BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

GLENNALLEN FIELD OFFICE

P.O.BOX 147

GLENNALLEN, AK 99588

Office: 907-822-7311

Fax: 907-822-7335

Dear Denton Hamby,

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on Denali Air’s request for a Special Recreation Use Permit (SRUP) for scenic glacier landings using ski equipped fixed wing aircraft on portions of the Yanert and Gillian Glaciers near Mt. Deborah.

The Alaska Quiet Rights Coalition is a state-wide, non-profit organization with approximately 500 members/supporters which seeks to maintain quiet places for Alaskans and its wildlife on public lands.   AQRC’s vision statement is: “Alaska is a place where people appreciate and protect natural quiet and natural sounds”. Our mission statement reads: “The mission of AQRC is to maintain and restore natural sounds and natural quiet in Alaska through advocacy and education for the benefit of people and wildlife.”  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.

AQRC is concerned with the impacts that the sound of multiple flights a day to the glacier landing zones will have along the flight path to both wildlife and people.  Flightseeing has become very popular over Denali National Park and Preserve (DNP&P) with thousands of tourists taking flights.  Air taxi services with a concession permit to operate in DNP&P are authorized to land flightseers at glacier landing “portals” within the park.  During the 2010 summer season (mid May to mid September)  13,000 tourists were landed at these glacier landing “portals”.  An estimated 60,000 went on a scenic flight over the park that did not include a landing. The view of the Alaska Range peaks and glaciers is truly remarkable from the air, but the result of all the air activity is that the mountaineers, backpackers and wildlife on the ground are no longer hearing a natural soundscape.  During clear weather the sound of aircraft can be heard on an almost continuous basis for nearly half the day.  Currently there are ongoing efforts to initiate voluntary procedures called “best practices”  that the air taxi services will agree to use.  These procedures will help to mitigate, in selected areas, conflicts between those traveling through the park on the ground and those experiencing it from the air.  ARQC does not believe it is desirable to have the heavy aircraft activity that DNP&P receives to spread to other regions of the Alaska Range.

It is important that the Yanert valley and mountains between the Parks Highway and Mt. Deborah do not receive the intense air traffic that is being experienced over DNP&P.  The best way to accomplish this is to:

-  Keep the number of landings to a minimum.

- Limit the number of landings to 2 per day total  (Not at each landing zone, but all the landing zones combined).

- Issue only one SRUP in the area for glacier landings of any kind (fixed wing aircraft or helicopter).

-  Require air taxi operators to use the quietest props and mufflers available for their aircraft.

-  Identify critical habitat for Dall sheep spring lambing, caribou calving, etc.  before issuing a SRUP and require that these areas be avoided during the appropriate time of year.

-  Establish minimum above ground level altitudes for flights that will protect wildlife from stress and reduce the sound of aircraft to people on the ground.

-  The military has proposed airspace training areas.  The JPARC EIS draft is scheduled to be released the end of March.  BLM should take into account the aggregated impacts that military flights will have on the area that Denali Air is proposing to operate.

AQRC understands that at this time BLM has issued no other SRUP’s authorizing  commercial fixed wing aircraft or helicopter landings in the Mt. Deborah area.  If the State of Alaska has lands in the area that may be conducive for glacier landing activities please research if the State has issued any commercial use permits for such activity.  It is important to know how many other flights and landings may be taking place in the area already.

Please take the necessary precautions when issuing a SRUP for Denali Air’s proposed activities to protect wildlife and to ensure that people seeking a wilderness experience will have that opportunity  on BLM lands.  The only way to ensure the quality of the natural soundscape is to limit or not allow mechanical noise events.

Sincerely,

Brian Okonek

Vice President

Alaska Quiet Rights Coalition

Governor Sean Parnell

Alaska State Capital Building

P.O. Box 110001

Juneau, AK 99811-0001

Commissioner Daniel S. Sullivan

Dept. of Natural Resources

550 W. 7th Ave., Suite 1400

Anchorage, AK 99501

Dear Governor Parnell and Commissioner Sullivan:

The purpose of this letter is to express the objections of the Alaska Quiet Rights Coalition (AQRC) to the changes made by Commissioner Sullivan in the wording of the Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) mission statement.

The previous mission statement sets forth the concept of two different balances among competing interests: first, how to use Alaska’s natural resources and, secondly, who is  to be the beneficiary. The “use” concept incorporates three distinct policy objectives: to develop, to conserve and to enhance while the “benefits” concept includes two distinct beneficiaries: existing and future Alaskans.

In contrast, the new wording eliminates all concept of balance among “uses” or between “beneficiaries”. It sets forth a single concept of “use”- “to develop…for maximum use and benefit”. While the phrase “consistent with the public interest” could be interpreted to allow natural resources to be reserved for the use of future Alaskans, that is a matter of interpretation; not a clear mandate.

AQRC believes the change in the wording of the mission statement represents a major policy switch which may well lie beyond the authority of the Executive Branch.

AQRC is a state-wide, non-profit organization with approximately 500 members/supporters which seeks to maintain quiet places for Alaskans and its wildlife on public lands. We object to the changes in DNR’s mission statement for we believe they significantly impact both the very resource values of our public lands which AQRC seeks to maintain and protect and the beneficiaries of those resources.  AQRC’s vision statement is: “Alaska is a place where people appreciate and protect natural quiet and natural sounds”. Our mission statement reads: “The mission of AQRC is to maintain and restore natural sounds and natural quiet in Alaska through advocacy and education for the benefit of people and wildlife.” We believe the new wording with its singular focus on “develop now” is not compatible with the breadth of the resource values embodied in the state’s public lands.

AQRC requests that you rescind the changes to the wording of DNR’s mission statement.

Sincerely yours,

Susan Olsen, President

Alaska Quiet Rights Coalition

P.O. Box 202592

Anchorage, AK 99520

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