Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/23/1999 05:06 PM House WTR
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON WORLD TRADE
AND STATE/FEDERAL RELATIONS
February 23, 1999
5:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ramona Barnes, Chair
Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chair
Representative Beverly Masek
Representative Gail Phillips
Representative Joe Green
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5 am
Opposing the closure of the former Mount McKinley portions of
Denali National Park and Preserve to snowmachine use.
- MOVED SJR 5 AM OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SJR 5
SHORT TITLE: SNOWMACHINE USE IN DENALI NAT'L PARK
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) HALFORD, Kelly Pete, Taylor, Wilken,
Donley, Ward, Leman, Miller, Pearce, Green; REPRESENTATIVE(S)
Coghill, James, Therriault
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/27/99 99 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/27/99 99 (S) RES
2/01/99 127 (S) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
2/03/99 (S) RES AT 3:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
2/03/99 (S) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
2/03/99 (S) MINUTE(RES)
2/04/99 155 (S) RES RPT 5DP 1NR
2/04/99 155 (S) DP: HALFORD, MACKIE, PARNELL, TAYLOR,
2/04/99 155 (S) GREEN; NR: LINCOLN
2/04/99 155 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S.RES)
2/05/99 (S) RLS AT 11:20 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
2/05/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
2/08/99 185 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1OR 2/10/99
2/10/99 214 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
2/10/99 214 (S) AM 1 OFFERED BY HALFORD
2/10/99 214 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
2/10/99 215 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
2/10/99 215 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SJR 5 AM
2/10/99 216 (S) PASSED Y18 N2
2/10/99 218 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
2/16/99 220 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/16/99 220 (H) WTR, RESOURCES
2/16/99 228 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): COGHILL, JAMES
2/17/99 240 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): THERRIAULT
2/23/99 (H) WTR AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
Juli Lucky, Legislative Assistant
for Senator Rick Halford
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 121
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4958
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the sponsor statement for Senator
Rick Halford.
STEVE MARTIN, Park Superintendent
Denali National Park and Preserve
P.O. Box 9
Denali Park, Alaska 99755
Telephone: (907)683-2294
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to SJR 5.
STAN LEAPHART, Executive Director
Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas
3700 Airport Way
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709-4699
Telephone: (907)451-2775
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of SJR 5.
TINA CUNNING, Wildlife Biologist
State-Federal Issues Program, Commissioner's Office
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1599
Telephone: (907)267-2248
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on how ANILCA
provisions related to SJR 5.
BILL EASTMAN
Mat-Su Motor Mushers
HCO 3, Box 8286
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907)7453043
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on behalf of the Mat-Su
Motor Mushers in support of SJR 5.
NANCY MICHAELSON
Sierra Club - Alaska Chapter
241 East Fifth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907)276-4048
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on behalf of the Sierra
Club in opposition to SJR 5.
SANDY KOGL
P.O. Box 1
McKinley Park, Alaska 99755-0001
Telephone: (907)733-2448
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to SJR 5.
ROLLIE OSTERMICK
P.O. Box 13149
Trapper Creek, Alaska 99683-3149
Telephone: (907)733-2467
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to SJR 5.
MICHAEL EASTHAM
Homer Snowmads Snowmachine Club
Box 3646
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907)235-2603
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on behalf of the Homer
Snowmads Snowmachine Club in support of SJR
5.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-03, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR RAMONA BARNES called the House Special Committee on World
Trade and State/Federal Relations meeting to order at 5:06 p.m.
Members present at the call to order were Representatives Barnes,
Cowdery, Phillips, Green and Joule. Representative Masek arrived
at 5:07 p.m.
SJR 5 - SNOWMACHINE USE IN DENALI NAT'L PARK
CHAIR BARNES announced the first order of business was Senate Joint
Resolution No. 5, "Opposing the closure of the former Mount
McKinley portions of Denali National Park and Preserve to
snowmachine use."
JULI LUCKY, Legislative Assistant to Senator Rick Halford, Alaska
State Legislature, read the following sponsor statement into the
record:
SJR 5 is a fairly straightforward resolution. The resolution
is designed to send a clear message to the Department of
Interior, the National Park Service, and our congressional
delegation that the Alaska State Legislature opposes the
closure of Denali National Park and Preserve to snowmachine
access. An equally important message carried by this
resolution is the message to Alaskans that the legislature is
in support of their continued access to their public land.
Number 0200
STEVE MARTIN, Park Superintendent, Denali National Park and
Preserve, testified via teleconference from the park. He said,
"Basically, we have closed a portion of Denali National Park to the
use of snowmachines for traditional activities because of concerns
over resource values to the park or within the park." He explained
that the decision was based on the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), and he stipulated that 43 CFR 36.11 gave authority to hold
hearings in the area affected and then prepare a finding. The
finding has been prepared and made available to the public, he
added, and the results detail the analysis of the resource values
and the reasons for the closure. He acknowledged that this is an
emotional issue, and recommended that the committee review the
Statement of Finding.
Number 0390
MR. MARTIN indicated that he did not have a copy of the bill in
front of him, but he did have an older version of the bill that he
felt contained some factual errors. One of those errors, he
pointed out, is the statement that actual impacts have to be
documented in the area in order to for it to be closed. The Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), he added, refers
to identifying activities that "would be detrimental," and does not
specify "have been detrimental." He felt it was incumbent upon the
National Park Service to step in advance of actual impacts. He
indicated his willingness to provide additional written testimony.
CHAIR BARNES advised the witness that written testimony could be
provided to the House Resource Standing Committee, which is the
next committee that SJR 5 will be going to.
Number 0520
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY sought clarification as to whether or not
the resource values have actually been determined yet.
MR. MARTIN referred to Section 101 of ANILCA and the 1917
legislation for Denali National Park and Preserve. He testified
that both of these pieces of legislation laid out a number of the
resource values that these areas were set aside to conserve.
Subsequent to that, he added, there have been other specific
documents on management of the park that have articulated its
values. He referred the committee back to the Statement of Finding
for those values, and explained they were laid out through
long-standing public planning processes, environmental impact
assessments and public hearings. He stressed that the National
Park Service is not against snowmachines everywhere, but they do
feel that snowmachine use would be detrimental to this particular
area. He listed some of the reasons for this belief: the unique
scientific conditions of the area, the fact that snowmachines have
not been used within this area in the past, and the fact that the
area contains dog mushers and carries with it a tradition of
non-motorized use since 1917.
Number 0685
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if ski planes landed in the park.
MR. MARTIN confirmed that ski planes do land in the new park
additions on a regular basis; however, ski planes are extremely
rare within the old part of the park, landing perhaps one or two
times a winter on Wonder Lake.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY wondered if the ski planes cause damage when
they land.
MR. MARTIN indicated that they do not cause damage when they land
on Wonder Lake, especially in view of the level of use. He felt
that any occasional damage done to the park was offset by the
benefits of that particular activity.
Number 0833
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked what plans and policies the National
Park Service has in place to provide alternative transportation for
employees who will be monitoring the park in the winter months.
MR. MARTIN reported that the park has been using dogs since
approximately 1930, and that they have only used snowmachines once
or twice in the past 10 years within the old section of the park.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS declared that she has pictures of park
rangers and others on snowmachines in that area of the park.
MR. MARTIN denied this, and said that the park's eight snowmachines
are only driven outside of the designated wilderness area. Any
pictures of park rangers on snowmachines, he emphasized, were taken
outside of the old part of the park.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS questioned whether damage was being done to
those other areas of the park by the use of snowmachines.
MR. MARTIN indicated that was a difficult question to answer. He
specified, "If they are driven with adequate snow cover, and if
they are driven in areas where there aren't sensitive
concentrations of wildlife, and if they are driven responsibly, and
if they are driven for traditional activities, we feel that,
throughout most of the park, they are a legitimate activity. In
this particular part of the park that has not had snowmachining in
it, we feel that, yes, they would be detrimental, whether driven by
us or driven by someone else."
Number 1052
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK cited her experience growing up in Alaska and
mushing dog teams, as well as snowmachining, and she stated her
belief that those two activities did not conflict. She expressed
her feeling that this closure is contrary to what Alaska is all
about, and added that everyone should have access to the state.
She referred to the section in the Statement of Findings that says
"the proposed temporary closure maintains a status quo," and
inquired as to exactly how the National Park Service arrived at
this status quo. She requested that Mr. Martin clarify which
sections of ANILCA they were working off of, and asked him to
explain 36 CFR 13.30 and 43 CFR 36.11.
MR. MARTIN specified that Section 1110(a) of ANILCA has a provision
for the continued use of certain access modes for traditional
activities. He explained that 43 CFR contains regulations
promulgated by the Department of the Interior to implement that
section of the law. The 36 CFR regulations are general provisions
for protection of all park resources, and they were promulgated
after ANILCA. He said that the reason the temporary closure is a
continuation of the status quo is that snowmachines have not been
used in the old park. He reemphasized that Section 101, the first
section, of ANILCA clearly outlines what the parks were set aside
for, including scientific values, unaffected ecosystems and
wildlife protection. Wildlife has not been subjected to high
density snowmachine use in this section of the park, he added, and
research has shown that snowmachining has the potential to conflict
with wildlife in that area.
Number 1324
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK wondered how many permits were issued to ERA
Helicopters to fly into the park.
MR. MARTIN responded by stating that public landing of helicopters
is not allowed in Denali National Park and Preserve, except in
cases of emergency and to supply the 14,000-foot base camp for
climbers.
Number 1370
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to the previous statement that this
is a temporary closure to gather additional information on
potential impacts, and that it would take one year to do this. He
wondered if those potential impacts would be so severe that they
warranted closure, or if there was any possibility of leaving that
portion of the park open until the information is collected and
then acting.
MR. MARTIN direction attention back to the wording in ANILCA. He
emphasized that it does not use the phrase "has been detrimental,"
but rather "would be detrimental." He noted that this would put
the onus on the National Park Service to make sure that these
resources are not affected. He reported that the park is trying to
balance quiet wildlife areas with areas for traditional or
park-access snowmachining, and to plan it out so that wildlife
habitat and the unaffected ecosystem are not harmed. Because the
snowmachining industry has greatly increased, he explained, the
potential is there to go from "zero use to thousands of user days."
Number 1634
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if there was additional, more recent,
information that could be made available to the House Resources
Standing Committee.
MR. MARTIN referred the committee back to the Statement of Finding.
He agreed to provide additional information, and he expressed his
willingness to testify in person, if requested.
CHAIR BARNES pointed out to the committee that a lawsuit was
recently filed by snowmachine users challenging the closure.
Number 1723
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS inquired as to who determines adequate snow
cover, and whether or not that definition is in ANILCA.
MR. MARTIN confirmed that the definition is in ANILCA, and stated
that the determination is up to the park. They are in the process
of evaluating, he added, exactly what that would mean for Denali
National Park and Preserve, and hope to have that determined by
next winter. He noted that adequate snow cover is roughly 6-to-12
inches of snow, but it depends upon other factors, such as the type
of vegetation. He cited the example of the Kenai Fjords National
Park, and related that they use "manager's determination" to define
adequate snow coverage.
Number 1809
STAN LEAPHART, Executive Director, Citizens' Advisory Commission on
Federal Areas, provided testimony via teleconference from Fairbanks
in support of SJR 5. He observed that one of the reasons
snowmachine use has not occurred, to any great degree, in the old
part of Denali National Park and Preserve is that the National Park
Service has improperly prevented that use from occurring. He
reported that in 1980 the Alaska Lands Act expanded the park, and
it also authorized the use of snowmachines during periods of
adequate snow cover, motor boats, airplanes, and non-motorized
surface transportation within all conservation system units in
Alaska, including the wilderness portion of Denali National Park
and Preserve. In June of 1981, he noted, the National Park Service
promulgated its first regulations implementing ANILCA, and did
implement some sections dealing with snowmachine use that apply to
all park units in Alaska, including the pre-1980 park areas (Denali
National Park and Preserve, Katmai National Park and Glacier Bay
National Park).
MR. LEAPHART explained that the National Park Service proposed
closure of some areas of Denali National Park and Preserve to
snowmachine use in 1983. Those closures were designed to protect
what were identified as key wildlife concentration areas, but he
emphasized that it was only a small part of the wilderness area
that is currently closed. At that time, he noted, the National
Park Service clearly recognized that snowmachine use had been
authorized under the provisions of the 1980 Alaska Lands Act. He
reported that in 1986 the Department of Interior, on behalf of all
the land management agencies, adopted regulations implementing
Title XI of ANILCA, including Section 1110(a), which is the section
that authorizes the use of snowmachines within conservation system
units. At that time, he emphasized, the Department of Interior
again acknowledged, very decisively, that snowmachine use was
authorized in the pre-ANILCA park units. He added, "Interestingly
enough, shortly after that we started to hear rumors about people
being contacted by park rangers along the George Parks Highway
area, Broad Pass, the area adjacent to the old park boundary, and
being told that the old part of the park was closed to snowmachine
use."
MR. LEAPHART reported that the Citizens' Advisory Commission on
Federal Areas became aware of a "Compendium of Orders for Denali
National Park" around 1990. This list of rules for the park, he
added, stated snowmachine use was not allowed in the pre-1980
portion of the part. In approximately 1992, he emphasized, the
National Park Service assured the Citizens' Advisory Commission on
Federal Areas that they recognized there were problems with that
compendium and that they were working to fix it; however, it is
seven years later, and they have not presented a revised
compendium. Consequently, the public has been continually
receiving a document that has stated, for at least the last 10
years, that the old part of the park is closed to snowmachine use.
He stipulated that this is the reason, in large measure, why very
little snowmachine use has occurred in that part of the park.
Number 2121
MR. LEAPHART continued, "A couple of years ago, I met with Mr.
Martin and his chief ranger to discuss a proposal that they were
working on at that time to implement some management restrictions
for the park, including a snowmachine closure. It was clear at
that time that they were prepared to argue that snowmachine use
really wasn't allowed -- it was a non-traditional use -- and that
it was simply going to be disallowed on those terms. I pointed out
that the ANILCA standards were that they had to demonstrate that
there was, in fact, resource damage from snowmachine use before
they could close the use." He reiterated that, approximately three
weeks ago, the National Park Service enacted temporary regulations
to close the park to snowmachines, and they issued their Statement
of Findings. He believes that the National Park Service feels they
have complied with the letter of the law and with their
regulations; however, he argued that they have certainly not
complied with the spirit of the law which requires them to
demonstrate that there has been damage from snowmachine use.
MR. LEAPHART referred to the Statement of Finding, and pointed out
that it was basically a compilation of studies on snowmachine use
in other areas; none of these studies are related to snowmachine
use in Denali National Park and Preserve, and some are over 20
years old. The snowmachines studied in the early 1970s, he
explained, were far different from the machines they have now;
they were heavier and noisier with much different engine
technology. He testified that the Statement of Finding is very
generalized and speculative, and that expressing the potential for
damage from snowmachine use does not meet the requirements of the
legislation. Based on the findings in this document, he added, any
other area in Alaska could be substituted for Denali National Park
and Preserve, and subsequently closed. Consequently, consideration
should be given to the precedent that this sets. He closed by
saying, "I think there are a lot of people who have supported the
closure who have also objected to the process, or the lack of
process, that the National Park Service has followed in
implementing this closure. They want to see some good research and
good science, but they want to see it done before they make this
sort of management decision."
Number 2280
TINA CUNNING, Wildlife Biologist, State-Federal Issues Program,
Commissioner's Office, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G),
spoke via teleconference from Anchorage on SJR 5. She informed the
committee that the ANILCA division of the ADF&G, in concert with
Stan Leaphart and governmental coordination in other portions of
the state, closely monitors the provisions protecting access on
over 143 million acres of conservation system units. She
emphasized that their first concern is process, because process
that doesn't exactly follow the protections provided by ANILCA
will, inevitably, be used as precedent for all other conservation
system units.
MS. CUNNING cited an example of a potential closure to snowmachine
access in Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge a number of years ago.
Prior to ANILCA, she pointed out, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge
was also a conservation system unit that had restrictions on
snowmachine access. That was amended in 1980, and snowmachine
access was again open as a method for traditional activities. She
reported that the refuge manager became concerned that snowmachines
were getting farther into the refuge as they became lighter,
quieter and faster. He made a proposal for closure of a vast
portion of the refuge to snowmachine access, for many of the same
reasons presented on the Denali National Park and Preserve
closure, as well as fear of impacts to bear denning areas.
MS. CUNNING further related that the refuge manager, at the urging
of ADF&G, worked extensively with snowmachine groups in Kodiak,
ADF&G staff and his biologist, to identify and map out the bear
denning areas. She reported that these areas are posted as soon as
possible after the first snowfall each year, and the snowmachiners
have policed themselves by staying clear of those areas. She
emphasized that there does not have to be a closure based on bear
dennings as a resource damage if there is adequate consultation
done with the groups involved ahead of time. The ADF&G has worked
with the snowmachiners and the National Park Service for over two
years in an attempt to get them to develop areas that could be
zoned for snowmachine use, and they are very disappointed that the
National Park Service chose to go ahead and use findings of damage.
If those findings of damage were to be applied to all of the 143
million acres of conservation system units, she added, it would
effectively impact access by snowmachine for hunting, fishing and
trapping all over the state.
Number 2477
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS sought clarification as to what
organization the witness represented.
MS. CUNNING specified that she is with the State-Federal Issues
Program of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). She
wanted to emphasize for the record, however, that neither the state
of Alaska nor the ADF&G has taken an official position on this
closure, but they will do so in concert with the other state
agencies. She added, "Our concerns regarding process and resource
damage, however, are on the record for all conservation system
units -- not just unique to this one."
Number 2530
BILL EASTMAN, Mat-Su Motor Mushers, testified via teleconference
from the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. He noted that SJR 5, as
amended, had the full support of the Mat-Su Motor Mushers.
Number 2552
NANCY MICHAELSON, Alaska Chapter of the Sierra Club, spoke via
teleconference from the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. She testified
that the Sierra Club opposed SJR 5 and supported the closure of the
old part of Denali National Park and Preserve to motorized uses.
She read the following testimony into the record:
I am here to testify on behalf of the Sierra Club and our
statewide 1300 members from Barrow to Ketchikan. Nationally,
we are 600,000 members strong who work to protect wild places
for our families (indisc.--coughing). We oppose the passage
of this resolution and we support closure of all of the entire
part of old Mount McKinley Park to motorized use. Each point
of the resolution should be based on factual premise. We take
issue with some of your premises on which you base your
points.
Point number three, as an example, speaks to the National Park
Service requirement that findings of snowmachine use be
detrimental to the park. Although this actual wording is
factual, we take issue with your reference that proof of
detrimental impact must come from the specific area itself.
Your resolution conveys that you mean that we must impact, or
ruin, an area to prove the area will be ruined, and then take
steps to protect it, only after the fact. There are plentiful
studies and documented cases of snowmachine effects
(indisc.--coughing). We hoped you be wise enough to accept
the existence of these studies and process their information
in a meaningful manner, such as the National Park Service
37-page Statement of Finding.
We disagree with your understanding of ANILCA in your second
point. Words for ANILCA are exact, but what this whole
controversy boils down to is recreational snowmachining. The
Sierra Club strongly believes that this use does not belong in
a wilderness area, regardless of how anyone twists or speaks
of the intent of ANILCA.
Lastly, we do not agree with the interpretation that old Mount
McKinley National Park was ever open to motorized uses. What
this issue is based on is a technical glitch. There has never
been any language or legislative history that points to
Congress meaning to allow for motorized uses in the old park.
Indeed, Congress did three things to indicate that its intent
was to strengthen park protection through the years, such as;
1) they made the original park all wilderness, 2) they
expanded the park in 1980, and, 3) in 1976 they closed it to
mining with the Mining in the Parks Act. Regardless of our
opinions on this last point, it serves well to demonstrate our
disagreement with your premise.
We believe that scenic and wildlife values of Denali [National
Park and Preserve], no matter the season, depend on
non-disturbance winter and summer habitat, and we urge you not
to accept Senate Joint Resolution Number 5.
Number 2672
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked how many members of the Sierra Club
Ms. Michaelson was representing.
MS. MICHAELSON responded that there were 1300 members statewide.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY wondered if all 1300 of these members had
been polled on this issue.
MS. MICHAELSON said no, but added that the Sierra Club has
statewide meetings with by-laws, and they have discussed their
policies on national park and wilderness matters.
Number 2701
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS noted that the National Park Service
announced temporary closure of the old part of the park while they
consider additional permanent closures for the entire park. She
asked if the Sierra Club would support closing down the entire park
to snowmachine use.
MS. MICHAELSON said no, and clarified that their concern was for
the old section of the park. She stated that this area has not
been used for recreational snowmachine use since its inception in
1917. She added that the Sierra Club does not believe that
recreational snowmachining is a traditional activity as outlined in
ANILCA.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS sought clarification that the Sierra Club
would support keeping the rest of the park open to snowmachining.
MS. MICHAELSON agreed. She explained that the Sierra Club
recognized that other areas of the park are being used by
snowmachines, and they are not opposed to that usage. They are,
however, strongly opposed to snowmachine usage in the "wilderness
area."
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS wondered how damage could be determined to
occur in the old part of the park, but not on property only 100
feet away in the new part of the park. She questioned how the
Sierra Club was able to make that distinction.
MS. MICHAELSON said, "I did not comment to that, because our
opposition has to do with wilderness areas. Also, if it was
critical habitat for either denning bears or other wildlife, then
that would be a point for us, but if it was not in a wilderness
area....Obviously, the amount of impact is going to be the same if
the microecology is the same, but it would be important to us that
snowmachines do not exist in the wilderness area."
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS wanted the record to reflect that the
Sierra Club is not opposed to snowmachining in the new section of
the park, even though it would be land adjacent to the old section.
Therefore, they would not be able to make a distinction in damage
or use.
Number 2844
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE requested a map of the areas involved that
would outline the old versus the new sections of the park, as well
as a map outlining the snowmachine pattern areas.
Number 2871
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made reference to Yellowstone National Park.
He questioned whether or not snowmachines were allowed in that
park, and, if so, if their usage has been detrimental to their
critical habitats.
MS. MICHAELSON said yes, and referred the committee to Mr. Steve
Martin, who worked at Yellowstone National Park and was there when
they experienced a large increase in snowmachining. She pointed
out that the ecology of that park is different than the ecology of
Denali National Park and Preserve, but she added that Yellowstone
National Park has had problems with wildlife harassment from
snowmachiners and air pollution. This has manifested itself in
changes of foraging patterns of animals that are displaced by
snowmachine usage, and she felt some studies have demonstrated
population decline.
TAPE 99-03, SIDE B
Number 0048
SANDY KOGL testified via teleconference from Talkeetna. She stated
she was representing herself and other quiet recreational users and
dog mushers in the Denali National Park and Preserve area. She
emphasized that she was adamantly opposed to SJR 5, and added that
she is in favor of permanent closure of the entire former Mount
McKinley National Park to all snowmachine use. She felt that this
was not a state issue because it is a national park, and that the
National Park Service is tasked with preserving and protecting
those significant park values.
MS. KOGL continued, "It goes beyond the quiet rights issues and
impacts upon winter stress to life. What is fundamental here is
whether a 2-million acre, intact ecosystem, that has essentially
been untouched by winter recreationists, should be exposed to
impacts from large numbers of snowmachiners. There are very few
areas of Alaska that have been free from snowmobile travel. This,
in itself, is reason enough to continue the closed status of the
old Mount McKinley park. We cannot ever anticipate or prove all of
the consequences of opening it up to snowmobile use. It will be
too late if we have to prove the damage after it has occurred."
MS. KOGL addressed Mr. Leaphart's references to unfair past
closures of the old section of the park by park rangers. She
clarified that the closures have been by park policy, rather than
by regulation, and that responsible riders have usually informed
themselves of old park boundaries and respected the historic
sanctity of them. She added, "ANILCA is a wonderful document. I
think it is something akin to the Bible; it is open to a lot of
interpretation. I think bringing this whole issue to the
forefront, whether it be through the courts or whatever, is one of
the better things that has happened to clear the air." She
emphasized that snowmobiles were never historically or
traditionally used for recreational purposes in the old Mount
McKinley area of the park, and that any encroachments before 1980
by snowmachines were illegal. She felt that allowing snowmachines
in the old section of the park was a blow to the values for which
the park was established. She urged the committee to "take the
high road, and to accept that some areas need to be set aside, free
from motorized snowmachine use, and maybe even free from dogsled or
skiing use. Some areas need to be of value in themselves."
Number 0247
ROLLIE OSTERMICK testified via teleconference from Talkeetna. He
informed the committee that he has lived in the Talkeetna/Trapper
Creek area since 1973, and has traveled through this country by a
variety of means, including the two snowmachines he owns. He
stated that he was very opposed to SJR 5. He said, "Snowmachines
have never traditionally been used in the national park, and, from
what I have seen recently, I hope they never are allowed in the
park. Caribou, which used to be plentiful throughout the Broad
Pass valley, south of Cantwell and east of the park, now are
primarily seen on the upper slopes of the mountains from about
mid-December when the snowmachiners first arrive. I have to wonder
if the caribou -- which are escaping the harassment of the
snowmachines and live on the upper slopes -- what effect it has had
on their population."
MR. OSTERMICK cited a personal experience with a grizzly bear that
heard his snowmachine when he was still approximately 1/4-mile
away, and he stated that the bear was in a full run in the opposite
direction. Because of the park's importance to visitors from
around the world, as well as the local economies from Fairbanks to
Anchorage, he felt it seemed foolish to jeopardize the park's
abundant wildlife by snowmachine use. With over 95 percent of the
public land already open to snowmachine use, he added, it would be
selfish not to continue to keep the park a quiet zone for the
benefit of the many Alaska residents who enjoy skiing, dog sledding
and winter camping. He testified that only four of approximately
23 to 25 people involved in the public hearing in Talkeetna last
November were in favor of snowmachines, and the rest were strongly
opposed. He urged the committee to recognize that a good
percentage of Alaskans, especially the people that live there,
would like to have one area within the state remain a quiet
wilderness.
Number 0391
MICHAEL EASTHAM, Homer Snowmads Snowmachine Club, testified on
behalf of his club of 200 members in support of SJR 5. He
encouraged the committee to take the time to research whether or
not snowmachines have some damaging impact on the environment. He
related that he has lived in Homer for 25 years, and he has
snowmachined all over the moose range in Kenai during that time.
He emphasized that he has never seen any type of documented
evidence from the National Park Service or ADF&G that snowmachines
have irreparably damaged the area when used during times of
sufficient snow cover. He stressed that the winter months are a
time when all the tourists are gone, and the people of Alaska have
a chance to see the wilderness. He expressed sadness that the
doors will be now be closed to people who live in Alaska to be able
to enjoy such a beautiful place.
CHAIR BARNES agreed that Alaskans do not get as much of a chance to
enjoy the outside anymore because of the amount of people visiting
in the summer, and she added that a lot of people identify with
winter sports.
Number 0493
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a motion to move SJR 5 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal
note(s). There being no objection, SJR 5 was so moved from the
House Special Committee on World Trade and State/Federal Relations.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0510
CHAIR BARNES adjourned the House Special Committee on World Trade
and State/Federal Relations at 6:04 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|