The Fairbanks Borough Comprehensive Recreational Trails Plan update is still working its way through the local legislative process.

The Fairbanks Borough Assembly has sent the plan update back to the Platting Board with some requirements due back by June 8. The Assembly is also looking more thoroughly into whether the borough has the right to require trail easements during the subdivision process.

PROPERTY RIGHTS AND EASEMENTS

Passage of the plan update has been contentious with debate focusing almost solely on the requirement of easements.

Five members of the Assembly – Tammie Wilson, Barbara Haney, Jimmie Cash, Brett Rotermund, and Aaron Lojewski – have made it clear they support stripping the current ability to require easements for some trails during the subdivision process. They have said they are not anti-trails but are pro-private property rights.

The other four Assembly members – Savannah Fletcher, Kristan Kelly, Mindy O’Neall, and David Guttenberg – have supported passage of the plan update in its current form. They have said they feel property rights are already protected by the existing plan and plan update.

The plan does not give itself the power to require easements. Rather, that is in Title 17, the section of borough law dealing with subdivisions and other easement requirements. The Assembly already tried to change Title 17 but voted that down after Mayor Bryce Ward made it clear he would veto the change. See my previous post.

(I have been wanting to report more on this issue, but I fell ill after the Feb. 23 meeting and lost more than a week. I have been trying to play catch up ever since. Fortunately, Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reporter Jack Barnwell has had some good coverage.)

FEB 23 ASSEMBLY MEETING – PLAN UPDATE REFERRED TO PLATTING BOARD

At its Feb. 23 meeting, the Assembly voted to refer the Trails Plan update to the borough Platting Board with a recommendation due back no later than June 8. On a 5-4 vote – with Fletcher, Kelly, O’Neal, and Guttenberg dissenting – the Assembly approved a motion by Assemblywoman Tammie Wilson, which had two parts:

Borough staff must produce a map that shows “property lines and roadways so landowners can identify any impacted parcels they own.”

The maps produced by the trail plan update show roads and other features and some maps show some property lines, but none show all property lines. At the meeting, Borough Trails Coordinator Bryant Wright indicated he could create such a map but that it would require a bit of effort considering the size of the borough and the number of trails.

Borough staff must come up with three alternative ways that show “Category A and B trails connecting without forcing landowners to give up their property in the platting process.”

This will be trickier. The trails plan has three categories of trails: A, B, and C. A and B trails are considered of statewide and regional significance, respectively. (C trails are of neighborhood significance.) According to Title 17, A and B trails currently require an easement if the land they run across is subdivided. Wilson apparently wants to have possibilities to reroute any A and B trails off any properties that could conceivably be subdivided. (Some properties cannot be subdivided, such as properties that are already as small as zoning regulations allow.)

However, routing trails off one piece of property means they would have to be routed onto another piece of property. If that property is public land (federal, state, or borough) would that be acceptable? Public landowners must still provide an easement if the land is subdivided. And if trails can be routed only onto other pieces of private property, that would put the easement onus onto those properties.

At that meeting, the Assembly also made other changes to the plan.

• The Ace Lakes Connector Trail (IC9 in the trails plan update) was removed from the plan. This trail has proven contentious. Some people have devised an informal reroute, which appears to be working for now. It might be added to the plan at a later date.
• The conceptual Nenana Uplands Forest Traverse Trail (IAR-9 in the plan) was rerouted to provide more of a buffer to neighboring private property.
• Another amendment clarified that the borough would not use eminent domain to secure trail easements. That issue is not contentious as the borough has never used eminent domain for trail easements and has no plans to do so.

See the News-Miner story here.

FEB 27 TRAILS ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING – WRIGHT GIVES UPDATE

Borough Trails Coordinator Bryant Wright gave an update to the Trails Advisory Commission at its Feb. 27 meeting.

Wright told the TAC about the instructions from the Assembly (the new map showing trails and property lines, and the three alternatives for A and B trails). He pointed out that the plan already requires that the staff be proactive about obtaining trail easements and that the Title 17 is considered a last resort.

“Hopefully we’ll be able to sit down with this assembly member and understand what’s needed there and what’s being asked for,” Wright said, according to the News-Miner. “We’ll work with the mayor’s office, assembly and platting board to come up with something.”

Any changes will likely require a public hearing, which would probably be in May, since the Assembly amendment required that a recommendation is due back no later than June 8.

See the News-Miner story here.

MARCH 9 ASSEMBLY MEETING – REQUEST FOR OPINION ON EASEMENTS

At its March 9 meeting, the Assembly voted to hire legal counsel from outside the borough administration to determine whether a second-class borough can use the platting process to mandate a dedicated easement while subdividing. The request was made by Assemblywoman Wilson.

Borough Attorney Jill Dolan provided a legal analysis to Wilson, but Wilson said it left a lot of questions as to whether trails were included in those powers. She said she wanted a third-party opinion from outside the borough administration. Specifically, she requested that Ketchikan attorney Scott Brandt-Erichsen be hired.

According to the News-Miner, Brandt-Erichsen is a “former attorney for the Municipality of Anchorage and the Ketchikan-Gateway Borough” and he “now works at Ketchikan law firm Keene & Currall and specializes in municipal law.” Dolan said she thought Brandt-Erichsen is a good choice and estimated that his services will probably run about $3,000.

Approval for funds to hire the attorney was passed 5-4, with Fletcher, Kelly, O’Neal, and Guttenberg dissenting.

See the News-Miner story here.

That’s it for now. I will continue reporting more as things develop.

Tom Paragi has been spearheading an effort to re-route the Mist Creek Trail after the 2019 Nugget Creek Fire. The trail takes off from the south side of Chena Hot Springs Road across from the CHSR 36.5 mile shooting range. Tom and Jim Brader installed reflecting diamond markers this weekend. The re-routed trail winds about 4.5 miles until it meets the Mastodon Trail about 3 miles from the Mastodon and Nugget public use cabins. The Mastodon Trail is currently not broken to the cabins, but Mist Creek is good to go now for exercise and nice views of the surrounding hills. Dress for wind at higher elevations.

This trail is good for snowshoeing and passable with backcountry skis (probably with skins) in winter. Hiking in summer requires crossing the Chena River by the shooting range. It’s not good for biking either season. The trail is a great overland access to the cabins and/or for packrafting access to the South Fork of the Chena River. It’s about half the distance of the Mastodon Trail.

Tom worked 20 years ago with several kindred spirits to re-open this old miner’s foot trail from the Gold Rush era that was a spur off the Chena Hot Springs trail. According to Tom, there’s still more to do. “A summer project will be clearing the ankle-grabbing deadfall that is now covered by snow.”

If you’re interested in helping out, contact Tom at tparagi@gmail.com

Back in 2009, before the reroute and markers were put in, Jay Cable and Tom Moran used the Mist Creek Trail for a pack rafting trip. Jay wrote about it in his blog.
https://yak.spruceboy.net/2009/06/fun-on-the-south-fork-of-the-chena.html

Your help is needed to advocate for several Alaska Long Trail projects, including two Fairbanks-area projects, recently submitted in the state capital budget.

Spearheaded by Alaska Trails, 14 projects for the Alaska Long Trail were submitted to the state budget. Two multi-use motorized Fairbanks-area trail projects are on the list: Isberg 4-season trail and Equinox Marathon Trail (Parks Highway to Fairbanks via Ester Dome). Those were submitted by the Fairbanks Borough Parks and Recreation Department, which is partnering with Alaska Trails.

All projects together total $9.5 million. The Fairbanks-area projects come in at just under $2.5 million.

Alaska Trails is asking that people contact their legislators by March 10. If you support these projects, make sure to let your legislators know. Also, please let Gov. Dunleavy know using his feedback page. (Feedback comments are limited to 4,000 characters, but you can attach files.)

Find your legislator contact information here: https://akleg.gov/

• Don’t know your legislator? Go to the bottom right-hand corner of that page and use the box labeled “Who Represents Me?”

You can email, send a letter, or make a phone call. It doesn’t have to be complicated. Let them know:

• You are a constituent.
• You support one or more specific projects on the list (or all the Alaska Long Trail projects).

If you want to get a little more in-depth you can add one or more of these reasons:

• Trails help improve our physical and mental health.
• Trails give us access to natural resources.
• Trails give us a healthy way to socialize.
• Trails help the local outdoor recreation economy.
• Trails help improve the visitor industry by giving tourists access to “wild Alaska.”
• Trails help encourage tourists to stay just another day or two, which boost our economy.
• Once completed, the Alaska Long Trail will be a trail connection between Fairbanks and Seward used by locals and visitors alike. It will help bolster the state’s outdoor recreation tourism economy.
• While some sections of the Alaska Long Trail will be non-motorized, many will be multiuser motorized, opening up the trail to a wide variety of users.

You can find more information, including the specific projects here: https://tinyurl.com/97e6zmfc

And here is a sample letter written from an Interior Alaska perspective in Word and in PDF.

Below is an email from Geoffrey Orth on the Ester Valley Trail Trial.

On 23 February 2023, an amicable settlement was reached in Orth vs Largent and the closure of the Ester Valley Trail, which I believe is the best possible outcome for all parties involved. Please refer to the attached file for details; any questions, shoot ’em at me. We intend to start a GoFundMe site in the near future to recoup the substantial costs incurred.

Many thanks to the witnesses who testified to their use of the trail/road, those who donated, and the financial assistance from the Law Offices of William R. Satterberg Jr.

Thanks for your support,
Geoff

Here’s a map of the planned reroute of the Ester Valley Trail.

Two big local developments regarding trails:

Ester Valley Trail Court Case Ends with an Agreement

This past week the court case regarding public access to the Ester Valley Trail ended with an agreement between the two parties that will eventually reroute the trail and allow for public access. The trail, which will be renamed, should be open to the public by fall/winter of 2025. It will be open for motorized use, though not highway vehicles.

Geoffrey Orth, the complainant who sued for public access, will have more info in about a week. He will also be starting webpage asking for donations to help recoup the costs of the lawsuit.

Trails Plan Referred to Platting Board

At last night’s meeting, the Fairbanks Borough Assembly voted to refer the Comprehensive Recreational Trails Plan update to the borough Platting Board with a recommendation due back no later than June 8.

The referral came with a couple of conditions. I won’t state them exactly since the meeting ran late (it recessed just before 1am) and it was contentious and often confusing, with lots of amendments atop of amendments. I will do a full blog post after I get the final wording from the borough clerk’s office.

Basically, the conditions were:

• To come up with a map that very clearly shows property lines and A and B trails from the plan so that people who own property across which those trails run can know where they are. (And where easements would be required if the property owners choose to subdivide.)
• Come up with three alternative routes for A and B trails running across those properties. (I especially want to see the final wording for this, as I am unclear as to whether this means alternative routes within the properties or around the properties.)

There were also a couple of other changes, the most significant of which were:

• The Ace Lakes Connector Trail (IC9 in the trails plan update) was removed from the plan. This trail has proven contentious. Some people have devised an informal reroute, which appears to be working for now. It might be added to the plan at a later date.
• The conceptual Nenana Uplands Forest Traverse Trail (IAR-9 in the plan) was rerouted to provide more of a buffer to neighboring private property.

I believe those are the most pertinent details. (And I believe I have relayed them correctly. I need time to look over my notes, but first I have to dig out!)

Note: The trails plan was only one contentious issue at the meeting, which is why it ran so late. The Assembly also passed the Capital Improvement Program but with significant amendments that caused lots of debate and often confusion. However, no trail projects were involved in that.