HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE March 23, 1994 8:15 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Bill Williams, Chairman Representative Bill Hudson, Vice Chairman Representative Con Bunde Representative Pat Carney Representative John Davies Representative David Finkelstein Representative Joe Green Representative Jeannette James Representative Eldon Mulder MEMBERS ABSENT None COMMITTEE CALENDAR HB 259: "An Act relating to general grant land entitlements for certain boroughs and unified municipalities; and providing for an effective date." MOVED HB 259 OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS *HB 443: "An Act relating to the confidentiality of certain records relating to fish and wildlife; and providing for an effective date." NOT HEARD (* First public hearing) WITNESS REGISTER KAREN BRAND, Aide Representative Carl Moses State Capitol, Room 204 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Phone: 465-4451 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement GLEN VERNON, Manager Lake and Peninsula Borough P.O. Box 495 King Salmon, Alaska 99613 Phone: 246-3421 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 259 RON SWANSON, Director Division of Land Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 107005 Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7005 Phone: 762-2692 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 259 with concerns FRANK RUE, Director Division of Habitat and Restoration Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526 Phone: 465-4105 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 259 with concerns JEFF PARKER, Member Alaska Department of Fish and Game Anchorage Advisory Committee 1201 Hyder Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Phone: 272-9377 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 259 CLIFF EAMES, Representative Alaska Center for the Environment 519 W. 8th Avenue, #201 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Phone: 274-3621 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 259 WILLY DUNNE, Representative Alaska Environmental Lobby P.O. Box 22151 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Phone: 463-3366 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 259 LAMAR COTTEN, Representative Lake and Peninsula Borough P.O. Box 103733 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Phone: None given POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 259 PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 259 SHORT TITLE: GENERAL GRANT LAND ENTITLEMENT SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/26/93 796 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 03/26/93 796 (H) CRA, RESOURCES, FINANCE 04/20/93 (H) CRA AT 01:30 PM CAPITOL 124 02/08/94 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124 02/08/94 (H) MINUTE(CRA) 02/09/94 2307 (H) CRA RPT 2DP 5NR 02/09/94 2308 (H) DP: BUNDE, TOOHEY, 02/09/94 2308 (H) NR: SANDERS, DAVIES, WILLIS, WILLIAMS 02/09/94 2308 (H) NR: OLBERG 02/09/94 2308 (H) -2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DCRA, DNR) 2/9/94 03/23/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124 BILL: HB 443 SHORT TITLE: FISH & WILDLIFE CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/04/94 2259 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 02/04/94 2259 (H) RESOURCES 02/04/94 2259 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G) 2/4/94 02/04/94 2259 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 03/23/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 94-39, SIDE A Number 000 The House Resources Committee was called to order by Chairman Bill Williams at 8:22 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Williams, Hudson, Bunde, Carney, and Green. Members absent were Representatives Davies, Finkelstein, James and Mulder. CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS stated there is a quorum present. He announced the meeting is on teleconference with Anchorage and King Salmon. Number 013 HB 259 - General Grant Land Entitlement KAREN BRAND, AIDE, REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES, stated HB 259 amends AS 29.65.010 and will statutorily authorize an entitlement of 187,000 acres to the Lake and Peninsula Borough and give the borough until October 1, 1996, to work with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to select those lands. The figure of 187,000 acres represents approximately 3 percent of the total state lands located in the borough. She said the borough is attempting to promote economic development and become less dependent on the price of fish. Since the price of land in the Lake and Peninsula Borough is so much different than in an urban setting, the borough planning commission felt an entitlement of 187,000 acres will allow them to pursue other economies such as tourism. Number 025 MS. BRAND said the Borough Assembly Planning Commission has been developing a comprehensive borough plan and along with DNR has identified several plots of land of interest to them. The current statute, Title 29.65, provides a land selection process for newly formed boroughs. However, in this particular case there are very little vacant unappropriated and unreserved (VUU) lands within the borough, which makes it somewhat a special case. She explained because other state lands will need to be reclassified before issuance to the borough, pursuing entitlement through statute will be a less time consuming process. She said this will raise the priority for processing grant land entitlements for the Lake and Peninsula Borough and adds the borough's entitlement to the list in statute. Ms. Brand pointed out that HB 259 is not controversial and does not affect any other boroughs or identified municipalities. Number 040 (CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVES JAMES AND FINKELSTEIN had joined the committee at 8:25 a.m.) REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN asked where the 187,000 acres come from. MS. BRAND responded the borough and borough planning committee identified certain plots of land which would allow them to pursue other economies, such as tourism within the borough. (CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE MULDER had joined the committee at 8:26 a.m.) REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON asked if any mental health trust lands are involved. MS. BRAND stated this entitlement will not come into conflict with any mental health lands. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if any lands designated or set aside in the current round by the Administration, which are available for selection as alternative lands, are involved. MS. BRAND replied no. She pointed out HB 259 only statutorily allows the borough an amount of acreage. The borough will still undergo the same process of meeting with DNR, going through the public hearing process in designating and identifying which portions of land, etc. She added HB 259 does not necessarily mean the borough will get 187,000 acres; that is the maximum amount. The borough, in working with DNR, might identify a smaller amount of acreage. Number 081 GLEN VERNON, MANAGER, LAKE AND PENINSULA BOROUGH, testified via teleconference and stated the borough has been through a long process as part of its comprehensive planning effort in identifying lands for selection. He said many cuts and revisions have occurred. At the time HB 259 was introduced, the identified acreage was approximately 187,000 acres and that is where the number came from. The borough has since met with DNR, reviewed their priorities and concerns and modifications have been made. He stressed the borough still feels the 187,000 acres is a good number in the sense that they recognize the borough will unlikely receive that actual amount. MR. VERNON said when the borough assembly and planning commission approached the process of land selection, they recognized that state land, especially vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved land, is far away from any established villages. He stressed the borough's first hope was to find selectable land in or near existing villages because it has greater value. He stated unfortunately, most of the state land that the borough looked at is far away from villages so the borough went to a secondary criteria and looked at (indiscernible) identified lands to be selected. MR. VERNON stated the borough is currently a one resource borough and depends almost entirely upon salmon, raw fish and fish products for its revenue base. There is a great need to diversify that base to take advantage of recreation and tourism, etc., which are ongoing currently in the north part of the borough. He said the borough has a strong, if not stronger, interest as the state has in protecting streams, other waters, and habitats in the borough as its livelihood depends upon the fishing industry. Number 124 MR. VERNON said the borough has identified for selection, property or lands which have recreational potential and can encourage some economic benefits to the borough by using the land in ways compatible with state goals in regard to protecting streams and habitat. He stated in some instances, the borough has identified lands which are on river corridors or on lakes. In those cases, the borough has told DNR they are willing to comply or work with them in terms of restrictions protecting public access and protecting those streams and lakes in terms of the habitat there. MR. VERNON stated the formula which is generated under the statute, which is the alternative to HB 259, does not address the situation seen in the borough. The formula would identify a very small amount of state land. He felt HB 259 is a better route to go because it allows the borough to work with DNR and go through the process in a rational way to identify those lands which are acceptable to both the state and the borough. Number 147 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if there were maps which show the lands being discussed. MR. VERNON responded there are maps available and stated Ron Swanson from DNR should have them. Number 160 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked what kind of selections are being discussed. MR. VERNON replied there are two categories of lands. The borough has identified lands which have mineral value but recognizes the conveyance to the borough will only mean surface estate. However, the borough believes there is potential economic benefit to the borough in owning that surface estate if mineral development takes place. He gave an example. He explained the other category will involve areas having recreational, sport fishing, hunting, etc., value. The borough recognizes the sensitive issues in regard to these areas and the borough is very flexible in that regard. The borough believes that through proper management, those areas can and do have the potential to produce some economic benefits to the borough. Number 189 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said in scanning the maps just received, it appears that many or all of the selections are small tracts in the middle of larger tracts of state land. MR. VERNON said that is correct and added some are larger or smaller than others and added there are a number that encompass one or just a few sections of land. He stated the lands are identified strategically. The borough looked at the potential for those areas. Many of the selections are islands in the midst of other state land, accessible only by air. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if there are any substantive pieces of these lands selected which will be made available for sale to the general public. MR. VERNON said making the land available for sale is not part of the concept. He stated the assembly has discussed the possibility of long-term leases in some instances, where a lease is appropriate to establish some type of a semi- permanent recreational facility. Number 220 RON SWANSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LAND, DNR, stated the maps which are being reviewed represent approximately 200,000 acres of selections. Of that total, DNR and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) do not have any concerns for between 100,000 and 125,000 acres. They do have concerns about the remaining approximately 75,000 acres because many of the selections are along Lake Iliamna, Talarik Creek, and the lower Nushagak/Mulchatna areas and because of the size and shape of those selections. He felt confident that DNR and ADF&G can work with the borough to identify areas which can be selected. Number 235 MR. SWANSON said it has been stated there are about 6 million acres of state land within the borough and that statement is correct. About 4.5 million acres have been classified for habitat purposes which is important in the Lake and Peninsula Borough area because through the planning process, these habitat designations have been very supported. Through this process, a lot of the lands which have been identified on the maps are in the wildlife category, but key sites can be picked out for development such as for commercial leasing. MR. SWANSON stated when the land use planning process was completed, there were only 116,000 acres of VUU land, which is the category selectable by the borough. Using the entitlement process, the borough's entitlement would only be 11,600 acres. Number 254 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES asked what criteria the state will use in deciding whether or not to grant the parcel. MR. SWANSON responded that any selection made by the borough will first go public and land use plans will need amending. He said there are two state land use plans in place currently within the borough; the Bristol Bay area plan which was adopted in 1985 and the Nushagak/Mulchatna management plan which was adopted in 1990. Those plans will have to be adopted to classify the lands suitable for transfer to the borough and which will involve public hearings and the Title 38 process. He stated DNR has talked to the borough about combining their public (indiscernible) comprehensive plan along with DNR's. DNR would take public comment statewide not just within the borough. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES clarified the normal Title 38 process for disposal of state land will be followed. MR. SWANSON said that is correct, and added that 38.04 will be followed which is DNR's planning process. Number 273 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked what the formula is to decide how much land is to be conveyed under this chapter. MR. SWANSON responded the formula is contained in AS 29.65.030 which says, "is 10 percent of the maximum total acreage of vacant, unappropriated, unreserved land within the boundaries of the municipality between the date of its incorporation and two years after that date". He said VUU, if classified under AS 38.05, is classified for agriculture, grazing, material, public recreation, or settlement purposes. He stated resource management is also considered under classifications made after 1983. Number 285 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked if HB 259 applies only to the Lake and Peninsula Borough. MR. SWANSON responded the bill only applies to the Lake and Peninsula Borough and stated all other entitlements listed in the bill were set in 1978 and those lands have already been conveyed. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified HB 259 goes along with the same process used on the other entitlements listed in the bill. MR. SWANSON answered that is correct. He stated DNR has found the formula rule does not work because the needs for types of land vary. DNR strongly supports the process, especially for boroughs, to identify the type of lands they need, work with the agencies to determine what concerns there are, and then let the legislature decide how much acreage is appropriate and for what particular purposes. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified if there is a dispute, it will be deferred to the state. MR. SWANSON responded DNR will go through the administrative process: the selection would be rejected by DNR, the rejection could be appealed and taken to court. Number 314 REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER noted the letter from the Anchorage Advisory Committee of ADF&G in members folders which expresses opposition to HB 259. He asked Mr. Swanson what protections are there addressing the committee's concerns in regard to protection of the critical habitat as well as the fragmentation of ownership. MR. SWANSON responded he has not seen the letter. He said the borough has been very open to taking care of public concerns such as buffer strips along critical anadromous streams, building set backs, etc. DNR has concerns about the size of some of the selections and about too much development in areas which have been identified by the public as areas they want open to the public. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER clarified the borough will have to go through the Title 38 process when making selections. MR. SWANSON said that is correct. REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY asked why the borough is taking less than 10 percent. MR. SWANSON responded it is 10 percent of the VUU land and that is the way it has been for every municipality. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY thought it was 10 percent of the land within the borders. MR. SWANSON said it has never been that way. It is always 10 percent of the VUU state land within the borough. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked if the 187,000 acres represents 10 percent. MR. SWANSON replied no. He said 10 percent of the VUU land within the borough is 11,600 acres and that is what the borough's entitlement would be if the formula was followed. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked why the formula is not being used. MR. SWANSON suggested that question be asked of the borough. He said DNR has found that with boroughs, the formula is not fair because the land use needs of every borough varies. He stressed DNR has supported the process used by the Lake and Peninsula Borough; that is, meeting with agencies and reviewing overall state land, determining what is appropriate for borough ownership for revenue generation within their borough and then letting the legislature set an entitlement in statute. Number 365 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES commented in regard to a possible dispute and asked if another option might be to choose other land. MR. SWANSON said that is correct. He stated land which is identified on the maps are not selections, but are types of lands the borough would like to select. The borough and DNR will have to go through the process to say yes or no and could select other land. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES clarified HB 259 is to establish that the borough is allowed 187,000 acres, but does not provide for specific parcels. MR. SWANSON replied that is correct. He said DNR's concern in reviewing HB 259 initially was what 187,000 acres were being considered and that is when the department began working with the borough to determine what they were interested in. REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE commented as the state's support diminishes, the state should encourage boroughs to do everything possible to pick up local support and pay for local programs. He felt that through potential leased lands, boroughs will have the opportunity to have local support instead of having to be solely dependent on the state. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stressed if there are 187,000 acres entitled and the formula would give the borough 11,000 acres, that is fifteen times the amount of acreage the formula would give them. He asked if this entitlement is disproportionate to other municipalities in that perhaps other municipalities follow the 10 percent formula. MR. SWANSON responded this entitlement is not uncommon as shown by the eleven municipalities listed in the bill who already have entitlements set in statute. He stressed each municipality has varying needs and purposes. Each of the municipalities listed in HB 259 have chosen to come before the legislature to present their case and the legislature has decided what their entitlement should be. DNR has never found a formula which works for boroughs. He noted the formula does work for cities because such small areas are involved. Number 430 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there has been a change in the ground rules now, as compared to what the ground rules were when the other entitlements took place. MR. SWANSON responded none of the other entitlements listed in HB 259 were 10 percent; some are higher and most are lower. He said the municipalities came to DNR and communicated what they thought their entitlement should be and it was a give and take between the Administration, the municipality, and the legislature in determining what the entitlement should be. Number 450 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Swanson if it is his opinion that this entitlement is fair, will the 75,000 acres which DNR has concern about go to the borough, and will the 187,000 acres be a reasonable amount of acreage for this borough. MR. SWANSON stated the Bristol Bay area plan was adopted in 1985, several years before the Lake and Peninsula Borough was founded. If the borough had been in existence when the plan was developed, an entitlement would have been considered in the planning process. DNR did not do that because they did not envision a municipality being founded and that is why there is a disparity in VUU. He said he cannot answer the question regarding whether or not the acreage is a fair amount because he felt the legislature should decide that. DNR does have concern about 75,000 acres which they feel should not be conveyed because of bigger, statewide public concerns, but perhaps other lands can be identified to make up the difference. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN disagreed. He said DNR is the expert and they should be telling the legislature what lands should be conveyed. He clarified DNR has indicated there are 75,000 controversial acres and that implies DNR has no problem with the other 110,000 acres. He wondered if DNR wants the legislature involved in the negotiations regarding the 75,000 acres. MR. SWANSON replied DNR does not want the legislature involved in the negotiations. He is attempting to tell the committee here are the selections of the type of land the borough wants, there are concerns about 75,000 acres, and DNR is willing to work with the borough to determine an X amount of acres, with that X being whatever the legislature decides the figure should be. Number 490 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES recalled the borough said they are not interested in having any of the acreage for sale and asked whether or not it is possible for the land to be put up for sale. He wondered why this borough is not interested in subdividing and selling this land. MR. SWANSON stated once the land is conveyed to the borough, the land is conveyed free and clear, and the borough can do whatever they want with it. He thought the borough will lease the land because the majority of their selections are commercial recreational tracts good for fishing, hunting lodges, etc. He has found in managing state land, long-term leases are better than sales because there is more control of the activities occurring on the land. One concern in particular is when land is sold, fences go up and the public cannot use it. Number 510 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said that was his concern and he hoped that if the state does grant land, there are stipulations in the conveyance which prohibit the sale of private properties and provide for the return of the land back to the state if those stipulations are violated. MR. SWANSON stated that is not possible. DNR has to convey the land free and clear to the municipality and then those type of decisions are up to their management. DNR can provide for easements, but cannot restrict a title to leasing only. Number 537 REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked if the title includes mineral rights. MR. SWANSON responded the statute prohibits DNR from doing that. The borough will only get surface rights. The subsurface rights are reserved for the state, which is true for all municipalities. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY inquired if there are records indicating the percentage of land transferred to all of the municipalities in the state. MR. SWANSON responded they probably exist somewhere. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY felt it is a good idea to transfer land to municipalities and pointed out the state will be asking those municipalities to take on more responsibilities for their own welfare. He wondered if giving more land to municipalities statewide is going to be considered. MR. SWANSON stated he suspects that will happen. He said DNR has heard from the North Slope Borough many times indicating they do not feel their entitlement is fair compared to all the state land within their borough. There are new boroughs, which once they come on line, will probably come before the legislature asking for an entitlement. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY felt rather than doing the entitlements piece by piece, the legislature should think in terms of looking at the whole situation and doing the entitlements with one piece of legislation. Number 583 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON felt land in private ownership conveys the opportunity for the people in the district to pay part of their share through taxes, etc. He said if government holds it all to themselves, there are no taxes coming in but rather a liability is present. He thought land can be sold subject to certain criteria or restrictions in connection with protecting habitat. That is why he asked if the borough intended to put any of the land in private ownership. He asked if in other land selections, did any of the lands go into private ownership. MR. SWANSON replied yes and mentioned the land disposals of Kenai, Mat-Su and Fairbanks. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referring to the maps, asked if the lands retained by the state indicated on the map were retained before or after the request. He assumed much of the land represents the 75,000 acres in question. MR. SWANSON replied that is correct. He said this is the third round of maps. Number 649 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said there has been concern about public access expressed and asked if there are provisions in the legislation to allow public access along the lakes, streams, rivers, etc. MR. SWANSON stated public access provisions will have to be done in cooperation with the municipality. If they want to take the conveyance subject to setbacks, easements, etc., that is possible. If they do not want to do it, they go through the appeal process. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he is familiar with the Mat-Su Borough and the borough took all the land around the lakes, but there is a provision for public access in that example. MR. SWANSON said DNR is required by one statute, AS 38.05.127, to reserve access to and along water bodies and DNR can also reserve other easements. He added that in Mat- Su, there is also a requirement for a 100-foot setback on all water bodies. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE clarified that through a special provision and state law, there is reasonable assurance of public access along waterways. MR. SWANSON replied that is correct. Number 701 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES expressed concern about public access, but also is not opposed to the sale of land. TAPE 94-39, SIDE B Number 000 FRANK RUE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF HABITAT AND RESTORATION, ADF&G, thanked the borough for working with state agencies to determine a package which makes sense in terms of different objectives. He expressed concern with the precedent and the number of acres being discussed. He said ADF&G found between 100,000 and 125,000 acres to be no problem and ADF&G has no objection to the borough selecting, having land sales, or even remote disposals. ADF&G is concerned about the land along the Mulchatna River, the Talarik Creek and similar areas. ADF&G feels those areas are so important to the general public and recreation use, that land should remain in public ownership, managed for public use and general public access. He said that opinion has been a result of two extensive planning efforts which DNR has done, and stressed there is very broad public support for that management strategy. MR. RUE felt leasing could occur in the area in question, but the public feels there should be nonpermanent facilities when leasing occurs. He said on the other areas, permanent facilities such as lodges are fine. ADF&G also appreciates the borough's willingness to go through a public process for a final package and their willingness to keep public access through their selections of other state lands. He expressed concern that where easements have been reserved in other boroughs, the borough has vacated them. He stressed if there is an important public site involved, the legislature should ensure it stays available to the public. Number 045 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER wondered if ADF&G's interests are protected in the normal Title 38 process. MR. RUE responded they could be. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he shared concern about public access in the Mulchatna River and Talarik Creek areas. He asked if there is a time limit if someone wants to have a tent camp along the river. MR. SWANSON said DNR's leases are the same as the Commercial Services Board. If a license goes to a guide and he is authorized for five years, DNR issues a lease for five years. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE clarified if someone wants to put access in, they can put in a tent camp year-round for 3-5 years. MR. SWANSON responded on the Nushagak River and Mulchatna River, it varies. There are areas set aside for all season camps and areas set aside for only seasonal type camps, where they are guaranteed to be able to come back every year but have to remove all of their equipment during a certain period of time. Number 072 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES felt the issue is whether or not the 187,000 acres is a good number of acres for the Lake and Peninsula Borough. She asked Mr. Rue if he has a problem with the 187,000 acres. MR. RUE replied as a general concept he does not. The precedent does concern him in that other boroughs will come back and may ask for more. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES wondered from ADF&G's perspective, in regard to land selections through the normal Title 38 process, are there sufficient protections for the public to give their input into the state giving lands. MR. RUE stated if the normal Title 38 process is followed, the public will have an ample opportunity to tell DNR what they think about different parcels and whether or not they should be kept in state ownership or go to the borough. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES clarified although Mr. Rue did not say ADF&G supports the 187,000 acres, he said the department's support is conditioned on any precedent the legislature might be setting for other boroughs. MR. RUE said that is correct. Number 093 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said current negotiations resulted in 112,000 acres which really are the lands under discussion. If 187,000 acres are approved, ADF&G will not know the habitat implications of the additional lands. He clarified that ADF&G has only looked at the 112,000 acres. MR. RUE stated ADF&G has actually reviewed 204,000 acres and found that approximately 120,000 acres are not a problem. Therefore, there is a dispute over approximately 75,000 acres. Assuming the borough backs off the contentious areas and finds other areas, ADF&G will not know where those other areas might be. He felt 75,000 acres can be found somewhere else in areas which are not contentious. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN clarified that is assuming the borough is agreeable to the state's recommendation. MR. RUE said that is correct. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS clarified the 75,000 acres in question should not be considered by the borough. MR. RUE stated if the particular 75,000 acres being discussed were selected by the borough, ADF&G will object to those lands being transferred. Number 123 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated he hopes the state will maintain its course in maintaining their objection to these particular 75,000 acres. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted there is a zero fiscal note and wondered with everything being discussed, how can there be no costs if the departments are going to be constantly iterating on what they may want to select. MR. RUE responded it will not take much time to go through the iterations, maybe two weeks a year. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked how the appeal process works if the borough selects, ADF&G rejects, and there are 90 days to appeal. He also asked who makes the determination. MR. SWANSON stated he and the regional manager sign a decision which either conveys or does not convey land to a particular municipality and that is appealable by anyone. The appeal then goes to the commissioner who issues another decision or reaffirms the first decision. If the appealer does not like that decision, within 30 days the appeal can be taken to Superior Court. Number 159 JEFF PARKER, REPRESENTATIVE, ANCHORAGE FISH AND GAME ADVISORY COMMITTEE, testified via teleconference and stated the committee opposes HB 259. The committee suggests there is a more appropriate mechanism of taking care of the borough's financial needs of obtaining or increasing its tax (indiscernible) and that is to pursue legislation authorizing the borough to tax users of the area rather than expand lands entitlement to the borough, enabling the borough to lease land. He said the committee believes that given the borough's declaration it does not intend to dispose of the lands and will only lease them, indicates 11,000 acres in the borough's present entitlement is sufficient for accomplishing their goals. MR. PARKER said the issue regarding access and habitat has been portrayed too narrowly and the committee has concerns. The habitat involves not only the productivity of the habitat but also the viability of populations which people are targeting in terms of pressure people put on those populations. He gave several examples in regard to rainbow trout and brown bear. He pointed out what is apparent when looking at the economic resource use in the recreation industry is there is an economic caring capacity in which there is a peak production of jobs and commerce off the resource and gave several examples. MR. PARKER stated the committee is concerned if there is too great of an increase in the level of use, it exacerbates conflicts between user groups; subsistence and recreation, guided and unguided recreation, recreation and commercial fishing. He stressed those are the types of issues which need to be fully addressed in legislation and the committee hopes the legislature will look to alternative means such as authorization of the borough to tax users rather than further (indiscernible) of the land ownership patterns. MR. PARKER advised committee members there are three documents which they should review in terms of background. One is the John Isaak and Associates study done in 1985 which identifies the most popular species target by recreational users in the area. The most popular target is rainbow trout and the fish most pursued in time is king salmon. That confirms a similar study. He said something important to understand about the role of trout in the Iliamna region is they are larger fish, rare and incredibly valuable economically. He stated when too many people are involved, fish are lost simply through the mortality rates on release. The third study is one he did for the Alaska Hotel and Motel Association in 1988. It shows when an overgrowth of the remote wilderness recreation occurs, less commerce is generated with more lodges. Number 380 REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked Mr. Parker who he represents. He noted his opinion is on Department of Fish and Game letterhead and talks about a publicly elected group. He also asked how many people are involved in his organization. MR. PARKER replied the Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Committee by regulation is composed of 15 elected people, plus two alternates. The committee is elected at publicly held elections which occur once a year and the terms of the committee members are generally three years. He said there are approximately 70 advisory committees throughout the state, all elected, and all are created by state statute. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked if the committee is funded by the state. MR. PARKER said they are. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked what the committee's budget is. MR. PARKER said he did not know. He stated all committee members are volunteer and the budget is carried in the Board support section of the department. Number 314 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked how many lodges are currently located on the Mulchatna River. MR. PARKER responded he did not know. He said most of the lodges are centered. Eleven lodges are located in Iliamna village, two lodges are on the Copper River, etc. He thought there are 61 lodges in the Nushagak/Kvichak drainages. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN thought the area plan developed by DNR set up this area as a remote recreation and habitat area along the Mulchatna River. He asked if Mr. Parker's concern involves lodges along the Mulchatna. MR. PARKER replied that is one concern. He stated the general concern is the increase of pressure which will occur on rivers throughout the area because of increasing recreational development, whether it is private citizens or lodge development. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES wondered if the advisory committee is assured there will be severe restrictions on the ability of the borough to select lands along the river systems being discussed, would they still maintain their objection to the figure of 187,000 acres. MR. PARKER responded that would soften the objection. He said if a hunting and fishing lodge is put on Nikabuna Lake, even if public access is preserved through easements, there still will be a float based lodge on the lake which will be utilizing the Koktuli, the Mulchatna, lower Talarik, etc., areas which all the lodges use... Number 450 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON clarified that Mr. Parker does not have a conflict of interest in his present occupation. MR. PARKER said he has not guided in the area since 1989 and is presently a lawyer. Number 460 CLIFF EAMES, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA CENTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, testified via teleconference and stated his organization's concern is they see HB 259 as part of a disturbing pattern this year. They are concerned that 1994 might be viewed as the year of the great state land giveaway. He said the organization is often accused of opposing transfers of public lands like those which might occur in the mental health lands settlement proposal or the proposed one million acre university land transfer or this 187,000 acre transfer because they are opposed to development of these lands. He said conservationists have more concerns than others about certain types of development in certain areas and the long-term affects development will have on the state's resources and the use of those resources. MR. EAMES stated that is missing the point. He said his organization's concern is maintaining options for the people of Alaska for future generations by not unnecessarily giving away or providing windfalls in transferring state public lands and allowing the people of Alaska, generation after generation, to make decisions about whether particular stay on public lands should be developed in certain ways or should be protected for fish and wildlife, water quality, recreations, scenic beauty, etc. Number 500 MR. EAMES stated in regard to HB 259, he is not sure it has been stretched enough by DNR. He said the area being discussed has extremely high value in fish and wildlife resources and receives a tremendous amount of public use already. He stressed it is a world class fishery. He commented that all of the remaining state lands around Lake Iliamna will be selected in a thin strip, a substantial portion of Talarik Creek will be selected, and a good portion of the Mulchatna will be selected and there are no assurances regarding buffers around these lakes and streams. In looking at the Kenai, one can see what happens when too much development occurs in high value riparian or lake side habitat. With all of the questions being asked and information received, he hopes the committee follows up and does not accept the rather easy answers provided by the departments. He felt there is a need to take a good hard look at HB 259. Number 544 WILLY DUNNE, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY (AEL), stated HB 259 will grant 187,000 acres to the Lake and Peninsula Borough and AEL was told previously under current law, the borough would be entitled to approximately 30,000 acres. He said AEL has a number of concerns about the consequences of HB 259. A grant of 187,000 acres will be more than fifteen times the amount of land the borough is entitled to receive under current state law. AEL feels it will set a dangerous precedent and will encourage excessive requests from other newly organized municipalities. AEL feels that if the current law is unfair to the newly formed boroughs, the legislature should change that law rather than granting an arbitrary number of acres to any municipality who asks for it. MR. DUNNE pointed out that the state went through a thorough public planning process in 1984 with the Bristol Bay area plan and under that plan, the public determined that in order to protect the quality of life in the region, state lands should be managed to preserve fish and wildlife resources, as well as to provide for orderly development of economic resources in an environmentally sound manner. In looking at the maps, it appears that the land selections mainly consist of important wildlife habitat and public recreation land. These lands include important riparian areas and spawning areas, critical to Bristol Bay, as well as access points to world-class fishing areas along the Mulchatna River, Talarik Creek and Lake Iliamna. MR. DUNNE said HB 259 can potentially turn state lands, which are currently managed for the protection of commercial, sport, and subsistence activities, over to the borough which is not under any mandate to protect them for public benefits. The resulting changes in land use patterns will have adverse effects on fish and wildlife habitat, commercial and subsistence and recreational activities they support, as well as reducing public access to world-class hunting and fishing opportunities. He stated AEL recognizes the Lake and Peninsula's right to select state land after its incorporation. However, AEL feels 187,000 acres is far too much. MR. DUNNE said the borough has stated they intend to select lands as wildlife habitat public recreation, which may result in a time consuming, costly process of reclassifying those lands and going through more public hearings. AEL feels it is in the state's best interest to continue to protect unique and irreplaceable resources in the Lake and Peninsula region which provide for an abundance of commercial and subsistence recreational uses. He urged the committee to take a hard look at the type of lands being requested and if necessary, add language to the bill which will protect these world-class resources. TAPE 94-40, SIDE A Number 000 LAMAR COTTEN, REPRESENTATIVE, LAKE AND PENINSULA BOROUGH, stated in regard to the controversial 75,000 acres, the number is a lot less. He stressed the borough is not interested in a number of the areas identified as critical habitat. The borough recognizes this is the first of many steps in the process in discussing what lands will be selected. The borough also recognizes that the first cut is not necessarily the one the state will accept. MR. COTTEN said the values of the people who live in Lake and Peninsula Borough are not inconsistent with existing land use plans in the area. The people who live in the borough are either commercial fishermen or people involved in commercial recreation. He stated the insinuation that land transferred to the borough to be later leased or perhaps sold will be used in a way which is incompatible with the uses of the residents is a stretch. He commented many people are asking what is the purpose behind the municipal land entitlement. He stated the entitlement is a long-term method to help fund programs, not only in the 1990s, but well into the next century. He felt the borough should be complimented on thinking beyond the next few years. Number 032 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented he had heard it costs more to educate a first grader in Lake and Peninsula Borough than it does to send the child to Harvard for a year. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER made a MOTION to MOVE HB 259 with fiscal note out of committee with INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS. Number 045 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated he would like to offer an amendment. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated he has no objections to the land areas which are approved by the state, but what is being discussed is a municipality that has a small entitlement and wants to increase that to a large entitlement. He felt views being reflected by statements around the table, as well as the witnesses are that if these are areas approved by DNR and AFD&G, there is not a problem in expanding the entitlement. He said the committee should reflect that and add the words "if approved by the state". He felt the amendment will eliminate the more contentious selections which could impact the key fish and wildlife areas. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a MOTION to AMEND HB 259 on page 2, line 12, adding the words "if approved by the state". REPRESENTATIVE MULDER felt the amendment is redundant. MR. SWANSON said that is correct. The existing Title 38 process has to be followed in the appeal process and in everything else. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated he had read the statute but the entity selecting has the opportunity to go to court to challenge the department's determination and it can become a very contentious process. They are challenging the public interest findings. He felt this is a different situation because the entitlement is so large, the borough should be able to live with the department's determinations. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER WITHDREW his MOTION. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON expressed opposition to the amendment. He felt the amendment set the Lake and Peninsula Borough apart from all of the other similar land selection processes. He said the selection has to be rejected by the director, so the state already has ample opportunity to approve or disapprove. He pointed out there is even another appeal where the state's interest is upheld or at least maintained. He stated given those two different appeals and the fact that other boroughs, in regard to land selections, have been treated in the way stated in HB 259, amending HB 259 to put some unusual criteria on Lake and Peninsula Borough would be inconsistent in the way broad public policy is handled. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern that if the borough will be precluded from going to court to get a decision that the state has denied, people who object to any decisions the state makes should also be denied the ability to go to court. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting for the amendment was Representative Finkelstein. Voting against the amendment were Representatives Davies, James, Green, Carney, Bunde, Mulder, Williams, and Hudson. Number 123 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER made a MOTION to MOVE HB 259 out of committee with INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. ANNOUNCEMENTS CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee will hear HB 443 on Friday. He also announced the time for the joint meeting with House Finance on Thursday has been changed to 2:00 p.m. He stated the committee will meet on Friday, March 25 at 8:15 a.m. to hear HJR 61, HB 498 and HB 515. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the House Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 10:00 a.m. BILLS NOT HEARD HB 443: "An Act relating to the confidentiality of certain records relating to fish and wildlife; and providing for an effective date."