SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE February 5, 1997 3:41 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Rick Halford, Chairman Senator Lyda Green, Vice Chairman Senator Loren Leman Senator Bert Sharp Senator Robin Taylor Senator Georgianna Lincoln Senator John Torgerson MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR SENATE BILL NO. 8 "An Act relating to the noise levels of airports and sport shooting facilities." - MOVED CSSB 8(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE SENATE BILL NO. 19 "An Act repealing the power and duty of the commissioner of fish and game to assist in the enforcement of federal laws relating to fish and game." -MOVED SB 19 OUT OF COMMITTEE CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 35(STA) "An Act relating to the means of transportation used to provide access for the taking of game; relating to management of state land, water, and land and water as part of a state park, recreational or special management area, or preserve; relating to reports to the legislature concerning prohibitions or restrictions of traditional means of access for traditional recreational uses within a park, recreational or special management area, or preserve; relating to Chilkat State Park." -MOVED CSSB 35(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 8 Urging the United States Congress to give an affirmative expression of approval to a policy authorizing the state to regulate, restrict, or prohibit the export of unprocessed logs harvested from its land and from the land of its political subdivisions and the University of Alaska. -SCHEDULED, BUT NOT HEARD PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION SB 8 - See Senate Transportation Committee minutes dated 1/28/97 and 2/3/97. SB 19 - No previous action to record. SB 35 - See State Affairs minutes dated 1/23/97. SJR 8 - No previous action to record. WITNESS REGISTER Mr. Robert Reed Department of Law P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, AK 99811-0300 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 8. Colonel John Glass Fish and Wildlife Protection Department of Public Safety 5700 E. Tudor Rd. Anchorage, AK 99507 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 19. Ms. Janey Wineinger, Staff Senator Lyda Green State Capitol Bldg. Juneau, AK 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement on SB 35. Ms. Jody Kennedy Alaska Environmental Lobby P.O. Box 22151 Juneau, AK 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 35. Mr. Wayne Regelin, Director Division of Wildlife Conservation Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, AK 99802-5526 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 35. Ms. Carol Caroll, Director Administrative Services Department of Natural Resources 400 Willoughby Ave. Juneau, AK 99801-1724 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 35. Mr. Jim Stratton, Director Division of Parks Department of Natural Resources 3601 C Street Anchorage, AK 99503-5921 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 35. Mr. Geron Bruce, Legislative Liaison Department of Fish and Game P.O Box 25526 Juneau, AK 99802-5526 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 35. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 97-7, SIDE A Number 001 SB 8 AIRPORT/SHOOTING FACILITY NOISE LEVELS  CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to order at 3:41 p.m. and announced SB 8 to be up for consideration. He noted a letter from the Alaska Municipal League (AML) requesting an amendment that required a substantial change in use of the facility. SENATOR LINCOLN noted that the letter also wanted to delete "prohibition" of the CS on page 2, line 1 and insert "exemption." She asked why that hadn't been done. CHAIRMAN HALFORD replied that it wasn't a major concern and the two words meant the same, but were simply different styles. Number 40 SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt the CS to SB 8. SENATOR LINCOLN objected for purposes of discussion on the issue. MR. ROBERT REED, Department of Law, said he had talked with Kevin Ritchie, Executive Director, AML, who said the use of "exemption" was made for consistency throughout the bill. MR. REED said that the general rule in a court of law is that if you use a different term, you must have a different meaning. They assumed the legislature didn't have a different meaning. SENATOR LINCOLN said she would like to further amend the bill, then, so it would be consistent. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said as a general rule he would go along with legislative drafters rather than outside agencies and he wasn't exactly sure why it was done. SENATOR TAYLOR explained that "prohibition" was against bringing a nuisance suit under this section and he thought it was much clearer worded that way. SENATOR LINCOLN withdrew her objection. SENATOR TAYLOR objected briefly to say that his only concern was that using terms like "unless the facility substantially changes the use of the facility after the person acquired the property" was a pretty good sized loophole. And this law is trying to establish something that is clear-cut. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he was willing to go along with it because he thought they meant a substantial change to mean air carrier aircraft vs. light aircraft and not the number of flights or the amount of activity; and if it was their intention to change it based on the amount of activity, he wasn't interested in changing it. SENATOR SHARP questioned using "usages" on line 6 instead of "use." MR. REED said he thought "substantial change" would depend on the facts of a particular case unless there is a clear intent statement. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if he would agree with Senator Halford's analogy of a shooting range that was only open on weekends changing to being open seven days a week being a substantial change. MR. REED replied that it certainly could be construed that way. The only case he read today that had to do with substantial changes was the airport case in which case they had paved what was formerly a dirt airport. That significantly changed the traffic and opened it to larger aircraft. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he didn't mind the larger aircraft, but he did mind the increased traffic. He suggested the wording: "a substantial change to the type of use of the facility." MR. REED responded that using more adjectives restricts the meaning a court could consider a substantial change. Number 186 SENATOR TAYLOR withdrew his motion to adopt the CS to SB 8 and moved to pass SB 8 from committee with individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered. SB 19 FISH & GAME COMN'R NOT TO ENFORCE FED LAW  CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SB 19 to be up for consideration. SENATOR SHARP, sponsor, said that SB 19 repeals the present statutory mandate which is AS 16.05.050 (1) stating the State of Alaska will assist the federal government agencies in the enforcement of federal laws and regulations as they apply to fish and game resources in Alaska. He said in light of the aggressive federal action to assume management of fish and game over large areas of our State, in violation of our statehood compact, he felt repeal of this statute was prudent and in the best interests of the citizens of Alaska. He further stated that this was part of SB 77 that passed both bodies last year, but was vetoed. SENATOR LINCOLN said the only piece of correspondence the committee received on this issue was from the Alaska Peace Officers Association, which is throughout the State, and they unanimously opposed it. She asked if he knew why. SENATOR SHARP said this is the only correspondence he has seen from them and he hadn't received a phone call from them on any details. SENATOR LINCOLN asked if by eliminating that portion of the statutory mandate they are saying the State of Alaska will not be assisting the federal government in enforcing their laws. SENATOR SHARP replied that it will not mandate that they shall enforce every federal regulation and law on the books. He didn't think they had a choice now. He wanted the Commissioner to have the discretion. He said there would continue to be cooperation beyond the three-mile limit, because that's federal law and the State has routinely worked with the feds on that enforcement. This language pertains to enforcement where federal laws and regulations are contrary to existing State statutes and regulations. COLONEL GLASS, Fish and Wildlife Protection, said he had some concerns with this bill because there are 81 officers enforcing fish and wildlife laws; and if they could not cooperate and deal with the federal people, the resources would be damaged. SENATOR TAYLOR explained that removing the mandate still allows the department to have the discretion to enter into agreements and enforcement protocols that they want to enter into. This removes the hammer, if the department did not feel comfortable or appropriate in going out and assisting. He said last year he had not heard any opposition to this specific section. COLONEL GLASS responded that that was his concern, and as long as they could enter into MOUs and agreement letters, using the Lacey Act as an example, he would have his concern answered. SENATOR SHARP reiterated that he did not see how taking the mandate away does any harm to working together in those areas that would be beneficial to enforce State regulation or laws in conjunction with using federal laws that enhance their abilities to do that. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he assumed that was the same concern the Alaska Peace Officers Association had. COLONEL GLASS said he was not aware they had filed that objection and he is a member of the Association. He said he would check with Sergeant McCorkel who signed the letter. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he understands that they are repealing a duty and not a power and he assumed that was what the Alaska Peace Officer's objection was. CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that there was a motion before them to move SB 19 from committee with individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered. CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that it passed with the accompanying $0 fiscal notes. SB 35 MANAGEMENT OF PARKS & RECREATIONAL AREAS  CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SB 35 to be up for consideration. MS. JANEY WINEINGER , Staff to Senator Lyda Green, sponsor, said CSSB 35 proposes legislation to protect Alaska's fundamental right of access to State lands for traditional recreational use. It keeps the Department of Natural Resources from restricting or prohibiting traditional means of access for traditional recreational activity on or within a park area or preserve. Section 2 of the current bill also provides for annual reporting to the legislature on each finding of an incompatible use. MS. WINEINGER said the Constitution of the United States mandates that all closures must be legislatively designated for any lands above 640 acres. Historically, there has not been the same designation for lands less than 640 acres and this would recognize that. She said this bill passed both houses last year and was vetoed by the Governor. It is supported by a wide range of citizens, organizations, and associations within the State. Number 445 SENATOR LINCOLN said on page 2, line 9 where it says the Board finds on clear and convincing evidence - she always has difficulty on finding what clear and convincing evidence means. Also she wanted to know what the Board would interpret as significant. SENATOR TAYLOR explained that the word "significant" is to allow the Department the opportunity to establish that some biological harm is occurring that is greater than insignificant which could be caused by the merely trodding on the grass. The Department would have to show, but for the restriction, that the size or type of a herd might be reduced below levels that would be acceptable for good management. SENATOR LINCOLN asked if this is the normal terminology used by the Board in making their decisions. SENATOR TAYLOR replied that the words "clear and convincing" are an established legal standard as OJ (Simpson) just found out. It's an altogether different standard from "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is criminal. SENATOR LINCOLN asked if "traditional" on line 8 meant over a period of time or a month ago. MS. WINEINGER replied traditional means any mode of access like walking, snow machines, etc. that citizens have through history used. SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the Airboat Association, for instance, used it last year and if they are trying to get protection now, was that traditional use. MS. WINEINGER said anything before this bill would be historical and any means of access would come under this bill. SENATOR LINCOLN asked why prohibit the Board from making these decisions. Why is this bill necessary rather than letting the Board regulate. SENATOR TAYLOR responded that part of the pattern of activity they have seen for the last several years is that a number of large areas of real estate have been closed to traditional means of access. Frequently both ADF&G and DNR make decisions about land access and use based upon an advisory opinion that may come from one group that may wish to monopolize a given area for their sole and exclusive purposes. This is moving farther and farther away from the multiple use concept upon which this State was founded. He thought the definition on page 4, lines 16 - 21, a popular pattern of use, was a better term. SENATOR LINCOLN said it seemed to her that it's the Board's responsibility to allocate our resources and this is just one component of how they allocate them. Then she asked how this bill would affect the critical habitat areas. SENATOR TAYLOR replied that it didn't affect them because they are established by the legislature. SENATOR LINCOLN used the Minto Flats and Koyukuk as an example of where the Board has restricted use of airboats. She said that these critical habitats included the whole food chain and the legislature should not dictate to the Board what they should do. SENATOR TAYLOR responded that she was referring to the actions of DNR and the legislation refers to setting a standard for game populations. Meeting the standard would fulfill the legislative requirement of there being something significant with the game population that deserves this type of activity. He noted that the areas she mentioned are previous to the passage of this legislation and there is no retroactive effect. This would only impact new areas and would be based on biology, not aesthetics. MS. JODY KENNEDY, Alaska Environmental Lobby, said the SB 35 has evolved beyond its original version of access issues within State parks. The addition of restrictions upon the Board of Game to professionally manage our State's game resources creates a bill that the Alaska Environmental Lobby cannot support because they significantly hamstring the Board of Game's authority to create controlled use areas as a means to maintain and enhance hunting quality experiences for both Alaskans and visitors. She said they oppose SB 35 because it takes management decisions away from the land management specialists. Local fish and game advisory committees and the Board of Game are in the best position to consider public input and make important land use decisions. TAPE 97-7, SIDE B Number 590 She said this bill would likely contribute to the on-going tension between rural and urban hunters, motorized and non-motorized users, and do little to address the resource allocation issues facing Alaskans. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the Lobby supported the original bill. MS. KENNEDY replied that they didn't either oppose or support the bill. SENATOR SHARP asked who submitted the testimony. MS. KENNEDY answered that Sue Schraeder, their Executive Director, submitted it. SENATOR SHARP noted that there was an error in the last paragraph stating that legislators continue to limit funding to ADF&G. He said that total funding for ADF&G over the last 3 - 5 years has not gone down. It has been reallocated within the Department and some of the sources have changed. MS. KENNEDY added that if they add responsibilities to the Board of Game without increasing their funding, that is decreasing their funding. SENATOR SHARP retorted that if the Board of Game would make all their decisions based on the scientific findings of the staff of the Department, they would not be here today. MR. WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, said he would only comment on the amendments that affect Title 16. He explained that control use areas are a tool that the Board of Game has used for a long time to provide a diversity of hunting opportunities and to reduce user conflicts. Some control use areas are used to segregate hunters by time periods so that walkin hunters don't have to compete with ORV hunters or ORV hunters don't have to compete with aircraft hunters. Other control use areas allow ORVs to be used only during certain days in a hunting season so that people can use them to retrieve meat, but not for hunting (one area is in the Kenai). All of the control use areas they have today were created at the request of hunters or by local fish and game advisory groups. They are popular with the majority of the hunters, but some hunters are not pleased because it may restrict their favorite access for hunting. There are currently 24 control use areas in Alaska; eight of them restrict aircraft for hunting; and five of those restrict hunting for moose, while three restrict aircraft hunting for all species. Eight other control use areas prohibit the use of motorized vehicles for hunting access including aircraft; two others restrict the use of pack animals. These are the walk-in trophy areas they have, like the Delta control use area. Six control use areas restrict motor vehicle access except for aircraft which are many times because of the habitat concerns the Board has had. Two control use areas restrict the size of motors allowed on boats that are used for hunting and two prohibit the use of airboats in small areas. Thirteen control use areas, over half, were established prior to 1979; four were established during the 1980s; and seven have been established since 1990. There are two control use areas that were recently adopted by the Board of Game that have resulted in some controversy. The Nenana control use area, created in 1996, prohibits the use of airboats in a portion of game management unit 20A and C, in Fairbanks along the Tanana River. This action has left the airboaters in Fairbanks with very limited access in which to hunt using their airboats. This was put before the Board by hunters for reasons that were many and varied. Number 515 MR. REGELIN said the other control use area that has generated some controversy is the expansion of the Noatak control use area in game management unit 23. This closed an area of five miles on each side of the Noatak River to aircraft and goes upriver about 60 miles. This control use area had been in existence since 1988, but they expanded it in 1995 to the new boundaries and some people feel they have lost access to where they used to fly in and hunt. In the Department's opinion control use areas are a very valuable tool for the Board of Game and have proven to be very effective methods to maximize our hunting opportunity providing a variety of hunting experience while reducing user conflicts. This bill would take that away from the Board allowing it less flexibility to provide for a diversity of hunting and to address user conflicts. He thought in the long term it would result in reduced hunting opportunity, because some seasons would likely be shortened if methods of access can't be restricted. Over time it could result in more Tier 2 hunts which aren't very popular because the Board would have no other way to restrict harvest without closing the season. MR. REGELIN suggested, if this bill was stimulated by a specific action by the Board of Game, the legislature should respond to that specific action by passing a statute or directing the Board to rescind that action rather than taking away the entire tool. Number 496 MR. REGELIN said that only the Board of Game can establish control use areas. The Department can't do it by emergency order. The only thing they can do by emergency order is close the season for biological reasons. The Board can only control use areas in relation to hunting. They can't do it at other times of the year. He commented that all the critical habitat areas are established by the legislature and provided for in statute where there are broad guidelines on what should be restricted and why they were established. Then the Board of Game goes through and does the very specific restrictions in regulation for the timing of types of vehicles, types of ORV vehicles, etc. For instance, most of the critical habitat areas are water fowl nesting areas. So you restrict that and the Board will come in and say no use during the nesting season. The legislature certainly can do that, but as technology changes, it has been set up so the Board of Game deals with those details that change over time rather than coming back to the legislature. SENATOR SHARP asked if the Noatak restriction is based on a biological necessity because of a lack of game animals or too much pressure. MR. REGELIN replied that that was proposed by the Kotzebue Advisory Committee and by the Village of Noatak. The Department has never taken a position pro or con on a control use area. They consider that an allocation decision is up to the Board of Game. They do supply all the information they can about the harvest and use patterns and then leave it up to the Boards. SENATOR SHARP asked if the Department supplied biological data to the Board on this area or did they even ask for it. MR. REGELIN replied that the Division presented a lot of information on all the biology. He explained that this is an area that has the Western Arctic caribou herd in it. That's why a lot of people go up there to hunt. There are almost 600,000 animals. There is no biological problem with the harvest of caribou. Moose is a slightly different situation. There are areas where you can have an impact on the moose population, but it isn't to the point where they consider it a biological problem. Most of the testimony on this was from the residents of Noatak who use the area for their hunting. They felt they were being severely impacted by fly-in hunters. This is one of the areas that stops all hunting by aircraft. Number 451 SENATOR SHARP asked if any of the control use areas in effect prior to four or five years ago were strip zoned or were they a biological unit caused by the fact that they couldn't take the pressure. MR. REGELIN answered that he could provide the committee with a list of all the 24 control use areas that says when they were established and a little bit about their history. The Noatak one was established in 1988 and first is was a band just along the river - about 1/4 mile and that was expanded to five miles. It's the only one that restricts aircraft along a band right now. Number 440 SENATOR TORGERSON asked how many control units might be pending. MR. REGELIN replied there is one control use area up for consideration at the March meeting of the Board. It's region 2, Southcentral Alaska. They have been petitioned by the advisory committees in Bethel and upriver on the Kuskokwim on the special use area along the Hoholitna. He was told it would add two miles on either side of the river to prohibit aircraft hunting. The problem in the Hoholitna is with people coming up from Bethel with very large engines on their boats. He commented that he didn't know if this legislation would even provide a solution for that situation. SENATOR TAYLOR said that part of the reason for offering the amendment is to set at least some semblance of a biological standard that the Board would have to abide by. He was concerned also with consistency in decisions. SENATOR LINCOLN asked how he envisioned this legislation possibly affecting the critical habitat areas. MR. REGELIN replied that he didn't think it would affect the critical habitat areas in existence, but if the legislature identified more, they would have to be more specific about what might be prohibited and what would be allowed rather than have the Board of Game do that for them. As technology changes, he explained, the Board could go in and change the methods of access to a critical habitat area, but if this passes, the people would have to come to the legislature and ask them to make that change. SENATOR TAYLOR commented that if there are concerns of the Department about methods and types of access, that would be part of the bill the legislature would work on at the time. Proof of biological harm would have to be brought to the legislature before they could change the critical habitat. SENATOR LINCOLN asked if he viewed this legislation as opening up more areas to hunters because the legislature feels the Board of Game has not been doing a good job. MR. REGELIN responded that he hadn't had a chance to speak to hunters about this since the amendment just happened last week. He said that some hunters do like control use areas, but he didn't think there would be a big outcry because it's not retroactive. He thought that the Board of Game has looked at a lot of control use areas over a lot of time and they have adopted some that are very beneficial. If some need to be changed, they will look at them again. He noted that the philosophy on the Board over the years varies greatly from time to time. SENATOR SHARP said if the legislature repealed the Noatak, he thought that would cause a hue and cry like you can't believe against the legislature managing fish and game. He liked the concept of just pointing the Board in the direction of relying on scientific biological information developed by ADF&G and bring the Department more into the decision making process to justify whatever the request is they want to justify. He thought that should help to keep the legislature out of it. SENATOR LINCOLN said she agreed with Senator Sharp 100% on using scientifically reliable data, but she is concerned with the vague terminology used in the bill. SENATOR TAYLOR said there was nothing in the legislation that is attempting to open any new areas to hunting. The entire thrust of this is to prevent existing areas that people have traditionally used from being closed. SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt amendment #1. He explained that it takes a discussion from a previous committee. It amends the authorization language in Title 16 and Title 38 so that if new restrictions are to be placed on access, they should be done by the Governor submitting a bill to the legislature. SENATOR LINCOLN objected. Number 220 SENATOR TORGERSON asked on page 2, line 17 if that included campsites and waysides for legislative approval. SENATOR TAYLOR replied on an annualized basis it would be wise for the Department to be reporting back to the legislature. MS. CAROL CAROLL, Director, Administrative Services, DNR, said that there are all sorts of discussions that go on with the Finance Subcommittee about the funding for the parks. They do talk about options for the parks system when the budget reductions happen. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said there was a difference between closing down a park and closing a facility. He was not very comfortable with the prohibition of closing down a facility. SENATOR LINCOLN said she did not want to micro-manage parks and facilities. MS. CAROLL explained that the original part of this bill was not a problem with the Division of Parks. They are concerned with the amount of time the legislature wants to spend reviewing small additions to parks. She said there are about 92 of these ILMAs and if they wished to look at all of them, DNR would help them. SENATOR LINCOLN asked her how many ILMAs would be before the legislature in a year. MS. CAROLL said she couldn't really say. SENATOR TAYLOR said he didn't have a problem with deleting the facility part. SENATOR LEMAN moved to amend the amendment on lines 17 and 19 to delete, "or closes a State recreational or other facility managed by the Department." SENATOR TAYLOR objected by saying that he did not intend to include the Department, itself, but he wanted the recreation facilities in. He said he was concerned that facilities are being closed down without considering putting in a concessionaire to run it. He then withdrew his objection. SENATOR LINCOLN asked if it means that any time the Department wants to restrict access for any reason, they have to come before the legislature. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that was correct. SENATOR LINCOLN said in opposition to the amendment to the amendment that she was appointed to the Regulation Review Committee which would be making recommendations on how they should be implemented and which ones need to be taken off the books, etc. and she felt like she was doing double duty here. CHAIRMAN HALFORD called for a vote on whether to amend the amendment. SENATORS GREEN, LEMAN, SHARP, TAYLOR, TORGERSON, and CHAIRMAN HALFORD voted yes; SENATOR LINCOLN voted no; and the motion carried. TAPE 97-8, SIDE A Number 000 JIM STRATTON, Director, Division of Parks, was connected with the committee via teleconference. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked him if he was familiar with Amendment #1, as amended. MR. STRATTON replied he was, and heard the discussion about removing the phrase "or close a state recreational or other facility." CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked Mr. Stratton for his comments on the amendment or the bill. MR. STRATTON expressed concern about the broadness of the amendment. Many of the closures proposed by the Division of Parks are for safety reasons. He believes, under the amendment, the Legislature will have to approve temporary closures for repairs or construction, restrictions on motor size in swimming areas, or ATVs in picnic areas. SENATOR TAYLOR agreed that is not the intent of the amendments, and said additional language to account for emergency situations may be necessary. His intent is not to require legislative approval for the temporary closure of an unsafe boat ramp for repairs. He asked Mr. Stratton for suggested language to provide for temporary closures for given reasons. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if there were further comments or suggestions. Number 087 GERON BRUCE, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, asked if Section 1(b) of the amendment would conflict with Title 16, which authorizes the Commissioner of ADF&G to require a person engaging in an activity in an identified anadromous fish stream to submit plans and obtain a permit before any activity can begin. It appears Section 1(b) of the amendment will no longer require a person organizing a motorcycle race on a trail that crosses an active salmon spawning stream to obtain a permit for that activity. SENATOR GREEN asked Mr. Bruce what language he was referring to. MR. BRUCE clarified he was referring to Senator Taylor's amendment (0-LS0274\E.2), Section 1(b). SENATOR GREEN questioned whether the "If" sentence on line 10 would cover Mr. Bruce's concern. MR. BRUCE replied ADF&G could submit a finding to the Legislature, but each and every time an activity was proposed, ADF&G would have to come to the Legislature, after the fact, for permission to restrict the activity in the future. The Legislature would be in the position of having to make day-to-day decisions usually made by field staff, and, in the meantime, damage to the fish stream would have already occurred. SENATOR GREEN commented she thought the intent was to provide guidelines and restrictions; not to prevent an occasional incident from a timely closure. Those incidents would be reported in the annual report. MR. BRUCE did not think the amendment will be interpreted that way. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked Mr. Bruce if ADF&G has existing regulations that would cover those situations. MR. BRUCE replied AS 16.05.870 specifies that someone who is going to engage in an activity in a stream that has been identified as an anadromous fish stream must submit plans for approval. CHAIRMAN HALFORD pointed out that ADF&G can apply existing regulations to such situations; SB 35 only applies to regulations adopted in the future. Essentially, all of the protections developed over the last 30 years are covered. Action on a permit will not be restricted; the adoption of new regulations will be. Number 168 SENATOR TAYLOR confirmed Chairman Halford's interpretation and suggested inserting the word "traditional" after the word "restricts" to allay ADF&G's concerns. He noted the definition of "traditional means of access" is included on page 4 and would clarify that SB 35 refers to popular patterns of use. MR. BRUCE was not sure adding the word "traditional" would comfort ADF&G much at this point since SB 35 represents a sweeping change from current policy and may have many implications that need further thought. He stated he was unprepared at this point to give ADF&G's position on this approach. Number 190 CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced Amendment #1, as amended, was before the committee for action. SENATOR LEMAN moved to adopt a second amendment to Amendment #1, which would insert the word "traditional" between the words "restricts" and "access" on page 1, lines 9 and 16, and on page 2, lines 6 and 16. CHAIRMAN HALFORD clarified the amendment would insert the word "traditional" wherever necessary, for conforming purposes, so that "traditional," in each case, modifies access. There being no objection to the motion to adopt amendment #2 to Amendment #1, the motion carried. CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced Amendment #1, as amended, was before the committee for action. SENATOR TAYLOR called for the question. SENATOR LINCOLN objected to the adoption of Amendment #1, as amended. A roll call vote was taken with SENATOR LINCOLN voting against adoption of Amendment #1, as amended, and SENATORS TORGERSON, TAYLOR, SHARP, LEMAN, GREEN, and CHAIRMAN HALFORD voting for adoption; therefore the motion carried. SENATOR GREEN moved adoption of Amendment #2 (274\E1, Luckhaupt). CHAIRMAN HALFORD explained Amendment #2 adds a provision to deal with emergency situations, as discussed by Mr. Stratton. Number 225 SENATOR LINCOLN objected for the purpose of discussion and questioned whether Amendment #2, as written, adequately addresses the Division of Parks' concerns. She asked whether Senator Green might add to the end of the sentence on line 13, "(3) is for public safety reasons" to clarify that the department has the ability to restrict access for public safety reasons. CHAIRMAN HALFORD questioned whether that language would allow the division to restrict access for public safety reasons for an unlimited amount of time, since Senator Green's amendment already covers public safety reasons, as well as any others, for up to 90 days. SENATOR LINCOLN felt referencing "public safety reasons" would make the amendment more clear. SENATOR TAYLOR felt that narrowing the amendment might be too restrictive, since it would not allow for other reasons, such as biological concerns or repair jobs. SENATOR LINCOLN believed the language would expand the amendment because it would still provide a 90 day closure period for other reasons. CHAIRMAN HALFORD thought the problem was already covered because the Division of Parks only has to submit the information in a report to the Legislature. SENATOR LINCOLN stated it doesn't make sense to require the Division of Parks to submit a list of closures to the Legislature after the fact. CHAIRMAN HALFORD commented the sponsor's intent is to avoid permanent action without legislative approval. The 90 day provision can be applied for any reason and an extension could be up to one and one-third years or until legislative approval takes place. SENATOR GREEN confirmed Chairman Halford is correct. The intent of the amendment is to assure the Legislature be informed of unanticipated closures that occurred. SENATOR TAYLOR remarked Senator Lincoln's language is designed to assure the Division of Lands can take action if necessary for the public's safety. The way the amendment reads as is, the Division of Parks could act for 90 days in a calendar year, and for a longer period if the action is reported to the Legislature and approved. If a dock became dangerous, the Division could only close the dock for 90 days or until the Legislature acted upon their request, which could extend the closure for one and one-third years. That should give the Division sufficient emergency authority to act in the interest of public health and safety. SENATOR LINCOLN said the amendment, as is, says the Division of Parks can do whatever it wants and the Legislature will either approve it or slap its hands during the next session, because the action already took place. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR disagreed, and said the amendment gives the Division the authority to take action. SENATOR LINCOLN stated Amendment #2 requires any action to be approved during the next session. CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted the lack of positive action by the Legislature repeals the restriction. That would leave the ongoing closures in the hands of the Legislature. SENATOR TAYLOR said the word "or" implies the Division of Parks could do an emergency closure of a boat ramp, for example, for 90 days to do repairs. If the repairs were made and the boat ramp was reopened within 90 days, that action would not be reported to the Legislature. The only actions submitted in the report to the Legislature would be those with more than a 90 day effect. The intent is to require reporting of continued closures. Number 300 SENATOR LINCOLN moved to amend Amendment #2. SENATOR GREEN objected because she was unsure of the extent the inclusion of the phrase "public safety" would have. Any closure taken for public safety reasons is already an approvable activity. SENATOR LINCOLN indicated she wanted to make sure, for liability purposes, if the Legislature is tying the Division of Parks' hands, that the Division understands it does not need to come to the Legislature for approval of a closure in excess of 90 days if the closure is for public safety reasons. SENATOR LINCOLN called for the question to amend Amendment #2. CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced the amendment to Amendment #2 failed. CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced a motion to adopt Amendment #2 was before the committee. SENATOR TORGERSON noted the facilities question had not been addressed and asked the committee's intention. Additionally, he suggested including the word "traditional" in front of the word "access" to be consistent with Amendment #1. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if Senator Torgerson was offering a conforming amendment to add the word "traditional" in front of the word "access" and to delete the words "or facilities." SENATOR TORGERSON said he was. There were no objections to Senator Torgerson's amendment, therefore the amendment was adopted. Number 340 CHAIRMAN HALFORD took a hand vote of those in favor and opposed to adopting the Amendment #2, and announced it was adopted. He announced SB 35 as amended, was before the committee. SENATOR LEMAN offered Amendment #3, to insert the words "use of pack animals" after the word "mushing" on page 4, line 20 of CSSB 35 (STA). He explained Amendment #3 makes the bill consistent with other statutes that identify use of animals for compatible uses within state parks. There being no objection to the motion, CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced Amendment #3 was adopted. SENATOR TAYLOR moved CSSB 35(RES) out of committee with individual recommendations. There being no objections, the motion carried. SENATOR LINCOLN asked what the next committee of referral is. CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted the bill has a $3.0 fiscal note, and will be heard before the Senate Finance Committee. He announced SJR 8 will be heard at the Senate Resources Committee meeting on Monday, and that a joint meeting with the House Resources Committee is scheduled for February 6, 1997 on RS 2477. He adjourned the meeting at 5:40 p.m.