Legislature(1999 - 2000)
05/06/1999 02:20 PM Senate TRA
| 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
Number 013
MR. JEFF LOGAN, staff to sponsor Representative Green, stated HB
131 returns to the legislature the authority to approve surface
transportation rights-of-way and easements in the Anchorage Coastal
Wildlife Refuge. The bill was introduced at the request of a
number of South Anchorage residents who have an interest in
protecting the habitat values in the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife
Refuge (ACWR).
SENATOR HALFORD asked what the ACWR will be protected from.
MR. LOGAN replied HB 131 will protect it from a surface
transportation corridor. The Municipality of Anchorage (MOA)
estimates about 80% of "developable" land in the Anchorage bowl is
in South Anchorage and directly abuts the ACWR. Before any type of
development occurs that might include surface transportation or
require a right-of-way or easement in the refuge, the sponsor would
like the legislature to have final approval.
SENATOR LINCOLN brought up an amendment suggested to her that would
delete "surface transportation" on line 12 and insert "a bike path
or trail," to limit legislative oversight to the coastal trail and
ensure the State does not later run into problems if the railroad
upgrades or realigns existing tracks, or if the state expands the
Seward Highway to a four-lane road.
Number 077
MR. LOGAN commented a lot of attention has been drawn to the bill
by people who think it is an effort to kill the proposed extension
of a bike trail. He thought Senator Lincoln's proposed language
might make it look even more like that is the sponsor's intent.
Representative Green is not worried about that specific project but
he does think legislative oversight of a railroad extension could
be a good thing.
Number 100
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC)
decides to upgrade or realigns existing tracks, HB 131 would
require prior legislative approval.
CHAIRMAN WARD asked Mr. Logan to provide Senator Lincoln with an
answer to her question during the meeting.
PATRICK WRIGHT, Chairman of the Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory
Committee, stated the Advisory Committee met on April 27 at which
time it reviewed HB 131. Eleven of the 15 members were present
and all voted to support HB 131. The Advisory Committee has a long
history of concerns about the ACWR. HB 131 will help to protect
habitat against any future development. The Advisory Committee's
concerns are about the habitat and uses of that area. The Advisory
Committee opposes any coastal trail that is below the top of the
bluff.
Number 170
RON CRENSHAW, President of the Anchorage Trails Coalition, stated
the Coalition is confused about legislative involvement in this
issue at this time. He questioned whether the issue concerns
discussions about the shooting range being jeopardized by a new
trail. [The remainder of Mr. Crenshaw's testimony was inaudible.]
DOUG PERKINS, President of the Bayshore Platte Community Council,
consisting of 11,000 residents who border the Anchorage Coastal
Wildlife Refuge, stated support for HB 131. He called the
committee's attention to a study conducted by Wayne Pishaun [ph]
faxed to committee members. He noted the ACWR issue is not a local
issue because ACWR is state land. If HB 131 passes, the
Legislature will be taking back control from DOTPF and ADF&G.
Despite ADF&G's strong opposition to a trail through the refuge,
DOTPF recommends that the refuge be considered for a possible trail
route. He urged committee members to pass the bill from committee.
DEANNA ESSERT, spokesperson for the Sand Lakes Community Council,
and representative for AMAT, the working advisory group for the
South coastal trail, made the following comments. The Sand Lakes
Community Council unanimously supported a resolution keeping the
refuge as is. At present there are nine access points to the ACWR.
Additional development of these access points should be considered,
and legislative oversight should be provided. Sand Lakes supports
preserving the refuge for the wildlife and for those who come to
view and photograph the wildlife. Destruction of the nesting and
breeding areas of waterfowl by allowing hundreds of recreation-
oriented runners, bikers, and joggers is completely unacceptable.
All of the recreational groups have been represented in this
discussion, however no representatives for the elderly or
handicapped have participated.
Number 314
RANDY HOFFBECK, Park Beautification Manager for the MOA, testified
in opposition to HB 131. The language in HB 131 limits the
potential options for the south extension of the coastal trail.
This will come at the very time the public involvement process for
this trail project is underway. The public involvement process is
intended to bring together all interested parties to discuss the
guidelines that will be used to determine approval of the location
of the trail.
MR. HOFFBECK reminded the Committee that the Anchorage Coastal
Management Plan that was adopted by the Municipality of Anchorage
in 1979 had final approval from the Legislature in 1980 and allowed
for the local governments to develop and implement their own
program to suit local needs. The Alaska Coastal Wildlife Refuge
was created by the State Legislature in 1988. After significant
input, the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge Management Plan was
published by the ADF&G in 1991 allowing that under certain
conditions, coastal trail access may be allowed within the Refuge.
This was later crystallized in the Anchorage Area wide Trail Plan
which had years of public process. Even without legislative
approval, there has already been lots of public input. Legislative
approval is not necessary as they will not establish protection of
the habitat which is already protected.
MS. JANE ANGVICK, Director, Division of Lands, opposed HB 131. The
bill requires legislative approval of executive branch action. The
fear is that it would require oversight for any future realignment
of the Seward Highway with the Alaska Railroad. She encouraged
them to consider Senator Lincoln's amendment.
Number 365
SENATOR LINCOLN responded that a note before her says the
Railroad's 200 ft. right-of-way might accommodate the language in
the bill.
MS. ANGVIK replied that she wasn't sure, but thought this bill
would affect the right-of-way of the Railroad and causes
significant concerns.
MR. MIKE SZYMANSKI said he drafted the original legislation that
passed ultimately in 1988. The proposed amendment was inserted
after he negotiated with the Cook Inlet Regional Corporation who
wanted access to Fire Island. The second section was first
intended to give specific geographic locations for access, but he
was assured alignment would be better if developed through the
existing public process. He thought the only reason for the
legislation was to try and throw a road block into the ultimate
decision process for any type of extension to the coastal trail.
If the adjacent land owners are the only ones who have access, it
is an extremely difficult situation because 98% of the access is
from the bluff.
MR. SMILIE SHIELDS said he is a Doctor of Biology in animal
behavior and ecology. He thought the ACWR is such valuable habitat
that there is no way it should be risked at any point.
There are many risks with putting a bike trail in a marsh. For
instance, the wind blows too hard sometimes for a person to ride in
it. He supported HB 131.
CHAIRMAN WARD noted that Mr. David Carter, who had to leave,
supported HB 131.
Number 479
MR. DICK BISHOP, Alaska Outdoor Council, said they are proud of
Alaska's record of providing support for outdoor recreational
opportunities. He thought this hearing and the legislative process
was part of the public process. He was with ADF&G at the time this
Refuge was created and recalled the prolonged and sometimes
contentious efforts to establish and sustain the Refuge and the
rifle range. He appreciated Senator Szymanski's efforts. However,
he was concerned with some uses that might detract from some of the
traditional values and uses of this particular Refuge. There are
decades of experience with the interplay of competing agendas and
how the interests of wildlife conservation and traditional uses,
such as hunting, viewing, shooting, fishing may suffer if not
insulated from rapidly growing competing uses.
He thought it was within the Legislature's purview and their
responsibility to oversee the continued integrity of state refuges.
HB 131 properly meets that responsibility.
MR. DENNIS POSHARD, DOT/PF said they are sensitive to the concerns
of people regarding the ACWR. They have a project in conjunction
with AMATS in the root analysis and preliminary engineering stage
that will be directly affected by passage of HB 131. He explained
that the southern extension is being developed by AMATS. This
project is the missing link between trails heading north out of
Anchorage on the Glenn and Parks Highways and south out of
Anchorage on the Seward Highway. The process of planning how to
extend the coastal trail from Kincaid Park shelter south is
currently under way with the first public meeting being held on
March 31. They are going through an extensive public process; no
decision has been made on any particular alternative.
He pointed out that the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge
Management Plan, published by ADF&G 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
water fowl, hunting, and rifle range use, and where compatible with
management of refuge public access points in the goals of this
management plan. This is a pretty big burden for them to meet.
Additionally, since they are using federal funding for the
extension project, the environmental process will have to be in
conformance with the National Environmental Protection Act. HB 131
would add an additional approval step to the project process if
some portion of the trail is proposed to be located within the
Refuge adding time and expense to the development.
The language of the bill shifts the responsibility for land use
management of ACWR from ADF&G to the Alaska Legislature and could
influence the development of potential alignments and bias the need
for process. The Legislature ultimately has control of the project
through the budget process.
He pointed out that there are other urban wildlife refuges in this
state that have bike trails in them - one in Juneau and one in
Fairbanks. They are highly used and will thought of. ADF&G has
stated clearly they will not issue any permit for any trail
alignment that goes across the ACWR, but that is not true. They
have concerns, but have not stated they will not issue a permit.
Regarding Senator Lincoln's concern about the Railroad and Seward
Highway and whether this bill could affect those, he discussed it
with Dave Eberly, Director of Construction and Operations for the
Central Region and with Jim Kubitz, Vice President of Real Estate
and Planning for the Railroad. Mr. Kubitz confirmed that they do
have a 200 ft. right-of-way for the Railroad. The Seward Highway
is two lane as it goes through the marsh, but it's given that it
will become a four lane at some point. It's envisioned that the
two lanes of the highway could take over the existing railroad bed
and move the railroad further away from the Potter's Marsh area.
He didn't know if that could be done within the 200 ft. corridor.
So this bill could have an effect on that project when it happens.
Removing surface transportation and adding trails in Senator
Lincoln's amendment would narrow the focus of the bill to what it's
really about.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked how much time there is between the time a
project is conceived until they need the legislative approval.
Could it miss one legislative session.
MR. POSHARD replied that the process would normally end at the
environmental stage after receiving appropriate permits from ADF&G,
the Corps of Engineers for the wetlands. Now they would be forced
to take an additional step when the environmental document comes
out to take it to the legislature and go through the whole
committee process.
TAPE 99-12, SIDE B
SENATOR LINCOLN clarified that she meant if they missed the
legislature's 120 day cycle, would that put them back one or two
years.
MR. POSHARD answered that would depend on when they completed the
environmental document. He didn't think it would set them back
more than a year.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if he understood HB 131 to apply to any type
of surface transportation like a bridge.
MR. POSHARD said that was his understanding.
CHAIRMAN WARD noted there was no more testimony.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she was still unsure what would happen if they
left "surface transportation." She moved to delete "surface
transportation" and insert "a bike path or trail" on page 1, line
12.
CHAIRMAN WARD objected.
SENATOR LINCOLN said there is a public process in place and right
now the concern is the bike path and trails.
SENATORS PEARCE, HALFORD, and LINCOLN voted yes; SENATOR WARD voted
no and the amendment was adopted.
SENATOR WARD announced that there were no further comments from the
committee and that they would hold HB 131.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|