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