02/24/2014 02:06 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB161 | |
| HB79 | |
| HB246 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 24, 2014
2:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Scott Kawasaki (via teleconference)
Representative Geran Tarr (via teleconference)
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 161
"An Act relating to auctions or raffles for big game harvest
permits and to the selection of nonprofit organizations to
conduct auctions and raffles for the Department of Fish and
Game."
- MOVED CSHB 161(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 79
"An Act relating to the sale of timber on state land;
establishing the Susitna State Forest; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 246
"An Act adding additional land and water to the Creamer's Field
Migratory Waterfowl Refuge."
- MOVED HB 246 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 161
SHORT TITLE: AUCTIONS FOR BIG GAME HARVEST PERMITS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GATTIS
03/11/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/11/13 (H) RES
04/10/13 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/10/13 (H) Heard & Held
04/10/13 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/19/14 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/19/14 (H) Heard & Held
02/19/14 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/24/14 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 79
SHORT TITLE: SUSITNA STATE FOREST; SALE OF TIMBER
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/18/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/13 (H) RES
02/24/14 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 246
SHORT TITLE: CREAMER'S FIELD REFUGE; WICKERSHAM HOUS
SPONSOR(s): HIGGINS
01/21/14 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/10/14
01/21/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/14 (H) RES
02/24/14 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN GATTIS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as prime sponsor of HB 161 and
addressed changes incorporated in the proposed committee
substitute, Version Y.
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Acting Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 161.
EDMUND FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
hearing on HB 79.
JOHN "CHRIS" MAISCH, State Forester
Division of Forestry
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
hearing on HB 79.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE HIGGINS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as prime sponsor of HB 246.
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Acting Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 246.
GEORGE HAPP, Vice President
The Friends of Creamer's Field
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 246.
ACTION NARRATIVE
2:06:46 PM
CO-CHAIR DAN SADDLER called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 2:06 p.m. Representatives Tarr
(via teleconference), Kawasaki (via teleconference), Seaton,
Olson, and Johnson, Feige, and Saddler were present at the call
to order. Representatives P. Wilson and Hawker arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 161-AUCTIONS FOR BIG GAME HARVEST PERMITS
2:07:38 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 161. "An Act relating to auctions or
raffles for big game harvest permits and to the selection of
nonprofit organizations to conduct auctions and raffles for the
Department of Fish and Game." [Before the committee was the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 161, Version 28-
LS0530\Y, Bullard, 2/17/14, adopted as the working document on
2/19/14.]
CO-CHAIR SADDLER noted the committee previously heard this bill
last year and again on February 19, 2014.
2:08:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN GATTIS, Alaska State Legislature, testifying
as prime sponsor of HB 161, said she would focus her testimony
on concerns previously raised on page 2, lines 17-21 of Version
Y. The original version, existing statutes, allowed funds to be
used for anything but lobbying for political purposes. This
allowed the organization to use funds for any purpose except for
political gain. The new language [Section 3, page 3, lines 9-
16] restricts funds to organizations that promote education in
outdoor traditions and that conduct conservation and wildlife
protection programs and allows them to conduct auctions or
raffles approved by the department. This language creates a
limited scope of what the nonprofit can do with the proceeds.
She clarified that the language previously allowed proceeds to
be used for any purpose except for lobbying or political
purposes. She indicated that lobbying is disallowed under
Version Y since it doesn't fall into one of the allowable
expenditure categories.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS said the expanded game list adds one Dall
sheep. She reminded members that substantial testimony
suggested taking this valuable hunt away from Alaskan hunters.
She pointed out that of the 126 Dall sheep permits to be issued
this year, Alaska hunters foregoing one animal for the sake of
game management seems like an appreciated sacrifice of the small
percentage of the total allowable take. According to the
figures supplied by Representative Tarr, only 46 percent of the
permits allotted in the past 18 years were actually used. She
would like to see this figure increased and thinks a good way to
"drum up" interest by sporting groups is to increase their
incentive to auction a permit.
2:10:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted 46 percent of the tags allotted were
utilized. He asked whether the remaining tags were returned for
issuance or if those tags were unused.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS deferred to the Alaska Department of Fish
& Game (ADF&G).
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Acting Director, Division of Wildlife
Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G),
understood the question was what happens to tags that are not
distributed to this program. He answered that typically they
are either added back to the draw permit pool or are given out
"over the counter" as unallocated permits.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood the bill would expand the
number of permits from 19 to 42 per year. He wanted to ensure
that if the permits were used timely that they would be
available for the drawing permit program. He asked whether that
would occur or if the permits would be issued "over the counter"
circumventing the drawing.
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied it would be his intent to issue these
permits according to HB 161; however, if the permits were not
used, that the ADF&G would issue them "over the counter" through
the department's registration permit system. He did not think
animals would not be harvested that otherwise would be available
for harvest.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the department will know
sufficiently ahead of time whether unallocated permits will be
available for the drawing pool or if the process would
circumvent the drawing pool.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered that the department typically will
make decisions in the fall prior before the drawings. He
anticipated that if the permits were not issued [to
organizations] that the permits would be placed in the drawing
permit.
2:14:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how many people who apply for the
drawing permits actually do not claim the permits.
MR. VINCENT-LANG responded he would have to get that information
by species and area of the state, but he generally thought that
in many instances the permits are not used for a variety of
reasons, for example, people could get sick, and travel plans
can change.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he did not need the specifics. He
asked what happens to those permits that are unused.
MR. VINCENT-LANG said that if the department has time, those
permits are issued "over the counter" through registration hunts
for harvestable surpluses.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON understood that the permits that are
drawn through the regular process will not be treated
differently than those that are sold via the raffle or auction
process. He clarified he understood that these are treated
similarly.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered that that is his understanding.
2:15:37 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE understood that if the nonprofit has not
requested the permit, that it would be placed in the pool with
the rest of the permits. These permits would be applied for and
drawn. However, in terms of a regular draw permit, he asked
whether the department knows if it is not claimed prior to the
end of the hunt or if the department must wait to learn it is
unused. Second, if a person draws a permit and knows in advance
they will not use it, if the person can transfer the permit to
someone else.
MR. VINCENT-LANG responded that if ADF&G knows that someone is
not going to use the permit, there is a wait list the department
can use to reissue the permit. Typically, the ADF&G does not
know since reporting happens after the season closes. The ADF&G
anticipates the success rate in the hunts and typically offers
more permits than the number of animals the department
anticipates being taken. At the end of the year, if the ADF&G
has surpluses, with low production, the department would award
them "over the counter" in the area offices. However, he said
that is rare for high-profile species such as Dall sheep, but is
used more for moose or other species.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE requested further clarification on the
transferability of permits.
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied that the department does not allow
transferability of permits.
2:17:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said that her concern has been addressed,
that in terms of the unused permits she wanted to know whether
Alaskans have a way to access them. She related that often
these areas are pretty desirable areas to hunt species such as
moose. She didn't want Alaskan residents to have missed
opportunities to hunt. Thus, she supports the bill and will
want to track this going forward in terms of the numbers of
permits for nonprofit organizations under the bill.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER indicated the bill would double the number of
permits available for auction and increase the percentage to
nongovernmental agencies (NGOs). The bill doesn't have a
referral to the finance committee. He asked for further
clarification on whether the bill has a fiscal impact.
MR. VINCENT-LANG responded that it would be hard to predict, but
he does not expect a fiscal impact. He suspected that the
overall value of the permits will increase the return to the
state. In some respects, he thought it will actually be more,
since the activities the nonprofits will conduct will benefit
the department and conservation.
2:19:50 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER referred to page 2, Version Y, to the specific
language being deleted that has restricted use of the proceeds
from being used for political activities for candidates or for
lobbying the legislature. He asked whether the department
concurs that it is okay to delete this language.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered that he does not believe anyone in the
department would ever approve a project that would be used as a
contribution to a candidate for political office or any
organization supporting or opposing a ballot proposition or to
pay for expenses associated with lobbying the legislature or the
administration given the language used to replace it that
indicates proceeds can only be used to support education in
outdoor traditions projects and conservation and wildlife
protection programs. He said he did not think anyone would use
the proceeds for activities outlined in the deleted language.
2:20:48 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER said it is his intention in voting for this
bill to not allow proceeds to be used for contribution to any
political office or to support or oppose any ballot
propositions.
2:21:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 161, Version Y, labeled 28-LS0530\Y,
Bullard, 2/17/14, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being
no objection, the CSHB 161(RES) was reported from the House
Resources Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:21 p.m. to 2:23 p.m.
HB 79-SUSITNA STATE FOREST; SALE OF TIMBER
2:23:58 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 79, "An Act relating to the sale of timber on
state land; establishing the Susitna State Forest; and providing
for an effective date."
2:24:25 PM
EDMUND FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), introduced HB 79 on
behalf of the administration, stating that the bill would
establish a new state forest in the Susitna Valley. The new
state forest would encompass 763,000 acres in a number of blocks
throughout the Susitna Valley. The state forest proposal would
ensure that these tracts of forest land would remain available
for long-term forest management enabling more investment and
access. This bill would also allow the Division of Forestry
more flexibility to offer negotiated timber sales for the larger
sales of 500,000 board feet or larger. Both of these provisions
would give the state more tools to address the growing demand in
Southcentral and in the Southeast and Interior Alaska for more
timber sales and the growing demand for biomass energy. He
indicated these provisions are recommendations in the final
report from the Governor's Alaska Timber Jobs Task Force under
critical elements of the governor's support to increase the
economic contributions from our wise timber management.
2:25:47 PM
JOHN "CHRIS" MAISCH, State Forester, Division of Forestry,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), stated that as Mr. Fogels
said, this bill would create the Susitna State Forest and expand
the DNR's authority to negotiate timber sales statewide. He
provided background on timber sales, noting that DNR may offer
timber sales, either competitively or through negotiation. The
division's preferred way of offering timber sales is through
competitive bid timber sales, but the negotiated sales provide
the department the ability to tailor some sales to meet the
needs of local processors in areas that lack competitive
interest or where there is competitive from round log export in
a region with constrained timber supply. For example, in
Southeast Alaska it has long been the administration's policy to
support and create jobs as opposed to just focusing on revenue
generation.
MR. MAISCH said that Section 1 amends AS 38.05.110, the
authority to sell timber and material, particularly, timber. It
would add subsection (c) to clarify that the commissioner of DNR
may determine which applicable sale method is in the best
interest of the state for each timber sale.
MR. MAISCH reviewed the different authorities the department has
under AS 38.05. He related that AS 38.05.115 applies to small
negotiated sales, sales under 500,000 board feet. In Interior
Alaska that would be on 10-15 acre parcels or less and in
Southeast Alaska it could range from one acre on a good site to
several acres. He characterized those as typically being small
operators that have small sawmills or other operations that want
to negotiate a sale. These contracts would be one year in
length.
2:28:12 PM
MR. MAISCH turned to AS 38.05.117 regarding the salvage sales
related to forest resources and practices, for fire, insects,
and disease. He said AS 38.05.118 pertains to large, negotiated
sales.
MR. MAISCH referred to AS 38.05.120, which are sales done by
competitive or sealed bids or public auction, with the objective
of obtaining the best price for the timber.
MR. MAISCH referred to AS 38.05.123 as the value-added authority
that allows for sales of up to 10 years in length, specifically
targeted at encouraging and developing value-added manufacturing
facilities. An excellent example of this would be the Superior
Hardwoods, a mill located in Fairbanks.
MR. MAISCH related that Section 2 will amend AS 38.05.118 (a) to
clarify two sections of the current statute, including the Five-
year Schedule of Timber Sales [AS 38.05.113] and the Forest Land
Use Plan [AS 38.05.112], which are important parts of the public
process. This means these two documents must be completed, even
for large negotiated sales, which is just good business he said.
2:30:04 PM
MR. MAISCH related the other change in Section 2 is the addition
of wood fiber. The department has had interest in biomass and
biomass sales and fiber. In response to a question, he
acknowledged "fiber" is what he was referring to in this
section.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether fiber includes peat and
if it would affect any actions the legislature took with respect
to peat.
MR. MAISCH answered no; that this definition of fiber does not
include peat as described in current statute. He characterized
fiber as being a woody material. Returning to the sectional
analysis, he explained that Section 4 removes restrictions under
AS 38.05.118 (c) that indicate negotiated sales of timber are
only allowed in areas of high unemployment, excess manufacturing
capacity [or exist within two years of the sale], and excess
allowable cut. The department found these three criteria to be
problematic when stacked together. He reiterated that this
recommendation would strike all three criteria.
2:32:06 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked whether the current restriction on
negotiated sales requires all three elements must be present.
MR. MAISCH answered that is correct. He specified that this is
covered in regulation under 11 AAC 71.055.
2:32:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether this provision would only
apply to sales greater than 500,000 board feet.
MR. MAISCH agreed that is correct. This change would only
affect the large negotiated sales under the authority in AS
38.05.118.
MR. MAISCH related that Sections 5, 6, and 7 are basically
"housekeeping" changes that address when the sections become
effective. More specifically, he stated that Sections 1, 2, and
4 will have an immediate effective date and the other sections
will become effective on July 1, 201[4].
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to Section 2, to the requirements
of Forest Land Use Plans, and asked whether that relates to the
setbacks from streams.
MR. MAISCH answered that the Forest Land Use Plan (FLUP) relates
to AS 38.05.112, which requires the state to do a site-specific
plan for each timber sale. This section would address many of
the other multiple uses that occur in an area. However, this
sections does not address stream setbacks or buffers, which are
covered under the state Forest Practices Act (FPA) under Title
41. Further, this law applies to state, municipal, and private
land with respect to how timber sales are conducted and the act
is designed to protect fish habitat and water quality. The FLUP
would address anadromous streams, high-value resident streams in
the sales areas and what types of buffers and protections would
be put in place as part of the timber sale effort, but the FPA
is found in a different section of statute.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for further clarification that if
the bill passed it won't override the FPA in any way.
MR. MAISCH acknowledged that is correct, that this does not
affect the state FPA or weaken any protections for water quality
or fish habitat.
2:35:17 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked for further clarification on the public
notice requirements for large, negotiated sales.
MR. MAISCH answered that the standard public notice is called a
"940 notice" which is a standard notice process that the state
undergoes for any type of activity that would affect not only
timber sales but any type of sales of materials. This includes
web-based noticing, print-based noticing, and often will be in
local newspapers.
2:36:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for further clarification on the
500,000 board feet and the acreage.
MR. MAISCH responded that the number of acres will depend on the
productivity of the site. For example, the boreal forest in
Interior Alaska is less productive, so the acreage would be
greater than in Southeast Alaska. In Interior Alaska, the
approximate average would be 6,000-8,000 board feet per acre and
in southern Southeast Alaska an average old growth stand would
be approximately 28,000 board feet per acres, but second growth
stand can be up to 80,000 board feet per acre. He reiterated
that those sales only run for one year at a time since the sales
are considered small. A typical operator that mills or
manufacturers less than a half million board feet is usually a
one to two person operation with many of them consisting of
family-owned businesses. In response to a question, he repeated
the board feet per area. In Interior Alaska it could range from
5,000 - 8,000 board feet per acre, but it could go as high as
25,000 per acres; however, the average would be approximately
6,000 board feet per acre. In southern Southeast Alaska, the
average for old growth is around 26,000-28,000 board feet per
acre.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the one year timeframe
wouldn't be very practical for a person setting up biomass for
heating.
MR. MAISCH answered that the proposed changes are under AS
38.05.118, for the large negotiated sales whereas the ones under
AS 38.05.115 are considered the small negotiated sales. The
aforementioned changes only affect the authority under AS
38.05.118, which can be up to 25 years in length and can be
negotiated. The sales under AS 38.05.115 would cover sales one
year or less and can also be negotiated. Everything else about
the sales would essentially be the same.
2:39:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON qualified he is in agreement with doing
this, but is still trying to figure if lease sales longer than
one year can be let for smaller units interested in biomass.
MR. MAISCH answered yes; that the applicant can apply and it
becomes part of the best interest finding in Section 1 in which
the commissioner has the ability to determine the type of sale
method best fits the potential purchaser. In those instances,
the department would suggest to a smaller operator to seek
authority under AS 38.05.118 since it can be up to 25 years in
length or the authority under AS 38.05.123 for up to 10 years in
length. Finally, the sale could be done under a competitive bid
process without any real time limit, he said. He indicated the
default method would be the competitive bid process.
2:41:08 PM
MR. MAISCH referred to Section 4 to the Susitna State Forest
provision. He characterized this as the "meat" of the bill and
establishes 763,000 acres of lands in 33 different parcels. He
referred to a map in members' packets. The aforementioned area
encompasses two area plans, the Matanuska-Susitna Area Plan and
the Southeast Susitna Area Plans. These plans were updated in
the past few years and made specific recommendations on forestry
classified lands. Lands are classified as forestry,
agricultural, and other types of uses. The concept of a state
forest was discussed extensively in the two area plan updates.
This set the stage for this proposal. The purpose is to
legislatively designate a state forest to ensure that large
tracts of land will remain available for long-term forest
management, provide a sustainable supply of timber, and have a
strong state timber base. He indicated that the state forests
are managed on a multiple-use sustained yield principle as
indicated in Alaska's Constitution and as embodied in various
statutes.
MR. MAISCH said one of the key things that happens with state
forests [is public participation]. Seven different communities
held public meetings in 2009, including Glacier View, Willow,
Wasilla, Sutton, Talkeetna, Anchorage, and Trapper Creek. Six
additional open houses were held to discuss the area plans. In
2012, 12 meetings were held in communities such as Houston,
Talkeetna, Wasilla, as well as coming before the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough Assembly, and providing two "webinars" to
provide outreach to those "off the grid" who couldn't travel to
meetings held on the road system. In 2013, the department held
10 additional meetings and had a booth at the Palmer State
Fairgrounds, at the Cook Inlet Region Economic Development
Summit held in Anchorage. Additionally, the department used a
variety of media to highlight the state forest concept. He
characterized the outreach as being an extensive outreach to the
public and the communities. He said that the state forest is
about developing access and giving communities a "working
landscape." The state forest supports economic development, the
communities, and doing "good things" in the environment, which
hinges on the Forest Practices Act.
2:44:34 PM
MR. MAISCH related that currently, the department has built
about 17 miles of all-season road in the state classified lands
and 23 miles of all winter roads. This winter the department
will be working on the Little Susitna Access Project that will
build a winter road over to the Little Susitna River and an ice
bridge will cross and continue on to the Fish Creek blocks to a
point in which the department will offer a timber sale on state
land. Additionally, the road will provide access to borough
agriculture disposal land.
MR. MAISCH reported that this summer the department will begin
work on an "all-season" portion to take the current road to the
banks of the Little Susitna River, and undertake engineering
work for a permanent bridge crossing.
MR. MAISCH related he has heard concern expressed that this will
be a "lock up" and multiple use or access will be restricted.
He pointed out how the department manages other state forests to
illustrate how state forest lands are managed, including the
Tanana Valley State Forest, the Haines State Forest, and the
Southeast State Forest. The other state forests demonstrate
that the state forests are very friendly for a wide variety of
multiple uses, in particular, motorized use. In fact, the road
systems represent a very friendly environment for motorized uses
of all kinds. Motorized use has been allowed in appropriate
areas on road systems that are designed for logging truck
traffic that can certainly support all-terrain vehicles and
other types of motorized recreational uses.
2:46:16 PM
MR. MAISCH pointed out that state forests are very much used for
hunting access and some groups in the Matanuska-Susitna valley
want a bigger state forest. He vouched for the state forest in
Fairbanks that now has several hundred miles of roads is
extensively used for all types of recreational activities.
MR. MAISCH related that this is an opportunity to use a piece of
state-owned land as an engine to help develop the region's
economy and access. In Fairbanks a multi-million dollar mill
operates due to the state forest, Superior Pellet, LLC, that has
operated for five years producing wood pellets and compressed
wood logs. He characterized this as a great example to use low-
quality wood fiber to produce a high-quality product. This
means the high-quality logs can be used by sawmills. He offered
his belief that the same type of scenario would play out in the
Matanuska-Susitna valley.
2:47:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether roads exist in areas that
may be subject to disposal. He asked whether a process exists
so any culverts will be maintained as fish-passable standards
upon transfer,
MR. MAISCH answered that if the division builds those crossing
structures, they will be compliant with the FPA. If the roads
are forestry roads, the roads will typically have easements so
the road will be maintained as a forestry road. One exception
would be in an unincorporated area in which the borough has not
yet formed and may select land. He couldn't envision any
instance in the Matanuska-Susitna valley that would move to some
other type of ownership if it was designated in the state
forest. More specifically, to answer the question, the DOT&PF,
the borough, or a road service area are possibilities, but they
would need to comply with the same types of standards with which
the division must also comply.
2:49:44 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked what the response from local governments
has been.
MR. MAISCH answered that the division has held several meetings
with the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, including three meetings
before the full assembly. Last year a resolution was brought
before the MSB by Mayor DeVilbiss, but did not pass. The DNR
has been working to identify any issues, but the assembly just
generally did not support it. Some individual members strongly
supported the resolutions.
2:50:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether any of the boundaries
changed based on the public process.
MR. MAISCH answered yes; in terms of the area planning process,
some significant changes were made. Less acreage was classified
as forestry acres and the plans were split into two area plans.
The City of Houston had expressed concern about a parcel within
the city limits that could potentially block some access for
recreational development. The DNR proposed removing that parcel
from the bill, which can be incorporated into a proposed
committee substitute at a later point, he said.
[HB 79 was held over.]
HB 246-CREAMER'S FIELD REFUGE; WICKERSHAM HOUSE
2:52:13 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 246, "An Act adding additional land and
water to the Creamer's Field Migratory Waterfowl Refuge."
2:52:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETE HIGGINS, Alaska State Legislature,
testifying as the prime sponsor, introduced HB 246. He stated
that this bill would add additional lands to Creamer's Field
Migratory Waterfowl Refuge. He characterized this as basically
being a boundary change that would incorporate a total of four
additional parcels adjacent to Creamer's Field. This land is
state-owned land purchased by the state - some in 2001 - and the
land has been transferred to the refuge. These acquired parcels
have been managed as refuge lands.
REPRESENTATIVE HIGGINS said that question arose as to whether
hunting could still occur if the land is designated as a refuge
and the answer is yes. There isn't any plan to change the
activities currently being done on these parcels.
REPRESENTATIVE HIGGINS explained that the refuge is currently
managing the lands the statutes must be changed to reflect the
actual boundaries to ensure that the Creamer's Field Migratory
Waterfowl Refuge can control the land.
2:54:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood that nothing in the bill would
change the statutory purposes. He understood that ADF&G will
change the management plans, but those plans must correspond to
the statutory purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE HIGGINS answered that is correct.
2:55:28 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked whether there has been consideration
given to managing this land for other purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE HIGGINS answered no, that the land was given to
the refuge in 2001 and everyone has been using it. The only
question that has arisen is whether the activities would change
if the land was designated as part of the refuge and the answer
is no.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER understood this will not change the character
of the management or recreational activities on the land.
REPRESENTATIVE HIGGINS answered that it would not. In further
response to a question, he said that Creamers Field is located
on College Road near the Fairgrounds. The property in question
goes farther north and the land is boggy in the summer.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked whether there has been any known
opposition to the bill designating the land as refuge land.
REPRESENTATIVE HIGGINS answered no.
2:57:18 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired how the four parcels were acquired by
the state.
REPRESENTATIVE HIGGINS replied that in 2001 the state purchased
the parcels with the intention of giving the parcels to the
[Creamer's Field Migratory Waterfowl] Refuge.
2:58:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether there has been any
opposition to HB 246.
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Acting Director, Division of Wildlife
Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), stated
that one individual expressed concern about his use of the
refuge to train his dogs. Only one section of the refuge has
been restricted from dogs and it consists of some ponds that
were constructed for waterfowl enhancement. He stated that
these parcels will not have any restrictions in terms of the
current activities. Additionally, the DNR has been managing
these lands in accordance with the refuge plan for some time
without hearing a lot of complaints.
2:59:37 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER assumed DNR was consulted in terms of the
drafting of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HIGGINS answered that is correct.
2:59:56 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER opened public testimony on HB 246.
3:00:09 PM
GEORGE HAPP, Vice President, The Friends of Creamer's Field,
stated that the Friends of Creamer's Field offers educational
programs on the refuge. The organization supports the addition
of lands to the refuge in the interests of more efficient
government to have it all managed within the refuge instead of
managing the lands "consistent" with the refuge. He concluded
by saying "And we support the plan."
3:01:00 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 246.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON asked whether there is any reason to hold
the bill over since it is non-controversial.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER said he didn't think so.
3:01:36 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE moved to report HB 246 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
There being no objection, HB 246 was reported from the House
Resources Standing Committee.
3:01:58 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|