Forests & Chugach Conservation

The Chugach

In Alaska, "the Chugach" can mean many things: Chugach National Forest, the second largest national forest in the US; Chugach State Park, the half-million acre state park in Anchorage's backyard; or even the Chugach mountain range that stretches around Prince Williams Sound to Anchorage.

Chugach National Forest

Alaska Center for the Environment (ACE) works primarily on issues facing the Chugach National Forest in South Central Alaska.  The wild forests in the Chugach provide critical wildlife habitat, support Alaska's subsistence needs, sustain the fishing and tourism industries, and provide some of the country's most beloved recreational places.  To find out about current issues facing the Chugach and how you can help, click on the links below.

HIGH IMPACT, LOW OUTPUT HYDRO -  These projects threaten the Kenai in the Chugach National Forest.  Find out why ACE believes these hydro projects are a bad idea.

Chugach State Park Draft Management Plan

At nearly a half million acres, Chugach State Park is the third largest state park in the United States. The park offers more than just a stunning backdrop to Alaska’s largest urban center: it is the source of our drinking water, and provides a refuge for wildlife and residents alike. For many Alaskans, it is our portal into the wilderness and provides us with the opportunity to recreate close to home.Wildlife, wilderness and recreation all contribute to our quality of life, and are values that ACE cares about.

We have taken the time to review the Draft Management Plan and offer you our analysis and a few of our recommendations to help inform you and give you some ideas for writing your own comments. Thanks to those of you who have contacted us about the plan and offered your assistance. Because the plan is long and complex, these suggestions should not be viewed as a comprehensive list of issues, but rather a guide for you to consider. Of course, we encourage you to take some time and look over the plan yourself.  The comment period has been extended to October 31^st.  

Click here to view the plan.

The park planners have extended the public comment period to October 31^st. 
Send your comments to Monica Alvarez here.

ACE's Overall Impression of the Plan

A Guiding Document?

We have concerns about the overall tone of the document, which elevates human needs and desires (and development) over resource protection, (including our drinking water, wilderness and wildlife); despite the enabling legislation that clearly favors park resources:

Wildlife

We were encouraged to see the plan shining the light on AS 41.21.122 which states:  “ADF&G shall cooperate with DNR for the purposes described in AS41.21.121 relevant to duties of the ADF&G.  This restriction insures that ADF&G management of fish and game resources within legislatively designated boundary is consistent with park purposes”. 

Though we haven’t witnessed this kind of cooperation in recent years, the new plan offers an opportunity for the State Park managers to push back on Fish and Game and finally close the park to trapping. This has been a goal of ACE for years due to the incompatibility with the park’s enabling legislation and the hazards created by allowing trapping along popular recreational trails. Though we recognize there have been some small improvements in the past years, we know there is wide support for a trapping ban in Chugach State Park. Recommend closing the park to trapping.

The tone throughout the document with regards to wildlife is biased.  For example, on P16 in the chapter on natural resources, the wildlife section starts off with this: “Mammals are not as abundant in Alaska as they are in more temperate regions of North America”.  Is this even true? Why not say Alaska is well known for its abundance of wildlife and many residents and visitors come to the park expressly to view wildlife…

Then on p33, the plan goes on to say that one of the purposes of the park was to provide for areas for wildlife viewing, but that wildlife management can be challenging within the park.  It then goes right on to say negative encounters are not common within the park but public safety is a concern.  It further goes on to say most visitors seem to be aware of the potential threats.  This is how the park leads with their discussion about wildlife management.  Rather than a recognition of and celebration of the rich fauna in the area, the tone is immediately negative.  We recommend a re-write.

 In the same paragraph, they quote the 2010 study report by F&G titled Anchorage Residents Opinions on Bear and Moose Population Levels and Management Strategies.  Of all of the information in that study, they chose to quote twice from it.  Once to show that residents of Anchorage are highly tolerant of bears and moose, and secondly that residents indicated that they still favored building trails in areas, such as along salmon streams, where authorities believe the threat of bear attacks is increased.  The problem with this statement being included in the plan is the State will use it to bolster their plans to build trails in areas that will certainly lead to more maulings and more dead bears. Recommend no new trails along salmon streams where the risk of encountering a bear are significantly increased.

ADF&G has created some problems, and some opportunities, in the park by stocking lakes and streams without consulting with the park. This has lead to terrible degradation of the shore of Symphony Lake, the need for a huge parking area at Bird Creek, and numerous human/bear encounters at Bird Creek. Stocking may or may not be a good idea in some circumstances, but the park should assert its authority to manage any activity, including fish stocking, that adversely affects the park. Recommend State Parks using their authority to protect park resources.

Wilderness

The plan fails to define wilderness in a comprehensive way, and is eager to point out that they are not talking about Wilderness as defined by the federal government, but wilderness Alaska style-where all kinds of uses and activities may occur including: trapping, use of motorized equipment, improved campsites (including tent platforms, hardened campsites, fire pits, shelters, picnic tables, sanitary facilities and interpretive displays), public use cabins, yurts, and shelters, resource extraction by state parks (including removal of timber, rock, sand, gravel, plants or other park resources), military exercises, boat launch sites, horses and other pack animals, fisheries restoration and enhancement, wildlife habitat manipulation, pest and disease control, tree felling and /or timber sales, fire suppression and mitigation, snowmachines and helicopters allowed in certain conditions by permit.

 And yet, the plan does elaborate on Wilderness (p41) where it says “No human-made improvements should be provided except for the most rudimentary trails, bridges and signage”.  The plan is in direct conflict with this vision of wilderness by allowing so many incompatible uses.

Recommend the plan addresses wilderness in a more comprehensive and consistent manner.  Additionally, wilderness should be included in the glossary.

Access

Access (page 10) is critical to the future of the park and is being jeopardized by development of private land adjacent to the park. Title 21 of the municipal code is being rewritten. The last time that Title 21 was reviewed by the Assembly, it contained a provision requiring developers of land adjacent to the park to provide an easement across the development to the park boundary. That would permit the park to develop new, neighborhood access as necessary. We need to insure that this provision remains in Title 21, or many of the goals of the management plan cannot be met (i) due to lack of access and (ii) concentrating park use at a few access points. The management plan should endorse and incorporate the concept that private land cannot block access to public land. Recommend park managers support the right of the Municipality to require access into the Park.

Allowed Uses (p 51)

If you only have time to read one part of the plan, we recommend that you spend some time looking through this section.

• Too many incompatible uses are listed for the wilderness portion of the park.
•  Glad to see that predator control is not compatible in any areas of the park.
• Unhappy to see trapping compatible in all three management zones.
• Hydroelectric (P56) is not appropriate inside the park
• ACMP is now defunct and should not be referenced on P 57.
• Under commercial uses (P57), should hunting guides and ATV tours be permittable uses inside the park? Prior to issuing permits, the determination must be made that the park will not be adversely affected, including pollution, public safety, public use values, (though it says nothing about resource protection)!
• Commercial lodges or resorts are listed as compatible in the recreation zone-is there a location where this would be appropriate?
• Commercial power development is compatible by permit in recreation and natural zones-these uses should be incompatible, especially hydroelectric which disrupts the natural flow of streams and rivers creating downstream impacts to the watershed.
• Horses are allowed in most of the park and have added to erosion and damage to trails and the spread of invasive plants. (see regulations on P 143)
• Rock climbing-permanent anchors should be allowed in recreational zones, especially along Turnagain Arm, but there are a few other places as well that would benefit from being allowed to affix anchors.  

Glen Alps

Other Resources

CHUGACH STATE PARK - Follow this link to find out about the Chugach State Park.

USFS CHUGACH NATIONAL FOREST INFO - Click here for the US Forest Service link.