Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/05/2002 08:10 AM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 5, 2002
8:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Carl Morgan, Co-Chair
Representative Andrew Halcro
Representative Drew Scalzi
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Gretchen Guess
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 474
"An Act relating to public rights-of-way and easements for
surface transportation affecting the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife
Refuge."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 474
SHORT TITLE:ANCHORAGE COASTAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)GREEN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/19/02 2315 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/02 2315 (H) CRA, RES
03/05/02 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 404
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 474.
LAURA ACHEE, Staff
to Representative Joe Green
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 404
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the sponsor of HB
474, Representative Green.
MARGARET KLATT
530 Oceanview Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to support HB 474.
[LORVEL] SHIELDS
2140 Shore Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to pass HB 474.
WAYNE PICHON, Secretary
Bayshore/Klatt Community Council
2726 Diligence
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to get [ACWR] under
legislative oversight.
PHIL WRIGHT
2710 Diligence Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 474.
MIKE DOWNING, Director/Chief Engineer
Division of Statewide Design & Engineering Services
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 474.
CHIP DENNERLIN, Director
Juneau Office
Division of Habitat and Restoration
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1579
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 474.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-12, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR KEVIN MEYER called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:10 a.m.
Representatives Meyer, Scalzi, Murkowski, and Guess were present
at the call to order. Representatives Morgan, Halcro, and
Kerttula arrived as the meeting was in progress. [Minutes
pertaining to the overview from the Alaska Department of
Evironmental Conservation low-suflur diesel sulfur fuel
requirements can be found under the 9:08 a.m. minutes for the
same date.]
HB 474-ANCHORAGE COASTAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
CO-CHAIR MEYER announced that the first order of business before
the committee would be HOUSE BILL NO. 474, "An Act relating to
public rights-of-way and easements for surface transportation
affecting the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge."
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN, Alaska State Legislature, testified as
the sponsor of HB 474. Representative Green began by informing
the committee that [the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge
(ACWR)] is an area located on the southwest side of Anchorage in
an area that is shielded by Fire Island. In the triangle
between Fire Island and the coast from about Point Woronzof to
the rifle range is a shielded area that represents a unique salt
water environment that the state put aside as a wildlife refuge.
This legislation, HB 474, deals with that small portion, about
six miles, of coastline.
Number 0221
LAURA ACHEE, Staff to Representative Joe Green, Alaska State
Legislature, testified on behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Green. She reiterated that this area is a unique area, which is
why the legislature chose to make it into a refuge. This
legislation, HB 474, requests that final authority over any
easements or transportation rights-of-way be granted to the body
that created ACWR, the legislature.
Number 0293
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to the January 3, 2001,
minutes of the Bayshore/Klatt Community Council meeting, which
indicates that there will be a draft environmental impact study
(EIS) that should be ready May 1, 2002. She inquired as to the
status on that EIS; the minutes indicate that the final route
will be included in the final EIS.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, in regard to when the EIS would be
ready, that the EIS would probably be done in May.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether HB 474 is premature, if
the routing will be determined in the EIS.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN explained that there is a proposal to put a
bike path through ACWR and thus the desire is to have the
legislature, the group that created the refuge, [consider that
proposal]. The EIS merely determines which of the three best
[routes] would be the most expeditious to construct with the
least environmental damage. Representative Green related his
belief that coming in later and exercising authority would be a
mistake. In further response to Representative Murkowski, he
confirmed that the routes highlighted by gold, orange, and red
on the map in the committee packet are the three routes being
considered in the EIS.
Number 0555
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS related her understanding that there is
also a "fuchsia" route that is a compromise route. Some believe
that the fuchsia route is one that will go through and this
process [HB 474] has a chance of not helping the aforementioned
compromise. She explained that she garnered this understanding
from an e-mail from someone in the area. Representative Guess
inquired as to how many coastal wildlife refuges there are, and
why is only ACWR returning to the legislature for easement
review.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN reiterated that ACWR is in a unique salt
water environment as are the species that inhabit the area.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS commented, "Isn't that uniqueness maybe
even a better reason for us to stay out of it." She expressed
her concern with this decision becoming political and not going
through the process.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN acknowledged that Representative Guess had
a good point. He remarked, "Maybe it's better to keep everybody
out of it, and that's why the legislature who created the ...
refuge in the first place, should have final authority to see
if, in fact, that's really ... the best for that very unique
area."
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS respectfully disagreed, and expressed the
need to know why special legislation is necessary for this area.
Number 0791
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO informed the committee that HB 474 is sort
of a rebirth of HB 131. This is a contentious issue that began
back in 1998. At that time, there was tremendous concern by
Rick Sinnott, Wildlife Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game (ADF&G), regarding the impacts of any formal incursions in
this area. Representative Halcro informed the committee that
Mr. Sinnott was quieted on this issue. Representative Halcro
commented that this has already become a political issue,
especially when Governor Knowles announced where he wanted the
trail. He said he feels that shifting this issue from the local
responsibility to ADF&G, makes it political. Representative
Halcro turned to Representative Guess' questions and echoed
earlier comments that ACWR is a sensitive area that is abutted
by many homes and private property.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN recalled that during the period when the
municipality determined that it might want a bike trail through
the area, the governor said that it was a municipal issue.
However, later the governor decided that the issue is a state
issue over which he has control.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked whether the representatives from Anchorage
are still involved or is this a state issue now.
MS. ACHEE answered that it's completely a state issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS disagreed, and said she believes that is
what the committee is here to decide. If HB 474 is passed, it
will become a state issue.
MS. ACHEE informed the committee that the Anchorage Daily News
ran an article that said that in December 2000 the governor
directed three state agencies to take over planning and
direction of the trail and then removed the Municipality of
Anchorage from the planning segment. Therefore, this issue has
completely become a state issue at this point.
Number 1077
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA inquired as to whether an opinion from
the Legislative Legal Services Division has be obtained in
regard to having these approvals return to the legislature.
Representative Kerttula noted that she wondered whether there
are any separation of powers issues with rights-of-way issues.
She said, "Maybe we can bar them altogether, but what I'm not
sure of -- I know you can't do it with regulation because of the
A.L.I.V.E. Voluntary case, but what I don't know is whether you
know by statute we can do it."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN reiterated that HB 474 is a rewrite of HB
131, which passed both bodies and was vetoed by the governor.
Therefore, he related his belief that the legal review has
occurred, and that legislative review can occur.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA inquired as to whether the veto letter
mentioned that.
MS. ACHEE recalled that it wasn't mentioned in the veto letter.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA expressed her belief that it is an issue
worth reviewing.
Number 1277
MARGARET KLATT testified via teleconference. She said that the
proposed extension of the ACWR is a demonstration of Alaskan
politics at its worst. She said:
It appears that a group of municipal and state
officials with a consultant from the private sector
has misdirected an entire process so that results
would benefit its own special interest. This
offensive process has created extreme polarization in
our community, has ... raised state and federal
expenditures to exorbitant amounts, and has destroyed
trust and faith in governmental processes.
MS. KLATT remarked that during her three years of involvement
with public meetings regarding ACWR extension, the municipality,
the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, and
HDR [Alaska, Inc.] have focused on the promotion of a route
located below the coastal bluff. This is occurring, even when
the guidelines indicate that all routes are to be considered,
including no route. However, the other options were dismissed.
Additionally, a new route was recently submitted by Chip
Dennerlin, Alaska Department of Fish & Game. This route was
submitted after public comment was no longer allowed. This new
route is the latest route that is supported by the municipality.
Ms. Klatt informed the committee that members of the community
who didn't agree with the municipality's chosen route were
poorly treated.
MS. KLATT noted that she has contacted people in the
municipality, the Federal Highway Administration, the
[Anchorage] Assembly members, and the legislature. She said,
"As of today, I have received no explanation for what appears to
be a costly, unethical, and perhaps illegal process which gives
lip service to public testimony and federal project guidelines."
She pointed out that the cost of this project has increased from
$300,000 to $2.2 million and still no design or solid plan
exists. Clearly, this is a faulty process that needs to be
stopped. Therefore, Ms. Klatt urged the committee to support HB
474 because it requires legislative oversight.
Number 1412
[LORVEL] SHIELDS testified via teleconference. Mr. Shields
informed the committee that he has a doctorate in biology, with
expertise in ecology and animal behavior. He also informed the
committee that he has lived on the on the bluff overlooking ACWR
for about 13 years and has spent innumerable hours leading field
trips in the refuge. Furthermore, Mr. Shields noted that he is
a hard core bicyclists and thus makes extensive use of the
Anchorage trail system. Mr. Shields highlighted the fact that
for the last five years he has served as the elected
representative for the Bayshore/Klatt Community Council on
coastal wildlife refuge issues and thus has attended hundreds of
hours of public meetings concerning the route of the proposed
southern extension of the Anchorage trail system. Mr. Shields
said, "What I saw was a cabal compromised of engineering firms,
the City of Anchorage, ADOT [Alaska Department of Transportation
& Public Facilities], and other representatives of the executive
branch of the Alaska State government." He was sure that each
entity had its own agenda. For example, the engineering
companies wanted the contracts. Furthermore, the City of
Anchorage wanted the trail in spite of the fact that it can't
maintain its current trails. "The end product of this grouping
was, and continues to be a concerted, collective effort to get
the trail built with virtually no regard to the biological worth
of this rare salt marsh ecosystem or the cost of this project,"
he charged.
MR. SHIELDS said that although he doesn't know the outcome, he
does know that ACWR is a state refuge that doesn't belong to
engineering firms, the City of Anchorage, ADOT, or even the
governor. The ACWR belongs to the citizens of the state. "And
what happens at any state refuge is important to all Alaskans,"
he stated. For example, a few years ago spring arrived late and
a fly-over census by ADF&G found that approximately 1,500 snow
geese, 10,000 Canadian geese, and too many ducks to count were
waiting in the ACWR. These animals sustained themselves in the
refuge for about ten days because ACWR is an intact and thriving
ecosystem. Mr. Shields urged the committee to pass HB 474.
Number 1572
WAYNE PICHON, Secretary, Bayshore/Klatt Community Council,
testified via teleconference. He informed the committee that he
has advanced degrees in wetlands ecology, and is co-author of
the original Anchorage wetlands plan as well as co-author of
wetlands of Potter Marsh. Mr. Pichon announced that the
Bayshore/Klatt Community Council endorses HB 474. However, he
questioned why "we" are here. He explained that two years ago
the legislature passed HB 131, which was similar to HB 474. The
governor vetoed HB 131 saying he felt that the legislature had
no business interfering with a local public process. "Our
belief is that we want your legislative oversight into a process
that has been anything but public, and, in our view, has been
flawed from the inception," he emphasized. He noted that the
project team was repeatedly advised that it was facing a
collision course with the wishes of the residents. Even in the
face of obvious federal law, [the project team] persisted. He
pointed out that the costs for the preliminary planning has
skyrocketed by 633 percent, and still the project team persists.
MR. PICHON noted that some would want you to believe that this
is an Anchorage-only issue, while others would claim that the
legislature has no business being involved in a local decision.
"Why, then, did the state [take] control of the project from the
municipality," he asked. He highlighted the point that the
refuge is a state refuge not a municipal refuge. "Could it be
that those who want to build in the refuge do not want to expose
the soft underbelly of an out-of-control process," he asked. He
also questioned why it was necessary for three community
councils in the effected area to have to come forward with a
route they preferred over the routes submitted by the project
team and consultant. Mr. Pichon urged the committee to get
[ACWR] under legislative oversight.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI returned to the timing of the draft EIS
and inquired as to whether Mr. Pichon had an update on that.
MR. PICHON noted that in talking with Mr. Childress, Alaska
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, he understood
that the draft EIS is still on track for May.
Number 1809
PHIL WRIGHT testified via teleconference in support of HB 474.
Mr. Wright recommended that the committee consider the cost to
build and maintain a trail located below the bluff, especially
in light of the aforementioned seven-fold increase in the amount
to study the trail. He informed the committee that ADF&G has
recommended a screened board walk raised on ten foot pilings
with camouflage. Furthermore, this board walk would be closed
April through August in order to protect nesting. "Is there a
reason to believe this won't take the cost to a proportionate
seven-fold increase," he questioned. He relayed his recent
understanding that maintenance on the existing coastal trail for
an area at or around the marsh is estimated at $500,000 to
maintain one-third of a mile of trail. Therefore, extension of
that to 13 miles of trail would result in a $6.5 million
maintenance bill not provided for under any DOT&PF funds he was
aware of. Mr. Wright felt that the cost of the trail on pilings
could easily grow proportionately to a total of $144 million of
which $14.4 [million] would have to come from Alaskans. In
these times of budget constraints, Mr. Wright didn't believe
such spending for a trail would be well-received by taxpayers.
MR. WRIGHT, in response to Representative Murkowski, confirmed
that one of the studies from ADF&G recommended that the trail be
closed from April to August.
Number 1991
MR. PICHON turned to the fuchsia route, which some have
characterized as a compromise. He stressed that the fuchsia
route is a compromise in the view of one or two individuals.
From discussions with the individual biologists involved and the
others who would review and do the permitting, the fuchsia route
isn't all that some would lead you to believe. Individual
biologists have said that the minimum acceptable [trail] would
be elevated and would be closed during the peak periods of
nesting and brooding. "The concern, though, is not just whether
the trail is closed or not. The whole concern is how do you
even build it down there, without severely impacting the
hydrology of that area," he asked. He noted that studies he
performed in the early 1970s, which were [supported] by studies
done in the 1990s, indicate that any surface construction in the
area would disrupt the vegetation pattern. Therefore, the
animals that people want to view will be driven out.
Number 2127
MIKE DOWNING, Director/Chief Engineer, Division of Statewide
Design & Engineering Services, Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities, related his belief that there seems to be a
substantial degree of misunderstanding of the facts. Mr.
Downing informed the committee that his division performs
project development. Two considerations of this project is that
this project began five-and-a-half years ago and $2.1 million
has been spent. That illustrates the difficulty of such a
project, and the amount of public input and analysis that goes
into an EIS. This [EIS] is under [the department's] merged
process that is an agreement with DOT&PF, the state and federal
resource agencies, and the Federal Highway Administration.
Under this agreement, the environmental process/document is
combined with permitting. It is referred to as the NEPA
[National Environmental Policy Act of 1969] 404 merger
agreement. That agreement includes steps for concurrence.
Although one of the first steps of concurrence has been
achieved, there isn't concurrence on the range of alternatives.
Alternatives are still being developed. After the development
of those alternatives there will be another round of public
comment. Public comment will also be received on the U.S. Corps
of Engineers' 404 permit, as well as the final environmental
document. Therefore, much more public comment will be heard.
MR. DOWNING explained that this process began as a locally
sponsored project under the Anchorage Metropolitan Area
Transportation Study (AMATS), to which the department responded.
He noted that the department will continue to respond whether HB
474 passes or not. The schedule is to put out a draft EIS for
public comment in mid-April with a final EIS projected for mid-
September.
Number 2312
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI related her understanding that Mr.
Downing is suggesting that there are more alternative routes
than shown on the map included in the committee packet. And
those other alternative routes will be included in the EIS that
is produced in mid-April. She said she also understood that the
final route won't be chosen until after all the public comment
is completed in September.
MR. DOWNING replied yes. The draft EIS will come out in April,
following concurrence by the resource agencies in regard to the
range of alternatives. In further response to Representative
Murkowski, Mr. Downing acknowledged that the department is
working with ADF&G to develop the fuchsia route, which is
different than the red route.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI expressed her curiosity in regard to
where the fuchsia route would go.
MR. DOWNING noted that the [fuchsia route] is designed to
minimize the impact on habitat, while creating the best
experience for the trail user. Much of [the choice of route] is
driven by the habitat issues. Therefore, Mr. Downing deferred
to Mr. Dennerlin.
Number 2442
CHIP DENNERLIN, Director, Juneau Office, Division of Habitat and
Restoration, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, noted that he
didn't design the fuchsia route, nor does he work for the
municipality. However, he informed the committee of his long-
time association with the trail and the refuge due to living on
the bluff in the past. Furthermore, he noted that he was the
State Parks Director and helped put the land agreement together
to protect the rifle range during the Hammond Administration.
Mr. Dennerlin also noted that he is a hunter and has harvested
12 species off of the ACWR, and is an avid bird watcher, and has
walked and skied nearly all of the trail. He agreed that ACWR
is a gem.
MR. DENNERLIN turned to the time when he took his position, and
mentioned the frustration with the deadlock over the trail.
However, he acknowledged that there are many legitimate issues
from all perspectives. Mr. Dennerlin recalled past discussions
over boundaries, and related his belief that people didn't
really listen to each other. Furthermore, he said he didn't
believe that a clear set of principles had been established.
Therefore, he had DOT&PF, the consultants, ADF&G, and the
municipality come together to outline a clear set of principles
for the trail. He indicated that those principles were to
connect people to the coast and provide people with a sense of
place that is consistent with the adopted plans of the refuge.
He explained that a trail can be placed in a refuge if it
doesn't damage sensitive populations. The desire is to provide
people with the opportunity to experience the area while
protecting wildlife corridors and movement. There was also the
desire to determine whether existing infrastructure could be
utilized rather than impacting neighborhoods. Also, the users
were defined, and it was realized that the users aren't one
group.
Number 2734
MR. DENNERLIN turned to the new alternative route that was
developed. He explained that the [working group team] is
recommending a more coastal plan in order that it be placed on
the list of viable alternatives in substitution of the orange
route. Mr. Dennerlin announced, "Somebody else might permit the
orange route, but it won't be me." There are sections of the
orange route that aren't acceptable. He then turned to the "4-
F" issue, which is a test regarding whether a transportation
facility can be built inside the boundaries of protected lands.
To that Mr. Dennerlin said such could be built, "for a purpose,"
he stressed. Therefore, legislatively protected land can't be
used as the convenient venue for a transportation project that
isn't integral to the place, or where the character of the place
isn't part of the experience that is trying to be conveyed. The
4-F is designed to prevent convenient misuse. Mr. Dennerlin
related his belief that the [fuchsia] route is one that the 4-F
is designed to direct people to focus on.
TAPE 02-12, SIDE B
MR. DENNERLIN mentioned connecting green belt easements and
existing infrastructure. He also mentioned that [the fuchsia
route] would direct people out of the most sensitive coastal
sections. There is also the possibility of creating spurs for
lookouts on the trail. "We think we can do a route that is much
more sensitive to the refuge. There will be ... specific design
issues to work out ..., but I think this new board walk will be
able to be engineered without many bells and whistles, making it
much more reasonable," he explained. Mr. Dennerlin expressed
his hope that [the fuchsia route] will receive much public
support. In closing, Mr. Dennerlin thanked the committee for
its concern regarding any intrusion into state critical habitat
areas and refuges.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked if Mr. Dennerlin and Mr. Downing would be
available to return for further testimony on HB 474.
MR. DENNERLIN said he would be able to return. He acknowledged
the frustration in the testimony and noted that it is trying to
be addressed.
MR. DOWNING informed the committee that there is design funding
and environmental document funding for this project; however,
there is no construction funding. In order to obtain
construction funding, the AMATS policy council will have to
choose this project as something it wants to fund. Then the
project would move on to the Anchorage Assembly for approval of
the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), after which it would
go to the legislature for funding for the construction
appropriation. Under the NEPA process, the selection of
alternatives takes place in the public arena. During that
public process, the legislature can determine it's not going to
do it but the public process can't be directed and [can't] use
federal funds to build.
Number 2771
MR. DENNERLIN remarked that the change in direction of this
process is not a political football. There were some on the
TRAAK [Trails and Recreation Access for Alaska] board that
believed that the fundamental issues of this trail were going to
be issues regarding users, such as hunting and wildlife
management. However, hunting and wildlife management aren't
included in the Anchorage charter. Therefore, the municipality
is unsuited to address several of the fundamental issues and
thus the TRAAK board recommended that the state departments come
together in a team approach.
CO-CHAIR MEYER announced that HB 474 would be held.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee took an at-
ease at 9:06 a.m. in order to hear an overview from the
Department of Environmental Conservation regarding low sulfur
diesel fuel requirements. [The minutes pertaining to the
aforementioned overview can be found under the 9:08 a.m. minutes
for the same date.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|