Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/25/2002 01:10 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 474-ANCHORAGE COASTAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Number 1120 CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business before the committee would be HOUSE BILL NO. 474, "An Act relating to public rights-of-way and easements for surface transportation affecting the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge." [Before the committee was CSHB 474(CRA).] CO-CHAIR MASEK called an at-ease from 2:32 p.m. to 2:35 p.m. Number 1095 LAURA ACHEE, Staff to Representative Joe Green, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 474 at the request of Representative Green, sponsor. She told the committee that the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge (ACWR) was created in 1988 by the state legislature. She referred to a map that illustrated ACWR's [location] along part of the coastline, adjacent to the Municipality of Anchorage. She said Cook Inlet has a unique coastline because Fire Island protects a section of land from the movement of ice in Cook Inlet. She also mentioned the uniqueness of the area as a habitat for shorebirds, coyotes, and other small animals. She said HB 474 recognizes the fragility and the value of this section of land by requiring that legislative approval be granted before the state acquires or creates any new surface transportation rights-of-way through the refuge. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned some [proposed] alternate routes illustrated on the map. He said the route of most contention is the "orange" route [located along] the bluff - the most critical of the habitats. There is also a "gold" route that goes inland to connect with other existing sections of trails, which would be far less expensive than trying to build a route along the [bluff]. In addition, the [gold route] would connect existing trails, which is one of the concepts - to [allow] neighborhoods, schools, and so forth to utilize the [route]. Most important, the route would stay out of those critical habitat areas and allow a view for everyone, he explained. He mentioned that he was told the gold route offers as much of a view of [Cook] Inlet as the orange route does; furthermore, because of the location's being elevated, more of the inlet can be seen. CO-CHAIR MASEK asked which route is the original trail. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said there is no original trail; the purpose of [HB 474] is to prevent [a trail in that area]. CO-CHAIR MASEK mentioned the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail was at the beginning of the map. He mentioned other existing trails that go through the park. He said there is an area scoured by ice every year that the trail runs along. He also mentioned an area shielded by Fire Island, which has allowed a saltwater marsh habitat to develop; an area near the Old Seward Highway and new Seward Highway; and a previously existing trail. He indicated that a section near the top section of the map is critical [for preservation]. He explained that the concern is that if there is going to be a trail there, then it will be the least damaging. CO-CHAIR MASEK asked Representative Green which [proposed] trail he was rejecting. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he thought the gold route would be better because it avoids some critical areas and home sites on the bluff. He mentioned that putting a trail on the bluff would [require] condemnation. It would [require] habitat destruction to put the trail at the bottom of the bluff, he added. Number 0698 JESSE VANDERZANDEN, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), testified via teleconference. He told the committee that AOC recently held its annual meeting, with about 24 member clubs represented by delegates who voted unanimously to support the passage of HB 474. He mentioned that AOC had worked closely with Dave Adams from SARTA [South Anchorage Regional Trail Advocates] on the issue and on the consideration of different routes. He mentioned writing a letter in support of the gold route at one time. MR. VANDERZANDEN conveyed a primary concern: that future access regarding trails and roads, if they are to be constructed, doesn't limit or impact existing uses such as currently found at the refuge regarding waterfowl hunting and at the Rabbit Creek rifle range. In regard to legislative oversight on that particular trail, he suggested the precedent is fairly clear because [the legislature] initially created the refuge and some of the parameters surrounding the refuge. He indicated the legislature should participate in changes made to the refuge that may impact habitat, existing uses, and so forth. He said AOC strongly supports passage of HB 474. Number 0481 JEFF LOWENFELS testified via teleconference, noting that he lives on the bluff over the proposed coastal trail. He offered his belief that there are some compelling reasons why there shouldn't be a coastal trail in the refuge. He said he had been involved in a number of permitting processes for 27 years; however, this one seemed the most unusual, with constant shifting of environmental proposals and, at nearly every public meeting, a new proposal that someone in the government has brought up. He said there are incredible levels of frustration at meetings - more than anything he has been involved in, including permitting for the [proposed] gas pipeline. There is a tremendous lack of trust of officials because of the political gamesmanship that has been played, he remarked. As examples, he cited the name of the trail, the extension of the trail, comments by the governor that the trail will be down in the refuge, and comments by the commissioner of the Division of Natural Resources (DNR). MR. LOWENFELS expressed disbelief that public officials have gone about the process this way - exposing themselves and both sides to continuous, extensive, and expensive litigation. As someone who lives on the bluff, Mr. Lowenfels said he wants this settled once and for all; he is tired of going to meetings and having people come up with new proposals, the latest being the so-called "fuchsia" route, for which, despite extensive testimony, no map has been made available to the public. He said there is something so wrong with the process that the legislature was asked to "step back in," which is quite unusual. He urged the committee to pass HB 474. Number 0150 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE remarked that many people who live in her and Representative Green's districts are profoundly affected by this issue. She mentioned that she had also experienced similar frustration pertaining to the trail route. She said she and Representative Green had been in touch with the Department of Transportation [& Public Transportation (DOT&PF)]. She told members that a woman in her district had received bad treatment from DOT&PF in her first effort at being involved in state government; as a result, [the commissioner] had since issued the woman a letter of apology. Representative McGuire said she believes it is important to have this second layer of representative process because the process has not worked. She described it as one of the most "dramatic abuses of government" she has ever seen. TAPE 02-20, SIDE A Number 0028 MIKE MITCHELL, President, Anchorage Trails and Greenways Coalition, testified via teleconference. He told the committee the coalition is a nonprofit corporation in operation since 1994, with members throughout the greater Anchorage [area]; its mission is to promote both trails and protected open spaces in the area. He spoke in opposition to HB 474, which he said would politicize, disrupt, and ultimately trump a public process that has been going on for several years - to study alternative routes and pick the optimal route to connect the existing coastal trail with the Seward Highway corridor. He mentioned that the coalition's members feel the process is working. MR. MITCHELL said hundreds of people throughout Anchorage have put [time] into this process - attending various meetings, submitting testimony, and advocating for various routes. He said everyone agrees, and there have been frustrations on all sides; however, it would be inappropriate at this point to step in, at the end of this process, to give the legislature a "trump card" and to [relegate] the entire process to a simple "yea" or "nay" vote, without any real standards for that vote, and without the full understanding of all of the issues that have been discussed. MR. MITCHELL directed attention to those members from outlying areas and said the precedent that could be established by [HB 474] is a dangerous one. He explained that this could take a particular project and potentially bypass the permitting process that has been established - a public process that provides opportunity for input at the grassroots level and that provides certain decision points and certain criteria for evaluation of the various routes and for the [decision] regarding the optimal route. Number 0268 MR. MITCHELL said [HB 474] would ultimately bypass [the process] and [leave the decision] to the legislature, basically disregarding the efforts of [participants] throughout Anchorage. If this were adopted in other areas, then it could potentially put the decision made at the local level at the will of the legislature, [which consists of members] from across the state who haven't had the opportunity to hear all of the information and to carefully consider the various factors that need to go into this decision. He said the Anchorage Trails and Greenways Coalition and its members urge the committee to oppose [CSHB 474(CRA)]. Number 0365 CHIP DENNERLEIN, Director, Division of Habitat and Restoration, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), testified before the committee, noting that he couldn't judge or take responsibility for anything that happened on the project before January 7, but would offer a few observations and take full responsibility for everything he'd done since then. MR. DENNERLEIN told members that the concern over the refuge's value is legitimate. Mentioning that he'd lived in Anchorage for almost 30 years and [previously] owned a house on the bluff, Mr. Dennerlein indicated he and his family have several interests in this area, and that he has spent a lot of time involved in the coastal trail [issue]; in addition, he has been an executive manager for the city and a state park director. MR. DENNERLEIN agreed that the refuge is unique; as an example, he cited the area of no ice scour. He said it is a very important habitat type all through Cook Inlet, such as the Kenai flats, which is why snow geese stop there. He also agreed the orange route is of the most concern because it is located in the "heart of the habitat." He mentioned an aerial map and that Representative Green had pointed out where the refuge widens. Number 0630 MR. DENNERLEIN highlighted the organic soil depth and the nesting in the area; in addition, there is a lot going on in the refuge. He referred to a memo and said: Yes, we did come up with a new, alternative route. Yes, the controversy focuses on the orange route - in particular, the portion of the orange route that runs between the fill area and down toward Johns Park. There's a lot of wildlife reasons I could give you for that - I'd be happy to - but the bottom line is that I would not, as habitat director, issue required permits for that route. I ... am convinced that I couldn't do so under my statutory authority and the values at stake there, and I think we correctly focused on the problem. MR. DENNERLEIN reiterated that he had hunted extensively in the [refuge] area, which isn't currently hunted and was closed by the Alaska Board of Game. The bluff in that area is about 20-30 feet high, and the birds go up against the back of the bluff; there were noise issues, and concerns about shot and shotguns. He remarked that it is also a very important section of true refuge. MR. DENNERLEIN said the process has been tortuous. Many people had put a lot of work into the process, which he would like to see go forward. He offered his belief that Representative Green was correct regarding the area most at stake. A new route was designed because there still are many "checks and balances" to come in the process: coastal management reviews, Title 16 permits, and special areas permits. He mentioned putting together a list of reasonable, viable alternatives that the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) must approve, which will go to the public. Number 0832 MR. DENNERLEIN explained that his desire is to give the public a chance to see the most coastal, in-character route that ADF&G feels it could permit. Indicating the route couldn't be built immediately, he mentioned building, design issues, and techniques [associated with building the route]. He talked about the causeway that would go through the refuge and how it would be built. He said [the fuchsia route] has no associated issues that would require a section of trail to be lifted off and [placed] on another [area] of the map. The new fuchsia route's problems could be solved through design and management. If the FHA puts that [route on the map] and [the department has] requested to take the orange [route] off, then the [fuchsia route] will go before the public, which he said is the point. He told members: Put in front of people what is real - show them a spectrum, from the gold [route] to the most coastal in character that avoids critical wildlife problems that could be issued permits under the law, so they're looking at range of alternatives that's realistic. I think that's the right thing to do, and I think between the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] - the concurrence that agencies have to have - that the routes would be viable and would meet statutes, and all the way through to the courts if we mess up. I think there are many checks and balances. And I finally agree with [Representative] Green's comments on the last bill: if you get into micromanagement, you soon get into a lot of trouble. MR. DENNERLEIN concluded by saying it is about time to put a set of alternatives in front of people that are real and that cover the spectrum, and then let that process play out. Number 0980 MR. DENNERLEIN, in response to Co-Chair Masek, said he was testifying in opposition to HB 474. With regard to specific permitting, a few points in the bill are troublesome in terms of the whole municipality, he added. REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT requested a copy of the [fuchsia route]. MR. DENNERLEIN indicated he would provide that. He mentioned the release of a draft document for the set of alternatives by the [FHA], and said he was hoping the orange [route] wasn't on the [draft document]. He reiterated that he wouldn't permit the middle section [of that route]. Number 1067 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that Mr. Dennerlein had said he wouldn't permit the orange route. Representative Green said it's been a very long and tortuous process wherein DOT&PF has insisted [several times] on the governor's behalf that "we stay on the orange route and argue against it." He remarked that if Mr. Dennerlein could see the error of [the process] in the short time that he has been involved, then it is inconceivable that DOT&PF and others under the administration shouldn't also have [heard] what people have been saying for two and a half years. MR. DENNERLEIN responded, "I think the train left the tracks early on." He pointed out that the [coastal trail route] was going to be managed as a municipal trail project, and the AOC is also correct about uses. He indicated wildlife management and hunting aren't within the municipal charter. The municipality doesn't manage those two things, and those were the resource and use issues on which a lot of the decision would turn, he pointed out. He said he thought it was the managing system that was uniquely ill-equipped to deal with it; therefore, it was good that the resource management agencies became involved. Number 1151 MR. DENNERLEIN said he thought people didn't listen to each other about different species of geese, and that there was miscommunication: geese on the park strip - Canada geese - aren't snow geese. He said, "We sat down and put together some principles, and I think geography works for us." He remarked that the area below Kincaid [Park] is open to hunting. He mentioned the difficulty of getting up and down the bluff. "You could take them along the top of the bluff in that section, separate hunters and trail users forever, naturally," he said. He mentioned that he'd tried to get all of the users together to listen to each other. The technical point is that these routes never went to the agencies, he added. Number 1257 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned that Mr. Dennerlein's predecessor was opposed to the [coastal trail route] because of the destruction that would happen to the habitat, and now he's "not allowed" to talk. Also, the cost issue that had been talked about has suddenly gone quiet; the estimates [indicate] it would be extremely expensive to go into the refuge because of the ice and the unstable nature of the ground, he said. He indicated that building and maintaining the trail would be expensive. He added that the [projected cost] had gone from $300,000 to $2.2 million, although cost overruns are nothing new. He said one big concern expressed to him by people who live there is that people using the trails frequently have dogs with them. Dogs have a tendency to kill wild animals and could potentially disrupt the birds that nest in the habitat. Number 1446 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE referred to a letter [dated March 14, 2002] from Mr. Dennerlein to Kurt Parkan, Deputy Commissioner, DOT&PF. She asked Mr. Dennerlein if he thought ADF&G could be objective if there were a mandatory no-build alternative. MR. DENNERLEIN responded that the letter was for the purpose of putting the alternative [fuchsia route] on the list that the [FHA] approves. He said was not alone in designing the [fuchsia route]; furthermore, his predecessor was very supportive of the process, and many biologists in the department worked as a close team on the [route]. It is consistent with the refuge to bring people to it and provide education opportunities, he said. He reiterated that the problem occurs when [the route] goes above or below the bluff. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE suggested DOT&PF was very careful to endorse a specific route because "they knew they didn't have the EIS [environmental impact statement]." She asked Mr. Dennerlein how he could endorse a route that hasn't been [made available] to the public. She said that Mr. Dennerlein had made statements supporting the fuchsia route. She asked him whether he was endorsing a particular route. MR. DENNERLEIN said ADF&G didn't have any objection to a coastal route. He started to mention the management plan. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE interrupted to ask if [ADF&G] had no objection to extending the route or was in support of a coastal route. She pointed out that the letter Mr. Dennerlein wrote says, "ADF&G has consistently supported that concept of extending the South Anchorage Coastal Trail." MR. DENNERLEIN spoke about correspondence from his predecessors and others that support the concept of extending a south coastal trail and providing people with the opportunity to experience the refuge. He said the concept of extending the south coastal trail is different from a route. In Anchorage, he said, citizens and agencies often support a decision to build a road and then look at alternatives; even when an alternative is chosen, an agency may not issue the permits. He mentioned the interchange for the Parks Highway and Glenn Highway and the permitting process as an example. Number 1726 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked Mr. Dennerlein who designed the route. MR. DENNERLEIN replied that the route was designed by a combination of biologists at ADF&G. He said he was involved in it, although it comes largely from a proposal that ADF&G tried to advance earlier on. The route was based on a concept that the commissioner of ADF&G and the department had tried to propose. He mentioned some refinements made to the route, and some "user perspective" with regard to using existing infrastructure to address issues such as parking. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked Mr. Dennerlein if [the route] was designed at the request of the governor. She referred [to the route] as a "moving target." She said people in her and Representative Green's districts almost had to hire an attorney to get a copy of the orange route and had to invoke the Freedom of Information Act to get one. She reiterated that she wanted to know where the fuchsia route came from and how that process occurred. Number 1932 CO-CHAIR MASEK suggested that Representative McGuire give Mr. Dennerlein a list of questions; she asked Mr. Dennerlein to provide her and the committee with the answers. Number 2119 MIKE JENS testified via teleconference. A resident who lives on the bluff, he told the committee he has been a follower and a supporter of the coastal trail project since its inception. He mentioned that he finds it unusual that such a momentous decision had been turned over to the legislature. He remarked that he doesn't think it should be done, and that this may set a precedent for the future. He said he thought the fuchsia route had some merit and should be considered. MR. JENS reported that with regard to DOT&PF, he'd had the opposite experience of that conveyed in testimony: he'd spent a lot of time with [DOT&PF personnel] and found them gracious and informative. He'd been able to get information whenever he needed it, [DOT&PF] had been very forthcoming, and he had never had to wonder what was going on. Mr. Jens recounted his own frustration because there doesn't seem to be much progress, partly because there are so many differing opinions, hidden agendas, and personal agendas about whether people want this trail in their backyard. Most of the opposition is from people who live on the bluff, he said. Mr. Jens referred to studies and said that most of Anchorage is supportive of the trail. MR. JENS mentioned overhearing information about where the various routes would be located. He pointed out that the boundaries of the coastal wildlife refuge zigzag along the coast and come up to the bluff in a couple places. He mentioned that the trails that have been discussed don't really go into the refuge, but do cross some isolated corners of the wildlife refuge. He said the trail planners had been trying to go up on the bluff to avoid crossing an isolated corner of the boundary, which would knock out houses; he suggested that was absurd and shouldn't be considered. He mentioned that it should be considered, however, whether crossing a corner of the wildlife refuge creates an impact. He also mentioned HB 131. MR. JENS said he didn't think the committee should pass HB 474. Rather, it should be left to the vote of the people in Anchorage, because it's an Anchorage decision; he surmised that [a vote would reveal] that most of the people want to see the trail built. Mr. Jens said he just wants to see some trail built, and doesn't care if it's below the bluff. The fuchsia route is a good compromise and should be given some serious consideration, he concluded, or else all of the money is going to be spent and nothing will have been accomplished. Number 2337 LORVEL SHIELDS testified via teleconference. A longtime resident of Alaska who has a doctorate in biology with expertise in ecology and animal behavior, Mr. Shields said he has lived on the bluff over 13 years and has spent an enumerable amount of time in the refuge; in addition, he is bicyclist and makes extensive use of the Anchorage trail system. For the last five years, he has served as the elected representative for the Bayshore/Klatt Community Council on coastal wildlife refuge issues; in that capacity he has attended hundreds of hours of public meetings concerning the route of the proposed southern extension of the Anchorage trail system. MR. SHIELDS told members he had seen a cabal composed of engineering firms. Regarding the DOT&PF, other representatives of the state executive branch, and the [Municipality] of Anchorage, he said each entity had its own agenda. The engineering companies wanted the profits from the contracts; the more difficult the trail built, the better, he suggested. The [Municipality] of Anchorage wanted the trail in spite of the fact it can't afford to maintain the trails it currently has. The end product of this grouping was and continues to be a collective effort to get the trail built, with virtually no regard for the biological worth of this rare salt marsh ecosystem or the costs of the project, he said. The Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge is a state refuge; it doesn't belong to engineering firms, the [Municipality] of Anchorage, DOT&PF, or the governor. It belongs to the citizens of Alaska, and what happens in any state refuge is important to all Alaskans, he told members. MR. SHIELDS recalled that a few years ago there was a very late spring; a flyover census by the ADF&G showed approximately 1,500 snow geese, 10,000 Canada geese, and too many ducks to count, hunkered down in the coastal refuge waiting for ice-out farther north. These animals were able to feed and otherwise sustain themselves for at least ten days in the refuge because it is an intact, thriving ecosystem. MR. SHIELDS urged the committee to pass HB 474, which would provide the legislature with a valuable mechanism to protect this precious state refuge from being used for damaging, trivial, and sometimes self-aggrandizing projects. He pointed out that if the costs overrun on building, the estimated building cost of $22 million is by the same factor as the planning stage - $300[,000] to $2.2 million dollars. That 11 miles of trail would end up costing $154 million dollars. Number 2502 JIM REEVES testified via teleconference. He told the committee there is an overwhelming consensus in Anchorage in favor of finding some route that will connect Kincaid Park with Potter Marsh and beyond. The controversy involves identifying which route [to use]. He said this controversy has many facets and provokes a great deal of anxiety, bad feelings, and distrust because it affects people where they live. MR. REEVES told members he is one of the people who eagerly and enthusiastically support some resolution of this controversy that will result in a trail. He said he has been very involved in the [trail route] controversy. He added that he had been involved in many other similar controversy's about public lands and trails and recreational developments in the borough; furthermore, this [trail route] has the same characteristics that all of those others do. People on one side of the argument feel there is a preconceived plot, cabal, or clandestine conspiracy; people on the other side think there is some skullduggery afoot because it's a moving target and there's no clear definition of what the proposal is. There's no conspiracy, he said, nor good or bad people [involved]. Rather, there is a complicated, important local decision that must be made in a public process that involves many people and many state, local, and federal agencies. MR. REEVES spoke against the idea of complicating this already complicated controversy by adding one more "theater of battle" or forum: putting the legislature in the position of having one more decision about this is simply a bad idea, he said; it is unnecessary. Opponents of this route through the wildlife refuge argued against it based on concerns about wildlife refuge values and have been very persuasive. He said ADF&G and others are trying to respond to their concerns on the merits by identifying other alternatives that will address the wildlife values and accommodate them. There's no reason for the legislature to step in and attempt to "trump" that process; it's working just fine the way it is, he concluded. Number 2665 MICHAEL DOWNING, Chief Engineer, Design and Engineering Services Division, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, told the committee he oversees his division, which develops environmental documents and does projects for DOT&PF, taking them from the end of planning to the beginning of construction. He said [DOT&PF] opposes HB 474 for a number of reasons. For one thing, it's an awkward way of influencing the outcome. He spoke about prejudicing the environmental document and keeping the objective. He remarked that he couldn't think of a step that would prejudice the outcome more than this bill would. MR. DOWNING said that anytime there is concern about how the department develops a project, there is a tendency to want to add steps to the process. An environmental impact statement is very difficult to do; a whole series of projects are in the EIS phase that the department has had difficulty in completing; adding steps doesn't help. He said this is very early in this process, with much public testimony to go through; it is appropriate for "us" to continue the study to expand the scope of work to look at more alternatives, and for [DOT&PF] to develop a cooperative alternative with ADF&G, he said. Number 2803 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Downing whether any other refuges have required legislative approval. MR. DOWNING answered no. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Downing what [obtaining legislative approval] would do to the process. MR. DOWNING answered that this bill deals with right-of-way acquisitions - the creation of the corridor or the acquisition of property. The federal process doesn't allow the acquisition of right-of-way at this early stage; he indicated [the department] must have an alternative that it has a record of decision in support of. He said the reason is because it prejudices the outcome to make right-of-way decisions in advance of the environmental document's completion. Number 2854 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Downing if requiring prior approval would interfere with how the federal process requires [DOT&PF] to act. MR. DOWNING answered that he isn't sure how the FHA would react to this, or whether it would advise [DOT&PF] in terms of continued eligibility now that the alternatives have been taken off the table. He said [DOT&PF] has represented to the public that these are viable alternatives and has worked to develop the alternatives with public input, but now would have to say no, these won't be looked at further. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Downing if he has had any other areas like this: saltwater marsh, federal habitat, or state- created park. MR. DOWNING indicated DOT&PF had just agreed with ADF&G on provisions that will allow construction of the interchange for the Parks Highway and Glenn Highway intersection. He remarked that [DOT&PF] had done considerable investment relating to that project, including investing [a large amount] of money in habitat protection there. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if he was referring to the saltwater marsh. MR. DOWNING deferred to the ADF&G representative. MR. DENNERLEIN explained that it is brackish water influenced by fresh water and salt water; the rearing occurs not in the stream channel but in the flooded area around those creeks, mostly in fresh [water]. There are several other areas. The Kenai River would be another one "we'll" work together on, and Cooper landing is a major habitat. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned the possibility of alternatives. TAPE 02-20, SIDE B Number 2990 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if coming back to the legislature [with such an issue] is normal procedure. MR. DOWNING responded that under federal highways programs, it's a "4(f)" determination, and in this case this is 4(f) property; "we" can only select an alternative in a 4(f) property if no feasible and prudent alternative otherwise exists. That is the case in refuges, state parks, and federal parks - any kind of recreational facility. Number 2915 BOB BELL testified via teleconference, noting that he is a registered professional engineer who practiced engineering in Alaska for over 31 years, and that he doesn't live on the bluff. He reported that he'd served on the Anchorage Municipal Assembly from 1993 until 1999; one duty was serving on the AMATS [Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Study] committee. When [the coastal trail] project came before the committee at that time, it showed a line running down the bluff. MR. BELL explained that at the time, he'd asked if a route had already been [chosen], and "they" said no. He'd asked why the line was running down the bluff and pointed out that the area of study was everything between the Seward Highway and [Cook] Inlet; "they" had said the line would be taken off, but when it came before the municipal assembly, the line was still there. Again, he'd questioned why the line was still there along the bluff, and was told not to worry about it, that it would be taken care of - which "they" never did. MR. BELL said during a Bayshore/Klatt Community Council meeting there was a debate on the extension of the coastal trail; Mr. Shields was on one side of the debate, arguing against putting the trail in the refuge. In favor of putting [the trail] in the refuge was the project manager for HDR [Alaska, Inc.], which is charged with doing the study, he said. Shortly thereafter, the governor, on two separate occasions, stated that he wanted the trail in the refuge, Mr. Bell said. MR. BELL remarked, "It's blatantly obvious that this project is badly, badly, prejudiced." When "we" asked "them" to look at inland routes, they gave it a cursory review, he said. He referred to conspiracy and distrust and said Mike Jens had testified that he thinks the fuchsia route is a good route; Chip Dennerlein said it would be available to "us" in a month. Mr. Bell asked: Why would Mike Jens know what that route is now, when we don't? MR. BELL said he thinks it is extremely important that the legislature oversee this process, which has a bad history of prejudice towards the bluff route, disregarding the community's wishes. He indicated South Anchorage residents don't want the route going down [the bluff], but want the route up on top so it can connect all of the other facilities in Anchorage. He mentioned that he thought this would be a very serious problem without legislative oversight. He pointed out that the north extension of the coastal trail goes up Ship Creek and out the Glenn Highway, and is not coastal. He said he didn't know why that requirement is placed on "here." He said he could [identify] engineering problems in the process with the trail being down in the refuge. Number 2752 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned the point at which all of the various trails come together. He indicated the plan is to put the trail somewhere along the railroad track. He said the area is steep, and there are hillsides above or marsh below. He asked Mr. Bell what his opinion was of the ability to [place a coastal trail in that area] without disrupting the stability of those slopes. MR. BELL answered that there is already a considerable amount of erosion along those slopes. He said [from an engineering perspective] that he didn't think [it was possible]. He said [the route] would either go down the railway right-of-way or it would cross the highway and go down the Old Seward Highway on the east side of Potter Marsh. He remarked that he didn't think [the route] could get through there. Number 2679 CHERYL SHROYER testified via teleconference, noting that in January her term as president of the Oceanview Community Council finished, and that she was speaking as an individual, not a member of the executive board. Ms. Shroyer urged the committee to pass HB 474. She offered her belief that having legislative approval of a process that has run amok is a good idea. She said "we" are disappointed, disheartened, and discouraged. Mentioning that in 1998 the [council] had decided to maintain a neutral approach to the trail and was assured the process would work, she commented, "Boy, was that wrong. We have suffered through the spaghetti map public workshop; we all drew little lines on these maps." She said the result of the workshop was a short list of alternatives that was very disappointing; it wasn't alternatives [suggested in the workshop]. MS. SHROYER mentioned the viable-alternatives report and noted that during one particular meeting, eight out of ten people spoke against the trail and the way [the process] had gone; in addition, there was a petition with hundreds of signatures against the trail. However, the report said the public was very responsive and positive, which the council could not believe. That was very frustrating, she said. MS. SHROYER referred to the preliminary engineering report and the environmental impact report. She said at each [meeting] all the community council people showed up and testified, but that testimony seems to have disappeared. Furthermore, the governor had a picture taken standing in the marsh and said he wants the trail to through the wildlife refuge, she told members. She mentioned that during one community council meeting, someone had asked what the point was of all the meetings and everything that [the council] had testified to, when the governor stands there and says he wants [the route] through the marsh. She said she didn't know what to say. Ms. Shroyer concluded by pointing out that this process has had an interesting impact on the people in Oceanview: because they are so disappointed, discouraged, and disheartened, they are now angry, and it has steeled their resolve to come to the meetings. Number 2474 JANEL FEIERABEND, Director, Friends of Potter Marsh and the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge, testified via teleconference, noting that the organization's mission is to help protect the integrity of the marsh through education. She mentioned that the organization had just hosted an [event] for which the topic was sandhill cranes as "refuge royalty." The lesser sandhill crane eats, sleeps, and nests like royalty in our coastal refuge because the habitat there so perfectly supports its well-being, she said. The 32,000 acres that comprise the refuge, which extends from Potter Creek to Point Woronzof, were designated as a state refuge in 1988 by the state legislature in recognition of the value of the habitat and the need to protect waterfowl, shorebirds, salmon, many mammals, and other animals that use the unique area. The state was very wise to think about the future and to establish the refuge, knowing that "wild and wonderful" will always have value, she told members. MS. FEIERABEND brought attention to a list of observed refuge life, which can be found in the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge Management Plan printed in 1991 by ADF&G. She remarked that the list had grown since then. Talk of development of any kind in the refuge should raise flags of grave and major concern, due to the fact that the area has been established as a state refuge - home to many migrating birds and mammals, she cautioned. It is managed by the state; any possibility of encroachment by development into the refuge should be studied and analyzed by state decision makers, she suggested. Study and analysis of information provided by state biologists and other experts should be made by the same decision makers that are part of the checks-and-balances system. MS. FEIERABEND also suggested the state decision makers should read reports such as the "Wildlife Field Study 2001"; books regarding the human and canine impact to wildlife should also be [reviewed]. Our state refuge is a unique and special place that hosts a wealth of plant communities, invertebrate communities, and wild animals, she said. Birds fly from as far away as South Africa to use it; the lesser yellow-legged chick, only hours old, walks for miles to settle into it. Mammals of all sizes use it, and [the refuge] is one of the last protected coastal areas abutting the city. These birds and mammals know no boundaries, she pointed out. MS. FEIERABEND said wise statesmen who think beyond municipal orders and concerns should be part of the checks-and-balances system when it comes to state- and even broader-funded projects. It is up to the legislature to weigh in on the protection of the very area it deemed worthy to reserve as a refuge, she concluded, reiterating that HB 474 helps to protect the treasure that belongs to all of Alaska. Number 2207 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked why there is an exception for the railroad and the road, and why those wouldn't have to come back to the legislature, too. They are more intrusive than a trail, she noted. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN answered that the [railroad and road] were there before the park was established. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if [the legislature] had any legal right to take any action on that. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that there is also a reserved corridor out to Fire Island that predates the [refuge]. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Downing why it would be necessary to exempt roads or railroads from [HB 474] if the desire is to protect the refuge. MR. DOWNING agreed that it is inconsistent to require approval for a trail but not a highway. He said he couldn't explain it. Number 2120 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to report [CSHB 474(CRA)] out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 474(CRA) was moved out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|