Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/31/1999 01:18 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 131 - ANCHORAGE COASTAL WILDLIFE REFUGE CO-CHAIR OGAN announced that the first item of business would be House Bill No. 131, "An Act relating to public rights-of-way and easements for surface transportation across the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge." Co-Chair Ogan acknowledged that there wasn't a quorum yet, but he said they could take testimony. Number 0142 JEFFREY LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green, Alaska State Legislature, explained HB 131 on behalf of the sponsor, saying that it simply returns to the legislature the authority to approve surface transportation rights-of-way and easements in the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge (ACWR). The bill was introduced at the request of a number of Representative Green's constituents and others in South Anchorage who have an interest in protecting the habitat values in the refuge. Noting that some people have drawn parallels between HB 131 and a proposed extension of the Anchorage coastal trail, Mr. Logan assured the committee that the bill's scope is far broader than one project. He said the sponsor would like the record to reflect that the route for the proposed extension isn't even scheduled to be selected for another year and a half, to be followed by an extensive environmental study that may or may not impact the selection of the route. MR. LOGAN pointed out that there are two possibilities: a coastal route or an inland route. If the route selected is inland, HB 131 would have no effect. If, however, the route selected for the trail is along the coastline, HB 131 would simply allow the legislature to approve, in the refuge that they had created, the final right-of-way or easement for that alignment, which the sponsor believes is entirely appropriate. Number 0362 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Logan to provide the committee with evidence, for the record, of why this wouldn't be considered local or special legislation. The teleconference operator noted that only the Anchorage Legislative Information Office (LIO) was on-line. Number 0557 JEFF LOWENFELS testified via teleconference from Anchorage. A garden columnist for the local newspaper, he is a past president of the Garden Writers of America, a past president of the Alaska Botanical Garden, and a current board member of the National Arboretum in Washington, D.C. Mr. Lowenfels stated that he supports HB 131, which would add a layer of protection for what he believes to be a state refuge. He has lived on the bluff for about 15 years. The tidal salt marsh is unique; there is nothing like it in Anchorage, from either the perspective of fauna or horticultural, and it is extremely fragile. He believes it is not well-understood by even the people who live along the bluff. MR. LOWENFELS told members that any diking or heavy traffic associated with a trail system would impact the very delicate marsh hydrology that enables the plants there to survive, which in turn support the wildlife. The Anchorage Daily News has pointed out in numerous articles how unique this area is in Anchorage. This bill will protect its fragility, although it will not prevent people from going into the marsh, walking around, or taking the time to see what is there. Mr. Lowenfels indicated HB 131 will prevent a situation where, without very careful consideration by the legislature, a coastal trail might be created to the other side of Anchorage, a very different kind of habitat. Number 0782 WAYNE PICHON testified via teleconference from Anchorage, noting that he is a 20-plus-year resident of Anchorage who lives with his family along the refuge. The former coastal zone management coordinator for the federal government in Alaska, he has advanced degrees in wetlands ecology and has authored numerous publications on the subject. In 1982, he was an author of the original Anchorage wetlands plan. Furthermore, in 1978, he co-authored what he called the definitive study of the plants of the refuge. Mr. Pichon stated: As a wetlands scientist, please hear me when I say to you that a surface intrusion into that refuge will inextricably harm the plants that live there. The plants in that environment are unique to Anchorage. They are fragile and do not tolerate even the slightest changes in elevation or salinity. An East Coast wetland, with a plethora of species (indisc.--poor teleconference sound) should the normal (indisc.) pattern be altered. Interfere with the refuge and you will lose the plants that support the wildlife that people clamor to enjoy. In the 20 years since I completed my original work, numerous changes have occurred within the refuge. Notable is the damage done by various manmade alterations. We now have documented that serious detrimental changes to the refuge habitat are occurring as a result of previous activities. I believe your proposed bill sends a strong message to those who would otherwise advocate the alteration of Anchorage's crown jewel. That message is that even activities such as increased recreational pursuit will not be tolerated if the result is damage to the refuge. Number 0950 CO-CHAIR OGAN apologized to those who had been unable to testify at the previously scheduled hearing. Number 0976 RANDALL HOFFBECK, Parks and Beautification Manager, Municipality of Anchorage, testified via teleconference in opposition to HB 131. He explained that the language in this bill will effectively eliminate an option for the alignment of a south extension of the coastal trail from Kincaid to Potter Marsh. This will occur at the very time that the public involvement process for this trail is getting underway. It seems premature to consider this legislation, when an open house to introduce a public involvement plan is scheduled that very day; this public involvement process is intended to bring together all interested parties to determine the guidelines that will be used in deciding the proper location for this trail. MR. HOFFBECK pointed out that although the potential alignments for this trail have yet to be developed, the potential for a trail in the wildlife refuge has been debated and institutionalized in virtually every major planning document for the last 20 years. It appeared in the Anchorage coastal management plan, which was adopted in concept by the Municipality of Anchorage in 1979, with final approval given by the state legislature in March of 1980. This plan allowed for the local government to develop and implement its own programs to suit local needs. Noting that the ACWR was created by the legislature in 1988, Mr. Hoffbeck said that after significant public input the ACWR management plan was published by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) in 1991; that plan allowed that, under certain conditions, coastal trail access may be allowed within the refuge. This was further institutionalized in the Anchorage areawide trails plan, which after years of public process reiterated the potential for a coastal trail existing within the ACWR. MR. HOFFBECK told members that it is clear from these planning documents, developed with significant public input, that the public expects that this potential alignment should be considered. He further emphasized that even without legislature approval the state already has a significant input in the final disposition of a trail within the refuge. Under the ACWR management plan, the siting, design and construction of a trail within the refuge will require a special area permit from the ADF&G. In addition, as a requirement of the federal funding for this project, the ADF&G must concur with any alignment plan that would cross refuge land. When this is combined with the other local, state and federal agencies that have management responsibilities on refuge lands, it seems unnecessary to add legislative approval to the process. MR. HOFFBECK concluded that HB 131 will not establish additional protection for the ACWR, as that protection already exists. It will only serve to nullify the years of effort put into a local planning process and circumvent, among other documents, the current ACWR management plan and the Anchorage areawide trails plan. Number 1224 CO-CHAIR OGAN stated that under the constitution, the ultimate management responsibility for the lands falls with the legislature, and particularly with this committee, although the legislature may delegate that authority through statutes, for example. Number 1279 LORVEL SHIELDS testified via teleconference from Anchorage in support of HB 131 on behalf of the Bayshore/Klatt Community Council, as well as himself and "the thousands of critters whose lives depend on the continued existence of an intact and unsullied Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge." He said he is well-qualified to testify on this subject. He moved to Alaska in 1953 and has been visiting the refuge intermittently since 1955. He has a doctorate in biology, with expertise in behavioral ecology. For the last 12 years, his home has been on the bluff immediately adjacent to the refuge. He has spent thousands of hours in the refuge observing the animals and their behavior. On his own initiative, he has taken hundreds of interested persons - ranging from kindergartners to graduate classes - into the refuge. As a result, he is very familiar with many details of the marsh, including the physical environment, as well as the animals that live there and how they react to disturbances. DR. SHIELDS told members that, based upon his observations in the marsh, there are two things of which he is certain. First, any structure built in the ACWR that is massive enough and strong enough to withstand the wind, tides and other hard conditions will of necessity disrupt the drainage to a degree that the existing ecosystems will be compromised. Second, the birds that nest in the refuge have only a few days each year to court, breed and raise their young; they are extremely sensitive to disturbance. For example, last year he did a series of informal experiments to determine the sensitively of a pair of nesting sandhill cranes to human disturbance. At over 150 yards, the cranes reacted to him by abandoning their feeding and walking their chick back to heavy cover; this was the same way that they responded to bald eagles and a coyote. DR. SHIELDS pointed out that the ACWR is the last sizable relatively undisturbed habitat left in Anchorage. The fact that most of it is a tidal salt marsh enhances its environmental value. He concluded, "It would be a total betrayal of our responsibility as stewards not to preserve this legacy. There are other places where a transportation corridor can be located, but there is only one Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. Just remember: If it goes, it will be gone forever." Number 1463 DAVE CARTER testified via teleconference from Anchorage, noting that his home is also on the bluff, where he has lived since 1993. He spoke in support of HB 131, telling members that the ACWR is a wonderful public resource. Very few areas remain in the Anchorage bowl where wildlife can go with limited disturbance from humans; while that is particularly true for migratory waterfowl, it is also true for other animals. The bowl continues to be developed, and there is little open space. As far as he knows, the ACWR is the only saltwater marsh of its type in Alaska. MR. CARTER referred to testimony that indicated HB 131 would eliminate certain options. He said he doesn't read the bill that way; he believes it simply indicates that the legislature would be involved in approving a right-of-way, but that it doesn't eliminate rights-of-way. As time goes on, he believes the public will realize what a wonderful resource the refuge is, and they will prefer that it not be developed. He noted that it is accessible in winter to skiers, and in summer to hikers. In addition, it is accessible to the public as a view shed along the bluff. MR. CARTER expressed his understanding that the ADF&G has indicated they aren't interested in issuing a permit - and will not issue a permit - for certain alignments within the wetlands through the coastal wildlife refuge. He said, "I'm not sure what the concern is about transferring approval authority from an agency which has already indicated it will not issue a permit to go through a particular area to the legislature, which has not spoken on the topic. I would actually prefer that there be a concurrence between state agencies and the legislature before any right-of-way is approved." Number 1646 DOUG PERKINS, President, Bayshore/Klatt Community Council, testified via teleconference from Anchorage, noting that the council, which represents one of the largest geographic districts in the Anchorage bowl, officially favors passage of HB 131; in their view, it adds a layer of state governmental protection before development of any type of surface transportation can occur in the ACWR. He said the research would bear out that this is a state refuge, not municipal land, which is why the legislature created it initially, out of its own land, and why the state agencies until now have had sole oversight. He stated, "The municipality may have planned on putting a trail on state land, but of course that's up to the state." MR. PERKINS said he is assuming, like Mr. Carter, that there will be - at the very least - informal or formal agency concurrence with any type of permit that is granted for surface transportation in the refuge. The other layers that until now have had sole oversight are the ADF&G and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR); the ADF&G has already disapproved, at the very least, the only form of surface transportation proposed thus far, a bike trail in the area from Spyglass Circle all the way to Potter Flats. MR. PERKINS suggested that the testimony of the municipal parks manager makes it sound as if there are sufficient state protections already in place. Mr. Perkins noted that those protections are the ADF&G and the DNR, and he said the ADF&G had already vetoed a bike trail in this refuge. Since the body with - up until now - sole oversight of the refuge has disapproved the proposed type of transportation, he believes that underscores the fact that this is an area of extreme sensitivity which deserves extreme measures of protection. It necessarily follows that the legislature and this committee are absolutely justified in imposing this expanded layer of protection that his organization believes will be afforded by HB 131. The council encourages its passage. Number 1869 DEANNA ESSERT, Sand Lake Community Council (SLCC), testified via teleconference from Anchorage, saying she would like to address her remarks to Representatives Green and Bunde, and that she wished to submit a resolution supporting the preservation of the refuge that was passed by the SLCC in May 1998. She had served as the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (AMATS) representative for the SLCC. She assured members that the SLCC and those in the Sand Lake area wish to reserve and preserve the refuge for the wildlife and as a unique salt marsh environment. Number 1946 DAVE ADAMS, Member, Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Committee, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He told members that for more than three years he has been a member of the advisory committee, which was established by the legislature to act in an advisory role to the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game. MR. ADAMS told members that the issue of development in the ACWR has been discussed by the advisory committee on numerous occasions, and they have taken formal action, in the form of a resolution, for the purpose of preservation of the marsh from any kind of incursion; that is a high priority for the advisory committee. Mr. Adams referred to the SLCC resolution for preservation of the marsh; he pointed out that the Bayshore/Klatt Community Council had enacted, by an overwhelming margin, a similar resolution after multiple public meetings on the issue of development in the marsh. Number 2031 CO-CHAIR OGAN noted that there was now a quorum. Number 2068 ROD ARNO, President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), came forward. A statewide organization of hunters, fishermen and sportsmen concerned with critical habitat in Alaska, the AOC supports HB 131, he said, and previously has supported and worked on creating refuges within the state. They believe that all habitat in Alaska is critical enough for them to be involved with it. He referred to the extra layer of protection and noted that the AOC worked previously to create the McNeil refuge, for example, which preserved critical habitat for brown bear; even so, recently a "trespass lodge" was starting to get permission from the DNR and the ADF&G to remain in that refuge. These are just the kinds of issues that concern the AOC; when legislation is created intending to protect critical habitat, that should be the case. They support the legislature's having authority to make sure those things don't occur in the future. Number 2226 GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), came forward to testify in opposition to HB 131. He began by assuring the committee and the public that the ADF&G places as high a value on preserving the coastal refuge in Anchorage as do all the testifiers that day. He noted that the refuge was created by the legislature, and its purposes were established in statute, and then the management of the refuge was delegated to the ADF&G by the legislature, consistent with the department's statutory authority; the ADF&G has managed the refuge under that authority since it was created. MR. BRUCE told members that the ADF&G opposes HB 131, however, and the reason has to do with process. They believe this is a management issue. The refuges are multiple-use; the legislature set them up that way to encourage and allow the public to have maximum access and enjoyment of the refuge, as long as those activities are consistent its basic purposes: to protect the fish and wildlife, and the habitat upon which they depend, and to provide the use and enjoyment of those resources by the public. MR. BRUCE noted that the three major urban refuges in Alaska - in Fairbanks, Juneau and Anchorage - do provide access. The one in Anchorage has a boardwalk on it, and there have been discussions about various options for extending that boardwalk or providing additional ways for people to enjoy it. The one in Juneau has a trail on it, and the one in Fairbanks has a trail system. These trails are multiple-use. The uses were all developed through an agency planning process involving the public, local government and the agency. The ADF&G believes that is the way that the legislature intended the process to go. MR. BRUCE told members, "We don't think that you want to be involved in each and every decision about a particular access route; you have delegated that ... to the department, and we take our responsibilities very seriously to manage those refuges consistent with the purposes you established for them, and in line with our other statutes." He said that is essentially the reason for their opposition; the ADF&G believes they have a process in place that allows for these kind of decisions to be made, under the general guidance that the legislature has given them. He concluded, "We think that process allows the maximum opportunity for local, affected people to be involved, as well as agencies and others. And as far as any particular discussion of a trail or a route or a particular corridor, ... that's really not entering as a factor in our opposition to the bill." Number 2415 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES pointed out that no legislature can tie a future legislature's hands, and no management authority is in perpetuity. She asked Mr. Bruce whether he had seen the map titled, "Fire Island Transportation and Utility Corridor," in committee packets. MR. BRUCE said no; he was promptly provided a copy by the committee aide. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked whether her understanding is correct that HB 131 would in no way affect that corridor "too far out." MR. BRUCE replied, "I don't believe so. I think the sponsor has indicated ... that it would not, and that's my reading of the bill: It does not affect it." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES emphasized the importance of the right-of-way to Fire Island, stating her belief that Fire Island has tremendous potential for the future of Anchorage and the surrounding area. Number 2530 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to the one-page map in packets titled, "Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge - Major Public Access Points." Noting that a section within the refuge has had coastal trails for a while, he asked whether those have had any negative impacts. He specified that he was talking about the area between points 8 and 9 on the map, between Point Campbell and Point Woronzof, coming around the end of the Anchorage International Airport. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she believes that is the "Tony Knowles Trail." MR. BRUCE said he isn't clear whether that is a proposed route or an existing one. He then stated, "I'm not aware of any negative impacts on the refuge from the existing trail or the boardwalk. ... I did hear someone testify, in the public testimony, about some degradation occurring, but ... he didn't specify exactly what he was referring to, and I wasn't aware of it." Number 2650 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said he wonders whether there were similar concerns about that trail, and how those played out. MR. BRUCE deferred to Representative Barnes. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES recalled that there were lots of concerns, but primarily, she believes, they were about the amount of money per mile going into the coastal trail - something like $3 million per mile, as well as the potential length. Number 2724 DENNIS POSHARD, Legislative Liaison/Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF), came forward to testify in opposition to HB 131. He first stated that the department is very sensitive to the concerns expressed by previous testifiers. He noted that the DOT/PF, in conjunction with the Anchorage Municipal Area Transportation Study (AMATS), has a project in the environmental document stage that will be directly affected by the passage of HB 131. That project, the Anchorage coastal trail southern extension being developed by AMATS, is significant to both the department and AMATS because it is the "missing link between trails headed north out of Anchorage, on the Glenn and Parks Highways, and south out of Anchorage on the Seward Highway." MR. POSHARD said the planning process is currently underway to consider how to extend the coastal trail from the Kincaid Park shelter to the south end of the Potter Marsh. A public meeting has been scheduled for that very night to discuss the project statement and purpose of need, as well as the public involvement process that will be followed; that public involvement process will bring together all of the interested parties, to develop the guidelines to be used to determine the full range of alternatives for locating the trail. MR. POSHARD said although potential trail alignments have not yet been developed, the potential for some of the coastal trail extension to be located in the ACWR has been noted in major planning documents developed during the last 20 years, including the Anchorage coastal management plan, the ACWR management plan, and the Anchorage areawide trails plan. These planning documents were developed with significant public, local and state government involvement. Mr. Poshard stated: The Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge management plan was published by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and states that, "Coastal trail access may be allowed within the refuge where disturbance to ... fish and wildlife populations and their habitat is avoided; where safety considerations and conflicts to existing refuge uses, including waterfowl hunting and rifle range use, allow; and where compatible with management of ... refuge public access points and the goals of this management plan. The siting design and construction of a trail within any part of the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge would require a special area permit from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game." MR. POSHARD pointed out that federal funding is being used for the coastal trail extension project. The use of federal funds requires that the project environmental process be in conformance with NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act], to ensure local, state and federal agency involvement. This project is being developed through a "404 NEPA merger agreement, which was created to ensure early coordination with the resource agencies." He said the effect of HB 131 would be to add an approval step to the project process, if some portion of the trail is proposed to be located in the wildlife refuge. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked, "The federal highway funds that you're now using for coastal trails, are you up to 20 percent of the federal highway funds now?" MR. POSHARD answered that he doesn't know exactly what percentage they are using for trails, although they are required to be spending, he believes, 10 percent of the federal highway funds for enhancement projects, not just for trails but also for other types of enhancements. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Poshard to check to see whether the department had now gone beyond the 10 percent to 20 percent. She indicated more money should be used for roads. Number 2937 MR. POSHARD concluded by saying the DOT/PF opposes HB 131 for four reasons: 1) there is already an adequate public process in place for dealing with the concerns expressed; 2) the department and AMATS have just begun this planning process for extending the trail; 3) should the coastal route be chosen and the legislature not give approval, there will be a significant amount of money expended in the environmental process for naught; and 4) the legislature ultimately has oversight over whether a trail gets built [in terms of the budget process]. TAPE 99-22, SIDE B Number 2957 [Numbers run backwards because of tape recorder] CO-CHAIR OGAN closed testimony on HB 131. MR. LOGAN responded to Representative Barnes' earlier question by saying, "I have checked with the drafters and the revisor, and they state that because no other general Act could be used, we do meet constitutional requirements on Article II, Section 19, provisions." Number 2935 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move HB 131 out of committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes; she asked unanimous consent. Number 2925 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE objected. He noted that some legislation moves projects from the state level to the local level, so that decisions can be made locally. He asked whether this would have to come back before the legislature, and whether it takes that authority from the community. CO-CHAIR OGAN said it is just on establishing the right-of-way. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER said it seems to have a lot to do with community affairs and municipalities. She recommended that it be referred to the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee, as well. Number 2851 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES responded that because this deals with a park created by the legislature, it doesn't fall within the purview of community oversight. She added, "While they can have due process through hearings, if they so choose, only the state has oversight over this, not communities." CO-CHAIR OGAN verified that Representative Joule maintained his objection; he then requested a roll call vote. Voting to move HB 131 from committee were Representatives Barnes, Morgan, Harris, Whitaker and Ogan. Voting against it were Representatives Joule and Kapsner. Therefore, HB 131 moved from the House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|