Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/23/1994 08:15 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 23, 1994
8:15 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Williams, Chairman
Representative Bill Hudson, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Pat Carney
Representative John Davies
Representative David Finkelstein
Representative Joe Green
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Eldon Mulder
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 259: "An Act relating to general grant land
entitlements for certain boroughs and unified
municipalities; and providing for an effective
date."
MOVED HB 259 OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH INDIVIDUAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
*HB 443: "An Act relating to the confidentiality of certain
records relating to fish and wildlife; and
providing for an effective date."
NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
KAREN BRAND, Aide
Representative Carl Moses
State Capitol, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4451
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement
GLEN VERNON, Manager
Lake and Peninsula Borough
P.O. Box 495
King Salmon, Alaska 99613
Phone: 246-3421
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 259
RON SWANSON, Director
Division of Land
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 107005
Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7005
Phone: 762-2692
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 259 with concerns
FRANK RUE, Director
Division of Habitat and Restoration
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Phone: 465-4105
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 259 with concerns
JEFF PARKER, Member
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Anchorage Advisory Committee
1201 Hyder
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: 272-9377
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 259
CLIFF EAMES, Representative
Alaska Center for the Environment
519 W. 8th Avenue, #201
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: 274-3621
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 259
WILLY DUNNE, Representative
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Phone: 463-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 259
LAMAR COTTEN, Representative
Lake and Peninsula Borough
P.O. Box 103733
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Phone: None given
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 259
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 259
SHORT TITLE: GENERAL GRANT LAND ENTITLEMENT
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/26/93 796 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/26/93 796 (H) CRA, RESOURCES, FINANCE
04/20/93 (H) CRA AT 01:30 PM CAPITOL 124
02/08/94 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/08/94 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/09/94 2307 (H) CRA RPT 2DP 5NR
02/09/94 2308 (H) DP: BUNDE, TOOHEY,
02/09/94 2308 (H) NR: SANDERS, DAVIES, WILLIS,
WILLIAMS
02/09/94 2308 (H) NR: OLBERG
02/09/94 2308 (H) -2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DCRA,
DNR) 2/9/94
03/23/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 443
SHORT TITLE: FISH & WILDLIFE CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/04/94 2259 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/04/94 2259 (H) RESOURCES
02/04/94 2259 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G) 2/4/94
02/04/94 2259 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/23/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-39, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by
Chairman Bill Williams at 8:22 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Williams, Hudson, Bunde,
Carney, and Green. Members absent were Representatives
Davies, Finkelstein, James and Mulder.
CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS stated there is a quorum present. He
announced the meeting is on teleconference with Anchorage
and King Salmon.
Number 013
HB 259 - General Grant Land Entitlement
KAREN BRAND, AIDE, REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES, stated HB 259
amends AS 29.65.010 and will statutorily authorize an
entitlement of 187,000 acres to the Lake and Peninsula
Borough and give the borough until October 1, 1996, to work
with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to select
those lands. The figure of 187,000 acres represents
approximately 3 percent of the total state lands located in
the borough. She said the borough is attempting to promote
economic development and become less dependent on the price
of fish. Since the price of land in the Lake and Peninsula
Borough is so much different than in an urban setting, the
borough planning commission felt an entitlement of 187,000
acres will allow them to pursue other economies such as
tourism.
Number 025
MS. BRAND said the Borough Assembly Planning Commission has
been developing a comprehensive borough plan and along with
DNR has identified several plots of land of interest to
them. The current statute, Title 29.65, provides a land
selection process for newly formed boroughs. However, in
this particular case there are very little vacant
unappropriated and unreserved (VUU) lands within the
borough, which makes it somewhat a special case. She
explained because other state lands will need to be
reclassified before issuance to the borough, pursuing
entitlement through statute will be a less time consuming
process. She said this will raise the priority for
processing grant land entitlements for the Lake and
Peninsula Borough and adds the borough's entitlement to the
list in statute. Ms. Brand pointed out that HB 259 is not
controversial and does not affect any other boroughs or
identified municipalities.
Number 040
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVES
JAMES AND FINKELSTEIN had joined the committee at 8:25 a.m.)
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN asked where the 187,000
acres come from.
MS. BRAND responded the borough and borough planning
committee identified certain plots of land which would allow
them to pursue other economies, such as tourism within the
borough.
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE
MULDER had joined the committee at 8:26 a.m.)
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON asked if any mental health trust
lands are involved.
MS. BRAND stated this entitlement will not come into
conflict with any mental health lands.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if any lands designated or set
aside in the current round by the Administration, which are
available for selection as alternative lands, are involved.
MS. BRAND replied no. She pointed out HB 259 only
statutorily allows the borough an amount of acreage. The
borough will still undergo the same process of meeting with
DNR, going through the public hearing process in designating
and identifying which portions of land, etc. She added HB
259 does not necessarily mean the borough will get 187,000
acres; that is the maximum amount. The borough, in working
with DNR, might identify a smaller amount of acreage.
Number 081
GLEN VERNON, MANAGER, LAKE AND PENINSULA BOROUGH, testified
via teleconference and stated the borough has been through a
long process as part of its comprehensive planning effort in
identifying lands for selection. He said many cuts and
revisions have occurred. At the time HB 259 was introduced,
the identified acreage was approximately 187,000 acres and
that is where the number came from. The borough has since
met with DNR, reviewed their priorities and concerns and
modifications have been made. He stressed the borough still
feels the 187,000 acres is a good number in the sense that
they recognize the borough will unlikely receive that actual
amount.
MR. VERNON said when the borough assembly and planning
commission approached the process of land selection, they
recognized that state land, especially vacant,
unappropriated, and unreserved land, is far away from any
established villages. He stressed the borough's first hope
was to find selectable land in or near existing villages
because it has greater value. He stated unfortunately, most
of the state land that the borough looked at is far away
from villages so the borough went to a secondary criteria
and looked at (indiscernible) identified lands to be
selected.
MR. VERNON stated the borough is currently a one resource
borough and depends almost entirely upon salmon, raw fish
and fish products for its revenue base. There is a great
need to diversify that base to take advantage of recreation
and tourism, etc., which are ongoing currently in the north
part of the borough. He said the borough has a strong, if
not stronger, interest as the state has in protecting
streams, other waters, and habitats in the borough as its
livelihood depends upon the fishing industry.
Number 124
MR. VERNON said the borough has identified for selection,
property or lands which have recreational potential and can
encourage some economic benefits to the borough by using the
land in ways compatible with state goals in regard to
protecting streams and habitat. He stated in some
instances, the borough has identified lands which are on
river corridors or on lakes. In those cases, the borough
has told DNR they are willing to comply or work with them in
terms of restrictions protecting public access and
protecting those streams and lakes in terms of the habitat
there.
MR. VERNON stated the formula which is generated under the
statute, which is the alternative to HB 259, does not
address the situation seen in the borough. The formula
would identify a very small amount of state land. He felt
HB 259 is a better route to go because it allows the borough
to work with DNR and go through the process in a rational
way to identify those lands which are acceptable to both the
state and the borough.
Number 147
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if there were maps which
show the lands being discussed.
MR. VERNON responded there are maps available and stated Ron
Swanson from DNR should have them.
Number 160
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked what kind of selections are
being discussed.
MR. VERNON replied there are two categories of lands. The
borough has identified lands which have mineral value but
recognizes the conveyance to the borough will only mean
surface estate. However, the borough believes there is
potential economic benefit to the borough in owning that
surface estate if mineral development takes place. He gave
an example. He explained the other category will involve
areas having recreational, sport fishing, hunting, etc.,
value. The borough recognizes the sensitive issues in
regard to these areas and the borough is very flexible in
that regard. The borough believes that through proper
management, those areas can and do have the potential to
produce some economic benefits to the borough.
Number 189
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said in scanning the maps just
received, it appears that many or all of the selections are
small tracts in the middle of larger tracts of state land.
MR. VERNON said that is correct and added some are larger or
smaller than others and added there are a number that
encompass one or just a few sections of land. He stated the
lands are identified strategically. The borough looked at
the potential for those areas. Many of the selections are
islands in the midst of other state land, accessible only by
air.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if there are any substantive
pieces of these lands selected which will be made available
for sale to the general public.
MR. VERNON said making the land available for sale is not
part of the concept. He stated the assembly has discussed
the possibility of long-term leases in some instances, where
a lease is appropriate to establish some type of a semi-
permanent recreational facility.
Number 220
RON SWANSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LAND, DNR, stated the
maps which are being reviewed represent approximately
200,000 acres of selections. Of that total, DNR and the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) do not have any
concerns for between 100,000 and 125,000 acres. They do
have concerns about the remaining approximately 75,000 acres
because many of the selections are along Lake Iliamna,
Talarik Creek, and the lower Nushagak/Mulchatna areas and
because of the size and shape of those selections. He felt
confident that DNR and ADF&G can work with the borough to
identify areas which can be selected.
Number 235
MR. SWANSON said it has been stated there are about 6
million acres of state land within the borough and that
statement is correct. About 4.5 million acres have been
classified for habitat purposes which is important in the
Lake and Peninsula Borough area because through the planning
process, these habitat designations have been very
supported. Through this process, a lot of the lands which
have been identified on the maps are in the wildlife
category, but key sites can be picked out for development
such as for commercial leasing.
MR. SWANSON stated when the land use planning process was
completed, there were only 116,000 acres of VUU land, which
is the category selectable by the borough. Using the
entitlement process, the borough's entitlement would only be
11,600 acres.
Number 254
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES asked what criteria the state
will use in deciding whether or not to grant the parcel.
MR. SWANSON responded that any selection made by the borough
will first go public and land use plans will need amending.
He said there are two state land use plans in place
currently within the borough; the Bristol Bay area plan
which was adopted in 1985 and the Nushagak/Mulchatna
management plan which was adopted in 1990. Those plans will
have to be adopted to classify the lands suitable for
transfer to the borough and which will involve public
hearings and the Title 38 process. He stated DNR has talked
to the borough about combining their public (indiscernible)
comprehensive plan along with DNR's. DNR would take public
comment statewide not just within the borough.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES clarified the normal Title 38 process
for disposal of state land will be followed.
MR. SWANSON said that is correct, and added that 38.04 will
be followed which is DNR's planning process.
Number 273
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked what the formula is to decide
how much land is to be conveyed under this chapter.
MR. SWANSON responded the formula is contained in AS
29.65.030 which says, "is 10 percent of the maximum total
acreage of vacant, unappropriated, unreserved land within
the boundaries of the municipality between the date of its
incorporation and two years after that date". He said VUU,
if classified under AS 38.05, is classified for agriculture,
grazing, material, public recreation, or settlement
purposes. He stated resource management is also considered
under classifications made after 1983.
Number 285
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked if HB 259 applies only to the
Lake and Peninsula Borough.
MR. SWANSON responded the bill only applies to the Lake and
Peninsula Borough and stated all other entitlements listed
in the bill were set in 1978 and those lands have already
been conveyed.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified HB 259 goes along with the
same process used on the other entitlements listed in the
bill.
MR. SWANSON answered that is correct. He stated DNR has
found the formula rule does not work because the needs for
types of land vary. DNR strongly supports the process,
especially for boroughs, to identify the type of lands they
need, work with the agencies to determine what concerns
there are, and then let the legislature decide how much
acreage is appropriate and for what particular purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified if there is a dispute, it
will be deferred to the state.
MR. SWANSON responded DNR will go through the administrative
process: the selection would be rejected by DNR, the
rejection could be appealed and taken to court.
Number 314
REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER noted the letter from the
Anchorage Advisory Committee of ADF&G in members folders
which expresses opposition to HB 259. He asked Mr. Swanson
what protections are there addressing the committee's
concerns in regard to protection of the critical habitat as
well as the fragmentation of ownership.
MR. SWANSON responded he has not seen the letter. He said
the borough has been very open to taking care of public
concerns such as buffer strips along critical anadromous
streams, building set backs, etc. DNR has concerns about
the size of some of the selections and about too much
development in areas which have been identified by the
public as areas they want open to the public.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER clarified the borough will have to go
through the Title 38 process when making selections.
MR. SWANSON said that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY asked why the borough is taking
less than 10 percent.
MR. SWANSON responded it is 10 percent of the VUU land and
that is the way it has been for every municipality.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY thought it was 10 percent of the land
within the borders.
MR. SWANSON said it has never been that way. It is always
10 percent of the VUU state land within the borough.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked if the 187,000 acres represents
10 percent.
MR. SWANSON replied no. He said 10 percent of the VUU land
within the borough is 11,600 acres and that is what the
borough's entitlement would be if the formula was followed.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked why the formula is not being
used.
MR. SWANSON suggested that question be asked of the borough.
He said DNR has found that with boroughs, the formula is not
fair because the land use needs of every borough varies. He
stressed DNR has supported the process used by the Lake and
Peninsula Borough; that is, meeting with agencies and
reviewing overall state land, determining what is
appropriate for borough ownership for revenue generation
within their borough and then letting the legislature set an
entitlement in statute.
Number 365
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES commented in regard to a
possible dispute and asked if another option might be to
choose other land.
MR. SWANSON said that is correct. He stated land which is
identified on the maps are not selections, but are types of
lands the borough would like to select. The borough and DNR
will have to go through the process to say yes or no and
could select other land.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES clarified HB 259 is to establish that
the borough is allowed 187,000 acres, but does not provide
for specific parcels.
MR. SWANSON replied that is correct. He said DNR's concern
in reviewing HB 259 initially was what 187,000 acres were
being considered and that is when the department began
working with the borough to determine what they were
interested in.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE commented as the state's support
diminishes, the state should encourage boroughs to do
everything possible to pick up local support and pay for
local programs. He felt that through potential leased
lands, boroughs will have the opportunity to have local
support instead of having to be solely dependent on the
state.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stressed if there are 187,000 acres
entitled and the formula would give the borough 11,000
acres, that is fifteen times the amount of acreage the
formula would give them. He asked if this entitlement is
disproportionate to other municipalities in that perhaps
other municipalities follow the 10 percent formula.
MR. SWANSON responded this entitlement is not uncommon as
shown by the eleven municipalities listed in the bill who
already have entitlements set in statute. He stressed each
municipality has varying needs and purposes. Each of the
municipalities listed in HB 259 have chosen to come before
the legislature to present their case and the legislature
has decided what their entitlement should be. DNR has never
found a formula which works for boroughs. He noted the
formula does work for cities because such small areas are
involved.
Number 430
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there has been a change in the
ground rules now, as compared to what the ground rules were
when the other entitlements took place.
MR. SWANSON responded none of the other entitlements listed
in HB 259 were 10 percent; some are higher and most are
lower. He said the municipalities came to DNR and
communicated what they thought their entitlement should be
and it was a give and take between the Administration, the
municipality, and the legislature in determining what the
entitlement should be.
Number 450
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Swanson if it is his opinion
that this entitlement is fair, will the 75,000 acres which
DNR has concern about go to the borough, and will the
187,000 acres be a reasonable amount of acreage for this
borough.
MR. SWANSON stated the Bristol Bay area plan was adopted in
1985, several years before the Lake and Peninsula Borough
was founded. If the borough had been in existence when the
plan was developed, an entitlement would have been
considered in the planning process. DNR did not do that
because they did not envision a municipality being founded
and that is why there is a disparity in VUU. He said he
cannot answer the question regarding whether or not the
acreage is a fair amount because he felt the legislature
should decide that. DNR does have concern about 75,000
acres which they feel should not be conveyed because of
bigger, statewide public concerns, but perhaps other lands
can be identified to make up the difference.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN disagreed. He said DNR is the expert
and they should be telling the legislature what lands should
be conveyed. He clarified DNR has indicated there are
75,000 controversial acres and that implies DNR has no
problem with the other 110,000 acres. He wondered if DNR
wants the legislature involved in the negotiations regarding
the 75,000 acres.
MR. SWANSON replied DNR does not want the legislature
involved in the negotiations. He is attempting to tell the
committee here are the selections of the type of land the
borough wants, there are concerns about 75,000 acres, and
DNR is willing to work with the borough to determine an X
amount of acres, with that X being whatever the legislature
decides the figure should be.
Number 490
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES recalled the borough said they are not
interested in having any of the acreage for sale and asked
whether or not it is possible for the land to be put up for
sale. He wondered why this borough is not interested in
subdividing and selling this land.
MR. SWANSON stated once the land is conveyed to the borough,
the land is conveyed free and clear, and the borough can do
whatever they want with it. He thought the borough will
lease the land because the majority of their selections are
commercial recreational tracts good for fishing, hunting
lodges, etc. He has found in managing state land, long-term
leases are better than sales because there is more control
of the activities occurring on the land. One concern in
particular is when land is sold, fences go up and the public
cannot use it.
Number 510
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said that was his concern and he hoped
that if the state does grant land, there are stipulations in
the conveyance which prohibit the sale of private properties
and provide for the return of the land back to the state if
those stipulations are violated.
MR. SWANSON stated that is not possible. DNR has to convey
the land free and clear to the municipality and then those
type of decisions are up to their management. DNR can
provide for easements, but cannot restrict a title to
leasing only.
Number 537
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked if the title includes mineral
rights.
MR. SWANSON responded the statute prohibits DNR from doing
that. The borough will only get surface rights. The
subsurface rights are reserved for the state, which is true
for all municipalities.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY inquired if there are records
indicating the percentage of land transferred to all of the
municipalities in the state.
MR. SWANSON responded they probably exist somewhere.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY felt it is a good idea to transfer
land to municipalities and pointed out the state will be
asking those municipalities to take on more responsibilities
for their own welfare. He wondered if giving more land to
municipalities statewide is going to be considered.
MR. SWANSON stated he suspects that will happen. He said
DNR has heard from the North Slope Borough many times
indicating they do not feel their entitlement is fair
compared to all the state land within their borough. There
are new boroughs, which once they come on line, will
probably come before the legislature asking for an
entitlement.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY felt rather than doing the
entitlements piece by piece, the legislature should think in
terms of looking at the whole situation and doing the
entitlements with one piece of legislation.
Number 583
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON felt land in private ownership conveys
the opportunity for the people in the district to pay part
of their share through taxes, etc. He said if government
holds it all to themselves, there are no taxes coming in but
rather a liability is present. He thought land can be sold
subject to certain criteria or restrictions in connection
with protecting habitat. That is why he asked if the
borough intended to put any of the land in private
ownership. He asked if in other land selections, did any of
the lands go into private ownership.
MR. SWANSON replied yes and mentioned the land disposals of
Kenai, Mat-Su and Fairbanks.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referring to the maps, asked if the
lands retained by the state indicated on the map were
retained before or after the request. He assumed much of
the land represents the 75,000 acres in question.
MR. SWANSON replied that is correct. He said this is the
third round of maps.
Number 649
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said there has been concern about
public access expressed and asked if there are provisions in
the legislation to allow public access along the lakes,
streams, rivers, etc.
MR. SWANSON stated public access provisions will have to be
done in cooperation with the municipality. If they want to
take the conveyance subject to setbacks, easements, etc.,
that is possible. If they do not want to do it, they go
through the appeal process.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he is familiar with the Mat-Su
Borough and the borough took all the land around the lakes,
but there is a provision for public access in that example.
MR. SWANSON said DNR is required by one statute, AS
38.05.127, to reserve access to and along water bodies and
DNR can also reserve other easements. He added that in Mat-
Su, there is also a requirement for a 100-foot setback on
all water bodies.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE clarified that through a special
provision and state law, there is reasonable assurance of
public access along waterways.
MR. SWANSON replied that is correct.
Number 701
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES expressed concern about public access,
but also is not opposed to the sale of land.
TAPE 94-39, SIDE B
Number 000
FRANK RUE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF HABITAT AND RESTORATION,
ADF&G, thanked the borough for working with state agencies
to determine a package which makes sense in terms of
different objectives. He expressed concern with the
precedent and the number of acres being discussed. He said
ADF&G found between 100,000 and 125,000 acres to be no
problem and ADF&G has no objection to the borough selecting,
having land sales, or even remote disposals. ADF&G is
concerned about the land along the Mulchatna River, the
Talarik Creek and similar areas. ADF&G feels those areas
are so important to the general public and recreation use,
that land should remain in public ownership, managed for
public use and general public access. He said that opinion
has been a result of two extensive planning efforts which
DNR has done, and stressed there is very broad public
support for that management strategy.
MR. RUE felt leasing could occur in the area in question,
but the public feels there should be nonpermanent facilities
when leasing occurs. He said on the other areas, permanent
facilities such as lodges are fine. ADF&G also appreciates
the borough's willingness to go through a public process for
a final package and their willingness to keep public access
through their selections of other state lands. He expressed
concern that where easements have been reserved in other
boroughs, the borough has vacated them. He stressed if
there is an important public site involved, the legislature
should ensure it stays available to the public.
Number 045
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER wondered if ADF&G's interests are
protected in the normal Title 38 process.
MR. RUE responded they could be.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he shared concern about public
access in the Mulchatna River and Talarik Creek areas. He
asked if there is a time limit if someone wants to have a
tent camp along the river.
MR. SWANSON said DNR's leases are the same as the Commercial
Services Board. If a license goes to a guide and he is
authorized for five years, DNR issues a lease for five
years.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE clarified if someone wants to put
access in, they can put in a tent camp year-round for 3-5
years.
MR. SWANSON responded on the Nushagak River and Mulchatna
River, it varies. There are areas set aside for all season
camps and areas set aside for only seasonal type camps,
where they are guaranteed to be able to come back every year
but have to remove all of their equipment during a certain
period of time.
Number 072
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES felt the issue is whether or not the
187,000 acres is a good number of acres for the Lake and
Peninsula Borough. She asked Mr. Rue if he has a problem
with the 187,000 acres.
MR. RUE replied as a general concept he does not. The
precedent does concern him in that other boroughs will come
back and may ask for more.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES wondered from ADF&G's perspective, in
regard to land selections through the normal Title 38
process, are there sufficient protections for the public to
give their input into the state giving lands.
MR. RUE stated if the normal Title 38 process is followed,
the public will have an ample opportunity to tell DNR what
they think about different parcels and whether or not they
should be kept in state ownership or go to the borough.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES clarified although Mr. Rue did not say
ADF&G supports the 187,000 acres, he said the department's
support is conditioned on any precedent the legislature
might be setting for other boroughs.
MR. RUE said that is correct.
Number 093
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said current negotiations
resulted in 112,000 acres which really are the lands under
discussion. If 187,000 acres are approved, ADF&G will not
know the habitat implications of the additional lands. He
clarified that ADF&G has only looked at the 112,000 acres.
MR. RUE stated ADF&G has actually reviewed 204,000 acres and
found that approximately 120,000 acres are not a problem.
Therefore, there is a dispute over approximately 75,000
acres. Assuming the borough backs off the contentious areas
and finds other areas, ADF&G will not know where those other
areas might be. He felt 75,000 acres can be found somewhere
else in areas which are not contentious.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN clarified that is assuming the
borough is agreeable to the state's recommendation.
MR. RUE said that is correct.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS clarified the 75,000 acres in question
should not be considered by the borough.
MR. RUE stated if the particular 75,000 acres being
discussed were selected by the borough, ADF&G will object to
those lands being transferred.
Number 123
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated he hopes the state will
maintain its course in maintaining their objection to these
particular 75,000 acres.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted there is a zero fiscal note and
wondered with everything being discussed, how can there be
no costs if the departments are going to be constantly
iterating on what they may want to select.
MR. RUE responded it will not take much time to go through
the iterations, maybe two weeks a year.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked how the appeal process works if
the borough selects, ADF&G rejects, and there are 90 days to
appeal. He also asked who makes the determination.
MR. SWANSON stated he and the regional manager sign a
decision which either conveys or does not convey land to a
particular municipality and that is appealable by anyone.
The appeal then goes to the commissioner who issues another
decision or reaffirms the first decision. If the appealer
does not like that decision, within 30 days the appeal can
be taken to Superior Court.
Number 159
JEFF PARKER, REPRESENTATIVE, ANCHORAGE FISH AND GAME
ADVISORY COMMITTEE, testified via teleconference and stated
the committee opposes HB 259. The committee suggests there
is a more appropriate mechanism of taking care of the
borough's financial needs of obtaining or increasing its tax
(indiscernible) and that is to pursue legislation
authorizing the borough to tax users of the area rather than
expand lands entitlement to the borough, enabling the
borough to lease land. He said the committee believes that
given the borough's declaration it does not intend to
dispose of the lands and will only lease them, indicates
11,000 acres in the borough's present entitlement is
sufficient for accomplishing their goals.
MR. PARKER said the issue regarding access and habitat has
been portrayed too narrowly and the committee has concerns.
The habitat involves not only the productivity of the
habitat but also the viability of populations which people
are targeting in terms of pressure people put on those
populations. He gave several examples in regard to rainbow
trout and brown bear. He pointed out what is apparent when
looking at the economic resource use in the recreation
industry is there is an economic caring capacity in which
there is a peak production of jobs and commerce off the
resource and gave several examples.
MR. PARKER stated the committee is concerned if there is too
great of an increase in the level of use, it exacerbates
conflicts between user groups; subsistence and recreation,
guided and unguided recreation, recreation and commercial
fishing. He stressed those are the types of issues which
need to be fully addressed in legislation and the committee
hopes the legislature will look to alternative means such as
authorization of the borough to tax users rather than
further (indiscernible) of the land ownership patterns.
MR. PARKER advised committee members there are three
documents which they should review in terms of background.
One is the John Isaak and Associates study done in 1985
which identifies the most popular species target by
recreational users in the area. The most popular target is
rainbow trout and the fish most pursued in time is king
salmon. That confirms a similar study. He said something
important to understand about the role of trout in the
Iliamna region is they are larger fish, rare and incredibly
valuable economically. He stated when too many people are
involved, fish are lost simply through the mortality rates
on release. The third study is one he did for the Alaska
Hotel and Motel Association in 1988. It shows when an
overgrowth of the remote wilderness recreation occurs, less
commerce is generated with more lodges.
Number 380
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked Mr. Parker who he represents.
He noted his opinion is on Department of Fish and Game
letterhead and talks about a publicly elected group. He
also asked how many people are involved in his organization.
MR. PARKER replied the Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory
Committee by regulation is composed of 15 elected people,
plus two alternates. The committee is elected at publicly
held elections which occur once a year and the terms of the
committee members are generally three years. He said there
are approximately 70 advisory committees throughout the
state, all elected, and all are created by state statute.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked if the committee is funded by
the state.
MR. PARKER said they are.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked what the committee's budget is.
MR. PARKER said he did not know. He stated all committee
members are volunteer and the budget is carried in the Board
support section of the department.
Number 314
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked how many lodges are
currently located on the Mulchatna River.
MR. PARKER responded he did not know. He said most of the
lodges are centered. Eleven lodges are located in Iliamna
village, two lodges are on the Copper River, etc. He
thought there are 61 lodges in the Nushagak/Kvichak
drainages.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN thought the area plan developed
by DNR set up this area as a remote recreation and habitat
area along the Mulchatna River. He asked if Mr. Parker's
concern involves lodges along the Mulchatna.
MR. PARKER replied that is one concern. He stated the
general concern is the increase of pressure which will occur
on rivers throughout the area because of increasing
recreational development, whether it is private citizens or
lodge development.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES wondered if the advisory committee is
assured there will be severe restrictions on the ability of
the borough to select lands along the river systems being
discussed, would they still maintain their objection to the
figure of 187,000 acres.
MR. PARKER responded that would soften the objection. He
said if a hunting and fishing lodge is put on Nikabuna Lake,
even if public access is preserved through easements, there
still will be a float based lodge on the lake which will be
utilizing the Koktuli, the Mulchatna, lower Talarik, etc.,
areas which all the lodges use...
Number 450
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON clarified that Mr. Parker does not
have a conflict of interest in his present occupation.
MR. PARKER said he has not guided in the area since 1989 and
is presently a lawyer.
Number 460
CLIFF EAMES, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA CENTER FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT, testified via teleconference and stated his
organization's concern is they see HB 259 as part of a
disturbing pattern this year. They are concerned that 1994
might be viewed as the year of the great state land
giveaway. He said the organization is often accused of
opposing transfers of public lands like those which might
occur in the mental health lands settlement proposal or the
proposed one million acre university land transfer or this
187,000 acre transfer because they are opposed to
development of these lands. He said conservationists have
more concerns than others about certain types of development
in certain areas and the long-term affects development will
have on the state's resources and the use of those
resources.
MR. EAMES stated that is missing the point. He said his
organization's concern is maintaining options for the people
of Alaska for future generations by not unnecessarily giving
away or providing windfalls in transferring state public
lands and allowing the people of Alaska, generation after
generation, to make decisions about whether particular stay
on public lands should be developed in certain ways or
should be protected for fish and wildlife, water quality,
recreations, scenic beauty, etc.
Number 500
MR. EAMES stated in regard to HB 259, he is not sure it has
been stretched enough by DNR. He said the area being
discussed has extremely high value in fish and wildlife
resources and receives a tremendous amount of public use
already. He stressed it is a world class fishery. He
commented that all of the remaining state lands around Lake
Iliamna will be selected in a thin strip, a substantial
portion of Talarik Creek will be selected, and a good
portion of the Mulchatna will be selected and there are no
assurances regarding buffers around these lakes and streams.
In looking at the Kenai, one can see what happens when too
much development occurs in high value riparian or lake side
habitat. With all of the questions being asked and
information received, he hopes the committee follows up and
does not accept the rather easy answers provided by the
departments. He felt there is a need to take a good hard
look at HB 259.
Number 544
WILLY DUNNE, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY
(AEL), stated HB 259 will grant 187,000 acres to the Lake
and Peninsula Borough and AEL was told previously under
current law, the borough would be entitled to approximately
30,000 acres. He said AEL has a number of concerns about
the consequences of HB 259. A grant of 187,000 acres will
be more than fifteen times the amount of land the borough is
entitled to receive under current state law. AEL feels it
will set a dangerous precedent and will encourage excessive
requests from other newly organized municipalities. AEL
feels that if the current law is unfair to the newly formed
boroughs, the legislature should change that law rather than
granting an arbitrary number of acres to any municipality
who asks for it.
MR. DUNNE pointed out that the state went through a thorough
public planning process in 1984 with the Bristol Bay area
plan and under that plan, the public determined that in
order to protect the quality of life in the region, state
lands should be managed to preserve fish and wildlife
resources, as well as to provide for orderly development of
economic resources in an environmentally sound manner. In
looking at the maps, it appears that the land selections
mainly consist of important wildlife habitat and public
recreation land. These lands include important riparian
areas and spawning areas, critical to Bristol Bay, as well
as access points to world-class fishing areas along the
Mulchatna River, Talarik Creek and Lake Iliamna.
MR. DUNNE said HB 259 can potentially turn state lands,
which are currently managed for the protection of
commercial, sport, and subsistence activities, over to the
borough which is not under any mandate to protect them for
public benefits. The resulting changes in land use patterns
will have adverse effects on fish and wildlife habitat,
commercial and subsistence and recreational activities they
support, as well as reducing public access to world-class
hunting and fishing opportunities. He stated AEL recognizes
the Lake and Peninsula's right to select state land after
its incorporation. However, AEL feels 187,000 acres is far
too much.
MR. DUNNE said the borough has stated they intend to select
lands as wildlife habitat public recreation, which may
result in a time consuming, costly process of reclassifying
those lands and going through more public hearings. AEL
feels it is in the state's best interest to continue to
protect unique and irreplaceable resources in the Lake and
Peninsula region which provide for an abundance of
commercial and subsistence recreational uses. He urged the
committee to take a hard look at the type of lands being
requested and if necessary, add language to the bill which
will protect these world-class resources.
TAPE 94-40, SIDE A
Number 000
LAMAR COTTEN, REPRESENTATIVE, LAKE AND PENINSULA BOROUGH,
stated in regard to the controversial 75,000 acres, the
number is a lot less. He stressed the borough is not
interested in a number of the areas identified as critical
habitat. The borough recognizes this is the first of many
steps in the process in discussing what lands will be
selected. The borough also recognizes that the first cut is
not necessarily the one the state will accept.
MR. COTTEN said the values of the people who live in Lake
and Peninsula Borough are not inconsistent with existing
land use plans in the area. The people who live in the
borough are either commercial fishermen or people involved
in commercial recreation. He stated the insinuation that
land transferred to the borough to be later leased or
perhaps sold will be used in a way which is incompatible
with the uses of the residents is a stretch. He commented
many people are asking what is the purpose behind the
municipal land entitlement. He stated the entitlement is a
long-term method to help fund programs, not only in the
1990s, but well into the next century. He felt the borough
should be complimented on thinking beyond the next few
years.
Number 032
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented he had heard it costs more to
educate a first grader in Lake and Peninsula Borough than it
does to send the child to Harvard for a year.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER made a MOTION to MOVE HB 259 with
fiscal note out of committee with INDIVIDUAL
RECOMMENDATIONS.
Number 045
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated he would like to offer an
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated he has no objections to
the land areas which are approved by the state, but what is
being discussed is a municipality that has a small
entitlement and wants to increase that to a large
entitlement. He felt views being reflected by statements
around the table, as well as the witnesses are that if these
are areas approved by DNR and AFD&G, there is not a problem
in expanding the entitlement. He said the committee should
reflect that and add the words "if approved by the state".
He felt the amendment will eliminate the more contentious
selections which could impact the key fish and wildlife
areas.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a MOTION to AMEND HB 259 on
page 2, line 12, adding the words "if approved by the
state".
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER felt the amendment is redundant.
MR. SWANSON said that is correct. The existing Title 38
process has to be followed in the appeal process and in
everything else.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated he had read the statute
but the entity selecting has the opportunity to go to court
to challenge the department's determination and it can
become a very contentious process. They are challenging the
public interest findings. He felt this is a different
situation because the entitlement is so large, the borough
should be able to live with the department's determinations.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER WITHDREW his MOTION.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON expressed opposition to the amendment.
He felt the amendment set the Lake and Peninsula Borough
apart from all of the other similar land selection
processes. He said the selection has to be rejected by the
director, so the state already has ample opportunity to
approve or disapprove. He pointed out there is even another
appeal where the state's interest is upheld or at least
maintained. He stated given those two different appeals and
the fact that other boroughs, in regard to land selections,
have been treated in the way stated in HB 259, amending HB
259 to put some unusual criteria on Lake and Peninsula
Borough would be inconsistent in the way broad public policy
is handled.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern that if the borough
will be precluded from going to court to get a decision that
the state has denied, people who object to any decisions the
state makes should also be denied the ability to go to
court.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting for
the amendment was Representative Finkelstein. Voting
against the amendment were Representatives Davies, James,
Green, Carney, Bunde, Mulder, Williams, and Hudson.
Number 123
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER made a MOTION to MOVE HB 259 out of
committee with INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee will hear HB 443
on Friday. He also announced the time for the joint meeting
with House Finance on Thursday has been changed to 2:00 p.m.
He stated the committee will meet on Friday, March 25 at
8:15 a.m. to hear HJR 61, HB 498 and HB 515.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House
Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting
at 10:00 a.m.
BILLS NOT HEARD
HB 443: "An Act relating to the confidentiality of certain
records relating to fish and wildlife; and providing for an
effective date."
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|