Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/27/2001 01:12 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 27, 2001
1:12 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Drew Scalzi, Co-Chair
Representative Hugh Fate, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Beth Kerttula
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Board of Game (Continued)
Julie Maier - Fairbanks
Ben Grussendorf - Sitka
William H. "Chip" Dennerlein - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Oil & Gas Conservation Commission
Julie Huesser - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Dept of Natural Resources Commissioner
Pat Pourchot - Juneau
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 241
"An Act relating to a railroad utility corridor for extension of
the Alaska Railroad to Canada and to extension of the Alaska
Railroad to Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, Canada."
- MOVED CSHB 241(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 241
SHORT TITLE:RAIL AND UTILITY CORRIDOR TO CANADA
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)JAMES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/10/01 0929 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/10/01 0929 (H) TRA, RES
04/24/01 1181 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MCGUIRE,
KOHRING, SCALZI,
04/24/01 1181 (H) WILSON
04/24/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/24/01 (H) Moved Out of Committee
04/24/01 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
04/25/01 1197 (H) TRA RPT 3DP 1NR
04/25/01 1198 (H) DP: WILSON, SCALZI, KOHRING;
NR: MASEK
04/25/01 1198 (H) FN1: ZERO(CED)
04/25/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/25/01 (H) <Bill Postponed to Friday
4/27>
04/26/01 1257 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER,
WHITAKER
04/27/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
NOEL WOODS
Matanuska Valley Sportsman
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Dr. Maier, Mr. Grussendorf, and Mr. Dennerlein to the Board
of Game.
JEAN WOODS
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Dr. Maier, Mr. Grussendorf, and Mr. Dennerlein to the Board
of Game.
PATTI BARBER
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Dr. Maier, Mr. Grussendorf, and Mr. Dennerlein to the Board
of Game.
DICK BISHOP
Alaska Outdoor Council
1555 Gus's Grind
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Dr. Maier, Mr. Grussendorf, and Mr. Dennerlein to the Board
of Game.
KENNY BARBER
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Dr. Maier, Mr. Grussendorf, and Mr. Dennerlein.
JULIE HEUSSER, Appointee
to the Oil & Gas Conservation Commission
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as an appointee to the Oil & Gas
Conservation Commission.
PAT POURCHOT, Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Avenue, 5th floor
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1724
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as an appointee as the
Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources.
REPRESENTATIVE JEANETTE JAMES
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 214
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 241.
HAL COOPER
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 241.
PAUL TAYLOR, Professional Engineer
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 241.
DAVE BROADBENT (PH)
Canadian Arctic Railway
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 241.
BILL BRITT, State Gas Pipeline Coordinator
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources
411 W 4th Avenue, 2nd floor
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2343
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HB 241.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-44, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR DREW SCALZI called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:12 p.m. Representatives Scalzi,
Fate, McGuire, Stevens, and Kapsner were present at the call to
order. Representatives Green and Chenault arrived as the
meeting was in progress. Co-Chair Scalzi passed the gavel to
Representative Fate, Vice Chair.
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Board of Fisheries
VICE CHAIR FATE announced that the committee would continue the
confirmation hearings on the Board of Game [that began on
4/25/01]. He noted that [at a prior hearing] the committee
heard from Dr. Julie Maier, former Representative Ben
Grussendorf, and Mr. "Chip" Dennerlein, appointees to the Board
of Game. He then turned to [public] testimony.
Number 0205
NOEL WOODS, Matanuska Valley Sportsman, testified via
teleconference in opposition to all three appointees to the
Board of Game. After a survey of the actions of these
appointees during the past Board of Game meeting, [the Matanuska
Valley Sportsman] feels that they failed to recognize what is
considered to be a severe game-predator problem. Their actions
do provide [assurance that the Matanuska Valley Sportsman] would
have confidence in these appointees as members of the Board of
Game. [The Matanuska Valley Sportsman] feels quite strongly
that a sustained yield is more important than the predator-prey
relationship for which they seem to have concern.
JEAN WOODS testified via teleconference and said she wanted to
echo Mr. Woods' comments. Ms. Woods noted her particular
opposition to the confirmation of Mr. Dennerlein based on his
behavior at the last Board of Game meeting. Ms. Woods related
her understanding that at the last Board of Game meeting, Mr.
Dennerlein carried on phone conversations, was rude to
testifiers, was inattentive during presentations, and was doing
personal business on his laptop. Ms. Woods interpreted Mr.
Dennerlein's actions to mean that he is too busy and too
important to give the Board of Game the time it deserves.
Number 0485
PATTI BARBER testified via teleconference and noted that she is
speaking on behalf of her husband, Kenny Barber, as well as
herself. She informed the committee that she and her husband
are opposed to the [confirmations] of all three appointees to
the Board of Game. "After sitting in on the Board of Game
meetings for eight days, we felt that these members were unable
to use sound judgment concerning game issues," she charged.
Furthermore, she didn't feel that the [appointees] listened to
the concerns of the area biologist. Also, the board gave
nonresidents a longer hunting season over residents of Alaska,
which she and her husband felt was unfair. Therefore, Ms.
Barber urged the committee not to confirm these appointees.
VICE CHAIR FATE asked if there were any further questions or
comments regarding the three Board of Game appointees.
Number 0633
DICK BISHOP, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), informed the
committee that during the council's statewide delegates meeting
in March, it unanimously voted in opposition to the confirmation
of Mr. Dennerlein, Mr. Grussendorf, and Dr. Maier to the Board
of Game. Although it's the board's responsibility to establish
management policy and approve management plans, last year the
governor told the board that he wanted a "new era of wildlife
management" with more protection for wolves, and more closed
areas [designated by the governor] for viewing wolves and bears.
Only after such would the governor consider management actions
to increase big game numbers in important hunting areas. At
that time the board had accomplished an intensive review of
predator-prey situations and had developed an outstanding policy
on predator-prey scenarios. [The Board of Game] couldn't, in
good conscious, accept this intrusion into their area of
responsibility. [Therefore,] those board members whose terms
expired weren't reappointed.
MR. BISHOP pointed out that the "new era of wildlife management"
requested by the governor "boils down to" no management, less
hunting, and more viewing. Such a situation undermines Alaska's
traditional pursuits and lifestyles. "For justification, it
relies on the popular myth that hunting and viewing are
incompatible. This year the governor reappointed Board of Fish
members based on the premise of seeking experience and
continuity on the Board of Fisheries. However, that wasn't the
policy with the Board of Game appointments where the policy
seemed to systematically purge experience and continuity.
Therefore, the committee is faced with the request to confirm a
Board of Game that the governor hopes will implement his
demands. Mr. Bishop said, "The governor has chosen well." He
informed the committee that Mr. Dennerlein represents an
environmental organization that has anti-hunting roots going
back decades and continues to mislead the public about wildlife
issues in Alaska. Although former Representative Grussendorf is
a respected legislator, his record includes a bill to
unnecessarily shut down an important brown bear hunting area,
opposition to legislation that addresses the shortage of big
game, as well as opposition to earlier Board of Game
appointments. Furthermore, Dr. Maier, a well-educated wildlife
biologist, lacks management experience as a framework in which
to effectively apply her training to address the board's
challenges.
MR. BISHOP concluded by urging the committee to not approve the
governor's agenda. However, he suggested that if the committee
approves of the governor's agenda, it should confirm the
governor as a member of the Board of Game.
Number 0633
CO-CHAIR SCALZI agreed with Mr. Bishop's assessment of the
governor's stance. He understood Mr. Bishop to merely be
pointing out [the governor's stance rather than only arguing for
continuity].
MR. BISHOP answered that [reappointment of a board member] is
really dependent upon good judgment in regard to how well the
board is performing its responsibilities in its arena. In AOC's
opinion, the previous board was performing its responsibilities
in an outstanding manner. That board did an outstanding job in
dealing with the difficult issue of predator-prey management as
well as presenting the best written policy Mr. Bishop had ever
seen. Mr. Bishop remarked that those board members who exercise
fair-mindedness and good judgment illustrate that longevity and
experience are extremely valuable. In the past some of the best
boards were comprised of people who had been on the board for
quite some time. For example, Sydney Huntington, an outstanding
board member, served on the Board of Game for 20 years.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI related his understanding that the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) is very supportive of [AOC's]
ideology for game management.
MR. BISHOP remarked that most departmental biologists who have
worked on predator-prey management studies or are familiar with
such would agree that predation on big game is the principal
limiting factor on big game numbers in the state. Predation on
big game accounts for about 85 percent of the annual mortality
to most big game animals while hunter harvest accounts for about
2-7 percent, depending on the particular circumstances. There
is also the small factor of accidents and diseases. He noted
that [predation] doesn't apply with animals such as deer in
Southeast Alaska.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI surmised then that in most cases, Mr. Bishop
felt that the biologists are good stewards of information that
depict how management regimes should proceed with regard to
predation.
MR. BISHOP replied yes. In regard to whether ADF&G would be in
agreement with AOC's views on predator management, he felt that
while most of the biologist are in agreement with AOC's views on
predator management, the department and the administration
generally is not.
Number 1350
KENNY BARBER testified via teleconference and noted that he is
an advisory board committee member, although he is speaking on
his own behalf. Mr. Barber explained that he would ask the
committee not to [confirm] the appointees because of his
experience with these people involving trapping issues on trail
systems.
Number 1483
GAIL BLUNDELL testified via teleconference. She noted that she
holds a PhD in Wildlife Biology. Ms. Blundell recommended
confirmation of Dr. Maier. She related her belief that the
Board of Game should represent all factions of Alaska's
citizenry in proportion to their currents in the population.
Ms. Blundell remarked that although most board members represent
only one viewpoint, Dr. Maier represents a balance between
consumptive use - her family relies on wild game - and a
scientific education. Dr. Maier was educated in Alaska and has
conducted research in various ecosystems in Alaska and thus she
has the ability to understand how various proposals may fit into
the ecosystem as a short-term solution with its long-term
implications.
VICE CHAIR FATE noted that there is a quorum present and the
explained that the committee would need to have a motion to
forward the names of the appointees to the joint session of both
bodies for consideration of appointment to the Board of Game.
Number 1565
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS moved that the committee forward Dr.
Julie Maier's name to the joint session of the House and Senate
for consideration of appointment to the Board of Game. There
being no objection, it was so ordered.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI moved that the committee forward Mr. Ben
Grussendorf's name to the joint session of the House and Senate
for consideration of appointment to the Board of Game.
VICE CHAIR FATE objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kapsner, Scalzi,
McGuire, Chenault, and Stevens voted in favor of forwarding Mr.
Ben Grussendorf's name to the joint session of the House and
Senate for consideration of appointment to the Board of Game.
Representative Fate voted against it. Therefore, Mr. Ben
Grussendorf's name was forwarded by a vote of 5-1.
Number 1685
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT moved that the committee forward Mr.
Chip Dennerlein's name to the joint session of the House and
Senate for consideration of appointment to the Board of Game.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kapsner, McGuire,
Chenault, and Stevens voted in favor of forwarding Mr. Chip
Dennerlein's name to the joint session of the House and Senate
for consideration of appointment to the Board of Game.
Representatives Scalzi and Fate voted against it. Therefore,
Mr. Ben Grussendorf's name was forwarded by a vote of 4-2.
Oil & Gas Conservation Commission
VICE CHAIR FATE turned to the confirmations for the Oil & Gas
Conservation Commission [Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation
Commission (AOGCC)].
Number 1785
JULIE HEUSSER, Appointee to the Oil & Gas Conservation
Commission, testified via teleconference. Ms. Heusser, a life-
long Alaskan, informed the committee that she is a degreed
petroleum engineer. Ms. Heusser stated, "I'm very much
committed to working at the AOGCC to carry out the legislatively
mandated intent of Title 31, the Oil and Gas Conservation Act,
as well as our regulations." She noted that she has been with
the commission for more than five months and brings more than 20
years of practical "down-hole" experience in a variety of areas
that seem applicable to the commission's work.
VICE CHAIR FATE inquired as to whether anyone wished to testify
on this proposed appointment. There being no one, he indicated
that he would entertain a motion.
Number 1874
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved that the committee forward Ms.
Julie Heusser's name to the joint session of the House and
Senate for consideration of appointment to the Oil & Gas
Conservation Commission. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
Dept of Natural Resources Commissioner
VICE CHAIR FATE moved on to the reappointment of the Department
of Natural Resources Commissioner, Pat Pourchot.
Number 1921
PAT POURCHOT, Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), noted that the committee packet should contain his
resume. Commissioner Pourchot informed the committee that he
served four years in the State House and four years in the State
Senate. For the past six years he has been the legislative
director for Governor Knowles until his appointment last
September as the Commissioner of DNR. Commissioner Pourchot
said that he viewed his appointment as a great honor and
privilege. He pointed out that DNR is charged with both
developing and conserving the state's resources, and therefore
is involved in a variety of functions that can collide. There
is emphasis in obtaining the facts and hearing from the public
as the department tries to make informed, intelligent, and fair
decisions, which former Commissioner Shively started and
Commissioner Pourchot hoped to follow.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE noted that she has known Commissioner
Pourchot for many years and she thought he would do a great job
in this position. Representative McGuire referred to an email
that she found disturbing. She explained that the email was
forwarded to the Juneau Assembly by the mayor. The email was
then brought to the attention of some legislators.
Representative McGuire said that from the email it appears that
Jim Stratton is confused whether he would have the ability to
administratively withdraw land for creation of the Channel Park.
She inquired as to Commissioner Pourchot's position on the
Channel Park and the aforementioned administrative power.
Number 2145
COMMISSIONER POURCHOT remarked that this is the type of email
from department staff that is not a good form of communication
in which to engage. He noted that he wasn't familiar with the
local political situation relating to this [park]. However, he
turned to the Interagency Land Management Agreement (ILMA)
issue. Commissioner Pourchot stated that [DNR] does have
authority - under a recently revised statute - to
administratively transfer management for park or recreation
purposes. The area is limited in size to 640 acres a square
mile and the department must report on any uses of that land
annually to the legislature. Over the past several years, this
has been used sparingly. The areas in which it has been used
average 170-180 acres in size and most often stem from another
locality or agency that requests DNR to set up this management
system to be established for some special purpose. These are
typically picnic sites or campground areas. However, this [can
be sought] for other agencies. Commissioner Pourchot related
his belief that [ILMAs] are good management tools. He noted
that [DNR] would not unilaterally designate a small park area,
but would, in this case, result from borough action or city
action and would need to proceed through a public process. He
reiterated that he wasn't sure of the local feelings on this;
however, this [email] seems to indicate that there has been a
change in [city and borough] administration and perhaps now is
the time to determine whether the local community wants the
department to do something in regard to the Channel Islands.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE specified that she wasn't implying that
the ILMA process isn't useful or appropriate in certain
situations. However, she was disturbed by the commissioner's
answer because it seemed to suggest that a land withdrawal of
the size in the Channel Park area could simply occur by
resolution of the borough stating that there is support within
the borough. She pointed out that such action did occur in 1995
and thus she didn't have any misgivings that it could occur
again. Therefore, she expressed concern as to where the
legislature fits into this. In fact, one of the "Whereas"
clauses in the 1995 borough resolution says, "Action by the
Alaska Legislature is necessary to accomplish the land
withdrawal and there is currently legislation pending, HB 91 and
34, that would accomplish the creation of the Juneau Channel
Islands Marine Park." Representative McGuire said, "I would be
troubled to see any one of us or, in this case, the department
simply subverting the legislative process and using the ILMA
process and simply a resolution by the borough to do something
that is as controversial and as drastic, in my opinion."
Therefore, she inquired as to the sideboards because there don't
seem to be any in regard to the Channel Islands Park.
COMMISSIONER POURCHOT pointed out that the sideboards are in
statute for the circumstances under which the department can do
an administrative ILMA. Again, he noted his unfamiliarity with
the specifics of the bill. However, he guessed that the reason
for the statute was that it exceeded the acreage amount. The
other good reason for legislation is the fiscal note that would
ensure appropriations for a management regime that the
legislature supported, which the department likes as well. He
emphasized that he would definitely consider the controversy and
the failure of past legislation before doing anything
administratively. Typically, the department's ILMAs aren't
subject to controversy or a separate piece of legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE reiterated her belief that the ILMA
process is important. She interpreted Commissioner Pourchot's
comments to mean that "a statement by the borough is one thing,
a statement by the legislature is another thing." In this case,
there are two potentially contradictory statements.
Number 2535
CO-CHAIR SCALZI noted his respect for Commissioner Pourchot. He
then inquired as to the status of the Kodiak Island transfer.
COMMISSIONER POURCHOT said that the department is aware of this
possible trade at Chirikoff Island. He noted that there are
federal grazing leases, although the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service isn't particularly keen on maintaining those grazing
leases nor on the wildlife values of the island in general.
There has been the suggestion that the state engage in a trade
for another island such as Marmot Island. Commissioner Pourchot
recalled that some DNR staff will be meeting with the U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service soon in order to explore this possibility.
COMMISSIONER POURCHOT noted that historically, land trades with
the federal government have proven to be huge "sinks" of time
and energy, and often haven't led to anything. However, the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service seems to be interested in this "if
not pushing it a little bit." Still, there are many regulations
and procedures. Furthermore, Commissioner Pourchot expressed
his hesitance in "going down their road" unless there's real
value to the state. Therefore, he said he was cautious.
Number 2695
CO-CHAIR SCALZI turned to Sitkinak [Island] that houses a
lighthouse. If Sitkinak is moved into state hands, he expressed
the need for keeping the buildings and facilities on that island
for hunters or those who may be shipwrecked. Co-Chair Scalzi
suggested that the department defer to the Kodiak Island Borough
to determine their wishes.
COMMISSIONER POURCHOT noted that the department has checked with
the borough and he wasn't sure how enthusiastic they were.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI continued with the issue of critical habitat
areas. For example, the [Alaska Department of Fish & Game]
recently banned mariculture expansion and jet skis in Kachemak
Bay. He asked if Commissioner Pourchot has any concerns that
the critical habitat areas may not be doing what they intended,
[that is to say] overregulating actions on some of these uses.
He also asked what the commissioner saw with the revisitation of
the critical habitat area issue.
COMMISSIONER POURCHOT pointed out that the land management of
critical habitat areas was transferred to the Alaska Department
of Fish & Game (ADF&G). The management decisions are the
primary responsibilities of ADF&G. However, DNR did have
involvement with the mariculture issue due to the leasing of the
bed and the water column. Still, great deference was given to
ADF&G in terms of the biology. He noted that DNR was concerned
with continued public use of clam beaches, although it was a
moderate position. Also, DNR was involved with the jet ski
issue, but only as it related to Kachemak Bay State Park.
Number 2885
CO-CHAIR SCALZI turned to the power bill and the intertie to
Fairbanks through Tanana Flats and inquired as to its status.
COMMISSIONER POURCHOT informed the committee that the decision
to grant the right-of-way was taken under reconsideration, which
is a formal process by the DNR commissioner. Several studies
were done in order to examine some of the points that people
raised and suggested needed further work. At the end of
February, Commissioner Pourchot issued a final decision for the
department to approve the right-of-way that would go from Healy
to Fairbanks via the Tanana Flats.
TAPE O1-44, SIDE B
COMMISSIONER POURCHOT noted that in recent weeks there was a
motion before the court to enjoin or obtain a restraining order
for further work, which is being handled by the Department of
Law. He recalled that motions were due this week. There will
be some continuing effort. Commissioner Pourchot pointed out
that the court action raised some issues that had not surfaced
before. Commissioner Pourchot expressed confidence that the
work would proceed and the project would move forward.
Number 2882
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS inquired as to what Commissioner Pourchot
would like to accomplish in the remaining two years if he is
confirmed.
COMMISSIONER POURCHOT remarked that [in many areas] he would
stay the course by continuing some of the things that were
started. However, he noted that DNR has dealt with some very
severe budget cuts over the last several years. One of the ways
DNR was able to handle those budget cuts and continue the work
was through computer-based work. Work still remains in that
area. He noted that the Senate recently approved DNR's budget
item to complete some of that work. Commissioner Pourchot
expressed his commitment to review how much more computer-based
work can be put online, which would provide a two-fold benefit
by better serving the public and DNR staff by having information
available earlier.
COMMISSIONER POURCHOT addressed the park system, which he
believes to be a fine system in terms of land and resource base.
However, the park system is very strapped for its management
capabilities. Furthermore, there are huge amounts of deferred
maintenance for the state parks. Therefore, one of his goals is
to make basic improvements in the state parks as well as to put
a little more resources in that system in order to meet the
deferred maintenance projects as well as some of the maintenance
staff and rangers.
COMMISSIONER POURCHOT noted that the department has met the
great growth in oil and gas leasing and related activities
through help from the legislature. He noted that the department
is meeting with the companies regarding next year's field
season, which is winter. He expected another big year in terms
of development plans, participating areas, and new units. That
means a lot of work is going on, much of which is associated
with developing new oil. New oil results in new revenue and new
jobs. From the department's standpoint, it's quite a bit of
work, which [resulted] in the department asking for and
receiving additional resources from the legislature. Now, the
department is left to create a solid, efficient system with
better paid well-qualified people.
Number 2641
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE related her expectation that Commissioner
Pourchot will be confirmed and noted how nice it is to discuss
his vision. She then turned to the issue of aquatic farming.
Representative McGuire mentioned that when talking with ADF&G,
it views DNR as an equal partner in the development or
nondevelopment of [aquatic farming]. She asked Commissioner
Pourchot if he viewed aquatic farming as a viable economic
development opportunity for the state. She noted that, on a
casual basis, she has discussed ideas such as royalty, or
leasing, or performance bonds.
COMMISSIONER POURCHOT framed his remarks by noting that DNR
staff aren't biologists and thus there are disease
considerations and limited use of nutrients in the water to
which he is unable to comment. However, it seemed that Alaska's
coastline and broad water resources provide opportunities to
develop aquatic farms. The department views this issue from the
realm of its constitutional charge of common use of resources
and fair treatment of applicants or users. In DNR's view,
aquatic farming is not that different from those who want to
lease land for various things. Furthermore, it is similar in
that there is limited water as there is limited land.
Commissioner Pourchot said, "If there's ... jobs and economic
opportunities and it can be done in a biologically sound manner,
we work towards those goals and we think, in this case, that ...
there are ... potentials that could ... continue to be explored
and used. And ... we are prepared to, within those confines,
make leases."
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE remarked that she would appreciate the
commissioner and DNR staff spending time on this issue. She
expressed concern that the current draft regulations would
thwart a future in aquatic farming in Alaska. She noted that
with other resources Alaska has been able to manage for common
use as well as economic benefit.
Number 2430
VICE CHAIR FATE noted a perception in the state that DNR favors
an environmental approach over that approach that might help
develop the state's resources. He commented on the bureaucracy
a small entrepreneur faces. Small entrepreneurs seem to be a
thing of the past, although that is often what a good economy is
founded on. Therefore, he inquired as to what Commissioner
Pourchot [and the department] was going to do in an attempt to
reverse that and help Alaska's economy.
COMMISSIONER POURCHOT pointed out that DNR has a number of
[ongoing] programs such as oil and gas leasing that makes land
available. For example, last November 713,000 acres of oil and
gas land was sold. This last full year over 12,000 mining
claims were entered into and for which permit fees were
collected. Also, the department is again having regular,
predictable, and substantial land sales to individuals.
Therefore, he felt that the department is doing a lot in terms
of development and making land available and useable. However,
he agreed with Vice Chair Fate in regard to the complexities of
the process and the public's perception. That is, in part, due
to the fairly complicated statutes provided by the legislature.
COMMISSIONER POURCHOT identified another aspect as the courts
and the taking of shortcuts. For example, last fall [it was
discovered] that the department, which had been renewing water
rights and sending them out, needed a process with a public
hearing and review. That court case has resulted in the
department having a water bill in an attempt to correct some of
the process. When things are pushed too far, too fast, and
something or somebody is left out, it catches up with the
department. The result is that the new process is built into
the future process and things are fairly sluggish. Therefore,
he has been reading the regulations and [having] briefings.
Those briefings consider the burden to the user group and
whether everything in the regulations are necessary.
VICE CHAIR FATE asked, "Will you do everything you can ,as
commissioner, to help us ... do a good job of developing the
resources in the state in a sound and, certainly, environmental
manner?" Vice Chair Fate related his belief that [the state]
could do more in developing its resources.
COMMISSIONER POURCHORT replied yes.
Number 2066
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS moved that the committee forward
Commissioner Pourchot's name to the joint session of the House
and Senate for consideration of appointment to the Department of
Natural Resources. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:20 p.m. to 2:25 p.m.
HB 241-RAIL AND UTILITY CORRIDOR TO CANADA
VICE CHAIR FATE announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 241, "An Act relating to a railroad utility
corridor for extension of the Alaska Railroad to Canada and to
extension of the Alaska Railroad to Whitehorse, Yukon Territory,
Canada."
REPRESENTATIVE JEANETTE JAMES, Alaska State Legislature,
testified as the sponsor of HB 241. She noted that she has been
working on this issue for some time and filed HB 241 because she
wanted to have a definite alignment of the rail corridor.
Currently, there is a "center-line" survey from the air to
identify where the corridor would be located, which is along the
highway. She related her belief that there are some gas rights-
of-way along the highway. She explained that the rail corridor
has two endings one of which extends to the Canadian border and
the other proceeds north at Tetlin and comes down the Ladue
River and continues through Carmacks and Faro to Watson Lake.
Although that is a resource rich area, it seems unlikely that a
railroad would be put through the Yukon Territory and connect
with the British Columbia Rail without going through Whitehorse.
Furthermore, although the Ladue River is state-owned land, it
includes wetlands and habitat and thus it may be easier to
proceed down the highway, an area that has already been
disturbed. Therefore, HB 241 doesn't specify going through the
Ladue River, it merely says that the rail would go to the
Canadian border and on to Whitehorse. This legislation would
authorize the railroad to do surveying of a 500 foot wide
corridor to be utilized for railroad transportation and
utilities. After the extensive survey has been prepared, the
survey would be submitted to the State of Alaska who would then
transfer the land within the corridor to the Alaska Railroad
Corporation (ARRC). For the land that is not state land, there
would be authorization to proceed in obtaining right-of-way
permission. She said that she didn't know what had to be done
once the corridor reaches the Canadian border; the corporation
would have to deal with that. She pointed out that there is no
financial help with this proposal and thus she assumed that ARRC
would find its own funding for this.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES informed the committee of the dispute she
has with the State of Alaska, which would prefer to give the
railroad a right-of-way. However, she felt that "they" need to
own the right-of-way because ARRC is a state-owned corporation
and all of the railroad's current rights-of-way belong to it
save those passing through military bases. Therefore, the issue
of giving [the right-of-way] to the railroad isn't realistic
because it's transferring it. This situation would be the same
as transferring land from the state to the Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority (AIDEA). She also noted that
there will be testimony regarding whether the gas line should be
placed in the railroad corridor, an issue for which she didn't
have an answer. However, she explained that one of the reasons
for HB 241 is to avoid a situation in which a gas line is the
road where the railroad is to be placed. She mentioned that she
has had extensive conversations with the oil companies on this
matter. The [difficulty] is who would receive the money from
the oil companies for the gas line [if it were to be located in
the railroad right-of-way]. The state would probably claim it
should receive that money. However, she suggested that if the
gas line was in the railroad corridor and the industry paid the
railroad, the railroad would build it because the railroad could
bond for that future revenue.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES acknowledged that there is much controversy
surrounding the railroad as it was setup to operate as an almost
private corporation owned by state funds. Furthermore, the
legislature continually attempts to hamper the railroad's
efforts to run like a private corporation. Representative James
recognized that many would like to sell the railroad and she
believes that someone will be interested in such a purchase in
the not-so-distant future, especially if it looks as if the line
is going to be connected to the Lower 48. She remarked that she
would be willing to sell ARRC whenever someone wants to pay the
state what it's worth.
Number 1485
HAL COOPER testified via teleconference saying that
Representative James has requested that he speak in support of
HB 241. He said that HB 241 is a very necessary first step in
beginning the connection of the rail lines between Alaska and
Canada and the Lower 48. He felt that this proposal is a very
useful and necessary step to develop the railway and create the
corridor.
PAUL TAYLOR, Professional Engineer, testified via
teleconference. Mr. Taylor provided the following testimony:
A key component of the location and economic strategy
of an Alaska to British Columbia railway corridor will
be the location of the route through the Central
Yukon. I believe the Yukon extension investigation
should focus on Whitehorse as a major terminal on the
main track. Route selection studies should give
intense examination of the line of track leading from
the Ladue River Valley of the Alaska-Yukon border
through the vicinity of Carmacks, Yukon. Then the
track corridor would generally follow the Klondike
Highway down to Whitehorse. Reasons for this routing
are numerous. With Carmacks established as a terminal
on the Alaska to British Columbia Transcontinental
main line, the immediate Carmacks region provides the
potential for serious mineral development. What is
more is that link either by a branch line or continued
utilization of the Robert Gamble Highway provides
transportation to the Faro Roust (ph) River mineral
sector, which adds even more freight potential to the
Carmacks terminal. The railroad route from Carmacks
to Whitehorse has been studied in detail in the past
with the line of railroad shown to be superior in
grade and alignment. Carmacks to Skagway route offers
immense potential for tourism cruise trains.
The Central Yukon route and economic feasibility
investigation must include every port framing the
engineering considerations, a conversion plan, and the
economic consequences to covert the White Pass and
Yukon route to standard gauge in order for the
transcontinental railroad to be linked to the Port of
Skagway, the Yukon's gateway. Carmacks to Skagway
interconnection will be vital to the economic
integration of the Alaska to British Columbia Railway.
The mutimodal railroad corridor must, by its obvious
benefits to the overall project, be included in any
feasibility study of railroad construction in the
Yukon. One could also argue that the Carmacks to
Skagway corridor could be constructed independently,
in advance of the Alaska Railroad extension to the
Yukon.
Mr. Taylor concluded by noting that he would mail other remarks
to the committee this afternoon.
Number 1223
DAVE BROADBENT (PH), Canadian Arctic Railway, testified via
teleconference. He felt that HB 241 [provides the hope] that
this railway will happen some day. He applauded Representative
James' attempt, through HB 241, to promote the extension of the
railway. He noted that once Canada gets going on this, it would
headquarter any development in Canada out of Whitehorse.
Number 1069
JOHN PORTSCHELLER testified via teleconference. Mr.
Portscheller remarked that the most recent (indisc.) papers
provide excellent examples for the arguments in opposition to HB
241. Reviewing the proposal from the civil perspective,
environmental questions would have to be addressed well before
route selection is discussed. However, he didn't see even a
vague recommendation to address those factors in the
legislation. Mr. Portscheller informed the committee that the
area's fish and wildlife environmental organization
representatives are staunchly opposed to this development.
There are many reasons that support stepping back and taking a
second look at such a proposal as this. He stated one reason:
"If a large scale economic development like this is to go
forward, it should stand the age-old litmus test of determining
whether or not the private sector would push forward such a
project." However, there seems to be little indication that the
private sector in Alaska has the willingness or financial
capability to take on such development. This seems to be a
backward approach in that it essentially forces the project.
Furthermore, Mr. Portscheller expressed the need to address
environmental concerns and physical factors as well as
considering the total privatization of such a project versus
having the government take the lead.
Number 0899
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that she has been working on this
issue for nine years and has wondered when someone from the
environmental community would object. She said that she hasn't
had any objections before now. She expressed interest in
meeting with Mr. Portscheller.
MR. PORTSCHELLER said "we" would be interested in meeting with
Representative James. He noted that he isn't affiliated with
the local environmental or fish and game organizations and is
speaking only as a member of the community of Tok.
Number 0699
BILL BRITT, State Gas Pipeline Coordinator, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), testified
via teleconference. Mr. Britt said that he has the following
two concerns with HB 241:
The first is that the bill does not allow the
Department of Natural Resources to protect valid
existing land rights on land that DNR would be
required to convey to the Alaska Railroad. These
rights could well include the TAPS (Trans-Alaska
Pipeline System) right-of-way. We may not wish to
transfer portions of the TAPS right-of-way even as we
are processing an application for renewal of that
right-of-way. Secondly, the bill does not allow the
commissioner of DNR to reject portions of the corridor
where there might be a greater state interest involved
in the land such as a gas pipeline. The bill could,
thus, complicate a gas pipeline project by: removing
possible gas pipeline right-of-way from state
ownership even as an application may be pending;
removing possible construction material sites from
state ownership; creating another landowner for
portions of the right-of-way; and creating the
possibility that the railroad would be granted
condemnation authority over private lands that would
be within a gas pipeline right-of-way. We may wish to
retain as much control over the gas pipeline
authorization process as possible at this stage in
that project. And this bill appears, to me, to be
contrary to that end.
My colleagues in the Division of Mining, Land, and
Water have expressed several other concerns. ... The
first being that expenses associated with the transfer
are not made clear; who bears those expenses? The
second is: there ... is no ability for the (indisc.)
to retain sub-surface rights on the lands that would
be conveyed. And the third is: there appears to be
no upper limit on the amount of land that could be
required to be transferred. The corridor is described
in the bill as at least 500 feet wide, but no maximum
amount is identified.
Number 0510
VICE CHAIR FATE asked if any thought had been given to a common
corridor so that [the department] could facilitate a
transportation facility for both gas and the railroad as well as
any future considerations.
MR. BRITT answered that there is no prohibition against more
than one use of a transportation corridor. The rights-of-way
the [department] grants are nonexclusive rights-of-way and thus
more than one use can occur within a right-of-way as long as the
uses are compatible. Such occurs frequently.
Number 0444
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that [Mr. Britt's] testimony
highlighted the reasons why the proposal won't work without any
indication to help make it work. She said that she was willing
to add any language to make this work. Furthermore, she assumed
that the issues identified by Mr. Britt would be issues that the
railroad, who would survey this route, would be reviewing. She
didn't expect the railroad to travel over an already existing
right-of-way. Moreover, Representative James emphasized that
this corridor was present before there was talk of a gas
pipeline not to mention that the railroad corridor will probably
be present after the gas pipeline is finished. She expressed
her belief that it is important that this [corridor] be done now
and there should be some coordination. She mentioned that NASA
had flown over this corridor with high-resolution photography
because the federal government wants this railroad corridor and
thus there may be federal money. Representative James said,
"I'm really serious about this issue and I want some cooperation
from DNR and other agencies of the state to make this happen."
MR. BRITT clarified that he was commenting on HB 241 not the
feasibility of an extension of the railroad. He said that he
believes his aforementioned concerns have been communicated
before, at least in the fiscal note. Therefore, there shouldn't
be anything new in his testimony.
Number 0116
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN related his understanding that HB 241
requires condemnation rights and many other requirements, yet
there is no fiscal note because the expectation is that the
railroad will secure the financing.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with that understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired as to what the railroad must do.
He asked if the railroad would have the ability to decline this.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES interjected that [HB 241] merely authorizes
the railroad to do this. In further response to Representative
Green, Representative James confirmed that she has spoken with
the railroad.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES informed the committee that U.S. Senator
Ted Stevens indicated to the railroad last year or so that he
wanted the railroad to determine the cost to extend the railroad
to Delta for a missile defense system. The railroad did
determine the cost for such and some work had to be done for
that, which she recalled was $250 million ...
TAPE 01-45, SIDE A
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that when it comes to building a
missile defense system, this proposed corridor would be
advantageous in order to bring in the materials. Therefore, she
suspected that there might be some federal money available for
the corridor or perhaps some large railroad companies may be
interested in this and may come to the table with money. She
noted that there may also be some bonding possibilities.
However, she clarified that she isn't present to do the
financing.
Number 0098
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern that in order to start
this project the determination of where the line can go has to
be made. Such work, as illustrated with the railroad's work on
the Delta connection, is "no lean task." Therefore, a
significant amount of money will be required to establish a
feasible route or routes. Representative Green suggested that
there are a sequence of events such as aerial photography to on
the ground [surveys] to ownership that would take some time.
Therefore, he indicated concern with the time it would take to
do what is laid out in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES turned to U.S. Senator Murkowski's
legislation. She explained that the Rails to Resources
legislation authorized a bilateral commission, 12 Americans and
12 Canadians. There was a $6 million fiscal note on the US side
to create this commission in order to perform a feasibility
study in the next three years. At this point, "we" are waiting
for the Canadians to pass the same legislation with a like
fiscal note, after which the commission will be appointed and
the feasibility study will be done. She estimated that it would
probably cost about $10-$12 million to perform the feasibility
study. However, Representative James pointed out that it will
be difficult for the commission to perform a feasibility study
if there is no authority to have any routes. Therefore, HB 241
is before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES informed the committee that Dr. Paul Metz,
University of Alaska, has made some grant applications to
perform a complete geological study of the existing rail from
Fairbanks to Seward as well as "this" line. She presumed that
he would obtain that grant and work on it this year.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that [the corridor] would provide room
for all the different types of transportation and utility things
that "we" want to go down the highway. This is the beginning in
that it determines where that is and what works. The gas
pipeline wouldn't need the same type of topography that a rail
would. The topography is critical for a railroad.
Number 0401
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN recalled [testimony] that there might be a
commonality between the [gas] pipeline and the rail. He could
see the commonality between the pipeline and the highway whereas
the grades required for railroads aren't necessary for a
pipeline or a highway.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed, but noted that she has been told
that gas runs better when its flat.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that there are a myriad of pipelines
that aren't flat. Representative Green expressed concern that
HB 241 goes far beyond the feasibility aspect. He remarked on
the need to do a feasibility study that would specify what type
of land is where.
Number 0500
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented on things being "studied to
death." Representative James said:
I want to have something that says we're going to go
there. If you don't like the way the language is
written, I'll fix it. ... I want to authorize,
something on paper that authorizes the fact that there
is an opportunity to have a rail corridor and a
utility corridor going into Canada. And that's going
to take something. If I can't get it out of the
people who work for the state and I can't get it out
of the legislature, there's no point in even talking
about it. And we might as well tell Washington, D.C.,
we don't want any kind of industry, ... expansion, or
... economic activity in the state. You got to start
some place. And I understand the biggest argument I
have with people is where's the money going to come
from. You know, if you have an ability to do
something and there's an opportunity out there,
somebody will come forward with the money. It just
happens. ... I'm saying that you got to have an
opportunity for people to ... see the opportunity
before the money is going to come forward. ... There
is nothing that cannot be accomplished if you really
want to do it and if the desire of getting to the end
result is there; and that's where I'm at. If we don't
have some economic activity in this state, we're going
to dry up.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that the people who offer the
money do feasibility studies. The feasibility study would
include "can you get there," the environmental concerns, and the
economics. He said that he wouldn't have a problem with such;
however, he suggested that [HB 241] goes far beyond that and
assumes that a railroad [corridor] will be built.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES disagreed. In response to Vice Chair Fate,
she announced that all references to "Whitehorse, Yukon
Territory" in HB 241 should be changed to refer to "Whitehorse,
Yukon."
Number 0839
CO-CHAIR SCALZI moved that the committee adopt the following
amendment:
Page 1, line 2; page 3, lines 21, 22, and 25,
Delete "Territory"
There being no objection, the amendment was adopted.
Number 0942
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to report HB 241 as amended out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 241(RES) was
reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:04 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|