HB 285-KACHEMAK BAY CRITICAL HABITAT AREA  1:05:31 PM CO-CHAIR SADDLER announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 285, "An Act excluding certain land from the Kachemak Bay Critical Habitat Area." 1:05:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor, stated that HB 285 would exempt the Homer port and harbor from the Kachemak Bay Critical Habitat Area. The City of Homer supports HB 285, noting it would allow the City of Homer to move forward and capture some revenue from the oil industry while protecting the habitat as originally set up by the community. 1:07:37 PM TOM WRIGHT, Staff, Representative Mike Chenault, Alaska State Legislature recalled that the Kachemak Bay Critical Habitat Area was generally well received and the enabling legislation "sailed" through the legislature. He noted the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) and Department of Natural Resources (DNR) are available for questions. MR. WRIGHT pointed out the resolution from the City of Homer in members' packets, which passed the city council unanimously. He also noted that the sponsor received a letter today [dated February 6, 2014] from Kachemak Bay Conservation Society voicing several concerns. 1:09:31 PM CO-CHAIR SADDLER opened public testimony on HB 285. 1:09:51 PM WALT WREDE, City Manager, City of Homer, stated that the City of Homer strongly supports HB 285. He referred to City of Homer Resolution 14-005 [dated January 13, 2014] in members' packets adopted unanimously in support of HB 285. He reported that this bill will remove the Homer port and harbor area from the critical habitat area. He said the Kachemak Bay Critical Habitat Area is very important to Homer. It protects Homer's land and waters, sustains the economy and the lifestyle that people in Homer enjoy. The community doesn't intend to propose any changes to the critical habitat area as part of this bill. MR. WREDE advised members that the port and harbor was never intended to be included as part of the Kachemak Bay Critical Habitat Area and has caused numerous problems with enforcement and regulation interpretation. He anticipated potential benefits if HB 285 passed. First, it would resolve conflicts that currently exist between the statutes and the Kachemak Bay Critical Habitat Area Plan with respect to the regulatory applicability of the plan on the port and harbor and the municipal land. Second, it would make things much clearer and straightforward for ADF&G to permit certain activities at the port and harbor. Third, it would solve some long-standing problems that this discrepancy has caused. For example, the critical habitat area plan says that a vessel cannot be moored for more than 14 days or drop an anchor for more than 14 days. He acknowledged that it's easy to see how it could cause problems for a busy harbor like Homer. MR. WREDE indicated that the city has experienced quite a few permitting delays for even simple projects within the harbor, such as when the harbor replaces floats or other infrastructure within the harbor. Finally, probably the most noteworthy would be the effect on drilling rigs. Right now the ADF&G doesn't have the ability to permit drill rigs at the Homer dock if the drill rig is parked for maintenance and repair and resupply. He reported that oil and gas activities are ramping up in Cook Inlet and Homer is the logical place for rigs to be serviced. The port and harbor has sufficient infrastructure, emergency response capabilities, and it is an ice-free deep water port. The City of Homer would like to be of service to the oil and gas industry and this is one way to accomplish this. He thanked members for the opportunity to comment. 1:13:33 PM CO-CHAIR SADDLER, after first determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 285. 1:14:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI stated the overall purpose of the Kachemak Bay Critical Habitat Area is to preserve habitat crucial to fish and wildlife populations. He presumed the port is in the middle of the critical habitat area but was unsure of the geography. He asked whether this is typical. RANDY BATES, Director, Division of Habitat, Department of Fish & Game, stated that the exclusion is within the center of the critical habitat area. REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI wondered if other critical fish and game habitat areas have an exemption right in the middle, creating a "donut" type of area. MR. BATES answered yes; that a number of other critical habitat areas, state game refuges or sanctuaries - 32 areas comprising a little more than 3.2 million acres statewide - have either donut holes or privately-owned sections of land are fully and completely surrounded by critical habitat areas. He pointed out some fall on federal land, municipal land, or private inholdings, so this would not be unique in terms of the structure of land ownership in Alaska. 1:16:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that page 2 of the Kachemak Bay Critical Habitat Area plan excludes federal and municipal lands within the critical habit area. It wasn't envisioned that the Port of Homer would be part of the critical habit when it was drawn up in 1974. He highlighted one issue arose when the City of Homer obtained permission to lease land from the state to extend to a deep water dock and allow the same type of industrial use to occur on the end of the spit. Questions were raised on whether it was state land or municipal land. Last year the legislature transferred the ownership of the land to the municipality. This bill will clarify allowable activities. In fact, some areas have been intended to be dredged and re- dredged annually; however, it's hard to allow disturbances on land designated as part of the critical habit area. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated another problem arose when a drilling rig moored at the dock needed to put its legs down to stabilize during wind, raising questions about whether the activity was illegal storage even though it was at the same location. The ADF&G wasn't able to issue a permit and ultimately it all worked out but the incident highlighted the need to make proactive changes without impacting the integrity of the critical habit. The usages will not change. For example, if a drilling rig needed to put its legs down for safety, it would still require a permit but it wouldn't be as complicated as it is under the current Kachemak Bay Critical Habitat Area. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he was at the city council meeting when the resolution passed and no one objected. 1:20:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to report HB 285 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, HB 285 was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.