SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE February 12, 1996 3:36 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Loren Leman, Chairman Senator Drue Pearce, Vice Chairman Senator Steve Frank Senator Robin Taylor Senator Georgianna Lincoln Senator Lyman Hoffman MEMBERS ABSENT Senator Rick Halford COMMITTEE CALENDAR SENATE BILL NO. 262 "An Act relating to management of game populations for maximum sustained yield for human harvest and providing for the replacement of areas closed to consumptive uses of game; relating to management of fish and game areas; and amending Rules 79(b) and 82(b)(2), Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure." SENATE BILL NO. 230 "An Act providing that state land, water, and land and water may not be classified so as to preclude or restrict traditional means of access for traditional recreational uses." PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION SB 262 - No previous action to record. SB 230 - No previous action to consider. WITNESS REGISTER Senator Mike Miller State Capitol Juneau, AK 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 262. Mr. Lynn Levengood Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association 931 Vide Way Fairbanks, AK 99712 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 262. Mr. Wayne Regelin, Director Division of Wildlife Conservation Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, AK 99802-5526 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 262. Mary Gore, Legislative Aide Senator Mike Miller State Capitol Juneau, AK 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 262. Bill Hagar 432 Gaffney Rd. Fairbanks, AK 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 262. Mick Manns Paradise Valley Bettles, AK 99703 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 262. Pete Shepherd 1012 Galena St. Fairbanks, AK 99709 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 262. Tom Scarborough 1676 Taroka Dr. Fairbanks, AK 99708 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 262. Mike Tinker 458 Alpha Way Ester, AK 99725 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 262. George Yaska Tanana Chiefs Conference 122 1st. Ave. Fairbanks, AK 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 262. Chuck Johnson, President Era Aviation, Inc. 6101 S. Air Park Dr. Anchorage, AK 99502 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 230. Ron Swanson, Deputy Director Division of Lands Department of Natural Resources 3601 C Street, Ste 1122 Anchorage, AK 99503-5947 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 230. Jim Stratton, Director Division of Parks Department of Natural Resources 3601 C St., Ste. 1200 Anchorage, AK 99503-5921 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 230. Noel Woods Matanuska Valley Sportsmen P.O. Box 827 Palmer, AK 99645 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 230. Roy Burkhart, Legislative Affairs Officer Alaska Boaters Association P.O. Box 204 Willow, AK 99688 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 230. Steve Morgheim, Executive Director Alaska Marine Dealer's Association 2440 E. Tudor Anchorage, AK 99507 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 230. Jana Littlewood, Vice President Anchorage Snowmobile Club 414 E. 23rd Anchorage, AK 99503 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 230. Randy Crosby 3300 Wesleyan Dr. Anchorage, AK 99508 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 230. Ken Rivard Alaska Airman's Association Mat-Su Airman's Association P.O. Box 871842 Wasilla, AK 99687 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 230. Leonard Haire P.O. Box 879030 Wasilla, AK 99687 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 230. George Piaskowski Alaska Boating Association 1836 Scenic Way #2 Anchorage, AK 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Faxed his comments on SB 230 to the Committee. Cliff Eames Alaska Center for the Environment 519 W 8th, #201 Anchorage, AK 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 230. Ken Baehr Tope Equipment 6720 Arctic Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99518 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 230. Carl Portman, Director Resource Development Council 121 W. Fireweed Anchorage, AK 99503 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 230. Rod Arno, President Alaska Outdoor Council P.O. Box 871410 Wasilla, AK 99687 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 230. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 96-13, SIDE A Number 001 SRES 2/12/96 SB 262 MANAGEMENT OF FISH/GAME POPULATION & AREA  CHAIRMAN LEMAN called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to order at 3:36 p.m. and announced SB 262 to be up for consideration. SENATOR MILLER, sponsor of SB 262, said the intent of the bill is basically for any acre that comes out of hunting for no good biological reason at the next Board meeting that five acres of land not already open to hunting replace it. Now, if there are good biological reasons for shutting land down, additional lands do not have to be put back into hunting. MR. LYNN LEVENGOOD, Fairbanks attorney representing Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association, said that Alaska consumptive users have lost nearly the size of the state of Wyoming in one form or another. The most recent and alarming trend has happened in 1995 when the Board of Game restricted land for harvest without any biological reason. The most notable was restricting over 200 square miles on the Alaska Peninsula from bear hunting. Recently the Board of Game closed 90 square miles in the Mat-Su Valley to hunting by rifles without biological reasons. Number 134 SENATOR TAYLOR thanked Mr. Levengood for the work he had done on this legislation. MR. WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, said that SB 262 would modify several existing statutes related to hunting and fishing in Alaska. The first section would mandate that game populations be managed solely for maximum sustained yield for human harvest and that defines consumptive use as the highest and best use of game. It would mandate that if the Board of Game closes an area or restricts hunting in an area in any way, it must open a similar area at least five times larger than that area which is closed. This provision has some major implications for the State subsistence law. If areas are moved into a Tier II or a Tier I hunt by the Board of Game to protect subsistence uses, other areas would be required to be opened before such restriction could be continued. In most cases such areas wouldn't be available, so the restrictions would probably have to go away or couldn't occur in the first place. The Board of Game would have serious difficulty in closing any season in any area under the provisions in section 1 of this bill. Each temporary closure due to a biological emergency would be subject to litigation as provided for by paragraphs (c) and (d) in this section. It doesn't specify they can be closed for biological reasons, it just says flat that you can't. Section 2 of SB 262 would outlaw restrictions on public access to any refuge, sanctuary, or special management area, and would provide for civil actions against public officials who allow restrictions to occur. It would also restrict the use of revenue from federal aid and licenses to certain programs. Sections 3 - 7 would modify statutes to guarantee access to refuges, sanctuaries, and critical habitat areas, for sport fishing, hunting, and trapping consistent with the maximum sustained yield. The Department has real concerns with this for a number of reasons. It would be impossible for them to manage any of Alaska's wildlife populations consistent with the definition of harvestable surplus, high levels of human harvest, and maximum sustained yield as provided in section 1. The most intensively harvested wildlife populations in the world can't meet these requirements. The three definitions all tie together and would require reducing predators to extremely low levels so that we could have more human harvest. There is no doubt if we reduce predators we could have human harvest, but in their judgment they would never be able to supply one third or more of the harvestable surplus as defined in this bill even where there's no predation. MR. REGELIN said even in Sweden they can't reach that level. They harvest about 30 percent of their moose each year. They have no predators and almost no winter loss, but 50 percent of the harvest they take is of calves that are four months old. Twenty-five percent is cows. He didn't know if we wanted to do that in Alaska, but he thought we couldn't achieve the same situation in the type of eco-system that we have. SENATOR TAYLOR asked for the number of moose harvested in Sweden. MR. REGELIN replied that they are taking over 100,000 moose per year in Sweden. SENATOR TAYLOR asked why Sweden, a tiny country, can harvest 100,000 moose every year. MR. REGELIN said that Sweden has about 400,000 moose and they are about one fifth the size of Alaska. Their forest management practices have allowed moose populations to increase to very high levels. They have intensive forestry on 160 acre blocks which they manage for moose. The big difference is that they don't have winters that kill animals and they don't have very many predators - one pack of wolves in northern Sweden and very few bears. The tree species they manage for is lodge pole pine which moose can eat. Here moose can't eat spruce. So weather and food resource are the real differences. Number 240 MR. REGELIN said paragraph 3 (b) is very vague. Most wildlife populations in Alaska are subject to federal subsistence management that is not recognized by State law. A strict interpretation of this paragraph would prohibit expenditure of fish and game funds or federal aid funds for management of all of these populations. Further, it would disallow intensive management in an area like the Nelchina Basin where the Nelchina caribou herd is subject to rural preference under the federal law. He didn't feel that this law would be workable. MR. REGELIN emphasized that the word has been spread that the harvest of wildlife in Alaska is way down. That's just not true if you look at the record. For instance, 20 years ago 3,000 moose were harvested in Alaska; last year 7,300 were harvested. We used to harvest about 5,000 caribou; last year we harvested over 30,000. Harvest statistics for Fairbanks are higher today than 20 years ago, nearly double. He said a bill like this would do a lot of damage to Alaska in the long run. Twenty years ago very few people were interested in wildlife management, basically just hunters. Today lots of people are interested in how we manage wildlife, are demanding services, and want a place at the table when decisions are made. It is happening throughout the nation. Hunters are not the only ones who own the wildlife. It belongs to all the people of Alaska and we have to be good stewards of this resource. Saying the only and best use of wildlife is human consumptive use in the long term will be really damaging to hunters, because he didn't think we could hold that position. MR. REGELIN said over 95 percent of their budget is directly related to maintaining and enhancing hunting opportunity. We also have to provide benefits to the other people who like to view wildlife. If those people are shut out of the equation, they won't stand for it. And they are the majority. Number 300 SENATOR TAYLOR said the only portion left of the Department of Fish and Game budget that comes out of the general fund is the commercial fisheries budget. The rest are federal pass-through monies and State monies from license fees paid for by hunters, from taxes paid by people who purchase guns, fishing poles, lures, etc. He asked what amount of funding they were receiving from these "other groups of people who want to sit at the table." MR. REGELIN replied that right now we are not receiving anything from them. They are working hard on getting some federal legislation with matching funds from the State so that non- consumptive users can pay their own way. He said there is no doubt that hunters have been paying their own way for years. Because of the dollars they have contributed there is very good wildlife management. They spend $620,000 of the ADF&G budget on all of the non-consumptive use programs, including wildlife education (Project Wild), work on endangered species, and about $350,000 on wildlife viewing programs. He said there is no doubt that the primary use of the fish and game fund and license fees has to primarily benefit hunting and fishing, and trapping. The Department does that. He emphasized that the Department uses four and a half percent of the budget to have a balanced program, so that when non-hunters see a controversial program, they don't turn against us. With legislation like this he was afraid non-hunters, about 60 percent of Alaska, would turn into anti-hunters. Number 331 SENATOR TAYLOR asked how many moose the people in Sweden harvested twenty years ago. He asked if they had significantly enhanced availability of moose to hunt, wouldn't they be enhancing the numbers of moose to view as well? He asked what recommendations he could make to avoid conflicts with subsistence users who should be the primary benefiters of this legislation. MR. REGELIN replied that the situation in Sweden is a completely different eco-system which Alaska will never match. In Alaska where they were able to manage most intensively there were almost four moose per square mile, although that level cannot be held for very long. Prescribed fires are difficult because State, federal, and private lands are all together in most places and mechanical manipulation is very costly. Predation management in Alaska, wolf control, has been very controversial for years. It's not going to change; it's an issue that affects not just game management and the Division of Wildlife Conservation; it affects the entire State of Alaska. Because of this, decisions on whether or not to implement predator management programs have been made by the Governor. The last four governors have been involved in those decisions. The Department tries to have the information ready to follow the law that says what information has to be collected, so the Board can make those decisions. These decisions are going to be made in the political branch, not the Division of Wildlife. Number 388 SENATOR TAYLOR asked what amount of money his department has requested for predator control. MR. REGELIN replied that they have asked for no funding. They are waiting for a review by the National Academy of Sciences and then the Governor will make a decision on whether or not to proceed. SENATOR HOFFMAN commented regarding page 3, section 3 (b) we would be inviting the federal government to come in and manage the resources the State would be prohibited from managing and the people of Alaska want to go in the other direction. MR. REGELIN agreed that the way the bill is structured it would prohibit the Department from spending any money in an area where the federal government has implemented its system of management. SENATOR TAYLOR questioned where the funding for his department comes from. MR. REGELIN explained that the only sources of funding are from the fish and game fund and license fees. Every one needs to have a State hunting license, whether they are hunting on State, private, or federal land. Number 428 SENATOR HOFFMAN asked which areas of the State and specific populations were not managed for consumptive uses. MR. REGELIN replied that Round Island is now open to hunting through a special agreement with the local Native residents of that area and in the 10 years he has worked for the Board of Game, two areas have been closed to hunting. One is Pack Creek and the other is the McNeil River Refuge. In the past they had harvested up to three bears per year at McNeil River and there is no problem with the population of bears in that area. The Board of Game heard that issue and as a Department they made an unprecedented request to the Board to close an area when there was no biological need. The reason is simply because this area had become an issue on the international and national stage. Hunting at McNeil was on TV night after night across the nation with Dan Rather making it look like people were harvesting bears at McNeil Falls while people were watching them. This was totally untrue, but that was the perception. It was turning non-hunters across the nation into anti-hunters. For three bears a year it was a tremendous way for anti-hunting groups to raise money. When he sees something that detrimental to the image of hunters, he felt it was a fight we couldn't win. He said he hates to see areas closed to hunting and his Department fights hard to enhance hunting opportunity. Number 468 SENATOR LINCOLN stated she would ask just two of her questions in deference to the many people that wanted to testify on this issue. She asked MARY GORE, Senator Miller's Legislative Aide, if SB 262 is a replacement for a subsistence bill. MS. GORE said Senator Miller would have to answer that question. SENATOR LINCOLN asked Mr. Regelin if he read this bill as a subsistence bill or if it has an affect on subsistence or rural preference. MR. REGELIN answered that he didn't think this bill had anything to do with rural preference or the subsistence issue, but it does affect it because of the way the law is structured. It would affect how they would continue to spend money on populations that are only used for subsistence purposes. Number 518 SENATOR TAYLOR noted that that concern is handled on page 3, paragraph 3 where it says specifically that if they are going to use revenue that has been generated from taxes, license fees, and other fees paid by sportsmen, or funds received from federal aid in sport fish in wildlife restoration programs, then they shouldn't use it in an area where no one can hunt or fish. So those subsistence areas where the general public can't hunt should have some other funding source. BILL HAGAR, Fairbanks resident, said the goals of the Department of Wildlife Conservation have been shifted from biological sciences to behavioral sciences or social engineering. This bill provides the guidance the Department needs to manage game according to the constitution. MICK MANNS, Bettles resident, supported SB 262, because it would get us back towards our State Constitution. He said the sheep and moose populations are being wiped out and we've got to get things back to where there is a sustained yield. Without that nothing in the Department of Fish and Game would make much sense. Number 570 PETE SHEPHERD supported SB 262 because it sends a very pointed message to ADF&G, the Board of Game, and other State agencies which are philosophically and not biologically driven. Human consumptive use is a priority use of fish and game according to the Constitutional mandate. He credited the senators for recognizing the need for civil recourse for unjustified bureaucratic stonewalls and philosophical differences. The bill addresses the problems inherent in State agencies which appear to be at odds with consumptive use. TAPE 96-13, SIDE B TOM SCARBOROUGH, Fairbanks resident, said SB 262 is a lands bill. Areas hunters can use are being restricted more and more and he thought this legislation is absolutely necessary. MIKE TINKER, said SB 262 sets goals and objectives and gives direction to the Department to set policy so that they don't have to manage for such a wide spectrum of interests. Every agency needs clear goals, he said. Because of the complexities of managing wildlife let's get the biologists back to using biology, he said. It is extremely important to have the definitions included in this bill. Number 561 GEORGE YASKA, Tanana Chiefs Conference, said they like the use of the term maximum sustained yield. They do support certain forms of predator control. He said that the legislature has rarely funded maximum sustained yield programs beyond the Fairbanks area. He wanted due consideration given to areas outside of areas generally considered as non-subsistence areas. They are concerned that section 15.20.75 as amended would provide an unhealthy level of competition for subsistence resources within the moose management areas. He cautioned the legislature about guarantees for sports hunting within official management areas that are under Tier II restrictions. Guaranteed access under this amendment for sports hunters may not be unhealthy for sports hunters, but would be decidedly unhealthy for rural subsistence hunters that are generally not able to compete with the quota of hunters that would be found under the proposed scenario. Number 542 MR. LEVENGOOD reported that this bill is in no way a subsistence bill. It would prevent less land from being taken out of consumptive uses which would benefit all uses and it would provide a guaranteed access, not limited to sport hunters. In areas where Tier II preferences are given this bill would have absolutely no effect. SENATOR TAYLOR said he thought that predator control was one of the issues driving this legislation and there was a proposed $0 budget for predator control this year. SENATOR LEMAN noted that predator control could be very effective if done by people outside of the Department in rural Alaska. Number 504 SENATOR MILLER reiterated that this is not a subsistence bill and it wouldn't negatively impact subsistence. He said he would work with the Department on their concerns. SENATOR HOFFMAN commented that they say it wouldn't impact subsistence, but according to Senator Taylor's interpretation of page 3, section 3 that no money could be utilized to manage in areas in conflict with our State Constitution. That's exactly in the areas of subsistence. The resources could not be managed for subsistence hunts which would impact subsistence. SENATOR MILLER said that other general funds cover the subsistence budget. SENATOR LEMAN said they would hold the bill for further work. SRES 2/12/96 SB 230 LEG APPROVE PERM'NT RECREAT'NL RESTRICT'N  SENATOR LEMAN announced SB 230 to be up for consideration. SENATOR PEARCE, prime sponsor, said the bill was introduced to protect Alaskan's rights to access State water and land for recreational use in a time when the federal government continues to restrict and prohibit our access to many areas of the State. Alaskans are presently losing rights to traditional recreational use on some State land and park lands without appropriate notification or justification. Citizens believe the public comment process is not being fairly administered and all user groups are not being represented. In some instances authority to restrict and prohibit uses on State land are being transferred from the Division of Lands to the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. Nonrestricted areas of our State are being closed without proper oversight by the legislature. Decisions to deny access for recreational use, because of its importance, have always been made by the legislature. The Constitution of the State of Alaska recognizes the importance of land closures and mandates that all closures over 640 acres must be legislatively designated. We must continue to make provisions for dealing with lands under 640 acres. Language in SB 230 would ensure that all Alaskans have proper representation by their elected officials. Number 420 Under legislative options, Option I deals with Title 38 Land Classifications by the Division of Lands. Option II would be that the legislature mandate the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation to obtain legislative approval for restrictions to traditional recreational use in lands that have come to them through the transfer process called Interagency Land Management Agreement (ILMA). Option III would be to put language into Title 41 under Parks that would implement legislative oversight on the Division of Parks and we could also go back and make a change to Title 38. SENATOR PEARCE explained that a fully integrated concession is developing in Denali Park and the Division of Parks is trying to close certain areas around the proposed hotel with new regulations in an effort to stop parts of the development and to restrict what may be a future problem. The reasons for the restrictions are that numerous eco-tourism businesses and conservation organizations favor the restrictions. In opposition to the proposal are businesses like ERA helicopters and Princess Tours (to the helicopter prohibition). Groups like the Alaska Air Carriers Association and the Alaska Visitors Association also oppose the aircraft restrictions. She said that when the Division writes regulations it is biased toward closing areas. The approximately 360 acres south of Blair Lake is territory that is being transferred through an ILMA. SENATOR PEARCE said in areas that have been set aside as parks lately there have been very strict instructions about what they can do to prohibit access to an area. She commended the Division of Parks for going ahead and doing a concession so there can be a hotel, but she thought they were going too far when they closed off Curry Ridge, which has been traditionally used for access by people who have lived in the State. SENATOR PEARCE noted that there hadn't been any restrictions put on lands during the last Administration, but they do expect a number of them in this Administration. She thanked everyone who helped on this bill and said she was willing to work with the Committee and all interested parties about which title the bill would be in and which direction to go. Number 351 CHUCK JOHNSON, President, Era Aviation Inc, said the federal government continues to restrict public access to our parks which by definition are large tracts of rural land kept in their rural state for recreational visitors. Without access visitors cannot enjoy the activities available within the boundaries of the parks. There are few road accesses and visitors must be physically fit enough to hike in or use other forms of transportation such as boats, airplanes, snow machines, etc. MR. JOHNSON said that the DNR proposal to prohibit helicopter landings is mostly because of a perceived noise issue. They have found that most restrictions to aircraft access have been implemented without consideration of the scientific study process, but are based on emotional argument by well-orchestrated special interest groups. He noted that they had just been allowed to renew their glacier landing permit and the U.S. Forest Service determined that noise was a non-problem. Placing the responsibility for limiting access to public land in the legislature where the voting public must be answered appears to be in the public interest. In addition, MR. JOHNSON said, present commercial regulations already restrict commercial access to public lands. As a commercial aircraft operator, they must obtain commercial use permits prior to landing. Number 295 RON SWANSON, Deputy Director, Division of Lands, said this legislation is way too broad. It seems to apply Title 41 concerns to Title 38. The vast majority of ILMA's have been issued to the Department of Transportation for a wide variety of things from materials sites to airports and to the Department of Education for schools. He thought it was proper for them to report restrictions they do for any kind of access to the legislature. He noted that the recreational rivers issue was before the legislature for two years and no action was taken. Regulations were adopted and there were some motorized restrictions, most notable being on the Susitna River. He thought that the legislature should review restrictions, but taking a shot at Title 38 would open up a can of worms much larger than they would want to deal with. SENATOR TAYLOR said it looked like DNR transferred to the Division of Parks lands that they intend to lock up. He asked if they were aware of that intent when it was transferred. MR. SWANSON replied that he was not aware of it, but that the Division of Parks also goes through a public process. SENATOR TAYLOR asked now that it has occurred, was he intending to revoke the ILMA? MR. SWANSON replied that they didn't plan to. JIM STRATTON, Director, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, said he had been working with Senate staff to focus the intent of this legislation on ILMAs where Division of Parks has restricted traditional recreational access for intrinsic value. Historically, ILMAs have been used since the park system was created in 1970 to provide for camp grounds, trail heads, boat launch facilities, and picnic areas throughout the State. These are developed recreational sites, primarily on the road system that provide the economic base for many road system communities. Many of the original ILMAs came as federal 507 lands, recreational lands managed by the federal government transferred to the State so long as recreational use of that land continued. They have received other ILMAs from general State land through transfers from the Division of Lands. Since 1970 the Division of Parks has received 95 ILMA's for a total of 9,258 acres; these acres were reserved primarily for developed recreational facilities that require them to restrict vehicular access other than on road ways or in parking lots as set forth in 11.AAC.12.020. In many areas the closures do not impact any existing recreational access where the access was determined to be a public safety hazard for the purpose for which the land was selected. In all areas access is not denied to adjacent land owners or inholders that have no other reasonable means of accessing their property. In the 1989 revision of the Denali State Park Master Plan, which went through two years of public involvement, ILMAs were used to address areas on the edge of the park for management purposes. Division of Parks didn't have any developed recreational sites for those areas. They chose to close Blair Lake to aircraft use. MR. STRATTON said they seldom close lands on ILMAs to traditional recreational access for intrinsic reasons. When they do, the legislature should review their decision. He suggested that Division of Parks provide a written report to the legislature at the beginning of each session that lists those ILMAs they have chosen to restrict traditional recreational access to protect intrinsic values. If the legislature disagrees with their decision they should have a specific period of time, 60 - 90 days, in which to disallow their action. Number 180 SENATOR LEMAN asked which access is allowed when land is received through an ILMA. MR. STRATTON replied that when land is transferred to the Division of Parks it is under Title 41 and when they receive land under Title 41, all vehicular access other than those on roadways or parking areas is restricted. If there is an existing access that needs to be addressed and it's compatible with the uses for which they received the ILMA, then they promulgate regulations to open those areas for that recreational use. SENATOR LEMAN asked under his proposal for legislative disallowance, would some of the restriction take place before the legislature had a chance to review it or would they delay the implementation of it until their review. MR. STRATTON replied that under existing rules in Title 41, it would come in as restricted. SENATOR TAYLOR asked him what intrinsic values motivated them to close Blair Lake, Bunch Lake, Curry Ridge, and Kasugi Ridge. MR. STRATTON replied that one of the unfinished pieces of business that was handed him when he took his office was to promulgate regulations that would implement the Denali Master Plan that was revised in 1989. That master plan called for the closure of Kasugi and Curry Ridge to aircraft use. This plan was adopted by the Department after two years of public involvement. The ILMA was put in for Blair Lake as a result of the master plan. Closing Blair Lake is consistent with other regulations made for adjacent land. Number 133 NOEL WOODS, Matanuska Valley Sportsmen, said they have 400 members and they enthusiastically support the sponsor statement and recommend that the Committee pass SB 230. ROY BURKHART, Legislative Affairs Officer, Alaska Boating Association, supported SB 230 for a lot of reasons. He didn't think any bureaucrat should have the power to restrict access to the tourist industry or to the residents of the State. He thought the only reason to have a restriction is for special interest groups. Number 82 STEVE MORGHEIM, Alaska Marine Dealers Association, said their association is composed of 70 firms and employs about 340 employees, have $7 million in payroll and does about $40 million in retail sales every year. He said it is more difficult for their dealers to do business when there are more and more concerns about river restrictions. He supported the sponsor statement and SB 230. MR. MORGHEIM suggested adding the words "motorized and non- motorized" in front of the word "boating." Where it says "The Commissioner may not classify State lands," he suggested including "or manage." He also wanted to add "trucks, pickups, and RV's" in section 2, because these vehicles are prime movers in getting boats into lands. TAPE 14, SIDE A Number 001 SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr. Stratton to explain page 72 of the Denali Master Plan where it says "protect public access between the park and the lake." MR. STRATTON said he didn't have a copy of the Master Plan with him, but would get back to him with that answer. JANA LITTLEWOOD, Vice President, Anchorage Snowmobile Club, said they have 700 members. They were originally formed as a social family-oriented club and now they have a constant battle retaining access to the lands where they ride. The definition of public lands is for everyone's enjoyment. They think the park lands under Title 41 should be included in SB 230. She urged the legislature to authorize funding for the update and revision of the Chugach State Park Master Plan which was last updated in 1985. The Plan requires detailed notice to the public of the time table for completion as well how the entire program would be managed. She encouraged the legislature to reserve the final right of approval on all park master plans to bring some acceptability back into the public lands management process. RANDY CROSBY said in Title 41 parks are set aside to basically eliminate some incompatible user groups such as the timber and mining industries and things they wouldn't want in areas they want for viewing and recreation. Title 41 says that parks are to be managed in the citizens' best interests while protecting the resources. He thought Blair Lake was a perfect example of this not happening. The folks who access Blair Lake by aircraft have been in Alaska a long time, they make their living up here; and in some cases have been using the land longer than the State has been a state. He didn't think restricting Blair Lake to aircraft was a good idea. Number 165 KEN RIVARD, Alaska Airman's Association, strongly supported SB 230. He suggested including the commissioner of ADF&G along with the commissioner of DNR, because there are motorized restrictions in hunting regulations, too. His concern was specifically with float plane landing areas, Title 41.23.400, 11.AAC.09.010. The definition is extremely broad and ambiguous. Number 177 LEONARD HAIRE, President, Mat-Su Chapter Alaska Boaters Association, said they supported SB 230 and he would like to testify when the Committee has more time. His Association has about 500 members. GEORGE PIASKOWSKI, President, Alaska Boating Association, said he has 600 members. He agreed in the interests of time to fax his statement to the committee. CLIFF EAMES, Alaska Center for the Environment, opposed SB 230. He thought the legislature would be getting into a level of detailed management that just isn't efficient. The existing planning and classification procedures which involve a great deal of public participation are adequate. They are also afraid that this bill would make it more difficult to redress the existing imbalance between the vast majority of our public domain lands which are open to virtually unregulated motorized use as opposed to those tiny areas that have been set aside for quiet purposes. He said there are many areas for snowmachine use and their goal is to provide some opportunities for Alaskans and visitors, many who want to escape urban noise. We are doing a terrible job at the present time on our State lands at providing those opportunities. It's ironic, he said, that this bill addresses so-called traditional motorized uses. Using skis and snow shoes, hiking boots and canoes is far more traditional than the motorized recreational uses which are very recent. MR. EAMES explained that certain types of motorized access that conflict with other types of access are being restricted in just a handful of places. It is not a denial of access; there are still ways to get into these areas. MR. EAMES said that they disagree with the comment regarding "perceived" noise issue with helicopters. It may be with certain resources helicopters are not a problem, but a lot of people on the ground think that helicopter noise is a conflict. Helicopter landing proposals have been extremely controversial in southcentral Alaska. Number 296 KEN BAEHR, an Anchorage snowmobile dealer, supported SB 230. He said the snowmobile industry directly contributes about $100 million annually to the Alaskan economy. The snowmachine industry is changing dramatically; it helps people who are no longer physically able to hike into public parks. Access includes increased winter tourism which is one of the goals of the Alaska legislature in diversifying the economy. We need to remember there are many villages and towns within the State where the only access is by snowmachine. He noted that there is only one area available to snowmachines in the Chugach State Park. Number 323 CARL PORTMAN, Communications Director, Resource Development Council, supported the intent of SB 230. Over 60 percent of the State is in federal ownership and much of the land is managed with a wilderness emphasis for those who demand solitude. Our parks can be a contributor to our future economy, but only if there is access for the public and visitors. We need to encourage access so Alaska can continue to compete with other national and international tourist destinations. They believe these decisions need to be made at the legislative level. MR. STRATTON responded to Senator Taylor's question on page 72 of the Denali Master Plan by stating that the public access that was being protected was the strip of land between Blair Lake and the Park so the Division of Land wouldn't go in and put it up for disposal that would deny access. It doesn't speak to access on the Lake itself. ROD ARNO, President, Alaska Outdoor Council, said they represent over 10,000 Alaskans. They supported SB 230 and Senator Pearce's sponsor statement. His concerns are in the future when primary tourism zones are being considered for closures to access, because they represent a favored economic activity, that instead of Princess Tours and the AVA deciding which are the primary tourism zones that the public process be brought into the decision. The user groups who live in Alaska should have some input before public access is closed. SENATOR LEMAN thanked everyone for their participation and adjourned the meeting at 5:37 p.m.