Talking Points - General

• The site is not suitable and ignores adjacent land uses and management intent.
  

  The SOA describes its goals for Material Sites Chapter 2 of the Susitna Matanuska Area Plan(SMAP).

  “Land for State-Owned Materials Site: Maintain in state ownership and make available to public and private users sufficient, suitably located material sites to meet long term economic need of the area for material resources.”

  
  

  From the Susitna-Matanuska Area Plan:

  
  

  Suitable: Land that is physically capable of supporting a particular type of resource development, avoids or minimizes impacts to the natural environment, and is compatible with adjacent land uses and adopted land use plans. (appendix glossary)

• The land is unclassified; a public process and required pre-condition before material can be sold or removed. The Decision also leaves unresolved the 40 acres east of the site proposed to be carved out of the new material site designation. The only suitable use for the 40 acres is habitat. The decision ignores required compliance with land use planning, inventory and classification statutes.
• The decision ignores the long history and multiple land use plans that exist in Talkeetna, the efforts the community has made to prevent exactly this kind of thing from happening, and to preserve what makes Talkeetna unique. Our uniqueness is what helps drive the economy of the town, which is experiencing continued growth.

The Alaska Supreme Court has determined Conservation is a utilization of a resource. Why is "Development" the only utilization that is considered in making best interest findings?

• DNR is presenting information in such a fashion that it is clearly difficult for almost anyone but a lawyer or a land use expert to grasp. Why is this? Under AS 38.05.945, we find the following quote related specifically to providing public notice

  (1) the notice must contain sufficient information in commonly understood terms to inform the public of the nature of the action and the opportunity of the public to comment on it;

  Sure seems like anyone should be able to read and digest their decision, as a result of this legal statute.
• The DNR is responsible to use State land in a manner that is consistent with the maximum public interest (All of us), which can include multiple uses, and retains a mandate for public access. DOT has a single focus mission and will restrict public access to the 152 (or 113) acre site to protect their interests, removing the entire parcel from use and enjoyment by the public. This policy is wildly different from how DNR manages the land. This radical policy shift is not immediately clear to most people, and appears to be omitted or glossed over in the public notice.
• The decisions are presented in a public vacuum denying the public the ability to engage in the process.

• The public notice does not adequately describe what is happening so a common person can understand it, and fails to identify the relationship between the two decisions, or acknowledge other alternatives currently under appeal.

  • A redesignation doesn't mean that it was properly designated previously. The site never met any prior criteria for designation. We have been saying and proving this for two years.
  • A "material site designation" is not the same as a land designation and classification. This can be extremely confusing.

  • Before anything can happen, the land must be classified through the Alaska Statutory Process, under AS 38.04.

    The choice of land best suited for public and private use shall be determined through the inventory, planning, and classification processes set out in AS 38.04.060 — 38.04.070.

    Only then can a "material site designation" be considered under AS 38.05.

• It describes the decision as a "project" without explaining what the "project" is.
• After 56 years of having no public process around this parcel (and 42 years subsequent to DOT's letter requesting use of it), this Decision aims to make that suppressive silence permanent and enshrine it under the material site designation’s deliberate removal of future public input.

• While DNR has not opened the CALLA proposal up for public review and comment, it is clearly a suitable alternative use of the site. Why is DNR making best interest findings that don’t meet the spirit of comparative analysis directed by land use plans, statutes, and regulations?

  Even though public comments have not been allowed, starting in December of 2019 DNR has received a plethora of comments from

  • Chickaloon Tribal members
  • The MSB
  • Members of the community
  • Numerous letters from the Talkeetna Community Council Chamber
  • Talkeetna Historical Society
  • Nearby residents

  ...and other stakeholders who have expressed their support for an alternative use for the site and their dismay at the lack of responsiveness of DNR prior to the Determination rejecting the proposal.

  This is poor land use and resource management. It denies the public any process that should accompany high conflict issues.

• The natural environment is the "product" Talkeetna sells, and has marketed for decades upon decades. We are featured in adventure and outdoor magazines, tv shows, youtube video channels, Alaska marketing materials and have an entire classic television show based on the town’s character. DNR’s decisions have far reaching effects that will permanently harm our “product”.
• It is not in the best interest because it is a long term decision that removes the only piece of accessible public land from the settlement area of Talkeetna that could be used for recreation demands now and in the future. Recreation land near settlement is a primary goal that provides healthy, happy communities and there is no other state public land set aside for that around here.
• This site was intended to transfer to the MSB and should be under their management. The MSB has offered to facilitate a public recreation use. further, the MSB is the most immediate end-user of rip rap in the area, as they are responsible for stockpiling, and maintenance and repair of the dike, not the state. The MSB has decided the site is poorly located, has not undergone the CUP public process which it requires, and the MSB does not think it makes sense to use the site going forward. It recognizes there are costs to the community and MSB that offset benefits from using the site, and there are other sources of rock. A quarry here will devalue the investments and tax base the MSB and citizens have committed to over many years.
• Talkeetna is positioned to take advantage of the national and statewide trends showing increasing numbers of visitors looking for trail hikes and walking tours. The quarry will chill that growth and is misguided in the face of this research. DNR has not evaluated the trends in tourism that support towns like Talkeetna and the elements that make it attractive to visitors. DNR has a mandate to balance land use, but is focused only on extractive resource development that depletes resources, rather that resource utilization and management that conserves it for future economic gains.
• The economic argument favoring trails are extensive and supported by the Mat-Su Trails and Parks Foundation, Alaska Trails Initiative, academic and federal research. The present and future economy of the community and the state will be dependent on increasing opportunities for visitors to have accessible public recreation. There is substantial funding available for trail development, even within DNR’s purview as evidenced by the current public notices seeking applicants for trail development funds.
• The environmental and potential historic cultural resource damage done to the site is permanent. The removal of land features and forms destroys non-renewal resources that can never be returned to the people.
• There is very little accessible SOA public land around the Southern Parks Highway region in the land use plan. One advantage of public lands is the guarantee of accessibility. There has been a constant draining of large tracts of land suitable for dog mushing, skiing, and traditional activities that rely on open space, as traditional trails have been sold into private ownership. This leaves little open space for these traditional uses that can best be provided by the state’s designation of this parcel as public recreation-dispersed.
• Out of step with history - the town has changed and this is not a remote site that sees little traffic or is tucked away from the community. It is the heart of our preserved natural spaces.

• The MSB is sourcing rock from elsewhere at competitive rates. There are 1,000 tons of rock stockpiled at the Talkeetna River Confluence with the Susitna, for emergency use that DID NOT come from the Comsat site.
• If DOT manages the site, the MSB has no access to the State resources. The MSB is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the dike and revetment. DNR would have you believe that they take care of the dike, but this is NOT true. End of story.
• There are other sources of rock. The DOT has exaggerated it's use of the site and records provided by DNR and DOT show there has been no authorized actual use from the site, ever, for DOT. The rock needs of the Susitna area have been met in other ways, which belies the oft-repeated sentiments that this is the only rock source, or the most critical source of rock. It has never been attributed in any major project in the records of the Army Corp of Engineers or the State of Alaska.

• The state should have responsibly developed other sources of rock in the region over the last 42 years, if the urgency of a source is so great. The geologic formations that supply rock exist. DNR just doesn't want to develop them, and hasn't wanted to do that for 42 years. In our TCCI Chair's former experience, rock was barged in. For a project in Homer last year, rock was brought from Seward Quarry. Other sites around here have been shut down because they didn't make sense with surrounding uses, or DOT didn't think they were important. The sources of riprap the state owns are not the only sources. The state has other riprap in the area; they have a site on our Susitna Matanuska Area Plan just down the road, specifically for riprap, that they did not want to develop.

  There are other sources of rock in the 2011 Material Site inventory and in the local area for which DOT has an ILMA. There is a rip rap quarry material site on the 3-10 map in the Susitna Matanuska Area Plan. There is rock in Curry, Gold Creek, Petersville, Montana Creek, Palmer, Knik, and numerous untapped areas. There are hundreds of sites that DOT can utilize.

• The 2012 Flood that caused the rapid evacuation and numerous unpleasent memories for locals was responded to with sandbags and diversion of water. Repairs to the dike and the Montana Creek Bridge took place 5 and 7 years later, respectively. The so called urgency that is implied in access to the Comsat site is a red herring, as these repairs take years to properly plan and respond to.

• Aside from state owned sources, there is rock available from a variety of contractors, including Western, QAP, Skookum in Eagle River, Granite’s quarry, Eklutna, and others.

  By insisting, for 42 years, that this is the only source of rock in the Susitna area, the state has demonstrated the low priority for developing viable rock sources that serve the needs of Alaskans, and this Material Site Designation Decision doubles down on the refusal to develop good, sustainable sources outside of the Talkeetna town’s protected parks and recreation lake area.

  Rather than look to exploit Talkeetna, the State should investigate whether they truly need their own source and seek to use the rush of federal infrastructure dollars or state funds to see this need is properly met.

• We have been told the site’s gravel was not up to grade for the airport expansion in 2016. Does this mean the rock is inadequate for certain projects, and if so, what projects is it really suitable for? When the grade is low, how much overburden material is removed in order to obtain useful quantities - we have seen numbers of 3-5x the material removed to obtain the objective amount. How will that affect the noise and duration of the annual work by DOT?

• The DOT cannot be trusted to properly manage the site. They have a long history of fabrication and exaggeration, have submitted records, such a the DEC form that determines the need for a SWPPP with incorrect information on it, omitting culverts that cross under Comsat road to drain the runoff, and failing to identify power lines in the vicinity, or site proximity to water.
• DNR cannot be trusted with our community resources. The last few years have demonstrated beyond a doubt that DNR will not enforce contract language or adhere to their own regulations or state statutes. They have deliberately cultivated policy such as favoring extraction over other resource utilization, procedures like reducing the stringency of contracts to the point of silliness, and a culture of opacity that are detrimental to communities. Lack of enforcement of basic contract compliance harms the public, and diminishes safe- guards, people-centric regulation of land uses, and compromises public processes such as public notice, transparent rule changes and public records reviews.
• During the past two years of illicit activity, DNR ignored all input that could have allowed them to course-correct. The only way to obtain compliance from DNR is through the legal system. This is a wide-spread belief that speaks to a substantial lack of trust. Small communities and individuals cannot afford to fund legal challenges to an agency hell-bent on resource extraction with a full staff of attorneys. It is $85.00/hr for the public to even access public records. Further, the people are unable to assert their public rights due to the "loser pays" provisions in challenging the state. The entire system is set up against public participation and oversight of state agencies, and DNR behaves unlawfully, secure in the barriers to accountability that are in place.
• There is a troublesome pattern of DOT making misrepresentations about the site. They appear to have put their agenda to obtain control of as many sites as possible above their ethical values.
• DNR material sales staff made deliberate misrepresentations about the site to legislators in documented emails. This type of behavior is unlawful and further damages the public trust.
• The 2012 legislative change to material sale disposals removing public notice is not in keeping with the Alaska State Constitution’s Article VIII, section 10. In the Citizen’s Guide to the Constitution, the purpose of providing prior public notice of individual disposals is to prevent corruption.
  • Members of the community have thoroughly documented several years of non-compliance by government agencies and their contractor. Shockingly egregious in totality, we have had no voice in the ongoing contracts specifically due to this egregious provision of the statute, and on a site that did not meet the criteria to be designated in the first place. At the end of this road, they now propose to legitimize and profit from their unlawful behavior on the site, at what has been a very steep cost to the community. Based on prior public records demonstrating DNR's collective effort to find ways around permits to avoid public notice requirements, the current strategy is not surprising, but it is gross behavior.
  • Unresolved behaviors such as lying to legislators, chronically missing accounting vouchers, disposal agreements not revealed in contracts, discrepencies between amounts removed and amounts delivered, DNR "looking the other way" at unlawful stockpiling, and apparent "off the books" sales, documented leaking equipment, allowing multiple sales from a site without a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Subversion of other agencies are all signs of an unchecked agency, without public oversight.
  • The behaviors that went on in the Comsat site appeared mysterious. For example the same contractor we complained had no Certificate of Fitness for blasting was allowed to continue for two years. When the oversight agency investigated and prepared a letter of cease and desist, DNR got involved and the order was rescinded/cancelled. Yet, when the same operator went to another location, and just two weeks after their final extraction here, that contract was suspended until they resolved the same issue. The same thing happened with a federal mining permit and reports of leaking equipment, lack of required SHPO survey, and non-compliance with blasting notifications. Repetitive violations here resulted in public records reviews that showed Commissioner Feige shrugging it off with casual remarks about her taking the contractor to the woodshed, when it should have resulted in meaningful consequences.
  • The CALLA organization has pointed out in their legal draft that the statute is unconstitutional. The Comsat area problems of management and oversight are a case study on why the constitutional framers thought to insert a provision to prevent just such behavior. We cannot afford to let the fox guard the henhouse any longer. Accepting an open disposal land status, "Material Site Designation", that removes public comment and the public process specifically there to keep our government in check, in the highly corruptible extraction industry category, should not be approved and cannot be in our best interest.
  
  Is the DNR prepared to defend CALLA’s constitutional claims in court? What will this cost the SOA (the public)? Is the cost of legal defense part of the SOA’s estimates of the economic value in the best interest finding?
• This site, where an independent third party contractor extracted and sold material to multiple buyers in any given year, for use in state and MSB contracts as well as federally funded and permitted public works, has been operated without a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with DNR’s complete concurrence and awareness. DNR appears to have protected their contracts and contractor in this site from enforcement by other agencies. Why didn’t DNR require operations on DNR managed public land to comply with federal and state laws? Regardless of the site’s future management, there can be no trust in the agency. The best use of this site is to turn it over to the MSB for management as public recreation-dispersed and habitat.

• The exaggeration of the use of the site is constant and belied by the ADL record. However, the case-file for ADL 231512 contains several material sales attributed to the site in the 1980s that appear to have irregularities. For example, one is for 1,200 cubic yards (cy) of gravel from "Gibson Rd" for realignment of Montana Creek Road, but the record shows it was fulfilled with 1,200 cy of riprap from Comsat Rd. DNR is now omitting these questionable records during the ongoing proceedings.

  Why aren’t the other records that exist in the case-file during those years being included? Do they not accurately represent the use of the site?

  The parcel was selected by the MSB in 1965. The preliminary decision (PD) states it was intended to transfer to the MSB from 1965 until 2005. Yet, at the last minute, the parcel was withdrawn. What happened?

  Records submitted in DNR’s appeal to the MSB over the CUP determination show DNR solicited DOT to change their “no objection” comments after the transfer was sent out for public notice, and the comments had been closed for over two weeks. DOT did so, but justified their amended comments with statements that do not reflect the record.

  DOT said the Comsat site parcel was authorized to them from BLM for example. The patent records don’t show this, nor does the initial letter written to DNR in 1979 by DOT to request use of the site. These apparently erroneous amended comments, made two weeks after the comments had closed, appear to be what caused the long-standing transfer to the MSB for inclusion in the MSB’s adjacent parklands to be denied.

  The history of the site is riddled with improper activity and unlawful operation. This activity is now being used to justify further use of the site. Without proper safeguards this can and probably does happen around the state all the time. The public should be allowed to see what DOT and DNR are up to, given this long history. The agencies should not be allowed to claim the illegal development of the site now gives direction to the opportunity to use a “developed" site. This is a complete perversion of the public trust.

• On October 13th, 2021 during the hearing for the Conditional Use Permit (CUP), DOT announced they had been operating the site under a "tacit ILMA" (for 42 years), which is effectively a handshake deal. No actual record, just trust us, we swear everything has been done as it should be. This is against the Alaska State Constitution, Statutes and Regulations. It is not lawful.

  You can listen to DOT's Renee Goentzel testimony:

  Next you can contrast this testimony with some documents from the same hearing.

• The land use conflicts inherent in having such a huge site are completely unaddressed. Efforts cited by DNR to “mitigate” conflicts were wholly inadequate and did not protect from the detrimental health, environmental and quality of life degradations that occurred even at a much smaller scale. The site is poorly located and mitigation will not be a useful strategy due to surrounding sensitive lands, native heritage sites nearby, residential subdivisions, recreational lakes, developed recreational parks with a management intent for quiet, and the wildlife corridors.

  Currently the site has developed 8-11 acres, but arguably the preceding 4 years of extraction have taken place in just a few acres in the northwest corner. The impacts have been substantial and outsized due to proximity to lakes, recreation and residences. Expanding that over untold years into the future, to develop the whole of the site, as is planned, will be impossible to mitigate.

• The water table here flows to the Talkeetna and Christiansen Lakes, where it comes up in the form of springs. There is no way to operate the parcel without impacting the water. Residents rely on wells in Talkeetna and our water will be affected. The operations of the past contractor have broken into a part of the water table, creating waterfalls and cascades from the quarry wall during early summer, which this year slowed to a constant seep of running water throughout the driest part of the year. This water should have remained underground, filtered until it reaches its destination lakes. Instead the water’s closed system has been breached. This remains unaddressed.
• Contamination was reported on-site due to leaking equipment and unreported hazardous material. It was documented in photos and videos throughout the winter of 2020. No reports were addressed and DEC did not follow up after DNR said they would take care of it. The DOT site development plan states there is no known contamination on site. When reports are suppressed there cannot be accurate assessment of the condition of the site. This has not been addressed.
• The impacts to the SPUR and Comsat Road have not been addressed. Who pays for this damage, how much repair work will be required to support heavy loads annually and for the future extraction? Will roads be built into the site to reach additional areas of extraction?

• The DOT development plan was not made a part of the ILMA public notice. Nor were the terms of the ILMA disclosed, such as the duration and management terms.
  Why isn’t this information made transparent to the public?
  Will independent contractors be allowed on site?
  Will DOT hire third party contractors to extract the 5000-20,000 cubic yards annually they outline in their development plan?
  What are these anticipated costs to the state and how was the analysis of those costs considered balanced against the costs of alternative uses, including public recreation?
  Will DOT restrict their use to local maintenance operations or will it use the site for more distant uses or for their Construction division?
  What projects are in development stages or forecast for the area in the next 25 years that the public might not know about, but for which sources of material are being identified now?
• The ILMA will restrict the MSB and independent contractors from using the site.

• What kind of analysis has been done to justify setting aside the entire 152/113 acres?
  Is it being removed from the public use "just in case there might be usable materials in portions of the site?”
  Since no studies have been done, according to public records, how was the site size justified?
  What projects are being considered to justify that size?
• Permits have not been obtained that were required by contracts and regulations. Without those permits, it is impossible to tell what has occurred in the site.