CityView Portal
| We are sorry but no more comments are being taken for this case |
| Return to CityView Portal |
| Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval. | |
|---|---|
| Joanne Blackburn | 8/25/2013 10:01:47 AM |
| Girdwood Supervisors do not represent Twenty-Mile and Portage. They are not the one's who represent landowners in that area. Just a reminder. | |
| Theresa Daily | 7/29/2013 4:19:34 PM |
| If the existing trail heads were managed better, staffed better, I could see some new trailheads that did not interefere with small neighborhoods or cross private land but as it is now the park service cannot take care of the trailheads they have, why burden them with more? | |
| stuart grenier | 4/24/2013 11:01:50 PM |
| What it the point of having a park if you cannot get to it? In regards to the location that folks access Ram Valley from in Eagle River Valley off of Prudhue Bay Rd. area. We need a long range plan that included enough parking to allow for at least 8 vehicles in the upper area. Please purchase one to the lots when possible that could facilitate this. Having folks park on the side of the road with mean neighborhood barking dogs circlling your car is not the right answer. understand that this trailhead is the most spectacular of any in CSP and the trail offers access to the high country better than any other. It should not be a secret even though there is a noted brown bear problem. It offers the best access to upper Peter Creek and Ram Valley. Securing this access should be one of the highest priorities of CSP and our elect representatives. On a subject that doesn't come to mind so much in regards to park access from the Muldoon Area of Anchorage. The Northeast Community Council has for years had a bike trail along the military-civilian boundary that would connect the Glenn Hwy. Bike Trail with the Trails in Far North Bicentennial Park that connect with both the Campbell Creek Green Belt and the Chester Creek Green Belt. This connection is key to uniting the two main trail systems and opening up great access for some of the most densely populated neighborhoods in Alaska. In the process of following the East Side District Plan it was revealed to the NECC that there is a "buffer zone" of 20 feet in the east side of the military fence that could facilitate a bike trail. We need to work in this direction. It could get much of the bike traffic off of Muldoon Rd. and save lives plus be a wonderful resource for recreation on the East Side. You could go from Mirror Lake to Kincaid Park with only crossing a few streets plus it would open up park access including CSP access to many who now have to drive to Arctic Valley or Basher. Please recognize this proposed bike trail as an important component in the Chugach State Park Access Plan. Another area of interest that needs to be noted is the area up at Arctic Valley that housed the old military ski lodge and parking lot. This land should become park of CSP if it isn't already. I suggest that it be included in the Arctic Valley Ski Area and managed by them. A second lodge could be constructed and the hill in this area is more suitable for intermediate skiers than the current hill. Also the view form this area where the old military lodge was is to die for. Something not unlike the Paradise Haven facility at this location could be a big big plus for Anchorage Tourism and could help the Anchorage Ski Club keep the road open. The redevelopment of the area with the reopening of the Five Mile Trail to the bottom of the road with some grooming should be a part of an area wide plan with ski trail access to the above mentioned bike trail along the Muldoon military-civilian boundary. This would open up the option of being able to ski a circle route from Muldoon -Glenn Alps-Ship Lake Pass-Upper Ship Creek- Ship Creek Proper-Five Mile Trail- Muldoon . That could be a world class nordic ski that could get some attention and bring in winter tourism. | |
| Rusty Becker | 4/1/2013 5:41:55 PM |
| As a land owner affected by the Chugach Access plan, I am submitting my comments: Although my comments are directed towards the specific portion of the plan ID number 21a and 21b, some of the comments should be considered for the plan in general. Concerns: Habitat: There are black and grizzly bears, lynx, wolves, sheep, owls, and moose that frequent this area. In fact there is significant moose rutting activity in this area. The impact of a large vehicular parking area would negatively affect this habitat. Watershed: Anchorage hillside has watershed issues. The proposed parking has several marshy spots that may have springs in it. Building a large road and parking lot would negatively impact the area, not to mention handling the human waste that would generated by a large parking area. Crime: Trailheads and parking areas such as these bring with them vandalism and crime. This is noted in the plan, but does not address how it would be dealt with. Living in this are for 15 yrs, I have not seen any police or trooper patrol to this area. Fire Safety: The hillside of anchorage is known for high fire danger. With the increased activity by humans in this area, the danger of fire increases significantly. Specific to this area, there is only 1 road exit available to the residents from Rosemont up. This creates a significant safety concern with the current usage of this road. That danger would increase significantly more with a large parking area put into place. Road Safety : Currently, the road infrastructure is not capable of handling significantly increased traffic. Our roads are maintained by LRSA. Increased traffic would mean more infrastructure and maintenance costs. There are dangerous intersections at Bluebell/ Ashland and Blubell/Goldenview. Also, there are some dangerous corners in the area. Increased traffic would create more of a hazard, especially since the increase would come from people not familiar with the neighborhood roads. There are currently 4 access points along Turnagain Arm offering access to Chugach Park within a 15 minute drive from the turn off on the Seward Highway. This highway can handle the traffic, and the trailheads already have infrastructure to support the use, and are in place. With the costs involved in environmental impact, road studies, building new roads, parking lots and upgrading the current infrastructure. I do not believe this is in any taxpayer’s best interest, knowing that there are the above mentioned access points already in existence. Also, note that on one of the MAP# 6.7, a trail is shown on a utility easement on my property. I built that trail for my personal use and have previously given few people permission to use it. However, after being put on maps and on hiking forums, there has been increased activity casing conflicts on my property, and no trespassing signs have been taken down. I will replace those sign and ask that you note your trails on the proposed maps as not open to the public. AS a property owner I ask that H21a and H2b be removed as potential access points. | |
| David MacDowell | 3/31/2013 3:37:52 PM |
| We do not support opening public access via Stewart road. We have three main concerns: 1. Safety - the increased traffic will have a negative effect on the neighborhood. These are very small roads, and are not able to support the kind of demand load resulting from a new access point. 2. The public process is incomplete and exclusive - only property owners in close proximity to the Stewart Road entrance have been alerted to this case. There are hundreds of others who will be impacted but are unaware of the case. Everyone on South Goldenview will be affected. Notices must be sent to each household in that area. 3. Economics - the capital cost of a new access road and parking lot will be very large, but the ongoing operating and maintenance costs will be economically crushing for the municipality. At a time when we worry about school funding, it is wrong to saddle taxpayers with yet another long term cost. Reckless and inexcuseable. David and Beth MacDowell | |
| walter monteil | 3/30/2013 11:43:47 AM |
| Hi Thede and the Planning Commission, I live at 17920 Steamboat Drive. Our house is at the very end of steamboat where the red gate is and where the proposed road starts. We had over 200" of snow at our house last winter. I have several concerns with the proposed new road starting right at the end of my driveway. First is SAFETY! We have children and grandchildren that play with other neighbors right in this very area. This is one of the few private and safe areas left in Mountainside Village and that would be taken away from the children. We have to get a run up our driveway then make a blind hairpin turn to make it out of our driveway most all winter long. We will certainly be crashing into oncoming traffic if this new road goes through. A stop sign or stop light will not help because like I said it is a blind turn and we have to get a run and just go for it. Currently the hikers that walk the trail can see and hear us coming up the driveway but that is not possible from a car that would be going past our driveway. The Steamboat, Ashland and Bluebell roads are not built for this increased traffic and will handle it. The additional traffic will also cause the intersections to be more dangerous with more cars skidding down the hill and making it icy especially at the intersections of Bluebell/Ashland and Bluebell/Goldenview. These intersections are already prone to crashes now and it will only get worse. It is not possible for sand trucks and graders to keep up with the amount of snow we get up here. Also Ice dams up at the top of our driveway and slopes towards our house. I have seen hikers slide completely down our driveway because of the ice. If they were in a car they could slide right into our living room. We often have to park on Steamboat at the end of our drive because of this ice dam or drifting snow. We would certainly be blocking the new road several days in the winter. The vast majority of the people that use the hiking trail walk their dogs to the end and back. Most do not hike up the mountains. These people do not want to drive down the new road they want to enjoy the peace and quiet and the wildlife on their walk. This would all change if the road is built. We think it is unsafe to turn this walking trail into a road. There are other areas that can be opened up for access to the park that will not be dangerous. Thank You, Walter Monteil | |
| Bradley Crozier | 3/28/2013 10:44:27 PM |
| I have listed recognized access points to Paraglider launch sites that have historically been used and are currently in use as launch or landing sites inside Chugach State park. Please update your document to reflect these established known uses. Thank you, Bradley Crozier Secretary Arctic Air Walkers ACCESS-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS Eklutna-Peters Creek Unit E8 Mount POW E18. Frosty Country Road Eagle River Unit ER6a Mount Baldy/ Skyline Drive Trailhead ER6b Mount Baldy Trail ER12a. Mount Magnificent and Mile High Ridge Trail ER14. Mile Hi Ship Creek Unit S4. Nike Site Hill Side H1a. Dome Trail Trailhead, Stuckagain Heights H2a. Aletha’s Mountain Way H2b. Near Point Access Trail H7. Prospect Heights trailhead H10. Upper Huffman Trailhead H12. Glen Alps Trailhead H16 Rabbit Creek Valley Trailhead, Upper Canyon Road H17. Grandview Trailhead Turnagain Arm Unit T18. Bird Ridge Trailhead ACCESS-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS Eklutna-Peters Creek Unit E8 Mount POW E18. Frosty Country Road Eagle River Unit ER6a Mount Baldy/ Skyline Drive Trailhead ER6b Mount Baldy Trail ER12a. Mount Magnificent and Mile High Ridge Trail ER14. Mile Hi Ship Creek Unit S4. Nike Site Hill Side H1a. Dome Trail Trailhead, Stuckagain Heights H2a. Aletha’s Mountain Way H2b. Near Point Access Trail H7. Prospect Heights trailhead H10. Upper Huffman Trailhead H12. Glen Alps Trailhead H16 Rabbit Creek Valley Trailhead, Upper Canyon Road H17. Grandview Trailhead Turnagain Arm Unit T18. Bird Ridge Trailhead | |
| Frank Pugh | 3/28/2013 3:57:39 PM |
| March 28, 2013 Chugach Access Plan Attn: Thede Tobish Long-Range Planning Section MOA Community Development Department P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, AK 99519-6650 Dear Mr. Tobish, We recently purchased the property designated as T11N R3W SEC 11 E2SE4 & NW4SE4 (Parcel# 020-461-01-000) on 24-Sep-2012 which represents the first approximately 0.6 miles along the private road indicated as "unsecured" access corridor potential H21a (aka "The Stewart Road") on Map# 6.7 – Hillside Unit. We had not received the letter notification dated 15-Feb-2013 regarding the Chugach Access Plan review, as the Municipailty had not updated the new ownership of the property in their records, and fortunately adjacent property owners brought this to our attention. Our neighbors located near the gated "Stewart Road" had already expressed concerns to us regarding the amount of traffic generated by hikers in the area and the hazards created to their safe ingress and egress to/from their homes. After purchasing the property, we posted "No Trespassing Signs" which are typically ignored by hikers using the area. We have no interest in providing public access across our property and we believe that access should target routes from major public roads and cross public land to these potential sites. Prior to purchasing this property, we personally would drive our family to either Potter's Marsh, Potter Creek Trailhead, or McHugh Creek and found those locations to be very accessible and convenient so we do not see the need to provide public access across our property to essentially the same area. If the Municipality would like to push driveable access deeper into this area, I would propose that the Muncipality consider constructing a route from the Seward Highway across public land to reach these areas. We request that the access point H21a be removed from consideration in the Chugach Access Plan. Sincerely, Frank and Oksana Pugh 16006 Noble Point Drive Anchorage, AK | |
| Rebecca King | 3/18/2013 9:16:18 AM |
| As a park user, citizen of Anchorage/Eagle River, & a former member of the Chugach State Park Citizen's Advisory Board (CSPAB), I strongly support adoption of the CSP Access Plan by the Planning & Zoning Commission. The current draft incorporates the proven method of having a large number of smaller access points to the Park rather than having a smaller number of huge parking lots. This provides more access within neighborhoods which, when they are small trailheads, is attractive to most local residents. Additionally, it decreases the risk of vandalism as larger parking lots have historically been the target of attacks. It seems that the majority of resistance to a plan incorporating multiple access points comes from developers & a few property owners, not the collective will of the majority of Anchorage's citizens. The draft plan was initiated in 2008 & has gone through multiple rounds of public, stakeholder, & agency input to ensure the public's concerns were addressed & incorporated. Overwhelming public support for adoption of the plan is evidenced by the public response during CSP's public review process. The Municipal Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission, Watershed & Natural Resources Advisory Commission, & the CSPAB all support adoption of the plan. As a citizen, I request that the Municipality, specifically the Planning & Zoning Commission, respect its constituents, its citizens, & adopt the CSP Access Plan as an implementation element of the Municipality of Anchorage’s Comprehensive Plan. This is the only way we can ensure a concerted effort & quality planning for the future of Anchorage & CSP. | |
| Phil Nuechterlein | 10/3/2012 12:44:26 AM |
| I applaud the efforts to provide parking and improve access for hiking on State Park public lands. We should be encouraging the public (and especially youth) to partake in healthy outdoor activities. As for people that live near park access locations and want to minimize or block public access(for example, the comments I see regarding the South Fork Eagle River waterfalls in Riverview Estates) I would like to point out that the public access was there before they bought their 1 or 2 acre parcel.....and they knew that the public access was there at that time ......or at least should have known it. The people that don't want public access near their homes are often the same people that buy remote land and then demand public services. When I used the South Fork access for hiking to the water falls over 30 years ago, parking was not a problem. At the time, there was a public right of way (and there still is). The difference back then was that parking was available along the shoulder of the right of way. Nowadays certain residents have gone so far as to make "homemade" signs that say "no parking" within the right of way and in an apparent effort to extend the official fire truck turnaround area. Local residents have even gone so far as to let the air out of my tires. There will always be "NIMBY'S" (not in my back yard)landowners. Generally speaking, my impression of the South Fork Community Council over the last 30 years has been one of leading an agenda to block public access to the park. Two past community council presidents come to mind....presidents that each served for many years.....led such an agenda. Since I have lived in the South Fork area during all of that time, this has been an embarrassment to me. Years ago,one of these SFCC presidents led a motion to ban bicycles from using Hiland drive. I point this out as another example of the mentality that seems to prevail here. Generally speaking, riding a bicycle on a public road is a right in every state in the USA and virtually every country in the world. Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege. It has been that way since before motor vehicles were invented. The taxpaying public has a right to ride a bicycle on Hiland Drive and they have a right to use traditional access points for hiking as long as they are not trespassing. And the public needs parking facilities as a priority use of the limited public funds that we have. It is unrealistic for residents to demand bathrooms at every parking facility. As others have already mentioned, I would also endorse anything that can be done to provide hiking access to Ram Valley in Eagle River. The access at Ram Valley is pretty much gone for the average person. I had no problems with access to Ram Valley 30 years ago. Don't let the selfish minority of local landowners block access or prevent improvements to these traditional access points. And please use public funds to buy private land and provide additional access where it is economically feasible. The more public access that we have, the less pressure there will be on the very few existing public access points. These are dollars that will be well spent and used for generations to come. Lack of foresight has created public access problems and we must be proactive to improve the situation. Also, contact the Alaska DNR "Public Access Assertion & Defense Unit" if you have traditional access problems across native lands. | |
| alison rein | 9/15/2012 12:42:22 PM |
| the map for turnagain arm planning unit that includes girdwood shows the california creek trail access to the park as unsecured. The MOA recently established a trail easement for this trail, so this trail should be shown as secured. | |
| Ann Gabler | 8/31/2012 4:59:46 PM |
| Re: Stuckagain Heights Access Point H6-Basher Drive Trailhead: Dogwalkers and Equestrians have been using this trailhead for decades. It is the only access into Chugach Park for equestrians living on the east side of Bicentennial Park (north of the gorge). The lot should be designated as a "medium" lot accommodating 25 to 35 cars maximum due primarily to safety concerns. Basher Road is not built to code (school buses are not allowed) and in winter driving is hazardous requiring 4-wheel drive and chains). The neighborhood has only one egress road. In case of fire or a situation requiring rapid evacuation from the neighborhood, residents are already compromised with only one exit road. Building a "large" parking lot may add more traffic than the area can safely handle particularly considering additional access points with parking lots are also included in the draft plan for Stuckagain. | |
| Hugh McPeck | 8/31/2012 4:45:06 PM |
| Basher Trailhead Access H6: A large lot designation would incur too much public transit and have a detrimental affect on increased traffic and safety on Basher road and the neighborhood. A Medium or small lot would also better fit with the steep terrain. This access point is also used by equestrians and dogwalkers all year round. No state or muni funds are forthcoming for road improvements despite our neighborhood's repeated requests. There are numerous other access points planned into the Park from this neighborhood as well. So there will already be an increase in traffic in Stuckagain. Please consider reducing the size of the lot in the best interests of safety for the community and park visitors. | |
| Sara Pullen | 8/31/2012 12:29:32 PM |
| After reading some of the comments from residents who reside in Anchorage and use, I would like to ask the planning department to consider the following. Individuals who reside in Anchorage proper and use our trails in Chugach State Park need to also be aware of their impact on private property owners who live near the park entrances. Too many individuals do not respect private property owners and park illegally and leave trash and human excrement near park entrances for others to remove and deal with. It is fine and good to be thrilled with improved access to the park for your own needs but remember to be considerate of private property owners and those who live near the park entrances. | |
| Robert Gill | 8/31/2012 12:18:48 PM |
| As a longtime River View resident, I oppose a parking lot and day use area near the South Fork Falls along with lower South Fork of the Eagle River. The vast majority of our neighbors oppose such a plan due to :1. increase in trash and garbage from hikers in the area 2. campfires from hikers in past years 3. illegal parking from visitors and no bathroom facilities. The South Fork Community Council has opposed a parking lot and day use area near the falls.Our neighbors have dealt with people parking illegally on their property, starting campfires during high fire seasons, illegally fishing near the bridge and going to the bathroom on private property. Developing this pristine areas which has a large number of brown bears and other wildlife will only serve a small group of private property oweners who wish to develop and build large homes in the area at taxpayer expense. the state and municipality of Anchorage does not have the funds or staff to maintain the area as well. | |
| Kneeland Taylor | 8/31/2012 9:42:27 AM |
| Access to Ram Valley can be provided from the Eagle River Nature center via an unofficial trail leading off of Kiliak Street. I might be mistaken on that name. Currently the trail crosses what appears to be private land but it does not go near houses. An easement could be purchased, and fences constructed on each side so as to keep hikers from trespassing. There is ample parking at the Eagle River Nature Center, and so the parking problem would be solved. The only problem would be a little more elevation gain for hikers. Experienced hikers already choose this route into Ram Valley since the private land owners apparently don't mind (there is even a sign which impliedly says "go here as you cross my land". And also because there is parking. That none of the planning people give this existing access point high priority reflects a lack of real effort to make access to Ram Valley a priority. Too bad. | |
| Sara Pullen | 8/31/2012 9:17:36 AM |
| In regard to a day use area or parking lot at the South Fork Waterfalls, Lower South Fork Eagle River area: as a property owner and resident of the area for 20 years, I am against any building or development of the proposed project. My reasons are as follows: 1.the state of AK and MOA do not have a plan in place to maintain or police such an area, 2. the area has a high density of brown and black bears and this proposed day use area would only increase the number of bear-people encounters 3. the South Fork area has a natural trout and salmon run each year and increased traffic would promote fish poaching 4. currently there is only ONE Fish and Game officer to monitor our area of the Chugach Forest 5.our priamary road into the area is not a collector road and cannot handle increased traffic. Currently we continue to deal with sight seers who build camp fires, people who illegally park and trespass on private land along with relieving themselves in neigbor's yards and near the trails, leave trash along the trails for neighbors to pick up and dealt with trash dumping in our pristine area (trash and washing machines and appliance). Our neighbors have dealt with illegal hunting, snowmachines on trails illegally and people bearbaiting near the road. if you cannot maintain such an area and provide fish and game and police protection along with rapid response in emergency cases do not build a parkin lot or viewing area. thank you Sara Pullen | |
| Roger Van Ornum | 8/30/2012 5:03:18 PM |
| There are at least 13 bears that have been documented as using this area. There can be signs up to stay away from an area, and these will be ingorned. We do not want or need a large parking area with all the problems associated (food, trash, etc)with having another one in this area. This area is already accessible for anyone to use. We do not need to have another bridge built and payed for by taxpayers to help open a new sub-division. | |
| Kenneth Privratsky | 8/29/2012 5:56:31 PM |
| I cannot attend the public hearing in September. Please consider my comments below when deciding whether to increase the parking area to 50-car capacity on Basher/Campbell Airstrip Road, about three miles up from Tudor: The small parking area that exists in this area right now poses safety hazards for residents using Basher Road, especially in winter. The parking area is located at the crest of a small hill. It is a blind spot and poses safety issues both for users and residents. If you approach the area on Basher from the west, you cannot see the entrance/exit because of the slope and curve of the road. The same is true if you are approaching it from the east. The parking area is located where drivers do not have visibility of the entrance until they nearly are at the entrance. The area is particularly hazardous in the winter when roads are packed with snow and ice. Those who do not reside in Stuckagain Heights generally do not realize that the only route out of the Heights is Basher/Campbell Airstrip Road. Adding additional traffic onto Basher, particularly on the edge of the housing area, has the potential to put residents at risk if it became necessary to evacuate because of a fire or other disaster. It also has potential for impeding the ability of emergency vehicles from getting up the hill. The location of the current parking area, even of much smaller size than for 50 vehicles, has been a problem ever since it was created a few years ago. Cannot the parking area be relocated to the base of the hill, where visibility coming and going is greater? It's less than a half mile west. There is plenty of area to expand there. I am very concerned about the possible expansion of the existing parking area. I believe it will create unnecessary risks to residents and users. Thank you for considering my comments. | |
| Ben Arians | 8/23/2012 10:50:48 AM |
| In looking at where the new parking is going at Glen Alps, I have a big concern about how that will impact winter use of the trail system at Glen Alps. The two trails that connect the parking lot to the Powerline trail are frequently used as a loop for early season skiing when there is not enough snow in town. The upper (southern)branch is typically used as the outbound track, and the lower (northern) branch is usually the inbound track. If the new parking lot goes in as shown, then there is no way to connect the two branches of the trails at the parking lot unless indviduals remove their skis and walk across a parking lot. As the main traffic occurs in the summer, maybe the new parking lot could be left unplowed in the winter in order to allow continuous flow between the two trail branches where they loop back to the parking lot. | |
| Michael Adams | 8/22/2012 5:21:49 PM |
| I wish to comment on the Public Review Draft of the Chugach Access Plan, Page 45, ID: ER43, Name: South Fork Waterfalls, Lower South Fork Eagle River,per Recommmedation/Justification/Actions, "Develop adequate parking and visitor use facilities and an access trail to the scenic falls." Parking, facilities and access trail ALREADY EXIST, and therefore funds wasted on redundancy would be better used elsewhere. This project is not supported by the majority of the South Fork Community, as evidenced by feedback given at the last Planning presentation in Eagle River. Michael Adams South Fork Resident | |
| Clint Lentfer | 8/21/2012 3:53:32 PM |
| Our family visits the CSP 3-5 times per week for hiking, biking and skiing during the winter months accessing via the Upper Huffman Trailhead. It concerns me that CSP thinks a road bisecting the park from this newly completed parking are would serve the needs of the users wishing to access the area above treeline and the Glen Alps area. Most users wish to hike above treeline to enjoy the views of the Anchorage Bowl. It would be ahuge WASTE OF MONEY (not to mention the impact on the wildlife) to put in a new road from Upper Huffman Trailhead and maintain the road & police the road to provide access to the Glen Alps area, when access already exists. What Glen Alps needs is MORE PARKING - concentrate on that! The users are already disbursed once they leave the parking area, so it just does not make any sense to build a new road. The cost to maintain it and keep vandalism, garbage and trouble out of this propsed road makes no sense. Please use common sence and fiscal sense when deciding what to do with the park. | |
| Sherry Furlong | 8/17/2012 7:12:27 PM |
| I like it. Good Work! | |
| Gary Snyder | 8/10/2012 11:49:44 AM |
| Thank you MOA and CSP for making such a thoughtful, timely, and thorough, forward thinking access plan for Chugach State Park. As a resident of Anchorage I believe strongly that parks are only as good as the access to them. There are many insightful recommendations in this plan. I worry that people who live near potential access points to CSP will try to fight some of the recommendations, but I liked most of them. The only one I oppose is adding a road into the park at Glenn Alps. The access recommendations for Hunter Creek, the Ram Valley, Rabbit Creek, Stuckagin Heights and Bear Valley are particularly important for the future of Anchorage. People opposing access improvements should be assessed more taxes for having exclusive access to public lands...essentially making these lands their own. I strongly support adoption of this planning document. | |
| Vicky Musgrave | 8/6/2012 8:19:52 PM |
| In regards to Upper Indian Creek (T15,T16) - the access to this trail head goes through a residential area on an unmaintained road. The state park should shoulder at least some of the maintenance of this rough, rutted road because of the public access to the park. A good alternative would be to develop access via the powerline easement land south of Bird Ridge parking lot. | |
| joe burnham | 8/6/2012 10:40:08 AM |
| It appears the moa and chugach state park continue to demand access across across private lands without purchasing said access which results in "a taking ". The very fact that they continue to publish and distribute mapping dipiciting illegal tresspass trails is in effect a taking of and in itself as it causes the unknowing individiual to inadverntly trespass on private lands. | |
| Sylvia Maiellaro | 8/2/2012 6:50:31 PM |
| I concur with Mr. Doug Robbins comment that I copied below. I could not put it any better. I have lived here only 6 years but have benn coming to Alaska since 1974. I have watched this city/area grow and expand as is a natural process. We need to help keep in tact the very special attributes that entice people such as myself to keep coming back +/or to move here. In the long run it is a win, win situation for all of us and generations. To Whom It May Concern: The following are my comments regarding the Chugach Access Plan, MOA case number 2012-104. Glen Alps Improving parking at Glen Alps should be of the highest priority. Glen Alps provides the single, unique opportunity in Chugach Park for easy to moderate alpine walking, hiking and biking. Glen Alps is well known, and is an easy distance from Anchorage for both residents and visitors. The city overlook at Glen Alps is magnificent, and not available at any other location. Glen Alps is Anchorage’s best and most interesting tourist destination, and it is in the interest of the MOA to ensure easy access. Hundreds of people are turned away from the best hiking in Alaska on every decent sunny day, as rare as those may be. It is sad to think that children can grow up in Anchorage without climbing Flattop, or that visitors to the city cannot view Powerline Valley and the Glen Alps overlook, simply because the city and the DNR refuse to provide enough parking, or find alternative solutions to the problem. The citizens of Anchorage are the prime beneficiaries of park access at Glen Alps. The MOA should participate in finding solutions and shoulder part of the burden in providing funding. The DNR and the city of Anchorage are not serving the public well unless they solve this problem. Additional parking is needed directly at the Glen Alps trailhead. The proposed plan of “a variety of small parking lots” along a new road to the Upper Huffman lot is inadequate. Park use at Glen Alps is already sufficiently dispersed, with park visitors visiting the Overlook, hiking Blueberry Hill, climbing Flattop, hiking or biking Powerline trail to a variety of destinations, including Hidden Lake, Little O’Malley Peak, the Ballpark, Williwaw Lakes, Green Lake, the Ramp, or Powerline Pass. In past years, parking at the Upper Huffman trailhead is not fully used, even when the Glen Alps lot is full. That is because parking at the Huffman location adds 700 feet of vertical climb and 3 to 4 miles (round trip) to any hike from Glen Alps, along an unattractive portion of the trail system. Many trail users do not have the strength or time to add this distance to their planned activity at Glen Alps. Connecting the Upper Huffman lot to the Glen Alps lot may improve traffic flow, but is not a substitute for additional parking at the Glen Alps trailhead. The MOA and DNR should collaborate on temporary alternatives and solutions to the problem. One simple solution would be a system of shuttle buses. Buses should run from the Upper Huffman lot (which is currently closed). Arrangements could be made to run shuttle buses from church or school parking lots on weekends (e.g. Service High, O’Malley Elementary, Bear Valley Elementary, etc.). ------------- Prospect Heights Trailhead Please oil or pave the Prospect Heights access road. The Prospect Heights access road is often badly pot-holed, making access difficult and unpleasant, even with 4-wheel drive vehicles. Most of the residential streets in the area are dirt/gravel roads, like the Prospect Heights access road and trailhead. Residential roads, however, are oiled annually, which greatly improves the surface. Oiling the Prospect Heights road, or making a chip-seal surface, would improve access, and possibly reduce maintenance costs. ------- Hillside Unit The plan contains the statement “Because of the area’s popularity for recreation and desirability for development, access in this unit will always be an issue” (p. 53). This statement seems unnecessarily defeatist, and indicates a lack of commitment to provide quality access to the park. I approve of the efforts to secure, retain, and improve more access points into the park. I believe it is possible to resolve issues with current landowners, and provide improved access to the park at this time and for future generations. In balancing the conflicts between landowners and park access, I believe that priority should be given to long-term improvements to park access; because the benefits will accrue to many people even long after our current generation is gone. | |
| James Sowerwine | 8/1/2012 7:39:33 PM |
| I am both a resident of the city of Anchorage and regulator user of Chugach State Park. Reliable access to the park is very important to me, so I highly support any actions undertaken by MOA that will help to preserve and expand access to the park. In particular, locations that I can drive to after work during the summer to go on long trail runs are important to me - these include the western McHugh's Peak access point, the Glenn Alps complex, and Arctic Valley. Securing and expanding on these access points has my full support. | |
| Doug Robbins | 8/1/2012 4:11:55 PM |
| To Whom It May Concern: The following are my comments regarding the Chugach Access Plan, MOA case number 2012-104. Glen Alps Improving parking at Glen Alps should be of the highest priority. Glen Alps provides the single, unique opportunity in Chugach Park for easy to moderate alpine walking, hiking and biking. Glen Alps is well known, and is an easy distance from Anchorage for both residents and visitors. The city overlook at Glen Alps is magnificent, and not available at any other location. Glen Alps is Anchorage’s best and most interesting tourist destination, and it is in the interest of the MOA to ensure easy access. Hundreds of people are turned away from the best hiking in Alaska on every decent sunny day, as rare as those may be. It is sad to think that children can grow up in Anchorage without climbing Flattop, or that visitors to the city cannot view Powerline Valley and the Glen Alps overlook, simply because the city and the DNR refuse to provide enough parking, or find alternative solutions to the problem. The citizens of Anchorage are the prime beneficiaries of park access at Glen Alps. The MOA should participate in finding solutions and shoulder part of the burden in providing funding. The DNR and the city of Anchorage are not serving the public well unless they solve this problem. Additional parking is needed directly at the Glen Alps trailhead. The proposed plan of “a variety of small parking lots” along a new road to the Upper Huffman lot is inadequate. Park use at Glen Alps is already sufficiently dispersed, with park visitors visiting the Overlook, hiking Blueberry Hill, climbing Flattop, hiking or biking Powerline trail to a variety of destinations, including Hidden Lake, Little O’Malley Peak, the Ballpark, Williwaw Lakes, Green Lake, the Ramp, or Powerline Pass. In past years, parking at the Upper Huffman trailhead is not fully used, even when the Glen Alps lot is full. That is because parking at the Huffman location adds 700 feet of vertical climb and 3 to 4 miles (round trip) to any hike from Glen Alps, along an unattractive portion of the trail system. Many trail users do not have the strength or time to add this distance to their planned activity at Glen Alps. Connecting the Upper Huffman lot to the Glen Alps lot may improve traffic flow, but is not a substitute for additional parking at the Glen Alps trailhead. The MOA and DNR should collaborate on temporary alternatives and solutions to the problem. One simple solution would be a system of shuttle buses. Buses should run from the Upper Huffman lot (which is currently closed). Arrangements could be made to run shuttle buses from church or school parking lots on weekends (e.g. Service High, O’Malley Elementary, Bear Valley Elementary, etc.). ------------- Prospect Heights Trailhead Please oil or pave the Prospect Heights access road. The Prospect Heights access road is often badly pot-holed, making access difficult and unpleasant, even with 4-wheel drive vehicles. Most of the residential streets in the area are dirt/gravel roads, like the Prospect Heights access road and trailhead. Residential roads, however, are oiled annually, which greatly improves the surface. Oiling the Prospect Heights road, or making a chip-seal surface, would improve access, and possibly reduce maintenance costs. ------- Hillside Unit The plan contains the statement “Because of the area’s popularity for recreation and desirability for development, access in this unit will always be an issue” (p. 53). This statement seems unnecessarily defeatist, and indicates a lack of commitment to provide quality access to the park. I approve of the efforts to secure, retain, and improve more access points into the park. I believe it is possible to resolve issues with current landowners, and provide improved access to the park at this time and for future generations. In balancing the conflicts between landowners and park access, I believe that priority should be given to long-term improvements to park access; because the benefits will accrue to many people even long after our current generation is gone. | |