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 |