HB 158-DNR HUNTING CONCESSIONS  2:44:30 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 158, "An Act authorizing the commissioner of natural resources to implement a hunting guide concession program or otherwise limit the number of individuals authorized to conduct big game commercial guiding on state land." 2:44:38 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE stated a proposed committee substitute has been prepared that combines three separate amendments committee members have asked to have considered. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute for HB 158, labeled 28-LS0444\U, Bullard, 3/20/13 as the working document. CO-CHAIR FEIGE objected for the purpose of discussion. 2:45:06 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked sponsors of the three previous amendments [not yet offered] to discuss the pertinent section of the proposed committee substitute, Version U. He stated the change in Section 1, adds paragraph (11), which read, "(11) implement  commercial concession programs on state land." This would provide authority for the DNR to implement commercial concession programs on state land, which is to accommodate big game guiding and transporters. 2:45:54 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE explained that Section 2 would add the big game commercial services to subsection (b). He asked Representative P. Wilson to address this provision. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to page 3, lines 3-11, of Version U, and argued that it is important consider both the land and the wildlife resources. She did not want DNR to change the land use automatically, but rather to consider whether wildlife resources are sustainable in a unit or area and identify any user conflicts. In the event that the wildlife resources are sustainable and user conflicts do not exist, it would not be necessary to make any changes to the GMU. 2:47:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for clarification on the version, Co- Chair Feige identified as Version U. CO-CHAIR FEIGE, in response to a question, referred to page 3, lines 3-11. 2:48:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether the language on page 2 was necessary to incorporate the relationship with the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G). CO-CHAIR FEIGE referred to page 2, line 28, of the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 158, Version U. He said this language is intended to slightly broaden the language to include guides and transporter concession programs. 2:49:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to page 3, lines 12-19, to subsection (c) of Version U. He said that the committee has heard testimony that a certain number of guides are allowed to operate in areas. He explained the concern was that if a guide was assigned three areas, it would exclude other guides from the area. This change also would consider the federal concession holdings held by individual guides and limit guides to a combined total of three concession areas. The overall effect would be to add to the number of guides who will have access to state resources. 2:50:34 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE referred to page 3, lines 20-24, to subsection (d), which adds definitions for "concession permit" and "game management unit." He also referred to page 3, lines 25-31, which lays out the section related to the big game transporter concession program. CO-CHAIR FEIGE referred to page 4, line 11, which would establish an effective date for the transporters that would start one year after the DNR implements the big game guide commercial concession program. This would allow the department one year to develop the transporter program after the department established the big game guide concessions. This recognizes that perhaps implementing the entire program at once might be "too big of a bite" and separating it into two sections seemed more appropriate. 2:52:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to page 1 [line 7] and to language that reads "may" instead of "shall". She understood the intent of the bill is to give the department the authority. She noted that proposed AS 38.05.023 (a) would give the DNR the authority to adopt a concession program, but the language also reads, "may" [which means optional.] She asked whether the department will follow through on the commitment to implement the provision or if the language should be changed to read "shall" to give the DNR explicit direction. CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked to return to that question after adopting the proposed committee substitute, Version U. 2:53:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 3, lines 3-11, and asked whether this means the ADF&G will change the number and types of concessions that DNR must allocated. He understood the program is a DNR program; however, this subsection directs that the commissioner of fish and game "shall" determine the number and type of concessions that may be provided in each game management unit (GMU). He assumed the ADF&G's determination would be based on the fluctuating biomass of the resource. He further asked whether additional testimony is needed to determine the interaction between the DNR's guide concession program (GCP) and the ADF&G's control over the number and types of permits it must issue. CO-CHAIR FEIGE offered his belief that the intent is for DNR to manage the land and how land is allocated. The number of concessions allowed would also depend on the carrying capacity, which is determined by the ADF&G. He suggested this is something the department addressed when they formulated the GCP program, which is formalized by this language. This specifies that the legislature expects ADF&G to provide the information to DNR for the proposed guide concession program (GCP). CO-CHAIR FEIGE referred to page 3, line 9, which requires the ADF&G to review this every five years. This also matches the timeframe for the concession review, he said. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the committee has not heard from the DNR on the coordination between DNR and ADF&G. 2:57:09 PM CRAIG FLEENER, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), prefaced his comments by stating he hasn't had an opportunity to thoroughly consider this bill version since he just received it about an hour ago. He suggested one area to be careful about would be [on page 3, lines 3-9, subsection (b)(2)], which discusses the commissioner of ADF&G. The department has long stayed away from concept of allocation of resources since this responsibility has been up to the Board of Game. He highlighted one problem is whether it would place the ADF&G and its staff in the business of allocation and how many guides will be able to harvest. Probably, it would be good to get the DNR's perspective on this as well; however, it seems as if the amount of work would likely require significant staff time. Further, one of the things that the ADF&G is careful about is the relationship between the "on the ground" staff and hunters or guides throughout the state. If the "on the ground" staff help determine the numbers and types of concessions, it could jeopardize those relationships. Clearly the ADF&G does want to work with the DNR on determining the proposed concession areas. He suggested it might be necessary to include language such as "DNR consulting with the Department of Fish and Game and the Board of Game to determine population levels and harvestable surplus." This has been the process the ADF&G has used until now, which might work a little better. 2:59:28 PM EDMUND FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), agreed that the DNR and ADF&G have not had much opportunity to discuss Version U. He said that the DNR worked closely with the ADF&G in the process of preparing maps and proposed allocations. Since the DNR does not have expertise in wildlife management, it has relied on the ADF&G to provide the expertise. Since concessions will be reviewed every five years, he envisioned the agencies will work closely at that time during the review process. Again, the DNR has not had enough time to consider the merits of the proposed committee substitute. 3:00:45 PM CLARK COX, Natural Resources Manager, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), echoed what Mr. Fleener said, that DNR's mission is related to land access and the land use. These [GCP] figures were determined based on the use patterns and the appropriate number of guides and hunters in an area, not on game allocation. He suggested that the DNR & ADF&G could spend more time on the program as a whole. 3:01:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON expressed her concern that DNR has not taken all of ADF&G's recommendations. She referred to page 3, line 6, to paragraph (1), and suggested if it was removed, she would still want the [decision] to be weighted toward ADF&G. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON concurred that the DNR and ADF&G are working together; however, she remained concerned about the wildlife resources. Clearly, ADF&G controls the harvest levels and how much is available in each game management unit (GMU). Therefore, the DNR must listen closely to what ADF&G says, to make sure it is sustainable. She mentioned she has a constituent who works as a guide in an area and while he said [wildlife management] problems didn't exist, it seemed as though the GCP still made significant changes. Thus, she has some concerns about [the GCP plan.] 3:03:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON shared the concern, but said the question is whether the ADF&G's commissioner or the Board of Game (BOG) would have the authority to determine allocation. He said he wasn't opposed to the changes, but wants to ensure the amendments are correctly crafted. 3:04:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to page 3, lines 12-19. She asked whether any reason exists to prevent the DNR from limiting the number of state concessions based on federal concessions held. In response to a question, she wondered if the DNR has the authority to do so. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled holding discussions with the legislative bill drafter and concluded that the state has the authority to limit concessions on state lands. However, if a guide already has federal concessions, this provision would allow the state to limit state concessions, accordingly. In fact, he offered his belief that the federal and state concession decisions are independent decisions. 3:05:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she is unaware of whether the information is public. She asked whether the state can request the applicant to list any outstanding federal applications or any federal concessions that can be awarded. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that it would be up to the department to regulate. He surmised the information would be public information. MR. FOGELS offered his belief that the information is public as which guides can operate in specific areas. He deferred to Mr. Clark. MR. COX said the department has been working closely with the federal agencies and the information has been made available. He offered his belief that this language would not limit someone who holds three state concessions from securing federal concessions, permits, or licenses on Native lands or federal lands after they obtain the three state concessions. Therefore, the guide could still hold more than three guide concessions if the guide obtained the state concessions first. 3:06:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said the language clearly states that the guide cannot hold more than three concession permits. He offered his belief that the guide would lose a state concession permit if the guide later gained federal permits. He suggested that obtaining additional federal concession permits could lead to jeopardizing losing all permits. MR. COX agreed. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested that would be a pretty risky business. MR. COX pointed out that permits on Native Corporation lands would not be public information. CO-CHAIR FEIGE replied that the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 158 doesn't address Native Corporation lands and it doesn't need to either. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said it was not his intention to regulate private landowner activities. 3:07:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 3, line 26, which read, "... commissioner may implement a concession program ...." He recalled the committee discussed changing it to "shall". He expressed concern that it may take DNR more than one year to fully implement a program. He also referred to the language [on page 3, line 27] related to "individuals who provide transportation services to big game hunters in the field," which could be boat operators or air taxi operators. He suggested "may" is appropriate since the committee has not heard from air taxi operators so it seemed more appropriate to allow additional time. CO-CHAIR FEIGE agreed. 3:09:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK, with respect to transporter services, asked whether any licensing requirements or business licenses are necessary before an operator is allowed to transport passengers. He further asked whether DNR has the authority to regulate the activity. CO-CHAIR FEIGE answered that transporters fall under the Big Game Commercial Services Board's (BGCSB) authority. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether that would also include air taxis. CO-CHAIR FEIGE answered that air taxis have an exemption if the transportation is "incidental" to their business. He suggested the committee may wish to review the definition. 3:10:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR returned to the discussion by Representative Johnson with respect the number of concession permits that could be issued. It sounded as though an issue exists in terms of the total number of state and federal concession permits. She related a scenario in which in which a guide obtained three state concession permits and subsequently obtained three federal permits, which would mean the guide could potentially have six concessions but not be up for concession permit review for five years. She wondered if this provision could potentially be abused. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his belief that if a guide subsequently obtained federal permits he/she would be in violation of the state permits. He pointed out the language indicates the guide cannot hold more than three concession permits and anything done to circumvent that would be in violation of the application. CO-CHAIR FEIGE surmised it would be a simple matter to indicate the concession permit the guide wanted to drop in the event a federal concession permit was subsequently awarded. The state concession permit could then be reallocated by the department. 3:12:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether the DNR have an easy way to access this information. MR. FOGELS replied yes; that this kind of information is transparent. He thought it would be more than a high risk since the industry would know who held the concession. Additionally, he also thought it would be possible to put in a stipulation on the application. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his belief that the situation would be a self-policing circumstance. 3:13:43 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE removed his objection. 3:14:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK objected. He said he would rather keep the old version of the bill than to keep the language as is. CO-CHAIR FEIGE said that is not part of the question. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered his support for the original bill and to address amendments individually. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested that it would be easier to keep the amendments in the bill and address the language in the proposed committee substitute. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK removed his objection. 3:15:44 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE, in response to Representative Tarr, agreed the committee would take further testimony. 3:16:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON supported adopting the proposed CS so people can comment on it and the committee can review it. 3:16:33 PM There being no further objection, Version U was adopted as the working document. 3:16:48 PM [HB 158 was held over.]