ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 8, 2011
3:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Dick
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 20
Urging the President of the United States, the United States
Congress, and the Secretary of the United States Department of
Agriculture not to implement protection of inventoried roadless
areas under the "roadless rule" or otherwise restrict the
development of necessary hydroelectric projects in the Tongass
National Forest and the Chugach National Forest.
- MOVED CSHJR 20(ENE) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 186
"An Act relating to the authority of the commissioner of fish
and game with regard to the importation or relocation of wood
bison in the state."
- MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 229
"An Act relating to activities, including violations and
penalties, under the supervision of the Big Game Commercial
Services Board."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 113
"An Act creating the Stampede State Recreation Area."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 20
SHORT TITLE: ROADLESS RULE & CHUGACH AND TONGASS HYDRO
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOHANSEN
03/09/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/09/11 (H) ENE, RES
03/17/11 (H) ENE AT 3:00 PM BARNES 124
03/17/11 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/22/11 (H) ENE AT 3:00 PM BARNES 124
03/22/11 (H) Moved CSHJR 20(ENE) Out of Committee
03/22/11 (H) MINUTE(ENE)
03/23/11 (H) ENE RPT CS(ENE) 6DP
03/23/11 (H) DP: LYNN, TUCK, PETERSEN, SADDLER,
PRUITT, FOSTER
04/06/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/06/11 (H) Heard & Held
04/06/11 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/08/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 186
SHORT TITLE: WOOD BISON
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) DICK
03/10/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/10/11 (H) RES
04/04/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/04/11 (H) Heard & Held
04/04/11 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/06/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/06/11 (H) Heard & Held
04/06/11 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/08/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 229
SHORT TITLE: BIG GAME COMMERCIAL SERVICES BOARD
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FEIGE
04/06/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/06/11 (H) RES, JUD
04/08/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 113
SHORT TITLE: STAMPEDE STATE RECREATION AREA
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GUTTENBERG
01/21/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/11 (H) RES, FIN
04/08/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Special Assistant
to Commissioner Cora Campbell; Acting Deputy Commissioner
Division of Wildlife and Subsistence
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
during the hearing on HB 186.
KATHY WALKER-CHASE
Holy Cross, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 186.
MIKE MILLER
Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center (AWCC)
Portage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 186.
PAUL VERHAGEN, Staff
Representative Alan Dick
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 186.
MICHAEL PASCHALL, Staff
Representative Eric Feige
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 229 on behalf of the prime
sponsor, Representative Feige.
DON QUARBERG
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 229.
VIRGIL UMPHENOUR, Master Guide
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 229.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID GUTTENBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 113 as prime sponsor of the
bill.
BEN ELLIS, Director
Central Office
Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 113.
ROGER HEALY, Director/Chief Engineer
Division of Statewide Design & Engineering Services
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion on HB 113.
HANNAH RAGLAND
Friends of Stampede
Healy, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 113.
JON NIERENBERG, Lodge Owner
Healy, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 113.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:37:56 PM
CO-CHAIR ERIC FEIGE called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:37 p.m. Representatives Feige,
Seaton, Dick, Gardner, Kawasaki, P. Wilson, and Munoz were
present at the call to order. Representatives Foster and Herron
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HJR 20-ROADLESS RULE & CHUGACH AND TONGASS HYDRO
3:38:46 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 20, Urging the President of the
United States, the United States Congress, and the Secretary of
the United States Department of Agriculture not to implement
protection of inventoried roadless areas under the "roadless
rule" or otherwise restrict the development of necessary
hydroelectric projects in the Tongass National Forest and the
Chugach National Forest. [Before the committee was the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HJR 20(ENE).]
3:39:02 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HJR 20.
3:39:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HJR 20, Version M, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, the CSHJR 20(ENE) was reported from
the House Resources Standing Committee.
HB 186-WOOD BISON
3:40:38 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 186, "An Act relating to the authority of the
commissioner of fish and game with regard to the importation or
relocation of wood bison in the state."
3:41:45 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Special Assistant, to Commissioner Cora
Campbell; Acting Deputy Commissioner, Division of Wildlife and
Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), spoke
from the following written statement [original punctuation
provided]:
My name is Doug Vincent-Lang. I am a Special
Assistant to Commissioner Cora Campbell. One of my
duties is to coordinate ESA policy for the state.
I am also the acting Deputy Commissioner for Wildlife
and Subsistence.
As the state coordinator for ESA, I share many of Rep.
Dick's concerns regarding the misuse of the ESA in
Alaska. We are challenging several misapplications of
this act in Alaska from polar bears to beluga whales
to ice seals to Steller sea lions. So I have a
healthy skepticism regarding this act and its
misapplication in Alaska.
That said, let me try to explain what it is we are
trying to do in this case and how it differs from
these other issues. In short, we are attempting to
restore wood bison to select areas of Alaska in a
manner that will not allow the application of the
typical provisions of the ESA that the state has
concerns with to occur.
A little background on the ESA might be helpful to
place this effort in perspective. The original ESA
resulted in problems with convincing private
landowners to aid in the recovery of listed species.
In short, landowners were reluctant of allowing the
translocations of species onto their lands over
concerns that their lands would be tightly regulated
through designations of critical habitat, section 7
consultations, and incidental take restrictions.
This lead Congress to amend the act in 1982 to allow
listed species to be designated as experimental
populations, either as essential or non-essential.
The amendment further specified that for non-essential
experimental populations,
· Critical habitat could not be specified
· Section 7 consultations are not required on most
lands
· Special rules governing allowable take could be
developed that are less restrictive than
otherwise allowed.
3:43:43 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG continued, as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
So where are we with wood bison in Alaska.
· We are working with the USFWS on the designation
of wood bison as a non-essential experimental
population.
· We are also working on a special rule that
specifies allowable incidental take. In this
case we are working with the USFWS to allow
incidental take associated with activities such
as recreation (e.g., fishing, boating, trapping,
hiking, camping, shooting activities, or hunting
of other species), forestry, agriculture, oil and
gas exploration and development and associated
activities, construction and maintenance of roads
or railroads, buildings, facilities, energy
projects, pipelines and transmission lines of any
kind, mining, mineral exploration, travel by any
means including vehicles, watercraft,
snowmachines or aircraft, tourism, and other
activities that are in accordance with Federal,
State, and local laws and regulations and
specific authorizations.
· We are also working with the USFWS to designate
the geographic range where these rules would
apply.
We hope to have a draft rule developed in the next
several weeks that could be reviewed by all interested
parties.
We have targeted 2012 as a desired release date, but
are considering delaying this.
One question that has come up is how legally
defensible these rules are. We had DOL examine this
question and found these rules are very defensible.
Their vulnerabilities are associated with
· Range
· Overlap with wild stocks
Neither of these applies in this case.
3:45:22 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG continued, as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
In closing, we simply ask that we be given the
opportunity to develop the rule and let people decide
for themselves whether the rule is adequate to protect
their interests.
We have said that we will not release wood bison into
the wild until landowners, local people, state
agencies, and others are comfortable with the rule and
the release of these animals onto the landscape.
3:45:53 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG referred to questions raised during
Representative Dick's constituent hearings. One question that
arose about musk ox which Mr. Grasser answered correctly was
musk ox had been released into the wild long before the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted by the Congress. Thus,
it wasn't necessary to designate the musk ox as a non-essential
population or as a threatened or endangered species.
3:46:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired as to the process the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) would undergo prior to
allowing any species into an area.
MR. VINCENT-LANG responded that ADF&G has identified three areas
of compatible habitat that the department feels the wood bison
could be released into and survive in the wild. Additionally,
he related that the department has undergone a public process to
work with landowners of state, federal, or Native corporation
land, to address any concerns. He reiterated that the ADF&G
went through a very definitive process to identify concerns of
public and how the department could best address the concerns in
the special rule. Further, the department reviewed the impact
of wood bison on wild animals in those areas to avoid affecting
the natural flora and fauna.
3:47:56 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG reassured members that the ADF&G has advised
residents that unless the department can satisfy all concerns
the wood bison will not be released. He commented that the
department would have preferred to release wood bison in Minto
Flats. However, Doyon Limited requested the wood bison not be
introduced into the Minto Flats area and that is the reason the
department has moved to the Innoko area. In fact, Doyon,
Limited suggested the Innoko region. He pointed out the ADF&G
has held a series of public hearings and plans to meet with
Innoko residents next week. He hoped to spend time this summer
in the area to answer any questions local residents have about
the re-introduction of wood bison in the area.
3:48:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked what would happen to the 90 wood
bison currently located in Portage in the event that the
department exhausts its efforts to find an area, but fails to do
so.
MR. VINCENT-LANG related the department would work to control
the population. He offered that the department would hold them
indefinitely. He acknowledged that at some point in time the
ADF&G will need to take measures to control the wood bison
population since the area is limited.
3:49:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired as to whether the ADF&G has an
opinion on HB 186 and if the bill delays the implementation of
re-introduction to 2013.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered that HB 186 could delay re-
introduction of the wood bison. He related a scenario in which
consensus was reached and the department obtained a special rule
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that could
satisfy landowners and the administration. The necessity to
come back to the legislature for approval would delay action
until 2013, he said. He characterized this rule as somewhat
redundant with ADF&G's commitment to people to resolve the
issues they have with the potential release of wood bison.
3:50:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the special rule he mentioned
was contingent on the "10(j)" exemption the department is
currently pursuing.
MR. VINCENT-LANG explained that the ESA process is complex.
Basically, the "10(j)" rule gives the state the ability to
designate the population as experimental. Next, the federal
agency would determine whether the re-introduction is essential
or non-essential populations (NEP) to the recovery of the wood
bison species. Once the determination was made through the
"10(j)" process, a special rule could be developed to regulate
the take of a non-essential population. He related that the
special rule could allow take that would not normally be allowed
if the species were listed as a threatened or endangered species
under the ESA. In this instance, the department has worked to
craft the language to allow takes of the NEP designated
populations with the kinds of activities that could potentially
occur in the landscape that would be confining to people,
including recreation, livestock grazing, oil and gas exploration
and development, mineral exploration and development, timber
harvesting, transportation, and other legal activities conducted
by state tribal, federal, state, and local laws and regulations
and specific authorizations.
3:52:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if all of that was established,
whether the people of the region would have a personal use
preference in hunting.
MR. VINCENT-LANG responded that automatically the Native people
would be allowed to hunt since an exemption currently exists in
the ESA to allow take by qualified Natives and residents of
Native villages. Once the wood bison population grew large
enough it would become regulated by either the Federal
Subsistence Board or the Alaska Board of Game, in which case a
general hunting provision would be allowed. He recalled
previous testimony by Mr. Grasser that identified the struggle
with USFWS on that rule. The ADF&G supports inclusion of a
general hunting provision in the rule and continues its efforts
to negotiate inclusion. He recapped that immediately upon
release, some hunting opportunities would be available to Alaska
Natives, but the department hopes to have a general hunting
provision once the wood bison reached a viable population.
3:53:27 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON inquired as to whether the non-essential
experimental population (NEP) would happen if this is the only
wood bison stock in the U.S. He asked whether the wood bison in
Canada could be included as part of the consideration since the
Canadian stock is part of the same genetic stock.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered yes. He stated that in essence, when
working with USFWS, the department describes the population as
an experimental population in Alaska and as non-essential to the
overall recovery because there are thousands of wood bison in
Canada. Thus, even if the re-introduction of wood bison in
Alaska failed and they completely disappeared, it would not
jeopardize the overall wood bison population. Therefore, the
wood bison will be considered NEP, he said. Some people have
asked whether someone could later petition to designate the
population as a threatened or endangered population. He
reported that the Department of Law reviewed the matter and
determined that in every case the judge has upheld the NEP
designations, except in instances in which a mix of the
experimental with the wild population in the same range
occurred. He reported that is not the case here.
3:55:10 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired as to what population level the wood
bison herd would need to rise to in Alberta, Canada in order for
them to be "de-listed."
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered that currently the USFWS has noticed
in the federal register the plan to downlist the U.S. species
from endangered to a threatened species. In Canada, the wood
bison is currently listed as threatened. The ADF&G believes the
population should be completely "downlisted" and will submit
comments to the USFWS to do so. He was unsure of the current
number of the wood bison population in Canada and was unaware of
any action to change its current endangered status.
3:56:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her understanding that the
"10(j)" rule would allow the department to designate the
population as experimental. She asked whether the special rule
would allow the taking of animals that are designated as NEP.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked how the wood bison status would
impact mining and other activities. She further asked for
clarification between the special rule and other resource
impacts, which she understood as one of the sponsor's concerns.
MR. VINCENT-LANG explained that when the Congress amended the
ESA in 1982, it allowed for the designation of experimental
populations to be further refined to essential or non-essential.
In this instance, the ADF&G has concluded with the USFWS that
the wood bison is a NEP. The federal act further allows for a
special rule with respect to the taking of NEP species not
otherwise allowed by the ESA. Further, taking has been broadly
defined in the ESA to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, capture, trap, collect, or attempt to engage in any such
conduct. In this instance, when the Congress amended the act
and allowed for a special rule, it considered that it was not
likely landowners would agree to introduction of animals if the
"take" provisions applied. Thus, the Congress allowed for a
special rule for the NEP. When the ADF&G prepared its list, it
asked the stakeholders to address any concerns over the "take"
provisions with respect to releasing wood bison. The list
included recreation, livestock grazing, oil and gas exploration
and development, mineral exploration and development, timber
harvesting, transportation, and other legal activities conducted
by state tribal, federal, state, and local laws and regulations
and specific authorizations. He offered his belief about the
only kind of "take" not allowable would be intentional poaching
of an animal, which would still be considered illegal.
3:58:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether the Congressional provision
in the ESA provides the ADF&G confidence that if the wood bison
were released that there would be not be any federal change or
impact not anticipated.
MR. VINCENT-LANG offered his belief that the department is
fairly confident from its legal review that the rules and
regulations are defensible in court. He commented that the
ADF&G would like to see the draft rule published and the final
rule after it has undergone public comment prior to determining
whether the rule adequately protects re-introduction of the wood
bison and also protects Alaska's interests.
4:00:00 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG, in response to Representative P. Wilson,
offered his belief that several of the wood bison rules have
been challenged in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. He
indicated that most commonly the experimental rules have
pertained to wolves in the Lower 48. In those instances,
problems occurred when wolves migrated off the NEP designated
range and entered other states and were protected under the full
ESA. The ADF&G has learned from that occurrence. It created a
geographic range associated with the rule to ensure any wood
bison that migrated would be covered by the NEP designation
despite any migratory movement.
4:01:18 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG pointed out that wolves have moved from Alaska
and have mixed with natural wolves from Canada. In those cases
the judge has stopped the rules to allow time to determine which
wolves were wild or NEP since the natural wolves protected by
the ESA mingled with the NEP wolves. He reiterated that type of
case would not apply with respect to the wood bison since the
species would not be subject to mixing with bison from other
areas. Additionally, in order to be able to challenge the
court, a person must demonstrate that he/she has been harmed.
4:02:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to whether wolves are
predators of wood bison.
MR. VINCENT-LANG acknowledged that some wolves will probably
take down some bison, but he offered his view the wolves would
not be able to eradicate the wood bison. He pointed out that
wolves and wood bison coexist in Canada.
4:03:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether local residents would be
able to hunt prior to the opening up hunts to the general
public.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered that an Alaska Native exemption would
apply immediately upon wood bison re-introduction into the
landscape. However, once there is a harvestable surplus of
animals, the Federal Subsistence Board and the Alaska Board of
Game would regulate harvest. In both cases, the subsistence
priority exists over general hunts. He said the ADF&G hopes to
grow the herd to accommodate subsistence and general hunting
provisions in the area. In further response to Representative
P. Wilson, he answered that the decisions with respect to
allocation of resources will be made by the Federal Subsistence
Board and the Alaska Board of Game. The Federal Subsistence
Board has an obligation to provide for subsistence needs for
rural Alaskans and the Alaska Board of Game has a priority to
provide a subsistence priority for all Alaskans. He reaffirmed
that only after providing for subsistence would the rest of
Alaskans have a general hunting provision.
4:05:52 PM
KATHY WALKER-CHASE stated that she serves on the Grayling Anvik
Holy Cross Shageluk (GASH) Fish & Game Advisory Committee. She
further stated that she supports relocation of the bison. In
further response to Co-Chair Feige, she clarified that GASH
stands for Grayling Anvik Holy Cross Shageluk. She said she
represents Holy Cross on the advisory committee.
4:06:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK asked whether she had reviewed the video he
posted on the wood bison.
MS. WALKER-CHASE answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK offered his belief that if people in GASH
viewed the video they would reconsider their position. He
cautioned against possible irreversible long-term consequences
with the re-introduction of wood bison. He suggested that she
go to the internet to youtube.com and query wood bison Innoko.
He offered to assist his constituents in achieving wood bison
but the decision for re-introduction should be based on an
informed decision and all the materials should be viewed. He
further cautioned that the legislature deals with the federal
government being very abusive to Alaskans and locking up the
land. He related his fear that people will be locked up and the
bison will be roaming free. He encouraged her to watch the
video.
4:08:51 PM
MIKE MILLER, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center (AWCC), stated
that he has been managing the wood bison for the state. He
related that for the past 30 years he has managed plains bison.
He recalled previous testimony given. He offered his belief
that there is not any reason to take action on HB 186 since it
would only place another layer of unnecessary involvement. He
thought that the endangered species animal under the protection
of the "10(j)" should be out in the wild procreating. He stated
the wood bison would have the same protection as other animals,
such as caribou or squirrels. He recalled that in 1960, Canada
faced a similar situation with only 23 animals. He reported
that Canada fenced an area, similar to the 200 acres in Alaska,
and implemented the Canadian wood bison recovery program
resulting in eight herds numbering over 800 animals in each
herd. He stated that the people are enjoying the resource. He
said that Canada viewed the opportunity to bring back a species
from extinction.
4:11:19 PM
MR. MILLER characterized his position at the center as
frustrating, but rewarding. He related that over 200,000
legislators, members of the Congress, media, Native Alaskans and
the general public come through the wildlife center every year.
He said that the AWCC provides people with an educational
opportunity. He pointed out environmentalist, hunters, and
others have been working on the wood bison project together
rather than fighting among themselves.
4:12:49 PM
MR. MILLER offered his belief that HB 186 creates a new problem
that does not make any sense. In 2008, he participated in the
capture of 60 wood bison in Canada and brought them back to the
AWCC in Alaska. He urged members not to re-hash the wood bison
issue. He understood Representative Dick's concerns, but if the
Native people in the villages want these animals released the
ADF&G would still not release them unless there is agreement on
the "10(j)" rule. He said the Native people should decide if
the wood bison are re-introduced and not the legislature. He
viewed HB 186 as creating another unnecessary hurdle to re-
introducing the wood bison into the wild.
4:14:33 PM
MR. MILLER pointed out the requirement for archeological
findings to demonstrate the natural range of the wood bison,
which became extinct in Alaska 90 years ago. He related prior
disputes and concerns, including some were concerned that the
bison were not wood bison, which was genetically proven. Some
held unfounded fears that wood bison would trample eggs or
displacing moose. He characterized the issues as unfounded and
relentless, including the newest concern that re-introduction of
wood bison would affect peat excavation. He listed donors to
the AWCC that have provided feed and financial support for the
project, including the Safari Club, the University of Alaska and
the Wildlife Conservation Society, as well as the Defenders of
Wildlife. He characterized the funding as diverse funding from
many different user groups.
MR. MILLER disagreed that the wood bison project is a "Trojan
horse." He urged members to take into consideration that land
would not be locked up and new covenants would not be put into
place. He offered his belief that the project would be easily
defensible, given his conversations with the USFWS, since
agriculture and fencing do not exist in the proposed re-
introduction area. He acknowledged that while any group could
sue, many environmental groups have expressed their support for
the wood bison project.
4:19:36 PM
MR. MILLER said he has a different point of view because he
works with the wood bison every day. He pointed to the success
of the Canadian project and would like to see the wood bison
project. He hoped that once the "10(j)" ruling is released that
people will respect it since it could result in numerous people
enjoying the wood bison.
4:21:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that not everyone in Alaska,
including herself has been aware of this project. She inquired
as to whether the groups he mentioned benefit from the Delta
bison herd.
MR. MILLER responded that the Delta bison herd provides
watchable wildlife opportunities and sport hunting permits. The
areas where these wood bison were once found have native
habitat. He recalled testimony by Native elders who recalled
seeing wood bison in the wild as children. The wood bison in
the Neslin herd in Canada were transplanted in mid-80s and have
grown to over 1,000 animals. The herd has grown to the point
that special permits are no longer needed and residents simply
obtain over-the-counter licenses to hunt wood bison. He
characterized the habitat for the wood bison project as the best
on earth and it could result in sizable herds 100 years from
now. He offered his view that wood bison are as natural to the
state as moose. He said if moose needed to be re-introduced it
would be fully supported by Alaskans.
MR. MILLER urged members to quit thinking about all these
hypothetical concerns. He recalled hearing concerns that the
herd is getting too domesticated but a youtube.com video
demonstrates otherwise. He acknowledged that this issue is
emotional because the proposed re-introduction of wood bison is
such a beautiful project and he hoped the Native people continue
their push for the project.
4:28:03 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 186.
4:28:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated that she finds the issue
difficult. She indicated she made a commitment that she would
not resist moving this bill out of committee, but has been
persuaded that this project is a good project. She indicated
she would not support HB 186 if it comes to the floor for a
vote.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK apologized for being a source of
frustration, but already this bill has accomplished something.
He reiterated that the bill does not say bison cannot be moved
but rather that the legislature must approve it. He affirmed
that he did not want to create another layer of government. He
predicted that if the re-introduction of wood bison happens that
the biologists will study the animals. He acknowledged that the
issue is an emotional one for many people. Ten years from now
his constituents might get to hunt some wood bison, but they
could also be litigants and that raises his real concern with
the project.
4:31:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK related the risk of a wolf taking down a
wood bison is very small due to wind, but this time in his
northern district is referred to as "crust time" because the
wolves do not punch through the snow but the moose do and two
wolves can take down a bull moose. He reported that Innoko is
one of the areas where predator control is not allowed.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK, with respect to the Delta bison, pointed
out that in three decades the state has not resolved the
conflict between the farmers and the hunters in Delta Junction.
He pointed out, with respect to the wood bison interbreeding,
that bison live approximately 200 miles away from the proposed
re-introduction site. He offered his belief that if the wood
bison can mingle with the plains bison there will be trouble
with interbreeding in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK offered his belief that President Obama has
attempted to violate the statehood act, which leads him to
believe that agreements cannot be made with the federal
government.
4:36:33 PM
PAUL VERHAGEN, Staff, Representative Alan Dick, referred to a
map in members' packets that shows another 3,000 square miles
was just locked up in Cook Inlet with the designation of beluga
critical habitat. He stated this is the same area where two new
jack-up rigs are on their way into the Cook Inlet. He expressed
concern that if the wood bison are re-introduced, there will be
lawsuits and unintended consequences. He reiterated the best
method for determining the issue of the wood bison project is
through legislative approval.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK pointed out that he trusts Doug Vincent-
Lang, but it is not always possible to trust government
officials. He recalled his view of when Governor Tony Knowles
was governor and Frank Rue was appointed commissioner that "we
were devastated." He expressed his preference that these
decisions should not be made by the administration but by the
legislature. He concluded it is not an issue of wood bison but
whether the folks in Washington, D.C. can be trusted. He said,
"I vote no on the folks in Washington."
4:39:51 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON REPRESENTATIVE moved to report HB 186 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 186 was reported
from the House Resources Standing Committee.
HB 229-BIG GAME COMMERCIAL SERVICES BOARD
4:40:31 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 229, "An Act relating to activities, including
violations and penalties, under the supervision of the Big Game
Commercial Services Board."
4:41:03 PM
MICHAEL PASCHALL, Staff, Representative Eric Feige, Alaska State
Legislature, read from a prepared statement, as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
HB 229 was introduced at the request of members of the
Big Game Commercial Services Board addressing changes
to rules regarding the administration and licensing of
guides.
Big game guides are regulated under statute and
regulation and oversight is provided by the Big Game
Commercial Service Board. The proposed changes provide
more flexibility in where guides can work when
contracting with another guide, allows a registered
guide-outfitter more flexibility in the use of class-A
guides, and changes penalties for minor procedural
violations by guides.
Section 1 of the bill allows registered guide-
outfitters to be employed by another registered guide-
outfitter versus contracting with a client to provide
services either as a registered guide-outfitter in a
certified area or as an a class-A assistant guide
anywhere in the state.
Section 2 allows the registered guide-outfitter to
work with those they employ to supervise hunts.
Currently the contracting registered guide-outfitter
must "stop-in," if only to shake the hand of a client,
at a camp to comply with statute.
Section 3 adds a provision to allow the board to
suspend or revoke a license for conduct involving
unprofessionalism, moral turpitude, or gross
immorality.
4:42:30 PM
MR. PASCHALL continued reading from his prepared statement
[original punctuation provided]:
Section 4 standardizes penalties for violations of
wanton waste, hunting on same day airborne, or
providing services while license suspended or revoked.
Section 5 lessons (sic) the penalty for unspecified
violations to allow the board the option to suspend a
license instead of a mandatory suspension. The concern
expressed by the board is a minor violation, such as a
paperwork violation, would result in a mandatory
suspension of a license.
Section 6 conforms AS 12.55.125(e) (Sentencing and
Probation) with the changes in Section 4.
Section 7 completes the changes in Section 4 by
removing language no longer needed.
4:43:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER requested a copy of the section by
section analysis of the bill.
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked for clarification on the changes in the
role of the master guide versus an assistant guide-outfitter.
He asked for the expanded role of the assistant guide-outfitters
and to address the assistant guide-outfitters' ability to
operate independently.
MR. PASCHALL was uncertain whether he was referring to Section 2
of the bill or changes in employment.
CO-CHAIR SEATON answered that he was interested in the changes
to supervision in the field. He wondered whether the changes
would make assistant guide-outfitters more like a full or master
guides.
MR. PASCHALL answered that the current statute only requires the
licensed guide to be present at some point in the field. He
related that meeting at the airport would not qualify but if
weather prevented the guide from meeting the client in the field
that the guide would be in violation of the statute. This bill
would not give any additional authority to class-A assistant
guide-outfitters.
4:46:03 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked for clarification on whether the licensed
master guide would have the same level of accountability for any
violations that happen if he/she never observes the client in
the field.
MR. PASCHALL answered yes. He pointed out that the supervision
requirement does not change under HB 229, but offered to obtain
an opinion on the scenario described. The bill would address
guide-outfitters placing themselves in the field with the client
once during the hunt.
4:46:53 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON expressed interest in knowing whether the
licensed/master guide is responsible for the client's actions
absent any field contact.
4:47:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to whether the reason for
HB 229 is that the master guide was not contacting anyone in the
field.
MR. PASCHALL answered that under current statute the registered
guide-outfitter must travel to the field and meet with the
client in the field. The current statutes do not require the
guide-outfitter to supervise the hunt or the camp. The guide-
outfitter merely needs to be present at some point in the field.
This, it would be sufficient to fly in, shake a client's hand or
eat dinner with him/her since the bill does not pertain to
supervision. He said the requirement in statute creates a huge
economic issue for the guides. He also suggested that the
guides may be able to better answer this.
4:48:39 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE interjected that the supervision can be provided
by the assistant guide-outfitter's use of a satellite phone in
communication with the master guide. This bill would delete the
requirement for the master guide to be present in the field. He
clarified that the master guide can provide communication to
guides working under him/her, but he would not need to be
physically present.
MR. PASCHALL, in response to Representative P. Wilson, agreed
that the presence or lack of presence is a business issue
between the master guide and his employees and the service the
guide-outfitter provides to the client. However, to meet the
actual statute the master guide needs only to make contact.
Thus, the master guide could potentially see 10 people in a day
and still meet the statutory requirement.
4:50:01 PM
DON QUARBERG related he is a 35-year Alaska resident who has
never been a guide and does not intend on conducting any guided
hunts. He acknowledged the importance of the economic benefits
of guiding to Alaska and contributions of nonresident hunters to
big game management in Alaska. He related he has served as
chair of the local fish and game advisory committee in Delta
Junction. He attended a work session with five local guides as
they reviewed DNR's concession. Additionally, he has attended
the Alaska Professional Hunters conference in Anchorage, and the
Big Game Commercial Services Board meeting with respect to the
DNR's concession. He found one common concern that prevails
among all of the user groups is to revisit the statutes that
regulate this industry. He offered his belief that HB 229
represents a good start in this process. He encouraged members
to support HB 229. In response to Representative P. Wilson, he
said he attended the meetings due to his involvement in the
Delta Junction Fish and Game Advisory Committee. He explained
he did not represent the committee, but attended the meetings to
become more informed about the big game guide-outfitter
industry.
4:52:59 PM
VIRGIL UMPHENOUR, Master Guide, related that he has lived in the
area since 1971 except for a period of time he spent in Nome.
He stated that he is a master guide and the vice-chair of the
Fairbanks Fish and Game Advisory Committee. He has previously
served on the Board of Fisheries. He agreed with Mr. Quarberg
that HB 229 is a good first start to clarify the statutes. He
referred to Section 5 of the bill. Under current statutes, the
court must suspend a guide's license for a year a guide if
he/she makes an administrative error.
4:54:51 PM
MR. UMPHENOUR referred to Section 1 of the bill. He explained
that currently a camp must be run by a class-A assistant guide-
outfitter or a registered guide-outfitter, or master guide who
is licensed for the game management unit. Currently, guide-
outfitters are restricted to only three guide areas in the
state. He explained the proposed change would allow a master
guide or registered guide-outfitter who contracts with clients
to hire another registered or master guide-outfitter to run a
camp, including assistant guide-outfitters without being
registered in the specific game management unit (GMU). He
reiterated that under current law a guide-outfitter is
restricted to three GMUs. He characterized this as badly-needed
statute changes to allow guide-outfitters to be treated fairly
and equally under the law. He offered his belief that guide-
outfitters are not treated fairly under the U.S. constitution.
4:56:27 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON inquired as to whether the effect of HB 229 is
to eliminate the three unit GMUs so a master guide can employ
someone to operate a camp.
MR. UMPHENOUR answered no. He explained he operates in GMU 21,
22, and 24, in the Seward Peninsula, the Koyukuk National
Wildlife Refuge, and the Nulato Hills. Under the proposed bill,
if he wanted to work with a friend who is a guide-outfitter who
operates in the Alaska Peninsula, even though Mr. Umphenour has
not been certified for GMU 9, he could work as a class-A
assistant guide-outfitter for that contracting guide and
supervise a camp. He clarified that this bill would allow him
to be an employee but not be the contracting guide-outfitter.
Instead, he would act as a class-A assistant guide-outfitter for
the contracting guide-outfitter. He would be working under the
supervision of the contracting guide-outfitter, he said.
4:58:06 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON inquired as to what happens with respect to
supervision if the contracting guide is not required to meet
with clients in the field and provide direct supervision or
field supervision. He wondered if under the scenario just
described, that essentially it would allow him to operate as the
contracting guide-outfitter.
MR. UMPHENOUR answered no. He explained that the contracting
guide-outfitter would be responsible for any violations that
would occur and for any other guide statutes. The licensed
guide-outfitter would be responsible for any violation that
occurred, but the assistant guide would not be responsible. He
maintained that this bill does not address supervision. It
would allow a guide-outfitter to work for another guide-
outfitter in his/her GMU unit as an employee.
5:00:01 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON surmised then that the contracting guide-
outfitter could contact his employee and clients by satellite
phone and would never have to appear in the field. He said this
seems confusing and asked for further explanation.
MR. UMPHENOUR further explained that the regulation under 12 AAC
75.250 refer to participation in the hunt, and reads: "A
registered guide-outfitter who contracts a guided hunt, in which
participating in a hunt is required in statute should be in
communication either personally or through an agent with an
assistant guide who is in the field with the client at least
once during the hunt." Thus, the guide-outfitter must either
show up in person or talk to the client on the satellite phone.
5:01:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked for examples of the administrative
error that currently requires the suspension of license.
MR. UMPHENOUR answered that a guide-outfitter must fill out a
hunt record for each client. He further explained that the
guide-outfitter fills out the top portion out and signs it prior
to the hunt. In 2008, when the ADF&G made changes and printed
the form, it did not include any instructions along with the
form. The department also removed the signature block for the
contracting guide to sign and date to certify the information
pertaining to the client's name, license name, big game tag
number, and harvest ticket number, and guide-outfitter
accompanying the client in the field. The bottom portion of the
form lists the field dates, the species of game hunted, the date
each animal was taken, the GMU, and specific details on the game
taken. He expressed concern that only one signature block was
available on the form which by regulation must be signed prior
to the hunt. The signature implied the guide-outfitter approves
of all the information on the form, yet the guide-outfitter
could not ascertain the details of the kill since he/she was
signing the form prior to the hunt. The form also specified the
guide-outfitter will be prosecuted for unsworn falsification if
any information on the form is incorrect.
5:05:45 PM
MR. UMPHENOUR reiterated the frustrations of having a form that
makes it impossible for the guide-outfitter to accurately
complete. He recalled a master guide-outfitter currently being
prosecuted for this very thing. He referred to the hunt record
and other issues that have arisen when clients carry the client
copy instead of the field copy.
5:06:55 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE indicated that his office would work on this
during the legislative interim.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she would like more information on
the process to become a master guide-outfitter and assistant
guide-outfitter.
[HB 229 was held over.]
HB 113-STAMPEDE STATE RECREATION AREA
5:08:21 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 113, "An Act creating the Stampede State
Recreation Area."
5:08:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID GUTTENBERG, Alaska State Legislature,
referred to a map provided in the committee members' packets
that identifies the location of the proposed Stampede State
Recreation Area.
5:09:44 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 5:09 p.m. to 5:10 p.m.
5:10:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG explained that HB 113 would establish
a state recreation area in the Stampede Road corridor, northwest
of Healy and flanked on three sides by the Denali National Park.
He described the land surrounding the proposed recreational area
as federal land. The people of the Denali Borough, which this
is part of, have decided to take control and create a recreation
area to allow for traditional activities, ranging from walking
to operating monster trucks. He explained that the Alaska
Supreme Court made the Denali Borough part of the Fairbanks
legislature district during legislative redistricting.
5:11:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG offered his belief that the Denali
Borough was created to prevent the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
from extending north and the Fairbanks North Star Borough from
extending south. The Denali Borough decided to turn this area
into a recreational area and wishes to allow traditional uses.
New trails cannot be put into place without undergoing a
planning process, he said. He characterized the process of
creating the recreational area as an inclusive process. He
reiterated that the proposed Stampede Recreation Area would not
exclude any customary uses and he commended the people in his
district for doing a good job.
5:14:02 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired as to whether the land is currently
state land.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG answered yes.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked what for the advantage to designate the
land as a recreation area.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG answered it puts into place that an
advisory board will decide what would be allowable in the
proposed recreation area.
5:14:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked him to describe the planning
process and what it would entail.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG responded that the Denali Borough
would consider any new activities in the proposed Stampede State
Recreation Area such as whether to build a new trail, add a
parking lot with picnic tables, or other recreational activities
that cannot occur on state land without undergoing the planning
process.
5:15:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related her understanding that the land
is surrounded by federal land. She asked for the current
designation of the proposed land.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG answered that the proposed Stampede
State Recreation Area is state land surrounded by federal land.
In further response to Representative P. Wilson, he indicated
that the state land is currently without any designation.
5:15:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether any current applications for
land use are underway.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG answered yes. He explained that the
Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc. has some has some gas leases that may
touch the northern boundary, although these leases do not cross
the national park.
5:16:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to whether the designation of
the proposed state recreation area would affect any of the
applications.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG answered he did not think so.
5:17:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ again asked whether any land use
applications would affect the proposed site and how this bill,
if passed, would affect land use.
BEN ELLIS, Director, Central Office, Division of Parks & Outdoor
Recreation, answered that limited data is available, but the
department believes some gas potential may exist. He offered to
have someone else from the department provide additional
information.
5:18:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK referred to a letter from Steve Borell of
Alaska Miners Association opposing the designation. He read a
portion of the letter, including the state has 8.5 million acres
designated as parks, refuges, and other land closed to multiple
uses. He asked the legislature to not block any additional
state lands.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG understood the letter was one just
received.
5:18:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK asked for further clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG answered the letter goes right to the
point that the proposed designation of the proposed Stampede
State Recreation Area would not preclude anything, but would
allow for a planning process for the area. He acknowledged some
gas potential may exist in the area, plus the Usibelli leases
dip into the area. He explained that the intent is not to lock
up any land, but to establish a planning process to decide what
could happen in the area. He did not think anything was being
precluded. He offered his view that the people in the Denali
Borough are as open to economic development. He agreed the
question raised is a good question to ask, but he maintained no
activity would be precluded from planning.
5:20:15 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON said he was not familiar with the restraints of
the planning process in a state recreation area. He inquired as
to whether such a designation would limit oil and gas and mining
activities.
MR. ELLIS answered that he did not think so, but there could be
exceptions. He offered to research this and get back to the
committee.
CO-CHAIR SEATON requested an answer be sent to the committee in
writing.
5:21:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI referred to Section 1 of HB 113, which
discusses the purpose of the proposed Stampede State Recreation
Area. The second part of the bill deals with incompatible uses
and seems to say that if the uses are incompatible with the
primary purposes of the recreation area that it would be up to
the ADF&G to determine what would be allowed. The bill goes on
to outline what the commissioner cannot restrict. He inquired
as to whether language could be added that firms up the
commissioner cannot restrict natural resource development such
as the oil and gas development outlined in the Alaska Miners
Association letter.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG offered his belief the letter from the
Alaska Miners Association made some big assumptions. He
reported that currently there is not any active exploration. He
understood leases to the north of the area have some oil and gas
activity. He explained that some people in the Denali Borough
would like restrictions and a significant number of the
residents do not want restrictions. These residents recognize
any gas activity could enhance their economic ability. At this
time there are not any inholders in this area. The land does
not contain timber, but consists of high alpine country. He
indicated that as sponsor of HB 113, he did not object to
ensuring oil and gas activity would not be restricted.
5:23:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether transiting the proposed
Stampede State Recreation Area would be considered a compatible
use in the event that potential oil and gas leases were adjacent
to the area, but required crossing the proposed recreation land.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG answered that if oil and gas
facilities existed, access would be by roads directly to the
east on state or borough land or else the parties would need
permitting from the National Park Service (NPS).
5:24:38 PM
ROGER HEALY, Director/Chief Engineer, Division of Statewide
Design & Engineering Services, Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF) referred to the department's
testimony during the 26th legislature on a similar bill. He
said the DOT&PF recommends reservation of a corridor not
currently included in the proposed Stampede State Recreation
Area bill for future transportation and utility infrastructure.
This corridor would not consist of an easement, but would be a
reservation of a corridor for rights-of-way purposes. Based on
lack of survey and resource information, the department
recommends a corridor 1,000 feet wide, 500 feet on either side
of the centerline of the existing R.S. 2477 route, running the
length of the route and connecting to existing infrastructure on
the east end. He reported that the DOT&PF does not have any
immediate plans for transportation infrastructure along the
corridor and it also does not anticipate any long-term plans.
However, the DOT&PF still recommends corridor reservation for
transportation, and utility infrastructure would provide future
Alaskans with the opportunity for transportation, energy
resource, and recreation that may develop over time that is
currently unknown. Additionally, it would also provide Alaskans
an opportunity to enhance recreational opportunities in the
proposed recreation area that cannot be seen or predicted today.
5:26:26 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON indicated the map in members' packets does not
show the R.S. 2477 trail. He asked for clarification on the
location, in general terms, and whether it is a single trail.
MR. HEALY responded that the R.S. 2477 trail basically runs
along the old Stampede road and generally along the northern
portion of the proposed recreation area. He recalled the route
was shown on maps on a similar bill and that is what he is
looking at today.
CO-CHAIR SEATON related his understanding the R.S. 2477 trail is
located in the upper quadrant of the map.
MR. HEALY answered that he is correct.
5:28:11 PM
HANNAH RAGLAND, Friends of Stampede, stated local residents via
the assembly initiated the process for the proposed Stampede
State Recreation Area in 2006. Since October 2010, the local
residents created an informal group to support the recreation
area and other local issues. She reported that over 50 people
have attended meetings and over 70 local people are on their e-
mail list. She reported that the group has received statewide
support and little or no opposition. She explained that the
area is a pretty special place that has historically been used
for recreation. It has seen more and more use, as well as an
increase in search and rescues as people try to find Christopher
McCandless's bus. She recalled a Swiss resident drowned while
crossing a river in the area last summer. She pointed out that
public safety issues will need to be addressed by establishing a
recreation area. She concluded by reiterating local support for
the bill. She encouraged members to pass HB 113.
5:30:27 PM
JON NIERENBERG, Lodge Owner, said he has resided at Mile 4,
Stampede Road in Healy since 1983. He has lived for 13 years on
a remote homestead, building his home and business on Stampede
Road in 1996. He and his wife own and operate EarthSong Lodge
and several other tourism businesses year round. The proposed
Stampede State Recreation area would directly impact his
personal and professional life. He asked to place on the record
that he supports the proposal and all the goals of the Friends
of Stampede local advocacy group and Denali Citizen's Council.
He said his commercial operations relies 100 percent on the
scenic and recreational values the proposed recreation area
would protect and guarantee. He reported that their visitors
come from all over the country and world, including visitors to
the Denali National Park who stay at his lodge as an alternative
to the commercial, overdeveloped establishments near the
national park entrance. Visitors spend time at the lodge, hike,
and berry pick along the road, and some hike the Stampede trail
out to the bus from the film Into the Wild on the Sushana River.
5:32:03 PM
MR. NIERENBERG related that his winter guests seek an authentic,
natural wilderness dogsled experience. He holds a concession
for guiding in Denali National Park, which is accessed through
the Stampede corridor, the Wolf townships, and the proposed
Stampede State Recreation Area. He predicted that the proposed
Stampede State Recreation Area would guarantee all tourist-
related businesses some measure of security against conflicting
development and other activities. He predicted the future of
this area lies in tourism and recreation for visitors and local
Alaskans. He said he came to the area for its spectacular
recreational resources.
5:33:09 PM
MR. NIERENBERG reported in addition to a few other inholdings in
the Stampede State Recreation Area, that his homestead would be
an inholding in the proposed recreational area. However, he
still supports the designation of the proposed Stampede State
Recreation area. He offered his belief that too few protected
lands are available for current traditional uses. He envisioned
a land unit that would continue to allow for diverse activities
for local residents. He said that protecting this area would
demonstrate the legislature's commitment to proactively guarding
the local resident's way of life. He urged members to move
forward with creation of the Stampede State Recreation Area to
better serve the residents of Healy, all Alaskans, and visitors
from around the world.
5:34:36 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON referred to page 3, lines 14-15 of HB 113. He
related his understanding that the language indicates that the
commissioner shall minimize additional infrastructure in order
to maintain the natural character of the area. He asked whether
that would that limit the ability of residents to plan. He said
it seems to say that the commissioner's duty shall not allow
activities such as a natural gas line. He asked if this
provision is essential to the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG responded that it has always been the
intent that in situations like that the commissioner has the
ability to make exceptions. He related his understanding that
the commissioner could allow for natural gas development under
the existing language.
5:36:28 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked the sponsor to confirm with the
commissioner whether this specific language would restrict the
department with respect to approving infrastructure. He also
suggested that the sponsor confirm his constituent's intentions
with respect to removing infrastructure decisions from the local
planning process.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG agreed to do so. He noted he received
an e-mail from his constituents and other testimony was given
that confirmed his understanding that the local residents
understood the commissioner would have the ability to allow
resource development to happen. He offered to confirm this and
provide additional information to the committee.
5:37:43 PM
[HB 113 was held over.]
5:37:49 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:37 p.m.