Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/03/1999 03:05 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
February 3, 1999
3:05 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Rick Halford, Chairman
Senator Robin Taylor, Vice Chairman
Senator Pete Kelly
Senator Jerry Mackie
Senator Lyda Green
Senator Sean Parnell
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
MEMBERS ABSENT
All Members Present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 7
"An Act relating to the University of Alaska and university land,
and authorizing the University of Alaska to select additional state
land."
-MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5
Opposing the closure of the former Mount McKinley portions of
Denali National Park and Preserve to snowmachine use.
-MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Relating to management of Alaska's wildlife and fish resources.
-SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 7 - See Resources Committee minutes dated 1-25-99 and 2-1-99.
SJR 5 - No previous action to record.
SCR 2 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Ms. Mel Krogseng, Staff
Senator Taylor
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Staff to sponsor of SB 7.
Mr. Jerry Luckhaupt, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
130 Seward, Ste 409
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 7.
Mr. Ross Coen, UAF Student
Staff Member, Northern Alaska Environmental Center
218 Driveway St.
Fairbanks, AK 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 7.
Ms. Jane Angvik, Staff Assistant/Special Projects
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street
Anchorage, AK 99503-5921
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 7.
Ms. Wendy Redman, Vice President
University Statewide System
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Wood Center
Fairbanks, AK 99775-6640
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 7.
Mr. Brett Huber, Staff
Senate Resources Committee
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SJR 5.
Mr. Stan Leaphart, Executive Director
Citizens Advisory Commission on Federal Areas
Department of Natural Resources
3700 Airport Way
Fairbanks, AK 99709-4699
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 5.
Ms. Tina Cunning
ANILCA Program Coordinator
Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Rd.
Anchorage, AK 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SJR 5.
Mr. Kevin Hite, Vice President
Alaska State Snowmobile Association
8050 Summerset Dr.
Anchorage, AK 99518
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 5.
Mr. Joe Gauna
Anchorage Snowmobile Club
7421 Silver Birch Dr.
Anchorage, AK 99502
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 5.
Mr. Mike Eastham
Snomads Club
P.O. Box 3646
Homer, AK 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 5.
Mr. Bill Eastham, President
Mat-Su Motormushers
HC 03, BX 8286
Palmer, AK 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 5.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-7, SIDE A
Number 001
SB 7-INCREASE LAND GRANT TO UNIV. OF ALASKA
CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:05 p.m. and announced SB 7 to be up for consideration.
MS. MEL KROGSENG, staff to Senator Taylor, sponsor of SB 7, noted
the proposed committee substitute was LS0072\H, Luckhaupt, 2/3/99.
She explained that this bill would give to the University of Alaska
250,000 acres of state land to help fulfill the idea of a land
grant college. She passed around maps and little dots which
represented just a little more than the proposed acreage. She
noted that some of the changes proposed by the Division of Lands
have been incorporated into the bill.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt the committee substitute to SB 7.
There were no objections and it was so ordered.
MR. LUCKHAUPT, Legislative Counsel, explained that section 5 on
page 4 is new and deals with how the land is selected. He
explained that the legislature has to approve the list of
selections during the next regular session or it automatically goes
into effect. The provisions about what land cannot be selected by
the University have not changed - those that are subject to an
existing mineral or oil and gas lease, permit, prospective sight,
or any of those things cannot be selected.
After the date of selection by the University, before the
University would actually receive patent title to the lands, the
State can still issue mining and oil and gas leases (mineral
extraction) and the revenue from those leases goes to the State
until the University actually receives title. In prior years there
was an inconsistency with how those revenues were to be treated -
specifically with regards to leases that were entered into after
the date of selection and before the University received conveyance
of the lands. Originally, there were to be no leases issued after
a selection to resolve the issue of who the revenue went to. That
was felt to unduly bind both interests in getting these lands into
production. These changes are in 365 (a) and (d).
Another section regarding oil and gas that's different provides
that the University doesn't receive any oil and gas revenues for
five years after the effective date of this act. The University
could select lands that are subject to other leases and sales; for
example, timber sales. The State would continue to get the
revenues because they are the ones who issued the lease and were
managing the land.
SENATOR TAYLOR congratulated Mr. Luckhaupt on doing a good job of
rewriting the bill and correcting a lot of problems that were in
the previous legislation. He said the format flows and makes some
sense. It also complies with a lot of requests they have received
from the Department of Natural Resources.
Number 200
SENATOR PARNELL asked what other kinds of leases could the land be
subject to and the University still be able to select it.
MS. KROGSENG suggested grazing leases.
MR. LUCKHAUPT suggested recreational sights, non-profits,
easements, and rights-of-way. He didn't think the University would
want to select lands that were subject to encumbrances like those,
however.
On page 10, line 6 the bill deals with encumbrances. During the
term of the lease the University doesn't get management of the
land.
MS. KROGSENG explained that the new draft tries to be more
consistent with general principals of land management.
MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that he tried to come up with a process
where the revenues went with whomever was managing the land.
Number 350
MR. ROSS COEN, student at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks,
opposed SB 7. As a student he recognizes the importance of
adequate funding for the University, but he is vehemently opposed
to this short-sighted funding plan and backhanded assault on the
environment. The University is not a land management agency and
should not be placed in the position of harvesting natural
resources simply in order to survive. It excludes the public from
participating in the process and might irrevocably harm the
environment. He used the Yakutaga clear cut as an example. This
bill will close or restrict access to 250,000 acres for hunting,
fishing, skiing, etc. The University requires more funding;
however, he supports it coming from the appropriations process, not
short-sighted land give-aways.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked how long he was a resident of the Fairbanks
area.
MR. COEN answered for approximately three years and he was a
resident of Alaska for two years before becoming a student.
MS. JANE ANGVIK, Department of Natural Resources, said she
appreciated the efforts to address some of their concerns; however
the administration is still opposed to this legislation and
believes that the University must be able to acquire income. She
has been advised that Senator Murkowski and Secretary Babbit have
had some communication with respect to the Governor's proposal for
a portion of the federal receipts from the National Petroleum
Reserve Alaska (NPRA)to be provided to the University of Alaska. So
there may be hope on the federal front. She said they hadn't had
time to go through the committee substitute, but would provide them
with a revised fiscal note.
MS. WENDY REDMAN, Vice President for the University Statewide
System, said she appreciated Mr. Luckhaupt's work on this bill over
the years. She wanted to correct and clarify in response to some
comments that the University didn't use local hire in its Yakutaga
timber sale. In fact, all of the University's land contracts
require local hire. They also provide, at their own expense, local
training for people within the community if they want to be hired
by the project. She said the destruction by the timber harvest at
Cape Yakutaga was absolutely incorrect and continuing with that
kind of misinformation doesn't help at all. She emphasized that
the University has not ever been charged with any kind of
environmental destruction.
SENATOR TAYLOR compared the amount of acreage to the McNeil River
Bear Refuge which has a little over 200,000 acres. He thought our
children should have at least the same amount of land as the bears
have. He said that comments that the revenues derived from lands
would not be supplemented are completely false. This legislature
has always supported the University and will continue to do so, but
they want the University to have the land grant basis that it was
supposed to have had at inception. He added, but for a couple of
small changes that happened at statehood, our University would have
had a million acres. Instead, the State acquired it with the
assumption that we would do something with that acreage to support
the University. Instead we are supporting the general fund.
Frankly, SENATOR TAYLOR said, he would like to eliminate the entire
selection process and do it much like the federal government did,
which is to say every 16 and 32nd section within a township went to
education. That's how most of the western states acquired their
education lands which they manage to help support their school
systems. He said Texas now has such valuable lands in education
that they are not only paying for all their university costs, but
they are paying a portion of the k through 12 costs, also. Whether
Senator Murkowski is successful or not in his efforts to get the
additional 500,000 acres out of the federal domain, this bill would
grant the University the right to select 250,000 acres. The two
bills are compatible and he has worked with Senator Murkowski's
staff on his bill which will be submitted soon. However, the bills
are not dependent on each other.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass CSSB 7 with individual
recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
SJR 5-SNOWMACHINE USE IN DENALI NAT'L PARK
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SJR 5 to be up for consideration.
Number 470
MR. BRETT HUBER, Senate Resources Committee Aide, said SJR 5 is
designed to send a clear message to the Department of Interior, the
National Park Service, and our congressional delegation that the
Alaska State Legislature opposes the closure of Denali National
Park and Preserve to snowmachine access outside of the process set
forward by law. An equally important message carried by this
resolution is a message to Alaskans that the Legislature is in
support of their continued use of their public lands.
MR. STAN LEAPHART, Executive Director, Citizens Advisory Commission
on Federal Areas, supported SJR 5. As a brief background, he
explained that Mt. McKinley National Park was created in 1917 and
sometime in the mid-to-early 1970's the Park was closed to
snowmachine use. However, in 1980 ANILCA expanded the Park from
its former 2 million acres to over 6 million acres opening the Park
and all the other parks that were created to snowmachine use (as
well as to the use of motor boats, airplanes, and other non-
motorized surface transportation methods for traditional
activities). The Act, itself, does not define "traditional
activities."
In June 1981, the National Park Service adopted its first set of
permanent regulations to implement ANILCA making it very clear that
the section on snowmachine use applied to all park units in Alaska,
including the pre-1980 park areas. That was confirmed when in 1983
the Park Service proposed to close some portions of Denali National
Park to snowmachine use. They weren't proposing as comprehensive
a closure as they are today and it was to protect key wildlife
concentration areas.
MR. LEAPHART explained that at the time it was clear that the
Agency recognized that ANILCA had opened the Park to snowmachine
use. Those regulations were never finalized.
In 1986, the Department of Interior adopted regulations
implementing Title 11 of ANILCA and the section we're concerned
with today is the section 11.10(a). The Park Service in 1981 had
adopted regulations implementing that section in 1981. The 1986
Department of Interior regulations replaced them. Comments from
the public suggest that the authorization to use snowmachines did
not apply to the pre-1980 parks and monuments. Department of
Interior responded that it was their determination that their
interpretation that there was no exception for the pre-ANILCA
areas.
In 1990, they saw the first written evidence of closing the Park to
snowmachines in the superintendent's compendium for Denali National
Park. This is a tool used by the Park Service to list areas that
may be closed to camping, boating, or any number of things. His
Commission was most interested in the part that closed the Park to
snowmachiners.
MR. LEAPHART said there were other compendiums for other parks and
they tried to get the Park Service to clean up some of the
procedural flaws and have had very little movement other than the
standardization of the form that they use to write the compendia.
One of the major points they raised with the Park Service was their
failure to follow the process that's outlined in ANILCA which
involves making findings and determinations that use of
snowmachines in that particular park area would be detrimental to
park resources before they could actually do a closure. Alaskan
park units and wildlife refuges are open to these sorts of
activities unless they are specifically closed through regulatory
action. This is very different from the lower-48 units where these
kinds of activity are prohibited unless they are authorized through
regulatory actions.
Even though they brought this to the attention of the Park Service
whose own attorneys advised them that they would not prosecute any
citations, the Park Service continued to discourage public use by
posting signs along the highway, putting fliers on windshield and
by contacts with park rangers.
In early 1997, the Park superintendent and head ranger formally
discussed shutting down snowmachine use. They held that the ANILCA
authorizations did not apply to the old part of the Park, that
snowmachine use was not traditional and could not, therefore, be
allowed and they were making no provision to do studies or findings
to support the closure. This is about the time that snowmachine
groups started getting involved.
In November 1998, the Park Service announced they were going to
temporarily close the old Park to snowmachine use while they
considered additional permanent closures for the entire Park. What
took him most by surprise was their efforts to justify the proposal
with no finding of resource damage and no documentation of impacts
- none of the procedural requirements outlined in ANILCA. It was
based on a collection of misinformation and half-truths.
MR. LEAPHART said he had spoken this morning with Congressman
Young's staff for the Resources Committee and they were provided a
draft press release by the National Park Service stating that the
closures would be effective tomorrow and they had made a finding
which he found was a compilation of studies that were done in other
park areas. The findings were based on the potential for impacts
rather than actual impacts for Denali National Park.
MS. TINA CUNNING, ANILCA Program Coordinator, explained that in the
final rules of management of park units passed in June 17, 1981 it
states "perfected snowmachine users should note that the
legislative history of Section 11.10(a) defines a traditional
activity in terms of its generally occurring in a park area prior
to its designation." It goes on to cite both the House and Senate
Committee reports that adopt that definition.
An activity that is generally occurring in the area includes
perhaps hunting, fishing, and trapping which is of foremost
interest to her agency, but also wildlife viewing and some general
recreation. It was an essential part of the compromise agreement
under ANILCA that the traditional lifestyle and activities of
Alaskan residents be protected in exchange for the establishment of
TAPE 99-7, SIDE B
Number 590
104 million acres of conservation system units in addition to the
already existing conservation system units in Alaska which were
redesignated and expanded under ANILCA. Therefore, these
definitions apply to all units. They went through a grueling
process with all the interior agencies and the Forest Service
towards the adoption of the access regulations to implement Title
11 of ANILCA between 1982 and the final rules in 1986. The Alaska
Land Use Council, the work groups representing all the State
agencies, the native corporations, AFN, and the federal agencies
went through what was intended in all the pieces of ANILCA relating
to access. When they adopted the final rule making in September 4,
1986 in the preamble the Department of Interior says, "Other
comments suggest that the provisions of this section should not
apply to parks and monuments which predated ANILCA." The argument
is made that Congress did not intend to open the pre-ANILCA area to
the uses described in Section 11.10(a) since these pre-ANILCA areas
had been closed to such uses prior to the enactment of ANILCA.
Interior does not find any statutory support for this position
since Section 11.10(a) provides no exceptions to the pre-ANILCA
areas. Accordingly, no exception for pre-ANILCA areas is provided
for in these regulations.
The regulations, then, go on in Section 13.30 to describe the very
specific closure process including a finding of detriment to
resources, and a closure period. A temporary closure cannot exceed
12 months. Anything beyond that is a permanent closure. If there
is a permanent closure, there must be a formal process and a
finding made to reopen it. It's going to be very important to
watch the language in the rule being published tomorrow. It
states, "...a temporary closure of one to three years." So there
is already a problem.
Number 558
The important thing for ADF&G is the continuation of access for
hunting, fishing, and trapping activities. Many millions of acres
in Alaska were expanded, designated, or reestablished as
conservation system use under ANILCA that would come under the
process the Park Service developed here. There would be problems
with other units trying to follow suit.
MS. CUNNING explained there was a similar situation in a Kodiak
Refuge where the Fish and Wildlife Service manager was interested
in closing snowmachine use. In that case, with much encouragement,
he was able to work with the local snowmachine group to come up
with an agreement of where they would and would not travel so as
not to impact denning bears. They are continuing to have their
snowmachine activities without detriment to the resources in that
area.
A precedent of making a finding that an activity is traditional or
not or that there is resource damage without having had studies
could set a precedent for Kodiak, Kenai, the Alaska Peninsula, the
Yukon Delta Refuge, and other parks and refuges across the State.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked other than our passage of this resolution,
what other action might the legislature take to cause the federal
government to abide by the laws they, themselves, made.
MS. CUNNING said she couldn't advise on that, but she knows that
some snowmachine groups have been in communication regarding filing
litigation. Because of the impacts she foresees coming down the
line for many Alaskan residents we would want to engage in
conversation with the administration policy makers to consider the
possibility of joining that.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the administration is contemplating
litigation to defend the rights of snowmachiners.
MR. KEVIN HITE, Vice President, Alaska State Snowmobile
Association, responded that he had sent two letters to the
administration requesting input and help on the issue as they see
it and to join their lawsuit which seems inevitable. They haven't
had any response so far.
MR. HITE said his Association supports the resolution 100 percent.
MR. JOE GAUNA, Anchorage Snowmobile Club, said he works with Mr.
Hite on this issue. He said they have never had one response from
the National Park Service. The Ccurry Ridge Riders from "up North"
asked him to send their support for the resolution as did the owner
of Ardor Art Recreation Distributors.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he is sincere in asking his question. The
legislature is standing "begging" a federal official who doesn't
choose to listen to us anyhow to please do what the law says.
Surely there must be some other alternative and if litigation is
the only way to go, we should be supporting these people. If the
administration doesn't do it, we should fund it through legislative
council.
Number 476
SENATOR LINCOLN asked Mr. Leaphart how many people serve on the
Citizens Advisory Commission and was this a Board or Commission
action.
MR. LEAPHART answered, "Essentially, yes." There are 16 members,
one is vacant right now.
MR. MIKE EASTHAM, Snomad Snowmachine Club, supported SJR 5.
MR. BILL EASTHAM, President, Mat-Su Motormushers, strongly
supported SJR 5.
MR. ROSS COEN said that he is speaking now as a staff member of the
Northern Alaska Environmental Center which opposes SJR 5. He
understands that with the passage of ANILCA that access was allowed
in the park for traditional uses. This was so that land owners
could reach home sights and provide access for subsistence uses.
He questioned how recreational snowmachining could be qualified as
a traditional use since it didn't exist in the Park before 1980.
MR. COEN stated that the Park Service received 1,392 comments
(nation-wide) from individuals during the comment process.
However, 1,220 or 87 percent of them supported the Park Service's
decision to close the Park to snowmachining.
MR. KEVIN HITE responded that the public process in Fairbanks had
over 400 positive comments and 700 opposing the actions. He said
this issue is obviously going to be litigated and strongly
encouraged the legislature's participation in a lawsuit. The
Alaska State Snowmobile Association has retained Mr. Bill Horn, one
of the initial authors of ANILCA, as legal counsel and he has very
eloquently countered every Park Service false finding.
Number 376
SENATOR LINCOLN noted that the comments in their packets were from
Anchorage and Fairbanks and the area they are discussing is in the
Denali Borough. She called the Denali Borough to see what their
position is on the resolution and they hadn't taken a position,
because they were unaware of it. She was concerned that the
resolution, dated January 27, 1999 is just referred to Resources
and goes to the full body for a vote. She didn't want to exclude
anyone from testifying, especially those people who reside in that
area and have used it traditionally. This is why she will vote "no
recommendation."
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he had a lot of long-term friends in that
area and all of them were opposed to the D2 lands bill in 1980.
SENATOR LINCOLN noted it was written January 27 and there are only
support letters and asked if the information had been put out to
the general public. She asked if there were any letters that were
non-supportive.
MR. HUBER responded that they provided state-wide notice and met
the notice requirements for today's hearing. They also did a press
release on the introduction of the resolution and in addition
received other E-mail messages in support of the bill today that
were dropped off to her staff probably an hour previous to today's'
meeting. They had not received any messages, E-mails, POMs,
letters, or faxes in opposition to the resolution.
Number 280
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass SJR 5 from committee with individual
recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD adjourned the meeting at 4:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|