Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
05/05/2021 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB134 | |
| SB133 | |
| SB79 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
May 5, 2021
3:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Joshua Revak, Chair
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Natasha von Imhof (via teleconference)
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Senator Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 134
"An Act relating to master guide-outfitter qualifications for
licensure."
- MOVED CSSB 134(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 133
"An Act relating to the sale or lease of state land for remote
recreational sites; relating to permits for remote recreational
sites; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 79
"An Act relating to sport fishing, hunting, and trapping
identification cards."
- MOVED CSSB 79(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 134
SHORT TITLE: MASTER GUIDE-OUTFITTER REQUIREMENTS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) VON IMHOF
04/28/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/28/21 (S) RES
05/05/21 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 133
SHORT TITLE: REMOTE RECREATIONAL SITES; SALES; PERMITS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
04/28/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/28/21 (S) RES, FIN
04/28/21 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/28/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/05/21 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 79
SHORT TITLE: HUNTING/TRAPPING/FISHING: DISABLED VETS
SPONSOR(s): KIEHL
02/12/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/12/21 (S) RES, FIN
03/15/21 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/15/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/15/21 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/28/21 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/28/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/05/21 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
JULI LUCKY, Staff
Senator Natasha von Imhof
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 134 on behalf of the sponsor.
RENEE HOFFARD, Executive Administrator
Big Game Commercial Services Board
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 134.
MARTY PARSONS, Director
Division of Mining, Land, and Water
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 133 on behalf of the
administration.
CHRISTOPHER ORMAN, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Natural Resources Section
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to SB 133.
RACHEL HANKE, Legislative Liaison
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to SB 79.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:32:39 PM
CHAIR REVAK called the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 3:32 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Kawasaki, Stevens, Kiehl, Micciche, von Imhof (via
teleconference), and Chair Revak. Senator Bishop arrived soon
thereafter.
SB 134-MASTER GUIDE-OUTFITTER REQUIREMENTS
3:33:43 PM
CHAIR REVAK announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 134
"An Act relating to master guide-outfitter qualifications for
licensure."
3:34:09 PM
SENATOR NATASHA VON IMHOF, speaking as sponsor of SB 134, stated
the purpose of the bill is to address the unintended consequence
of legislation passed in 2019 regarding the conditions under
which the [Big Game Commercial Services Board] would take
disciplinary action against guides who violate the law
pertaining to their profession. SB 134 amends the language to
work as intended. She expressed hope this issue could be
resolved during this hunting season. She deferred a more
detailed introduction of the bill to Ms. Lucky.
3:35:09 PM
JULI LUCKY, Staff, Senator Natasha von Imhof, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, introduced SB 134 on behalf of the
sponsor, paraphrasing the following sponsor statement:
Senate Bill 134 clarifies under what conditions the
Big Game Commercial Services Board would be required
to revoke a Master Guide license. The bill corrects an
unintended consequence due to different
interpretations of language included in the board's
last reauthorization bill.
The Big Game Commercial Services Board regulates the
activities of professionals that provide guide, guide-
outfitter, and transportation services to big game
hunters. The board had a sunset review in 2018; Senate
Bill 43 was introduced in 2019 to extend the board for
five years. During deliberation on the bill, there was
some frustration regarding the inability of the board
to quickly take action to revoke the license of a
Master Guide who had been convicted of criminal
offenses. The board relayed that it had the ability to
revoke the license, but the process had to be
suspended during the criminal case, and the required
investigation and due process was lengthy.
A Master Guide license does not confer any additional
hunting rights; it is an honorary designation given to
Registered Guides who have demonstrated excellence
over a long history in their profession. Legislators,
members of the public, and clients expect those that
use the title to be held to the highest standard.
The Senate Finance committee added language that was
intended to require revocation of a Master Guide
license upon conviction in a court of law for criminal
offenses related to the profession. This language was
reviewed and approved by the full Senate, all
subsequent committees, and the full House.
Unfortunately, during the December BGCSB meeting, the
language was reviewed by staff attorneys and there was
concern that the statute could be construed to apply
to any violation of the statute even late paperwork
which was clearly not the legislative intent.
The BGCSB undertook a lengthy process to determine how
to capture the legislature's intent: holding Master
Guides to the high standard their title conveys and
requiring the revocation of licenses for egregious
offenses that do not honor the profession. Senate Bill
134 is the result of that work and would require
revocation of a Master Guide license after conviction
of an offense where the offender serves more than one
day in jail or a $1,500 or greater fine is imposed. It
also conforms the qualifications for a Master Guide
license to these standards and also requires that the
guide has not had a similar license revoked within the
past five years.
I would appreciate your support of this bill that
clarifies the statute and ensures it works as the
legislature intended.
MS. LUCKY summarized that SB 134 treats the narrow class of
egregious offenses for which a master guide license must be
revoked. The board proposed the language to meet legislative
intent and mirror existing statute to ensure it is interpreted
correctly.
3:36:03 PM
SENATOR BISHOP joined the committee meeting.
3:38:15 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked what offenses require the board to revoke
a master guide license.
MS. LUCKY replied it would apply to offenses where a person was
imprisoned for more than one day or an unsuspended fine of more
than $1,500 was imposed. She said the board created those
standards after a review of the cases that came before the board
and the disciplinary actions it imposed. She directed attention
to the minutes of the Big Game Services Board teleconference
held February 20, [2020] in the bill packets. The relevant data
is on page 9 of the 9-page document. It shows the board
considered six master guide-outfitter violations [since the
sunset audit in 2018].
3:40:01 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF interjected the table is outlined in green.
MS. LUCKY continued to detail the examples.
3:40:18 PM
At ease to help members find the table in their bill packets.
3:40:34 PM
CHAIR REVAK reconvened the meeting and asked for a better
description of the graph because the members' copies were black
and white.
MS. LUCKY restated that the relevant data is on page 9 of the 9-
page document. It enumerates six master guide-outfitter
violations the board considered prior to the statutory change in
2019. Violations one and four met the threshold for revocation
after the bill was enacted. SB 134 would require revocations for
these types of offenses, she said.
3:42:00 PM
SENATOR STEVENS summarized that revocations apply only to
specific hunting violations.
MS. LUCKY answered that is correct. She continued, "At this
time, the language that was in Senate Bill 43 was interpreted to
apply to any violations and that is what we are trying to fix.
And what this bill would do is say that the fine imposed would
have to be more than $1,500 or if the person spent a day in
jail. Those were the two conditions under which a Master Guide
[license] would be required to be revoked."
3:42:44 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked for confirmation that a master guide who
received a $1500 fine or spent time in jail for something that
was unrelated to hunting would not be affected by this bill.
MS. LUCKY answered that is correct; she directed attention to
the language on page 2, lines 19-20 of the bill that clearly
states this is "related to hunting or the provision of big game
hunting or transportation services."
3:43:24 PM
SENATOR KIEHL referenced the eligibility provision in paragraph
(4) of Section 1 and asked why the lookback for hunting
violations was changed from 15 years preceding the date of the
application to 5 years.
MS. LUCKY answered that Section 1 relating to eligibility for a
master guide license was changed to conform to Section 2 that
has the "shall revoke" language.
3:44:12 PM
CHAIR REVAK requested the sectional analysis.
MS. LUCKY presented the following sectional analysis for SB 134:
Sec. 1: Amends AS 08.54.610(b), which outlines the
requirements to obtain a master guide-outfitter
license, to limit the violations that would
make a person ineligible to receive a license.
Specifically, the amendment limits the look
back period to five years and would only apply
after conviction for an offense where the
person was imprisoned for more than one day or
there was a fine of more than $1,500 imposed.
It also prohibits granting a master guide-
outfitter license to an individual that has had
a hunting, guiding, outfitting, transporter or
similar license revoked in another
jurisdiction.
Sec. 2: Amends AS 08.54.710(k), which requires revocation
of a master guide-outfitter license in certain
circumstances, to limit the violations that
would require revocation, similar to the
language in section one, to an offense for
which a person is imprisoned for more than one
day or a fine of more than $1,500 is imposed.
MS. LUCKY advised that one of the board's guiding principles was
to conform AS 08.54.610(b) to existing statute. She directed
attention to the document in the bill packets that shows the
statute relating to eligibility for licenses has a five-year
lookback. She noted the board suggested this language.
3:46:22 PM
SENATOR BISHOP asked if the statute had something similar to a
"Three strikes and you're out" provision.
MS. LUCKY said she believes that it would be the five-year
lookback, but she would defer to the board for confirmation.
3:46:56 PM
CHAIR REVAK offered his understanding that somebody who has a
qualifying violation has "a five-year timeout from being able to
receive a guide license." He asked if that was correct.
MS. LUCKY answered this would apply to individuals who are
otherwise eligible to hold a master guide license, but it was
correct that the lookback for guide-outfitter violations would
be five years.
CHAIR REVAK responded, "So if you got one of these violations,
you wouldn't be able to receive a guide license for another five
years."
MS. LUCKY answered, "That is correct Mr. Chairman, but I did
want to point out that you would also still have to meet all of
the other requirements for the master guide license. But this
would disqualify you for at least a period of five years."
3:48:03 PM
CHAIR REVAK repeated, "At least." He noted Renee Hoffard was
available for questions.
SENATOR BISHOP asked if there was a limit to the number of times
a guide could have their license revoked and reinstated after
five years.
3:48:40 PM
RENEE HOFFARD, Executive Administrator, Big Game Commercial
Services Board, Juneau, Alaska, referenced subsection (l) that
is not being amended and read the following:
Sec. 08.54.710. Discipline of guides and transporters.
(l) The board may issue a registered guide-outfitter
license to a person whose master guide-outfitter
license is revoked under (k) of this section.
She highlighted the provision that says to qualify for a master
guide license, the applicant must be a registered guide for 15
of the 20 years immediately preceding the date of the
application. If the offense is egregious enough, the board, in
consultation with the Department of Law, may choose to not issue
the registered guide license.
CHAIR REVAK asked Ms. Lucky if she had anything to add.
3:50:44 PM
MS. LUCKY noted the concern in the testimony the committee
received about "may" versus "shall." She said everybody agreed
the language needed to be amended but the opinions varied on how
to do that. Some people want the board to have discretion to
revoke a master guide license for certain violations, but the
board suggested narrowing the scope to just the most egregious
offenses and making the revocation mandatory.
3:51:57 PM
MS. LUCKY said the second issue relates to the effective date.
The hunting season is underway and there is some concern that
without an immediate effective date a small violation could
result in a guide having their license revoked for five years.
Self-reporting of small violations is common and that is
jeopardized by the current interpretation that all violations
result in license revocation.
MS. LUCKY said the sponsor has an amendment for an effective
date that is retroactive to the date Senate Bill 43 was enacted.
This makes the law consistent, and it clarifies the
legislature's understanding and intention when it passed Senate
Bill 43 in September 2019.
3:54:06 PM
CHAIR REVAK opened public testimony on SB 134; finding none, he
closed public testimony.
CHAIR REVAK asked if there were amendments.
3:54:32 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to SB 134.
OFFERED IN THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
BY SENATOR VON IMHOF
TO: SB 134 (32-LS06096\I)
This is a conceptual amendment. Legislative Legal is
directed to make any changes or deletions to the
suggest language, including technical, conforming, or
bill title changes, in order accomplish the intent.
INTENT OF AMENDMENT: Add an effective date to SB 134
to match the effective date of the enactment of AS
08.54.710(k) by Senate Bill 43 in 2019 (CHAPTER 26 SLA
19).
3:54:43 PM
CHAIR REVAK found no objection and announced Conceptual
Amendment 1 to SB 134 passed.
3:54:51 PM
At ease.
3:56:37 PM
CHAIR REVAK reconvened the meeting and asked the will of the
committee.
3:56:49 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved to report SB 134, work order 32-LS0696\I,
as conceptually amended, from committee, with individual
recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). He directed
Legislative Legal to make changes or deletions to the conceptual
amendment to accomplish the intent.
3:57:20 PM
CHAIR REVAK found no objection and CSSB 134(RES) was reported
from the Senate Resources Standing Committee.
3:57:46 PM
At ease
SB 133-REMOTE RECREATIONAL SITES; SALES; PERMITS
3:59:22 PM
CHAIR REVAK reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 133 "An Act relating to the
sale or lease of state land for remote recreational sites;
relating to permits for remote recreational sites; and providing
for an effective date."
3:59:47 PM
MARTY PARSONS, Director, Division of Mining, Land, and Water,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Anchorage, Alaska, stated
SB 133 is another step to fulfill the intent of art. VIII, sec.
1 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska to encourage
settlement of Alaska lands consistent with the public interest.
He said just three percent of the land in Alaska is in private
ownership and this administration intends to expand that.
MR. PARSONS displayed the pie chart on slide 3 that shows the
breakdown of land ownership in Alaska. The federal government is
the largest landowner with 59 percent; state ownership is 26
percent but will increase to about 30 percent once the state
receives all its entitlement; the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA) corporations hold about 12 percent; and
about 3 percent is in private ownership, which includes
municipalities.
MR. PARSONS reviewed the different ways SB 133 provides for
Alaskans to procure land in Alaska. The slide read as follows:
• Lands can be identified and offered through the
State Land Sales program
• The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will
maintain a list of lands available for remote
recreational sites
• The State will identify areas where land is
properly classified for settlement and may be
staked for remote recreational sites
• Individuals can nominate open state land not
included in the annual state offering for remote
recreational sites
• Multiple ways to procure a site:
• Purchase
• Lease
• Permit
4:03:24 PM
MR. PARSONS described the current Remote Recreational Cabin Site
Program under AS 38.05.600. The state identifies up to 20 acres
of state land per parcel for disposal under a lottery.
Successful individuals are able to stake their own parcel. The
difference between the current RRCS program and the former
programs is that the current program is open to residents only,
it has no "prove-up" requirements, and the resident has the
opportunity to own the land. He said DNR goes through a public
interest finding and public process before offering the land as
part of the staking program.
4:05:15 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF read the last bullet point on slide 5, "Since
2001 DNR has offered staking in 81 staking areas over 14
offerings." She asked for a description of a staking area and
the definition of an "offering."
MR. PARSONS directed attention to the examples on slide 7 of
staking areas from previous RRCS offerings. He elaborated that a
staking area is land DNR has identified as appropriate for
staking within a larger offering area. For example, DNR may
identify 15 authorizations within a 20,000 acre offering area.
4:07:19 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF asked how many individual parcels and total
acres the division has sold since 2001.
MR. PARSONS answered he would follow up with information.
SENATOR VON IMHOF asked for an estimate and whether each staking
area has about 50 parcels.
4:08:07 PM
MR. PARSONS answered it depends on the individual offering. Some
offerings could be 20,000 acres with 50 parcels and others could
be 7,500 acres with just 4 or 5 parcels. He said he did not have
the numbers in his head, but he would get the information to the
committee quickly.
4:08:48 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked if the difference between prove-up and no
prove-up is that prove-up means a person builds a cabin and no
prove-up means they do not build a cabin.
MR. PARSONS answered that is correct; the old staking programs
required certain improvements. Under the Remote Recreational
Cabin Staking program, the individual who staked the land was
able to move into a three-year lease so they could get the land
surveyed and appraised. They were allowed to make improvements,
but it was not required. After that the individual could move
into a land purchase contract.
4:10:01 PM
SENATOR STEVENS commented he thought the idea was for these
parcels to be improved. He asked if somebody could lease a
parcel for three years, do nothing, and end up owning the land.
MR. PARSONS answered that is technically correct. Most of the
parcels are fairly remote and it is up to the individual who
staked the land to use it for recreational purposes as they see
fit.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if the bill repeals the current program
and proposes a new one. He shared that he participated in the
Day Harbor staking years ago and he was not sure the process was
as sound as it could have been.
MR. PARSONS answered yes; SB 133 repeals the program under AS
38.05.600 and replaces it with a new one.
4:12:00 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if a tent platform would be an acceptable
prove-up.
MR. PARSONS answered the current Remote Recreational Cabin
Staking program does not have a prove-up requirement. An
individual stakes the land then has it surveyed and appraised.
Improvements are at the individual's discretion, whether it is a
tent platform, camping site, or a more permanent structure.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if a parcel under the staking program
could be used for a commercial purpose.
MR. PARSONS answered no.
4:13:21 PM
SENATOR BISHOP asked if commercial guides and outfitters are
excluded.
MR. PARSONS answered the Remote Cabin Staking program may not be
used for a commercial purpose; that was part of the impetus for
the commercial provision in what is currently SB 97.
4:14:05 PM
MR. PARSONS directed attention to slides 7 and 8 and explained
they are intended to illustrate the remote staking program has
had offerings and authorizations statewide. The offerings range
from Nome to Lake Louise, to Southcentral to Southeast.
4:14:56 PM
MR. PARSONS paraphrased slides 9-10 that provide an overview of
what is in SB 133. The slides read as follows:
• Repeals existing RRCS program
• Provides for Commissioner to identify areas where
land is properly classified for settlement and
offer those lands for staking of remote
recreational sites
• Identifies who is eligible to participate in the
program
• Establishes what parcel size may be staked by an
eligible participant 10 acres
• Provides for Alaskans to nominate lands for
inclusion
• Requires information necessary for identifying
staked parcel
• Process for handling conflicting staked parcels
• Directs the Commissioner to establish regulations
to implement the program
• Establishes process for staking and purchasing a
piece of state land for a remote recreational
site
• Sale price is fair market value
• Applicant must survey and appraise the site
• Also establishes a process for staking and
leasing of state land for remote recreational
sites
• Establishes process for leasing a remote
recreational site
• Initial 10-year leasing period
• Two additional 10-year lease renewal periods
• Restricts assignment of a lease
• Termination of lease for non-compliance
• Establishes timeframe for surveying and
appraising
• Requirement for marking of parcel boundaries
4:18:27 PM
SENATOR BISHOP asked if DNR does the appraisal and bills for it.
MR. PARSONS answered the intention is for the individual to be
responsible for both the survey and appraisal and the rules for
that can be handled through the regulatory process.
SENATOR BISHOP said he assumes the surveyor would need to be
licensed in this state.
MR. PARSONS answered that is correct; an official survey must be
done by a licensed surveyor.
SENATOR MICCICHE referenced earlier conversations that in part
led to the bill. He said the problem is that some families have
leased land for generations. He asked if those parcels that are
under lease could be included in this program with the current
leaseholders being given the right of first refusal.
4:20:44 PM
MR. PARSONS said the reference is to the Personal Use Cabin
Program. DNR believes that except in areas where the cabins
would be in a legislatively designated area, there will be an
opportunity for the leaseholders to participate in this program
and convert their lease to a purchase.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if that could be interpreted to mean that
there is a path forward.
MR. PARSONS answered the division's intent is to allow the
individuals who participated in the PUCP program to gain title
to those lands.
4:21:46 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked him to talk about the assignment of a
lease and the restrictions that will be placed on the
assignment.
MR. PARSONS answered the language on paragraph (1) on page 10,
lines 13-14, states the lease may not be assigned, conveyed, or
otherwise transferred, except though an estate or intestate
succession.
4:22:40 PM
SENATOR STEVENS summarized that a lease could pass to family
through a will.
MR. PARSONS answered that is correct and Mr. Orman with the
Department of Law was available to correct him if he misspoke.
CHAIR REVAK asked Mr. Orman for his opinion.
4:23:08 PM
CHRISTOPHER ORMAN, Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Division, Natural Resources Section, Department of Law,
Juneau, Alaska, agreed with Mr. Parsons. The lease may not
be assigned or conveyed but it can pass through estate or
intestate succession. He also noted that language in
paragraph (3) on page 10, lines 18-19 talks about the
restrictions DNR has the discretion to impose on the lease.
4:24:07 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked if the biggest difference is there is
not a best interest finding and instead, people can stake
all the vacant unreserved land in a given parcel.
MR. PARSONS answered yes; there is no best interest finding. He
said it is DNR's understanding that the areas available for
people to stake would be a subset of the Vacant, Unappropriated,
Unreserved (VUU) land, and the commissioner could include all or
a portion of that land.
SENATOR KIEHL asked how to prevent the staking program
acreage from being on top of a coal seam or a site with
commercial mineral potential.
MR. PARSONS answered certain non-conveyable land classifications
would not be available to participate in the program.
SENATOR KIEHL commented, "We keep hearing we've got better
maps of the moon than of Alaska; I wonder if we're as
confident as all that."
4:26:06 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF questioned the need to hire five full-
time employees as part of establishing a process for
leasing a remote recreational site. She mentioned hiring a
surveyor when DNR already has 10 surveyors on staff and
referenced an earlier statement about outsourcing surveying
and appraisal work. She asked if these hires were
necessary, particularly given that this administration is
trying to reduce the footprint of government.
4:26:58 PM
MR. PARSONS answered the division believes this program will be
very popular. If their analysis is correct, the program will
require a surveyor who primarily will write survey instructions,
review plats, and do the administrative work to identify the
parcels and ownership and ensure all the criteria for the
platting process are met. The anticipated workload will require
additional appraisers, land surveyors, and staff to administer
the program.
SENATOR VON IMHOF highlighted that the Department of Natural
Resources has 210 employees, including 10 fulltime level I land
surveyors, 12 fulltime level I natural resource managers, 52
fulltime level II natural resource specialists, and 4 fulltime
level II appraisers. She said she did not know these employees'
current workload or if the land surveying needs in DNR were
"huckity buck," but she wanted it on the record that she was
cautious and wary of the $750,000 fiscal note that calls for
five new fulltime employees.
4:29:41 PM
SENATOR BISHOP asked if individuals would have the option to
purchase these parcels under the same terms and conditions as
the current process; the state carries the note and individuals
make payments to the state.
MR. PARSONS answered yes.
4:30:43 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI referenced the state map of VUU lands on slide
12 and asked if DNR has determined that each of the blue colored
parcels are not critical habitat or have something that would
preclude a sale.
MR. PARSONS answered that map is the division's current best
estimate of what VUU lands would be available for this program.
He added the caveat, "I cannot tell you 100 percent every acre
of that is unencumbered or is available." He said he could say
the land is not classified for habitat or minerals and it has
not been approved for municipal land entitlements. He added that
before the land is offered to the public a more rigorous
analysis would be necessary.
4:32:35 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI referenced Section 2 and asked what additional
studies would be required for the director to make a written
finding that the best interest of the state will be served by
the process going forward. He cited a bill he worked on with the
director to make the current process easier.
MR. PARSONS answered the "035" best interest finding is not
necessary, but the division would still go through a rigorous
process to ensure the relevant lands are not encumbered by
pipelines, easements, leases, or other authorizations. This will
be similar to the current process initially, but less work will
be required in the end to convey the land and enter the
authorization, he said.
4:35:44 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if he agreed that this iteration of the
remote cabin site program had a different system for basically
the same thing.
MR. PARSONS agreed that was fairly accurate; instead of discrete
parcels, this program looks statewide at what might be included
in the program.
SENATOR MICCICHE referred to the fiscal note analysis and asked
if $750,000 to $2.5 million in sales is expected over time.
MR. PARSONS answered that is the revenue estimate and $569,900
is the estimated expense for a net of less than $200,000.
4:38:24 PM
SENATOR BISHOP referenced the map on slide 10 and asked if the
parcels in blue are available for staking and lease.
MR. PARSONS answered it should be considered a preliminary
analysis of locations where land may be available.
SENATOR BISHOP noted the bill says an individual could nominate
outside those quadrants.
MR. PARSONS confirmed that was correct.
4:39:18 PM
CHAIR REVAK requested the sectional analysis for SB 133.
MR. PARSONS deferred to Mr. Orman for the sectional analysis.
4:39:42 PM
MR. ORMAN stated he was primarily available to answer legal
questions about the bill, but he could provide a summary.
CHAIR REVAK stated he would wait to hear the sectional
analysis during a subsequent hearing.
4:40:27 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked Mr. Parsons to provide better detail
on the lands available under the bill.
CHAIR REVAK requested he send the more detailed maps to the
committee.
SENATOR KIEHL noted the chair's staff had posted a more
detailed map on BASIS.
MR. PARSONS agreed a more detailed map was posted on BASIS. He
reiterated that this was just a preliminary look at the land
that potentially would be available.
CHAIR REVAK advised the committee would look at the detailed map
and follow up if there were questions on that or the sectional
analysis.
4:42:48 PM
CHAIR REVAK opened public testimony on SB 133; finding none, he
closed public testimony.
4:43:12 PM
CHAIR REVAK held SB 133 in committee.
SB 79-HUNTING/TRAPPING/FISHING: DISABLED VETS
4:43:26 PM
CHAIR REVAK announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 79
"An Act relating to sport fishing, hunting, and trapping
identification cards."
He stated the bill was first heard on 3/15/2021 when public
testimony was heard and closed. He noted the proposed committee
substitute (CS).
4:43:41 PM
SENATOR JESSE KIEHL, speaking as sponsor, reminded members that
the original bill qualifies veterans with a service-related
disability to receive the permanent ID card that senior citizens
receive for hunting, fishing, and trapping. Without the bill,
these veterans only qualify for an annual free hunting and
fishing license. The proposed CS reflects requests and
suggestions from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G).
First it addresses the technical issue that the disabled veteran
license is annual, but the department's practice has been to
issue a permanent card for hunting and fishing. The CS adds it
to the statute so that the law matches current practice. The
more substantive change is to add trapping to the free annual
hunting and fishing license for active duty National Guard
members and members of the reserves who are residents
SENATOR KIEHL said he wanted to correct a statement he made
during the initial presentation about the trapping licenses sold
in Alaska each year. He should have said just under 900
exclusively trapping licenses are sold in Alaska each year. That
is the possible revenue loss under SB 79. The number of combined
hunting/fishing/trapping licenses sold in the state each year is
vastly larger.
SENATOR STEVENS commented on the title.
SENATOR KIEHL responded to the comment.
4:47:07 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS)
for SB 79, work order 32-LS0003\W, as the working document.
4:47:29 PM
CHAIR REVAK found no objection and version W was adopted.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked the sponsor if the fiscal note was still
zero.
SENATOR KIEHL answered yes; the department believes the original
fiscal note for the bill is still appropriate.
4:48:14 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said he supported the bill, but he wanted to
make sure the committee is looking at real numbers.
CHAIR REVAK asked Ms. Hanke to comment.
4:48:47 PM
RACHEL HANKE, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, Juneau, Alaska, stated the number of exclusive trapping
licenses will remain the same. The CS adds trapping for active
duty reserve members and that number is not expected to be large
so the fiscal impact will be minimal.
4:49:11 PM
CHAIR REVAK found no further questions or comments and asked the
will of the committee.
4:49:56 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved to report the CS for SB 79, work order
32-LS0003\W, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached zero fiscal note(s).
4:50:11 PM
CHAIR REVAK found no objection and CSSB 79(RES) was reported
from the Senate Resources Standing Committee.
4:50:51 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Revak adjourned the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 4:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 134 Background - Related Statutes.pdf |
HRES 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM SRES 5/5/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 134 |
| SB 134 Sponsor Statement 4.30.2021.pdf |
HRES 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM SRES 5/5/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 134 |
| SB 134 Fiscal Note 4.31.21.pdf |
SRES 5/5/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 134 |
| SB 134 Sectional Analysis 4.30.2021.pdf |
SRES 5/5/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 134 |
| SB 134 Support Doc-BGCSB Final minutes 2.2020.pdf |
HRES 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM SRES 5/5/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 134 |
| SB 133 Sponsor Statement 4.27.21.pdf |
SRES 5/5/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 133 |
| SB 133 Fiscal Note 4.26.21.pdf |
SRES 5/5/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 133 |
| SB 133 Sectional Analysis 5.3.2021.pdf |
SRES 5/5/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 133 |
| SB 79 CS ver W.pdf |
SRES 5/5/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 79 |
| SB 79 ver W Explanation of changes.pdf |
SRES 5/5/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 79 |
| SB 133 Remote Rec Presentation 5.5.2021.pdf |
SRES 5/5/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 133 |
| SB 133 VUU Map (No Layers - Reduced).pdf |
SRES 5/5/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 133 |
| SB 134 Support Letter APHA 5.5.21.pdf |
HRES 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM SRES 5/5/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 134 |