SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE March 10, 1995 3:47 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Loren Leman, Chairman Senator Drue Pearce, Vice Chairman Senator Steve Frank Senator Lyman Hoffman COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT Senator Rick Halford Senator Robin Taylor Senator Georgianna Lincoln COMMITTEE CALENDAR CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 16(CRA) "An Act relating to the University of Alaska and university land, authorizing the University of Alaska to select additional state public domain land, and defining net income from the University of Alaska's endowment trust fund as 'university receipts' subject to prior legislative appropriation." SENATE BILL NO. 77 "An Act relating to intensive management of identified big game prey populations." PREVIOUS ACTION SB 16 - See Community & Regional Affairs minutes dated 2/20/95. SB 77 - No previous action to record. WITNESS REGISTER Wendy Redman University of Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 16. Marty Epstein, Director Land Management University of Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Was available to answer questions regarding SB 16. Cliff Eames Alaska Center for the Environment 519 W 8th, No. 201 Anchorage, AK 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16. R.B. Stiles, President Orven Corporation 711 H St., No 600 Anchorage, AK 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16. Thomas J. Warner P.O. Box 1258 Bethel, AK 99559 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16. Ed Davis, Board Member Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association P.O. Box 3332 Valdez, AK 99686 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16 and commented on SB 77. Riki Ott United Fishermen of Alaska P.O. Box 1430 Cordova, AK 99574 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16. Brenda Wilcox Coghill Wilcox & Associates P.O. Box 20967 Juneau, AK 99802 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 16. Sarah Hannan, Executive Director Alaska Environmental Lobby P.O. Box 22151 Juneau, AK 99802 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16 and opposed SB 77. Nico Bus, Legislative Liaison Department of Natural Resources 400 Willoughby Ave. Juneau, AK. 99801-1796 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16. Senator Sharp State Capitol Juneau, AK 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 77. Tom Scarborough 1676 Taraka Dr. Fairbanks, AK 99709 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77. Bill Hagar 432 Gaffney Rd. Fairbanks, AK 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77. Ralph Seekins, President Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association 1625 Old Steese Fairbanks, AK 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77. George Matz, Vice President Anchorage Audubon Society 14345 Cody Anchorage, AK 99516 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77. Steve Wells, Executive Director Alaska Wildlife Alliance P.O. Box 202022 Anchorage, AK 99520 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77. Tom Warner P.O. Box 1258 Bethel, AK 99559 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77. Ed Davis Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism P.O. Box 1353 Valdez, AK 99686 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77. Wayne Regelin, Acting Director Division of Wildlife Conservation Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 25525 Juneau, AK 99802-5526 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 77. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 95-22, SIDE A Number 001 SRES 3/10/95 SB 16 INCREASE LAND GRANT TO UNIV. OF ALASKA  CHAIRMAN LEMAN called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to order at 3:47 p.m. and announced SB 16 to be up for consideration. SENATOR FRANK said this bill would allow the University to select one million acres subject to a rigorous set of constraints established to protect the state's interest. The University is a land grant university, as are many universities in the western states, but its land grant is small in comparison to other land grant universities. This would give the university a greater opportunity to earn revenues from lands and enable it to be less dependent on general funds in the future. WENDY REDMAN, University of Alaska, explained that the University has not functioned as a land grant university, because they have no land. In other many other states, the land grant system actually supports their university, she said. MARTY EPSTEIN, Director of Land Management, said he was available to answer questions. CLIFF EAMES, Alaska Center for the Environment (ACE), opposed SB 16. He stated the ACE doesn't dispute a need for a reasonable share of ample funding going to the University. They opposed the increased fragmentation of land ownership and management patterns which result in severely reduced opportunities for the citizens of Alaska. They are also concerned that dedicating revenue to the University is constitutional. He noted that the lands have not been identified and they would no longer be managed for multiple public uses which is extremely important. R.B. STILES, Orven Corp., testified against SB 16. He said that although the University of Alaska received less land than some other Universities in the West, the State of Alaska received substantially more land under their land grant than any of the Western States. He questioned whether granting land to the University is a dedication of funds which is prohibited by the State Constitution. He said it was clear, in reading through the type of lands that could be selected, that there were lands with coal and mineral leases which he thought invited the same kind of litigation that happened with the Mental Health Trust lands issue. Finally, he commented that land grant colleges throughout the West got their lands from the federal government and not from their state governments. THOMAS WARNER, Bethel resident, said he saw very little opportunity for public participation in the selection process and the determination of the use of the revenue stream to be derived from the lands. He also viewed the Governor and Commissioner as having a lot of power and thought one million acres was excessive. Number 228 ED DAVIS, Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association (AWRTA), said that transferring this large amount of land to the University would have a huge impact on the resources that tourism depends on and that the selection process did not have much protection for the multiple use of lands. MR. DAVIS said that he hadn't received adequate notice that this bill was being heard. SENATOR LEMAN stated that SB 16 was introduced on January 16, 1995 and has already been heard in the Senate Community and Regional Affairs Committee. The Senate Resources Committee posted the committee meeting schedule eight days ago. Further, he said he didn't expect it to move from committee today and invited his additional comments. Number 312 RIKI OTT, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA), opposed SB 16. UFA's main concern was the scope of the land disposal which would affect natural resource management across the state. I was also concerned that the Board of Regents would be managing those resources versus public control multiple use. It is very concerned with the "use it or lose it" clause. There is also the issue of this being a dedicated source of funds which may be unconstitutional, she said. BRENDA WILCOX, Coghill Wilcox & Associates, supported SB 16. She said she was President for the Alumni Association for UAF and sat on the Board of Directors for six years. When land was first granted to the University in the Tanana Valley, they were given only 9,000 acres, because of the difficulty in surveying it without satellite technology which we now have. The University actively manages their lands, because they need the revenues, she said. MS. WILCOX said one of the main reasons against Alaska receiving statehood, at the national level, was it was felt Alaska didn't have a tax base to pay for governmental services. That is one of the reasons the state was given an unprecedented 105 million acres to manage. The 105 million acres was intended to help us fund the University of Alaska. There are now three campuses instead of one and the costs are ever-increasing. SARAH HANNAN, Alaska Environmental Lobby (AEL), said she is an alumni of the University of Alaska and a former member of the Board of Regents. She is here to do the best for the University, but transferring one million acres of what is public domain land to a private entity would present a number of complex policy issues. She thought other agencies across the state could say they have an equal right to provide some guaranteed revenue and perhaps an endowment. MS. HANNAN pointed out that endowment and land grant are not the same thing. She said there is no guarantee that the University would make enough money to sustain itself even if they are given land. She asked the Legislature what the state's obligation was to provide general fund sources to the University. Because AEL is composed of a network of people who live across Alaska, she opposed this legislation saying someone or something lives on all that land. She asked if public domain land goes to private ownership of the University, would the interests of private users be taken into account. SENATOR LEMAN asked if she had taken a position on compensation of private property owners for loss of use of the land. MS. HANNAN said AEL's position would be consistent with what she has stated here.   SENATOR LEMAN stated that Section 5 on page 10, lines 6 -11, where it says the University shall manage the land in a manner that permits those customary and traditional uses of the resources, is intended to cover her concerns with multiple use. NICO BUS, Department of Natural Resources, opposed SB 16. He said the Administration is concerned with the revenue stream for the State of Alaska and splitting up the current land base. He said the key issue was the long term fiscal implications for the state. SENATOR HOFFMAN asked what the Department's position would be if the acreage were to be reduced by half of the requested amount. MR. BUS said the overall fiscal impact would need evaluation before a position could be taken. SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if his recommendation to the Governor would be to veto this bill as it exists. MR. BUS said it was. He said DNR had submitted a fiscal note to the Governor on March 9. SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if he knew what the breakdown of the percentage of land is in the State of Alaska between federal, state, native corporations, and private? MR. BUS didn't have that information. Number 507 MS. REDMAN said, in response to a statement made by Riki Ott, that the University land is not treated as private land; it is treated as public land. MS. REDMAN noted a typo error on page 10, line 8. The word "displaying" should be "disposing." SENATOR LEMAN thanked her and everyone for their participation and said SB 16 would be held for further work. SRES 3/10/95 SB 77 INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF GAME SENATOR LEMAN announced SB 77 to be up for consideration. SENATOR SHARP, sponsor of SB 77, said the committee substitute clears up language in Section 2. Section 3 deletes the Commissioner's option of establishing a Division of Game and Section 4 establishes by statute a Division of Game. The intent is to replace the title of the Division of Wildlife and Conservation with the original statutory title of Division of Game. Section 5 clarifies language which both the Board of Game and ADF&G are having difficulty understanding regarding "depletion." Section 6 further clarifies that intensive management does not include management of people. Section 7 adds three definition paragraphs. He hoped this legislation would clarify some areas that are not understandable to some department personnel so that they could move forward to aggressively manage the resource for the people of Alaska as is their constitutional mandate. SENATOR SHARP said from conversations with department people he thought the fiscal note reflected focusing on existing resources rather than needing additional resources over the next five years. SENATOR FRANK moved to adopt the CS labeled 9-LS0460 f to SB 77. There were no objections and it was so ordered. TAPE 95-22, SIDE B Number 001 TOM SCARBOROGH, Fairbanks, said that managing game for human use has failed which is why this legislation is before us today. He strongly supported it, because it requires management for sustained yield which is good for tourism and the hunting public. BILL HAGAR, Fairbanks, said there is a management imbalance of resource allocation and the problems associated with it. He said the question is where does all the harvestable surplus resource go. He said hundreds of thousands of newborn moose and caribou are needlessly sacrificed every year under the department's current management philosophy. Number 544 RALPH SEEKINS, President, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association (AWCA), said the ADF&G people just don't seem to understand management for human harvest along with wolves, bears, etc. ADF&G also says they don't have the tools to respond to high levels of predator population other than monitoring them. MR. SEEKINS said that they have received adequate funding year after year and they need to have their personal philosophy changed to manage the resources for human harvest. GEORGE MATZ, Anchorage Audubon, opposed SB 77. SENATOR LEMAN noted that his written testimony had been received. MR. MATZ said that in a survey, Alaskan voters largely agreed that wildlife was an important reason they were in Alaska. He thought more concern should be given to protecting our lands and waters. He said the wildlife is also important to Alaskan tourists. He said he thought a constitutional amendment would be needed to move this bill forward. STEVE WELLS, Alaska Wildlife Alliance, opposed SB 77. He said it won't mean more money for the state. Intensive management is very expensive. SB 77 will not settle hunting allocation questions; it can't achieve its goals. You can kill the predators in the state including wolves and bears and not achieve the 33% human harvest that this bill calls for. MR. WELLS thought this bill might be to squelch public debate over the controversial wolf management actions in the Board of Game process. This is clearly unfair to the public, because it is an end run around the intensive wildlife management public process. This bill could also lead to the loss of state wildlife management authority at a time the state is trying to retrieve management authority from the federal government. This bill does nothing to add to the capability of wildlife managers who manage wildlife; it limits and reduces their options. The Board and ADF&G have always had the authority to intensively manage wildlife populations. Number 409 TOM WARNER, Bethel, had specific problems with consumptive use being the preferred use and the lack of a mechanism for determining "historic high levels" in Section 5. He said it looks like the Board is being mandated to manage for certain big game populations for human use only. This is also an unwarranted intrusion by the Legislature in what should be a professional activity by the Board and the Department of Fish and Game. Number 391 SARAH HANNAN, Alaska Environmental Lobby (AEL), said she has been a life-long Alaskan hunter. She said AEL does not oppose hunting, but she urged them to take into account that there is a lengthy public process built into game management decisions. This is to make sure that people with seasoned life styles and a diversity of locations have time enough to look through procedures and processes that come before them. The Board of Game is not made up of people who are opposed to managing for human consumption, but it is made up of hunters who would like to see human harvest continue. She thought it was a bad precedent to intervene in a law that has not yet gone into place and that is still being considered by the Board of Game. Preemption of the Board of Game for making its decisions will only result in a deeper workload for the Legislature when it comes to game and fish allocations. Ed Davis, Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism, said he was concerned with the definition of a harvestable surplus. He thought it should exclude all animals that died from all causes other than normal levels of predation. He said they opposed aerial methods of taking game especially by the public. Number 273 WAYNE REGELIN, Acting Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, explained that last year the Legislature passed SB 77 which mandated the Board of Game implement intensive management if season lengths and bag limits were reduced in areas where human use of wildlife was a high value. The department supported this legislation and worked closely with Senator Sharp throughout the process. In its December meeting, the Board decided to manage 10 areas, recommended by the public and the department, intensively. The Board of Game asked the department to prepare more detailed reports and recommendations for how intensive management should be implemented in five of these areas. These will be presented at the Board of Game meeting beginning on March 18. He said that (last year's) SB 77 was clear and everyone understands it. There was talk at the Board meetings to add some definitions to the bill which the department suggested would be useful in preparing for management activities. He didn't think the Board could move faster than they have, since this issue wasn't exempted from the Administrative Procedures Act. Number 273 Specific aspects of the legislation still concern him, like some of the definitions and setting the historical high levels of big game prey populations as a standard for triggering intensive management. Such high levels in some places cannot be maintained over long periods of time, because the habitat just can't support them. He explained they try to stock ranges at about 80% of optimum levels, because otherwise food would be scarce which would cause a decrease in birth rates and fewer animals. Number 197 MR. REGELIN said he thought he understood the purpose of this bill which is for people who want higher levels of harvest from the most accessible moose and caribou populations. He said the department has been frustrated also with getting intensive management programs started. He said changing the legislation at this point is not wise, because SB 77 isn't implemented yet and if more legislation is needed at some point they could ask for that. He didn't think legislation was necessarily the best way to achieve their common goals. He did not think it was beyond the ability of the department or the will of the Administration to manage the herds more intensively. SENATOR HOFFMAN said he would like to see some of Mr. Regelin's suggested definitions. SENATOR SHARP noted that he has worked with the department over the last six years with suggestions from constituents with the legislature in the process and said that the "process" just isn't getting us there. It gets us to the point to where the Board makes a decision and then those decisions based on scientific data are bludgeoned by politics. This is one of the driving forces behind trying to strengthen the statute and, if anything, trying to keep the politics out of it. He said the department has always been willing to work to make things doable which he appreciates. SENATOR HOFFMAN, referring to a newspaper article, said maybe they should put stricter fines on officers shooting game out of season. SENATOR LEMAN said they would hold the bill for further work and adjourned the meeting at 5:19 p.m.