Trail advocates can still comment on “The Case of the ADMA Trails and Creamer’s Field.” The deadline for comment is noon, February 11.

This is an easement variance request regarding a portion of the Alaska Dog Mushers Association trails involved in a subdivision application. The request was denied by the Fairbanks North Star Borough Platting Board in December. (The platting board’s decision can be found here. (The vote was 3-2) It has been appealed to the FNSB Planning Commission. The appeal is on the February 11 meeting agenda for the commission.

Information on how to comment is at the end of this post. Since my last post (which I updated because of an error) I have learned more. I read the Planning Commission packet and talked to two of the main people involved: Bryant Wright, the FNSB trails coordinator, and John Wros, of The Conservation Fund.

(To fully understand the appeal and the borough’s response you’ll need to look through the Planning Commission meeting packet. The appeal report starts on page 51. Appeal statements start on page 58. The report runs to page 66, closing with a recommendation by borough staff to deny the appeal.)

The issue is still complicated, and I still don’t see easy answers. However, I think I have figured out how to phrase this into a single question.

“Should the borough waive one of its most powerful tools for protecting trails in order for other entities to complete a planned land deal that would preserve some of the land in a wildlife refuge (including trail protection) while leaving portions of some trails on the rest of the land in the same situation they are in today, which has given them historical protection but little legal protection?”

OK. I said it would be single question. I didn’t say it would be simple. So, I’ll parse the question below to help explain things. I’ve also created a map for your reference. (The map in my original post had the incorrect shape for Tract B.)

“SHOULD THE BOROUGH…”

By borough, I mean the borough government, but I also mean all residents of the borough, especially those trail users who care about the ADMA trails.

“…WAIVE ONE OF ITS MOST POWERFUL TOOLS FOR PROTECTING TRAILS…”

Title 17 is the part of the borough code (laws) that describes how subdivisions should be dealt with. Title 17 orders that when land is subdivided, public-use easements will be created for any trails on the Fairbanks Comprehensive Recreational Trails Plan (CRTP) that cross that land. Public-use easements ensure that the public will have access to the trails into the future. (Creating park land is another powerful way to protect trails.) The ADMA trails are in the CRTP.

As part of a land deal (described below) The Conservation Fund has asked the borough to waive that part of Title 17 for a subdivision of land that includes portions of some ADMA trails. The Platting Board denied the request. The Conservation Fund has appealed to the Planning Commission. Trails Coordinator Wright and the borough Trails Advisory Commission have recommended against waiving the right.

“… IN ORDER FOR OTHER ENTITIES…”

The other entities are The Conservation Fund, the University of Alaska, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

“…TO COMPLETE A PLANNED LAND DEAL THAT WOULD PRESERVE SOME OF THE LAND IN A WILDLIFE REFUGE (INCLUDING TRAIL PROTECTION)…”

The Conservation Fund has funding to purchase land next to Creamer’s Field State Migratory Waterfowl Refuge, which is run by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, in order to have the land be included in the refuge. The University of Alaska has a lot of land butting up to the west side of the refuge. (The Conservation Fund is already purchasing a 320-acre block of land from UA for this purpose, but that deal doesn’t require a subdivision.)

The Conservation Fund wants to buy another 425-acre parcel from UA to be included in the refuge. (See blocks labeled Tracts A and B on the map.) However, UA does not want to sell all that land. It has a lease with Great Northwest for peat and gravel extraction on Tract B (265 acres). The land was given to UA to make money, so it’s understandable why UA would want to keep the portion that is making money.

UA is willing to sell Tract A (160 acres). But both tracts are part of a single block of land that must be subdivided in order to be dealt with separately. That’s where Title 17 (remember that?) comes into play. Borough law requires that the trails on both tracts be given easements as part of the subdivision process. But neither UA nor the refuge wants the easements.

Also, about the word “planned.” Wros says The Conservation Fund has several documents and legal proceedings in place that virtually guarantee the land will get transferred to the refuge once the subdivision takes place. However, Wright points out the while the exchange seems highly likely, it isn’t legally guaranteed. Also, the borough has not been able to see at least one of the key documents because the party involved wants to keep it private.

“…WHILE LEAVING PORTIONS OF SOME TRAILS ON THE REST OF THE LAND IN THE SAME SITUATION THEY ARE IN TODAY, WHICH HAS GIVEN THEM HISTORICAL PROTECTION BUT LITTLE LEGAL PROTECTION?”

UA has allowed the ADMA trails on its land for more than 30 years via a license agreement in place since 1982. The license allows the trails to be moved, if necessary, and can be revoked by UA with 90 days notice. It has generally worked very well. One trail was rerouted in recent years due to peat mining activity, but little has happened otherwise. If the variance is granted, the ADMA trail segments in Tract B would remain covered by the license. They would also still be covered by Title 17 if that land were subdivided in the future.

WHY NOT EASEMENTS?

The refuge has told The Conservation Fund it doesn’t want easements. A majority of ADMA trails are already on the refuge and exist without easements. I’m sure easements could potentially cause those trail portions to be harder to manage. It’s certainly not an impossible situation, but I’m sure from the refuge’s point of view, the trails coming into the refuge will have plenty of protection. This land isn’t going to be developed. So why add potential management difficulties?

UA doesn’t want to grant easements. I can also see where UA is coming from. The license gives them a lot more flexibility than easements would. And historically UA has been a great neighbor in this regard. So, let’s just keep things the way they have been for years, right?

EASEMENTS GIVE STRONG PROTECTION

But I can also appreciate the view of Wright and the TAC. The trail segments in Tract A that would go into the refuge are probably not a big worry. (There’s an issue regarding the allowance of motorized use, but let’s not deal with that right now.) But there are only about 600 feet of ADMA trails on Tract A.

Tract B has about 8,000 feet of trail (1.5 miles). It’s a critical part of the 19.7-mile trail. Under the UA license the trail segments have no real legal protection. UA is under increasing pressure to make money due to shrinking state financial support. At some point, will an opportunity arise to make money with the land that is too good to pass up? Will that opportunity allow for the trails? Who knows? This is a chance to make sure the trails are protected. Oh, and the peat mining is still happening. Will the trail have to be moved again? Or maybe blocked?

A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE?

The Conservation Fund is kind of stuck in the middle. Wright has suggested other options, such as asking for a variance on just Tract A or asking to create easements that don’t follow the current trail routes and a variance for making the trails currently line up to the easements. (Wright hasn’t said he would outright support the other options. He would have to see the details.) But UA and the refuge don’t like the other options. Wros says without the variance there’s no land deal.

(In my last post I wrote that the funding source for The Conservation Fund’s purchase would expire at the end of 2019. The Conservation Fund has since gotten a 6-month extension.)

THE OTHER LAND

Oh, and then there are the two blocks of land to the west of Tract A that ADMA trails also cross. Joe Nava owns 40 acres and wants to donate it to the refuge. (Trail segments on Nava’s land have an easement.) Henrik Wessel owns 49 acres of land and wants to sell. (I don’t think those trail segments have an easement, but I’m not positive.) The Conservation Fund wants to buy it. But the refuge wants only contiguous land to the refuge, and those blocks of land won’t be contiguous without Tract A.

IN SUMMARY

So, there you have it. Sorry, I tried to make it as simple as I could, but I know it’s not simple. On the upside, we are basically trying to figure out how best to protect trails, not discussing whether to save them from existence. So, that’s good! Without that provision in Title 17 we wouldn’t be having this discussion, and trails in the borough would be much less protected.

If you feel strongly about this issue, make sure you comment to the Planning Commission.

HOW TO COMMENT

The appeal is scheduled for the February 11 Planning Commission meeting. According to Kristen Walker of the FNSB Community Planning Department:

• Members of the public can submit written or oral comments on the appeal.
• Comments must be limited to the dedication of trail easements (they cannot be about other portions of the subdivision application).
• ORAL: Members of the public can give up to 3 minutes of oral comments about the appeal during the Feb 11 meeting during the comment time for the appeal (not during “citizen comments” at the beginning of the meeting). The commission meets in the borough assembly chambers (907 Terminal St.) starting at 6 p.m.
• WRITTEN: Members of the public can submit written comments, but they should be submitted no later than noon on Feb 11 to ensure they are received by the commission.
  • Written comments can be delivered to the Community Planning Department (907 Terminal St, 2^nd Floor)
  • Emails can be submitted to fnsbpc@fnsb.us. 

MY TAKE

I’ve pondered this for a long time. I think both sides make strong cases. In my last post I supported the variance for the overall sake of the trails. I’ve decided to keep that stance. I do not like losing the opportunity to give a big portion of the 19.7-mile loop strong protections. But if the variance is granted, that portion of trail will remain in the situation it has been in since 1982. Not great, but I think it’s worth it for the entire package, which will increase the size of the refuge and giving those trail segments strong protections. Hopefully, another opportunity will come in the future for saving the trail segments in Tract B.

CIVIL DISAGREEMENT

I would like to point out that both Wright and Wros have spoken respectfully about each other. While they disagree and are a bit frustrated, neither has denigrated the other (at least that I have read or heard). That’s very encouraging given the state of some of the public disagreements in this state and country.

P.S. I have tried hard to get all these facts straight, but I probably made some mistakes. Please forgive me for those. I also left out some related issues, but good gravy this is already complicated enough.

This Thursday, January 16, (that’s tomorrow!) the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly will be taking public testimony for how to rank its Capital Improvement Project list. This list will help the borough decide how to spend money on future projects. The list is found in this resolution.

If you can’t attend the meeting, please call or send your comments to assembly members. (Assembly contact information here.) There are several trail-related projects being considered, so please advocate for them if you feel they are worthy.

Something that came to my attention recently is a project that didn’t make the final list on the resolution. However, there is still time to advocate for including the project on the ranking list. The project is called “Public Access to the Borough Trail System.” According to the nomination form: “Existing trails will be taken out of trespass and trailheads will be developed so the public can safely and comfortably access the Borough’s local trails.” The project is included on the CIP page under “2019 CIP Nominations: Parks and Rec.” It is number 19-71. You can find the project nomination form here.

Trail-related projects included on the resolution:

• Equinox Trail Extension and Completion
• Peede Trail Head and Trail Development
• Isberg Recreation Area Master Plan Implementation
• Tanana Lakes Master Plan Implementation (several phases)
• Chena Lake Area Revitalization
• Fairbanks Lions Recreation Area (FLRA) Revitalization

There are many worthy non-trail projects in the resolution. The point of this advocacy is simply to speak up for trails, not to take away from the other projects. I’m sure many trail supporters will find that they support some other projects higher than the trails-related projects. That’s fine. Just remember to speak up for trails-related projects if you feel they are worthwhile.

For more information

• The resolution with the complete list of projects being considered can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/spaefus
• A page on the process for ranking the projects can be found here: http://co.fairbanks.ak.us/CIP/Pages/default.aspx
• The CIP page includes this “story map” that helps introduce you to the projects in geographic context.
• The Assembly Welcome Brochure has information on how to testify. A short and sweet version is below.

HOW TO TESTIFY IN PERSON:

• Expect to be there roughly from about 6:45pm-9pm, possibly later.
• Assembly meeting starts at 6:00pm. There’s a whole bunch of business, then they get to items for public hearing AT OR AFTER 7:00pm. The CIP ordinance is scheduled for public hearing- it’s 4th (last) on the list of items for public hearing. Testimony is given during the discussion of each individual item.
• You should sign up to testify. You can sign up anytime 12:00pm-6:50pm at the Borough Building- go to the Clerk’s desk. If you are in town, consider swinging by early to sign up, then return later for the meeting. If you’re coming just for the meeting, you must sign up before 6:50pm.  Testimony is taken in order of the list. If you aren’t on the sign-up list, you can still testify, but it will be first-come, first-serve after everyone else.

HOW TO TESTIFY VIA EMAIL:

• Email your thoughts on the CIP to the assembly (assembly@fnsb.us) or email individual assembly members Do this as soon as you can so they have time to review. Email may be easier, though being there in person can have a special impact. But participation is always good, however it works best for you.

The Alaska Dog Mushers Association should be able to spend more money on its trails and others things after the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly granted it a property tax break.

Read about it in this Fairbanks Daily News-Miner article. (And if you can’t read the article because you don’t subscribe, you really should. The News-Miner is struggling and we really need local professional news organizations.)

Thank you to everyone who advocated on the part of the ADMA. While this will probably mean slightly higher taxes for property owners in the borough, the benefits are well worth it. The ADMA will have another $7,000+ to spend on its operations, which include maintaining miles and miles of trails right on the urban edge of Fairbanks.

To celebrate, go out and use the trails! But remember to donate to the ADMA!

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.)

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