Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/26/2001 01:17 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 165-KENAI RIVER SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 165, "An Act relating to the Kenai River Special Management Area; and providing for an effective date." Number 0093 REPRESENTATIVE KEN LANCASTER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 165, explained that the Kenai River Special Management Area (KRSMA) addition is "the winding up of a process that started back in 1996." Public hearings took place in Anchorage, Soldotna, Moose Pass, and Cooper Landing over about an 18-month period, with hundreds of people present to testify. Representative Lancaster stated that the properties under discussion totaled approximately 6,000 acres, located primarily in the Moose Pass and Cooper Landing areas, with some properties in the upper and lower Kenai areas. He mentioned that the properties in the lower Kenai area had been purchased with "Exxon Valdez criminal spill money." REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER outlined that HB 165 would protect habitat and "wet areas along those different water bodies." Furthermore, the intent of the bill is to help prevent trampling of the areas, thereby protecting the "small fry," the result of which will help both commercial and sport fishermen by getting the salmon back out to the waters. Representative Lancaster made note that there would be some minor technical changes made to the bill. Number 0258 CAROL CARROLL, Director, Division of Support Services (Central Office), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), detailed the proposed changes to HB 165. She noted that the first change, on page 3, line 30, was to delete "Lot 2-A of ASLS 80-87". REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER clarified that that was a ten-acre parcel right in the center of Soldotna, which has been turned over to the city. MS. CARROLL directed the committee's attention to page 4, line 5: "Tract 3, Anglers Acres Subdivision Lowe Addition, Plat No. 97-19;". She explained that that tract was purchased by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustees Council, but was returned to its previous owner to resolve a dispute; therefore, it should be deleted from the bill. [At this point, there was a motion to adopt HB 165 for discussion purposes, but it was already before the committee.] MS. CARROLL apologized for not delivering the changes being discussed to the committee or the sponsor prior to today, adding that the detailed analysis resulting in the changes had just been done on Friday [of the previous week]. She continued, saying that the following should be deleted from page 10, line 16: "19". She stated that the reason for the deletion was because that section of land does not contain any portion of Trail River or Trail Lake. MS. CARROLL indicated that the following should be deleted from page 11, lines 18-20: "Indian Creek Township 5 North, Range 2 West, Seward Meridian Sections 30, 31". MS. CARROLL said that work needed to be done in Section 4, because some entire lots had been added in, when only sections of the lots should have been included. For example, she cited that in Section 13, line 24 [page 11], "Lots 5, 7, and 9" would be deleted and the following language would be added for the House Resources Standing Committee's consideration: "Portion of lots 4, 5, and 7 that are east of the Seward Highway right-of- way and west of Lower Trail Lake," and "Portion of lots 7, 8, and 9 that are within 200 feet of the Trail Lake ordinary high- water mark, or within the 100-year flood boundary, or the river, whichever is greater". She explained that the intention was to include only land near the water, not entire lots, and the management's intent with the plans was to "reduce the acreage and increase the acreage that is conveyable to the bureau." She stated that some of the acreage was reselected by the bureau on December 31, 2000. Number 0720 CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked Representative Lancaster if he would be amenable to moving a committee substitute that would include the changes just discussed. REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER concurred. MS. CARROLL interjected that DNR would be willing to work with the sponsor to supply the committee substitute as expediently as possible. REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER mentioned that resolutions from the Kenai Peninsula Borough, the City of Kenai, the City of Soldotna, as well as from various groups in the Cooper Landing and Moose Pass areas would be provided to the House Resources Standing Committee before the next scheduled hearing of HB 165. REPRESENTATIVE FATE stated that the municipality has so much land that it can select. He asked if all the land being considered falls under the statute that provides for that municipal land. REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER replied that he believed that to be correct. He added: "When this was first introduced back in 1997, when Commissioner Shively actually planned the regulations, ... there was a lawsuit put forward by the borough. And that's part of the negotiation, I think, to come out of [it] - the last property, particularly, that Carol Carroll mentioned." Number 0884 CHRIS DEGERNES, Park Superintendent, Kenai Peninsula Area, Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources, testifying via teleconference, said that she has been working on Kenai River issues for many years. She stated that [HB 165] stems from almost 1984, when the Kenai River stress management area was first created. Ms. Degernes continued: There were lands in the upper drainage, in the Kenai Lake, Upper Kenai River, Upper Trail Lake, and Lower Trail Lake, [which] had not been selected by the state at that time, or [been] in the process of being selected, under national forest community grant programs. It was intended, since those early days, that once these lands were selected and were in state ... ownership ... they would be available to add to the Kenai River stress management area. So, we're basically fulfilling the intent of nearly two decades ago of adding these lands for the purpose of protecting and preserving important fish and wildlife habitat and resources, and also providing recreation access and opportunities for all the people who use these areas. MS. DEGERNES recalled that since 1984, when the original KRSMA was established, there have been a couple of more recent extensive public support processes that were mentioned by Representative Lancaster: the revision of the Kenai River comprehensive management plan, which was adopted in 1997, "following about a year and a half of fairly intensive public involvement"; and more recently, the Kenai area plan, which was a way of classifying state land within the Kenai Peninsula Borough and "reiterated that certain lands and waters of the upper Kenai River drainage should be added to the Kenai River Special Management Area." MS. DEGERNES said that both those public processes involved extensive meetings, where representatives from Moose Pass, Cooper Landing, Seward, Kenai, and Soldotna were heard. She stated, "There is resounding support for adding these lands," and urged the House Resources Standing Committee to adopt HB 165, as amended. Number 1099 ANN WHITMORE-PAINTER, Member, Kenai River Special Advisory Board; and Chairman, Moose Pass Advisory Planning Commission (for the past 11 years), testified via teleconference. A resident of Moose Pass, she stated that the majority of the people in the Moose Pass area have made it clear, through numerous meetings and a community vote, that one of their priorities for the future was to protect the shores of Upper and Lower Trail Lakes. She added that the community thought that the best way to protect the habitat, as well as the recreational and scenic value [of the area], was to have the lands added to KRSMA. Number 1200 CO-CHAIR SCALZI mentioned that Ms. Whitmore-Painter was a former long-time member of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Commission. Number 1225 DALE BONDURANT testified via teleconference in support of HB 165. He stated that the Kenai River watershed fish and wildlife resources are some of the most important, not only in Alaska, but in our nation. He mentioned that he'd been in Alaska for 54 years. [An at-ease was taken from 1:32 p.m. to 1:38 p.m.] MR. BONDURANT continued by saying that many people participate in [Alaska's] fisheries. He said he has seen the harm that uncontrolled development has on fish and wildlife resources. Mr. Bondurant told the committee that he had served for many years on the KRSMA citizen advisory board, and believed that its input has resulted in good management decisions. He encouraged the committee to pass HB 165. Number 1488 CHARLES QUARRE, a property owner on the [Kenai] River, testified via teleconference in support of HB 165. He stated that the bill provides additional protection of fish and wildlife resources and habitat, as well as an opportunity to manage the recreational activities in the area. He mentioned that these lands and waters were identified in 1997, in the Kenai River comprehensive management plan, and he urged the legislature to enact HB 165. Number 1541 PAUL SHADURA, Vice President, Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association (KPFA); and Board Member, Kenai River Special Management Area, testified via teleconference in support of HB 165. He mentioned his support of the Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association, the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association, and any efforts to protect the Kenai River watershed. Mr. Shadura stated that [HB 165] is a "positive approach in protecting ... the future." He continued: As with any plan, many adjustments have been made to attempt to accommodate the interests of the stakeholders. Adopted, I hope that this spirit of cooperation will continue to accommodate specific uses and users, so that all can enjoy the natural wonders of the Kenai watershed, while ... protecting its fragile ecosystem for generations to come. Number 1659 BOB MERCHANT, President, United Cook Inlet Drift Association, testified via teleconference as follows: On behalf of the 250 members of United Cook Inlet Drift Association, I wish to speak in favor of House Bill 165. We believe that the lands and waters of the Kenai Peninsula should be developed and settled for the greatest benefit to the people of Alaska, and find no reason to believe that the inclusion of these lands and waters will prevent the orderly settlement and use of this property by the people. We, of course, also support any measures taken to protect the waters and spawning habitat of our abundant fishery resources, and feel our parks administration is able to see that those resources and habitat are protected. Number 1729 DAVID RHODE testified via teleconference, noting that he lives in Cooper Landing and has worked with the "APC" in the local community, over the years, on a lot of planning issues. He said there has been strong support in Cooper Landing for these additions. Mr. Rhode informed members that he has been working with this [issue] since the early 1980s. He said the state has done a good job of listening to the local community and incorporating its input into the plan. Mr. Rhode indicated these additions fit well with the local borough planning, the Kenai Area Plan, and the U.S. Forest Service planning. He added that he agreed with what "Chris [Degernes], Ann [Whitmore- Painter], Dale [Bondurant], Charles [Quarre], Paul [Shadura], and Bob [Merchant]" had to say. He offered to answer any "unit- specific" questions. Number 1788 JIM H. RICHARDSON testified via teleconference in support of HB 165. [Although his testimony was indiscernible for a short time, his letter dated March 26, 2001, stated: "We own property on the Kenai River in Cooper Landing in the vicinity of some of the parcels included in the proposed legislation. I am also a public member of the KRSMA Board."] MR. RICHARDSON reported that the addition of these lands to KRSMA received extensive public review in the 1996-97 revision of the original 1986 Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan. He noted that he was involved in some of those meetings, during which the testimony was favorable. Mr. Richard stated that the purpose [of HB 165] is to provide additional protection to the habitat and to fish and wildlife resources. Furthermore, it will provide the general public an opportunity for recreational activity in a larger area of the Kenai River watershed. Number 1885 [Dick Mylius of the DNR's Division of Mining, Land, and Water informed members via teleconference that he was available to answer questions, especially those relating to changes proposed by Ms. Carroll.] Number 1925 TED WELLMAN, President, Kenai River Special Management Area Advisory Board, testified via teleconference in support of HB 165, noting that the KRSMA board had unanimously passed a resolution on March 15, 2001, in support of the bill. He said the bill would simply implement recommendations formulated in the 1997 comprehensive plan after perhaps two years of public hearings; he had participated in all of those public hearings, where, "almost uniformly, the addition of land was favored." He added that he could not recall hearing any testimony in those hearings that expressed sentiment "against the inclusion of those lands." MR. WELLMAN said the Kenai River already suffers from too much "bank development," which has had visual impacts and has been destructive to the habitat. Over the past several years, property owners and public entities have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in maintaining and improving the habitat, and [HB 165] is another opportunity to control the habitat of land that is currently undeveloped along the Kenai River, which has "significant habitat value." MR. WELLMAN turned attention to the issue of these lands being managed by [the Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation]. He said he was first appointed to the KRSMA more than five years ago because he was the chairman of the Kenai River Property Owners Association; he indicated he still holds that chairmanship. He said one of his objectives on the KRSMA board is to protect private property rights and access to the river. He reported that in his tenure on the board, he has seen the [Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation] put forth "incredible effort" to coordinate with the public and to protect people's property rights and the resource. MR. WELLMAN said one of the primary purposes of the KRSMA board is to provide an opportunity for the public to have input on issues relating to the Kenai River. He indicated the board has monthly meetings from September through May or June, with two opportunities at each meeting for the public to voice concerns about the use of the lands in the park. When people have testified about it, he said, "we've dealt with it on a fair and equitable basis." MR. WELLMAN said there have been very few complaints, and he himself is satisfied with the management of the park "from the perspective of the private property owners." He assured the committee that the advisory board would continue to be actively involved in the management. Should these lands be added to the park, [the board] would be highly involved in how the lands would be developed or used. Mr. Wellman encouraged passage of HB 165, which he said would be in the public interest in order to protect the habitat, the property values, and the commercial and sport fisheries. Number 2125 BOB BALDWIN, Quartz Creek Homeowners' Association and Friends of Cooper Landing, testified via teleconference. He thanked Representative Lancaster and Co-Chair Scalzi for "their vision in sponsoring HB 165." He said the parcels that are most important to "us" are in the upper Kenai River drainages, including, as specified in the bill, Cooper Landing, Kenai Lake, Quartz Creek lowlands, Cooper Lake, Cooper Creek, Bean Creek, Shackelford Creek, Quartz Creek, Daves Creek, Crescent Creek, Dry Creek, Indian Creek, and the additional Kenai Lake lands. MR. BALDWIN questioned why Indian Creek had been deleted, because it is an anadromous stream. He then noted that [his organizations'] members have participated in the development of the Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan and the Kenai Area Plan; they believe both should be fully implemented. He stated: The importance of the entire Kenai River watershed to the health of the river is well recognized by, I believe, most of the public - certainly all involved in these planning processes. We believe it is extremely important to add these parcels to the Kenai River Special Management Area, and we believe that [Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation] management is the way to go with this. The Quartz Creek Homeowners' Association properties lie adjacent to both Kenai Lake and Quartz Creek parcels, and our owners strongly support HB 165. The Friends of Cooper Landing represent the majority position of the Cooper Landing community, as required by its bylaws, and we recognize the importance of preserving public recreational access to these waters and the lakeshore. Additionally, Cooper Landing's tourist-based economy is totally dependent on retaining ... its habitat, "viewshed," and the overall natural setting and, of course, a healthy Kenai River. The Friends of Cooper Landing also strongly support passage of HB 165. CO-CHAIR SCALZI informed Mr. Baldwin that his question regarding Indian Creek would be addressed to either Ms. Carroll or Mr. Mylius of the DNR after public testimony was taken. BILL STOCKWELL testified via teleconference, informing members that he strongly supports HB 165. He told the committee that important to him is the Quartz Creek area, including the Quartz Creek lowlands and the stream corridors along Quartz Creek, Dry Creek, Crescent Creek, Daves Creek, and Indian Creek. He noted that he has had a place along Dry Creek since 1972, which has been his home since 1993. When the lands were being transferred from the U.S. Forest Service to the state, he had asked why it wasn't being made a part of KRSMA, and Chris Degernes had pointed out that the lands hadn't been selected in time to be included in the Act in 1984; however, they were expected to be put in later, and there was a letter from the DNR to the borough indicating [those lands] eventually would be part of KRSMA. MR. STOCKWELL told members that there is a weir on Quartz Creek. In the early 1980s, all five species of salmon, including a small number of chums and pinks, visited the watershed. About 10 percent of the sockeye production for the entire Kenai River drainage comes through the Quartz Creek area; 300-500 kings are produced each year and there is a fairly large run of silvers. In addition, there are Dolly Varden and rainbow trout. Furthermore, lately it has been shown that the area is important as a feeding area for Kenai Peninsula brown bear, especially in the area where Quartz Creek (indisc.). MR. STOCKWELL acknowledged that other areas are important to other people, and he said, "As far as the other lands are concerned, I completely support that." He voiced his belief that [this bill] is good for Cooper Landing, the Kenai Peninsula, and Alaska because it will preserve the habitat and the fish and wildlife. MR. STOCKWELL returned to the issue of Indian Creek. He indicated his understanding that Indian Creek "doesn't have 200 feet of ... state lands available to it," because some of it has been conveyed to the borough; however, it is an anadromous stream that supports sockeye salmon and the spawning of Dolly Varden. He asked that (indisc.) be left as part of KRSMA and that "those state lands that can be identified along Indian Creek should then be identified as part of KRSMA, within 200 feet of Indian Creek." He added that the parts that belong to the borough obviously cannot be identified [for inclusion]. Number 2491 MS. CARROLL, at the request of Co-Chair Scalzi, addressed the Indian Creek situation, saying Mr. Stockwell is correct. The reason that all of those sections cannot be included is that part of them have been given to the Kenai Peninsula Borough as its entitlement. She asked Mr. Mylius whether he could address the "stream side of an anadromous stream issue." Number 2511 MR. MYLIUS responded that he didn't have the status plat in order to check the exact status. He then affirmed that [the DNR's] reason for requesting deletion was the understanding that "most have land described there as borough land." He offered, however, to double-check to see whether any state land could be included. Number 2565 CO-CHAIR SCALZI said the committee would appreciate that because HB 165 would be held over, at the sponsor's request, in order to prepare a proposed committee substitute (CS) that addresses forthcoming amendments. He suggested that meanwhile Mr. Mylius could seek clarification as to whether Indian Creek is included. CO-CHAIR SCALZI invited testifiers to fax testimony to his office. He then asked whether anyone else wished to testify; there was no response. Number 2593 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what the makeup of the KRSMA board is currently, as far as what groups are represented. Number 2671 REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER answered that there are 17 members, representing the private sector; landowners; all of the agencies that have control or law-abiding authority in the area; the borough; both cities, Kenai and Soldotna; and both Cooper Landing and Moose Pass. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern that the bill would exclude mineral exploration, except for oil and gas development, on the last page. He asked whether it would exclude any beetle- killed tree removal, for example, which would have been possible, under current operations, more than 50 feet back. REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER said no, it doesn't. He added: In fact, your [co-chair] introduced a bill, before he got off the Kenai Peninsula Borough, that delegates authority if they go and mark from ... what's called the "Kenai one-stop shop" in Soldotna, ... to go out and mark trees in that 100-foot setback zone that can be taken if they are beetle-killed or otherwise rot or are dead. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked how that could be done before [HB 165] takes effect. Number 2725 CO-CHAIR SCALZI answered that anything in "the KRSMA area" is still subject to [oversight] by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game and the DNR. The KRSMA board is actually a "guiding body" for lands that end up in this collection of properties. He said: So we still have to go through all the agencies. The Kenai River Center that Representative Lancaster just spoke to is the "one-stop shop" where all the agencies are involved, ... and if somebody has a water issue, a mining-rights issue, a timber issue that they need - if they want to put a dock on the river, if they want to have a haul-out facility - they go to the Kenai River Center. So, it's made it easier for the public, that they don't have to go to three or four different agencies to get a permit; they do it at one place. The Kenai River Center also has ... excellent GIS [Geographic Information Systems] mapping and photos of every parcel ... on the river. ... Once these plans are put into the Kenai River Special Management [Area], all they do is fall into an overview by the (indisc.) body. Number 2780 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to AS 41.21.508(b) and said the commissioner may adjust the boundaries of the Kenai River Special Management Area "by adding state-owned land and water on his own, right now." He asked why additional legislation is needed in order to do that. Number 2815 MS. DEGERNES responded that a statute, which she believed to be in Title 38, limits the DNR from administratively adding more than 640 acres to the Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation. Since this volume of land [under HB 165] exceeds 640 acres, it requires legislative approval. MS. DEGERNES, in reply to a question by Co-Chair Scalzi, said she believed he was correct in describing the function and the advisory capacity of the KRSMA board, "accommodating all the issues, whether they are federal [or] state issues, but primarily to give the Department of Natural Resources recommendations ... on our management of the Kenai River Special Management Area." MS. DEGERNES responded to Representative Green's earlier question regarding how resource development would be affected by the designation: We are limited by statute on what kind of things we can do ... on these lands that become part of the state parks system. We can ... conduct timber harvest and timber removal, but generally, ... it's to respond to a public-safety problem, either wildland fire concerns ... of our neighbors or wildland fire concerns for park visitors and recreation users, or direct public-safety hazards. But timber sales per se would probably not be permitted ... under our authority for these park lands. But in the Cooper Landing/Moose Pass area, ... there's been some resource development, resource extraction of some of the beetle-kill. But there's an awful lot of trees that don't [generate] a lot of interest, either, because of the decline in the quality of that timber. So, ... I would say, honestly, there will be a lot of beetle-kill trees on these KRSMA lands that probably won't be removed - whether it's KRSMA or not - because of the ... low economic value of that timber right now. Number 2916 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN, noting the number of dead trees and the lack of access for the whole area, asked whether leaving those snags would create a public-safety hazard. MS. DEGERNES answered that the U.S. Forest Service has done quite a bit of work in both the Cooper Landing and Moose Pass communities - beginning in the early '90s in Cooper Landing and more recently in Moose Pass - to identify some public-safety issues and to develop areas on either side of the communities where timber has to be removed for fire-protection buffers. That [work] really isn't affected by these KRSMA land designations. Nobody in the [communities] has addressed this as a problem, she said; however, she thinks that if it's identified that a big pocket of flammable trees "that happens to be KRSMA" needs to be removed in order to protect the communities, "we have the authority to work on doing that." She noted that for other state park areas on the Kenai Peninsula, [the DNR] has been actively working with the borough. TAPE 01-22, SIDE B Number 2995 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern about further restriction of areas. He asked whether the committee had heard from guides - and other users of the river areas - about what effect this might have. REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER answered that the guides, as well as the fly fishers, are [represented] on the KRSMA board, which he had neglected to mention earlier. They have been involved in the entire process. In response to further questions, he said there are 340 guides on the river now, and [their representative] has one vote on the board. He noted that there is a resolution from the board [in favor of HB 165]. CO-CHAIR SCALZI suggested that perhaps after the proposed CS was prepared, some of Representative Green's questions could be fleshed out a little more before the next hearing. Number 2913 REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT commented that he is somewhat familiar with the Chugach [National] Forest around Crescent Lake. He asked, with regard to these land selections, what the DNR's position is regarding through-access for snow machine use or other uses of the [Chugach National Forest]. MS. DEGERNES answered that [the DNR] would have to go through a management plan amendment in order to designate how these lands would be used. In general, snow machine use has been permitted in the KRSMA, "just by practice." However, all-terrain vehicles have not been permitted nor have "taken off ... as an activity or use or demand." Ms. Degernes said she anticipates that the management plan would allow snow machine use on Upper Trail Lake and Lower Trail Lake to continue as it has in the past. Most of the other areas are fairly heavily timbered, she noted, and there hasn't been any real interest on the part of the snow machine community to use some of those stream corridors or other lands, because there are easier places to go. Number 2838 CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked whether there were further questions. He then indicated HB 165 would be held for further consideration and a future proposed CS. [HB 165 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|