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