CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS announced that the meeting would be held by teleconference with sites in Fairbanks, Tanana, and Nome, for the purpose of hearing HB 183 and HB 182. Because the bills are closely related, he explained they would be heard together, but would be voted on separately when the time came to take action on each bill. HB 182: APPROP: FAIRBANKS-NOME TRANS. CORRIDOR HB 183: TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR: FAIRBANKS-NOME REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, PRIME SPONSOR of both HB 182 and HB 183, explained that HB 182 appropriates $7.3 million to initiate the action authorized in HB 183. This involves preliminary action in studying a potential corridor for transportation and utilities between Fairbanks and Nome. Number 038 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that the state needs to expand its infrastructure, and HB 183 directs the Department of Transportation (DOT) to conduct the necessary surveying, reconnaissance photography and other research that would lead to a future rail or road corridor between Fairbanks and the Seward Peninsula. She noted that a railway would offer the most environmentally sound and controlled access, while requiring less maintenance cost. Another cost savings of a railway as opposed to a highway, she said, would be on state trooper coverage of the route. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stressed that gaining access to mineral resources located in Northwestern Alaska was critical to Alaska's economic future. She referred to a blank draft committee substitute (CS) for HB 183, dated 4/12/93, in members' packets, which included the addition of items (f) and (g) on page 3, specifying the definition of "corridor" and allowing for alternative funding sources for the project. She then referred to a map which showed the resources located within the general corridor area. (A copy of the map may be found in the House Resources Committee Room, Capitol Room 124, and after the adjournment of the second session of the 18th Alaska State Legislature, in the Legislative Reference Library.) Number 088 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN noted that the language in HB 183 referred to development of either a road or railway, and asked Representative James to clarify which was preferred, or whether both were to be built. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES reiterated her support of a railroad, but noted that the decision should best be left to future generations who would see the corridor actually developed. The map, she explained, shows a possible corridor route and potential mineral access. The criteria for the corridor would include how practical it would be to build in certain areas. Number 124 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the potential corridor route was selected to be the most cost-effective, the most direct, or the least damaging to the environment. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied that a number of factors would be taken into consideration, including the location of villages along the route, access to minerals, environmental effects, and cost. Number 142 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS referred to the draft CS, and the language on page 3, line 2, which allows the commissioner of the DOT to "accept gifts." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that the language was intended to make it possible for funding to come from private and other sources. She was willing to work with the committee on the exact wording to allow flexibility in funding. Number 182 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested the wording be changed to "may accept funding from legal sources." He made a MOTION to AMEND the draft CS to reflect that the DOT's commissioner should be able to accept legal grants and gifts for funding the project. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the motion. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. Number 200 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE asked whether the corridor would extend to the Canadian border. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that there is an existing corridor from the Canadian border to Eielson Air Force base. She referred to HB 183, which examines the estimated costs for extending the corridor. Number 216 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted that Representative David Finkelstein had joined the meeting. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether the corridor would cross federal or Native-owned lands. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied that the state has been selecting lands in prospective corridors. She noted that the Bering Straits Native Association had indicated a preference for leasing their lands, and she added that there are some federal wilderness areas within the proposed corridor. Before settling land ownership issues, she explained, the state first had to identify the potential corridor route. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee would next hear teleconference testimony, with the first site being Nome. Number 247 JIM STIMPFLE, NOME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, testifying by teleconference from Nome, noted that he had not yet seen the draft CS. He said that from the descriptions of the changes in the CS, he believed it would accommodate future interests. Number 260 MR. STIMPFLE noted that some of the issues he felt were important for the committee to consider surrounded the fact that this would be a large project that might not come about for a number of years. Passage of HB 182 and HB 183, he said, would send a signal to Alaskans that such a project is important for the future of the state to broaden its economic base. While revenues are currently declining, he said, it remains important to make investments that will pay off in the future. MR. STIMPFLE remarked on some concerns he heard raised in Nome, from land owners, village corporations, and regional corporations. He felt the concerns could be addressed to the benefit of the state and those interests. He commented that those village and regional corporations want to see development of a utility and transportation corridor either nearby or across their lands. Regarding the corridor's involvement of private, federal and Native-owned lands, he said that in his own review of the project, it appeared that at least 50% of the right of way to the lands between the Seward Peninsula and Fairbanks is on federal lands. MR. STIMPFLE said the remaining 50% is divided between the state and other major land-owners, including village and regional corporations. Number 312 MR. STIMPFLE suggested that by shifting the corridor between six to 25 miles, the state could maximize either village participation or state lands. If people who live along any proposed right-of-way are interested in the corridor, he predicted the project could go forward. He urged the committee to give serious consideration to HB 182 and HB 183. FRANK IRELAN, testified by teleconference from Nome. He expressed concern that the result of including language in HB 183 allowing private funding of the corridor project could be that the government might take the view that the private sector should take responsibility for funding it. The whole project, he speculated, could be shut down because everyone would be waiting for someone else to pay for it. Number 336 POLLY WHEELER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND SENIOR RESEARCHER FOR WILDLIFE AND PARKS, TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE, testified by teleconference from Anchorage in opposition to HB 182 and HB 183. She stated that proponents of the corridor have argued that it would aid in economic development. She disagreed with this, and said that subsistence is the primary economic system in most of the villages between Fairbanks and Nome. The corridor would have a negative impact on the subsistence lifestyle by providing increased access to those areas. MS. WHEELER, regarding the argument that a railroad would limit access, disagreed and said this would still provide a vehicle by which more people would go in and compete for resources which are already heavily used. She stressed that rural people are already fighting for their subsistence rights and access to resources. The project, she said, would not bring significant economic gain to the region, and would not pay for itself. Promises that big projects will result in local jobs, she cautioned, has proven not to be the case in the past. MS. WHEELER commented that maintenance and public safety costs would also strain state budgets, which she said are already insufficient to cover the existing roads in the state. The people in villages along the corridor would be directly affected by the project, she explained, and Tanana Chiefs feel they would be hurt by the project. REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN asked Ms. Wheeler if she knew of any village in her area that supports the proposed corridor route. MS. WHEELER answered in the negative. JULIE ROBERTS testified by teleconference from Tanana. She addressed problems she saw with HB 182 and HB 183. Tanana has long been questioned as to whether the village would support such a transportation corridor. She referred to a mass murder in Manly Hot Springs in the early 1980's, and said that this was a reason Tanana had sought to keep access limited to the community. MS. ROBERTS noted that the subsistence lifestyle is important in the community, and said the people have not had the opportunity to voice their opinion on the development of a transportation corridor that would affect the way of life there. She also questioned where the money would come from for such a project. Number 437 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES shared Ms. Roberts concerns, and hoped that all parties involved would have the opportunity to have input into decisions about the development of any corridor. Number 450 HERBIE EDWIN, VILLAGE OF TANANA COUNCIL MEMBER, objected to the corridor proposed in HB 182 and HB 183 because of its negative impact on the subsistence lifestyle. Increased access would jeopardize the resources that the village relies upon, he said. He stressed that the state could make better use of its funds by investing in education. He also pointed out the need to respect the village's sovereign right to regulate projects that affect the village. Number 475 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES clarified that in delineation of the corridor, the village of Tanana would not necessarily be accessed, and would only access the village if the citizens of the community wanted it to. MR. EDWIN replied that in some form, villages along the route would be affected by increased access, whether by a road or railway. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted that Representatives Eldon Mulder and John Davies had joined the meeting. Number 495 MR. STIMPFLE testified again from Nome. He stated that the comments made by the previous witnesses needed to be heard. He hoped that the village corporations along the proposed right of way would be allowed to participate in defining the route. He suggested that the concerns raised about access lend further merit to the idea that a railway would be a better option in terms of access and environmental impact, as well as being more sensitive to the ownership interests of people along the route. Number 506 MR. STIMPFLE suggested that some of the money allocated for studying the proposed corridor should be spent on efforts to gain input from those affected along the right-of-way. Number 518 RED SWANSON, FORMER STATE REPRESENTATIVE FROM FAIRBANKS, testified in Juneau regarding concerns raised about the environmental impact a corridor might have on wetlands along the route. He noted that at one time the Tanana and Minto flats were flooded with eight to ten feet of water. A railroad there would not be viable at all, he testified. He also described the Tanana and Minto flats as one of the largest swan nesting areas in the United States. Language in HB 183, he said, allows the DOT to delineate a corridor that would eliminate any development in those flats. He also mentioned that the village of Tanana has a road. Number 540 MR. EDWIN explained that the road in Tanana is just ten miles or so long and does not have access to anywhere. Number 548 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained his opposition to HB 182 and HB 183. He remarked that the DOT already has a statewide master plan that allows planning of roads and corridors. The only thing that can stop the development of a road at this time, he said, is a legislative act specifically forbidding that development. He did not want to indicate that the legislature feels this is the direction the state should be going. The state already has a $100 million backlog of proposed road projects, and this should not be a priority, he said. Number 563 REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER, CO-SPONSOR OF HB 182 and HB 183, called the current discussion a philosophical one, with the reality of being able to actually spend $7 million a remote one. He said the bills give an indication of the direction the state wants to go with its infrastructure to gain access to its resources. He stated that everyone has a vested interest in supporting the bills and encouraging their passage because each Alaskan has a vested interest in opening up the state to resource development. Number 585 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES added his view that there are many other priorities for spending $7 million. He specifically pointed out the number of roads in need of reconstruction, and said if there is an inadequate amount of money to maintain existing roads, it would not be wise to add infrastructure we cannot afford to maintain. Number 598 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that Alaskans need to let the world know we are in business and she believed that HB 182 and HB 183 does that. She added that the House Finance committee would be the proper place for deciding whether the project is funded. She urged committee members to keep in mind that the two bills should be looked at separately, with one as a statement as to what direction the state wants to take, and the other as a mechanism for funding that direction. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER MOVED that the committee ADOPT the draft CSHB 183 (RES), as amended. He asked unanimous consent. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked about language on page 2, line 2, requiring the DOT to classify, reclassify and reserve lands in the proposed corridor area. He asked whether those activities were a function already performed by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Number 621 MIKE MCKINNON, ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, DOT, explained that the language to classify and reclassify lands was simply for the purposes of reconnaissance engineering, and he did not believe it was a DNR-level action. Number 628 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked whether there was anything in HB 182 and HB 183 that directs the DNR to do anything it does not already have the power to do. Number 632 MR. MCKINNON replied that the DOT has a mandate to do long- range planning. House Bill 182 and HB 183 gives the department an indication that it is the legislature's priority to investigate this corridor in terms of reconnaissance engineering. He added that some of those efforts provide a forum for the kinds of discussion and testimony raised at this meeting. Number 643 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if the legislature appropriated the money, would the DOT need a separate authorization to do the planning work. MR. MCKINNON replied that the DOT often receives specific direction from the legislature to do corridor studies in certain regions of the state. Bradford Canal and Juneau access were two examples he cited. He noted that the DOT has the authority by statute to do planning studies, but also initiates those studies as a result of legislative direction. Number 656 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES referred to the DOT's Cordova road situation, and asked if the department had received legislative direction to move forward with that. Number 665 MR. MCKINNON replied that the DOT moved forward on its own initiative on the Copper River Highway project, after approximately 15 years of initial studies and planning. Number 670 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any further discussion or questions. Number 675 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 183 (RES) with individual recommendations. He asked unanimous consent. TAPE 93-45, SIDE B Number 000 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER made a MOTION to MOVE HB 182 from committee with individual recommendations. He asked unanimous consent. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES OBJECTED. His objection was based on his belief that the state should not spend this amount of money on this project at this time. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN recognized the fiscal dilemma of the state, forcing legislators to take actions many felt was less than desirable. The declining resource base, he said, should emphasize the need to expand access to resources in the interior region of the state. Because it would take 15 to 20 years or more before the corridor is developed, he suggested the legislature should act now. Number 079 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote on the motion before the committee. Voting YEA were Representatives Carney, Green, James, Mulder, and Williams. Voting NO were Representatives Finkelstein and Davies. The MOTION CARRIED. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted that the meeting was now off teleconference. He directed members' attention to the final draft of the committee's letter of explanation to accompany committee reports on the confirmation of five appointees to the Board of Game. The committee took an at ease to allow members time to read the letter. Number 101 REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY referred to the last part of the last paragraph on page 2, and expressed concern with wording regarding geographical representation on the Board of Game. He thought it would be preferable to say "If Mr. Didrickson is confirmed, we are faced with a board which deviates from the traditional geographic representation." CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS reminded members that the letter was in draft form and a motion was not necessary to make corrections and changes. Number 140 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to the third to the last line, and commented that there was a typographical error that required the deletion of a second "and." CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked members if they were satisfied with the basic content of the letter and whether they were ready to make a motion to transmit the letter on to the full legislature along with the committee reports. Number 164 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a MOTION to MOVE the letter stating the committee's concerns on the confirmations of appointees to the Board of Game, to accompany the names for a vote on the floor. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION CARRIED. ANNOUNCEMENTS