Common concerns<\/strong><\/p>\nAllowing one or more selected commercial tour operators to use motorized boats to bring visitors to the face of the glacier is among the most controversial expansion proposals, and was consistently raised in the approximately 70 questions submitted during the webinar.<\/p>\n
“My understanding is that motorized boats have been roundly opposed in the past, due to the impacts to a natural experience,” Irene Gallion, one of the questioners, wrote. “Can you help me understand what has changed that it is now considered reasonable?”<\/p>\n
Reconsideration of motorized boats occurred when surveys asking “what people wanted as an experience” were taken a couple of years ago, said James King, the forest service’s Alaska region director of recreation, land and minerals.<\/p>\n
“What we heard was that people wanted an experience at the face of the glacier,” he said. “They don’t necessarily want to be up on the snowfield or the ice field, but the face of the glacier is getting further away.”<\/p>\n
Other options to provide such access, including a gondola and road access to the face of the glacier, were considered, but deemed less viable, King said.<\/p>\n
Anita Evans, another webinar attendee, asked about the risk of glacier calving and outbursts to boats docking near the face of the glacier. King said the risk appears minimal due to the location of the dock and changes to the glacier itself, but will be further investigated if that option is chosen.<\/p>\n
“The proposed location currently for the dock in Alternative 2 is not in direct line of sight of the glacier itself…so it would be designed to accommodate outbursts,” he said. “Also, the face of the glacier is not nearly as high as it used to be, so the height of waves from calving activity is likely to be much less.”<\/p>\n
Trails are also a controversial subject in the expansion, especially with the more aggressive proposals that would establish high-use commercial paths at what many locals say comes at the expense of individuals and those with dogs.<\/p>\n
Monique Nelson, a forest service land management planner, told the webinar audience many of the expansion plans attempt to enhance the experience for both groups of tourists and individuals, such as a commercial-volume bike trail circling the Dredge Lakes area that still allows those inside the loop to hike in peace. Other loop trails proposed throughout the recreational area serve similar purposes and reduce the perceived traffic level by eliminating there-and-back treks.<\/p>\n
“A lot of what we’re trying to do is bring a lot of people to the Mendenhall, then allow them to spread out and enjoy their experience,” she said.<\/p>\n
Several aspects about the new welcome center, such as its location and designated purpose, also were frequently raised by those submitting questions. Nelson said it is designed to be a lounge, resting area, warming hut, cafe, information hub about the area’s facilities “and perhaps most importantly access to restrooms.”<\/p>\n
“It’s designed to be complimentary to visitors’ center, but it’s also subdued,” she said. “It’s not meant to overwhelm or dominate that historic visitors’ center at all.”<\/p>\n
The idea of commercial food sales at the new center seemed questionable to webinar attendee Ryia Waldern.<\/p>\n
“What is the rationale behind having a cafe (I know historically there has been one) now?” she wrote. “Are there concerns about enforcement with tourists having easy access to food with the Mendenhall bear population?”<\/p>\n
Pete Schneider, a forest service biologist, said during his seven years at the visitors’ center an increasing number of tourists are expressing interest in getting “something to eat or a cup of coffee,” and he expects that trend to continue. But he also noted bears were a “major topic” of planners and a factor in the design of the proposed center.<\/p>\n
“A lot of that will be set up in a way where entrances and exits are, and where staff will be positioned,” he said. “Not everything can be resolved with signs, we know that.”<\/p>\n
While nearly all of the webinar questions suggested the person was unhappy about the issue raised, Fluharty said it’s important people with positive comments about aspects of the proposals submit them before the deadline.<\/p>\n
“We would hate to cut something out of the plan that people will like based on just a few negative comments,” he said.<\/p>\n
After the comment period <\/strong><\/p>\nThe comment period will be followed by one where objections can be raised once the forest service publishes a draft decision, Nelson said. But she said both comments submitted now and subsequent objections need to be “substantive and relevant.”<\/p>\n
“It can’t be ’I don’t like what you’re presenting’ or ’I don’t like Alternative 2,’” she said.<\/p>\n
Only one official comment was submitted online to the Forest Service during the hours following the webinar. Keith Pahlke – who was not among the listed questioners – stated just before midnight Thursday he supports Alternative 3 for most of the proposed changes, but is among the many opposing motorized boats.<\/p>\n
“I see the need for improved trails and parking at the visitor center, and better access to dredge pond and moraine ecology trail,” he wrote. “I like some sort of pedestrian bridge across the river. I like the proposed West Glacier trail loop. Anything that can be done to minimize the impact of all the busses is good. I do not support the proposed tour boats. I think the logistics of placing the docks, restrooms, pods, etc. will be daunting, and I don’t think most cruise ship visitors will spend the time to go on a boat to get a little closer. The whole feel of the recreation area will be diminished with power boats.”<\/p>\n
The hope is to complete the EIS process by fall, although the timeline may get pushed into winter, with various aspects of implementation including seeking funding sources occurring after a record of decision is reached, Fluharty said.<\/p>\n
“Some things may happen quickly, but other things will take years to implement,” he said. “We will have a phased implementation.”<\/p>\n
• Contact Mark Sabbatini at Mark.Sabbatini@juneauempire.com.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Residents ask questions about expansion plans during webinar. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":868,"featured_media":83866,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_stopmodifiedupdate":false,"_modified_date":"","wds_primary_category":9,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,4],"tags":[75],"yst_prominent_words":[],"class_list":["post-83865","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-home","category-news","tag-local-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.juneauempire.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83865","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.juneauempire.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.juneauempire.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.juneauempire.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/868"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.juneauempire.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=83865"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.juneauempire.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83865\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.juneauempire.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/83866"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.juneauempire.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83865"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.juneauempire.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83865"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.juneauempire.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83865"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.juneauempire.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=83865"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}