HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON WORLD TRADE AND STATE/FEDERAL RELATIONS February 23, 1999 5:06 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Ramona Barnes, Chair Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chair Representative Beverly Masek Representative Gail Phillips Representative Joe Green Representative Reggie Joule MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Ethan Berkowitz COMMITTEE CALENDAR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5 am Opposing the closure of the former Mount McKinley portions of Denali National Park and Preserve to snowmachine use. - MOVED SJR 5 AM OUT OF COMMITTEE (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: SJR 5 SHORT TITLE: SNOWMACHINE USE IN DENALI NAT'L PARK SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) HALFORD, Kelly Pete, Taylor, Wilken, Donley, Ward, Leman, Miller, Pearce, Green; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Coghill, James, Therriault Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/27/99 99 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 1/27/99 99 (S) RES 2/01/99 127 (S) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN 2/03/99 (S) RES AT 3:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 2/03/99 (S) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE 2/03/99 (S) MINUTE(RES) 2/04/99 155 (S) RES RPT 5DP 1NR 2/04/99 155 (S) DP: HALFORD, MACKIE, PARNELL, TAYLOR, 2/04/99 155 (S) GREEN; NR: LINCOLN 2/04/99 155 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S.RES) 2/05/99 (S) RLS AT 11:20 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 2/05/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 2/08/99 185 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1OR 2/10/99 2/10/99 214 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 2/10/99 214 (S) AM 1 OFFERED BY HALFORD 2/10/99 214 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 2/10/99 215 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 2/10/99 215 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SJR 5 AM 2/10/99 216 (S) PASSED Y18 N2 2/10/99 218 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 2/16/99 220 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 2/16/99 220 (H) WTR, RESOURCES 2/16/99 228 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): COGHILL, JAMES 2/17/99 240 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): THERRIAULT 2/23/99 (H) WTR AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124 WITNESS REGISTER Juli Lucky, Legislative Assistant for Senator Rick Halford Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 121 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4958 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the sponsor statement for Senator Rick Halford. STEVE MARTIN, Park Superintendent Denali National Park and Preserve P.O. Box 9 Denali Park, Alaska 99755 Telephone: (907)683-2294 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to SJR 5. STAN LEAPHART, Executive Director Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas 3700 Airport Way Fairbanks, Alaska 99709-4699 Telephone: (907)451-2775 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of SJR 5. TINA CUNNING, Wildlife Biologist State-Federal Issues Program, Commissioner's Office Alaska Department of Fish and Game 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1599 Telephone: (907)267-2248 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on how ANILCA provisions related to SJR 5. BILL EASTMAN Mat-Su Motor Mushers HCO 3, Box 8286 Palmer, Alaska 99645 Telephone: (907)7453043 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on behalf of the Mat-Su Motor Mushers in support of SJR 5. NANCY MICHAELSON Sierra Club - Alaska Chapter 241 East Fifth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907)276-4048 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on behalf of the Sierra Club in opposition to SJR 5. SANDY KOGL P.O. Box 1 McKinley Park, Alaska 99755-0001 Telephone: (907)733-2448 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to SJR 5. ROLLIE OSTERMICK P.O. Box 13149 Trapper Creek, Alaska 99683-3149 Telephone: (907)733-2467 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to SJR 5. MICHAEL EASTHAM Homer Snowmads Snowmachine Club Box 3646 Homer, Alaska 99603 Telephone: (907)235-2603 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on behalf of the Homer Snowmads Snowmachine Club in support of SJR 5. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 99-03, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR RAMONA BARNES called the House Special Committee on World Trade and State/Federal Relations meeting to order at 5:06 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Barnes, Cowdery, Phillips, Green and Joule. Representative Masek arrived at 5:07 p.m. SJR 5 - SNOWMACHINE USE IN DENALI NAT'L PARK CHAIR BARNES announced the first order of business was Senate Joint Resolution No. 5, "Opposing the closure of the former Mount McKinley portions of Denali National Park and Preserve to snowmachine use." JULI LUCKY, Legislative Assistant to Senator Rick Halford, Alaska State Legislature, read the following sponsor statement into the record: SJR 5 is a fairly straightforward resolution. The resolution 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. An equally important message carried by this resolution is the message to Alaskans that the legislature is in support of their continued access to their public land. Number 0200 STEVE MARTIN, Park Superintendent, Denali National Park and Preserve, testified via teleconference from the park. He said, "Basically, we have closed a portion of Denali National Park to the use of snowmachines for traditional activities because of concerns over resource values to the park or within the park." He explained that the decision was based on the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and he stipulated that 43 CFR 36.11 gave authority to hold hearings in the area affected and then prepare a finding. The finding has been prepared and made available to the public, he added, and the results detail the analysis of the resource values and the reasons for the closure. He acknowledged that this is an emotional issue, and recommended that the committee review the Statement of Finding. Number 0390 MR. MARTIN indicated that he did not have a copy of the bill in front of him, but he did have an older version of the bill that he felt contained some factual errors. One of those errors, he pointed out, is the statement that actual impacts have to be documented in the area in order to for it to be closed. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), he added, refers to identifying activities that "would be detrimental," and does not specify "have been detrimental." He felt it was incumbent upon the National Park Service to step in advance of actual impacts. He indicated his willingness to provide additional written testimony. CHAIR BARNES advised the witness that written testimony could be provided to the House Resource Standing Committee, which is the next committee that SJR 5 will be going to. Number 0520 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY sought clarification as to whether or not the resource values have actually been determined yet. MR. MARTIN referred to Section 101 of ANILCA and the 1917 legislation for Denali National Park and Preserve. He testified that both of these pieces of legislation laid out a number of the resource values that these areas were set aside to conserve. Subsequent to that, he added, there have been other specific documents on management of the park that have articulated its values. He referred the committee back to the Statement of Finding for those values, and explained they were laid out through long-standing public planning processes, environmental impact assessments and public hearings. He stressed that the National Park Service is not against snowmachines everywhere, but they do feel that snowmachine use would be detrimental to this particular area. He listed some of the reasons for this belief: the unique scientific conditions of the area, the fact that snowmachines have not been used within this area in the past, and the fact that the area contains dog mushers and carries with it a tradition of non-motorized use since 1917. Number 0685 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if ski planes landed in the park. MR. MARTIN confirmed that ski planes do land in the new park additions on a regular basis; however, ski planes are extremely rare within the old part of the park, landing perhaps one or two times a winter on Wonder Lake. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY wondered if the ski planes cause damage when they land. MR. MARTIN indicated that they do not cause damage when they land on Wonder Lake, especially in view of the level of use. He felt that any occasional damage done to the park was offset by the benefits of that particular activity. Number 0833 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked what plans and policies the National Park Service has in place to provide alternative transportation for employees who will be monitoring the park in the winter months. MR. MARTIN reported that the park has been using dogs since approximately 1930, and that they have only used snowmachines once or twice in the past 10 years within the old section of the park. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS declared that she has pictures of park rangers and others on snowmachines in that area of the park. MR. MARTIN denied this, and said that the park's eight snowmachines are only driven outside of the designated wilderness area. Any pictures of park rangers on snowmachines, he emphasized, were taken outside of the old part of the park. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS questioned whether damage was being done to those other areas of the park by the use of snowmachines. MR. MARTIN indicated that was a difficult question to answer. He specified, "If they are driven with adequate snow cover, and if they are driven in areas where there aren't sensitive concentrations of wildlife, and if they are driven responsibly, and if they are driven for traditional activities, we feel that, throughout most of the park, they are a legitimate activity. In this particular part of the park that has not had snowmachining in it, we feel that, yes, they would be detrimental, whether driven by us or driven by someone else." Number 1052 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK cited her experience growing up in Alaska and mushing dog teams, as well as snowmachining, and she stated her belief that those two activities did not conflict. She expressed her feeling that this closure is contrary to what Alaska is all about, and added that everyone should have access to the state. She referred to the section in the Statement of Findings that says "the proposed temporary closure maintains a status quo," and inquired as to exactly how the National Park Service arrived at this status quo. She requested that Mr. Martin clarify which sections of ANILCA they were working off of, and asked him to explain 36 CFR 13.30 and 43 CFR 36.11. MR. MARTIN specified that Section 1110(a) of ANILCA has a provision for the continued use of certain access modes for traditional activities. He explained that 43 CFR contains regulations promulgated by the Department of the Interior to implement that section of the law. The 36 CFR regulations are general provisions for protection of all park resources, and they were promulgated after ANILCA. He said that the reason the temporary closure is a continuation of the status quo is that snowmachines have not been used in the old park. He reemphasized that Section 101, the first section, of ANILCA clearly outlines what the parks were set aside for, including scientific values, unaffected ecosystems and wildlife protection. Wildlife has not been subjected to high density snowmachine use in this section of the park, he added, and research has shown that snowmachining has the potential to conflict with wildlife in that area. Number 1324 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK wondered how many permits were issued to ERA Helicopters to fly into the park. MR. MARTIN responded by stating that public landing of helicopters is not allowed in Denali National Park and Preserve, except in cases of emergency and to supply the 14,000-foot base camp for climbers. Number 1370 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to the previous statement that this is a temporary closure to gather additional information on potential impacts, and that it would take one year to do this. He wondered if those potential impacts would be so severe that they warranted closure, or if there was any possibility of leaving that portion of the park open until the information is collected and then acting. MR. MARTIN direction attention back to the wording in ANILCA. He emphasized that it does not use the phrase "has been detrimental," but rather "would be detrimental." He noted that this would put the onus on the National Park Service to make sure that these resources are not affected. He reported that the park is trying to balance quiet wildlife areas with areas for traditional or park-access snowmachining, and to plan it out so that wildlife habitat and the unaffected ecosystem are not harmed. Because the snowmachining industry has greatly increased, he explained, the potential is there to go from "zero use to thousands of user days." Number 1634 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if there was additional, more recent, information that could be made available to the House Resources Standing Committee. MR. MARTIN referred the committee back to the Statement of Finding. He agreed to provide additional information, and he expressed his willingness to testify in person, if requested. CHAIR BARNES pointed out to the committee that a lawsuit was recently filed by snowmachine users challenging the closure. Number 1723 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS inquired as to who determines adequate snow cover, and whether or not that definition is in ANILCA. MR. MARTIN confirmed that the definition is in ANILCA, and stated that the determination is up to the park. They are in the process of evaluating, he added, exactly what that would mean for Denali National Park and Preserve, and hope to have that determined by next winter. He noted that adequate snow cover is roughly 6-to-12 inches of snow, but it depends upon other factors, such as the type of vegetation. He cited the example of the Kenai Fjords National Park, and related that they use "manager's determination" to define adequate snow coverage. Number 1809 STAN LEAPHART, Executive Director, Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas, provided testimony via teleconference from Fairbanks in support of SJR 5. He observed that one of the reasons snowmachine use has not occurred, to any great degree, in the old part of Denali National Park and Preserve is that the National Park Service has improperly prevented that use from occurring. He reported that in 1980 the Alaska Lands Act expanded the park, and it also authorized the use of snowmachines during periods of adequate snow cover, motor boats, airplanes, and non-motorized surface transportation within all conservation system units in Alaska, including the wilderness portion of Denali National Park and Preserve. In June of 1981, he noted, the National Park Service promulgated its first regulations implementing ANILCA, and did implement some sections dealing with snowmachine use that apply to all park units in Alaska, including the pre-1980 park areas (Denali National Park and Preserve, Katmai National Park and Glacier Bay National Park). MR. LEAPHART explained that the National Park Service proposed closure of some areas of Denali National Park and Preserve to snowmachine use in 1983. Those closures were designed to protect what were identified as key wildlife concentration areas, but he emphasized that it was only a small part of the wilderness area that is currently closed. At that time, he noted, the National Park Service clearly recognized that snowmachine use had been authorized under the provisions of the 1980 Alaska Lands Act. He reported that in 1986 the Department of Interior, on behalf of all the land management agencies, adopted regulations implementing Title XI of ANILCA, including Section 1110(a), which is the section that authorizes the use of snowmachines within conservation system units. At that time, he emphasized, the Department of Interior again acknowledged, very decisively, that snowmachine use was authorized in the pre-ANILCA park units. He added, "Interestingly enough, shortly after that we started to hear rumors about people being contacted by park rangers along the George Parks Highway area, Broad Pass, the area adjacent to the old park boundary, and being told that the old part of the park was closed to snowmachine use." MR. LEAPHART reported that the Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas became aware of a "Compendium of Orders for Denali National Park" around 1990. This list of rules for the park, he added, stated snowmachine use was not allowed in the pre-1980 portion of the part. In approximately 1992, he emphasized, the National Park Service assured the Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas that they recognized there were problems with that compendium and that they were working to fix it; however, it is seven years later, and they have not presented a revised compendium. Consequently, the public has been continually receiving a document that has stated, for at least the last 10 years, that the old part of the park is closed to snowmachine use. He stipulated that this is the reason, in large measure, why very little snowmachine use has occurred in that part of the park. Number 2121 MR. LEAPHART continued, "A couple of years ago, I met with Mr. Martin and his chief ranger to discuss a proposal that they were working on at that time to implement some management restrictions for the park, including a snowmachine closure. It was clear at that time that they were prepared to argue that snowmachine use really wasn't allowed -- it was a non-traditional use -- and that it was simply going to be disallowed on those terms. I pointed out that the ANILCA standards were that they had to demonstrate that there was, in fact, resource damage from snowmachine use before they could close the use." He reiterated that, approximately three weeks ago, the National Park Service enacted temporary regulations to close the park to snowmachines, and they issued their Statement of Findings. He believes that the National Park Service feels they have complied with the letter of the law and with their regulations; however, he argued that they have certainly not complied with the spirit of the law which requires them to demonstrate that there has been damage from snowmachine use. MR. LEAPHART referred to the Statement of Finding, and pointed out that it was basically a compilation of studies on snowmachine use in other areas; none of these studies are related to snowmachine use in Denali National Park and Preserve, and some are over 20 years old. The snowmachines studied in the early 1970s, he explained, were far different from the machines they have now; they were heavier and noisier with much different engine technology. He testified that the Statement of Finding is very generalized and speculative, and that expressing the potential for damage from snowmachine use does not meet the requirements of the legislation. Based on the findings in this document, he added, any other area in Alaska could be substituted for Denali National Park and Preserve, and subsequently closed. Consequently, consideration should be given to the precedent that this sets. He closed by saying, "I think there are a lot of people who have supported the closure who have also objected to the process, or the lack of process, that the National Park Service has followed in implementing this closure. They want to see some good research and good science, but they want to see it done before they make this sort of management decision." Number 2280 TINA CUNNING, Wildlife Biologist, State-Federal Issues Program, Commissioner's Office, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), spoke via teleconference from Anchorage on SJR 5. She informed the committee that the ANILCA division of the ADF&G, in concert with Stan Leaphart and governmental coordination in other portions of the state, closely monitors the provisions protecting access on over 143 million acres of conservation system units. She emphasized that their first concern is process, because process that doesn't exactly follow the protections provided by ANILCA will, inevitably, be used as precedent for all other conservation system units. MS. CUNNING cited an example of a potential closure to snowmachine access in Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge a number of years ago. Prior to ANILCA, she pointed out, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge was also a conservation system unit that had restrictions on snowmachine access. That was amended in 1980, and snowmachine access was again open as a method for traditional activities. She reported that the refuge manager became concerned that snowmachines were getting farther into the refuge as they became lighter, quieter and faster. He made a proposal for closure of a vast portion of the refuge to snowmachine access, for many of the same reasons presented on the Denali National Park and Preserve closure, as well as fear of impacts to bear denning areas. MS. CUNNING further related that the refuge manager, at the urging of ADF&G, worked extensively with snowmachine groups in Kodiak, ADF&G staff and his biologist, to identify and map out the bear denning areas. She reported that these areas are posted as soon as possible after the first snowfall each year, and the snowmachiners have policed themselves by staying clear of those areas. She emphasized that there does not have to be a closure based on bear dennings as a resource damage if there is adequate consultation done with the groups involved ahead of time. The ADF&G has worked with the snowmachiners and the National Park Service for over two years in an attempt to get them to develop areas that could be zoned for snowmachine use, and they are very disappointed that the National Park Service chose to go ahead and use findings of damage. If those findings of damage were to be applied to all of the 143 million acres of conservation system units, she added, it would effectively impact access by snowmachine for hunting, fishing and trapping all over the state. Number 2477 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS sought clarification as to what organization the witness represented. MS. CUNNING specified that she is with the State-Federal Issues Program of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). She wanted to emphasize for the record, however, that neither the state of Alaska nor the ADF&G has taken an official position on this closure, but they will do so in concert with the other state agencies. She added, "Our concerns regarding process and resource damage, however, are on the record for all conservation system units -- not just unique to this one." Number 2530 BILL EASTMAN, Mat-Su Motor Mushers, testified via teleconference from the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. He noted that SJR 5, as amended, had the full support of the Mat-Su Motor Mushers. Number 2552 NANCY MICHAELSON, Alaska Chapter of the Sierra Club, spoke via teleconference from the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. She testified that the Sierra Club opposed SJR 5 and supported the closure of the old part of Denali National Park and Preserve to motorized uses. She read the following testimony into the record: I am here to testify on behalf of the Sierra Club and our statewide 1300 members from Barrow to Ketchikan. Nationally, we are 600,000 members strong who work to protect wild places for our families (indisc.--coughing). We oppose the passage of this resolution and we support closure of all of the entire part of old Mount McKinley Park to motorized use. Each point of the resolution should be based on factual premise. We take issue with some of your premises on which you base your points. Point number three, as an example, speaks to the National Park Service requirement that findings of snowmachine use be detrimental to the park. Although this actual wording is factual, we take issue with your reference that proof of detrimental impact must come from the specific area itself. Your resolution conveys that you mean that we must impact, or ruin, an area to prove the area will be ruined, and then take steps to protect it, only after the fact. There are plentiful studies and documented cases of snowmachine effects (indisc.--coughing). We hoped you be wise enough to accept the existence of these studies and process their information in a meaningful manner, such as the National Park Service 37-page Statement of Finding. We disagree with your understanding of ANILCA in your second point. Words for ANILCA are exact, but what this whole controversy boils down to is recreational snowmachining. The Sierra Club strongly believes that this use does not belong in a wilderness area, regardless of how anyone twists or speaks of the intent of ANILCA. Lastly, we do not agree with the interpretation that old Mount McKinley National Park was ever open to motorized uses. What this issue is based on is a technical glitch. There has never been any language or legislative history that points to Congress meaning to allow for motorized uses in the old park. Indeed, Congress did three things to indicate that its intent was to strengthen park protection through the years, such as; 1) they made the original park all wilderness, 2) they expanded the park in 1980, and, 3) in 1976 they closed it to mining with the Mining in the Parks Act. Regardless of our opinions on this last point, it serves well to demonstrate our disagreement with your premise. We believe that scenic and wildlife values of Denali [National Park and Preserve], no matter the season, depend on non-disturbance winter and summer habitat, and we urge you not to accept Senate Joint Resolution Number 5. Number 2672 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked how many members of the Sierra Club Ms. Michaelson was representing. MS. MICHAELSON responded that there were 1300 members statewide. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY wondered if all 1300 of these members had been polled on this issue. MS. MICHAELSON said no, but added that the Sierra Club has statewide meetings with by-laws, and they have discussed their policies on national park and wilderness matters. Number 2701 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS noted that the National Park Service announced temporary closure of the old part of the park while they consider additional permanent closures for the entire park. She asked if the Sierra Club would support closing down the entire park to snowmachine use. MS. MICHAELSON said no, and clarified that their concern was for the old section of the park. She stated that this area has not been used for recreational snowmachine use since its inception in 1917. She added that the Sierra Club does not believe that recreational snowmachining is a traditional activity as outlined in ANILCA. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS sought clarification that the Sierra Club would support keeping the rest of the park open to snowmachining. MS. MICHAELSON agreed. She explained that the Sierra Club recognized that other areas of the park are being used by snowmachines, and they are not opposed to that usage. They are, however, strongly opposed to snowmachine usage in the "wilderness area." REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS wondered how damage could be determined to occur in the old part of the park, but not on property only 100 feet away in the new part of the park. She questioned how the Sierra Club was able to make that distinction. MS. MICHAELSON said, "I did not comment to that, because our opposition has to do with wilderness areas. Also, if it was critical habitat for either denning bears or other wildlife, then that would be a point for us, but if it was not in a wilderness area....Obviously, the amount of impact is going to be the same if the microecology is the same, but it would be important to us that snowmachines do not exist in the wilderness area." REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS wanted the record to reflect that the Sierra Club is not opposed to snowmachining in the new section of the park, even though it would be land adjacent to the old section. Therefore, they would not be able to make a distinction in damage or use. Number 2844 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE requested a map of the areas involved that would outline the old versus the new sections of the park, as well as a map outlining the snowmachine pattern areas. Number 2871 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made reference to Yellowstone National Park. He questioned whether or not snowmachines were allowed in that park, and, if so, if their usage has been detrimental to their critical habitats. MS. MICHAELSON said yes, and referred the committee to Mr. Steve Martin, who worked at Yellowstone National Park and was there when they experienced a large increase in snowmachining. She pointed out that the ecology of that park is different than the ecology of Denali National Park and Preserve, but she added that Yellowstone National Park has had problems with wildlife harassment from snowmachiners and air pollution. This has manifested itself in changes of foraging patterns of animals that are displaced by snowmachine usage, and she felt some studies have demonstrated population decline. TAPE 99-03, SIDE B Number 0048 SANDY KOGL testified via teleconference from Talkeetna. She stated she was representing herself and other quiet recreational users and dog mushers in the Denali National Park and Preserve area. She emphasized that she was adamantly opposed to SJR 5, and added that she is in favor of permanent closure of the entire former Mount McKinley National Park to all snowmachine use. She felt that this was not a state issue because it is a national park, and that the National Park Service is tasked with preserving and protecting those significant park values. MS. KOGL continued, "It goes beyond the quiet rights issues and impacts upon winter stress to life. What is fundamental here is whether a 2-million acre, intact ecosystem, that has essentially been untouched by winter recreationists, should be exposed to impacts from large numbers of snowmachiners. There are very few areas of Alaska that have been free from snowmobile travel. This, in itself, is reason enough to continue the closed status of the old Mount McKinley park. We cannot ever anticipate or prove all of the consequences of opening it up to snowmobile use. It will be too late if we have to prove the damage after it has occurred." MS. KOGL addressed Mr. Leaphart's references to unfair past closures of the old section of the park by park rangers. She clarified that the closures have been by park policy, rather than by regulation, and that responsible riders have usually informed themselves of old park boundaries and respected the historic sanctity of them. She added, "ANILCA is a wonderful document. I think it is something akin to the Bible; it is open to a lot of interpretation. I think bringing this whole issue to the forefront, whether it be through the courts or whatever, is one of the better things that has happened to clear the air." She emphasized that snowmobiles were never historically or traditionally used for recreational purposes in the old Mount McKinley area of the park, and that any encroachments before 1980 by snowmachines were illegal. She felt that allowing snowmachines in the old section of the park was a blow to the values for which the park was established. She urged the committee to "take the high road, and to accept that some areas need to be set aside, free from motorized snowmachine use, and maybe even free from dogsled or skiing use. Some areas need to be of value in themselves." Number 0247 ROLLIE OSTERMICK testified via teleconference from Talkeetna. He informed the committee that he has lived in the Talkeetna/Trapper Creek area since 1973, and has traveled through this country by a variety of means, including the two snowmachines he owns. He stated that he was very opposed to SJR 5. He said, "Snowmachines have never traditionally been used in the national park, and, from what I have seen recently, I hope they never are allowed in the park. Caribou, which used to be plentiful throughout the Broad Pass valley, south of Cantwell and east of the park, now are primarily seen on the upper slopes of the mountains from about mid-December when the snowmachiners first arrive. I have to wonder if the caribou -- which are escaping the harassment of the snowmachines and live on the upper slopes -- what effect it has had on their population." MR. OSTERMICK cited a personal experience with a grizzly bear that heard his snowmachine when he was still approximately 1/4-mile away, and he stated that the bear was in a full run in the opposite direction. Because of the park's importance to visitors from around the world, as well as the local economies from Fairbanks to Anchorage, he felt it seemed foolish to jeopardize the park's abundant wildlife by snowmachine use. With over 95 percent of the public land already open to snowmachine use, he added, it would be selfish not to continue to keep the park a quiet zone for the benefit of the many Alaska residents who enjoy skiing, dog sledding and winter camping. He testified that only four of approximately 23 to 25 people involved in the public hearing in Talkeetna last November were in favor of snowmachines, and the rest were strongly opposed. He urged the committee to recognize that a good percentage of Alaskans, especially the people that live there, would like to have one area within the state remain a quiet wilderness. Number 0391 MICHAEL EASTHAM, Homer Snowmads Snowmachine Club, testified on behalf of his club of 200 members in support of SJR 5. He encouraged the committee to take the time to research whether or not snowmachines have some damaging impact on the environment. He related that he has lived in Homer for 25 years, and he has snowmachined all over the moose range in Kenai during that time. He emphasized that he has never seen any type of documented evidence from the National Park Service or ADF&G that snowmachines have irreparably damaged the area when used during times of sufficient snow cover. He stressed that the winter months are a time when all the tourists are gone, and the people of Alaska have a chance to see the wilderness. He expressed sadness that the doors will be now be closed to people who live in Alaska to be able to enjoy such a beautiful place. CHAIR BARNES agreed that Alaskans do not get as much of a chance to enjoy the outside anymore because of the amount of people visiting in the summer, and she added that a lot of people identify with winter sports. Number 0493 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a motion to move SJR 5 out of committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note(s). There being no objection, SJR 5 was so moved from the House Special Committee on World Trade and State/Federal Relations. ADJOURNMENT Number 0510 CHAIR BARNES adjourned the House Special Committee on World Trade and State/Federal Relations at 6:04 p.m.