HB 295-UNIVERSITY LAND GRANT  8:05:16 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 295 "An Act relating to the grant of certain state land to the University of Alaska; relating to the duties of the Board of Regents; relating to deposits made to the Alaska permanent fund received from certain lands conveyed to the University of Alaska; ratifying and reauthorizing certain prior conveyances of land to the University of Alaska; making conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date." 8:07:41 AM DEBBIE SPENCER, Owner, Shoreline Incorporated, suggested that the consternation surrounding the Mite Cove and Sumdum parcels stems from having the land use designations, previously determined via public process, being disrespected under the University of Alaska (UA) land selections. The many years of work, incorporating all of the stakeholders, were not mentioned in a letter [not cited] from Commissioner Tom Irwin, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), regarding the parcels, only that land selections were the result of cooperation between the department and the UA. She directed attention to the committee packet report from DNR titled "University of Alaska Land Grant List 2005," dated January 12, 2005, Revised 2010, and the tab labeled "Parcel Descriptions," page 9 of 15, Approx. Area in Acres column, to point out that Mite Cove is listed as a 320 acre parcel, but under the heading Description/Plan Designation it is described as being nearly 200 acres. Elsewhere in the document, it is identified as a 180 acre area; the document is in conflict with itself. Neither does the written description correspond with the land use plan developed through the public process [Northern Southeast Area Plan (NSEAP), adopted 10/15/02 by DNR]. The final sentence in the description column states, and she read, "Considered appropriate for remote residential or commercial recreation marine services," and does not reflect the NSEAP, which specifies the area for public recreation and tourism, undeveloped; coded RU. Turning to page 11, of the same document, she pointed out the description for the Sumdum parcel. The designation reads "Public Recreation-Dispersed." Ms. Spencer said the NSEAP indicates the same use designation for Sumdum, as for Mite Cove, and further that they must be held in the public domain. These two parcels will continue to be held in contention due to the inconsistency of the list before the committee and the land use plan developed through the public process. Pelican passed a city resolution, in 2005, in opposition to the bill previous to what is before the committee, and will be passing a similar resolution to oppose HB 295. 8:14:20 AM CHAIR SEATON directed the committee's attention to a letter dated 2/2/10, from the witness, page 2, and the excerpt from the NSEAP describing the intended use of Mite Cove and fully defining the RU designation. 8:15:26 AM TIM LYDEN, urged the committee to remove the Sumdum parcel, indicating that it is central to Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wilderness, and serves as a vital public access area for Endicott Arm. There is a safe anchorage and camp located on the five acres, unique to the area that is primarily sheer cliffs. Privatizing the area would have an effect on the public's ability to utilize this remote locale. He stated his fears that privatization would bring development to the area. 8:20:23 AM MR. LYDEN referred to a document signed by 17 tour operators that depend on use of the Sumdum area, and paraphrased the statement, which read [original punctuation provided]: The undersigned seventeen commercial tour companies bring thousands of visitors to Southeast Alaska every year. Our businesses provide guided hunting and fishing kayak expeditions, and week-long excursions aboard small and mid-size vessels. Our segment of Alaska's tourism industry provides vital and unique economic benefits to southeast Alaska, and many of us are local business people. We stand out among other segments of the tourism industry because many of us provision our excursions locally, and a high number of our clients dine and seek local accommodations before and after their trips. University of Alaska research shows businesses like ours pump millions of dollars into the Southeast economy annually. Bringing clients to wild Alaskan landscapes is the backbone of our businesses, and it's the reason for our concern over the Sumdum parcel. The Sumdum parcel is in Sanford Cove, in the heart of the Tracy Arm-Fords Terror and Chuck River Wilderness Areas. For each of us, the area is a hi9ghlight of the services we provide. Many of us use Sanford Cove as a safe and scenic anchorage. With bears, wolves, salmon and cultural ruins, it is a common location for walks ashore, fishing hunting and camping; not only for our commercial clients, but for many independent and local travelers, too. Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wilderness is especially unique because it currently contains no lodges, private cabins, or other developments. Some of us have operated in southeast Alaska for several decades, long enough to know that such undeveloped anchorages are increasingly rare. Privatization of the Sumdum parcel would displace many of us from long-standing business activities. It would also displace many independent and local recreationists and mar an undeveloped landscape. But removing the Sanford Cove parcel from the bill would have only a minor impact on university funding, one that could be compensated by other means. Thank you for your consideration, and please help us maintain current use of this important part of Southeast Alaska. 8:23:25 AM MARY IRVINE reminded the committee of her previous testimony [1/29/10] and the request which Representative Munoz made for DNR to provide further documentation of the archeological nature of the site. She said that as a private individual she is restricted from receiving archival information from the state [Office of History & Archeology Alaska Historical Commission, Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources], which is available to state agencies and legislators. One 1946 report, titled HAA AANI, published by Goldschmidt and Haas, is an anthropological report on Southeast Alaska, which contains maps and historical information including the Sumdum area. She described the history that has revolved around this area dating from the 1800's, marking it as a multi culturally layered historic area. 8:27:17 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if there are archeological remains at the site. MS. IRVINE said that without access to the confidential documents held by DNR she cannot answer that question. However, photographs of the area compiled by the UA, and state libraries, available for viewing via the internet at [vilda.alaska.edu], are indicative of the industry and activity that once existed in the thriving Sumdum community. She encouraged the excising of this five acre parcel from the university land grant. 8:30:41 AM DICK MYLIUS, Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), explained that one of the criteria used in the land selection was based on consideration of land available to municipalities, under the municipal entitlement act. The type of lands that municipalities can select is specified in AS 29.65.130, which reads: (10) "vacant, unappropriated, unreserved land" means general grant land as defined in (3) of this section, excluding minerals as required by Sec. 6(i) of the Alaska Statehood Act, that (C) is unclassified or, if classified under AS 38.05.300, is classified for agricultural, grazing, material, public recreation, or settlement purposes, or is classified in accordance with an agreement between a municipality and the state providing for state management of land of the municipality MR. MYLIUS said that because of the allowance, by the legislature, to transfer public recreation lands to municipalities, the department surmised that it would also be appropriate to transfer the same public recreation lands to the university; hence the Mite Cove and Sumdum parcels were selected. 8:32:04 AM CHAIR SEATON pointed out the conflicting use designations of the Sumdum parcel: The University of Alaska Land Grant List 2010, page 11 of 15, use description of "Public Recreation-Dispersed," versus the NSEAP stipulation for "Public Recreation and Tourism- Undeveloped. MR. MYLIUS replied: In terms of the actual land classification that gets applied to those, it's the same classification as the public recreation classification. So that's why we considered that one as appropriate for transfer. Even though it says it's dispersed recreation, and tourism, it still ends up ... classified as public recreation, when you actually put the land classification on it. 8:33:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired about the public process that occurred during the selection. MR. MYLIUS said there was not a public process for the selection, because it was based on the previous decisions made in determining land use plans, which did incorporate the public process. The selected parcels were reviewed, and public testimony occurred, during the 2005 legislative hearings. 8:34:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER remembered that the governor, at that time, stated a desire to have the list be accepted as presented without change. She sympathized with the small communities who may have felt up against the wall in the decision making process. MR. MYLIUS indicated that the legislature did remove nine parcels, following the 2005 public testimony. The original legislation, SB 7, introduced in 2007, put the onus on the UA and DNR to sort out the details. The department expected there to be some contention, and decided to bring it back to the legislature to address the public concerns. He suggested that, without exception, any of the high value parcels of land will be objected to by the locals. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER summed up that there is general public support for the university to have land, as long as it is not "their land." 8:36:13 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the land use code for Mite Cove will be maintained under university ownership; what uses can the university apply to the parcel. MR. MYLIUS said once the transfer occurs the university can utilize parcels for whatever purposes they choose. 8:37:14 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON opined that state land ownership is not vast, given the federal holdings, and particularly in the southeast region, due to the Tongass National Forest. She suggested that land selections may be inappropriate in the southeast region, but not as hard felt, and contentious, elsewhere in the state. MR. MYLIUS concurred that state land holdings are minimal in the southeast region. The lands acquired were identified as suitable for recreational development or private ownership, which makes them valuable as well as contentious. 8:39:16 AM CHAIR SEATON recognized that the southeast region doesn't want to lose population; however, if there is not land available for development, opportunities diminish. A value exists in having undeveloped land, but it presents a dichotomy for supporting population growth. The committee, and legislature, is charged with striking the appropriate balance between competing interests. 8:41:16 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON opined that because an area is designated for community use, such as Mite Cove, it should not be assumed that transferring it to the university would result in the type of benefit that the town desires. She questioned whether the legislature should allow this type of land conveyance. 8:42:41 AM CHAIR SEATON inquired whether the communities have suggested alternative parcels for selection. MR. MYLIUS said it depends on the parcel and the community. In the case of Pelican, the city limits do not extend far enough to include Mite Cove. Other communities, such as Wrangell, have formed boroughs large enough to select some of the parcels under municipal entitlement. The Ketchikan Gateway borough is a non- issue as all of the entitlements have been received. These represent the three categories of communities that are being dealt with: no borough and no entitlement currently; borough still working on entitlement; and entitlements satisfied. 8:44:10 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER underscored the importance of holding a public process in selecting lands to address the competing values represented and ensure that voices have been heard. She then summarized the process described: a public process is used to identify land use plans and classifications; the plans and classifications were the basis of the selections made by the department and university; a public process ensued through the legislative process, allowing further testimony; and once the land is transferred to the university it is no longer subject to the land use plan that was initially developed. MR. MYLIUS concurred. 8:45:42 AM CHAIR SEATON asked what uses would be considered regarding development of the Sumdum parcel, should ownership be conveyed to the university. Further, he questioned the universities regard for the historical and cultural concerns of the area. MARI MONTGOMERY, Director, Office of Land Management, University of Alaska System, said there are no specific development plans for any of the parcels being conveyed. Lands considered archeological resources are protected under state law. Sealaska Corporation has indicated an interest in purchasing the Sumdum parcel for cultural preservation reasons. Others would like to acquire this property, but no decisions are being made pending acquisition. The possibility exists for it to be preserved for academic study. 8:49:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired about the annual cost of managing the UA land office, and the annual average revenue that is derived through the office, to benefit the university. MS. MONTGOMERY reported that the office budget averages 2.5 million. She said the office has a mission which includes managing and permitting academic research land, as well as land acquisitions, disposals. The office generates revenues averaging $10 million. 8:51:04 AM NORM CARSON, President, Pelican Chamber of Commerce, said that given the circumstances unique to Pelican, it would be beneficial to the city to have land closer to the town conveyed to the university. He pointed out that there is a DNR parcel [C18], within 2 miles of Pelican, currently designated for settlement, unlike Mite Cove, which is 13 miles away and designated RU. For purposes of furthering community growth, the city would welcome the conveyance of the C18 parcel. CHAIR SEATON clarified that this is a request for a parcel exchange and not opposition to conveyance. MR. MYLIUS noted that the land cited was originally on the list and could be reconsidered by DNR: ST 1002 Warm Springs Bay [University of Alaska Land Grant List 2010 Parcel Descriptions, page 10 of 15]. 8:56:22 AM CAROL CAIRNES, Representative, Tongass Conservation Society, expressed concern with using this approach as a significant funding support for the UA budget. The Ketchikan parcels conveyed to the university have resulted in several issues. She reported on property that was sold, without local advertisement, adjacent to residences, for $1,200 per acre, and clear cut. The existing residents had no opportunity to purchase the land. The Moser Bay parcels are near existing settlements, but the selections for Cleveland Peninsula, and Leask Cove, may prove marginal for development. If the university were to develop the parcels for academic purposes, it would be acceptable; however, a law suit has been filed due to the concept of using the land in this way for funding higher education. The program has only contributed a small percentage to the university budget, and the clear cutting has devalued neighboring property. She stressed that any land sales should be well advertised, and she asked for reconsideration for how the dispersals are handled. [HB 295 was held over.] 9:00:46 AM The committee took an at-ease from 9:00 a.m. to 9:02 a.m.