Anchorage has had a love affair with the Coastal Trail ever since it was built back in the mid-80's, and for good reason. The trail is a community treasure that is touted by locals and visitors alike as one of the more defining elements of our city. So it only makes sense to extend it to the southern part of our city, providing access to the coastline we never knew we had on our public lands below the bluff.
Lots of smart people worked hard for over five years to thread the needle between numerous conflicting interests to come up with an acceptable route for the trail. The Orange Modified route recommended by the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is a good solution. It is a continuous, free-flowing trail, located in natural coastal areas away from roads, with stunning views of the Cook Inlet coast and mountains. With moderate grades of less than 5% and very few road crossings, it will serve a broad spectrum of users.
Friends of Coastal Trail supports construction of the Orange Modified route with minor adjustments that address concerns relating to private property impacts that have been raised by homeowners during recent public hearings. We believe there are reasonable and common sense solutions to nearly all the concerns that have been identified by the homeowners. Exploring and implementing these common sense solutions can turn what is now a good route, the Orange Modified route, into a great route.
After hearing the concerns raised by homeowners at the public hearings, Friends of Coastal Trail has been working with bluff homeowners and conservation groups to identify recommendations that we believe will resolve most of those concerns. Since the public hearings we have expended over 1000 hours of volunteer time seeking solutions to homeowner concerns. Our recommendations are summarized in the attached table and maps. The table is keyed to the maps and lists each recommendation along with the cost savings that accrue and the affect on private property impacts.
Although we believe each of our recommendations is worthy of further analysis by the trail planning experts, we also admit that it may not be prudent to implement each and every one of them. Instead, they are offered for consideration by all involved in the process. It is our sincere hope that these recommendations will stimulate further discussion and that the end result will be a trail that will be in the best interests of the entire community.
Our recommendations fall into two distinct categories. The first category addresses specific adjustments to the Orange Modified route described in the EIS. These recommendations are shown in the attached table and maps. The intent of these recommendations is to identify modifications to the preferred alternative route that would serve to reduce overall costs, avoid private property impacts, minimize impacts to wildlife, and apply a little common sense to what appears to be a sincere, but overly conservative, reaction to the various voices of opposition that have been heard over the past few years.
There are three primary issues that appear to have driven the trail routing for the Orange Modified alternative: wildlife impacts, wildlife refuge boundaries, and private property impacts. On one hand there has been a sincere attempt to avoid wildlife impacts and/or incursions inside the existing wildlife refuge boundary. This has pushed the trail route further away from the coast and closer to private property. The balance is such that homeowners are justifiably upset in many cases because of their proximity to the trail. By making small adjustments to the existing wildlife refuge boundaries, or by simply deciding that the only reasonable alternative is to allow small incursions into the refuge, we believe most of the private property impacts can be alleviated. At the same time, we also believe that these adjustments in the trail route will result in negligible impacts to wildlife. In some cases, our recommendations will actually reduce the impacts to wildlife.
Implementing these recommendations requires creative thinking and cooperation among politicians, regulatory agencies and funding sources. The wildlife refuge boundary creates some rather arbitrary constraints to trail route options when it is viewed as a sacred line that cannot be crossed. However, swapping available municipal and state land along the trail route could actually serve to establish a refuge boundary that is more oriented to the habitat instead of the meandering, zigzag boundary that currently exists and which forces tunnel construction and other unusual features. At the same time, such land swaps and boundary modifications could open up a trail corridor that all but eliminates private property impacts, except for those that occur along West Dimond where the homes are on a high bluff far from the affected property. Done correctly, the wildlife refuge would be improved and would see a net gain in acreage while the impacts to homeowners would be reduced. The refuge contains approximately 32,000 acres, about 10 acres of which along the edge of the refuge would be needed to enable a viable trail corridor. In return, there are over 150 acres of municipal land that really deserves to be made part of the refuge and municipal planners have already blessed the concept.
If swapping land and moving boundaries becomes too problematic, then the alternative is to simply agree to cross over those boundaries. The regulations do not prevent such crossings; they simply state that it should not be done if reasonable alternatives exist. Based on the extent and intensity of the concerns raised at the recent public hearings, it would seem clear that trails closer to homeowners are not reasonable alternatives. Furthermore, the inland trails in the EIS may seem like reasonable alternatives, but they are far from being coastal trails and fail to meet many of the criteria established in the Purpose and Need Statement. Therefore, a coastal route, crossing small segments along the edge of the wildlife refuge, would appear to be the best solution and would seem to be one of the few reasonable alternatives that does exist.
Friends of Coastal Trail believe each of the recommendations described in the attached table and maps has merit and deserve further analysis. We also know that we do not have all the answers and we cannot speak for property owners who are directly affected by the trail. Therefore, we have a number of process recommendations that we feel will lead to a reasonable and prudent solution to the current impasse. We are encouraged by the cooperative attitude we encountered over the past few months working with bluff homeowners, conservation groups, trail supporters and trail planners. We believe our efforts can be a model for seeking even more creative solutions and we recommend that the trail planners implement a public outreach program that involves groups similar to those that we have been working with. Our thoughts on ways to improve the trail planning process as the Final EIS is formulated are described in the following sections:
1. Convene neighborhood meetings &endash; We encourage neighborhood meetings where a legitimate cross section of affected and nearby homeowners can come together in a cooperative atmosphere to seek solutions to the concerns that are most important to them. These meetings should include both bluff homeowners as well as other residents in the neighborhood. Residents should feel free to express their views without fear of intimidation.
Some may say such meetings have already happened through the community council process. However, disaffected neighbors who attempted to participate in community council meetings have verified that the community council process has been anything but representative of the total community. Instead, they say the process represents only the views of the staunchest opponents of the trail. Trail planners are encouraged to take steps to ensure that a cross section of homeowners is allowed to participate in small neighborhood meetings, seeking a balanced and representative view at all times.
2. Take full advantage of phased construction &endash; The construction plan, which will occur in phases, provides many opportunities to resolve lingering concerns. First, building in phases means that funding will be available to allow other Anchorage trail projects to occur concurrently. There is no validity to the fear that this trail will use all available funding and preclude other trail construction for years to come. All of Anchorage's trail projects are built on a phased basis, with conscious decisions and input from our political leaders. This trail can occur in a similar fashion.
Second, phased construction may allow more time to gather additional data on wildlife impacts for sensitive segments of the trail. For instance, trail segments on either side of the land between the peat mound and Victor Road could be built first, allowing two or three more years to gather wildlife data to determine if inland or coastal routes make the most sense in this sensitive area. Similar logic could be applied to other trail segments. Alternatively, temporary "soft" trails could be constructed using geogrid like that used to provide access to 4-Wheelers on the Knik River bird hunting areas. This would buy time for further study and allow limited use of a trail that could be removed if the impacts are found to be too great.
3. Eliminate the Potter Marsh section of the trail for the time being -- Everyone should recognize that the Potter Marsh section of the trail would occur in conjunction with the highway reconstruction project planned for that area. Federal funding will be used for both the road and the trail. Also, the trail construction will likely be more efficient when it is done in conjunction with a major road construction project. Most important, the trail route will probably be on the existing highway roadbed because the current plan is to put the new highway outboard of the railroad tracks. This will obviously lessen costs and reduce wetland and wildlife impacts. Friends of Coastal Trail recommends that the Potter Marsh section of the trail simply be removed from consideration from the current EIS process and that this portion of the trail be constructed when the highway is rebuilt in the future. Eliminating this section of trail from this project results in a cost savings of nearly $4.0 million.
4. Move the trail to the west side of the railroad tracks &endash; Putting the trail along the east side of the railroad tracks has probably been the single most divisive issue in the EIS. This puts the trail near, but not on, the private properties of 48 different homeowners. These homeowners have rightfully asked why the trail has not been routed along the west side of the railroad tracks. Simply put, there is no earthly reason for the trail to be on the east side of the tracks near homeowners' properties. There is plenty of room along the west side of the tracks, particularly if a small ribbon of refuge land is swapped for municipal land to create a trail corridor at the toe of the bluff in the area. This will also provide adequate clearance between the trail and the railroad tracks from safety perspective. Moving the trail to the west side of the tracks results in a cost savings of over $4.0 million and eliminates all real and perceived impacts to the 48 property owners along Jarvi Drive.
5. Revisit bird impact criteria &endash; Impacts to wildlife, particularly birds, has driven the trail inland in many areas, eliminated viable trail segments altogether, and required the installation of fencing along much of the trail route. The wildlife experts do not agree on the level of impact that arises from real and/or imagined issues and believe that impacts cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. The end result is that the most conservative approach possible has been used to guide the trail design. The bird impact model used to estimate impacts assumes that a "biological desert" will exist throughout each disturbance zone, which is absurd. A more realistic approach is needed. Friends of Coastal Trail recommends that the wildlife impact criteria be revisited, and that attempts be made to better quantify the impacts, particularly in light of the homeowners' desires to move the trail route further away from their properties.
6. Mitigate bird impacts through seasonal trail closures &endash; In conjunction with Item 5 above, consider mitigating impacts to birds by requiring closures of segments of the trail during sensitive times. Most impacts occur during early spring when migrating birds visit the wetlands below the bluff. The most obvious example of this is the snow geese that stop off in Anchorage for a few weeks in late April and early May on their way north. Because of concern for impacts to these birds during this time, the trail has been routed inland in one area. A more sensible approach would be to leave the trail below the bluff for year round access, closing it during the few weeks when the snow geese are present. This usually occurs during Anchorage's breakup, when trail use is already at a minimum anyway, so the impact on trail users would also be tolerable. An alternative inland route along existing bike paths and roadways could be used during this closure.
The overall goal of these recommendations is to keep the trail planning process moving forward, seeking common sense solutions and balancing human and wildlife impacts. The entire Anchorage community, not just those homeowners along the bluff, is entitled to have a say in how we access our public lands along the coast. The community's right to access these lands is guaranteed by the statutes that govern the wildlife refuge. Alaska Statute 16.20.031 requires that the land be managed "…for the protection of wildlife and for the use and enjoyment of the people of the state". The refuge management plan says it is OK to put a trail in the refuge and that public education and awareness of refuge values are more important than wildlife impacts. These are strong mandates for a coastal route and the community should not and cannot be denied the opportunity. Like other coastal communities, the coastline and the beaches belong to the public. Anchorage is a coastal town and this is our beach. Our right to access the coast is enabled by the Coastal Trail. Together, we can enjoy it and protect it at the same time.