Public Comments about endangered
Misty Fiords Wilderness
Misty Fiords National Monument forum
From: Rob
Date: 09 Jan 2000
We will be posting the Public Comments received by our office in
order to fully inform the Public. The first three, from the U.S.Forest
Service, the Macintosh Foundation, SEACC-Southeast Alaska Conservation
Council will be posted in about 10 days. Don't miss this excellent,
detailed read.
Date: 17 Jan 2000
From: Rob
Public Comments are now posted on the correspondence page for your
information. More will be posted as they become available. Without
question the posted comments reflect a legitimate, definitive, legal
assertion that Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises is and has been operating beyond
the boundries of lawful, ecologically responsible, and environmentally
sensitive behavoir. This website opinion was, at first, scoffed at by
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises supporters due to the proliferation of putrid
rhetoric supplied to the public through the media via the
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises "spin machine", Joe Beedle and Susan Bell. Now,
through educating the public with the indisputable TRUTH and the
supporting analysis from the Federal and State Government along with the
legal establishment, and the environmental community, we stand united in
the opinion that Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises floating dock must be
permanently removed from Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness Area.
This is what I have resolved to accomplish through presentation of the
truth in search of justice. Thanks to all who have supported us. Stick
with us...there is still a ways to go!
Public Comment for Goldbelt Alaska Cruises Permit
Application...
From: Rob
Date: 12 Jan 2000
The public comment period for the permit application is now closed!
A review is being conducted by the Army Corp and will convene shortly.
Also, a public hearing has been requested to be held in Ketchikan. The
date will also be announced shortly. Keep checking in for details!
Wilderness Specialist Opinion
From: RPC
Date: 17 Jan 2000
This communication was filed with the U.S. Forest Service and made
public via FOIA request! The author is a Wilderness Specialist for Misty
Fiords. Rob
Date: July 8, 1999
To All It May Concern:
Issues: Management Jurisdiction over saltwater and air space? Nobody
seems to want to pin this down and assume responsibility. As far as I
can tell from all the maps I've looked at, the Misty Fiords National
Monument Wilderness (MFNMW) boundary encompasses salt water, thus making
it part of the monument wilderness in my mind. Is the marine environment
any less critical to protect and preserve than the surrounding land
known as MFNMW? It's been my experience on the many tour ships I've had
the pleasure to board, and interact with crew and passengers, that once
within the monument wilderness boundary, everyone is informed that they
have now entered into MFNMW. This indicates to me that others also
believe that the saltwater is in fact a part of the whole, of the
monument wilderness. This is especially important to those wishing to
sell this idea as something special. It is only when a wilderness talk
is given by a Forest Service Interpreter that an attempt is made to
clarify the jurisdiction issues with the public; which usually creates
confusion and curiosity as to the reasoning behind this dilemma.
Assuming the State is responsible for the jurisdiction of saltwater
could they not be persuaded to consider the marine environment as an
important element to the whole of MFNMW, to manage it jointly with the
Forest Service and the public for its protection and preservation? The
same could be said about the air space and the FAA. As for the floating
dock(s) in Rudyerd Bay or anywhere else within the monument wilderness
for that matter, it is not the docks themselves that is the primary
issue for the management of wilderness. It is what the docks attract
that provides the dominant impacts to the land and its inhabitants, to
the elements of solitude, peace and quiet, and the many values intended
for the protection and preservation of wilderness. Which now brings us
to the topic of management jurisdiction over air space? It has always
been stated to me that the Federal Aviation Association (FAA) is
responsible for all air space. But I've always wondered if it is the air
space itself or the air traffic within that space that they are actually
responsible for. Possibly, questions better left unanswered, until they
have to be decided in a court of law. However, if you look at air space
that occupies a medium above a piece of ground what exactly is the
limitation as to how far up into that space you are allowed to build a
structure? Or own or occupy? For example: in a lot of major cities
around the country old buildings are often destroyed so new skyscraper
type buildings can be erected, occupying yet more and more air space as
the buildings go higher and higher. I've heard rumors that in a lot of
major cities around the country air space above many buildings is
actually "for sale"? Who exactly do you purchase this air space from?
The owner of the land beneath it or the FAA? In either case it would
seem that the air space above a piece of ground can be owned, bought,
and sold.... If this is indeed the case which I'm quite sure it is, it
makes sense to me that the same would hold true for air space above
MFNMW. The owners of this land ie. the public, and the agency
responsible for its stewardship ie. the Forest Service would seem likely
to carry the lead on determining the extent of traffic of all kinds
within the Monument Wilderness, land, water, and air. I am also of the
opinion that the other agencies that have some jurisdiction
responsibility within the Monument Wilderness boundaries would be
willing to offer their assistance once they are made aware of the
issues. However, I can't personally say they have been made aware of the
issues surrounding wilderness. Finding out the facts behind this
circumstance might help us to solve this jurisdiction dilemma. I wonder
also how high above the tops of buildings must an aircraft fly to meet
minimum safety standards.... It seems if we research the answer to these
questions we will be on the right track to answering our own concerns
regarding air space over MFNMW. These points will surely be raised in a
court of law on the issue of air space and salt water jurisdiction.
Hypothetically, let's think about the possibility of a monumental
disaster occurring on either salt water, say the sinking of a tour ship,
or within the air space above the monument, say a mid air collision? Who
exactly would be liable? The Forest Service, the State, the FAA, the
commercial vessel involved, or would we all just split the cost of this
multi-billion dollar lawsuit? I serious doubt that any one agency or
corporation would be willing to take on the entire burden when they have
the ability to point fingers at others. My guess is a class action suit
would be filed and all the participants would end up being responsible.
The Forest Service possibly more than any other, for knowing of the
threats for at least a decade and willfully ignoring them. Ambivalence
and perceived ignorance is not an excuse for incompetent management. You
know the families of all passengers would want to be compensated for the
lives of their loved ones.... Chances of anything ever happening are
slim, or so we hope, but they seem to be increasing with every passing
year. With more and more ships and more plane traffic it is inevitable
that a disaster will one day occur. It would be nice if it was clearly
stated who exactly will be responsible. Who will be perceived as the
incompetent managing agency, that has allowed air and tour ship traffic
to exist at such high levels in a monument wilderness? That has a
management objective and directive for preserving the qualities of
wildness, solitude and peace. These are questions that are better
answered now rather than later. Other issues include: * Effects on
wildlife - possible displacement and injury or death to animals due to
inadvertent harassment and increased ease of hunting. Intentions may be
good, but effec ts on wildlife can be damaging. (observed on occasion)
Effects on air quality - quality is compromised by smoke stacks and
other exhaust systems within the monument wilderness and from external
industrial sources. (at present this is not being monitored)
* Effects on water quality - fuel leaks, waste disposal, etc.... (at
present this is not being monitored) * Effects on solitude - while
enjoying the many splendors wild country has to offer. Fishing or
camping at a mountain lake under the barrage of constant flightseeing is
more like camping in the flight path of a major airport. The major
difference is people don't camp at airports for the purpose of solitude
(these are being recorded as encountered daily). * Effects on visual
quality - massive tour ships can obstruct entire viewshed at any time of
day for extended periods of time (these are being recorded as
encountered daily).
* Past docks - past docks have been anchored and left out indefinitely,
every winter breaking loose of their anchors and ending up scattered
along some beach. When salvageable they are reclaimed, repaired, and
reinstalled. When not reusable they are left as trash on the beach.
Often times we have claimed them as trash only to have them reclaimed by
the owner. This situation should have resulted in a citation to the
owners rather than restored goods. At present there is an old dock
beached at the head of Rudyerd (documented as encountered). * Misty
Barge - If the barge remains a conflict to what we are preaching then I
would contend that it be removed. We must be the example if we are going
to ask the public to follow our recommendations. If we are unwilling to
set the highest standards possible than we set ourselves up for failure.
The barge is not a necessary entity to our operations, it is purely a
luxury. It could be staged outside the wilderness boundary if it aids us
in our operations and housing concerns. But personally I believe that it
is an expensive, unnecessary facility that has always been a source of
argument, conflicting with our own wilderness values and practices. The
removal of the barge could easily be mitigated and would enable us to
divert money to accommodate these mitigations, thus trading maintenance
costs for jobs. At a minimum it should be anchored outside the
wilderness boundary. Staging our operations from town and providing
shuttle transportation to various work sites would be an easy trade-off
to make.
Summary: Ignoring the jurisdictional issues, in my opinion, does not
automatically remove the Forest Service from responsibility over the
happenings within the boundaries of MFNMW, land, sea, or air. Pure and
simple it is wilderness and some activities conflict with the management
of that resource. Ideally, cooperation between agencies and the public
would be the desirable solution rather than a battle over jurisdiction.
Opportunities for floating docks, aqua farms, and the like exist in
massive quantity outside the boundaries of wilderness. We need not
compromise the wildness of our crown gems unnecessarily. What is needed
is support for the idea of wilderness by the varying agencies, public,
and partners in the management of this important resource. Sincerely,
R.P.C.---Wilderness Specialist
Wilderness Ranger Observations and Opinions
From: EP
Date: 17 Jan 2000
This communication was filed with the U.S. Forest Service and made
public via FOIA request! The author is a Wilderness Ranger for Misty
Fiords. Rob
Date: Aug 4, 1999
Subject.- Goldbeit / Alaska Cruises application for dock permit in
Rudyerd Bay
To: Jerry Ingersoll, District Ranger, Misty Fiords National Monument
Mr. Ingersoll.,
As a Wilderness Ranger in the Misty Fiords National Monument, I work as
an interpreter on small cruise ships as they tour Rudyerd Bay and the
nearby portion of the Behm canal. Through my normal duties, I regularly
observe the activites of this tour operation, including their catamaran,
the Majestic Fjord, the dock in question and the floatplanes which meet
at the dock to perform the passenger exchange. After reading the
proposal and permit applications from the Goldbelt Corporation, I would
like to make several comments about their proposal: Goldbelt has claimed
that their planes fly in the Monument for a total of only 14 minutes--
seven minutes each way. This simply is not possible. On the most direct
flight path (over Ella lake), they must fly over a minimum of 8 miles of
the Misty Fiords Monument before even reaching the Behm canal. A direct
route to Rudyerd Bay would take them over 4 miles of salt water as they
cross the Behm canal. From the mouth of Rudyerd Bay, their float is 12
miles away. So a round trip, excluding the saltwater crossing, covers 40
miles of the monument. Both a landing and a take-off are part of this
round trip as well as associated taxiing for each. A chief pilot for
Taquan stated that the Beavers (smaller planes) fly at about 100 mph,
and climb at a speed of 80 mph. The larger Otters were reported to
travel at a rate of 125 mph, with 135 mph given as their top speed. It
is not my place to provide a replacement figure for the number of
minutes each plane spends in the Monument, but rather, to point out that
their impact is obviously being underestimated. As many as ten planes
must come and go from the dock to transfer a full load of passengers, so
there must be a succession of landings, taxiing and take-offs in
addition to the actual flying time. The noise of these planes is
probably the biggest impact this operation has on the area. In their
permit application materials, Goldbeft repeatedly states that the float
itself has little or no impact on the surrounding area, which is
marginally true. They do acknowledge that the noise pollution of the
planes is significant, however, I feel that they have downplayed that
effect. The dock is located in very close proximity to the largest
estuary in the entire bay (see Picutre #3: approach from NE river), and
they make their landing/approach down the river corridor itself. This
estuary is a site that would normally attract a wide range of wildlife,
from bears, wolves and deer to seals and eagles. The head of the bay is
surrounded by steep granite cliffs (frequented by mountain goats), so
the roar of these airplane engines echoes throughout the area. I often
find myself shouting to the tour boat passengers to be heard over the
planes in an attempt to explain to them that we are witnessing a
commercial enterprise that has no permit and claims to be having little
impact on the environment. In general, the passengers find this
situation appalling and are confused by our lack of jurisdiction. The
actual dock itself probably has very little direct impact on the animals
in the area, aside from providing an unnatural perch / haul-out for
birds and seals. Goldbelt's claim that the float is "virtually
invisible" (page 3 of the narrative in support of the permit
application) is not supported by the inevitable question from passengers
upon reaching the head of Rudyerd Bay, "What's that green floating
thing?". A full explanation of its use is necessary only if we have
arrived at a time when it is not being used. Goldbelt has taken
liberties in downplaying the effects of their current operation, in an
attempt to gain a permit/sanction for an ongoing activity that may well
be inappropriate for the environment. I am further dismayed by the
discovery that they are simultaneously maneuvering themselves into
position to double these activities in the future. In their tideland
permit application, they entered "370" as the estimated maximum number
of clients and employees who will use the site (question # 13). With a
passenger capacity of 90 and a crew of 5, this is an obvious attempt to
clear the way for doubling the current level of activity at the dock. To
me, even half of that number of people (the current level of use) in one
place in a remote wilderness area is in conflict with principles of
wilderness preservation. Twice that would be outrageous.
A few final matters deserve attention.
One is related to question # 15 of the tideland permit application;" Are
you aware of any archeological sites within one mile of the proposed
permit site?", to which they answered to no". I have yet to investigate
this myself, but it should be noted as a definite possibility,
considering that the dock is located very near to the largest
river/estuary in all of Rudyerd Bay. Another noteworthy fact is that
several sections of the old dock have been discarded in the grass near
the mouth of Rudyerd river. This does very little to convince me that
this group has the best interests of the wildlife and the monument on
their list of priorities. The final matter I wish to mention is that of
the other floating dock that this tour operator has placed in Rudyerd
Bay, a topic which has managed to avoid attention. This is a smaller
dock just east of Pt. Louise, near the mouth of Rudyerd Bay. Although
float planes generally do not tie up here, the Majestic Fjord uses this
dock to pick up and drop off other passengers, most noteably kayakers. I
imagine that this dock should be subjected to a similar process as the
big one at the back of the bay. Sincerely, E. P. Wilderness Ranger
From: rashmun
Date: 25 Jun 2001
thank you!
Request for Comment to The Wilderness Society!
From: Rob
Date: 19 Jan 2000
To: action Address: action@tws.org Subject: RE: Goldbelt/Alaska
Cruises permit application for 7000sq.ft. floating dock in Wilderness!!!
Date: January 11, 2000
You asked that I keep you informed.
Enclosed is the official Public Comment from the US Forest Service
regarding the Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises permit application for the 7000'
sq. ft. floating dock in Misty Fiords National Monument.
By virtue of your organization representing National Wilderness
interests it stands to reason you would have some opinion or "public
comment" on this issue. You have yet to provide me with any discussion
or statement as I have respectfully requested.You are sending me regular
Wild Alerts for my participation and I have responded responsibly. I
would appreciate reciprocating consideration on this issue.
I formally and respectfully request a comment regarding this issue from
your organization.
It is important for your response due to the number of inquiries I am
receiving regarding the claims of Wilderness advocacy by Goldbelt/Alaska
Cruises. The obvious conflicts between the documented, and officially
recognized unpermitted, illegal activities, and, the "Goals and
Guidelines" of Wilderness preservation, deserves your attention and
Public Comment!
People want to know where you stand!!!
Please respond promptly! I have more to offer, specifically the legal
Public Comment that addresses several procedural issues and violations
of Federal and State regulations.
Looking forward to hearing from you very soon!!!
Rob Friends of Misty Fiords Wilderness
http://www.mistyfiords.org
From: Rob
Date: 19 Jan 2000
To: action Address: action@tws.org
Subject: RE: Denali, Clean Water Act
comment periods
Date: January 19, 2000
---------------------------- I would like to comment on an apparent
inconsistency in your "Wilderness Alert" program! You have been
"alerting" my organization to your concerns requesting participation to
various wilderness issues and I have done so.
What concerns me is that I have for weeks contacted you for your
involvement with the Misty Fiords Wilderness issue and the Public
Comment period (which you FAILED to bring to the attention of the public
through your organization) and you have ignored putting this fast moving
"wilderness dilema" on the table.
It is now too late for your participation with the official Public
Comment, it closed Dec 21, 1999. Several evironmental org.'s and ours
have requested a public hearing to further comment on this issue.
Where are you folks?! Why have you ignored requests for your
participation in this wilderness issue?
Responsible wilderness advocates are anxious for your support and
participation with this issue. Soon it may be too late!!! Remember, the
public comment is "OVER" and it now goes to a public hearing!
Don't let this slip under your radar screen!!!
The consequences of this permit for increased the 7000+ sq. ft.
structure being approved will dramatically increase floatplane and
excursion traffic into the heart of wilderness bringing along with it
all the associated compromising activities.
Hundreds more tourists a day in one location, noise and water pollution,
conflicts with historically permitted users and approved use. All of
this would be accomplished by a corporation that has been operating
ILLEGALLY WITHOUT A PERMIT for 7 years.
Please direct your attention to this issue!!!
I am posting this message/request on our websites forum for public
comment. I will immediately post any message in support of your position
at your request.
Thank you and looking forward to hearing from you soon!
Rob Scherer
http://www.mistyfiords.org
No Comment!
From: Rob
Date: 11 Feb 2000
As of today, and after repeated request for a statement or opinion from
the Wilderness Society regarding this important issue, there has been
absolutely no word whatsoever. The Wilderness Society has totally
ignored the "Misty Fiords Wilderness issue". It is definitely NOT
because they are unaware of the situation, they have been fully
informed. Evidently Misty Fiords Wilderness does not support the high
profile political "incentive" that apparently motivates them. If they
ever respond to inquiries of support I will post them ASAP! For now it
appears they are not interested
Trying again for comment!
From: Rob-Alaska
Date: 18 Apr 2000
WILDERNESS ALERT!!!
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises has applied for essentially the identical permit
for their 7500 sq. ft. floating docks as before, the difference being
located in another area of Rudyerd Bay! Yes you heard and read
correctly...they want to locate the floating dock still well within the
boundaries of Misty Fiords National Monument! The new location is not
far from the old "illegal" location at the head of the bay. IT IS STILL
LOCATED WITHIN THE NATIONAL MONUMENT, STILL REPRESENTS A SEVERE
COMPROMISE OF THE INTENDED RECREATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC USES THAT
QUALIFIED THIS AREA TO GAIN THE STATUS AS A NATIONAL MONUMENT!!!! THE
INTENDED USES AND ASSCOCIATED ACTIVITIES VIOLATE IN EXTREME MEASURE THE
USFS TONGASS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, THE WILDERNESS ACT OF 1960 AND ANILCA!!!!!
Furthermore, the State of Alaska is ignoring their own agency directives
that require the State to acknowledge the status of the Monument as a
restricted area and that no floating structures should be allowed
adjacent to or within the Monument. The State DNR has concluded that it
is in the best interest of the State of Alaska to allow this structure
within Monument boundaries because "it presents significant economic
value to the tourism of Ketchikan!" and that this economic value
supersedes any and all benefits which may be gained by NOT allowing the
structure in wilderness! The only tourism businesses that benefit from
this situation is Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises and the 3 Floatplane
companies...that's it! All other tourism companies from kayaking to
scenic tours to wilderness outfitting has always suffered and will
continue to suffer at the hands of a very few wealthy, and politically
connected, greedy businessmen/corporations who's efforts will surely
plunder our National Monument Wilderness to meet their own selfish
needs!!! The facts will show there has been a systemic conspiracy of
immoral and illegal business pursuits and that the State of Alaska is
willing to put economic interests of 2 local businesses ahead of the
National interests of the American people that have proclaimed Misty
Fiords a National Monument/Wilderness area for the pursuits of remote
recreation, scientific study, and preservation of wilderness values!!!
I have notified your orgnanization several times regarding this issue
with NO RESPONSE by TWS! Your silence has been duly noted and documented
and may very well be a significant factor in the demise of Misty Fiord
National Monument! WHY? Because the State of Alaska has pushed approval
through State process with local businesses support and encouragement to
DEVELOP ECONOMIC INTERESTS IN MISTY FIORDS WILDERNESS THAT BENEFITS
LOCAL BUSINESS, this at the expense of other "wilderness friendly"
businesses and because of the LACK OF NATIONAL ATTENTION!!!
WITHOUT NATIONAL SUPPORT FOR OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS IN MISTY FIORDS
NATIONAL WILDERNESS, LOCAL BUSINESSES AND STATE INTERESTS WILL
PREVAIL!!!
WHERE ARE YOU PEOPLE!!!!!!!! THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE FOR YOUR
SILENCE ON THIS ISSUE!!!!!!!
Friends of Misty Fiords Wilderness
www.mistyfiords.org
Trying aga...
From: citizen
Date: 29 Nov 2003
Your concerns do not merit your end-of-the-world rhetoric.
Citizen comment
From: Rob-Alaska
Date: 10 Feb 2004
Exactly this kind of pathetic apathy that accelerates the dengerative
excercises of degrading wilderness resources. The heart of the issue is
accepting the rules, guidelines and mandates set forth by governing
agencies for thoughtful and constructive development and/or preservation
with respect and balance. "Citizen" obviously feels the cause is
unworthy. Without further comment from the "informed and unmoved"
citizen it's impossible to determine what, if any, motives they have for
the negative opinion. Without question he/she is unqualified to
determine what merits MY end of the earth efforts of informing the
public of the facts. Sounds like the usual know-it-all, criticize
everything, and do nothing kind of "armchair" slug....until otherwise
noted or revealed!
Still No Comments from The Wilderness Society
From: Rob-Alaska
Date: 06 May 2000
ill no comments from them.
Trying again for comments from The Wilderness Society
From: Rob-Alaska
Date: 06 May 2000
I've been warning you for months of the impending decision to open
wilderness to commercial exploitation by a group that has demonstrated a
complete disregard to Wilderness Values and has violated the Wilderness
Act of 1964(and several other Federal and State laws) for 8 years!
YOU FOLKS HAVE DONE NOTHING TO SUPPORT PRESERVATION OF THIS DESIGNATED
MONUMENT!!! IN FACT, HAVE NEVER EVEN RESPONDED TO ME WITH YOUR THOUGHTS
OR CONCERNS!!! A SHAMEFUL TESTAMENT IN CONTRAST TO YOUR CLAIMS OF
BROADBASED WILDERNESS ADVOCACY!!!
PENDING VIOLATIONS OF LAW, ACTS, FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS:
Currently there is a “Tolling Agreement” in place presented by District
Counsel for the United States Army Corp to Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises, and
signed by Susan Bell, “WHEREAS, the purpose of any such complaint would
be to obtain appropriate injunctive relief and to impose appropriate
civil or criminal penalties for potential defendant’s alleged violations
of the statutes cited below”:
Sections 301 (a), 309, & 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C.
Sections 1311(a), 1319, & 1344 and/or Section 9, 10, or 13 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. Sections 401, 403, or 407, and/or
Ocean Dumping Act Sections 101 and/or 103(33 U.S.C. 1411,1413) at the
site commonly known as Rudyerd Bay, Misty Fiords National Monument/
Wilderness Area.
NMFS has jurisdiction for Harbor Seals under the purview of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended and accordingly, they cite the
floating dock project will have substantial and unacceptable impacts to
resources of national importance as defined in Part IV of the Memorandum
of Agreement between the Dept. of Commerce and the Dept. of the Army(Aug.
11, 1992). Individuals convicted of harassment could be subject to fines
of up to $ 20,000.00 and one year imprisonment.
The USFWS goes further and recommends “that impacts resulting from the
past several years of unauthorized activity, and disturbance of wildlife
in the estuaries, be compensated through the Corps’ in-lieu fees
program. The provisions are in accordance with violations of the
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 USC, 661et seg.)
* It should be duly noted that Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises had been in
violation of this and all other laws and Acts for over 8 years AND in
their original application they denied any conflicts with wildlife, and
habitat resources. It demonstrates clearly the lack of knowledge(either
actual or contrived) of wilderness ethics, wildlife habitats in general,
and proves they are unqualified for a stewardship role in wilderness
advocacy!
The placement of the floating structures and associated activities,
along with the conduct of Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises have always been in
direct contrast and in violation of Wilderness values and the Spirit and
intent of the Wilderness Designation. More specifically Goldbelt/Alaska
Cruises has violated and severely compromised the parameters of:
The Wilderness Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-577).....Sec 2(a), (c), Sec 4(c),
(d), (6).
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, (ANILCA), (P.L. 96-487)
Sec 503(c) and Sec 1110(a).
Tongass Land Management Plan, (TLMP), established after years of
planning, scientific research, and public involvement for the purposes
of directing management of the Tongass National Forest and Misty Fiords
National Monument Wilderness. I refer to the sections specifically
dealing with Recreation and Tourism and Wildlife whereas the LUD WM
goals are “To provide a high degree of remoteness from the sights and
sounds of humans and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation
activities consistent with wilderness preservation.” See TLMP 3-23,
3-24, & 7-32. Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises floating dock and “attracted”
activities are inconsistent with these goals and guidelines.
The Recreation and Tourism standards found starting with 4-37 “provide
guidelines for developing and operating projects that compliment
wilderness management objectives and to avoid degradation of wilderness
values.” The 180 passenger exchange “show” that takes place with a fleet
of planes and the boat, is in direct contrast and severely compromises
wilderness values and the wilderness experiences of permitted users
anywhere near the vicinity of the dock!
According to Rec122, Section II.A.2, Major and minor “developments” ( a
7000+ square foot dock certainly more than qualifies as minor, are NOT
ALLOWED! According to Rec122, Section II.A.3, Primitive ROS states the
maximum number of floatplane landings is six per day, per site! There
are currently 10-20 floatplanes landing at the same time in the same
area every day! This is far exceeds the maximum allowed! According to
Rec122, Section II.A.4, (d)(3)(b), “a party size of no more than 12
persons for any one site or activity group should be considered.”
Current numbers of passengers participating in the exchange on the dock,
at 180, is 15 times more than what is acceptable. According to Rec122,
Section III.B.7, (at 4-43) states “ In general, users expectations are
for minimum signs of human cause alterations at the primitive end of the
ROS...”. This operation has always been grossly intrusive upon
wilderness, and recently with the addition of the high speed catamaran
and additional cruise ship contracts, has gotten to the point of being
down right dangerous! Too many planes, traffic, “need for speed” and the
“packem and stackem” mentality is an invitation to tragedy, and
threatens the very existence of the Wilderness status of the Misty
Fiords!
Standards of the Alaska Coastal Management Program, Article 3. Resources
and Habitats, 6 AAC 80.130. Habitats, (a)(1)(2)(3)(4)(7)(8), (b) The
habitats contained in (a) of this section must be managed so as to
maintain or enhance the biological, physical, and chemical
characteristics of the habitat which contribute to it’s capacity to
support living resources. (c) In addition to (b), the following
standards apply to the management of the following habitats: (1)
offshore areas must be managed as a fisheries conservation zone...., (4)
rocky islands and seacliffs must be managed so as to avoid the
harassment of wildlife, destruction of important habitat....!
Article 4, Areas Which Merit Special Attention, 6 AAC 80.170. (e) A
management plan for an area which merits special attention outside a
district must preserve, protect, enhance, or restore the value or values
for which the area is designated. The Presidential Proclamation, TLMP,
ANILCA, USFS, NMFS & NFWS support the facts that Misty Fiords qualifies
without question and has an effective, appropriate management plan in
place!
Here in a nut shell is "The Bottom Line" for the "flavor" and intended
direction of the State of Alaska in this debate that will secure the
demise of eventually all Wilderness Areas!
Official document in on file!:
In a phone call from Bob Palmer (DNR) to Steve Duncan (Army Corp), on
Jan 06, 2000, Steve’s phone memo reads, “Bob Palmer 465-3432 DNR will be
coordinating DNR review, Palmer says they haven’t started the review
yet...! They (DNR) typically denied permits for similiar areas unless it
was in the states best interests not to do so. In this case the
operation creates jobs and contributes to state economy. They (DNR) also
take the position based on ANILCA that the navigable waters and
submerged lands are not wilderness. Locating within or adjacent to
wilderness may not be consistent with the Central Southeast Area Plan
but it is just guidance. He (DNR) would prefer they locate outside
wilderness area but state will not want them to get shut down.
Anticipate an appeal no matter which way the decison goes.”
Listen very carefully, "Even though locating (the 7250 square foot
floating dock) in wilderness may not be consistent with the Central
Southeast Area Plan, it is just guidance". They are going to permit this
activity with a 5 year permit IN TOTAL CONTRADICTION TO THE POLICY
MANAGEMENT AND GUIDELINES!!! WHY? Because the overwhelming majority of
local businesses see the opportunity to CASH IN on the development and
expanded exploitation of the wilderness in Misty! You should see the
letters!!! Also, Goldbelt has strongarmed(or "sweetened" the deal) with
officials in Juneau and used it's political muscle to misinform the
press and public, and misrepresent the situation accross the spectrum of
local and State Government. The reason they are getting away forcing
their "contrasting wilderness ideology" down our throats is because of
the always, and ever present, intentions by Alaska State and local
officials to develop the natural resources to the benefit of State
coffers and local "selective businesses", and always at the expense of
the wilderness ecosystem!
It's clearly old-fashioned politics!!!
When does an issue have to get hot enough, deep enough, and far enough
into the abyss of politics, that you will get off your duffs and get
involved?
Shut the Discovery Channel off, for now, and let's get to work on
maintaining your visions and objectives of "wilderness preservation",
and pursue this issue with some politics of your own!
You do have some political power, don't you?
Prove it!!!
Rob Friends of Misty
P.S. Misty Fiords Wilderness...less is more!
Finally, a response from the Wilderness
Society...Thank you!
From: Rob-Alaska
Date: 08 May 2000
Dear Captain Scherer,
You are right. We have been a dismal failure in dealing with you on
this issue. For that I apologize. There are only two of us in this
office to deal with all of Alaska, and sometimes, some things have to
wait. I am sorry about that. We are daily reminded that we cannot do
it all.
We have been very heavily wrapped up with NPRA and Arctic Refuge
oil development, Denali snow machines, the wilderness inventory on 70
million acres of national park and wildlife refuge lands, legislation
to allow commercial helicopter landings in Tongass National Forest,
and Chugach Land Management Plan, as well as extensive out of state
travel requirements for all of those.
Having said that, lets see what we can do about this. While trying
to monitor the Misty Fjords issue from Anchorage, we have not yet seen
a clear public process handle emerging that we can grab onto. It may
also be that we missed one too, but lets see. By copy of this note, I
am asking Nicole Whittington-Evans of our office here to follow up
with you to see what we can do. Again, I apologize for our failure to
respond. It was not deliberate.
Respectfully,
Allen E. Smith Alaska Regional Director
CC: Nicole Whittington-Evans, Assistant Regional Director, Alaska
Alli Phillips, Wild Alert, Denver Regional Office
Finally a response!
From: Rob-Alaska
Date: 08 May 2000
To: allen_smith Address: allen_smith@tws.org Subject: RE: Re: Misty
Fiords Wilderness Endangered Date: May 08, 2000
---------------- Finally!!!!! Thank you so very much for the
acknowledgement of even the receipt of my concerns! It is greatly
appreciated!!! In all due fairness, I've been e-mailing the main TWS
office from their website and knew of your exsistence and address only
minutes prior to sending the original e-mail below. My apologies for
"nipping" at you!
I now understand, as described below, the workload you folks must be
under! I am sympathetic to your predicament and would point out that
it could be the reason yours, and other organizations are playing
catch up to this issue! This issue has been kept somewhat "under
raps", and as with any encroachment into wilderness resources, has a
loyal political support for development. Again, in this case,
illegally! AND, now you know, right?! Keep up the great work and hang
in there!
No doubt, upon further inspection by your organization, you will see I
have my facts in order and this situation, if approved, will severely
compromise Wilderness Values and send a message to the nation that
jobs for wilderness is an acceptable payoff. In this case, to an
operation with a history of wilderness abuse!
The first Public Comment on this issue was Nov. 21, 1999-Dec 21, 1999.
The second, because they withdrew to modify, Public Comment was opened
April 3, 2000 and closes, in fact, TODAY, May 8, 2000 at 5:00pm. You
can hand deliver to: The State DNR 400 Willoughby Ave, Suite 400
Juneau, Alaska 99801
OR they may accept an e-mail. Bob_Palmer@dnr.state.ak.us
Not sure if you'll have any time to respond but perhaps they'll accept
an e-mail.
Some Comment from your organization is duly warranted and even if
brief, may have some positive impact on the outcome! Please try!
For a quick review see my webpage at: www.mistyfiords.org And for all
the Public Comments (facts) I have presented in their entirety see:
www.mistyfiords.org/forum/
Thank you again for your attention to this matter, and again, I
apologize for any misdirected verbal, antagonistic abuse towards
you.....sweet talk just wasn't cutting it......at least with the TWS
Headquarters!
Regards,
Rob Scherer Friends of Misty Fiords
www.mistyfiords.org
Request for Comment from AWRTA-Alaska Wilderness Recreation &
Tourism Association
From: Rob
Date: 21 Jan 2000
Date: 12/04/1999 From: Rob-Friends of Misty Fiords Wilderness To:
Director of AWRTA-Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism
Association------------------ Thank you for your invitation to become a
member of AWRTA. I have carefully considered a membership with you but
unfortunately will be declining based on principle. My repeated requests
for your public comment have been unanswered! You have been made aware
of Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises extensive history of willful non-compliance
regarding the unpermitted floating dock situation in Misty Fiords
National Monument but have declined any measured comment against their
unlawful encroachment and distinctly, unecotouristic activity.
Myself and others who practice responsible ecotourism within the state
and federal guidelines and laws and hold the required special use
permits are disgusted with corporations like Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises
who, under the auspices of "eco-memberships" conduct illegal activities,
and compromise legal permit holders experiences, not to mention,
seriously negatively impact the environment.
The credibility of your organization could be tainted by what seems to
be an endorsement by your silence on this incredibly important issue.
Corporations find it easy to become members of Ecotourism Orgs and
Environmental Conser. groups in order to gain footholds in sensitive
areas and to sanction their greedy pursuits.
If you had a system of checks and balances to keep members in line with
your goals and guidelines it would keep them responsible for their
actions and therefore lend credibility and quality to your organization.
As it stands now I believe you may be more interested in Goldbelt/Alaska
Cruises corporate membership dues than you are of maintaining the
integrity of responsible wilderness recreation.
Without a doubt Alaska Cruises has violated the State of Alaska's
Department of Natural Resources Division of Land Resource Assessment &
Development Section-CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA PLAN, and, clearly is in
direct contrast with the US Forest Service Tongass Land Management Plan
for wilderness areas, along with directly violating federal law,
specifically the Rivers and Harbors Act.(It's a matter of record!) and
the Wilderness Act of 1960.
Finally, you must read the Presidential Proclamation # 4623
declaring Misty Fiords a National Monument/Wilderness Area and "tune"
yourself into the intent of preservation of this precious resource.
Hopefully you'll come back to the understanding that some areas are
uniquely qualified to be protected from the devastating encroachment of
unbridled, irresponsible tourism.
Make a stand and speak up against Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises application
for a floating dock permit in the heart of Misty Fiords National
Monument. All things considered it is not the time nor the place to
legally permit this situation.
Would look forward to hearing from you.
Captain Rob Scherer
Date: 12/16/1999
From: Sarah Leonard-Executive Director for AWRTA
To: Rob-Friends of Misty Fiords Wilderness
Captain Rob Scherer:
I wanted to write you in regard to the issue of Goldbelt and their
operations in Misty Fjords as well as introduce myself (via email). I
was recently hired as the new Executive Director for the Alaska
Wilderness Recreation & Tourism Association (AWRTA).
AWRTA staff has forwarded me some information on this issue as well as
the most current request for support letters during Goldbelt's
permitting process.
Although I am not as informed yet on this issue as I should be, I would
ask you to keep me updated on what occurs. As an organization, I believe
AWRTA can continue to encourage our membership to follow the Ecotourism
Guidelines we promote through our brochure and web site information;
hopefully we will educate our membership as well as the general public
about acting responsibly toward our natural resources.
Again, thanks for the updates on this specific issue and I would
appreciate that you continue to keep me informed on these events.
Thank you for your time! Best Regards,
Sarah Leonard AWRTA/AISRT Executive Director
Date: 01/13/2000
From: Sarah Leonard-Director of AWRTA
To: Rob-Friends of Misty Fiords Wilderness
Captain Rob:
Sorry I haven't responded sooner. I have switched my email account at
home to the new AWRTA office. It is sleonard@awrta.org.
I will forward an email to our Board and request them to voice a
position on this issue if possible and let you know ASAP. I will also
check to see if Goldbelt is a current AWRTA member.
Thanks for keeping us informed.
Sarah Leonard AWRTA/AISRT Executive Director
Date: 01/14/2000
From: Rob-Friends of Misty Fiords Wilderness
To: Sarah Leonard-Director of AWRTA
Sarah,
Thank you for your prompt consideration.
My continued interest in dialogue with you is due to the relationship of
Goldbelt Alaska Cruises and your organization and the direct contrast it
provides.
According to your website Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises is indeed a member of
AWRTA, and can be found on these pages under the names: Susan
Bell---Dale and Cynthia Pihlman---Alaska Cruises and Alaska Cruises with
a hyperlink.
http://www.awrta.org/meminfo/allmems.html http://www.awrta.org/travel/memberstat.html
http://www.awrta.org/travel/mem-abc.htm#ALASKA6
I have reviewed your organizations ecoguidelines and, visions and goals
pages, and find direct contrasts again.
http://www.awrta.org/meminfo/ecoguidelines.html http://www.awrta.org/meminfo/vmg.html
My inquiry is based on the current controversy involving Goldbelt/Alaska
Cruises as reported publicly in the news, through Federal and State
"investigation" via the permit application process, and the internet.
Clearly there are serious conflicts.
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises history of non-compliance (documented) and
ignorance of State and Federal Regulations (they said they didn't know
they needed a permit) regarding this atrition of wilderness values and
direct compromise of other recreational users experiences is in direct
contrast to the vision and goals of AWRTA. They remain defiant and
continue to pursue this venue of disdain for the goals of wilderness
management.
Ultimately my goal is to have all "environmentally" recognized
organizations with "chartered" goals and objectives hold their
membership accountable, under penalty of review or exclusion, for
"digressing" from the respective organizations mission.
The growing sentiment is that it is irresponsible and, in many cases
deliberate, for businesses and corporations to sign up to various
environmentally recognized org. to claim stewardship and support, and
then pursue inappropriate, sometimes illegal activities. The concept is
to gain sanction, prestige, political assylum, along with support, all
at the expense of the goals and objectives of responsible ecotourists
and wilderness values.
Do you consider any and all membership inquiries without review?
Do you conduct an "in house" review of members when conflicts with the
org. goals and guidelines are presented?
On what basis would you deny a membership? Violation of law? Violation
of Federal and State environmental management guidelines and
regulations? How about a demonstrative willful non compliance of law at
the expense of responsible recreational wilderness users?
At some point you must draw the line to create credibility and long term
viability.
So far you have been extremely co-operative and openminded and I remain
encouraged that a serious internal review based on this new information
is forthcoming, along with your public comment.
Thank you for attention and review.
Respectfully,
Rob Scherer Friends of Misty Fiords Wilderness
As of 01/21/2000 there has been no response from AWRTA or from Sarah
Leonard-Exceutive Director. Will post their response if and when it is
recieved. Rob-Friends of Misty Fiords Wilderness
Request for Comment from AWRTA-No Comment!
From: Rob
Date: 11 Feb 2000
So far no word from AWRTA! Despite the promises of discussing the
"Misty matter" with their board members and investigating the
situation internally, the director still has not responded with any
comment whatsoever. Perhaps they are still in the process of of fact
finding, then again, maybe they are avoiding any comment because of
the political implications of "corrective measures" that
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises truly deserves. I will post their comment if
they indeed ever respond
Another request for comment from AWRTA-Alaska Wilderness
Recreation and Tourism Asscociation
From: Rob-Alaska
Date: 07 May 2000
Sarah, The e-mail you sent to me sometime ago, in retrospect, seems
very insincere and quaint, perhaps a polite shrugging off! In order to
remain a credible voice for RESPONSIBLE wilderness advocacy you must
respond to issues and concerns as they relate to Wilderness Values and
Membership concerns.
YOU HAVE NOT!!! Rumor has it that your organization secretly supports
Goldbelts position! If this is true, you have succumbed to corporate
politics and the self serving interests of a company that has no
respect for Wilderness other than that it attracts tourists! In my
Public Comments to the Government I have proven it beyond doubt! I
support my claims with official documents and observations by others
AND by Goldbelt themselves who have got caught misrepresenting the
truth(lying), either by ignorance or by design to construe the facts
an mislead everyone!
I assume your organization was originally chartered to protect
Wilderness and encourage responsible and lawful tourism activities
respectful of the environment! Why do you support Goldbelts position?
I challenge you to read all supporting letters from the communities
and your members, again, and then refresh yourself and your members
with AWRTA Goals and Guidelines, and recognize the divergence from
your goals your organization seems to be heading.
Is it now the goal of AWRTA to promote the goals of growth at the
expense of Quality?
That is exactly what Goldbelt has done, and with no apologies, is
focused on continuing to pursue their compromising behavior and goals.
No excuses for them please! I have researched this fully and it is a
clear, classic example of of a politically connected Corporation
influencing communities and Gov. Agencies to foster support for their
goals of "increasing shareholder value and becoming a dominant
political voice in the State of Alaska", at the expense of other
businesses, recreationists, and the environment!
Think I'm being unfair? Many do...........because they don't know the
truth and do not wish to challenge a political machine! I understand!
Does that mean they should be allowed to run rampant and dictate their
policies of expansionism in sensitive Wilderness areas? Who will stop
them if they have influenced State Gov.? Who will stop them if they
come in and promise jobs in tourism? Easier to submit than stand up
and fight! I understand! Does all of the above make it right?
Absolutely NOT!!!
Is AWRTA going to be part of the problem....or part of the solution!
If, after reading the facts below, you still have some measure of
sympathy for Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises goals and wish to continue to
support them and accept their membership in your organization, you'll
have to seriously rethink your chartered goals and guidelines for
responsible Wilderness recreation and tourism! I hope you do the right
thing!
I believe this: "Wilderness activities should harmonize with the
natural surroundings of the area and provide opportunities for
solitude. The boom in wilderness use and the popularity of our
National Monuments has resulted in increased pressure and damage to
fragile wilderness ecosystems within Misty Fiords National Monument.
Rules and restrictions, though often necessary and valid to protect
wilderness values, impose on our personal freedom. However, in the
Wilderness as elsewhere, true freedom requires a willingness to assume
responsibility for one’s actions, including those that might
compromise the land, water and wildlife, not to mention, other
Wilderness recreational users experiences."
What do you believe in?
I am very familiar with all the files in this case and for some
unknown reason there is no record of any comments from your
organization! If this is true, why not? If you have supplied a Public
Comment I would be interested in a copy. E-mail it to me, please.
Here are a few excerpts from my findings of fact that will help
motivate you into understanding that you cannot ignore the serious
negative implications for Wilderness Resources throughout the State if
your organization supports Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises in this matter!
This exposition of the facts begins with a review of the history of
noncompliance because of the fact that several significant State and
Federal laws and Acts have been violated, and have remained unresolved
until this process renders a final decision. There is still an Army
Corp. Tolling Agreement in place with potential civil and criminal
prosecution remedies open to avengement. Recommendations have also
been made by the USFWS to pursue “compensation through the Army Corps’
in-lieu program, for the several years of unauthorized activities and
disturbances of wildlife in the estuaries.” Also, the USNMFS has
defined the historical location of the dock as unacceptable.
Essentially by virtue of the dock location for 8 years, as defined by
NMFS, as in the middle of sensitive marine mammal habitat, and the
daily passenger exchange that took place is easily considered a daily
“harassment” of wildlife...well, it’s a $ 20,000.00 fine and up to a
year in prison, as reported in the NMFS assessment letter to the Army
Corp!!! No wonder Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises does not want to revisit
these issues and have the Public know the depth of their predicament!
Yikes!
In addition, there is extensive evidence that false and misleading
statements being made by Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises have mislead and
corrupted this entire review process by subverting the truth. Their
arguments are based on an unconscionable demand, that for some ungodly
reason, they have some unalienable right to operate the floating dock
within Wilderness at the expense of all others rights and privileges.
By their history of willful non-compliance and current resentment of,
and refusal, to comprehend the full spectrum of Wilderness Management
by the Forest Service and their unwillingness to abide by the fully
accepted Recreational Use in Wilderness Guidelines, they continue to
demonstrate that they are severely deficient in understanding of
preserving the important Wilderness values, and are poor candidates
for advocacy and any stewardship of Natural Resources within, adjacent
to, or near Misty Fiords National Monument! The following serves to
prove this, put them on notice, along with any and all other parties,
for violations of Federal and State laws, Acts, and management
guidelines and directives.
PENDING VIOLATIONS OF LAW, ACTS, FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS:
Currently there is a “Tolling Agreement” in place presented by
District Counsel for the United States Army Corp to Goldbelt/Alaska
Cruises, and signed by Susan Bell, “WHEREAS, the purpose of any such
complaint would be to obtain appropriate injunctive relief and to
impose appropriate civil or criminal penalties for potential
defendant’s alleged violations of the statutes cited below”:
Sections 301 (a), 309, & 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C.
Sections 1311(a), 1319, & 1344 and/or Section 9, 10, or 13 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. Sections 401, 403, or 407,
and/or Ocean Dumping Act Sections 101 and/or 103(33 U.S.C. 1411,1413)
at the site commonly known as Rudyerd Bay, Misty Fiords National
Monument/ Wilderness Area.
NMFS has jurisdiction for Harbor Seals under the purview of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended and accordingly, they cite
the floating dock project will have substantial and unacceptable
impacts to resources of national importance as defined in Part IV of
the Memorandum of Agreement between the Dept. of Commerce and the
Dept. of the Army(Aug. 11, 1992). Individuals convicted of harassment
could be subject to fines of up to $ 20,000.00 and one year
imprisonment.
The USFWS goes further and recommends “that impacts resulting from the
past several years of unauthorized activity, and disturbance of
wildlife in the estuaries, be compensated through the Corps’ in-lieu
fees program. The provisions are in accordance with violations of the
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 USC, 661et seg.)
* It should be duly noted that Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises had been in
violation of this and all other laws and Acts for over 8 years AND in
their original application they denied any conflicts with wildlife,
and habitat resources. It demonstrates clearly the lack of
knowledge(either actual or contrived) of wilderness ethics, wildlife
habitats in general, and proves they are unqualified for a stewardship
role in wilderness advocacy!
The placement of the floating structures and associated activities,
along with the conduct of Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises have always been in
direct contrast and in violation of Wilderness values and the Spirit
and intent of the Wilderness Designation. More specifically
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises has violated and severely compromised the
parameters of:
The Wilderness Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-577).....Sec 2(a), (c), Sec 4(c),
(d), (6).
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, (ANILCA), (P.L.
96-487) Sec 503(c) and Sec 1110(a).
Tongass Land Management Plan, (TLMP), established after years of
planning, scientific research, and public involvement for the purposes
of directing management of the Tongass National Forest and Misty
Fiords National Monument Wilderness. I refer to the sections
specifically dealing with Recreation and Tourism and Wildlife whereas
the LUD WM goals are “To provide a high degree of remoteness from the
sights and sounds of humans and opportunities for solitude and
primitive recreation activities consistent with wilderness
preservation.” See TLMP 3-23, 3-24, & 7-32. Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises
floating dock and “attracted” activities are inconsistent with these
goals and guidelines.
The Recreation and Tourism standards found starting with 4-37 “provide
guidelines for developing and operating projects that compliment
wilderness management objectives and to avoid degradation of
wilderness values.” The 180 passenger exchange “show” that takes place
with a fleet of planes and the boat, is in direct contrast and
severely compromises wilderness values and the wilderness experiences
of permitted users anywhere near the vicinity of the dock!
According to Rec122, Section II.A.2, Major and minor “developments” (
a 7000+ square foot dock certainly more than qualifies as minor, are
NOT ALLOWED! According to Rec122, Section II.A.3, Primitive ROS states
the maximum number of floatplane landings is six per day, per site!
There are currently 10-20 floatplanes landing at the same time in the
same area every day! This is far exceeds the maximum allowed!
According to Rec122, Section II.A.4, (d)(3)(b), “a party size of no
more than 12 persons for any one site or activity group should be
considered.” Current numbers of passengers participating in the
exchange on the dock, at 180, is 15 times more than what is
acceptable. According to Rec122, Section III.B.7, (at 4-43) states “
In general, users expectations are for minimum signs of human cause
alterations at the primitive end of the ROS...”. This operation has
always been grossly intrusive upon wilderness, and recently with the
addition of the high speed catamaran and additional cruise ship
contracts, has gotten to the point of being down right dangerous! Too
many planes, traffic, “need for speed” and the “packem and stackem”
mentality is an invitation to tragedy, and threatens the very
existence of the Wilderness status of the Misty Fiords!
Standards of the Alaska Coastal Management Program, Article 3.
Resources and Habitats, 6 AAC 80.130. Habitats, (a)(1)(2)(3)(4)(7)(8),
(b) The habitats contained in (a) of this section must be managed so
as to maintain or enhance the biological, physical, and chemical
characteristics of the habitat which contribute to it’s capacity to
support living resources. (c) In addition to (b), the following
standards apply to the management of the following habitats: (1)
offshore areas must be managed as a fisheries conservation zone....,
(4) rocky islands and seacliffs must be managed so as to avoid the
harassment of wildlife, destruction of important habitat....!
Article 4, Areas Which Merit Special Attention, 6 AAC 80.170. (e) A
management plan for an area which merits special attention outside a
district must preserve, protect, enhance, or restore the value or
values for which the area is designated. The Presidential
Proclamation, TLMP, ANILCA, USFS, NMFS & NFWS support the facts that
Misty Fiords qualifies without question and has an effective,
appropriate management plan in place!
5) Goldbelt wrote, “ The US Forest Service clearly has an interest in
this matter..... but does not have any direct authority in the matter
because the float and it’s anchors are located entirely on submerged
lands in saltwater and under State DNR jurisdiction.” Wrong again!
Read the attached Presidential Proclamation! There are three separate
statements in the Presidential Proclamation that show no doubt what
the management intent was to encompass. It is, “...hereby set apart
and reserved as the Misty Fiords National Monument all lands,
including submerged lands, and waters owned or controlled by the
United States within the boundaries of the described area.....” and,
“Lands, including submerged lands, and waters within these boundaries
not owned by the United States shall be reserved as a part of the
Monument....” and thirdly, “All lands, including submerged lands, and
all waters within the boundaries of this Monument are hereby
appropriated and withdrawn from entry, location, selection, sale or
disposition under public land laws.....” Finally, “there is also
reserved all water necessary for the proper care and management of
those objects protected by this Monument.”
It’s certainly clear in the language that significant protection is to
be afforded to Misty Fiords which most definitely includes ALL the
waters both marine and fresh, AND submerged lands under marine and
freshwater! Can’t any of you naysayers read? Are you “selective” in
your comprehension of the facts? Do you need a Federal Court Judge to
serve this process it’s interpretation? The State is NOT demonstrating
any assurances of giving “great weight” to the concerns of the upland
land owner, the USFS, as required in 33 C.F.R. 320.4(3) AT THE VERY
LEAST SIGNIFICANT WEIGHT SHOULD BE PLACED WITH THE US FOREST SERVICE
REGARDING ANY DECISIONS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE NATIONAL
MONUMENT! So far every agency has given little regard to the findings
of fact, Wilderness Management objectives (TLMP) plan, and in general,
the authority of the US Forest Service! In fact, the State repeatedly
disputes ANY authority of the USFS in this matter and discounts USFS
concerns of conflicting uses, and negative impacts proven to be
inherit with the floating docks.
8) “Alaska cruises has not objected to the use of the float by
others...” AND they go further and state, “If another commercial
operator wants to use the float, then Alaska Cruises will arrange for
such additional use.” This offer was meant to diffuse the opposition
to the dock! Yet again, it backfires, and is a testament to the
deficiencies in Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises standards of wilderness
advocacy! ESSENTIALLY, THEY PROPOSE TO “SUBLET” THE DOCK TO OTHER
USERS, THAT MOST LIKELY HAVE A VARIETY OF ACTIVITIES VASTLY DIFFERENT
THAN WHAT THE PERMIT WOULD BE ADMINISTERED FOR! CLEARLY AN ADVANCED
VIOLATION OF A POTENTIAL PERMIT AND UNACCEPTABLE!
11) Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises continues to “preach” their Economic
sermon by further reference to the Sections of the DNR’s Central
Southeast Area Management Plan, page 33, Economic Development, in
which they point to: “Recreation and tourism employment can be
increased by the following: 1) Rehabilitate and maintain recreation
resources that enable greater appreciation of Alaska’s natural, scenic
and historic resources.” For them to portray the Wilderness resources
of Misty Fiords in need of “rehabilitation” for greater
appreciation....is incredible, and as far a reach into the abyss of
stupidity as one can get! And, I think the appreciation level was
pretty darn great at the pre-Goldbelt/catamaran levels we Permitees
were accustomed to! It’s been downhill since then! The only
rehabilitation needed is the “Goldbelt search, displace and conquer
philosophy”, to hoard and control for their “tourism employment
needs”!
From the DNR---Central Southeast Area Management Plan
DNR Management Guidelines F. Authorization of Floating Structures. DNR
should not authorize floating facilities within areas of sensitive
uses or habitats, described more specifically in management guideline
D. D. Siting: Floathomes within or near Sensitive Uses, Habitats, or
Resources. To protect existing habitats, resources and uses, unless an
area is designated for floathomes as a primary or secondary use,
floating facilities should not be authorized in the following areas:
designated habitat areas (where it would be inconsistent with the
resources identified for a particular parcel), anchorages, areas
designated recreation ("Rd", "Ru"), or adjacent to areas of an upland
subdivision. In addition, they should not be permitted near an
authorized aquatic farming operation (except for associated caretaker
residences), near known cultural or historical sites, near a public
use cabin or sensitive Forest Service research site, or adjacent to
areas designated a National Monument or Wilderness in the Tongass Land
and Resource Management Plan. Further, they should not be authorized
where the use of floathomes is prohibited in the management intent
statement for a particular subunit in this plan.
*** It’s perfectly clear to those of us that display, even remotely
acute, human intelligence and can understand the English language,
that the overwhelming verbiage of all State and Federal Laws, Acts and
Management Guidelines, as a whole, favor beyond any reasonable doubt,
the protection and preservation of the Wilderness values associated
with Misty Fiords National Monument by significantly limiting specific
uses and structures! The State Guidelines does not state any
exceptions whatsoever for locating commercial floating structures 10
miles deep within the boundaries of a Monument/Wilderness, and in
fact, “clearly opposes repeatedly” any floating structures placement
near “adjacent to” or inside any Monuments or Wilderness Areas!!!
Also, no Federal or State regulations or laws in any way shape or form
has even hinted at promoting economic development of conflicting and
compromising commercial activities that exasperate historically
permitted, managed uses within Monument/Wilderness Areas, end of
story!***
July 30, 1999, Narrative to Support Permit Application, Public Policy
Issues, Public Access to the Monument, where Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises
acknowledges this, “National Monuments are designated by the President
in order to preserve some item of value....(interesting how they
belittle the designation by brushing it off as “preserving some item
of value...that’s it!).....what scenic or other value was so
significant that it deserved the special status of being designated a
National Monument! (I added the caps!) Then, in Response to
Comments..., 1. USFS Comments, 1. The Misty Fiords National Monument
Wilderness, A. The Wilderness Act- Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises addresses
and comments on all the lines, except one, There shall be no
commercial enterprise...within any wilderness area (Sec. 4(c)). Hard
to miss the facts there folks....unless you intentionally refused to
address the reality of the statement....which is exactly what you did
to avoid the truth and stave off taking responsibility for your
actions!!! Why? Because it is painfully obvious that detailed debates
would make perfectly clear that Misty Fiords Wilderness Management
Objectives are for the ENTIRE area including the saltwater and
submerged lands AND that the regionally held operational belief of all
commercial operators is that the Wilderness guidelines exist over the
entire area, not just the land and freshwater! Exceptions and
amendments were originally made to include historically proven
motorized access by boats and floatplanes and that limits be applied
to PRESERVE THE SIGNIFICANT WILDERNESS AND BIOLOGICAL VALUES OF THE
ENTIRE MONUMENT....which included saltwater environments!!!
Attached is the Presidential Proclamation...AGAIN....which clearly
states the obvious. Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises has stated in complete
arrogance, defiance and ignorance of the Presidential Proclamation
that the US Forest Service has NO authority to regulate or apply ANY
Federal stipulations through the Wilderness Act, ANILCA, or TLMP
because the floating structure is on saltwater and anchored to
submerged lands! Included again for reference is the Presidential
Proclamation of 1978. Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises misses the whole point
of this exercise in that the Wilderness Designation of the Monument is
for the ENTIRE area and includes saltwater, IN ORDER TO EFFECTIVELY
MANAGE AND MAINTAIN THE WILDERNESS INTEGRITY AND VALUES OF THE WHOLE
AREA!!! It is ridiculous and to subscribe to the Goldbelt/Alaska
Cruises theory of managing Misty Fiords “land and freshwater areas”
for Wilderness, and the submerged lands and saltwater canals and bays
be subject to....what....the guidelines of the Beedle/Pihlman Act of
1999??? Goldbelt has demonstrated they will not agree to any
directives of any agency if it will exclude them from operating within
the Monument WITH the floating dock...period! Clearly they are
dictating which policies they intend follow and which ones they will
not! Sounds like another legal challenge to me and perhaps that is
where this should be settled, in a Federal Court of Law!
Do not under any circumstances approve the permit for the floating
dock for any location within the Rudyerd Bay, Walker Cove or Smeaton
Bay areas! It has been fully and repeatedly demonstrated by several
parties and Gov. Agencies that the floating dock has no place in Misty
Fiords National Monument/Wilderness Area. The consideration of
Manzanita Bay and/or Checats Bay is a highly generous mitigating
effort! If this remains unacceptable to them, then I highly recommend
enforcement of all Tolling Agreements, and Federal and State fines
that have accrued! Also, I encourage Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises to attend
“Wilderness Recreation Sensitivity and Training Classes” so that they
may someday begin to fully understand the intrinsic nature of sharing
Wilderness Values in a manner compatible with other users and that
importance of preserving those Values is for future generations of
remote recreationists!
Sarah Leonard,
Monday, May 8th 5:00 p.m. is the deadline for Comments to the State
DNR! If you haven't responded yet there is time yet!
You can hand deliver to: The State DNR 400 Willoughby Ave, Suite 400
Juneau, Alaska 99801
OR they may accept an e-mail. Bob_Palmer@dnr.state.ak.us
Thank you for your patience and understanding! I tend to be very
protective of Wilderness Values and against irresponsible behavior and
practices...... and obviously not intimidated by even Goldbelt's money
machine!!! They can buy others but not me.....and I feel damn proud
that I don't compromise my values such as so many others do these
days!
Misty Fiords Wilderness......less is more!
Regards,
Rob Scherer Friends of Misty
www.mistyfiords.org
GOLDBELT/ALASKA CRUISES WITHDRAWS PERMIT APPLICATION!!!!!!!!!!
From: Rob
Date: 28 Jan 2000
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY JANUARY 21 2000 U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT,
ALASKA P.O. BOX 898 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99506-0898
REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: Regulatory Branch East Section 1-990947
Dear Captain Scherer:
This letter concerns the application by Alaska Cruises Incorporated for
a Department of the Army permit file number 1-990947, Rudyerd Bay 1, to
seasonallv locate a floating dock in Rudyerd Bay. Your letter of
December 21, 1999 requested a public hearing be held concerning this
permit application. The concerns raised by you and others have been
brought to my attention and have been included in the public record of
this case. As stated in our regulations (33 CFR 327), a public hearing
is to be held "for the purpose of acquiring information or evidence..."
to aid in the evaluation of a Department of the Army permit application.
On January 6, 2000 the applicant submitted a request to withdraw their
application pending identification of an alternate site. Therefore, I
have determined that a public hearing is not required in connection with
this application. When the applicant locates another site an amended
public notice will be issued and you will have an opportunity to comment
on the project at that site. Please do not hesitate to contact Steve
Duncan at (907) 753-2720 or toll free in Alaska at (800) 478-2712, if we
can be of further assistance. Your interest in this matter is
appreciated.
Sincerely, William S. Meyers Acting Chief, East Section
GOLDBELT/ALASKA CRUISES WITHDRAWS PERMIT APPLICATION!!!!!!!!!!
From: Rob
Date: 28 Jan 2000
To: Charlie.S.Duncan Address: Charlie.S.Duncan@POA02.usace.army.mil
Subject: Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises permit Date: January 28, 2000
Dear Steve,
I recently received your confirmation that Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises has
withdrawn their application for the "floating dock" at the location
proposed at the head of Rudyerd Bay.
As noted, you did not deny the permit, they withdrew their application
because of concerns by NFWS that presented conflicts.
Several concerns need follow up and resolution by your office to
"clean up" the procedural issues that provided Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises
with their "song and dance" strategy to entertain your consideration
of an essentially illegal proposition.
1-Violations of the Rivers and Harbors Act! -Fines for non-compliance
2-False statements on their application! -Fines for false and
inaccurate information! 3-Reapplication for permit! -Non-consideration
of permit if location is within Misty Fiords National Monument
Wilderness boundaries!
It is a fact, confirmed by your office, that Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises
has violated the Rivers and Harbors Act by locating the floating dock
in Rudyerd Bay for seven years without a permit! The Forest Service
confirmed that the structure was in fact located in Rudyerd Bay on a
permanent basis, NOT a temporary system as claimed by Goldbelt/Alaska
Cruises. The applicant falsified information on their application by
stating it was always a temporary situation "being removed at the end
of the season". They also falsely recorded that there was no impact to
marine mammals and the habitat within the area proposed, as evidenced
by the conclusions of the NFWS to the contrary. Also, I have provided
you with a letter from the Forest Service from 1992 documenting the
request by the Forest Service "to remove the unpermitted floating
docks". This would have sufficiently served as notice that they were
in non-compliance, NOT an unknowing operator of the regulations within
a National Monument.
The Army Corp considered this "inaccurate" application as "an after
the fact" application even though it violated Federal Statutes. The
Army Corp was provided with a wealth of preliminary factual
information that the application should not even be considered. As a
result of the supporting factual info from other Federal Agencies,
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises has withdrawn their application "for that
location in Rudyerd Bay". In a recent newspaper article Susan Bell of
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises stated that although they have withdrawn their
application "for that location" and they are now "looking for another
suitable anchorage within Rudyerd Bay". Yes, you heard correctly,
still within Misty Fiords National Monument.
This is unacceptable, and is unfortunately a result of the issue of
the Army Corp proceeding to consider an applicant that was in
violation of federal and state regulations WITHOUT any fines,
repercussion or denouncement of their non-compliance for seven years!
Goldbelt/Alaska Crusies continues to arrogantly dictate to the Army
Corp and other Federal and State agencies where and "how" they will
locate and operate the floating dock.
I propose to the Army Corp that they initate a dialouge with other
Federal and State agencies and determine what would actually "qualify"
as a proper application BEFORE the agency spends the taxpayers money
reviewing "illegal applications"! Would the Army Corp or other Federal
and State Agencies consider an application for a "five star floating
hotel" within a Wilderness Monument even though it is clearly
illegal!?! Why?
At some point common sense needs to be factored in to the equation of
application review.
1-Applicants that have violated Federal and State Acts and regulatory
laws should NOT be considered!( Indeed should be fined!)
2-Applications for permits that include violations and activities that
intend to violate Federal Acts and State regulatory laws should NOT be
considered! (Should be investigated and put under review!)
Please extend me your assurances that you will vigorously pursue the
"fine option" for the illegal intrusion and placement of the floating
docks in Misty Fiords National Monument. Also, that you will not
mistakenly consider an application from Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises if the
location is still within the borders of Misty Fiords National Monument
Wilderness Area.
No matter how they portray their business objectives it will still be
illegal and violate Federal and State guidelines if they try to
relocate within the Monument, even if it is temporary! Send a message
that indeed the Army Corp is involved in the interagency stewardship
of Federal laws and guidelines and Federally mandated Acts and
Proclamations.
It would be disturbing to think that the Army Corp would look the
other way when documented federal violations have continued unabated.
Thank you for your insightful and careful consideration!
Rob Scherer
HERE WE GO AGAIN EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ANOTHER
PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE FLOATING DOCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!
From: Rob-Alaska
Date: 29 Mar 2000
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises has applied for essentially the identical permit
for their 7500 sq. ft. floating docks as before, the difference being
located in another area of Rudyerd Bay! Yes you heard and read
correctly...they want to locate the floating dock still well within the
boundaries of
Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN EVERYONE!!!!! CORRECTION!!!!!!
From: Rob-Alaska
Date: 29 Mar 2000
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises has applied for essentially the identical
permit for their 7500 sq. ft. floating docks as before, the difference
being located in another area of Rudyerd Bay! Yes you heard and read
correctly...they want to locate the floating dock still well within
the boundaries of Misty Fiords National Monument! The new location is
not far from the old "illegal" location at the head of the bay. IT IS
STILL LOCATED WITHIN THE NATIONAL MONUMENT, STILL REPRESENTS A SEVERE
COMPROMISE OF THE INTENDED RECREATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC USES THAT
QUALIFIED THIS AREA TO GAIN THE STATUS AS A NATIONAL MONUMENT!!!! THE
INTENDED USES AND ASSCOCIATED ACTIVITIES VIOLATE IN EXTREME MEASURE
THE USFS TONGASS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, THE WILDERNESS ACT OF 1960 AND
ANILCA!!!!! Furthermore, the State of Alaska is ignoring their own
agency directives that require the State to acknowledge the status of
the Monument as a restricted area and that no floating structures
should be allowed adjacent to or within the Monument. The State DNR
has concluded that it is in the best interest of the State of Alaska
to allow this structure within Monument boundaries because "it
presents significant economic value to the tourism of Ketchikan!" and
that this economic value supersedes any and all benefits which may be
gained by NOT allowing the structure in wilderness! The only tourism
businesses that benefit from this situation is Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises
and the 3 Floatplane companies...that's it! All other tourism
companies from kayaking to scenic tours to wilderness outfitting has
always suffered and will continue to suffer at the hands of a very few
wealthy, and politically connected, greedy businessmen/corporations
who's efforts will surely plunder our National Monument Wilderness to
meet their own selfish needs!!! It appears folks that some time soon
this will make national headlines and a court battle will ensue! So be
it! The facts will show there has been a systemic conspiracy of
immoral and illegal business pursuits and that the State of Alaska is
willing to put economic interests of 2 local businesses ahead of the
National interests of the American people that have proclaimed Misty
Fiords a National Monument/Wilderness area for the pursuits of remote
recreation, scientific study, and preservation of wilderness values!!!
I can't wait to name names, provide indisputable proof of the
shenanagins that have been conducted to further the greedy
exploitations of this National Treasure and to incubate a class action
lawsuit against the "Parties responsible" for the comprehensive,
punitive, and illegal activites conducted for so many years that have
conflicted and compromised thousands of "recreational users"
experiences. The list keeps getting longer!
No matter what the outcome, the price for those involved to commit to
defending themselves in a court of law, in the face of the
documentated lies and deceit proliferated over the past ten years and
the "unveiling" of the true corporate "character" of this operation,
will be extremely heavy!!! Can you imangine their defense, "I didn't
know it was illegal" or "I didn't realize I needed a permit" and "Our
business creates jobs and provides money to the local economy" and "we
must have our floating dock in Rudyerd Bay...just because or we will
not be able to do our cruise/fly tours" !!! Weak, unsubstantiated,
immoral and self serving, irresponsible EXCUSES!
Hope it goes on for years with an injunction in place to keep them
from operating until the court makes a final decision..., but my
instincts tell me a Judge will, upon first examination, find the past
actions and pursuits of an application that violates Federal Law,
intolerable and without further ado fine for the plaintiffs a hefty
sum!!!
If anyone out there has had there Wilderness experience compromised in
any way, by the illegal activities associated with the two floating
platforms/docks in Misty Fiords National Monument from Spring of
1992-Fall of 1999, e-mail us your story!!! If it qualifies it will be
forwarded to a TEAM which specializes in environmental litigation that
has been formed to pursue the National Interest's in this case.
Public Comment from Rob Scherer to Army Corp of Engineers
From: Rob-Alaska
Date: 06 May 2000
Thank you once again for the opportunity to comment on the proposed
project and application for permit by Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises for a
floating structure/dock within the boundaries of Misty Fiords National
Monument.
State ID# AK0004-01JJ------DNR Tideland Permit LAS 22760 ------ACOE Ref#
1-2000-0098
Preface: Wilderness actvities should harmonize with the natural
surroundings of the area and provide opportunities for solitude. The
boom in wilderness use and the popularity of our National Monuments has
resulted in increased pressure and damage to fragile wilderness
ecosystems within Misty Fiords National Monument. Rules and
restrictions, though often necessary and valid to protect wilderness
values, impose on our personal freedom. However, in the Wilderness as
elsewhere, true freedom requires a willingness to assume responsibility
for one’s actions, including those that might compromise the land, water
and wildlife, not to mention, other Wilderness recreational users
experiences. Misty Fiords is not a State Park. It is designated as a
National Monument with very specific management guidelines administered
by the Dept of Agriculture, locally known as the US Forest Service. The
Presidential Proclamation of 1978 by President Jimmy Carter states
emphatically the importance of protecting this area from
commercialization and resource development. “Misty Fiords is an
unspoiled coastal ecosytem containing significant scientific and
historical features unique to North America”...some which still are
undiscovered and along with the scientific value should not be
compromised by the addition of floating docks in the heart of the area.
“As an intact coastal ecosystem, Misty Fiords possess a collective array
of objects of outstanding value for continuing scientific study.” The
establishment of the floating dock in Rudyerd Bay has and will
continually negatively compromise the wilderness values of the Monument.
There are three separate statements in the Presidential Proclamation
that show no doubt what the management intent was to encompass. It is,
“...hereby set apart and reserved as the Misty Fiords National Monument
all lands, including submerged lands, and waters owned or controlled by
the United States within the boundaries of the described area.....” and,
“Lands, including submerged lands, and waters within these boundaries
not owned by the United States shall be reserved as a part of the
Monument....” and thirdly, “All lands, including submerged lands, and
all waters within the boundaries of this Monument are hereby
appropriated and withdrawn from entry, location, selection, sale or
disposition under public land laws.....” Finally, “ There is also
reserved all water necessary for the proper care and management of those
objects protected by this Monument.” It’s certainly clear in the
language that significant protection is to be afforded to Misty Fiords
which most definitely includes ALL the waters both marine and fresh, AND
submerged lands under marine and freshwater! AT THE VERY LEAST
SIGNIFICANT WEIGHT SHOULD BE PLACED WITH THE US FOREST SERVICE REGARDING
ANY DECISIONS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE NATIONAL MONUMENT! THE US
FOREST SERVICE SHOULD BE THE LEAD ENTITY AND GUIDING JURISDICTION BY
VIRTUE OF IT’S MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVES UNDER THE ENFORCEABLE PRESIDENTIAL
PROCLAMATION! ALSO, DUE TO THE SUPERIOR CAPABILITIES TO MONITOR AND
CLOSELY MANAGE THE AREA THROUGH SUFFICIENT FUNDING! No amount of
LEGALESE can thwart those who truly understand and appreciate the
importance of words contained in the Proclamation. Unless of course,
your driven by greed, fullfillment of advanced cruise ship contractual
obligations, and/or pressure to increase shareholder value through
business expansion at the expense of the environment and other
recreational users. OR you are a State agency wishing to further the
politics and the economic interests of the State at the expense of the
Federal Government and the American People.
INTRODUCTION: As always, I must reiterate that myself nor the Friends of
Misty Fiords Wilderness, object to Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises conducting
their cruises throughout the waterways of Misty Fiords, nor do I/we
object to the flightseeing tours that operate over the Monument! I/we DO
OBJECT in extreme measure to locating deep within Misty Fiords National
Monument/Wilderness Area the floating dock structure to facilitate
transfering passengers from boat to plane and vice versa!!! This type of
floating dock has been identified as requiring permits by federal and
state agencies and, as with any type of alterations or additions on land
OR waterways, an environmental assesment is required as part of the due
process. It should be duly noted that Alaska Crusies sufficiently
avoided compliance with the required evaluation and permit process for
over 8 years AND is involved in the current permit process because they
were reported to the authorities as unpermitted NOT as described by
Goldbelt as “volunteering” to apply when the Forest Service notified
them of the infingement! The State DNR NOTIFIED Goldbelt of the
violation on June 8th, 1999 by a letter from Bob Palmer in which he HAD
BEEN CONTACTED BY THE US FOREST SERVICE regarding the permit violation
and REQUESTED that Goldbelt apply for the proper permits. Goldbelt’s
RESPONSE TO THE STATE was on July 30th, 1999 in which Goldbelt
acknowledges it’s unauthorized position and offered a permit application
to the State DNR. Prior to the letter phone calls were conducted and I
assure everyone that it was the State who initiated the process NOT
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises. The interagency files support my findings.
Another fact is, in my initial conversations with Bob Palmer of the
State DNR he assured me the State would follow the US Forest Service
lead because of the location within the MonumentxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxIt was
only AFTER the later conversations with Murray Walsh of
Goldbelt(consultant) that Bob Palmer changed his mind and decided to
“loosely” interpret the State regulations with profound “legalese” and
actually dispute the language contained in the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxof
locating structures within National Monuments! The State has also
completely and purposely ignored the Federal Regulations (TLMP, ANILCA
and PRES PROCL)Also, in the files is the acknowledgement by the State
DNR that conclusively disputes the claims of Mr. Pilhman that he “did
not realize I needed a permit”! It was noted that Mr. Pilhman has
extensive knowledge of the State DNR permit process by virtue of his “in
town” floating base of operations and the past conflicts/ problems with
compliance with those floating structures as well! Goldbelt/Alaska
Cruises should not be rewarded for the admitted intrusions, unpermitted
structures, and avoidance of State and Federal laws, guidelines and
permit processes!!! Conclusions of negative impacts have been assessed
by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries
Service and as result a recommendation of“compensation through the
Corps’ in-lieu fees program be administered ! Essentially,
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises has operated for 8 years within a designated
habitat area without approval or assessment! The Army Corp has
acknowledged that violations of the Rivers and Harbors Act has occurred
also! The US Forest Service goes into great detail the negative
implications of this structure and the activities it attracts and the US
Forest Service has issued in very strong language that the floating
structure is NOT acceptable under the guidelines of the Tongass Land
Management Plan. As noted also, there has been no other circumstance in
the State of Alaska where a commercial enterprise has been allowed to
place structures WITHIN the boundaries of a National Monument! Mr.
Pilhman has cited co-operation with the USFS in providing interpretive
services aboard his vessel in a letter from Don Fischer- Monument Ranger
in 1993. NOTE: This agreement was made in 1993 well before the
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES in Alaska Cruises operations took place! Before 1998
Alaska Cruises primary clientel was independent tourists NOT cruise ship
passengers! The total number of tourists a day was 15-30 NOT 70-90
passengers as in 1998-99 AND the vessel Crystal Fiord was the mode of
transportation at a 15-18 knots(not capable of servicing cruise ship
passengers)!!! Only since 1998 has the 60’ catamaran at 30 knots been
able to accomodate the tripled number of passengers that have been
contracted from the NEW venue of cruise ship passengers!!! Clearly this
is NOT the same operation as the one the USFS agreed to work with in
1993! The USFS agrees that in 1998 a new elevated phase of the
operations encouraged by the Goldbelt buyout has been determined to
beyond the scope of acceptability within the context of affecting other
users and wildlife! In simple terms, a light rain over a long period of
time raises little concern and it’s effects mitigated by time, on the
other hand, an escalation from light rain to a downpour/deluge has
obvious, substantial negative effects in a relatively short period of
time and even causes damage! DO NOT accept this ploy describing an
apparent “approval by association” with the USFS in 1993! It is
seriously flawed and misrepresents the level of operations as it
attempts to compare with the present day situation. The comparison does
not benefit this argument by Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises! I reiterate the
distasteful history of Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises because they have in the
past and have continued to mischaracterize, mislead, falsely proclaim,
misinterpretate, and continue to believe that because they have been
(unpermitted and essentially in direct contrast with Wilderness
guidelines) operating with the floating dock in Rudyerd Bay for several
years that somehow they are a positive, and respected element in this
issue and that their actions should be condoned because it somehow
economically benefits the State. Pardon me while I puke overboard! The
benefits to the State are miniscual at best and even locally without the
dock the catamaran and floatplanes can still add to the local ecomomy
sufficient to pre 1998 levels. Again, miniscual benefits ot the local
economy does not justify the long term negative impacts on the
Wilderness ecosystem or other Wilderness recreational users. American
People can still visit the Monument either by boat or plane just not
both( if it includes a floating dock in Misty Fiords). AGAIN, IF GOLBELT/ALASKA
CRUISES AGREES TO PLACE THE FLOATING DOCK OUTSIDE OF THE MONUMENT
BOUNDARIES ALL ARGUABLE PARAMETERS REGARDING THE PLACEMENT WOULD BE NOT
ONLY TO MY SATISFACTION, BUT EVERYONE ELSES AS WELL, INCLUDING THE US
FOREST SERVICE AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES AND LIKELY THE STATE OF
ALASKA! I/WE DO NOT WISH TO PUT GOLDBELT/ALASKA CRUISES OUT OF BUSINESS
JUST REMOVE THE FLOATING DOCK FROM MISTY FIORDS NATIONAL MONUMENT! I
WOULD GO ONE STEP FURTHER AND SAY I/WE WOULD BE SATISFIED IF THE
FLOATING DOCK WERE MOVED TO AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION ON THE WEST SIDE OF
EAST BEHM CANAL NEAR MANZANITA BAY, ACROSS FROM THE ENTRANCE OF RUDYERD
BAY.... NOT INSIDE THE BAY! CONSIDERING ALL CIRCUMSTANCES WITH THIS
ISSUE ,THIS IS MEASURABLY FAIR AND SUBSTANTIAL MITIGATING EFFORT ON
EVERYONES PART AND TO THE GREATER BENEFIT OF ALL USERS.......YES, ALL
USERS!!!!! Regarding the involvement of State and Federal agencies in
this matter, it is noticeably overwhelming that the State of Alaska’s
governing bodies are pursuant to the State’s economic interests(in
reality, local interests with local benefits to 2-3 local businesses
with political connections) NONE of the State Agencies have raised any
objections or concerns while ALL the Federal Agencies have noted
violations in various laws, regulations and management guidelines! This
is a significant divergence from interagency co-operation! The interests
of this issue has been limited to local State and Federal depts., local
interests and businesses by virtue of Public Notice in the local paper.
Where is the National interests and National public notices for input
into the decision process? After all, this proposal proposes a situation
that affects the “upland land owners”, the USFS AND John Q. Public!!!
MISTY FIORDS IS A NATIONAL MONUMENT NOT A STATE PARK!!! It’s a National
Treasure set aside for generations of Americans NOT a local business
playground offering unlimited, unregulated commercial enterprise! It’s
deplorable to accept Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises version that they are
providing a service that the American people want, need and are entitled
to! LET’S ASK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT THEY THINK GIVEN ALL THE FACTS IN
THIS CASE!!! It’s ironic indeed that the person’s letter who initiated
the latest round of objections to the Goldbelt/Alaska Crusies cruise/fly
program and was the “spark” that started this latest round of
objections, was indeed a tourist who visited Misty Fiords aboard
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises catamaran and complained of the float and
planes/vessel transfer in Wilderness!!! This issue should rest with not
ONLY local interests, it should be shared with the greater interests of
the American people! I’m an Alaskan and an American and proud to be
both, therefore I believe in striving for a balance between the two. I
do not believe anyone should lend credibility to Goldbelt/Alaska Crusies
version of what the American People want, need and are entitled to!
Throughout this entire process they have misrepresented the facts either
by lack of knowledge, understanding, or an unwaivering determination to
construe the interpretation of State and Federal guidelines in order to
gain a foothold in the Wilderness Area of Misty Fiords, specifically for
financial advantage and gain! Evidenced by lack of compliance for 8
years, their incorrect statements in the original application as it
pertains to the floating structure affecting wildlife, the incorrect
number of floating structures in Misty(3 not 1), the misleading,
rhetorical statements to the press, and several contradictions in the
original and subsequent narrative and original applications. Their
statements do not reflect the real truth...just the version they wish to
believe will get them the permits they desire!
EVALUATION: As stipulated in the Presidential Proclamation and the
Tongass Land Mangement Plan, along with ANILCA, evaluation of this
project shall give priority to preservation of the wilderness character,
values, and the sensitive ecosystem first!!! Then the recreational use
by the public according to the management by the US Forest Service
second and, lastly, on an economic and/or commercial basis according to
the State of Alaska. From the Army Corp’s evaluation guidelines I quote,
“ THAT DECISION SHOULD REFLECT THE NATIONAL CONCERN FOR BOTH PROTECTION
AND UTILIZATION OF IMPORTANT RESOURCES!!!” The emphasis on protection is
clearly stated in the Presidential Proclamation and that protection of
the resource has priority over the economic interests of local and state
economies!!!
REGARDING THE APPLICATION FOR PERMIT: Reference # 1-2000-0098 Waterway #
Ruderd Bay 2
WORK: What are the building codes or standards for this type of
structure? What type of paint, wood, metal or other materials have been
used? Are they compliant with the water quality standards of a structure
being placed in anadromus fish habitat and near marine mammal habitat
areas? Has any agency checked to make sure that the materials used are
non-toxic to marine life? Remember, don’t take their word for it, check
it out officially!
PURPOSE: Prior to 1997 Alaska Cruises was predominately servicing
independent tourists with somewhat flexible schedules, unlike 1998-1999
where contracts with the cruise ship industry has applied definitive
pressures to complete a timely schedule therefore making the floating
dock an essential aspect of the program. Look carefully at this
situation! At first it the floating docks were a matter of convienence
and percieved safety.....primarily convienence, and today it has EVOLVED
into a necessary part of the program by unpermitted, questionable and
unapproved means. IS THIS THE ACCEPTED PROCESS BY WHICH THE FUTURE OF
BUSINESS IS TO BE CONDUCTED IN OUR NATIONAL MONUMENTS AND WITHIN THE
STATE OF ALASKA? I HOPE NOT! The purpose of the floating dock is
understood. The location is unacceptable on management and legal
grounds!
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: In the past Alaska Cruises has SAID they would
remove the docks in the fall but rarely did. The facts and eyewitnesses
will easily attest, along with US Forest Service personnel. Who will
monitor the situation regarding the floating dock? Will the Army Corp
now have a responsibility to monitor the parameters of the permit IF it
is approved? What reasurances will the Army Corp give that if indeed
they issue a permit they will closely monitor the site and work
diligently with other Federal Agencies for future management of this
area?
MITIGATION: NOT ENOUGH MITIGATING EFFORT!!! The dock is still well
within the boundaries of the Monument and constitutes a significant
negative element with it’s associated activities and WITHOUT FURTHER
ASSESSMENT AND ECOLOGICAL EVALUATION, COULD VERY WELL BE EXPLICITLY
INAPPROPRIATE!!! Further study and evaluation needs to be done to gauge
the cumulative effects on the wilderness values and the ecosystem over
the last 15 years to note the relative impacts and to incorporate those
findings into the new equation of this expanded version of exponential
tourism into the Monument and try to preserve both the ecosystem and
visitors wilderness experiences.
PUBLIC HEARING: The purpose of requesting a Public Hearing on this
matter is to bring together a more representative forum of people who
will be directly or indirectly affected or interested by this issue.
Specifically, the involvement of Local, State and Federal officials
along with a wider spectrum outside the local community that involves
the American People, who by the way, are the upland landowners of the
National Monument and are entitiled to know what is going on here! The
corresponding Federal counterparts to the State officials who are
involved, all the way to the Governors office, should be present and
heard. I venture to say that would include the Honorable Bruce Babbit of
the Secretary of the Interior! Waiting to hear back from him myself on
this issue and hope he can get his staff involved!
ENDANGERED SPECIES: Still well within critical migratory areas for
various species of marine mammals, land mammals, birds and fish!
Suprised that none of the Federal Agencies noted the critical nesting
habitat and surrounding feeding zone of the Pigeon Guillemont, Marbled
Murrelet, and other birds located in the surrounding cliffs and jagged
outcroppings throughout the Monument, most noticeably the NorthNorthwest
face East of Punchbowl Cove, almost to the next small inlet/cove behind
Punchbowl Mountain. LOCATING THIS STRUCTURE ANYWHERE WITHIN THE MONUMENT
HAS AND WILL CONTINUE TO AFFECT MIGRATORY PATTERNS AND NESTING/FEEDING
HABITS OF A VARIETY MARINE, AQUATIC, AVIAN AND LAND CREATURES IN WAYS
THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN MONITORED OR EVEN ATTEMPTED TO CALCULATE WITH ANY
MEASURE REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE FLOATING DOCK AND THE ACTIVITIES
ASSOCIATED WITH IT. What future compromises of Wilderness values are you
willing to dictate on behalf of economics?
SPECIAL AREA DESIGNATION: Well, yes indeed it’s located within the Misty
Fiords National Monument. Special consideration is due to maintain the
wilderness integrity of the Monument, NOT ENHANCE THE STATE AND LOCAL
ECONOMY!!! NATIONAL INTERESTS ARE THE CONSIDERATION HERE FOLKS!!! I
DEFER TO THE PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION OF 1978 # 4623 BY THEN PRESIDENT
JIMMY CARTER.
PROTECTION AND UTILIZATION OF IMPORTANT RESOURCES.” It says “NATIONAL
CONCERN”, not local and not state(although I think all should be
included, BUT, great weight given to the nations concerns....after all
it is a National Monument)! The word PROTECTION comes before UTILIZATION
no doubt giving deference to protection of sensitive National resources
over utilization.
FINAL COMMENT: This debate is serious and has future implications! I
recommend denial of the permit for the floating dock and suspension of
all activities associated with any temporary floating dock for a period
of time that is sufficient for a comprehensive management plan for the
Misty Wilderness Area. However, I do recommend that Goldbelt/Alaska
Cruises be allowed to conduct vessel tours throughout the Monument as
essentially allowed for all recreational users, that is, without the
floating dock located within the boundaries of the Misty Fiords
Wilderness Area. This decision will set a precedent that will guide the
future management of this area. Please value integrity, honesty, and the
greater good of all Wilderness users in hopes that that the values so
important to proclaim this area as a National Monument will be available
in unspoiled condition for future generations. Hopefully they’ll look
back and say we did the right thing in preserving part of our
Environmental Heritage.
Public Comment from Rob Scherer to State of Alaska DNR and Coastal
Zone Mgmt Review--PREFACE
From: Rob- Alaska
Date: 06 May 2000
Submitted By: Rob Scherer, P.O.Box 6117, Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Public Comment Submitted to: The State of Alaska, DNR 400 Willoughby
Ave. Suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801
For Permit Application: LAS 22760, Rudyerd Bay
Preface: Wilderness activities should harmonize with the natural
surroundings of the area and provide opportunities for solitude. The
boom in wilderness use and the popularity of our National Monuments has
resulted in increased pressure and damage to fragile wilderness
ecosystems within Misty Fiords National Monument. Rules and
restrictions, though often necessary and valid to protect wilderness
values, impose on our personal freedom. However, in the Wilderness as
elsewhere, true freedom requires a willingness to assume responsibility
for one’s actions, including those that might compromise the land, water
and wildlife, not to mention, other Wilderness recreational users
experiences. Misty Fiords is not a State Park. It is designated as a
National Monument with very specific management guidelines administered
by the Dept of Agriculture, locally known as the US Forest Service. The
Presidential Proclamation of 1978 by President Jimmy Carter states
emphatically the importance of protecting this area from
commercialization and resource development. “Misty Fiords is an
unspoiled coastal ecosystem containing significant scientific and
historical features unique to North America”...some which still are
undiscovered and along with the scientific value should not be
compromised by the addition of floating docks in the heart of the area.
“As an intact coastal ecosystem, Misty Fiords possess a collective array
of objects of outstanding value for continuing scientific study.” The
establishment of the floating dock in Rudyerd Bay has and will
continually negatively compromise the wilderness values of the Monument.
There are three separate statements in the Presidential Proclamation
that show no doubt what the management intent was to encompass. It is,
“...hereby set apart and reserved as the Misty Fiords National Monument
all lands, including submerged lands, and waters owned or controlled by
the United States within the boundaries of the described area.....” and,
“Lands, including submerged lands, and waters within these boundaries
not owned by the United States shall be reserved as a part of the
Monument....” and thirdly, “All lands, including submerged lands, and
all waters within the boundaries of this Monument are hereby
appropriated and withdrawn from entry, location, selection, sale or
disposition under public land laws.....” Finally, “ There is also
reserved all water necessary for the proper care and management of those
objects protected by this Monument.” It’s certainly clear in the
language that significant protection is to be afforded to Misty Fiords
which most definitely includes ALL the waters both marine and fresh, AND
submerged lands under marine and freshwater!
Regarding the application for permit, (State DNR)LAS 22760, (State DOGC)
AK0004-01J, for a floating dock concession to be located and anchored
for 5 months during the summer for the next 5 summers, deep within Misty
Fiords National Monument, a designated Wilderness Area, for the
commercial purposes of transferring 180 passengers back and forth from
vessel to floatplanes on a daily basis. I am requesting that the
following statements, observations and comments be given serious
consideration and maintained in it’s entirety for the record.
This exposition of the facts begins with a review of the history of
noncompliance because of the fact that several significant State and
Federal laws and Acts have been violated, and have remained unresolved
until this process renders a final decision. There is still an Army
Corp. Tolling Agreement in place with potential civil and criminal
prosecution remedies open to avengement. Recommendations have also been
made by the USFWS to pursue “compensation through the Army Corps’
in-lieu program, for the several years of unauthorized activities and
disturbances of wildlife in the estuaries.” Also, the USNMFS has defined
the historical location of the dock as unacceptable. Essentially by
virtue of the dock location for 8 years, as defined by NMFS, as in the
middle of sensitive marine mammal habitat, and the daily passenger
exchange that took place is easily considered a daily “harassment” of
wildlife...well, it’s a $ 20,000.00 fine and up to a year in prison, as
reported in the NMFS assessment letter to the Army Corp!!! No wonder
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises does not want to revisit these issues and have
the Public know the depth of their predicament! Yikes!
In addition, there is extensive evidence that false and misleading
statements being made by Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises have mislead and
corrupted this entire review process by subverting the truth. Their
arguments are based on an unconscionable demand, that for some ungodly
reason, they have some unalienable right to operate the floating dock
within Wilderness at the expense of all others rights and privileges. By
their history of willful non-compliance and current resentment of, and
refusal, to comprehend the full spectrum of Wilderness Management by the
Forest Service and their unwillingness to abide by the fully accepted
Recreational Use in Wilderness Guidelines, they continue to demonstrate
that they are severely deficient in understanding of preserving the
important Wilderness values, and are poor candidates for advocacy and
any stewardship of Natural Resources within, adjacent to, or near Misty
Fiords National Monument! The following serves to prove this, put them
on notice, along with any and all other parties, for violations of
Federal and State laws, Acts, and management guidelines and directives.
From there I will direct attention to the amended application of April
3, 2000, along with the flawed narrative which hopes to support the
application for permit, but does not!
It is of special note that the original offending parties have been
replaced! Dale Pihlman is no longer managing Alaska Cruises, Cynthia
McNulty has been gone for some time now, and Joe Beedle of Goldbelt
“stepped down” from his Presidential duties on Jan 18, 2000! (Susan Bell
is still hanging in there!) And, of important sidenote, Taquan Air, the
predominate floatplane aircarrier that cooperated with the cruise/fly
program, is currently “out of service” due to company mismanagement, and
may not operate this summer! The economic platform of this debate is a
self serving, discriminatory and desperate attempt to serve two local
businesses interests! Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises admits in their original
narrative that “The business evolved over time and took several
different forms before it reached the current cruise/fly configuration.”
It has only been since 1998 that the floating dock cruise/fly
configuration REQUIRED the passenger exchange platform because of cruise
ship obligations previously unsolicited!!! Goldbelt may have a
significant impact(both good AND bad, I discovered) up there in Juneau,
BUT NOT IN KETCHIKAN!!! Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises here in Ketchikan is but
a pebble on a large sandy expanse of beach with little substantial
economic contribution! In fact, the current debate and activities if
approved will actually contribute to the DEMISE of the economy and have
the reverse effect by forcing the thousands of independent tourists, who
require Wilderness experiences, to other parts of the State or not to
visit at all!!! Remember this too, independent tourists that are being
serviced by the 100+ Special Use Permitees(which I am one) in Misty,
spend thousands of dollars per person and spend on average 5 days in the
Ketchikan area(hotels, groceries, tackle and fishing licenses) as
compared to the couple of hours, and couple hundred bucks per person
spent by cruise ship tourists participating with the cruise/fly
program(additional spending in one or two downtown gift shops, big
deal!) . Need any help with the math, just ask!?! It’s inexcusable to
further consider the economic issue as inherently irreproachable,
because as anyone can easily see, THERE ARE CONSIDERABLY(100 TIMES) MORE
COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES THAT OPERATE IN WILDERNESS WITH HARMONY, AND
RESPECT THE INTERESTS PROTECTED IN TLMP, ANILCA, AND THE PRESIDENTIAL
PROCLAMATION!!! It would be irresponsible to approve conflicting
activities of an operation that, in the larger scope of things, is
relatively a minor contribution in regards to economic benefits to the
local economy!
Public Comment/History of the floating docks
From: Rob-Alaska
Date: 06 May 2000
HISTORY OF THE FLOATING DOCK(S): It has been established and
documented as fact that Alaska Cruises has been illegally operating
the floating dock(s) “scenario” for more than 8 years and had
previously “squatted” the Manzanita Bay wooden State dock for at least
2 years, probably more, for commercial purposes. During this time the
State of Alaska was never contacted by Alaska Cruises for permit
applications for the structure(s), nor told the State of the business
activities it engaged in regarding the floating dock(s). Dale
Pihlman(previous owner and original offending party), Joe
Beedle(Previous President of Goldbelt, new owners of Alaska Cruises),
and Susan Bell(Goldbelt’s KTN representative), ALL publicly claimed
ignorance of the law!!! We now know this was NOT the case!!! It is
common knowledge throughout the State of Alaska that permits are
required for just about every activity possible that is conducted in
ANY of the State Parks, State Forests, National Parks, National
Forests and Refuges, and National Monuments and Wilderness Areas. To
accept this claim of “ignorance of the law” and permitting
requirements to operate the commercial operations floating docking
facility in Misty Fiords National Monument, is beyond ludicrous! Of
particular interest for notation is the repeated claims by Dale
Pihlman that he “....did not realize I needed a permit!” It is
documented via a memo from Skip Joy to Mr. William Meyers, Acting
Chief of the Army Corp., that indeed he did! I quote, “I went into
regdis and tried to find a permit for the float in question but was
unable to do so. I did however, find two permits in the name of Dale
Pihlman. Neither of these permits........have anything to do with the
Rudyerd Bay site except they do prove that one of the principles(guess
who) had considerable knowledge of the permit process.” Dale new darn
well he was subject to permitting requirements by the State way back
in 1992 when he was told by the USFS to remove the docks because he
didn’t have a permit! The subsequent relationship between the Forest
Service’s District Ranger Don Fischer and Dale Pihlman is suspicious
indeed as it was in direct contrast to Wilderness Management
Guidelines (TLMP was being developed).
That is just the beginning of the song and dance strategy implemented
by Alaska Cruises and Goldbelt. It’s been previously recorded through
this permit process that a prolifera of false statements have been
made by Goldbelt’s Joe Beedle, Murray Walsh and Susan Bell along with
Alaska Cruises infamous Dale Pihlman, and to a lesser extent, his
cohort Cynthia McNulty. Indeed, it has been from the very beginning an
exercise in rhetorical posturing and media abuse by Goldbelt and
Alaska Cruises for the purposes of deflecting responsibility of their
past actions and a smoke screen for the continued exploitation of
Wilderness at the expense of the Monuments resources, wildlife,
scientific values, sensitive ecosystems, AND the PERMITTED commercial
operations that have been conducting responsible, environmentally
friendly, Wilderness Ecotourism for the past ten years!!! Those who
have followed this issue from the beginning and have had access to all
the documents from all the participating State and Federal Agencies
know that the noncompliant history by Alaska Cruises/Goldbelt is more
extensive then this limited presentation, so in the interest of time
and saving stacks of paper I will summarize by saying that it would
represent gross negligence to approve and permit an operation and
associated structure that has operated successfully by AVOIDING
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW and using that venue to compete,
displace, and discriminate unfairly against , properly registered and
legally permitted commercial operations and recreational users
operating within the confines of Misty Fiords Wilderness!!!
Public Comment/Pending Violations of Law, Acts, Federal and
State Regulations
From: Rob-Alaska
Date: 06 May 2000
PENDING VIOLATIONS OF LAW, ACTS, FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS:
Currently there is a “Tolling Agreement” in place presented by
District Counsel for the United States Army Corp to Goldbelt/Alaska
Cruises, and signed by Susan Bell, “WHEREAS, the purpose of any such
complaint would be to obtain appropriate injunctive relief and to
impose appropriate civil or criminal penalties for potential
defendant’s alleged violations of the statutes cited below”:
Sections 301 (a), 309, & 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C.
Sections 1311(a), 1319, & 1344 and/or Section 9, 10, or 13 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. Sections 401, 403, or 407,
and/or Ocean Dumping Act Sections 101 and/or 103(33 U.S.C. 1411,1413)
at the site commonly known as Rudyerd Bay, Misty Fiords National
Monument/ Wilderness Area.
NMFS has jurisdiction for Harbor Seals under the purview of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended and accordingly, they cite
the floating dock project will have substantial and unacceptable
impacts to resources of national importance as defined in Part IV of
the Memorandum of Agreement between the Dept. of Commerce and the
Dept. of the Army(Aug. 11, 1992). Individuals convicted of harassment
could be subject to fines of up to $ 20,000.00 and one year
imprisonment.
The USFWS goes further and recommends “that impacts resulting from the
past several years of unauthorized activity, and disturbance of
wildlife in the estuaries, be compensated through the Corps’ in-lieu
fees program. The provisions are in accordance with violations of the
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 USC, 661et seg.)
* It should be duly noted that Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises had been in
violation of this and all other laws and Acts for over 8 years AND in
their original application they denied any conflicts with wildlife,
and habitat resources. It demonstrates clearly the lack of
knowledge(either actual or contrived) of wilderness ethics, wildlife
habitats in general, and proves they are unqualified for a stewardship
role in wilderness advocacy!
The placement of the floating structures and associated activities,
along with the conduct of Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises have always been in
direct contrast and in violation of Wilderness values and the Spirit
and intent of the Wilderness Designation. More specifically
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises has violated and severely compromised the
parameters of:
The Wilderness Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-577).....Sec 2(a), (c), Sec 4(c),
(d), (6).
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, (ANILCA), (P.L.
96-487) Sec 503(c) and Sec 1110(a).
Tongass Land Management Plan, (TLMP), established after years of
planning, scientific research, and public involvement for the purposes
of directing management of the Tongass National Forest and Misty
Fiords National Monument Wilderness. I refer to the sections
specifically dealing with Recreation and Tourism and Wildlife whereas
the LUD WM goals are “To provide a high degree of remoteness from the
sights and sounds of humans and opportunities for solitude and
primitive recreation activities consistent with wilderness
preservation.” See TLMP 3-23, 3-24, & 7-32. Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises
floating dock and “attracted” activities are inconsistent with these
goals and guidelines.
The Recreation and Tourism standards found starting with 4-37 “provide
guidelines for developing and operating projects that compliment
wilderness management objectives and to avoid degradation of
wilderness values.” The 180 passenger exchange “show” that takes place
with a fleet of planes and the boat, is in direct contrast and
severely compromises wilderness values and the wilderness experiences
of permitted users anywhere near the vicinity of the dock!
According to Rec122, Section II.A.2, Major and minor “developments” (
a 7000+ square foot dock certainly more than qualifies as minor, are
NOT ALLOWED! According to Rec122, Section II.A.3, Primitive ROS states
the maximum number of floatplane landings is six per day, per site!
There are currently 10-20 floatplanes landing at the same time in the
same area every day! This is far exceeds the maximum allowed!
According to Rec122, Section II.A.4, (d)(3)(b), “a party size of no
more than 12 persons for any one site or activity group should be
considered.” Current numbers of passengers participating in the
exchange on the dock, at 180, is 15 times more than what is
acceptable. According to Rec122, Section III.B.7, (at 4-43) states “
In general, users expectations are for minimum signs of human cause
alterations at the primitive end of the ROS...”. This operation has
always been grossly intrusive upon wilderness, and recently with the
addition of the high speed catamaran and additional cruise ship
contracts, has gotten to the point of being down right dangerous! Too
many planes, traffic, “need for speed” and the “packem and stackem”
mentality is an invitation to tragedy, and threatens the very
existence of the Wilderness status of the Misty Fiords!
Standards of the Alaska Coastal Management Program, Article 3.
Resources and Habitats, 6 AAC 80.130. Habitats, (a)(1)(2)(3)(4)(7)(8),
(b) The habitats contained in (a) of this section must be managed so
as to maintain or enhance the biological, physical, and chemical
characteristics of the habitat which contribute to it’s capacity to
support living resources. (c) In addition to (b), the following
standards apply to the management of the following habitats: (1)
offshore areas must be managed as a fisheries conservation zone....,
(4) rocky islands and seacliffs must be managed so as to avoid the
harassment of wildlife, destruction of important habitat....!
Article 4, Areas Which Merit Special Attention, 6 AAC 80.170. (e) A
management plan for an area which merits special attention outside a
district must preserve, protect, enhance, or restore the value or
values for which the area is designated. The Presidential
Proclamation, TLMP, ANILCA, USFS, NMFS & NFWS support the facts that
Misty Fiords qualifies without question and has an effective,
appropriate management plan in place!
Public Comment/Regarding the July 30, 1999 and April 3 , 2000
Narrative from Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises
From: Rob-Alaska
Date: 06 May 2000
COMMENTS REGARDING JULY 30, 1999 GOLDBELT/ALASKA CRUISES NARRATIVE:
(Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises quotes in “bold”)
1) The introduction finally admits that there was “...a series of
floats” not just one that has been used by Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises
“...over the last several years.”. 2) “Pihlman used the basic freedom
of navigation to place and remove the various floats”. Could someone
please direct me to this fictitious “Freedom of Navigation” “Act”.
Using this analogy it would be appropriate for everyone to apply this
belief in a regionwide construction and placement of various shape,
size and color of contraptions for the purpose of enhancing commercial
and private enterprise. This is one example of the delusional actions
to promote sustained unlawful business enterprise by Goldbelt/Alaska
Cruises! 3) “...the various floats which were always removed every
winter and which were not always re-located in the exact same spot
each year.” Wrong! Several members of the USFS concur with the
observations that most of the time the floats were NOT removed for the
winter! Evidence of this is by witnesses who discovered the various
docks at one time or another “floating about the bay or up on the
beach”, and in one case, in the middle of East Behm Canal, where it
was promptly towed over to a cove on WinStanley Island to await pickup
by Pihlman! After the 1992 summer dock placement, the docks thereafter
were located EXACTLY(within feet of) the same place year after year!
4) “...predictability is more important than ever and so it is
appropriate to seek a more permanent authorization.” Interpretation: “
We got these big cruise ship contracts now, crap, we need to get
legal!!!”, and, CORRECTION: “...appropriate to seek a more permanent
authorization.”, YOU WERE NEVER AUTHORIZED TO BEGIN WITH!!! THIS
PERMIT PROCESS IS AN ATTEMPT AT DISCOVERING IF INDEED IT IS POSSIBLE
TO FINALLY GET YOU COMPLIANT WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS!!! 5) “ The
US Forest Service clearly has an interest in this matter.....but does
not have any direct authority in the matter because the float and it’s
anchors are located entirely on submerged lands in saltwater and under
State DNR jurisdiction.” Wrong again! Read the attached Presidential
Proclamation! There are three separate statements in the Presidential
Proclamation that show no doubt what the management intent was to
encompass. It is, “...hereby set apart and reserved as the Misty
Fiords National Monument all lands, including submerged lands, and
waters owned or controlled by the United States within the boundaries
of the described area.....” and, “Lands, including submerged lands,
and waters within these boundaries not owned by the United States
shall be reserved as a part of the Monument....” and thirdly, “All
lands, including submerged lands, and all waters within the boundaries
of this Monument are hereby appropriated and withdrawn from entry,
location, selection, sale or disposition under public land laws.....”
Finally, “ There is also reserved all water necessary for the proper
care and management of those objects protected by this Monument.” It’s
certainly clear in the language that significant protection is to be
afforded to Misty Fiords which most definitely includes ALL the waters
both marine and fresh, AND submerged lands under marine and
freshwater! Can’t any of you naysayers read? Are you “selective” in
your comprehension of the facts? Do you need a Federal Court Judge to
serve this process it’s interpretation? The State is NOT demonstrating
any assurances of giving “great weight” to the concerns of the upland
land owner, the USFS, as required in 33 C.F.R. 320.4(3) AT THE VERY
LEAST SIGNIFICANT WEIGHT SHOULD BE PLACED WITH THE US FOREST SERVICE
REGARDING ANY DECISIONS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE NATIONAL
MONUMENT! So far every agency has given little regard to the findings
of fact, Wilderness Management objectives (TLMP) plan, and in general,
the authority of the US Forest Service! In fact, the State repeatedly
disputes ANY authority of the USFS in this matter and discounts USFS
concerns of conflicting uses, and negative impacts proven to be
inherit with the floating docks. 6)Regarding the construction of the
new, 7000+ square foot floating dock. What are the standards to which
the dock was constructed? Pihlmans Construction Company? Are detailed
blueprints and material lists required to be submitted in a “normal”
process? Was the paint used an environmentally safe paint and tolerant
of rain, traffic, and saltwater? Did the paint contain the dangerous
toxin pentachlorophenaol preservative? Can anyone prove they have not
used unsafe chemicals in the construction of the docks? An obvious
element of dock construction that has been purposely overlooked is the
fact that used vehicle tires are stapled around the entire perimeter
of the structure! Are there any provisions in the Clean Water Act that
would preclude the use of vehicle tires and placement of such
structures in “Wilderness Waterways”? Has OSHA approved the safety of
the structure? 7)Reference has been made to “Photo 3-Approaching the
Float from the NE Creek”! This is particularly incriminating evidence
that the approaches, being used by the floatplanes contracted with the
cruise/fly program, have been for several years utilizing an
unacceptable approach, low over the creek(est.at less than 500 feet),
lower over the tideflats(300 feet), and lower yet over the estuary
until landing near the dock! 10-20 planes using this approach on a
daily basis to land and take off is clearly harassment of wildlife,
and in some witnessed cases, intentional, to view the wildlife....as
they bolt away into the woods! This has occurred every day of the
summer season, of every year, for 8 years! A single incident of
harassment is culpable of up to $ 20,000 fine and 1 year in prison!
Surely, this fine matter deserves further consideration based on
history! 8) “Alaska cruises has not objected to the use of the float
by others...” AND they go further and state, “If another commercial
operator wants to use the float, then Alaska Cruises will arrange for
such additional use.” This offer was meant to diffuse the opposition
to the dock! Yet again, it backfires, and is a testament to the
deficiencies in Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises standards of wilderness
advocacy! ESSENTIALLY, THEY PROPOSE TO “SUBLET” THE DOCK TO OTHER
USERS, THAT MOST LIKELY HAVE A VARIETY OF ACTIVITIES VASTLY DIFFERENT
THAN WHAT THE PERMIT WOULD BE ADMINISTERED FOR! CLEARLY AN ADVANCED
VIOLATION OF A POTENTIAL PERMIT AND UNACCEPTABLE!
Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness Area is NOT a National/State
Park and is subject to very different guidelines and regulations than
a Park. Wilderness Monuments are managed for minimum intrusions,
remote recreation and solitude, and extremely limits and monitors
commercial operations within it’s boundaries!
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises demonstrates NO CONCEPT or APPRECIATION of
Wilderness values or that they will conduct themselves in a manner
consistent with Wilderness! Here’s why! Goldbelt has been for several
years operating tours and concessions(Glacier bay Lodge for one)
within Glacier Bay National Park. Glacier Bay is a whole different
management plan and allows a wide variety of activities and
commercially operated concessions, and lodges. They are familiar with
the concept of economic expansionism in areas that typically allows or
accepts a wide range of commercial operating and development practices
and private use. Have any of you been to Glacier Bay lately or been
keeping up with the news? Increasing tourism has pushed pressures on
the resources there to the brink where now it is a ridiculous,
compromising nightmare to try and experience the area!!! You’ve heard
the expression that characterizes the fishing in the Kenai Park
system, “Combat Fishing”? Visitors to Glacier Bay during the summer
months could consider the experience “Combat Tourism”!!! We don’t want
this to happen to Misty Fiords!!! That’s why Misty Fiords is
designated as Wilderness and subject to measurably more limits and
restrictions and we believe that these restrictions and guidelines be
respected and adhered to by all commercial operations in the Monument!
Even those principles whose activities are on saltwater!!! The problem
is that Goldbelt assumes the notion they are operating under National
Park guidelines and cannot comprehend, and are not willing to accept
the unfamiliar limited uses found here in Misty Fiords! Both Goldbelt
and Pihlman are willing to compromise other wilderness recreational
users experiences and subvert the values important to preservation of
this National Treasure for their financial gain! All you here them
talk about and promote is economic expansion and increased use that is
fundamentally inconsistent with the Wilderness Guidelines found in
TLMP and ANILCA! Their ideas, goals and corporate objectives are
currently unhealthy for the Monument AND the economy of Ketchikan
because it negates the very reason tourists come to visit...to see
untouched, undeveloped, unchanged and unmarred Wilderness!!! You
destroy these values, you take away the reason to visit and explore
here and in turn degrade the economy because ALL the commercial
enterprises suffer!!! And that folks, as a group of 100+, will have a
far greater impact on the economy than any reduction or removal of the
cruise/fly program.
9) “Alaska Cruises has been operating for nearly 20 years in one way
or another to provide visitor access to the Monument.” Well...that’s
true, one way legal and another illegal!!! The sad commentary here is
that for 10 years or more out of the last 20 years Alaska Cruises was
operating without authorization, or permits and violated all those
stipulations found under the VIOLATIONS...section! Not a good idea to
keep bragging about the length of time Alaska Cruises has been
“servicing” the Monument! 10) “New tour operators don’t spring up
overnight and it is unreasonable to worry about a sudden flood of
commercial activity in Rudyerd Bay just because the float is there.”
Well..., wrong again! Insert foot in mouth! Read 8) above and notice
the incredible contradiction! You folks just advertised in advanced
that the company is ready and willing to arrange for additional
commercial use and that the float will be available for such use.
Prior to 1999 it was commonly known here in Ketchikan that Dale
Pihlman had told most of his friends and associates that he HAD a
permit or was working on a permit or was approved for the dock, by
association with the USFS in providing FS Interpreters on his vessel.
I personally spoke with several people and two of the floatplane
companies just prior to this story breaking last summer and all of
them assumed he HAD a permit and most people, including the one owner
of the floatplane company, volunteered the info that Dale told them he
HAD a permit for the floating dock. The 100+ Special Use Permitees
have always had a clear understanding of the TLMP and ANILCA, and
refused to follow in his footsteps(or wake, if you prefer) and violate
the management guidelines. There has certainly been an air of mystery
of how and why Dale was allowed to place the docks in Misty and other
commercial operators just didn’t subscribe to his intrusive and
conflicting philosophy of 2-3 floating docks placed in Rudyerd Bay.
Permittees were forced to find other locations that more closely
represented the Wilderness they advertised. Now, without a doubt, IF
the “floating green monster” is permitted, there will most positively
be a flood of activity attracted to the float, BUT, many new
applications will also be submitted to take advantage of the
situation. With the State DNR’s help, Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises approval
will effectively “grease the skids” and expedite subsequent approvals
of similar floating structures within the Monument. WHY? Because it
will have set a precedent! (Just like I’ve predicted since 1992, in
this instance, I really hate it when I’m right!) The State DNR will
not be able to exclude or discriminate against any other applicants if
the permit application is properly submitted. Furthermore, the State
DNR could not reduce or reject the number of floating structures
placed within the Monument if the basis for approval is economics over
preservation of wilderness(as would be in Goldbelts case). You see,
the economic platform can be preached indefinitely and without limit,
while the State DNR will have to continually subvert and construe the
Central Southeast Area Plan to promote the economic expansion of Misty
Fiords to accommodate the ever increasing
commercialization.....well....you get the idea! The bottom line is “If
you approve Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises for a floating structures permit
you will have to approve similar structures with similar circumstances
elsewhere in Misty Fiords(and other Monuments and Wilderness Areas
throughout the State)! That would promise to be an undoing of any
collaborative, multi-agency effort in the future and severely diminish
the wilderness, scientific and historical values of the Monument!
11) Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises continues to “preach” their Economic
sermon by further reference to the Sections of the DNR’s Central
Southeast Area Management Plan, page 33, Economic Development, in
which they point to: “Recreation and tourism employment can be
increased by the following: 1) Rehabilitate and maintain recreation
resources that enable greater appreciation of Alaska’s natural, scenic
and historic resources.” For them to portray the Wilderness resources
of Misty Fiords in need of “rehabilitation” for greater
appreciation....is incredible, and as far a reach into the abyss of
stupidity as one can get! And, I think the appreciation level was
pretty darn great at the pre-Goldbelt/catamaran levels we Permitees
were accustomed to! It’s been downhill since then! The only
rehabilitation needed is the “Goldbelt search, displace and conquer
philosophy”, to hoard and control for their “tourism employment
needs”! Misty Fiords...less is more! In another quoted goal “Assure
adequate opportunities.......This goal should be achieved considering
the use and plans of all landowners; private, federal and state.”
Bingo! Thank you again Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises for providing the
incriminating evidence against yourself. It is with extreme clarity,
as evidenced by the application narratives, that Goldbelt/Alaska
Cruises is only interested in the State DNR’s plans and uses and NOT
the private, public, or US Forest Service plans and uses. In fact,
they dispute any references to limiting factors no matter how firmly
they apply to the circumstances! Basically, they will have nothing to
do with TLMP or ANILCA, and the Wilderness protection values contained
therein. Also, they completely ignore and discount entirely their
cumulative negative impacts that have displaced, degraded, and
compromised the 100+ Special Use Permitees legal, and harmonious
operations, and now, even is rejecting them as a considerating factor!
The corporate, indignant arrogance, displayed by Goldbelt/Alaska
Cruises, is shamefully putrid! (They are consistent though, I give
them that!) 12)All references by Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises to the State
DNR Plan are erroneous and have been taken out of context! None of the
references apply to the current issue because they clearly refer to
State land resources in the public domain NOT within or adjacent to
specially designated land use areas such as Monuments and Wilderness
Areas. Also, they intentionally refer to non-applicable Sections of
the DNR Plan in order to construe the findings in their favor! The
last page of narrative text where it reads: “The next section of
guidelines is called C. Commercial Recreation Facilities on State
Land....” 1) Siting, Construction, Operation. The facility will be
operated in a manner that creates the least conflict with natural
values and existing uses of the area. The commercial facility and the
use it generates will avoid significant adverse impacts on fish and
wildlife habitat. The Author states, “Overall, Alaska Cruises believes
that this guideline is met. I type all this to point out that it
sounds good, and to the casual observer they hope to fool into
accepting this citation! Read the title again! It refers to State Land
NOT submerged lands or tidelands! It contains no references to
Monument/Wilderness designations and does not (shall not) apply!
However, the following page is very specific and has been suspiciously
missing from their narrative, and without a doubt, an intentional
misrepresentation to suppress crucial information for a balanced,
honest and forthright review!
From the DNR---Central Southeast Area Management Plan
DNR Management Guidelines F. Authorization of Floating Structures. DNR
should not authorize floating facilities within areas of sensitive
uses or habitats, described more specifically in management guideline
D. D. Siting: Floathomes within or near Sensitive Uses, Habitats, or
Resources. To protect existing habitats, resources and uses, unless an
area is designated for floathomes as a primary or secondary use,
floating facilities should not be authorized in the following areas:
designated habitat areas (where it would be inconsistent with the
resources identified for a particular parcel), anchorages, areas
designated recreation ("Rd", "Ru"), or adjacent to areas of an upland
subdivision. In addition, they should not be permitted near an
authorized aquatic farming operation (except for associated caretaker
residences), near known cultural or historical sites, near a public
use cabin or sensitive Forest Service research site, or adjacent to
areas designated a National Monument or Wilderness in the Tongass Land
and Resource Management Plan. Further, they should not be authorized
where the use of floathomes is prohibited in the management intent
statement for a particular subunit in this plan. *** It’s perfectly
clear to those of us that display, even remotely acute, human
intelligence and can understand the English language, that the
overwhelming verbiage of all State and Federal Laws, Acts and
Management Guidelines, as a whole, favor beyond any reasonable doubt,
the protection and preservation of the Wilderness values associated
with Misty Fiords National Monument by significantly limiting specific
uses and structures! The State Guidelines does not state any
exceptions whatsoever for locating commercial floating structures 10
miles deep within the boundaries of a Monument/Wilderness, and in
fact, “clearly opposes repeatedly” any floating structures placement
near “adjacent to” or inside any Monuments or Wilderness Areas!!!
Also, no Federal or State regulations or laws in any way shape or form
has even hinted at promoting economic development of conflicting and
compromising commercial activities that exasperate historically
permitted, managed uses within Monument/Wilderness Areas, end of
story!***
Allow me to share a brief but incredibly “Presidential” reference for
all! When I brought the Central Southeast Area Plan to the attention
of Bob Palmer of the State DNR and pointed out the sections referenced
above where the words “should not”, “should not authorize”, and
“should not be authorized”, are found, he was temporarily stumped and
at a loss for words. After a brief silence he composed himself and
said to me words I will never forget! He said that, “It depends on
what the definition of “should not” is.” He explained that “The words
“should not” doesn’t mean shall not” and “The words “should
not”....tend to steer you away from siting structures within the
Monument, but, it doesn’t mean the DNR “can not” approve the siting of
the structure within the Monument.” And that’s what this whole debate
now boils down to, the definition of the words “should not” versus
“shall not”, and of course the fact that Juneau politics has infected
and compromised any sensibility of resolving this issue in the best
interest of the future of the Wilderness resources of Misty Fiords
National Monument. The desperate attempts by Goldbelt/Alaska
Cruises(and the State DNR) of “legalese” to thwart any compliance with
the overwhelmingly clear goals of managing Wilderness comprehensively
in Misty Fiords, for preservation and protection purposes, is pitiful
and invites legal recourse!!! What manner of legal presentation does
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises and the State of Alaska hope to perform in
opposition to the management of Misty Fiords National Monument as a
Wilderness Area, if or when this issue goes to Federal Court??? It
promotes jobs? Yea, that’ll go over real well with a Federal Judge!
Finally, “The Larger Planning Context” as described by Goldbelt/Alaska
Cruises refers to a cooperative effort that they, “will be quite happy
to participate in such a planning effort, or in a planning effort
prepared by the tour operators themselves.” Ahem, excuse me, can
anyone else read between the lines here! Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises
intends to cooperate with a planning effort only if they are the lead
entity, “prepared by the tour operators themselves”, and only if their
commercial employment needs are met! They will force themselves and
their economic goals and objectives upon the planning effort in order
to solidify the future expansion of their intrusive and conflicting
operations, and to gain back the ground (and then some) they lost in
the belated application process of 2000! Furthermore, I object
wholeheartedly, completely, and unequivocally to any involvement which
would include Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises in anything more than an
extremely limited capacity in the planning process! There is serious
concern that they do not understand the concept of Wilderness
Recreation, and Wilderness Values associated with individuals and
small groups who have the right to pursue legally permitted activities
guided by The Wilderness Act, TLMP and ANILCA management plans for
Wilderness. And, it has been painfully acute that Goldbelt/Alaska
Cruises self serving motivation to “increase shareholder value through
expansion of tourism opportunities”, never has been, is not, shall
not, and can not be compatible with “providing a high degree of
remoteness from the sights and sounds of humans, and opportunities for
solitude and primitive recreation activities consistent with
Wilderness preservation!!!
Without question the permit for the floating docking structure should
be denied!
Public Comment/Response to Comments and Alternative analysis
presented by Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises
From: Rob -Alaska
Date: 06 May 2000
Response to Comments and Alternative analysis.
Preface: Deep within the boundaries of Misty Fiords Wilderness
there are extensive waterways, canals, bays, estuaries, rivers,
streams and lakes, and that because these water resources are
necessary for the proper maintenance and management of the entire
Monument, they should be(shall be) subjected to a high degree of
comprehensive Wilderness management by the US Forest Service.
Currently there are over 100 other commercial operations that are
legally permitted by the US Forest Service and have been conducting
operations within Misty Fiords according to the guidelines of the
Wilderness Act, ANILCA, and TLMP without any problems, except for the
only unpermitted situation in prolonged history, Goldbelt/Alaska
Cruises floating dock! The problems directly related to their
operation of the floating dock are increasing exponentially because
they have operated with impunity and disregard to all other commercial
and recreational users alike and because they have essentially been
operating without any rules, guidelines, or permitting parameters, and
thus, have taken over Rudyerd Bay at the expense of all other users,
and, the integrity of the Wilderness Ecosystem they claim stewardship
of! It is simply put, the narrow-minded ignorance of those that cling
to the notion that somehow successful comprehensive management should
include divergent management goals and conflicting guidelines so as to
create a compromised wilderness experience for the majority of users
while preserving the ability of Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises to essentially
have the exclusive use of Rudyerd Bay by way of attrition, is
preposterous and totally unacceptable! It’s completely clear to all of
us that the driving force behind this debate is politics, economics
and an insatiable appetite for the tourist dollar, and in this case,
at whatever the cost to the Wilderness resources and values, along
with the experiences of other recreational/commercial wilderness users
and Special Use Permitees!
It is to be duly noted that in Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises Responses to
Comments and Alternatives Analysis of January 28, 2000 and the current
Response to Comments, they attempt to sidestep references pertaining
to Federal Wilderness Acts and Management Guidelines, on one hand, and
then, on several other occasions actually reference the Presidential
Proclamation!
July 30, 1999, Narrative to Support Permit Application, Public Policy
Issues, Public Access to the Monument, where Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises
acknowledges this, “National Monuments are designated by the President
in order to preserve some item of value....(interesting how they
belittle the designation by brushing it off as “preserving some item
of value...that’s it!).....what scenic or other value was so
significant that it deserved the special status of being designated a
National Monument! (I added the caps!) Then, in Response to
Comments..., 1. USFS Comments, 1. The Misty Fiords National Monument
Wilderness, A. The Wilderness Act- Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises addresses
and comments on all the lines, except one, There shall be no
commercial enterprise...within any wilderness area (Sec. 4(c)). Hard
to miss the facts there folks....unless you intentionally refused to
address the reality of the statement....which is exactly what you did
to avoid the truth and stave off taking responsibility for your
actions!!! Why? Because it is painfully obvious that detailed debates
would make perfectly clear that Misty Fiords Wilderness Management
Objectives are for the ENTIRE area including the saltwater and
submerged lands AND that the regionally held operational belief of all
commercial operators is that the Wilderness guidelines exist over the
entire area, not just the land and freshwater! Exceptions and
amendments were originally made to include historically proven
motorized access by boats and floatplanes and that limits be applied
to PRESERVE THE SIGNIFICANT WILDERNESS AND BIOLOGICAL VALUES OF THE
ENTIRE MONUMENT....which included saltwater environments!!!
Attached is the Presidential Proclamation...AGAIN....which clearly
states the obvious. Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises has stated in complete
arrogance, defiance and ignorance of the Presidential Proclamation
that the US Forest Service has NO authority to regulate or apply ANY
Federal stipulations through the Wilderness Act, ANILCA, or TLMP
because the floating structure is on saltwater and anchored to
submerged lands! Included again for reference is the Presidential
Proclamation of 1978. Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises misses the whole point
of this exercise in that the Wilderness Designation of the Monument is
for the ENTIRE area and includes saltwater, IN ORDER TO EFFECTIVELY
MANAGE AND MAINTAIN THE WILDERNESS INTEGRITY AND VALUES OF THE WHOLE
AREA!!! It is ridiculous and to subscribe to the Goldbelt/Alaska
Cruises theory of managing Misty Fiords “land and freshwater areas”
for Wilderness, and the submerged lands and saltwater canals and bays
be subject to....what....the guidelines of the Beedle/Pihlman Act of
1999??? Goldbelt has demonstrated they will not agree to any
directives of any agency if it will exclude them from operating within
the Monument WITH the floating dock...period! Clearly they are
dictating which policies they intend follow and which ones they will
not! Sounds like another legal challenge to me and perhaps that is
where this should be settled, in a Federal Court of Law!
I strongly urge the State DNR to step back and take a good long look
at the long term ramifications and the divisive nature of approving
even a temporary permit for the floating dock within the boundaries of
Misty Fiords National Monument. It would be a “back door”
recommendation for the surreptitious nature of pursuing commercial
enterprise on waterways within the boundaries of National Monuments
and Wilderness areas throughout the State of Alaska. The conflicts
associated with a permit approval will certainly be inflamed beyond
near term repair and it defeats the whole purpose of “collaborative
effort” to resolve management issues. Common sense dictates that you,
the State DNR, BEFORE ANY PERMIT IS ISSUED meet with the US Forest
Service, NMFS, USFWS and the Army Corp. and EVERYONE AGREE to an
acceptable location WITH the US Forest Service as the lead
jurisdiction by virtue of being the dominant, “on site”, fully funded,
monitoring and enforcement, land/water use manager!!! Quit the
bureaucratic posturing and settle this so we all can get back to work.
Allow Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises to place their floating contraption in
the Manzanita Bay area away from habitat areas as required, or in the
Checats Area away from habitat areas!
Do not under any circumstances approve the permit for the floating
dock for any location within the Rudyerd Bay, Walker Cove or Smeaton
Bay areas! It has been fully and repeatedly demonstrated by several
parties and Gov. Agencies that the floating dock has no place in Misty
Fiords National Monument/Wilderness Area. The consideration of
Manzanita Bay and/or Checats Bay is a highly generous mitigating
effort! If this remains unacceptable to them, then I highly recommend
enforcement of all Tolling Agreements, and Federal and State fines
that have accrued! Also, I encourage Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises to attend
“Wilderness Recreation Sensitivity and Training Classes” so that they
may someday begin to fully understand the intrinsic nature of sharing
Wilderness Values in a manner compatible with other users and that
importance of preserving those Values is for future generations of
remote recreationists!
Public Comment/ THE BOTTOM LINE!!!!!!!!
From: Rob-Alaska
Date: 06 May 2000
Just minutes before sending this Public Comment to the Post Office
I was organizing the stack of about 700 pages that refer to this issue
and came accross a previously unread memo that was stuck to another
piece of paper. The memo highlights are a sad and disturbing
commentary of what could very well be the beginning of the end for
Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness as we would have hoped to
preserve for future generations.
The Bottom Line! In a phone call from Bob Palmer (DNR) to Steve Duncan
(Army Corp), on Jan 06, 2000, Steve’s phone memo reads, “Bob Palmer
465-3432 DNR will be coordinating DNR review, Palmer says they haven’t
started the review yet........They (DNR) typically denied permits for
similiar areas unless it was in the states best interests not to do
so. In this case the operation creates jobs and contributes to state
economy. They (DNR) also take the position based on ANILCA that the
navigable waters and submerged lands are not wilderness. Locating
within or adjacent to wilderness may not be consistent with the
Central Southeast Area Plan but it is just guidance. He (DNR) would
prefer they locate outside wilderness area but state will not want
them to get shut down. Anticipate an appeal no matter which way the
decison goes.” Was a thorough consideration of all the facts and
“great weight” given to the upland landowner(USFS) along with
considerations of sensitive Wilderness values and the preservation of
the integrity of the Wilderness goals and objectives, provided by TLMP?
HELL NO!!! There you have it everyone!!! Misty Fiords severely and
brutally compromised and forever subjucated to the interests of
politicians in Juneau. Because politicians with no understanding of
the intrinsic value of Wilderness Resources, “claim” (but cannot
compare or substantiate) jobs and best interests of the State are more
important than those values they do not understand or wish to
comprehend. The State of Alaska just sold out Misty Fiords National
Monument Wilderness Area for a few measly, low paying jobs, filled by
out of state residents, an unsubstantiated claim that the dock
contributes to the States economy, and perhaps a big “Christmas Bonus”
for the folks at the State DNR’s office from ???????????????????!!!
Thanks State DNR for recognizing the needs of us law abiding Special
Use Permitees and spitting in our faces! It appears crime really does
pay!!! Time to become a Pirate I Guess!
Public Comment from Rob Scherer to State of Alaska DNR and
Coastal Zone Mgmt Review--PREFACE
From: Rob- Alaska
Date: 06 May 2000
Submitted By: Rob Scherer, P.O.Box 6117, Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Public Comment Submitted to: The State of Alaska, DNR 400 Willoughby
Ave. Suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801
For Permit Application: LAS 22760, Rudyerd Bay
Preface: Wilderness activities should harmonize with the natural
surroundings of the area and provide opportunities for solitude. The
boom in wilderness use and the popularity of our National Monuments
has resulted in increased pressure and damage to fragile wilderness
ecosystems within Misty Fiords National Monument. Rules and
restrictions, though often necessary and valid to protect wilderness
values, impose on our personal freedom. However, in the Wilderness as
elsewhere, true freedom requires a willingness to assume
responsibility for one’s actions, including those that might
compromise the land, water and wildlife, not to mention, other
Wilderness recreational users experiences. Misty Fiords is not a State
Park. It is designated as a National Monument with very specific
management guidelines administered by the Dept of Agriculture, locally
known as the US Forest Service. The Presidential Proclamation of 1978
by President Jimmy Carter states emphatically the importance of
protecting this area from commercialization and resource development.
“Misty Fiords is an unspoiled coastal ecosystem containing significant
scientific and historical features unique to North America”...some
which still are undiscovered and along with the scientific value
should not be compromised by the addition of floating docks in the
heart of the area. “As an intact coastal ecosystem, Misty Fiords
possess a collective array of objects of outstanding value for
continuing scientific study.” The establishment of the floating dock
in Rudyerd Bay has and will continually negatively compromise the
wilderness values of the Monument. There are three separate statements
in the Presidential Proclamation that show no doubt what the
management intent was to encompass. It is, “...hereby set apart and
reserved as the Misty Fiords National Monument all lands, including
submerged lands, and waters owned or controlled by the United States
within the boundaries of the described area.....” and, “Lands,
including submerged lands, and waters within these boundaries not
owned by the United States shall be reserved as a part of the
Monument....” and thirdly, “All lands, including submerged lands, and
all waters within the boundaries of this Monument are hereby
appropriated and withdrawn from entry, location, selection, sale or
disposition under public land laws.....” Finally, “ There is also
reserved all water necessary for the proper care and management of
those objects protected by this Monument.” It’s certainly clear in the
language that significant protection is to be afforded to Misty Fiords
which most definitely includes ALL the waters both marine and fresh,
AND submerged lands under marine and freshwater!
Regarding the application for permit, (State DNR)LAS 22760, (State
DOGC) AK0004-01J, for a floating dock concession to be located and
anchored for 5 months during the summer for the next 5 summers, deep
within Misty Fiords National Monument, a designated Wilderness Area,
for the commercial purposes of transferring 180 passengers back and
forth from vessel to floatplanes on a daily basis. I am requesting
that the following statements, observations and comments be given
serious consideration and maintained in it’s entirety for the record.
This exposition of the facts begins with a review of the history of
noncompliance because of the fact that several significant State and
Federal laws and Acts have been violated, and have remained unresolved
until this process renders a final decision. There is still an Army
Corp. Tolling Agreement in place with potential civil and criminal
prosecution remedies open to avengement. Recommendations have also
been made by the USFWS to pursue “compensation through the Army Corps’
in-lieu program, for the several years of unauthorized activities and
disturbances of wildlife in the estuaries.” Also, the USNMFS has
defined the historical location of the dock as unacceptable.
Essentially by virtue of the dock location for 8 years, as defined by
NMFS, as in the middle of sensitive marine mammal habitat, and the
daily passenger exchange that took place is easily considered a daily
“harassment” of wildlife...well, it’s a $ 20,000.00 fine and up to a
year in prison, as reported in the NMFS assessment letter to the Army
Corp!!! No wonder Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises does not want to revisit
these issues and have the Public know the depth of their predicament!
Yikes!
In addition, there is extensive evidence that false and misleading
statements being made by Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises have mislead and
corrupted this entire review process by subverting the truth. Their
arguments are based on an unconscionable demand, that for some ungodly
reason, they have some unalienable right to operate the floating dock
within Wilderness at the expense of all others rights and privileges.
By their history of willful non-compliance and current resentment of,
and refusal, to comprehend the full spectrum of Wilderness Management
by the Forest Service and their unwillingness to abide by the fully
accepted Recreational Use in Wilderness Guidelines, they continue to
demonstrate that they are severely deficient in understanding of
preserving the important Wilderness values, and are poor candidates
for advocacy and any stewardship of Natural Resources within, adjacent
to, or near Misty Fiords National Monument! The following serves to
prove this, put them on notice, along with any and all other parties,
for violations of Federal and State laws, Acts, and management
guidelines and directives.
From there I will direct attention to the amended application of April
3, 2000, along with the flawed narrative which hopes to support the
application for permit, but does not!
It is of special note that the original offending parties have been
replaced! Dale Pihlman is no longer managing Alaska Cruises, Cynthia
McNulty has been gone for some time now, and Joe Beedle of Goldbelt
“stepped down” from his Presidential duties on Jan 18, 2000! (Susan
Bell is still hanging in there!) And, of important sidenote, Taquan
Air, the predominate floatplane aircarrier that cooperated with the
cruise/fly program, is currently “out of service” due to company
mismanagement, and may not operate this summer! The economic platform
of this debate is a self serving, discriminatory and desperate attempt
to serve two local businesses interests! Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises
admits in their original narrative that “The business evolved over
time and took several different forms before it reached the current
cruise/fly configuration.” It has only been since 1998 that the
floating dock cruise/fly configuration REQUIRED the passenger exchange
platform because of cruise ship obligations previously unsolicited!!!
Goldbelt may have a significant impact(both good AND bad, I
discovered) up there in Juneau, BUT NOT IN KETCHIKAN!!!
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises here in Ketchikan is but a pebble on a large
sandy expanse of beach with little substantial economic contribution!
In fact, the current debate and activities if approved will actually
contribute to the DEMISE of the economy and have the reverse effect by
forcing the thousands of independent tourists, who require Wilderness
experiences, to other parts of the State or not to visit at all!!!
Remember this too, independent tourists that are being serviced by the
100+ Special Use Permitees(which I am one) in Misty, spend thousands
of dollars per person and spend on average 5 days in the Ketchikan
area(hotels, groceries, tackle and fishing licenses) as compared to
the couple of hours, and couple hundred bucks per person spent by
cruise ship tourists participating with the cruise/fly
program(additional spending in one or two downtown gift shops, big
deal!) . Need any help with the math, just ask!?! It’s inexcusable to
further consider the economic issue as inherently irreproachable,
because as anyone can easily see, THERE ARE CONSIDERABLY(100 TIMES)
MORE COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES THAT OPERATE IN WILDERNESS WITH HARMONY,
AND RESPECT THE INTERESTS PROTECTED IN TLMP, ANILCA, AND THE
PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION!!! It would be irresponsible to approve
conflicting activities of an operation that, in the larger scope of
things, is relatively a minor contribution in regards to economic
benefits to the local economy!
Public Comment on Amendment changes.
From: SEACC-Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
Date: 09 May 2000
May 8, 2000, Bob Palmer, Lands Officer Department of Natural Resources
Division of Mining, Land & Water 400 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 400
Juneau, AK 99801
re: LAS 22760, Rudyerd Bay
Dear Bob:
Last month SEACC received notice of amendment changes to Goldbelt/Alaska
Cruises tideland permit application, LAS 22760, a five-year permit for a
floating passenger exchange platform to facilitate the daily transfer of
approximately 180 tourists from float planes to cruise ship and vice
versa. As amended, the application moves this floating platform's
proposed location from the North Arm to the South Arm of Rudyerd Bay,
within the Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness.
SEACC is a coalition of 18 volunteer citizen organizations located in 14
communities throughout Southeast Alaska. Our members include commercial
and sport fishermen, Alaska Natives, small-scale independent timber
operators and value-added wood manufacturers, sport hunters and
professional guides, subsistence users, tourism and recreation business
owners and Alaskans from many other walks of life. SEACC is dedicated to
preserving the integrity of Southeast Alaska’s unsurpassed natural
environment while providing for the balanced, sustainable, use of our
region’s resources.
For the record, we must object to the requested permit. First, such a
floating platform and the resulting plane traffic and passenger
transfer, whether at the upper end or the South Arm of Rudyerd Bay, is
fundamentally incompatible with the use of the surrounding Monument
lands. The industrial-level tourism resulting from allowing this
permitted activity to occur in the Monument is completely inconsistent
with the standards and guidelines adopted by the Forest Service for
protecting the wilderness character of the area and its wildlife and
habitat values.
The proposed floating passenger exchange platform is also inconsistent
with the habitat and undeveloped public recreation and tourism land use
designations proposed for this wild bay in the draft Central/Southern
Southeast Area Plan. See C/SSAP at 3-3, 3-4. This proposed floating
platform is also inappropriate because it is inconsistent with both the
federal and state management intent for this wild area. Finally, the
draft C/SSAP does not contemplate the siting of floating facilities,
like the proposed floating platform, in areas like Rudyerd Bay that are
designated for habitat or recreation. See C/SSAP at 2-21.
We believe it is inappropriate for DNR to issue a permit for this
proposed floating passenger exchange platform. First, Alaska Statutes
only permit the director to issue a permit for commercial use of
resources if the permit is revocable, non-exclusive and involves
resources "of limited value." See AS 38.05.850. We contend that
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises use of the floating platform is exclusive. In
its application for the permit amendment, the company claims that it
"will not object to the casual use of the float by others," but it adds
the important caveat that such use may not hinder its operations.
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises is seeking an exclusive right to use the
floating platform because it alone will exercise the authority to
determine whether to share the platform with other users. Its intent to
retain exclusive authority over who may or may not use the floating
platform is further reflected in its statement that "[t]his doesn't mean
that the float will be turned over for general use by the public."
Neither can Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises or the State of Alaska demonstrate
that the commercial use of the wilderness values and resources proposed
in this application is "of limited value." First, the conflict generated
by this permit application alone supports a conclusion that the
primitive recreational use of Rudyerd Bay is considered valuable by many
interests. Secondly, the company's application confirms this use is
valuable. In addressing the exclusivity/multiplicity issue,
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises admits that "[t]he company's owners knew the
values of the area even before the monument was established and access
was desired then as well as now." Clearly, the simplest way to measure
the value of the wilderness recreation resource use that Goldbelt/Alaska
Cruises seeks to exploit is the demand for that resource. Here, the
company itself admits there is a high demand for the use of these
wilderness resources. The state must determine the value of the resource
use proposed by the company in order to maximize the return to the state
for allowing this use of state lands.
We also object to using a permitting process for evaluating this permit
application, rather than the recreational facilities development leasing
procedure outlined in AS 38.05.073, because it fails to adequately
address the cumulative impacts associated with this permit. In order to
accomplish the purposes of the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Act to
maintain and enhance coastal resources and habitats, DNR must also
consider the probable cumulative impact of all anticipated activities
associated with this floating platform, whether or not the activities
are part of the permit under review. We also caution DNR against
approving any permits like this one before the state and the Forest
Service have conducted a comprehensive carrying capacity analysis and
developed legally defensible decision criteria that can be used to say
"no" to the first applicant who walks in the door after the carrying
capacity threshold has been reached.
Best Regards,
Buck Lindekugel Conservation Director
Public Comment from Tongass Conservation Society to Army Corp
From: TCS-Alaska
Date: 10 May 2000
US Army Corp of Engineers Regulatory Branch (1145b) Anchorage, AK
99506-0898
To: Steve Duncan From: Eric Hummel, Exec. Dir. Re: Permit ref #:
1-2000-0098 Waterway #: Rudyerd Bay 2 April 20, 2000
Dear Mr. Duncan,
Please accept the following comments to Goldbelt’s permit application
from the Tongass Conservation Society. TCS is an environmental
membership organization located in Ketchikan, Alaska with more than 100
members. We are very interested in stimulating a community based
planning effort to guide public use of the lands and waters of Misty
Fiords National Monument.
We urge you to reject or delay this permit because of the precedent
which we believe it will set and resulting constraints on much needed
cooperative planning. We also are concerned that the placement of the
float in Rudyerd Bay will result in air traffic congestion, a hazard to
navigation, degradation of a public resource and damage to the
environment. The mitigation which Goldbelt has proposed does little to
alleviate these concerns. Alternatives are available which would provide
Goldbelt with the opportunity to develop its tourism offerings without
the damage inherent in the present configuration.
This permit sets a bad precedent. The float will be a commercially
operated concession located in the middle of a designated wilderness
area on public property. This float is the first concession of this kind
in Misty Fiords. If granted it is expected that other operators will
apply for construction of other facilities within the Monument. The US
Forest Service is mandated to attempt to acquire inholdings within the
Monument. The float (and transferable permit) represents a step in the
opposite direction.
Planning should be done first. The management of resources within the
Monument is confused by highly divided ownership and jurisdiction from
the state and federal government. We have urged the Forest Service to
convene a collaborative workgroup to untangle the jurisdictional issues
and create a unified vision for facilities and public use within the
wilderness area. This planning effort would be set back by a
"grandfathered" permit which would provide unfair leverage to one of
many commercial interests. It would also "grandfather" in uses which may
or may not be consistent with the overall goals set by this planning
process. Since there are other alternatives, we see this permit as an
unnecessary obstacle to comprehensive planning.
The Float will result in air traffic congestion. Rudyerd Bay is an
extremely limited airspace. Canyon walls rise precipitously from the
water to thousands of feet elevation. In places, the fjord is extremely
narrow. Aircraft meeting within the bay will be in unusual proximity to
each other and the walls of the fjord. Goldbelt estimates a maximum of
12 planes arriving together and taking off together to service
passengers at the float. Even if only a few planes are navigating the
Fjord simultaneously the airspace will be congested. There is no FAA
regulatory infrastructure in this airspace and cooperative agreements
between carriers are non-binding. We believe that setting airspace
congestion goals and standards is essential to effective management of
the state and federal resources within Rudyerd Bay.
The float constitutes a hazard to navigation. The float at its
proposed location will result in significant air traffic congestion. In
flight, the aircraft will be in close proximity. Bad weather and low
visibility and ceiling are common in "Misty" Fiords. The risk of mid-air
collision is directly related to the number of aircraft occupying a
given volume of airspace. The rugged terrain in Rudyerd Bay does not
offer much hope that a collision would be survivable. We believe that
the congestion which will result from this float presents an
unacceptable risk to passengers. We believe that float plane traffic
should not be intentionally concentrated within the bay unless there is
an emergency or other compelling reason and other traffic is curtailed
in order to limit flight congestion within some reasonable bounds. We
believe that this is the domain of a comprehensive planning process that
should include the agencies, public and commercial interests. Without
that planning, we believe that a serious accident within Rudyerd Bay is
inevitable.
We believe that the float constitutes a hazard to nautical
navigation. During transfer of passengers, as many as twelve airplanes
and 1 boat will be in the water within the narrow confines of Upper
Rudyerd Bay. Perhaps 4 planes can load at a time. However, the other 8
will be taxiing around. Float planes have very poor visibility while
taxiing. Congestion on the water constitutes a hazard to boat traffic in
the area.
The float will result in unnecessary disturbance and degradation to
other users of the wilderness area. The narrow steep sided walls of
Rudyerd Bay are perfect reflectors of noise. Aircraft create a great
deal of noise particularly during takeoff. This float will require that
aircraft penetrate to the head of the bay. We believe that this
constitutes an unacceptable concentration of noise and disturbance
within a wilderness area. There are alternatives to this proposal which
will allow the wilderness character of Rudyerd Bay and Misty Fiords to
be maintained.
The float will result in damage to the environment. The float is a
focus of activity in the wilderness area. Wildlife which inhabits the
upper reaches of Rudyerd Bay will be repelled from the area by the
density of human activity. Float plane traffic in particular has a
negative effect on calving goats, sheep, and other animals. We are
concerned that the promise to conduct flights directly to and from the
float is somewhat disingenuous given the advertising which highlights
the flight-seeing aspect of the tour. Once a permit is granted will the
US Army Corp of Engineers be able to enforce such promises?
We have urged Goldbelt to consider alternatives which would place
such a float outside of Rudyerd Bay. Contrary to Goldbelt’s assertion
that the "only alternative sites which function properly for Alaska
Cruises are within Rudyerd Bay itself", the alternatives which we
propose involve air travel to and from Manzanita Bay which is
immediately across Behm Canal from the entrance to Rudyerd Bay. This
option requires Alaska Cruises to alter their basic formula but offers
several advantages. Each passenger would fly to and from Manzanita Bay
and use the Majestic Explorer to make a peaceful transit in and out of
Rudyerd Bay. Although the flight legs of the cruise would be more
expensive, the cruise portion would be much more attractive since it
would not involve exposure to the open water at the mouth of Behm Canal.
It would also allow Goldbelt to service multiple cruiseships with
differing schedules on the same day. It would allow a single vessel to
service many more customers. Transit time for the cruise portion would
be 1 ½ hours which would allow as much as four trips/day servicing a
total of 360 passengers per day with a single boat. This could be
accomplished as floatplane traffic within the Bay is decreased. The cost
of a tour may rise slightly, but the increased cost would go to
Ketchikan’s air taxi operators instead of into waste, external costs or
capital expenditures. We believe that this option should be carefully
examined both by Goldbelt and by the agencies. The airspace, waters and
land within Misty Fiords National Monument are public resources, as are
the characteristics of the wilderness. We request that before a permit
is granted, a planning process be conducted which determines the level
of protection that is appropriate for these resources.
Thank for the opportunity to respond to this permit. TCS believes
that the public notification and comment process is a vital part in
fulfilling the trust responsibilities for managing public resources for
the good of all Americans!
Sincerely Yours,
Eric Hummel, Exec. Dir.
_____________________________________
"The people in delegating authority, do not give their public
servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and
what is not good for them to know" --AS 44.62.312 Alaska Open Meetings
Law
------------------------------------- Eric Hummel
rtkp@ptialaska.net
Community Health Information Project Tongass Conservation Society PO Box
23377 Ketchikan, AK 99901 ph: (907) 225-5827
Update on floating dock and more questions regarding this issue!
From: Rob-Alaska
Date: 19 May 2000
This e-mail letter went out the Army Corp, State DNR, Alaska Coastal
Zone Management, and to the US Forest Service. Also, sent to several
Alaskan conservation groups. I'll post any responses I receive!
Are you aware of the current modified configuration of the
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises 7125 sq.ft. floating dock?
The contraption is up and running in the Rudyerd Bay area and has been
modified with an anchor winch system to relocate it on a “quasi” daily
basis.
Has Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises formally informed the State DNR and the Army
Corp of the “daily relocation program” and where they would be
conducting the operations? Do you know where they are relocating to and
fro? Could it be back at the head of the Bay at the original location or
perhaps within another designated Habitat Area? The new anchoring system
could be construed(in their minds) to place the floating dock operation
ANYWHERE within the Monument! Does this solve the issue as a whole or is
it a manipulation of the process to maintain their suffocating grip on
the resources of Rudyerd Bay for Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises shareholder
benefit? Do we as Special Use Permittees have to work around the comings
and goings of a floating dock being towed around the confines of Rudyerd
Bay? What about the other recreational traffic including cruise ships
that must navigate safely within Rudyerd Bay? Where is this “movable”
floating contraption going to end up? Is the Army Corp or State DNR
going to monitor this new development?
Does this mean they have been denied a Permit for a semi-permanent or
temporary-seasonal structure and not allowed to anchor/ “attach” to the
the submerged tidelands as they applied for?
I believe this demonstrate that alternatives that they originally
objected to in their original and subsequent applications are actually
feasible and the objections to any alternatives was a stubborn ploy!
Clearly this alternative has not been well thought out and could
constitute even more serious ramifications of safety and navigation,
along with the original negative impacts.
Is the Army Corp and State DNR ready to seriously reconsider and
institute the fine options available via the the Tolling Agreement and
“In-lieu of fees” program?
The locations change on a daily basis according to the premise of
installation of the anchoring system. What permitting Agency is
monitoring this situation? It would seem inherently justified that while
the permit is being considered that the operations would be suspended or
at least monitored for compliance and negative effects, especially if
they have modified the floating structure to a different form and
operational system.
All things considered, the activities “attracted” by the floating dock
are still inconsistent with State and Federal management of the area,
are still the focus of the problems and negative effects on the
wilderness ecosystems and a serious compromise of the experiences of
permitted users. The dock is still a major problem in Rudyerd Bay and
should be relocated outside the boundaries of the Monument, or at least
to the fringe area away from the centralized location within Rudyerd
Bay, but preferable outside the Monument as “guided” or “steered away
from”, the State and Federal management guidelines.
Comments could now shift to Navigable Waters (US Coast Guard
jurisdiction) and the safety issues, in addition to, the environmental
and conflicting uses that have always been established as violated.
I have recieved several comments from individuals involved in this new
goal of “daily repositioning” with the anchor system(only 1 anchor) and
there is significant concern that it is unsafe to conduct transfers
during tide changes or windy conditions, as the structure now freely
swings on it’s anchor! The anchor may not be large enough to handle the
65’ catamaran AND the fleet of floatplanes! Would a “breakaway event”
that jeopardizes the safety of hundreds of people be self reported?
Based on the history of Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises, absolutely not! Would
it be a serious safety compromise of the passengers and crew, certainly!
By the way, these comments of safety came from Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises
own people AND several of the contracted floatplane pilots that were
concerned with the new risks involved!
Going backwards instead of forward here people!!!
Wondering what my motives are again in retaining a “pitbull” attitude
and refusing to waive my right to object to this permit and this
operation as a whole? Simply this(AGAIN): For 10 years Alaska Cruises
placed and operated ILLEGALLY several(not just one as they originally
claimed) floating docks without even applying for the required permits
and being subject to the environmental and recreational management
standards for Wilderness Areas. Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises continued the
“charade” while intentionally doubling, then tripling the size of the
structure and the number of passengers to be transferred. They have
intentionally mislead the process and provided false statements to the
Army Corp and State DNR, have attempted to politically influence the
permit process(meetings with Murkowski, and Stevens and calls to Knowles
office by Beedle and Walsh), and have proven a complete disregard of the
Values OTHERS have placed on this Wilderness resource, which I should
remind all of you, “OTHERS VALUES” are IN LINE with the management goals
and objectives of TLMP, ANILCA and The Wilderness ACT!!! Also, because
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises refuses to recognize the negative impacts and
consequences of not only the concept of the huge floating platform
conducting highly questionable and objectional activities in Wilderness,
but the reality(USFWS & USMFS reports) of the actions and activities!
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises business orientation is to increase
exponentially tourism in Wilderness Areas with complete disregard to the
management guidelines established to protect and preserve the resources
for future tourism! Their goals are incompatible with the management of
Wilderness Areas and, if continued, will seriously jeopardize the future
of Wilderness Tourism for EVERYONE, especially for operations that
operate harmoniously and in accordance with Wilderness guidelines.
Has ANY progress been made to move forward with the agreed concept of a
comprehensive, collaborative effort of interagency cooperation with
managing Misty Fiords Wilderness Resources? If not, why not? It has been
almost a year since the proposal by the US Forest Service, current
District Ranger, Jerry Ingersoll, to bring together all the agencies
with jurisdictional issues and concerns within the Monument to formulate
a comprehensive management plan designed around a balance between
Wilderness preservation and utilization! What, if anything, has been
accomplished in this effort? Was this just a rhetorical distraction
devised to temporarily diffuse the opposition to the floating dock and
deflect responsibility to a succeeding administration to deal with?
I will continue to gather information and document this situation to
formally provide a historical account of which agencies are following
prescribed directives and following through with agreements and
intitiatives that they have presented and/or are obligated to enforce or
abide by. Lack of communication with the Public and concerned citizens
and Special Use Permittees will also be duly noted and presented at the
appropriate time.
My ongoing concerns and debates of this issue are purely in the
interests of preserving sustained commercial and recreational Wilderness
tourism for Law abiding citizens, Special Use Permittees, and,
enhanching the the privileges of experiencing a Coastal Wilderness
Ecosystem within a carefully managed and monitored plan.
Tourism development that compromises others experiences, degrades and
negatively impacts wildlife, wilderness values & biological ecosystems,
and operates outside the objectives and directives of the established
Wilderness management plan should not be tolerated, period!
The “EXCUSE” of jobs and benefits to the States economy, in this issue,
are demonstratively overrated, highly politically motivated, and will
easily be challenged and overturned when Washington DC AND the American
People begin to realize what is happening to Misty Fiords National
Monument/Wilderness Area at the expense of a greedy, environmentally
insensitive corporation, and perhaps, shortsighted, underfunded,
politically charged Land/Water Resource Managers as well! Time will
tell!
I would appreciate and expect comments and answers to my questions as
presented in this e-mail!
Thank you,
Rob Scherer US Forest Service Special Use Permittee
Response from District Ranger USFS
From: Rob-Alaska
Date: 25 May 2000
From: Ingersoll Jerry/r10 ketchikan - Ingersoll_Jerry/r10_ketchikan@fs.fed.us
To: captain.rob.scherer Subject: Re: Update on floating dock in Misty
Fiords! Date: May 22, 2000
-------- Thanks for all your recent messages. In the last couple of
months we've changed e-mail systems, with the result that while all of
your messages came through just fine, it has been more difficult to
reply directly to the message. My new address is jingersoll@fs.fed.us
-- which is actually simpler and more straightforward.
Please give me a call, and we can discuss all of the points you raise.
I'll respond to a couple here:
1. Smeaton Bay -- I did suggest to Alaska Cruises that they consider a
Smeaton Bay location as an alternative to Rudyerd Bay. As you are
aware, lands around Smeaton Bay are within the Misty Fiords National
Monument, but are not designated as wilderness. Non-wilderness
locations for this sort of operation strike me as preferable to
wilderness. Alaska Cruises rejected this alternative.
2. Current Movable Float -- Permits from the Corps and the DNR are
required for permanent structures in tidelands/navigable waters, but
not for boats or other transient operations, which, as you recognize,
fall under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard. While Alaska Cruises'
CoE/DNR permit applications are pending,they are operating under the
rules as they stand. There are currently no rules or permit
requirements to prevent or restrict such an operation, so long as the
float moves at least every two weeks.
As you, the FS, and Alaska Cruises all recognize, a movable float has
at least as much impact on the wilderness and everything that goes
with it as a stationary float. In fact, Alaska Cruises has maintained
all along that if their permits were not approved, they would be
forced to go forward with something along these lines. They would
prefer a fixed location, but will find a way to operate if they can.
To put it a different way, one could argue that denial of the permit
might actually increase impacts to the wilderness.
3. Collaborative Planning -- As stated in our letter to the Corps, we
still plan on launching a collaborative planning effort for Misty
Fiords this year. We have always made it clear that any such effort
will be long and complex, and is not a solution to the immediate
question of Alaska Cruises' permit applications.
The other affected agencies have expressed willingness to participate.
I hope we can get started by late summer, when our budget and
personnel become available.
4. Corps Permit -- The Corps has now concluded their review process
and issued a "provisional permit." Essentially, they've approved
Alaska Cruises' application, so long as the State approves it. The
State review is still ongoing.
Response from District Ranger USFS
From: Rob-Alaska
Date: 25 May 2000
To: jingersoll Address: jingersoll@fs.fed.us Subject: Misty "movable
"floating dock Date: May 23, 2000
---------- Mr. Ingersoll,
Thank you for responding to a some of my questions and the
invitation for a phone conservation.
Let me preface by saying that indeed I realize I am somewhat
perisistent with this particular issue and your patience with me is
appreciated. It's a matter of principle and responsibility that, in
my estimation, seems to be lacking in the New Century. My livelyhood
of providing quality Wildeness recreational experiences for hundreds
of my guests seems in serious jeopardy. In reality, been
deteriorating since my original complaint to the USFS in 1992. Since
then, as I have woefully predicted, the obtrusive activities have
exponentially gotten worse. To officially sanction them would be a
travesty to Monument Areas throughout the State via the trickle
effect of a precedent setting approval. If indeed there is an
approval of the floating dock, then some measure of competition
needs to be factored into the equation. Myself and others should be
allowed the same or similiar uses and structures in order to
successfully provide larger groups of tourists with convienent and
safe methods of experiencing a wide variety of Wilderness resources
never before accessable to them. Floating concessions tailored to
our individual business needs and goals, approved by the Army Corp,
blessed by the State for our contributions to the job market and
benefits to the States economy and,......allowed by default by the
USFS because of a precedent of "indirectly" condoning a business
enterprise of it's own business expansion initiative of utilizing a
floating structure to further it's profits for shareholders!
Sounds scary doesn't it? That's exactly where this is headed! I
already have my Permit Application on the table! I had always had
the illusion that this would be resolved and I would be content
providing the minimum impact services in Wilderness. If the
standards are loosened and the bar raised, it would be a matter of
expanding my business goals within the "acceptable field framework"!
That is, if Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises can do it, and the compromising
activities and negative impacts are tolerated by the dominant
management entity, then certainly there is a way for everyone to
expand their opportunities to increase their businesses, including
myself! It would be assine of myself to to continue conducting
"Wilderness Tours" while navigating floating structures and dodgeing
floatplanes and jet skis throughout the day. I would certainly have
to modify my offerings to better represent the future reality of
Misty Fiords, it's not Wilderness any more, just a Park with a bunch
of concessionary businesses with great scenery and photo
opportunities to capture the world's largest gathering of
floatplanes in Misty Fiords! (I'll have to check the Guiness Book of
Records on that.) Maybe this could be the new claim to fame for
Misty Fiords!
I suppose I'd just tell everybody what it was like back in the good
ole days to experience Wilderness solitude, remote from the sights
and sounds of humans. And, if they ask what
happened.......well.....we'll see if they're ready for a long
dissertation!
Regarding the responses you gave in your e-mail.
1) Why would you even consider suggestions of another location
anywhere within or ADJACENT to the Monument to an operation that
conducts activities that have violated the law and management
guidelines for Wilderness? No matter where you suggest the location
it is still a distinct compromise of the goals of managing the
Wilderness areas within Misty!!! To top things off you seem prepared
to make those suggestions irregardless of the history and needs of
LEGALLY permitted Special Use Permittees(also called Priority Use
Permit Holders), such as myself, that have cooperated beyond measure
to comply with strict management guidelines and accounting of
activities for 10 years! Why the heck are you so willing to
accommodate such a distinctly Wilderness divergent operation, give
it priority by "assisting" it with exploring other locations within
or adjacent to the Monument, and clearly ignoring the rights and
needs of other users and Permit Holders! Why are they, and their
clearly inconsistent activities, so much more important to consider
than harmonious activities and regulated operators/permittees who
conduct them? The whole point is that floating passenger exchange
platforms that attract and promote activities that are inconsistent
with Wilderness management for the Monument should not be allowed,
period! Concessions lead to more concessions, it is a fact of life,
and one that you presumably are willing to accept on behalf of
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises. It's very clear the FS has the land and
freshwater users "pinned to the mat" while forfeiting to the real
"challenger" who clearly has had a substantial negative impact! And,
by the way, has every intention of tightening the choke hold on
Rudyerd Bay and the Monument! You may not see it that way, but then
again, you see the State as being a cooperative and "thoughtful "
partner in this collaborative exercise! With all due respect, wrong
again!
Seems very clear that someone other than the District is calling the
shots, namely, Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises by way of refusing to
relocate outside the Monument as suggested would be in the best
interest of other users, the Wilderness ecosystems, and the
sustained quality of the Wilderness experience for future
generations. With the help of course of the underfunded,
understaffed, State DNR and it's political motivatiors, they have
found the "wooden stake" to drive into the heart of the USFS
capabilities of effective management. Do you honestly think the
State DNR has cooperated and taken you seriously? NOT! I can prove
it too! Whatever conversations and assurances the State DNR has
given you it has been to "stiff arm" you and keep you at bay! It in
no way shape or form has there been a serious consideration of the
facts in this matter, the unpermitted history, or the conflicts as
established by the upland landowner, the USFS! It's all POLITICS!!!
Sorry, you, myself, and everyone else and our objections and
opinions have NOT be factored in to this equation! The State DNR
memos prove it Jerry! They even go so far as to say, "We realize it
may not be consistent with OUR OWN agency management plan, but it is
just guidance and we don't want them(Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises) to get
shot down." Who do you think is calling the shots over there? Staff
member Bob Palmer? Absolutely not! He gets his orders from the top
and now inorder to keep his State job must conform to the political
stance suggested by the States Senators and Tony Knowles, and in
reality, to be the State's scapegoat. "He is just doing his job.".
I'll let you into a little secret! This is a fact that is not
disputed and the record proves it! The morning I called DNR(Bob
Palmer) last June about this situation, Bob was very receptive and
willing to authorize a cease and desist order and a notification of
trespass to Alaska Cruises to be served by the Forest Service for
the unauthorized use of the submerged lands. That day he was invited
to lunch by Murray Walsh. Name ring a bell? Murray is an "outside PR
man" who's sole purpose is to grease the skids and provide damage
control, AND, most importantly, to inform the DNR of the politics of
this issue and it's implications(read between the lines!)! Same day
I called back and talked to Bob, and guess what, he did a complete
reversal of his position and was now supportive of a permit
application he had not even received yet! Since then, Joe Beedle has
spoken directly to Senator Murkowski and Stevens and through
"channels" with Tony Knowles to solicit their support by, guess
what, using the USFS as the scapegoat and crying that the Fed's are
trying to take the tourism away just like they took the timber
industry away! This of course was in the newspaper, remember!
Clearly it was a successful ruse to pit the State against the Feds
and deflect the responsibility from Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises actions
to a concocted dispute between the USFS and the State!
I know, without a doubt, and for a fact, what the purpose of this
exercise in jurisdictional confusion is all about! It's about
politics, money, and power! That's it! If it were about doing the
right thing, common sense, respect and responsibility to
historically permitted and legal use and users, and more
importantly, to preserve and protect the integrity of Wilderness
values and ecosystems as directed(you know the drill, TLMP,ANILCA,
Wilderness Act), then this would have been sensibly negotiated with
the proper conclusion. No floating structures within Rudyerd Bay or
within the Monument period! It's as simple as that....at least it
should be!!!
2) Why are considering least impacts, and the obvious circumventing
shenanigans of a historically unpermitted operation even being
considered at all? You seem to be missing a very important point!
The waterways are within the Monument boundaries! According to TLMP
it is NOT allowed! Period! I understand the subject of various
jurisdictions(supposedly) involved and that they consider their laws
and guidelines when looking at this but, the bottom line is that it
is within the boundaries of the Monument! I haven't seen a map yet
that draws a line that excludes the waterways within the Monument
from the Monument! Careful here Jerry, an analogy could be drawn
that a floating lodge, on a barge, with an anchor system, could be
towed around the Monument, and at least if it is on saltwater, there
is nothing you can do about it! Every couple of weeks moved to a
different location and the activities DO NOT have to be compatible
with TLMP guidelines. Jet ski's, Jet boat races, large groups of
20-50+ paddling, motoring throughout the Monument using this
floating lodge as a base of operations would be inconsistent with
Wilderness but nothing could be done if none of the permitting(State)
or navigational lines are crossed! The bigger the better too! More
money, more benefits to the State, more jobs, heck, the State would
give it it's full blessings.....especially if those politically
connected got a free membership package. The point is obvious and I
just wish everyone would quit the bureaucratic posturing, legalese,
and parsing of words and jurisdictional distinctions and get down to
the substantative issue of managing within the rules and guidelines
instead of making excuses of why they should be broken and who
for!!! This issue is a Pandora's box that has been opened and I have
every intention of recording where and when it was opened, who
opened it, who exploited the situation with defiance and greed, who
helped the offenders, who turned their back or dropped the ball, and
of course who tried to do the right thing and tried to do(to the
best of their ability) what was in the best interest of the future
of Misty Fiords National Monument!
This is purely a case of, " If you've got big bucks, and political
connections, you get a pass!
You did say to me personally in our original meeting last year that
you would not inform, involve or take into consideration permitted
users opinions on this issue or gather any info from permitted users
that would support an opposition to the floating dock permit. You
remained true to your word. I still believe you could have learned
alot and could have made a stronger response just by listening to
permitted users describing their conflicts encountered with the
dock's activities over the last ten years and instead of discounting
them, used the conflicts to more of an advantage in favor of the
docks removal! The dock now operating with the anchor method is
circumventing the law but not solving anything and in fact now they
will seek to increase the numbers of catamaran excursions and
floatplane exchanges from several locations over the summer
compounding the conflicts! Who is responsible for this mess?
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises of course AND whoever is the primary
affected management agency within the boundaries of the Monument! NO
EXCUSES! The denial of the permit for a fixed location would allow
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises to further test the resolve of the Forest
Service by continuing their obtrusive and conflicting activities in
a similar manner. Nothing changes, except now they move around! It
is still a legally enforceable violation! You just have to have act
on it!
In my humble opinion they should never have been allowed for so many
years to operate unauthorized and unpermitted in contrast to
Wilderness goals and objectives. Furthermore, they should not be
rewarded through this direct(refusal to be collaboratively
effective) pandering by State and Federal Government.
3) In an e-mail to me last year you stated a 3 year timeframe for
convening a collaborative effort. My impression was that interagency
jurisdictional resolutions would be produced in three years. By the
end of this summer it will be more than a year since you stated your
objectives. The Public Comment by the USFS last winter mentioned a
"comprehensive, open and public collaborative effort is urgently
needed to settle such questions (jurisdictional issues and
conflicting uses)......We look forward to getting underway and
working closely with you in that effort." This, I'm afraid has
fallen on deaf ears! The State has set the agenda, and will only
negotiate with the FS if Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises is "grandfathered
in" so that any conclusions made will not involve revocation of any
of their "squatting rights"! The State has limited interest in
working with the FS on this effort and will indeed try to reduce the
FS goals of comprehensive management, unless of course a pass is
garunteed to Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises! Of course, you don't believe
me! But with all things, time will tell, and you'll figure that out
on your own. Remember, I told you so!
I am encouraged to hear you intend to follow through and I will be
there to "encourage" all who diligently pursue the objectives of
Wilderness management and recreation according to the established
guidelines and, include in their objectivity, the distinction that
ALL waters, land and resources are necessary for comprehensive
management of the Monument. I hope I'm not mistaken when I read that
the Public should be involved.
4) My impression is that the State had it's mind made up way back
last July 99 when Bob(DNR) and Murray(Goldbelt) had lunch together,
and then again Jan 6, 2000 when Bob said the operation "provided
jobs and benefited the States economy", and "I don't want them to
get shot down." . There has been so much opposition (all the
conservation groups within the State and all the letters from
outside the State have emphatically been against the Permit and
concept of the floating dock platform), and curiously so little
effect!
Perhaps I am the one missing the point! Could it be that the goals
of the USFS are moving to be more in line with the State? "We
realize it may not be consistent with our own management guidelines,
but because it provides jobs, and benefits the States economy, we do
not want them to get shot down." Is that it Jerry? Is that what I am
missing? Your words do not reflect this, BUT, your actions do! Is
the USFS going to "grandfather in " Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises and
obtrusive activities associated with the floating platform? Is that
where the standards will be set or will they be excused and allowed
to expand their operations at everyone else's and the resources
expense? Do you honestly think it gets easier from here on out? Will
you stand by while the State issues Permit after Permit for other
structures attached to submerged lands and conducting obtrusive, yet
tourist related activities! When will enough be enough? Letting
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises get away with their irresponsible behavior
will inevitably make things much more complex and difficult to
manage for future administrations.
Thank you for your continued patience and understanding of my views
on this issue. I really am trying to maintain my fundamental
principles and beliefs of acting responsibly and within the
established framework of the Rules that apply to Wilderness and my
activities in accordance with those rules. It continues to be a
daunting prospect to do the right thing when all around you others
are getting away with defiance.....and making the Governing bodies
do the "double speak". I honestly didn't think I would have so much
trouble convincing the USFS of their own power and responsibility in
this issue!
What the FS doesn't yet realize is that it is weakening the resolve
of responsible, permitted users by undermining the principles of
Wilderness preservation and comprehensive management for recreation
and tourism. Everything done in contrast has it's consequences!
Again, I appreciate your indulgence in this matter. I understand
that as a Federal Employee and a Public Servant your tasks of
balancing and judging issues like this can at times be challenging.
I see it as my duty as a responsible Wilderness Recreation advocate
and Commercial Tourism Service Operator and USFS Priority Use
Permittee to fully divulge my views and opinions to you.
Before the weekend is the best time for me to discuss the points I
raised as you suggested.
When is it a good time for you? E-mail the timeframe please. Thank
you,
Rob Scherer USFS Special Use/Priority Use Permittee
Response from Army Corp
From: Rob-Alaska
Date: 25 May 2000
From: Duncan, Charlie S POA02 - Charlie.S.Duncan@poa02.usace.army.mil
To: Captain Rob Scherer Subject: RE: RE: Update on floating dock in
Misty Fiords! Date: May 24, 2000
-------------- As per a response to one of your previous e-mails, we
consider removal of the float from the head of Rudyerd Bay to resolve
that violation. As to other points you mention in this e-mail, The
Corps has no non-discretionary duty with regard to enforcement
actions. Please refer to 33CFR 326.1. You can find it at
www.poa.usace.army.mil Any future request for information from this
office should be sent to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska
District, Regulatory Branch, Post Office Box 898, Anchorage, Alaska
99506 and be accompanied by a signed request.
Response from Army Corp
From: Rob-Alaska
Date: 25 May 2000
To: Charlie.S.Duncan Address: Charlie.S.Duncan@poa02.usace.army.mil
Subject: 33CFR 326.3 Date: May 25, 2000
--------------------------------- Resolution of 10 years of
noncompliance of Federal violations is concluded by removal of the
dock??? Army Corp PASS for a politically connected organization is
what happened without a doubt!
What you are basically stating is that if an unauthorized use occurs
for a substantial period of time(10years) and then is removed or
relocated beyond Army Corp jurisdiction, no remediation effort is
needed....even though the violations negatively impacted the
resources and other users. It leaves the option open to operate
illegally and in conflict until the Army Corp gets wind of it and
then just pull up stakes and move on to avoid prosecution. What a
deal! Wait until the Public figures that loophole out! Or is that
created for this "special offending party and circumstances"? Do you
treat all long term violators this well?
Referring to 33CFR 326.3, e., 1., iii - It states, "No permit
application will be accepted where a Federal, state, or local
authorization or certification, required by Federal law, has already
been denied."
A more timely and thorough investigation and coordination by the
Corp would have highlighted the fact that the operation was indeed
in violation of guidelines established by both the USFWS and USMFS
and therefore should not even be considered.
You obviously discount the fact that recommendations for pursuing
fines for documented violations of other Federal Agencies Laws were
submitted to the Corp! Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises would have been
denied authorization IF THEIR APPLICATION WOULD HAVE BEEN REVIEWED
BY USFWS & USMFS prior to acceptance as an after the fact
application! No application to deny therefore technically 33CFR
326.3,e.,1., iii does not apply! The noncompliance is actually
protected by willfully not applying for the Permit that would
undoubtedly be denied!!!
It's a technicality that I'm sure you're very proud of.......and
Goldbelt Alaska Cruises is smirking about as well!
As you have suggested, I will direct further requests through the
mail....and sign them as well!
Thank you for your patience and understanding with me throughout
this process. I seem to be more interested in abiding and supporting
the Laws of the Land than even the Federal Agencies who are directed
to serve and protect those Laws! My enthusiasm in this effort is
fueled by believing that being a responsible American Citizen and
abiding by the Law is in the best interests of society. The
actions/inaction by the Federal Agencies against Goldbelt/ Alaska
Cruises regarding this issue certainly has me questioning those
beliefs
Response from Bob Palmer- State DNR
From: Rob-Alaska
Date: 19 May 2000
DNR was informed by Alaska Cruises that they would operate with a
float that would move around the Rudyerd Bay area. This was in
response to our position that they could not permanently anchor the
facility in Rudyerd Bay until they obtained a tideland permit. The
ACMP review should be completed next week and we will make our
decision after the consistency determination is issued
Misty Fijord
From: Brewski
Date: 29 May 2000
Rob, I've read most of the posts here and wonder now if the Forest
Service and other government agencies are taking some sort of 'cut' from
Goldbelt. Why don't they issue them a permit.... or are they afraid that
other people will have to be issued permits also.. Very
interesting.....I'll keep watching what happens with this issue. Brewski
Misty Fijord
From: Rob
Date: 30 May 2000
It's POLITICS at it's finest, or filthiest, depending on how you look
at it! I've spoken with everyone involved in the decision making
process and the bottom line is very clear...Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises is
a BIG political player in Juneau with some Senatorial "pull" and the
backing of the Governors office! That "strength" trickles on down
through the State Agencies into the appropriate departments and bingo,
the State DNR has the responsibility of making a decision influencing
lots of money, power, State benefits, and even his job is on the
line!!! Of course the DNR is going to do what his "BOSS", the
Governor, "urges" him to do, IT'S JOB SECURITY!!! The Army Corp looks
at(part of) which stacks of letters, pro vs con, is higher!!! This I
was told as anecdotal and really happened as part of a conversation
between Army Corp, DNR and USFS!!! The USFS admits it doesn't want the
floating dock permit to be approved, BUT, it has "skeletons" of it's
own in the closet! USFS has a floating bunkhouse tied up at Winstanley
Island not far from Rudyerd Bay. They also have been "working" with
Alaska Cruises serving as interpreters aboard their commercial tour
vessels in exchange for, guess what...MONEY! Basically, the USFS has
been in bed with Alaska Cruises, known full well of the violations,
sanctioned the unauthorized this situation through it's silence on the
issue, and ONLY NOW trying to "sneak out of bed and out the back
door", to disassociate their Agency(USFS) from any connection with the
conflict in management goals! That's why the USFS has been very weak
in it's opposition!!! BECAUSE THEY HAVE ADMITTEDLY BEEN PART OF THE
PROBLEM AND SHOULD HAVE TAKEN ACTION BACK IN 1992!!! The USFS is
embarrased over the relationship with a company that now is a
tremendous threat to the proper care and management of the upland
Wilderness Area of Misty Fiords! Are they getting paid off anymore?
Depends on what you consider a "payoff"! Think in terms of "tradeoff",
"porkbarrel", "political spin", "polls", "publicity" and anything
politically motivating! A modified version of all these
characteristics is in play!!! WHY? Because all you have to do is READ
the USFS Management Plan(TLMP, ANILCA, Wilderness Act), and the STATE
DNR's own Agency Management Plan and EVERY ASPECT, EVERY SENTENCE,
EVERY WORD, EVERY INTENT, of all the plans put together is to minimize
conflicting activities within Wilderness, minimize negative impacts,
while allowing harmonious commercial services under strict guidelines.
The Management Plans are very specific as to the intent of achieving a
balance between preservation and responsible development,BUT, as I
have discovered, IT ALL COMES DOWN TO WHO IS DOING THE INTERPRETING OF
THE WORDS!!! IT'S OBVIOUSLY DISSCRETIONARY!!! IN THIS CASE THE STATE
CHOSE TO GO AGAINST IT'S OWN AGENCY DIRECTIVES AND THOSE OF THE USFS
AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO SERVE THE POLITICAL INTERESTS OF
GOLDBELT/ALASKA CRUISES, BECAUSE THEY HAVE MONEY, AND POWER!!! Like
any politcally motivated "out of bounds" play like this, it sets a
precedent for others to follow, and leaves only a polluted legacy of
Wilderness Management for our children to muddle through! That's the
way the World turns these days I guess, develop at any cost
opportunities to enhance shareholder benefit at the expense of
harmonious operators and responsible law abiding citizens. Another
embarrassement example left by this generation of Corp greed and
demogerey to the next generation. And the World wonders why we are
headed down the self destructive path...we teach it to our children
every day!!!
Floating Dock Approved by ACMP! Letter of Appeal as follows!
From: Rob-Alaska
Date: 18 Jun 2000
From: captain.rob.scherer@worldnet.att.net To: Lorraine_Marshall@gov.state.ak.us
Subject: Rudyerd Bay 2 Date: June 18, 2000
Lorraine,
As an Alaskan Citizen of the affected Coastal District nearest the
proposed/historically unpermitted use situation that Goldbelt/Alaska
Cruises has applied for, I am specifically requesting to Petition the
Coastal Policy Council under AS 46.40.096. Our organization has gathered
sufficient evidence that our comments, as well as the comments of the
SEACC, TCS, SCS, USFS, USFWS, USMFS and the Boat Company have not been
fairly considered! The process has not included the several requests for
a Public Hearing, has not fully considered the serious fine
recommendations by the USFWS, has never given any consideration to the
serious factual claim that the proposed activity IS NOT consistent with
the USFS Plan(TLMP) ANILCA, and the Wilderness Act, AND, requests for an
Environmental Impact Statement have been ignored. The status of this
"after the fact" application "shall not" preclude the process from
conducting proper investigations and inventories of affected resources
and users through an EIS and Public Hearing!
In fact, a letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Dept. of
Agriculture, and the Governor of Alaska is being drafted to put the ACMP,
DGC, AKDNR and the ACOE on notice that agency management policies have
been seriously misconstrued and manipulated to compromise the State and
Federal Management Plans to the benefit of a commercially negligent
corporation(Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises) at the expense of the Wilderness
Designation of a National Monument, the wildlife and sensitive
wilderness ecosystems, and permitted users that have operated
harmoniously within the guidelines of TLMP, ANILCA, and the Wilderness
Act, for 10 years!
Our requests for a copy of Alaska's Public Trust Policy has been
noticeably ignored! Why? It is because State officials know full well
that their actions and determinations of compromising and construing the
States Management Plan have indeed given PREFERENTIAL AND DISCRIMINATORY
treatment that benefits Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises through unfair
competition to the detriment and financial damage of other citizens and
commercial operators who depend on "Wilderness Values" to sell their
tours! Wilderness operations that have lawfully conducted business in
Misty have always been negatively affected by the
unauthorized/unpermitted use! With an approval by the State, the
financial damage to Wilderness tours that depend on the expected
"Values" of Wilderness will be significant! Is the State of Alaska and
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises prepared to compensate financially, displaced
permitted commercial operations that have been authorized under Federal
guidelines for 10 years??? Specifically, my company will be severely
diminished and financially ruined if this permit for a floating dock is
approved! Again, the State and Goldbelt/ Alaska Cruises will be held
responsible for the discriminatory and preferential/political actions
that directly cause the financial demise of my Wilderness tourism
business that has operated lawfully and in accordance with all State and
Federal Regulations!
We are again requesting a copy of Alaska's Public Trust Policy to
demonstrate the level of discrimination that has occurred in this
process!
If indeed the State claims NO preferential and discriminatory venue here
than we would fully expect subsequent approvals for floating structures
at any other location "adjacent to" Monument/Wilderness boundaries, not
only in regards to Misty Fiords National Monument/Wilderness, but
Admiralty Island Monument/Kootznoowoo Wilderness, South Prince of Wales
Wilderness, South Etolin Island Wilderness, Warren Island Wilderness,
Karta River Wilderness, Maurelle Island Wilderness, Coronation Island
Wilderness, Kuiu Wilderness, Tebenkof Bay Wilderness, Petersburg
Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness, South Baranof Island Wilderness,
Chuck River Wilderness, Tracy Arm- Fords Terror Wilderness, West
Chichagof-Yakobi Wilderness, and, Russell Fiord Wilderness!
Applications for commercial operations to locate "adjacent to" the above
Wilderness Areas that compromise the corresponding management plans but
based on claims of providing economic benefits and jobs for the State,
would have to be approved or face lawsuits of discriminatory and
preferential deference to politically affiliated corporations, namely
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises! As you can see this would set a horrific
precedent that would not be in the State's best interests!
I reiterate! Requests for Public Hearings must be complied with and
notice's supplied via e-mail to our office immediately! EIS requests are
appropriate in this case and must also be procured before any
determination is finally made regarding the floating dock in Wilderness!
I formally request the Petition process(AS 46.40.096) info and the
instructions for a Citizens Appeal as provided by 15 CFR 930.125(h).
Please send all the above info ASAP as I realize there is some time
constraints!
Thank you,
Rob Scherer, Friends(Commercial) of Misty Fiords Wilderness! P.O.Box
6117 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Anticipating approval by State DNR! Letter of Appeal as follows
From: Rob Scherer
Date: 18 Jun 2000
To: Bob_Palmer Address: Bob_Palmer@dnr.state.ak.us Subject: Rudyerd Bay
dock permit Date: June 18, 2000
----------------- Mr. Bob Palmer,
In anticipation of your full approval of a floating structures permit
for Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises, I formally request an Appeal and/or
Elevation of your decision to a higher administrative level and to be
fully considered by the Commissioner/Director for a full review. All the
Public Comments by private individuals, business operators,
environmental organizations and the dominant "affected upland
landowner", the USFS, in opposition to the permit for a floating dock
permit were not fairly considered! This unfair evaluation by your office
is evidenced by the memos and conversations addressing primary
consideration of economic benefits and jobs OVER the factual and worthy
objections of myself(FMFW), SEACC, TCS, SCS, and the Boat Company, along
with the serious concerns of the USFWS, USMFS, and of management policy
compromises of the Federally mandated TLMP, ANILCA and Wilderness Act!
Please send the appropriate info/instructions for an Appeal ASAP as
there are time constraints.
Thank you,
Rob Scherer P.O.Box 6117 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
BAD NEWS!!! 7200sq.ft. dock approved for use in Wilderness!
From: Rob-Alaska
Date: 20 Jun 2000
From: Bob Palmer - bobp@dnr.state.ak.us To: captain.rob.scherer -
captain.rob.scherer@worldnet.att.net Subject: LAS 22760, Rudyerd Bay
Date: June 20, 2000
------------- DNR has given Alaska Cruises, Inc. a permit for them to
review, sign and return with fee payments, bonding and insurance. When
DNR signs off on the permit we will send a copy of the permit and our
decison to all of the people that participated during the public review
of the permit. We will include a description of the appeal process. I am
not sure when the permit will be returned by Alaska Cruises but I would
assume that it will be in the next 10 days.
BAD NEWS!!! 7200sq.ft. dock approved for use in Wilderness!
From: Allison Sayer
Date: 14 Jul 2000
I'm a little confused about which dock is being discussed- is the
permit for one of the existing docks that was being run without a
permit or for a new dock in mid-bay? Thanks! Allison Sayer
BAD NEWS!!! 7200sq.ft. dock approved for use in Wilderness!
From: Rob-Friends of Misty
Date: 27 Jul 2000
Thank you for your interest in this issue! The Permit applied for and
approved was for the 7200'sq.ft. dock now located about 1/2-3/4 miles
down in South Arm of Rudyerd Bay just off the western shoreline a
couple hundred yards. This dock is the same dock that was installed
without State and Federal authorizations or permits(they did not even
apply for required permits)in Spring of 1998 at the head of Rudyerd
Bay, in a Federal Habitat Zone, and within/adjacent to a designated
Wilderness/Monument Area. The previous numbers and shapes and sizes of
docks were owned by a previous company who never applied for the
required permits either, but made millions and got away with it! Now,
the issue should never have been to get them permitted as the State
has done, it should be is this type of structure and associated
activities "consistent" with the dominant management plan(Tongass Land
Mgmt. Plan) and Wilderness use within sensitive wilderness ecosystems.
The US Forest Service says NO! The dock IS NOT consistent with
Wilderness Management of Misty Fiords! I agree! There are very few
places even in Alaska that persons in small groups can experience
solitude and remoteness that are accessed by boat. There are
significant differences between being labeled "Wilderness" and
actually experiencing the remote and wild ecosystems remote from the
sights and sounds of human disturbances! Allow the American People
some sanctuary to visit that isn't all about money and how many
tourists you can fit onto a seven thousand square foot floating dock
with 20 floatplanes buzzing around it like flies on bear droppings!
The catamaran itself symbolizes a sense of urgency at 30 knots
whipping through the Fiords without concerns to others, often bouncing
others with their wake and last year almost running over 5 kayakers
because the catamaran was running the narrow area at the head of
Rudyerd Bay too fast to stop! Close call! Is this Wilderness?
Absolutely NOT! But then again, people in Anchorage think that a fun
day of fishing is elbow to elbow "combat" fishing on the Kenai and
Russian rivers. What a joke! That's my opinion of course! The folks
who tolerate and enjoy that kind of experience have a place to do it
there outside of Anchorage...those who seek solitude and remote
wilderness experiences deserve to have places such as Misty Fiords to
pursue wilderness activities and not be subject to floating docks, and
the activities associated with them. Remember, this will only be the
beginning for more docks and more catamarans in wilderness throughout
the State of Alaska! Why? Because the pattern over the last 10 years
has demonstrated a significant increase in use(Illegal/unauthorized
use)and Goldbelt already plans on adding another catamaran in the next
year or two(was on the original application)! See how it all goes! Get
the foot in the door and soon it's a corporate controlled takeover of
common property Wilderness resources with the help of the State who
benefits to the tune of $25,000 dollars a year to allow the dock in
Misty Fiords. Big politics, big money, big corporations, they make it
all sound good to the rest of us, but in the end, we the people are
the ones getting fleeced out of our rights to enjoy our National
Resources the way the Federal Mgmt plan has stated. Sorry for getting
a bit off track but many sub-issues irck me as much as the indignation
and lack of common sense displayed by the State with the main issue of
the floating dock that I get fired up a bit! Stayed tuned! I'll be
posting the Permit Approval Letter. It's truly a sad and disturbing
tale of State mismangement of resources to benefit a single
corporation even to the point of rewriting the State's Mgmt Plan to
incorporate the possibilties of floating docks in ALL Wilderness areas
throughout the State of Alaska in direct violation of the Federally
mandated management plan TLMP! It get's worse too! Again stay tuned!
Any questions?
State of Alaska Decision of Approval for 7200'sq ft. floating dock
concession in a designated National Monument/Wilderness Area
From: Rob-Alaska-From the Public Record
Date: 29 Jul 2000
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF MINING, LAND & WATER
SOUTHEAST REGION
RECORD OF DECISION ALASKA CRUISES FLOAT IN RUDYERD BAY ADJACENT TO MISTY
FIORDS NATIONAL MONUMENT LAS 22760
Proposed Activity
Alaska Cruises proposes to anchor three floats that are connected
together in a horseshoe configuration within Rudyerd Bay, approximately
25 miles northeast of Ketchikan. The float will be located within
Section 33, Township 72 South, Range 96 East, Copper River Meridian. The
development plan is shown on Attachment A, sheets 1-5. The floats are
designed to allow the safe transfer of passengers between a 65 foot
vessel and floatplanes. At full capacity there will be 90 people
simultaneously transferring form the planes to the vessel and 90 people
transferring from the vessel to the planes, for a total of 180 people
using this facility per day. The floats will be removed in the fall, but
the anchors and recovery system will remain all year.
History
On June 8, 1999, the Southeast Regional Office received a telephone call
from Ken Crevier concerning a float at the head of Rudyerd Bay. The
region informed him that it was not a permitted activity and told him
that we would require the owner to apply for a tideland permit. On June
8, 1999 a letter was sent to Joseph Beedle of Goldbeit Incorporated
notifying him that the float was considered to be an unauthorized
facility and asked him to submit an application for a tideland permit.
The permit application was submitted on July 30, 1999. Goldbelt stated
that the float was in Rudyerd Bay since 1979 and was placed there by
Dale Pihlman and Cynthia McNulty. Goldbelt acquired the float in January
of 1999 when they bought Alaska Cruises from Dale Pihiman and Cynthia
McNulty. A review of our records indicates that the Division of Mining,
Land & Water had never been contacted regarding this activity prior to
June 8th.
On August 8, 1999 the US Army Corps of Engineers issued a notice of
violation to Alaska Cruises for unauthorized work in navigable waters of
the United States.
On November 22, 1999 the US Army Corps of Engineers published a public
notice regarding the existing float at the head of Rudyerd Bay. As a
result of that notice the site was determined to have adverse impacts to
harbor seal habitat and a request for denial was made by the National.
Marine Fisheries Service. Alaska Cruises decided that another site
should be selected and on January 28, 2000 they submitted an amended
tideland permit application for a site that they claimed would have less
impact to certain marine and terrestrial animals.
On March 22, 2000 the US Army Corps of Engineers published a second
public notice and on April 5, 2000, the State of Alaska (DGC & DNR)
began the public review of the tideland permit application and the
Alaska Coastal Zone Management consistency.
Public Comments
The deadline for comments concerning the state review was May 8, 2000.
The following is a list of the agencies and members of the public that
commented in response to the public notice regarding the tideland permit
application and the ACMP consistency.
Dale Pihlman Discovery Arts P.O. Box 7814 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Thomas Puchlerz Forest Supervisor US Forest Service 648 Mission Street
Ketchikan., Alaska 99901
Eric Hummel Tongass Conservation Society PO Box 23377 Ketchikan, Alaska
99901
Holiday Charters Ward Cove, Alaska
David Anderes 4348 S. Tongass Hwy Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Patti Mackey Executive Director Ketchikan Visitors Bureau 131 Front
Street Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Robert Koenitzer PO Box 8452 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Robert Adams 3304 South Tongass Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Michael Stanley P.O. Box 020449 Juneau, Alaska 99802
Buck Lindekugel Southeast Alaska Conservation Council 419 Sixth Street,
Suite 328 Juneau, Alaska 99801
Michael Round 7981 South Tongass Hwy Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Ed Purvis P.O. Box 9033 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
John Harrington 436 Main Street #50 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Dick Coose Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 5957
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Rick Erickson Southeast Stevedoring P.O. Box 8080 Ketchikan, Alaska
99901
Jeff Lisac 898 Lincoln Street Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Mike Painter 4746 Bucey Ave. Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Lois McNulty PO Box 9594 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Rob Scherer P.O. Box 6117 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Jennifer Lisac 898 Lincoln Street Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
John Clifton P.O. Box 9006 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
There were a number of letters with unidentifiable names or no address.
Other letters were directed to the US Army Corps of Engineers with no
reference to the State review.
In summary, the majority of letters received were in support of the
proposed float and related commercial recreation activity. Some of the
people that submitted comments of support are employees of Alaska
Cruises. The main points of support were: (1). Safety to passengers in
the transfer to and from the vessel; (2). Increases the number of
tourists that can enjoy the Misty Fjords; (3). Safety float for boaters
in a remote area; (4). Economic benefit to Ketchikan economy.
The letters that did not support the float were from competing tour
operators, conservation groups and the US Forest Service. The main
points against the proposed float were: (1). The float and the resulting
air traffic are not consistent with the management intent of the
adjacent wilderness; (2). The float is inconsistent with the management
intent of the Central/Southem Southeast Area Plan; (3). Approval of this
float may lead to a proliferation of similar floats adjacent to the
wilderness; (4). a tideland permit is not the appropriate form of
authorization; (5). There are alternative locations for the float
outside of Rudyerd Bay; (6). Approval of the permit rewards a company
that has been operating illegally; (7). The amount of air traffic in
Rudyerd Bay resulting from this activity will create an unsafe
condition.
Ownership and Management of the Tide and Submerged Lands
There have been several comments regarding the ownership and management
of the tide and submerged land. One position is that the tide and
submerged lands are owned by the State of Alaska but the land is within
the Misty Fiords National Monument and should be subject to the
wilderness guidelines established by the US Forest Service. Another
position is that the tide and submerged lands were excluded from state
ownership by the Presidential Proclamation of 1978 and are subject to
the Wilderness Act of 1964, the Alaska National Interests Lands
Conservation Act of 1980 and all other federal guidelines pertaining to
the Misty Fiords National Monument.
The position of the Department of Natural Resources is that the state
ownership of the beds of navigable waters is an inherent attribute of
state sovereignty protected by the U.S. Constitution. Utah v. United
State, 482 US 193(1987). Under the doctrine that all states enter the
Union on an equal footing with respect to sovereign rights and powers,
title to beds of navigable waters in Alaska vested in the newly formed
State of Alaska in 1959. In addition, under the Alaska Constitution and
the public trust doctrine, all waters in the state are held and managed
by the state in trust for the use of the people, regardless of
navigability and ownership of the submerged lands under the Equal
Footing Doctrine.
The Presidential Proclamation of 1978 does not diminish the state's
ownership of the submerged land. The proclamation merely says, "... do
proclaim that there are hereby set apart and reserved as the Misty
Fiords National Monument all lands, including submerged lands, and
waters owned or controlled by the United States within the area
described on the document entitled "Misty Fiords National Monument"...".
The key words are "all lands, including submerged lands, and waters
owned or controlled by the United States". The tide and submerged lands
in question were not owned or controlled by the United States in 1978
because they became the property of the State of Alaska in 1959. The
position that the land is not within the monument is also supported by
Section 103 (a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
It states "... the boundaries of areas added to the National Park
Wildlife Refuge and National Forest Systems shall, in coastal areas not
extend seaward beyond the mean high tide line to include lands owned by
the State of Alaska...".
In conclusion, the tide and submerged lands are owned by the State of
Alaska and are not within the Misty Fiords National Monument.
Furthen-nore, the land is not subject to ANILCA, the Tongass Land
Management Plan or the Wilderness Act of 1964. The land is subject to
the Alaska Constitution, Title 38 of the Alaska Statutes, the Alaska
Administrative Code, any area plans that are in effect and procedures
established by the Department of Natural Resources. The basis for any
decision made by this department is found in Article VIII, Section I of
the Constitution of Alaska. It states, " It is the policy of the State
to encourage the settlement of its land and the development of its
resources by making them available for maximum use consistent with the
public interest." The goal of the adjudication of this application is to
determine if the permitting of this float is consistent with the public
interest.
Draft Central/ Southern Southeast Area Plan
The Central/Southem Southeast Area Plan has been drafted and reviewed by
state agencies, federal agencies and the public. It is presently
undergoing some final revisions and a notice of intent to adopt will be
coming out soon. There have been several changes made to the public
review draft that will directly affect the area proposed for the float.
The first change is that the Ru designation has been deleted and the
only designation for KT-52 will be Ha. This makes the tideland
designation comparable with all other tideland designations adjacent to
Misty Fiords National Monument. The planning team found that the Ru
designation was more appropriate for areas that are being considered for
inclusion into a marine park or adjacent to a public use cabin. A second
change is that the section on floating facilities has been revised so
that the definition of floating facility only includes structures that
are occupied by people. Unoccupied commercial recreation floats is now
covered under the section entitled Recreation, Tourism and Scenic
Resources. The siting guidelines in the Floating Facilities section will
be added to the Recreation, Tourism and Scenic Resources section so that
the management policy for private commercial floating structures
proposed near a National Monument or Wilderness will remain the same.
The management policy for commercial recreation floats states, "they
should not be permitted adjacent to areas designated LUD 11, National
Monument or Wilderness in the Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan.
Floating structures may be authorized by DNR if it is determined that
the permitting of a floating structure is in the best interest of the
state". The definition of "should" is found in Appendix A of the plan.
The definition says, "Guidelines modified by the word "should" state the
plan's intent and allow the manager to use discretion in deciding the
specific means for best achieving the intent or whether particular
circumstances justify deviation from the intended action or set of
conditions".
The management guideline of the plan does not prohibit the anchoring of
commercial floating structures adjacent to designated wildernesses. It
requires the manager to carefully evaluate all of the issues, consider
the public and agency comments and determine if it is in the best
interest of the state. If it is determined to be in the best interest of
the state, then the land manager should add conditions to the permit
that would best achieve the intent of the management guideline.
Discussion of Issues
The Department of Natural Resources presently does not manage the number
of planes or boats that use the water within Rudyerd Bay. Alaska Cruises
can operate their "fly/cruise" tour of the fiord without a permit from
the department as long as they do not anchor the float in one location
for more than 14 consecutive days. The issue is whether or not the
anchoring of this float in one location for more than 14 days is in the
best interest of the public.
The best interest of the public is a very broad and all encompassing
statement. It includes economics, habitat preservation, recreation,
public safety, and public opinion.
Economics
Historically, Rudyerd Bay has been used by visitors that were able to
either fly in or visit on board a small tour boat that travelled from
Ketchikan or another port. The distance from Ketchikan has kept the
number of visitors relatively low. As the cruise ship industry grew
there became more demand for tours in and around the Ketchikan area. The
concept of a fly/cruise tour of Rudyerd Bay made it feasible for the
cruise ship passenger to visit the bay and still have time to enjoy
Ketchikan. This activity has employed the crew of the catamaran, ticket
agents and the pilots that transport passengers to and from Ketchikan.
According to a Juneau Empire article the inaugural season for this tour
produced $524,000.00 in net income for Alaska Cruises. At the same time,
the owners of the competing cruise tours have reported that the increase
in airplane traffic will negatively impact their business.
Habitat Preservation
To date, there has been no habitat issues raised concerning the float
being placed in marine waters. The habitat issues are solely based on
the possible impacts from frequent low-level aircraft on wildlife. The
proposed site was selected by Alaska Cruises with the aid of the US Fish
& Wildlife Service. The site is away from the critical harbor seal areas
shown in the December 2, 1999 letter from the National Marine Fisheries
Service. The Alaska Department of Fish & Game has concerns regarding the
breeding success of a colony of pigeon gillemonts nesting along the
approach to South Arm and the significance of the site as a summertime
feeding area for marbled murrelets. The concerns are prefaced by saying
that additional biological survey information may reduce their concerns.
The Department of Fish & Game met with the applicant and the Division of
Govemmenw Coordination on May 22, 2000 and discussed the concerns about
low level flights impacting bird habitat. The applicant agreed to
incorporate several changes to the project description. These changes
were incorporated into in the June 13, 2000 Final Consistency
Determination and are listed in Section IX of this decision.
Recreation
There are several types of recreation occurring within Rudyerd Bay.
There is the group that comes here to find a place of solitude. This may
be by kayaking, camping, hiking or on a small boat. There are those that
come by small tour boat to spend a day or two in the fiords and then
move on to their next destination. The third group, and possibly the
largest, are those that have only a very short time and choose to fly
over the fiords for a few hours or take the fly/cruise tour, Alaska
Cruises estimates that its cruise accommodated approximately 13,000
visitors. In almost every case, the access to the fiord is by some
motorized means, which detracts from the beauty and solitude of the
fiord.
Public Safe@y
The issue of public safety has been raised by those in favor of the
project as well as those that are opposed. All parties agree that the
amount of airplane traffic within the Rudyerd Bay area has grown
drarnaticedly over the last IO years due to the increase in cruise ship
passengers arriving in Ketchikan. The US Forest Service reports that on
a nice summer day there may be more than 50 low-altitude overflights and
twenty airplane takeoffs or landings. The maximum number of planes
involved in the Alaska Cruises tour will be I 2 or 13 per day. There has
been concerns raised that there is potential for accidents due to the
number of aircraft now flying within Rudyerd Bay. Those in favor of the
project state that having a platform in the fiord will provide a safe
moorage or a rescue platform for those in need. Alaska Cruises can
operate with a mobile floating platform but to provide the safest
transfer of clients they need a secure and stable facility.
Public 0pinion
Each one of the letters we received represents an opinion on what is the
public's best interest. The state must weigh the comments and determine
what is best for the citizens of the State of Alaska. The number of
comments received was surprisingly small for a project that has had .
statewide newspaper coverage. It is not clear why there was such a small
response but there is no clear direction from the comments as a whole.
The middle ground appears to be to permit the float in this location for
a few years. While the activity occurs, there will be an analysis of the
impacts and a planning effort undertaken by state and federal agencies
during the next 2-3 years.
Alternative Locations
Alaska Cruises and the US Forest Service discussed two alternative sites
for the proposed activity. The sites are as follows-.
Manzanita Bay - This site has similar marine life values that were found
at the head of Rudyerd Bay. It is assumed that the National Marine
Fisheries Service would recommend denial at this site. In addition, the
applicant states that the distance from there to the head of Rudyerd Bay
would not allow for an enjoyable tour of the fiord and points of
interest between there and Ketchikan.
Smeaton Bay - The applicant states that the distance is even greater
than that of Manzanita Bay and would make the tour not feasible.
ACMP Determination
The Division of Governmental Coordination found the project consistent
with the Alaska Coastal Management Program on June 13, 2000, under
AK0004-0 I J. The fmding did not have any stipulations that were to be
placed on the tideland permit. There are three changes to the project
description listed in the finding. They are summarized as follows: 1)
Alaska Cruises will maintain the highest possible altitude commensurate
with safe travel through the east-west portion of Rudyerd Bay; 2) All
takeoffs and landing approaches would be conducted in the north-south
portion of the South Arm near the proposed float. All approaches and
departures will be accomplished in a way to ensure that aircraft achieve
cruising altitude before reaching either Nooya Creek to the north or the
head of South Arm to the south. 3) Alaska Cruises will abide by the
results of the "Interagency Planning Effort" referenced in the ADF&G's
511 1/00 comment.
Summary
It is quite obvious ftom the comments received during the review process
that the pen-nitting of a commercial recreation float within Rudyerd Bay
is controversial and viewed by the managers of the wilderness as not
consistent with their management goals for the adjacent uplands. The
effects of the float and associated activities have been reduced by
siting the float in a more appropriate location than previously
proposed. The only feasible alternative for this type of tour is to have
the passenger transfer somewhere in Rudyerd Bay. The tour is popular and
has allowed approximately 13,000 visitors the opportunity to visit this
spectacular area during the 1999 season. The transfer of passengers to
and from the ship can be conducted without any permit from the State of
Alaska. Authorizing the float and fixing the transfer point will allow
the state to have some control over the activity. Positioning the float
in one location provides some measure of safety by allowing the
passengers to transfer more safely and allowing pilots to know exactly
where the take off and landings will be on a daily basis.
Decision
The Southeast Region of the Division of Mining, Land and Water finds
that authorizing the proposed float is in the best interest of the
state. The permit will be issued with the following conditions:
1. The term of the permit shall be 3 years. The applicant requested the
maximum term of the permit, 5 years, but the region intends to cooperate
with the US Forest Service and study the impacts from this activity over
the next few years.
2. There will be a performance guarantee in the amount of $8,000.00.
This will ensure that pennittee abides by the terms of the permit and
removes the facility if necessary.
3. The pennittee will abide by the changes to the project discussed in
Section IX. of this decision and the ACMP consistency determination
AK0004-OIJ, dated June , 2000.
4. The permittee will secure or purchase at their own expense, and
maintain in full force levels recommended by an insurance professional,
licensed to transact the business of insurance under Alaska Statute,
Title 2 1, and acceptable to the state. The state will expect to see at
a minimum, the following types of coverage:
Commercial General Liability Insurance: The policy shall be written on
an "occurrence" form and shall not be written as a "claims-made" form
unless specifically reviewed and agreed to by the Division of Risk
Management, Alaska Department of Administration. Workers' Compensation
Insurance: The perrnittee shall provide and maintain, for all its
employees, Workers' Compensation Insurance as required by AS 23.30.045.
Where applicable, coverage must comply with any other statutory
obligations, whether Federal (i.e. U.S.L.&H), or, Jones Act) or other
state laws in which employees are engaged in work on the leased
premises. The insurance policy must contain a waiver of subrogation
clause in favor of the State of Alaska.
Ensure that the State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources is
included as an additional insured on all liability policies held by the
perrnittee that provide coverage for liabilities connected to the
operations of the state on or in conjunction with the leased premises,
referred to as LAS 22760.
Provide proof of insurance to the state on a yearly basis. The
certificate must provide for a 30-day prior notice to the State of
Alaska in the event of cancellation, nonrenewal or material change of
conditions. Failure to furnish satisfactory evidence of insurance, or
lapse of the policy, are material breaches of the lease contract and
shall be grounds, at the option of the state, for termination of the
permit. Generally, the state will rely upon the best professional
judgement of the licensed insurance agent and, at renewal, the agent's
annual re-assessment of the insured's liability exposure for
determination of adequate levels of coverage. The state will reserve the
right in the lease to require additional coverage if, in it's
discretion, it determines that it may be warranted. Any changes in the
approved permit development and operations plan, or the existence of
significant claims against the liability coverage, would warrant
examination of the insurance by the state to determine adequacy.
In the event the permittee becomes aware of a claim against any of if s
liability coverage, the permittee shall notify, and provide
documentation and full disclosure of the claim to the state within 20
days.
Certificates of Insurance must be ftunished to the state prior to permit
execution and occupancy. All insurance policies shall comply with, and
be issued by, insurers licensed to transact the business of insurance
under Alaska Statute, Title 22.
5. The annual use fee shall be $2.00 per client. This fee is compatible
with the fee schedule established by the US Forest Service for
flightseeing landing tours. Alaska Cruises will pay 50% of the previous
year's fee at the anniversary date of the permit and will pay the
remaining balance at the end of the season when the exact number of
clients has been determined. The final payment will be submitted to the
department no later than December 2nd of each year. The annual use fee
may be adjusted to reflect any change in the Forest Service fee
schedule.
6. Alaska Cruises will pay back rent for occupying state land during the
1999 season. The rent will be $2.00 per client. Alaska Cruises reported
that they had 12,984 passengers in 1999, which results in $25,968.00
being due in back rent.
7. The float will be available to other boaters as a refuge float when
it is not needed for the transfer of passengers by Alaska Cruises.
Robert Palmer Lands Officer
Ron Schonenbach Regional Manager, SERO
Bob Loeffler Director, Division of Mining, Land & Water
Appeal Process
A person adversely affected by this decision may appeal this decision in
accordance with II AAC 02, to John Shively, Commissioner, Department of
Natural Resources, 550 W. 7'h Avenue, Suite 1400, Anchorage, Alaska
99501-3561. Any appeal must be received at the above address, or
received by being taxed to 1-907-269-8918, within 30 calendar days after
the date of "delivery" of this decision, as defined in I I AAC 02.040.
If no appeal is filed before the end of the period specified, this
decision then goes into effect.
FMFW Appeal to the Commissioner of Alaska as an adversely
affected party!
From: Rob-Alaska
Date: 29 Jul 2000
To: John Shively, Commissioner Department of Natural Resources 550 W.
7th Ave. Suite 1400 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3561
From: Rob Scherer Friends of Misty Fiords Wilderness PO Box 6117
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Regarding the Department of Natural Resources Record of Decision
Alaska Cruises Float in Rudyerd Bay Adjacent to Misty Fiords National
Monument, LAS 22760, I am appealing this decision in accordance with
11 AAC 02!
The basis for my appeal is as follows:
1) My commercial tourism business has always been adversely affected
by not only the current floating structure and the attracted
activities but it’s historically unpermittted/illegal/unauthorized
floating structures and operations as well, since 1992. I have a
record of complaint that dates back to Sept 1992 which detailed the
negative impacts of the operation at that time, and records show that
I have complained every year to the US Forest Service about the
adverse impacts to my business as well as the experiences of hundreds
of my guests that participated with my Wilderness tours.
2) Public Comments by my organization and ALL the other State and
National Conservation Groups representing thousands of individuals and
environmentally responsible corporations were effectively ignored and
discounted as evidenced by VII. Discussion of Issues, Public Opinion,
whereas it was stated that “the number of comments was suprisingly
small”. My organization represents several individuals, the Tongass
Conservation Society, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Sitka
Conserve Council and the Wilderness Society represent hundreds perhaps
thousands of concerned individuals who may have been or will become,
adversely affected by this decision and were not considered as
representing many people with similar interests across the State and
country!
3) Public Comments made by the US Forest Service were not given the
“great weight” to their opinions as promised by the State DNR in the
permit process. The record of decision shows clearly that the State
acknowledges the role of the US Forest Service as the upland land
manager and dominant management Agency of the Monument, BUT, in the
same breath states in section VIII. Alternative Locations, as proposed
by the US Forest Service, the Sate of Alaska does not concur with the
findings only because the applicant stated that the alternatives were
unacceptable to them. It deserves serious investigation as to why the
State of Alaska rejects any and all advice from the US Forest Service
in continuous favor of Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises and their commercial
operation. The State also admits that originally the floating dock was
inconsistent with the State DNR’s own Southeast Management Plan and
has just recently amended and changed the guidelines to accommodate
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises request! The State arranged the changes
without collaborative analysis. I submit that this was accomplished to
deflect future opposition to the docks based on the States Management
Plan and the inconsistent determinations they made at the time. I will
continue to remind everyone of this action that altered the State
Management Plan to in favor of preferential development by a
commercial operation!
4) The State of Alaska in the Record of Decision has unfairly
discriminated against my historically permitted commercial tourism
company by approving a permit for Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises who has
operated willfully without permits for 10 years. Goldbelt purchased
the illegal/unauthorized/unpermitted operations and 3 floating docks
from Dale Pilhman in 1998. Because Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises is the new
owners it does not preclude or lessen the severity of the negative
impacts that my historically approved tourism business has suffered
because of the inconsistent activities associated with the floating
docks in Wilderness. The State of Alaska has violated the Public Trust
Policy by approving a permit that gives one commercial corporation a
distinct advantage in competition over another by virtue of the
activities directly and negatively impacting a historically permitted
operation, namely mine! Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises has never had a permit
for their floating structure and the US Forest Service recommends
denial of their permit application WHEREAS, my operation has been
permitted for 10 years AND approved by all State and Federal Agencies
with absolutely no objections and a flawless operational record!
Ongoing investigations will prove without a doubt that the State of
Alaska has discriminated unfairly against my permitted business to the
extent that I will no longer be able to conduct Wilderness tours with
any level of expectation of a Wilderness experience when guests
request tours through Rudyerd Bay.
5) The State of Alaska cannot legally grant a private company
exclusive control of what are otherwise common property resources! The
State is reserving approximately 1 acre of submerged land for the
exclusive use of Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises floating structure. The
location of the structure is more obtrusive than ever and is a
significant distraction to the overall land/waterscape of Wilderness.
The negative impacts to other users is unjustified and unfair and is a
clear indication that now as before Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises will/has
effectively reserved use of a significant area of Rudyerd Bay for
their exclusive use and control for landings/takeoffs of floatplanes,
not to mention the previous north/south vistas of Nooya and the South
Arm have been severely compromised by the ever evolving and growing,
green plywood monstrosity’s unmistakable presence.
6) The State of Alaska has never stipulated how they will monitor
compliance of the permit parameters! I already have evidence that the
permit parameters have been violated and will be accumulating more for
the ensuing court case. There are no enforcement capabilities by the
State, no budget or ability to monitor the conditions required by the
Record of Decision. The low level flights that impact wildlife still
occur, without the ability of the State to confirm or deny.
Furthermore, the conditions 1 and 2 cited in IX. ACMP Determination
have no enforcement or monitoring capabilities. Who does one report
violations to? The State for them to shelve? The US Forest Service for
them to say they can’t do anything because it’s the States
jurisdiction? The conditions of the permit are meaningless unless
there is a monitoring and enforcement policy in place by the State
which the State would be committed to enforcing!
7) The State of Alaska seems ridiculously confused and contradictory
in it’s Record of Decision to the point of ludicrous!!! By the
reckoning of the State any and all navigable waters within all
National Monuments/Wilderness Areas/National Parks and Refuges and
even Federal Habitat Zones are available for development in the best
economic interests of the State or local communities, or as this case
a politically connected, environmentally disrespectful corporation!
The ludicrous part is this, the State admits that the US Forest
Service( the State cleverly disguises and downplays the US Forest
Service role by defining them as “the managers of wilderness” in lower
case) is the upland land manager and that they have objected to the
approval of a permit for the dock. See page 9, X. Summary, where the
State says “ It is quite obvious from the comments.....within Rudyerd
Bay is controversial and viewed by the “managers of the wilderness” as
not consistent with their management goals for the adjacent uplands.”
Why does the State insist on downplaying the serious objections of the
US FOREST SERVICE and then the next page, page 10, XI. Decision 1.
.....but the region(STATE OF ALASKA) intends to cooperate with the US
Forest Service and study the impacts from the activities over the next
few years, AND, in previous statements , the State of Alaska along
with the ACMP has promised to hold Alaska Cruises to abide by the
decision of a collaborative “Interagency Planning Effort” headed by
the US Forest Service! The State goes even further and mimics the fee
schedule used by the US Forest Service to charge Goldbelt/Alaska
Cruises as if it were on Federal Land!!! The hypocrisy by the State is
suffocating! Why wait for the results, they’re already in! NO floating
docks in Misty Fiords National Monument/Wilderness Area.
8) A Public Hearing was requested by several organizations and not
held!
9) Fines/backrent according to the calculated fee schedule should be
pursued and effected against Dale Pihlman/Alaska Cruises for the 10
years of unauthorized use of the submerged lands prior to
Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises. Fines were also recommended by the National
Marine Fisheries Service for the 10+ years of “squatting” on submerged
lands, within a Federal Habitat Zone and that has negatively affected
other users who were permitted, not to mention the negative impacts to
the wildlife resources.
10) Regions Southeast Management Plan was manipulated, construed AND
THEN, without formal review, changed to facilitate the permit for
Goldbelt /Alaska Cruises.
11) The Permit is issued to Alaska Cruises, Inc. located at 9097
Glacier Hwy, Suite 200, Juneau, Alaska. For the record please confirm
that this application has been applied for by Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises
on behalf of the newly formed subsidiary Alaska Cruises which is owned
and controlled by Goldbelt Inc.. Both have the same address therefore
any actions resulting from Alaska Cruises operations that are found
detrimental, damaging, negatively impacting, punitive, negligent and
inconsistent then also Goldbelt, Inc would be held accountable as
well! All the correspondence between the State and Alaska Cruises
regarding the permit application has been done on Goldbelt, Inc.
letterhead. I specifically request the State to add Goldbelt, Inc to
the Permit!
Again, I find the States findings unfair and detrimental to the
existing management of Misty Fiords and to the historically permitted
consistent use therein by responsible authorized commercial
operations. I understand the desire to create an increased revenue
base from the natural resources found in wilderness but challenge the
State and Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises to develop opportunities that are
consistent with the existing uses and the dominant management plan for
the health and welfare of sustained Wilderness use and recreation. The
floating dock in too many ways is clearly and admittedly beyond the
scope of acceptable use of Wilderness Resources because in impedes and
negatively impacts the wildlife and the expectations of a Wilderness
experience, which of course is one of the reasons Misty Fiords
National Monument/Wilderness was established. It also has negatively
impacted my business and the historically consistent use with
Wilderness guidelines that I adhered to for 10 years! Continuation of
the activities revolving around the floating dock and the cruise/fly
program will undoubtedly adversely affect the ability of my business
to provide Wilderness recreational opportunities within Rudyerd Bay
which myself and hundreds of Wilderness advocates/guests have been
accustomed to and fully expect based on the Tongass Land Management
Plan for Wilderness Areas. It is likely it will be necessary to seek
damages for the 10 years of unauthorized use and now the increased
inconsistent use that has adversely affected and thwarted any
possibility of my business to thrive and grow, let alone even survive.
None of my guests expressed in interest in returning to Rudyerd Bay
because of the negative experiences caused by Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises
floating dock and associated activities. Again, preferential deference
to a commercial operation to change and reserve the
waterscape/landscape for it’s use to the detriment of another
commercial operation may very well prove to be illegal and deserve
restitution. If the State is listening, I guess you know who will be
standing next to Goldbelt, Inc. as a defendant!
Regards,
Rob Scherer Friends of Misty Fiords Wilderness
P.S. The goals of FMFW is to guide and develop responsible economic
development in accordance with the Tongass Land Management Plan for
Wilderness Areas. To protect and preserve, but also to develop
carefully and with respect to all recreational users and Permittees.
It is the hope of FMFW to develop jobs and economic benefit to the
local community as well as the State, through planned use with the
cooperation and approval of the US Forest Service in order to provide
Americans interested in experiencing Wilderness, with it’s solitude
and remoteness, away from evidence of man and developments as mandated
by the Presidential Proclamation of 1978!
What are the facts on the environmental impact of the approved
dock
From: Ryan Paul-Eastern Washington University-Senior w/ Liberal Arts
Degree
Date: 10 Feb 2001
I am doing a research project with regards to the taxation of Alaskan
Tourist Ports. I need the facts. Have any studies been done? If so, what
were the results? Thank you.
What are the facts on the environmental impact of the approve...
From: Rob-Alaska
Date: 27 Apr 2001
The USFS had been mandated by Congress to study the issues of impacts
on the National Monument through the Tongass Land Management
Plan(recently revised) implemented in April of 2000. After ten years
and millions of dollars of public scoping and resource inventory the
USFS still does not have data on impacts of tourism on Wilderness! The
evidence of negative impacts are obvious and growing at an alarming
rate but the impacts are hard to quantify therefore efforts to do so
have not been seriously attempted! There has been talk about it for
years but nothing substantive has ever been done! However, the USFS
does keep records of commercial use via the Special Use Permit
process. Basically the records are kept to charge operators for use
and the information is simply how much activity is engaged in per day
at said locations. I've been offering the USFS for ten years
information on contacts with other user groups, wildlife encounters,
birding information (endangered species sightings) and the illegal and
unauthorized uses conducted on Public Lands.....they said thank you
NO! Because the information does not come from the agency itself it's
considered unreliable and simply anecdotal!
Perhaps closer to your question I have to say NO there have not been
studies done to base the official decisons on! The impacts are
painfully evident but no studies have ever been conducted! On a
ridiculous note, the State, in it's Record of Decision, stipulates
that a study be done on the effects on the feeding habits of Marbeled
Murellets and Pigeon Guillemonts......guess who is in charge of the
study? Goldbelt/Alaska Cruises......nothing short of the fox in charge
of the hen house!
I requested a Public Hearing to discuss an Environmental Impact
Statement of the project and the State said NO, they would not hold a
hearing AND they will not do a study of the impacts of "industrial
tourism"!
The State of Alaska has recently been sued for the not providing due
process on the Misty Fiords floating dock issue! The Permit was pushed
through and approved based on the States "day use policy". The reality
is it is a huge project servicing 10,000 tourists with a seasonally
permanent structure that has negatively affected other user groups,
displaced wildlife and given an irresponsible corporation exclusive
use of an otherwise public resource!
Stay tuned.....it isn't over yet.....in fact, may be just the
beginning!
Rob
|