Talking Points - Public Recreation

A “Best Interest Finding” must focus on more than just extraction.

The PD (Preliminary Decision) to designate the parcel as a “Designated Material Site” and then secondarily to transfer management to DOT, had to have a “best interest finding”. On the last page, the best interest finding used only three considerations: Direct economic benefit, indirect economic benefit, and encouragement of development of the state’s resources. This is wholly inadequate, but focusing on the best interest determination, there was no economic analysis provided for the material designation, the ILMA, or alternative uses, so the first two decision criteria are somewhat meaningless.
The third is derived from the Alaska Constitution and there are some comments added after the section 1 best interest language in the legislature’s Citizen’s Guide that, "This is an emphatic statement that the policy of the state is to encourage the development of its land and resources, but in a manner that recognizes the collective interests of the people as the owners of these lands and resources. The meaning of the phrase “consistent with the public interest” is found elsewhere in this article. For example, it means that the principles of conservation must govern resource management (Sections 2 and 4); that everyone should be treated equally by management rules, particularly rules adopted in the interests of conservation that limit the access of some groups to certain resources (Sections 3, 15, 16 and 17); and that the public must be notified of all disposals of public land and resources, which may occur only according to the terms of general laws (Sections 8, 9 and 10). The delegates wanted the state’s resources developed, not plundered."
The Alaska Constitution recognizes conservation as an objective of resource management in Article 2. Quick highlights are available here.
The State of Alaska (SOA) is supposed to make provisions for recreation land near settlement. Click here to see the highlights in this one page document from our state statutes.
The state is failing in its obligation to provide suitable material sites. For over 40 years the state has claimed the Comsat parcel is the only rock site in the Susitna Valley, which is not true. However, by clinging to an unsuitable site in this misguided argument, the state has also failed to locate and develop more suitable sites, creating their own circular plot line in this story.
The site is clearly not suitable and cannot be made so due to the extremely high value recreation and residential developments already in the area, in alignment with decades of planning. The Comsat parcel was omitted from all the state land use plans since their statutory inception in 1983, under required area-wide planning and inventory. However, the area around this parcel has been developed in lock-step with the Susitna Area Plan and Susitna-Matanuska Area Plan goals. The parcel itself had been selected by the MSB for inclusion in the high-value recreation area from 1965 until 2005. It is the discordant insertion of a very large, inappropriate material site that is out of step with the plans.
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)
Public Recreation is good for the economy, and provides for a sustainable, successful future that is not reliant on the destruction of physical resources but on the conservation of them. The Alaska Trails Initiative has compiled substantial national, regional, and local studies supporting the economic value of outdoor recreation and trails in their Alaska Statewide Trails Initiative 2019 Trails Report. Here are some Fast Facts from their report that don’t appear to be considered by the SOA’s Decisions and rejection of CALLA’s proposal.

FAST FACTS
- $412 BILLION
  Outdoor recreation is the “Sleeping Giant of The US Economy,” providing 2.2% of the total US GDP, larger than fishing, farming, forestry, utilities, or telecommunications. (2)
- $3.2 BILLION
  Annual in-state spending in annual participant spending tied to AK’s outdoor industry (3)
- DEMAND FOR NATURE WALKS & HIKING
  The fastest growing activity for both air and cruise out-of-state Alaska visitors 2011-2016 (4)
- + $137 MILLION/YEAR
  Extra spending if even just half of visitors added "ONE MORE DAY” (OMD) to their AK trip (5)
- TRAIL USERS SPEND MORE, STAY LONGER
  International tourists to New Zealand who participate in walking and hiking spend $3600/trip vs. $2800 spent by all holiday visitors. The average stay in New Zealand is 19 days; in Alaska 9 days (6)
- MORE THAN $126 M STATE & $88 M MUNICIPAL REVENUES
  Generated by AK visitor industry through taxes and fees; funding a wide range community services (7)
- $3M IN SAVINGS
  Due to health benefits of trails in 2015 Mat-Su study (9)
- 81% OF ALASKANS
  Engage in outdoor activities; Alaska’s % is highest nationwide (10)
- 50,000 HOURS ESTIMATED
  Investment of volunteers maintaining & building trails each year in AK
- RECREATION RETURNS ON INVESTMENTS
  Study after study shows money invested in trails and outdoor recreation brings returns of 3 to 10 times the initial investment.
References:
2 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2018). Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account: Prototype Statistics for 2012-2016 3 Economic Development In Alaska Impacts And Opportunities Outdoor Recreation. The University Of Alaska Center For Economic Development, March 2019 4 For visitors coming by air, participation grew from 38% in 2011 to 46% in 2016; for cruise visitors, from 20% to 26%. AVSP VII Section 5 Visitor Activities 5 McDowell Group. Economic Impact of Alaska’s Visitor Industry 2017. Prepared for Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Division of Economic Development 6 NZ Tourist Special Interest Report; Walking and Hiking, 2014 7 Revenues ATIA http://www.tourismworksforak.org/industry-data.html 8 State of Alaska, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation 9 Economic Benefits of Trails, Parks, and Open Space in the Mat-Su Borough, 2015. Earth Economics 10 OIA. (2017). The Outdoor Recreation Economy.
This Decision does not provide the maximum use of the resource for the public. Multiple resource values identified as important are being sacrificed for one use, and that use is costly to the surrounding community. More users will benefit from the land being protected and promoted as public recreation than the theoretical savings DOT will achieve. The community will lose the use of the land, the wildlife corridor, lose the resource of quiet that was uniquely built into the adjacent park, and the development will threaten Kirby Creek, impact the flight pattern over Christiansen Lake, cause road damage and congestion and inhibit enjoyment of the lakes and parks. Our tourism market will suffer. An important tool to manage the demand for accessible recreation and meet the urgent need to disperse visitors at our end-of-the-road town both now, and in the future, will be removed.
Another way to look at the benefit of public recreation is to look at the alternative detrimental effect of having the site expanded and developed into a 113 acre industrial site. To continue on, go to the section on "Consequences"

For a ton of additional info about the good news about trails and recreation, this is the honey pot of links. Begin scrolling here at page 17, Easy to digest; big images with bold topics. Very easy to navigate and you can learn something while grabbing some of their talking points.