Lynn Canal Conservation, Inc.
Box 964 • Haines, Alaska 99827
September 7, 2012
Complaint filed with Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation under 11 AAC 21.100(e) regarding River Adventures multiple violations of its permit to operate in the Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve
Sent via email to Ben Ellis, Director Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation; Mike Eberhardt, Southeast Area Parks Superintendent; and Preston Kroes, Haines Ranger.
Complaint Basis
Between July 26 and August 24, 2012, River Adventures was photographed making 27 passes through the Sheep Canyon Lake Access Channel creating medium to large size wakes inside the No Wake Zone. There were an additional 45 jet boat passes that created smaller wakes inside the No Wake Zone. Photos of the 27 most blatant violations are attached.
History of Permit Violations by River Adventures in the Sheep Canyon Lake Access Channel
In the past River Adventures has been photographed and videoed many times creating a wake in this area after it was designated a No Wake Zone. DNR has failed to cite the company for any previously documented violations in the access channel. Importantly, the No Wake Zone permit stipulation was instituted to minimize erosion occurring in the Sheep Canyon Lake Access Channel, an ADF&G documented high value salmon rearing habitat.
Past documentation began with a LCC video taken on 5/26/04 of River Adventures violating the No Wake Zone. On 3/8/05 ADF&G issued a memo to DNR stating ADF&G staff observed non-compliance with the no wake zone in the channel: “On all of these occasions, large wakes were observed in this small channel, though speed was reduced.” ADF&G recommended a monitoring and enforcement program be established to prevent further violations, but no such program was established. Instead, Parks installed a No Wake Zone sign.
LCC sent DNR a video of River Adventures violating the No Wake Zone on 6/23/05, after the sign was installed. On 3/3/08 ADF&G biologist Betsy McCracken reported “observations from ADF&G SF [sport fish] and CF [com fish] personnel (2007) have been that the commercial jet boat operator regularly travels outside of the authorized route, and cause erosion in slack water rearing areas; this includes violating the no-wake stipulation in the Sheep Canyon area.”
Remedies sought
1) Given its past history, and given the lack of agency response to past violations, River Adventures apparently believes it will not suffer consequences for blatantly violating its permit conditions. Alaska Administrative Code lays out appropriate consequences: “No permittee or permittee's agent or employee may violate the conditions of the permit. Upon any violation of a permit condition, the director may suspend or revoke the permit. Each day in violation of the permit conditions set out in (c) of this section constitutes a separate violation.” See 11 AAC 21.100(e).
We request River Adventures be cited for each violation. Also, blatant disregard for permit stipulations would indicate that suspension or permit revocation should be strongly considered as a means to insure against future violations. Since the company’s 2012 tour season will be over on September 14, we request the suspension or revocation carry over to the 2013 operating season.
2) If no action is taken, Sheep Canyon Lake Access Channel will continue to erode from boat wakes. Studies funded by ADF&G and conducted in the Chilkat River in 2002 and 2004 determined that 95 to 98% of Sheep Canyon Lake Channel erosion was attributed to commercial jet boats (Hydrodynamic Impacts of Commercial Jet Boating on the Chilkat River, Alaska, D.F. Hill et al., 2002, page 107). Between the summer of 2002 and 2003, West Bank Sheep Canyon Lake Channel erosion was measured in three places at 20.3 cm, 12.7 cm, and 10.2 cm, respectively. East Bank channel erosion was documented at 7.6 cm in two locations. (Id, page 26). Between the summers of 2003 and 2004, West Bank channel erosion was measured at 59.7 cm, 35.6 cm, and 12.7 cm. East Bank channel erosion was measured at 10.2 cm and 17.8 cm. (Biological Impacts of Hydraulic Disturbances Associated with Jet Boating on the Chilkat River, Alaska, D.F. Hill et. al., 2005, page 29).
We request that Parks obtain the necessary permits from ADF&G for a bank stabilization project to occur in the spring of 2013. This area should be removed from River Adventures tour route until such time that bank stabilization is successful and a monitoring and enforcement program is established. If Parks does not have the resources to provide monitoring and enforcement, this area should be permanently removed from the tour route. Further, code allows the state to charge the company for costs associated with repairing damage. See 11 AAC 21.100(c)(5).
3) We request Parks fund an evaluation of the entire jet boat route in 2013 to assess whether any other areas show evidence of wake erosion. This assessment is particularly important in narrow channels along the tour route, as the Management Plan recognizes that streambanks can be compromised whenever commercial jet boats are allowed to run closer to the bank than 50 feet. See Management Plan at C-6.
4) We request Parks reassess the decision to allow River Adventures to access the Secondary Route in May and September to protect salmon eggs, outmigrating smolt, and adult spawning salmon. This area is extremely valuable salmon habitat, and studies show that even a single pass from a much smaller jet boat can kill salmon eggs in occupied redds.
Concluding remarks
The Management Plan states that commercial activities are “considered appropriate” in this highly productive habitat “with careful management and surveillance of their uses.” See Plan at 3-9. It’s time for DPOR to assume its responsibility for surveillance, and to take seriously its charge to manage Preserve resources carefully. That is, the “management emphasis” for the Upper Chilkat Unit is “on the protection of sensitive habitat.” Id. Motorized tours are only “conditionally authorized,” (see Plan at 3-10), and only allowed when “issuance of the permit is compatible with the purposes for which the preserve was established.” See 11 AAC 21.100(b)(2). If DPOR does not have the resources to provide surveillance and careful management, it should not issue a permit for this commercial activity.
Thank you in advance for your prompt response to this complaint.
Scott Carey, President