A land use issue involving some of the Alaska Dog Mushing Association trails is barreling down on us like an out-of-control freight train. Or maybe it’s not. It depends on your point of view.
I’ve been spending too much time trying to understand it. The issue is complicated. It’s like a legal thriller. Its got distractions, complications, and a “ticking time bomb.” (Actually, it’s got a couple of “time bombs.”)
One “time bomb” involves trail advocates like you. If you want to comment in writing you have until 5 p.m. on Tuesday, December 10. (That’s today!) Instructions on how to comment are at the bottom of this post.
But I’m getting ahead of myself. First the facts (at least as I understand them). And you should refer to the map when reading these.
The Facts
- The Conservation Fund, a national environmental group, has purchased a 320-acre block of land from the University of Alaska (UA). The group plans to donate the land to the state to become part of Creamer’s Field Migratory Waterfowl Refuge.
- This block of land is referred to on the map as N ½ S 33.
- (This is kind of a distraction since this is already happening. Sale of that land and transfer to the refuge are not contingent on all this other stuff.)
- The Conservation Fund (I’ll just call it the Fund) wanted to purchase more UA land just to the west of the first block of land to also donate to the refuge. UA does not want to sell the entire parcel to the Fund, but it is willing to sell the portion labeled NE ¼ S32, which is 160 acres.
- On the map this second, oddly shaped parcel comprises the blocks of land labeled “NE ¼ S32” and “Remainder.”
Here’s where things get complicated.
- In order to sell just a portion of that second parcel, UA must first subdivide the property.
- The ADMA trails are included in the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Comprehensive Recreational Trails Plan.
- Owners wanting to subdivide lands with trails included in the Trails Plan must dedicate an easement for those trails, unless the borough gives the owner a variance.
- The Fund wants to donate the land labeled NE ¼ S32 to the refuge, however, the refuge does not want the land if the trails have easements.
- The rest of the ADMA trails in the refuge do not have easements and the refuge wants them to be managed consistently.
Not complicated enough? Here’s more:
- The land labeled NE ¼ S32 has just 600 feet of trail on it
- The land labeled Remainder has several thousand feet of the 19.8-Mile ADMA trail, but the application
is not clear that the trail sections on Remainder will get easements. (Remember, this is a subdivision process and the trails are supposed to get protections under that process.)Just for fun here is the relevant wording from the application (page 33 in the Platting Board packet):“The proposed action does not remove the requirements of Title 17.56.040(A) on the remainder tract Section 32; future subdivisions of the remainder tract Section 32 must address Jeff-Stoddard trails.”(First, try to ignore the misspelling of the Jeff Studdert Sled Dog trails. That stuff happens.)
- Anyway, does this mean the trail sections in Remainder will get easements with this subdivision? Or does it mean they will get easements only if there are future subdivisions? (Update; The trail sections in Remainder are also included in the variance request, so would not get easements if the variance is granted.)
- And here’s another bullet point! The 19.8-Mile ADMA trail in Remainder also goes off Remainder on to other UA land that it leases to Great Northwest construction company for peat and gravel extraction. That trail has already been rerouted once because of conflict with company operations. UA wants to reroute that trail off the leased land. It is working with the borough, but it hasn’t submitted a reroute option to the borough.
- Of course, the trail was rerouted and that indicates the willingness of UA to work with the ADMA to keep the trail system intact.
- By the way, the ADMA has a license with UA for trails across UA’s land. It is revokable with 90 days notice, but the trails have been there for years.
Want even more complications? Or are they distractions? Doesn’t matter, we’ve got ‘em!
- Joe Nava wants to donate a 40-acre block of land just to the west of NE ¼ S32 to the refuge, but without NE ¼ S32 the land would not be contiguous with the refuge. Fish and Game does not want a small non-contiguous piece land as part of the refuge. Nava’s property has a portion of ADMA trail with an existing easement.
- Henrick Wessel has a parcel just to the south of Nava’s and is apparently willing to sell to The Fund. His parcel of land also has a portion of ADMA trails.
And I promised “ticking time bombs,” right? Here they are!
- The funding the Fund has to purchase NE ¼ S32 expires at the end of this year. (Update: The deadline has been extended for six months.)
- UA and The Fund are asking the FNSB Platting Board for a variance from dedicated trail easements on NE ¼ S32 (
but the application is unclear on what happens with the trails on the rest of the land). The Platting Board is meeting Dec 18. - Anyone wanting to submit written comments has to do so by 5 p.m. today (December 10)!
Think that’s it? Ha! You wish!
- The FNSB Trails Advisory Commission and Trails Coordinator have recommended against the variance because doing so will not guarantee that the public maintains access to those trails. In short, the trail protections “hinge on intentions rather than certainties.”
- According to a report by the Trails Coordinator Bryant Wright: “Despite stated intentions, completing this subdivision without dedication…will leave trails in this parcel unprotected and in trespass.”
- The subdivision process does not guarantee the land will actually be sold to the Fund and that the Fund will transfer it to the refuge, so the TAC and Wright shouldn’t take the stated intentions into consideration.
- Wright has several other concerns including that the ADMA trails on the Comp Rec Plan are designated non-motorized, but the ADF&G allows for motorized use on the refuge trails it manages. See his full report here.
- Wright also outlined his concerns in an email to myself and Stan Justice. I thought he did a great job of explaining his thoughts, so I’ve included the email here. (And here’s the detail map he refers to.)
- According to a report by the Trails Coordinator Bryant Wright: “Despite stated intentions, completing this subdivision without dedication…will leave trails in this parcel unprotected and in trespass.”
Who’s Right?
So, are the TAC and the Trails Coordinator being overly protective and short-sighted or are they wisely demanding that the process be slowed down a bit so that the trails are properly protected? Wright wonders how firm the deadline is on the funding to purchase NE ¼ S32. An extension would really help give time to work out these issues. John Wros from the Conservancy Fund says there are no guarantees that deadline on the funding can be extended or that the money can be applied for again.
- By the way, The Conservation Fund does not have a lot of name recognition in Fairbanks, but it has done a bit of work up here. Owen Guthrie, president of the Interior Alaska Land Trust, vouches for group. (“They are the ones who purchased more than 300 acres in lower Goldstream and gave it to IALT.”)
What to Do?!
- If you feel strongly about this issue, either send in written comments to the Platting Board by today! (See below.) Or attend the meeting on December 18.
- Tell the board you support the variance only if the 19.8-Mile Trail in Remainder given an easement (NOT a variance).
- Alternatively, you can support the variance and HOPE that 19.8-Mile Trail in Remainder is protected in the future.
My Take
Ultimately, I think the variance should be granted. I want the 19.8-Mile Trail in Remainder to be given an easement, too, but if this action merely keeps in place the way things are now (easement requirements only if the land is subdivided in the future), I think I can live with that. That means the 19.8-Mile Trail is in danger of being blocked or moved, but that is the current situation and it has been like that for many years. The variance will help allow other actions that will be beneficial to the ADMA trails. I feel confident that enough of those actions will happen to make it worthwhile.
I also like the idea of Creamer’s Field Wildlife Refuge being expanded.
And while the issue of whether motorized use should be allowed on the ADMA trails is important, I feel that is best addressed through the refuge’s management plan, since a majority of the ADMA trails are already covered under that plan.
I do appreciate the strong advocacy by the TAC and Trails Coordinator. This is a tough decision. I would rather they be too protective than not protective enough. I also appreciate the work being done by The Conservation Fund. I really hope they can add all this land to the refuge.
How You Can Comment
- Attend the Platting Board meeting and comment. It is scheduled for Dec 18, 6 p.m., in the Assembly Chambers at the Administration Center, 907 Terminal Street.
- Submit written comments on this form and send it to sharon.wittenkeller@fnsb.us by 5 p.m. December 10. You’ll need to fill out this form.
- Send an email or call individual Platting Board members: www.co.fairbanks.ak.us/Boards/BoardCommissionMeetingDocuments/PlattingBoardMbrs 09-2019.pdf
Oh, Did You Think I Was Done with Complications?
The Platting Board often has restrictive requirements that limit who can comment. (People have to have specific property interests.) But if you see that, don’t be put off. The board also has a rule that allows for comments from the general public regarding trail easements.
- Rule 22. Verbal and written testimony from the general public on legislative applications such as street vacations, determinations on trail easements and proposed changes to Title 17 shall be allowed.
See the rule on page 3 here.
To read more details the entire Platting Board meeting packet can be found here. Information on this issue starts on page 47.
P.S.
I have tried hard to get all these facts straight, but I probably made some mistakes. Please forgive me for those.
Eric Troyer
Thanks for your efforts!
Good work Eric – I would add that UA got the lands subject to trails. Plat note 4 says:
“4. Trail use schedule and future realignment will be by mutual agreement of the Fairbanks Golf and Country Club or its successors in interest, the University of Alaska or its successors in interest, and the Alaska Dog mushers Assoc. or its successors, or other organized trail user groups. Any decisions must comply with the Fairbanks North Star Borough Comprehensive Recreational Trails Plan.”
Thus UA is obligated to provide for the trail and as you noted they did provide a reasonable reroute when Great Northwest dug up the old trail.
I support the variance because I think the benefits of moving lands into the refuge out weigh the risk of not providing dedicated trail easements.
Nice job in presenting a very complicated subject. It does occur to me that your “comment” block may be confused with a comment form aimed at the Platting Board members. Concerned readers still need to separately contact the Platting Board. Good work Eric.
Excellent work. I went ahead and submitted a comment. It IS a complicated issue, but I come down on the same side as you – I support the variance. I would hate to see this opportunity missed.
Excellent summary of a very complicated issue. Hopefully it will be resolved with the trail integrity maintained. I can vouch for the legitimacy of The Conservation Fund.
Thanks for your comments, all. Boy, what a complicated subject!
This is just my personal opinion; I’m not speaking in any official capacity. I have used the ADMA trails for more than 30 years, and I would dearly love to see them fully protected. That said, granting this variance would set a dangerous precedent regarding trail protection in general. Title 17 is critical to those of us who want legal, protected status for Fairbanks trails. I fear that the short-term benefit of this particular land transfer will sway people in favor of the requested variance. But, according to my understanding, the variance thwarts the intent of Title 17 and opens future subdivision processes to variances that will leave trails unprotected. A big short-term gain for ADMA, yes, but long-term a potentially much bigger loss for all Fairbanks trail-lovers.
The crystal ball is fuzzy on this one. If the variance is denied maybe it gives developers motive to lobby for a title 17 rewrite – a rewrite that removes trail protections. I have flip flop back and forth but conclude (for now) that it is best to get 160 acres (plus Joe Nava’s 40 and maybe even 49 acre tract A) added to the refuge. If worst case scenario happens there would be 249 acres to reroute the ADMA trail on – not fun but better than a 30 mile trail system being reduced to 25 miles. If the variance fails maybe the Conservation Fund gives up – they have been trying for over a year to make this happen. Then what? We still have no easement. We still have UA’s intention to abide by the plat note and the land being “subject to trails”. Is it really a dangerous precedent? Would not a future case still have to go to the platting board where all the complexities would be analysed before a final decision? Maybe it is a good precedent that if a bunch of land becomes available for trails, remaining land is “subject to trails” and the landowner has a 37 year licence allowing the trail…. Great discussion – we have learned so much from this issue.
Having been through a number of Platting issues in the past few years, I can tell you that the assertion of the Trails Planner that it would be better to establish an easement now and argue for a vacation later is blowing smoke. The process for vacation insists on showing a better dedication than the one being vacated. If the State of Alaska has their own management plan for the refuge that doesn’t include dedication, that should be up to them in their own public process.
This seems to be an argument between two government bodies, one which would have responsibility and ownership of the property and one with a general interest in trails planning for the FNSB.
I’m very appreciative of planning and the efforts of those volunteers on TAC, Platting and Planning Commissions, but both the FNSB Trails and Comprehensive Road Plans are being treated by the FNSB as bibles. My understanding is that they are supposed to be guides, not mandates.
From what I read, considering the aspect of timelines of property transfer, if I still served on the Platting Board, I’d support the variance with a conditional approval subject to plat modification if the proposed land donation/transfer didn’t go through.
Related, I am working to ‘reform’ the heavily complex quasi-judicial process that the Platting Board and Planning Commission use that thwarts public engagement on matters before them. No other community in the state goes to these lengths or even close. See the website listed here for further background.
https://www.chena.org/fnsb
website is https://chena.org/fnsb
So there was no quorum for the meeting yesterday, so no decision. I assume the board isn’t meeting again this year. So is the deal dead? What is going to happen?
With a 3 to 2 vote platting board disapproved the Conservation Fund/UA request for a variance to avoid dedicated trail easements. There may be an appeal. I conclude the platting board process is set up to favor FNSB staff. The staff gets unlimited time and control of projector/computer. The applicant gets 10 min with paper maps. Others get 3 min. John Wros did a great job with his 10 minutes. Hard to know what happens next but for now 160 + Nava’s 40 + Henrick’s 49 acres do not go into the refuge. Everything stays the same. A opportunity missed IMHO.
UA and Conservation Fund filed an appeal which will be heard Feb. 11 by the Planning Commission.
Thanks for your great summary of this issue. It seems like a pivotal issue is that Fish and Game will not accept land to be added to the refuge that has easements attached. Why is that? Why would the easements make a difference in how the refuge is managed? Perhaps the easements come with language of who and when trails can be used? Is it harder to stop motorized access in spring/summer when trails can be damaged if there are trail easements?
Cost is part of the issue. The survey bill for this sale would be some $10K if the trails were platted. Encumbrances are perhaps the bigger issue. Just like they don’t want land with junk yards, hazardous waste, etc. they don’t want trail easements that restrict what they do. If the trail needed to move they feel they would need to replat incurring more cost. The trails in the refuge are the best protected ADMA trails and none have easements. For consistency sake….another consideration.
Two technical details need answers. The 1993 plat for Fairbanks Golf and Country Club 1st Addition made 3 lots of UA land that were given to the golf course in exchange for them giving up land on the N side of Farmers Loop and the clubhouse on the W side of Ballaine Rd. (golf carts crossing major roads had to end). A trail easement was platted for the mushing trail as it existed at the time and a plat note described how the easement could be moved. The trail moved (without changing the easement) and the golf course decided to sell the parcels instead of adding 9 more holes. WHY IN 1993 WAS THE TRAIL DEDICATION NOT APPLIED TO THE “REMAINDER” WHILE IN THE CURRENT CASE TRAIL DEDICATION WAS REQUIRED IN THE REMAINDER?
There is also the question: WHY IS THE 320 ACRE SALE CONSIDERED AN ALOQUOT PART SALE (NOT A SUBDIVISION) WHILE THE 160 ACRE SALE IS DEEMED A SUBDIVISION (TRIGGERING TRAIL DEDICATION?) The issue was raised by surveyor Troy Hicks of the platting board and staff said something about DNR. Neither FNSB nor DNR has provided any documentation of the decision.
Pesky details anyway!
I think I can answer my questions. George Stefan of FMSB Planning thinks former trail coordinator Tom Hancock relied on the licence agreement that UA has for ADMA trails so only required easements on the parcels going into private hands. And since we have continued to use the trail through the peat ponds looks like he made a good call.
The 320 acres sold as an aliquot part because it had never been subdivided before.
What a complicated issue! I really thank all of you involved in protecting trails and green spaces in the borough. Your collective knowledge and experience is incredibly valuable, not to mention the time you are willing to invest. The Refuge and the ADMA trails are such an important part of Fairbanks history. They are also an incredible public resource. I will pay more attention so I can contribute in the future.