Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
01/26/2010 10:15 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB227 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 227 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 227-HOLITNA BASIN RESERVE
10:18:47 AM
CHAIR EDGMON announced that the only order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 227, "An Act relating to
the establishment of state fish and game reserves; creating the
Holitna River Basin Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping Reserve; and
providing for an effective date."
10:19:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB HERRON, Alaska State Legislature, introduced
HB 227, providing a history of the area and the development of
the legislation. The intent is to provide a specific management
plan for this remote area of the state.
10:21:32 AM
CHAIR EDGMON indicated that the bill before the committee is a
Sponsor Substitute (SS) for House Bill 227.
10:21:55 AM
ROB EARL, Staff, to Representative Bob Herron, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 227, paraphrasing from a prepared
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
First of all, we appreciate the Chairman's very timely
scheduling of this bill because it turns out HB 227 is
slated to be discussed in Board of Game and Board of
Fisheries meetings this same week.
Residents have been requesting the Holitna drainage be
established as a refuge since the mid-1980s. It is
the largest drainage feeding the Kuskokwim watershed
and is prime habitat for moose, bear, caribou, and
furbearers. It's also an important area for all
species of salmon - ¼ of the Coho; 1/3 of the Chinook
and Chum, and 2/3 of Sockeye running the Kuskokwim
spawn in the Holitna drainage.
I'd like to move into a geographical overview. We
have 3 maps, they should all be in your packets (and
on BASIS). Map One shows the Holitna Watershed in
red, the proposed Reserve boundary. This is mostly
state owned land in here. Some big State Mining
Claims in the west here - there has been some
exploration and some limited mining activity. Wood
Tikchik State Park abuts in the southwest here. There
are some relatively small Native allotments sprinkled
around. The northern part of the Reserve is generally
low with extensive wetlands, while the central and
southern portions some hilly areas, several lakes, and
high points close to 4000 feet.
The 165-mile long Hoholitna River flows into the 110-
mile Holitna which 20 miles farther empties into the
Kuskokwim River. No villages lie within the proposed
Reserve. Sleetmute (70) is just to the north here -
250 miles upriver from Bethel. Red Devil (48) is the
next village down the Kuskokwim and Stony River (51)
the next village upriver; Lime village (32) is on the
Stony River in the next drainage to the east. All
these villages have populations under 100.
Historically, the area has been used by hunters and
fishers from about 23 villages. Most access is by
boat or by airplane to lakes or largely landing
strips.
The total area of the proposed Reserve is about 4
million acres, or 6250 square miles, slightly less
than the land area of the Hawaiian Islands (6,423 sq.
miles). [According to the DNR Kuskokwim Area Plan,
there are 165 private parcels in the area, mostly
Native Allotments.]
The area lies entirely within Rep. Woodie Salmon's
House District.
10:26:18 AM
MR. EARL directed attention to the game management unit map of
the proposed area, and said that the bill does not infringe upon
the existing use of the area, nor does it call for any
alteration, or override, of current rules or management
practices.
10:28:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired about the reason for the SS.
10:28:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said that the bill was introduced late in
the first session of the 26th Legislature and remained in
committee during the interim. The lack of movement provided him
additional time to consult further with the departments and
incorporate additional input, which resulted in the sponsor
substitute (SS).
10:29:38 AM
MR. EARL presented the bill sectional, paraphrasing from a
prepared document, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section 16.20.700. Purpose
States that the purpose of establishing a fish and
game reserve is to promote sustainable levels of human
consumption of fish and game.
Section 16.20.710. Regulations
Gives authority to the Board of Game or Board of Fish
(whichever is more appropriate) to adopt regulations
designed to conserve fish and game; and to carry out
the purpose as set forth in sections 16.20.700 and
16.20.720.
Section 16.20.720 (a)
All present and future state-owned land and water
within the Holitna and Hoholitna River watersheds is
designated as part of the Reserve.
Section 16.20.720 (b)
The Reserve is established to ensure:
1. Management and protection of fish and game populations
and habitat to perpetuate subsistence use, commercial
use, and other consumptive uses;
2. Management techniques that promote maximum use with
sustained yield to maintain historical harvest levels
with human consumptive use as a priority;
3. Maintenance of fish and game populations to provide
for high levels of human consumptive use (within
limits set by Fish and Game Boards);
4. Allowance for scientific research elucidating the
effectiveness of management activities in this section
in providing for current and future human harvest
needs.
Section 16.20.720 (c)
The Department of Fish and Game, the Board of
Fisheries and the Board of Game shall manage fish and
game resources within the Reserve to provide for high
levels of human harvest and, subject to priorities
among intensively managed areas for which these
entities set policy, shall:
1. Control predation and adjust predator and prey
population ratios thru appropriate means;
2. Conduct management actions designed to further the
purposes of this section so long as the appropriate
board has not found such actions to be ineffective at
maintaining fish and game populations commonly
harvested for food by humans;
3. Consider scientific evidence augmented by local
environmental knowledge when evaluating management
activities.
Section 16.20.720 (d)
The Department of Natural Resources may acquire
privately owned land within the Reserve by purchase or
exchange, but not thru eminent domain.
Section 16.20.720 (e)
Public access to the Reserve may be regulated by DNR,
in consultation with DFG, as necessary to meet the
purposes of this section and to protect access to, and
development of, other resources within the Reserve.
Section 16.20.720 (f)
Access corridors established by DNR, in consultation
with DFG and a private property owner, shall guarantee
access to and from private property within the
Reserve.
Section 16.20.720 (g)
Entry into the Reserve to explore or develop
nonrenewable resources must be approved by DNR, in
consultation with DFG, and such activities must be
compatible with the purpose of this section.
Section 16.20.720 (h)
Except as otherwise provided in this section, DFG and
DNR shall exercise their respective authority over the
Reserve thru a management plan prepared by DFG in
consultation with DNR.
Section 16.20.720 (i)
Reserve boundaries are defined as including all the
sections (listed beneath their respective township and
range designations) on the last eight pages of this
bill.
10:34:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether certain types of
development could be found incompatible because of the bill,
such as a mine.
10:34:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON responded that the eastern boundary may
preclude mining activity, but methane development could occur.
There are no large-scale mines predicted for this area, he
reported.
10:36:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI noted the compatibility determination,
and asked if DNR would have the sole right of refusal for
development. Would a mining claim in the area be subject to the
terms of this bill, he queried.
10:36:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said that there is no trumping power, and
deferred to the departments for a more detailed response.
10:37:38 AM
DICK MYLIUS, Director, Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
Division of Mining, Land and Water, stated that the department
does not hold a position on the bill, however, he expressed
concerns regarding future resource development and asked that
the intent of the bill to be clearly identified, as well as the
area boundaries.
10:39:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI referred to page 3, line 23, subsection
(g), and noted the language which states, "Entry upon the ...
Reserve for purposes of exploration and development ..." He
asked what the intent of this language is, and what constraints
might be put on exploration activities.
10:40:34 AM
MR. MYLIUS responded that this will not alter existing
requirements in terms of permitting. Anyone is able to take
rock samples, for instance, using hand implements, and mining
claims are self initiated prior to permitting. Extensive
exploration activities do require permits, but the process will
not be affected by this bill. He pointed out that timber, a
renewable resource, is handled differently than oil and gas or
mining. Timber resources do exist in the lower part of the
proposed basin.
10:42:23 AM
KEVIN SAXBY, Senior Assistant Attorney, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law (DOL), indicated that
he was available for questions.
10:42:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked for a legal description of a
reserve versus a refuge.
10:42:50 AM
MR. SAXBY said that one of the underlying purposes of a refuge
is to preserve hunting and fishing opportunities. The bill
before the committee would constitute the first time that the
legislature will have created a fishing and hunting, or fish and
game, reserve. It is before the committee to craft the
precedent-setting language, however, as the bill reads, the
difference will be to place "a greater emphasis on active
management to produce high levels of human consumptive use."
This reserve would not be just a place where hunting and fishing
is allowed, but stipulates the administration to manage for high
levels of that activity. It is analogous to a state forest,
where statute requires the production of timber as the primary
identified purpose.
10:44:08 AM
CHAIR EDGMON opened public testimony.
10:44:40 AM
DOUG CARNEY, Chairman, Stony/Holitna Fish and Game Advisory
Committee, Owner, Sleetmute Lodge, stated support for HB 227,
and described the historical use of the area being the largest
tributary and most productive spawning stream for the Kuskokwim
River drainage. The importance of this area, as a spawning
habitat, has become more evident through recent radio telemetry
studies. He reported the high numbers of moose that have been
harvested on an annual basis, and that the people of the area
would appreciate having it managed as an area for high
consumptive use. People up and down the Kuskokwim River rely on
this productive area for annual harvests, particularly for fish.
10:47:52 AM
LISA FEYEREISEN, Coordinator, Sleetmute Traditional Council,
stated support for HB 227, and underscored the statements of the
previous speaker. She stressed the need to maintain the habitat
for the benefit of the subsistence users, and livelihoods of the
area.
10:49:56 AM
MIKE THALHAUSER, Fisheries Director, Fisheries Department,
Kuskokwim Native Association, Aniak, Alaska, stated support for
HB 227. The Native association has cooperated with the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), and the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service, on fish studies and surveys of the area.
He reported results of these studies, which underscore the
importance of the Holitna River as an important habitat, and
productive spawning ground, for various fish species. The
Holitna supports fish populations that feed into the Kuskokwim
River drainage system.
10:52:24 AM
GRANT FAIRBANKS, stated support for HB 227, and declared that,
as the breadbasket of the area, the Holitna watershed is finally
getting the recognition that it deserves. At one point, in the
1970's, the federal government sought to designate the area as a
scenic and wild watershed in recognition of its significance.
He opined that the highest and best use of the Holitna area is
its current purpose. It has been a long term project to have
this area protected, and protecting the subsistence resources is
imperative.
10:55:17 AM
GREG ROCZICKA, Director, Natural Resource Program, Orutsaramuit
Native Council, stated support for HB 227, and said he has been
assisting in the development of this bill during the last four
years. Referring to the concerns expressed by the committee
regarding the effects this bill may have on mining and minerals
development, he said that it will still be allowed, but it
elevates the level of consideration for DNR when issuing permits
and evaluating how an activity will impact the primary purpose
of the bill. He reported that in 2006, DNR denied a coal bed
methane exploration permit application. On appeal the permit
request was altered to allow for methane exploration only. In
addition, within the Kuskokwim area plan, two riparian corridors
have been closed for 20 years to future mining. The primary
focus of the bill is to create a proactive management process to
maintain wildlife levels in a 4 million acre area; part of the
17,000 square miles, or 11 million acres, of game management
unit 19. Further, 30 square miles of unit 19 is private or
ANSCA (Alaska Native Settlement Claims Act) land. He compared
this area to others that ADF&G has identified for intensive
management (IM), and suggested that the bill language may serve
to support similar practices in other regions. The bill has
been through a lengthy public vetting process, and widespread
support has been demonstrated. Human harvest needs are
important factors to be addressed as IM areas.
11:03:09 AM
CHAIR EDGMON asked whether the boards of fish or game have
rendered an opinion on this bill.
11:03:26 AM
MR. ROCZICKA said that the Board of Game initially generated
this bill, in January, 2006. At that time, the board had before
it a proposal to designate the Holitna a separate game
management unit. The support was spurred by an interest to
recognize the productivity of the area, and the proposal was
amended to name Holitna a refuge. Eventually, it was proposed
at the spring 2006 board meeting to have it named a reserve.
Legislation was sought, and in the fall of 2006, draft
legislation was introduced. However, a political impasse
occurred in 2007, a protocol impropriety, and the bill foundered
in committee. Additionally, in the spring of 2006, the Board of
Fish also entertained a proposal, but it has been tabled to the
habitat committee, for lack of legislation. With the
introduction of new draft legislation, the topic is on the
agenda for the BOF meeting scheduled to begin today in
Fairbanks.
11:08:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired if there are any areas in the
proposed regions that are actively managed, and what does that
term mean.
11:08:45 AM
MR. EARL responded that since 2004, the area has been under on-
going active management. He deferred to DOL for a definition of
the term.
11:09:24 AM
MR. SAXBY explained that IM is defined, in statute, as active
management designed to produce high population levels for human
harvest. To accomplish this end, it specifically, statutorily,
includes manipulation of habitat and predator control for game.
In order to optimize populations of fish and game, as with state
forests, he said, "You would probably expect to see some
experimentation done, or other means, of active management in
this area."
11:10:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if IM is currently occurring within
the proposed area.
MR. SAXBY responded that all of the moose populations in this
area have been identified as important for IM, and a temporary
predator control program is ongoing.
11:11:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ surmised that this legislation would make
predator control a permanent program.
MR. SAXBY said that it would not necessarily meant that predator
control would be made permanent, but that it could require other
management methods, such as habitat, including forestry
manipulation, to be deemed appropriate.
11:11:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if the demographic use of the area is
known; how many users outside of the immediate residents
benefit.
11:12:04 AM
MR. SAXBY reported that Unit 19B, the southern half of the area,
is primarily used by fly-in, non-local use. The northern half
of the area is the reverse of that, being accessed by small
boats, from the local villages. He stressed that he is speaking
on game use only.
11:13:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if this bill would establish a
priority for any one user group or type of use.
MR. SAXBY replied no, it establishes production of fish and game
resources as a priority, but no preference for a user group.
11:13:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON turned to page 2, subsection (c), line
23, and read: "To fulfill the purposes of this section, the
Department of Fish and Game, the Board of Fisheries, and the
Board of Game shall manage the fish and game resources of the
area to provide for high levels of human harvest and, ... shall
(1) control predation ..." and asked if this is not stipulating
that predator control must be practiced.
MR. SAXBY explained that "shall manage for abundance" is the
stated purpose in the mandate, but it doesn't read as a
requirement of permanent predator control, if it isn't going to
do any good. If predators are in check, then female species may
need to be harvested to maintain a population that is within a
carrying capacity. Different techniques are utilized for
various levels of abundance, he pointed out.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON requested a response from ADF&.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON pointed out that Mr. Saxby is essentially
assigned to work on this bill by ADF&G.
11:15:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if this language is compatible with
the state constitution that stipulates, "All uses should be
equally protected."
11:16:30 AM
MR. SAXBY referred to the constitution to quote from Article 8,
Section 4,: "the management of all renewable resources is
'subject to preferences among beneficial uses.'" Thus, the
legislature is authorized, as it has been in the past, to
designate a beneficial use of one type of resource over another
type of use. He provided an example where the legislature set
the timber use in the state forests as the preferred use, or in
the game sanctuaries by designating preservation of wildlife
habitat as the preferred use and disallowing hunting. The
constitution allows the legislature to define preferred uses.
11:17:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON queried whether the constitution uses the
term renewable or not.
MR. SAXBY, quoting a statute from memory said, "Fish, forest,
wildlife, and other replenishable and natural resources, shall
be maintained according to the sustained yield principal subject
to preferences among beneficial uses."
11:17:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether this bill will affect the
proposed regulations that the Board of Game is contemplating for
the designation of guided, big game hunting areas.
MR. SAXBY said that the game board is not making guide area
designations. However, DNR is considering a program to lease
state lands to big game guides. He indicated that it would not
interfere, because hunting is still allowed in the area and the
land is owned by the state.
11:19:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referred to the 165 parcels of private
land that are adjacent to Unit 19. Turning to page 3, line 19,
she paraphrased from the language, which reads: "Access to and
from private property ... shall be guaranteed through access
corridors ... in consultation with the Department of Fish and
Game and a private property owner." She asked what is the
procedure for the private land owners to have access via the
corridors.
MR. SAXBY suggested that DNR could provide the best response as
far as the specific process, however, the language is nearly
identical to other legislation that has been adopted for other
reservations.
11:20:44 AM
MR. MYLIUS replied that if language stipulates one department is
to consult with another, the action is handled by the agency
initiating the consultation.
11:21:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said that the language appears to be
restrictive, and access may only be allowed via a designated
corridor.
MR. MYLIUS explained that access may be handled via two
different means. When a statute requires that a management plan
be prepared, the access may be included in that plan. For
future access of a currently unknown parcel, such as a Native
allotment, the owner would approach DNR. In response, DNR would
consult with ADF&G, and an access route would be mapped that
would have minimal impact on habitat and animal migrations. The
bill does not restrict access, but ensures that it would be
provided.
MR. SAXBY concurred.
11:24:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI referred to the previous testimony
regarding the methane permit requests that were denied.
MR. MYLIUS stated he would provide that information to the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI followed up, asking whether this bill
would set the bar higher for permits to explore for coal bed
methane.
MR. MYLIUS responded yes, the bar would be raised, as the
wildlife management would be prioritized. Should a conflict
arise, the department would be required to err on the side of
fish and game management.
11:26:03 AM
CHAIR EDGMON inquired what would happen without the reserve
being named; would DNR not err on the side of fish and game.
MR. MYLIUS replied that in that case both entities would be
considered equal. The decision would be made at the time for
what would be in the state's best interest, and he provided
examples regarding how this might work.
11:27:28 AM
CHAIR EDGMON surmised that from a practical standpoint, and
regarding the availability for non-renewable resources, this
bill would essentially codify the natural order of how things
exist today.
MR. MYLIUS agreed that it is a fair statement, because the
management plan already calls for the area to be administered
for historical use. The bill would solidify, or lend some
permanence to the management plan, as land use plans are
administrative actions that can be changed, he pointed out.
CHAIR EDGMON directed attention to the map titled: Proposed
Location of the Holitna River Basin Hunting, Fishing and
Trapping reserve. He asked what percent of the 4 million acres
might be in play for mineral development.
MR. MYLIUS indicated that mining claims exist and may affect 5
percent of the area, but it is considered low potential. He
cautioned that with more intensive, modern exploration methods
mineral deposits may be discovered.
11:30:49 AM
CHAIR EDGMON asked if there is a means for the department to
obtain a better understanding of what exists in the area,
mineral wise.
MR. MYLIUS responded that aerial magnetic mapping is one means
for gathering hard rock resource information. Oil and gas would
require exploratory wells, but there has been no interest in oil
and gas development of this area.
11:31:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON queried if there is a possibility that
the area might become a corridor for utilities or a natural gas
line.
11:32:24 AM
MR. MYLIUS reported that it is out of the area for a natural gas
line, however, electrical transmission lines would need to go
through the area, particularly if the Pebble Mine were
developed.
11:33:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON interjected that there should be no
conflict unless something were to tie Donlin and Pebble
together.
11:34:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if anything in this legislation
would prohibit that corridor.
11:34:25 AM
MR. MYLIUS responded that it would not prohibit, but may add
some requirements and stipulations to minimize impacts.
11:34:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired about fiscal notes.
11:35:23 AM
MR. MYLIUS indicated that DNR would have a zero fiscal note.
The department would not be required to take any action.
11:36:25 AM
CHAIR EDGMON announced that HB 227 would be held for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB227 Sponsor Statement.PDF |
HFSH 1/26/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 227 |
| SSHB 227 Sectional.PDF |
HFSH 1/26/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 227 |
| HB 227 Support.PDF |
HFSH 1/26/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 227 |
| HB 227 - Area Plan Adopted by DNR (1988).PDF |
HFSH 1/26/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 227 |
| HB 227 HolitnaMap_01212010.pdf |
HFSH 1/26/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 227 |
| HB 227 Game Management Units Map.pdf |
HFSH 1/26/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 227 |
| HB 227 Boundaries Overlay Map.pdf |
HFSH 1/26/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 227 |