HB 130-GAME REFUGE/CRIT HABITAT AREA BOUNDARIES  3:57:57 PM CHAIR GIESSEL announced consideration of HB 130 that aims to correct old errors that were made in documenting the parcels of land within various state managed special areas. These errors result in some parcels being excluded from the special management areas, contrary to the intent of the law. She said HB 130 was introduced in February 2017 and passed the other body in April. It came to this committee at the end of the 2017 regular session. She invited Ms. Foss to present it to the committee. MORGAN FOSS, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), said the department has been considering this issue for a long time. Some of these errors have existed since the mapping was done as early as 1913. She said each special area is defined in statute, so those boundary descriptions may be by township or based on maps that were drawn up by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in the 1960/70s. The first one is the Izembek State Game Refuge on the Alaska Peninsula near Cold Bay and it was established by the legislature in 1972. The lagoon area includes tidal and submerged land and is delineated by the mean high-water line onshore. The red areas were not including in statute as containing mean high-water line and that is why they want them added to meet the statutory intent. They were omitted because of errors in the USGS maps or lack of information when these were established. The intent of the statute is to incorporate these water bodies within the National Wildlife Refuge Watershed and adding the entire water body fully protects the waterfowl and shorebird habitat of the bay and the lagoon. CHAIR GIESSEL asked if the red areas had not been claimed as private property. MS. FOSS answered no. 4:01:27 PM SENATOR BISHOP said these survey changes will have to be advertised in the public record and asked if that had been done. MS. FOSS replied that they had performed surveys on certain areas that are included within the refuge boundaries. Others will be done upon inclusion into the sanctuary. A large part of their work is outreach to the public. So, if this were to pass the legislature, they would certainly reach out to affected users within each of the refuges to inform them of the changes. In many instances, because they are following the intent of the statute to the best of their ability, there will not be significant impacts to users by cleaning up the statutory language. 4:02:59 PM MS. FOSS said the next slide described Cape Newenham State Game Refuge that is similar to the situation in Izembek. It was also established in 1972 and includes tidal and submerged land. A segment of Chagvan Bay was not described in its entirety in statute and this would be clean up language to describe where the mean high-water line is. They would conduct surveys to describe that in the management plan, as well. The Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge was designated in 1975 and contains watersheds fed from the Matanuska and the Knik Rivers. The affected areas relate to riverbeds that are owned by the public in the state. Currently these waterways have motorized boat access and so incorporating them into their authority would not impact users from bringing boats up into these areas. They also have general permits for winter overland travel (ATV access) on frozen waterways. In almost all cases, these are anadromous streams supporting salmon spawning and rearing activity. That is why they would like them included to meet the intent of the statute. She explained that these plats were surveyed in 1913 with a fixed river channel description and since that time these waterways have shifted and now meander in and out of that fixed plat description. So, this language is a clean up and will allow them to apply their land management plan to areas that were previously excluded. 4:05:32 PM MS. FOSS said the Port Moller Critical Habitat Area (CHA) was designated in 1972 and the legal description was a misprint and shifted the range six miles west of where it was intended to be. It was supposed to exclude the community of Nelson Lagoon but was placed within a critical habitat area. Since then, the department, knowing that was an error, has not pursued any habitat permitting for the community. 4:06:54 PM The Egegik Critical Habitat Area boundary had two typos in the original legislation from 1972. In both instances the characters in the description were replaced with a 1 instead of a 2 and north instead of south. So, a non-contiguous block is affected. The same goes for Pilot Point. Ms. Foss explained that only state lands are affected by these corrections and the locations are not near any infrastructure or villages. 4:07:41 PM Fox River Flats Critical Habitat Area was created in Kachemak Bay in 1972 and partially overlaps the Kachemak Bay Critical Habitat Area. Four of the seven sections in the northeast corner excluded tidal and submerged lands. The exclusion was not applied consistently across either the upland or tideland (purple line on the map) in the submerged area. The only land added within the boundary to that CHA is areas where the purple line intersects with the blue hatched areas which includes the Bradley River on the east side, as well. She noted that Kachemak Bay is simultaneously sinking, and the land is rebounding. This impacts the channels where the purple lines intersect with tidal lands. These channels contain coho rearing habitat and the department wants to consistently apply their management plan across those areas. 4:09:51 PM MS. FOSS said the Kachemak Bay CHA boundary description resulted from one township being omitted from the list that was submitted to create this area, an oversight. Kachemak Bay CHA was established in 1974 and it was described within a list of townships and ranges. Shifting the boundary will add around 200 acres to this CHA (without having surveyed it). It will not impact current property owners or user access. 4:11:40 PM Finally, the one addition to a critical habitat area is the addition of 1400 acres in Dude Creek CHA (created in 1988) near the City of Gustavus. The proposed addition was purchased by the Nature Conservancy in 2004 and transferred to the state for management. The intended purposed was to include it in the Dude Creek Critical Habitat Area. DNR is the custodian now. In order to incorporate this into the CHA, as the community has asked, its description would need to be included in statute and a management plan would have to be developed. In 2016, the City of Gustavus passed a resolution urging the legislature to make these changes so they could work with the departments on the management plan. The significance of this area is that it is a stop-over area for migratory sand hill cranes and other migratory birds. Motorized vehicle use is still allowed as is hunting and trapping. User access across Icy Strait will not be impacted. Language in HB 130 says the management plan should preserve access to non-critical habitat area land (private land, a school trust parcel, and the Native allotment). 4:14:00 PM CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony on HB 130. WAYNE HALL, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, supported HB 130. He is a big supporter of special areas in Alaska and the boundary changes and additions, especially in the Dude Creek area, because they benefit fish and wildlife. MARILYN HOUSER, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska, supported HB 130. It's extremely important to preserve habitat, and she wished to see these areas managed for the preservation and protection of fish and wildlife habitat. 4:16:51 PM ROBERT ARCHIBALD, Friends of Kachemak Bay State Park, Homer, Alaska, supported HB 130. He also was speaking on behalf of the Kachemak Bay Water Trail. The management plan for the critical habitat is being updated at this time for both Kachemak Bay and Fox River Flats and it would be beneficial for the two areas to coincide with the new management plans. 4:18:16 PM NICOLE AREVALO, representing herself, Homer, Alaska, supported HB 130. She sees making these changes a bit like re-editing the grammar on a second draft of an essay. Since 1970, ADF&G has had time to manage these areas; mapping has improved, and the boundary mistakes have been caught over the years. Now is a good time to correct them. ADF&G has determined there would be no additional costs associated with the proposed changes. In fact, these minor alterations will save them time. The changes make sensible concise legal boundaries freeing up some lands that are not right for habitat protection including the Nelson Lagoon. The wetlands in the CHA have already been purchased and donated to the state for the express purpose of being included in that management area in cooperation with Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and they have been being managed by ADF&G similarly to the rest of the CHA. Their official inclusion into that boundary is simply the final step in the legal process the state agencies have been following. TOM ROTHE, representing himself, Eagle River, Alaska, supported HB 130. He is a retired ADF&G waterfowl biologist and is very familiar with the special areas. He said the state public lands are increasingly important because access is becoming limited, even in Alaska, especially around urban areas. He emphasized that over the years ADF&G has done a very competent and transparent job of management planning for every one of these areas, dealing with "some really thorny issues" on a couple of them. These management plans are very thorough and represent the best solutions bearing in mind all the values of these areas. He also pointed out that the management of state game refuges, in particular, and CHAs is substantially different than on the National Wildlife Refuges and federal conservation units. Everyone agrees that the best sensible regulation comes from those closest to home and who use the resources. He also said it would be embarrassing for the government to not correct boundary lines for 40 years. No one would want the government to come in and pencil the property line in over their land, and one doesn't know whether the private landowner has to comply or not. The mistakes should be corrected, especially where Nelson Lagoon got accidentally included in a loop they weren't aware of. In closing, he emphasized that none of the actions in this bill will substantially change a management plan or increase restrictions. It will not call for policy changes that affect how people use these areas. 4:25:50 PM GEORGE PIERCE, representing himself, Kasilof, Alaska, opposed HB 130. He said it's a terrible idea. Once everyone starts driving on the new road, "there goes the wildlife and it won't come back." He urged them to protect fish and wildlife. 4:26:11 PM CHAIR GIESSEL, finding no further comments, closed public testimony and finding no questions, she set HB 130 aside.