Legislature(2017 - 2018)BUTROVICH 205
02/02/2018 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Alaska's State Managed Game Refuges, Sanctuaries & Critical Habitat Areas | |
| HB130 | |
| SB158 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 130 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 158 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 130-GAME REFUGE/CRIT HABITAT AREA BOUNDARIES
3:57:57 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced consideration of HB 130 that aims to
correct old errors that were made in documenting the parcels of
land within various state managed special areas. These errors
result in some parcels being excluded from the special
management areas, contrary to the intent of the law. She said HB
130 was introduced in February 2017 and passed the other body in
April. It came to this committee at the end of the 2017 regular
session. She invited Ms. Foss to present it to the committee.
MORGAN FOSS, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), said the department has
been considering this issue for a long time. Some of these
errors have existed since the mapping was done as early as 1913.
She said each special area is defined in statute, so those
boundary descriptions may be by township or based on maps that
were drawn up by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in
the 1960/70s. The first one is the Izembek State Game Refuge on
the Alaska Peninsula near Cold Bay and it was established by the
legislature in 1972. The lagoon area includes tidal and
submerged land and is delineated by the mean high-water line
onshore. The red areas were not including in statute as
containing mean high-water line and that is why they want them
added to meet the statutory intent. They were omitted because of
errors in the USGS maps or lack of information when these were
established. The intent of the statute is to incorporate these
water bodies within the National Wildlife Refuge Watershed and
adding the entire water body fully protects the waterfowl and
shorebird habitat of the bay and the lagoon.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if the red areas had not been claimed as
private property.
MS. FOSS answered no.
4:01:27 PM
SENATOR BISHOP said these survey changes will have to be
advertised in the public record and asked if that had been done.
MS. FOSS replied that they had performed surveys on certain
areas that are included within the refuge boundaries. Others
will be done upon inclusion into the sanctuary. A large part of
their work is outreach to the public. So, if this were to pass
the legislature, they would certainly reach out to affected
users within each of the refuges to inform them of the changes.
In many instances, because they are following the intent of the
statute to the best of their ability, there will not be
significant impacts to users by cleaning up the statutory
language.
4:02:59 PM
MS. FOSS said the next slide described Cape Newenham State Game
Refuge that is similar to the situation in Izembek. It was also
established in 1972 and includes tidal and submerged land. A
segment of Chagvan Bay was not described in its entirety in
statute and this would be clean up language to describe where
the mean high-water line is. They would conduct surveys to
describe that in the management plan, as well.
The Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge was designated in 1975
and contains watersheds fed from the Matanuska and the Knik
Rivers. The affected areas relate to riverbeds that are owned by
the public in the state. Currently these waterways have
motorized boat access and so incorporating them into their
authority would not impact users from bringing boats up into
these areas. They also have general permits for winter overland
travel (ATV access) on frozen waterways. In almost all cases,
these are anadromous streams supporting salmon spawning and
rearing activity. That is why they would like them included to
meet the intent of the statute. She explained that these plats
were surveyed in 1913 with a fixed river channel description and
since that time these waterways have shifted and now meander in
and out of that fixed plat description. So, this language is a
clean up and will allow them to apply their land management plan
to areas that were previously excluded.
4:05:32 PM
MS. FOSS said the Port Moller Critical Habitat Area (CHA) was
designated in 1972 and the legal description was a misprint and
shifted the range six miles west of where it was intended to be.
It was supposed to exclude the community of Nelson Lagoon but
was placed within a critical habitat area. Since then, the
department, knowing that was an error, has not pursued any
habitat permitting for the community.
4:06:54 PM
The Egegik Critical Habitat Area boundary had two typos in the
original legislation from 1972. In both instances the characters
in the description were replaced with a 1 instead of a 2 and
north instead of south. So, a non-contiguous block is affected.
The same goes for Pilot Point. Ms. Foss explained that only
state lands are affected by these corrections and the locations
are not near any infrastructure or villages.
4:07:41 PM
Fox River Flats Critical Habitat Area was created in Kachemak
Bay in 1972 and partially overlaps the Kachemak Bay Critical
Habitat Area. Four of the seven sections in the northeast corner
excluded tidal and submerged lands. The exclusion was not
applied consistently across either the upland or tideland
(purple line on the map) in the submerged area. The only land
added within the boundary to that CHA is areas where the purple
line intersects with the blue hatched areas which includes the
Bradley River on the east side, as well. She noted that Kachemak
Bay is simultaneously sinking, and the land is rebounding. This
impacts the channels where the purple lines intersect with tidal
lands. These channels contain coho rearing habitat and the
department wants to consistently apply their management plan
across those areas.
4:09:51 PM
MS. FOSS said the Kachemak Bay CHA boundary description resulted
from one township being omitted from the list that was submitted
to create this area, an oversight. Kachemak Bay CHA was
established in 1974 and it was described within a list of
townships and ranges. Shifting the boundary will add around 200
acres to this CHA (without having surveyed it). It will not
impact current property owners or user access.
4:11:40 PM
Finally, the one addition to a critical habitat area is the
addition of 1400 acres in Dude Creek CHA (created in 1988) near
the City of Gustavus. The proposed addition was purchased by the
Nature Conservancy in 2004 and transferred to the state for
management. The intended purposed was to include it in the Dude
Creek Critical Habitat Area. DNR is the custodian now. In order
to incorporate this into the CHA, as the community has asked,
its description would need to be included in statute and a
management plan would have to be developed. In 2016, the City of
Gustavus passed a resolution urging the legislature to make
these changes so they could work with the departments on the
management plan. The significance of this area is that it is a
stop-over area for migratory sand hill cranes and other
migratory birds. Motorized vehicle use is still allowed as is
hunting and trapping. User access across Icy Strait will not be
impacted.
Language in HB 130 says the management plan should preserve
access to non-critical habitat area land (private land, a school
trust parcel, and the Native allotment).
4:14:00 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony on HB 130.
WAYNE HALL, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, supported
HB 130. He is a big supporter of special areas in Alaska and the
boundary changes and additions, especially in the Dude Creek
area, because they benefit fish and wildlife.
MARILYN HOUSER, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska,
supported HB 130. It's extremely important to preserve habitat,
and she wished to see these areas managed for the preservation
and protection of fish and wildlife habitat.
4:16:51 PM
ROBERT ARCHIBALD, Friends of Kachemak Bay State Park, Homer,
Alaska, supported HB 130. He also was speaking on behalf of the
Kachemak Bay Water Trail. The management plan for the critical
habitat is being updated at this time for both Kachemak Bay and
Fox River Flats and it would be beneficial for the two areas to
coincide with the new management plans.
4:18:16 PM
NICOLE AREVALO, representing herself, Homer, Alaska, supported
HB 130. She sees making these changes a bit like re-editing the
grammar on a second draft of an essay. Since 1970, ADF&G has had
time to manage these areas; mapping has improved, and the
boundary mistakes have been caught over the years. Now is a good
time to correct them.
ADF&G has determined there would be no additional costs
associated with the proposed changes. In fact, these minor
alterations will save them time. The changes make sensible
concise legal boundaries freeing up some lands that are not
right for habitat protection including the Nelson Lagoon. The
wetlands in the CHA have already been purchased and donated to
the state for the express purpose of being included in that
management area in cooperation with Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), and they have been being managed by ADF&G
similarly to the rest of the CHA. Their official inclusion into
that boundary is simply the final step in the legal process the
state agencies have been following.
TOM ROTHE, representing himself, Eagle River, Alaska, supported
HB 130. He is a retired ADF&G waterfowl biologist and is very
familiar with the special areas. He said the state public lands
are increasingly important because access is becoming limited,
even in Alaska, especially around urban areas. He emphasized
that over the years ADF&G has done a very competent and
transparent job of management planning for every one of these
areas, dealing with "some really thorny issues" on a couple of
them. These management plans are very thorough and represent the
best solutions bearing in mind all the values of these areas.
He also pointed out that the management of state game refuges,
in particular, and CHAs is substantially different than on the
National Wildlife Refuges and federal conservation units.
Everyone agrees that the best sensible regulation comes from
those closest to home and who use the resources. He also said it
would be embarrassing for the government to not correct boundary
lines for 40 years. No one would want the government to come in
and pencil the property line in over their land, and one doesn't
know whether the private landowner has to comply or not. The
mistakes should be corrected, especially where Nelson Lagoon got
accidentally included in a loop they weren't aware of. In
closing, he emphasized that none of the actions in this bill
will substantially change a management plan or increase
restrictions. It will not call for policy changes that affect
how people use these areas.
4:25:50 PM
GEORGE PIERCE, representing himself, Kasilof, Alaska, opposed HB
130. He said it's a terrible idea. Once everyone starts driving
on the new road, "there goes the wildlife and it won't come
back." He urged them to protect fish and wildlife.
4:26:11 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL, finding no further comments, closed public
testimony and finding no questions, she set HB 130 aside.