SENATE BILL NO. 230 An Act providing that state land, water, and land and water may not be classified so as to preclude or restrict traditional means of access for traditional recreational uses. Co-chairman Halford directed that SB 230 be brought on for discussion and directed attention to a work draft committee substitute (9-LS1538\R, Luckhaupt, 3/26/96). SENATE PRESIDENT DRUE PEARCE, sponsor of the legislation, came before committee. She explained that she introduced the bill to protect the right of Alaskans to access state land and water for recreational use. Several things, specific to Denali State Park, have occurred which led to introduction. The state division of parks closed Curry Ridge (a traditional landing area) within Denali State Park to aircraft use. Further, an area adjacent to the park, containing Blair Lake, was transferred to the division of parks by the division of land under an ILMA. Since transfer, the area has been managed as though it was part of the park, and access to the lake has been closed as part of that management effort. Sec. 1 of the work draft adds a new section to the list of department duties so that the division will be required to provide the legislature an annual report on any designation of incompatible use that prohibits or restricts traditional access. Sec. 2 adds a further section to the list of duties required under AS 41.21.020. Language within the new section says that the department may not manage, as special purpose park land, areas that are not inside park boundaries as designated by the legislature. The new provisions do not prohibit the division of parks from operating recreational sites, under present authority. Sec. 3 adds slightly under 11 acres of land to the Chilkat State Park. This provision was included in the work draft at the request of the department. The three parcels involved were purchased by the department in the late 1970s. They were transferred to park management using an ILMA arrangement, but they were never designated as part of the park. Since the legislature mandates that land acquired by the department be managed under the more open statute, the department asked that the land be added to the park. This area has been managed as a park since purchase. Sec. 4 is specific to Denali State Park. The park was designated by the legislature in the late 1960s. It was extremely remote at the time and lacked today's access. There is no special management requirement for traditional access in statutes designating the park. Sec. 4 thus adds a description of incompatible uses. Language requires that management regulations provide ample access for sport and subsistence hunting. Regulations must: 1. Recognize that traditional subsistence and recreational activities include the use of small outboard motors and snow machines. 2. Permit reasonable access by aircraft for recreational purposes. 3. Provide ample access for recreational mining. Sec. 5 specifies that past regulations and regulations currently being promulgated for Denali State Park will take effect only if consistent with provisions in the proposed bill. Regulations that are not consistent would be annulled. Senator Pearce next addressed a new fiscal note. She acknowledged there would be fiscal impact stemming from the annual report to the legislature, but she said that the entire Denali State Park master plan need not be completely rewritten. There is thus no need for additional natural resource officers and associated costs. The four designations in Sec. 4 are the only things that must be changed within the master plan. Co-chairman Halford referenced similar overreaching closures by the Dept. of Fish and Game and asked if they had also been considered when the proposed bill was developed. Senator Pearce responded negatively. She surmised that the situation at the Dept. of Fish and Game is similar. Research relating to the proposed bill indicates that the Dept. of Natural Resources had no specific authority to effect closures. The action was taken because no one has challenged it in the past. Brief discussion followed regarding access by various types of aircraft (wheels, skiis, floats). Senator Pearce attested to department closure of access to recreational areas to Alaskans in deference to an unfettered experience for visitors to the park. Co-chairman Halford voiced his understanding that environmentalists testified that the situation was badly handled in terms of the vested interest of the commercial operator versus other users. Co-chairman Halford further voiced frustration over department closure of lakes, transferred to the state as navigable waters, to float plane landings. He then suggested an amendment disallowing that practice unless there is a compelling public purpose. Senator Pearce said she would have no problem with the amendment, but she questioned whether it would fit under Title 41--the subject of the proposed bill. Title 38 legislation by Representative Masek was noted as an alternative. Senator Pearce said she would also be willing to pursue questions raised by Dept. of Fish and Game closures. Co-chairman Halford expressed a preference for movement of the bill, at this time, as long as cited areas could be addressed in Rules or on the Senate Floor. Senator Rieger referenced an amendment which he explained draws a distinction between park service action that squeezes out traditional access at historic levels as opposed to increasing access beyond that level. The amendment would add "at the level it has historically been conducted" to language at page 3, line 15 and line 21. Discussion followed regarding definition of the word "level." Co-chairman Halford referenced allocation problems associated with limiting the number of users. He noted that it is easier to limit activities that have not yet occurred. END: SFC-96, #56, Side 1 BEGIN: SFC-96, #56, Side 2 Senator Sharp voiced opposition to strengthening department authority to manage people. Senator Rieger withdrew his amendment at this time. Senator Sharp MOVED for adoption of CSSB 230 (Finance). No objection having been raised, CSSB 230 (Finance) was ADOPTED. Senator Rieger then MOVED for adoption of his amendment. Senator Pearce voiced concern that amendment language would prohibit commercial activity within park areas. She clarified that the proposed bill was not intended to prohibit commercial operations. It seeks to ensure that commercial activity is not given preference over access for Alaskans. Senator Rieger explained that the amendment applies to language dealing with actions that prohibit or restrict traditional means. He referenced competing motorized and non-motorized activities in Chugach State Park and explained that the amendment would provide direction to the department to maintain the status quo rather than give preference to one over the other. Co- chairman Halford called for a show of hands. The motion failed on a vote of 2 to 4. Discussion followed regarding regulations for Denali State Park and Chugach State Park. Senator Pearce explained that when the majority of Alaska's parks were designated, the legislature did not specify uses that would be incompatible because recreational areas were not experiencing the pressures of today. She then cited AS 41.21.110 from statutes designating the Chilkat State Park: The commissioner shall designate, by regulation, incompatible uses within the boundaries in accordance with 41.21.110, and those incompatible uses shall be prohibited or restricted as provided by regulation. Nothing in this section affects the rights and uses of water and facilities in the city of Haines located within the boundaries of this area. In designating this more recent park, the legislature made provisions for uses that had to be continued. Language within 41.21.020 (the general purposes section for parks) merely says that the "department shall adopt regulations governing the use and designating incompatible uses within the boundaries of state parks." There is no definition of "incompatible uses." There had been no problem in Denali until recently. EDDY GRASSER, representing the Alaska Outdoor Council, next came before committee in support of the bill. He referenced a recent edition of an Anchorage based environmental group newsletter and noted that it raises concern over the "tiny amount of land in Alaska that has been set aside for . . . quiet recreation." Mr. Grasser stressed that two-thirds of Alaska has been set aside for that type of recreation while other Alaskans have been restricted to "these types of areas along the road system." He further spoke to lack of vehicular access to many park areas. Most of Alaska is off limits to "non-quiet" recreational purposes. The proposed bill represents a balancing proposition. Park lands belong to all Alaskans rather than to a specific group. The proposed bill protects traditional activities on these lands. DAN ELLIOT, representing the MatSu Citizens Advisory Board, next testified via teleconference from Wasilla. He spoke against the legislation, terming it a "poor bill, both in its intent and also in its imprecise language," and suggested that it caters to a lobbying effort. Mr. Elliot explained that development of the Denali State Park masterplan included the public, at all stages, over a number of years. The plan evolved through compromise and consensus. It protects the resource while accommodating all user groups and prepares for increased pressure on park resources. The proposed bill negates the masterplan, takes management of the park away from the department, and vests control in the legislature which is reacting to interests that seek to bypass the public process and masterplan. Mr. Elliot noted that the alpine terrain of Curry/Kesugi Ridge is recognized as a "unique, fragile, natural resource" recommended to be subject to restricted uses. Vast areas of the park are open to snow machines, four-wheelers, and aircraft. But special management considerations were recommended for Kesugi Ridge to provide both Alaskans and visitors an areas free from motorized access. The park plan attempts to accommodate all user groups. Mr. Elliot cited the new Princess Hotel, road access, and a number of other activities as evidence of increased use of the area. He reiterated that lobbying efforts are attempting to bypass the exhaustive public process that led to the masterplan. The proposed bill not only negates that process, it makes no provisions for a new masterplan. It allows no provisions for dealing with all user groups in a compatible way. It is imprecise in defining traditional, historical, popular use, providing ample access, reasonable access, etc. If the legislature intends to take over park management, it "better get specific." Most activities listed in the bill have only sporadically occurred and increased demand has been fairly recent. The proposed bill ignores its negative impact on future uses and resulting incompatibilities. Mr. Elliot asked that the legislature not supplant the exhaustive public process and place an unmanageable situation upon the Dept. of Natural Resources. Senator Randy Phillips noted that the bill appears to have undergone major transformations from the original, dealing with Title 38, to CSSB 230 (Res) which relates to Title 41. Senator Pearce acknowledged that it changed in many respects. Application changed from public lands statutes to public resource statutes when the department pointed out that attempting to place provisions within Title 38 would be "overkill" in terms of specific park management. Inclusion within Title 38 would have led to "a number of fairly unsurmountable problems in . . . management of other state lands." Title 41 was the better place for proposed language. The drafter made the initial decision to use Title 38. He subsequently agreed that Title 41 was preferable. Co-chairman Halford queried members regarding disposition of the bill. He said he would research the question of aircraft access on navigable waters. Senator Rieger voiced concern over impact on Chugach State Park because of the way traditional access and activities are defined. He suggested that failure of his amendment and subsequent passage of the bill would upset a balance in that park. Senator Zharoff raised concern relating to traditional uses and advised that he would work with the sponsor. Senator Sharp raised a question regarding ILMAs. Senator Pearce explained that they are "interagency land management agreements" authorized under Title 38 and administered by the division of land. They provide for land transfers to all agencies for purposes such as material sites for the Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities, telecommunications repeater sites for the division of communications, fire bases for the division of forestry, etc. In response to a further question from Senator Sharp, Senator Pearce advised that ILMAs are not always adjacent to parks. She noted the Chilkoot Trail, the Eagle Trail Recreational Site, and the Sitka Historical Site as examples. These areas have been designated through ILMA transfers, and the division of parks manages them as state recreational sites, state historical sites, etc. This arrangement has provided more land to division management than the legislature has designated. However, the legislature set up the process so the state could take advantage of such areas. Senator Sharp MOVED for passage of CSSB 230 (Finance) with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. No objection having been raised, CSSB 230 (Finance) was REPORTED OUT of committee with a $105.8 fiscal note from the Dept. of Natural Resources. Co-chairmen Halford and Frank and Senator Sharp signed the committee report with a "do pass" recommendation. Senators Rieger, Phillips, and Zharoff signed "no recommendation." ADJOURNMENT Co-chairman Halford announced that the committee would continue discussion of legislation listed on the agenda at 8:30 a.m. the next morning. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4:45 p.m.