The Spring SKI-dash was shaken to the core this week when current silver medalist Mark Ross filed a protest against current gold-medalist and fan favorite Anna Rix.

No, that wasn’t what shook the organization to the core. The real upheaval came when Ross retracted his protest before the Panel of Very Serious Judges could be convened to determine whether the protest had any merit. Shocking!

Ross based his protest on Rix’s race narrative that seemed to indicate that she started from the East Gate at Creamer’s Field, instead of the required West Gate. But Rix and Ross communicated, and Rix convinced Ross enough to drop his protest.

Still, that hasn’t satisfied the Judges, especially the Lead Judge known as the Governor, who were quite upset to have their authority stripped before it was granted. They are still harrumphing about it. We have some video footage of them displaying their discontent.

But Ross still has his doubts about Rix after laying down another run, this one minutes faster than his first but still slower than Rix’s time. Ross is having a hard time believing that Rix could ski that much faster than him.

Meanwhile, Eric Troyer jumped into the competition. Currently, he is in fourth place, but he is reportedly pondering whether to try claiming third by filing a protest against current bronze medalist Mark “Asterisk” Simon.

The Judges, who are hoping both Ross and Troyer will file protests, are so excited they are singing and dancing.

The event, which is a race or a tour depending on your preference, runs until Saturday, April 18, at midnight. Read the rules here.

See the current race standings here.

Anna Rix has taken the lead from Mark Ross in the Spring SKI-dash!

Despite a wrong turn and a fall, Rix put in a blistering pace on icy-fast trails on Tuesday morning. Read about her challenge in the results. Andy Blossy also has an entertaining account of his challenge.

The SKI-dash challenge runs through this Saturday night, but rain is scheduled to start Wednesday evening, so sooner is better than later if you’re going to participate. If you want to beat Anna’s time you’ll have to go faster or find a faster route (or both). If you just want to use the ski challenge as a reason to explore the ADMA trails, that’s cool, too. Just be prepared. There are miles and miles of trails out there. It’s easy to get lost.

The Spring SKI-dash is an on-your-own, find-your-own-way ski challenge happening on the ADMA trails in Creamer’s Field Migratory Waterfowl Refuge and beyond. More details below or on this PDF flyer.

Challenge Details

WHO: Any skier who is at least 18 years old. (Younger skiers can participate but must be accompanied by an adult.)

WHEN: Time-trial format. Participate any time between now and Saturday, April 18, at midnight.  

WHERE: START at the Creamer’s Field west green gate (to the LEFT as you approach the barn from College Road). Ski to the Musher’s Hall red “start-finish” sign, then back to the Creamer’s Field west green gate for the FINISH.

WHAT: Record your time from START to FINISH. No set or marked route. You decide what’s most efficient. (Or what’s most fun.) Most efficient route is about 10 kilometers (6.2 miles). Most fun route is ???? Participants must be able to navigate the ADMA trails on their own. (Pre-scouting with maps is strongly encouraged. Some unofficial connecting trails exist.) 

MAPS: Print maps available at the Creamer’s Field east side gate (RIGHT side of the barn) for a $1 donation to the Friends of Creamer’s Field. A JPG of ADMA maps can be found here (https://tinyurl.com/y6dmejg7). Google Maps version here (https://tinyurl.com/wwyxd5b).

Trail fund donations to the ADMA (Alaska Dog Mushing Association) and/or the Alaska Skijoring and Pulk Association (ASPA) are strongly encouraged. The ADMA grooms the trails in the refuge and beyond. The ASPA grooms the skijoring/ski trails close to Creamer’s Field.

• ADMA: http://alaskadogmushers.com/ (see “Passes and Sponsorships”)
• ASPA: http://www.alaskaskijoring.org/ (see “Trail Donation”)

REPORTS/RESULTS: Send GPS pictures or screenshots and race reports to fbxtrails@gmail.com. They will be posted at: www.interioralaskatrails.org/.  

OTHER RULES: No pre-flagging or marking trails allowed. Must be at least 18 years old or accompanied by an adult. Must yield for dog teams and other users. No loose dogs. Have fun!

PRIZES AND AWARDS: Appreciation of other participants. Ain’t nothin’ better!

MOOSE: Always avoid moose, especially this time of year. They are hungry and otherwise stressed. They can be very dangerous. Give them wide berth! It helps you and it helps them.

Update: Mayor Bryce Ward plans to ask the Assembly to postpone public comment on the Capital Improvement Program due to the coronavirus/COVID-19 pandemic. See the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner story here.

Despite the coronavirus/COVID-19 pandemic, our borough government is still trying to keep functioning. As such, the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly still has a resolution adopting the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) on its March 26 special meeting agenda.

The current CIP has several Parks and Recreation projects, including several that deal with trails directly or indirectly. These include:

• Equinox Trail Extension and Completion
• Peede Trail Head and Trail Development
• Isberg Recreation Area Master Plan Implementation
• Growden Park Revitalization
• Fairbanks Lions Recreation Area (FLRA) Revitalization
• Tanana Lakes Master Plan Implementation Phase III
• Tanana Lakes Master Plan Implementation Phase V
• Tanana Lakes Master Plan Implementation Phase VI
• Chena Lake Area Revitalization Phase I

If you care about any or all of these projects, please speak up. Let the assembly know you that trails (and parks and rec in general) are important.

To learn more about the CIP:

• See the CIP overall page.
• See the resolution here.
• CIP spreadsheet (do a search to find all the trail-related projects)

(Endorsing projects does NOT obligate the borough to spend money on it. Rather, it helps prioritize how we spend any money we might have after the dust settles from the coronavirus/COVID-19 pandemic and the oil price wars. Outside funding may also be used for some of these projects.)

You can participate in the meeting telephonically (see note from borough below) or contacting the assembly via email:

• http://co.fairbanks.ak.us/assembly/Pages/Assembly-Members.aspx
• assembly@fnsb.us

NOTE FROM BOROUGH
During the COVID-19 outbreak, it is allowed and encouraged for assemblymembers and the public to participate at this and future meetings telephonically. In person participation is still available while using social distancing practices, however, written comments and telephonic participation is encouraged.

For more information on how to participate telephonically visit the webpage STAY CONNECTED WITH THE ASSEMBLY​ or call the Borough Clerk’s Office 459-1401.

This story ran in the March edition of the Interior Trails Newsletter.

At its February 11 meeting, the Fairbanks North Star Borough Planning Commission voted 7-1 to approve an appeal for a variance request from dedicated trail easements involving portions of some Alaska Dog Mushers Association trails. Local trail advocates disagree on whether that decision is good for trails.

The request, which was made by John Wros of The Conservation Fund, was originally denied by the FNSB Platting Board. Wros appealed to the commission.

Local trail advocates disagree on whether the variance should have been approved. Those who opposed the variance believe it will unnecessarily put some of the trails at risk and will set a bad precedence for trails involved in future subdivisions. Those supporting the variance believe it will ultimately protect the trails involved as well as large chunks of land from development.

Briefly, the University of Alaska and The Conservation Fund are trying to make a land deal that would expand Creamer’s Field Migratory Waterfowl Refuge by 160 acres to the west. Both entities asked for the trail easement variance. That land deal would allow another, smaller, plot of land to be added to the refuge. (And possibly another one as well.) A few of the westernmost Alaska Dog Mushers Association trails cross the lands involved. A majority of the ADMA trails are on refuge land already. The UA-Conservation Fund land deal requires subdividing a larger piece of land. With any subdivision, borough code requires dedicated easements for trails included in the FNSB Comprehensive Recreational Trails Plan. The ADMA trails are included in that plan.

The issue is highly complicated and was outlined in two Interior Alaska Trails blog posts, one on  December 10 (https://tinyurl.com/r29c5vx) and one on February 7 (https://tinyurl.com/wbh8xph). (The editor of this newsletter also wrote the blog posts.)

While the appeal of the trail easements variance was approved, the land deal is not done with borough boards. The subdivision application, which has another variance request regarding whether a survey needs to be done, goes back to the Platting Board. That request is on the board’s March 18 agenda. However, the subdivision can take place with or without survey variance request being approved. Once that is all done, then the land deal has to take place.

So, trails involved in the land deal are not yet protected in the refuge, but things are looking good that they will be. Trails that will not be included in the refuge will remain without easements.

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.