Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/20/1997 01:07 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 20, 1997
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Joe Green
Representative William K. ("Bill") Williams
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
BRIEFING: Timber Industry (Continued from Joint House/Senate
Resources Standing Committees meeting 2/18/97)
HOUSE BILL NO. 89
"An Act relating to the Shuyak Island State Park."
- MOVED CSHB 89(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 20
Relating to RS 2477 rights-of-way.
- MOVED CSHJR 20(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 128
"An Act relating to water quality; directing the Department of
Environmental Conservation to conduct water quality research;
establishing the Water Science Oversight Board; and providing for
an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 28
"An Act repealing the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the
Alaska Coastal Policy Council, and making conforming amendments
because of those repeals."
- REMOVED FROM AGENDA
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 89
SHORT TITLE: SHUYAK ISLAND STATE PARK
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) AUSTERMAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/27/97 150 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/27/97 150 (H) CRA, RESOURCES
02/10/97 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/10/97 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/12/97 307 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) 3DP 2NR 1AM
02/12/97 307 (H) DP: JOULE, DYSON, IVAN
02/12/97 307 (H) NR: SANDERS, RYAN
02/12/97 307 (H) AM: OGAN
02/12/97 307 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DNR)
02/13/97 347 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED
02/20/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 20
SHORT TITLE: OPPOSE DEPT. OF INTERIOR RS 2477 POLICY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) OGAN, Barnes, Foster
02/07/97 264 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/07/97 264 (H) RESOURCES
02/10/97 297 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER
02/20/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
MEGAN SMITH, Executive Director
National Biofuels Association
1130 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 331-8500
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave presentation on biofuels for timber
industry overview.
MARK YANCEY, Senior Project Coordinator
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
1617 Cole Boulevard
Golden, Colorado 80401-3393
Telephone: (303) 275-4454
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on biofuels for timber
industry overview.
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 434
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4230
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 89.
DAVID STANCLIFF, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Scott Ogan
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 128
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3878
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained changes in proposed committee
substitute for HB 89.
JIM STRATTON, Director
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Suite 1200
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5921
Telephone: (907) 269-8700
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions on HB 89.
CRAIG TILLERY, Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
1031 West 4th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1994
Telephone: (907) 269-5100
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions on CSHB 89(RES).
WILLY DUNNE, Chair
Kachemak Bay State Parks Citizen Advisory Board
P.O. Box 15043
Fritz Creek, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-7578
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 89; no official
position on CSHB 89(RES).
JEROME SELBY, Mayor
Kodiak Island Borough
710 Mill Bay Road
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-9300
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 89(RES).
TOM PEARSON
P.O. Box 284
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-2840
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 89(RES).
HANK PENNINGTON
P.O. Box 5570
Chiniak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-2893
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 89(RES).
JOEL WATTUM
P.O. Box 3601
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-6803
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 89.
KIM SCHMIDT
P.O. Box 20487
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 463-5093
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 89.
MICHELE DRUMMOND
P.O. Box 334
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-9400
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 89.
JODY KENNEDY, Volunteer
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 463-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HJR 20.
CRAIG PUDDICOMBE
P.O. Box 215
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-3151
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 20.
JANE ANGVIK, Director
Division of Land
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Suite 1122
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5947
Telephone: (907) 269-8503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 20.
NELSON ANGAPAK
Special Assistant - Lands
Alaska Federation of Natives
1577 C Street, Suite 100
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 274-3611
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 20.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-16, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN SCOTT OGAN called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Ogan, Masek, Dyson, Green,
Nicholia and Joule. Representatives Williams and Barnes arrived at
1:09 p.m. and 1:28 p.m., respectively. Co-Chairman Ogan advised
that Co-Chairman Hudson was ill that day.
BRIEFING: Timber Industry
The first order of business was a briefing on the timber industry.
Although continued from the 2:00 p.m. briefing of the Joint
House/Senate Resources Standing Committees on February 18, 1997,
this was not a joint meeting.
Number 0104
MEGAN SMITH, Executive Director, National Biofuels Association,
said she was also a subcontractor for the U.S. Department of Energy
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado.
The U.S. Department of Energy had worked ten years on technology
that was now ready for market advancement. The technology involved
converting cellulose, basically anything made of wood or
agriculture residues, into ethanol. Ms. Smith said they came to
Alaska six months ago, after noticing Alaska had an incentive in
place for ethanol production, a wood waste problem and an ethanol
market.
Number 0210
MS. SMITH explained that Alaska had been using methyl tertiary
butyl ether (MTBE) mixed with fuel in Fairbanks and Anchorage. For
different reasons, it had not gone over well, and Anchorage was now
using "E10." Ms. Smith said while MTBE was a fairly complicated
molecule, ethanol was "such a nice molecule you can actually drink
it." She noted that California, which was now having problems with
MTBE leaching into ground water, may be converting to ethanol soon.
MS. SMITH said right now in the United States, ethanol is made
mostly in the Midwest from starch inside corn kernels. "The rest
of the plant is this cellulose that we're talking about," she
explained. "And there is a federal subsidy in place right now at
54 cents a gallon or 5.4 cents per gallon when it's mixed at E10.
Basically, NREL's trying to help the corn ethanol industry improve
their conversion factors by using this cellulose in the corn. But
you can also take that a step further and look at other products
that are cellulose-based, such as wood waste in Alaska and convert
that."
MS. SMITH said preliminary results from NREL looked fairly good for
soft woods, which were composed mostly of six-carbon sugars or
glucose, with a fairly good conversion rate. It also looked
simpler than using some other feed stocks. She noted that Alaska
had basically free waste wood or "hog fuel" that the industry
wanted to get rid of. A free feed stock would drop production
costs for ethanol drastically, which was another reason they had
come to Alaska.
Number 0366
MS. SMITH explained that wood is made of glucose and approximately
25 percent lignin. A precursor to coal, lignin has the same BTU
content as coal. "So you can actually take the lignin out of the
wood and use it to run the entire process, so you don't have any
electricity coming in," she said. "You don't have to buy any
electricity. It runs itself, and in addition it has about 20
percent of this electricity left over to sell to the grid or help
run a sawmill or whatever you want to couple it up to .... You can
use it as process steam as well."
MS. SMITH referred to job creation and said the current ethanol
market in Anchorage was 8 million gallons. Preliminary statistics
indicated 8 million gallons would produce roughly 50 jobs right at
the plant. Jobs created by bringing in the resource from the
forests, for example, would add another 50 to 100 jobs. They
estimated 36 million board feet per year would be required to run
the 8-million-gallon plant. "And the people that we've talked to,
it sounds like that is feasible in this area because of the hog
fuel problem," she said. "We're not talking about using the
higher-valued wood. We really are bottom feeders." She said they
wanted all the waste wood possible.
MS. SMITH suggested Alaska could make more than 8 million gallons
and market it to the Lower 48. For example, a market for ethanol
was starting to grow in California, which currently uses 1.7
billion gallons of MTBE. Ms. Smith indicated they had been working
in California to persuade them to use ethanol.
MS. SMITH had also made telephone calls that day about developing
a market in Japan. She understood Japan currently used some ethyl
tertiary butyl ether (ETBE). She suggested the possibility of
shipping ethanol to Japan, or other markets, from Alaska.
Number 0546
MS. SMITH reported, "Right now, at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory in Colorado, they have a pilot plant that is processing
about one ton of this biomass per day. And they are looking at the
soft woods on a bench scale. And as I said, it looks pretty good
so far. They haven't hit any glitches. And they're thinking they
could probably have all the fine tuning on this technology for soft
woods developed ... within a year. So this would be feasible for
something in Alaska."
MS. SMITH noted that NREL is working on a "prefeasibility study"
with the Ketchikan pulp mill. They are looking at using existing
boilers and the waste water treatment facility, as well as possibly
retrofitting their facility for this process.
Number 0601
MS. SMITH said the process is "basically pretty environmentally
benign." One site in California, which has strict environmental
regulations, had already been permitted. She foresaw no problems
with that in Alaska.
MS. SMITH believed a state incentive was probably necessary to get
started and to help attract the industry. Being one of the first
such plants built, there would be risk. Ms. Smith hoped the
federal subsidy would stay in place. However, if that were
removed, there would be additional reason to keep the state
subsidy.
Number 0656
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN thanked Ms. Smith. He jokingly said he could
envision homesteader stills out in the bush to run chain saws.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked Ms. Smith whether any kind of timber
could be used.
MS. SMITH said any tree will do. There were different sugars in
hard and soft woods. There were also different water contents, for
example, but those could be analyzed.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked, "You have regular and high-test?"
MS. SMITH said, "No, it's always the same."
Number 0719
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether all the biomass was used or
whether a significant product was left over.
MS. SMITH asked whether he meant the hog fuel and everything.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN concurred.
MS. SMITH said there were always some waste streams coming off the
plant.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that he was thinking of the bulk
actually being utilized.
MS. SMITH said, "We use all of it."
Number 0756
MARK YANCEY, Senior Project Coordinator, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, came forward to elaborate. He explained, "Wood is
about 70-75 percent of these sugars, and ... probably 90 percent of
that would be converted to ethanol. And then the remainder would
be lignin that we would propose would be used in a boiler to run
the plant, generate electricity and steam. So there'd be very,
very little waste left over."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he supposed the cost of the plant would
depend on the ultimate through-put it was designed for. He asked
whether it was modular, so that a pilot could be put in and later
built onto.
MR. YANCEY replied, "You can do that. That's done quite often in
the corn ethanol industry. They build a smaller plant and then add
on. Once they have the cash flow going, they'll expand the plant.
And you could do the same thing here."
Number 0800
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether their study would include plant
location. He inquired about putting the plant near the work force
versus putting it near the biomass. He noted there was a
tremendous spruce kill throughout Southcentral Alaska.
MR. YANCEY said he had heard about that. He indicated they could
look at plant location in their study. He said moving the plant
away from the resource would add to transportation costs.
Number 0846
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what emissions would come from the plant
once it was operating.
MR. YANCEY replied, "The primary source of the emissions would be
from the boiler. So it's basically a wood-burner. And that's
about it. You'd have a waste water stream, but that would go
through a water treatment plant and would be pretty benign."
Number 0882
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked whether their projections showed it
could be competitive with petroleum-based automotive fuels.
MR. YANCEY replied, "That's our goal. We're not quite there yet.
Really what we need to compete with right now is MTBE, and really
that doesn't exist in Alaska. So that competitor is gone." He
said their goal eventually was to produce ethanol at 65 cents per
gallon and compete directly with gasoline.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked, "Are you saying that cities like
Anchorage's exceeding of the federal air quality standards and the
poor reputation of methanol is giving you guys an opportunity for
almost a monopoly market if you can get in here and get into
business?"
MR. YANCEY replied, "It's definitely not a monopoly in the entire
country, because the MTBE appears to be a problem in the cold
climates." He noted there had been problems in Wisconsin, New
Jersey and elsewhere.
Number 0964
MS. SMITH added that it was Alaska's choice as to which oxygenate
to use. "But our understanding is that MTBE is not favorable up
here," she said. "So you've decided to go with ethanol. And this
is a way that you could be making it in-state instead of shipping
it all the way from the Midwest, which is financially pretty
stiff."
Number 0982
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked what the state could do to make it work.
MR. YANCEY believed keeping the incentive in place was the most
important thing for the state to do at this time. It was new
technology and a new industry. Investors needed to be attracted.
"And at this time, it's a relatively high-risk venture to build
this plant and to make money," he said. "With the tax incentive,
that risk is reduced substantially. So I think with that in place,
you'll be able to attract the capital and someone to be the
owner/operator of the plant."
Number 1039
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked what the tax incentives were.
MR. YANCEY said there is an 8-cent-per-gallon tax exemption for
ethanol that is blended with motor fuel. That translates to 80
cents per gallon after it is blended at a 10-percent level. "It's
a motor fuel excise tax," he added.
MS. SMITH said it was an excise tax exemption.
MR. YANCEY added, "A state tax exemption."
Number 1071
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said, "If we keep that in place, then,
that's an incentive for people like your other companies to come in
to Alaska and become venturers?"
MR. YANCEY clarified that NREL, which develops technology and is
funded by taxpayers, would not own a plant. Instead, NREL was
trying to develop the technology and transfer it to private
industry. "But you need some incentive to get private industry
started, to get them to invest in this," he advised.
Number 1101
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA referred to Mr. Smith's indication that
NREL is working with the Ketchikan pulp mill and asked, "What other
plans do you have for Alaska?"
MS. SMITH said they had talked to people in the Interior and were
aware of the beetle kill. Although there was a lot of interest in
Alaska, they were talking with those who seemed like the most
serious players or who showed the most interest. Sealaska
Corporation and the Ketchikan Pulp Company currently stood out.
Despite a lot of possibility in the Interior, there was no
"player." For example, there had been talk of a veneer plant;
however, Ms. Smith believed that had fallen through. "So we're
just going where the opportunities are, really," she concluded.
Number 1154
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked who they were talking to in the
Interior.
MS. SMITH replied, "Ron Ricketts was kind of our starting place,
and we talked to the university some." She said they had also
talked to Ahtna Incorporated. Although Ahtna was interested, the
opportunity was not quite there.
Number 1187
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what minimum through-put or volume of
biomass feed stock was required and how much that would cost.
MS. SMITH replied that for the 8-million-gallon plant, used as a
model because that was Anchorage's market, they estimated 36
million board feet per year.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said although that would take care of
Anchorage, areas such as Fairbanks also had a problem. He asked
about the possibility of multiple plants and how much an 8-million-
gallon-per-year plant would cost. He further asked whether that
amount would be produced throughout the year for use over a three-
month period.
MS. SMITH replied that right now Anchorage is oxygenating their
fuels year-round. They have chosen to do that, although by law
they only are required to oxygenate for four months. Ms. Smith
said, "Alaska can do whatever they want to. If they want to start
using 85 percent ethanol in vehicles made by Ford, there's a Taurus
out now you can buy." She indicated the 500-vehicle state vehicle
fleet could be changed over, creating a market. There were also
export markets. She asked Mr. Yancey to address multiple plants.
Number 1265
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN restated his concern, saying although NREL was
gearing around an 8-million-gallon plant for Anchorage, there was
also a problem in Fairbanks requiring use of an alternate fuel.
MR. YANCEY responded, "The size of the plant normally is restricted
by the distance that you have to transport the feed stock. So the
bigger the plant gets, the more ... feed stock you have to bring in
from longer distances. So you reach a point where bigger plants
aren't economical."
Number 1292
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested the study might show it was better
to locate the plant even away from Anchorage. It might be cheaper
to ship the biomass a short distance and then ship the product.
MR. YANCEY agreed. He said generally it was more important to
locate the plant where the resource was.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked how much an 8-million-gallon plant would
cost.
MR. YANCEY said about $20 million for the ethanol plant. "If you
have to build a biomass power plant with it, that may be another
$10 million," he added.
Number 1320
MS. SMITH referred to the Ketchikan pulp mill and pointed out that
facility already had the boilers in place, which would reduce
capital costs.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS noted that this might be a big help to
Ketchikan. He asked whether a letter of support from the House
Resources Standing Committee would be helpful.
MS. SMITH believed it would. She suggested perhaps writing a
letter to NREL asking for assistance in a prefeasibility study.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS asked that Ms. Smith talk with her staff
and Pete Ecklund, and he indicated he would talk to the committee
co-chairmen.
Number 1368
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted that Alaska had a serious problem with an
excess of pulp-grade timber. He expressed hope that long-term
contracts could be negotiated to keep the sawmills open. He
believed it would be advantageous to look at ethanol production; at
using excess pulp-grade wood for setting up kilns; and at getting
more value-added finished products from Alaska's fine timber,
rather than letting someone else do it.
HB 89 - SHUYAK ISLAND STATE PARK
Number 1409
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the next order of business was House
Bill No. 89, "An Act relating to the Shuyak Island State Park." He
said he had been working closely with the sponsor and the Kodiak
Island Borough to come up with a consensus on a committee
substitute.
Number 1438
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN, sponsor of HB 89, said while the
bill was fairly simple, the issues of adding new lands to parks and
tying up lands in Alaska were complicated. He said the people of
Kodiak Island had been working on this concept for some time now.
He noted that Shuyak Island, the furthest north of a chain of
islands, is fairly small compared to Afognak Island or Kodiak
Island itself.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said the west side of Shuyak Island was
already a state park. On the east side, some of the island was
"tied up in what they call a marine habitat area." The area under
consideration was in the middle. Owned by the Kodiak Island
Borough, it had been deeded under an agreement with the state when
the state was giving out lands to municipalities.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said the history of Shuyak Island was one
of commercial and sport fishing, recreational use and hunting. On
the southern end of the island was an old processing plant, which
had been sold and converted into a recreational sport fishing and
hunting lodge. He said there were probably five other pieces of
patented land or mining claims in addition to the state and borough
lands on Shuyak Island.
Number 1549
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN explained that following settlement of the
Exxon Valdez case, a large amount of money was put into the Exxon
Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. They began looking for pieces of
property that should be protected. When the land in question was
chosen, Representative Austerman was on the Kodiak Island Borough
assembly. He had taken part in negotiations to involve the Exxon
Valdez trustees. The borough assembly had passed an ordinance
establishing a permanent fund for maintaining borough buildings;
that money would be available in the long term for Kodiak Island
and all its schools, including the six villages on the island. "So
we are looking forward to the finalization of all this," he said.
Number 1650
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN acknowledged that some people were
concerned about tying up more land. He said two-thirds of Kodiak
Island is in a National Wildlife Refuge, with the other third being
state and private holdings. Although the availability of land was
a constant source of concern, he believed certain pieces of
property were special and should not be logged or subjected to
motorized use. "And we on Kodiak Island feel that Shuyak Island is
that place for us," he stated.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN explained the exclusion of all-terrain
vehicles (ATVs). The terrain was not conducive to ATVs. It was
heavily timbered, with only a few open areas right on top of the
mountains. He believed the Kodiak community considered that when
deciding they wanted this as a state park. He said, "Now, the deal
that the Kodiak Island Borough struck with the Exxon Valdez, and
have struck with the state parks, is that they put a lot of
covenants on what the state parks could do with the property as
well. And part of that was the ATVs, for example. Part of it was
that there are six or so pieces of patented land and mining claims
on there that needed to be recognized and not touched and not
interfered with."
Number 1742
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN briefly discussed CSHB 89(CRA). The
question had been raised whether Kodiak Island should be protected
further because the covenants were not in the original bill but in
a separate agreement. The CSHB 89(CRA) version, which
Representative Austerman had gone through, included those
covenants; he had no problem with that. He said the only other
issue that came up during the previous committee's hearing was in
reference to firearms. He asked Co-Chairman Ogan whether that was
covered in the current proposed committee substitute.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said yes.
Number 1792
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES asked, "When you looked at this park,
did you look at finding land elsewhere that we could take a like
amount of land and make it public, or other uses, take it out of
the park system in exchange for putting this land into the park
system?"
Number 1815
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said he had not, although there may have
been other discussions at the borough level in the final stages of
which he was unaware. He suggested someone from the Division of
Parks and Outdoor Recreation or the mayor of Kodiak might address
that. Representative Austerman acknowledged the desire of some
legislators for a "land-neutral" concept. He stated he had no
problem with that, if it was required to protect areas needing
protection and to open areas that should be opened.
Number 1852
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to language in Section 1 of CSHB
89(CRA) that said, "continued use of the area for sport and
subsistence hunting and fishing, commercial fishing, trapping and
recreational activities." He stated there was a "real donnybrook"
between those entities. The legislature kept saying it was trying
to bring the warring factions together between sports fishing and
commercial fishing. Yet this bill added the separation again.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Representative Austerman to consider
dropping the segregation between fishing activities. Instead, he
suggested the wording "for hunting, fishing and trapping and
recreational activities." He expressed the desire to keep this
divisiveness out of new legislation and asked for Representative
Austerman's thoughts.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied that they had thought about that.
He himself had added "commercial fishing" into the bill. One
reason was that Shuyak Island historically had been a lucrative
commercial fishing area, and he was concerned about excluding an
industry that had been there so long. He was also concerned that
if the bill just said "fishing," at some point the Division of
Parks and Outdoor Recreation might preclude commercial fishing.
He said he did not look at it as being a divisive action. Rather,
he looked at it more as a protection of the existing things already
going on in that area.
Number 1962
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said a significant amount of land was
purchased as an outgrowth of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince
William Sound. He proposed finding out how much additional land
had been "locked up" with the oil spill money. He expressed
concern that Alaska, a resource state, was locking itself out. He
suggested a potential a trade-off of these lands.
Number 2039
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said he did not have information on how
much land the Exxon Valdez settlement had purchased. He knew it
was a fair amount. However, one of the beauties Kodiak Island
residents saw and felt was that two-thirds of the island was tied
up in the federal National Wildlife Refuge, which protected them.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said before becoming a legislator, he
fought with the National Wildlife Refuge tooth and nail because he
thought they were too protective. Now he had served two years in
the legislature and gone through battles over issues in Cook Inlet
and the Kenai River, for example, about what is happening to the
habitat and the wildlife resource. He was becoming ever more
thankful for the National Wildlife Refuge because it had a tendency
to keep Kodiak pristine enough so they could still enjoy it. He
emphasized that it was still usable.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN explained that nearby Afognak Island
contained a lot of clear-cut area. "It's good economy," he said.
"And you look at the old area where they clear-cut it before, and
it's starting to grow back. But if you took the whole island and
did that to it, then I think you've destroyed the pristine value of
what you've got out there. So I think that you have to have that
balance. And I think that on Kodiak, you've got it."
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN referred to Shuyak Island and indicated
access to this valued pristine wilderness was by skiff or float
plane. It offered the ability for a tourism industry that cannot
be destroyed. He emphasized they were trading off the logging
industry or other development for the tourism industry.
Number 2166
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN offered a proposed committee substitute, 0-
LS0382\B, Luckhaupt, 2/17/97.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN advised that the mayor of Kodiak Island
Borough and the assembly agreed with the changes in the proposed
committee substitute.
Number 2191
DAVID STANCLIFF, Legislative Assistant to Representative Scott
Ogan, came forward to explain changes in the proposed committee
substitute. He referred to Section 1, page 1, lines 7 through 15.
He said the purposes section was changed to put it more in line
with covenants and deed restrictions contained in the agreement
between the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation and the Kodiak
Island Borough. It required the division to follow that agreement,
which related to traditional uses. It also added commercial
fishing as a traditional use.
MR. STANCLIFF referred to Section 4, page 3, lines 26 through 30.
He said the second change provided specific language to protect the
Department of Fish and Game's management authority within the park.
Not a new concept, it had been used in other land descriptions.
Number 2275
MR. STANCLIFF referred to Section 5, page 4, lines 5 through 7. He
said the third change related to the prohibition of weapons. The
original bill had said "lawful use of a weapon." He explained,
"This allows people within the park to use a weapon at all times
for personal protection. And if there are going to be
prohibitions, they should be for only during a time when the public
safety is unduly threatened within that park."
MR. STANCLIFF referred to Section 5, page 4, line 15. He said it
added commercial fishing as a protected traditional use.
MR. STANCLIFF referred to Section 6, page 4, lines 18 through 28.
He said the most comprehensive change was language added by prior
legislatures to shift the burden somewhat from the user to the
department when an incompatibility was found within a state park.
"This would require the commissioner to go through a series of
steps and outline what that compatibility is, the specific area
that it's going to occur in, the time that the incompatibility is
going to exist and also the reasons for each compatibility," he
explained. Mr. Stancliff said one other important provision in
Section 6 was that traditional access to private land within the
park was also included, which was not specifically stated in the
previous bill.
Number 2364
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to page 4, line 7. She asked the
meaning of the language, "and only at such times that public safety
is unduly threatened".
MR. STANCLIFF replied, "That would mean probably a circumstance ...
where there was heavy camping in an area. And if people had been
accustomed to using that area as a target practice area, and it to
be an area where people camped heavily, the commissioner, ... both
under the incompatible uses and this clause, could prohibit the use
of a weapon there."
Number 2394
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES suggested anytime there was vague language in
legislation, somebody did mischief. She believed "unduly
threatened" was too vague.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN concurred. He proposed a conceptual amendment
that would strike "is unduly" from the language, leaving it saying,
"and only such times that public safety is threatened."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to adopt that amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he would have used the term "public
safety crisis."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN thought that was also subjective. He said a
person with a gun in the woods might seem threatening to someone.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said that to him, the word "crisis" was far
more restrictive than the proposed wording.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted there was a motion before the committee to
adopt the amendment. He asked whether Representative Dyson still
objected.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON withdrew his objection.
TAPE 97-16, SIDE B
Number 0006
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested that since the committee substitute
was not yet adopted, it could not be amended.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES withdrew her motion. She then made a motion
that the committee adopt work draft 0-LS0382\B, Luckhaupt, 2/17/97.
She asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, the work
draft was before the committee.
Number 0059
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to amend the work draft on page
4, line 7, by striking the words "is unduly" following "public
safety." The language would then read, "only at such times that
public safety is threatened". She asked unanimous consent. There
being no objection, the amendment was adopted.
Number 0089
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE referred to page 4, line 5, and asked
whether it might be necessary to define "weapon."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied that he would broadly interpret that to be
firearms, bow and arrow, a knife, or any other form of weapon. He
asked whether anyone present could address that.
Number 0115
MR. STANCLIFF explained, "The drafters typically try to include a
term broad enough to include anything that may be used to carry out
the traditional activities in the area. And they don't want to be
restrictive. So they have gone to the term "weapon" as a broad
term, to be all-inclusive."
Number 0143
JIM STRATTON, Director, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation,
Department of Natural Resources, came forward to testify in support
of HB 89. He said the existing park provided some of the best
hunting and fishing opportunities in the entire state park system.
When the park was created in 1984, the legislature provided for
four public-use cabins, which had become some of the more popular
in the entire park system, especially in August for the silver
salmon run and in the fall for deer hunting. Travel through the
park was primarily by float plane from Kodiak or Homer, which
provided a significant economic boost to air taxi operators and
guides in both communities.
Number 0194
MR. STRATTON said HB 89 would perpetuate these fish, wildlife and
recreation opportunities by expanding the park's boundaries to
encompass two major pieces of land for which current and future
uses were legally restricted for fish and wildlife habitat and
public recreation purposes. The 9,009 acres of existing state
land, delineated in blue on the map, were restricted by a legal
settlement between the state and the Kodiak Island Borough. This
legal settlement resulted from a disagreement over municipal
entitlements and sets forth in a consent decree, signed in 1981,
that these lands may only be used for wildlife habitat and public
recreation. Plans for that acreage to become a state game refuge
were never completed; it was now included in this park expansion
bill.
MR. STRATTON said in 1996, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS)
Trustee Council purchased the lands delineated on the map in
yellow. He noted these were the lands that Representative
Austerman had spoken about that brought funds to the Kodiak Island
Borough; the borough was using those funds for a local permanent
fund. Mr. Stratton suggested that Mayor Selby might speak to that.
"But the borough did sell the land with the expectation that it
would be added to the park to perpetuate the fishing, hunting and
recreational uses," Mr. Stratton said. "The conservation easement
held on those properties by the federal government restricts uses
to those which will maintain the existing fish and wildlife habitat
and allow for public recreation."
MR. STRATTON said the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation has
a long history of providing recreational access in a habitat-
friendly manner and looked forward to providing that access in an
expanded Shuyak Island State Park. Once those additions were
established as part of the park system, the division would revise
the current park master plan to include the new acreage in an
island-wide plan for new trails, campsites, possible new cabin
sites and anchorages. Those were reflected in the fiscal note. As
funds and volunteers were made available, once the planning was
done, the new access opportunities would be realized.
Number 0264
MR. STRATTON said park designation does not diminish existing
hunting, fishing or trapping rights on the island. He believed the
committee substitute ensured that would be the case. He said the
park's original 1984 legislation clearly intended for management of
fish and game, especially commercial fishing, to be the
responsibility of the Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), not the
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. However, the latter did
work cooperatively with the ADF&G by managing two fish weir
counting sites to help the ADF&G determine commercial fish
openings.
MR. STRATTON said management of Shuyak Island would cost the park
system only a minimal amount, as they already had a seasonally
staffed ranger station on the island and a volunteer program that
brought two-to-four volunteers out every summer to assist the
ranger. "The increased cost of management is for extra boat gas to
access the shoreline of an expanded park," he explained. "We are
currently expanding the visitor opportunities in the existing park
through development of a trail system and a new visitor contact
station funded by the state's Exxon Valdez criminal settlement
through the Division of Parks marine recreation project."
Number 0305
MR. STRATTON said Shuyak Island's existing reputation as a fishing
and hunting destination in the late summer and fall is expanding as
Alaskans, local tourism companies and adventure travelers from
around the world discover its unique kayaking and small boating
opportunities to not only fish but also observe marine mammals, sea
birds and terrestrial wildlife. He believed the park expansion
would add Shuyak Island to Alaska's other great park units as a
topic for adventure travel and sports magazines seeking new
destinations. He said designating the entire island as a park
would add to its allure and increase its notoriety as an Alaska
recreational destination. "This is good for Alaskan hunters,
fishermen and boaters and good for those businesses providing
transportation and support," he said.
MR. STRATTON advised that he had reviewed the proposed committee
substitute. He agreed with the intent to ensure that neither this
park administration nor future ones restricted hunting, fishing and
trapping opportunities on the island. He deferred to Craig
Tillery.
Number 0365
CRAIG TILLERY, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Section,
Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, testified via
teleconference. He referred to page 1, lines 7 and 8, which read,
"In accordance with the covenants and deed restrictions set by the
Kodiak Island Borough". He stated his assumption that the wording
referred to the warranty deed for the portion of land acquired by
the trustee council recently. Because this bill affected the
entire park, a much greater area of land, he believed the wording
was somewhat inconsistent. "However, certainly the things that you
go on to list that are the way you go on to describe them do not
present any problem at all legally," he stated.
MR. TILLERY believed the sentence beginning "In accordance" was not
only a bit inconsistent but also somewhat vague in that it did not
specify which document it referred to. He suggested deleting that
sentence and saying, "The purposes of establishing the park are"
and continuing from there. "Other than that, everything that's
changed in here is something that's really a matter of discretion
for Parks," he said. "It doesn't create a legal problem with any
of the deeds or restrictive covenants that I can see."
Number 0428
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said he could see Mr. Tillery's point about
inconsistency because while the bill covered the whole state park,
it referred to the part recently conveyed to the state for the
purpose of the park. He asked whether having this discussion on
the record would be adequate if there were a court challenge.
MR. TILLERY responded, "I don't know that a court would go back and
look at this. I don't see this as bringing up an issue. I don't
see a court challenge as based on this language. It only is sort
of preparatory language. The meat of what the purposes are is in
the clause that follows that. If you wish to leave it in here like
this, I do not see it creating a legal problem. I simply point it
out as something that I felt was a little ambiguous and was ...
sort of inconsistent with perhaps what people were thinking when
they wrote it. But I do not see this creating a legal problem."
Number 0503
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he wanted to see what had been designated
over the past few years as park purchases and restricted use. He
asked whether that was possible and whether Mr. Stratton would be
the appropriate person to do it.
MR. STRATTON responded, "I believe that's something we could put
together in fairly short order for you."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "I would sure like to see that because
I think we need to know, as a committee, just what has happened and
what is likely to happen in the future."
Number 0539
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted that he had heard HB 89 in the previous
committee. He had expressed concern to Mr. Stratton then about the
ramifications of putting a state park where people hunted. He said
the reason for drafting the committee substitute was to protect
traditional lifestyles. "It's reasonable that we can call it a
park," he said. "And certainly, the traditional uses will be
protected in statute, and we won't be able to log or some of these
other uses."
Number 0577
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether the uses allowed in this park
differed from other state park uses.
MR. STRATTON responded, "Not significantly, no. You can hunt in
all the state parks, with the exception of parts of Chugach State
Park. Legislation was passed in 1984 that made it very clear that
you can hunt in state parks, but ... part of that legislation
allowed certain wildlife viewing areas in Chugach State Park to be
off-limits to hunting, in consultation with and set by the Board of
Game. But all the other parks are -- people hunt in them now."
Number 0606
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern about "fixing" this one and
then having it subject to restrictions by future legislatures. He
acknowledged that one legislature could not bind future ones.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said he shared those concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES commented, "Indeed we did fix it in 1984 so
that people could continue these traditional hunting -- and there
was a big move that caused us to do that, because they were trying
to drive the hunters out of these national parks and to get rid of
firearms."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked which park Representative Barnes was
referring to.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said, "Well, it was throughout the state. So
we did pass a law that says you could continue to use firearms in
the park, and there's some language in there that allows them to
restrict it on a very narrow basis. And I don't recall what that
was but I do remember the battle that we had here over it. 'Cause
ever since I've been in this legislature, they've been trying to
lock up land and stop people from hunting and fishing and
everything else. If you're a bird watcher, you've got it made."
Number 0699
WILLY DUNNE, Chair, Kachemak Bay State Parks Citizen Advisory
Board, testified via teleconference from Homer, saying he was a
hunter, a fisherman and a bird watcher. He explained that because
the advisory board had unanimously passed a resolution the previous
week supporting CSHB 89(CRA), he could not speak to the proposed
committee substitute. However, the board encompassed a broad range
of user groups, including avid hunters and fishermen. Many board
members used Kachemak Bay State Park for hunting and realized that
was a valid use of state parks. He said they wanted the expansion
of Shuyak State Park to increase recreational opportunities.
MR. DUNNE said expansion made sense from an economic standpoint.
Commercial operators in Homer flew people to Shuyak Island State
Park. There were float plane operators, a commercial boat
operator, and kayak outfitters operating there as well. This bill
would expand those economic opportunities.
MR. DUNNE said many people in his area viewed the bill as opening
land to the public. In Homer and Kachemak Bay State Park, and on
the Homer Spit especially, when land was developed and turned over
to private ownership, "no trespassing" signs went up. That seemed
to be the ultimate lock-up. Where people once could recreate, hunt
and fish, they were no longer allowed.
Number 0820
JEROME SELBY, Mayor, Kodiak Island Borough, testified via
teleconference. He said Shuyak Island had been under consideration
as a park for 15 to 20 years by the Kodiak community. In Kodiak,
two or three people showing up for a public hearing was
significant; ten indicated a major issue. However, 100 people
showed up the night a proposal to dispose of this land came up in
the early 1980s, saying, `Do not dispose of this land; put it into
a state park.'" He said that feeling has grown over the years.
MAYOR SELBY explained this land was selected by the trustee council
because more species impacted by the Exxon Valdez oil spill used
Shuyak Island than any other single piece of land in the oil spill
region. "We look at it as being critical to developing the Kodiak
Island tourism industry," he said. "We have a substantial
opportunity here to diversify our economy, and the tourism use of
Shuyak Island is a very important part of that overall plan."
MAYOR SELBY said, "I guess we would differ with you significantly
about the use of the word `lock-up.' We see this as a development
of maybe a different type, because we see it being developed for a
lot of tourism activity. The fact is that we use the heck out of
this island."
MAYOR SELBY said the island was small but had a rich ecosystem. It
could be hiked across in a day, and people could hunt, fish and
watch birds. Of the entire Kodiak archipelago, Shuyak Island was
the crown jewel they wished to preserve for tourism development.
MAYOR SELBY noted that Afognak Island, just south of Shuyak Island,
was mostly privately owned and would be logged and clear-cut.
"That gives us a balance," he said. "We're looking for a tourism
spot here on the north end." He said private ownership and heavy
logging on Afognak were one reason they had not proposed a trade-
off in terms of land disposal.
MAYOR SELBY said furthermore, the land in question was already
public land of the Kodiak Island Borough. "We're just retaining it
as public land, but now it's in the hands of the state," he said.
"So we haven't really removed from the private sector anything."
Number 0983
MAYOR SELBY stated support for inserting commercial fishing into
the bill, as the area continues to be important for that activity.
Shuyak Island was also used for some brown bear hunting and as a
major deer hunting area. Many people came from Anchorage and the
Kenai Peninsula area to hunt deer in the fall, as it was the most
accessible island of the Kodiak archipelago with a healthy deer
population.
MAYOR SELBY advised, "We put the deed restrictions on it on
purpose. The hunting and fishing is also protected by the deed
restrictions, when we transferred the land, so that we've kind of
gone parallel here with you in preparing this parks bill, because
we felt that there's pretty much unanimous support from every
interest group in Kodiak."
MAYOR SELBY said, "Just for clarification, the state of Alaska now
owns this island entirely. What we are asking you to do is adopt
this bill, which places it into the state land status as a park,
and that the primary reason that we chose park status to recommend
to you folks was because that that means that it never comes up for
disposal in the state land management system. Virtually every
other type of land status in the state, at some point or another,
it can come up and can be disposed of potentially. We didn't want
it in that status."
MAYOR SELBY said with the language in the bill, Shuyak Island will
obviously be a heavily used parcel of land even though it has park
status. He urged passage of the proposed committee substitute.
Number 1101
TOM PEARSON testified via teleconference from Kodiak, saying he
agreed with many of the previous speaker's statements. He believed
the park had actually improved access to these public lands rather
than locking them up. It enhanced both sport and commercial
fishing by having volunteers maintain fish weirs on the island,
providing timely information regarding commercial seasons, openings
and closings. He found commercial and recreational fishing to be
compatible in the park. He said while fishing recreationally, he
had been able to outfish some of the seiners during commercial
openings. He urged passage of the bill.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said, "We wanted to ensure that important
lifestyle." He noted that the National Park System had closed
commercial fishing in some areas.
Number 1206
HANK PENNINGTON testified via teleconference from Kodiak. A 22-
year resident of Kodiak Island, he had been writing an outdoor
column for six years. Intimately familiar with Shuyak Island, he
hunted, fished and photographed wildlife there. He complimented
the state parks on their record to date in being "supportive,
friendly and even enthusiastic in ensuring that the people that use
the existing Shuyak State Park have that opportunity and it's a
quality experience."
MR. PENNINGTON said that attitude and those priorities were
reflected in the existing Shuyak Island State Park Management Plan,
dated March 1995. "And based on their performance in the past and
the outlook for the future, and the restrictions or specific
language you've put in your committee substitute on this bill, I
have every confidence that that tradition is going to continue if
this becomes a state park." He said it would be a serious
misconception for someone to view inclusion of these lands in a
park as any kind of restriction on outdoor activities including
hunting, fishing and subsistence uses.
MR. PENNINGTON spoke against use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) on
Shuyak Island. He believed the highest point on the island was
only 500 feet. The land was user-friendly in terms of foot
traffic, and the bays and fjords provided excellent access from the
water. He said the timber on the island would restrict use of
ATVs. Even worse, much of the island was low, boggy, marshy areas
where a single pass of an ATV would be extremely destructive. He
encouraged including a prohibition in the bill against ATV use
there.
Number 1346
JOEL WATTUM testified via teleconference from Kodiak in support of
the bill. He described Shuyak Island as small, pristine and having
a nice ecosystem that would be easy to damage. He believed having
the park there, with one active manager, was preferable to having
several nonactive managers with no knowledge of uses occurring
there. He said since the cabins were built, Shuyak Island was
actually more available to people for recreational fishing and
hunting opportunities.
MR. WATTUM concurred with Mr. Pennington's testimony about ATVs.
He believed it would be difficult to use ATVs there other than on
game trails and beaches. Some places were even tough to walk
through.
Number 1483
KIM SCHMIDT came forward to testify in support of HB 89. A Juneau
resident, she had been an Alaska State Parks volunteer on Shuyak
Island in the summer of 1995. She had maintained cabins and trails
and assisted park visitors. One of the most important
responsibilities was managing a salmon weir to track the health of
Shuyak's coho salmon runs. She said numerous commercial fishing
openings brought boats from both Kodiak and Homer.
MS. SCHMIDT noted the economic importance of the coho run. A late
run, it afforded fishermen an opportunity to make up for losses
earlier in the season. It also attracted sports fishing
enthusiasts. During the run, cabins were booked solid, with some
guests having to book cabins six months in advance.
MS. SCHMIDT said on Shuyak Island, she had met Alaskans and both
domestic and international travelers. Travel to Shuyak provided
income for float plane pilots from Kodiak and the Kenai Peninsula,
retailers and sports outfitters. She described Shuyak Island as
spectacular even by Alaskan standards. She urged passage of the
bill to enlarge a park already enjoyed extensively by Alaskans.
Number 1604
MICHELE DRUMMOND came forward to testify. A Kodiak Island
resident, she supported HB 89 and believed the park had plenty of
support from the community.
Number 1640
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said the fiscal note had not been
addressed in the previous committee. "It's $15,000," he said. "I
would prefer that that become a zero note, that the amount of money
that they're asking for is something that I think they can absorb
in the park system already. If they're going to add new cabins in
the area, the income from the rental of the cabins should cover
boat gas and the things that the park is really interested in."
Number 1680
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she had been going to make that motion.
She did not believe the legislature should ever pass out fiscal
notes as small as $15,000 or $1,000. "And certainly the
departments can more than make up for it in their huge budgets,"
she said.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said in light of the state's fiscal crisis, he
concurred.
Number 1717
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion that the committee substitute
for HB 89, Version B, as amended, move from the committee with
individual recommendations. She further moved that the committee
zero out the $15,000 fiscal note from the Department of Natural
Resources and instead adopt a zero fiscal note. She suggested
there would then be no need for the bill to go to the House Finance
Committee. She asked for unanimous consent.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected for discussion and asked where the
bill would go next if there were no zero fiscal note.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that it had a House Finance Committee
referral.
Number 1780
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN requested that it be waived from the House
Finance Committee and go straight to the House Rules Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he had no problem with moving the bill.
However, he was concerned about only having a verbal commitment
from the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation to provide
information. He wanted to see what lands had been withdrawn for
park purposes, preferably on a map but certainly in a description,
because he wanted to see how much land would not be available for
private use. "And so I would really like to see that as almost a
condition-after-the-fact to passing this bill out," he said.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES agreed. She suggested it would be preferable
to have the "whole Department of Natural Resources relating to
lands" show the committee on a map exactly how much state land was
in parks and other uses. She indicated most of the land from the
abolished Mental Health Trust went into parks. She expressed
concern over the extremely small amount of private land in Alaska.
She suggested the committee needed to see a map with overlays
showing federal, state and municipal lands. She believed an entire
meeting should be scheduled for that.
Number 1955
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN withdrew his objection.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Stratton to plan on briefing the
committee on that at his earliest convenience.
Number 1970
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to the fiscal note and stated, "I
know $15,000 isn't much, but we often hear how sometimes various
departments get mandated to do something but the dollars don't
follow. And ... at $1,000, I can certainly see that, and maybe
even at this amount. But I don't know what amount should be a cut-
off point. And I guess I would just caution that we be careful
about mandating without having money to follow where it might be
needed."
Number 2074
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether there was any objection to
Representative Barnes's motion. There being no objection, CSHB
89(RES) moved from the House Resources Standing Committee with a
zero fiscal note.
HJR 20 - OPPOSE DEPT. OF INTERIOR RS 2477 POLICY
TAPE 97-17, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN provided the sponsor statement for the next order
of business, House Joint Resolution No. 20, relating to RS 2477
rights-of-way. He explained, "Revised Statute 2477 was a right
granted to the states in the United States Congress with the
passage of the mining act in 1866. Subsequent congressional
action, and more than 100 years of case law, has recognized the
state's authority to determine and define RS 2477 rights-of-way."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted that Congress had repealed RS 2477 in 1976.
However, they specifically acknowledged the legal existence of RS
2477 rights-of-way established prior to the repeal. On January 22,
1977, Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt issued an interim
departmental policy which contained bureaucratic roadblocks and
created new definitions, including language relating to existing
highways.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN concluded, "RS 2477 rights-of-way are critical to
the future of our young state. We do not have the transportation
corridors that other states have, and the one-size-fits-all
mentality of, sometimes, our friends in the administration in
Washington, D.C., doesn't necessarily work for us. Therefore, I
have introduced this resolution."
Number 0214
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES offered an amendment, provided by Co-Chairman
Ogan, and asked unanimous consent. The amendment read:
Page 3, line 29, following "the":
Insert "Honorable William Clinton, President of the
United States of America; and to the Honorable Bruce
Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior; and to the"
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked if there was an objection. There being
none, the amendment was adopted.
Number 0264
JODY KENNEDY, Volunteer, Alaska Environmental Lobby (AEL), referred
to her written testimony and pointed out that references to SJR 13
should read HJR 20. Ms. Kennedy said, "This resolution and
Secretary of the Interior Babbitt's newly-stated policy for
administering RS 2477 claims continue to fuel the controversy over
this 120-year-old statute. The Alaska Environmental Lobby
represents 22 environmental organizations and over 10,000 Alaskans,
The lobby strongly opposes HJR 20 for the following reasons:
"RS 2477 rights-of-way are no panacea for the perceived inadequacy
of the state's road system. Supporters of HJR 20 are misleading
the public when they claim that these rights-of-way are the answer
to public access across federal lands. The routes of primitive
trails and dirt roads alleged to be RS 2477 rights-of-way are
inadequate for modern highway alignments even if the courts were
ultimately to determine that these rights-of-way could be used for
modern highways.
"An attempt to secure RS 2477 routes by the state will engender
intense controversy and impose staggering litigation costs on
private property owners, homesteaders, allotment owners, mining
claim owners and Native landowners who will need to defend their
private property rights against the state's claims that they likely
have no idea exist. If HJR 20 is adopted and the Knowles
Administration follows through on its instructions, Alaska will go
to war with thousands of its own citizens.
"State acquisition of these rights-of-way through national
conservation systems and across millions of acres of Native and
other private lands will lead to a multitude of undesirable
impacts, such as destruction of fish and wildlife habitat,
disturbance of wildlife and other quiet users, increased hunting
pressure in competition with rural residents, poaching and off-road
vehicle trespassing.
"The state has other avenues it can pursue to obtain rights-of-way
across much of the federal land in Alaska, such as ANILCA's Title
XI provisions for establishing transportation corridors. These
alternative approaches for the state to establish rights-of-way are
far less contentious than asserting RS 2477 claims and provide
opportunity to obtain the necessary alignments needed for
construction for a modern road or highway.
"The Alaska Legislature's posturing on this issue, with its
overtones and undercurrents of Sagebrush Rebellion and Wise Use
rhetoric, is clearly another example of state's rights sword-
rattling. By embracing the Utah county approach for `exert your
rights first, get asked questions later,' the legislature is
promoting an approach that is [the] antithesis of reasoned
statesmanship.
"The Alaska Environmental Lobby urges the promoters of HJR 20 to
call off their declaration of war on thousands of fellow Alaskans.
State-federal discourse and negotiation is needed, not a quick-fix
scheme costing state and landowners staggering sums of money and
time. Should this misguided resolution pass, AEL urges the
Governor to ignore it in favor of calm and rational discussions
with the Department of Interior on how Title XI can be implemented
in the best interests of Alaska and the nation."
Number 0642
CRAIG PUDDICOMBE testified via teleconference from Mat-Su, saying
he and Jack Dunham are plaintiffs in an ongoing quiet-title lawsuit
related to RS 2477. Although at first it was a claim of adverse
possession, it became an RS 2477 issue after defendants failed on
adverse possession. There had been seven years of court
proceedings. They believed because theirs was the only active RS
2477 case, they were becoming a test case for the State of Alaska.
MR. PUDDICOMBE referred to the Joint Senate/House Resources
Committees overview of RS 2477 on February 2, 1997. He believed it
was inappropriate for Doug Blankenship, the defendants' attorney,
to testify about the plaintiffs' case at that meeting and for
Attorney General Bruce Botelho to say that the State of Alaska had
filed an amicus of significant contribution in the case.
Number 0723
MR. PUDDICOMBE said the "pro" of RS 2477 is to access land, whereas
the "con" is that with the different types of land in Alaska, there
will be different RS 2477s. First, there were RS 2477s concerning
federal lands. He thought it was naive for the state to believe
the federal government would not want a say concerning RS 2477s on
federal land. He foresaw costly litigation relating to these.
MR. PUDDICOMBE said second, RS 2477s asserted on state land would
also not be settled without costs and litigations because of the
different user groups. Third were RS 2477s to be asserted on
private property, of particular concern, for example, to a private
property owner who thought he owned his land because no easements
were reserved in the patent or the deed.
MR. PUDDICOMBE cited his own case as an example. It involved a
five-acre parcel surrounded by thousands of acres of state land,
which contained other access routes to the area in question. A
state decision from a two-year study by the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) had found no RS 2477s on his property. That was
appealed, and the lower court's decision was reversed. However,
there was no reference to the State of Alaska decision, he said.
"Because of the Supreme Court's decision, the same assistant
attorney general that was involved extensively in the state's
decision also (indisc.) not appealed by him - not appealable by him
- now is asking the court for a 100-foot right-of-way through our
property," he said. "This is just one case. Think about the ones
to come."
MR. PUDDICOMBE said fourth, RS 2477s will be asserted on Native
lands, which basically are the same as private property. Fifth, RS
2477s will be asserted on federal and state parks, military
installations, borough and city land and possibly game refuges. He
said, "2477 as defined as a right-of-way for the construction of
highways over public lands, not reserved for public use, is hereby
granted - about as broad as it gets." He suggested every 18-inch
game trail followed by humans for hunting, fishing, mining, hiking,
and so forth would be included.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Puddicombe to summarize because of time
constraints. He noted that testimony provided in writing would be
included in the record and made available to members on the floor.
Number 0980
MR. PUDDICOMBE suggested appropriate parts of that last statement
be included in RS 2477 regulations concerning private property. He
stated, "It was and is very irresponsible for the State of Alaska
not to note all easements, including 2477s, on the deed at the time
of patent. The State of Alaska should advertise for 2477s on all
land that is to become private property. If one exists, then
record it as such. If not, don't. If the State of Alaska can come
forward at any time after a patent is issued and assert a 2477,
then there is no property that is sacred and no reason why a person
would want to own so-called private property. Without a 2477
easement recorded, your title insurance is useless. ... You have
wasted thousands of dollars on worthless property or thousands more
proving there isn't one."
Number 1047
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted that RS 2477 rights-of-way have been
identified. He said there is public record of those, although he
did not know whether it was all recorded, which may be part of the
problem. "But we're working on that," he added.
Number 1086
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that Jane Angvik from DNR was available on
teleconference.
Number 1111
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to a 1995 report of the Natural
Resources Policy Transition Team, provided shortly after the new
administration came into office. The report said, under
transportation, that one suggestion was to develop consensus among
all affected groups to assert or vacate RS 2477 rights-of-way,
place limits on how RS 2477 rights-of-way may be used and managed,
and then address all existing ANCSA claims. Representative Green
stated concern that the term "or vacate" would imply they were
really thinking about dropping this, despite what the committee had
heard. He asked Ms. Angvik to address the DNR's current attitude.
Number 1175
JANE ANGVIK, Director, Division of Land, Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), testified via teleconference. Although not
familiar with that report, she believed the Administration was
diligently trying to come up with management policies for RS 2477s.
She explained, "As you're well aware, we have existing regulations
that govern rights-of-way. You're asking me if they're still
interested in vacating, and I'd say that we're still trying to
figure out how to do the assertions. And that would occur long
before anybody would vacate any of these." Ms. Angvik said as far
as procedure, the Attorney General's office, the Department of
Transportation and the DNR were trying to work out any regulatory
changes that they would propose for the management of RS 2477s
after they were asserted and successfully asserted in the courts.
Number 1253
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern that they were still trying
to assert the RS 2477 issue, after which they would address
vacating it or, if not that, place limitations on it. He reminded
the committee of the extreme difficultly in getting the TAPS
pipeline rights-of-way needed to go across federal lands. "And
that's our umbilical cord to survival," he said. "Can you imagine
a mere thing like a road or an accessibility?" He said he had
heard Ms. Angvik say the DNR was not yet sure yet where they were.
"And to me, that's scary," he said.
Number 1304
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said, "I would like to think that this
Administration, if they got it in their head to vacate right-of-
ways, that they would certainly come before this legislature to
discuss their intent so we could take appropriate action, because
I believe that there would be an appropriate remedy whereby we
could stop them from doing such a thing. And I cannot imagine, in
my wildest dream, that ... this transition report that they have,
that it is something that they would consider doing as something
that would be looked upon feasibly or looked upon well by the
Alaska public. And while there may be 10,000 people represented by
the environmental organizations, I'd like to say that there's some
660,000 Alaskans, and I don't think many of them would like to see
these right-of-ways vacated."
Number 1361
MS. ANGVIK emphasized that the Administration was not advocating
vacating any RS 2477s. She said vacations only occur when there is
another, more favorable or beneficial route. The DNR was neither
vacating nor proposing to vacate anything.
Number 1380
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN indicated he would like to discuss Mr.
Puddicombe's case privately with Ms. Angvik. He asked Ms. Angvik
whether she or the DNR supported HJR 20.
Number 1401
MS. ANGVIK at first said she did not know. She said they were as
outraged as the committee by the actions of Secretary of Interior
Babbitt. They wholeheartedly supported, and had actively spoken
out against, his actions on the promulgation of the new policy.
Ms. Angvik concluded by stating support for the resolution.
Number 1444
MR. NELSON ANGAPAK, Special Assistant - Lands, Alaska Federation of
Natives (AFN), said the AFN believes Section 17(b) of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) is the proper method of
identifying access across ANCSA lands, not Title XI of ANILCA. A
number of regions in the state had attempted to use Title XI for
access to lands they wanted to develop. The cost was prohibitive
and they do not see it as an answer to access onto private lands.
As an author of Title XI, he knew its intent. Therefore, access
into ANCSA lands should be through Section 17(b) of ANCSA.
Number 1551
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON informed the committee of a possible conflict
of interest because he owns land south of Denali with an easement
across it. Although he would support HJR 20, he wished the
easement were not there.
Number 1556
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move HJR 20, as amended,
with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note. There
being no objection, CSHJR 20(RES) moved from the House Resources
Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1570
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee
at 3:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|