Anchorage Daily News
(Published: August 16, 2004)
Opponents of the southward extension of Anchorage's Coastal Trail have sued in federal court to block funding for any of the trail routes being considered.
The suit claims none of the proposed routes linking Kincaid Park to Potter Marsh can legally be funded by the Federal Highway Administration. The highway agency is the intended source of about 90 percent of the funding.
The project cost has been estimated at $37 million, although friends and foes have offered estimates higher and lower than that.
The suit was filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court against the Federal Highway Administration and the U.S. Department of Transportation. The plaintiffs are Friends of Potter Marsh, the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge Inc. and 14 Anchorage residents, many of them landowners along the city's south coast.
Basically, the trail shouldn't be funded with transportation money because it is not principally for transportation, but rather for recreation, the lawsuit said.
The existing Tony Knowles Coastal Trail runs 11 miles from downtown to Kincaid Park. The proposed extension would take it about 13 miles farther, along varying proposed routes; some along the shore, some along the bluff, one inland.
The project is still in the planning stages. Officials are considering public comments on the draft environmental impact statement, and a final route has not been selected.
Federal money didn't pay for the first part of the Coastal Trail, which is why this issue didn't come up before, the plaintiffs say.
The trail extension proposal has been the subject of long and recurring arguments.
Many residents support it and have signed petitions to keep the project moving. Others, including some state biologists, say the trail could damage habitat and wildlife in the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. Homeowners have objected to the prospect of losing pieces of their private property for the trail. Some say it costs too much.
Several of the individuals who are suing live near the proposed extension and say in the complaint that some could lose land to the project.
They are asking for a judge to decide whether the plans violate laws; for all work on the project to stop; for the Federal Highway Administration to consider lawful routes instead; and for reimbursement of attorney costs.
Randy Virgin, director for the Alaska Center for the Environment, which favors the trail extension, said he has heard the argument for some time that the project violates federal funding rules.
"Our sense is that it's not a valid point," he said.
Friends of Potter Marsh genuinely cares about the refuge, said Virgin. But the community wants more coastal trail, he said.
"I think there's a way to do this that can navigate the concerns of homeowners and the refuge, which we share," he said.
Eric McCallum, co-chair of the Friends of the Coastal Trail, said the lawsuit "was filed by selfish homeowners who are trying to interfere with a legal process that hasn't yet run its course. To us, it's a slap in the public's face."
He said hundreds of people have sat through meetings, read documents and written comments about the proposal, and those comments are under review right now.
"If the point of the lawsuit it to prevent the construction of the trail, they're way too early," he said.
Some plaintiffs did not return phone calls Friday or refused to discuss the case. Plaintiffs include the environmental group, Wayne Pichon, Jim and Nora Arnesen, Deanna and Joe Essert, Robert Gillam, Deborah Kyzer, Karen Kyzer, Peryll Kyzer, David Lee, Mark and Sherrie Richey and Ed and Mary Whitmore.
Their attorney, Geoffrey Parker, would not say whether the lawsuit was mainly intended to halt the extension or if there are any routes the plaintiffs would support.
"That refuge is very important," Parker said. "The state and federal fish and wildlife agencies have opposed what the municipality seeks. Anchorage, in effect, lost its opportunity (to put a trail) on top of the bluff years ago," he said.
As the land was developed along the south coastal bluff, where a trail had been discussed, he said, "People who wanted a trail were sitting on their hands."
A trail below the bluff would harm the wildlife refuge, he said. Because of that, he doesn't believe too many people will get upset over the lawsuit.
Points in the lawsuit revolve around whether bike transportation funds can be used on a recreation route and whether the trail can qualify as a "transportation enhancement," a funding category, when it's not located on or near a road. The suit argues no.
The suit also challenges the authority of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to approve the project, and whether the federal government can fund a bikeway across park land if there's another feasible alternative, like along a roadway.
The lawsuit attacks the city's listing of the trail as a "transportation enhancement," when the extension is truly a recreational trail.
"This project is not transportation related," Parker said.
Mayor Mark Begich, an ally of the extension, acquired a grant from a private foundation to finish the current round of trail studies, including a route selection.
The planning is not using federal money, Begich said, so the lawsuit at this point doesn't make sense.
"This is about throwing a wrench in the process," he said.
The city will keep working on the proposal, Begich said.
"When the final product comes out, we'll make sure it complies with laws of the federal government and any local or state laws too," he said. "We're not going to build an illegal trail, that's just ludicrous to think."
Daily News reporter Anne Aurand can be reached at aaurand@adn.com or 257-4591.