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
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 31, 1999
1:18 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jerry Sanders, Co-Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 131
"An Act relating to public rights-of-way and easements for surface
transportation across the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge."
- MOVED HB 131 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 109
"An Act relating to management of fish and game in Glacier Bay
National Park and Preserve and navigable waters."
- MOVED CSHB 109(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS:
Alaska Board of Game
Gregory P. Streveler - Gustavus
Greg Roczicka - Bethel
Michael R. Fleagle - McGrath
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 131
SHORT TITLE: ANCHORAGE COASTAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) GREEN, Bunde
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/10/99 410 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/10/99 411 (H) RESOURCES
3/24/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
3/24/99 (H) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
3/31/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 109
SHORT TITLE: GLACIER BAY NATIONAL PARK
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) OGAN, Dyson, Green, Kohring,
Cowdery, Austerman, Harris, Grussendorf, James, Porter, Coghill,
Whitaker, Mulder, Williams, Sanders
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/22/99 278 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/22/99 278 (H) WTR, RESOURCES
2/24/99 309 (H) COSPONSOR(S): WILLIAMS, PHILLIPS,
2/24/99 309 (H) SANDERS
3/04/99 (H) WTR AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
3/04/99 (H) FAILED TO MOVE OUT OF COMMITTEE
3/04/99 (H) MINUTE(WTR)
3/16/99 (H) WTR AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
3/16/99 (H) MOVED CSHB 109(WTR)
3/17/99 490 (H) WTR RPT CS(WTR) 4DP 1NR 1AM
3/17/99 491 (H) DP: COWDERY, GREEN, MASEK, BARNES;
3/17/99 491 (H) NR: JOULE; AM: BERKOWITZ
3/17/99 491 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (2-F&G, DPS)
3/19/99 519 (H) COSPONSOR REMOVED: PHILLIPS
3/24/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
3/24/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
3/31/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JEFFREY LOGAN, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Joe Green
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 214
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3727
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 131 on behalf of sponsor.
JEFF LOWENFELS
6320 West Dimond Boulevard
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 131.
WAYNE PICHON
2226 Diligence
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 131.
RANDALL HOFFBECK, Parks and
Beautification Manager
Municipality of Anchorage
P.O. Box 196650
Anchorage, Alaska 99519
Telephone: (907) 343-4562
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131.
LORVEL SHIELDS
2140 Shore Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Telephone: (907) 344-6220
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 131.
DAVE CARTER
1920 Shore Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Telephone: (907) 263-8231
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 131.
DOUG PERKINS, President
Bayshore/Klatt Community Council
2130 Shore Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Telephone: (907) 276-1592
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 131.
DEANNA ESSERT
Sand Lake Community Council
6262 West Dimond Boulevard
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Telephone: (907) 243-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 131.
DAVE ADAMS, Member
Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Committee
1520 Shore Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Telephone: (907) 279-0431
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 131.
ROD ARNO, President
Alaska Outdoor Council
P.O. Box 2790
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 376-2913
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 131.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 465-6143
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131.
DENNIS POSHARD, Legislative Liaison/Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898
Telephone: (907) 465-3904
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131.
GREGORY P. STREVELER, Appointee
to the Alaska Board of Game
P.O. Box 94
Gustavus, Alaska 99826
Telephone: (907) 697-2287
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Alaska Board
of Game.
GREG ROCZICKA, Appointee
to the Alaska Board of Game
P.O. Box 513
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-2903
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Alaska Board
of Game.
MICHAEL R. FLEAGLE, Appointee to
the Alaska Board of Game
P.O. Box 33
McGrath, Alaska 99627
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Alaska Board
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-22, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR SCOTT OGAN called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:18 p.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Ogan, Morgan and Barnes. Representative Joule
arrived at 1:24 p.m.; Representatives Harris and Whitaker arrived
at 1:45 p.m.; and Representative Kapsner arrived at 1:50 p.m.
Representatives Sanders and Masek were excused.
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.
HB 109 - GLACIER BAY NATIONAL PARK
CO-CHAIR OGAN brought before the committee House Bill No. 109, "An
Act relating to management of fish and game in Glacier Bay National
Park and Preserve and navigable waters." He reminded listeners
that there had been a public hearing and that public testimony was
closed. He noted that there was a proposed committee substitute
(CS) [version 1-LS0501\I, Utermohle, 3/29/99].
Number 2778
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move the proposed CS for HB
109 from the committee with individual recommendations and the
attached fiscal note(s); she asked unanimous consent.
CO-CHAIR OGAN, as sponsor of the legislation, explained that the
proposed CS simply adds the findings of the legislature in Section
1. In addition, to address concerns, Section 3 [page 3, line 15],
adds the phrase, "that is in conflict", so that it reads, "that is
in conflict with a state statute or regulation regarding management
of fish or game within the park or preserve." He said, "Basically,
we're not allowing ... our local fish and wildlife protection to
enforce anything that's in conflict with the federal regs. So, I
think it cleans it up a little bit and addresses some of their
concerns."
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether there was any objection to the motion.
There being no objection, CSHB 109(RES) moved from the House
Resources Standing Committee.
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Alaska Board of Game
CO-CHAIR OGAN announced that the committee would consider three
nominees for the Board of Game. Committee members would not vote
for the nominees but would pass the names out of committee,
advancing them for full consideration of the House and Senate.
(Resumes were provided for all appointees.)
Number 2681
GREGORY P. STREVELER, Appointee to the Alaska Board of Game,
testified via teleconference from Gustavus. He said the reasons he
decided to serve on the Board of Game were twofold. One, he is
proud of this board and the way it operates, and he enjoys working
with the other members. Two, his last term was an abbreviated one;
he feels that he is just getting to be a good board member, and it
seems counterproductive to stop at this point.
Number 2635
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Streveler his philosophy as it
relates to hunting.
MR. STREVELER answered that he has hunted ever since he came to
Alaska in the 1960s. He believes strongly in hunting and thinks
the mandate of the board is to try to allow it wherever feasible,
on whatever species can support the harvest.
CO-CHAIR OGAN mentioned a regulation that was proposed and then
backed off on, regarding same-day-airborne hunting for bears in
Unit 13; he expressed surprise at that action. He asked if Mr.
Streveler believes that every other possibility was exhausted
before the board went to same-day-airborne hunting on bears.
MR. STREVELER responded that it was the toughest issue in front of
the board at the last meeting. He believes that everybody on the
board really feels that they are looking down the "barrel of a
crisis" coming at them on the moose population there. Although
members had felt pretty strongly that this was a chance to be
proactive, they ended up with different opinions on how to deal
with that. On the first go-round, two members voted against it; he
himself voted against it because although it may be one way of
trying to get the bear population back into a sustainable range, it
seemed to be a rude shock to the public, and the board didn't have
a chance to deliberate on it with full public input. The board
later deliberated on it after hearing a couple days' worth of
reaction, and most agreed that they can't spring it on the public
like that. Mr. Streveler said he hopes in the interim they figure
a way to educate the public about what the board is up against
there. Same-day-airborne hunting may not be the way to go, but it
seems that the normal management tools available to them on bears
aren't doing the job in Unit 13, and they may have to ask for
something heavier-handed.
Number 2428
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked whether the board has addressed opening
the season the way it used to be, where an individual was
restricted to one bear every four years, and whether the board had
considered being a little more liberal in that area.
MR. STREVELER answered that it is pretty liberal now, one bear
every year; they have dropped the tag fee, and the hunting season
is basically as long as it can be. It is the general feeling of
the board that they have liberalized the normal regulations about
as much as they can. However, in spite of considerable more
harvest, the population has stayed up. In talking to other
biologists, they keep coming up against the question of targeting
females, which won't be very popular with the public without a lot
of education on it. He doubts that targeting boars more will
depress the bear population, which is currently a little more than
three times as high as the board's population objective. Research
has shown that perhaps half of the moose calves are killed by brown
bears. The board must find a formula for harvesting the bears
more, while getting public acceptance.
Number 2323
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Streveler what he thinks of the
legislature's delegating a portion of their powers to the board
through the regulatory process versus the initiative process.
MR. STREVELER said he opposes the degree to which the initiative
process meddles in wildlife management. He leans in the direction
of some of the bills before the legislature. Although he doesn't
think it is proper to remove that right from the public, they have
to find some way that it isn't just somebody's bright idea and they
go ahead with it. He emphasized the need for the board to have a
full range of management tools if they are going to get beyond just
allocation, to actively manage animals. He worries about the
degree to which those tools are being taken away from them.
Number 2174
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether Mr. Streveler supports limiting or
eliminating fish and wildlife management by initiative.
MR. STREVELER replied, "I would say 'limiting.' I don't think that
it's probably correct to remove the public's right to do that, but
we have to make them jump through a high enough hurdle that they
have to think about it real hard, and I don't think that amount of
thought is being given to it the way it is now."
Number 2120
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to advance the confirmation of
Greg Streveler. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 2054
GREG ROCZICKA, Appointee to the Alaska Board of Game, testified
next via teleconference from Bethel, noting that he had been an
integral part of the board for three years. He said he would like
to continue to offer the public and the process the benefit of that
experience. Mr. Roczicka indicated he had found out quickly that
board members are representing not just one area but the whole
state. He briefly discussed the concept of fairness, pointing out
that the only time that everybody - "from the environmentalist
tree-huggers to the most avid outdoor
go-kill-'em-hang-'em-on-the-wall" - got upset was over the brown
bear issue in Unit 13. He said the vast majority of feedback over
the past three years has been positive, even from people who didn't
win on their particular issues. He said he is proud to be a member
of the fine group of individuals serving on the board, and he looks
forward to continuing to work with them.
Number 1875
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked Mr. Roczicka whether he believes the initiative
process is working for the good of the state, as far as wildlife
initiatives.
MR. ROCZICKA replied that managing by emotion and what he terms
political biology cannot work for the best interests. He sees a
grave danger in it. It comes across as an either/or situation, and
uses cannot be balanced. To him, consumptive and nonconsumptive
uses are not mutually exclusive; he believes they can be
compatible.
Number 1760
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE made a motion to advance the confirmation of
Greg Roczicka. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 1738
MICHAEL R. FLEAGLE, Appointee to Alaska Board of Game, testified
via teleconference from McGrath. He opened with a prepared
statement, as follows:
I'm honored to appear before you once again for confirmation
to the state Board of Game. It has been a pleasure to serve
my first term on my board, and I would like to respectively
request your support once again.
This past two-and-a-half years have been interesting, given
the variety and complexity of issues facing the board, and the
changing political structures we are faced with in managing
our game resources. We have seen the passage of a ballot
initiative that took away the opportunity for
same-day-airborne taking of wolves, and the attempt through
the same arena to eliminate the use of snares for wolves.
We are faced with the challenge of an Administration that is
unwilling to allow any lethal population control of wolves,
and increasing pressure is being applied by a small but very
... vocal segment of the public to further restrict take. I
fully support any means of combating this run on the ballot
box for management of game resources. I feel that a
constitutional amendment protecting the rights of hunters,
fishers and trappers may be in order, as Alabama did a few
years ago and other states are now doing.
I feel very strongly that good ungulate management includes
predator management, and have been a very vocal advocate for
an increased harvest of wolves through any means available,
including state-sponsored programs. I do not agree with the
non-lethal program currently used on the Fortymile wolves,
however.
Many issues have come before us, and many actions have been
taken, some not acceptable to all segments of the population.
I assure you that I carefully consider an issue and vote
according to my heart, not concerned with a political fallout.
I feel I have been a fair and reasonable voice on the board,
and would like to have the opportunity ... to continue this
service to my state and its people. And I concur with both
Gregs there that this group of individuals that we have on the
board right now is a real pleasure to work with. ... We may
disagree on issues, but we sit down and eat lunch together,
and we work together and support each other, and I'm honored
to serve with them.
In closing, I wish to once again thank you for allowing me to
address you, and wish you all good luck in your decisions.
Number 1596
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE made a motion to advance the confirmation of
Michael Fleagle. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
CO-CHAIR OGAN thanked the three appointees for their work thus far,
noting that this is the least controversial Board of Game
confirmation hearing he had attended in five years.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1573
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:32 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|