SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE May 11, 1999 1:40 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Jerry Ward, Chairman Senator Mike Miller Senator Rick Halford MEMBERS ABSENT Senator Drue Pearce, Vice Chair Senator Georgianna Lincoln COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 131 am S "An Act relating to public rights-of-way and easements for surface transportation across the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge." MOVED HB 131 FROM COMMITTEE PREVIOUS SENATE ACTION HB 131 - See Transportation Committee minutes dated 5/6/99. WITNESS REGISTER Mr. Jeff Logan, Aide Representative Joe Green State Capitol Bldg. Juneau, AK 99811 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 131. Mr. Paul Denkewalter, President Nordic Ski Club 203 W 15th Ave. #207 Anchorage, AK 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 131. Mr. Doug Perkins Bayshore Klatt Community Council 2130 Shore Dr. Anchorage, AK 99515 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 131. Mr. Jim Burkholder 7903 Jodhpur St. Anchorage, AK 99502 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 131. Mr. Mike Halko, President Anchorage Running Club 1800 E 24th Ave. Anchorage, AK 99502 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 131. Mr. Jon Kumin Arctic Bike Club 7921 Charlotte Place Anchorage, AK 99502 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 131. Ms. Joan Nockels 1800 E 24th Ave. Anchorage, AK 99508 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 131. Mr. Brian Hickey 2449 Glenwood St Anchorage, AK 99508 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 131. Mr. Randy Kanady 2350 Copperwood Anchorage, AK 99518 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 131. Ms. Mary Whitmore 940 Botanical Heights Circle Anchorage, AK 99515 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 131. Ms. Kimberly Olmstead 3852 Welseyan Dr. Anchorage, AK 99508 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 131. Ms. Peggy Cobey 3023 Knik Anchorage, AK 99517 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 131. Ms. Marcie Errico 1184 Oceanview Dr. Anchorage, AK 99515 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 131. Ms. Cindy Flanagan P.O. Box 112244 Anchorage, AK 99511 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 131. Mr. Phil Wright 205 E. Diamond Blvd #533 Anchorage, AK 99515 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 131. Mr. Art Weiner 16641 Virgo Ave. Anchorage, AK 99516 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 131. Ms. Nancy Pease 19300 Villages Scenic Park Anchorage, AK 99516 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 131. Mr. Dave Carter 1920 Shore Dr. Anchorage, AK 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 131. Mr. Mike Szymanski 1823 W 15th Ave. Anchorage, AK 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 131. Ms. Deanna Essert Sand Lake Community Council 6262 W Dimond Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99502 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 131. Mr. Peter Lekisch 1403 P Street Anchorage, AK 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 131. Mr. Smiley Shields Anchorage, AK POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 131. Mr. Geron Bruce Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, AK 99802-5526 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 131. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 99-14 , SIDE A HB 131-ANCHORAGE COASTAL WILDLIFE REFUGE CHAIRMAN WARD called the Senate Transportation Committee meeting to order at 1:40 P.M. and announced HB 131 to be up for consideration. MR. JEFF LOGAN, Aide to Representative Joe Green, sponsor of HB 131, said he opposes the amendment proposed by Senator Lincoln. Any surface transportation right-of-way or easement would compromise the integrity and habitat values of the Refuge. Representative Green feels the Legislature should be involved any time there is going to be a trail going through the Refuge. MR. PAUL DENKEWALTER, Nordic Ski Club, said there are over 60,000 recreational skiers in Anchorage. A route that does not follow the coast cannot be a coastal trail. A bike path that runs through streets and city subdivisions would be useless to skiers. HB 131 short-circuits the public process that is now in progress. The Department of Fish and Game and Department of Natural Resources are already involved in this process. The Legislature need not be. MR. DOUG PERKINS, Bayshore Clatt Community Council, supported HB 131 without amendments. It will not interfere with the route study that is currently being conducted by the Department of Transportation to determine the best route for extension of the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail. If the route that is eventually proposed is not in a State refuge, HB 131 will have no affect whatsoever on the trail project. If the route is eventually located in the State Refuge, HB 131 does not prohibit trails in the Refuge, but changes the identity of the entity who will approve or disapprove that trail. If the Refuge trail makes the most sense, the Legislature is free to issue a surface transportation right-of- way. HB 131 does not prevent that. MR. PERKINS pointed out that HB 131 is not just a local issue as it concerns State lands and resources. A State agency must still be persuaded to issue the permit. HB 131 merely transfers that decision to the Legislature. It does not prevent expansion of the New Seward Highway or the Railroad. Number 200 MR. JIM BURKHOLDER, Anchorage, said he opposed the State's interference in the on-going process that is taking place there. HB 131 would duplicate work that is already being done and is a "misguided effort." MR. MIKE HALKO, Anchorage Running Club, supported HB 131. MR. JON KUMIN, Arctic Bike Club, said that people are appalled that with the issue of subsistence unresolved the Legislature is sticking their nose into what is perceived as a local issue. People feel that the process that has been begun by the municipality should be allowed to run its course without the legislature's direct involvement. He said this trail is not along a continuous route; it's a sidewalk. When there are crossings every few feet it is dangerous to bikers. He also believed that this project would be expensive, but is 90% funded by federal funds. He strongly urged the Committee to let this bill sit and let the process run its course. Number 311 MS. JOAN NOCKELS, Municipal Trail User, thanked him for opening up the hearing to the public. She is the representative of the Anchorage Running Club, the Arctic Bicyclers Club, and the Nordic Skiing Association on the Municipal Advisory Group formed to address the coastal trail extension. She is basically speaking for 7,000 people. These organizations oppose HB 131. She explained that all that is missing to continue the 74 mile Coastal Trail is this 12.5 link. HB 131 is unnecessary as the alleged purpose of the bill is to protect a fragile ecosystem and to involve the State in the decision. They are trying to protect this fragile ecosystem from the people who are most concerned about it - the trail users. This trail will not be built in the Coastal Wildlife Refuge unless ADF&G approves it. They are the professionals and she would rather work with them than a legislative body. When the Legislature approved the management plan, it gave the decision on trail issues to the people of Anchorage and there is no reason to take it away. She suggested leaving the bill as it is and not move it out of Committee. MR. BRIAN HICKEY, mid-town resident of Anchorage, supported the community process that is in place to select a route. He supported routing the trail along the coast, but raising the issue to a legislative level would mean the death of the trail. He accused that this is a piece of special interest legislation that's been designed to support 70-100 homeowners who live on the bluff. Number 389 MR. RANDY KANADY, Anchorage Nordic Ski Club member, opposed HB 131. One of the city's best assets is the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail. He felt that completing the trail would serve a majority of the people in Anchorage for wildlife viewing, running, skiing, cycling and summer and winter tourism. HB 131 would benefit a very small number of privileged people. MS. MARY WHITMORE supported HB 131. She said the Legislature created the Alaska Coastal Wildlife Refuge that is managed by the ADF&G. The municipality wants to build a trail that may go through the Refuge with federal highway dollars and fund the balance with State dollars. This is not just a local issue. She said the process is not working, because there is a bias towards putting a trail in this State Refuge which will alter existing habitat and change the customary and traditional uses of the State's rifle range. The bias starts with the name of the project - South Coastal Trail Extension. The expectation is that the trail will go along the coast and through the refuge. MS. WHITMORE wanted the amendment for the bike trail removed. MS. KIMBERLY OLMSTED, Anchorage runner, supported the bike trail and keeping people involved in the process. She has a trail go right by her house and she has never had a negative feeling about the people using it. She is glad to see them, because she knows they would fight tooth and nail to keep the habitat the way it is. She opposed HB 131. Number 476 MS. PEGGY COBEY, Anchorage resident and frequent Coastal Trail user, opposed HB 131. She is also a member of the Municipality Advisory Group for the South Extension of the Coastal Trail. She clarified that the South Extension is a proposal. The Advisory Group assesses the proposals. She urged them to respect the very lengthy and public process that is going on now to consider different options. She feels that it is a local issue. The rifle range issue is being addressed in the current plan as well as the financial concerns, since most of the funding is coming from the federal government. MS. MARCIE ERRICO opposed HB 131. She said it is not representative of the City's view as a whole which is to put the Coastal Trail on the Coast. People will continue to use the coastal areas despite the efforts of the people who live there and think they own their private view. We need an established trail that meets the desires of the community and protects our treasured environment. MS. CINDY FLANAGAN opposed HB 131, because she is appalled that some rich people think that money talks. One issue that has not been discussed yet is the issue of the safety of the people who use these trails. When she rides her bike, she has to ride on the highway because there aren't any bike trails that are continuous. There is a need for more trails as many of the sections are very crowded. People who are athletes in Anchorage want the trail. Number 538 MR. PHIL WRIGHT, newcomer who lives on the hill, said he enjoys the pristine areas in the State. He didn't think a bike path would have any affect on the houses on top of the hill. He thought it would be invisible. He is concerned about the wildlife that lives in the refuge and thought the State has the opportunity to protect that wildlife in that Refuge. He was resentful of the people who want to spend money just because it's federal money. He supported HB 131 without amendments. MR. ART WEINER, South Anchorage biologist, said he worked on projects that moved people and built structures in environmentally sensitive areas with a minimum of impact on the environment. He opposed HB 131. He thought this issue should center on allowing the biologists and engineers to do their work and develop a plan and proposal that should be reviewed by the public. It should not be politicized by the folks in Juneau. DNR, ADF&G, the biologists and scientists should be left to develop alternatives for the extension of the South Coastal Trail and proper analysis should be done to ensure that they don't go through sensitive portions of the Coastal Wildlife Refuge. Where they do have to cross the Refuge, proper engineering techniques are used to minimize impacts to wildlife and habitat. He urged them to focus on objective science and engineering. MS. NANCY PEASE, Anchorage resident, urged them to opposed HB 131. Legislative involvement in the Coastal Trail process is unnecessary an intrusive. There is a highly involved public process with hundreds of participants representing all interests. The Anchorage Assembly is going to vote its approval on the chosen route. The Legislature cannot possibly learn more than the local participants and local leaders. The value of the Refuge is its access for the urban population. TAPE 99-14, SIDE B Number 590 MS. PEASE noted the access map saying the first three points didn't have visual access, at the rifle range only marksmen get into the Refuge, at points 5,6,and 7 there is little parking and no way down to the Refuge unless you can scramble down a dirt embankment. MS. PEASE said she is a member of the Board of the community council that is along the south 3 -4 miles of the route and they have the official position of waiting until all the alternatives are analyzed before they vote on their choice. Finally, she urged them to look at the extreme hazards that trail users have to face dodging 60 mile an hour traffic on the New Seward Highway or go in the traffic lane of the Old Seward Highway because the white line is literally crumbling in places from severe frost heave. The need is great for a good safe trail and coastal access. MR. DAVE CARTER supported HB 131 without Senator Lincoln's amendment. This is a State Wildlife Refuge and a public resource for all Alaskans, not just the people in Anchorage. He didn't think there was enough discussion about whether there is public interest in having an undeveloped wildlife refuge in Anchorage, although he thought there was. South Anchorage is becoming more and more developed and opportunities for building trails above the bluff in Anchorage are going to be passed by. He urged them to move the bill out of Committee. MS. LIZ JOHNSON, 20-year resident of Anchorage, witnessed trail use firsthand. She supported the Compass Article by Larry Howell entitled Legislative Footprint Not Needed in the Coastal Refuge. Briefly, it says the sponsors of HB 131 appear to be interfering with and circumventing an established local planning process for the benefit of a few constituents living on the bluff above the Refuge. The best way to protect the "fragile public habitat" is to provide access to and education about coastal refuge lands. She agreed this is a local issue, not a legislative issue. The local planning process is providing ample input; there are at least two State agencies ADF&G and DNR who will have extensive scientific and factual information to present. The Legislature could monitor that process independently. She said many people were opposed to extension of the trail along the bluff because it was very expensive and because of the public access issues, but many are now supporters of that trail. She opposed HB 131. Number 507 MR. MIKE SZYMANSKI said the legislation before them turns around a significant policy that was made by the Legislature and granted to the public. He was opposed to the idea that the Legislature is going to take the power back from the public that was granted in the original legislation. He thought that was contrary to public policy making. He thought the bill should also have a Resources Committee referral since it concerned resources and maybe they should consider whether they want to take back public powers for legislative approval. Number 469 DEANNA ESSERT, Sand Lake Community Council, supported HB 131. They understand the hazards of building a trail on the unstable marsh and bluff. She didn't agree that the public wouldn't support trails through their neighborhoods. Sand Lake Community Council supports linking existing trails through the neighborhoods to provide refuge and access to their schools, recreation sites, and community facilities. They are in agreement with ADF&G position to build a trail on top of the bluff that connects existing trails. She urged the Committee to reinstate the original language in the bill of surface transportation. MS. ESSERT urged the Committee to remove the amended language and move the bill. Number 433 MR. PETER LEKISCH, Anchorage resident since 1967, has been active in the trails out of Kincaid Park and opposed HB 131. There is a process in Anchorage that makes it unnecessary for review at the legislative level. MR. SMILEY SHIELDS said he has visited the Coastal Wildlife Refuge since 1955; he has a Doctorate in biology with expertise in animal behavior and ecology. He lives close to the Refuge and has spent at least 1,000 hours in the Refuge and has taken hundreds of interested people into it on ecology field trips. He absolutely wanted to see the trail extended to Kincaid Park through Potter Marsh saying he categorically opposes routing it through any part of the Refuge. He supported HB 131 as it protects the Refuge which is a critical resting, feeding, and nesting habitat for thousands of birds. The plants that live there can only exist under certain narrow ranges of environmental conditions. There is no way to build a trail in it without changing the drainage, etc. to the extent that it would destroy the salt marsh habitat. Further, disturbance by trail users would disrupt bird reproduction. About 10 days ago ADF&G surveyed the refuge and reported 10,000 Canada geese, 1,500 snow geese, and more than 50 sand hill cranes. He thought the Alaska natives would consume some of these animals as part of their subsistence harvest. Helping to assure the continuing food supply should be one of the priorities of the Legislature and should take priority over self indulgences like the bicycle trail. He didn't think the ancestral nesting and migratory routes of dozens of species of birds is a local issue. MR. SHIELDS said that secondly, well established data show that the average casual cyclist travels at about 10mph. Only elite, strong cyclists can ride in the strong winds that occur very frequently on the Alaska Coastal Wildlife Refuge. Wind data collected over a year needs to be reduced and he is convinced the reason it hasn't is because it would be so damming as to proclaim the impracticability of the refuge route. Number 374 MR. GERON BRUCE, ADF&G, said this is a Refuge that ADF&G has a major role in managing. The Department has been very involved in the process so far which has just begun. They are not opposed to the extension of the trail and no actual alignment has been laid out. They have signaled that there are significant concerns that would have to be addressed with the trail that went through the Refuge - like safety around the rifle range and impairment of use of the range by shooters. They would also look out for the habitat and for the animals that are using that habitat. Until the alignment is actually proposed, they haven't prepared any detailed analysis of what any impacts would be. They support the process that is going on and haven't concluded that the concerns cannot be addressed. SENATOR HALFORD moved and asked for unanimous consent to rescind their action in adopting the amendment at the last meeting that changed "surface transportation" to "bike path or trail." There were no objections and it was so ordered. SENATOR HALFORD said with the original amendment before the Committee that he objected to the amendment. CHAIRMAN WARD called for the roll. Senators Miller, Halford, and Ward voted no on the amendment and the motion failed. SENATOR HALFORD moved to pass the original House version of HB 131 with individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered. CHAIRMAN WARD adjourned the meeting at 2:50 p.m.