Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/05/1997 03:41 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
February 5, 1997
3:41 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Rick Halford, Chairman
Senator Lyda Green, Vice Chairman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Bert Sharp
Senator Robin Taylor
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
Senator John Torgerson
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 8
"An Act relating to the noise levels of airports and sport shooting
facilities."
- MOVED CSSB 8(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 19
"An Act repealing the power and duty of the commissioner of fish
and game to assist in the enforcement of federal laws relating to
fish and game."
-MOVED SB 19 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 35(STA)
"An Act relating to the means of transportation used to provide
access for the taking of game; relating to management of state
land, water, and land and water as part of a state park,
recreational or special management area, or preserve; relating to
reports to the legislature concerning prohibitions or restrictions
of traditional means of access for traditional recreational uses
within a park, recreational or special management area, or
preserve; relating to Chilkat State Park."
-MOVED CSSB 35(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 8
Urging the United States Congress to give an affirmative expression
of approval to a policy authorizing the state to regulate,
restrict, or prohibit the export of unprocessed logs harvested from
its land and from the land of its political subdivisions and the
University of Alaska.
-SCHEDULED, BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 8 - See Senate Transportation Committee minutes dated 1/28/97
and 2/3/97.
SB 19 - No previous action to record.
SB 35 - See State Affairs minutes dated 1/23/97.
SJR 8 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Robert Reed
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 8.
Colonel John Glass
Fish and Wildlife Protection
Department of Public Safety
5700 E. Tudor Rd.
Anchorage, AK 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 19.
Ms. Janey Wineinger, Staff
Senator Lyda Green
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement on SB 35.
Ms. Jody Kennedy
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 35.
Mr. Wayne Regelin, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 35.
Ms. Carol Caroll, Director
Administrative Services
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Ave.
Juneau, AK 99801-1724
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 35.
Mr. Jim Stratton, Director
Division of Parks
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street
Anchorage, AK 99503-5921
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 35.
Mr. Geron Bruce, Legislative Liaison
Department of Fish and Game
P.O Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 35.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-7, SIDE A
Number 001
SB 8 AIRPORT/SHOOTING FACILITY NOISE LEVELS
CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:41 p.m. and announced SB 8 to be up for consideration.
He noted a letter from the Alaska Municipal League (AML) requesting
an amendment that required a substantial change in use of the
facility.
SENATOR LINCOLN noted that the letter also wanted to delete
"prohibition" of the CS on page 2, line 1 and insert "exemption."
She asked why that hadn't been done. CHAIRMAN HALFORD replied that
it wasn't a major concern and the two words meant the same, but
were simply different styles.
Number 40
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt the CS to SB 8. SENATOR LINCOLN
objected for purposes of discussion on the issue. MR. ROBERT REED,
Department of Law, said he had talked with Kevin Ritchie, Executive
Director, AML, who said the use of "exemption" was made for
consistency throughout the bill. MR. REED said that the general
rule in a court of law is that if you use a different term, you
must have a different meaning. They assumed the legislature didn't
have a different meaning.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she would like to further amend the bill,
then, so it would be consistent. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said as a
general rule he would go along with legislative drafters rather
than outside agencies and he wasn't exactly sure why it was done.
SENATOR TAYLOR explained that "prohibition" was against bringing a
nuisance suit under this section and he thought it was much clearer
worded that way.
SENATOR LINCOLN withdrew her objection.
SENATOR TAYLOR objected briefly to say that his only concern was
that using terms like "unless the facility substantially changes
the use of the facility after the person acquired the property" was
a pretty good sized loophole. And this law is trying to establish
something that is clear-cut.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he was willing to go along with it because he
thought they meant a substantial change to mean air carrier
aircraft vs. light aircraft and not the number of flights or the
amount of activity; and if it was their intention to change it
based on the amount of activity, he wasn't interested in changing
it.
SENATOR SHARP questioned using "usages" on line 6 instead of "use."
MR. REED said he thought "substantial change" would depend on the
facts of a particular case unless there is a clear intent
statement.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if he would agree with Senator Halford's
analogy of a shooting range that was only open on weekends changing
to being open seven days a week being a substantial change. MR.
REED replied that it certainly could be construed that way. The
only case he read today that had to do with substantial changes was
the airport case in which case they had paved what was formerly a
dirt airport. That significantly changed the traffic and opened it
to larger aircraft.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he didn't mind the larger aircraft, but he
did mind the increased traffic. He suggested the wording: "a
substantial change to the type of use of the facility." MR. REED
responded that using more adjectives restricts the meaning a court
could consider a substantial change.
Number 186
SENATOR TAYLOR withdrew his motion to adopt the CS to SB 8 and
moved to pass SB 8 from committee with individual recommendations.
There were no objections and it was so ordered.
SB 19 FISH & GAME COMN'R NOT TO ENFORCE FED LAW
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SB 19 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR SHARP, sponsor, said that SB 19 repeals the present
statutory mandate which is AS 16.05.050 (1) stating the State of
Alaska will assist the federal government agencies in the
enforcement of federal laws and regulations as they apply to fish
and game resources in Alaska. He said in light of the aggressive
federal action to assume management of fish and game over large
areas of our State, in violation of our statehood compact, he felt
repeal of this statute was prudent and in the best interests of the
citizens of Alaska. He further stated that this was part of SB 77
that passed both bodies last year, but was vetoed.
SENATOR LINCOLN said the only piece of correspondence the committee
received on this issue was from the Alaska Peace Officers
Association, which is throughout the State, and they unanimously
opposed it. She asked if he knew why. SENATOR SHARP said this is
the only correspondence he has seen from them and he hadn't
received a phone call from them on any details.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if by eliminating that portion of the
statutory mandate they are saying the State of Alaska will not be
assisting the federal government in enforcing their laws. SENATOR
SHARP replied that it will not mandate that they shall enforce
every federal regulation and law on the books. He didn't think
they had a choice now. He wanted the Commissioner to have the
discretion. He said there would continue to be cooperation beyond
the three-mile limit, because that's federal law and the State has
routinely worked with the feds on that enforcement. This language
pertains to enforcement where federal laws and regulations are
contrary to existing State statutes and regulations.
COLONEL GLASS, Fish and Wildlife Protection, said he had some
concerns with this bill because there are 81 officers enforcing
fish and wildlife laws; and if they could not cooperate and deal
with the federal people, the resources would be damaged.
SENATOR TAYLOR explained that removing the mandate still allows the
department to have the discretion to enter into agreements and
enforcement protocols that they want to enter into. This removes
the hammer, if the department did not feel comfortable or
appropriate in going out and assisting. He said last year he had
not heard any opposition to this specific section. COLONEL GLASS
responded that that was his concern, and as long as they could
enter into MOUs and agreement letters, using the Lacey Act as an
example, he would have his concern answered.
SENATOR SHARP reiterated that he did not see how taking the mandate
away does any harm to working together in those areas that would be
beneficial to enforce State regulation or laws in conjunction with
using federal laws that enhance their abilities to do that.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he assumed that was the same concern the
Alaska Peace Officers Association had. COLONEL GLASS said he was
not aware they had filed that objection and he is a member of the
Association. He said he would check with Sergeant McCorkel who
signed the letter.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he understands that they are repealing a duty
and not a power and he assumed that was what the Alaska Peace
Officer's objection was.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that there was a motion before them to move
SB 19 from committee with individual recommendations. There were
no objections and it was so ordered. CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that
it passed with the accompanying $0 fiscal notes.
SB 35 MANAGEMENT OF PARKS & RECREATIONAL AREAS
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SB 35 to be up for consideration.
MS. JANEY WINEINGER , Staff to Senator Lyda Green, sponsor, said
CSSB 35 proposes legislation to protect Alaska's fundamental right
of access to State lands for traditional recreational use. It
keeps the Department of Natural Resources from restricting or
prohibiting traditional means of access for traditional
recreational activity on or within a park area or preserve.
Section 2 of the current bill also provides for annual reporting to
the legislature on each finding of an incompatible use.
MS. WINEINGER said the Constitution of the United States mandates
that all closures must be legislatively designated for any lands
above 640 acres. Historically, there has not been the same
designation for lands less than 640 acres and this would recognize
that. She said this bill passed both houses last year and was
vetoed by the Governor. It is supported by a wide range of
citizens, organizations, and associations within the State.
Number 445
SENATOR LINCOLN said on page 2, line 9 where it says the Board
finds on clear and convincing evidence - she always has difficulty
on finding what clear and convincing evidence means. Also she
wanted to know what the Board would interpret as significant.
SENATOR TAYLOR explained that the word "significant" is to allow
the Department the opportunity to establish that some biological
harm is occurring that is greater than insignificant which could be
caused by the merely trodding on the grass. The Department would
have to show, but for the restriction, that the size or type of a
herd might be reduced below levels that would be acceptable for
good management.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if this is the normal terminology used by the
Board in making their decisions. SENATOR TAYLOR replied that the
words "clear and convincing" are an established legal standard as
OJ (Simpson) just found out. It's an altogether different standard
from "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is criminal.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if "traditional" on line 8 meant over a
period of time or a month ago. MS. WINEINGER replied traditional
means any mode of access like walking, snow machines, etc. that
citizens have through history used. SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the
Airboat Association, for instance, used it last year and if they
are trying to get protection now, was that traditional use. MS.
WINEINGER said anything before this bill would be historical and
any means of access would come under this bill.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked why prohibit the Board from making these
decisions. Why is this bill necessary rather than letting the
Board regulate. SENATOR TAYLOR responded that part of the pattern
of activity they have seen for the last several years is that a
number of large areas of real estate have been closed to
traditional means of access. Frequently both ADF&G and DNR make
decisions about land access and use based upon an advisory opinion
that may come from one group that may wish to monopolize a given
area for their sole and exclusive purposes. This is moving farther
and farther away from the multiple use concept upon which this
State was founded. He thought the definition on page 4, lines 16 -
21, a popular pattern of use, was a better term.
SENATOR LINCOLN said it seemed to her that it's the Board's
responsibility to allocate our resources and this is just one
component of how they allocate them. Then she asked how this bill
would affect the critical habitat areas. SENATOR TAYLOR replied
that it didn't affect them because they are established by the
legislature.
SENATOR LINCOLN used the Minto Flats and Koyukuk as an example of
where the Board has restricted use of airboats. She said that
these critical habitats included the whole food chain and the
legislature should not dictate to the Board what they should do.
SENATOR TAYLOR responded that she was referring to the actions of
DNR and the legislation refers to setting a standard for game
populations. Meeting the standard would fulfill the legislative
requirement of there being something significant with the game
population that deserves this type of activity. He noted that the
areas she mentioned are previous to the passage of this legislation
and there is no retroactive effect. This would only impact new
areas and would be based on biology, not aesthetics.
MS. JODY KENNEDY, Alaska Environmental Lobby, said the SB 35 has
evolved beyond its original version of access issues within State
parks. The addition of restrictions upon the Board of Game to
professionally manage our State's game resources creates a bill
that the Alaska Environmental Lobby cannot support because they
significantly hamstring the Board of Game's authority to create
controlled use areas as a means to maintain and enhance hunting
quality experiences for both Alaskans and visitors.
She said they oppose SB 35 because it takes management decisions
away from the land management specialists. Local fish and game
advisory committees and the Board of Game are in the best position
to consider public input and make important land use decisions.
TAPE 97-7, SIDE B
Number 590
She said this bill would likely contribute to the on-going tension
between rural and urban hunters, motorized and non-motorized users,
and do little to address the resource allocation issues facing
Alaskans.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the Lobby supported the original bill.
MS. KENNEDY replied that they didn't either oppose or support the
bill.
SENATOR SHARP asked who submitted the testimony. MS. KENNEDY
answered that Sue Schraeder, their Executive Director, submitted
it. SENATOR SHARP noted that there was an error in the last
paragraph stating that legislators continue to limit funding to
ADF&G. He said that total funding for ADF&G over the last 3 - 5
years has not gone down. It has been reallocated within the
Department and some of the sources have changed.
MS. KENNEDY added that if they add responsibilities to the Board of
Game without increasing their funding, that is decreasing their
funding. SENATOR SHARP retorted that if the Board of Game would
make all their decisions based on the scientific findings of the
staff of the Department, they would not be here today.
MR. WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
said he would only comment on the amendments that affect Title 16.
He explained that control use areas are a tool that the Board of
Game has used for a long time to provide a diversity of hunting
opportunities and to reduce user conflicts. Some control use areas
are used to segregate hunters by time periods so that walkin
hunters don't have to compete with ORV hunters or ORV hunters don't
have to compete with aircraft hunters. Other control use areas
allow ORVs to be used only during certain days in a hunting season
so that people can use them to retrieve meat, but not for hunting
(one area is in the Kenai).
All of the control use areas they have today were created at the
request of hunters or by local fish and game advisory groups. They
are popular with the majority of the hunters, but some hunters are
not pleased because it may restrict their favorite access for
hunting. There are currently 24 control use areas in Alaska; eight
of them restrict aircraft for hunting; and five of those restrict
hunting for moose, while three restrict aircraft hunting for all
species. Eight other control use areas prohibit the use of
motorized vehicles for hunting access including aircraft; two
others restrict the use of pack animals. These are the walk-in
trophy areas they have, like the Delta control use area. Six
control use areas restrict motor vehicle access except for aircraft
which are many times because of the habitat concerns the Board has
had. Two control use areas restrict the size of motors allowed on
boats that are used for hunting and two prohibit the use of
airboats in small areas. Thirteen control use areas, over half,
were established prior to 1979; four were established during the
1980s; and seven have been established since 1990.
There are two control use areas that were recently adopted by the
Board of Game that have resulted in some controversy. The Nenana
control use area, created in 1996, prohibits the use of airboats in
a portion of game management unit 20A and C, in Fairbanks along the
Tanana River. This action has left the airboaters in Fairbanks
with very limited access in which to hunt using their airboats.
This was put before the Board by hunters for reasons that were many
and varied.
Number 515
MR. REGELIN said the other control use area that has generated some
controversy is the expansion of the Noatak control use area in game
management unit 23. This closed an area of five miles on each side
of the Noatak River to aircraft and goes upriver about 60 miles.
This control use area had been in existence since 1988, but they
expanded it in 1995 to the new boundaries and some people feel they
have lost access to where they used to fly in and hunt. In the
Department's opinion control use areas are a very valuable tool for
the Board of Game and have proven to be very effective methods to
maximize our hunting opportunity providing a variety of hunting
experience while reducing user conflicts. This bill would take
that away from the Board allowing it less flexibility to provide
for a diversity of hunting and to address user conflicts. He
thought in the long term it would result in reduced hunting
opportunity, because some seasons would likely be shortened if
methods of access can't be restricted. Over time it could result
in more Tier 2 hunts which aren't very popular because the Board
would have no other way to restrict harvest without closing the
season.
MR. REGELIN suggested, if this bill was stimulated by a specific
action by the Board of Game, the legislature should respond to that
specific action by passing a statute or directing the Board to
rescind that action rather than taking away the entire tool.
Number 496
MR. REGELIN said that only the Board of Game can establish control
use areas. The Department can't do it by emergency order. The
only thing they can do by emergency order is close the season for
biological reasons. The Board can only control use areas in
relation to hunting. They can't do it at other times of the year.
He commented that all the critical habitat areas are established by
the legislature and provided for in statute where there are broad
guidelines on what should be restricted and why they were
established. Then the Board of Game goes through and does the very
specific restrictions in regulation for the timing of types of
vehicles, types of ORV vehicles, etc. For instance, most of the
critical habitat areas are water fowl nesting areas. So you
restrict that and the Board will come in and say no use during the
nesting season. The legislature certainly can do that, but as
technology changes, it has been set up so the Board of Game deals
with those details that change over time rather than coming back to
the legislature.
SENATOR SHARP asked if the Noatak restriction is based on a
biological necessity because of a lack of game animals or too much
pressure. MR. REGELIN replied that that was proposed by the
Kotzebue Advisory Committee and by the Village of Noatak. The
Department has never taken a position pro or con on a control use
area. They consider that an allocation decision is up to the Board
of Game. They do supply all the information they can about the
harvest and use patterns and then leave it up to the Boards.
SENATOR SHARP asked if the Department supplied biological data to
the Board on this area or did they even ask for it. MR. REGELIN
replied that the Division presented a lot of information on all the
biology. He explained that this is an area that has the Western
Arctic caribou herd in it. That's why a lot of people go up there
to hunt. There are almost 600,000 animals. There is no biological
problem with the harvest of caribou. Moose is a slightly different
situation. There are areas where you can have an impact on the
moose population, but it isn't to the point where they consider it
a biological problem. Most of the testimony on this was from the
residents of Noatak who use the area for their hunting. They felt
they were being severely impacted by fly-in hunters. This is one
of the areas that stops all hunting by aircraft.
Number 451
SENATOR SHARP asked if any of the control use areas in effect prior
to four or five years ago were strip zoned or were they a
biological unit caused by the fact that they couldn't take the
pressure. MR. REGELIN answered that he could provide the committee
with a list of all the 24 control use areas that says when they
were established and a little bit about their history. The Noatak
one was established in 1988 and first is was a band just along the
river - about 1/4 mile and that was expanded to five miles. It's
the only one that restricts aircraft along a band right now.
Number 440
SENATOR TORGERSON asked how many control units might be pending.
MR. REGELIN replied there is one control use area up for
consideration at the March meeting of the Board. It's region 2,
Southcentral Alaska. They have been petitioned by the advisory
committees in Bethel and upriver on the Kuskokwim on the special
use area along the Hoholitna. He was told it would add two miles
on either side of the river to prohibit aircraft hunting. The
problem in the Hoholitna is with people coming up from Bethel with
very large engines on their boats. He commented that he didn't
know if this legislation would even provide a solution for that
situation.
SENATOR TAYLOR said that part of the reason for offering the
amendment is to set at least some semblance of a biological
standard that the Board would have to abide by. He was concerned
also with consistency in decisions.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked how he envisioned this legislation possibly
affecting the critical habitat areas. MR. REGELIN replied that he
didn't think it would affect the critical habitat areas in
existence, but if the legislature identified more, they would have
to be more specific about what might be prohibited and what would
be allowed rather than have the Board of Game do that for them. As
technology changes, he explained, the Board could go in and change
the methods of access to a critical habitat area, but if this
passes, the people would have to come to the legislature and ask
them to make that change.
SENATOR TAYLOR commented that if there are concerns of the
Department about methods and types of access, that would be part of
the bill the legislature would work on at the time. Proof of
biological harm would have to be brought to the legislature before
they could change the critical habitat.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if he viewed this legislation as opening up
more areas to hunters because the legislature feels the Board of
Game has not been doing a good job. MR. REGELIN responded that he
hadn't had a chance to speak to hunters about this since the
amendment just happened last week. He said that some hunters do
like control use areas, but he didn't think there would be a big
outcry because it's not retroactive. He thought that the Board of
Game has looked at a lot of control use areas over a lot of time
and they have adopted some that are very beneficial. If some need
to be changed, they will look at them again. He noted that the
philosophy on the Board over the years varies greatly from time to
time.
SENATOR SHARP said if the legislature repealed the Noatak, he
thought that would cause a hue and cry like you can't believe
against the legislature managing fish and game. He liked the
concept of just pointing the Board in the direction of relying on
scientific biological information developed by ADF&G and bring the
Department more into the decision making process to justify
whatever the request is they want to justify. He thought that
should help to keep the legislature out of it.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she agreed with Senator Sharp 100% on using
scientifically reliable data, but she is concerned with the vague
terminology used in the bill.
SENATOR TAYLOR said there was nothing in the legislation that is
attempting to open any new areas to hunting. The entire thrust of
this is to prevent existing areas that people have traditionally
used from being closed.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt amendment #1. He explained that it
takes a discussion from a previous committee. It amends the
authorization language in Title 16 and Title 38 so that if new
restrictions are to be placed on access, they should be done by the
Governor submitting a bill to the legislature. SENATOR LINCOLN
objected.
Number 220
SENATOR TORGERSON asked on page 2, line 17 if that included
campsites and waysides for legislative approval. SENATOR TAYLOR
replied on an annualized basis it would be wise for the Department
to be reporting back to the legislature.
MS. CAROL CAROLL, Director, Administrative Services, DNR, said that
there are all sorts of discussions that go on with the Finance
Subcommittee about the funding for the parks. They do talk about
options for the parks system when the budget reductions happen.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said there was a difference between closing down
a park and closing a facility. He was not very comfortable with
the prohibition of closing down a facility.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she did not want to micro-manage parks and
facilities.
MS. CAROLL explained that the original part of this bill was not a
problem with the Division of Parks. They are concerned with the
amount of time the legislature wants to spend reviewing small
additions to parks. She said there are about 92 of these ILMAs and
if they wished to look at all of them, DNR would help them.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked her how many ILMAs would be before the
legislature in a year. MS. CAROLL said she couldn't really say.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he didn't have a problem with deleting the
facility part.
SENATOR LEMAN moved to amend the amendment on lines 17 and 19 to
delete, "or closes a State recreational or other facility managed
by the Department." SENATOR TAYLOR objected by saying that he did
not intend to include the Department, itself, but he wanted the
recreation facilities in. He said he was concerned that facilities
are being closed down without considering putting in a
concessionaire to run it. He then withdrew his objection.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if it means that any time the Department
wants to restrict access for any reason, they have to come before
the legislature. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that was correct. SENATOR
LINCOLN said in opposition to the amendment to the amendment that
she was appointed to the Regulation Review Committee which would be
making recommendations on how they should be implemented and which
ones need to be taken off the books, etc. and she felt like she was
doing double duty here.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD called for a vote on whether to amend the
amendment. SENATORS GREEN, LEMAN, SHARP, TAYLOR, TORGERSON, and
CHAIRMAN HALFORD voted yes; SENATOR LINCOLN voted no; and the
motion carried.
TAPE 97-8, SIDE A
Number 000
JIM STRATTON, Director, Division of Parks, was connected with the
committee via teleconference. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked him if he was
familiar with Amendment #1, as amended. MR. STRATTON replied he
was, and heard the discussion about removing the phrase "or close
a state recreational or other facility."
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked Mr. Stratton for his comments on the
amendment or the bill. MR. STRATTON expressed concern about the
broadness of the amendment. Many of the closures proposed by the
Division of Parks are for safety reasons. He believes, under the
amendment, the Legislature will have to approve temporary closures
for repairs or construction, restrictions on motor size in swimming
areas, or ATVs in picnic areas.
SENATOR TAYLOR agreed that is not the intent of the amendments, and
said additional language to account for emergency situations may be
necessary. His intent is not to require legislative approval for
the temporary closure of an unsafe boat ramp for repairs. He asked
Mr. Stratton for suggested language to provide for temporary
closures for given reasons.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if there were further comments or
suggestions.
Number 087
GERON BRUCE, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, asked if Section
1(b) of the amendment would conflict with Title 16, which
authorizes the Commissioner of ADF&G to require a person engaging
in an activity in an identified anadromous fish stream to submit
plans and obtain a permit before any activity can begin. It
appears Section 1(b) of the amendment will no longer require a
person organizing a motorcycle race on a trail that crosses an
active salmon spawning stream to obtain a permit for that activity.
SENATOR GREEN asked Mr. Bruce what language he was referring to.
MR. BRUCE clarified he was referring to Senator Taylor's amendment
(0-LS0274\E.2), Section 1(b).
SENATOR GREEN questioned whether the "If" sentence on line 10 would
cover Mr. Bruce's concern. MR. BRUCE replied ADF&G could submit a
finding to the Legislature, but each and every time an activity was
proposed, ADF&G would have to come to the Legislature, after the
fact, for permission to restrict the activity in the future. The
Legislature would be in the position of having to make day-to-day
decisions usually made by field staff, and, in the meantime, damage
to the fish stream would have already occurred.
SENATOR GREEN commented she thought the intent was to provide
guidelines and restrictions; not to prevent an occasional incident
from a timely closure. Those incidents would be reported in the
annual report. MR. BRUCE did not think the amendment will be
interpreted that way.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked Mr. Bruce if ADF&G has existing regulations
that would cover those situations. MR. BRUCE replied AS 16.05.870
specifies that someone who is going to engage in an activity in a
stream that has been identified as an anadromous fish stream must
submit plans for approval.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD pointed out that ADF&G can apply existing
regulations to such situations; SB 35 only applies to regulations
adopted in the future. Essentially, all of the protections
developed over the last 30 years are covered. Action on a permit
will not be restricted; the adoption of new regulations will be.
Number 168
SENATOR TAYLOR confirmed Chairman Halford's interpretation and
suggested inserting the word "traditional" after the word
"restricts" to allay ADF&G's concerns. He noted the definition of
"traditional means of access" is included on page 4 and would
clarify that SB 35 refers to popular patterns of use.
MR. BRUCE was not sure adding the word "traditional" would comfort
ADF&G much at this point since SB 35 represents a sweeping change
from current policy and may have many implications that need
further thought. He stated he was unprepared at this point to give
ADF&G's position on this approach.
Number 190
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced Amendment #1, as amended, was before the
committee for action. SENATOR LEMAN moved to adopt a second
amendment to Amendment #1, which would insert the word
"traditional" between the words "restricts" and "access" on page 1,
lines 9 and 16, and on page 2, lines 6 and 16. CHAIRMAN HALFORD
clarified the amendment would insert the word "traditional"
wherever necessary, for conforming purposes, so that "traditional,"
in each case, modifies access. There being no objection to the
motion to adopt amendment #2 to Amendment #1, the motion carried.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced Amendment #1, as amended, was before the
committee for action. SENATOR TAYLOR called for the question.
SENATOR LINCOLN objected to the adoption of Amendment #1, as
amended. A roll call vote was taken with SENATOR LINCOLN voting
against adoption of Amendment #1, as amended, and SENATORS
TORGERSON, TAYLOR, SHARP, LEMAN, GREEN, and CHAIRMAN HALFORD voting
for adoption; therefore the motion carried.
SENATOR GREEN moved adoption of Amendment #2 (274\E1, Luckhaupt).
CHAIRMAN HALFORD explained Amendment #2 adds a provision to deal
with emergency situations, as discussed by Mr. Stratton.
Number 225
SENATOR LINCOLN objected for the purpose of discussion and
questioned whether Amendment #2, as written, adequately addresses
the Division of Parks' concerns. She asked whether Senator Green
might add to the end of the sentence on line 13, "(3) is for public
safety reasons" to clarify that the department has the ability to
restrict access for public safety reasons. CHAIRMAN HALFORD
questioned whether that language would allow the division to
restrict access for public safety reasons for an unlimited amount
of time, since Senator Green's amendment already covers public
safety reasons, as well as any others, for up to 90 days.
SENATOR LINCOLN felt referencing "public safety reasons" would make
the amendment more clear. SENATOR TAYLOR felt that narrowing the
amendment might be too restrictive, since it would not allow for
other reasons, such as biological concerns or repair jobs. SENATOR
LINCOLN believed the language would expand the amendment because it
would still provide a 90 day closure period for other reasons.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD thought the problem was already covered because
the Division of Parks only has to submit the information in a
report to the Legislature.
SENATOR LINCOLN stated it doesn't make sense to require the
Division of Parks to submit a list of closures to the Legislature
after the fact. CHAIRMAN HALFORD commented the sponsor's intent is
to avoid permanent action without legislative approval. The 90 day
provision can be applied for any reason and an extension could be
up to one and one-third years or until legislative approval takes
place.
SENATOR GREEN confirmed Chairman Halford is correct. The intent of
the amendment is to assure the Legislature be informed of
unanticipated closures that occurred.
SENATOR TAYLOR remarked Senator Lincoln's language is designed to
assure the Division of Lands can take action if necessary for the
public's safety. The way the amendment reads as is, the Division
of Parks could act for 90 days in a calendar year, and for a longer
period if the action is reported to the Legislature and approved.
If a dock became dangerous, the Division could only close the dock
for 90 days or until the Legislature acted upon their request,
which could extend the closure for one and one-third years. That
should give the Division sufficient emergency authority to act in
the interest of public health and safety.
SENATOR LINCOLN said the amendment, as is, says the Division of
Parks can do whatever it wants and the Legislature will either
approve it or slap its hands during the next session, because the
action already took place. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR disagreed, and said the
amendment gives the Division the authority to take action. SENATOR
LINCOLN stated Amendment #2 requires any action to be approved
during the next session.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted the lack of positive action by the
Legislature repeals the restriction. That would leave the ongoing
closures in the hands of the Legislature.
SENATOR TAYLOR said the word "or" implies the Division of Parks
could do an emergency closure of a boat ramp, for example, for 90
days to do repairs. If the repairs were made and the boat ramp was
reopened within 90 days, that action would not be reported to the
Legislature. The only actions submitted in the report to the
Legislature would be those with more than a 90 day effect. The
intent is to require reporting of continued closures.
Number 300
SENATOR LINCOLN moved to amend Amendment #2. SENATOR GREEN
objected because she was unsure of the extent the inclusion of the
phrase "public safety" would have. Any closure taken for public
safety reasons is already an approvable activity. SENATOR LINCOLN
indicated she wanted to make sure, for liability purposes, if the
Legislature is tying the Division of Parks' hands, that the
Division understands it does not need to come to the Legislature
for approval of a closure in excess of 90 days if the closure is
for public safety reasons.
SENATOR LINCOLN called for the question to amend Amendment #2.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced the amendment to Amendment #2 failed.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced a motion to adopt Amendment #2 was
before the committee. SENATOR TORGERSON noted the facilities
question had not been addressed and asked the committee's
intention. Additionally, he suggested including the word
"traditional" in front of the word "access" to be consistent with
Amendment #1.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if Senator Torgerson was offering a
conforming amendment to add the word "traditional" in front of the
word "access" and to delete the words "or facilities." SENATOR
TORGERSON said he was. There were no objections to Senator
Torgerson's amendment, therefore the amendment was adopted.
Number 340
CHAIRMAN HALFORD took a hand vote of those in favor and opposed to
adopting the Amendment #2, and announced it was adopted. He
announced SB 35 as amended, was before the committee.
SENATOR LEMAN offered Amendment #3, to insert the words "use of
pack animals" after the word "mushing" on page 4, line 20 of CSSB
35 (STA). He explained Amendment #3 makes the bill consistent with
other statutes that identify use of animals for compatible uses
within state parks. There being no objection to the motion,
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced Amendment #3 was adopted.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved CSSB 35(RES) out of committee with individual
recommendations. There being no objections, the motion carried.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked what the next committee of referral is.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted the bill has a $3.0 fiscal note, and will be
heard before the Senate Finance Committee. He announced SJR 8 will
be heard at the Senate Resources Committee meeting on Monday, and
that a joint meeting with the House Resources Committee is
scheduled for February 6, 1997 on RS 2477. He adjourned the
meeting at 5:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|