Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/04/2003 01:36 PM Senate TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 4, 2003
1:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator John Cowdery, Chair
Senator Thomas Wagoner, Vice Chair
Senator Gene Therriault
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 83
"An Act naming the Sven Haakanson, Sr. Airport at Old Harbor."
MOVED SB 83 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 23
"An Act relating to public rights-of-way and easements for
surface transportation affecting the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife
Refuge."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
SB 83 - No previous action to record.
SB 23 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Gary Stevens
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor SB 83
Senator Ben Stevens
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor SB 23
Ms. Deanna Essert
Roads and Trails Committee
Sand Lake Community Council
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 23
Mr. Dennis Poshard
Legislative Liaison/Special Assistant
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF)
P.O. Box 196900
Anchorage, AK 99519-6900
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 23
Mr. Michael Downing
Director/Chief Engineer
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF)
3132 Channel Dr.
Juneau, AK 99801-7898
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 23
Mr. David Carter
1920 Shore Drive
Anchorage, AK 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 23
Ms. Mary Whitmore
940 Botanical Hts Circle
Anchorage, AK 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 23
Mr. Lorvel "Smiley" Shields
2140 Shore Drive
Anchorage, AK 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 23
Mr. Ted Volin
1610 Shore Drive
Anchorage, AK 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 23
Mr. John Pletcher
13608 Jarvi Drive
Anchorage, AK 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 23
Mr. Wil Bline
1200 Shore Dr.
Anchorage, AK 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 23
Mr. Michael Stolle
14020 Jarvi Drive
Anchorage, AK 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 23
Ms. Joan Stolle
14020 Jarvi Drive
Anchorage, AK 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 23
Mr. Eric McCallun
14100 Jarvi Dr.
Anchorage, AK 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 23
Mr. Boyd Morgenthaler
1180 Shore Drive
Anchorage, AK 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 23
Mr. Matt Bobich
1840 Shore Drive
Anchorage, AK 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 23
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-06, SIDE A
CHAIR JOHN COWDERY called the Senate Transportation Committee
meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. Present were Senators Olson,
Therriault and Chair Cowdery. Senator Lincoln arrived shortly
and Senator Wagoner arrived at 2:00 p.m.
SB 83-SVEN HAAKANSON AIRPORT AT OLD HARBOR
CHAIR JOHN COWDERY announced SB 83 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS introduced SB 83 as a short and simple
bill. He knew Sven Haakanson, Sr. for 32 years and he was one
of first people Senator Stevens met in Alaska. SB 83 would name
the airport in the City of Old Harbor on Kodiak Island for Sven
Haakanson Sr. who passed away on November 23, 2002.
SENATOR STEVENS said Mr. Haakanson was a very influential and
important person in Old Harbor and was its mayor for 27 years,
one of the longest tenures in Alaska. He played an important
role in all aspects of the community. He was a key player in
developing the Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA), and was on
the board of directors and president of that board for many
years. He was a founder of Koniag Inc. and played an important
role in the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA). Koniag Native Corporation named him Elder of the Year
in 2002. The community of Old Harbor supports this legislation.
SENATOR OLSON asked if anyone opposes naming the airport after
Mr. Haakanson.
SENATOR STEVENS said he had inquired and had heard no
opposition. The Old Harbor City Council and the mayor are behind
this legislation. Mr. Haakanson's family was active in Kodiak
for years.
SENATOR OLSON asked if there were any letters in favor of the
legislation.
SENATOR STEVENS said the community was asked to send a letter of
support, but the letter has not arrived. Senator Stevens said
the city council and mayor assured him they are absolutely
behind this.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said in the past, proposals to name something
after the former mayor of Fairbanks and the former president of
the university became tremendously controversial. He advised
Senator Stevens to lock down the support in writing to answer
people's questions.
CHAIR COWDERY said the chair of the next committee of referral
would have that letter.
SENATOR STEVENS said he would definitely get a letter of support
from the community.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved SB 83 from committee with individual
recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note. With no
objection, the motion carried.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:42 to 1:43 pm.
SB 23-ANCHORAGE COASTAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
CHAIR COWDERY told members he intended to hold SB 23 in
committee and have a hearing in Anchorage at a later date.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS, bill sponsor, explained SB 23 is an act
relating to public rights-of-way and easements for surface
transportation affecting the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge.
In 1971, the Alaska State Legislature created the Potter Point
State Game Refuge and later expanded it into the Anchorage
Coastal Wildlife Refuge (ACWR) in 1988. The refuge runs
approximately 16 miles along Anchorage's coastline from Point
Woronzof to Potter Marsh. It is one of the few coastal salt
marshes in Cook Inlet as it is geographically protected by Fire
Island. It offers a unique and popular multi-use area for
Anchorage residents and other Alaska residents providing
opportunity for duck hunting, bird and wildlife viewing, and
other outdoor recreational activities. It borders the Anchorage
Rabbit Creek Rifle Range.
Senate Bill 23 would require approval by the Legislature for a
state agency to acquire or create a right-of-way or easement for
surface transportation within the wildlife refuge. This
legislation is a simple rewrite of the legislation sponsored by
former Representative Joe Green during the 21st and 22nd
Legislatures. Both of Representative Green's bills passed the
Legislature and were subsequently vetoed by the previous
administration. Senate Bill 23 affirms the support of the
Legislature and many Anchorage residents for legislative
oversight in regard to the management of the refuge for right-
of-way easements.
The proposed coastal trail extension in South Anchorage has been
a controversial issue among Anchorage residents for the past
several years. The process for the route selection appears to
have been biased and has lost the credibility of many Anchorage
residents, including those who live away from the refuge. The
legislature is the elected body that authorizes the expenditure
of federal funds for projects such as this one, which would take
place within the refuge, and therefore should have authorization
over a project it funds. Senate Bill 23 enables the Legislature
to fulfill its constitutional duty by ensuring that state and
federal funds are spent appropriately and the legitimacy of the
public process is protected before those funds are expended.
SENATOR STEVENS pointed out Section 1(c) addresses the granting
of a public right-of-way and utility corridor in the refuge as
well as corridors for potential realignment of the new Seward
Highway and the Alaska Railroad. The new Seward Highway and the
Alaska Railroad are exempt from this bill because those agencies
have existing rights-of-way. The thrust of the bill is that an
agency cannot create or grant a right-of-way without prior
legislative approval.
SENATOR OLSON said the Legislature does have oversight of both
federal and state funds, but this is a local issue and the local
people have strong and even passionate feelings on both sides.
Shaktoolik residents don't necessarily care about what goes on
in Anchorage and vice versa. He said he was not sure the people
in Savoonga want somebody from Fairbanks to decide whether they
are going to have a bike trail or some kind of coastal trail. He
stated, "I don't understand why we're involving the whole State
of Alaska essentially, or at least representatives from
different parts of the State of Alaska, on a - what I consider
to be a local difficulty."
SENATOR STEVENS answered,
That's essentially the crux of this debate, why we're
here talking about the coastal trail in the
Legislature. And I take the position, Senator Olson,
that it's a local issue for the decision on how it's
made to get there.... We're not getting into the
selection process, but we are getting into the fact
that I don't believe that it is a local issue. If it
was a local issue, it would be funded locally, but
it's not funded locally. It's going to be funded by
state revenues and if we're going to have a price tag
that's handed on top of us for the latest estimate,
I've seen that it could exceed $65 million. That's one
of the questions why I say we need to know what the
price tag is going to be before we're essentially
forced to fund it. That's the mechanism that this
does, it says for us to say, if we're going to fund a
project of that expense we should know what it is.
It's not a project that's on the STIP [Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program].
SENATOR OLSON referred to the upcoming mayoral race in Anchorage
and asked Senator Stevens if he anticipates that the local
atmosphere will change if there is a change of administration.
SENATOR STEVENS said he thought this issue has probably
transcended three or four mayoral elections and terms of office
and could not speak to that. He noted it has been part of the
long-range transportation plan in the Anchorage Metropolitan
Area Transportation Study (AMATS) for a number of years. They
need to look seriously at whether this is the time to fund what
might be a $65 million trail project. The issue has been around
a long time and he suspected it would continue to be around for
a long time.
SENATOR OLSON said $65 million is a fair number to be looking at
in these times.
CHAIR COWDERY said the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOTPF) officials were present to testify. He
believes this is a state issue since those kinds of funds are
involved.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said there is ongoing work with regards to
the Seward Highway and the railroad and the legislation allows
for those rights-of-way in the refuge. This legislation
specifically picks the coastal trail out for further legislative
action.
SENATOR STEVENS pointed out the right-of-way corridor for the
utilities, the highway, and the railroad already exist. This
would address the creation of a new right-of-way within the
refuge.
SENATOR THERRIAULT stated he shared some of Senator Olson's
concerns about whether the Legislature wants to get involved in
this issue. The previous administration was hell bent on a
particular route that was controversial and was forcing it upon
the local community. He asked how the current administration
views the different proposals.
SENATOR STEVENS said it was a good question and he did not know
the answer. The process in which the routes were selected for
the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) have lost
credibility and that is why the current governor extended the
public comment period until March 7th, 2003. He said he did not
know the current administration's position on the route
selection. The Anchorage public, in his district, does not have
faith in the way the process worked.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if that is the concern in the comment,
"It amends a broken process."
SENATOR STEVENS said that is correct.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if Senator Stevens felt the decision-
making process was flawed.
SENATOR STEVENS said he does. The Legislature would not be
involved in the route selection process, it would only be
involved in the final approval of the route and cost of the
project.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said, "That's what brings me around because
I'd love to help you save $65 million. So, if you interject me
into the process, I'll give you a hand to save that money."
SENATOR STEVENS said he is trying to reprioritize and realign
the use of $65 million at a time like this. The existing
portion of the coastal trail is 10.7 miles and was constructed
in 1986 through 1988. The 10.7-mile construction was fully
funded with general fund (GF) dollars for a total of $10
million. That would amount to $15.8 million in today's dollars.
The extension proposal is approximately 11 miles. The costs of
the proposals are uncertain at this time. Last year, in the
Senate Resources Committee, a member of DOTPF said the extension
would cost over $40 million. Senator Stevens recently received
correspondence between the Corps of Engineers and other
interested parties indicating it could cost upwards of $65
million and, if it is a phased project, it could go as high as
$100 million. He pointed out that during the 1980s when the
existing trail was approved, it was a different landscape in
terms of the availability of funds for projects because free
cash was flowing.
CHAIR COWDERY said the Corps of Engineers informed him it was
not going to spend a lot of time on the permit until a final
selection is made. At the very earliest, that would be late
this fall if everything went well.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if Senator Stevens would be present for
other questions.
SENATOR STEVENS said he could stay for another half hour.
CHAIR COWDERY asked Deanna Essert, from the Sand Lake Community
Council, to testify.
MS. DEANNA ESSERT, Roads and Trails Committee, Sand Lake
Community Council, informed committee members she has followed
this project since 1997. She has the utmost respect for Senator
Stevens' bill, which is the only resolution at this point. This
trail has been hijacked by DOTPF and has been shoved down Sand
Lake's throat. DOTPF has not communicated with people in the
last couple of years outside of an open house or hearing. The
Trails and Recreation Access for Alaska (TRAAK) program was the
vehicle that forced this trail down Anchorage's throat and would
make the property owners pay for the maintenance of the project.
She told members the TRAAK Advisory Board passed a resolution in
November of 2002 that sounded like it was written with tourism
in mind, not for a local regional trail to connect existing
trails. It said the preferred alternative was to provide vistas
and views and other good stuff but it said nothing about
transportation and transportation is what this money is supposed
to be about, not recreation.
MS. ESSERT said Anchorage's existing trails couldn't be
connected without bonding. Residents are consistently asked to
bond for the connection of trails in the Sand Lake area. This
trail extension is going to take all of the available money for
the next six years. The project will end up as some kind of
tourist attraction that will be closed half of the year due to
winds, terrain, ice and all the other issues people are
addressing in their comments. DOTPF actually purports to put
this trail through as an area-wide users benefit. She is opposed
to the project because it does not serve the needs of residents.
MS. ESSERT asked what happened to SB 71.
SENATOR STEVENS answered SB 71 is awaiting a hearing in the
Senate Finance Committee.
1:59 p.m.
MR. DENNIS POSHARD, Special Assistant to the Commissioner,
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF),
introduced Mr. Mike Downing, Chief Engineer for DOTPF. He
explained he did not come with prepared testimony, but did want
to address a couple of items brought up earlier. He said:
With apologies to the sponsor of this legislation if I
conflict in any way with anything that you said, I
just haven't had a chance to come by and talk to you
ahead of time about this legislation. But, addressing
specifically the comments that Senator Therriault made
earlier about saving the state $65 million, I don't
know that this bill will have any affect on saving the
state any amount of money. Currently Anchorage is an
MPO [Metropolitan Planning Organization], a federally
recognized MPO, as is Fairbanks, and they receive
their funding based on a formula which is laid out in
regulation in the department and that formula grants
them so much money from the TRAAK Program and a
certain amount of money from the CTP Program
[Community Transportation Program] and the state
really cannot, by federal law, tell them how to spend
those funds.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if he was saying the funding mechanism
lies with the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Study
(AMATS) alone.
MR. POSHARD said AMATS would have to fund this project in the
TIP (Transportation Improvement Program) and then that would get
rolled into the STIP, which can be approved in the capital
budget each year. The budget contains a line item allocation
for the Municipality of Anchorage.
SENATOR STEVENS asked how long it would take AMATS to fund this
project if it was fully funded for the TE (Transportation
Enhancements) portion of AMATS.
MR. POSHARD said Anchorage gets around $8 million a year in
TRAAK funding from the state under the current AMATS allocation.
Depending on the route chosen and the cost of that route, it
would take several years, unless the municipality wanted to put
forth municipal funds or was able to convince Congress to
earmark funds. If Anchorage were to fund it out of its AMATS
allocation, it would take several years to fund that project.
SENATOR STEVENS said Anchorage could also theoretically come
back to the state and ask the state to fund it as well.
MR. POSHARD said it could, in which case this committee and the
Legislature would have the ability to appropriate or not
appropriate those funds as it saw fit if state general funds
were requested.
SENATOR STEVENS asked how many years it would trump all other
projects if the $45 million project went forward.
MR. POSHARD said he didn't know if there is an exact way to
answer the question. It depends on whether the project is
phased, which route is chosen, and the cost of the route. He
said he could see several iterations. It would take multiple
years under the current AMATS funding level.
MR. POSHARD said the other thing he wanted to address was
pointed out in the fiscal note. The project is under the Section
4(f) designation, which is a federal designation. There would
have to be conclusive evidence in the environmental document
that there was no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of
the refuge land if the route that is chosen is to go into the
Alaska Coastal Wildlife Refuge (ACWR). That is a pretty heavy
burden to meet. He said to his knowledge all of the routes that
are in the DEIS actually avoid going into the refuge for that
reason alone. This bill would have no effect on that, assuming
this continues to be a true statement.
Conversely, the result of not going into the refuge means the
cost of construction of the trail will be substantially higher
because it will require the taking of more private land. He
thought the number of parcels, a portion of which will have to
be taken in order to complete the trail, has been an issue and a
point of contention.
He believes, as Senator Olson pointed out, this is a local
issue. The NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act of 1969)
process - the federally required process, is being followed.
Although many people are unhappy and don't like it, it does
provide for orderly comment from the public and an orderly
process for the public to participate in the decision. The
outcome of that process is yet to be determined. The new
administration is weighing the different options carefully and
has not made any decision yet about how to proceed beyond the
public comment period ending this week.
MR. MICHAEL DOWNING, Director/Chief Engineer, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, added that when
Representative Green introduced a similar bill, the status of
the land and where the boundary of the refuge actually existed
was in question and a lot of debate ensued. The Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) had an opinion, DOTPF had an opinion,
and the Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) had an opinion.
DOTPF and DNR agreed while ADF&G tended to take a different
view. The three departments requested an opinion from the
attorney general with regard to the boundary location. There
were a series of seven questions and a written opinion was
received from the Department of Law (DOL). He apologized to the
sponsor for not having provided the information sooner. He
thought it might help clarify some of the issues.
MR. DOWNING supplied committee members with a copy of the
opinion from the Department of Law dated September 23, 2002. He
explained the opinion clarifies the alternatives do not go
through the refuge. There are a couple of small areas where
DOTPF feels it would be effective to clip a corner of the refuge
with a tunnel and avoid the acquisition of private properties.
That is probably an alternative or an option worth reserving.
CHAIR COWDERY asked if he was saying the route is in concrete
and is not going to be changed.
MR. DOWNING said no. The route is out for public comment until
March 7th. About 100 comments are being received per day and
over 1000 comments have been received. DOTPF will make the final
decision on the preferred alternative based on those comments.
The alternative the department prefers is the modified orange
route, which is a coastal route. It avoids the 4(f) provision of
the Federal Highway Administration. The 4(f) provision is an
extremely stringent law regarding going into these kinds of
properties and makes the project nearly impossible. That drove
DOTPF to find the boundary and stay outside of the refuge. At
this point, in a lot of ways, this is a fairly benign bill
because the trail is not going to be in the refuge.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked how much state and federal money has
been spent on this effort so far.
MR. DOWNING answered in the neighborhood of $5.5 million.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he knew different alternatives existed.
He asked for a range of what the right-of-way acquisition might
cost.
MR. DOWNING answered the total cost of the preferred alternative
is $37 million. That is in addition to what has been spent to
date. He guessed the right-of-way will cost in the neighborhood
of $5 or $6 million and is not the dominant portion of the cost.
SENATOR THERRIAULT referred to the coastal trail tunnels that go
under roadways using big culverts and asked what tunnels Mr.
Downing envisioned.
MR. DOWNING said a couple of places on the modified orange route
have not been nailed down. They are getting a favorable readout
from federal highways, the question being would the 4(f)
provision be triggered if tunnels were tucked underneath the
surface on those corners to avoid having to acquire private
property. The preliminary read has been that the Federal
Highway Administration would accept that as an alternative.
Tunnels would be beneficial in that they would keep DOTPF from
having to acquire private properties, which it tries not to do.
He had not asked the Office of the Attorney General to interpret
a tunnel as a right-of-way through the refuge. If a tunnel were
a right-of-way through the refuge, this bill would preclude that
option. He added that is a minor detail.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said the refuge is down on the flats. He
asked if DOTPF plans to tunnel under the flats or tunnel through
the bluff and what the length of the tunnels might be.
MR. DOWNING said the tunnel lengths would be very short and
placed in a couple of areas where the platting of the refuge
takes corners up into elevated areas. DOTPF thought that was an
alternative to going onto private property. In the scope and
scheme of the overall project, it is minor, but it is not minor
to the people that have the property.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he understood passage of this bill does
not save the state $65 million or even $37 million. These funds
are being controlled by the local organization and may be spent
on other trails. He said it is tough for him, when there are
segments of road that are like driving on the surface of the
moon, to support anything that has this kind of cost. If passage
of this legislation wedges the Legislature into the decision
process that could eventually lead to whether or not those funds
are expended, he would set aside his concern that it is taking
on a local decision and would take the opportunity to wedge the
Legislature in there.
CHAIR COWDERY asked if the tunnel would be going under private
property or public property.
MR. DOWNING said the tunnel would be under the refuge, under
state land. The only reason to use a tunnel is to avoid a 4(f)
determination for that property.
SENATOR STEVENS referred to the comment that $5.5 million had
been spent on the project already and asked the origin of those
funds.
MR. DOWNING said they are all funds that come to the state from
the Federal Highway Administration's Grant and Federal Aid
Program.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if AMATS funds or state federal highway
funds have been spent.
MR. DOWNING said AMATS is using federal highway funds as well.
SENATOR STEVENS said he understood that. He asked who
authorized the expenditure of the $5.5 million, AMATS or DOTPF.
MR. DOWNING said, to his knowledge, it has not caused a
reduction in the AMATS allocation.
SENATOR STEVENS said he was asking whether AMATS said spend $5.5
million on the project or whether DOTPF said spend $5.5 million
on the project.
MR. DOWNING answered the municipality sponsored it, requested
it, started it, oversaw and administered the work and got to a
point where it asked DOTPF to take it over and DOTPF did.
SENATOR STEVENS said he still did not understand who authorized
the expenditure of the funds. He asked if the state is spending
the money on behalf of AMATS and whether it counts against the
AMATS TE project. He asked if it counts against the TRAAK
project or planning and zoning. He asked what category does it
fall in under the CTP or the STP (Surface Transportation
Program).
MR. DOWNING explained it is a state appropriation for the use of
federal aid matched with state GF. It is part of a pot of money
DOTPF uses for project development that is appropriated every
year. It came out of that source of funds.
SENATOR STEVENS surmised that the state has expended $500
thousand on this project already if the state match is ten
percent.
MR. DOWNING answered yes.
2:15 p.m.
SENATOR LINCOLN said this issue has been around for so long and
it goes through different stages. She asked, as written, what
SB 23 is saying to Mr. Downing and Mr. Poshard. She asked what
would the department do differently with passage of SB 23.
MR. DOWNING said since none of the alternatives are actually in
the refuge, the only difference would be that no easement or
right-of-way would be acquired through the refuge. He
interpreted this legislation to exclude the ability to tuck
underneath the refuge with tunnels in the couple of areas where
DOTPF thinks it will be convenient and beneficial to the
adjacent landowner. He thought other than that it would not have
much affect on this project. The process will continue as it
has. None of the alternatives are in the refuge for other
reasons. The 4(f) provision of the Federal Highway Aid Program
makes it so difficult to be in the refuge that the project is
not.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she wanted to go back to the $65 million
since what the state is going to be paying seems to be what the
committee is hung up on. She understood they have no
jurisdiction at all. She asked if it is correct that whether
this piece of legislation goes through or not it still is a
local decision on how the TRAAK appropriation is expended.
MR. POSHARD said that is correct. He then provided background
information. Probably 15 or 20 years ago, when the federal
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) was established in the
reauthorization of the Surface Transportation funding bill,
there was a big national debate. All the large cities, New York,
Los Angeles, Chicago and others, wanted to get their share of
the federal highway pie appropriated directly to them under
their control. The FHA strongly opposed that because it did not
want to have to deal with a thousand entities across the country
when it had 50 states to deal with. By means of compromise,
Congress decided the appropriate thing to do was set up what is
called a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). An MPO is an
urbanized area with a population of more than 50,000 people.
The State of Alaska has two MPOs, Anchorage and Fairbanks. By
federal law, the state can allocate a portion of the federal
highway pot to the MPOs but cannot tell them how to spend those
funds. The MPOs have full authority to make those decisions
through their Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). That
process has been in place since Governor Hammond and one that
DOTPF doesn't really have any control over. Last year, after
the new census, Fairbanks was designated an MPO. Fairbanks is
now completing the establishment of its MPO Board and
implementing the Fairbanks TIP.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if this would be fairly similar to the
Creamer's Field Migratory Waterfowl Refuge, where the City of
Fairbanks and the State of Alaska coexist. She thought that
area allows hunting and is a wildlife refuge.
MR. POSCHARD said the state has several wildlife refuges under
the ADF&G. He added he was not sure if that was going to change.
Creamer's Field is in Fairbanks and Juneau has a coastal
wildlife refuge out by the airport (Mendenhall Wetlands State
Game Refuge). There are trails in both of those wildlife
refuges. He said to his knowledge hunting is allowed in the
Juneau refuge, but he was not sure about Creamer's Field. He
thought those types of recreational activities seem to coexist.
Occasionally conflicts occur, but they are usually handled
through management decisions by ADF&G.
MR. DAVID CARTER, Anchorage resident, spoke in support of SB 23.
He said it is a rewrite of legislation that was previously
approved and vetoed by Governor Knowles. This legislation would
give the Legislature oversight of any new right-of-way. He
thought it was a fairly innocuous piece of legislation. The fact
the former governor vetoed it twice is indicative of the bias in
this whole process from the beginning. He said, "We are dealing
with a project which is supposed to receive fair, impartial
consideration throughout a large project area and it's always
been forced down below the bluff." They are missing a wonderful
opportunity to link other trails in South Anchorage to schools
and recreational fields.
MR. CARTER said it is a local issue but it is also a state issue
and a federal issue as far as some of the funding. In the
December 22nd Anchorage Daily News, a headline read, "The State
takes trail, Knowles wants project finished." That is part of
the problem, it was a local process, people in Anchorage debated
it and the administration did not like the way things were going
and took the project over so it became a state project. This
legislation should be passed to get the state monitoring what
was a very biased project.
TAPE 03-06, SIDE B
2:25 p.m.
MR. CARTER said there would be a change in the process with a
new administration. He said he hoped DOTPF was not going to
engage in attempts to play games with land boundaries by trying
to do land trades to avoid the refuge. It doesn't change the
habitat status of land to draw the boundary farther out into the
marsh. The animals would still use that area. It is a wildlife
refuge that is a valuable resource to the Anchorage community
and should be left as stated in the bill.
MS. MARY WHITMORE, Anchorage resident, spoke in support of SB 23
because the refuge needs legislative protection and oversight.
This bill would protect the refuge that was established by the
Legislature years ago. This trail has never been a local issue;
it was the former Governor's trail. He wanted the trail and took
over the process. She said she was surprised to hear the state
official say the city asked DOTPF to take over the process. The
city was actually booted out of the process. It has never been a
local issue.
The DEIS is an extremely flawed document because from the very
beginning the Governor told TRAAK, his Administration, and the
consultant (HDR Alaska Inc.) where the route was going to go.
The Governor had a photo opportunity in the refuge where he said
this is the only place the trail can go.
MS. WHITMORE asked how many moose, coyotes or wolves know what a
boundary is. The trail goes along the migration corridor, which
is the worse possible route in the world. She asked the
committee to pass SB 23 because the process has been flawed and
because the animals do not know boundaries. She said the Mayor
of Anchorage has written a letter to the Governor requesting the
state to help fund the trail. She concluded the Legislature is
involved and will always be involved in the project. She asked
members to pass this bill and be protectors of the refuge.
MR. LORVEL "SMILEY" SHIELDS, Anchorage resident, explained that
people who live in the west and northwestern part of Alaska
understand this is not a local issue. At times there are as
many as 15,000 ducks and geese stacked up on the Anchorage
Coastal Wildlife Refuge. They spend as much as three to four
weeks in the refuge, particularly during bad years like 2002
when there was so much snow on the ground. There were swans in
a little puddle exactly where the trail is slated to go at the
bottom of his property.
MR. SHIELDS explained the meadow vole is critical to the health
of the salt marsh. Meadow voles winter in the blue joint grass,
that grows in the narrow strip of land following the bluff on
private property. In the spring when the young plants with high
protein content start growing in the salt marsh, the meadow
voles migrate out. Their population explodes because their
reproductive rate is astronomical. Every predator, from bear to
weasels, eats voles. Voles are the heart of the marsh and
contribute serious nutrients to the marsh that migrating birds
require. The DEIS is absolutely flawed. The mammal section did
not include a single mention of voles in terms of the ecology of
the marsh. Excellent theses are available that demonstrate the
harm to a salt marsh when voles are not allowed in.
MR. TED VOLIN, Anchorage resident, spoke in support of SB 23.
He said it would protect the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge
and save money. The DEIS is a bad piece of work. The refuge is
in grave danger from this project. ADF&G, adjacent landowners,
various environmental and sports groups, and most other people
in Anchorage know this danger. Special interest groups acting as
cheerleaders for the former Governor do not care two cents about
the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. The orange modified
alternative route, and suggested variations thereof, would do
major damage to the refuge. It would destroy the natural setting
of 177 bluff properties and change the character of several
thousand acres of suburban neighborhood. [Parts of Mr. Volin's
testimony were indiscernible due to poor transmission.]
He concluded by saying passage of SB 23 would send a clear
message that the Legislature cares about the Anchorage Coastal
Wildlife Refuge. It would help to bring the extension of the
trail project to a halt until a route can be found that does not
destroy the refuge in the South Anchorage neighborhood.
MR. JOHN PLETCHER, Anchorage resident, stated he read the DEIS,
the 1990 area-wide trail plan and the 1999 AMATS evaluation of
this project, which ranked it number three in 91 projects. He
was in support of SB 23 to protect the refuge. Depending on the
day of the week, the route changes: in the refuge, the west side
of the railroad, the east side of the railroad, his front yard,
in none of those places, all of them, above them, below them or
beside them. There is no way to pin the planners down to the
location. He said he could guarantee there is a movement afoot
to place the trail back in the refuge if SB 23 is not passed. He
cautioned members to not be misled by current attempts by
individuals who tell the committee the trail no longer affects
the refuge. It affects the refuge very significantly.
He asked the committee to rethink the words "surface
transportation" in the legislation. There is a raging
controversy over whether this path constitutes transportation,
it may be a recreational trail and probably is. He felt they
need broad language.
MR. PLETCHER said DOTPF hijacked the project. In the 1997 Trail
Plan, in the statement of principles on page ten, number one,
the first sentence states, "The lead agency for planning for
trails for the MOA (Municipality of Anchorage) is the Department
of Planning for the MOA." The last sentence states, "The lead
agency for implementation, which means construction, for trails
in the MOA shall be the DOTPF but only in areas where the DOTPF
has a state right-of-way interest." There is no reason DOTPF
should be involved in planning this project. DOTPF failed to
come by the neighborhood and talk to the people.
DOTPF did not survey large mammals. Moose use the area along
Jeremy Drive as a corridor into and out of the refuge all the
time. DOTPF did a very poor job in the DEIS. The highlight of
science in the DEIS is the historical site survey where somebody
walked over the bluff and found a Superior brand motor oil can,
a 55 gallon drum, a toy tow truck and a beer can and designated
that as a possible or suspected historical site.
MR. PLETCHER said he attended several AMATS Technical Committee
meetings and discovered AMATS had increased the percent it spent
for enhancements from 10 to 15 percent. SB 71 addresses that
percentage. He supports limiting spending to ten percent. AMATS
spent ahead several years. A couple of years earlier AMATS spent
22 percent and this year or last year it spent 19 percent.
Their target is 15 percent per year over a six-year period. He
asked the maximum amount AMATS could spend on enhancements
including trails, and the answer was 100 percent. Spending needs
to be reined in. AMATS is receiving $55 to $60 million per year
and if it is spent at a rate of 10 percent that is $5 or $6
million dollars a year. This $37 million project would burn six
years of the money. At 15 percent, spending would reach the $8
million figure.
He said the number of takings and affected properties would be
200, not 177, because under the Railroad Transfer Act of 1983,
all the properties along Jarvi Drive had reversionary rights to
the easement along the railroad track. Those easements would
have to be condemned and would affect 27 houses. He added
something should be done about the use of the railroad easement
for non-railroad, non-telegraph and non-telephone purposes. The
railroad has been under a good deal of pressure to allow this
facility to be put in the easement and that should be given some
consideration.
SENATOR OLSON asked who is going to oppose SB 23 and on what
basis.
MR. PLETCHER said Senator Olson might recall Mr. Magneson from
McGrath had asked how over $3 million of state money could be
spent as the 9 percent kick-in to federal dollars to build this
project when he has mud to drive on in McGrath. He thought the
people in the rural areas ought to have something to say about
the amount of state money being spent frivolously to study this
project endlessly and to no avail. He suggested some of this
money ought to go to rural areas.
SENATOR LINCOLN said thank you.
MR. WIL BLINE, Anchorage resident, spoke in support of SB 23 and
SB 71. He said the DEIS repeatedly states that South Anchorage
is underserved. People in South Anchorage said they chose to be
underserved and didn't support the coastal trail extension, but
no one listened. He wanted this residential area that was built
with private funds to be left alone.
MR. MICHAEL STOLLE, Anchorage resident, referred to a 1979
geological hazard assessment for the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) and the geology and geophysical survey plot file
map number 32. The survey shows very high ground failure
susceptibility in the location of the proposed trail. He said he
is an employee of the Army Corps of Engineers and suggested the
Egyptians did not build the pyramids on sand. Four doors south
of his home four lots disappeared because of sloughing and the
survey was conducted because of sloughing of that ground. He
said anyone who would foolishly put 37 thousand lineal feet of 5
and 6 foot high concrete wall, place the foundation on sand,
compact the ground, put a trail on it and add a six foot fence
is not an engineer. The fence would definitely stop moose and
other mammals and small animals from moving back and forth
through the backyards.
He said security is a serious consideration. The proposed
project includes three tunnels, one of which is almost 300 feet
long. He did not feel it would be safe to let women and children
walk through the tunnels because the Anchorage police have no
plans for additional security on the trail. There are also no
plans for sanitation.
He said Ocean View Park would be impacted by the planned
addition of 55 parking spaces. The park is a little over three
acres and is used by teens playing basketball and people
picnicking. The plan includes the removal of two tennis courts
and a small sledding hill that are used on a regular basis.
This is a residential pocket park.
2:43 p.m.
MS. JOAN STOLLE, Anchorage resident, told committee members she
owns two lots along the proposed trail expansion. She submitted
pictures for the record showing what her home would look like
with a 14-foot trail on the bluff. She said her security would
be endangered. She also had pictures of the animals that use the
bluff and her backyard to rest, eat and escape the train tracks.
She said she has coexisted with the wildlife for 20 years. Her
home was built in 1971 and she bought it in 1983. A document
that was part of the closing on the house showed the original
developer granted an easement in perpetuity to the United States
of America for the purposes of railroad use only.
MS. STOLLE stated she is totally against the proposed trail and
supports SB 23. There will potentially be great expense to the
state and the municipality as a result of litigation that could
go on and on. People have not even been contacted and don't know
their homes are going to be taken. There are 177 plus properties
that could be affected. Wildlife needs to get up and down the
bluff.
MR. ERIC McCALLUM, Anchorage resident, said he lives on the
bluff like most of the other people who testified. He is a 22-
year resident of Anchorage and a small business owner. He said
he is opposed to SB 23. The 1999 Anchorage trail study said 77
percent of Anchorage residents use the trail system, that is
over 200,000 people, and 48 percent preferred the coastal trail,
that is over 100,000 people. It is obvious that the vast
majority of Anchorage residents support the coastal route for
the coastal trail.
He believes this bill would limit DOTPF's flexibility to develop
a creative solution for the coastal trail. He said he is the
first to admit the orange modified route needs to be re-modified
to reach a compromise for all these affected parties. The
wildlife refuge needs thoughtful consideration. Ironically, the
presence of wildlife is one of the reasons the coastal trail
alternative is attractive to so many people. From his house the
he can hear the volley of gunshots from Rabbit Creek Rifle Range
loud and clear. The wildlife can adapt to loud sounds and can
move to the relatively quiet curtain of the refuge.
The Friends of the Coastal Trail have offered a solution that
would increase the size of the refuge by over 100 acres of
otherwise unusable municipal land. This acreage could be
exchanged for 10 acres of the refuge and allow most of the trail
to be located off most of the private properties. It would be a
win-win solution to work on alternatives and come up with the
best ideas. He asked Senator Stevens to withdraw the bill or
the Senate Transportation Committee to hold the bill in
committee.
MR. BOYD MORGENTHALER, Anchorage resident, spoke in support of
SB 23. He said he wanted to contradict the previous gentleman's
testimony that 48 percent of the people use the coastal trail
and a majority of the people support the coastal trail. He said
52 percent of the people do not use the existing coastal trail
and the majority of the people do not care about the trail at
all.
There is a letter in the DEIS from ADF&G dated September 13,
2003 that describes how the refuge was created. The letter
states ADF&G has valiantly protected wildlife, fish populations
and habitat. The creation of the refuge in 1971 halted proposals
to construct a tidewater highway through a coastal marsh. The
refuge was created to stop a highway through that part of town.
The DOTPF proposal is a 13 mile long, 14 foot wide ribbon of
asphalt down the bluff that is a tidewater highway for people.
The same logic that applied in 1971 should apply today. This
legislation needs to be passed because it is clear DOTPF cannot
be trusted to protect the wildlife refuge and does not respect
the original reason it was created. He reiterated his support
for the passage of SB 23 to protect the wildlife refuge and keep
state control of the refuge.
MR. MATT BOBICH, Anchorage resident, said he lives on the bluff
and supports SB 23. He read a letter addressed to Senator
Stevens, Representative McGuire and Representative Rokeberg from
homeowners whose property may be subject to taking for purpose
of construction of the south extension of the Tony Knowles
Coastal Trail. They asked for legislative action, this session,
aimed at protecting the hundreds of thousands of dollars of
private property that would be harmed by this extension. The
state action should be designed to clarify the state's authority
to condemn private property for the purpose of a recreational
trail constructed outside of an existing or newly constructed
highway corridor. A statute similar to AS 41.21.189 and AS
41.21.113 should be introduced and passed which specifically
prohibits the taking of private property for purposes of
extending the coastal trail. Such action on the part of the
Legislature would be appropriate in the light of the fact the
state has no clear state authority to take property for the
purpose of building a recreational trail that is not being built
in conjunction with improvement or construction of a highway.
MR. BOBICH thought SB 23 is great and provides additional
protection, but it does not address private property issues.
His house is built on top of the bluff but his 177,000 square
foot lot reaches beyond the bluff and extends out into the
wildlife refuge. There is no information as to what would happen
to that property and other similar properties close to the
wildlife refuge boundary. He proposed the addition of language
to SB 23 to protect private property rights.
CHAIR COWDERY asked Mr. Bobich to fax a copy of the letter to
the committee. He announced the committee would hold the bill
and possibly have a hearing at a later date in Anchorage.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Cowdery adjourned the meeting at 2:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|