04/04/2007 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB132 | |
| HB176 | |
| HJR4 | |
| HB194 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 176 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 194 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 4, 2007
1:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Co-Chair
Representative Craig Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Bob Roses
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Scott Kawasaki
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 132
"An Act designating the first Tuesday of May as Alaska
Agriculture Day."
- MOVED HB 132 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 176
"An Act creating the Fort Rousseau Causeway State Historical
Park."
- MOVED CSHB 176(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4
Requesting the Federal Subsistence Board to reconsider its
decision regarding the subsistence fishery priority given to
Ninilchik residents.
- MOVED CSHJR 4(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 194
"An Act relating to fines for certain offenses involving
aeronautics, alcoholic beverages, boats, fish and game, health
care records and public health, medical review organizations,
public restroom facilities, smoking, shelter cabins,
refrigerators and similar equipment, radiation sources, high
voltage lines, child labor, employment in underground mines,
marriage licenses, motor vehicles and driver's licenses,
ignition interlock devices, pipelines, use of the state seal,
and emissions requirements; relating to the maximum fine
provided for violations and infractions and to the definition of
'minor offenses'; redesignation of certain fish and game
misdemeanor offenses as class A misdemeanors; relating to
violations and offenses that are committed on state land, water,
and land and water or that are related to water management or
dam and reservoir safety; amending Rule 8(b), Alaska District
Court Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 194(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 132
SHORT TITLE: ALASKA AGRICULTURE DAY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GATTO
02/14/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/14/07 (H) EDT, RES
03/27/07 (H) EDT AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/27/07 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/27/07 (H) MINUTE(EDT)
03/28/07 (H) EDT RPT 5DP
03/28/07 (H) DP: DOLL, LYNN, GATTO, JOHANSEN, NEUMAN
04/02/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/02/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/04/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 176
SHORT TITLE: CREATE FORT ROUSSEAU CAUSEWAY PARK
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WILSON
03/05/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/05/07 (H) RES, FIN
03/28/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/28/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/04/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HJR 4
SHORT TITLE: KENAI/KASILOF SUBSISTENCE PRIORITY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) OLSON
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) FSH, RES
02/23/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
02/23/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/26/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
02/26/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/26/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/02/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
03/02/07 (H) Moved CSHJR 4(FSH) Out of Committee
03/02/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/05/07 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) NT 3DP 1NR
03/05/07 (H) DP: JOHNSON, EDGMON, SEATON
03/05/07 (H) NR: LEDOUX
03/28/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/28/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/02/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/02/07 (H) Heard & Held
04/02/07 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/04/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 194
SHORT TITLE: FINES AND OFFENSES
SPONSOR(s): RESOURCES
03/14/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/14/07 (H) RES, JUD, FIN
03/28/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/28/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/04/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
Sandra Wilson, Intern
to Representative Carl Gatto
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sponsor statement on behalf
of Representative Carl Gatto for HB 132.
CLIFF STONE, Staff
to Representative Peggy Wilson
Alaska State Legislature
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sponsor statement on behalf
of Representative Peggy Wilson for HB 176, Version E.
MICHAEL EBERHARDT, Superintendent
Southeast Area
Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 176, Version E.
MELANIE LESH, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 176, Version E.
WYN MENEFEE, Chief of Operations
Central Office
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 176, Version E.
HARVEY BRANDT
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 176, Version E.
ROBERTA FLOOD
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 176, Version E.
MARLENE CAMPBELL, Director
Government Relations
City and Borough of Sitka
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 176, Version E.
REPRESENTATIVE KURT OLSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions as the sponsor of HJR 4.
CONRAD JACKSON, Staff
to Representative Kurt Olson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HJR 4.
HEATH HILYARD, Staff
to Representative Carl Gatto
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sponsor statement for HB 194
on behalf of the House Resources Standing Committee.
AL CAIN, Criminal Justice Planner
Statewide Enforcement Specialist
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 194.
STEVE ARLOW, Captain
Commander, C Detachment
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 194.
WYN MENEFEE, Chief of Operations
Central Office
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 194.
DICK MYLIUS, Director
Central Office
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 194.
BURKE WALDRON, Lieutenant
Central Office
Division of Alaska Wildlife Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 194.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR CARL GATTO called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:04:45 PM. Representatives
Gatto, Johnson, Kohring, Seaton, and Roses were present at the
call to order. Representative Guttenberg arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 132-AGRICULTURE DAY
1:04:50 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 132, "An Act designating the first Tuesday of
May as Alaska Agriculture Day."
Sandra Wilson, Intern to Representative Carl Gatto, Alaska State
Legislature, presented the sponsor statement for HB 132 on
behalf of Co-Chair Gatto. She said that HB 132 would designate
the first Tuesday of every May as Alaska Agriculture Day. This
bill is meant to educate people on what agriculture means to the
state, and to give recognition to the farmers and those in the
industry who feed us and provide more than $50 million annually
to the economy of the state. It will allow schools a bigger
chance to educate students on modern agriculture and what it is
to our society and our economy, she explained.
CO-CHAIR GATTO added that HB 132 gives children another day to
focus on. An activity could be for kids to begin growing plants
three months in advance and then prepare the ground to plant
them on Agriculture Day.
1:07:01 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO called for public testimony, then closed public
discussion after ascertaining there was no further testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that discussions are underway about
moving the state's shellfish hatcheries and shellfish
mariculture into the Division of Agriculture, Department of
Natural Resources (DNR). He said he is not offering an
amendment, but that he thought it an appropriate topic to bring
up for the record because all farming should be recognized.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether this would include fish
farming.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON countered that it would include all
farming that is permitted in Alaska.
1:08:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report HB 132 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 132 was reported from the
House Resources Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG expressed his support for HB 132 upon
arriving immediately after the vote.
HB 176-CREATE FORT ROUSSEAU CAUSEWAY PARK
1:09:08 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 176, "An Act creating the Fort Rousseau
Causeway State Historical Park."
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 176, Version 25-LS0181\E, Bullock,
3/28/07, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version E
was before the committee.
1:10:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested an explanation of the changes
between the proposed CS and the original bill.
CLIFF STONE, Staff to Representative Peggy Wilson, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that the Department of Natural Resources
came to Representative Wilson's office with some minor changes
to the cadastral survey that had originally been provided for
the bill. The changes included adding the survey number and
fine tuning the description of a couple of the lots.
1:10:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether the change in the
description materially affects the size of the state park.
MR. STONE replied it does not. It is roughly 58 acres of upland
only.
1:11:13 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked for a description of the causeway.
MR. STONE explained that the causeway was created during World
War II (WWII) when the military used rock and gravel to fill the
areas between a series of small islands west of the then U.S.
Navy's Sea Plane and Operating Base in Sitka, which is now a
state airport. On each island there are concrete bunkers and
magazine posts, most of which still exist today and are in fair
condition.
1:12:46 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired what the meaning of a historical park
is.
MR. STONE responded that it is simply a name that was chosen by
the Sitka Trail Works. There was some debate as to whether to
use historic or historical in the name.
1:13:18 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether Fort Rousseau is a park in the same
sense that Yosemite National Park is a park.
MR. STONE answered that it is. Some of the language for Fort
Rousseau is the same language as for other state parks, such as
Fort Abercrombie State Historical Park on Kodiak Island.
1:13:51 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired what things would be off limits under
park status that were previously okay.
MICHAEL EBERHARDT, Superintendent, Southeast Area, Division of
Parks & Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), explained that a park designation withdraws the land from
the roles of general state lands and puts it under management by
the Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation. The land is then
subject to all of the division's regulatory authority for
general park lands and will be managed for the purposes
established under the bill.
1:15:23 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked what is changed in regard to fishing,
hunting, trapping, and snow machining.
MR. EBERHARDT stated that the Sitka community is pushing hard
for this park in order to protect the existing uses of camping
and recreating and to enhance the historical aspect. None of
the tidelands or submerged lands where there are fishing
activities is included in the boundaries, and there is no upland
game hunting on the causeway at this time. There should no
conflict with hunting or fishing, he said, because during the
public comment period there has been no mention of any conflicts
with existing activities.
1:16:36 PM
MR. STONE, in response to Representative Seaton, confirmed that
the fiscal note of $16,800 would come from the general fund and
the other expenses would be paid from other revenues.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that installation of a dock is
planned for fiscal year (FY) 2008 and that it would use $500,000
from the [2006 Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative] tax. Has there
been approval of that allocation, he asked, or is it just a
potential idea in the planning stage.
MR. STONE responded that it is a proposal, a wish list, for the
future that has been brought to the attention of Representative
Wilson and Senator Stedman.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON appreciated that projects are being
identified for funding by the cruise ship initiative that voters
approved. He noted that the dock project is on page 4 of the
"Sitka Fort Rousseau Historical State Park (World War II
Causeway) Development Plan Summary".
1:18:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said he would have liked to have seen
a map of the area and its location in relationship to Sitka.
MR. STONE replied that he provided a colored map and DNR had
provided several maps for the committee's packets.
1:20:12 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether there is public access to the
area by any other means besides the water.
MR. STONE said the water is the only accessible point because
airport development resulted in closing the [land] access to the
causeway.
MR. STONE, in response to Co-Chair Gatto, said the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers built the causeway.
1:21:07 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO observed that the airport runway is over a mile
long and close to Sitka. He asked whether a car could be driven
to the causeway.
MR. STONE explained that there is no longer access by car due to
the installation of security fencing, but that the causeway did
have car access long ago. In further response to Co-Chair
Gatto, Mr. Stone confirmed that permission for access would not
be granted by airport authorities. In response to
Representative Guttenberg, Mr. Stone stated that the main access
to the causeway is by boat. Sitka Trail Works also makes a
skiff available to the public, he said. The area gets heavy use
during the summer months by local residents who skiff to the
causeway to picnic and visit the site.
1:22:18 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether cruise ships will be able to
conduct tours to the causeway or will turning it into a park
deny an entrepreneur the opportunity to make money.
MR. STONE said the long-range plan is to open the causeway to
tourists through the sale of [tour] packages in order to fund
the improvements that are planned. There are plans to market
this and get as many people as possible out there.
1:23:22 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO noted that the smaller cruise ships would be the
likely ones to come to this destination. The word park rings
all sorts of bells that there will be park rangers and
restrictions to trails and official cabins. Would this park
allow a person to run across the property any way he or she
feels like, he asked.
MELANIE LESH, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), stated that it would not
be as tied up as Co-Chair Gatto's first example, it would be
open and more like the second example. Any future grant monies
would make it a more attractive destination with further
development so it could be a cruise ship shore excursion.
1:25:06 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked whether this is more of a public use area
than a park.
MS. LESH said there are distinct categories for uses that are
allowed depending on whether the designation is a public use
area or a park. She deferred to Wyn Menefee.
WYN MENEFEE, Chief of Operations, Central Office, Division of
Mining, Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
explained that the special designation of public use area allows
lands to be managed with a purpose, but they are still general
state lands. Therefore, all of the general rules, regulations,
and uses are applicable unless the public use area specifically
creates regulations that either prohibit or restrict a certain
type of use. Land under park designation is withdrawn from
public domain, he said, and different statutes and regulations
apply. The generally allowed uses on general state lands are no
longer allowed on park lands. Typically, hunting and fishing
are still allowed in parks, but sometimes the parks have more
restrictive language, such as no shooting within one-quarter
mile of a facility, whereas general state lands would not have
that restriction. He noted that refuges are general state lands
co-managed with ADF&G. There is usually some purpose for
creating a special use area, such as preventing motorized use.
1:28:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG compared the Fort Rousseau Causeway
with Cape Chiniak, another WWII historical site. He asked
whether WWII is the only cultural aspect of the causeway.
MR. STONE responded that he is very familiar with Cape Chiniak
and the WWII placements there. His talks with Sitka Trail Works
people and other residents supporting this project indicate that
the WWII history is the sole use.
1:30:08 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO remarked that he feels privileged to see some of
the top secret military information from 1943 relating to the
causeway.
MR. STONE said, "Anything for the chair."
1:30:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that City and Borough of Sitka
[Resolution No. 2005-28] supports historical preservation of the
causeway and an ADA accessible walkway. It appears that there
is well founded local support, but has there been any opposition
to making this an historical park, he asked.
MR. STONE replied that he has found none. He said he has 60-70
letters from folks supporting this project and that they have
been supporting this for several years.
1:31:39 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO opened the hearing to public testimony.
HARVEY BRANDT stated that he is a retired educator and former
national park ranger, and now a grandfather, who has lived in
Sitka for 40 years. He said he has taken hundreds of students
to the site: teachers in workshops from throughout the state of
Alaska, public school students from Sitka and throughout
Southeast Alaska, and college and university groups. It is
truly an historic spot, he said. Sitka was one of the major
defensive installations in Alaska, along with Kodiak, Dutch
Harbor, and Anchorage. During the interlude between the terror
of Pearl Harbor and the relief of the Battle of Midway, the
military hurriedly prepared this defensive installation. It is
over 8,000 feet long connecting numerous islands. Large guns
were placed in a triad from Biorka Island, [Kruzof Island] on
which Mount Edgecumbe is located, and the end island of the
causeway. In these three spots, he said, the military had six
inch guns which would have triangulated on any enemy ship coming
in. There are numerous bunkers and other things that are very
sturdily built and are some of the primary historic spots. It
is only accessible by water, but it is a spot that is truly
loved by all those who visit it. It is not a spot where people
go to fish or hunt, it is fundamentally a place for a picnic and
a hike and learning some history. He said he is a strong
advocate of this as a community resource for learning more about
WWII and the war's importance to Alaska history. When flying
into Sitka the necklace of islands comprising the causeway can
be seen from the air, he noted.
CO-CHAIR GATTO thanked Mr. Brandt for bringing children out to
the causeway and showing them the difficulties faced by people
during WWII.
1:36:09 PM
ROBERTA FLOOD addressed the question of why the causeway should
be dedicated an Alaska state park. She said she is a landscape
artist and is a member of Sitka State Parks Citizens Advisory
Board. She presented the following testimony:
The cultural and natural history provided by the
causeway will be a great interpretive tool for locals
and for the thousands of visitors Sitka receives every
summer. The significant role played out during WWII
here in Alaska is a little known part of history to
most Americans. We have the opportunity to tell this
chapter of one of the most significant and historical
events that have shaped the world today. Not only do
we have a landscape that served as a backdrop to the
buildup of troops in Alaska, but we have significant
structures and remnants to help illustrate the story.
The causeway contains siting positions, gunnery
placements, and radio rooms to name a few. This
interpretive experience will be unlike any museum
experience. It will be almost a living history with
tangible elements that will aid in interpreting the
scale of events and the feeling of what it may have
been like to be a soldier here during the war on the
western-most brink of protecting the United States
shoreline. In addition to this WWII story, Alaska's
Native culture will be served well by sensitive
interpretive of the causeway islands and how the
Tlingit have served as stewards to these lands for
generations. The islands many uses such as hunting
and fishing grounds and burial grounds will be
recognized and interpreted with the guidance with the
Sitka Tribe of Alaska. Finally, the natural history
of Alaska may be interpreted here. There are many
stories to be told about the geological formation of
the islands and Sitka Sound, their colonization of
plant species, and the sea life that supports our town
and Native peoples.... I think it would be a great
waste of our natural and cultural resources to let
this opportunity pass us by.
1:38:38 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO commented that the soldiers assigned here during
WWII probably thought they had pretty good duty.
MS. FLOOD agreed.
1:38:51 PM
MARLENE CAMPBELL, Director, Government Relations, City and
Borough of Sitka, noted that she has been a member of the Sitka
State Parks Citizens Advisory Board since the late 1980s. She
concurred with everything that has been stated. She explained
that since the 1980s Sitka has been aware of the causeway's
massive deterioration as a result of absolutely no management of
the area. There have been problems with graffiti and dangerous
building deterioration, but no one was in charge, she said. It
was part of the airport management area and the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities was theoretically in charge.
However, the agency had a hands-off philosophy and would not
allow people out to maintain the site. Ms. Campbell said there
has now been much effort to clean up the alder and provide safe
pathways to walk from island to island and there has also been
abatement of the minimal contamination that was found. Attempts
have been made since the 1980s to obtain management of the
causeway through the National Park Service, the City and Borough
of Sitka, and citizens groups. Finally, there is now a
mechanism to manage this extremely important site through the
Alaska State Parks system, and the whole community is very
excited about this. She said she does not know of anyone
opposed to this effort. Concerns about ensuring that Native
interests are represented will be honored. There has already
been a Congressional appropriation of over a half million
dollars specifically earmarked to upgrade the area, she noted,
and improvements, interpretation, and maintenance will be done
without draining the state's budget. There is a web site
showing pictures of the site. The City and Borough of Sitka and
the community strongly support this effort and are thankful for
the work of Representative Wilson and her staff.
1:42:02 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether the $500,000 from the cruise ship
tax has been applied for or is just a consideration.
MS. CAMPBELL said she believes it is just a consideration. The
Sitka Trail Works folks have been very active on this. The
effort here is to not be a drain on the state budget, she said.
It is unsafe right now without a dock and dock access is very
much needed for small boats. The proposed dock would be small
so it would be unable to handle large cruise ships.
1:43:14 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO closed the public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report the committee work draft
for HB 176, labeled 25-LS0181\E, Bullock, 3/28/07, as written,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
176(RES) was reported from the House Resources Standing
Committee.
HJR 4-KENAI/KASILOF SUBSISTENCE PRIORITY
1:44:12 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4, Requesting the Federal
Subsistence Board to reconsider its decision regarding the
subsistence fishery priority given to Ninilchik residents.
[Before the committee was CSHJR 4(FSH).]
CO-CHAIR GATTO noted that public testimony was previously heard.
He closed public testimony after ascertaining that no additional
people wished to testify.
1:45:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG commented that the previous testimony
was dueling testimony, and no one has squared that up or given a
better explanation. The people supporting HJR 4 argued that the
Federal Subsistence Board (FSB) did not do its job the way it is
supposed to.
REPRESENTATIVE KURT OLSON, Alaska State Legislature, responded
correct.
1:46:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired whether the state lost its
arguments as they were making them, whatever those arguments
were, and now there is another set of state arguments.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON replied correct.
CO-CHAIR GATTO noted that this was a November 2006 decision [by
the Federal Subsistence Board].
1:46:48 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said this is an example of clearly overstepping
the traditional and cultural uses that subsistence is based on.
It is appropriate for this resolution to go forward and,
hopefully, have some impact.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON discussed his concern that a saltwater
usage is being used to extend a traditional right for an
upstream area because the fish in the stream had passed through
a saltwater area in Cook Inlet where they were being caught. He
feared it could set a precedent that could be very detrimental
to any stream where there is a saltwater fishery. He said this
is a very new concept that should be reconsidered.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON stated that Representative Seaton cut right
to the heart of the issue, as did the previous two speakers.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON, in response to Co-Chair Gatto, said the
resolution would go to the House floor next.
1:48:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report CSHJR 4(FSH) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected. He said he is unsure what
happens next and whether the state has the ability to go to
court to appeal this, or whether there is some other legal
process outside of asking the Federal Subsistence Board to
reconsider. He understood that this was seven years in the
making and HJR 4 would be asking the Federal Subsistence Board
to appeal its own decision. The FSB must have had a checklist
of things that are required to be done in order to get through
this process and this would be saying that it did not.
1:49:50 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO directed attention to language in the bill [page
1, line 13,] stating, "fall short of meeting the eight factors
...." He inquired how many of those factors were not met.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON deferred to the Alaska Department of Fish &
Game (ADF&G).
1:50:18 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked Representative Olson to relay to the
committee ADF&G's opinion and any statements of fact that are
not rebuttable since there is no one present from ADF&G.
CONRAD JACKSON, Staff to Representative Kurt Olson, Alaska State
Legislature, said he cannot speak for ADF&G, but that he can
point to ADF&G's various Requests for Reconsideration (RFRs)
[included in the committee's packets]. He said it appears to
him that on almost every page ADF&G points out another
circumstance where the Federal Subsistence Board seemed to not
quite be there.
1:51:04 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired whether Mr. Jackson believed ADF&G had
reasonable argument.
MR. JACKSON answered yes.
1:51:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether it is the state's,
ADF&G's, or administration's intent to take this into the
courts. He said that for him this would be the next obvious
place to challenge this.
MR. JACKSON guessed the state would take this to court. He
understood that HJR 4 is the step the state needs to take in
order to say it has exhausted all opportunities for appeal,
otherwise the state would not have standing in court.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG surmised that if the legislature was
divided and the bill did not pass, the administration would have
no problem taking it to court.
1:52:36 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO drew attention to the 8/3/06 letter in the
committee's packet from ADF&G Commissioner McKie Campbell which
states: "As you are aware, the State of Alaska has grave
concerns regarding recent FSB decisions establishing customary
and traditional use ...." He noted that this is a statement
that is now part of the record. There is nothing that can be
done in committee to either defend or oppose the likelihood of a
lawsuit, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that exhausting all forms of
administrative appeal is the universal procedure before going
through the court system, and a request for a reconsideration by
the body that makes the regulation is a normal part of the
administrative appeals process. He said it seems to him that
HJR 4 is perfectly in line with this process and he is therefore
comfortable with moving the resolution.
1:55:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG maintained his objection to the
resolution.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton, Roses,
Kohring, Johnson, and Gatto voted in favor of CSHJR 4(FSH).
Representative Guttenberg voted against it. Therefore,
CSHJR 4(FSH) was reported out of the House Resources Standing
Committee by a vote of 5-1.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:56 p.m. to 1:59 p.m.
HB 194-FINES AND OFFENSES
1:59:10 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 194, "An Act relating to fines for certain
offenses involving aeronautics, alcoholic beverages, boats, fish
and game, health care records and public health, medical review
organizations, public restroom facilities, smoking, shelter
cabins, refrigerators and similar equipment, radiation sources,
high voltage lines, child labor, employment in underground
mines, marriage licenses, motor vehicles and driver's licenses,
ignition interlock devices, pipelines, use of the state seal,
and emissions requirements; relating to the maximum fine
provided for violations and infractions and to the definition of
'minor offenses'; redesignation of certain fish and game
misdemeanor offenses as class A misdemeanors; relating to
violations and offenses that are committed on state land, water,
and land and water or that are related to water management or
dam and reservoir safety; amending Rule 8(b), Alaska District
Court Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an
effective date."
1:59:29 PM
HEATH HILYARD, Staff to Representative Carl Gatto, Alaska State
Legislature, presented the sponsor statement on behalf of the
House Resources Standing Committee. He explained that HB 194 is
a re-introduction of HB 384 from the Twenty-Fourth Alaska State
Legislature. It is a collaboration between the Department of
Public Safety (DPS), the Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G), and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
Originally, HB 384 simply updated fines and fees associated
primarily with non-criminal violations and infractions
throughout statute. In the course of drafting HB 194, the
Department of Law and Legal Services advised that the bill
needed to comport all sections of statute that had like-type
fines for noncriminal violations in order to prevent any
potential constitutional conflicts with disparity and
prosecution. This is what contributes to the length of the
bill, he said, but in reality it is quite similar [to HB 384].
It is just conforming amendments to update fines from $500 to
$750 for these noncriminal violations and infractions.
MR. HILYARD noted that a second difference between the previous
bill and HB 194 is that ADF&G has requested the legislature to
also consider updating the fine structure for class A
misdemeanors associated with various crimes under fish and game
statutes. The Twenty-Third Alaska State Legislature updated
fines associated with class A misdemeanors from $5000 to
$10,000; however, in the course of that some of the ADF&G
statutes were not updated to incorporate that increase. Thus,
there are several sections in the bill that deal with AS 16.
MR. HILYARD lastly explained DNR's involvement in the bill.
When the Twenty-Fourth Alaska State Legislature created the Knik
River Public Use Area, DNR was granted enforcement and penalty
authority over those lands specifically. It was brought to
Representative Gatto's attention that DNR would like to have
that type of penalty and enforcement authority for all of the
lands it oversees. This authority is provided under Section 37
of the bill, thus giving DNR a tool to address people who are
misusing public lands. Section 43 is a conforming amendment
that repeals enforcement of the Knik River Public Use Area
because Section 37 now gives DNR the broad authority over all
state lands.
2:03:35 PM
AL CAIN, Criminal Justice Planner, Statewide Enforcement
Specialist, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game (ADF&G), said he does not have any specific testimony as
Mr. Hilyard covered ADF&G's concerns, but that he is available
to answer any specific questions regarding Sections 6-18 in the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the provision of Section 9,
which changes the language to "guilty of a class A misdemeanor",
is another way of saying "punishable by a fine of not more than
$10,000, or imprisonment for not more than six months" for the
wanton waste of salmon.
MR. CAIN said correct. At the beginning of statehood there were
not class A and class B misdemeanors, they were just called
misdemeanors. Therefore, this would bring the wanton waste of
salmon into alignment with all the others and make them standard
class A misdemeanors [punishable by] up to a year in prison and
up to a $10,000 maximum fine.
2:06:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to Section 37, page 9, line 13,
which would provide that an authorized state employee can arrest
or issue a citation under the enforcement authority of AS
38.05.755. Does this mean the employee can arrest somebody, he
asked, because most of the bill is about increasing the fines
from $500 to $750 and Section 42 defines minor offense.
MR. HILYARD read from page 9, line 9, of the bill regarding
penalties under AS 38.05.750: "A person who violates a
provision of this chapter or regulation adopted under this
chapter, AS 41.23, AS 46.15, or AS 46.17, for which another
penalty is not specifically provided is guilty of a class B
misdemeanor ...." He said what would constitute a class B
misdemeanor under this section would have to be answered by DNR.
2:08:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG noted that under its new authority DNR
would have the ability to enlist ADF&G's efforts in enforcing
DNR regulations. He inquired whether this would cause any
conflicts for ADF&G or result in requests for which ADF&G did
not have the authority or training.
MR. CAIN said he does not see any conflict with the mission of
ADF&G, which is mainly management and research. Many ADF&G
biologists have law enforcement commissions for those times when
they encounter a serious offense in the field or are informed by
the public of something that is in progress. He said that ADF&G
biologists are not the primary enforcers in the state, rather it
is the folks in the new Division of Alaska Wildlife Troopers
under the Department of Public Safety. There is a great deal of
merit in giving DNR law enforcement authority over their lands,
he said, because under current law there are no criminal
penalties even if the troopers are called in, there are only
civil remedies currently available to DNR. This would just
enhance DNR's abilities at enforcement and would not conflict
with or shortchange the missions of DPS or ADF&G. In further
response to Representative Guttenberg, Mr. Cain said he
understood that DNR personnel, not ADF&G personnel, would be
trained and commissioned for enforcement on DNR lands.
STEVE ARLOW, Captain, Commander, C Detachment, Division of
Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS),
explained that for any enforcement issues falling outside of
civil remedies, DNR would call DPS and DPS would be the
uniformed entity that would do the enforcement due to the
training necessary. For civil issues, DNR deals with it
civilly.
2:11:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that under Section 37, [page 9,]
lines 18-26, an authorized employee of DNR would have the power
to arrest or issue a citation to a person who violates a
provision of this chapter or a regulation adopted under this
chapter. Do the police authorities feel that this is an
appropriate amount of authority for an employee of DNR, he
asked.
CAPTAIN ARLOW stated that this is a very valid concern and that
this is how he reads Section 37, as well. He said ADF&G has
always had language in its regulations similar to this and on
issues that it feels uncomfortable with, ADF&G has always
deferred to DPS. There are ADF&G biologists who have police
authority with full arrest authority. However, he said, he is
unsure whether DNR has ever had this.
2:13:54 PM
WYN MENEFEE, Chief of Operations, Central Office, Division of
Mining, Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
addressed the issue of whether DNR has had this authority before
and what is DNR's intent with that authority. He said the
Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation has statutes that are
almost identical to this that give the authority to issue
citations, make arrests, and become peace officers of the state
for the purposes spelled out in the statutes. Thus, DNR has
wielded this authority before. The parks division has a full
training program and any peace officer that is enforcing those
statutes and regulations must go through the training process.
The Division of Mining, Land and Water is not intending to set
up a whole separate armed enforcement staff, he said. It would
create a program to train and commission certain staff for
writing citations and issuing fines for certain offenses, but
the intent is not to issue this power to every employee of the
mining division.
2:15:40 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired whether an authorized employee of DNR
under the provisions of Section 37, page 9, line 18, would be
part of a special group.
MR. MENEFEE said correct. The mining division would first have
to set up a training criteria that the employees would go
through. Once the employees met the training and were approved
by the division as being qualified to issue citations, the
commissioner would be requested to commission the employees.
2:16:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether there is a difference
between the training that would be required to issue a citation
and the training needed for arresting people.
MR. MENEFEE explained that many state and federal agencies have
authorities to issue citations, but many do not go to the extent
of being able to do felony arrests. The magnitude of the
offense often is the determiner, he said. This bill would give
DNR the ability to set up bailable offenses, many of them could
be down to $50. Interactions with someone doing the offense
could be done on a low enough key that training to carry a
weapon would not be needed. For instance, the U.S. Forest
Service has Level 1 and Level 2 enforcement officer training.
If it got to an uncomfortable situation or a more severe
offense, DNR would still go to the Alaska State Troopers. He
said this also gives the troopers the ability to cite someone
for a criminal offense for a DNR regulation, an ability the
troopers do not have right now.
2:18:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he is comfortable with the ability to
write citations, but uncomfortable with expanding this to
authority for arresting, especially since DNR would want a state
trooper there for arresting anyway. He asked whether anything
in this provision would be lost by eliminating the words "arrest
or" under Section 37, page 9, line 26.
MR. MENEFEE advised leaving in the word arrest because DNR has
park rangers who are already trained to do arrests. If park
rangers were commissioned for general state land as well as
parks they could help with law enforcement situations. Troopers
are oftentimes not available because of higher pressing
engagements such as burglaries, he said, so DNR does not want to
take away the ability of park rangers to come across and make an
arrest when needed. Eventually, DNR may have one or two elect
people go through more advanced training. The state troopers do
not have enough staff to cover the whole state all the time and
DNR would like to be able to depend on itself "to handle some of
the upper end stuff."
2:21:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG shared Representative Seaton's concern
about the ability to arrest. He said he is unsure where this
actually ends when the troopers do not have enough resources so
DNR then puts its own people into the field.
CO-CHAIR GATTO surmised that DNR enforcement personnel would
have a badge and an identification card so that when they
approached a violator they would have a certain amount of
authority as a DNR official. If the violator objects to the DNR
official, then the violator could be offered the state troopers.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG reiterated that he is unsure because
he did not want to end up with a DNR police force.
DICK MYLIUS, Director, Central Office, Division of Mining, Land
and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), stated that it
is not DNR's intention to have a police force. He said DNR does
want to have the ability to rely on its existing forces if
necessary, and this is the reason for that provision.
2:23:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether Mr. Mylius is saying that
DNR needs to have the authority for its employees to arrest
somebody or to have the troopers arrest somebody.
MR. MYLIUS responded that this would give the authority to the
employees of DNR and it would also give that authority to police
officers and park rangers as it relates to the DNR regulations.
2:24:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood that what Mr. Mylius is saying
is that DNR needs this authority to make arrests in order for
police officers of the state to be able to enforce DNR
regulations.
MR. MYLIUS replied that, as it relates to state park rangers,
this is true.
2:24:40 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO understood that what is being asked of the
committee is to create another division of enforcement. He
guessed it may be a good idea, but that there would be some
resistance to it.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said his concern is that in order to enforce
laws and arrest people, the enforcement official will be armed.
The broadness and lack of direction are concerning. He said he
would like to see stricter control.
2:26:01 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether handcuffs and weapons will be
involved for this enforcement.
MR. MYLIUS responded that this is not the intention for the
folks within the Division of Mining, Land and Water. The
intention is that these folks would only have the authority to
issue citations, and any arrests, if necessary, would be by the
troopers or a state park ranger.
2:26:30 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO surmised that the purpose of the training is to
handle citation situations where there is no enforcement device
such as a gun or handcuffs.
MR. MYLIUS said the problem right now is that DNR has no
authority other than to tell people to stop what they are doing
and to get the attorney general's office to send a letter that
tells the violator to stop which is not effective in terms of
in-the-field enforcement. Primarily, DNR is looking for the
citation authority by Division of Mining, Land and Water
employees. The arrest is a backup for those circumstances where
it is necessary, but DNR is envisioning that somebody else would
be doing that for the department.
2:27:47 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether Village Public Safety Officers
(VPSO) are armed.
MR. MYLIUS answered that he is unsure what authority VPSOs have.
CO-CHAIR GATTO said he is asking the question to determine
whether there are enforcement officials who do not have weapons
and must call in other authorities with police power when the
situation warrants.
MR. MYLIUS said he believes this is the kind of authority that
the ADF&G employees have.
BURKE WALDRON, Lieutenant, Central Office, Division of Alaska
Wildlife Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), stated
that VPSOs are not armed. In response to further questions from
Co-Chair Gatto, Lieutenant Waldron said that VPSOs investigate
misdemeanor crimes and respond in a type of first responder
capacity to emergencies. The VPSOs handle the situation and
preserve the evidence until troopers can arrive on scene. Lower
misdemeanors ....(indisc.--online microphone failure).
2:30:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES inquired whether a VPSO has arresting
authority under current regulations
LIEUTENANT WALDRON answered, "Yes, they do." In further
response to Representative Roses, Lieutenant Waldron confirmed
that when a trooper is present but unable to provide assistance
due to injury, the VPSO does have arrest authority. He said
VPSOs often make arrests for such things as driving under the
influence (DUI) and misdemeanor domestic assaults.
2:32:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked whether a DNR employee absent
arresting authority could make an arrest in a situation where
the employee is accompanied by a trooper, but the trooper for
whatever reason becomes disabled and is unable to complete the
arrest.
LIEUTENANT WALDRON said he is not 100 percent certain of the
answer. Troopers have a broad arrest authority, but he would
have to research it.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES responded that it is not the trooper he is
concerned about, it is the DNR employee.
LIEUTENANT WALDRON said he had misunderstood the question. "So
you are asking if they took the arrest authority out of this,
could DNR still make the arrest if a trooper was not with them."
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES replied absolutely. He asked if the arrest
would hold up as being proper.
LIEUTENANT WALDRON said he did not know.
2:34:13 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO referred to Section 37, page 9, line 26, and
noted that the question is in reference to striking the word
arrest and limiting it to issuing a citation. This is a major
change, he commented.
MR. MENEFEE said his understanding is that if it does not say
arrest, an employee of the Division of Mining, Land and Water
would not be able to arrest somebody. If it only says that the
division can issue a citation, then that is all that could be
done. He said he could not answer the question of whether the
authority is broad enough, but that the troopers may be able to
arrest the person for a violation of this. Under current law, a
park ranger's commission only allows him or her to make arrests
within a state park; there is no authority to make an arrest on
general state lands, thus a trooper would have to come in.
Because a park ranger is under DNR authority, not under trooper
authority, the wording on page 9, line 18, "an employee of the
department authorized by the commissioner", would apply to park
rangers. Under this language a park ranger's commission could
be expanded to enforce AS 38.05 and make an arrest on general
state lands because a ranger's training is similar to a state
trooper's. But, a park ranger could only arrest if it says
"arrest" here [page 9, line 26]. He understood the concern over
"arming up" the people of the Division of Mining, Land and
Water, but said this is not the intention.
2:36:33 PM
MR. HILYARD recognized the department's concern about wanting to
retain some degree of enforcement authority. He suggested the
possibility of a conceptual amendment "to distinguish that an
employee of the department or any other person authorized by the
commissioner is authorized to issue a citation, but that the
arrest authority ... for this section of statute is retained by
a police officer." He said the bill goes to the House Judiciary
Standing Committee next and there will likely be similar
discussion in that committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether it would work to take out
the words "arrest or" on page 9, line 26, and add a subsection
(c) after line 26 that says something like, "a peace officer in
the state may initiate arrest of a person who violates a
provision of this chapter or the regulations adopted under this
chapter."
MR. MYLIUS said the proposed conceptual amendment would work for
DNR because the department's intent is to have that enforcement
authority only for those folks that already have that kind of
training.
2:39:21 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO stated that the question is whether to give the
commissioner of DNR the ability to authorize someone to make
arrests.
MR. MYLIUS replied that DNR would like that authority to be
available to state park rangers who are already peace officers.
It would work if the bill is worded such that the authority to
arrest is limited to peace officers. He said the intent is not
to give arresting authority to employees of the Division of
Mining, Land and Water, but the way the bill is worded now, they
could be given that authority.
CO-CHAIR GATTO commented that the bill does not say that
division employees would be given that authority, it is up to
the commissioner to decide who would be given the authority. He
asked how significant this part of the bill is to DNR given the
difficulties that can arise in getting a state trooper out to
the location.
2:41:37 PM
MR. MYLIUS stated that it is not that important for the Division
of Mining, Land and Water, nor is it even the division's
intention, to have that authority vested in its employees. The
authority was wanted so that it could be used by people within
the department that are existing peace officers, which are state
park rangers. Thus, the conceptual amendment where the arrest
authority would be limited to those who already have the proper
training and authority under other statutes would be fine.
CO-CHAIR GATTO surmised that this authority is not needed
because there are already people within DNR that have arresting
authority.
MR. MYLIUS said the difference is that [DNR people with
arresting authority] do not have the authority to enforce these
regulations on general state lands. Right now, state parks
authorities are limited to units of the state park system, so
they do not currently have the authority to arrest people for
violation of DNR's general land regulations that are adopted
under Title 38.
2:43:00 PM
MR. CAIN explained how ADF&G manages the exact language that is
written in HB 194. Basically, the enforcement language in the
bill is a carbon copy of what is in AS 16.05.150-170. At the
present time, that language is enforced. All ADF&G biologists
were given the authority to arrest by statute promulgated back
around statehood. However, ADF&G does not presently have any
biologists that are authorized to make an arrest. He said ADF&G
has written an enforcement policy prohibiting its employees from
making an arrest because of the very topics being discussed by
the committee. A one week training course is provided for
biologists and it is called an orientation rather than law
enforcement training because a person cannot be trained in five
days to a proper level to be able to take action against
people's constitutional rights as is done in an arrest scenario.
No ADF&G biologists have weapons, he said. There are a few
biologists who do issue bail citations, but all other law
enforcement issues are immediately referred to DPS.
2:45:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved a conceptual amendment as follows:
page 9, line 26, after "(3)"
delete "arrest or"
page 9, after line 27
insert "[subsection (c)] A police officer in the
state may initiate arrest of a person who
violates a provision of this chapter or
regulations adopted under this chapter."
CO-CHAIR GATTO objected to the conceptual amendment. Does a
police officer not already have that authority, he asked.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said no, that the testimony is that the
police officers, especially the state park rangers, do not have
the authority to enforce the DNR regulations. This would give
any police officer, including the park rangers that are trained,
the ability to initiate that arrest as well as do the citation.
2:46:39 PM
MR. MYLIUS noted that a police officer would not include park
rangers, so "our preference would be that it would be 'peace
officer' as opposed to police officer."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON accepted that as a friendly amendment.
MR. MYLIUS, in response to Co-Chair Gatto, said the department
thinks the conceptual amendment is okay as proposed.
CO-CHAIR GATTO withdrew his objection.
There being no further objection, the conceptual amendment was
adopted.
2:47:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to report HB 194, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 194(RES) was
reported out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:48 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|