-I view myself as an advocate of multi- use management, supportive of well thought out motorized as well as non-motorized use.

-I have observed that motorized use conflicts more with non-motorized use (specifically snow machine vs. skier/boarder/snowshoer). Machines make noise and significant tracks( that can catch edges of skis and boards).

-There is also a case for prerserving some areas in a more pristine condition.

-Because motorized vehicles can range over a much larger area than non-motorized, it makes sense to make non-motorized areas closer to parking.

-Enforced corridors can give motorized access to their areas.

-Snow machine technological advances in the last 20 years have given them access to most non-motorized terrain at steeper elevations.

- Summer 4-wheeler actvity in the pass seems inappropriate due to the mud bogs that they create on the trails.

-Even hikers make mud bogs, although smaller. Good trail engineering can limit this impact. Extensive trail engineering would have to be used to limit 4-wheeler impact.

-I am skeptical about granting motorized access from Gateway to Mother Lode due to the extensive trail that would need to be cut in and maintained.

-A general observation that I have is that visitor use is starting to outstrip the carrying capacity of this rather fragile alpine/tundra landscape.

-RECOMMENDATIONS: 1.Enforce existing areas of motorized/non-motorized use, or separate the areas into a simple form such as motorized to the West side of Hatcher Pass, and non-motorized to the East. 2. Build more outhouse locations. 3. Construct and maintain well engineered trails in high impact areas

As the plan is revised please work to keep recreational motorized and non-motorized separated. They seem like two groups with differing abilities and philosophies. As users on both sides increase, the conflict between recreational motorized and non-motorized users escalates. There is no match between the power of the human muscle and the power of the motorized machine. The motorized machine wins out every time in power and area they can access in a day. Not to mention the noise and pollution they add to the environment that others are trying to enjoy quietly and healthfully.

Another reason for separating these two groups is the way ATV/ORVs can destroy the areas used by non-motorized users. For example, on a ski slope high marking by snowmobiles renders the slope worthless for a skier. And a 4-wheeler that accesses a trail can quickly destroy vegetation and turn trails into permanent mud holes that make hiking hard or impossible.

I support the idea of creating a mainly non-motorized area on the East side of Hatcher Pass with a single enforced corridor that motorized can use to access the West area. And no new corridors added to the plan. This should make enforcement of the use of these areas easier for the management staff.

Thank you for continuing to take comments on the revision of the HPMP

Thank You for considering my comments

I'm not against people using four-wheelers or snow machines for recreation, but I am against machinery users being allowed on currently restricted non-motorized trails, because nonmotorized and motorized use is not compatible. Invariably, the trails become degraded into wide mud-holes, polluted with gasoline fumes and trailside trash, and dangerous to hikers or skiers overtaken by All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) going too fast. I get out in the woods, or up into the mountains, to enjoy the beauty and quiet. And I emphasize QUIET. If I wanted to share a trail with a machine, I could save myself a half-hour drive into the Pass and just walk on the sidewalk, with all its noise and commotion, along the Parks Highway in downtown Wasilla.

ATVs can go farther in just a few minutes than foot users can go in several hours. The trails that are up for review on the east side of Hatcher Pass represent most of the very few available for non-motorized use easily accessible in the Talkeetna Mountains for the majority of Wasilla or Anchorage users. Conversely, in just a short while, ATV users can be well beyond this area and into country that most skiers and hikers never get to use because of distance. It hardly seems just that those few available non-motorized trails in the area would be opened to become degraded by ATV use.

I propose that the current division of use should continue, with motorized users to the west of Hatcher Pass and non-motorized use to the east of Hatcher Pass.

Thank you.

I am opposed to the proposed north/south corridor from the south side of Government Peak to the base of Point 4068.

I would like to see the valleys of the Gold Mint Trail and the Reed lake Trail nonmotorized from ridge to ridge.

I would like to see non-motorized areas around the Mint, Bomber, and Snowbird huts with no motorized corridors passing through them.

I would like to see the area east of Hatcher Pass (the Government Peak, Independence Mine, Archangel, reed Lakes, and Little Susitna Units) kept non-motorized and designated as state recreation status and the area west of Hatcher Pass designated as motorized.

Non-motorized users are limited in how much country they can access and it seems fair to give them some areas close to the road network they can enjoy without having to listen to motors. Most of the Valley is open to off road vehicles please let us keep this patch.

Thank you.

It is unfortunate but it is a minority of motorized users which make this situation unpalatable. Without any substantive enforcement to mediate between two recreational groups competing for the same terrain any mixed use agreement will have the same built in unsolvable conflicts.

Initially, I had hoped a compromise mixed use solution between the two user groups could be obtained. Although, it now appears as though a large vocal percentage of motorized users want full motorized access to the Hatcher Pass Management Area. These proposals are completely ignore the needs and desires of the non motorized user groups utilizing the recreational area and adds to the animosity between them.

A quick calculation of the areas within the Hatcher Pass Management Area currently open to motorized operation reveals motorized users enjoy access to roughly 97% of the subject area. It is clearly not the fair split from the perspective based on usage. Non motorized users easily account for one half the users of the area and should be given consideration by the State of Alaska. Obviously the area that can be accessed on foot is fairly limited however, given the limitations of foot travel. Accommodation eliminating motorized vehicles should be given - that is to suggest areas closer to the road system and in this case located on the east side of the pass. The proposal put forth by the Mountaineering Society limiting motorized access to the east side of Hatcher Pass is a logical and effective solution. This proposal provides a clear separation of user groups and clearly defines an easily enforced motorized boundary. Additionally the solution will effectively eliminate motorized/non motorized conflicts and thereby enhance the safety of the non-motorized user group. The proposal will grant non motorized usage up the Archangel, Reed Lake, Little Susitna valleys and begin to address the conflict resolution, enforcement concerns, and provide a plan that introduces a bit of equality for both user groups. The plan is absolutely sensible and increases safety by removing snow machine traffic on roads and in a clearly defined back country non-motorized area.

The restriction of snow machine traffic from the east side of Hatcher Pass also eliminates the possibility of a snow machine corridor along the base of government peak. This proposal is completely unworkable from the perspective of back country skiers, as well as the Matanuska Susitna Borough plan for a ski area. A small percentage of snow machine users have illustrated the inability or desire of the snow machine association to police their user group. It is clear that out of bounds snow machining into non motorized area in Hatcher Pass is on the increase and there is no mechanism in place to curb this trend. Opening up additional back country areas to snow machine traffic will only increase these violations and further enforce the notion that the Parks department favors motorized usage over non-motorized. I would propose an alternative route for snow machines on the south side of the pass hooking over the pass on the west boundary.

Finally, as an avid outdoorsman and back country enthusiast, I am appalled by the amount of trash left behind by snow machiners. The trash left behind by motorized activity has been on the increase each year as the number of snow machines increases. The trash typically is generally comprised of empty beer cans and plastic soda bottles and judging by the sheer number of bottles and cans are clearly carried in by machines. Back country skiers do not carry these types of containers due to effort required to carry additional weight up and down the slopes. Again, there is no one to police this behavior and it is fairly clear the parks department do not have enough resources to have a cleanup effort.

In conclusion, I advocate a clearly defined boundary separating motorized and non motorized uses. Limit motorized use to the west side of hatcher pass and if necessary provide an access and parking area for the motorized users west along the south face of the Talkeetnas connecting to the west side of the pass. The time required to travel 10 miles on a snow machine is approximately the same time required for a skier to climb 1,000 vertical feet. This seems a reasonable compromise and I hope you will take it into consideration.

I oppose the proposed motorized north/south corridor running from the south side of Gov't Peak to the north along the east edge of Gov't Peak to the Mat-Su Borough alpine ski area parking lot, then north along Fishhook Creek and the base of Peak 4068.

I support non-motorized areas, of 1.5 miles each, around the Mint and Bomber huts. There should be NO motorized access between them. As some motorized users have stated in their comments posted on this site, they will not remain in a designated corridor, but will go where they choose.

I support non-motorized valleys from ridge to ridge on either side of the Mint and Reed Lakes trails.

I support a division of motorized use to the west of the Pass and non-motorized use to the east of the Pass. Clear geographic boundaries should define these areas. Non-motorized areas are known as Gov't Peak, Independence Mine, Archangel, Reed Lakes, and Little Susitna units.

I am opposed to the direction of the proposed Hatcher Pass Management Plan in these areas: Recommendations for opening areas that are currently closed to motorized use, including Reed Lakes and Government Peak Recommendations for creation of well-marked motorized corridors, including corridors along the Archangel Road and Reed Creek Road. Recommendations for trading lands that are currently open to motorized use for lands which are currently designated as non-motorized, specifically the Reed Lakes area and Marmot Mountain area.

I am concerned with the summarized comment of "Some motorized users stated that they will continue to go where they want to regardless of map or land designation because it is all state land." This statement sours the process, and mirrors much of why I do not agree with opening up the western side of Hatcher Pass any more at all to motorized vehicles. Their contempt is demonstrated in the damaging impact to the land as much as they are disrespectful to the more pedestrian users.

I am in complete support of the non-motorized recommendations of: Recommendations for splitting management plan area according to recreational use o East Side: Non-Motorized o West Side: Motorized o Designate the East Side as a State Park Recommendations for closing Marmot Mountain Area o Safety Concerns due to snow machine speed and high marking o Aesthetic values and experience Recommendations for closing 16-Mile Triangle area o Safety Concerns due to snow machine speed and high marking o Sledding and Snow-boarding take place there Recommendations for closure of land surrounding Mountaineering huts.

Thank you.

I do not support the expansion of motorized areas beyond those currently in use and NO summer use of ATVs off of the existing allowed roads. The basis for these comments is encountering snow machines in closed areas over the North side of Hatcher Pass during the 19 years my family has been skiing in the area.

Use of ATV's off-trail lead to long term damage to the tundra and ongoing erosion that lasts for decades, even after the ATV use has ceased. This type damage is evident on the trails along the North side of the Glenn Highway East of Sutton.

The expansion of Nordic skiing trails and the downhill ski center planned for the Government Peak area must minimize impacts on the tundra ecosystem in the area of these activities. Typically there is some impact on this ecosystem from ski trails but far less than that caused by motorized recreation use.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Carol Akerson

----Wasilla-Fishhook (aka Palmer-Fishook, aka Hatcher Pass Road) corridor----

I, with regrets, oppose the establishment of such a corridor for the following reasons:

1) It will be impossible to enforce such a corridor, and sadly there is a subset of motorized users without regard for rules. Establishment of such a corridor would be a defacto opening of the entire west side of the Little Su valley to snowmobile use.

2) Even if all snowmobilers obeyed the rules (and given the public comments from some that, "they will continue to go where they want to regardless of map or land designation because it is all state land," one can not expect that) the noise from snowmobile use of such a corridor would schriek and echo throughout the valley, including currently quiet and heavily-used non-motorized areas such as all of the east-facing bowls and slopes between Peak 4068 and Government Peak, greatly diminishing their value to non-motorized users.

3) Cost. If a corridor were to be established hugging the existing paved road one suspects that it would require huge expenditures to construct. That area is cut by innumerable steep-walled gullies.

4) Safety concerns. Where would such a corridor cross the 16-mile ski and sledding run? It is ludicrous to consider having snowmobiles jetting across an area used by little kids.

5) Unless built alongside the road such a corridor would cross the area where the MSB hopes to develop an Alpine ski area. Again, it is ludicrous to plan a snowmobile road crossing lift-serviced downhill ski runs.

6) Alternatively, using the RS2477 in the valley of Wet Gulch as a north-south winter motorized corridor seems reasonable.

Could DNR please add the Carle Wagon Road route to its conceptual map? The text descriptions are impossible to follow. "... North-South corridor could be built using the remnants of the Carle Wagon trail. It would leave the Edgerton Parks Road and ascend to the southwest ridge of Government Peak, travel north along a mid-mountain ridge to the MSB Alpine Ski area parking lot and then north to Fishhook Creek..."(http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/planning/mgtplans/hatcher_2009/pdfs/hpmp_fgroup_rep_mtg_sum072309.pdf). Huh? Do you mean southeast ridge of Government Peak?

----Motorized-only areas----

Could DNR please publish some maps of concepts for motorized-only areas?

What is the rational for motorized-only areas? Safety or spite?

Is it more difficult for a snowmobile user to avoid a relatively slow-moving skier than to avoid another snowmobile?

While it is true that snowmobilers can not hear skiiers, they also can not hear other snowmobilers while under power and wearing a helmet.

That said, I wouldn't oppose establishment of motorized-only areas, as long as they were limited to no more than a few acres, and not located in an area traditionally used by non-motorized users.

----Name confusion----

Yikes! In various places on

http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/planning/mgtplans/hatcher_2009/pdfs/public_comment_summary_scoping_phase.pdf (and in other DNR publications)

the road within the HPMP area alongside the Little Su River is refered to as the "Wasilla-Fishhook," or as the "Palmer-Fishhook."

Additionally, in the section "Motorized Access into the Plan Area," there is a reference to "a possible corridor immediately east of the Palmer-Fishhook Creek Road..." Is that east actually meant to read west?

Any new year round motorized access will destroy the land and unique character of Hatcher Pass. The destructive nature of ATVs can be seen throughout the Valley at any trailhead- on any road. Hatcher should be protected from this destruction. It is not only the physical destruction of the area that creates concern and conflict, but also the air and noise pollution that non-motorized users go to Hatcher Pass to get away from.

Hatcher is also a popular tourist destination for travelers and families with visitors. Hatcher offers these visitors easy access to beautiful remote Alaska. Hatcher has access to trailheads, and trails that are easy for the inexperienced hiker. I see more and more people out hiking who are clearly overweight and trying to get quality exercise.

The creation of more areas like this should be the priority of State agencies, not destroying the existing ones by introducing motorized access. Recent efforts by State Parks to improve foot trails have shown a considerable increase in pedestrian traffic demonstrating the desire and need for more non-motorized trails. These trails are easily accessed by tourists, walkers and hikers of all abilities.

There should be no new access referred to in the July summary report as the north/south corridor going along the side of Government Peak, nor the proposed access from Mint parking lot to the Fishhook parking lot.

The State agencies that are charged with the care and management of Hatcher Pass should recognize how important it is to protect the existing structure and access of Hatcher for future generations.

ATV users already have use of other trails that offer access to the Talkeetna Mountains off the Glenn and the Parks highways giving them access to vast areas mountain wilderness. These trails provide no quality recreational experience for non-motorized users do to the motorized activity and subsequent trail degradation, and are basically avoided.

Hatcher Pass is the one place in the Valley that offers non-motorized users a place to enjoy easy access to the mountains and back country. Please recognize and support the non-motorized community.

By their nature, many people who are a part of this community are independent, quiet, apolitical, and not likely to enter a controversy. State agencies have a role in representing these and future generations of non-motorized users.

Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on the Hatcher Pass Management Plan.

I am a resident of Palmer and a frequent user of the Hatcher Pass area. On frequent occasion, both summer and winter, I use a motorized vehicle to access the area around the pass. However, I limit my motorized use to road system currently in place. Once I get to the parking lot, I boot up and either start hiking, skiing or skijouring.

Most of my off road travel is on or in the Government Peak complex, Arc Angle Valley, Reed Lakes, Snowbird and Lane Glaciers, Marmot Peak complex and on the peaks surrounding the Independence Mine.

I do not support the concept of a new North-South motorized corridor through the Government Peak Unit. We already have a motorized corridor in this area, and that is the road, we don't need another.

I am in support of increased signage and enforcement of existing non-motorized areas. On several occasions I have been skiing in areas that are designated non-motorized and seen snow machines or tracks from motorized users breaking the law.

In areas of mixed use, such as Marmot Peak, I have had a few near misses with snow machiners who are high marking and/or launching their machines off jumps. While many users are more responsible I am sure, it only takes one idiot to kill me (or maybe two). Unfortunately there seems to a plethora of irresponsible snow machiners who cut slabs around non-motorized users and ignore the close proximity of others when choosing to launch and land their machines off jumps.

Apart from safety considerations, one of the reasons I choose to leave my motor at the parking lot is a purely aesthetic one. When leaving behind the noise and pollution of an internal combustion engine I more fully appreciate the place I live. When a snow machine goes screaming by me with the throttle wide open my experience is diminished.

One of the areas I have heard proposed for motorized access is Reed Lakes up to the Snowbird Glacier. As a user of the AAC mountaineering hut. I am especially opposed to this. This is one of the few areas that is reasonably easy to access where I can go to get out of earshot of snow machines.

In most situations I believe that motorized corridors don't work without plenty of enforcement. As we see throughout Alaska and in Hatcher Pass, social trails grow off of most motorized corridors, whether illegal or not. From the enforcement perspective, it seems a little easier to restrict motorized access in areas along logical topographic and geographic features.

Please consider my comments when drafting a new plan.

Thanks again for the opportunity.

Sincerely, Tim Leach

1) FoMS strongly advocates for non-motorized areas in the Little Su/Mint and Reed Lakes Valleys with clearly defined boundaries that extend to the tops of the surrounding ridges . If only the valley bottoms are designated non-motorized, it becomes too tempting to wayward and rogue snow machiners to go off course and out of bounds into the ONLY easily accessible quiet areas for non-motorized users of Hatcher Pass. It is very important to our members and many other recreational users of this area to have a peaceful and quiet mountain experience. The Reed lakes and Little Su/Mint Valley have traditionally provided this opportunity.

2) We support closing the Marmot Mountain area at the Upper Fishhook Creek parking lot to snow machiners as was designated in the 1986 HPMP. This is a SAFETY issue.

3) We also advocate for two separate trails to access the Archangel Valley. Both user groups agree that motorized users and non-motorized users need to have their own trail through this corridor. This is a SAFETY issue and the plan should accommodate the planning of and creation of a new trail.

4) We STRONGLY advocate for no North-South corridor along road through the HP Public Use Area or along base of Frostbite Ridge, 4600, or 4068. There is private property along the road. Also, the corridor presents a SAFETY issue for the proposed MSB ski-area development whether it runs along the road or up higher in the above mentioned areas. However, we support the current motorized corridor between the Goldmint parking lot and the summit of Hatcher Pass as we recognize that snow machiners need parking and access to the west side of Hatcher Pass.

5) The plan should have a realistic non-motorized buffer around the Mint Hut, (already designated non-motorized), Snowbird Hut and the Bomber Hut of at least one and one half miles using natural boundaries (such as ridgelines) with NO motorized corridors passing through them.

6) Finally, FoMS believes that the plan should ultimately have an area in which visitors can safely, quietly, peacefully and easily enjoy the Alaskan backcountry. The east side of the HPMA (Government Peak, Independence, Archangel, Reed Lakes and Little Susitna Units) is ideally suited for this from an enforcement and safety standpoint. In fact, the entire east side of the HPMA should be seriously considered for designation as a State Park that would include the Independence Mine State Park and the Summit Lake State Recreation Area.

Thank you for the opportunity to present these priorities for Hatcher Pass.

1. Extend the boundaries of non-motorized use up to the ridges on both sides of the Little Su and Reed Creek valleys. When these valleys were designated non-motorized in the 1989 HPMP Amendment, it was intended that more than the valley floor be non-motorized. The citizen planners, DNR, the Mat-Su Borough and others engaged in the process never envisioned that snow machine technology would elevate their ability to access areas assumed to be off limits and to facilitate the high marking that is prevalent today. In addition, due to the increase in population and the overall recreational traffic in Hatcher Pass, the area is experiencing pressures much greater than it was in 1989 and it will continue to grow. Now, snowmachiners regularly cross these non-motorized valleys to access the steep sides of the valleys for high marking thereby effectively reducing the areas originally designated as non-motorized. As an example, look at the increasing snow machine traffic into the backcountry areas surrounding the mountaineering huts. By expanding the designated non-motorized areas of these valleys to the ridge lines it would truly make the entire Little Su and Reed Creek valleys non-motorized. It would create a contiguous non-motorized area from Arkose Ridge all the way to the ridge between valleys of Reed Creek and Archangel Creek that would allow non-motorized backcountry users the experience they seek, accessible, quiet, and untracked terrain.

2. Do not add N-S or E-W corridors for motorized use through the Government Peak Unit. a) The Government Peak Unit has been non-motorized for over 20 years. Snow machine corridors along the east side of Government Peak to the proposed alpine ski-area parking lot and west along the south side of Fishhook Creek to the Pass would introduce conflict into an area where it does not currently occur. Such a corridor would have no natural boundaries and snowmachine activity would spread into areas currently used by backcountry skiers and snowboarders and proposed for alpine ski-area operations. The present snowmachine corridor uphill of the Hatcher Road is effectively bounded by the road. b) ATV/ORV use in the summer would result in significant degradation of habitat. c) The N-S and E-W motorized corridors would cross Mat-Su Borough land and their plans to develop a cross country ski venue and alpine ski area and would negatively affect other private property owners adjacent to or near the motorized corridors. Impacts would include but not be limited to increased noise, traffic, trespass and property damage. Currently, the borough is in the process of conducting an EIS to address plans to build an Alpine and Nordic ski development in the Government Peak Unit that would include an extensive system of non-motorized multiuse trails in the Southside area of the Government Peak Unit. Motorized corridors are simply not compatible with these developments and pose a serious safety risk to non-motorized users. d) DPOR Rangers, due to inadequate staffing cannot adequately enforce boundaries in the Hatcher Pass area. Adding additional corridors would exacerbate the problem for them as well as the public. e) The existing motorized corridor that runs from the Goldmint trailhead to the summit of Hatcher Pass for the most part works well, and both motorized and non-motorized users have equal levels of access to the parking areas at the Goldmint and Fishhook Creek lots. If it is determined that the existing parking lots at Gold Mint and Fishhook are inadequate, they can both be enlarged rather than bulldoze additional areas to accommodate increased use. f) We need a way to educate snowmachine and ATV users with a rules of the road type of program. Snowmachines and ATVs can be dangerous to the operators and to non-motorized recreationists as well as damaging to the environment.

3. Create a trailhead that would serve as a N-S corridor for motorized users off Shrock Rd. for access to Bald Mountain Ridge and Willow Creek. This area is currently being used by motorized users without infrastructure in place such as adequate parking, trail head signage and restroom facilities. It would allow for a desired N-S motorized corridor to the West side of the HPMP area without traveling to Willow. The state and the Mat-Su Borough should work together to implement this. Many of the concerns regarding motorized use listed above still apply but at least the trail/corridor wouldnt go through the designated non-motorized area of the Government Peak Unit.

4. Make two separate trails on Archangel Road instead of a shared trail. This is a major area of concern regarding the safety of non-motorized users. As noted earlier, safety should be a compelling reason for separating motorized and non-motorized users. This area has consistently been identified by non-motorized users as one where they feel threatened by speeding and reckless snowmachiners. There are blind spots on the shared trail where speeding snowmachiners cant see people or dogs in time to avoid them. In addition there are also those snowmachiners who disregard the request to stay off of the groomed Nordic ski tracks on the shared trail. The damage to the tracks results in many hours of volunteer work to reset the tracks.

5. Designate Marmot Mountain a non-motorized area. This is a traditional backcountry ski area and an area where safety is a major concern, especially in the areas around the Fishhook parking lot. This is another example where snow machine improvements have negated the intent of the 89 HPMP Amendment and the motorized closure of the Independence Mine Unit. In the past, snowmachiners did not high mark the steep rise directly behind the parking lot or climb to the ridges on the SW and SE flanks of the mountain. Now they do as a result of advances in snowmachine technology. This contributes to a congested area of sledders, skiers, snowboarders and high marking snowmachiners. This is a dangerous place for non-motorized users!

6. Include the April Bowl area connected to Hatch Peak and $1,000 run in the non-motorized area. This is an area that has long standing use by backcountry skiers with relatively few incursions by snowmachiners. This area represents an island of unknown uses as it sits between the non-motorized area of $1,000 and Hatch Peak and the Summit Lake State Recreation area. When $1,000 run was designated non-motorized, it was the desire by the DPOR Superintendent and Rangers at that time to include the April Bowl area for reasons of safety and clear topographical boundaries that enable management and enforcement.

7. Designate the entire High Glacier Peak Unit closed to summer motorized use. Close areas (up to 640 acres) for winter use around each hut and over the traditional Bomber Traverse trail to motorized use. This unit has been accessed primarily by non-motorized users for over 40 years that included climbers, hikers and backcountry skiers. It was not and is not an access issue for these users and many have traveled through the hut system in 1, 2 or 3 days. Over the years many backcountry hikers, climbers and skiers have traveled to areas like the Snowbird or Mint glaciers for a day of recreation. This area is beautiful and fragile with much of it consisting of steep and difficult terrain. If summer motorized use is allowed it will raise safety issues as only expert riders will be able to travel there and could also lead to degradation of the habitat. The same will hold true for winter motorized access from a safety perspective from the east through Reed Lakes or the Snowbird area. The huts are leased and maintained by reputable and responsible non-motorized clubs that deserve to have their quality of backcountry experience that is predicated on seeking quiet, open, untracked valleys and mountain slopes to climb, ski or snowboard on.

8. Contiguous separate areas for Non-Motorized and Motorized users should be clearly defined using topography as the guide. This is very important. Non-Motorized and motorized forms of recreation are incompatible uses when in the same area due to safety concerns for non-motorized users. The main risk to non-motorized users is being hit by a snow machine or ATV. It is not a legitimate argument to claim that you are both a motorized and non-motorized user and that you should be able to access both areas. More people are engaging in both, e.g. they are using a snowmachine to access backcountry locations to ski or snowboard. However, if you use a machine to access the backcountry you are indeed a motorized user of the backcountry. You bring the noise and exhaust of the machine experience to the area while tracking the slopes. There are additional dangers to non-motorized users: Steep slopes are always a potential avalanche hazard to either user group. When motorized users are traveling above non-motorized users on steep slopes there is very little time for a non-motorized user to get out the way should an avalanche occur as a result of the motorized user above. High marking a steep slope is a favorite past time for a lot of snowmachiners. This leaves deep frozen tracks that are a hazard for skiers and snowboarders. Safety issues and enforcement are important reasons for separating the two groups. Non-motorized users want a recreational experience that is based on exercise, the peace and quiet of the mountains, clean air, groomed trails untouched by motorized users and untracked snow for the backcountry skiers. What is important to recognize is that motorized users ruin the recreational experience for non-motorized users if they are using the same area. Non-motorized users have little negative impact on the recreational experience of motorized users.

9. Include infrastructure improvements such as parking areas, trailheads, hardened trails, pullouts and bathroom facilities for the West side of Hatcher Pass. In the 1986 HPMP and the 1989 amendment infrastructure improvement recommendations were included for both the East and West side of Hatcher Pass. Much of the focus has been on the East side and most all of the improvements have been implemented there. It is long overdue and time to review the infrastructure recommendations for the West side, create a clear and doable list, ask all stakeholders to work with the state and the Mat-Su Borough to fund and implement these improvements.

10. DNR should consider recommending that the HPMP area be designated as a State Recreation Area. This was mentioned during the discussion at the last meeting of motorized and non-motorized user group representatives. At the very least, the east side of Hatcher Pass that is accessed by the Palmer Fishhook Rd. should receive this status. This change in status would make it easier to manage the recreation uses and would implement the priorities listed in this memo.

In conclusion, Hatcher Pass is being loved to death by recreation users to the point of compromising the important natural assets people appreciate and love about the area. It is the only mountain pass in the Mat-Su Borough that is accessed by the average person in their car, truck or motor home. We need to seriously look at the carrying capacity of this awesome area for the future before we ruin it by overuse. Most people want to do the right thing and will act responsibly. However, large numbers of users, no matter the type of recreation they pursue, need clear and defined boundaries, accurate information and some regulations to be responsible users so that this recreation area can be there for everyone in the future.

Points to consider in writing the HPMP revision: 1. The valley population is still growing. In 2020 there will be nearly 140,000 people in the Mat-Su Borough, 40,000 more than now. 2. The east side of Hatcher Pass is close to the growing population centers of the Mat-Su Borough. 3. Towns and cities around the world are defined by the quality of recreational activities that are nearby. 4. As population grows traditional recreational opportunities are impacted by the increased use. 5. Safety should always be the primary concern. 6. The second concern should be the impact on the complete environment in the area. This should also include the human environment or quality of life provided by the area. 7. It is difficult and expensive to undo bad decisions made about land. "What will this look like in seven generations?" 8. Non-motorized recreation uses and motorized recreational uses are incompatable and should be separated when possible. 9. Aerobic exercise is for a person's physical and mental health. Especially when it's done in scenic areas.

What legacy will DNR give the east side of Hatcher Pass?

1) Have a realistic non-motorized buffer around the Mint Hut (already designated non-motorized) and the Bomber Hut of at least one and one half miles using natural boundaries (such as ridgelines) with NO motorized corridors passing thru them.

2) Have non-motorized valleys from ridges on both sides (not just corridors) in Mint and Reed Lakes Valleys as intended in the previous management plan.

3) Create an area, such as Chugach State Park, where users can safely, quietly and peacefully (without the noise, smell and eyesore of the motorized machines and their tracks) enjoy the true Alaskan wilderness.

The east side of the HPMP is ideally suited for this and was the original intention for this area (Government Peak, Independence, Archangel, Reed Lakes and Little Susitna Units).

Thank You.

We (dog mushers) would like it if the road could be plowed again.

I have not had any issues personally with snow machiners, they are usually very nice about stopping to let me pass with my dogs.

The ATV / Off Roaders are a problem because they are tearing up the vegetation.

Should the HPMA be managed mainly for recreation? Yes!!

What specific changes, if any need to be made for motorized and non-motorized use designations? Keep west side as is except provide more trail etiquette signage.

Are new parking and trail improvements needed? WDMA would like to see a parking lot near the gate on Willow-Fishhook so that more people could utilize the area in winter.

What other facilities? Outhouses.

I would like to see the current non-motorized use area expanded to include Independence Unit to Government Peak Unit, the Little Susitna Unit, Reed Lakes Unit down to the river and up to Mint Hut, including the Bomber and Snowbird Huts. I would also like to see the area include the Archangel Unit, Willow Creek and Craigie Creek Units.

Thanks for the consideration. Cima Pillsbury Anchorage, AK

My first priority goal for the Hatcher Pass Management Plan is protection of the natural environment of Hatcher Pass. This includes intact landscapes, maintaining watershed integrity and water quality, healthy fish and wildlife populations and habitat, and natural quiet. Hatcher Pass is a special area of stunning beauty, that should be preserved for future generations to enjoy and appreciate. There is always going to be tension between protection and access. But protection of the natural environment has to be the number one management priority if the unique backcountry recreational opportunities of Hatcher Pass are to be available for folks to enjoy in the future.

This means, of course, that some uses, for example summertime ATV use, must be firmly restricted, and on the east side prohibited. I dont know the level of ATV use currently in Hatcher Pass or the extent of the damage that is occurring to trails or to the water quality, wetlands, and tundra, but I have seen extensive damage in other areas. When I read some of the comments on this scoping process and see suggestions of opening certain areas on the east side of Hatcher Pass to ATV use, I think of the natural resource damage I have witnessed in other areas, including Park units, and the lack of agency enforcement capacity. I also think of how ATV use interrupts the natural quiet, ruins trails, and significantly diminishes the quality of the visitor experience for non-motorized folks. In short, ATV use should be banned outright on the east side and only allowed on the west side if controlled such that there is no damage to the natural resource values of the area and such that a mechanism for monitoring and enforcement is effectively in place.

With regard to snowmachines and the conflicts with non-motorized recreationists, the first thing to appreciate is that snowmachines are incompatible with and generally preclude other uses. This comes about through things like ruined trails (especially groomed trails), noise, loss of the natural snowscape. Non-motorized users, then, lose the function of a good trail, the opportunity to experience some peace and quiet, and the feel of being in a remote area. And this loss is significant. The damage to trails generally lasts until the next snowfall or until they are groomed, and the can of worms snowscape lasts until the next heavy snowfall.

A significant part of Hatcher Pass should be closed outright to snowmachines. Right now, boundaries between motorized and non-motorized are confusing, so to facilitate monitoring and enforcement, and minimize inadvertent straying outside the motorized zone and the accompanying impact to trails or non-motorized users, I suggest that the east side be non-motorized only and the west side be motorized.

Many years ago, I was a member of the Alaska Mountaineering Club, and support their desire to include that area of their backcountry huts within the Hatcher Pass Management Plan area, and it should be closed to motorized use.

Wherever possible, boundaries of the management area or closed areas, or special management areas should follow geographic features or topography (rather than be straight lines drawn on a map) to better facilitate visitor compliance with the rules and to facilitate monitoring and enforcement.

Government Peak Sub units should remain non-motorized. If the ski area happens, the area should remain accessible to backcountry skiers to climb and ski without buying a ticket or being banned.

There should be no motorized corridor from lower Palmer Fishhook Rd. to Motherlode. The drive is beautiful and ATVs or snowmachines buzzing alongside would impair the scenic qualities. In addition, if it is not paved, then dust would be a big problem.

Goldmint valley is now being used by motorized users, who cross the Little Su and head up onto the benches of Delia creek and are now as far back on the east side of the Little Su as the Lonesome mine. Goldmint valley and the entire east and west side of the Little Su should be non-motorized. This is the only valley a non-motorized user can go and not hear, see or smell motorized activity. Everywhere else that is accessible to non-motorized users has to either see, hear or smell or at least hear them.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

#1. Equality, in areas closed to one group or the other being equal. We both need our quiet spaces.

#2. Equality in the structure of fees collected to operate the area correctly. As motorized has been the only one paying. All users must pay to play.

As it was said, none of us want confrontation, few of us are interested in the areas close to the roads or areas that the Borough is spending money on. But we do want corridors to get around in legally. Regulated by enforcement.

Hatchers Pass is the gateway to the north, to get us to Eureka, and then to Tok, then to Dawson, then to Whitehorse, to get on The Trans- Canadian Trail System, which goes all the way to Maine.

I believe Bruce heard, and understood many facts better by the end of the meeting. And I believe there are compromisers on both sides willing to work it out.

In front of the Attwood building I noticed, while waiting for the meeting to start, were tree planters. On some of the planters this is written.

All government originates with the people, is founded upon their will, and is instituted solely for the people as a whole.

I thought that really said it all.

Should the HPMA be managed mainly for recreation? Yes.

What specific changes, if any need to be made for motorized and non-motorized use designations? None.

Are new parking and trail improvements needed? No.

What other facilities? None.

How should the plan treat the Government Peak unit? Don't understand?

Why ? pass by quistions regarding impact on fish & wildlife?

* use existing crossing at edgerton parks don't make new bridge accoss river.

What community vendors / contractors will be used?

Should the HPMA be managed mainly for recreation? Yes.

What specific changes, if any need to be made for motorized and non-motorized use designations? No change.

Are new parking and trail improvements needed? Yes.

What other facilities? Bathrooms, Pavillions, Rd/trail improvements.

How should the plan treat the Government Peak unit? What is the plan??

SAFETY CONCERN I am in favor or the proposed downhill and nordic ski areas. I think that in the nordic area that motorized use could be accommodated but not on the trails themselves (winter or summer). I believe that motorized use (summer or winter) in the downhill area must be prohibited.

SAFETY CONCERN The rest of the area should remain as exists in terms of motorized versus non-motorized use in winter.

ENVIRONMENT CONCERN I am opposed to any increase in ATV traffic corridors in the summer.

I am a nearby resident for over 25 years and I have recreated at Hatcher Pass since the 1970's.

Motorized vs. Non Motorized-

I support keeping it pretty much the way it is now with the following exceptions:

· Archangel Road: Restrict snowmachines on Archangel Road, but continue summer motorized use. It has become a safety hazard to have high-marking snowmachining above the road/trail because of the steep slopes and possibility of triggering an avalanche on users below. The following support the above recommendation:

1) Conflicts occur with skiers using the groomed trails because some riders run over the set tracks and obliterate the trail.

2) New machines are very fast and this present a safety hazard to skiers and walkers.

3) Continue to allow summer-motorized use on the road.

· South Side Proposed Nordic Area:

1) Retain- non-motorized designation to keep the Nordic Trails from being impacted and damaged.

2) Motorized Corridor- With some conditions perhaps provide a motorized corridor to the public lands west of the end of Edgerton Parks Road only if a continuous easement is provided without trespassing, bridges are build across major drainages, and the corridor leads to public land, and maintain controlled separation between the motorized corridor and Nordic are with a fenced corridor or other means. Also during moose hunting season only, perhaps identify certain trails that will be allowed to be used to access hunting areas if that can be done without a major conflict with other user groups and the Nordic area development.

I am a recreational dog musher, a cross-country skier, a snowshoer, a hiker, and a berry picker. Although I am a proponent of non-motorized recreation, I have a bit of understanding for motorized users because I am a dog musher. Mushing dogs can damage trails and has other impact on foot-based recreation. The difference between me and most motorized users is that I understand that and am willing to see areas that are off limits to dog mushers.

I think Hatcher Pass needs to have areas that are non-motorized only and areas that are motorized. I support making the east side of Hatcher Pass non-motorized and the west side of Hatcher Pass motorized. I think this solution is the simplest, and it would be difficult for folks to say they didnt know the area was closed the motorized use. This solution would also be the easiest to enforce, and we all know that the State does not have the staff or resources to monitor and enforce regulations that are complex. Because I support a non-motorized east side of Hatcher Pass, no ATVs should be allowed on the east side, but that doesnt mean they should be allowed everywhere on the west side. DNR should carefully decide whether any areas on the west side can tolerate ATV use. If there are suitable areas, DNR needs to determine that they can monitor the area and enforce regulations before opening any areas on the west to ATV use. I support the Alaska Mountaineering Clubs proposal that DNR shift the boundary of the management area to the Kashwitna and this area be non-motorized. I support leaving the Governments Peak Sub-units non-motorized with continued and free access guaranteed to backcountry non-motorized users regardless of whether the ski area gets developed. Similarly Goldmint Valley and the entire east and west side of the Little Su should be non-motorized. Recent creep into the Goldmint Valley by motorized users needs to be stopped and precluded by this plan. And, Marmot Mt. above the parking area should be closed to snowmachiners, and all state maps should be corrected to show that it is closed to motorized use. Finally, the conflicts on Archangel Road has to be resolved. Making the east side of Hatcher Pass non-motorized would resolve it. But, if not, DNR needs to bring motorized and non-motorized users together and figure out a solution. Hatcher Pass is a stunningly beautiful place. It offers so much enjoyment to Alaskans and to visitors to Alaska. It is filled with interesting history. It is very important that this plan be written in a way that puts protection of Hatcher Pass first, and meeting increased demand from recreational users send. The Mat-Su borough is going to keep growing. Pressures are going to keep building. Please write a strong management plan that will ensure that Hatcher Pass is just as wonderful 15 or 20 years from now when the next revision is due. I appreciate the opportunity to comment.

Ruth Wood, Talkeetna

A good management plan is needed to protect and sustain the natural values of the HPMA that makes this area so attractive. To facilitate management, clear boundaries need to be established and the best way to do that would be to make the eastern portion of HPMA non motorized and the western portion motorized. This would reduce user conflicts in the winter and protect the fragile plant communities on the east side in the summer. Already considerable damage has occurred on the east side by ATV's used during the summer and hunting season in the fall. In addition, the motorized community has large areas for recreation in the Knik River Public Use Area and the Upper Susitna Valley. This separation of motorized and non motorized activity would allow non motorized users to have a safe, quiet place to recreate without the smell of exhaust.

I support Alaska Mountaineering Club's suggestion to extend the HPMA boundary to the Kashwitna River. This area should be within the non motorized area of the HPMA and should iclude the eastern and western sides of the Little Su. Also the Government Peak area should remain non-motorized as well as there should be no corridor from lower Palmer Fishhook Road to the Motherlode for motorized use. That sort of development would severely impact the view scape along the road and would be inconsistent with maintaining a non motorized designation for the east side. The non motorized designation should also extend to Marmot Mt above the upper Fishhook parking lot. The snow machine access corridor from the parking lot over the road to the west side should be maintained if it can be enforced.

The user conflicts I have experienced most dramatically have occurred along Archangel Rd while running my dog team. Snow machines travelling really fast have almost hit the dogs. Another problem with Archangel Rd. is in the winter time is that there is a parking pay station. I do not understand why users should pay to risk crossing the road ( the traffic moves swiftly along the road going back and forth to 16 mile) and once you cross the road there is a large snow berm (that develops throughout the season) on the road's edge to climb to gain access to Archangel Rd. It is very difficult to move dogs and sled across the road let alone a sled with a baby in it to be towed by parents while skiing. The situation is totally unsafe.

Another activity that occurs in this area during the spring is the intensive harvest of fiddleheads and new shoots of other alpine meadow plants. Garbage bag loads of plants are carried out. Although I have not conducted a study, (the Plant Materials Center is currently studying harvest impacts on fiddlehead ferns) it appears that the plant composition in these meadows is changing; the amount of false hellebore seems to be increasing. False Hellebore is poisonous and is not harvested. I have used the area for over 30 years and walk Archangel Road during the spring, birding and looking for wildflowers before the road is opened to cars.

The plant communties belong to the public and not just one user group. I believe this spring harvest activity has more impact than berry picking and should be managed to sustain the native plant communities.

The Reed lakes trail is another area that has experienced tremendous increase in pressure. To begin with the parking is inadequate and an outhouse needs to be placed at the trail head. The trail leads to an incredibly fragile alpine area where many go to camp. I question how much use the area can withstand and propose a permit system for camping in the Reed Lakes area. If an area becomes trampled it loses it's beauty, habitat values and ability to control erosion, which would ultimately destroy a gem within the incredibly beautiful Hatcher Pass.

I am also concerned about the spider web network of trails that has developed at the summit of Hatcher Pass. Designated trails and restoration efforts need to be developed.

I am afraid that the population explosion that the Hatcher Pass Management Area seems to be experiencing cannot continue without more active management and effort to educate the public if we want to sustain the beauty and natural values we all appreciate in Hatcher Pass.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

I am very concerned by Jim Turner's proposal which would create a snowmachine/ORV corridor starting on the south side of Government Peak. This corridor would then parrallel the Hatcher Pass road, before heading up the west side of Fishhook Creek.

This corridor would bisect the non-motorized area of Hatcher Pass. The corridor would directly gut the future nordic and alpine ski centers, putting both ski centers in jeopardy.

Furthermore, the snowmachine community has admitted that there will be people who will go off the trails. To stop these people, they argue that the state must have better "enforcement."

But, as we learned at the meeting, State Parks' barely enforces the current trail mandates, simply because of the overwhelming difficulty in finding and proving illegality. Dan Valentine (State Parks Ranger) stated that, due to the difficulty in enforcing the existing laws, State Parks gave less than 12 citations last winter.

And now the motorized community wants to create a massive corridor straight through the heart of the non-motorized area. As a history teacher, I believe that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The past has shown that State Park's trail enforcement simply does not work.

I am also deeply concerned by the corridor's summertime ORV use. As a hunter and hiker, I have witnessed the detruction of much of the Talkeetna Mountains due to ORV use. It takes just one ORV to permanently damage the tundra. As we all have seen, when one ORV goes off trail, others follow.

The consequences of allowing summertime ORV use in Hatcher Pass would be devastating.

I do, however, agree with Turner's compromise concerning Archangel and Reid Lakes. I believe that we should switch the designations for both areas, making Archangel non-motorized, and Reid Lakes motorized. This would allow the snowmachiners to access Snowbird Glacier, and would give the skiers/mushers/snowshoers a trail with varied terrain.

I am, of course, deeply concerned about enforcing a non-motorized Archangel...

To summarize:

1. I believe that the motorized/non-motorized designations should remain as they currently stand -- with the exception of the Reid Lakes/Archangel swap. 2. We must not allow a motorized corridor to gut one of the few non-motorized areas in Hatcher Pass.

Thank you for you time.

Darin Marwardt

Parking areas should be expanded, as some parking areas are extremely limited.

Motorized vehicles (other than snow grooming equipment), snowmachines, dog sleds, and pets should not be allowed on any ski trails. All ski areas should be clearly marked so there is no confusion or conflict between skiers and other users.

It would be really nice to have some sort of warm up building in the ski areas; a place with restroom facilities, food and drinks for sale, and perhaps lockers, as the local restaurants and lodges on the mountain were closed during the weekdays of last winter. This building could be available for all users of Hatcher Pass.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Establish and maintain trails to avoid hikers trampling well established trails across a larger tundra areas of Reed Lakes, Craggie Creek similar to what has already been started along the Little Susitna upper portion. Better parking is required for major trail heads in both east and west unit.

Confine motorized year round use only to the western unit of Hatcher pass and confine it to specific established trails and access areas in Craggie Creek and establish this for access to other use areas in this unit.

Monitor and regulate amount of plant material that is harvested along the high impact areas along the road system and especially the road in Archangel Valley. I would suggest limiting traffic allowed during summer on Archangel road to avoid damage higher up the valley at the Reed Lake Trial head

Motorized vehicles to include ATV's/and snowmachines must be regulated and restricted to a few areas where the vegetation and soils are less fragile or we will continue to see destruction of the alpine tundra areas and these areas once destroyed will be permanently lost and erosion will continue to be a serious problem on steep slopes.

The Nancy Lake model of restricting use has worked well. I would suggest this type of approach be used as a guide to establish a plan for Hatcher Pass. This model may only work under a law enforcement authority afforded State Park Ranger. This type of authority is not in place for Hatcher Pass and should be implemented if a stricter use policy is to be implemented successfully.

With a 20% annual increase in visitors, I think it would be wise to place the visitor gate just prior to the bridge over the little Susitna or in that vicinity. This would give rangers a better idea of the numbers of visitors as well to provide visitors with updated snow conditions, avalanche danger, closed areas, etc. This also insures that all who use the area are equally paying via an annual parking pass or daily use fee. Another gate on the west side should be in place but only manned when the road is open all the way over Summit Lake to the east side, typically late June - late Sept. This insures that users of the area have their recreational vehicles registered and have an annual Alaska State Park sticker or are paying for a day use permit or camping fee. This revenue will insure better compliance to the regulations and will generate revenue for any additional salary requirements of park rangers or improvements to the areas.

Due to the increase in RV and camping in the area in the summer, I believe that designated camping areas should be established. Parking areas are already beyond capacity in the winter, and they are approaching that for weekend summer use.

Handicap access is well established at Independence Mine; however, areas like Summit Lake, as well as Gold Mint Trail, could be improved to provide wheelchair access for some of the close by scenic areas and picnic areas. Toilet facilities need to be increased as well as hand pump water wells where able for RV and camping areas.

In regards to winter use, Archangel Road provides early season cross country and skate skiing for those just beginning the sport. Once the area is open to snowmachiners (30" base), the skate skiing (smooth surface) is over. Archangel Valley is a favorite area for snowmachiners and provides a good area for snowmachiners who are just learning as well. I recommend a different access point be laid out for snowmachiners to get from the lower parking lot over to Archangel Valley. Archangel Road could be reserved as a beginners area for nordic skiers. For snowmachiners two trails branching out from the lower parking lot--one going to Archangel Valley and the other up towards the upper parking lot could be in place leaving Archangel road for the nordic skiers. The parking area directly across from Archangel Road should be increased as parking capacity is maxed out on any nice weekend. This would primarily be dedicated for the nordic skiers.

In the Government Peak subunit on the south side, designated on the map as the ski lease area, snowmachine traffic should not be allowed inside the parameter of the proposed Nordic trail system. If it is determined by DNR that motorized traffic should be allowed in the south side, then DNR should mandate the same requirements currently used for Denali State Park as well Nancy Lake trail system (20" base as a minimum) to protect vegetation and prevent erosion. If east/west access is deemed acceptable in the ski lease area, it should be on a well-defined snowmachine trail while in the ski lease boundary. Once beyond those boundaries to the west and north it could open up to free riding areas.

The current snowmachine map is not adequate to determine location and access. I recommend establishing posted maps at specific points like the Petersville Area has; for example, Dogsled Pass with GPS coordinates would be such an area. Also it would be appropriate to annotate, like an alpine ski map, areas that are best suited for highly experienced mountain riders versus the easier scenic rides like Archangel Road. Color code as green, blue, black, or caution areas as alpine ski maps do. Additionally, identify areas that are historically known to avalanche. Granted avalanches can occur anywhere on the mountain but particular areas have had more avalanches with loss of life than others.

In regards to sledding and downhill skiing, 16 mile run, in particular, needs to be addressed from a safety perspective. The use of this ski run has grown incredibly in popularity over the last few years. On most weekends, groups of school age kids can be seen either walking in the road or across the road to catch rides back up the hill. I have often seen kids listening to their iPods and walking in the road while vehicles with snowmachines trailers are having a hard time trying to stop or maneuver around them during heavy snowfall. Other times children overshoot the stopping area and go into the road. Tragically, a child was killed a few years ago by sledding into the road and being hit by a car. An established turn around area and pick-up point needs to be established. A covered bus stop type area would be ideal. Furthermore, if MASCOT could provide a bus or two on weekends and provide pickup and dropoff for the 16 mile run, this would be even better and would show our young people in the valley that we support their healthy lifestyle choices. This would also reduce the chaos in the two turn around areas.

If a determination is made that the Archangel Valley should only be for non-motorized use then Gold Mint trail should be looked at for motorized. This would allow snowmachiners to access the Mint Glacier and beyond while also providing an easy snowmachine trail for beginner snowmachiners or family rides if the Archangel Valley is changed to non-motorized. It would also open up Arkose Ridge and areas to the south and east of Gold Mint to snowmachiners. High power mountain machines could access the Hatcher Pass management area from the south. Non-motorized users then would have exclusive use of Archangel, Reed Lake, Marmot Mountain, as well as the current area at Independence Mine. This would give them a core area, close to the roads with easy access. It would also be much easier for the rangers to patrol and boundaries easily identified.

The east side parking lots for snowmachines need to stay open to at least provide a corridor for snowmachiners to get to the west side if all other options are removed. The current access from Willow Fish Hook Road to the parking lot by Last Chance Coffee house is not adequate to handle the amount of vehicles and trailers that use the Hatcher Pass area. Additionally, the Willow road is very narrow and many vehicles have gone in the ditch as large trucks with trailers can barely get by another vehicle on the road. This access also adds almost 1 hour of driving time each way for snowmachiners from Anchorage or Palmer.

If a compromise cannot be made for motorized and nonmotorized access, then I believe as a last resort they should deconflict by days, much like Eklutna State Park. However, due to the fact that during a large part of the winter season the east side of Hatcher Pass is not open to motorized vehicles, until adequate snow coverage (30") is established, I believe something more like Mon-Wed for nonmotorized and Thur-Sun for all would be a fair approach. Again this is a last resort. Otherwise I recommend alternating the weeks that Archangel or Gold Mint Valleys are open to motorized and non-motorized (winter use) so that all users can access these trails at different times and enjoy the varying terrain. These times and openings should be posted on the website and at the parking lot and trailheads.

Maps need to better define the areas in which ATVs/ORVs are allowed. A comprehensive and detailed map needs to be created with GPS coordinates and significant geographic points to better identify what is allowed inside different areas. In regards to this, yes, the Hatcher Pass Management Area should extend to the Kaswhitna River.

Hunting and trapping restrictions should be in place around the trail network surrounding the nordic area. This area will likely have numerous campers, RVers, mountain bikers, hikers, runners, etc., on the 20 km trail system. The use of firearms or trapping within this boundary would not be safe for people enjoying this area with their families and dogs. In regards to the entire Hatcher Pass Management Area, this is less than 1/2 of a percent of the area that would be closed to trapping or hunting in the interest of public safety.

The Little Su, inside the boundary area, provides great white water kayaking for seasoned kayakers. A launch area and established exit area should be created.

At Summit Lake an area should be made to ease launching and recovery for paragliders.

The road should be improved and potentially paved to allow access by motorhomes and campers to complete the full loop. If the road were improved to the level to allow tour buses easy access, it would provide a significant economic boost to the Palmer, Hatcher Pass, and Willow businesses. Numerous areas on the west side are ideal for establishing campgrounds for people to enjoy the Hatcher Pass playground. These should be planned for the future.

Thanks for an opportunity to comment.

Currently, there is a problem with many motorized users in Hatcher Pass during the winter. Either they don't know where the non-motorized areas are or they don't care. The park rangers have an impossible job of enforcing the non-motorized areas. The problem will only get worse as more people go to Hatcher Pass during the winter (approximately 20% increase every year). Title 38 general land use regulations allow for changes in allowable uses based on endangerment to public safety, degradation of the environment or private development.

Increased motorized use certainly warrants consideration as endangerment to public safety especially in areas that are shared (Archangel Valley) or where snowmachiners go into non-motorized areas.

With regard to degradation of the environment, if motorized users could appreciate the value that non-motorized users have for peace and quiet or clean air, they could understand why skiers complain about having snowmachines around them. It degrades their environment.

I can only express my values as a cross-country skier. I can't imagine what motorized users value about their experience but I would be willing to listen to what it is about snowmachining that thrills them as much as skiing thrills me.

Once we listen to each others values instead of rolling our eyes and labeling each other as tree huggers or stink buckets we might actually have a productive meeting and make some progress towards resolving the user group conflicts in Hatcher Pass. Until that happens, it is DNR's job to resolve these conflicts on their own using the criteria established in Title 38.

NOTE: I voter for the east side- non-motorized; west side- motorized solution.

Answers to your specific questions: HPMA should be managed primarily for non-motorized recreational use. Eliminating motorized use or keeping it totally on the west side and off of all steep areas summer & winter would alleviate many of the problems.

Specific motorized/ non-motorized changes: -Make Archangel Rd non-motorized winter & summer. It is a wonderful ski trail early season, but snow machine use quickly makes it too crowded, noisy, and rutted for an enjoyable experience. As ski use increases more trails are needed. In the summer it is already heavily used without any changes.

-Winter snow machine use should be allowed only on the west side to alleviate dangerous interaction between users. Increased use makes it dangerous to allow motorized & non-motorized use in the same area. For example: my son had a high marker cut above him as he hiked up Marmot Mountain to snowboard in an area that is supposed to non-motorized.

_Most of the eastern side is too steep and already used heavily by non-motorized users. Keep all the ATV use on the western side, on the roads and trails and off of the steep tundra hillsides that erode easily and take a long time to regenerate.

- Under no circumstances should motorized use be allowed on the Gold Mint Trail (summer or winter) due to noise, destruction of terrain and possible run off into the Little Su River

- Eliminate the snow machine trail from the gold mint parking lot up and over the pass. They don't stay on the trail and out of closed areas.

-The critical habitat area on Baldy needs to be protected in the summer. It is one of the few places in south central Alaska with ground nesting plover, whimbrels and long tailed jaegers. Off trail use in the area cannot be tolerated.

Parking & Trails Separating use could alleviate parking problems Maintain the hiking trails and upgrade only to the degree needed

Government Peak unit should be non-motorized.

Other: The bottom line is multiple use just does not work. Attempts at compromise and sharing all too often means the non-motorized user just gets pushed out by the noise and destruction. DNR essentially gave KRPUA to the motorized users. Much of Hatcher Pass is not suitable to motorized use. ATVs do not belong in tundra habitat. They are too destructive and the tundra is too fragile. Unfortunately far too many motorized users do not respect boundaries and seem to have no understanding of the destruction machines can cause. Non-motorized use areas need to be expanded.

A last area of concern is the vast amounts of edible ferns and roots that seem to be removed every spring by some users. It seems like continued high harvest might change some of the habitat. At the least this should be studied and possibly some limits place on harvest.

Another safety issue results from the high speeds at which snowmachiners travel relative to non-motorized users. In uneven terrain, where sight distances are limited, non-motorized users have little chance to get out of the way of a rapidly approaching snowmachine. This problem is particularly bad when high marking snowmachiners are coming back down the hill from their high marks, often barely in control of their machines. It is also a problem on flatter terrain favored by cross-country skiers. I have heard many people complain that conflicts of this type have become common on Archangel Road.

These conflicts have been exacerbated by advances in snowmachine technology. Snowmachines are much faster, lighter, and more powerful than they used to be. This has affected how they are used (e.g., mountain riding, high marking, traveling at extremely high rates of speed), which has in turn produced safety issues that never used to exist. However, this change in technology also offers a solution to the safety issue. By restricting snowmachine use on the east side of Hatcher Pass to a corridor leading to the Willow side of the pass, snowmachines can quickly access a huge area that sees hardly any wintertime use by non-motorized users. This also simplifies the issue of enforcement for the state.

I have noticed that snow-machiners seem to encroach on the non-motorized trails with increasing frequency, creating real safety issues and interfering hugely with the enjoyment of the trails by the skiers. On the non-groomed trails, I am constantly tuning in to a potential snow machine encounter rather than fully enjoying my surroundings. This is especially the case when I am with or see others with children or dogs. I detest the fumes that are left when snow machiners pass. The noise is an intrusion. And I groan to see the groomed trails destroyed by snowmachines; I see the kind of dedication and time and resources that goes in to keeping the trails groomed!

During the warm months I am hiking these trails and the likelihood of an exchange with 4-wheelers or other motorized vehicles has been minimal, thankfully. I fear that if motorized vehicles were allowed, though, the destruction to vegetation and wildlife would be substantial.

So I am not a fan of motorized vehicles; I have a strong personal preference for non-motorized use because the experience is so much more valuable. However, I recognize the need for public lands use plans to accommodate a variety of users. IT IS ABSOLUTELY, ESSENTIAL, THOUGH, THAT IN THE HPMA MOTORIZED USE BE LIMITED AND THE LIMITATIONS ENFORCED. I believe there better areas well away from Marmot and Archangel that are suited to motorized vehicle use and encourage these areas in particular to be OFF LIMITS TO MOTORIZED VEHICLE USE.

Thanks for considering my comments.

Should the HPMA be managed mainly for recreation? No.

What specific changes, if any need to be made for motorized and non-motorized use designations? You need to quit putting out those bad maps!! Motorized should have the west side, non motorized the east side. More parking and Iron rangers, and real rangers.

Are new parking and trail improvements needed? Yes, more parking. Trail improvements for non-motorized, motorized trail improvements is a waste.

What other facilities? Bathrooms, Iron rangers.

How should the plan treat the Government Peak unit? Non-motorized!

We need more parking, and law enforcement is a must. Seperating the east and west side to non-motorized and motorized should make law enforcement easier for our rangers, and safer for our familys.

In clousure of my comments, I must say I love Hatcher Pass and enjoy being able to go down the mint trail, or up to independence mine area and enjoy the beauty of the wilderness on an old fashioned trail with out 4-wheeler ruts, and the smell of motorized vehiciles. Please don't take this away from our familys. Life is full of choices and teaching our young and exposing them to nature is an excellent value we need to keep.

I and local residents, Lin Turner, Al Plisousky and Les Greenstreet, I believe, have identified the full length of the two routes of the 1909 Carle Wagon Trail from mile 1 Edgerton Parks Rd to mile 9.5 Fishhook Willow Rd and thence to Fishhook Creek. We have turned over ours findings to Dowl Engineers (doing EIS for Mat Su Borough) and the Mat-Su Borough Historic Preservation Commission.

Recommendations:

I am making recommendations that I believe will, increase motorized back country access summer and winter, increase access for winter nonmotorized users to areas undisturbed by motorized use, rationalize separation between these user groups, provide for more appropriate motorized snow play area for beginners, reduce traffic congestion in the east side of Hatcher Pass in the winter and provide for traditional access for local residents in the Government Peak Subunit.

Increase motorized back country access summer and winter:

1. Provide for a summer and winter motorized corridor from the MSBs proposed access at mi. one Edgerton Parks Rd to the base area of the proposed downhill ski area (route of the Carle Wagon Trail). And thence from there, in the winter, provide a motorized access to the south edge of Fishhook Creek and from there west and north along Fishhook Creek to Fishhook Parking Lot. And in the summer provide a motorized trail from the ski area base along the Fishhook Willow Rd to mile twelve and from there to either the Archangel Rd or the Gold Mint Parking Lot on the Old Fishhook Road bed or the abandoned Mint Mine Spur Rd (see accompanying photo).

2. Open the snowmachine trail from Gold Mint Parking Lot to the Fishhook Parking Lot to summer motorized ATV use.

3. Open the Archangel Rd to summer ATV use.

4. Open Reed Ck Drainage and Snow Bird Pass to winter motorized use, so that Barktof Creek and the Kashwitna Drainages can be accessed for winter motorized use and for a snow play area adjacent to the Gold Mint Parking Lot. .

5. In Government Peak subunit provide for motorized corridor running east and west from the Carle Wagon Trail to the Waldo Reed right of way thence to the western edge of the subunit. And provide motorized access to picnic hill from Waldo Reed right of way. And dont close to motorized use areas not needed for development.

6. When the Fishhook Willow Rd over the top of Hatcher Pass is upgraded and paved allow for development of a parallel summer ATV trail.

Increase access for winter nonmotorized users to areas undisturbed by motorized use.

1. Close the triangle of land enclosed by the Fishhook Willow Rd from mi. 12 to mi. 16 and Fishhook Creek (16 mile ski run) to winter motorized use.

2. Close Marmot Mountain east and west flanks down to the Fishhook Willow Rd and the Archangel Rd (except for the snowmachine corridor from Gold Mint Parking Lot to Fishhook Parking Lot and the parking lots) to motorized use.

3. Close Archangel Valley up valley from Reed Cr Trail to winter motorized use.

4. Close Archangel Rd and everything west of Archangel Rd to winter motorized use.

5. Close all of Fishhook Creek Basin (except the motorized corridors from Gold Mint Parking Lot to the Fishhook Parking Lot thence over the top of Hatcher Pass and from the downhill hill ski area parking lot to Fishhook Parking Lot) to winter motorized use.

6. Keep the Gold Mint Trail closed to summer and winter motorized use and close the east side of the Little Susitna Drainage north of mile 11 Fishhook Willow Rd and the west side of the Little Susitna Drainage north of Archangel Creek to motorized use.

These measures would address key areas of conflict between user groups and give individuals users a superior experience than now enjoyed.

Independence Bowl, Marmot Mt. and the Fishhook Basin would be quieted down for the nonmotorzied user. Generally the nommotorized areas would be more contiguous and consolidated allowing for larger a space for nonmotorized activities.

The Archangel Rd user conflict would be considerably decreased with skiers only on the road and snowmachiners on the broad slopes east of that road.

Conflicts between snowboarders and snowmachiners on the 16 Mile Run and Paradise Run would be eliminated.

A snow play area for beginner snowmachiners would be available on the gentle slopes between Gold Mint Parking Lot and Archangel Rd and along Archangel Creek up to Reed Creek and thence up Reed Creek.

Superior access would be provided for winter motorized users, particularly for snowmachiners to the Kashwitna and Barktof River valleys in the north and from areas outside of Hatcher Pass to the south.

ATV users would have trails to ride in Hatcher Pass readily accessible from the Mat Valley core area. And a historic trail the Carle Wagon Road would be resurrected.

Traffic in Hatcher Pass would be alleviated in the winter because snowmachiners could park outside the mountain confines and access Hatcher Pass.

And traditional access for residents in the Government Peak subunit would be accommodated and enhanced.

Finally none of the plans the Mat-Su Borough has for a downhill ski area and a cross country ski area would be substantially negatively impacted by these changes and I believed would even be enhanced by these changes.

When do you use this area the most? All year. Skiing, berry picking, backpacking. Less in Nov. Dec. Jan.

What types of recreation do you practice the most? Non motorized. Skiing, berry picking, backpacking, hiking, family outings, picnics.

What type of equipment do you use? Skiis, boots, occasionally llamas, etc.

How often do you participate in recreational activities in the area? 2 or 3 visits a month average.

What types of conflicts about recreational use in this area have you experienced? Yahoos shooting marmots while hiking on Willow side. Almost run over by snowmachines on Archangle Rd. Ruined trails on Willow side. Trespassing snowmachines on Gold Mint area skiing.

Are there specific areas that you have experienced these conflicts in? How often? See above. Willow & Bald Mt area aren't as pleasant to spend time in. Garbage, ruined trails, ugly damaged scenery, huge dirt campsites, motorized traffic going too fast, or with child drivers.

Other issues: Non motorized users are being forced out of some areas due to damaged and ruined trails. Suggestion: Snowmachines Sunday, Monday Tuesday; non-motorized Wednesday, Thursday, Friday on Archangel Rd, similar to Eklutna.

Map of use areas included.

In my 47 years of living and playing in Alaska I have noticed so incredibly much damage and destruction to almost everywhere I go, especially in the Mat-Su Valley. Over and over I've gone to a favorite hiking or camping area and found a four wheeler has been through. The next year that little track is a muddy, degraded, ever widening road.

I know many soils, grades, and vegetations in Hatcher Pass are unsuitable for motorized use, and much damage is permanent. Most of the Valley is not managed; a park; or a recreation area. These places are anything goes for motorized vehicles, consequently, the Valley is becoming a wasteland of off road vehicle trails and roads that double in size every year.

I've noticed impacts from snowmachines too. Track size chunks of moss spewed down a hill where there wasn't enough snow, fields of blueberry bushes and willows mowed down or bent, broken and debarked. One summer I hiked for hours in Hatcher Pass to a beautiful spot high on a mountainside; a little flat spot with amazing views. There I found a snowmachine garbage pile with beer cans, hand warmers, wads of foil and cigarette butts.

Non-motorized users are being left out of the mix. It's not fun hiking in mud and ruts, or in huge knee deep puddles. It's not pretty to see a maze of expanding trails as part of the scenery. The Valley continues to grow, and the amount of ORV's grow with it. There is no enforcement of land use regulations, no fees, and no respect for the land and animals inhabiting it.

A Hatcher Pass Management Plan needs to be about sustainability. I want my grandchildren to be able to experience the Hatcher Pass I enjoyed as a child.

The decisions regarding the Plan can leave a legacy for future generations to enjoy and thank you for your foresight and vision, or an unfixable mistake.

I hope science and sustainability matter enough to protect the Hatcher Pass Area from continued or increased damage from ORV use.

Just look what has happened to the Craigie Creek Trail on the west side of the pass, a once beautiful multiuse trail has turned into a rutted mud pit.

Summer Use Comments

In considering changes to the Management Plan, for the summer, I think maintaining the current access policy is a minimum. Motorized and non-motorized users have designated areas where each can enjoy their own way of being out of doors.

Multi-use areas do not work, especially in the summer, with the possible exception of Eklutna where separate corridors are maintained and ATVs are on hardened roads. All other areas where ATVs have access are turned into rutted messes that destroy the land and make it difficult for non-motorized users to access-- let alone enjoy. Clear examples of severely deteriorated trails can be found at Jim Creek, Eska Falls, and the Moose Range.

When considering motorized access it must be recognized that ATVs have changed significantly in recent years. They are larger, heavier, and more powerful. Some can now carry four people with gear. It does not take long to deliver extensive damage to trails with these machines. Take a look at the changes to trails and wetlands throughout the Moose Range in the last few years to see these effects.

In addition to motorized areas in Hatcher, there are many areas along the Glenn and Parks highways where ATVs have access to extensive wilderness areas.

Management areas, park lands and other wilderness areas are managed by the government for a reason& to protect the land for future generations to enjoy. The government should not be swayed by well endowed interest groups and lobbyists. There are thousands of users, residents and tourists who typically dont get involved and voice their opinions. Alaska ranks 13th in all states for obesity, and the state and local governments should take an active role in addressing this issue by providing free easy access for people to get exercise.

I would also like to support the following earlier comments regarding water usage and commercial development:

Most of all I would like to see habitat and water protection as a number one priority for considering any changes to the Management Plan. This State Park is popular, well utilized, and appreciated. 

A paved road over the pass seems like a great plan. Beyond that I think we will be most rewarded by refraining from making changes to the Pass's spectacular wilderness. It is full of adventure opportunities for this densely populated region of Alaska, and I fear that resort, industry, mining, hydroelectric, or commercial types of relationships will negatively alter our magnificent and greatly appreciated Hatcher Pass. 

We are often less noticed due to summer vegetation blocking much of the river, or during early summer we tend to boat in the late evening, as that is when the snow melt cycle offers the highest daily flow. In the last two weeks I have been on the river 7 evenings, always with a variety of other boaters. Many Valley and Anchorage kayakers rate this as one of the best runs in Alaska for a number of reasons. Overall, it is accessible (Mint Glacier Trail Head down to Bottom Bridge), it is pristine, it is continuous whitewater of the highest quality, and it has a reliable source of snow melt, glacial melt, and seasonal rains. This river is considered world class and many out of state boaters travel to Alaska in hopes of paddling the Little Susitna in Hatcher Pass.

Water levels are a concern of mine. Kayakers would like to see the Little Su flowing naturally without any diversions or alterations for hydroelectric (or other development). This statement applies to Arch Angel Creek also. This low volume steep creek is an expert creek boaters perfect run. The typical run is from near the Reed Lake Trail Head down to the confluence of the Little Su. If there are questions regarding how many kayakers frequent the Little Su or how often, I would be very happy to assist in any way I can. This is a very special river and park. I would like to protect it for what it is, knowing that some future projects could interfere with a truly magical place with unique opportunities.

I have personally seen salmon at the confluence of Arch Angel and the Little Su. I have also seen them in the bottom stretch of Fishhook Creek.

Aside from the kayaking in Hatcher Pass, I enjoy road biking, running, hiking, skate skiing, classic skiing, and backcountry ski touring. I think it is important that the Park limit snow machines to current areas or reduced access. While I will use snow machines for skiing access on occasion, the Park would suffer if the often imposing (loud and fuming) snow machines were to outweigh the many other users.

I would like any ski area related projects or development to be ultra sensitive to the variety of current uses of the same parts of the Park. While the idea of a ski lift is fine, I would be disappointed to see a big impact on what I already consider a great Park with great skiing. I ski the Government, 4068, Sunny Side areas often, and consider it excellent backcountry terrain. I would like to think an alpine ski area in the Park would be limited to one or two lifts with a minimum number of buildings or structures installed on or near the slopes.

I would prefer more effort be invested in Nordic trails and maintenance, as local schools and teams could have optimal conditions at elevation, while the Valley is unreliable.

Most of all I would like to see habitat and water protection as a number one priority for considering any changes to the Management Plan. This State Park is popular, well utilized, and appreciated.

A paved road over the pass seems like a great plan. Beyond that I think we will be most rewarded by refraining from making changes to the Pass's spectacular wilderness. It is full of adventure opportunities for this densely populated region of Alaska, and I fear that resort, industry, mining, hydroelectric, or commercial types of relationships will negatively alter our magnificent and greatly appreciated Hatcher Pass.

Joint use of the recreational area for motorized and non-motorized activities is a given. It has been my experience that motorized activities do not necessarily mesh well with folks not using motors to propel themselves. I advocate separation of user groups as the prefered method of eliminating user conflict. We need a plan that would provide greater separation for user groups and include enforcement of the implemented plan. A simple solution which would be acceptable to most non-motorized users would implement the following into the Hatcher Pass Management Plan: 1. Maintain current non-motorized use boundaries, further define these boundaries and add the following: 2. Close Marmot Peak to motorized use on all sides. Marmot is close to the parking areas and can be easily accessible by skiers, snow boarders, and sledders. Competing with snow machines is hazardous. 3. Close Archangel valley to motorized travel( as a minimum provide separated travel corridors. Dog teams, children and skiers cannot compete with snow machine users. 4. Close access to Mountaineering huts to motorized access.

This proposal provides a greater degree of separation between the two user groups while allowing motorized use areas comprising a full 93% use of the Hatcher Pass recreational area. The area designated for non-motorized activities utilizes the remaining 7% of the area. In an era when the United States healthcare costs are nearing 20% of total US GDP and physical fitness is at a national all time low, allocating this small percentage of area to activities that promote higher aerobic activity and cardio vascular health seems to me like not only a good idea but an essential step in helping to promote this critical national agenda.

This plan similar in concept to the separation accommodated in Turnagain pass seems to allow optimum enjoyment for both user groups. I am well aware of the utility and recreational attributes of snow machine travel and access. My family began utilizing snow machines in the Matanuska Valley in1964 and we have all seen the tremendous evolution in snow machine use and capabilities since that time. Clearly, we can all agree that snow machines are able to travel faster, further, and higher than could have been conceived even a few years ago and all of those factors have contributed to the conflict which arises between folks who opt for non motorized winter activities and those who enjoy recreating on a machine. We live in a great big state and it seems reasonable that both groups should be accommodated.

I appreciate your consideration for including my comments when formulating the revised Hatcher Pass Management plan.

Currently there is virtually no restrictions on use for skiers/hikers anywhere in Alaska and a seemingly unlimited list of restrictions for motorized use in Alaska. If anything the motorized use of land in Alaska should be expanding. If the skiers/hikers have a conflict they can learn to share, like users of land throughout the rest of the world or use the other very large areas which are currently restricted from motorized use.

Hatcher's Pass is full of Historic OHV trails and all though there are miles and miles of trails there they still incompass a very small fraction of the total Management plan area. I hope that your Plan can find a middle ground between all user groups and leave Hatcher's Pass open for all Recreationall activity's.

If you would like to talk to me in person for any addtional info on the trails or OHV's we use please feel free to contact me.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

I would like to say I Strongly oppose any more efforts to minimize land use for certain groups mainly Snomachiners. Sledding is very much a way of life for many of us here in Alaska, just as skiing, fishing, hunting are also important. I have been riding for around 22 years, my wife 18 years, my children pretty much since they were born. I have taken my father and mother in law riding and they are now also Avid snowmachiners. Even went as far as going with me and buying and building a cabin to enjoy our sport to the fullest, and enjoy bringing others up to our neck of the woods (Caribou Hills) to enjoy what we do so much. I mainly ride Caribou hills, Lost Lake. But Normally make a couple trips a year to Eureka, Petersville. Have Never ridden Hatchers pass, have heard it is a lovely area to ride and view. I had hoped to ride it last week but Volcano put a damper on that trip. Hopefully I will get the chance here in the coming years to Give that area a good look also. I know as a group We Snowmachiners spend a lot of time and money for our sport, supporting small businesses around the state, Hotels, Lodges, gas stations, restaurants, and others that without our business may not survive.

I know as well as anyone that there are inconsiderate people on both sides of the fence, which seems to always be source of the squabble over land and areas for which people want and dont want anyone else to have or use. I must say from where I sit on this I have never tried to take away anyone else's right to any areas, and I dont think it is right to take away my rights for someone else's agenda. We encounter dogsledders quite frequently in the winter time in caribou hills, The moment we lay eyes on them we pull to the side, stop, shut down snowmachine and give right of way to the dogsled. Anyone that rides with me does the same thing, and everyone I know that rides that area does the same. There are some dogsledders that hear the machines coming and have pulled over and if they give a wave of the hand to us then we will slowly go on pass but only when they say to come on. We have learned this, they have learned this. The different groups need to try to work together and find a mutual stand. But Locking down more land is NOT the way.

Over the past 25 years as a year-round park user, my conflicts during the summer have been minimal. While during the winters, the conflicts have been increasing steadily with snowmachiners. The areas involved include lands directly across from the Motherlode Lodge along the Little Su River, the valley across from the upper snowmachine parking lot beneath peaks 4068 and 4600, the Marmot Ridge area above the upper parking lot and the ridges running down from Marmot Ridge to the Archangel Road and along Archangel Road to the Fern Mine gate. The incidents are mainly from riders exceeding safe speeds, coming much too close to skiers, high-marking above skiers creating extreme safety hazards for avalanches and riding in closed areas.

For solutions, I propose closing off these areas to snowmachines and allowing them access to park at the upper parking lot and follow a groomed trail over to the east side of the pass where there is abundant acreage within several minutes. Also very few skiers take the time to ski over to the Willow side and spend the day choosing instead to stay on the Palmer side due to the effort and time constraints involved as non-motorized users.

I believe the area should be managed as a recreation area, assigning distinct areas for the different user groups making boundaries easy for all to understand and enforce.

Between the place where Willow Fishhook Rd crosses the area boundary at ~mile 30.3, to past Shorty Cr. there are at least 7 trails going North of varying lengths in addition to the legitimate RS2477 Trail. Someone has crossed Willow Creek near the big parking lot upstream of the 2007 road washout and torn up a marshy area there as well. In Fall of 2008 I watched two 4 wheelers attempt to cross Willow Creek a mile above Sawmill Creek repeatedly.

It appears that enforcement is turning a blind eye toward illegitimate ORV use in this area. These trails that are not authorized need to be blocked and signed to stop ORV use. Those who are caught using ORV's in unauthorized areas should be cited and fined an amount that reflects the damage done to a public resource. The reasons to curtail these activities include:

- land erosion and stream siltation;

- habitat damage;

- wildife disturbance;

- public safety, as ORVs and hikers are using the same trails.

Another issue is indiscriminate "target" shooting along the road.

This is a safety issue as well as interfering with legitimate hunting. There are hunters and hikers on both sides of the road, and in any direction. I dont see how target shooting should have equal standing in an area managed for recreation to hiking, wildlife watching, and hunting. I would request signage at a few obvious pullouts (by the pile of brass) forbidding target shooting.

Tell the enviromentalist and tree hugging wakos to go to california and pitch there crap there. We have had enough government intervention on "the peoples behalf."

No one needs to speak for me. I can voice my opinion just fine. Leave the pass alone. Don't try telling us how you all want to keep it safe for future generations. They can go look at anwar! There are few places to take your family and enjoy time with our kids. God knows more parents need to so this. We may not have hafe the problems with the youth as long as they have some place to go and spend time. As Kids we went skiing and snowmobiling rather than doing drugs and getting into trouble.

Your putting restriction on areas is wrong. No one voted you to speak for us. And these lands are not yours. they are for all of us even the snowmobilers to injoy.

Why don't you put common people on this board that can see the great advantages of keeping the medeling government out of decisions on who rides where and when. We have done great for the last forty years plus.

If you would like to talk to me in person for any additional info on the trails or OHV's we use please feel free to contact me.

1989 HPMP amendment absorbed some of Hillside becoming Sub Unit B stating: Recreational use is light due to limited access, this is still true. Current use: hunting, trapping, horseback riding, skiing, snow machining still true. Potential variety of recreational use skiing and dispersed recreational trails is defined in 1986 glossary pg298, pp6, hunting, hiking, snow machining, pg4, pp8. Also management intent of Sub Unit A & B reads: a variety of motorized & non-motorized trails will be established in most of the unit, hunting maintained. We would like for this to stay in place, also the sledding hill we have used in the past over 10 years. This has been maintained for public use. According to the HPMP any facilities for a resort area are to compliment existing public recreational use, pg6, pp3, 4. Again if such development is allowed the activities that take place in the area now, skiing, snow machining, sledding, etc. must be protected or enhanced, pg 17, pp1.

As a resident I ask that in spite of the federal funding, please acknowledge the original intent. Present motorized & non-motorized use is to be considered while planning for the future.

Some volunteers have already jumped the gun & have done trail work & then specified exclusive rights to use which is not allowed, 1986, pg 160, (e). Instead they want to close existing use & have advertised that the area has been closed to motorization since 1989 plan. To back their statement a text was taken out of context that was written for Sub Unit A pg 14, pp4, thru pg 24, (n) #2. We are asking that the original intent continue for Sub Unit B, and your revision not be written as to only include a specific special interest group. Thank you very much for your time. (Edgerton Pks. Rd. resident)

Joint use of the recreational area for motorized and non-motorized activities is a given. It has been my experience that motorized activities do not necessarily mesh well with folks not using motors to propel themselves. I advocate separation of user groups as the prefered method of eliminating user conflict. We need a plan that would provide greater separation for user groups and include enforcement of the implemented plan. A simple solution which would be acceptable to most non-motorized users would implement the following into the Hatcher Pass Management Plan: 1. Maintain current non-motorized use boundaries, further define these boundaries and add the following: 2. Close Marmot Peak to motorized use on all sides. Marmot is close to the parking areas and can be easily accessible by skiers, snow boarders, and sledders. Competing with snow machines is hazardous. 3. Close Archangel valley to motorized travel&or as a minimum provide separated travel corridors. Dog teams, children and skiers cannot compete with snow machine users. 4. Close access to Mountaineering huts to motorized access.

This proposal provides a greater degree of separation between the two user groups while allowing motorized use areas comprising a full 93% use of the Hatcher Pass recreational area. The area designated for non-motorized activities utilizes the remaining 7% of the area. In an era when the United States healthcare costs are nearing 20% of total US GDP and physical fitness is at a national all time low, allocating this small percentage of area to activities that promote higher aerobic activity and cardio vascular health seems to me like not only a good idea but an essential step in helping to promote this critical national agenda.

This plan similar in concept to the separation accommodated in Turnagain pass seems to allow optimum enjoyment for both user groups. I am well aware of the utility and recreational attributes of snow machine travel and access. My family began utilizing snow machines in the Matanuska Valley in1964 and we have all seen the tremendous evolution in snow machine use and capabilities since that time. Clearly, we can all agree that snow machines are able to travel faster, further, and higher than could have been conceived even a few years ago and all of those factors have contributed to the conflict which arises between folks who opt for non motorized winter activities and those who enjoy recreating on a machine. We live in a great big state and it seems reasonable that both groups should be accommodated.

I appreciate your consideration for including my comments when formulating the revised Hatcher Pass Management plan.

I am in favor of a plan that continues joint use of the recreational area for both motorized and nonmotorized uses, although it has been my experience that motorized activities do not mesh well with folks who do not use motors to propel themselves. Separation of user groups is the preferable method of eliminating user conflict. I advocate a plan that would provide greater separation and include enforcement of the implemented plan. A simple solution which would be acceptable to all non-motorized users would implement the following into the Hatcher Pass Management Plan:

1. Maintain current non-motorized use boundaries, further define these boundaries and add the following:

2. Close Marmot Peak to motorized use on all sides. Marmot is close to the parking areas and can be easily accessible by skiers, snow boarders, and sledders. Competing with snow machines is hazardous.

3. Close Archangel valley to motorized travel&or as a minimum provide separated travel corridors. Dog teams, children and skiers cannot compete with snow machine users.

This proposal provides a greater degree of separation between the two user groups while allowing motorized use areas comprising a full 93% use of the Hatcher Pass recreational area. The area designated for non-motorized activities utilizes the remaining 7% of the area. In an era when the United States healthcare costs are at 23% of total US GDP and obesity is at an all time high, allocating this small percentage of area to activities that promote higher aerobic activity and cardio vascular health seems to me like not only a good idea but an essential step in helping to promote this critical national agenda.

This plan similar in concept to the separation accommodated in Turnagain pass seems to allow optimum enjoyment for both user groups. I am well aware of the utility and recreational attributes of snow machine travel and access. My family began utilizing snow machines in the Matanuska Valley in 1964 and we have all seen the tremendous evolution in snow machine use and capabilities since that time. Clearly, we can all agree that snow machines are able to travel faster, further, and higher than could have been conceived even a few years ago and all of those factors have contributed to the conflict which arises between folks who opt for non motorized winter activities and those who enjoy recreating on a machine. We live in a great big state and it seems reasonable that both groups should be accommodated.

I appreciate your consideration and for including my comments when formulating the revised Hatcher Pass Management plan.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment!

I would not like to see any more motorized access in Hatcher Pass.

With the amount of folks coming up in this area for recreational purposed it is getting more difficult to do so. We have worked with the Alaska State Troopers for many years as Hatcher Pass Search and Rescue. They in turn work with us. We used to have a shelter cabin in the Willow Mountain Area toward Little Willow Creek. It has since been destroyed, and no longer will be available for the safety and welfare of the people who chose to go into the area. This was a very important part of our Community. Adequate shelter is essential for trapping and other cold weather activities in this area. Especially in an emergency situation. Hatcher Pass is the first area with fresh snow. We are having more and more folks coming up threw out the season.

Alaska Statutes, Title 18, The Health, Safety, and Housing for the driving public of Alaska. BLM has many shelter cabins threw out Alaska.

All users should pay fees. Palmer area should be nonmotorized. Willow side of Hatcher Pass is 95% snow machine. We have more dog mushers coming up here and they use the snow machine along with dogs.

Do our letters really make a difference? Does any one REALLY listen to what the people want?

ENFORCEMENT: If no money or personnel can be spared for more of an official presence in this area there might as well be no use planning.

WILDLIFE: As you may know, wildlife was historically severely depleted to serve up to miners. Understandable when going to town for supplies was such an expedition.

However, the wildlife that survived has since been trapped out, hunted out, poached out and chased out by the general public. The absence of any animals---including non-game birds and animals---now characterizes these state lands. Nothing is safe. For instance, I have witnessed the shooting of the many marmots and ground squirrels once present along Hatcher Pass Road and in side valleys like Craigie Creek---with carcasses simply discarded. High velocity "varmint" rifles and just pot-shooters did the deeds. The public is so ignorant most hunters don't even know it's illegal to shoot from a road---in fact, they love the shooting platform aspect of roads. I mean, really, you don't think all those road sign shooters bother even to exit their vehicles.

Why hunting and trapping continues (at least on paper) is a mystery to me---there is barely anything left to trap or shoot. The result is that no population of anything can recover. My farming, trapping and subsistence acquaintances refer to this state area as a "barren wasteland."

WINTER LANDSCAPE: I use the area all year round. My observation, and the observations of motorized friends, is that animal tracks are notable for their near-complete absence. While the exact cause is not clear, this depletion of winter wildlife signs coincided, on the West side, with a tremendous increase in snowmachine traffic. The reduced winter activities in some areas (economy mostly) seems to elicit a few more animal tracks. The way things are now, tracks are only found in the most inaccessible areas. Large game such as moose must eventually wander into areas with motor tracks and trails and, of course, will be dispatched, leaving the inaccessible areas barren as well. There used to be caribou, bears, wolverines. A few reamain, but the their absence is testimony to terrible wildlife and wild lands management. I see no relief in sight.

TRAILS AND MORE TRAILS: In my travels I have seen vehicular trails created where none existed, simply to take a slightly shorter routes to the same destinations. This is particularly visible up Black's Mountain and has spread to Shorty Creek where erosion now makes yet more detours and yet more trails and more erosion plus vegetation damage. It never stops---new tracks plow through vegetation and creeks every year.

INTENSIVE SEASONAL USE: Lots of RVs park along the road in summer. Very intensive on hot, sunny weekends. Somewhat less during hunting season nowadays because the hunting is not so good anymore. Nearly all RVs and campers haul four-wheelers or more ponderous vehicles which run up and down Hatcher Pass Road and up and down the side trails. The problem of traffic parking on the road or racing around is minor compared to the continued pounding taken by the land.

THE GOOD, BAD AND UGLY: Much of the back country that is inaccessible to vehicles remains fairly wild except for the absence of wildlife.

It is a beautiful world class area that has, unfortunately, served as the recreational dumping grounds for locals and others. The vandalism is symbolized by road and direction signs shot to unreadable Swiss cheese. Historic mining sites have, historically, been looted and burned for fun and campfires. One good thing about the broken economy is that fewer people drive through and into the area---and, make no mistake, motorized usage has been hard on Hatcher Pass (simply because of it's relative motorized ease, ability to escape, the amount of range covered and the innate intensity of motor activity).

The quandry is simple: We would like to have more people enjoy this area. However, under current conditions, more people would simply destroy what remains of everything in easy reach.

ENFORCEMENT: If the state can't control the area beyond coming up with various plans, then what I have just written is a great big waste of my time.

I sure hope you can come up with a good plan and a good way to back it up.

This last winter we towed some friends in a sled and they got sick. Nausea, dizziness, fatigue, and head aches. We were lucky one person had a four stroke and that made the problem of ridding in the sled a lot better, but the sick people still refused to ride in sleds. So I had to ride in the sled and by the end of the day I too had a head ache but because it was a four stroke I did not have the nausea, dizziness, and fatigue like my friends. I do think though that I was not thinking too clearly.

I am also concerned about the effects of the Little Su water quality. I have fished in the little Su and hope to do so on a regular bases for many years to come. I understand that there is some effect after the machines regular an area on what is left in the snow pack. I have heard though find it hard to believe that one hour of driving a snow machine produces more hydrocarbons pollution than driving a modern car for a year. I have also heard that there is a lot of nitrogen left in the snow after the two stroke machines especially track a place up. This creates an acid snow situation that raises the acidity of what ever creek the snow melts into. I understand that the lakes where snow machines are used regularly on like Big Lake and Red Shirt Lake have lost their salmon runs. I know that the current Gov. Sarah only seems to give lip service to questions concerning the enviroment but I hope somebody in government can start testing lake and streams near where machines are used regularly to see what effect they are having on the water quality. How is the king run doing in the Little Su?

My last request has to do with the passing of Ranger Pat. I know new people like to change things to make it feel like they are doing something important or what not, but please keep the machines that go up to the Mine Manager's cabin to just one of the trails. They do not need to do the circle and the high trail except to keep the trail groomed. Also people have a tradition of winter camping in snow caves and the likes in the non motorized areas up around the mine. Please let them continue.

Does State Parks Still use 2 strokes?

Thanks you for your time.

I support the proposal put forth by the MCAK to expand the HPMP boundary to include the areas that contain the Snowbird and Bomber huts, and for a slightly expanded, but much simpler, non-motorized area. This boundary would prevent motorized access coming over mountain ridges and/or passes. The MCAK submitted a map to show the proposed boundaries. I also agree on a motorized corridor, confined to the Hatcher Pass Road, to allow machines to pass from the Palmer side of the pass to the Willow side.

There are few areas in Alaska dedicated to non-motorized users. I am adding my voice to that of the MCAK and other non-motorized users in asking that a small area be dedicated to quiet and solitude.

Thank you for your time and consideration

Please consider setting aside a significant portion of the Hatcher Pass recreational area for non-motorized users in order to protect the amazing recreational opportunities that exist. Motorized and non-motorized users are not compatible, and considering the loud noise that accompanies motorized vehicles, motorized users can easily ruin the outdoor experience for non-motorized users who are recreating a significant distance away.

Thank you for considering my comments.

2. When do you use this area the most? (Indicate seasonal use if relevant) Usage varies with the season. Occasional visits during the summer months for mountain biking and some rock climbing. This would increase with the addition of more trails open to biking. Winter usage depends on when the first major snowfalls blanket the area. Typically skiing begins in October to early November and continues through April.

3. What types of recreation do you practice the most? (List any types you participate in; motorized, non-motorized, other) Summer/Fall  mountain biking, hiking, rock climbing Winter/Spring/Fall  skiing, XC skiing, ice climbing

4. What type of equipment do you use? (i.e. Snow Machines, ATVs, Skis, Snowboard) Summer  Mountain bike. rock climbing gear, hiking boots. Winter - Skis, snowshoes, ice-climbing gear, XC skis.

5. How often do you participate in recreational activities in the area? Typically weekends, with some long weekends and an occasionally mid week.

6. What types of conflicts about recreational use in this area have you experienced? If none, indicate none. I have had a number of close encounters with snowmachines traveling too fast on narrow trails, I have been used as a slalom gate while ascending Marmot Peak, Ive had to leap out of the path of a ghost riding snowmachine (rider fell off), and Ive witnessed riders in closed terrain. When questioned, I was told, What are you going to do about it and given the one finger salute.

7. Are there specific areas that you have experienced these conflicts in? How Often? (Indicate on the map) Marmot Peak is by far thee worst place for user conflict. However, I have had problems along the travel corridor to the pass.

Other Issues: The parking lot at Marmot Peak is overrun with snowmachine trailers and lack any parking control.

Photo included with comment.

Specifically for horse use, please consider turnaround areas for horse trailers if you are planning to revamp or add parking areas. The parking area at the Mother Lode Lodge is great, as is the snow machine area closer to the mine. It would be great to have some horse-friendly turnout areas along the road over the pass toward Willow.

Also, if bridges are being considered for construction on trials, please keep horse users in mind. We need something wider and sturdier than a wooden plank.

Many thanks

I have skied in the above mentioned areas for over 10 years. Recently, snow-machiners are using Dalia Creek and Lonesome Mine Creek for high-marking. In a recent back-country ski tour, four snow machiners immediately drove to our skier up-track and started high-marking the area.

I have also observed snow-machiners using the area of 4068 Ridge and Frostbite Ridge (above the proposed ski area parking lot) even though it is closed to snow-machiners. When a snow-machiner was confronted in this area and asked if he knew it was closed to snow machines, he replied "yes, what are you going to do about it?".

I feel there is no budget for enforcing non-motorized areas, so the best plan would be to not allow any snow machines on the Palmer side of Hatcher Pass, and to give them the Willow side. In addition, the noise and air pollution from snow machines is very very unpleasant for non motorized users (snow-shoers, skiers, dog sledders, and hikers) which is another reason to divide the area into larger non-motorized use areas.

I also do not think designating Dalia Creek, Stair-step Ridge and Lonesome Mine Creek for helicopter use is fair to back-country skiers who have historically hiked into these areas. A helicopter has the ability to get to places further in, where back-country skiers (and snow shoers) can not easily go. Helicopter usage should not be designated in areas historically used by back-country skiers.

Thank you for your consideration

In general, I support the current management system. In particular, I'd like to express my support for:

1. non-motorized access to existing areas used primarily for backcountry skiing. 2. continued grooming of Nordic trails (including government support, if possible, for that operation, to ensure its continued operation) 3. continued permitting of and cooperation with Hatcher Pass Lodge-a great asset for the region. 4. paid parking with park ranger monitoring to ensure safe and efficient use of the limited parking areas-I don't want to see the parking areas expanded. 5. designated corridors and areas for motorized (snowmachine) use, continuing the policy of encouraging most snowmobile use on the far (Willow) side of the pass to preserve tranquility for non-motorized users.

Changes I'd like to see made:

1. No motorized access for snowmachines on the side of Marmot mountain immediately above the lower 'snowmachine' parking lot. The volume of those machines, especially on that steep slope, significantly impacts users throughout the upper parking lot/Hatcher Pass Lodge/sledding/backcountry skiing area. If

snowmachines were instead limited to the corridor leading to Hatcher Pass, and to the Archangel Road, leading them to more remote areas, they'd still have plenty of room to recreate and non-motorized users would have a better experience.

I don't mind the idea of a ski area being developed somewhere near Hatcher Pass, but I don't want one in or near the footprint of Hatcher Pass Lodge. A new development there would be inconsistent with the atmosphere of the Independence Mine (ghost town buildings, mountain wilderness).

Thanks for this opportunity to comment.

Please try to keep it this way in the future for the many non-motorized people to use.

When do you use this area the most? Year round.

What types of recreation do you practice the most? Climbing, hiking, mountain biking, skiing (Nordic & backcountry) camping, berry picking.

What type of equipment do you use? Bike, skis, boots.

How often do you participate in recreational activities in the area? 10-20 times a year.

What types of conflicts about recreational use in this area have you experienced? Reckless snow machiners on Arch Angel. Though most are courteous.

Are there specific areas that you have experienced these conflicts in? How often? See # 6.

Other issues: I have concerns about the impact of motorized vehicles (especially summer) on the gragile alpine environment. I do not have any problem with winter time trail setters using motorized equipment. Unable to make scheduled meetings.

Signage keeps me from skiing down the groomed snowmachine corridor from Archangel to the Mint Parking as it says closed to skiiers, the majority probably comply as would a majority of the machinrs who now use Archangel parking as a offload zone and those who don't could be ticketed just my humble opinion

Specifically the parking of vehicles and trailers at the Archangel Parking area who are offloading snow machines. It is a small area and because the snow machiners have a desiginated corridor from the MInt Trailhead which is specifically set aside and signed so as to no skiiers I don't feel they should be allowed to park or unload snowmachines at Archangel.

Further in the future as more conflicts occur it might not be a bad idea to start a motorized / nonmotorized

schedule similiar to Eklutna for that corridor. It seems to work really well at Eklutna, I would further like to see no more concessions made to the snow machine / 4 wheeler crowd as off road damage especially similiar to that happening in the Craigie Creek drainage should not be allowed to spread

The Carle Wagon Road was built by Jim Carle the superintendent of the Alaska Gold Mining Company; it opened for travel in 1909 and cost Carle $2,500. Before the trail was built, all gold miners, traveling to the Willow Creek Mining District entered Hatcher Pass through Willow Creek; with a good horse, it took 4-5 days. The Carle Wagon Road provided a more direct route to the East side of Hatcher Pass and quickly became the miner's route of choice.

A couple of years later (1911) the Alaska Road Commission started improving the Carle Wagon Road and by the summer of 1914 automobiles were driving the road (albeit it was a two day drive from Knik to the mines). The original road began as a branch of (what was known as) the winter trail that went from Knik to Willow Creek. Just north of Knik, the Carle Wagon Road veered west at Three Mile Lake and headed north to the west side of Lake Lucille. From there, it headed north again, along the east bank of the Little Susitna River. Just before it hit the foot of the mountains, the trail crossed to the west bank of the Little Susitna River and ended at Fishhook Creek. Horses carried tons of gold mining supplies north on this trail and carried bags of gold out of the Pass as they headed south on this trail. There are so many Carle Wagon Road stories like the one about the mining company that hired six men and a team of five horses to move a sawmill boiler up to the Pass and the three weeks it took them to accomplish it. So much history!

The Carle Wagon Road will soon be forgotten if something is not done very soon. Those who know the history of the trail (and exactly where it went) are entering their golden years. Now is the time to document and preserve its rich history for all time. In tribute to the independent spirit of the miners who built and used this trail, it is imperative that we keep this corridor open for everyone to enjoy, not cordoned off and forgotten. What better way to keep this trail alive than to allow horse back riders, skiers, snowboarders, berry pickers, hunters, snowmachiners, hikers, artists, photographers, botanist's students and tourists to use and enjoy this historical area together.

The unfortunate thing is that out of all in attendance , there was not a soul who had spent anywhere close to the amount of time in the area as myself.

My family has lived at the base of Govt. peak since 1964, so I can tell you with all certainty that the area has a long tradition of every sort of "use" . From actual subsistence hunting, to family picnics, to snowmobile racing, and yes, in years gone by we even had a huge cross-country ski trail. I actually trained for racing on it myself.

I guess that the difference today is that there are commercial interests involved who have an all or nothing attitude. In any case, I have written to you in an attempt to clear things up.

The main reason that most surveyors or people who have spent little or no time in the area can't find this old road is that much of it is still in use today. They just never had the opportunity to see what it looked like even 30 years ago ! Though much of the area has had new trails established by land users & even wild game, if one knows where to look & what to look for, it is as plain as the proverbial nose on your face.

I'm not certain whether your mail address will accept photographs, but I shot several from the area this morning.

Thank you very much for your time.

Should the HPMA be managed mainly for recreation? Yes.

What specific changes, if any need to be made for motorized and non-motorized use designations? I think some of the areas shoud be traded. Take some of the front of Archangle & designate as ski & take some of the Reed lakes that is too far away for skiers & open for snowmachining.

Are new parking and trail improvements needed? We need larger parking lots.

What other facilities? More parking lots.

How should the plan treat the Government Peak unit? There should be some areas open for snowmachining.

Should the HPMA be managed mainly for recreation? Yes.

What specific changes, if any need to be made for motorized and non-motorized use designations? I would like to see some areas traded. Take some of the front of Archangle and designate as ski only. That would be left side of trail and open up a corridor back to Reed Lakes because it already a motorized area but we cant get to it.

Are new parking and trail improvements needed? We need larger parking lots.

What other facilities? More parking lots.

How should the plan treat the Government Peak unit? There should be some areas open to snowmachining.

Should the HPMA be managed mainly for recreation? Yes.

What specific changes, if any need to be made for motorized and non-motorized use designations? Possibly trade some closer areas like 16 mile and the front of Archangle for some of the Reed Lakes. That is too far away for skiers.

Are new parking and trail improvements needed? Need larger parking lots.

What other facilities? More parking lots.

How should the plan treat the Government Peak unit? There should be some areas open to snowmaching.

Should the HPMA be managed mainly for recreation? Yes.

What specific changes, if any need to be made for motorized and non-motorized use designations? Why cant we open a trail back to Reed Lakes the map shows that it is open to motorized but there is no access? How about a trade for some areas close to roads for sking only and open a corridor back into Reed Lakes.

Are new parking and trail improvements needed? Bigger parking lots.

What other facilities? More parking lots.

How should the plan treat the Government Peak unit? There should at least be a corridoe to Parks Egerton Rd.

Other issues: If the non-motorized public say we are having a problem with Archangle Trail then we should put another trail for winter use only.

Should the HPMA be managed mainly for recreation? Yes.

What specific changes, if any need to be made for motorized and non-motorized use designations? Trade some areas that are close to the roads and designate it to sking and take some of the Reed Lakes and open a corridor to get back there.

Are new parking and trail improvements needed? Need larger parking lots.

What other facilities? More parking lots.

How should the plan treat the Government Peak unit? I would like to have some areas open to snowmachining.

Please leave it open to the well organized and safe use by snow machines.

Thank you, Mr Jerry Gugel

Should the HPMA be managed mainly for recreation? No.

What specific changes, if any need to be made for motorized and non-motorized use designations? Signs & enforcement of rules.

Are new parking and trail improvements needed? Yes

What other facilities? Restrooms.

How should the plan treat the Government Peak unit? Mark it clearly for what it is to be used for.

Other issues: Charge for parking if needed. . . . .

Should the HPMA be managed mainly for recreation? Keep the plan for all user groups.

What specific changes, if any need to be made for motorized and non-motorized use designations? No changes are needed. Most problems are in the small parking lots.

Are new parking and trail improvements needed? The parking lots on the Palmer need to be enlarged.

What other facilities? More parking lots.

How should the plan treat the Government Peak unit? Lets have the westen halve motorized & the eastern halve no motorized.

Other issues: I am a lifetime Alaskan and have used HPMA area, for 40 years, I need motorized acces for hunting and recreation.

When do you use this area the most? Year round, skiing in the winter, hiking and berry picking in the summer and fall.

What types of recreation do you practice the most? Skiing, hiking, berry picking, bird watching.

What type of equipment do you use? Skis, snowshoes, bike.

How often do you participate in recreational activities in the area? A least twice a week, sometimes more depending on the weather.

What types of conflicts about recreational use in this area have you experienced? Mostly snowmachines in non-motorized areas, parking areas full due to trucks and trailers not parking in an orderly mannor.

Are there specific areas that you have experienced these conflicts in? How often? The little parking lot up at Archangel when trucks & trailers park there. Snow machiners on mint trail and up hatch peak.

Other issues: I end up picking up a lot of trash, mostly in the parking lots, but also on the Archangel multi-use trail when it opens up to snowmachine. No enforcement of the rules! Need more signs & rangers.

Map showing areas of use included.

Should the HPMA be managed mainly for recreation? Recreation & preservation of the land.

What Specific Changes, if any, need to be made for motorized and non-motorized use designations? Archangel Road should be closed to motorized use. Marmot Mt should be closed to motorized use.

Are new parking and trail improvements needed? No.

How should the plan treat the Government Peak unit? Leave regulations to Borough Regs for ski area development.

Two years ago ALL of these huts were accessed by snow machine for the first time (access to the Mint Hut was illegal). These huts were built and are maintained by non-motorized users for use by non-motorized users. We would ask that the areas around the huts be made non-motorized.

The MCA is made up of a variety of backcountry users. Many are skiers and avid users of the HPMP area, typically in the proposed non-motorized use area. Many are hikers and climbers (summer and winter) and have used these areas for decades (the Mint Hut was built in 1971).

These areas are being encroached upon by the motorized users because, as previously mentioned, machines can now go where it was once not possible. It is no longer sufficient to close off the valley bottom or an access point to motorized use in order to effectively close off an area. Machines are now capable of skirting those areas to gain access. The piece meal non-motorized areas also make it nearly impossible for the park rangers to enforce the current regulations.

Attached is a map with a proposal for expanding the HPMP boundary to include the areas that contain the Snowbird and Bomber huts, and for a slightly expanded, but much simpler, non- motorized area. What the map does not show, due to scale, is that we would advocate for a motorized corridor, confined to the Hatcher Pass Road, to allow machines to pass from the Palmer side of the pass to the Willow side.

There are few areas in Alaska dedicated to non-motorized users. We are asking that a small area be dedicated to quiet and solitude.

The Mat-Su Birders wild bird club birds in the Hatcher Pass area over the summer months, therefore, our concerns about changes to the management plan for Hatcher Pass primarily cover the period of April-October. Our organization birds all over the Hatcher Pass area, but our primary focus is along the entry road that runs parallel to the Little Susitna River, and the Gold Mint and Archangel Trails.

Our primary concern is that the status of the Gold Mint Trail not be changed to allow motorized traffic from April - October. The Gold Mint Trail is too narrow in most places for ATV's and in addition to the trail damage caused by ATV's, the Trail's proximity to the Little Susitna River will ensure that dislodged dirt, etc., from ATV traffic will wash downhill into the River, smothering spawning beds and otherwise fouling the River. We strongly oppose opening the Gold Mint Trail to motorized traffic during any period when that trail is not frozen over.

We have a secondary concern with uncontrolled spring/summer ATV access via the RS 2477 Trail that bisects the Baldy Mountain Habitat Area, a part of Hatcher Pass that is the southernmost nesting area in Alaska for Long-tailed Jaeger, Whimbrel, American Golden-Plover (formerly Lesser Golden-Plover), Lapland Longspur, and Northern Wheatear.

In the 1986 Hatcher Pass Management Plan, under "II. Baldy North/Lucky Shot Ridge, E. GUIDELINES," ATV use is addressed as follows: "4. MOTORIZED RECREATIONAL USE a. Bald Mountain Special Use Habitat Area. Within the Special Use Area, off-road vehicle use will generally not be allowed during the nesting season (May 1-August 1). Any ORV use during this period will require a permit and a permit will only be granted if no feasible or prudent alternative exists and the use will not disturb nesting birds...."

At present, we do not believe that any restrictions are in place regarding the use of ATV's within the Bald Mountain Special Use Habitat Area. We understand that the RS 2477 Trail through the Habitat Area may come under Federal regulations that prohibit the closure of that trail under any circumstances. If that is the case, then we recommend that DNR initiate action to obtain a waiver of such a requirement.

Sincerely, Robert A. Winckler Mat-Su Birders

I have read through the motorized and non-motorized comments / concerns and would like to add my comments to the mix.

I currently live in Wasilla and do enjoy both forms motorized and non-motorized recreation in the Hatcher Pass area. My entire family has snow machined, skied, snowboarded, sledded, camped, hiked, climbed, ridden ATVs, hunted, fished, picked berries and enjoyed this area since we moved to Alaska 13 years ago. I would hate to have any of your privileges revoked weather it be with or with out the use of motorized vehicles.

Yes over the years we have had encounters / conflicts with people both using motorizes vehicles and non-motorized alike. I believe if people would be just a bit more respectful to every ones rights / privileges we can continue to have this area open to but motorized and non-motorized users.

I do agree that parking is some what of a problem and some thing needs to be done. I would gladly pay a fee if parking was improved. Parking fees could be used to supplement the cost incurred to have this area patrolled by law enforcement more often, trail improvements, ect.

In short, I believe that Hatchers Pass should remain open to both ATV's and Snow Machines.

My wife and I use the Hatcher Pass area both summer and winter for hiking, skiing, sledding, snowmachining and mountain biking, it is one of the few places with access into the mountains within a short distance from Anchorage. I do not want to see more areas shut down to snowmobiling for a select few that want it open to only their needs. I'm for open access to all users.

How about opening more area to snowmobiling instead?

Sincerely,

David Harris

I am not for excluding anyone to access the backcountry, what ever the means of transportation, especially in the winter on snowmachines as they leave NO impact once the snow melts. A track is a track whether its from a sled, ski, snowboard or snowshoe or snowmachine. As long as there is adequate snow cover there is no evidence of ground disturbance.

I understand there have been issues with snowmobilers riding in the non-motorized areas (those folks dont represent the masses who sled) and other safety related issues on multi use trails. I recommend more posted speed limit signs on the access trails to take care of that concern for hikers/skiers and snowmobilers. I also have seen skiers block the trails on purpose so both sides need to respect each other to play incident free.

It is true the new sleds can go further into the back country then ever before. In fact, in the Lane and Bomber areas I see more sledders than skiers. I love that area and there is plenty of room for both parties to play with out excluding one group over the other. Last time I checked I have not seen the skiing community lose any ground, in fact, they are free to play where they choose. My family loves to ski and board using our snowmachines to gain access. We play harmoniously with all groups and we dont want to be excluded to areas we currently play in. Changing the existing outreaching boundaries for the few skiers who can access them on foot is not fair for the masses who can now enjoy those areas due to gains in technology.

The meetings havent really touched on what you want to change! In the future, can you cut to the chase and give us your thoughts. I personally dont think you need to change any of the boundaries.

If the issues are from the Rangers perspective (which I have heard) then we need to discuss how to utilize volunteer Rangers to help police the area. Posted speed limits on all the trails will solve machine/human interface issues. And for those who ignore the out of bounds areas we can have volunteers take down sled registration numbers and turn them in. I also want to make the comment that some of the Rangers who work the Hatchers area treat me differently depending on what I am doing in the Park. I have been treated with disrespect while snowmachining but when I strap on my skis I am greeted with an entirely different attitude. Based on those personal experiences it appears some diversity and inclusion training may be in order for some of your employees.

Bottom line, there are more sledders out there using Hatchers than the skiers. Trail maintenance and Ranger wages are funded primarily from the snowmachining community. I also agree that track rigs and wheelers should stay on the gravel access roads as they tear up the tundra in some areas and I am for keeping the area pristine and free of tire ruts.

We both know the positive economic impact that motorized users have in this area. We pay registration fees. These fees are used to groom the trails for both motorized and non-motorized users. We pay parking fees were non-motorized users do not unless they choose to park in the upper lot or Gold Mint. We both know that hundreds of non-motorized users use this area daily in the winter without contributing any money toward operations or maintenance of the area's they use. Yet, the non-motorized users are the first to request that motorized user access be restricted. Who will financially support this area if non-motorized users are forced to go elsewhere?

By far, the motorized users are represented by a higher number of individuals than non-motorized users. It seems almost unfathomable that the areas of motorized users would be restricted when this group represents more individuals and has a much higher economic impact that non-motorized users.

Based on feedback from the public hearings so far it appears that motorized users are willing to work with non-motorized users to find a common ground and work together to preserve areas of combined use. As unfortunate as it maybe, non-motorized users are clearly not willing to work together and have specifically requested areas be closed to motorized use. I find it quit bold that the smallest number of users that contribute the least amount of money to support operations of the park should request that other users be denied access to state public use lands. I wonder what other group of users will be next on their list.

With the improvement in snow machines we can certainly reach places that we could not reach 10 years ago. On the other side of that coin we see that non-motorized users are seeing the benefit in these new machines and are taking snow machines back into areas that they could never reach before. I continue to see more and more of these types of dual use users and am glad to see that they get to enjoy areas that would otherwise only be a dot on a map that they wish they could ski. Since this plan is a plan for the future we should look at the possibility that the younger non-motorized users will be taking advantage of motorized transportation to access areas they normally would not be able to access. If you take away motorized use you very well may be taking away some great opportunities for future non-motorized users as well.

I can not speak for all motorized users but I believe a use fee accessed on non-motorized users in addition to a daily parking fee being assessed on all parking areas in the park wound go a long way toward improvements and better communication for both motorized and non-motorized users. Trails and areas could be better marked as dual use areas with signage. Boards with area maps, boundary markers, dual use areas etc. could be erected at trail heads. This shows the effort of co-operation between the two groups. Warming huts could be erected in areas of high use and additional trails could be groomed and maintained. You could probably even host a yearly avalanche training course for both groups. I would venture to guess that assessing a use and parking fee for both groups of users would go a long way to at least improving the safety of the areas we share. Quite honestly, I have yet to have anyone make a clear, concise and reasonable explanation of why non-motorized users do not pay user fees. If you or someone you know has one and it makes senses please do send me an email explaining the reasoning. I am sure there are a large amount of users that would be interested as well.

A common thread presented by non-motorized users seems to be safety and lack of the feeling of being safe in motorized areas. In this case I would refer to your Vision Statement:

The Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation envisions an affordable and accessible system of parks that provide diverse, safe, year-round, high-quality, family-oriented, outdoor recreation experiences; statewide programs that enhance the enjoyment and stewardship of the states outdoor recreation, natural, historic and cultural resources; and a dedicated, professional staff that fully meets the needs of the public.

Your Vision Statement refers to a diverse, safe and family related experience. I would suggest that before we make a decision to exclude certain members of the public from a specific type of experience on public lands we should first look at alternatives to providing a safer and more diverse experience through information. Assessing a user fee for non-motorized users combined with the existing fees paid by motorized users would go a long way toward education and communication as long as it is managed and implemented correctly.

Unlike non-motorized users I do not want to see any group of users loose access to any part of state lands. I hope that you see this way as well and if there is anything I can do to help please send me an email and I will do what I can to see that I do.

I would like to please ask that you keep the following in mind while revising the plan:

Economic Impact of motorized users is unmeasurable. Motorized users represent the largest group of users. The majority of skiers use the area you can drive up and drop off - since most of them are younger, i don't see that area being closed to motorized users as a problem. Motorized users don't have a problem sharing areas. The new breed of skiers use snowmobiles to access areas with good powder and get in 10 times more runs then old school hikers. As a skier I would love to see more areas opened up to share 'our' land and provide 'easier' access Motorized/non-motorized users are equal, neither are better than the other. Motorized users aren't some alien group, we too pick berries, ride mountain bikes, ski/snowboard, take pictures of the amazing landscape/animals/historical sites, and pay taxes.

Direct recommendation for your next plan not pertaining to usage: Include a HUGE trail sharing etiquette board. Huge map with general information - closed/opened designations. Incorporate an avalanche warning board/advisory information. Physical trail markings through-out the management area. Do not extend current boundaries - especially since enforcement way out there is near impossible and will only create more work for your office.

Direct recommendation for your next plan not pertaining to usage: Include a HUGE trail sharing etiquette board - maybe a place to initial on the season pass/day pass form saying you've agreed to it. Huge map with general information - closed/opened designations. Incorporate an avalanche warning board/advisory information. Physical trail markings through-out the management area. Do not extent current boundaries - especially since enforcement way out there is near impossible and will only create more work for your office.

Thanks, Motorized User, John H Hatch

Please remember, snomobile registrations pay for groming their own trails, and also for shared use trails in Hatchers Pass. Please consider the economic impact motorized users of Hatchers Pass have in the valley. Please remember motorized users far outnumber non-motorized users, especially in the more difficult to access areas. Please remember there is a lot of state and federal land already closed to motorized use, for those who cannot stand to hear the sound of an engine in the distance while they ski.

Thank you, John Calhoun

Economic Impact of riders is unmeasurable. Motorized users represent the largest group of users. The majority of skiers use the area you can drive up and drop off - since most of them are younger, i don't see that area being closed to motorized users as a problem. Motorized users contribute/pay for our own trail grooming through registration fees. Motorized users don't have a problem sharing areas. The new breed of skiers smartened up and/or are lazy, and use sleds to access the good powder and get in 10 times more runs then old school hikers. As a skier I would love to see more areas opened up to share 'our' land and provide 'easier' access - Motorized/non-motorized users are equal, neither are better than the other. Riders aren't some alien group, we too pick berries, ride mountain bikes, ski/snowboard, take pictures of the amazing landscape/animals/historical sites, and pay taxes.

Direct recommendation for your next plan not pertaining to usage: Include a HUGE trail sharing etiquette board - maybe a place to initial on the season pass/day pass form saying you've agreed to it. Huge map with general information - closed/opened designations. Incorporate an avalanche warning board/advisory information. Physical trail markings through-out the management area. Do not extent current boundaries - especially since enforcement way out there is near impossible and will only create more work for your office.

Thanks, Motorized User mike hobson

I am pro-motorized, but also respect and feel that multi-use coalilitions can co-habitat. The motorized community is and will continue to be attacked by those that differ in their recreational hobbies.

Typically the complaints from the non-motorized community centers around noise pollution, poaching, rude behavior and destructive use to the environment. My concerns are based on these allegations.

These complaints are arbritrary, subjective and typically carry little to know sound scientific wildlife management principles. These complaints are simply used by the non-motorized group to exclude others from using and enjoying state land. If the snowmobile and or ATV hovered 2 feet above the earth, emmited only water vapor and picked up trash along the way it still would not apease these groups because they want sole usership and private use of these lands

I use Hatchers Pass in the summer and winter. I'm a mountain biker, jogger, and hiker in the summer. In the winter I back-country ski and snowmobile. I would say I mostly recreate at Hatchers in the winter months. My friends and I like to show the world what we have in our back yard through Binge Films. We love the skiing/snowboarding there, the snowmachining, and the close proximity to town is undeniably one of the reasons we spend so much time up there. I attended your meeting in Anchorage yesterday, but do not like public speaking, so I am taking advantage of your online comment section. I don't understand why all users can't get along. The land in the Alaska is for everyone to enjoy/share. I wish everyone could co-exist without any problems. Since that isn't the case. I would like to please ask that you keep the following in mind while revising the plan:

Economic Impact of riders is unmeasurable. Motorized users represent the largest group of users. The majority of skiers use the area you can drive up and drop off - since most of them are younger, i don't see that area being closed to motorized as a problem. We contribute/pay for our own trail grooming through registration fees. We don't have a problem sharing areas. The new breed of skiers smartened up [or are lazy ;) ], and use sleds to access the good powder and get in 10 times more runs then hikers. As a skier I would love to see more areas opened up to share "our" land and provide 'easier' access - riders/skiers are equal, neither are better than the other. Riders aren't some alien group, we too pick berries, ride bikes, ski/snowboard, take pictures of the amazing landscape/animals/historical sites, and pay taxes.

Direct recommendation for your next plan not pertaining to usage: Include a HUGE trail/sharing etiquette board - maybe a place to initial on the season pass/day pass form saying you've agreed to it. Huge map with general information - closed/opened designations. Incorporate an avalanche warning board/advisory information. Physical trail markings through-out the management area. Do not extent current boundaries - especially since enforcement way out there is near impossible.

Thanks for taking time to read this, hope this finds you well.

- Travis Smith 7001 Fairweather Drive Anch 99518

The thing that I have come away with is that snowmachiners simply do not understand that non-motorized users do not want to be around them because they ruin the experience for non motorized users. Snowmachines are loud and stinky, not something non motorized users want to experience when recreating. To add to the problem snowmachiners can quickly travel to areas that non motorized users take hours to get to and ruin ski trails in route. Because of the speed of snowmachines, they are also a safety hazard to non motorized users. This is especially true in the Archangel area where snowmachiners often fail to slow down when coming upon non motorized users on the trail . There is also the problem of snowmachiners who do not stay within their defined use area. Keeping snowmachines out of existing non motorized area is impossible right now according to the park rangers.

Interestingly, in the written comments by snowmachine users, in general they didn't see any conflicts. While non motorized users saw motorized users as the major source of conflict.

This harkens back to my main point. Motorized users do not understand or appreciate the reasons why non motorized users want areas just for themselves and completely off limits to snowmachines and snowmachiners never will because they see no conflict existing. But conflicts will continue to exist for non motorized users unless the motorized/non motorized user groups are separated.

The logical boundary in Hatcher Pass should be EAST SIDE - NON MOTORIZED; WEST SIDE - MOTORIZED with the existing motorized corridor through the east side to the west side.

Whether DNR has the will to initiate this obvious solution remains to be seen. But after the seeing DNR's plan for the Knik River Public Use Area, I don't have much faith in DNR's support of non motorized user's concerns.

Joe Irvine

I would like to express my support for a corridor to allow snowmachines as well as those on foot, mountain bikes, etc. to access the pass from areas around the Palmer Fishhook area.

I have lived at the base of the pass for 12 years and I have seen literally hundreds of riders try to get to the riding areas of the pass by riding past my property and up the side of the road. Most get to the bridge and realize there is no legal way up.

I believe that having easier ways to access the riding areas in the park will significantly ease the parking situation up top and will allow riders without the means to drive up there access to legal riding areas. I also believe it will reduce illegal riding in other closed areas.

- Thank you

I would like to express my support for a corridor to allow snowmachines as well as those on foot, mountain bikes, etc. to access the pass from areas around the Palmer Fishhook area.

I have lived at the base of the pass for 12 years and I have seen literally hundreds of riders try to get to the riding areas of the pass by riding past my property and up the side of the road. Most get to the bridge and realize there is no legal way up.

I believe that having easier ways to access the riding areas in the park will significantly ease the parking situation up top and will allow riders without the means to drive up there access to legal riding areas. I also believe it will reduce illegal riding in other closed areas. - Thank you

I would like to see increased parking at Fishhook, Gold Mint and Archangel and some road at least some road maintenance on Archangel Road. There are places that it is difficult even with 4X4.

Thank you and please add me to the list for future updates.

I think everyone, if you realistically look at it, knows that certain forms of activities can not share the same space. You would not put a gymnastics studio next to a road racing course. You would not put a swimming pool next to a dirt bike track - the things that are necessary for those sports would be destroyed by the other sport. This does not make one more or less important, they just are so different that they cannot co-exist in one area.

The same is true for motorized sports and sking/snowshoeing/sledding. While the motorized sports enjoyment may not be affected by having a skiier nearby, the skiier or the snowshoeing cannot do his sport, receive the enjoyment, peace of mind, freedom of the mountains while having a motorized vehicle whip past him, with noise, fumes, fear of being run over. It is not even on option. To have motorized vehicles in every part of Hatcher Pass would mean you are closing that area to other outdoor recreationists. Far too often I have felt the spray of a snowmachiner racing past too close, even though I am far over on a 'shared' road. Far too often I have choked on the fumes of a machine that I do not choose to ride. The thought that I can enjoy Hatcher Pass in the same area as those machines is really ludicrous.

The contention that skiiers can go anywhere so why can't snow machiners go anywhere is a bully mentality. I can assure any snowmachiner out there, that if an area is designated as open to motorized vehicles, skiiers will not be there and will not consider it open to us.

As our population increases and we continue to put pressure on Alaska's open spaces, we have to think beyond this type of attitude. Everyone has a right to their own type of enjoyment, their own type of recreation. It is unfair to think that motorized and non-motorized activities can co-exist in the same areas. It just does not work. There is no enjoyment for one half of the population in that scenario.

Please work to make Hatcher Pass an area that ALL recreationists can enjoy by creating motorized areas and non-motorized areas that are enforced so that all of us can enjoy Alaska. Sincerely, Becky Myrvold

I am an avid skier -- (both cross country and telemark) and find that the areas where we can travel safely without fear of becoming run over by a machine; smelling the perfusive snowmachine exhaust; or hearing the ever-present whining are becoming more and more scarce.

Areas I use the most are the Microdot area and ridges opposite the road, and the Archangel Valley and Mint Glacier trails. I have two small children, and enjoy going to the area with and without my children.

I visit the area about once or twice a month in winter for skiing, and about three times a summer for hiking. I pay the parking fee when I go.

My experience is that areas where snowmachines are allowed, facilitate extremely high-speed travel, which is not consistent with safe family recreation, or enjoyment of Park resources. These resources include the quiet beauty, the wildlife, and the general respite that wilderness offers.

I will not take my family to recreation areas where motorized travel is permitted, as I feel that I might as well go for a walk along the highway.

Thank you Lilly Goodman-Allwright

Additionally the noise and pollution that the vehicles make is not consistant with the outdoor experience that skiers or hikers desire and are entiled to in a state park.

I understand snowmachiners who want open places to ride. I also understand skiers and hikers who want some quiet and solitude. Please keep the existing non-motorized use areas in-place; they represent only a small portion of the entire Hatcher Pass use area. Also address the safety issue along corridors such as Archangel Rd. - there needs to be seperation between the motorized and non-motorized routes to prevent injuries. Finally, please address the congestion in the parking lots and some of the hazardous parking along the road - again, before someone gets hurt.

As far as the attitudes - that's up to individuals to change.

The South Side of Government Peak. This is currently non motorized however snowmachiners and ATVs frequently use the area illegally. The Palmer-Wasilla Trails Assn. received a $6000 Bed Tax Grant from the MSB in 2005 and had Olympic Nordic Skier, Bill Spencer design a Nordic Ski Center in the same area the 1989 Amendment recommended a trail head with 30 km of trail (page 8, paragraph 3.c. of the Amendment). The Mat-Su Borough has received 6 million dollars in federal funds for an environmental impact statement and transportation related infrastructure. This would include a road to the proposed Nordic Ski Center. The Mat-Su Ski Club a 501 C-3 non profit has volunteered to partner with the MSB to design, develop and maintain these ski trails. The south side of Government Peak needs to remain a non motorized area. Currently, the Colony, Palmer, and Wasilla High School Ski Teams do not have any Nordic Ski area with consistent snow where they can host a Nordic Ski race (school buses cannot travel beyond the Motherlode in Hatchers Pass). The Nordic trails on the south side of Government Peak would provide an excellent venue for ski races. The following organizations have passed resolutions supporting the development of a Nordic Ski Center on the South Side of Government Peak: Mat-Su School District (Reso 08-011) Mat-Su Convention and Visitor Bureau Greater Palmer Chamber of Commerce Greater Wasilla Chamber of Commerce (Reso 109) Mat-Su College Student Government (Reso F2008-1) Lazy Mtn. Community Council Buffalo Mine Soapstone Community Council Friends of Mat-Su Opening up the south side of Government Peak to motorized traffic would not only be a disaster to ski trail maintenance but could be deadly to skiers if hit by fast moving snow machines.

Arch Angel Road. This is currently a winter multiuse area after there is 30 of settled snow as determined by the State Park Rangers. Earlier in the season I groomed Arch Angel Road for Nordic skiers and it was very heavily used this past winter from 1 November to 31 December. This was because the terrain is less severe than the Independence Mine area which requires a 1 km uphill ski to get to the Visitors Center area where the terrain becomes less severe. On 1 January the road was opened for snow machines and the Nordic skiers and walkers/hikers, ski journers and dog mushers were essentially shut out from recreating unless they went out early in the day mid-week. The snowmachiners frequently ignore the rangers signage (No snow machines on east side of road). At virtually every sign there is snow machine tracks going into the closed area. The rangers are not able to enforce the regulations. The snowmachiners also, destroyed the set classic ski tracks that are placed on the extreme margin. In some cases this destruction is intentional. I believe the Fishhook parking lot and the motorized trail up and over the pass should remain open to snow machine traffic however the snow machine trail should be re-routed crossing Arch Angel Road not traveling along it for the short distance where it currently goes. But Arch Angel Road and the Arch Angel Valley need to be made non-motorized. It was originally left open to motorized traffic to support the patented gold mine (Fern Mine, which is now closed!).

Independence Mine area. Retain as a non-motorized area for winter recreation (sledding, Nordic, downhill, cross country skiing, snowboarding, snowshoeing and hiking/walking). To open this area to winter motorized traffic would be a disaster. The Independence Mine Nordic ski trails that I help groom (with a permit from the Mat-Su State Parks office) are excellent skiing for strong, experienced skiers.

Kurt Julsen

I urge you to conserve the beauty and peacefulness of Hatchers Pass by limiting or eliminating all motorized vehicle beyond the road network. This regulation would be consistent with the publics interest of preventing noise pollution and erosion of Alaska's natural resources.

I myself am a snowmachiner and a mountaineer. I have never snow machined in Hatchers Pass and never intend to. I snow machine on lakes and rivers, where I know I will not disturb Alaska's natural resources. I also respect others rights and personal space. I am in the minority, but hopefully my experience as a multi-user will assist you in your study.

Designated multi-use areas are great when natural boundaries exist (i.e. Turnagain Pass), but how does one regulate Hatchers Pass? One cant and even when one does, it is blatantly ignored. In 2008, all of the Mountaineering Club of Alaska's (MCA) huts were accessed by snow machines. Some legally, some illegally. This breaks the lease of the MCA with DNR. It is beyond obvious that current access is too lenient and motorized usage needs to be restricted.

And even when boundaries exist and multi-use plans are managed (At Turnagain Pass), noise pollution and erosion are still obvious result of this mixed use. Skiers can't get away from the constant buzzing of snow machines.

Located in Hatchers Pass is the Bombers Traverse, a ski-mountaineering hut-to-hut system. These "mountaineering" huts were built to get away from snowmachines and enjoy the peacefulness of the mountains. As these machines get bigger, faster, and more powerful, where are the mountaineers to go? As a snowmachiner there are other places easily accessed. As a mountaineer/skier, it is much more difficult maximize Alaska's Natural Resources.

I urge you to conserve the beauty and peacefulness of Hatchers Pass by limiting or eliminating all motorized vehicle beyond the road network. This regulation would be consistent with the publics interest of preventing noise pollution and erosion of Alaska's natural resources. The snowmachiners can get away from the mountaineers, but mountaineers/skiers can't get away from the snow machiners. PLEASE HELP!