints. So, in good weather racers will take the shortest routes between checkpoints and in nasty weather go as close to shore as possible, and, in both cases are apt to ignore the boundaries of designated sensitive areas.

1. 1. Disturbance to humans due to noise and presence of PWCs

The kayaker’s  expectation, while exploring a coastline as a quiet recreationist or a tourist’s expectation on a wildlife cruise, is that he/she will be able to observe birds and wildlife behaving naturally, in their natural setting and hearing their natural calls and sounds; not hearing distress calls or having birds flushed or marine mammals swimming  in rapid retreat from the intrusion of noisy machines in the midst of wild, pristine areas. Even though each incident might be short in time there may be multiple incidents in any one time span. Further, the race extends over the period of three-weeks so that racers will be going by a particular spot for at least one week. The person on the wildlife cruise is of course on a noisy boat, but those boats are required to stay at distances where the birds and animals are not disturbed.

General AQRC concerns and questions for DNR to consider in reviewing the application for a permit.

1) Fact:  PWC races in the US:  the 300-mile Mark Hahn Race, is billed as the “World’s Longest Continuous PWC Race” in the US, is held on Lake Havasu (a man-made lake) in Arizona and in 2011 had a winning time of just over 4 1/2 hours; the longest ocean race appears to be the 56 mile Long Beach, CA to Catalina Island and return with a 2011 winning time of just under 55 minutes;

2) Fact: a 2000 mile ocean race has never been organized, managed or conducted;

1. Fact: accounts of the existing races on the web indicate that racers frequently experience a multitude of mechanical and motorized problems and often do not complete the course;

4) Fact: the application indicates there will be 110 support boats for emergencies, volunteers to staff each checkpoint, 5-10 supervisors; and that the race will take 14 days with the requirement that all professional racers complete the course within seven days of the winners.

Questions: does Mr. Lang have the experience to organize such a large, long and potentially dangerous race ? who will rescue the racers who experience mechanical problems between checkpoints ? who will rescue the racers who due to weather must land at any available spot ? does a race of this distance (2000 miles in 14 days), in Alaska’s unforgiving waters and possible severe weather even make sense when, apparently, the top racers have experience only with short distances and short times ?  (See June 26, 2009 Kodiak Daily Mirror for an account of Paving the Way trip where weather and waves forced the group to land and camp for two days and the support boat had trouble anchoring.)

1. Fact: a top-of-the-line PWC holds approximately 20 gallons; top speed at 67 mph exhausts the fuel tank within an hour; 24 gallons of extra fuel may be carried; Lang has estimated 500 gallons per person will be required; fuel is to be obtained at checkpoints and at fuel barges placed strategically between checkpoints where needed;  depending on speeds and weather, each PWC will need to be refueled approximate every 50 miles or roughly 40 times for the whole race; refueling will occur between checkpoints; spills are inevitable when 500,000 gallons of fuel will be transferred in the course of this race;
2. Fact: teams are required to clean up any spills or wait for a spill response team to arrive.

Question: are racers capable of refueling on the water or just on land ? Refueling on land between checkpoints will mean that teams can pull into and disturb, if not pollute, pristine, quiet areas where birds, fish and other wildlife are apt to be. Spills may not be able to be cleaned up because of the condition of the land (or water).   Who will monitor to ensure that the inevitable spills on land (or water) will be cleaned up ? Will a team in contention wait for a spill response team to arrive or simply not report the spill?

How many response teams will exist and where will they be based ?

1. Fact: the race is to start at 6 am, May 1, 2013 in Whittier with teams leaving every 2 minutes until 10 pm, meaning 420 out of the 500 teams will leave the first day; 80 teams on day 2;
2. Fact: there are approximately 23 checkpoints, but only a handful, such as Cordova, Seward, Kenai and Kodiak may have accommodations for feeding, sleeping and re-fueling some of the 1000 racers at any one time; there is a mandatory 40 hour layover in  Kodiak and a 28 hour layover to be taken, in stages, at earlier checkpoints.

Question: Does the Whittier harbor have the capacity to accommodate 500  teams over a two day period ? Can the Cordova harbor, as the first checkpoint, refuel hundreds of PWCs (since the racers will still be bunched up)? Does the Kodiak harbor have sufficient space to store and refuel 1000 PWCs over a period of time (it is conceivable that both the leaders and the slowest racers could overlap during the 40 hour layover) ? Where will the racers eat, sleep and find bathroom facilities throughout the race ? (See the letter from the Village of Chenega for a forthright statement of the impossibilities of using small villages as checkpoints.)

1. Fact: the application identifies nine mandatory classes or inspections each racer is to attend prior to the race involving a number of agency officials and a representative from each town/village as instructors.

Question: Will public agencies accommodate these teaching requests ? what space is available for 1000 PWCs to be inspected, for 1000 racers to be oriented and to exhibit their skills, how many days will these mandatory requirements take ? will villages be willing to send a representative to conduct an orientation ?

1. Fact: the application indicates the race will be held the last week in April through the first two weeks of May; the height of the annual migration of birds is right at that time; while the Cordova and Homer Festivals were held May 5-8 in 2011, the migration starts and ends before and after those dates; there are many internationally significant bird areas and colonies along the route. (See Alaska Audubon letter for details.)

Question: how will DNR protect these world-class, world-wide resources ?

1. Fact: anecdotal data gathered by ADF & G for thirty years, between 1969-2008, shows that ice breaks up in Iliamna Lake any where from April 11th to June 16th; the data for the latest years, 2004-2008, shows breakup from May 12 to May 19.

Question: what contingency is in place should the lake be frozen at the time the racers arrive ?

1. Fact: the application indicates that racers will take a safety break about every 50 miles or so.

Question: what will prevent racers from going onto lands above the mean high tide line? who will monitor ? how can DNR and the other public land owners be assured that racers will not disturb nesting birds or other wildlife ?  won’t each intrusion require a permit from the land owner ? will racers observe the requirements for handling human waste on state lands ?

As is clear from these comments, AQRC believes DNR should deny this permit.  We believe the known, obvious risks, the many unknowns and the vast potential for far-reaching harm to Alaska’s lands, waters and wildlife mandate that the permit for this race be denied.  In our opinion, there are too many unknown factors for DNR, to even attempt to weigh risks vs. benefits, much less conclude that awarding this permit would be in the state’s interest.

Further, it is our hope that DNR will not simply take the easy way out:  granting this permit on the grounds that, yes, there are problems, impacts and many, many unknowns but the race will start small and the impact issues can be worked out as Mr. Lang and company learn over several race cycles. In our opinion, DNR must assume from the beginning that 1000 jet ski racers are participating and calculate those impacts.  DNR must take fully into account that this is a competitive race, which will inevitably lead to racers making poor decisions, being sloppy in handling refueling and paying no attention to their impacts on the land, water and wildlife. We all know that once a permit is granted it is highly unlikely DNR would rescind it (without a horrific incident), even if DNR realizes it miscalculated the consequences, for that would require decision makers to acknowledge faulty judgment.

Finally, if despite our urging DNR considers granting this permit, we recommend it require the following stipulations at the very least:

grant a year-to-year permit only and conduct a full public assessment annually,  prior to any consideration to renew;

only allow professional racers; not amateurs who, we assume, are much more likely to get into trouble and require rescue, damage wildlife, etc.;

require a letter signed by the mayor, city manager or tribal chief from every checkpoint that details what accommodations (for sleeping, eating, refueling, bathroom facilities) are available for 1000 jet ski racers and that these entities welcome 1000 participants;

require a letter signed by each harbor master of the various checkpoints detailing the adequacy of their facilities for re-fueling and docking for 1000 racers;

set the amount of the required bond of at least $1,000,000 to cover state costs of rescue and habitat and wildlife damage.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

Sincerely yours,

Susan Olsen, President

Alaska Quiet Rights Coalition

Director’s Office

Division of Mining, Land and Water

Attn: Joseph Joyner

550 W 7th Ave., Suite 1070

Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3579

Re: Proposed Regulations for the Hatcher Pass Special Use Area

Dear Mr. Joyner:

The Alaska Quiet Rights Coalition (AQRC) submits the following comments on the proposed regulation changes that will apply to the revised Hatcher Pass Management Plan adopted in 2010.

AQRC would like to thank you for accepting our request to extend the comment period for an additional two weeks.

We will be addressing the following issues listed below.

• Commercial motorized recreation
• Winter motorized recreation in non-motorized units
• Predetermined dates for seasons
• Another special use
• Sufficient snow depth
• Camping

Commercial motorized recreation – Section (A) (F)(ii)

It is disappointing and disingenuous to discover that motorized commercial recreation will be permitted in the designated non-motorized (year) areas of Mile 16, Government Peak, Independence, & portions of Reed lakes/Little Susitna and Archangel Units.  In addition, Summit Lake State Recreation Site, the High Glacier Peaks, the Government Peak, the Independence, and portions of the Archangel and Reed Lakes/Little Susitna units will have the option for permitted commercial winter motorized recreation.  These options were not discussed or presented during the public process.  The proposed regulations allowing commercial motorized recreation in designated non-motorized areas amounts to these units being destined as multi-use areas.  What is the point of having designated non-motorized units if they will be invaded by commercial motorized recreation?  Is there a list of commercial motorized recreation activities?  If so, where?

These permits will be issued by DNR with no public process or input.  In reviewing the recently adopted Hatcher Pass Management Plan, we find one reference in Chapter 4 4-3 and there it states there are specific stipulations designed to manage winter commercial activities.  We reviewed 11 AAC 96.014(b)(3) and find no such stipulations.  A phone call to a DNR staff person to inquire where the stipulations might be found elicited the answer that it probably didn’t make it into the 2002 regulations.  However, this citation that there are stipulations is in the newly adopted Hatcher Pass Management Plan 2010.

This looks like an end run around designated non-motorized recreation areas.  DNR needs to eliminate permitting commercial motorized recreation in non-motorized areas.  If DNR arbitrarily decides to go forward with this we strongly believe there should be specific lists, criteria and stipulations for this invasion.  We also recommend a public process before permits are issued.  We want to point out also that there is no mention of the West side so we can only assume “anything goes” there.

Winter motorized recreation in non-motorized units – Section F

The wording in this section, the units listed and the map reference are not well stated or clear. It could be interpreted that once there is sufficient snow cover, snowmobiles are allowed everywhere in those units.  The term “portions” is mentioned in the Archangel and Reed Lakes/Little Susitna units but not in the other units.  Snowmobile access is not allowed in most of the Independence or Government Peak units but that is not clear in this section. The maps provided for the proposed regulations are also not clear in defining the “portions” of units.  Again, this leads one to the conclusion that snowmobile access will be allowed everywhere despite the designated non-motorized units in the Hatcher Pass Management Plan 2010.

Predetermined dates for seasons – Sections (D) (E) (F) (G)

It is very problematic to set dates for seasons in stone within the regulations.  Seasonal weather patterns are ever changing.  For instance, in Section D motorized vehicle use is prohibited only between May 1 and August 1 and this unit has been classified as non-motorized summer.  Summer may be earlier or last longer than these dates.  The same holds true for dates assigned in the other units.  There should be some flexibility and criteria for when and where motorized activities can occur in these units summer or winter that is not driven by dates.  It would be difficult to enforce regulations to protect the habitat and environment if a motorized activity happened before or after these dates.

Another special use – Section (D)

This needs to be defined.  What is another special use? Where is it defined?  DNR is making this determination without any criteria or lists of examples.  For example, can a busload of photographers descend on the tundra to view nesting birds?  What if there are disabled photographers that would need “special access” via ATV?  How many photographers? How many buses?  It seems that the department has much latitude in determining what may/may not negatively affect bird nesting in the Bald Mountain Ridge Habitat Area.  Of course, the Bald Mountain Ridge Habitat area is on the West side so perhaps anything will be “another special use.”

Sufficient snow depth – Section (F)

This needs to be defined in some manner.  What is the depth of snow cover that is sufficient to protect the underlying vegetation?  What department determines this and what are the criteria?   Is it Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation (DPOR)? At the very least there should be standards.  It is our understanding that there are standards/guidelines established that DPOR uses in various State Parks.  This was verified in a conversation with State Parks personnel. They should be referred to in the regulations and published so the public knows what they are.  DNR had no problem assigning a number of 6” to ATV’s pertaining to how deep ATV/ORV wheels are allowed to “sink in” and damage habitat in the Knik River Public Use Area.  Regulations need to be specific in order to be consistent for land managers and the public.

Camping – Section (H)(ii)

What is the language of this section stating?  That you can camp within ¼ mile of the right of way of a road or trail or that you cannot?  The language needs to be more clear and specific.  Will enforcement personnel be patrolling the roads and trails with tape measures looking for campers within or outside of the right of way?  Will there be signs all along the trails?  Many people camp very near the Gold mint, Reed lakes trails and along Archangel Road.  The Hatcher Pass Management Plan area encompasses over 300,000 acres and this includes the West side.  These regulations are written only for units on the East side.  Why not apply them to the West side?  DNR keeps using the excuse that there isn’t enough management ability for enforcement on the West side, yet there is a plan that has policies that apply to it.  Meanwhile damage continues with no monitoring, oversight or mitigation on the west side. Shouldn’t some enforcement begin on the West side?  It could begin with some camping regulations.  We recommend that DNR clarify the proposed regulations for camping on the East side units and consider adopting some camping regulations for areas along the road on the West side.

In the Dear Alaskan letter introducing the proposed regulations the following statements are made that we feel merit some comments:

“After numerous contacts with individuals, as well as community groups including recent public planning meetings, the department has determined that certain activities currently being conducted within these areas are creating negative impacts on public land and waters, and in many cases create a negative or unsafe environment for other users of the area.”

Although many citizens and groups spoke out about the current conflicts and public safety issues between snowmachines and skiers, snowshoers, mushers and other non-motorized recreationists, it fell on deaf ears.  Instead, DNR chose to open existing non-motorized areas such as the Reed Valley to snowmachines despite their mention in the management plan that it could become a problem.  The opening of non-motorized areas to snowmachines will exacerbate the existing problems despite the proposed regulations.

“Furthermore, if adopted, these regulations will help the department reduce the costs of managing the use and abuse of the area, while creating a safer, more positive environment for the majority of users of the area.”

Opening additional areas for snowmachine recreation in the Reed Lakes Unit that were once non-motorized does not and will not reduce costs of management or make it easier for rangers to enforce boundaries.  The resources of DPOR are stretched so thin in Hatcher Pass it is difficult to enforce any regulations under the current older version of the Hatcher Pass Management Plan. The new plan is adding additional areas further into the backcountry and away from the road system.  One of the main goals of the plan was to make it easier for managers and safer for recreation users and the end result is the opposite.

AQRC strongly encourages DNR DMLW to clearly define the regulations as listed above.  Without clarity, enforcement becomes a “he said, she said” situation that will most likely wind up in litigation.  Again we would like to express our extreme disappointment in allowing permits to be granted for commercial motorized recreation in designated non-motorized areas and units.  What is the point in designating non-motorized units if you will allow motorized activities?  The whole purpose of non-motorized units was to grant quiet, safe places with minimal or no conflicts for people to enjoy.

In closing, we thank you for the opportunity to comment and hope you will revise the regulations to address our concerns and correct the deficiencies and vague language.

Kathy Wells

Member, Board of Directors

Alaska Quiet Rights Coalition

PO Box 202596

Anchorage, AK 99516

September 19, 2011

Monica Alvarez, Project Manager

Chugach State Park Planning

550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1050

Anchorage, AK 99501-3579

Dear Ms. Alvarez:

The purpose of this letter is to offer the comments of the Alaska Quiet Rights Coalition (AQRC) on the Public Review Draft of the Chugach State Park Management Plan (Plan). Many of our members and supporters are frequent users of Chugach State Park and value its sense of wildness, presence of wildlife and the fact that it is largely non-motorized. As you may recall, AQRC has submitted comments on each phase of this planning effort:  May 28, 2008 on scoping; May 28, 2008 on draft goals and objectives; October 13, 2009 on the draft Trail Management Plan and April 30, 2010 on the draft Access Plan. We have recently review the issue response summary released for the Trail Management Plan. Unfortunately, we find that many of our earlier critical comments need to be repeated in the review of this Plan.

As a statewide, nonprofit organization, AQRC is dedicated to protecting the rights of Alaskans to quiet places for the benefit of public land users, home and cabin owners, communities, businesses, wildlife, visitors and future generations. We believe natural quiet and natural sounds are resources of Chugach State Park which are to be treasured and preserved like other resources of our public lands such as clean water, scenic beauty and clean water. We find that in most cases multi-use trails do not work for the non-motorized user and we advocate for separate trails and areas to be reserved for the non-motorized recreationist. We seek to work with public land managers to insure that they provide a fair and balanced allocation of recreational opportunities for the non-motorized as well as the motorized recreationists.

As an overall matter we appreciate the fact that this proposed Plan does not revise in any significant manner the original designation of areas open or closed to snowmachines or ORVs. We also appreciate the discussion concerning the experience the non-motorized user of the park expects. Too often land use plans ignore or fail to recognize the importance of the non-motorized user’s experience and, consequently, continue to promote unworkable multiuse trails or areas.

However, we are very critical concerning four fundamental aspects of this Plan: (a) we do not think that the Park Goals and Objectives adequately reflect the statutory purposes for which the park was formed, they are internally inconsistent and fail, we believe, to adequately  acknowledge that protection of the resource  is a paramount responsibility (it is implicit that a “special purpose site” under the state Constitution be managed and maintained for future generations); (b) the Plan totally lacks any data and analysis of that data so that it is not possible to determine whether this trail, this proposed facility or this policy will meet the need expressed; (c) priorities are not identified in any meaningful way and (d) Chapter 5 Guidelines appear to weaken the protections to be afforded Wilderness.

A) Goals and Objectives:

Recreation Goal: providing “ …opportunities and …facilities to keep pace with the needs and diversity of Alaskans and visitors” implies that any kind and any amount of activity is apparently acceptable without acknowledging that the park’s natural resouces are impacted by human use and that adverse impacts must be managed, controlled or prohibited by policies and management practice.  There is no mention of enforcement in this Plan or of putting in place systems to measure impacts, carrying capacity or limits of acceptable change. As stated, the goal contradicts the second line in the Chapter’s introduction “…to provide for a spectrum…while protecting park resources.” We find the first Objective-to provide for an equitable distribution of facilities and opportunities for “all capabilities”- to be overlay broad since it is not possible to provide an equitable distribution for “all capabilities”. In regard to the second Objective we question whether it is the role of a state park to promote “community health”; is this not more appropriate for a municipal facility?

Resource Goal: “Protect park resources to allow for diverse visitor experiences…” We believe that park resources need to be protected for their own sake, so that the  future user of the park can experience it in much the same way as the current user; so that the area set aside for a park still exists to offer a park experience. The second Objective reflects one of the statutory mandates for creating the park; it needs to stand by itself and does not fit under the goal as stated for”to… protect and provide a satisfactory water supply” is not part of a visitor’s experience or understanding. The third Objective”…encourage opportunities for wildlife viewing…” fails to meet the mandate of the enabling legislation which requires park managers “…to provide areas for the public display of local wildlife…” In recalling the recent wolverine debacle we would also argue that this statutory language is equal to any statutory language which directs ADF & G and urge DPOR to insist that wildlife in CSP be managed for park purposes. The fourth Objective appears to be the only reference to the wilderness aspect of this park as stated in the enabling legislation. We object to the wording on the grounds that substituting the word “Minimize” for “protect” significantly understates the statutory mandate ”… to protect the existing wilderness characteristics…”

Access Goal: We find the goal “:..for the benefit of all Alaskans and visitors” to be overly broad which the second Objective appears to acknowledge with its reference to “balance”. It well may be that certain access points will need to be shut down when over-capacity. However, in the absence of any discussion or analysis of visitation figures, or what would constitute being out of balance- such as an amount of resource damage or adverse visitor experience or other measures-we fail to see how this objective can be met.

B) Lack of data and analysis: We find it ironic that The Management and Staffing Efficiencies section indicates on page 74 that “Accurate assessment of park visitation patterns and recreational use…is necessary to accurately project future demand, and match commensurate facilities and services…” Our first question is why this data was not gathered during the planning period ? How can this plan guide management decisions for twenty years when DPOR lacks the basic data to inform managers as to how people, in what numbers, use the park today and the visitor trends for future years. Secondly, on what basis were the Trails Management and Access Plans constructed if the planning staff did not have access to accurate visitation data or surveys of how people recreated or wanted to

recreate ? How could the planning staff propose that a certain new trail be constructed or that it would meet a need or that improving a certain access point would help disburse need from overcrowded access points ?   Similarly, we question why this plan does not include the “staffing analysis” suggested on page 72. DOPR staff knows full well, as indicated in the wording used in the Staffing Needs, Management Objectives and Justification columns on page 73, that the positions listed will be difficult to establish. If easy, the park would already have an adequate number of rangers, etc. Using “several” to identify needed ranger staffing demonstrates why this information should have been gathered during the planning period.

C) Lack of specific priorities: Chapter 7: Implementation loosely identifies priorities:  access (with the Glen Alps Trailhead listed as a “major implementation priority”); maintenace of the existing trail network and “providing additional recreational opportunities”.No cost estimates are included. Virtually the only hard figure cited in the entire Plan is that DPOR’s deferred maintenance for park facilities amounts to $60,000,000 with CSP having the largest amount, of approximately $7,000,000.  Why is deferred maintenance not identified as a priority in this Plan, ahead of construction of new trails or facilities ? We recommend that this be adopted. While this Chapter makes the case that specific phased project steps are more appropriately dealt with in the site planning phase than in a broad management plan, we note that the discussion of future site planning does not indicate when, or if, the public will be involved. For example, the redesign of the Upper Huffman Trailhead did not include an opportunity for  public to comment; it is critical that the proposed road project up to Glen Alps have a robust public comment period.

D) Specific comments on Chapter 5 Guidelines

Table 5.1: Resource Management:

Timber Sales: We object to allowing “Timber Sales” in the Wilderness area as such would involve motorized means to get the timber out in order for commercial interests to be involved.

Table 5.2 Public Uses:

Snowmobiles: We object to the broad, and vague, authorization which would allow snowmobiles in the Wilderness if use was in support of “other permitted activities”. For example, doesn’t mean that snowmachiners engaged in trapping or hunting could go into the Wilderness on their machines ?

Bicycles: change 11 AAC 20.040 to 20.050;  we object to bicycles being allowed into the wilderness area, regardless of whether or not resource impacts would occur, because it would be introducing a mechanical device into an area where man is expected to be on foot. Since there are few, if any, hardened paths and roads in the wilderness area, any use of bicycles in wet weather will cause resource damage which DOPR would be unaware of since the rangers lack the capacity to patrol the Wilderness area.

Motorized Equipment: change wording under Wilderness to “Compatible if managed by DPOR”.

Dog Sledding: we do not agree that dog sledding is compatible in the Recreation Development area because of safety issues and conflicts resulting from a dog sled team moving on the same trails and in the same area as the many human recreationists.

Table 5.3: Other Uses:

Outdoor and/or Military Training, Drills or Exercises: we believe such activities are not compatible in Wilderness at any time when the legislative directive is to “protect the existing wilderness characteristics”.

Organized Events: We do not believe that organized events belong in the Wilderness area and moreover, in the absence of a state statutory or regulatory definition of “wilderness”, we question how DPOR can judge whether a proposed event is “consistent with the values of the area.”

Table 5.4 Facilities:

Improved Campsites: We do not believe the improved campsite facilities belong in the Wilderness area for they would undercut the values of the Wlderness area, such as primitive recreational opportunities, as set forth in the Purpose & Characteristics section of Chapter 5;

Public Use Cabins, Yurts, and Shelters: for the same reason as cited above, we object to allowing such facilities to be build in the Wilderness area;

Trails: We object to considering trails of any nature to be allowed in the Wilderness area since one of the chief values of the Wilderness area is the notion that one is alone and must rely on one’s own abilities in the face of physical and mental challenges. Having a trail to follow takes away the need to rely on one’s own abilities.

We also wish to urge park planners to use caution in planning the location for an RV campground in Bird Valley (ID 103, Chapter 6: Turnagain Arm Planning Unit) to insure that the location would not encourage or permit motorized uses in the Wilderness area.

Table 5.5: Commercial Uses:

Resource Extraction by State Parks: We fail to see how resource extraction could be conducted without the introduction of motorized transportation in the Wilderness area and therefore object to this provision.

E) Our final comments express AQRC’s opposition to the construction of the proposed road from the Upper Huffman Trailhead to the Glen Alps Trailhead as outlined in Chapter 6: Hillside Planning Unit. The concept plan shows construction of a 2 1/2 mile road with six satellite parking lots which would accommodate approximately 260 parking spaces. The road would be plowed in the winter and, once completed, would be the only vehicular access to the Glen Alps Trailhead. What is proposed is a far cry from the original proposal in the 1980 Master Plan. That called for a 1/2 mile road to be constructed from the Upper Huffman Trailhead out to the existing road (which was the Gas Line maintenance road). The current proposal makes no use of the existing Gas Line trail, but instead would lay bare a 2 1/2 mile by 100 foot (minimal) swath, bring major construction activity into CSP and scatter the wildlife.

The noise, dust, erosion, disruption and visual impact  (for one, two or three ? construction seasons) created by this industrial-type activity in a wilderness-type setting would drive out the current users as well as the wildlife. The effect of the noise and sight of the traffic on the completed road-think how far noise travels in winter-will continue to adversely affect the local trail user and, in essence, destroy this section of the local and the formal trails in CSP. Using these trails would be like recreating in an urban setting, next to a highway.

We understand that the underlying purpose for this proposal is to “fix” the parking problem at Glen Alps when in summer the parking lot fills up and later visitors have nowhere to park. However, all this proposal really does is to move the parking problem from one side of the Glen Alps Trailhead to the other side. It will not necessarily disburse use. Won’t the same number of  people still want to climb Flattop, view the city from the observation platform or be in an “alpine” area ?  The underlying premise seems to be that folks, once they have parked in one of the six lots, will simply get out of their cars and either walk up to the Glen Alps Trailhead or choose to explore one of the adjacent Hillside trails without having to go through the Glen Alps Trailhead. How will this meet the need of the somewhat infirm visitor who just wants the unobstructed view from the overlook ? Or maybe the hope is that many folks will just be satisfied with the view from the Upper Huffman Trailhead or use those trails so fewer cars would try to go further

As previously discussed, this Plan contains no statistics, surveys or analysis. Accordingly, DPOR has no way to know, or even guess, whether this proposal will “fix” the current parking problem. In view of all the adverse affects this construction would cause to the park, current users of the area, wildlife and the total uncertainty that this proposal will even come close to solving this particular parking issue, AQRC is unequivocally opposed to this proposal.

We believe there are far-less disruptive alternatives that DPOR should consider before authorizing this major construction project within a state park: a (different, cheaper) shuttle service during the summer or work with the heir of the Indian allotment to acquire lands adjacent to the park for additional parking.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

Sincerely yours,

Susan Olsen, President

Alaska Quiet Rights Coalition

P.O. Box 202592

Anchorage, AK 99520

September 15, 2011

Dear Kachemak Bay State Park and State Wilderness Park Citizens’ Advisory Board members:

The purpose of this letter is to state the Alaska Quiet Right Coalition’s (AQRC) continuing support of the regulatory bans prohibiting personal watercraft use in the waters of the parks and in the Kachemak Bay and Fox River Flats Chritical Habitat Areas. We believe the determination by both DNR and ADF & G that such use was incompatible with the values for which these lands and waters were legislatively designated was, and is, correct based on the adverse effects personal watercraft has on wildlife, including fish and birds, and wildlife habitat. AQRC participated in the original efforts byThe Kachemak Bay Coalition to achieve the bans and subsequent regulatory prohibitions and continues to oppose the entry of personal watercraft into the waters of Kachemak Bay.

AQRC is a non-profit organization with members and supporters from throughout Alaska. We believe natural sounds and natural quiet are resouces of our public lands (and waters) which deserve protection by managers. We are particularly concerned with the adverse effects the noise created by motorized recreationists has on the quiet recreationist. We believe that in most circumstances, multi-use of the same areas or trails does not work for the non-motorized recreationist and we advocate that separate areas and trails be set aside for non-motorized and motorized recreationists. Moreover, personal watercraft use in the same area as non-motorized recreationists, such as kayakers, can create safety hazards due to the wake.

While it well may be that new models of personal watercraft emit less pollution to the air and water and create less noise, this does not mean that such “thrill” machines will be operated in a manner compatible to the values for which these lands and water were set aside by the legislature. The very nature of the machine is to create an exciting ride which, by bouncing through the waves, causes loud and uneven levels of noise as the the machine is operated at differing speeds. Moreover, the ability of the machine, whether old or new, to operate in very shallow water means it can enter areas, otherwise not disturbed by any watercraft or  noise, to the detriment of the wildlife existing in such places. Finally, of course, the obvious problem is that everyone seeking to use their jet ski in Kachemak Bay will not have the latest models of personal watercraft. We assume that advocates for lifting the ban may  argue it could be lifted for new machines only. In view of the lack of enfocement rangers,AQRC believes it is out of the question to even consider such a proposal.

Finally, AQRC wishes to comment on the allegation that somehow prohibiting the use of personal watercraft in a particular area amounts to discrimination since the operator cannot access that particular area on the machine of her/his choice.  The only “ discrimination” is against the means by which access is sought; not against the individual who is free to access the area, but by different means.

Thank you for this opportunity to voice AQRC’s continuing support of the current regulatory bans prohibiting the use of personal watercraft in this unique, beautiful and quiet area: world-renowned for its birding, its shorebird festival and its inclusion in the Westrern Hemisphere Shorebird Network.

Please provide this letter to all members of the parks’ Citizens’ Advisory Board.

Sincerely yours,

Susan Olsen, President

Alaska Quiet Rights Coalition

PO Box 202592

Anchorage, AK 99520

The following are the comments of the Alaska Quiet Rights Coalition (AQRC) on the proposed action package for the Kennecott Operations Plan.

AQRC is dedicated to protecting the rights of Alaskans to quiet places for the benefit of public land users, home and cabin owners, communities, businesses, wildlife, visitors, and future generations.  We believe that natural quiet and natural sounds–the natural soundscape–should be recognized by all public land managers as critical resources in and of themselves that deserve no less consideration than, for example, clean air and water or fish and wildlife and their habitat.  We also believe in a fair and balanced allocation of the public lands for both non-motorized and motorized recreation.  Since motorized recreation in Alaska occurs on nearly all of the millions of acres of general state lands and extensively (which we believe is unreasonable and inequitable) on BLM, National Forest, and National Wildlife Refuge land, we believe it should at least be prohibited on all designated Wilderness and National Park Service lands.

Since our focus is narrow, we will be commenting primarily on the Access/Transportation portion of the proposed action package.  However, we were very happy to see the brief section on the Natural Soundscape.  We urge the Park Service to take the protection, and where necessary, restoration, of this resource seriously, and not just pay lip service to it.  The Service has been, and hopefully will continue to be, a leader in this field.  In this regard, we will of course be interested in the answer to the question raised at the July 13 Kennecott Rec Hall public meeting:  ”What is the current sound monitoring happening in the WRST?”.  We also noticed in the minutes of that meeting that there seemed to be substantial concern about the noise of generators and compressors.  We hope this noise can be reduced to a very low level–and meeting legal “sound requirements” is not always a satisfactory solution.  Efforts should be made to reduce the noise to an acceptable level, which could be lower than that required by existing laws or regulations.

Regarding Access/Transportation, we support what we believe we see in the proposed action package.  We certainly support providing pedestrian visitor access, and the proposed new non-motorized trail.  We recognize that landowners use subdivision easements and the road from McCarthy for transportation, and that motorized use for access to subsistence resources is generally allowed under ANILCA.  We do believe, however, that those uses should be monitored and should be regulated if necessary to eliminate unnecessary damage, or to reasonably minimize damage, to soils, vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat, air and water quality, scenic beauty, the Natural Soundscape, and other important resources.

We do not support, as we said in introducing AQRC, the recreational use of off-road vehicles in any units of the National Park System; this certainly includes the Kennecott Mines National Historic Landmark (KMNHL).

Most of AQRC’s work probably addresses the management of recreational motorized vehicles on public land in the backcountry or in other natural areas.  We seek a fair and balanced allocation of non-motorized and motorized recreational opportunities on the public lands for the benefit of both recreationists seeking a quiet refuge and resources like the ones listed above.  But we of course also feel very strongly that people have a right to the quiet enjoyment of their homes.  Residents of McCarthy and Kennecott should not have to suffer the noisy intrusion of recreational ORVs.

Additionally, Kennecott/McCarthy is probably the major gateway to Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve for visitors to our state.  We feel very confident that they do not expect or desire to be subject to the noise and fumes of recreational ORV use.  In fact, although the focus of KMNHL is of course cultural history, natural history is also a significant attraction for visitors.  When a few years ago my sister, brother-in-law and I were enjoying a ranger led natural history walk, the visitors on the walk were surprised–and not happy–to see and hear ORVs on the trail while we were listening to the ranger’s excellent interpretive talk.  With millions of acres of state and federal land in the Copper Valley available for, in most places, virtually unregulated recreational ORV use, there is no good justification for allowing it in the 7,700 acres of this historic landmark.

Thank you very much for the chance to offer these comments relating to NPS’s plan for such a very important, and very popular, site.

Sincerely,

Cliff Eames

Member, Board of Directors

Alaska Quiet Rights Coalition

–