02/02/2010 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB281 | |
| HB276 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 281 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 276 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 2, 2010
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Herron, Co-Chair
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz, Co-Chair
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Harris
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 281
"An Act relating to the duties of the commissioner of fish and
game and to the interest of the Board of Game in public safety
as it relates to game."
-HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 276
"An Act amending the description of parcels within the Fort
Rousseau Causeway State Historical Park; and providing for an
effective date."
-MOVED CSHB 276(CRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 281
SHORT TITLE: BOARD OF GAME/FISH & GAME COMMISSIONER
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MILLETT
01/15/10 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/10
01/19/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/10 (H) CRA, RES
02/02/10 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 276
SHORT TITLE: FORT ROUSSEAU CAUSEWAY HIST PARK
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) P.WILSON
01/15/10 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/10
01/19/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/10 (H) CRA
02/02/10 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the prime sponsor of HB 281.
JENNIFER YUHAS, Legislative Liaison
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HB 281.
KEVIN SAXBY, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 281, answered
questions.
LARRY KANIUT
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 281.
BRAD HERZOG
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Characterized HB 281 as common sense
legislation that he supports.
DEREK HSIEH, Sergeant
Anchorage Police Department
Municipality of Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 281, answered
questions.
STACY SHUBERT, Intergovernmental Affairs Director
Municipality of Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 281.
RONALD JORDAN
Taku/Campbell Community Council
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 281.
REED HARRIS, Staff
Representative Peggy Wilson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the sponsor of HB
276, Representative Wilson.
MARY SIROKY, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 276, answered
questions.
DEBRA LYONS, Executive Director
Sitka Trail Works
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HB 276.
VERNE SKAGERBERG, Transportation Planner
Aviation Planner
Southeast Region
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 276, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:05:26 AM
CO-CHAIR BOB HERRON called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:05 a.m.
Representatives Herron, Munoz, Millett, Keller, Cissna, and
Gardner were present at the call to order.
HB 281-BOARD OF GAME/FISH & GAME COMMISSIONER
8:06:06 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 281, "An Act relating to the duties of the
commissioner of fish and game and to the interest of the Board
of Game in public safety as it relates to game."
8:06:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as
the prime sponsor, explained that HB 281 would change the focus
of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game's (ADF&G) management
style in urban Alaska to focus first on public safety versus
abundance. She related that one of the main issues she hears
about from constituents is the abundance of bears and the human
contact with them. She related her own experiences with bears
in the community and specified that the bears about which she
speaks are urbanized bears, that is bears that are third and
fourth generation bears in the city. These urbanized bears act
differently than they would in the wild and aren't afraid of
humans. The aforementioned creates a dangerous situation. With
the proposed change in the legislation, the Anchorage Police
Department (APD) would be allowed to take action if a bear is
deemed a threat. Although the aforementioned is already the
case, there is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between ADF&G
and APD that ADF&G would like for APD to call ADF&G and apprise
it of the situation. Representative Millet, however, didn't
believe there is too much to discuss when the situation is one
in which the bear is socialized and hanging out in a
neighborhood. Although she acknowledged that residents have a
responsibility to take better care [with their garbage and bird
feeders], she opined that the bears are conditioned to a point
that the bear and human interactions will continue.
8:10:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her understanding that HB 281
effectively only applies to Anchorage. She questioned why it
wouldn't apply statewide if it's good policy.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT, as a legislator from Anchorage, said
that she is open to other communities joining this charge, but
wasn't familiar enough with other communities to include them.
8:11:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT, in response to Co-Chair Munoz, informed
the committee that currently there are two ADF&G officers who
work in the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA). She recalled when
she couldn't get in her truck because bears were circling it.
When she called APD, APD told her they don't respond to bears
unless they are aggressive or it's an emergency situation. The
APD then offered to notify ADF&G. Therefore, changing the MOU
between ADF&G and APD in statute such that APD can respond will
result in a much different response, she opined.
8:13:32 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ asked if the communities in the Anchorage area
have addressed the issue of containing personal garbage.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT answered that although the municipality
hasn't addressed the aforementioned, some working groups have
worked with Waste Management on bear containers for various
areas in MOA. However, the only municipal ordinance related to
garbage collection is that garbage can't be out until 6:00 a.m.,
the morning of the collection day. She characterized Juneau as
a great example as it very aggressively made adjustments in the
municipal code to [address the bear situation]. However, in a
town of 360,000 it's a different dynamic when trying to address
something through the municipality. While Representative Millet
agreed that MOA should be more aggressive [with regard to
addressing the matter in municipal code], she opined that the
matter should be addressed now before anyone else is mauled.
8:15:07 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ recalled that she sat on the Juneau Assembly when
Juneau formulated its ordinance and she characterized it as a
difficult process that required much community buy-in. However,
she characterized the ordinance as an important first step in
addressing the problem and opined that in order to achieve
effective change, there has to be a change in behavior in the
community. Therefore, she expressed her desire to engage with
the Anchorage Assembly on this issue.
8:15:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA directed attention to the following
language on page 2, lines 2-4: "the board shall authorize the
police department of the municipality to take game when the
taking serves to protect human life from immediate harm from the
game." She then recalled riding along with police who are
having difficulty finding enough staff to address domestic
violence. She opined that if the seeing of bears is considered
immediate harm, then a lot of police would be involved. This
legislation seems to continue the current practice and doesn't
seem to be anything new.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT clarified that this legislation isn't
addressing one bear account in the summer; rather it's
addressing a situation in which a sow and three cubs are living
in a residential backyard. Furthermore, she opined that a sow
and cubs can't coexist with her lifestyle in urban Alaska. The
"immediate danger" is when the bears are born and raised in
urban settings and aren't afraid of humans.
8:19:48 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON inquired as to Representative Millett's
understanding of the current priority related to public safety.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT explained that the two ADF&G officers in
Anchorage are tasked with being responders to wildlife human
interaction. In a large area such as the MOA, those two ADF&G
officers have a tough job. This legislation merely removes the
restriction, included in the MOU, requiring that APD call ADF&G
prior to any action with wildlife. Therefore, this legislation
allows APD to use its discretion with cases involving wildlife.
8:21:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER opined that she wasn't sure the passage
of HB 281 would've changed the outcomes of the situations that
Representative Millett described earlier.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT clarified that she was merely one of many
phone calls made to ADF&G this past summer when parks were
closed and folks had to adjust their lives to be safe [because
bears were in the neighborhood]. While awareness is
appropriate, when children and families are afraid to be in
their backyard and neighborhood, the balance has shifted.
Representative Millett emphasized that she is seeking a sensible
solution and isn't advocating having an open hunt in Anchorage,
although the bears are being managed for abundance, as if there
is an open hunt. She reiterated the need for a sensible
solution and a way in which to have a public conversation
regarding what is public safety; what is an aggressive bear;
what are the appropriate actions. As it stands now, the bear
population is growing in urban Alaska and this legislation
offers a proactive approach by changing the management focus.
8:24:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER opined that she wasn't sure the proposed
language would've allowed APD to have responded differently to
the circumstances described by the sponsor. The situations
described by the sponsor don't pose "immediate harm".
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said that she would entertain any
suggestions to improve the legislation.
8:25:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER inquired as to what actions the sponsor
would envision the municipality using to develop policy
regulations and memorandums per HB 281.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT explained that HB 281 would eliminate the
need for a MOU and allow APD to use its discretion without
calling ADF&G.
8:26:15 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON asked if ADF&G has population ratios of bears in
[the MOA].
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said she didn't recall any specific
numbers from ADF&G. However, she recalled conversations in
which Rick Sinnott, Wildlife Biologist, ADF&G, relayed that the
encounters are up and bear numbers are relatively the same.
Therefore, she surmised that the bears are becoming more
urbanized and familiar with her neighborhood.
8:27:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related her belief that garbage is the
problem, adding that there's a similar problem with moose in her
neighborhood. She questioned whether [the subject] of this
legislation would be more appropriate for the municipality to
address through its ordinances.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT opined that this legislation and
municipal ordinances could go hand-in-hand. However, first
changing ADF&G's management for abundance in urban Alaska to
manage for public safety would provide comfort that [the
department] isn't encouraging this species to grow in MOA.
Representative Millett related that managing wildlife for public
safety means to her that there will be less bears and more
proactive responses such that bears that have settled into the
community are removed. She did, however, agree that this is a
state issue regarding management of wildlife in urban settings
and is a personal responsibility as well. She restated her
agreement that the municipality should be more proactive on this
matter. Still, management for abundance assumes management for
hunting or subsistence, but wildlife isn't taken in Anchorage
for the aforementioned purposes.
8:29:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if the sponsor has evidence that APD
is thinking in terms of abundance.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT clarified that ADF&G manages for
abundance, per statute.
8:30:39 AM
JENNIFER YUHAS, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game, began by providing the committee with documentation
regarding the number of bear maulings in Anchorage and a
breakdown of the department's concerns with this legislation.
Ms. Yuhas informed the committee that ADF&G agrees that public
safety is a primary concern in managing wildlife. However, the
language in the proposed legislation is either unnecessary, as
the authority already exists, or poses unintended consequences.
With regard to abundance, there have been several misconceptions
at public meetings regarding the meaning of managing for
abundance. The state is divided into 26 game management units,
each of which is managed for its individual eco-system. Still,
ADF&G doesn't manage for an abundance of bears in urban
populations. At a meeting the sponsor held in Anchorage, ADF&G
provided testimony that the bear numbers were relatively the
same or a little bit lower in the Anchorage area.
MS. YUHAS then identified the major concern with the legislation
as the possibility of a significant increase in litigation.
Although the sponsor statement proposes to address bears, the
legislation actually addresses game. However, there are many
more moose encounters and there are several other wildlife
issues. Therefore, the department questions at what point it
will be litigated for not adhering to public safety issues were
this change in statute to occur. Furthermore, this legislation
would elevate public safety over subsistence as a use that
applies statewide for the department's management practices.
Ms. Yuhas explained that each game management unit is managed
through public testimony, the advisory committees, and the Board
of Game process. The department believes there are ways in
which to address this issue other than this legislation.
Therefore, she expressed the department's desire to work with
the sponsor in developing tangible solutions for the Anchorage
area. Ms. Yuhas then expressed concern that the legislation has
a constitutional conflict with the department's sustained yield
principle management. She pointed out that the sustained yield
principle doesn't necessarily translate to abundance. Sustained
yield, she explained, is similar to a bank account in that
there's the desire for interest to be produced from which one is
able to draw. Therefore, under the sustained yield principle
there's the desire to have interest of a species that can be
used. In rural areas where species are used as a food source,
the interest rate is high, which is considered abundance. The
department is not managing for an abundance of bears in an urban
area. She then pointed out that HB 281 would apply to the
Municipality of Anchorage as well as the Fairbanks North Star
Borough and likely the Mat-Su Borough. This legislation, she
opined, will likely open debate on rural/urban issues and
whether residents in Barrow who have polar bears walking through
their community deserve the same public safety as those in
Anchorage. Still, the department believes that the authority
given already provides the same degree of public safety to all
residents of the state. The department expects to be able to
work through its staff to address those situations in which sows
are camping out in a neighborhood, especially since this
legislation wouldn't fix that.
8:35:46 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ inquired as to any tangible solutions Ms. Yuhas
may have.
MS. YUHAS noted that ADF&G has an ongoing dialogue with MOA
regarding possible revisions to the MOU. In fact, last year
there was a proposal to increase the number of staff to address
urban bears. However, that proposal didn't make it through one
of the [Finance Subcommittees]. The department has had some
focus groups in Anchorage to discuss some of the sensible
solutions and what people would characterize as an aggressive
bear.
8:37:35 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON asked if the Anchorage Advisory Committee is
basically the boundaries of the municipality. He then recalled
that Ms. Yuhas had commented that "game" includes many animals,
and inquired as to the proper definition for bears, wolves, and
coyotes if it replaced the term game in the legislation.
MS. YUHAS confirmed that the Anchorage Advisory Committee
represents basically the boundaries of MOA. In further response
to Co-Chair Herron, she related that ADF&G refers to predators,
large predators, and fur bearers. She said that she would have
to research her definition on "coyote" in order to determine
whether wolves, coyotes, and bears would be lumped together in
one of the aforementioned categories.
CO-CHAIR HERRON asked if the department has thought about
[what's proposed in HB 281] prior to this legislation.
MS. YUHAS replied no, adding that when a predator population is
decreased an undulate population is increased. She pointed out
that moose in Anchorage cause more traffic accidents and attack
more humans [than bears]. In fact, there is a group that would
like to transport moose outside of Anchorage.
CO-CHAIR HERRON surmised then that moose are urbanized, and yet
they're something that residents like to have in their
community. However, he questioned whether predators are
different than moose.
MS. YUHAS noted her agreement that predators are a totally
different class of animals that pose a different set of
problems. The original question, she recalled, was regarding
whether ADF&G had reviewed managing for public safety as a
mandate rather than the existing practice that takes public
safety into consideration. She reiterated concern over the
unintended consequences that managing for public safety could
cause in the form of litigation.
8:40:53 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON inquired as to the department's priority as
related to public safety.
MS. YUHAS clarified that public safety is a response not a
management [practice].
8:41:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if ADF&G would've been more
responsive to some of the situations that the sponsor described
had the past effort to add more staff occurred.
MS. YUHAS specified that although she's not advocating for a
program, increasing responders increases response. In further
response to Representative Gardner, Ms. Yuhas said she would be
speculating regarding whether a larger staff could've had a
greater response rate.
8:42:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed interest in knowing what kinds
of incidents have been reported to ADF&G. She then highlighted
that Anchorage is trying to return its streams to fish streams,
which attract bears. Therefore, there needs to be a discussion
regarding the impacts of different management schemes. To that
end, the legislature should consider legislation that increases
ADF&G personnel in Anchorage for educational and discussion
purposes.
8:45:02 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced the intent of the co-chairs to hold HB
281. He then requested that Ms. Yuhas work with the sponsor to
narrow the term "game" to refer to predators and further explore
public safety as a response protocol.
MS. YUHAS stated that the legislation definitely refers to a
public safety response. With regard to whether public safety is
a management tool, Ms. Yuhas explained that public safety is
incorporated into the discussions. However, to change ADF&G's
statute to prioritize public safety in terms of management
doesn't meet the constitutional needs of the rest of the system.
CO-CHAIR HERRON opined that the management of this type of
animal and the population levels on the Alaska Peninsula is very
different than those same animals between Lake Otis and Service
High School.
8:47:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if Ms. Yuhas believes HB 281, as
currently written, is unconstitutional.
MS. YUHAS replied yes.
8:47:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER returned to the scenario presented by the
sponsor, and inquired as to ADF&G's response if the bear had
shown aggression and was shot by the individual in the
situation.
MS. YUHAS deferred to Mr. Saxby, but added that the main concern
is that managing for all public safety would pose litigation for
any animal in Anchorage that caused a problem.
8:48:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if HB 281, as proposed, is
unconstitutional.
8:48:54 AM
KEVIN SAXBY, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Natural
Resources Section, Department of Law, clarified that he wouldn't
say that the legislation is unconstitutional, but said that it
raises significant constitutional issues, specifically related
to Article VII, Section 4, which in general mandates that all
wildlife be managed for sustained yield. However, there is an
allowance subject to preferences among beneficial uses. In
fact, there is a case before the Alaska Supreme Court, the
decision from which will specify the extent to which the
"subject to" clause allows the state to reduce predator
populations. The aforementioned will obviously have bearing on
what's being discussed today. Although the state has held the
position that it's constitutional to develop plans to reduce
predator populations, the language in HB 281 is not crafted in a
manner that's as protective of constitutional concerns. The
case before the Alaska Supreme Court is captioned under
Defenders of Wildlife et.al. v. State.
8:50:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER inquired as to the scenario when an
Alaskan shoots game to protect him/herself.
MR. SAXBY informed the committee that many years ago the Board
of Game adopted a regulation authorizing shooting any game in
defense of life and property. However, if the game was taken
out of season and the citizen was not licensed, there would be
an investigation by ADF&G troopers. If the investigation
illustrated a genuine threat to life or property, there would be
no further consequences.
8:51:26 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ asked if HB 281 covers bears.
MR. SAXBY answered that it seems to cover all game.
8:52:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA referred to documentation in the committee
packet regarding bear maulings in Anchorage. She asked if there
is data or reporting on the human and bear incidents in
Anchorage over the last five years in order to determine the
immediacy of the problem.
MR. SAXBY said that based on the testimony he has heard in his
capacity as attorney for the Board of Game, he is confident that
ADF&G can produce data on the bear/human encounters.
8:55:08 AM
LARRY KANIUT commended the sponsor and opined that it's
appropriate to enact local or statewide legislation on this
issue. He then recalled that in the 1970s bear viewings were
scant, but from 2000-2008 there were three to five bears every
summer in his yard in the De'Armond area. Having spent decades
researching bears, bear attacks, and relationships between bears
and humans, Mr. Kaniut appreciated Representative Millett's
reference to urbanized bears. He then related that problems
with urbanized bears exist elsewhere as well. For example,
about a year ago in Indian Bird 12 bears were killed in defense
of life and the locals related that they had killed at least 20
bears. Therefore, there's a problem with vigilantism. With
regard to the language "immediate harm", he opined that any time
there's a bear there is immediate harm because the animal is
unpredictable. This urbanized bear is a new bear that hasn't
been seen before. He related that although residents of MOA are
being told to store their garbage and bird feeders, the main
attractants for bears in Anchorage is moose cows and the now
stocked fish streams, both of which aren't being addressed by
the department. Mr. Kaniut expressed hope for the introduction
of legislation enabling the Alaska Moose Federation to remove
some of the moose from Anchorage to other areas, which will
address bears to some degree.
9:02:32 AM
BRAD HERZOG characterized HB 281 as common sense legislation
because human life is sacred and thus human safety concerns
should be the priority over predatory animal safety concerns.
He reminded the committee that when bears are aggressive toward
humans when unprovoked, it's highly unnatural bear behavior that
should be remedied prior to the loss of human life or quality
human life. He related that he has interviewed individuals who
have lived in Anchorage since the 1950s, and those individuals
report that bear attitudes have changed over the years such that
bears in the area have became progressively more aggressive
toward humans in some areas. He opined that although there may
have been a smaller population in Anchorage in the
aforementioned timeframe, there was likely a similar bear
population. However, bears likely acted more natural when
encountering humans. Mr. Herzog opined that the animals
referred to in HB 281 are a renewable resource and not
endangered. This legislation, he surmised, is largely about
managing unnatural predator behavior of an abundant predator
urban bear population. He encouraged trying this proposal for
awhile in MOA and if the results are unsatisfactory, legislation
could be introduced to change it back. Mr. Herzog specified
that he is a proponent of HB 281.
MR. HERZOG then addressed some of the earlier comments in the
meeting. Concerning the phone calls that would be received by
dispatch at the police station, he supposed that it would be
correct to say that the number of phone calls would be higher
right after the legislation is passed. However, one must
remember it's left to the discretion of the dispatcher to make
the decision whether or not to dispatch an officer. Mr. Herzog
opined that although there may initially be an increase in
calls, it would eventually subside.
9:05:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if Mr. Herzog agreed with the
earlier comments regarding the attractants of bears being moose
and fish. If so, she asked whether those attractants should be
addressed in responding to problem bears.
MR. HERZOG suggested that problem bears could be tagged and
their behavior observed. He suggested addressing those bears
that are being taught unnatural behavior first. He said that in
deciding whether or not to address reintroducing fish into
Anchorage streams, there should be review of the numbers of fish
in the streams in the past and whether or not there were more
bear encounters and problems then than now.
9:08:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to APD's policy, specifically
regarding whether game is more important than human safety. She
asked if APD has records regarding the [bear] encounters for
which it has received calls and taken action.
9:09:17 AM
DEREK HSIEH, Sergeant, Anchorage Police Department, Municipality
of Anchorage, responded that Representative Cissna's question is
difficult to answer because generally speaking APD deals with
large animal problems, which would include predators, moose, and
some categories of domesticated animals. All those problems are
categorized as animal problems. In 2009 APD responded to 624
animal problems involving all types of animals; additionally,
APD responded to a number of traffic incidents that involved
animals that aren't coded as animal problems. Mr. Hsieh
estimated that annually APD receives 800-1,000 calls involving
an animal issue.
9:10:35 AM
MR. HSIEH, in further response to Representative Cissna,
explained that APD's current policy/practice is to attempt to
notify ADF&G or their troopers regarding their availability to
help manage the problem. If ADF&G or its troopers are
available, then they will have the primary authority and
response in the problem. However, if not, APD will most likely
dispatch an officer if the problem is acute and remedy the
situation based on APD's good judgment and training.
9:11:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to whether the call or safety
is considered first.
MR. HSIEH answered that public safety comes first no matter what
the situation. In regard to HB 281, APD is most interested in
the last half of the change in which the board authorizes the
municipal police department to take action without contacting
ADF&G, thereby allowing APD to have some degree of primary
response. He recalled earlier testimony regarding increasing
ADF&G staff, which he characterized as great. However,
ultimately it would be better for police officers in the field
to know that they have the authority and clarity to resolve
problems, regardless of the animal. He clarified that resolving
problems with animals doesn't necessarily mean destroying the
animal because in many causes the problem can be addressed by
other means. In further response to Representative Cissna, Mr.
Hsieh confirmed that APD officers do receive some training on
wildlife issues, although he characterized wildlife training as
hit or miss. He then told the committee that APD doesn't view
animal problems as distinct from other problems it's called to
address. In fact, officers are encouraged to resolve problems
in a way in which the solution addresses the highest degree of
safety. He offered that APD could mine its data, but would need
to know in what question the committee is interested. For
instance, APD could determine how many animals, of all species,
it has destroyed in a year. The APD could also break down the
animal problems geographically, but determining how many reports
were related to a specific animal would require reviewing every
police report.
9:15:10 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON related that the focus on the animal issues
would be on those that are predators.
MR. HSIEH agreed to inquire whether APD can easily provide such
data.
9:15:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA recommended that the committee develop the
question in order to obtain real data.
9:16:42 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON mentioned the desire to tighten the language of
HB 281, and then announced that the legislation will be held
over for further consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised that the vast majority of the
800-1,000 animal issues involve dogs.
MR. HSIEH related his assumption that dogs would be involved in
the vast majority of animal issues with moose following close
behind.
9:17:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her understanding that currently
APD would notify ADF&G when dispatch receives a call regarding
an animal. If available, APD would respond, sometimes even when
ADF&G is available. Furthermore, currently responding APD
police officers can remedy the problem, while keeping public
safety first, based on their training. She highlighted that the
February 1, 2010, letter from Mr. Hsieh says that HB 281 "gives
the APD the authority to take a bear if it is a known human
threat." However, the legislation says that the police
department would be authorized "to take game when the taking
serves to protect human life from immediate harm from the game",
which is different than a "known human threat." Therefore, she
questioned in what way HB 281 would change existing policy, save
APD not having to notify ADF&G first.
MR. HSIEH answered that it wouldn't [change existing policy];
the legislation merely clarifies and streamlines process.
9:19:09 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ asked if the current law lacks clarity and
authority for APD to act when public safety is in jeopardy.
MR. HSIEH replied no, adding that he hasn't heard of a problem
with officers addressing animal problems. The legislation, he
reiterated, provides for a quicker process by eliminating a
response step or two that may be time consuming and delay
response.
9:20:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised then that passage of HB 281
would allow a quicker process. Therefore, she questioned
whether it would be easier to change departmental policy to
accomplish the goal of HB 281. She questioned why statute that
applies to large cities is necessary.
MR. HSIEH related his understanding that APD is obligated by
statute to contact ADF&G as APD doesn't have the primary
authority to address these animal problems, which APD has
addressed through MOUs and practicality.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said that she would like to hear from the
sponsor regarding whether the aforementioned obligation to
contact ADF&G is in statute or an MOU.
9:22:44 AM
STACY SHUBERT, Intergovernmental Affairs Director, Municipality
of Anchorage, read the following statement in support of HB 281:
The Municipality of Anchorage recognizes the threat of
aggressive animals within the municipality and
appreciates the work of the bill sponsors,
particularly Representative Millett. When a
resident's safety is put in jeopardy, the Anchorage
Police Department does have the authority to take
game. However, we view this legislation as a
proactive step by the [Alaska] Department of Fish &
Game to manage for safety; eliminating the threat
before it is immediate, therefore prioritizing safety
over management for abundance. Furthermore, we
appreciate the language that requires the [Alaska]
Department of Fish & Game to be responsible for
removing and disposing of the carcass in the event
that the APD does, in fact, take the animal.
Therefore, again, we are in support of this bill and I
thank you for the opportunity to testify.
9:24:21 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ asked if MOA has undertaken an effort to address
the issue of containment of garbage to address bear problems.
MS. SHUBERT said that although she has only been on staff with
MOA for the last six months, she is aware that there are some
efforts. However, she said she would have to review the
specifics of those efforts and provide that information to the
committee.
9:25:12 AM
RONALD JORDAN, Taku/Campbell Community Council, testified in
support of HB 281, which he characterized as necessary
legislation. This legislation, he opined, will allow better
safety around schools. Mr. Jordan related his belief that HB
281 should be extended to apply to any locale with bear
problems.
9:26:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT stated that she is open to changing HB
281, which she characterized as a proactive step. She
emphasized that the extra steps sometimes can seem foolish when
reporting an animal issue, and therefore allowing APD to respond
without contacting ADF&G is necessary. In conclusion,
Representative Millett welcomed the committee's help in making
this legislation better.
9:27:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER restated her earlier question regarding
whether the process of calling ADF&G prior to APD responding is
in statute or part of APD's policy or MOU.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT related her belief that ADF&G manages
wildlife, and therefore would be the first responder, and that
the MOU came about because the statute is unclear. She offered
to research the matter further and provide information to
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER expressed puzzlement because it seems
that APD can currently respond if it desires to do so,
particularly if the situation is deemed an immediate threat.
[HB 281 was held over.]
HB 276-FORT ROUSSEAU CAUSEWAY HIST PARK
9:29:09 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 276, "An Act amending the description of
parcels within the Fort Rousseau Causeway State Historical Park;
and providing for an effective date."
9:29:52 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ moved to adopt CSHB 276, Version LS0826\E,
Bullock, 2/1/10, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected for discussion purposes.
9:30:09 AM
REED HARRIS, Staff, Representative Peggy Wilson, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking on behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Wilson, related that HB 276 will correct the boundary between
the Sitka Rocky Gutierrez Airport and the Fort Rousseau Park.
The legislation, he explained, forming the park boundary in 2000
mistakenly included uplands, tide lands, and water adjacent to
the airport. He pointed out that a color map in the committee
packet illustrates that the aforementioned lands are within
1,100 feet of the runway center line, which is the designated
safety zone for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This
mistake wasn't discovered until the legislation forming the park
was already in the Senate Resources Standing Committee, at which
time the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
(DOT&PF) made an agreement with the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) to continue to support the legislation with the
understanding that the park boundary would have to be changed at
a later date. The lands in question, as designated in yellow on
the color map, are ones over which DOT&PF has traditionally
exercised control. Moreover, the property in question contains
navigational equipment for the airport, such as wind and
directional monitors. He pointed out that the property in
question is already separated by a security fence.
MR. HARRIS related that DNR doesn't believe DOT&PF controlling
this land would have any impact on future access. The
traditional access to the park, people scampering over the
runway, hasn't occurred since the 1980s. Therefore, this park
isn't accessed through or across the airport runway. At the
time of the park's creation there was no discussion regarding
land access; the intention was for there to be only water access
to the park. He highlighted that the committee packet includes
the minutes for House Bill 176, which was the 2000 legislation
that created Fort Rousseau Causeway State Historical Park.
According to DOT&PF, land access to the park would be extremely
expensive and require either a tunnel under the runway or an
extension of the perimeter around the airport, which would
require a retaining wall that would fall below the tide level at
high tide. Mr. Harris pointed out that the main issue with the
airport is that the area in question needs to remain within
airport boundaries in order to maintain airport safety and
security responsibilities, as specified by the FAA.
Furthermore, the FAA requires that the state demonstrate
adequate property interest in any airport for which it accepts
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant funds. The AIP grant
funds makeup about 95 percent of [the state's airport funding].
For example, the Sitka Airport has received over $32 million in
AIP funds since 1982. He stated that failure to comply with the
AIP grant assurances can result in FAA withholding additional
grants, additional grants which DOT&PF estimates will total $30
million over the next two years for the Sitka Rocky Gutierrez
Airport. Therefore, the sponsor requests passage of HB 276 in
order to address airport security and continued funding for the
Sitka Rocky Gutierrez Airport, he related.
9:34:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER inquired as to the difference between HB
276 and Version E.
9:34:33 AM
MARY SIROKY, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, related that
DOT&PF's attorneys felt it would be clearer to use the 1,100
feet description of the property the airport needs as opposed to
including a sub clause that referred to the runway safety area.
Although the 1,100 feet is technically somewhat larger than the
runway safety areas, runway safety areas aren't well defined,
she remarked.
9:35:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER removed his objection.
CO-CHAIR HERRON stated his objection.
9:35:45 AM
DEBRA LYONS, Executive Director, Sitka Trail Works, began by
informing the committee that Sitka Trail Works is a nonprofit
organization in Sitka that has been very involved with the park
prior to it being a park. Ms. Lyons related that the community
of Sitka and members of Sitka Trail Works care very deeply about
the causeway as a recreation area and as an important cultural
component of the community. She noted the incredible effort to
create the park itself and the 8,000 foot causeway road, which
represented the 1945 version of security. Today, the
[community] is wrestling with how to make the airport secure
because the efforts to make the airport secure has cumulatively
denied the public access to this historic landmark. Sitka Trail
Works has tried to have the causeway established as a historic
property to be renovated and appreciated. About $200,000 in
grant funds has been obtained, much of which has been
transferred to the state in order that the state could perform a
survey of the historic artifacts. In fact, the state is
currently being paid to perform an interpretation and management
plan. Sitka Trail Works is committed to this area, she
emphasized. However, it seems that the interest of the public
is being left out as the agencies try to serve their own
mission. Ms. Lyons said that it wasn't a mistake that the land
in question was included in the definition of the park. When
the park boundary was defined, it was the historic definition
[boundary] of Fort Rousseau. She acknowledged that the
aforementioned is causing DOT&PF difficulties as it would like
to have control of the property. To that end, she questioned
why DOT&PF didn't do a management agreement with the state. She
then suggested that perhaps lot 86A belongs to the Bureau of
Land Management not the state because it's over submerged lands.
She further suggested that it would be appropriate to attach a
fiscal note to this legislation in order to fund providing a
dock or other water access to the park in compensation for the
cumulative impact of providing security for the airport and
disallowing the public access to the park via land. Sitka
Trails Work had hoped to work with the contractor of the runway
expansion in order to rebuild portions of the causeway, although
that will certainly not be an option when the airport has total
control of the parcel. Therefore, any construction at the park
would require the use of barges.
9:41:29 AM
MS. LYONS, in response to Co-Chair Herron, explained that the
yellow designation on the color map is a road that was built by
the U.S. Army to access the islands. The islands are attached
by a road built over submerged lands. All of the lots with an
"A" designation are fill over submerged lands and actually owned
by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). When the legislature
created the park, all the state lands and uplands without an "A"
designation were included in the definition of the park as well
as the lands owned by BLM. The thinking was to work with BLM on
a recreation and public purpose lease. During the preliminary
discussions, the BLM felt that a state park fit recreation and
public purposes. Ms. Lyons then informed the committee that
portions of the causeway have eroded and are in need of repair.
Therefore, part of the plan was to improve the old road bed in
order to provide walking access to the islands. The hope was to
devise something between the airport and the park such that the
airport would allow at least the park manager to drive out to
the park as maintenance. "We were just trying to develop the
park for use and enjoyment by the public to the most people
possible in the least costly manner possible," she stated. At
the same time, Sitka Trail Works isn't opposed to working with
the department in order to meet its security needs. Still, she
opined that there should be acknowledgement that some sort of
enhancement to water access to the park should be considered as
mitigation for diminishing access to the park.
9:44:32 AM
MS. LYONS, in response to Representative Cissna, clarified that
if the road becomes part of the airport, the airport will
prohibit any and all access because of security needs.
Therefore, access to the park is exclusively via water and
there's no ability to repair the road via access from the
airport, and thus repair would have to be done via barge.
Because there will be no ability to use lot 86A to access the
park, she questioned whether DOT&PF would consider a fiscal note
to construct an ADA accessible dock. If all land access is
being taken away, she implored the committee to help provide
access to the park via the water.
9:48:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, referring to the April 4, 2007, minutes
from the House Resources Standing Committee, pointed out that
Mr. Stone related that Sitka Trail Works provides a skiff for
the public to use [to access the park], which is heavily used in
the summer months by local residents who skiff to the causeway
to picnic and visit the site. Therefore, Representative Gardner
surmised that the park has regularly been accessed via the
water. Representative Gardner further surmised that Ms. Lyons
recognizes that these measures with the park are going to and
have to happen, but that she is trying to minimize the impact in
terms of maintenance access.
MS. LYONS agreed with that assessment. Sitka Trail Works is
trying to address future maintenance of the park by improving
marine access. Furthermore, Sitka Trail Works is trying to
improve the accessibility to the park because one has to be fit
to land a skiff/kayak on the beach and climb up the embankment
onto the park lands. In order to make the park accessible and
capture tourism dollars, there needs to be a dock of some sort.
9:50:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to the distance the park is
from the mainland via water.
MS. LYONS responded that it's only 15-20 minutes. She then
asked if skiff traffic would be allowed in that airport security
designated area on the water.
9:51:47 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON asked if DOT&PF would be amenable to an
agreement that would allow a contractor to haul material to the
state park.
MS. SIROKY specified that such isn't allowed under the
agreements with the FAA. In regard to boat traffic through the
airport security area, DOT&PF doesn't anticipate monitoring of
it. The FAA requirements are very strict. In fact, the FAA has
concerns regarding the float plane haul out that is located on
the causeway area. Ms. Siroky then told the committee that when
the park was created there was no discussion of state funding to
upgrade the park.
9:53:51 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON remarked that maintaining the state park proper
is not of primary concern. However, he expressed concern with
Ms. Siroky's testimony that contractors can't be allowed access
via lot 86A. If there is any expansion or improvements made to
the runway, contractors will need to access the runway.
Therefore, he questioned the difference between contractors
accessing the park via the runway and contractors accessing the
airport via the runway.
9:54:40 AM
VERNE SKAGERBERG, Transportation Planner, Aviation Planner,
Southeast Region, Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities, informed the committee that one of the FAA's highest
priorities is to eliminate events known as runway incursions.
Runway incursions are events on the runway that don't have
anything to do with an airport operation. The FAA has spent a
lot of resources to address runway incursions, which are
reported, investigated, and become part of the FAA's database.
Mr. Skagerberg then informed the committee that following the
completion of an environmental impact statement (EIS), for which
the record of decision was issued in September, there was the
decision to relocate the seaplane haul out because it poses
potential runway incursions. Allowing access across the runway
for purposes other than the direct needs of the airport would
create potential runway incursions. He informed the committee
that at the Sitka Airport there are in excess of 70,000
passenger enplanements annually and 1,800-2,000 air carrier
operations and 6,000-7,000 other aircraft operations. The
runway is also an alternate runway between Interior Alaska and
the Lower 48, and thus must be available for emergency
situations.
9:57:51 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON surmised then that the hope is that lot 86A will
dissolve into the sea.
MR. SKAGERBERG said that he didn't know that to be the case.
However, lot 86A is important to the airport because the area
adjacent to the runway supports a number of navigational aids,
which are typically susceptible to interference, such as from
truck traffic in the vicinity. Therefore, when construction
projects are being considered, the department must ascertain
whether the traffic moving around the navigational aids would
impede their operation. Currently, the area [holding the
navigational aids] is fenced for that reason as well as other
safety and security reasons.
9:59:28 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON surmised then that DOT&PF is fine with
contractors working on the runway to be present, but isn't
interested in allowing contractors on the runway for
improvements to the causeway or state park.
MR. SKAGERBERG agreed that DOT&PF has to have construction
equipment on the airport. However, prior to such activity,
DOT&PF's engineering staff and the FAA's Airports Division
provide a thorough scrutiny to ensure that all the safety
requirements are met. The safety plan for airport construction
involving a runway is a detailed document.
10:01:39 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON asked if it's DOT&PF's position that lot 86A
would never be used again.
MS. SIROKY replied yes, other than for airport activities.
10:02:07 AM
MR. SKAGERBERG, in response to Co-Chair Munoz, confirmed that
accessing lot 86A does require crossing the runway at the Sitka
Airport.
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ then related her understanding that the FAA
requires a 1,100 foot center line boundary, which is part of the
park, without which the airport would not comply with security
or funding requirements.
MR. SKAGERBERG replied yes. When DOT&PF negotiated with the FAA
to relinquish the causeway park and island land from the
airport, it was determined that the boundary necessary was 1,100
feet. In further response to Co-Chair Munoz, the center line
boundary varies from airport to airport for various reasons.
10:04:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related her understanding that the yellow
portion of the color map belongs to the park.
MS. SIROKY specified that by the boundaries established in the
state park, the yellow area [86A] is included in the park's
boundaries. However, DOT&PF has never relinquished control of
that land to the park. In further response to Representative
Cissna, Ms. Siroky related that lot 86A was inadvertently
included in the legislation creating the park. She acknowledged
that DOT&PF didn't clearly review the boundaries of the park
until late in the process, at which point DOT&PF came to an
agreement with DNR to address it with separate legislation to
create the park.
10:05:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA indicated the need to include language in
this legislation that would allow for an agreement that would
allow the park to use the runway for narrow construction windows
in order to ensure that it's a usable park.
MS. SIROKY related her understanding that the FAA is very, very
strict in terms of its security regulations. She then reminded
the committee that when the park was created it was clear that
it was boat access only. There was no discussion of needing
funding for a dock. In fact, there was testimony from Sitka
Trail Works regarding needing to obtain funding for a dock in
the future. Ms. Siroky clarified that prior to the creation of
the park there was no access across the causeway; the causeway
has been in DOT&PF's control the entire time.
10:08:40 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON related the intent of the co-chairs to forward
this legislation. However, he maintained his concern that
DOT&PF is taking an unreasonable stance by not allowing
accommodations, for construction purposes only, access to the
state park for improving the state roads.
10:09:15 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ moved to report CSHB 276, Version 26-LS0826\E,
Bullock, 2/1/10, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
CO-CHAIR HERRON removed his objection to adoption of Version E.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated her objection.
10:09:35 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gardner, Keller,
Herron, and Munoz voted in favor of reporting CSHB 276, Version
26-LS0826\E, Bullock, 2/1/10, from committee. Representative
Cissna voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 276(CRA) was reported
out of the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing
Committee by a vote of 4-1.
10:10:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA remarked that she would be in favor of
moving this legislation when the [access to the park for
construction purposes] is addressed. She opined that this
committee should address the issue and that it's a mistake to
forward the legislation.
10:10:47 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 10:10 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB276-DOT&PF-CO-1-28-10.pdf |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 276 |
| HB 276 Sponsor.docx |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 276 |
| HB 281 sponsor statement1.doc |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 281 |
| HB 276 Sitka Airport Property Boundary correction signed letter 1 28 2010.pdf |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 276 |
| HB 276 Q & A.docx |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 276 |
| HB 276 color map.pdf |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 276 |
| HB281-DFG-BDS-02-01-10.pdf |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 281 |
| HB281-DFG-WLF-02-01-10.pdf |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 281 |
| HB 276 Committee Mins.pdf |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 276 |
| CSHB 276 Proposal.pdf |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 276 |
| HB 281 pro letter.PDF |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 281 |
| HB 281 ACE ltr.PDF |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 281 |
| HB281-DPS-AWT-02-01-10.pdf |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 281 |