HOUSE BILL NO. 131 An Act relating to public rights-of-way and easements for surface transportation across the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. JEFF LOGAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN explained that the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge (ACWR) was created by the Legislature in 1988. Most of the refuge had previously been classified by the Legislature as the Potter Point State Game refuge. In establishing ACWR, the Legislature granted the authority to approve rights of way through the refuge to the Department of Fish and Game and Department of Natural Resources. HB 131 would establish additional protection for the refuge by withholding that grant of authority and reserving unto the Legislature the right to approve surface transportation rights of ways and easements. Co-Chair Therriault questioned why the Legislature would want to get into this level of management. Mr. Logan replied that the sponsor is not proposing that the Legislature manage this land but simply to approve a management decision. He pointed out that this is a developing urban area in which 75% of the vacant land in the Anchorage Bowl rests. There is yet to be seen significant development and pressures on that refuge which is unique. Co-Chair Therriault inquired the concern which brought the legislation forward. Mr. Logan advised that some people have drawn parallels between HB 131 and a proposed extension of the Anchorage Coastal Trail. He stated that HB 131 was much broader than a single project. A route for the bike trail extension has not yet been proposed. He noted that there is a possible encroachment on the refuge. Mr. Logan referenced a map included in Committee members packets which shows the Potters Marsh area. [Copy on File]. Co-Chair Therriault asked if development would be allowed in the refuge. Mr. Logan stated it would not, however, with development comes other proposals. Representative G. Davis questioned why the Legislature would want to become involved in the planning process that the City of Anchorage has already begun. Mr. Logan replied that the legislation is not proposing to become involved with the planning process, but rather at the end of that process, that the Legislature be consulted. He pointed out that this is State land and that there is a proposed AMAX bike trail. Co-Chair Therriault referenced Alaska State Statutes, Subsection (d), which indicates that land owned by the Municipality of Anchorage and lies within the boundary of the refuge may be included in the refuge. He questioned how much land the City owned within the refuge. Mr. Logan understood from information contained in the management plan, the State owns all that land. Representative Bunde voiced concern with the Riffle Creek range which was established in that area. The potential of introducing pedestrians to that area could present a safety concern. Representative Foster questioned why the bill had been sent to the Finance Committee accompanied by a zero fiscal note. Mr. Logan pointed out the indeterminent fiscal note submitted by Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. The sponsor considers it unusual that the agency which manages the refuge has submitted a fiscal note. The Department of Transportation and Public Facilities has the Anchorage Coastal Trail extension project in the planning stage. It would be directly affected by passage of HB 131. Mr. Logan explained that he knew from a discussion with the project manager that project would not be in the planning stage for another year and half. VERNON LABAU, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PRESIDENT, LABAU FOREST RESOURCES CONSULTANTS, ANCHORAGE, noted that he was a member of the Board of the Alaska Bay Owners Association in the Bayshore area. Mr. LaBau discussed that he has been a biker since moving to Alaska and was a strong proponent of the Anchorage bike trail system. However, Mr. LaBau strongly opposed having a bike or walking trail being built through the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. * It would not be good for the natural resource ecology of the ACWR. * Any trail built over those highly unstable soils would be very difficult to maintain, and would require a considerable annual budget expense to upgrade. * The area on the shoreline is in the area designated on Anchorage hazard map as a wind hazard area due to the high prevailing winds coming out of Turnigain Arm. * Building a bike trail out through the ACWR would probably mean the Rifle Range would have to be closed. HARRY BROD, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE, spoke in opposition to the proposed legislation. He suggested that the legislation was proposed by special interests who own homes built close to the bluff in consideration. RANDY HOFFBECK, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE PARKS AND RECREATION MANAGER, MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE, spoke in opposition to the legislation. He stated that the legislation would eliminate an option of southern extension to the coastal trail. A management plan was published in 1991. A change to that plan must require public input. Additionally, there is federal funding secured for the trail. PATRICK WRIGHT, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), CHAIRMAN, ANCHORAGE FISH AND GAME ADVISORY COMMITTEE, ANCHORAGE, spoke in support of HB 131. Property owners have testified before the Fish and Game Advisory Committee that regulations are important and would enhance the property in concern. The primary concerns of that Committee are habitat and the use for the area. He reiterated that the bill could provide for the development and utilization of wildlife resources embodied in the Constitution. KEVIN KEELER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE TRAILS AND GREENBELT COALITION, ANCHORAGE, testified in opposition to HB 131. He suggested that the 95 thousand people that live in the Tutor Road area need a flat, continuous, uninterrupted bike trail. The Anchorage Coastal Trail has been routed carefully to protect habitat. Mr. Keeler questioned the true intention of the bill. He believed that Anchorage residents would be the losers with passage of the legislation. He urged that the bike trail project go forward in the future. ART WEINER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), BIOLOGIST, BOARD MEMBER, ANCHORAGE CITIZEN'S COALITION, ANCHORAGE, testified in opposition to the proposed legislation because of inadequate oversight to guarantee that the area stay protected. He stressed that this is an environmentally sensitive area and needs to be protected with long term planning. He urged that the process remain a professional and public process, not one addressed by the Legislature. RON CRENSHAW, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PRESIDENT, ANCHORAGE TRAILS AND GREEN BELT COALITION, ANCHORAGE, spoke against HB 131. Mr. Crenshaw advised that the proposed law would place the will of the Legislature against public input in the Anchorage area. The coastal trail is one of Anchorage's important public accesses. It has been through the public involvement process; State resource agencies and the public have created where and how the trail should be built. No single agency or public interest group should be able to determine the outcome of the public debate. Mr. Crenshaw concluded that the proposed law would be a "slap in the face" to the Municipality of Anchorage. He concluded that it is an ill-conceived, inappropriate and unnecessary proposition. Representative Bunde questioned if the State should have a role to play in trail decisions anywhere in the State. Mr. Crenshaw replied that the State has a major role to play in trails statewide. He stated that the Legislature should not hold itself above the planning process and be placed in a position to have veto power over a decision made by the Municipality. R.J. RHODES, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE, spoke in support of the legislation. He noted that he lived on the bluff and could not imagine a bike trail through that area. He suggested that the price would be prohibitive and would disrupt the wildlife in that area. DEANNA ESSERT, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), SAND LAKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL, ANCHORAGE, spoke in support of the legislation. She stated that the ACWR is a rare and precious asset deserving preservation in its natural state. She added that for sound reason. the Department of Fish and Game is opposed to development of the trail in the refuge. Additionally, there are incompatible uses already in that area with the presence of the rifle range. In conclusion, prevailing severe winds in that area would make it difficult for bike riding. (Tape Change HFC 99 - 92, Side 2). LORVELL SHIELDS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), FLAT BAY SHORE COMMUNITY COUNCIL, ANCHORAGE, spoke in support of the proposed legislation. He advised that the existing system would be completely altered with a bike trail. * Any structure built in the refuge would have a difficult time with-standing the winds in that area. * The birds that nest in the refuge, have only two days to raise their young and are extremely sensitive to disturbance. Mr. Shields emphasized that this would be a terrible area to place a trail and because it is a salt marsh, it would destroy its' environmental value. There are other places where a transportation trail could be located, however, there is only one refuge. DAVID MCGIVERN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE TRAIL COALITION, ANCHORAGE, testified in opposition to the legislation. He urged the Committee members to trust the public process in the Municipality of Anchorage to explore all the options for a coastal trail. DOUG PERKINS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PRESIDENT, BAYSHORE FLATS CITY COUNCIL, ANCHORAGE, testified in support of the legislation and against any type of marsh trail. He questioned if HB 131 would pose any relevant fiscal responsibilities that need to be addressed. He believed that it would not. He emphasized that this is State land and that it is not a local issue, pointing out that the Department of Fish and Game has indicated that they will not issue a permit for the trail on that land. WAYNE PICHON, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), FORMER COASTAL ZONE MANAGER FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, ANCHORAGE, testified in support of HB 131. He voiced concern with the intent of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. He believed that the referral of the bill to the House Finance Committee is an attempt to thwart legislative oversight. Mr. Pichon stated that a surface intrusion to the refuge would harm the plants that live there. The vegetation in that area is unique to Anchorage and is fragile. DICK BISHOP, VICE PRESIDENT, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL (AOC), JUNEAU, noted that AOC strongly supports HB 131. AOC has a solid record of supporting critical habitats, recreational rivers, and refuges. Mr. Bishop commented that AOC is concerned about alternative uses that may detract from the values of the rifle range. He noted that the Council has seen many occasions in which wildlife conservation and traditional uses such as hunting, viewing and shooting may suffer if not insulated from rapidly growing competing uses. In conclusion, he suggested that it was appropriate for the State Legislature to have the oversight of the area. DENNIS POSCHARD, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, stated that the Department is respectful to the concerns of those who previously testified regarding the sensitivity of the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. The Department agrees that there are many important concerns and impacts that will need to be addressed. The Department of Transportation and Public Facilities in conjunction with AMATS has a project in the route analysis and preliminary engineering stage that would be directly affected by passage of HB 131. The project is the Anchorage Trail-southern extension, being developed by AMATS. The project is significant to the Department and to AMATS because it is the missing link between trails headed north out of Anchorage on the Glen and Parks Highways and south out of Anchorage on the Seward Highway. Mr. Poschard discussed that the potential trail alignments have not been developed yet. However, the potential for some of the Coastal Trail extension to be located in ACWR is noted in the major planning documents that have been developed during the last 20 years. These planning documents were developed with significant public, local and state government involvement. Mr. Poschard pointed out that federal funding is being used for the trail extension project. The use of federal funds requires that the project's environmental process be in conformance with the National Environmental Protection Act. That would ensure local, state and federal agency involvement. The effect of HB 131 would be to add an additional approval step to the project process if some portion of the trail is proposed to be located in the refuge. That would add additional time and expense for project development. The language of the bill shifts the ultimate responsibility for land use management of ACWR from the Department of Fish and Game to the Alaska Legislature. Mr. Poschard advised that the Department opposes the bill: * There is already an adequate process in place for dealing with local concerns regarding the project and the use of the wetland. * The Department and AMATS have just begun the planning process for extending the trail and should be allowed to proceed without bias for or against any alignment. * Should a coastal route be chosen for an extension, and the Legislature not give approval, the Department and AMATS will have spent over $1 million dollars for nothing and be forced to start again. * The Legislature already has ultimate control over the project through the budget process. Mr. Poschard addressed the fiscal note. He stated that the sponsor is corrected in that the project is actually in the route analysis stage; however, the fiscal note is still relevant. There are two costs that will be incurred that the Department cannot quantify ahead of time. * The amount of money spent on an environmental process; and * The amount of money needed on completion of the normal process to come and seek approval from the Legislature. Representative Bunde asked if there would be $20 million dollars of AMATS money. Mr. Poschard replied that there will be a more accurate estimate after the route analysis is completed. The costs could vary greatly. Representative Bunde asked if maintenance costs would be the State's responsibility. Mr. Poschard replied that it would be the State's position that the Municipality of Anchorage would maintain that portion of the trail. The Legislature ultimately has the authority to decide if the project would be funded. AMATS money is normally allocated as a lump sum. The Department currently has requested $1.2 million dollars, with another $1 million dollars requested for the completion of the EIS permitting and design. Representative Bunde asked if there would be a negative impact on the rifle range or to the refuge with building the trail. GERON BRUCE, LEGISLATIVE LIASON, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, responded that he could not answer that questions without having some alternative routes laid out to examine. The Department has signaled concern and would not be supportive of any route that compromised either of those two concerns. Those principles would apply to any route that the Department would consider. Representative Bunde MOVED to report HB 131 out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. HB 131 was reported out of Committee with "no recommendation" and with zero fiscal notes by the Department of Natural Resources dated 4/1/99 and the Department of Fish and Game dated 4/1/99 and an indeterminent note by Department of Transportation and Public Facilities dated 4/1/99.