This website is maintained by Friends of Bicentennial Park to provide information on Anchorage's Far North Bicentennial Park.

April 29, 2009

DOWL HKM
Attn: Alison Lohrke
4041 B Street
Anchorage AK 99503
sent via email to alohrke@dowlhkm.com

Ms. Lorke,

Friends of Bicentennial Park has reviewed the Draft Trail Improvements Plan for Far North Bicentennial Park.  We appreciate the effort so many people have put into this and find that it has many good recommendations that will enhance the park.

Increased use of the park is a good thing for Anchorage.  Modest improvements at access points is good.  We certainly support the overall vision: “... promoting and encouraging the diversity of park users, and to work towards solutions to issues to enhance park user experiences.” (p.2)

For the sake of brevity, we will only focus on aspects that seem out of line with keeping FNBP primarily a natural area.  Though we are reassured by the numerous comments that show the intent to keep the projects within the goals of the master plan for FNBP, there are a few items in this plan that are not in line with the core goals of the park.

Bicentennial Park is a special park.   Those who originally dedicated it had the foresight to ensure that it will be primarily a natural area. The original plan and the transfer documents state the following goals:

1. To maintain the Far North Bicentennial Park in perpetuity as a public park for the benefit of the citizens of Alaska
2. To preserve the streambeds, watershed areas, and wildlife habitat of the area in as pristine a condition as possible allowing for compatible use of the area for nature appreciation by the public.
3. To provide for recreational use by the citizens in areas where such use will be consistent with the primary objectives of nature conservation.
4. To provide areas where more intensive public uses can be developed in a manner consistent with nature and harmonious with neighboring uses.
5. To provide regulations and controls which will accomplish the aforementioned objectives and insure the continuous maintenance of these lands in a nearly natural state for the benefit of future generations.

It is not by neglect that the park is primarily natural, it is by design and mandate that this incredible space in the middle of Anchorage will remain a natural area.  We would like to see these guiding rules stated early in the plan.

“Friends of Bicentennial Park” exists to support these goals.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Section 1.2.5 History of Land Ownership and Management is a nice summary of the flow of the legal process setting aside FNBP.  It misses a key point that the transfer documents carry a very clear legal requirement that the park remain primarily a natural area.  This should be state here. 

3.4.11 Friends of Far North BicentennialPark

The plan states:

Friends of FNBP is a group of interested citizens that are committed to maintaining FNBP as a public park, preserving the environmental quality of the park, providing for recreational use consistent with environmental protection, providing for public uses consistent with adjacent uses, and providing for regulations to accomplish these goals. (p.37-38)

We’d like to see this section modified to reflect the name “Friends of Bicentennial Park.”  Our mission is founded in the transfer documents and the master plans.  Specifically, we exist to support the five goals listed above.

If that’s too wordy, you can sum it up by saying we exist to ensure the continuous maintenance of these lands in a nearly natural state for the benefit of future generations.

Bike Commuting

There are several references to accommodating “commuting.” Generally bike commuters are motivated to ride quickly to get to a destination.  Providing for this should not be a goal for FNBP.Comments from the user groups do not suggest a greater need to provide for commuting and this use would be incompatible with other uses. The speed of bikes on the existing trails is a common complaint.

To accommodate commuters, they should be directed to the paved trails and bike lanes on Elmore. Elmore provides an easier and shorter bike commute than the routes winding through the park. Project 8 to light and harden the Abbott Road multi-use trail will provide a route to Elmore. Campbell Airstrip Road provides a commuting route through the park on the north side and bike lanes on the road should be recommended for any future rebuilding of that road.

Bike commuters, in the sense that phrase is usually used, are looking for pavement. Suggesting that there should be accommodations for bike commuting through FNBP will lead to the expectation that the trail be paved.

While people may bike through FNBP on the way to other destinations, it is generally done, not because it is efficient in terms of speed and convenience, but because it is a natural area and a brief relief from asphalt and concrete.

References to providing for bike commuting should be removed. There should be no Trails Class 5 for bicycling in FNBP.

Paved Trails

There should be a strong statement that paved trails are inconsistent with a park that is primarily a natural place.

The numerous statements that paved trails are not proposed for FNBP are appreciated. i.e. For Trail Class 4: “do not include asphalt or concrete. The trail will generally have a natural and somewhat undeveloped feel, but with a smooth, consistent, and weather-resistant surface.” (p.91) and “The term hard surface trail generally refers to those with a tread of asphalt, concrete, Road Oyl®, or other impermeable surface. The scope of this plan includes only natural and soft surface trails, therefore no specifications are provided for hard surface trails.” (p.93)

However, this reference suggests that outside of this trail plan, there is another process that could lead to paved trails:

“5.1.3 Hard Surface (Trail Class 5) Where hard surface trails are constructed in FNBP, construction specifications will follow generally-accepted MOA standards for such trails. Those specifications may be obtained through MOA P&R.” (p. 93)

The definition of Class 5 trails says “These trails are commonly hardened with asphalt or other imported material.” (p.48)

With 8 miles of trail designated Class 5, this creates a likelihood of 10 acres of pavement throughout the heart of the park.

Project 12 is a “Paved Trail From Rendezvous Trailhead to Existing paved Trail Along Campbell Airstrip Road.”  That sounds like a recommendation for pavement.  A hard packed gravel trail should satisfy the need.  For bike commuters, bike lanes on the road should be included when the road is rebuilt.

FNBP should be a refuge from pavement.

Who can do trail maintenance and under what controls?

“5.2.1.3 Class-Specific Maintenance

Trails must be maintained to the level and style as per the existing classification. Clearing must not be greater than as described in the classification, and no other work should be allowed that will or could in any way change the classification.” (p.95)

Change “no other work should be allowed...” to “no work will be allowed ...”

What’s the penalty for infringing these rules?   We recommend a statement such as: If work is done that is beyond that allowed for the trail’s classification, the trail will be rebuilt and vegetation replanted to restore the function of the trail.   Restoration in these cases will take priority over other trail work.  Funds for other trail work may be diverted to this effort.

Would NSAA, STA or other groups need permission to clear downfall after each windstorm?  How is it decided who would do what? (p.95 references to blow downs)

There’s a mention of a “Trail Manager” (p. 96) Who is the Trail Manager?  Does each trail or type of trail have a manager or is there one overall manager?

What are the guidelines for volunteer labor? What would NSAA have to do to get a group out to work on the trails? Who do they call?

Any discussion of trail maintenance should include a discussion of the roles of the Trails Day events?  What tasks would be best for these events?What other events could be created to handle other tasks i.e “Weed Warrior Weekend” or “Parkwide Cleanup.”

Encouraging even inefficient use of volunteer labor can help build and maintain the trails but can also create appreciation for the park and the trails.  Groups like Cub Scouts are too young to do any serious work but time in the park introduces the kids and their parents to the park and creates a better understanding of how hard it is to build a trail that we take for granted.

Trunk Trail System

In general, the Trunk Trail system seems to match the current trails and uses.

There are complaints that mountain bikers ride too fast on the main trails.  Making trails wider, smoother and increasing sight distances will encourage faster bike travel and increase this problem. Decreasing the amount of challenging single track trail (for example, the 2.5 and 4.5 k loop trails) will increase the distance mountain bikers must travel to find those trails and will increase the informal development of alternative systems.

Lights

While many park users enjoy the lit trails in the winter, they do not augment the natural environment.  Lit trails should be minimized and suggestions that lit trails are necessary for winter skiing should be removed.  Many skiers prefer to ski at night without artificial light.

The Project 8 lights proposed for the Abbott Road multi-use trail responds to requests from people who now walk on the ski trails and can provide a fast off road route for bike commuters to get to Elmore.

Project 19 will encourage more use from the north side of the park by people who feel they need lights. But this phrasing: “ ... for those residents in East Anchorage wanting to access the Hillside trails without having to drive around to Service High School or the Hillside Trailhead” (p.76),  suggests that lights are necessary to ski.  Only people who think they need lights drive all that way.  There is access now and many people use it. Rephrase the goal of Project 19 to simply:  To provide a lit ski trail from the north side of the park connecting with the lit trails on Hillside trails

_____________________________________________________________________

COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC PROJECTS

Project 10 Upgrade Portions of  2.5 and 4.5 k loop trails

This project description uses the word “improvement” five times in seven lines. (p. 72) “Widening” would be more appropriate.  The idea of the trail classifications is that a higher class is not an “improvement,” it is a change in accommodation for another use.  Widening these trails is not an improvement for people who use them now for great single track mountain biking or quiet walks.

If the suggestion to move and widen Rover’s Run/Mellan’s Way is accepted, this would provide the loop that the wider trail paralleling the north side of Campbell Airstrip Rd. is intended to provide.  This would be preferable to widening the 2.5 and 4.5k loop trails.

Project 13. New Classical Skiing Loop Trail (p.72)

Specify that this trail is not designed for or intended for racing.

Project 14 New Trail Loops from Abbott Loop Park

The area shown for this new trail loop is intended to provide a buffer for the neighborhood to the south.  Those homes went from the promise of continued quiet to the noise of a busy park when the Park’s Master Plan was changed to allow the significant development of Abbott Loop Park The buffer provides some mitigation for that and should not be infringed.

To satisfy the desire for beginner trails, Project 29 will decrease the slope of the hill leading to the Tour of Anchorage trail. The ToA trail is a good beginner trail.  New trails could be built to the north of the Abbott Loop Park in the BLM area.  We understand that this will take the coordination with BLM. BLM’s exemption from the withdrawal will be due for renewal in a dozen years or so.  Maybe the land needed could be acquired then if earlier cooperation is impossible.

Alternatively, remove the ballfield fences in the winter.  That was a part of the advertised plan for the Abbott Loop Park that seems to have been ignored.  The big flat fields would be great for beginner skiers.

The discussion refers to these as “beginner trails.”  What classification would that be using the classes developed for this plan?
__________________________________________________________________

Project 17 Multi-Use Connector From Gasline/Spender Loop Area Up To State Park

An implementation step should be to revise Hilltop Lease to assure that work on the Spencer Loop and this project will not be undone by an expansion of the downhill ski area.
__________________________________________________________________

Project 18 Designate Areas for No New Trail Development

A park that is set aside to remain primarily a natural area should have “leave it alone” as the default development option.

We understand that the popularity of FNBP requires attention to the trails to help maintain the area and avoid conflicts.  Despite that, it does seem that the areas set aside for no new trail development seem stingy.  The map showing the intensity of use (Figure 24) has far more land in the “low use” designation.  More of those areas should be included into Project 18.

ASSORTED COMMENTS

“Winter sports include Nordic skiing, dog mushing, winter biking, skijoring, and snowshoeing.”(p.14) Add downhill skiing (Hilltop), ski jumping (Karl Eid), running and horseback riding. It is important to add the last two as they cause some of the winter conflicts.

Fig 20 showing trail classification definitions for skiing has a “Special” category with 30’ wide trails (3 skate lanes). We do not support new ski trail development to that width.

On page 106,  the list of  "weekly chores" includes "- Spray weeds as needed along the pathways and natural areas. This requires more elaboration. There will be opposition to spraying poisons in the park. Perhaps at this point, it would be best to say "control weeds ..." and  determine how that will be done later.

Comments compiled by John Weddleton