Legislature(1995 - 1996)

04/10/1995 08:17 AM House RES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
               HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                         April 10, 1995                                        
                           8:17 a.m.                                           
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
 Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman                                         
 Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chairman                                     
 Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman                                      
 Representative Alan Austerman                                                 
 Representative Ramona Barnes                                                  
 Representative John Davies                                                    
 Representative Pete Kott                                                      
 Representative Irene Nicholia                                                 
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
 Representative Eileen MacLean                                                 
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
 SJR 12:     Relating to the United States Department of                       
             Agriculture, Forest Service; relating to the United               
             States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,                 
             strategic plan known as "Reinvention of the Forest                
             Service"; and advocating that implementation of the               
             plan be suspended pending Congressional review and                
             consultation with local governments.                              
             HCS CSSJR 12(RES) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                          
 HB 191:     "An Act relating to the management and disposal of                
             state land and resources; relating to certain remote              
             parcel and homestead entry land purchase contracts and            
             patents; and providing for an effective date."                    
             CSSSHB 191(RES) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                            
 *HB 279:    "An Act relating to a municipal river habitat                     
             protection tax credit."                                           
             CSHB 279(RES) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                              
 SB 93:      "An Act relating to the disposal of state land along              
             the Dalton Highway; and providing for an effective                
             HEARD AND HELD                                                    
 (* First public hearing)                                                      
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
 JACK PHELPS, Legislative Assistant                                            
   to Representative Bill Williams                                             
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 128                                                       
 Juneau, AK   99801                                                            
 Phone:  465-3215                                                              
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Reviewed changes on SJR 12                               
 REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT                                                
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 421                                                       
 Juneau, AK   99801                                                            
 Phone:  465-4797                                                              
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Prime Sponsor HB 191                                     
 RON SWANSON, Director                                                         
 Division of Land                                                              
 Department of Natural Resources                                               
 3601 C Street, Suite 1122                                                     
 Anchorage, AK   99503                                                         
 Phone:  762-2692                                                              
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions regarding HB 191                      
 REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS                                                     
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 420                                                       
 Juneau, AK   99801                                                            
 Phone:  465-2693                                                              
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Prime Sponsor HB 279                                     
 TOM BOEDEKER, Attorney                                                        
 Kenai Peninsula Borough                                                       
 144 N. Binkley                                                                
 Soldotna, AK   99669                                                          
 Phone:  262-4441                                                              
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HB 279 and answered questions                  
                      regarding HB 279                                         
 GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison                                              
 Alaska Department of Fish and Game                                            
 P.O. Box 25526                                                                
 Juneau, AK   99811-5526                                                       
 Phone:  465-4100                                                              
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions regarding HB 279                      
 SENATOR MIKE MILLER                                                           
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 125                                                       
 Juneau, AK   99801                                                            
 Phone:  465-4976                                                              
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Prime Sponsor SB 93                                      
 DEE HOFFMAN, Director of Planning                                             
 North Slope Borough                                                           
 P.O. Box 69                                                                   
 Barrow, AK   99723                                                            
 Phone:  852-0320                                                              
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported SB 93                                          
 RANDY MAYO, Chief                                                             
 Stevens Village Council                                                       
 Stevens Village, AK   99774                                                   
 Phone:  478-7228                                                              
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 93                                            
 GEORGE YASKA, Director of Wildlife                                            
 Tanana Chiefs Conference                                                      
 122 1st Avenue, Suite 600                                                     
 Fairbanks, AK   99701                                                         
 Phone:  452-3755                                                              
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported SB 93                                          
 TERESA SAGER, Legislative Assistant                                           
 Senator Mike Miller                                                           
 State Capitol, Room 125                                                       
 Juneau, AK   99801                                                            
 Phone:  465-4976                                                              
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions regarding SB 93                       
 SARA HANNAN, Representative                                                   
 Alaska Environmental Lobby, Inc.                                              
 P.O. Box 22151                                                                
 Juneau, AK   99801                                                            
 Phone:  463-3366                                                              
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 93                                            
 SAM KITO, Legislative Liaison                                                 
 Department of Transportation & Public Facilities                              
 3132 Channel Drive                                                            
 Juneau, AK   99801                                                            
 Phone:  465-3904                                                              
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions regarding SB 93                       
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
 BILL:  SJR 12                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: U.S. FOREST SERVICE PLAN                                         
 SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR,Pearce; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Williams              
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 01/25/95        81    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/25/95        81    (S)   RESOURCES                                         
 02/10/95              (S)   RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 02/10/95              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 02/14/95       266    (S)   RES RPT  CS  4DP      SAME TITLE                  
 02/14/95       267    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR)                            
 02/20/95              (S)   RLS AT 11:25 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 02/20/95              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 02/22/95       367    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  2/22/95                        
 02/22/95       368    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 02/22/95       368    (S)   RES  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                      
 02/22/95       368    (S)   AM NO  1     FAILED  Y8 N11 A1                    
 02/22/95       369    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                    
 02/22/95       369    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSJR 12(RES)                
 02/22/95       370    (S)   PASSED Y18 N1 A1                                  
 02/22/95       370    (S)   HALFORD  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                
 02/23/95       386    (S)   RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP                      
 02/23/95       390    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 02/27/95       479    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/27/95       479    (H)   RESOURCES                                         
 03/03/95       575    (H)   WTR REFERRAL ADDED                                
 03/21/95              (H)   WTR AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 203                       
 03/22/95       850    (H)   WTR RPT  3DP 1NR                                  
 03/22/95       851    (H)   DP: MULDER, PHILLIPS BARNES                       
 03/22/95       851    (H)   NR: KUBINA                                        
 03/22/95       851    (H)   SENATE ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR)                     
 03/27/95       947    (H)   CROSS SPONSOR(S): WILLIAMS                        
 04/05/95              (H)   RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 04/05/95              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 BILL:  HB 191                                                                
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) THERRIAULT                                      
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 02/22/95       448    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/22/95       448    (H)   RESOURCES, FINANCE                                
 03/15/95       741    (H)   SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-                    
 03/15/95       741    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/15/95       741    (H)   RESOURCES, FINANCE                                
 03/22/95              (H)   RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 03/22/95              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 03/29/95              (H)   RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 03/29/95              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 03/31/95              (H)   RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 03/31/95              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 04/07/95              (H)   RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 BILL:  HB 279                                                                
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) G.DAVIS,Navarre                                 
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 03/24/95       896    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/24/95       896    (H)   RESOURCES, FINANCE                                
 04/07/95              (H)   RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 BILL:  SB  93                                                                
 SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) MILLER,Green,Sharp; REPRESENTATIVE(S)                  
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 02/21/95       350    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/21/95       350    (S)   RES, FIN                                          
 02/23/95       386    (S)   COSPONSOR(S):  GREEN                              
 02/27/95              (S)   RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 02/27/95              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 02/28/95       418    (S)   RES RPT  CS  4DP 1NR   SAME TITLE                 
 02/28/95       418    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR #1)                         
 03/15/95       617    (S)   FIN RPT  3DP 2NR (RES)CS                          
 03/15/95       618    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DNR #1)                         
 03/15/95              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 03/15/95              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                       
 03/16/95              (S)   RLS AT 12:00 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 03/16/95              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 03/20/95       697    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  3/20/95                        
 03/20/95       704    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 03/20/95       704    (S)   RES  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                      
 03/20/95       704    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                    
 03/20/95       704    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 93(RES)                 
 03/20/95       705    (S)   PASSED Y12 N6 E2                                  
 03/20/95       705    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATE PASSED Y18 N- E2                   
 03/21/95       726    (S)   RESCINDED ACTION IN PASSING  UNAN                 
 03/21/95       726    (S)   BEFORE THE SENATE IN THIRD READING                
 03/21/95       726    (S)   RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1  UNAN                   
 03/21/95       726    (S)   AM NO  1     FAILED  Y6 N12 E2                    
 03/21/95       727    (S)   AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                    
 03/21/95       727    (S)   PASSED Y14 N4 E2                                  
 03/21/95       728    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATE FAILED Y12 N6 E2                   
 03/21/95       728    (S)   RESCINDED ACTION FLG TO ADOPT EFD                 
                             UNAN C                                            
 03/21/95       728    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATE PASSED Y16 N2 E2                   
 03/21/95       729    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 03/22/95       833    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/22/95       833    (H)   RESOURCES, FINANCE                                
 04/03/95      1009    (H)   CROSS SPONSOR(S): JAMES                           
 04/07/95              (H)   RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 04/11/95      1270    (H)   CROSS SPONSOR(S):  KOTT                           
 04/12/95              (H)   RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
 TAPE 95-47, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 The House Resources Committee was called to order by Co-Chairman              
 Green at 8:17 a.m.  Members present at the call to order were                 
 Representatives Green, Williams, Ogan, Austerman, and Kott.                   
 Members absent were Representatives Barnes, Davies, MacLean, and              
 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN apologized for those committee members who           
 cannot seem to arrive at the committee meetings on time.  He said             
 committee members took an oath that they would do their best for              
 the state, and part of that is being on time for those people who             
 are at hearings on time to testify.                                           
 SJR 12 - U.S. FOREST SERVICE PLAN                                           
 committee made at the last hearing.                                           
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections.  Hearing                
 none, the MOTION was WITHDRAWN.                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections.  Hearing                
 none, the MOTION PASSED.                                                      
 stated the change contained in HCS CSSJR 12(RES) is found on page             
 3, lines 5-7.  He recalled at the last hearing, there was                     
 discussion about employees compensation and the cost of living                
 allowance for employees being reflective of timber production.  He            
 explained HCS CSSJR 12(RES) changes the language to affect the                
 Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief and each Regional Forester             
 of the U.S. Forest Service.  He said the point is now directed at             
 the policy makers rather than the working people.                             
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a MOTION to MOVE HCS CSSJR 12(RES) with              
 attached fiscal note out of committee with individual                         
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections.  Hearing                
 none, the MOTION PASSED.                                                      
 HB 191 - MANAGEMENT OF STATE LAND AND RESOURCES                             
 committee substitute (CS) before the committee is version G, which            
 contains several changes, including those discussed at the last               
 hearing and those which came as a result of the working group.  He            
 reviewed those changes.  He said Section 8 is a technical amendment           
 from Section 7 of the sponsor substitute of HB 191, which was                 
 needed to conform with changes in the remote cabin permit program.            
 Section 12 is a modification of version F, which conforms with                
 amendments made in Sections 22 and 23.  Section 21 is an amendment            
 made by the House Resources Committee (HRC).  He explained Section            
 23 states the term of the lease is no more than five years which              
 means a renewal of one additional five-year period.  Section 24 is            
 a result of a suggestion by the HRC to eliminate the term "permit."           
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Representative Therriault to address the              
 change made on page 5, lines 25-30.                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT replied that change removes the remote              
 cabin permit program and inserts lease program.                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that language is not necessary because            
 there are no more permits.                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said that is correct.                               
 Number 145                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN noted he has concerns regarding                 
 Section 25.  He said this section had been discussed several times            
 and he thought it was going to be changed.  He stated this section            
 removes a section which has been used for years on the shore leases           
 and puts the leases back up for public auction.  He pointed out               
 during the working group's discussion, he was told this section               
 would only apply to new leases but noted it had not been changed.             
 He told committee members he reads this section to say that when              
 existing leases come up for renewal, they can go up for public                
 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT explained when an existing lease comes up           
 for renewal, that lease will go to a fair market value lease but              
 will not have to go up for public auction.  He noted in Section 27,           
 the language was changed to address the concern.  He said an                  
 existing lease would come up for renewal under subleasing and                 
 renewals of leases.  Therefore, the only time there would be a                
 competitive bid situation is when there is a new area identified              
 and competing people want the same parcel.  He stressed if a person           
 has an existing lease, has kept up his or her payments and has not            
 allowed the lease to lapse, he or she would be able to extend that            
 lease or keep control of that piece of property under a renewal.              
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN shared Representative Austerman's concern.                  
 Number 202                                                                    
 RESOURCES (DNR), stated a person with an existing lease, as long as           
 payments are being made and the lease is on good terms, has the               
 right to renew under AS 38.05.102, which is an existing statute.              
 He said that statute says, "If land within a leasehold created                
 under AS 38.05.070 - 38.05.105 is offered for sale or long-term               
 lease at the termination of the existing leasehold, the director              
 may, upon a finding that it is in the best interest of the state,             
 allow the holder in good standing of that leasehold to purchase or            
 lease the land for its appraised fair market value at the time of             
 the sale or long-term lease."  He reiterated as long as the lease             
 is being paid, the person has an automatic right of renewal if it             
 is in the best interest of the state.  He noted if the person is              
 making payments and is still open for fishing, it will be in the              
 best interest of the state.                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN observed person A has a site, has made his                  
 payments, and is a reputable person but perhaps an irritant to the            
 commissioner.  The commissioner may renew that lease if it is in              
 the best interest of the state.  He clarified it would be automatic           
 for that person to have first right.  He wondered if the word                 
 "shall" should be used instead of the word "may."                             
 MR. SWANSON thought using the word "shall" would create a                     
 constitutional problem because a preference right is being given.             
 He stressed if people make their payments, the leases are renewed.            
 He said hopefully personalities are not an issue.                             
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN noted the last sentence in Section 27 says           
 "and conditions prescribed by the commissioner".  He clarified that           
 language does not mean the ground rules are being changed.                    
 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT responded that language refers to the               
 negotiation on what is fair market value and the requirement for              
 setting that payment would be the terms and conditions of the                 
 Number 253                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked which statute existing leases are              
 covered under currently.                                                      
 MR. SWANSON replied AS 38.05.082.                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN recalled Mr. Swanson had said earlier that           
 existing leases are covered under a statute.  He clarified that               
 statute is AS 38.05.082.                                                      
 MR. SWANSON said leases issued today are under AS 38.05.082 but               
 when they come up for renewal, they are covered under AS 38.05.102,           
 which is an existing statute.                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT added that AS 38.05.102 is the general              
 language in statute which allows for renewals of leases.                      
 Therefore, that statute is there for all leases.                              
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified the word "may" is in the statute as it            
 is written now and has not been a problem in the past.                        
 MR. SWANSON replied that is correct.                                          
 MR. THERRIAULT asked the committee to consider making one more                
 change.  He suggested on page 11, line 29, delete "person holding             
 a permit", insert "lease held" and on page 11, line 30, delete                
 "renew that permit", insert "be renewed".  He said this suggestion            
 changes the wording so it does not apply to permitting where it               
 talks about a lease.                                                          
 (Representative DAVIES joined the committee.)                                 
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections.  Hearing                
 none, the MOTION PASSED.                                                      
 Number 347                                                                    
 page 11, line 29, delete "person holding a permit", insert "lease             
 held" and on page 11, line 30, delete "renew that permit", insert             
 "be renewed".                                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES OBJECTED for discussion purposes.                  
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said this change is suggested in order to take              
 out the word "permit".                                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES WITHDREW his objection.                                 
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections to the motion.           
 Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.                                              
 Number 379                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN clarified AS 38.05.082 is used to set up             
 shore fishery leases.                                                         
 MR. SWANSON replied that is correct.                                          
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN clarified it is not possible that it might           
 be misconstrued that subsection (b) would apply to the leases he is           
 concerned about.                                                              
 MR. SWANSON responded no.  He explained once a lease is issued, as            
 long as it is in good standing, the lease will be renewed.  He said           
 this would only kick in on the original application or if the lease           
 expires and there is a new applicant.  He reiterated once a lease             
 is issued, it is renewable.                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT added that any renewal would take place             
 under AS 38.05.102.                                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN noted subsection (b) does not refer to               
 MR. SWANSON said the word new is not included because the person              
 may assign or sell the lease.                                                 
 Number 405                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES clarified the leases are sellable.                      
 MR. SWANSON replied the leases are sellable and assignable upon               
 approval of the state.  He stated the person has to have a limited            
 entry permit and cannot sell the lease to someone who does not have           
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if the original applicant no longer               
 wants to use a lease, why does the state not put the lease back up            
 for auction again.                                                            
 MR. SWANSON said when a person holds a lease, they can do what they           
 want with that lease.                                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT added that a limited entry permit and a             
 good shore lease site goes together as a package.  He said it is              
 not desirable to inadvertently impact the value of the limited                
 entry permit by taking away a good site.  He noted that is the                
 reason he wanted to go to a fair market value because it goes along           
 with the limited entry permit and does have a value.  He stressed             
 he wanted to ensure that the state is getting at least fair market            
 value while the lease is being used.                                          
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked how this section affects the guide                  
 MR. SWANSON replied the bill does not affect the industry at all as           
 they are issued under existing leases under Title 38 already.  He             
 stated this section only deals with shore fish and aquatic farm               
 Number 437                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if the policy that the leases are                 
 renewable and sellable is in regulation.                                      
 MR. SWANSON stated that policy is in statute AS 38.05.102.                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a MOTION to MOVE CSSSHB 191(RES), as                 
 amended, with attached fiscal notes out of committee with                     
 individual recommendations.                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections.  Hearing                
 none, the MOTION PASSED.                                                      
 HB 279 - MUNICIPAL RIVER HABITAT TAX CREDIT                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS, PRIME SPONSOR, stated last year the                
 legislature passed HB 306 which allowed municipal governments to              
 offer a tax credit to property owners along the Kenai River who               
 improved their property to the degree that it enhanced or protected           
 the habitat value or corrected a previous development that was not            
 conducive to habitat value.  He explained HB 279 makes an                     
 improvement to that legislation.                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS told committee members HB 279 deletes the                
 requirement that the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)               
 develop regulations to implement the tax credit provisions for                
 habitat protection on the Kenai River.  The proposed language                 
 mandates that any proposed municipal ordinance developed to                   
 implement this law will include the regulatory aspects of the                 
 legislation.  He stated the ordinance must be approved by the ADF&G           
 before it is adopted.  Improvements which will qualify for tax                
 credits will be included in the ordinance.  He said ADF&G is also             
 required to respond in writing to the municipality within 60 days             
 of receipt of an ordinance by approving or giving the basis for               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS stated Section 1 deletes language that                   
 requires credits be certified by ADF&G.  A credit may be granted              
 for an improvement that has been constructed in compliance with               
 state and federal laws.  He said Section 2 adds subsection (d)                
 establishing that a municipal ordinance is the vehicle for                    
 certification of the tax credits.  The commissioner of ADF&G must             
 approve or disapprove the ordinance within 60 days after receipt.             
 He explained Section 3 repeals subsection (c) of an existing                  
 statute which required ADF&G to establish regulations.                        
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said HB 279 is taking the establishment of               
 regulations related to a tax credit within the Kenai Peninsula                
 Borough and giving that authority to the Borough to do it by                  
 ordinance.  He noted the more local involvement and authority there           
 is, the better off the citizens are.                                          
 Number 510                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked what the purpose is of the language on            
 page 2, lines 14-16, "without regard to the scope of the protection           
 or restoration that would be achieved by the improvements."                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied when an ordinance is drafted and the             
 department is reviewing whether or not the ordinance meets the                
 requirements of an improvement to the habitat, there are varying              
 degrees of improvement.  He said if a person owns 100 feet of Kenai           
 Riverfront property and makes an improvement, the improvement could           
 include a 20 foot boardwalk or it could include a complete 100 foot           
 boardwalk.  He explained the ordinance the department will be                 
 required to improve will not have any degree.  He noted the                   
 department also has concern about the clearness of the language.              
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated he is concerned about the word "scope"           
 and how it relates to the authorized aid in protecting or restoring           
 Number 545                                                                    
 teleconference and stated last year the legislature passed a bill             
 that provides for an optional tax credit for protective measures              
 and improvements to the river in regard to habitat.  He said during           
 the last year it has become apparent that perhaps the regulatory              
 aspects of the legislation and the requirement to adopt regulations           
 may have been an unwieldy tool.  HB 279 has been requested to ease            
 that problem.                                                                 
 MR. BOEDEKER said one problem is the existing legislation requires            
 the definition of what is a protective measure to be adopted by               
 regulation, which involves a long drawn out process.  He stated it            
 is easier and better to have the assembly take first crack at what            
 it was wanting to give credit for and what it thought would be a              
 protective measure.  He explained the process would involve having            
 the commissioner of ADF&G review that and say yes or no as to                 
 whether or not they are truly protective or improvement measures              
 regarding the habitat.  He noted that would be a check on the                 
 process so if the assembly went off in left field and said an                 
 improvement measure was to build an office building, the                      
 commissioner could say that does not improve habitat.  He stressed            
 the objective of having the review is to ensure that truly                    
 protective or improvement measures are being given a credit.                  
 MR. BOEDEKER stated the language regarding the scope was to                   
 specifically address the question of local policy versus                      
 departmental policy on what is a wise activity to give a credit               
 for.  He said perhaps boardwalks are the choice of the local                  
 assembly to give credit as an improvement to protect the bank area            
 but perhaps a boardwalk does not fit with ADF&G's policies and                
 objectives as to what they would like to see.  He noted without               
 regard to the actual benefit received from the project, the                   
 department's determination would be based on whether or not a                 
 project is a protective measure or not.  He explained the cost                
 benefit analysis and the worthiness of the project to give a credit           
 would be a local option, which would probably be best decided by              
 the assembly without having to involve ADF&G in the process.                  
 MR. BOEDEKER said HB 279 would also take ADF&G out of the loop in             
 regard to each individual project.  He stated ADF&G felt with the             
 existing legislation, they would be required to review each project           
 to determine if it met the definitions and actual construction.  He           
 stressed it is the desire to see that administration function at              
 the local level and to not place any additional burden on ADF&G,              
 especially since ADF&G does not have a full time habitat person in            
 the area.                                                                     
 Number 590                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES clarified the local assembly wants to                   
 authorize anything having a positive benefit but does not want to             
 make any limitations as to what fraction that benefit may represent           
 of the ideal possible improvements that could be taken.                       
 MR. BOEDEKER replied that is correct.                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES expressed concern that the word "scope" can             
 be misread to say ADF&G cannot even make the determination as to              
 whether the project is beneficial or not.                                     
 MR. BOEDEKER said he understood Representative Davies' concern.  He           
 noted there had been proposed additional language when the bill was           
 drafted but legislative drafting thought the language would not               
 work.  He stressed it is not desired to have the cost benefit                 
 analysis done at the state level because if the commissioner does             
 the reviewing, it is almost certain that regulations will be needed           
 to set criteria for his decision in order to avoid a legal                    
 challenge against his decision.  The criteria will be worked out at           
 the local level.  He thought it would be redundant to do that at              
 both levels.  He felt there probably is better language but he did            
 not know what that might be.                                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES suggested the following language, "without              
 regard to the percentage of the total protection or restoration               
 that could be achieved by ideal improvement measures".                        
 MR. BOEDEKER thought that language might work.                                
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS expressed concern about the common definition            
 of the word "scope".  He said perhaps "scope" is the right word.              
 He asked Mr. Boedeker if he has a definition of what "scope" is               
 commonly understood to mean.                                                  
 (Representative NICHOLIA joined the committee.)                               
 MR. BOEDEKER replied "scope" would generally apply to all aspects             
 of the coverage--how far it goes and the means of implementation              
 --but it is generally focused on the overall coverage as opposed to           
 the details.  He said the word "scope" was used in the original               
 draft as an additional identifier (indiscernible).  He stated the             
 word "scope" is less precise.                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS clarified in using the word "scope" value does           
 not ordinarily jump out.                                                      
 MR. BOEDEKER said value can be included but it is not the first               
 thing that leaps out when using the term.                                     
 Number 667                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if HB 279 could potentially give a                  
 business that owns property on the Kenai River, looking for a good            
 tax write off with the borough, the ability to do a lot of nice               
 improvements to enhance their business on the waterfront in the               
 name of habitat protection and get a real good tax break.                     
 MR. BOEDEKER said that question was discussed.  He said in earlier            
 versions of the bill, the credit was not allowed if the project was           
 primarily for commercial benefit.  The discussion was it does not             
 really matter if the project is protecting the river if it is an              
 incidental benefit to commercial versus private and it should not             
 matter if the project is going to protect the river.  It was                  
 determined at that time, the objective was to protect the river,              
 not go against commercial versus private.  He noted the application           
 of this would be up to the local assembly as to whether or not they           
 would give a particular item a credit or not.                                 
 MR. BOEDEKER noted under existing legislation, if ADF&G identifies            
 19 items as qualified, they would not have to grant the credit to             
 all of them.  He said that has not changed in HB 279.  He explained           
 the assembly determined if commercial was a problem, it could be              
 addressed at the local level.                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS thought existing legislation also limits the             
 amount of tax credit to 50 percent of the value.                              
 MR. BOEDEKER said that is correct.  He stated the credit is limited           
 to 50 percent of the monies spent.  He explained if the tax bill              
 was $5,000 and a project cost $10,000, that person would be                   
 eligible for a tax credit of $2,500.                                          
 TAPE 95-47, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 GERON BRUCE, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, ADF&G, stated in the ADF&G                  
 position paper contained in committee members folders, the                    
 department identified the language being discussed as an item that            
 needed further discussion so the department was clear as to what              
 was expected from the department.  He felt the discussion the                 
 committee has had and the discussion which occurred in the Senate             
 Resources Committee has provided the department with a                        
 clarification as to what the department's role is expected to be in           
 the process.                                                                  
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if Mr. Bruce was speaking in favor of the             
 amendment or in favor of leaving the language as is.                          
 MR. BRUCE replied if the language can be further clarified in                 
 statute, that would be ADF&G's preference.  He said if improved               
 language is not possible, ADF&G has adequate clarification as to              
 how the process is supposed to work and what the department's role            
 (Representative BARNES joined the committee.)                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if the department feels the proposed               
 amendment would give more detail to their concern.                            
 MR. BRUCE responded it is the department's understanding that this            
 language is what is intended--the department is not to make any               
 judgement on whether a particular proposal achieves a benefit that            
 has a desirable cost benefit or is better than some other                     
 alternative.  He said an example is boardwalks.  It could be argued           
 that the ideal boardwalk would be made out of a metal grate which             
 would allow sunlight to go through it, allowing growth under the              
 boardwalk but that would be more expensive than a simple wooden               
 boardwalk.  However, a simple wooden boardwalk would provide some             
 measure of habitat protection.  He noted this language would make             
 it clear that the simple wooden boardwalk would be an improvement             
 and something the department would approve without regard to the              
 ideal benefit that might be secured from a metal grate type                   
 Number 090                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled in the past there has been some                    
 expensive attempts made to prevent erosion of shorelines such as              
 the use of huge rocks.  He wondered if that was voluntary or                  
 MR. BRUCE stated the department's recommendation, to the extent               
 possible, is for the natural character of the shoreline be                    
 maintained.  Therefore, when the bank is hardened, fish habitat               
 qualities are lessened.  He said a bank hardened by the use of                
 boulders and other features, giving an even shoreline, is                     
 preferable to a straight wall which provides no fish habitat                  
 protection.  He noted that in general, hardening of the banks is              
 not something the department encourages.  Rather, the department              
 looks at other means such as boardwalks and the use of trees to               
 prevent erosion of shorelines.                                                
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "the reason I brought that up...it seems to           
 me if that was a requirement there has been some precedence set               
 that your indication that metal is better because sunlight comes              
 through, it still provides keeping feet off the bank.  Is there a             
 significant difference in the cost between wood planking and metal            
 grating that are we doing a half-way measure...that is ultimately             
 if the wood then begins to deteriorate and we kill the plant life,            
 are we in worse shape ten years from now than we would have been              
 MR. BOEDEKER stated the borough is aware of a number of those                 
 problems and is not trying to dismiss them.  Rather, the borough is           
 trying to get a framework to be able to work with ADF&G to try and            
 define things while still allowing the local option.  He said the             
 borough has discussed trying to address some of the issues and                
 ADF&G's concerns.  The borough is trying to look forward to the               
 future to ensure that a credit is not given for things that will be           
 detrimental on the long term.  He stressed the desire is to avoid             
 burdening ADF&G with a lot of petty administration.                           
 Number 178                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES recalled it has not been too many                
 years since the property owners along the Kenai River were required           
 to use huge boulders to stabilize their riverbank.  She wondered if           
 that requirement was not what it should have been.                            
 MR. BRUCE replied in cases where a land owner or property owner               
 wants to do something to restrict or impede the process of erosion            
 along their bank front and their action is below the mean high                
 water mark, they must get a permit from ADF&G.  He said ADF&G                 
 generally works with the land owner to get an improvement which               
 accomplishes both the purpose the land owner is interested in,                
 while maximizing habitat protection if possible.  He noted boulders           
 have been approved in the past but he did not think they were                 
 required.  Rather, boulders were an option the land owner felt was            
 within their ability to pay for and was better than some other                
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES recalled that to do any improvement to the              
 riverbank, it was required that a specific size of boulder be put             
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND HB 279 on page 2, line           
 15, delete "scope of the protection or restoration that would be              
 achieved by the improvements." and insert "the percentage of the              
 total protection or restoration that could be achieved by ideal               
 improvement measures."                                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he had no objection to the proposed                 
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections to the                   
 amendment.  Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.                                  
 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 279 with attached             
 fiscal note out of committee with individual recommendations.                 
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections.  Hearing                
 none, the MOTION PASSED.                                                      
 SB 93 - DISPOSAL OF LAND ALONG THE DALTON HIGHWAY                           
 Number 248                                                                    
 SENATOR MIKE MILLER, PRIME SPONSOR, said last session the                     
 legislature passed SB 210 which provided for the reauthorization of           
 existing leases in nodes along the Dalton Highway.  He explained SB
 93 will allow opening up more areas along the highway for                     
 nonresidential disposals.  He added the areas are those primarily             
 where there were pipeline camps.  He stated the areas include the             
 Yukon River Crossing, Coldfoot, Happy Valley, and Franklin Bluffs.            
 SENATOR MILLER noted there is a proposed amendment.  He said the              
 North Slope Borough had concerns in that they had made some land              
 selections in Franklin Bluffs and Happy Valley.  This amendment               
 makes it clear that SB 93 would not override their land selections.           
 He noted there has been concerns expressed about development along            
 the road.  He stressed the highway is open and people will be                 
 traveling the road.  He felt unless the state starts putting                  
 services along the road, there will be more problems.  He noted the           
 department supports SB 93.                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered with the potential improvements, will              
 the liability to the state be increased.                                      
 SENATOR MILLER replied he did not know.  He said SB 93 will help              
 cut down the long stretches of the highway without services.  He              
 hoped that since the highway is open, the state can begin securing            
 federal funds to start improving the road.                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked why the state would have more liability           
 on the Dalton Highway than it has on any other roads.                         
 SENATOR MILLER said the state would not.                                      
 Number 309                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES recalled Senator Miller had talked about                
 development nodes and clarified those nodes are located in                    
 subsection (b) (2).                                                           
 SENATOR MILLER stated the Senate Resources Committee also made some           
 changes because the bill passed last year had problems in the                 
 language and some of the legal descriptions had to be corrected.              
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he was not concerned about the legal               
 descriptions but what the nodes apply to.                                     
 SENATOR MILLER replied Mr. Swanson could answer the question.                 
 Number 342                                                                    
 via teleconference and stated the North Slope Borough does have               
 valid land selections on file for all of Happy Valley and Franklin            
 Bluffs, as well as parcels at Deadhorse.  She said the best way to            
 handle any need for development at these nodes would be to convey             
 to the North Slope Borough the lands they have selected.  Then the            
 North Slope Borough would be in a position to exercise maximum                
 local control in the growth and development of these nodes.                   
 MS. HOFFMAN said the state departments and their respected agencies           
 have not assured the (indiscernible) coordinating the group that              
 they will be able to handle the expected traffic on the Dalton                
 Highway this summer.  She noted a couple of newspaper articles, one           
 of which the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities'                
 Commissioner Perkins clearly stated the need for more public                  
 participation in the planning and development of the state's                  
 transportation system.  Another article was in regard to the Bureau           
 of Land Management (BLM) seeking funds to help fund outhouses,                
 trash cans, dump stations and other areas of need.                            
 MS. HOFFMAN said the (indiscernible) industry expects to bring                
 125,000 tourists to Deadhorse this summer and noted that only about           
 12,000 tourists drove the highway in 1994.  She felt it would be in           
 the best interest of the state to convey to the North Slope Borough           
 the lands selected and let the borough work closely in the                    
 development of a comprehensive land use plan, so that facilities              
 and services could be planned and funded appropriately.  She noted            
 the North Slope Borough is currently revising its comprehensive               
 land use plan, which does encompass planning for services and                 
 facilities in conjunction with state and federal agencies along the           
 road within borough boundary districts.                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked what the North Slope Borough's            
 position is on SB 93.                                                         
 MS. HOFFMAN said the North Slope Borough is in support of the                 
 proposed amendment.                                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked if the North Slope Borough supports             
 SB 93.                                                                        
 MS. HOFFMAN replied yes.                                                      
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he can see some real benefit to having the             
 Dalton Highway open and having amenities along it but he can also             
 see some problems.  He wondered if this will be any different than            
 any other highway or improvements to a highway and wondered if any            
 unusual problems are foreseen.                                                
 MR. SWANSON said no.  He stressed the road is now open and he is              
 very concerned about providing basic services.  He noted currently            
 there is one gas station halfway up the road.  He pointed out the             
 department is wanting to provide basic amenities, not hotels every            
 six miles.                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA stated her concern regarding SB 93 is the             
 costs to the state.  She felt the costs are going to fall into the            
 hands of emergency medical services, public health issues,                    
 landfills for the disposal of garbage and additional sewage                   
 MR. SWANSON said the desire is to get private industry to provide             
 some of these basic services so it is not a burden to the state.              
 He noted that currently the state definitely has that burden.  He             
 is not convinced it will be possible to get private industry to               
 provide all the needed services but at least the department needs             
 the tools to try and do so.                                                   
 Number 446                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA clarified SB 93 does not authorize payment            
 for emergency medical services, public health issues, landfills for           
 the disposal of garbage and additional sewage treatment.                      
 MR. SWANSON said SB 93 allows DNR to issue a lease to private                 
 industry to provide those services and private industry could                 
 charge the public for doing those things.  He stressed currently              
 the entire burden is on the state and partially on BLM.  He noted             
 the department is looking for one more opportunity to release some            
 of that burden.                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered what happens now if there is an                  
 accident, someone breaks down or there is a medical emergency.  He            
 asked if it would be feasible to charge a toll to travel the                  
 highway to cover some of the costs involved as it will take years             
 to get private development up there.                                          
 MR. SWANSON said the road is open and the state has to deal with              
 it.  He stressed the department is looking for the ability to lease           
 some land to private industry if they desire to provide any of the            
 services needed.                                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said with the proposed amendment to SB 93,              
 which allows the North Slope Borough to take some of their land               
 entitlements through selecting some of the land along the highway,            
 it seems the borough would be in a very good position to put in the           
 amenities necessary because it is a part of the state they are very           
 familiar with.  She felt SB 93 is a good bill.                                
 Number 510                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Swanson if he had read the letter             
 from Yukon Pacific addressed to Speaker Phillips.                             
 MR. SWANSON replied he had not.                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said Yukon Pacific has all the permits in               
 place to build a gas pipeline.  In their letter, they are asking              
 the legislature to delay action on SB 93 until the issue of whether           
 or not disposing of the land would be unrealistic, in view of their           
 proposed needs for development and building another pipeline, is              
 addressed.  He noted the camps along the highway were put in place            
 to support the construction of the oil pipeline and would be very             
 useful for the staging of the construction of a gas pipeline.  He             
 pointed out Yukon Pacific's concern is that the state may eliminate           
 the camps and then another new set of pads would have to be created           
 for construction of the gas line.                                             
 MR. SWANSON stated the concern of Yukon Pacific is very valid.  He            
 said any disposals the DNR does anywhere within the nodes will go             
 through a planning process and would involve Yukon Pacific.                   
 Number 539                                                                    
 RANDY MAYO, CHIEF, STEVENS VILLAGE COUNCIL, testified via                     
 teleconference and stated the village has many concerns.  He noted            
 even before the Dalton Highway was open, there were many problems             
 with vandalism, destruction of private property and the loss of               
 fish and game in a traditional subsistence use area.  He said in              
 the village there is hardly any cash economy except welfare                   
 payments.  He stressed the village opposes SB 93 for several                  
 reasons including cultural, spiritual, and economical.                        
 MR. MAYO felt many bills in the legislature are submitted by                  
 business people who live in urban areas.  He said the village does            
 not see how SB 93 will benefit the local surrounding communities.             
 He stated many existing problems such as law enforcement, trash               
 along the road, etc., have not even been resolved, yet it is                  
 proposed to build up more.  He noted it had been mentioned that the           
 private sector would possibly provide some of these services and he           
 wondered if they will be required to build landfills, etc., up to             
 the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Environmental            
 Protection Agency standards.  He questioned if the costs involved             
 would be too much for the private sector.  He also wondered what              
 Alyeska's position is on SB 93.                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES recalled that Mr. Mayo spoke of his concerns            
 as they relate to the subsistence lifestyle along the Dalton                  
 Highway but he also mentioned that the only cash available is in              
 the form of welfare payments.  She wondered if SB 93 will help the            
 village corporation get some of the land to put in some sort of               
 services and help provide a source of cash for the people in the              
 village to get them off of welfare.                                           
 Number 604                                                                    
 MR. MAYO said he is not on the village corporation board but noted            
 the village does operate a fish camp tour and has a couple of tour            
 boats.  He noted even with those operations, the village has had              
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES thought if the road was in better condition             
 and had better amenities for the driving public, the village would            
 be able to have more tourists at the fish camp.                               
 testified via teleconference and stated he is not familiar with the           
 amendment discussed earlier.                                                  
 amendment would clarify that the lands selected by the North Slope            
 Borough, as part of their land entitlement but which have not yet             
 been conveyed, would not be affected by SB 93 once the conveyance             
 MR. YASKA said currently TCC supports SB 93.                                  
 TAPE 95-48, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN read the amendment to Mr. Yaska.                            
 MR. YASKA clarified the municipality referred to in the amendment             
 would be in the North Slope Borough.                                          
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN answered probably but not necessarily.                      
 MR. YASKA reiterated TCC supports SB 93 but noted TCC still has               
 concerns about the large number of people going up the Dalton                 
 Highway and the too few services offered.                                     
 Number 058                                                                    
 (AEL), urged committee members to oppose SB 93.  She said what                
 needs to be considered is long-range economic and fiscal                      
 obligations to the state.  She agreed the Dalton Highway requires             
 additional services to be available and the state has an obligation           
 to provide some services because it is a state-owned highway, open            
 to public access.  She noted the Trans-Alaska Gas Pipeline working            
 committee and the AEL have been talking a lot about the Dalton                
 Highway over the past few years and share many concerns from                  
 different perspectives.                                                       
 MS. HANNAN said the Dalton Highway development corridor was                   
 originally built as an industrial road.  She stressed it still is             
 an industrial road and is not up to the standards of a highway                
 found anywhere else.  She stated the problem with opening the                 
 highway has been that more people use it and the obligation and               
 liability the state has in regard to the highway is increasing.               
 She noted the more services available, the higher the liability the           
 state has to the people who have private property along the                   
 highway.  She pointed out that the various problems in regard to              
 the highway are not adequately being addressed.                               
 MS. HANNAN noted the Anchorage Daily News did an interview with the           
 new commissioner of the Department of Transportation & Public                 
 Facilities and he indicated that currently the Dalton Highway's               
 maintenance plan will not change.  She said ongoing fiscal                    
 obligations to the state accelerate when there is private                     
 development.  She stressed the AEL is not opposed to services being           
 provided along the highway but feels it is premature for the state            
 to dispose of those lands and discuss putting private Alaskans out            
 there, with their resources invested in capital investment, unless            
 the state is able to provide the services a property owner should             
 MS. HANNAN stated in addition to being able to protect private                
 property and enforce the laws the state currently has, the state              
 will have some additional obligations.  When there is someone                 
 living on a remote site and six children live there, the state has            
 a legal obligation to provide education.  She reiterated there is             
 a need to look at the long-range development plan for the Dalton              
 Highway including the long-range use of it by Yukon Pacific, the              
 long-range fiscal obligations of the state to protect the private             
 property currently there, and what will be done with emergency                
 services and troopers.  She stressed the state does not have the              
 money to put more private property holders with private property              
 investment in a remote area when the state cannot protect it.                 
 PUBLIC FACILITIES, said the department feels having amenities along           
 the highway would be in the best interest of the state.                       
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES clarified that in other areas of the state              
 which have rural highways such as the Dalton Highway, the amenities           
 are usually closed down in the winter so there is not the                     
 likelihood of having to provide additional schools, etc., along the           
 highway.  She said if this land was selected by Native                        
 corporations, schools are already provided in the villages where              
 the children and adults live.                                                 
 MR. KITO stated Coldfoot is a work camp leased to a private entity.           
 He said that work camp is more staffed in the summer than in the              
 winter.  He noted there are no children there requiring schooling             
 in the winter.  He pointed out it is the DNR's intent to dispose              
 land in a similar situation and not create a year-round or                    
 permanent living situation.                                                   
 Number 220                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked why there was no fiscal note from the           
 Department of Transportation & Public Facilities.  She noted parts            
 of the Dalton Highway washes out every year.                                  
 MR. KITO stated the department is not anticipating any additional             
 need for maintenance.  He said at this point, the department cannot           
 anticipate what the volume of traffic increase will be because of             
 the full opening.  He explained the department is projecting it can           
 get by with its current level of maintenance and rehabilitation of            
 the roadway.                                                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked when the road washes out, who is                
 responsible for putting the road back in place, the state or                  
 MR. KITO replied the road is maintained by the state in agreement             
 with Alyeska Pipeline.                                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES felt if more services are provided along the            
 highway, it follows that there will be more traffic.                          
 MR. KITO said the DNR's contingency is it is not known what the               
 level of services will be and they would like to be able to provide           
 for services if the demand increases on the highway.  He stated the           
 allowing of the disposal of this land does not necessarily mean the           
 land will automatically be leased to private land owners.  He noted           
 there is a BLM plan for the corridor in place and the DNR has been            
 working with the BLM on creating the amenities.                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES clarified the purpose of SB 93 is to improve            
 the amenities along the Dalton Highway.                                       
 MR. KITO replied the purpose of SB 93 is to allow for amenities               
 should they become necessary.                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said a reasonable person would conclude that            
 if the state enters into a program of disposing land for the                  
 purpose of providing amenities along the highway that is what will            
 happen eventually.  He asked if the amenities get built and there             
 is an increase in traffic as a result, would it not follow that               
 there would be a demand to improve the maintenance on the highway.            
 MR. KITO replied there probably will be an increased demand for               
 maintenance and rehabilitation of the highway.  He noted the                  
 department is in the beginning stages of providing for                        
 rehabilitation of the highway from milepost zero up to Coldfoot and           
 beyond that as funding is available through the federal highway               
 administration on the state's highways program.                               
 Number 289                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated the Dalton Highway was transferred               
 from Alyeska to the state of Alaska in the early 1980s.  Since that           
 time, the state has had an absolute responsibility to maintain the            
 road.  She said the state has not always done the kind of job it              
 should have and consequently there have been tremendous washouts,             
 the base has blown away, etc.  She pointed out whether or not the             
 state disposes of this land, the work is going to have to be done,            
 because the Dalton Highway is the lifeline to the state's oil                 
 patch.  She felt whether or not there are 100 tourists driving the            
 road is irrelevant.  She noted by doing it through SB 93, the state           
 is able to garner more federal funds to help with the upkeep of the           
 road which is the lifeline of Alaska.  She reiterated the state's             
 responsibility for the road has been there since the early 1980s.             
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES agreed but felt the responsibility to                   
 maintain the highway is tempered by the state's fiscal abilities              
 and added that maintaining the highway for the purpose of an                  
 industrial road is adequate for the purpose of the lifeline for the           
 state but is not adequate for a tourism resource.  He said if the             
 state is going to improve amenities and take actions resulting in             
 additional people traveling the highway, the state should expect              
 demands to improve the road to a higher standard than what is                 
 required by the truckers and industry.  He pointed out that will              
 cost money.  He thought the suggestion earlier about charging a               
 toll to help with that incremental demand should be considered.               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted he is not opposed to providing more               
 amenities and encouraging more traffic but is concerned that the              
 state needs to be more realistic about what the fiscal impacts will           
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a MOTION to AMEND CSSB 93(RES) on page             
 4, after line 12:  Insert a new bill section to read:  "*Sec. 2.              
 AS 19.40.200 is amended by adding a new subsection to read:  (e)              
 Notwithstanding (b) of this section, land described in (b) of this            
 section is not available for disposal if it has been selected by a            
 municipality to satisfy a general grant land entitlement under AS             
 29.65 unless the selection is disapproved by the state in a final             
 decision."  Renumber the following bill section accordingly.                  
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES OBJECTED for discussion purposes.                       
 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said municipalities are concerned about               
 their Native allotment selections.  She wondered how a single                 
 person having a Native allotment would be affected.                           
 MR. SWANSON replied there are no Native allotments along the                  
 highway affected by SB 93.  He said the only issue being dealt with           
 are selections made by the North Slope Borough and those will be              
 adjudicated prior to any other activity.                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA clarified there are no other Native                   
 allotment applicants other than the North Slope Borough.                      
 MR. SWANSON responded that is correct.                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES wondered if a regional corporation qualifies            
 as a municipality and also asked whether or not there are any                 
 regional corporation claims.                                                  
 MR. SWANSON said no.  He noted there is a lot of federal land but             
 SB 93 only affects land the state owns.  He stated if there is a              
 conflicting claim by a village or regional corporation, or Native             
 allotment, that would have a preference over the state selections.            
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered if the amendment affects Yukon                   
 Pacific's ability to set up their pipeline operation.                         
 MR. SWANSON replied no.  He reiterated before the disposal of land,           
 the department has to go through a planning process and Yukon                 
 Pacific would be very much involved.  He noted the department                 
 currently has a task force dealing with all of the land selections            
 up there.                                                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES WITHDREW his objection.                                 
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any other objections.                   
 Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.                                              
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced SB 93 would be heard again on Wednesday           
 and noted HB 258 would be heard on Wednesday.                                 
 There being no further business to come before the House Resources            
 Committee, Co-Chairman Green adjourned the meeting at 10:10 a.m.              

Document Name Date/Time Subjects