House Resources, 3/30/26, 1pm

Good afternoon. This meeting of the House Resources Committee will now come to order. It is now one oh eight p.m. Monday, March thirtieth twenty twenty six in Capitol Room one twenty four. Members present are Representative Fields, Representative Kahlum, Representative Hall, Representative Meares, Representative Elam, Representative Sadler, Co-Chair Representative Feige and myself, Co-Chair Representative Dyberg.

Please let the record reflect that we have a quorum to conduct business. Please take this time to silence your cell phones for the duration of the meeting. Thank you very much, and let the record reflect that we have been joined by Representative Prox.

I'd like to thank Andrew Gianotti from records and Renzo Moises from the Juno LIO for staffing the committee today.

Committee members, today we have one item on the agenda, which is to take up House Bill 321, Fish and Game Wildlife Refuge, from Representative Josephson and his policy advisor Joe Meehan to answer questions of the committee,

review some new maps, and take up public testimony.

Thank you Mr Mehan and Representative Josephson. I can tell you that you put a lot of work into this and time um and making sure the committee members' questions were answered. Um and we appreciate that. Thank you so much. Um bef so please come forward and put yourself on the record.

Good afternoon, Madam co-chair and committee. I'm Andy Josephson, House District 13 in South Midtown.

Madam Chair, committee members, appreciate the opportunity to be here again. Joe Meehan, staff for Representative Josephson.

All right. Are you ready for

questions or do you have an opening statement?

Yeah,

a representative?

I'll just speak briefly. Um I was here for y the entire first hearing. The second one, I was, I'm sure, in finance. This is the third hearing uh finance is not calendared today. Um the bill uh as you know y it's its main feature is to take uh areas currently under Fish and Game management,

Um anyway, I I emphasize anyway, lands that th that fishing game has come into possession of and treat them as part of either a refuge or a sanctuary since they're being managed in that way anyway. Um that's its main feature. There i there is, as you can see on this slide, um there is the

uh further closure of McNeil um from brown bear hunting, but only in a way the board of game has sanctioned for decades in any case. Many many decades um as I've understood. Um there have been some some changes in the C_S_ so that uh I think there was concerns about fish and game limiting access to fire arms and I think that the committee substitute largely deals with that.

Um those are some of the principal points. We know that the closure in two areas in Kenchamak Bay of the personal watercraft is a contentious point.

Um uh we also note in this bill that um we are trying to

To make it clear that Fish and Game would not be regulating ranks of lands adjoining or actually technically part of some of these refuges. I have a meeting with the ranks of leaders tomorrow that I've organized and I think they're going to welcome that change,

that is this lack of restriction that technically is in the law.

law but fish and game sort of largely for frankly sovereignty reasons stays away from so there are a number of things like that in this bill I would note that most of what this bill does was passed by the legislature in the 2017-18 term by enormous majorities it was like 35 to 5 for example in the house in the original instance

Um we have answered in a seven page memo a lot of the questions the committee has asked. Um we have solicited and received huge numbers of letters of support that Mr. Meehan can describe. Um and we out of my office funds paid several thousand dollars to have um a professional map maker make this new set of maps.

So with that um I just will close my opening statement.

Thank you Representative Josephson

for that quick overview.

Before we move on to testimony, are there any further questions from the committee for Rep Josephson or his staff? Representative Sadler?

Are we going to have the opportunity to ask more questions of the sponsor, or is this our only opportunity?

Thank you.

Madam Chair.

Well we have some

We have testimony,

Mm-hmm.

and maybe that might answer some questions that we might have and maybe during wrap-up.

Well in that case I'd y give

Okay.

a if not a question a statement. Um this is a extraordinarily large bill and we have had a lot of new material. Uh in previous uh times we had this bill before us I've asked for more precise maps and more readable and I appreciate the sponsor for digging in his own pocket to do that. However, as we requested, uh I'd asked that these be

at least paginated, so we could go go from page to page. There's nineteen new maps, that's great. But they're not paginated and they are not linked with the sections of the bill to which they make reference, as I had also asked and the uh the sponsors they had said they would do, but we don't have those. So what that does, Madam Chair, is it makes it very difficult to cross-reference the language in the bill, this eighty some page bill, with the twenty plus maps and other documents to fully

or even minimally understand the effects of the bill.

So I do hope that we have the opportunity again once now that we have this information that came to my office this morning, this morning.

uh to re look at it and understand the bill so we can ask intelligent questions and offer any necessary amendments or find what we love it and wanna vote for it. I just ask for more time to consider this big bill and add the information in a usable format.

Thank you Madam Chair.

Thank you, Representative Sadler.

Madam

Representative

Chair, if I may.

Representative Josephson, would you like to respond?

Yes, on March 17th. I think the maps were distributed, at least to the committee, longer ago than that. But the memo that we distributed March 17th

highlights where the maps appear, are relevant in each section of the bill. So the request made by Representative Sadler I think is basically satisfied by this memo.

Thank you.

Representative Sadler.

Although the memo is dated March 17th, I did not receive it until today.

Um I have another question or comment from Representative Kahlum.

Yeah thank you Ch thank you Chair, through the Chair. So um I'm just trying to get clarity. So we're we've got game refuges, wildlife refuges, game sanctuaries, wildlife sanctuaries and critical habitat areas. And what the bill is trying to do is take all of those and either call 'em a wildlife sanctuary or a wildlife refuge. Is that

Is that the chair,

that's correct.

Okay. And so in the bill, those the land that is called a refuge, a game refuge or wild

refuge.

Did any of the land switch from a refuge to a sanctuary in your bill?

Mr. Meehan, do you want to?

Uh yes, Mr. Meehan.

Yes.

Through the chair, Representative Colomb. No, none of the lands change from refuge to sanctuary.

And follow up?

Follow-up?

And

I guess nothing that's a sanctuary now switched to refuge.

Through the chair, Representative Colomb, that's correct.

Okay, and one more clarification.

Follow-up? Yep.

So, but the wildlife sanctuaries, that's where there's no hunting access, correct?

Through the chair, Representative Colomb, generally that is correct. There is limited hunting in one of the sanctuaries, in the Walrus Island State Game Sanctuary,

Okay.

the McNeil sanctuary and the Stan Price Sanctuary or

Pet Creek does not have any hunting in it at all.

Okay, thank

Okay.

you.

Alright.

Thank you, Mr. Meehan.

Okay. With that, before we move on to testimony or nope, we'll now move on to testimony for House Bill 321. For public testimony, we held invited testimony at a previous hearing.

So

Is there anyone in the room who wishes to testify on House Bill 321?

Seeing none,

we have a number of people signed up to testify today,

so I will be limiting remarks to two minutes.

If you're still speaking at that point, I'll ask you to begin to wrap up and we'll need to conclude your testimony shortly after so we can hear from everyone at an equal amount of time.

So now with that, we will start with

it looks like at Homer LIO, Nancy Lord, if you can hear me, put your name on the record and your affiliation and begin your testimony.

Hi, this is Nancy Lord in Homer.

I'm speaking for myself.

I want to speak just in favor of the whole bill and urge you to move it along.

As you know, session is short.

um uh and um just in fact i have a few particular comments but um it just makes great sense to add those little bits to the state refuges here and there once they were kind of left off the earlier mapping so i hope that that would not have any controversy

um uh i know the uh area here around homer well and the bay and the additions to the local refuges here are are

would be a very good idea.

If you'd like to rename the Beluga Wetlands Refuge, that would be great with me. That was the original name of it before the legislature along the way renamed it to Homer Airport.

So it would just be going back to what was originally proposed.

I'm also in favor of restoring the personal watercraft ban.

The process the administration used to remove the ban was deeply flawed and the local people can't speak for everyone,

but people who know the bay well do not think it's a great idea to have personal watercraft in the bay. And also just...

Oh, I have lots of time. Okay.

I'm also very familiar with the MacNeil Fair Sanctuary where I've been five times over there and just wanted to know what a treasure that place is.

So anyway,

that's thank you chair people and committee members.

I appreciate having the opportunity today.

Okay.

Thank you, Nancy, for your testimony.

We're going to go to our

Yep. Representative

Sadler, do you have a question

for

Is it possible to offer a question to Ms. Lord?

Yes, ma'.

Am.

Ms. Lord,

Yes.

Representative Sadler has a question for Nancy, if you can still hear us.

Yes, I'm here.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Nancy. Very briefly,

Thank you.

you said that the process for lifting the ban on personal watercraft in Kachemak Bay was flawed.

I believe that went through judicial determination. Do you believe that judicial process was flawed?

Or when you say it was flawed,

can you identify specifically what you're speaking of, please?

Ms. Lord?

Just when, yes,

Yes. When the Department of Fish and Game and the administration decided to remove the ban,

ban,

they

They counted all those people who signed petitions around the country who were associated with personal watercraft to have equal weight with local people who had very thoughtful and knowledgeable comments, and so that's how they came up with a majority of people favoring the removal of the ban.

That was my.

Thoughts about the process?

I don't like

Okay.

Congress stuff.

Okay,

Okay, thank you, Ms. Lord.

thank you, Ms. Lord, again for your testimony. And just for the committee's knowledge,

we have Alpheus Bullard from Leg Legal,

Doug Vincent Lang from ADF&G, and Andy Mills,

DOT,

to help us with any questions that we might not be able to answer here in the room.

So let's go to our second testifier, Rika.

Pardon me for the...

the mispronunciation I'm going to say Mao from Homer L-I-O.

Yes, my name is Rika Mau in Homer.

I have already written the committee two letters of support for House Bill 321.

I feel this bill demonstrates an awareness for adapting to, updating and clarifying the managing structure of the priceless and irreplaceable wildlife and

habitats this state still has and stewards not only for the state but for the country and for the world. This bill comes with minimal costs and huge benefits.

I'm very familiar with the Homer area and especially the Homer Airport Critical Habitat Area in which the adjoining conservation lands are protected by Kachemak Moose Habitat, Inc., the Kenai Borough, and willing private landowners to have these lands included in a newly named Beluga Wetlands Wildlife Refuge.

I urge you to support all aspects of this bill in order to give it traction and action through the process of the last remaining part of this session. And I agree with Nancy Lord about personal watercraft and the way that the administration and ADF&G

the

pulled that ban away.

There was really no scientific backing for pulling that ban,

and the ban was based on a lot of scientific information and backing.

So I want to thank you for this opportunity and truly urge you to get this moved through the committee and on to the rest of the process this session.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Mau, for your testimony. I'm going to move to our third testifier, Robert Archbold from Homer LIO. If you could hear me, put your name, state your name and state your affiliation for the record.

Good morning, Chair. Good afternoon, actually, Chair Dibert.

Thank you.

Robert Archbold. I'm the chair of Kachemak Bay State Park Citizens

Advisory Board here in Homer.

I'm representing 12 people on that board.

Our purpose is to provide a forum for the collection and expression of opinions and recommendations on matters relating to the state park units within the Kachemak Bay watershed.

Our board on the Kachemak Bay State Parks fully supports HB 321.

Kachemak Bay, which is a designated critical habitat, it joins two others in this bill. Fritz Creek Critical Habitat Area and the Fox River Critical Habitat Area. We understand the need to simplify and modernize statutes and work on boundary lines. This bill will accomplish those needs. On personal watercraft, we discussed that extensively at this board.

We had public comment.

Most of the public was not in favor of

rescinding the ban on personal watercraft at that time.

So thank you for allowing me to testify.

That's all I have for you. Thank you.

Thank you, Robert, for your testimony.

I'm going to move to Homer LIO again to Mako Hagerty. If you could hear me, state your name and your affiliation for the record.

Thank you, Chair.

My name is Mako Haggerty.

I live here in Homer,

and today I represent the Friends of Kachemak Bay State Parks.

We're a local nonprofit that helps support the Kachemak Bay State Park and we

also fully support this bill I'd like to thank the sponsors for all their work this is a comprehensive bill just just glancing at it it looks like there's been a lot of work put into this and I'd like to thank them for that because we we're very concerned about protecting our our natural habitats here and this is a very important one to us it's our view shed

and it provides great recreational opportunities.

In my past life,

I was a commercial fisherman. I got to travel the state,

and I'm familiar with some of these,

not all of them,

but some of these sanctuaries, and they need to be protected.

And in my present life,

I'm a water taxi.

The values of the bay and the land across the bay has great value and if we preserve it, that value will be sustainable and that's what that type of sustainable value provides great,

Great.

it becomes an economic engine and this bill goes a long ways to addressing that.

I, too, am opposed to having personal watercraft here.

We work very hard to ban the personal watercraft.

We worked very hard to ban

the personal watercraft. And, you know, there's a lot of water in the state of Alaska.

There's lots of places the personal watercraft can play around.

So it's not like those opportunities aren't out there for the personal watercraft.

But Mako,

please wrap up.

Okay,

thank you very much. I'd like to thank the committee and the sponsors of this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mako, for your presentation and for the mispronunciation of your name.

Okay,

we're going to move on to our next testifier.

This is Wayne Hall from Anchorage. If you can hear us, please put your name on the record and state your affiliation.

Yes, my name is Wayne Hall.

I live in Anchorage.

And speaking for myself,

I'm a 48-year Alaska resident and I support HB 321.

It will clarify some of the management and downplay issues.

They've been outstanding since many of these special areas were established.

It will also establish and statute the closure of McNeil Refuge and Camel Shack Special Use Area to brown bear hunting.

Along with the McNeil Sanctuary,

which is already closed by statute,

this will protect brown bears that roam throughout the area and adjacent Katmai National Park,

which are so famous and valuable to Alaskans and the worldwide bear viewing community.

It will remove the possibility of ill-fated bear hunting season proposals to the Alaska Board of Game which would only generate animosity between user groups,

damage the reputation for a significant and growing tourism industry and source of bear viewing revenue.

to have the businesses and residents.

I also support the logical change of refuge and sanctuary names from game to wildlife as being more representative of nature and intent of these special areas and I urge you to pass this bill out of committee.

Thank you and thanks to Representative Josephson and Mr.

Newham for their hard work on this.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Hall,

for your testimony today.

I'm going to go to Mike Taylor.

If you could hear us from Gustavus, state your name and your affiliation and begin your testimony.

We will try to find Mike later on in the line of the queue. So Mike, if you could hear us, try to call in again.

So we're going to go to Hal Shepherd.

Homer,

again,

if you could hear us, Hal, please put your name on the record and state your affiliation and begin your testimony.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, this is Hal Shepard and today I am representing the Kachemak Bay Watershed Council,

which is a all volunteer

all volunteer nonprofit organization that focuses on health and aquatic welfare of the Chesapeake Bay watershed ecosystem and I simply I'm going to just state that we support all aspects of the bill and especially the Beluga wetland provisions that will help protect valuable green space,

nonprofit organization that focuses on the health and aquatic welfare of the Kachemak Bay Watershed ecosystem.

And I simply going to just state

that we support all aspects of the bill and especially the beluga wetland provisions

that will help protect valuable green space,

valuable wetlands,

valuable winter moose habitat.

And also the ban on personal watercraft. And we support the revocation of allowing personal watercraft in the Bay Area, as already been stated, not supported by the science to have those kinds of machines in a critical habitat area that is designed specifically for the protection of fish and wildlife.

science, to have those kinds of machines

in critical habitat area that is designed

specifically for the protection of fish and wildlife. Thank you for your time and I

Thank you for your time, and I really appreciate the committee's listening to my comments.

Thank you Mr.

Shepherd for your testimony today.

We're going to go to John Rose from Anchorage. If you could hear us, state your name and affiliation and begin your testimony.

My name is John Ross,

Alaska State Director for the Conservation Fund,

calling in with testimony in support of House Bill 321.

The Conservation Fund is a national 501c3 nonprofit organization that has had permanent staff in Alaska since 1994.

We've worked with the state of Alaska on dozens of projects to expand state conservation and recreation units,

including Prince Field,

Anchorage Coastal, Goose Bay,

and Palmer Hay Flats Refugees.

House Bill 321 would make necessary changes to the boundary of the Craner's Field Migratory Waterfowl State Game Refuge to include 688 acres purchased by the Conservation Fund and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game with funds from the Federal Pittman-Robertson Act and matched by private philanthropy.

The addition of that 688 acres of land to the refuge will conserve wildlife habitats and expand the educational,

recreational,

and research opportunities at the refuge for generations to come.

Finally,

I've been encouraged to let this committee know that the Conservation Fund and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game are currently working to purchase an additional 375 acres adjacent to the current Kenworth's Field Refuge boundary.

that would all but complete the logical refuge footprint those additional 375 acres which I think will be included as an addendum to this bill include waterfowl and shorebird habitats not found elsewhere in the refuge the last critical piece of the Jeff Sutter Memorial Trail system not currently in the refuge

provide additional public recreation and access opportunities.

That concludes my testimony.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Ross, for your testimony and I invite anyone to come visit Creamer's Field Wildlife Refuge as it is a beautiful wild refuge and to hear that it's going to gain more land is amazing. So thank you for your testimony, Mr.

Ross.

I'm going to go to Graham Wood from Eagle River.

If you could hear us, put your name on the record and state your affiliation and begin your testimony.

your testimony.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

My name is Graham Wood.

I represent the Alaska Waterfowl Association.

The association is largely supportive of House Bill 321.

In our initial read of that,

I had some concerns with the rewritten portion of Alaska Statute 1620-028, which discussed that the Department of Fish and Game can close.

all our parks are a refuge for public safety when it was discussing the discharge of firearms.

I had a discussion with Mr.

Meehan this morning and that was,

you know, talked about my concerns about that around the Rabbit Creek Rifle Range as well and while there's some common sense approaches to that.

You know, that particular wildlife refuge,

speaking of watercraft running,

only has a couple of access points and one of which isn't really viable.

So I'm hoping that the,

I haven't seen the committee changes to this portions of the bill,

but I'm hoping that that will be better fleshed out so that watercraft hunters across the state in particular.

be in the anchorage and nesting areas don't lose access to these precious public lands thank you yes

In the anchorage and natsu areas.

Don't lose access to these precious public lands.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Wood,

for your testimony this afternoon.

I'm going to move on to Lynn Whitmore from Anchor Point.

If you could hear us, state your name and affiliation and begin your testimony.

this is Lynn Whitmore I'm with Cachemat Moose Habitat

previously testified so I won't bore you with all my details.

I had omitted a suggestion that you also consider adding the Anchor River movie creek property that we have to the critical habitat.

I'm a moose hunter and my concern was that this new bill might lock something up because we purposely put no signs on

No hunting and no trespassing signs.

We have none on any of our property that's all accessible and we plan on keeping it that way and we're going to continue to add properties to our company and hopefully we can continue to move stuff over to the critical habitat.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Whitmore,

for your testimony.

We have a question or a thought after this testimony from Representative Sadler.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr.

Whitmore, just wanted to clarify,

I'm not sure if you were saying you did support the bill or did not support the bill or yes with provisions.

I'm not quite sure what your position is,

please.

Please, Mr.

Whitmore.

When I first looked at the provisions,

I was concerned about...

access and shutting the hunting down, which is what I do,

and I find no consignment whatsoever,

and I highly support the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Whitmore.

I'm going to move on to our next testifier, Breton Goldberg from Anchorage. If you could hear us, state your name and affiliation and begin your testimony.

Hi, this is Brittany Goldberg, Chief of Leasing for Central Region Aviation Leasing, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.

I signed on for questions only regarding the house bill,

the

so I do not have any testimony to share at this point in time.

Well, I am so glad that you are here. Thank you, Britton, for being online,

ready to answer any questions.

We will go to Nancy Hillstrand from Seldovia.

Hmm.

If you could hear us, state your name and affiliation and begin your testimony.

Yes.

My name is Mansi Hillstrand. I'm with Pioneer Alaskan Fisheries.

We've had a corporation here in Alaska for 60 years,

and I've lived here right in the critical habitat area of Ketchmack Bay for...

53 years so I've been watching a lot of things going on the they're the golden goose of Alaska and it's right in plain sight because it can be the diverse you know it can diversify our economy and I ask that you look at the ABS and G economic importance of wildlife in Alaska because it shows gives you some numbers on what is brought into Alaska by wildlife

I ask that you put back 1625-10 to this bill.

It was taken out and it looks like it's been sort of put into 1620-020,

which is on page 4, line 3,

but it's not as strong a wording and I think the boards of Fish and Game do need to be able to recognize that when they are dealing in a critical situation.

critical habitat area or wildlife refuge that they have to be more careful with their management and the reason I say this is from experience because we here in Ketchikan Bay actually because there was no care in the fishing regulations we pretty much took them over the edge and these most all of our fish has been removed and has been closed for close to 30 years now.

So the care of the taking of fish and wildlife must be in this bill and the boards of fish and game need to somehow be able to be connected to this because 1620 is far away from 1605 where they're looking at their statute authority. I also think there should be definitions.

Because the other problem I've seen is the word habitat does not include the biological attributes like the zooplankton and things like that.

And so when we don't consider the food web where, you know, we can't perpetuate fish and wildlife unless we have the food web in there also.

So thank you very much. I appreciate you listening to this.

This bill is a good one, but we need to definitely make sure that the taking of fish and wildlife is.

done with care so these places can be a showcase.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Hillstrand, for your testimony this afternoon.

Chair.

And Ms.

Hillstrand, we might have a thought or question or comment from Representative Prox.

Yes, thank you through the chair.

Ms. Hillstrand,

do you have specific sections of the bill that you were referring to statutes? And there's

about three days in trying to figure out which statutes, this is a big bill,

but do you have a specific sentence?

Yeah, well,

Yeah. Well, it's in the very front first page, it talks about 1625.10,

and it's removed. It's in brackets,

It.

says 510 through,

I don't have it in front of me right now,

but 530, I'm also concerned about that being taken out.

And then I do see it's been put back in sort of kind of on page four, line three,

where it's under 1620-020 purpose.

And this sort of includes the 1625-10,

which I'm very concerned about,

but it's not strong enough. And how do we connect this authority so the board of fish and game both understand that they need to.

Where appropriate,

protect these fish and wildlife so we can perpetuate them, not just remove them.

Does that answer your question?

It helped.

Thank

you.

think it's been taken out.

5.10 and 5.30 have been completely removed from the old bill,

and I think they need to be put back in.

Okay, thank you Representative Prox. And Representative Sadler, did you have

Amen.

a... Okay, thank you. Thank you Miss Hillstrand for your testimony this afternoon.

And before we... I'm going to check one more testifier to see if they made it back online.

Mike Taylor from Gustavus, if you can hear us, state your name, your affiliation and begin your testimony.

Hello,

I'm Mike Taylor.

I speak as the...

City of Gustavus Conservation Lands Advisory Committee directing the passage of HB 321.

The bill will add two important wildlife habitat tracks to the Duke Creek Critical Habitat Area and redesignated as the Duke Creek Wildlife Refuge. At our March meeting,

the Advisory Committee recommended a supporting resolution to the mayor of Gustavus. The City Council will address it at the April 13th general meeting.

The state has long supported the Deep Creek Critical Habitat Area since its 1888 establishment.

The critical habitat area is vital habitat for sandhill cranes, moose, bears,

wolves,

and other wildlife,

and is an important recreation and hunting resource for this Davis.

In 2004,

the Nature Conservancy purchased over 4,000 acres of exceptional conservation lands here in Gustavus from the Alaska Middle Health Trust.

It was the largest purchase TNC has made in Alaska.

The activation of the Gustavus flats between the southern boundary of the critical habitat area and the shore of Icy Strait were conveyed to the Alaska DNR under an agreement that they would be included in the Duke Creek critical habitat area. In accordance with that agreement,

the state has for 22 years managed tracts A and B similarly to the adjacent habitat area, ending their formal inclusion by the legislature.

The New York Fish Service has long supported the formal expansion of the Duke Creek Critical Habitat Area to include those two tracks.

HB 321 will finally complete the intent of the 2004 Lands Conveyance and redesignate the Duke Creek Critical Habitat Area as the Duke Creek Wildlife Refuge. Thank you very much.

Thank you Mr. Taylor for your testimony and it sounds like a very beautiful place. Um

seeing no further testimony I'm gonna go ahead and close public testimony.

Oh

Oh, well, that'd be fine. The fishing game and DNR

are still online, right?

Yes they are.

Okay.

Yeah, we

Do you have a question?

Representative Prox.

Hmm.

Um yes,

Okay.

please.

So through the chair to the Commissioner of Fish and Game,

um I guess the just the general question, have you reviewed that?

Um and are there any sections that maybe I I think most of this bill is details, but there are some sections that are controversial and I wonder if there's any that should be taken out for further review by your recommendation if you have one.

Okay.

Chair, if I may, can I interrupt? I don't think we close public testimony and I don't know if we should have the department talk

Yeah.

Oh, that's

without closing

what I was wondering. Sorry.

Yeah.

Let me go ahead and do

Yep,

that

okay.

Representative Prox. All right, see no more further public testimony, I'm going to close public testimony. And Commissioner Vincent Lang if you're on, if you could hear us.

and

Put yourself on record and see if we could answer Rep. Prox's question.

Good morning, Madam

Chair. For the record,

my name is Vincent Lang. I'm the Commissioner for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Let me just kind of walk through the bill from our perspective.

The boundary corrections that representative identified in this bill are very similar to what we had in the 2018 governor's bill with new additions for land acquired since then. Correcting these errors and adding new land parcels for these special areas is supported by the Department.

The bill changes the name of special areas from state game refuges, state game sanctuary and

critical habitat areas

to be more consistent and only uses the terms wildlife refuge and wildlife sanctuary.

The bill combines the existing purposes of state game refuges, sanctuary,

critical habitat areas, including the protection and preservation of fish and wildlife populations and restricting any incompatible uses.

However, we are concerned about how the statutorily defined purpose statements are morphed into new designations. For example,

will existing state game refuges now have to be treated as critical habitat areas?

The committee substitute clarifies the Katmai area closed to bear hunting reference in the original version of the bill refers to as the, and now refers to it as the Camera Shack Bay area.

While the bill closes in areas that have long been closed, the department believes that decisions regarding

bear hunting most appropriately lie within the Alaska Board of Game and not with legislative closures.

We clarified with the bill sponsor that the provisions related to regulating discharge of firearms provides ADF&G permissible authority to close limited areas around access sites to firearms.

We are neutral but note that this could be helpful to have to limit target shooting near access sites to these special areas.

The bill would prohibit the use of personal watercraft in Kachemak Bay.

The decision to allow the use of jet skis by ADF&G was upheld by the Alaska Supreme Court.

The department is opposed to this provision.

It also changes the terminology will result in nominal cost of about $45,000 to update signs,

including staff travel.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Do you have a follow-up Representative Prox or we'll

And

come back,

when you,

you think.

Okay.

Okay. Representative Sadler.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Vincent Lang, either you are one silver-tongued devil or you were reading from some prepared comments, and if you had notes or prepared comments, I would very much appreciate the chance to read through them in detail. Could you provide those written comments to the committee, please? And to me specifically?

Yes, certainly.

I

I

think

really need to hear all that.

I'll get those to the chair.

Thank you

Please

very much,

I'll provide those.

Susan.

yourself.

Okay.

Thank you, Commissioner Vincent Lang. Any further questions from the committee? I have one.

Representative Kloon.

Yeah, thank you. Through the chair, thank you, um, for your statement Commissioner. I, my m m my main concern around the bill is the access to hunting and fishing,

'cause a lot of these pieces of land are on the water's edge. Do you have any general feel of like this that this would restrict hunting and fishing in any of these areas?

Commissioner?

Oh.

Through the chair,

largely I think other than how we morph the definitions of critical habitat areas,

sanctuaries, and state game refuges into one,

I think generally the bill allows the continuation of hunting and fishing on these lands.

But again,

because the definitions were morphed into one,

you could be more restrictive in terms of how you're managing.

what is now a wildlife refuge or a sanctuary because now in the past the wildlife refuge was managed more for hunting and fishing and if you morphed into that a critical habitat requirement you may end up having the restricted use of that that could be incompatible with hunting and fishing for

Follow-up? Yes.

For instance

follow-up.

building access trails and other things

Thank you, Commissioner.

Follow-up?

Yes Commissioner, so that's why I was wondering, can you tell me what's the difference in management between a refuge and critical habitat right now?

To the chair,

to my understanding is that a refuge is really an area that you're providing is a refuge for wildlife,

but you can have sustainable hunting and fishing going on there.

Critical habitat is basically areas where you're trying to manage the habitat at the expense of everything else, for instance hunting and fishing.

So if you need to provide access into there to go do something or you need to provide some kind of habitat manipulation to increase wildlife risk.

increase wildlife populations or hunting and fishing that might be more difficult if you carry forward that aspect of the critical habitat designation into a newly defined wildlife refuge.

Can I have one more follow up?

Yeah. Thank you Commissioner. Follow-up?

Thank you Commissioner for answering uh questions. This is a pretty comprehensive bill, so I'm just wanna make sure I know what the impacts are. Do you anticipate uh uh the pieces of land around Potter's Marsh on top of the possible firearm restriction, do you think that's gonna affect the ability for Rabbit Creek uh shooting range to stay open?

Through the chair,

I think just probably the opposite because right now we have people that are downrange from the riding bikes and recreating on the refuge that are going into potential harm by overshots of the range. So if we can close those areas where the rifle range is open,

we've got that kind of impact,

I think we'll be able to keep the rifle range open.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Vincent Lang. We have a question from Representative Sadler.

Thank you. Actually two questions, one a follow-up to Representative Kloon. Given the manpower and budget restraints, how would you effectively, you know practical on the ground, how would you indicate that an area was closed during the operation of the shooting range to achieve the public safety goals you just described? Would there be gates? Would there be a flashing light? How would people know to those who wanted to obey the law and obey the closure, how would they know that

there was shooting?

Yeah. Commissioner?

Red flag?

Through the chair,

we haven't really figured that out yet, but I like the concept of a flashing light down there somehow.

I think,

On the range,

you know,

do you have a flashing, do you have a waving red flag?

Yes, and then your second question,

Thank

Representative Sadler?

Yeah, uh thank you, um

The terminology is important, and certainly the definition of what a refuge and a uh habitat area and so forth. And I know the federal government has their own style book and they use their own terminology. Would the changes um envisioned by this bill tend to to clarify confusion between state and federal land designations or exacerbate confusion, Commissioner?

Through the chair

We've always been somewhat mystified why federal land refuges are designated as state game refuges or state wildlife refuges. The federal refuge program has been long established. They have their own regulations that govern those lands and widely have.

in our statutes a recognition of those federal game refuges as state refuges has always been perplexing to me because we really have very limited authority over them and I certainly don't think that if we tried to exert our authority within those lands that we would have much say in or they would respect that much say in implementing them so that's always been a perplexing question to me and I was hoping that at some point in time we would clean up this that that's

State recognition of federal refuges because federal refuges aren't going away and it just seems odd that we would have an overlay of duplicative and sometimes inconsistent regulations for those federal land communities.

Uh follow up?

follow up.

It would seem to me, Commissioner, that this being a large modification and a cleanup bill might be the best opportunity you're likely to have or we're likely to have in some time to achieve that clarity. And I would look forward to talking to you about ways we might effect that clarity in this legislation. So expect a call please.

Thank you, Commissioner Vincent

Yes, Madam

Lang and Representative Sadler. We have a next question to Representative Elam.

Thank you, Commissioner,

for taking questions.

I was just curious if you could give me some insight onto what kind of impacts personal watercraft is having in Kachamak Bay.

Commissioner?

Yeah, through the chair,

so that was probably one of the

More interesting choices I had when I became commissioners was the decision to evaluate whether jet skis should be allowed in catchback bay.

I know that right now you can use a jet boat,

you can use an aircraft,

you can use an airboat,

you can use landing crafts,

a whole wide range and there's no horsepower restriction in catchback bay in terms of the speed of crafts or anything else. So when I looked at it and I looked very carefully at the science behind it.

And I looked at the relationship of a jet ski versus those other equipment and I looked across the country and saw how jet skis were used and some of the new modifications of jet skiing technology. I couldn't get in my mind why we would not allow jet skis to be in Cash Mac Bay versus all those other crap.

And then I also looked at the existing regulations that apply to protection of marine mammals, and you can't harass marine mammals, whether it be with a jet boat or a jet ski.

So I thought there were existing protections in place through the Marine Mammal Act and other things that would allow for the protection of marine mammals and bird flocks out there. So I decided at the end of the day that we could allow jet skis use in the bay and not have any significant impact to waterfall or water.

or marine mammals in the bay.

Let me follow up.

Follow-up?

Representative.

I was just curious if you could maybe tell me if there was any kind of impacts to like the coastal areas there by comparison to say the tide that's what is it like 24 to 26 foot tides versus the amount of water impact that the coastal erosion would have from a jet ski.

Through the chair,

through the chair.

We haven't noticed any significant impact since the jet ski ban has been repealed.

If I may follow up,

Follow-up?

correct me if I'm wrong,

don't we bring

100 tons ships through there and countless commercial watercraft along with just a variety of other boats and aircraft and I mean you name it it seems like it pretty much all goes there why would we limit the access of a jet ski

In turn, sir, after I reviewed all the science and I reviewed all the...

through the chair?

allowably compatible uses to date that we allow in catchment. I couldn't come to the conclusion that a jet ski was any more impactful than any of those other pieces of equipment that could be used in the bay currently.

Okay. Thank you.

And one more follow up?

Yes, follow

up.

you. Yes.

You know, when we start talking about other concerns when it say is view shed,

and maybe this is more of a DOT or DNR question, but if memory serves correctly, the state of Alaska really doesn't do much.

much specifically with viewshed rights.

I know that whenever I was on the aggregate work group for the Kenai Peninsula,

we dealt with a lot of local zoning,

local option zoning, and various zoning laws and regulations within the city of Homer.

And the city of Homer had some very specific regulations when it came to viewshed. But I don't think that either the borough nor the state actually really took much of a stance on that.

Is there maybe some kind of...

What kind of federal law that I'm overlooking?

Through the chair,

Other bodies have regulatory authority over different kinds of activities and nobody weighed in since I made that decision to allow jet skis. So there are conflicting overlays like DNR still has a jet ski ban in the Kachemak Bay State Park across from there.

Again,

we haven't noticed any significant negative impact. And I think it's more of a social call than a biological call.

Okay. Thank you, sir.

I appreciate it.

Thank you, Commissioner Vincent Lane.

We have a question from Representative Sadler.

Thank you. Commissioner Vincent Lang, we heard that the question of personal watercraft in Kachemak Bay critical habitat area, I believe I got the name right, has gone to the state Supreme Court and has been decided. Is there a risk of a balance of power issue should the legislature pass a statute that would appear to contravene the Supreme Court's decision?

I think through the chair,

I think that would be best to ask of an attorney.

From my viewpoint,

the system works.

If you can, if in fact at some point in time we have evidence that some other kind of activity should be allowed,

the discretion should be resting with the commissioner rather than through legislative designation.

And do we have, will we have

And do we have.

Will we have

the chance to

follow

up?

you, will we have the chance to ask an attorney that question as the commissioner suggests?

Uh let's see, we have

Let's see, we have.

Madam Chair, Mr Bullard is on-line.

Yes, we do have our legal counsel online.

Okay.

So that would be Ms. Bullard, if you could hear us, state your name and affiliation for the record.

Good afternoon, members,

chair of the House Resources Committee.

This is Alisa Bullard at Legislative Legal.

And through the chair,

I believe I heard Representative Sadler's question as to whether the question of jet skis had already been litigated.

And I don't know if that's really a fair characterization. It had to do with the existing case with who had the discretion

to make that decision. So it wasn't really whether jet skis are a good or a bad idea in that area. It was sort of the process and who gets to make that decision.

So if the legislature were to elect to prohibit personal watercraft, it would be a different legal question.

Thank you, Mr.

Bullard.

Follow-up? Follow-up

Follow up,

Representative Sadler?

To clarify,

Mr.

Bullard, I believe I heard you, but I think you said that the question the Supreme Court decided was whether the commissioner of ADF and G had the authority to make a decision to allow or disallow watercraft.

And so it was the question of the commissioner's discretion and not the actual issue of watercraft in the bay or not. Is that correct?

Through the chair, Representative Sadler, I think that's an accurate summation of my remarks. I would hope to speak for a while.

Good. And as the commissioner said, he thinks, well, he expressed the view that that should be a decision by the commissioner rather than the legislature. But that may be what we call a policy call.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Representative Prax.

Yes, through the chair, we haven't heard from the Department of Transportation as to whether they have any general

um concerns with this bill?

And I guess I am s specifically interested in the Kramer's Field refuge from both the um

Yeah.

Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Transportation.

All right, so let's see. Andy Mills, if you can hear us, state your name.

Hello, everybody.

Everybody, my name is Andy Knowles. I'm the legislative liaison for the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.

I did hear the question from our center tracks.

I don't have any input on that.

We do have a state staff that are not available to join today because it's a holiday for them and they were on leave.

I was here to try and answer some other areas of questions like the Homer Airport or the Potter Marsh area,

but certainly if there's something else I can answer, let me know.

Yeah,

yeah, follow up.

Thank you, follow up um as long as you hear, the Homer airport, if that all else being equal,

if that attracts more geese and ducks that could put it potentially cause a hazard to aviation. Has the department thought about that?

To the Chair and to Representative Brooks,

thank you for the question.

So yeah,

active wildlife mitigation or hazing that's often known, hazing program around airports,

there is certainly a consideration for the safety aspect of any designation.

I know in this case we're talking to the sponsor's office about the designation for the Homer airport in particular. We did talk through

boundary passage to better understand what the activity was expected to be and we're working to ensure that some of the designated areas don't conflict with some of the AIT funded lease areas which Mr.

Goldberg on the line can also speak more closely to.

On the wildlife,

I don't know that we would

a change between those current environment around the airport,

sort of marshy and wetlands, to what we would expect to see under this designation.

So I think from that wildlife hazing or birds in the area, I don't know that we would have a consideration of seeing something significant, but I also have not had a discussion on the analysis of that.

Thank you, Mr. Mills.

Yeah.

Let's go ahead and go to Chief Goldberg, if you could state your name.

and speak to this part of the

Mm-hmm.

bill for Representative Prox.

Mm-hmm.

This is Chief Goldberg with Central Region Aviation Leasing for DOT and PF for the record,

Representative Prox, if you could repeat the question as it may pertain to land use agreements.

Representative?

Certainly through the chair, I'm

Concerned. I have no idea whether enhancing, if you will, the wildlife aspects by the Homer Airport would create additional hazards to aviation,

and whether the DOT has thought about that and evaluated it and has recommendations.

Chief Goldberg?

Thank you to the Chair and Representative Prox.

That unfortunately is not an area of expertise for myself.

I am mostly concerned with land use agreements,

boundary crossing agreements,

liaising with the FAA for mandatory federal approvals of certain types of land use agreements on airports.

We have no current impacted land use agreements in the area proposed.

So I had not looked at this beyond my personal lens of whether or not it will impact any current agreements.

I would have to refer wildlife questions to our safety and security section of the department.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you so much, Chief Goldberg, for that.

And Representative Josephson or your staff, at any time, if you want to answer a question, please let me know. On Homer, the wildlife and the safety of aviation in that area.

Madam Co-Chair, yeah, I could probably address a number of things that have come up in these discussions and to Representative Prox for the Homer Airport critical habitat area, the primary species of concern there is moose, and especially winter moose habitat. And I don't know that the airport has issues with moose getting through the boundary fence onto the field there. I won't say that it's never happened, but I'm not aware that that's an issue.

As far as any habitat enhancement goes, in my twenty-five years of managing these sites at Department of Fish and Game, which again I can't speak for the department, I'm retired from there now, but we've never discussed doing any habitat enhancement there. In fact there was a proposal a number of years ago to re-water with the

installation of culverts under the Spit road to allow more tidal water to influx the small cove that's right below the old lighthouse complex at the base of the Spit. And that enhancement project was basically nixed by FAA because it would enhance bird habitat on the approach route for the airport down there. So I would assume that any other

project surrounding the airport would be subject to similar concerns by FAA. I believe the FAA regulations allow them to weigh in and approve or disapprove

Oh.

and this may be a better question for DOT to answer within five miles of an airport as far as any bird wildlife enhancement projects go.

Okay. Thank you Mr. Meehan for answering.

Yep,

And

Through the Chair, to Mr. Meehan, it would seem to me that we should have some sort of official acknowledgment from the FAA

And I have no way of knowing, but it would seem that we should have some sort of acknowledgment that somebody has looked at this

and has said, whoa, yeah, got to think about it or nope, we looked at it, no problem.

Through the Chair, Representative Prox, yeah, we have been communicating with DOT on the issue, and I would anticipate response from them concerning any concerns with the proposal around the airport.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Well,

Meehan.

and

Yes, Representative

well,

Prox,

specifically,

follow up?

Yes. Specifically, through the chair, should we have something written because we could be doing something that has to be done, has to be undone at some later date because the FAA is concerned about airplanes running into either moose or birds or wolves or dogs or whatever.

Yeah, through the chair, representative of Prax. Uh it is a good point, it's a valid concern. I'll also point out that the existing critical habitat area of the Homer Airport critical habitat area is immediately adjacent to the airport. So

Oh.

we've already got that issue in place with the existing critical habitat area.

Okay.

Okay. And then follow-up. So the additional area, is that more than five miles away from the airport through the chair?

Through the chair, Representative Prox, no, it's immediately adjacent to the airport, just on the south side.

South side, okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh

Thank you, Representative Prox, Representative Sadler.

Thank you. As a pilot who used to land at Homer a lot, that was always a concern, and the tower would let you know if there were birds in the area. But I know that Mr. Mills is listening, that we do receive airport improvement funds from the FAA that are used to make enhancements to add lights and buffer zones, et cetera, et cetera. And they do have concerns about wildlife infringement, bird hazing,

bird strikes, that kind of thing.

Hmm.

There is, I believe there is an airport management plan that must be in place before AIP money goes to the state. And so we should probably consult with the airport manager at Homer Airport or potentially the regional director of the FAA to find out if these changes would have an effect. Currently if the current critical habitat area is not

causing or engendering bird strikes, there's a legitimate question as to whether expanding it might make it a more attractive place for nesting waterfowl and for migratory waterfowl or just local ducks. So I think that information is available, at the very least the National Transportation Safety Board tries to keep track of incidents including bird strikes so at the very grossest measure there might be some measure of how many bird strikes there are at the airport, but the better source is probably going to be the airport manager.

And the NTSB.

Yeah.

Anyway

Okay.

Alright.

The NTSB would know.

They would know.

And they asked me to.

Okay. Representative Elam do you want to add that? What was that?

Oh, the FAA, NTSB, they all track all that kind of

Okay.

aircraft strikes.

Okay. Yes. So we will

Yeah.

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

Do you want to respond to Representative Sadler?

Yes, thank you

Madam Co-Chair.

Yeah, just to add a little bit more to that discussion is really with the additions to the critical habitat area, I would not anticipate any change in the way those lands are managed than what they have been up until now.

Which are basically just wetland area adjoining the airport, so I wouldn't anticipate there being really any change.

We must ask the animals.

Okay. Thank you, Representative Sadler. I like that idea.

That was comit that was Secretary, well, vice versa.

That was committed.

Secretary.

Okay, Representative Kloom.

Thank you chair, through the chair. So I'd like to ask a specific question on the Potters Marsh map that you guys, the updated Potters Marsh

map. I don't know if you can get it up there,

Oh,

but

there's the Homer Airport.

We get the Homer. We gotta ask the ducks.

Here it is. Is that it? Yeah. Yeah so the up oh you turned it around. Okay so you have two pieces. Okay so those two red arrows up top. I assume the yellow area in the middle is the range. Is that true?

There it is.

Is that where the range is?

Through the chair, Representative Kloom. The Rabbit Creek shooting park, what we call the rifle range, is over in here.

Okay. So the range is on left side. Those two pieces right there, I'm not sure. I guess I don't understand the reasoning to put that in the refuge since it's not on the coast. Is it

Okay.

Why are those crucial to incorporate through the chair?

Through the chair, Representative Kloom, so just to orient you here a little bit, the access road into the Potters Marsh boardwalk comes in off the Seward highway approximately where the cursor is,

Okay.

and goes right along the edge of this first parcel and then into the refuge in this area, and there's the parking lot and the boardwalks that go off into the marsh. This parcel here was purchased

as Mr. John Ross with the Conservation Fund testified earlier, it was purchased with Pittman Robertson funds and other donations to add to it. And it's contained.

US wetland with the marsh.

Okay.

It's not impacted or filled property, and it provides green belt property for the marsh access

Otherwise, it potentially could have been filled. So that was just to extend the marsh habitat for, I would have to say, probably mostly a visitor experience as they're entering the marsh, but contiguous wetlands. This parcel up here is actually part

of the parcel that the rifle range used to occupy. Rifle range history, I believe it goes back into the 1950s, before statehood. There was an organization, community organization, that got a lease from the Bureau of Land Management, the federal agency that owned the land, to run this as a rifle range. And of course, this was the outskirts of Anchorage in those days. After statehood and a number of years operating,

Fish and Game eventually acquired the parcel from the previous leaseholder and converted it to state ownership. And then it was either the late 70s, early 80s, when this new Seward highway was constructed, it basically bisected that parcel and cut this parcel off. So that's part of the original rifle range parcel. Why add it to the refuge? Because it's

a state parcel. It's technically managed by the Department of Fish and Game. It does contain wetlands in there, even though it's isolated from the rest of the coastal refuge. But it provides some wildlife habitat in there. And if Fish and Game is trying to manage it, as the previous manager, again I can't speak for Fish and Game, it's hard to manage an isolated parcel that does not fall under Fish and Game regulations as far as refuge management

goes. So it was just to give Fish and Game the additional tools to manage this property.

Uh follow-up?

Yep, follow-up.

So are you taking the parcel above it too?

Through the Chair Representative Club. No, the parcel above that is a DOT parcel. So that blue area right there, that's two distinct parcels

and the arrow pointing to the southern parcel is the only one that we're proposing to be added to the refuge.

That seems contiguous with the other parcel. Is it DOT doesn't want to let it go or

We haven't approached DOT on that one, I believe. It's not as wet.

If you recall, as you leave Potter Marsh, you go up what's called Potter Hill

Mm-hmm.

and that parcel is quite a bit drier. I can't remember if there's any wetlands on it at all. There may not be any wetlands, for that matter. But that lower parcel does have wetlands.

Okay.

Actually, that lower parcel contains an old flood channel of Rabbit Creek. And of course, Rabbit Creek was significantly altered over 100 years ago when the railroad was constructed down here. So it contains that old flood channel which stays watered and provides some waterfowl habitat in there.

I think the railroad created Potter's Marsh, didn't it?

Yeah, that's correct.

I thought, thank you.

Seeing Representative Fields

I was just going to make an observation that this is encyclopedic knowledge of many, many parcels across the state. So thank you.

That was going to be one of my final thoughts too. What is your favourite

place of your of these refuges and wildlife.

Madam Chair,

to give away my secret,

but I've always tried to get more people to visit it, and it would be Round Island in the Walrus Island State Game Sanctuary out in Bristol Bay.

I would love to go visit that place. Yes, thank you.

you.

Co-chair, if I could back up and just provide a little bit more insight on one of the questions that was asked earlier.

And again drawing from my years experience at fish and game managing this program, I would agree with the commissioner when he said that critical habitat areas generally have a slightly higher bar.

Uh for managing them as far as allowable impacts and activities uh that go in there, um the on the gro ground reality of that, you know, uh from managing these areas for twenty five years is there really wasn't that much practical difference between a management plan and permanent activities for a refuge versus a critical habitat area. But acknowledging that that theoretically

is an issue, that's why in the proposed purpose statement that combines the critical habitat area and the refuge purpose statements we added a new sub-section um to, as the Commissioner pointed out, refuges being a little bit more permissive of hunting, fishing,

trapping public use activities, we added a provision to the purpose statement that says subject to A_ of the sub-set of the section, which is

s the primary purpose for habitat protection. The department may allow hunting, trapping, fishing,

subsistence, and so forth, activities. So it is clearly to indicate that these areas are not only for uh protecting habitats and wildlife populations, but they're also for public use.

Okay. I have a question for the chair for you.

Representative

I was just wanting some clarity on this CS. I don't think, unless I missed it, was there a motion to accept or where are we at with that? I had a question on one of the changes, but I didn't know if we were dealing with that today or

later at a later date.

Okay. Thank you.

This is a large bill, so we want to just digest it.

Mm-hmm.

Thank you.

Madam Chair.

Representative Josephson.

Yes, Andy Josephson. For the record, the CS was adopted at your last hearing.

Oh.

Thank

Thank you for that.

Okay. Seeing no further

All right. House resources back on the record. What we're going to do next is we're going to have Representative Josephson, staff and Representative go over the memo in our packets and go over the new maps and then answer any questions from the committee.

Okay. Madam Co-Chair, Joe Meehan, again,

a staffer Representative Josephson.

To go over the memo, which hopefully answered a lot of questions from the last two hearings that we had. I guess one thing I just wanted to point out, too, is the overall purpose.

Representative Sadler.

For the record, Mr. Meehan, would you say which memo and dated which? Because there's a couple different memos for clarity purposes, please.

Yeah, through the co-chair, Representative Sadler.

Yeah.

budget.

March 17, 2026, memo from Representative Josephson and to the committee

referencing House Bill 321. So one thing we try to do with this memo is to clear up.

the overall purpose of the bill, which uh was to facilitate a more efficient and effective management of these collectively called special areas by the department, uh and to promote better and wider public understanding, use and appreciation of these areas, uh which ultimately will hopefully read to lead to f um stewardship of people protecting and using these areas. Um there was a lot of questions at the first hearing about

purpose statements, uh what makes a refuge sanctuary, critical habitat area state park. And so I tried to summarise all of those different designations um both across fish and game designations and state parks, uh I'm sorry, department natural resources, which includes things like state parks, recreation areas, special management areas, forests, uh recreation rivers. And uh I included attachments

for uh um all the uh LDAs or Legislative Designated Areas, a uh fact sheet that D_N_R_ puts together and updates periodically with the number of acres and um units that are in there. And I also included as an attachment um the statutory purpose statements for all the fish and game managed areas and the sampling of the d uh D_N_R_ uh managed areas just to give the committee uh an idea of what these

of what those involve. Um so the name changes as we've discussed several times. We would combine game refuges, wildlife refuges and critical habitat areas into one term.

wildlife refuge, and then likewise Game Sanctuaries wildlife sanctuaries would be combined into one wildlife sanctuary with um purpose statements uh with the exception of combining critical habitat area and refuge, the purpose statements would basically stay the same. And certainly all of the individual purpose statements for these areas would stay the same. And I'll point out too that not every refuge and critical habitat area has a stand alone

own purpose statement. Um there is an overarching purpose statement for each of those categories that uh we've as we've talked about, we've combined those into one to make it uh a little bit more clear and uh a little bit more understandable by the public.

Uh again, the firearms uh access closure, hopefully the C_S_ change um helped clarify exactly what the um uh what we were I hate to use the term term targeting, but we were targeting target shooting um you know whereas uh it would not influence at all hunting, fishing, trapping activities and use in carrying of firearms in a refuge area would be strictly related to the discharge of firearms primarily for target shooting and access.

as sites for public safety and um as far as lead contamination goes, lead legal considers that a uh public safety issue as well if if we had contaminated soils and people interacting with those soils. Um we've talked a bit about the um closure of our uh sections or areas within a game refuge for public safety. Again, the targeted site, the only one that I can think of would be the Rabbit Creek shooting range.

Range down range area is to be able to close that off. As far as any concerns of the department getting over zealous about closing areas, it would still have to go through a regulatory process and would give the public g um you know uh say uh it testimony and adopting any regulations that would close any particular area whether it's down range of the rabbit creek shooting range or not. Um as one of the managers of the the refuge in my previous career,

I had always thought exactly a light or a flag that's visible from the area would be the appropriate way to go to indicate when the area is closed. Uh as far as the maps, we can run through as many maps as you'd like. I don't know how much time we have to do that, but um I could certainly go through any of the maps and do any explanation. But I try to um correlate the maps with the sections in in the bill um for the areas starting with hunting closure for McNeil and then running through each section

each section and what refuge that pertain to and to provide some details on why we're proposing a boundary change in that particular refuge or critical habitat area.

That's it.

Representative Sadler, thank you.

Yep.

I appreciate the chance to ask a question. I noticed, Mr. Meehan, that there are some referenced areas in the language of the bill that do not have a corresponding map, or possibly it's just not in the new batch of maps. Can I assume that each of the areas, refuges, sanctuaries, et cetera, et cetera,

all have their own maps someplace in my packet? I guess my question is, are the new maps replace all the old maps or are they supplementary through the chair?

Through the chair, Representative Sadler. The new maps include all the areas that were proposing any boundary changes. I know there were a few maps that I inserted in the original batch of maps, and in trying to simplify and reduce the load of maps, I just didn't include a few of those that were basically extraneous.

So following up,

follow up,

Cape

Newenham

State Game Refuge.

I think I see in the old maps, but not in the new maps. I mean, clarify what you said. Is all the new maps provided to us are all the maps we should deal with this? But then I popped open my old maps and saw Cape Newenham and I thought, oh, gosh, yeah, through the chair.

Yeah, through the chair, Representative Sadler. Cape Newenham should be in that new packet.

Okay.

Okay, I don't think I

saw it.

Should it

be the very, the second one?

Nope.

Well, I reordered them, so

And therein lies the challenge of having to go through them all not to be able to see them. So I did not see it.

Nope, I don't.

So

So maybe,

Mr. Meehan, we can make sure that

we get that to the committee members.

Yeah,

yeah,

certainly.

Okay, thank you.

Representative Colom.

Thank you, Chair. So I hate to just keep asking about this, but I want to make sure I understand section seven. That's the firearms section, okay. So in your memo it says the intent of section seven is to allow DFG to close through adoption of regulations certain limited areas in a refuge to the discharge of firearms for purposes other than hunting, trapping and fishing.

Thank you, Chair. So hate to just keep asking about this, but I want to make sure I understand. Section 7. That's the firearms section.

Okay.

So since Rabbit Creek Rifle Range is in a refuge, unless there's a carve-out I don't know about, how does that not affect the range itself?

Why wouldn't they just close the range?

Through the Chair, Representative Colom, I don't think there's any intent on closing the range at Rabbit Creek.

Again, if we're trying to correlate closure or discharge of firearms for the purposes of target shooting, well, the department just wouldn't go through a regulatory process to close the range that it manages to target shooting if I'm following your

Mm-hmm.

connection there.

Yeah, I mean, it feels like that's what it's actually allowing them to do. I mean, the rifle range, there's been plenty of people who don't like it there.

You know, this is not something, I mean, it's been there since the 50s, but there's lots of issue, you know, people don't want it there. And so if this were to pass, technically, from how I'm reading it, they could close the range because it's target shooting in a refuge. So that's why I wanted clarity.

Mm-hmm.

Through the chair.

Yes.

Representative Colom. I would think if the department wanted to close the range, they could do that regardless of this regulation,

Mm-hmm.

and I don't think that's at all the intent.

Okay.

Right.

Mm.

Madam Chair, if I could r

Representative Josephson.

Angie Josephson for the record. I

I haven't talked to Mr. Mihan about this, but I think we would consider it a friendly amendment if the amendment read that nothing in this act requires or otherwise allows D_F_N_G_ to close the Rabbit Creek rifle range.

Okay. Thank you for that, Representative Josephson. Representative Fields.

Yes, I was going to say I I think the obvious concern of this bill progresses is that it's a stalking horse for restricting

Gunn use, which it I don't think it is and

Mm-hmm.

maybe we might consider some language like that just to make it really clear that that's not what would result and I don't know what the best language would be, but I would be interested in supporting it so it wouldn't derail the positive effects within the bill.

Okay, Mr. Meehan, please proceed.

Madam Chair, that pretty much brings us to the end of the memo with the maps. If there's any particular map that someone wants to look at, we could certainly assess that.

All right, any further thoughts, questions?

Nope.

Yeah,

Representative Prax.

Yes.

Representative Prax.

Thank you. Through the chair, had you considered about 90% of this is not controversial, I think, and you have put in a whole bunch of work with a few controversial points.

And frankly, I'd hate to see that lost.

And

Frankly, I'd hate to see that lost in either the House or the other body or the executive branch taking

negative action. So have you thought about dividing this into at least two builds, one with everything else and the other one with things that might be a problem?

Or several builds so we can people can grasp and understand what you're doing

in half a dozen pages rather than seventy seven?

I say that because I I did reach out to some folks in the Fairbanks area that kind of know something about this and know about land and fish and wildlife and I don't and um I called them a couple weeks ago and they've been kind of looking at it, but they said, just last weekend.

And

there's a there's a lot of room for things to fall apart. And that would be the whole bill.

So have you thought about dividing it up into two or three different bills?

Madam Chair, through the Chair

Okay.

to Representative Prox,

my sense of this is the folks that testified from Homer want the ban on personal watercraft. I want to be clear that testified want the ban on personal watercraft, but that is probably

the more controversial feature. And that's fairly consistent with what the Commissioner said. I think the other parts are much less controversial. I mean he echoed what I've said, which is that

part of the McNeil sanctuary has been statutorily closed forever or

Mm-hmm.

for a very long time. And other parts for decades have been closed.

So this doesn't seem to be a great hardship on the Board of Game and the course of action they want to take. It's actually pretty consistent with what they've been doing for decades. So

I don't view this. I concede that

I'm not happy to say it, but I concede that the personal watercraft issue is a contentious issue.

Right.

But but uh beyond that issue, I think that the bill fits together pretty nicely.

On f

And

Oh, follow-up.

yes, I appreciate that you would think that way, 'cause you've spent a lot of time at this, but I'm concerned that

there are a few things in here that

uh risks

killing the bill, either through not passing through one body or the other

w where there's a bunch of people who haven't thought about this as much and the executive branch. And this is an up or down when it gets to the executive branch anyway. I just risk management for getting the bulk of this work through which I would like to see happen.

So, up to you.

Okay.

It's just give a thought, and

We all heard that.

Through the chair, Representative Prox. Yeah, I think most of the items in this bill would be a legitimate standalone bill. And it's a compilation of the years that I managed the program and identifying many of these areas that I thought needed to be improved.

Mm-hmm.

And I'm not sure at this point going that route would time-wise be feasible. Certainly not for this session and so it's certainly a legitimate point and as Representative Justice said we recognize that at least one, maybe two of the provisions are raising some eyebrows and

you know, overall I would say particularly at the boundary issues and some of the other items go through, it would still have been worth it, even if some of it is dropped out.

Okay.

Thank you. Representative

Oh, I

Klum.

I promise this will be my last one. I don't want to keep everybody, but I did have a question on the Palmer Hay Flats

State Game Refuge. There's several different. So we got an excluded area, state land added to Palmer Hay Flats.

Hmm.

So I guess my question is, can you tell me what the magenta

So.

I don't understand what the rickrack magenta items are and why the places that you want to take, they seem to be right in the middle. Were those actually just excluded by accident? Were they excluded on purpose? Because you also have shoreline box as well. If you could just walk through that.

Yeah, through the Chair, Representative Cologne. Uh as far as the magenta areas go,

which I'll use the cursor here just to illustrate them. Uh on the eastern end, those are old channels now abandoned from the Matanuska River. It's now shifted to the south.

Okay.

Um originally when the refuge was described on this east end, they used parcel descriptions, platted lines. And those parcels ended at mean high water of the river.

Okay.