Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/12/1996 08:09 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 230 - MANAGEMENT OF PARKS & RECREATIONAL AREAS Number 2423 The next order of business to come before the House Resources Committee members was CSSB 230(FIN), "An Act 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; and relating to Denali State Park." KEN ERICKSON, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Drue Pearce, Alaska State Legislature, came forward to give the sponsor statement. He said in the committee files, there is a sponsor statement and a sectional analysis. Mr. Erickson read the sponsor statement into the record: "Senate Bill 230 was introduced to protect Alaskan's right to access state land and water for recreational uses. In a time when the federal government continues to restrict and prohibit Alaskan's access to many areas of the state, we the state government, need to ensure that decisions to restrict access on land we control are made in a responsible, fair and well represented process. "Alaskans are presently losing their right to traditional recreational use on some state land and park land without appropriate notification and justification. Citizens believe that the public comment process is not being fairly administered and all user groups are not being represented. In some instances, the management and authority to restrict and prohibit uses on state land are being transferred from the Division.... TAPE 96-54, SIDE B Number 001 MR. ERICKSON continued reading the sponsor statement, "...of Lands to the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. Non-restricted areas of our state are being closed without proper oversight by the legislature. "Decisions to deny access for recreational use, because of its importance, have always been made by our legislature and not bureaucrats. The Constitution of the State of Alaska recognizes the importance of land closures and mandates that all closures over 640 acres must be legislatively designated. We must continue to recognize the importance of land closures and make necessary changes in the current process for restrictions and prohibitions in areas less than 640 the acres. "A change in this process, SB 230 in its current form or other language that achieves this intent, would ensure that all Alaskans would have proper representation by their elected officials and restrictions and prohibitions on traditional recreational activity would need to be justified to the legislature. Many areas of Alaska may need to be restricted to some or all recreational activity, but these important decisions need to be made at the legislative level, where the people have better access." MR. ERICKSON said that a few weeks ago, the committee heard HB 447 which is very similar in intent; however, the two bills has since diverged in their approach to this problem and they do stand alone. He said he would answer questions. Number 059 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Erickson if he would be prepared to explain to the committee the difference between SB 230 and HB 447. MR. ERICKSON responded that HB 447 takes its approach in Title 38, whereas SB 230 takes its approach in Title 41. He said he believes Title 38 deals with how the department handles just their general land issues whereas Title 31 deals with park land issues. Number 089 REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES said although these may deal with two separate sections of the statutes, she personally would have to oppose SB 230 because the other bill has already been passed, which is in the Senate and they could amend it. She said the House has already transmitted a bill and the House bill should be the vehicle. Number 110 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated the committee amended HB 447 because of its potential for crossing other land uses. There primarily was a safety issue, if they were to cross lands that might be available for mining or other activities, it could create a problem with the public. He asked if the SB 230 provides that same sort of protection so that the owner of the lease, while they may have access, they could actually direct people how to get around this from a safety standpoint. MR. ERICKSON said SB 230 specifically deals with park lands and doesn't really deal with private property. CO-CHAIRMAN asked Mr. Erickson if he is only talking about access to park land. MR. ERICKSON answered in the affirmative. Number 155 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said when HB 447 was before the committee, the members did discuss incorporating Title 41 into it and the sponsor, at that time, didn't want to do it. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she believes the other bill deals with everything that is in the Senate bill except for the addition of the Chilkat State Park and the Denali State Park. She said, "It seems to me that the title of this bill, being what it is, that if we stripped out everything out of it except that portion which deals strictly with the parks - the Chilkat State Park, etc., this bill goes far beyond parks. It goes to state parks, recreational or special management areas or preserves. It incorporates the House bill. It may be the Senate President's bill, but that's just too bad because I just think this is an injustice to the House one (indisc.)." MR. ERICKSON said the two bills could stand on their own and they would compliment each other. He asked if it would help the committee if he reviewed the sectional analysis. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if he would review the sectional analysis. Number 236 MR. ERICKSON explained Section 1 adds a list to the duties of the Department of Natural Resources. The department must annually submit a report to the legislature on each designation of an incompatible use that prohibits or restricts a traditional means of access. The report must state the reasons for the restriction or prohibition, the specific area affected and the duration of the restriction or prohibition. MR. ERICKSON said Section 2 adds a further section to the list of duties required by the Department of Natural Resources. The department may not manage as special purpose park land those areas not inside park boundaries as designated by the legislature. MR. ERICKSON referred to Section 3 and said it adds slightly under 11 acres of land to Chilkat State Park. He said Jim Stratton, Director of Parks, could perhaps speak more directly to this. Mr. Erickson said the reason for including this section is that his predecessors had these lands transferred to the park using an interagency land management agreement (ILMA) and the lands were originally purchased with federal funds that had strings attached which said this land has to managed as it were Chilkat State Park land. Mr. Erickson said SB 230 says that he has to manage that land under a slightly less restrictive management scheme, and if that's the case, then he has to replace the 11 acres with similar land. He would have to do that at 1996 land prices. One solution to the problem is just add these 11 acres to Chilkat State Park. Number 322 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Stratton he had a problem with that as far as how that will actually take place if the budget is set before this bill becomes effective. JIM STRATTON, Director, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation Department of Natural Resources, said they are comfortable with that part of the bill. MR. ERICKSON explained Section 4 adds a section to the statute establishing Denali State Park specifying what constitutes an incompatible use. MR. ERICKSON referred to Section 5 and said it specifies that past regulations, and regulations being currently promulgated, concerning Denali State Park take effect only if they are consistent with the provisions of this act. Number 372 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said, "This bill was introduced two weeks before this bill was introduced and it looks like to me what happened here somebody took the House bill and took a little different approach to it and stuck in the expansion of Chilkat State Park and some other clarifying language as it relates to Denali and I have a real problem with this. And I think -- and what I'd like to see happen is this bill held in the committee until we resolve how this bill is going to be handled in the other body." CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he has a tendency to agree with Representative Barnes. He noted he is thinking very seriously about a subcommittee because he would like that completely resolved. He said we're going through two different sections of statute, but he doesn't want there to be a conflict. Number 442 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he understands the motivations in Section 3. He said he doesn't really understand the motivations in Section 2. MR. ERICKSON explained the department transfers lands to park unit and manages those units as if they were park lands under the more restrictive classifications of the statutes that designates those park land, they there has been no legislative review of that transfer. Essentially, the argument is, "Do we expand park lands without undergoing legislative review?" MR. ERICKSON said as the legislature has established each park, the legislature has gone through and designated what they consider to be a traditional and compatible use of that park land; however, Denali State Park in its original authorizing statute just lists the land that makes up the park. It does not talk about what is a traditional use in state land. He referred to the question of "Is there an event of sparking this," and said yes. The park's director recently instituted some restrictions on Blair Lake and Kasoogie (Sp.?) Ridge and Denali State Park says you cannot allow float planes to land on that particular lake. He noted he believes the park's director also restricted some landings on Kasoogie Ridge. Mr. Erickson said that is a traditional means of access for the guide industry to conduct their hunts and other recreational activities. That traditional use existed far before Denali State Park was even made a state park. Number 578 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN informed the committee there are a number of different things in the Senate bill than what is in the House bill. He said he distinctly remembers Representative Masek said that she did not want Title 41 involved in ANILCA. In that essence, there are two separate bills. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said that is a good point. Number 606 MR. STRATTON said the reporting requirement in Section 1 is something that the department worked with the bill sponsor on. He said that is something that the department thinks is reasonable. It is important to point out that a vast majority of the restrictions that they make on traditional recreational access are made for public safety reasons and not for other reasons. It would be reporting on those lands that would be transferred to them under the revised Title 38 rules that are in HB 447. Mr. Stratton referred to Section 2 and said the impetus for this section has to do with Blair Lake. He said, "We have, in reality, only added acreage to legislatively designated parks that expand the boundaries in two instances, one being Chilkat State Park and that's the reason that we have Section 3 in this bill is to take care of that problem as Ken described earlier. And The other is at Denali with the addition of Blair Lank to the park through the ILMA process about a year and a half ago. We do propose a float plan closure on Blair Lake. I have withdrawn that from the regulation package because I perceived a public safety concern that I had there last fall has diminished, so that particular restriction is no longer proposed. We do still propose an aircraft closure on Curry and Kasoogie Ridge, which really gets to the part of this bill that Parks is opposed to and that is Section 4, which changes the purposes for Denali State Park, from our perspective, after 26 years of citizen driven management and that this new purpose for the park allows for preference for motorized access. Now Ken was correct in describing the legislation that created Denali in the first place. It did not identify incompatible uses where the legislature established the park, and when the legislature does not identify compatible uses that need to be accommodated in the park planning, we move ahead and try and try and find that balance between competing park uses and, in this case, motorized and non- motorized uses within the park boundaries through the park planning process. There have been two plans done for Denali State Park, one in 1975 and another one in 1989. The most recent master plan in 1989, it took us two years to develop this plan. We had three rounds of public meetings. Meetings were held in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Palmer and Talkeetna. We had three opportunities for people to provide written comments. We had ten public meetings over that two year period with the Mat-Su Parks Citizens Advisory Committee to discuss the plan and all of those meetings were advertised in the newspaper and opened to the public, and it's that citizen process - all of those meetings, all of that written comment - all of that public discussion, you know lacking any direction from the legislature, we crafted a balance between motorized and non-motorized use within the park and it was put forth in the Denali master plan in 1989. That master plan, after all of this public involvement, recommended some areas of the park be closed to motorized access including aircraft landing and snow machines. The area is (indisc.) Curry and Kasoogie Ridge. It's about 30 percent of the total park acreage. Now Parks does not like the propose regulations until we need them - until the use is to the point where we're beginning to see conflicts between, you know, different competing recreational uses. We feel that point is being reached in Denali State Park. The public has been pushing State Parks to implement the regulations - to implement the 1989 management plan. The Mat-Su Advisory Board has been pushing it - other members of the public. So when we released the regulation package last fall, it understandably so prompted an outcry to those who were opposed to any motorized closures, and we feel that the closures proposed in the Denali State Park Management Plan were done with the benefit of a full and open public discussion, involvement of citizens from across the spectrum of Alaska users and it's unfair to those hundreds of Alaskans that have spent thousands of hours crafting this compromise in Denali State Park between motorized and non-motorized uses to have the legislature at this stage of the game and change the ground rules. Now we understand that -- in my discussions with the bill sponsor that the proposed closures that we currently exist in - the master plan, would not be considered ample or reasonable assets. So we would have to go back in -- while the bill does allow for some closures, but the amount of closure that we have proposed in the 89 master plan would not be compatible with this new language. We'd have to go in and redo the management plan because, given to historic involvement of any recreational user groups in this discussion and the intensity of the debate - changing this balance is not something that we can do without a lot of public discussion and that's why there is $105,000 fiscal note attached to this bill because we're going to have to go back out with these new, if this passes, with these new directions and guidelines from the legislature, trying to explain to these people who have been working our Denali plan for the last 15 - 20 years why the rules were changed and then under this new framework, move ahead and try and try craft a new balance between motorized and non-motorized use. That is not something that easily done. As I know the members of the committee are well aware, and I certainly am as the director of State Parks, Alaskans feel very strongly about how their parks are managed and anytime you propose any kind of an opening of an area or a closure of an area, you're going to bring people out on all sides of the discussion." Number 915 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he noticed the current fiscal note predates the committee substitute. He asked that with the committee substitute is the fiscal note of $105,000 still applicable. MR. STRATTON indicated it is still applicable. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked him if sees any conflicts between SB 230 and HB 447. MR. STRATTON said he doesn't see any conflicts between the two bills. Number 945 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said it doesn't bother her that they would have to go back out for more public comment. She said she had read too many articles as to how portions of the public have been treated not only in that park, but after public hearings. It's appalling. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he has heard similar comments from some of his constituents and non-constituents. Number 968 CLIFF EAMES, Alaska Center for the Environment, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He said his organization had testified on HB 447 and submitted a letter regarding that bill which is also applicable to SB 230. Mr. Eames said they agree with Mr. Erickson in that the intent of the two bills is similar. Both of them are a reaction to the attempt by the Division of Parks, which they believe was long overdue, to treat all recreational users in Denali State Park fairly instead of the present situation which favors motorized use. The bills are an attempt to detour both the Division of Lands and State Parks from trying to achieve this balance. He said the Alaska Center for the Environment believes, both as a practical matter and because of the chilling effect, that we're going to continue with this situation where non- motorized users are slighted and motorized or noisy use are favored. Mr. Eames said they don't think that's fair and they hope that the legislature does not intend to treat one segment of Alaska recreation users unfairly. He said he would note that the legislature will provide a balance of opportunities for visitors, so it's motorized noisy opportunity and quiet non-motorized opportunities. Mr. Eames said it is ironic that motorized uses are considered to be traditional uses. The non-motorized uses are far more traditional than the motorized used. Mr. Eames referred to SB 230 in comparison to HB 447 and said the Senate version is more onerous. Number 1103 DON SHERWOOD, Alaska Boating Association, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He noted he is on the Governor's Advisory Board for the Susitna Basin Rec Rivers Management Plan. He said he supports SB 230. The reconvene is that they don't feel that the State Parks administration is doing fairly to all users, traditional and/or the old timers (indisc.) He asked, "What is the history of the historical means in paragraph (b). Also, is it grandfathered in to paragraph (a) what traditional means. Mr. Sherwood questioned where the study is on safety and danger in these areas. He said there isn't one. Mr. Sherwood continued to discuss the public process. He referred to the $105,000 fiscal note and said he thinks it should be defunded at this time. He thanked the committee for listening to his testimony. Number 1194 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Sherwood if he thinks there are any circumstances where provisions should be made for quiet use of land. MR. SHERWOOD said, "Yes, there is up in the upper part of the rivers when the rivers go down after we hunt in there early in the spring. Now I can't take my grandchildren in, thanks to the restriction, to bear hunt. As the river falls, it restricts the uses of these upper rivers. Just nature takes care of its own and it's quiet at that time." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES referred to snow machine access and said suppose there are four watersheds in a park and asked Mr. Sherwood if he would supports perhaps closing one of them to motorized access. MR. SHERWOOD said he can't see a reason for it. He said he doesn't see any walkers in there during the winter. Number 1250 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she would like to withdraw her objections to SB 230(FIN) now that she has had further discussions and better understands that HB 447, sponsored by Representative Masek, will stand on its own. Number 1270 ROY BURKHART, Member, Alaska Boating Association, testified via teleconference from Mat-Su in favor of CSSB 230(FIN). He said, "I've had a number of experiences dealing with Parks and Rec, both as a representative of the Boating Association and also as a resident on Nancy Lake, which is involved in the Nancy Lake recreation area. When - I think it was Mr. Stratton talked about compromise, the only thing that I could ask, I would ask Cliff Eames about compromise. I would ask the Parks and DNR how many areas in Alaska are in the state parks where if you do not have a motorized transportation - you're prohibited from entering because the conflict between the user groups are people that on motorized transportation or recreation vehicles and non-motorized? Now we continually have what are referred to as noisy motorized and I would like to ask how many of the areas are the southeast non- motorized restricted from golf. They can go anywhere we can and then when it gets too crowed, they want (indisc.), but they don't have many areas where they're not allowed to go. On the (indisc.) River management plan finally we were able to get em to go to a compromise on the Little Susitna River where one week is float only and the next week is motorized and that's a compromise, but not the definition that they get. And I would ask you to support Senate bill 230 or some type of restrictions to where the Administration does not have the power to shut us out of our own wilderness. I'm also a disabled Veteran and if I can't have motorized access, I can't go. That's all I've got. Thank you." Number 1406 SARA HANNAN, Executive Director, Alaska Environmental Lobby, came forward to give her testimony. She said she has been working on SB 230, both in the Senate and the House, and also HB 447. Ms. Hannan said both of the bills came out of a management proposal that is not in place. The regulations that spurred this controversy in Denali State Park started with a proposed closure at Blair Lakes. She said what both of those bills do is put more burden on the legislature to do more management. Because there was great outcry from some public members that this proposed management decision wasn't good, the response has been that the legislature should assume more management. Ms. Hannan said she would assert that that's the wrong burden and that management of agency responsibilities coming back to the legislature increases the legislature's workload. She said she thinks that the extensive process the agencies are asked to go through to do their management is something we want to make sure that they do. Ms. Hannan said she believes there are many other ways for the legislators to carry their point to them if they don't agree with the management such as their budget process. The legislature's political influence in agency management is clear and direct. She said she doesn't think it requires statutory change. It requires open flowing communication. Ms. Hannan said that Representative Williams could certainly speak to the fact that he hasn't been satisfied with state park management in his areas, but going to a statutory remedy is a very dramatic step, she believes, in a direction that burdens the legislature. She said she doesn't think that it is efficient for government to do that. Ms. Hannan said, "I believe it is fully the responsibility of the legislature to communicate with agencies if you believe that they're not carrying out your intent or that you're changing the intent because of things they've carried out in the wrong way." MS. HANNAN said, "With that aside, I (indisc.) speak strictly to Denali State Park remembering that these statues don't just cover Denali State Park, they cover all state parks. When the legislature has designated state park land, it is because you've said that those park lands have some special value or high use or something to that effect. When Denali State Park was created 26 years ago I think it was with a clear vision that Mount McKinley and Denali National Park were a choice piece of Alaska for the growth of future tourism and that we needed to reserve some area around there because we knew that the national park was not going to, forever, accommodate the increasing demand for tourism and growth in Alaska. And as tourism expands in Alaska and Alaska grows, every acre of land will have more users and more conflicts over use and those use development questions are complicate to resolve. If you've served on you local government you know the most complicated use developments is what my neighbor is gunna do adjacent to my land - does he get to build a fence or not? How high does that fence get to go and what does it get to look like? And when you expand those kind of management decisions to state parks and kinds of uses, I think it's an extensive process. I believe that the public process related to these new regulations in Denali State Park is important and it's important to go forward with them. Regulations can be changed and I believe that legislative oversight and direction and communication would probably result in the quickest amount of change. Director Stratton spoke to the fact that even before those regulations have gone into place, he has heard clearly from the legislature and from you constituents that their proposed closure on Blair Lakes, which was not in place last year and is not in place, has been repealed from being proposed. Maybe it took a sledge hammer to get his attention, but he heard it and it's not part of the proposed regulation package. I believe that that's the appropriate process. I don't think that changing the statutes that govern these parks and changing the statutes that direct Denali State Park is an appropriate place for the legislature to go. I think it's going to burden you down and I think it's going to bring the conflicts that are going to expand and increase in Alaska as management of land increases in conflicting use. Here to the table, I mean you're gunna spend months and months and months making decisions that should be made by our agencies. I believe that if you don't agree with those decisions being made by the agencies, there are other mechanisms besides statutory change to effect those. I'd asked you keep 230 here in committee and let the regulations regarding Denali State Park go forward. Number 1689 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said what Ms. Hannan has said is idealistic. She said, "I've beaten agencies over the head since 1979 and the only time they ever listened is when you change the statutes and I'll guarantee you they'll try to find a way to get around the statutes too. Unfortunately, that happens to be the case." Number 1727 DAVID STANCLIFF, Legislative Assistant to Representative Beverly Masek, Alaska State Legislature, came forward to testify. He said he has closely followed both SB 230 and HB 447. He said he would like the committee members to know that he supports what Senator Pearce is trying to do specifically with the ILMA authority and specifically with prohibition of access in parks where there needs to be more of a balance. He said he doesn't see this bill in any way, shape or form bumping Representative Masek's bill off the calendar. They kind of complete a broad picture. He thanked the committee. Number 1774 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES moved and asked unanimous consent to move CSSB 230(FIN), out of committee with individual recommendations. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES objected. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Austerman, Barnes, Kott, Ogan, Williams and Green voted in favor of the motion. Representatives Davies, Long and Nicholia. So CSSB 230(FIN) was moved out of the House Resources Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|