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


Home | Newspaper Articles | The Problem | Where is Misty Fiords
Scenic Photos
| Wildlife Photos | Correspondence on Loss of Wilderness Values
How to Make a Difference for the Future of Misty Fiords Wilderness

Friends of Misty Fiords Wilderness
c/o Rob Scherer
PO Box 6117
Ketchikan, AK 99901

E-mail: info@mistyfiords.org

Contents of all pages are © 1999-2005 by Friends of Misty Fiords Wilderness
 except as otherwise indicated.  All rights reserved.