Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/11/2002 10:40 AM Senate RLS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CHAIRMAN PHILLIPS asked Representative Green which version of HB 474 he prefers. REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN, sponsor of CSHB 474(CRA) am -ANCHORAGE COASTAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, told members he prefers the House version (CSHB 474(CRA) am. CHAIRMAN PHILLIPS asked for an explanation of the two versions. MS. LAURA ACHEE, staff to Representative Green, stated that both bills require the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF), if it seeks to create a new easement through the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge, to come back to the legislature. The House version only requires that DOTPF notify the legislature whereas the Senate version requires approval from the legislature. The Senate version more closely resembles the original bill introduced by Representative Green but the changes made in the House version were more acceptable to House members. She pointed out the difference can be summed up by saying in the House version, inaction by the legislature implies tacit approval of the easement while in the Senate version, inaction by the legislature implies tacit disapproval. From DOTPF's perspective, the House version will make its job much easier. SENATOR THERRIAULT asked why the legislature would want this level of involvement in this refuge. MS. ACHEE replied that this project has been ongoing for several years. Although it went through the public process, a lot of Anchorage residents have felt their concerns were not heard. The Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge is unique because islands protect that section of coastline from ice scour that ravages the rest of Cook Inlet. The protected shoreline provides habitat for nesting shore birds. Many of the proposed trail routes for the coastal trail extension would go right through the prime habitat areas. Biologists and local residents were speaking out against those routes and felt DOTPF was not listening to any of their concerns. The only proposed routes that were showing up on the plans were those through the coastal refuge. Representative Green was asked to get involved because so many people felt the process was broken and asked that the legislature have final oversight authority over the refuge it created in 1988. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN informed members that this oversight would apply only to refuge lands. There is a belt along a considerable amount of the 12-mile refuge and the juncture between the bluff and the flat is where the critical habitat is located in most cases. That would have also been the location of the trail under consideration for two years by DOTPF. SENATOR THERRIAULT asked to hear from a representative of DOTPF. MR. DENNIS POSHARD, DOTPF, thanked the sponsor for agreeing that the House version is a better version - DOTPF takes that position also. However, DOTPF does continue to oppose the bill. DOTPF believes the establishment of the wildlife refuge and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) management plan is sufficient in order to oversee the wildlife and what occurs within the wildlife refuge. He believes Representative Green's concerns are very legitimate in regard to protecting the wildlife, but the federally-mandated NEPA process is working well and will result in a trail route that does protect the wildlife. He noted that the Orange route, which was the most coastal route, has been removed and, in lieu of that route, a new route has been proposed by ADF&G. That is the result of interagency cooperation to propose a route that can be permitted by all agencies that oversee wildlife protection and wetlands management. DOTPF believes the bill is unnecessary but asks the legislature, if it supports the bill, to support the House version. SENATOR THERRIAULT asked who prepared the Senate version. MS. ACHEE specified that Senator Halford prepared the amendment in the Senate Resources Committee. CHAIRMAN PHILLIPS said it is his opinion that if the sponsor wants a specific version of his or her own bill, the sponsor should get it. He said the Senate will have to "slug it out on the floor." SENATOR THERRIAULT stated that if the Senate Rules Committee addresses the House version, it will have eliminated the Senate committee process. He then asked Representative Green if he believes ADF&G is being coerced into moving forward with the route that has habitat problems. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that a significant change recently took place and that his concern is that if this legislation doesn't pass, that "would then possibly get shaken." He noted that an ADF&G biologist spoke against the Orange route, as well as many others, yet that route stayed active for two years. He said the way the Administration is looking at it now is very, very favorable. He feels everyone is in tune with the possible exception of two or three landowners that lie along the new route. He noted the cost of maintaining the Orange route would have been very high and habitat would have been destroyed. He felt the process is now on track and CSHB 474(CRA) am will ensure it stays that way. SENATOR THERRIAULT said he believes the Rules Committee should act as a gatekeeper and decide whether a bill is calendared or not. SENATOR ELLIS moved to calendar CSHB 474(CRA) am with its accompanying fiscal note. CHAIRMAN PHILLIPS announced that the motion failed with Senators Cowdery and Therriault opposed and Senators Ellis and Phillips in favor. SENATOR COWDERY moved to calendar SCS CSHB 474(RES) with its zero fiscal note. SENATOR ELLIS objected. CHAIRMAN PHILLIPS announced that the motion carried with Senators Therriault, Cowdery and Phillips in favor and Senator Ellis opposed.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|