Legislature(2007 - 2008)BARNES 124
04/02/2007 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB203 | |
| HJR4 | |
| HB220 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 203 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 220 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 203-KODIAK NARROW CAPE PUBLIC USE AREA 1:32:52 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 203, "An Act creating the Kodiak Narrow Cape Public Use Area." 1:33:08 PM SUZANNE HANCOCK, Staff to Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska State Legislature, speaking on behalf of Representative LeDoux, sponsor of HB 203, specified that the updated version of the sponsor statement states that there are five public use areas recognized in state law. Therefore, it acknowledges the existence of the Knik Arm River Public Use Area. 1:33:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to adopt CSHB 203, Version 25- LS0732\E, Bullock, 4/2/07, as the working document. There being no objection, Version E was before the committee. 1:34:31 PM MS. HANCOCK noted that the committee packet should include a conceptual amendment addressing some of the concerns brought forth at the prior hearing. Ms. Hancock explained that the changes incorporated in Version E were primarily the legal description of the Kodiak Narrow Cape Public Use Area. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) eliminated about 10,000 acres from the original land designation. The term "may" was changed to "shall" with regard to the management plan. 1:35:33 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO turned to public testimony. 1:35:52 PM JEROME SELBY, Mayor, Kodiak Island Borough, said that HB 203 is an important bill to Kodiak. He related that several years ago there was an attempt to transfer this land to the University of Alaska, which indicated that it was going to dispose of a significant amount of the land. The land, which he characterized as a significant piece of public recreation land on the Kodiak road system, was at risk. He pointed out that most of the land on the road system is privately owned and there's little land that is easily accessible by automobile for the Kodiak community to utilize for recreation purposes. After the land was withdrawn from the university legislation, the community came together to discuss the best classification for the land, one that allows multiple uses such as hunting, fishing, grazing, and the rocket launch. He thanked Representative LeDoux and Senator Stevens who worked with DNR to develop this classification. Mayor Selby acknowledged that designating the area as a public use area doesn't mean the land is locked up forever. However, it raises the threshold such that it requires returning to the legislature if another use of this land is allowed. In conclusion, Mayor Selby requested the committee's support of HB 203. 1:39:27 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO asked if the rocket launch is the same as the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation (AADC). MAYOR SELBY replied yes. In further response to Co-Chair Gatto, Mayor Selby explained that the AADC is a wholly-owned state subsidiary corporation. The AADC has a lease on a portion of the area to be designated as the Kodiak Narrow Cape Public Use Area, which the community fully supports. 1:39:58 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO posed a scenario in which AADC leaves, and asked if the land would revert back to the state. MAYOR SELBY said that the AADC has a lease from the state and thus it will continue to be state land. In further response to Co-Chair Gatto, Mayor Selby related his belief that [the proposed Kodiak Narrow Cape Public Use Area] amounts to about 46,000 acres. 1:40:27 PM RICK GIFFORD, Manager, Kodiak Island Borough, reiterated the importance of the area to the public. He, too, thanked Senator Stevens and Representative LeDoux for introducing HB 203. 1:41:38 PM LARRY DEVILBISS, Director, Division of Agriculture, Department of Natural Resources, related that his only concern is that everyone should be aware that this proposed public use area lays over existing cattle leases. This would not be as valuable a recreation area if it were not for the prior cattle ranching. The cattle leases exist with the existing leases stating that the recreational use is available. He explained that he wanted to be sure that any new classifications don't eclipse the existing grass leases. 1:44:03 PM PAT LADNER, President & CEO, Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation (AADC), Department of Administration, began by relating AADC's support for HB 203. He also related support for public recreation. The AADC has 3,717 acres under an inter- agency agreement from DNR as well as around 8,000 acres total for safety and security. Mr. Ladner said that he reviewed HB 203 in order to ensure that AADC's operations are not hampered. He opined that public safety and environmental [safety] are of paramount importance. When AADC embarks on dangerous operations, access to the area is closed. The aforementioned only occurs during a launch, which is about six hours prior to the launch. Helicopters are utilized to ensure no one has wandered into the area and local vessels are utilized to form a corridor in the water to ensure that a vessel doesn't wander into the area during the final count of the launch. 1:47:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if there are public airstrips [located in the proposed public use area]. He then asked if AADC has an air strip. MR. LADNER specified that AADC does not have an airstrip. Although AADC's long-range plan has reviewed the possibility of an airstrip, the organization doesn't have the funds or the plans to do so at this time. 1:48:26 PM DICK MYLIUS, Director, Division Mining, Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources, offered to answer any questions. 1:48:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if it's necessary to include a provision specifying under Section 1 that one of the purposes is the continuation of the missile launch facility. MR. MYLIUS opined that the missile launch facility is already adequately protected by the language in Section 1(b) and (c) of HB 203. 1:50:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised then that the conceptual amendment that would include a provision to continue to allow grazing uses is just a reiteration of what is contained in Section 1(b) and (c). MR. MYLIUS said that although that's generally correct, he related his understanding that some desired for the grazing use to have a bit higher profile in the purpose section. In further response to Representative Seaton, Mr. Mylius said that from DNR's regarding the launch facility's use Section 1(b) and (c) is sufficient. 1:51:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON, referring to page 2, lines 24-25, inquired as to the differences between public use area and a state park system. MR. MYLIUS clarified that state park units are lands that are generally not considered multiple use. As a general rule the lands are typically set aside specifically for recreation- related purposes. Therefore, as a general rule parks are closed to mineral entry and there are usually limitations on leasing. Grazing is usually not allowed. Mr. Mylius said that the least intensively managed areas are generally public recreation areas, such as Chena State Recreation Area or Nancy Lakes. However, those recreation areas are closed to multiple use, such as grazing. The next higher level is state parks that may have additional restrictions and regulations. 1:52:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON related his understanding that a management plan is required for state parks. MR. MYLIUS said that although DNR has prepared management plans for most state parks, he was unsure if there is legislation requiring such. 1:53:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired as to what Version E changes in regard to the legal description of the proposed public use area. MR. MYLIUS characterized the change as primarily a drafting change. The legal description in HB 203 versus Version E aren't significantly different, except in how the tidelands are described. Basically, Version E squares off the boundary in the tidelands area. In HB 203 the tidelands were established at a certain distance from the shore. However, Legislative Legal and Research Services felt that the language in HB 203 was inconsistent with similar language in other legislation. Mr. Mylius specified that the new legal description doesn't significantly change what areas are included in the proposed public use area. 1:54:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired as to why the provision on page 2, line 14, provides such a strict definition of "additional uses." MR. MYLIUS related that HB 203 was, to some extent, patterned after the legislation for the Knik Arm Public Use Area in which existing uses were specifically identified. He further related that DNR doesn't have a strong concern whether the list is specified or not. 1:56:10 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired as to what would happen if the specified additional uses become a conflict with grazing leases. MR. MYLIUS responded that such an issue would need to be sorted out through a management plan. Although the language on page 2, line 14, specifies that "the commissioner shall allow additional uses," it doesn't necessarily mean that every use listed would be allowed in all areas. The department doesn't view the list as all-inclusive or that all the listed uses have to be allowed throughout the public use area. He noted that some of the earlier public use areas don't include such a list. 1:57:56 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO asked if DNR would have any problem with changing "shall" to "may" on page 2, line 14. MR. MYLIUS answered that would be fine, and perhaps even preferable. 1:58:14 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON pointed out that use of the term "may" could result in not allowing the uses as well as allowing the additional uses. Therefore, he expressed the need to be specific such that it's not restrictive but rather inclusive. 1:58:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised that under the "shall" language DNR would have the authority to limit uses for habitat degradation or does having that language in statute mean that DNR loses its ability to regulate for the protection of habitat or the purposes of the legislation. MR. MYLIUS replied no because the lead-in sentence says, "Consistent with the purposes of AS 41.23.240(1) and (2), which refer to maintaining, protecting, and enhancing year-round public recreation and enjoyment and use of fish and wildlife. Although AS 41.23.240(1) and (2) does not specifically refer to habitat protection, the language could be read to allow DNR to regulate a use that is degrading a resource for which the public use was established. 2:00:32 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO turned attention to page 2, line 27, which specifies that the "commissioner may prohibit or restrict uses determined to be incompatible." If it's hunting season and someone shots a moose, would the person who owns the leases be able to say that's dangerous. He asked if something such as that has been envisioned. MR. MYLIUS replied no, and explained that the leases don't grant rights to the grazer to prohibit public uses, including hunting. He reminded the committee that the proposed public use area would still be state land and the only right the grazer has is to have the animals present and the construction of fences, if those are consistent with a plan. Still, the leaseholders can't restrict public use and can't control hunting. 2:02:21 PM DOUG LETCH indicated that although he is staff to Senator Gary Stevens and has done some work on this legislation in the Senate, he is speaking on his own behalf today. He noted his agreement with Representative Johnson that the legislation is trying to protect the existing uses of the Kodiak Narrow Cape. As a resident of Kodiak, Mr. Letch indicated that he likes HB 203. 2:03:51 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO, upon determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony. 2:03:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved that the committee adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, as follows: Section 41.23.240 is amended to read: (3) Allow for the continued use of this area for grazing uses and operations consistent with state land use plans and other applicable laws and regulations. Renumber accordingly. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. 2:04:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES related his understanding that the language doesn't supersede any of the existing laws or regulations, and thus leases would have to be obtained and go through the process. 2:05:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to report CSHB 203, Version 25- LS0732\E, Bullock, 4/2/07, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 203(RES) was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|