Correcting paper’s interpretation

To the editor:

I am correcting the Frontiersman’s interpretation of my testimony concerning Jim Creek at the June 28 Mat-Su Borough Assembly meeting. The Frontiersman failed to report the substance of my testimony and incorrectly reported that borough staff contradicted my testimony.

I testified in support of assembly member Keogh’s resolution. The resolution clarified that the master plan for the borough’s Jim Creek lands should include planning for non-motorized as well as motorized uses. My testimony explained that at the recent Butte Community Council meeting, the borough’s consultant stated that her “marching orders” did not include planning for non-motorized uses.

Borough staff agreed with my testimony. Eric Phillips, the borough’s community development director, testified that he understood that the planning for Jim Creek was exclusively for motorized uses (i.e., that there would be motorized traffic on all trails and in all areas with no areas designated non-motorized).

After Mr. Phillips spoke, the assembly members clarified that the planning process should encompass non-motorized as well as motorized uses.

Mr. Phillips stated that he understood and that the plan would now include non-motorized uses as well as motorized.

Although the assembly did not pass Mr. Keogh’s resolution, borough staff is now directed to include non-motorized uses in the master plan.

The problem in the Jim Creek area is that because of the extremely soft and wet soils in much of the area, motorized traffic causes deep rutting and makes it very difficult for non-motorized users to access the area or safely use the trails. Multi-use of a motorized trail works when it is a hard-packed, groomed dirt road such as the Maud Road extension, but is virtually impossible on the smaller, boggy trails in the area. Planning for the area needs to acknowledge this reality and create separate trails and access.

Elizabeth Friedman

Palmer