House Resources, 4/17/26, 1pm

This meeting of the House Resources Committee will now come to order. It is now 1:08 PM Friday, April 17, 2026, in Capitol Room 124. Members present are Representative Fields, Representative Colom, Representative Hall, Representative Mears, Representative Prox, Representative Sadler, Co-Chair Representative Dybert, and myself, Co-Chair Representative Freer. Excuse me. 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. I'd like to thank Cheryl Cole from Records and Renzo Moises from the Juneau LIO for staffing the committee today. Today we have Mr. Nick Fulford of Gaffney, Klein back before the committee. To address unanswered questions from our hearing on April 1st.

And then we will be taking up amendments for House Bill 321, Fish and Game Wildlife Refuge, from Representative Andy Josephson. Mr. Fulford, if you, uh, if you can hear me, please put yourself on record and begin your overview. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, just doing a quick sound check, make sure you can hear me. Yes, we can hear you.

Excellent. So for the record, my name is Nicholas Fulford, Senior Director of Gas and LNG at Gaffney Clyne. So if you wish, Madam Chair, I can go through the questions individually and pause for additional discussion in between them. Yes, please, that would be great. Okay, thank you.

So the first unanswered question, which I think related to the hearing on April 1st, was question from Representative Fields around equity stakes for municipalities and, and the state. So in, in broad terms, these are particularly common in Asia, certainly outside the US more typically, but they are seen as a key implementation measure for LNG projects by many host governments for a variety of reasons. Clearly, there's a sense of equilibrating the value between the international oil and gas companies and the host nation. And secondly, it's seen as a way to generate long-term value for the host country.

A lot of the discussion around these equity shareholdings often revolves around the, the way in which they're paid for. Because, you know, clearly, um, you know, for the Alaska LNG project, for example, um, you know, a 25% shareholding, which is what the state is technically entitled to, would, would be a multi-billion dollar investment. So for, um, for a number of host governments, um, equity is often done through what's called a carry, whereby the international oil and gas companies who sponsor the project hold the equity, which is then paid for out of future revenues. So the transition of equity from the project sponsors to the government takes place over a period of time. The other important thing to consider, of course, is that by taking equity in the project, you're to some extent also sharing the commercial risks that are part and parcel of an LNG project like this.

So, you know, that's, that's why, you know, typically the returns on these projects can be, you know, around 10-11%, that, that sort of order for LNG infrastructure at least. So it is a relatively high level of return in government terms, but it does bring with it certain risks. So for example, if you look internationally at where these risks arise, for the Australian experience for example, a lot of that risk arose really because of capital cost escalation between FID and conclusion of the project. Occasionally— excuse me— occasionally there have been challenges to do with gas resources. Clearly in Alaska that's highly unlikely to be the case.

And perhaps more commonly, it's often a function of disruption in LNG markets. So it could be regulatory change in the buying countries, it could be some kind of government action outside the host nation that undermines the sort of contractual solidity of the project. So it's worth bearing in mind that, you know, that there are these risks that go with equity. Another very frequent discussion point comes around the way in which dividends are organized and paid. For government investors, typically long-term stability, lack of volatility around dividends is quite important for all sorts of planning purposes.

So sometimes the way in which dividends are split between government shareholders and oil and gas companies, it can be a little bit different. So sometimes, for example, a preference share arrangement can be introduced which provides the government entity with a more level series of incomes rather than the more volatile income that would arise from taking gas price risk, for example.

So clearly within the— discussions that have taken place between AGDC and Glenfarm about the 25% entitlement that the state has, it's highly unlikely, I think, that a lot of these details would have been discussed or gone into any kind of detail. But as the discussion around the project progresses, it's something which I think is likely to come up on the agenda at some point.

A good example I wanted to highlight for the committee comes from Papua New Guinea. So the first PNG LNG project was developed around 10 years ago. Sponsors were Exxon and a company that became Santos. So a lot of time and trouble was put into discussing an appropriate split of revenues and equity with the communities that were impacted by the project. It came in two forms.

One was a direct financial benefit, sort of akin to the purpose of property tax in Alaska. And then the other was through equity. So the way in which the funds were allocated, some of it was a direct cash payment to the communities involved. Some of it went into a sort of infrastructure fund, and then around a third of it went into a sort of future generations sort of rainy day fund, if you like, for, for the benefit of the community many years hence. So for that example, the total state equity involvement was 19.4%, not, not so different to the 25% that is being talked about here.

And of that, the, the local communities that were impacted by the project more directly took just over a 4% equity stake. So the quick answer is that equity by government and/or affected communities is, is very frequently a feature of LNG projects. But the way in which it can be organized, you know, depends on the kind of unique features. So I'll pause there because I'm sure there are some questions involved. Thank you, Mr. Fulford.

First question or first up in the queue is Representative Fields, then Representative Sadler. Thank you through the Chair. This is great context. I just want to note for Committee members, Ledge Legal— I did ask Ledge Legal about an equity stake in exchange for foregone property tax revenue. And Ledge Legal advises that that is a potentially viable way to take an equity stake in this project, and that closely resembles the carry structure that you described, if I'm hearing you correctly.

Um, thank you, Representative Fields. Yes, through the chair, I think, um, these, um, this sort of ebb and flow of equity versus taxation. It is quite a common feature that you see in these projects. And just coming back to my comment about revenue stabilization, there are two ways of doing that. One is to do it directly with taxes, with variable taxes depending on the profitability in the project, and the other is, um, is through equity.

So I just wanted to add that point.

Thank you, Mr. Fulford. Uh, did you have a follow-up, Representative Fields? Okay, Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Fulford. Your commentary, as usual, is very dense and full of facts and full of implications.

Uh, they're not simple concepts to grasp, and the implications for how we craft this legislation are immense. Um, so I would love to have any documentation of what you have just told us about equity and the carried risks and dividends and direct cash benefits and so forth. So I'm going to kind of go backwards in the topics you raised, speaking of how the Papua New Guinea LNG project provided direct financial benefits to the communities. You ran through some stuff real quick. I would like to ask you to repeat those.

I'm going to ask some questions about how they were scaled. You described some concepts, but you just touched on the high points. There's some details I need to ask you about. Could you please repeat your section on that?

Yes, thank you, Representative Sadler. Through the Chair, I think the key features of the PNG arrangement, which I think is really the most advanced and highly negotiated framework which involves both state government and individual communities, it was split up into two features. First of all, there was a royalty applied to the gas based on the value of the wellhead. So that royalty was quite separate from the equity. 2% Royalty allocated 40% as cash to affected communities, 30% to an investment sort of community infrastructure fund, and 30% to what they call the Future Generations Fund.

So that 2% royalty was split 40-30-30 in that manner. Then the other element of compensation, reward, call it what you will, for affected communities was the opportunity to acquire an equity state in the project. The, um, that there was an initial allocation of equity stake, I think it was 2.7%, with an option for communities to add, add to that if they wished. The interesting thing with the PNG example is that it wasn't a carry function. Basically, the, the equity had to be funded directly up front by the communities.

So in that example, the state government stepped in and helped with enabling the local communities to fund that equity. I'm sorry, when you say enabled them to, gave them the money to?

Essentially, a lot of the funding in the end originates from future revenues. So it was a kind of a bridging loan, call it what you will, against future revenues. Follow up? So to feedback, so the state lent him the money to a front? Okay.

I think it's a simple way of putting it, yeah. Yeah, I think that was about it really. As I say, the interesting statistic, just over 19% state interest, and of that 4.5, 4.25 ended up being owned by the sort of local communities and governments along the scope of the project. So, the numbers aren't dissimilar. The 19 is not so dissimilar from 25.

So, you know, if you took that as an analogue, you could say, well, 5% for the boroughs. That's, you know, many, many other things go into that rather than just Simply a proportion, but if you were to replicate that approach, that's what it would end up as. Thank you. Follow-up, please. Follow-up.

Mr. Spaulding. So you said in the end it was 19% state equity, and was that 4.25% of the equity the communities held part of that 19%, or was that additional? Yes, through the chair, that was part of the 19.4%. Okay, great. Okay.

And then another question for you is, did you say one of the two methods by which there would be direct equity investment was a 50% royalty? I want to make sure that you described how that was 40-30-30 divided. What was the royalty rate or level you said? The, the, the original, um, pot of money, so to speak, was, it was a 2% royalty at the wellhead. 2% Royalty.

Okay. Based on a kind of calculated netback value. Uh, netback. Okay, very good. That's enough follow-up.

You have many more questions to pick up in a while. Thanks. Okay, Representative Mears. Thank you. Through the chair, Mr.

Fulford, 2% royalty is part of the equation. What was the wellhead value of the gas-ish? That's, that's an excellent question, Representative Mears. Through the chair, I think for a rough approximation, you could probably use, you know, $1.50, maybe $2. I'm just guessing that, but, you know, that's typically how it would, would end up if you take Asian realized LNG prices less the cost of the infrastructure.

It might have been a little bit more in that case, but that'll give you a rough idea. Follow up. Follow up. I just wanted to say that's, that's in the neighborhood of what we're talking about. So if that wellhead value was significantly more, 2% would have a very different ring to it than looking at something that's on a similar scale.

Thank you. Mm-hmm. Representative Sadler. Thank you. And moving upstream again, Mr. Fulford, you talked about the royalty.

Again, the PNG project was among the most highly negotiated, and that's interesting to know. One of the negotiated areas was dividing a 2% wellhead royalty among cash to communities a community infrastructure fund and a rainy day fund. That to me goes to the question of how a natural gas pipeline project is going to affect municipalities, local communities in this state, which is an area we have yet to get determination on. So I'd like to know more about how much money that 40-30-30 split out, and was that actually part of any legislation or was that a contractual agreement that was reached between the parties? Thank you, Representative Sadler.

I would have to check back to see whether it was contractual or legislative, but I suspect it would have been the latter. And perhaps just to add context as well to the PNG example, it was very carefully thought out in immense detail, as you can see from, you know, the way in which it was set up to work. Not surprisingly, there were a number of discussions after the event in terms of whether the allocation of funds was appropriate, whether the funding was going to the right people. So, you know, inevitably in a project of this size, when you're talking about significant impacts on local communities, it's very hard to to formulate an equation which everyone is content with. So it's just maybe another good example that a lot of work went into it, but a number of stakeholders felt that it was not the right outcome.

Right. And Paul—. Follow up? And that speaks to one of my significant concerns about the project we're engaged with in Alaska right now, is that these impacts to the communities are happening out of our view. And if, if we're going to use some other LNG projects as models for how the Alaska project should happen, and those other projects included legislative provisions for impact aid and cash to communities, we need to get information quickly about those negotiations to see how we need to sculpt these carefully negotiated aspects into our legislation.

That's really important to me. And I think also in an earlier presentation to us, you spoke of the the recognition that sometimes conditions change over decades and that there is some provision for renegotiating terms of the long-term LNG contract. And I guess I'd like to expound on that a little bit more and what that might mean for the Alaska project.

Um, yes, thank you, Representative Sadler, through the chair. The, um, it is very common for various features of an LNG project to be revisited following FID, following construction, etc. And in fact, on the, on the selling side of the equation, because over the decades that LNG has been growing as a commodity, from time to time very significant changes happen which which have a fundamental impact on the sale and purchase agreement. So for the last 10, 15 years maybe, for all LNG sale and purchase contracts, they typically have some kind of reopen up. Sometimes it's called a material adverse change clause, MAC clause.

Sometimes it's purely driven by changes in price, occasionally an index negotiation feature of the price is discontinued, so you have to sit down. So there are mechanisms even on the sales side to sit down and kind of reformulate things between buyer and seller within a very constrained environment, I have to say. It's not just a let's, you know, let's start afresh. And similar thing happens with host governments.

And, you know, for example, this could happen if additional oil and gas resources are found which can be routed through the same facilities at some later date, if the project is expanded in some form. And then, of course, you know, in the context of Alaska, you know, one of the things I've talked about before, which is often a sort of a primary feature of the host government dialogue in some other places, is this question of domestic market obligation or domestic supply obligation. So that's often a very carefully negotiated part of the host government agreement, which is present here as well. So, you know, that's another area where changes or developments could affect things in the future. May I follow up on that, please?

Before we follow up, Representative Sadler, I just want to note that we have Dan Stickel on the line as well from the Department of Revenue. And also to note that we are still on the first question out of Representative Fields' 3, and then you had 4 questions, and we've got about half an hour left with with Mr. Fulford before we move on to the presentation. I don't have more questions. Oh, well, I mean, in your—. Oh, I see these—.

That he's going through is the questions that he's going through. But, um, and I also, recognizing the number of amendments that we've received for House Bill 321, the intent is after this meeting, there's another committee, L&C meets after us, we'll come— if, if we have not gone through all the amendments, we're we'll come back after at 5:30 to resume resources. So Representative Sadler. Thank you, Madam Chair. Understand that and appreciate you laying out that timeline.

Given the importance, we have an amendment deadline for this gas bill. So I think it's important to raise these questions. I appreciate the chance to scooch other issues off towards the end. And I hope if we do come back on gas line, we have Mr. Fulford available for us later. Absolutely.

So the— so the The question I have still in my mind is the reopening. You said very plainly that it's common to have features to basically to reopen the conditions of a gas line project. If you can provide us any kind of template language or the other companies, other projects have used, because as of right now, I see no provision in the gas line bill before us to allow for renegotiation of these conditions. So unless I'm looking I'm looking around the table and seeing if anyone else has seen evidence of that. I'm not seeing it.

And my concern is, for the record, that we lock ourselves into conditions over 30 years, but we're passing by the opportunity to have a re-opener. So in 10, 15, 20 years, 30 years, we might find ways we should renegotiate this for the benefit of Alaska. And so that's very, very interesting to me and very, very important part of legislation. So if you can provide again any templates or sample or information about those renegotiations, it would be very helpful to me.

Thank you, Representative Sadler. Through the Chair, just a very quick comment on that one. On the sales side, it's a contractual relationship between two private parties. Obviously, the discretion exercised by government is very different in the sense that government can take action on a whole host of features without necessarily the cooperation of the other parties involved. So it is a little bit different, but very happy to provide that context around when LNG contracts are typically revisited and for what reasons.

Yeah. Thank you. I think it's important for this committee members to understand the implications of that.

Thank you, Representative Sadler. Mr. Fulford? Okay. Given your comments about timing and so forth, Madam Chair, both Representative Fields' questions and Representative Sadler's questions, they do address the question of economic analysis and the open book economic model. And I know you have Mr. Stickel on the phone.

I've listened to his testimony over the last few days and weeks, and clearly DOR has presented an array of very helpful numbers to help understand the economics of the project and the taxable benefits. And I think having heard that commentary, And my understanding is that AGDC have assisted in how that model has come together, at least in terms of the mechanics of the model, perhaps not so much the assumptions that go into it. So, you know, as we talk about an open book economic model, my impression certainly is that the work that DOR have done with the input from AGDC is sort of approaching this kind of concept and, you know, is potentially forming a foundation for this discussion around the economics and therefore the ability of the project to support various taxes and government take mechanisms. So I just put that out there as a comment that I think, you know, the work that DOR is doing does seem to be heading towards this concept of an open book model.

Thank you, Mr. Fulford. I don't see any questions or comments, so if you want to proceed with the rest of the questions. Okay. Thank you, Jeffrey. So I think that's Probably largely concludes the questions that Representative Fields had posed.

I think we probably touched on most of those.

So Representative Sadler asked about the 1% inflation index on the alternative volumetric tax. So I have done some numbers on this, and if we assume a 2% inflation rate, then after 10 years, because the AVT is only inflating at 1%, the— what would have been a nominal $65 million per annum that would be generated by using money per day, that would reduce to about $60 million in real terms after, after 10 years. So after 35 years, the 1% fixed inflation versus a 2% assumption, uh, it would have fallen to about $47 million in real terms. And cumulatively, after 35 years, it would be $2.23 billion in nominal terms, but 1.96 billion in, in real terms. So that, that gives you a sense of what might happen.

Um, I, I know this has been discussed in other forums as well, and certainly in my experience, it would be unusual to see a fixed escalation number like that in perpetuity. Typically, there would be some kind of indexation applied. Such that it would keep the numbers more in line with, um, uh, with what's happening around them. So hopefully that adds some context to the question that was asked. Thank you.

Representative Sadler, briefly. Mr. Fulford, if you could provide those— I've taken notes like a banshee. If you had that written or a chart, I can see that would make it much more useful. Thanks. I, I will send that.

Thank you. Representative Fields. Through the chair, just for clarity, Mr. Fulford, what you're saying is that rather than a fixed number, it's more common to have it linked to like CPI? Is that what you're saying? That would be a typical way of doing it, particularly since there's no time limitation at all on these numbers.

So, you know, exchange rates, inflation rates, as we all know, these can be very volatile. Okay. It could create this kind of inadvertent disconnect between how the ABT was intended to operate and how it does operate. Thank you. Yeah.

Um, so the next question I have on, uh, the written responses, I think, is the question from Representative Sadler about whether LNG projects get tax relief. I think a more appropriate way of sort of answering that question, if you like, is that, you know, pretty well without exception, all major LNG projects have a tailor-made and negotiated fiscal package around them, which, you know, often does include tax holidays or abatements in some areas. But also can include, you know, additional taxes and others. And, you know, we've spoken several times about this, um, uh, sort of iterative dialogue with the project developers to ascertain really how profitable the project is, what the appropriate rates of return are, and therefore what the kind of sustainable government take could be under different scenarios. And for that, you typically do get this dialogue around the kind of economic model.

That's not to say that everyone is using the same assumptions, but that's typically the tool that's used for that type of dialogue. Thank you, Chair. Representative Sadler. I'm embarrassed to say, Mr. Fulford, I would like and appreciate if you would restate the question that you're providing the answer to. It might help me.

I asked a lot of questions. I want to make sure which one this one was. Yeah. The reference through the chair references Representative Sadler would like to know if all other LNG projects get tax relief. Gotcha.

And the answer is yeah. And AVT is one such.

Exactly. It's, I think, I think what perhaps you're discovering— this dialogue we're having now is helping to expand on it— but the degree of complexity and detail around these projects and how they function and the multifaceted way that they impact on communities, tax, and so forth, they typically have, you know, months of dialogue and negotiation to get to this kind of very granular equation of tax framework and returns for the developer.

And if I could—. Follow up. —Question here. I guess I'd pivot from Mr. Fulford to Mr. Stickel online. Have there been such months of negotiation on the tax issues regarding the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline project?

Mr. Stickel.

Mr. Stickel, did you hear the question?

Yes, I did. Uh, to Chair, this is Dan Stickel, Chief Economist with the Department of Revenue. I would defer the details on those negotiations to AGDC. I don't know if they're online, but based on my understanding, yes, there have been discussions going on for months at least.

And we do not have AGDC on the line. Fair enough. But I guess my question, Department of Revenue being the state's revenue taxation experts, you can tell me if there have been such negotiations from the DOR's view or doing it. Through the chair, those, yes, those discussions have been ongoing for months. To put a fine point at— no passive voice here— has DOR been involved in tax negotiations with the AGDC?

Through the chair, DOR has been supporting those negotiations every step of the way. We've been doing modeling in support of Governor's Office and AGDC since last year. And if I may, DOR has been supporting negotiations, and the negotiating parties are which?

Through the Chair, I would defer the detailed discussions of those negotiations to—. I'm not asking for details of the discussion. I'm not asking for details on the discussion. Discussion. I'm just asking DOR's involvement.

And if you tell me that DOR has been supporting— certainly you know who the parties are. Who are the parties negotiating that you're supporting negotiations of?

Sure. Through the chair, I'm aware of discussions with, with multiple municipalities, with ATDC, with Department of Revenue, with Governor's Office, and we've been supporting the state team every step of the way. So municipalities, AGDC, and the governor's office, correct?

Mr. Stickel, so again, to confirm— I'm not sure if we have a technical problem. I just simply want to confirm, you say negotiations are between municipalities, AGDC and the governor's office. Those are the only parties, right?

Through the chair, I can't confirm that that's a comprehensive list. Like I said, we've been supporting— AGDC has been primarily leading the pipeline project on behalf of the state. We've been supporting every step of the way. That you've been supporting them, but you're not sure who they were. Okay.

Representative Sadler. Thank you very much, ma'am.

Mr. Fulford, please proceed. And just in consideration of time, I'm going to allow one follow-up and then we can get back, you know, in the queue if there are any other questions. I don't see any other questions, but—.

Thank you, Chair Freya. So the next one I have on my list is, do other projects include impact aid to municipalities or states as part of the authorization or authorizing or enabling legislation? And as we've been discussing, yes, they do. It's a common feature within the Low 48, Texas, Louisiana, typically lower rates, and certainly both those states, as you've heard from me before, operate typically a 10-year tax holiday for their The municipality community supports in Canada are typically much, much less. For example, it's less than $2 million a year Canadian in Kitimat, peaks at around $10 million.

So certainly funding for communities goes beyond compensating for the financial impact financial impact, and as we talked about with PNG, for example, it can include things like skills development, infrastructure investment, and so forth. So happy to comment on that more on some other occasion, but for now perhaps leave it at that unless there are any other questions. And then I think the last question was on the Excel model.

And one more. So on the Excel model, as I've mentioned before and certainly listening to Mr. Stickell's testimony this last few weeks, clearly there is a model within DOR which is relatively sophisticated. We're able to replicate the numbers using our model, which, you know, deals with the project in some detail, less so on the upstream, which I think the DOR model does deal with. And so that potentially is a good route to pursue the dialogue around economics and government take. The last question on my list was asking if there's a risk through locking in property taxes early before considering other policy levers.

My comment on that would be replacing the property tax framework and mechanism with, with an alternative mechanism such as the alternative volumetric tax, which is more compatible with LNG economics. To me, that's a major step forward, which will help the project to progress discussions with lenders, sellers, etc. Whether the appropriate rate of tax is 6 cents is a harder one to ascertain simply because I think even, you know, AGDC, you know, have indicated that they don't yet have accurate cost estimates for either the gas processing plant or the liquefaction. So without that, it's very hard to pin down a number which would survive the dialogue over the next months and years.

So I think that would be my comment on that.

Representative Souther. Well, thank you. I guess I'll ask this. We had talked about the 5 to 25% equity investment. I think I did hear from you, Mr. Fulford, earlier on that This deal, as currently conceived, would allow municipalities to invest as equity owners.

I'm not sure if that is underneath the state's 5 to 25% or if there's a separate provision for them. But a more important question, and I guess I'd like Mr. Stickel's perspective as well, is how does the state know what the right investment strategy is if we want to try to be carried for 5 to 25% Should we spread our investment over all 3 elements? Should we emphasize one over the other? Mr. Fulford, do you have any perspective on how government has invested its equity? And then Mr. Stickel, if you've done any modeling or thoughts as to what the right equity investment strategy would be?

Thank you, Representative Sadler. I'll make a couple of initial comments on that. Of the Of the various elements, the more complex one is the gas processing plant because that will need to qualify for federal tax credits. And to do that, the ownership and framework for that corporate entity that owns that facility could be quite complicated involving tax partnerships and so forth. That being the case, that element of the project may be less appropriate for state or equity— state or borough equity compared to the other two.

But the pipeline and the liquefaction, they'd be typical candidates. So with that, I'll pass back to you. Thanks. Okay. Are there any further questions for Representative Sabatier?

I didn't know if Mr. Stickle would want to weigh in on the same question. Mr. Stickle.

Sure. Again, for the record, this is Dan Stickle, Chief Economist with the Department of Revenue. So what we've done is we've modeled out under our baseline scenario the potential impacts of state investment and what that would look like in terms of cash outlay and return to the state. That's what I presented to the committee earlier this week. You know, there would be potentially some justification for looking at the three components differently of the project.

You know, Phase 1 does— with the pipeline— does have a different sort of impact on on potential in-state gas supply versus the other phases of the project. We would definitely want to have more concrete information around actual cost and project details beyond our baseline assumptions before making or recommending an investment decision. But we have— we definitely have the ability to model various levels of state investment and if there's any additional information beyond what we provided earlier this week, we'd be happy to assist. Thank you. And just so you know, Representative Sadler, Mr. Matt Kissinger just joined the—.

Got on the line. So, great. I appreciate it. And if I may, Mr. Stickell, I appreciate hearing that. I'm glad to hear that.

And knowing that we have a narrow 6-month window to make investment decisions, I hope that you keep that plussed up and ready to educate us in the legislature as to how we should best make our allocations should we decide to make an equity investment. I think we'll be talking to each other more in the future, sir.

Are there any further questions?

Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Kissinger, for joining us, Mr. Stickel, for being here, and Mr. Fulford for coming back to the committee to address questions from April 1st.

If there are any further questions, please submit them in writing to [email protected], and we'll work on getting them answered for you. We'll likely ask Daphne Klein to come back again in the very near future once we have a CS or amendments on 381 to consider any of the changes. With that, we will set House Bill 381 aside and move on to House Bill 321. The committee received 24 amendments for this bill before the amendment deadline previously set. Uh, I'm gonna take a brief at ease as we transition to the next— or the next bill.

On record in House Resources at 1:59 PM, uh, represented, uh, next up on Our agenda this afternoon is to move on to House Bill 321 and consider amendments. The amendment deadline was previously set. Representative Josephson, do you and your staff have any opening remarks before we begin your amendments?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Andy Josephson, House District 13. With me is Joe Meehan, my staff. I don't really have any statements. Just as a reminder, this bill concerns reforming how we talk about, or in fact what we call, wildlife critical habitat areas, refuges, sanctuaries, and the like, and turns 5 titles, if you will, into wildlife sanctuaries and refuges, but keeping the purpose statement essentially the same by joining language where necessary.

There's the boundary feature. There is regulations relating to the use of firearms, where firearms should be predominant and where Fish and Game may want to foreclose firearm usage that is doing harm to the refuge. There's the Native Corporation land issue. We have a letter from from Bristol Bay Native Association in support of the bill. There's the McNeil Sanctuary issue, the personal watercraft issue.

Those are some of the key issues before you.

Okay. Thank you, Representative Josephson. And just for the committee's awareness, Representative Elam is on the line now. And so I think we'll— now that he's on the line, we'll proceed with Representative Elam's amendment as he's got— he may have some phone issues later. So Representative Elam.

Hi, can you hear me okay? Yes, we can hear you.

Okay, thank you. I do have an amendment that I would like to move.

Okay.

Please, please move your amendment. Sorry, am I speaking out of turn? No, um, you have Amendment Number 23 if you'd like to move that.

Yes, I would like to, to move, uh, Amendment Number 23 to House Bill 321. I will object for the purposes of discussion. Uh, Representative Elam, do you want to speak to Amendment 23?

Thank you. Yes, basically what my amendment does is it, it really kind of strips back some of the additional works that are being done there and really focuses the bill on specifically the, the map line and the lot corrections that, that needed to be taken up. And so then it kind of takes away some of the other material as far as changing regulations related to Ketchumac Bay or to some of the renaming of the boundaries of some of the other areas and just kind of focuses in on specifically the map adjustments. And I appreciate the opportunity and happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Representative Elam.

Representative Josephson.

Yes, Andy Josephson for the record, and I'd invite Mr. Meehan to add to what I'm going to say, but fundamentally there are some important issues. For example, as I noted, I mentioned that currently Native Corporation land is— call it inadvertence, call it not, but it's part of many of these boundaries. And so Native corporations are having to go to get permits from DFNG that frankly are technically needed but we're trying to dispense with. And so that's the kind of issue that would not be reformed if you just did the boundary adjustment, um, potentially at least. Um, and, and then there's, there's, for example, uh, we're, we're providing at Dude Creek, uh, near Gustavus, we're providing more access because we're growing that boundary in the bill.

And, um, we want to make sure that people continue to have access. So that's a better example of how there might be some negative repercussion of expanding a boundary and not providing that sort of— that sort of relief. And then there's all the other issues I noted in my opening statement about firearms and cleanup of debris and how to mitigate that by DfNG having the authority to say, look, of course you can use firearms, but don't use them in a makeshift target practice near a trailhead, that sort of thing. So while I appreciate Representative Ilem's amendment, and it does accomplish an important part of the bill, it leaves a lot of things unanswered.

Would you like to add anything, Mr. Meehan? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Joe Meehan, staff to Representative Josephson. Just to briefly touch upon some of the points that Representative Josephson just pointed out, with the target shooting, not only safety issues, but the contamination issues that it creates in a lot of these access areas, which over the decades, the Department and federal partners have spent significant sums of money trying to clean up lead contamination and dispose of that public safety hazard. The disruptions of shooting ranges such as at Rabbit Creek— it wouldn't give the Department the authority to restrict downrange access.

There. Another kind of a highlighted thing that it wouldn't do is the amendment would not allow future acquired land to be automatically added to the refuge. So that means every time the department acquired a new parcel of land within an established boundary of a refuge, they'd have to come back to the legislature each time to request permission to start managing that land as if it were refuge. And then there's some of the public access issues. Our bill, which would be stripped out in this amendment, would remove the public access component, adding that to the purpose statements of these refuges and critical habitat areas.

And then lastly, the private land issue that Representative Josephson brought up. It would retain Fish and Game jurisdiction over private lands, and not only Native corporation lands, but any private land that's inside of a current critical habitat area. Thank you, Mr. Meehan. I thought I saw Representative Colon. Did you, did you, did you want to be in the queue?

Yeah. Okay, Representative Colon and then Representative Prox. Uh, yeah, thank you, Chair. So I support the amendment because— so when this bill was first presented, it was called a cleanup bill. A boundary bill.

These were just some mistakes that were made that need to be cleaned up. The sponsor did mention, you know, that recategorizes two different titles, the refuge and the critical habitat. But, you know, some of the issues with taking these things out, these are—. These are use issues. Target shooting, cleaning up the the public access, the watercraft, these are way beyond just cleaning up boundaries.

And so, and I know it's been mentioned before that if you had a boundary bill, you probably would have passed it with no amendments at all, but this has far-reaching implications and to the Native jurisdiction. So my My recollection is that it's Pilot Point, Igigek, and Port Haiden. So I don't dispute that, you know, they shouldn't have to get permits from Fish and Game, but that's a pretty big change in jurisdiction. Now you're taking Fish and Game jurisdiction and returning it back to private hands. I'm not really opposed to that, but that again is not a boundary cleanup.

That is— that's a pretty big policy change. And so I like the amendment because it takes all that out. It allows the boundaries to stay the same. And I would say there's probably 10 different bills in this one bill that we could run to make these changes, but to put them all in one bill, um, I'm having a problem with. So I support the amendment.

Thank you, Representative Kollum. Representative Prox? Yes, thank you.

Well, I guess a comment. And maybe a question. So I share Rep. Colon's concern. Boundary changes are one thing, and then there are a number of separate bills, and doing everything in one bill just increases the risk of it not being passed further on down the line, or the governor vetoing the whole bill. And somebody's inevitably not going to like something about something and draw a big controversy.

So my concern is if we, if we don't separate all of the other things out, we risk getting absolutely nothing out of it. So therefore I support the amendment. Thank you, Representative Prox. Representative Sadler. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to associate myself with the comments of my colleagues who just spoke before me. Yeah, the bill originally came for us as a kind of a map cleanup, some inadvertent tweaks that need to be done to the boundaries, but more research and delving into the bill showed there's many, many elements that do a lot of things. Just like Representative Prock said, the more rough edges, the more people are going to find a reason to object to it. One that Mr. Meehan just mentioned demonstrates my concerns about the bill overall is that under the rubric, under the auspices of changing a couple little tweaks along the borders of the refuges and so forth, it seems to tilt the playing field and set several functions on automatic pilot towards expanding refuges of whatever nomenclature to deprive public owners, private owners of land of their right to use their land, to put expansion of refuges on rails and do other things that just seem to set the process in effect too much towards expanding refuges. So, and also, you know, if there's land that's going to be added to a refuge, that is, that's the legislature's authority to make those decisions.

It should not be automatically. I'd be concerned that private people may find land on the border of a refuge, buy it, and present it to the state, which which, you know, may or may not take it up, I guess. But in doing so, it would automatically take on the color of a refuge, which is an authority and a color that belongs to this body to issue, not by automatic execution of executive ownership. So yeah, I've got to support this amendment because I think the bill does too much. Madam Chair, uh, Representative Josephson, I, I'll try not to intervene any more than I need to.

All of the comments are policy calls except for 2 that I want to make sure, because I want to dispel folks of them. I don't think the bill does anything to remove the right or deprive the right of a private landowner to use their land. If anything, there's an element Mr. Meehan could explain where there's some growth of the right of a private landowner to use their land. So that's number 1. Number 2, Representative Sadler, with great respect, said the bill came to us as a borders reform bill.

That's inaccurate. The bill was CS'd, but in modest ways, and the bill has always had these other elements. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Josephson. Did you— Representative Elam, do you have any wrap-up?

Am I right about those things? Thank you. I appreciate the dialogue. And would appreciate the, the support on the bill. I do just want to say that I, uh, wanted to find a solution that I felt could, you know, still respect the, the work that the, the team has put in for the map corrections and everything without necessarily getting into the additional layers of what really felt like some additional bills maybe that that needed to be done.

And so, um, you know, so I, I do respectfully ask for, uh, for everybody's support on the amendment. And so that's, that is all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Elam. I'm going to maintain my objection.

Um, so with that, will the clerk please call the roll? Representative Prox. Yes.

Representative Columb? Yes. Representative Elam?

Yes. Representative Hall? No. Representative Mears? No.

Representative Fields? No.

Representative Sadler? Yes. Uh, Co-Chair Dybert? No. Co-Chair Freer?

No.

4 Yeas, 5 nays. And with a vote of 4 yeas and 5 nays, Amendment Number 23 is not adopted. We will go back up the roll to Amendment Number 1. Representative Sablan. Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I must say I'm impressed by the cell phone connectivity, Representative Ehlund, getting on his drive. So that's impressive. Uh, Madam Chair, I, uh, offer Amendment Number 1. And I object for the purposes of discussion. Uh, would you like to speak to your amendment?

Yes, ma'am. Um, so Amendment 1, it does kind of a positive-negative thing. It removes the ban on personal watercraft use. Um, I'm sorry, it would— let me just cut to the chase— it would leave the situation in Ketchumap Bay status quo, which means that the Commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game has the authority to make that decision and respects the decision that has been made that personal watercraft use in this area— areas— is allowed. So, as I said, I think earlier when we discussed the bill, that there's been a long adjudicatory process and public comment and so forth has been engaged in on personal watercraft use in Catamount Bay and Fox River Flats.

The decision by the executive branch branch, judicial branch, has— it is allowed. And I've had concerns about the legislative branch coming in and changing that. So adoption of this amendment would leave things as they are. Uh, thank you, Representative Sadler. Representative Josephson.

Um, just in, in two sentences, I, uh, Madam Chair, um, the testimony you heard was, I think, entirely in support of the bill as written with the deletion of the personal watercraft. There's no doubt that it's not a, you know, universally held position. It's a policy call. It's a change. The real change was the administration's change, right?

So historically, these were not allowed. Now they are, and we would like it restored to its previous situation. Is there further discussion? Representative Kwon. Yeah, thank you, Chair.

So I support this. This has been a longstanding issue, gone through the courts. I know it's a big battle, but I don't see how it relates to the purpose of the bill in any way, shape, or form.

Representative Prox. Yeah, yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I agree that It's, if you will, I don't have a dog in the fight. It's down somewhere south of Anchorage, I think, somewhere in Alaska. But in the interior, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

But I do remember hearing a lot of discussion about this in the interior. And that was a hard-fought battle. I don't think we should open up that can of worms, so I support this. I support the amendment. Thank you, Representative Prox.

Madam Chair. Representative Elam.

Thank you. I support the amendment as well. Ketchumac Bay is not really very far from my home. It's one of my neighboring districts, actually, and I do know that it is kind of a contentious issue with a few families, and it kind of turns into sort of a Hatfields and McCoys. Issue, but I do know that a very large number of community members here on the Kenai Peninsula do want to maintain the current status of personal watercraft in our waterways down there.

And so I will be voting in support of this current amendment. Chair, can I add something? Representative Klone. Yes. So my My husband and I are in Ketchumac Bay all summer.

We go through there all the time. Ever since the change, I think I've seen one jet ski. It's not a major issue.

Thank you, Representative Klum. Representative Josephson? We oppose Amendment 1. Okay.

With that, I will maintain my objection. Will the clerk please call Call the roll.

Representative Sadler. Yes. Representative Prox. Yes. Representative Colon.

Yes. Representative Elam.

Yes. Representative Hall. No. Representative Mears? No.

Representative Fields? Uh, no. Co-chair Dybert? No. Co-chair Freer?

No. Uh, 4 yeas, 5 nays. Thank you. With a vote of 4 yeas and 5 nays, Amendment 1 has, uh, is not adopted. Uh, Representative Sather, I believe you also have amendments.

Amendment 2. I do indeed. Well, I move Amendment 2. I object for the purposes of discussion. Well, Madam Chair, that's pretty straightforward.

This adopted Amendment 2 would remove the— would leave the decision of whether to ban watercraft in the Katchemak Bay, specifically just the Katchemak Bay Wildlife Refuge, with the commissioner, exclusive of issues on the Fox River Flats Wildlife refuge. So this trims it back to have a slightly smaller scope and would ask members to support this one. Thank you, Representative Sadler. Representative Josephson? We object to the amendment, um, and I would emphasize that, that in that location, for example, Joe would know— Mr. Meehan would know a lot more about this— but this is an area, um, of, of tourism, so it's, it's economic for sure, but it is an area where you don't see boats moving at high speed.

You see birders, you see kayakers, you see tourists often taking ferries to McDonald's Spit or around the bend to Seldovia. It's, um, it's an area of calm. It's an area of scientific study. Uh, for estuarine and marine environments, and, and we just don't think it's conducive with that. So we object, we oppose that.

Thank you, Representative Josephson.

Is there further discussion? Representative Sadler? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, you know, we've— again, this issue has been adjudicated. People have had their say.

It's gone through the process. The courts have said This is the bailiwick of the commissioner. This is a wildlife refuge. Wildlife, animals, Fish and Game. The commissioner of Fish and Game has an obligation to consider all these uses, all these interests, and has made a decision.

This bill would upend that and reverse that decision. To the point, this being calm, I had the privilege of spending a couple days in Homer over Easter weekend. I looked out and saw skiffs. I saw freighters. I saw fishing boats, a lot of fishing boats.

I think it was the White King Ferry. There's provisions for ferries. This is an important motorized waterway. This is not just a kayak and canoe area. So the idea that we should, by legislation, reverse it and have one, just one aspect, just one element of motorized transportation deprived to the people of Alaska is— I disagree with it.

And that's why I offered the amendment. That's why I stand by it. Thank you, Representative Sadler. Seeing no further discussion, I'm going to maintain my objection. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Representative Fields. No. Representative Sadler. Yes. Representative Prox.

Yes. Representative Kulum. Yes. Representative Elam.

Yes. Representative Hall? No. Representative Mears? No.

Co-chair Dybert? No. Co-chair Freer? No. 4 Yeas, 5 nays.

With a vote of 4 yeas and 5 nays, Amendment 2 is not adopted. Representative Sather, you also have Amendment 3. Absolutely, Madam Chair. I move Amendment number 3. I object for purposes of discussion.

Well, you know, in looking at the vote on the previous two amendments, it would both have very similar effects. I noticed that members from the actual areas affected, specifically the camp counselor, thought these were good amendments, and I anticipate he'll support this one again. But to the merits of the amendment, again, this is a decision that has been adjudicated, and the commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game, who has responsibility for wildlife refuges has determined that it's the appropriate thing to do is to allow personal watercraft in these areas. Again, we have other kinds of motorized transport in Kachemak Bay and Fox River Flats is up at the head of Kachemak Bay. So I'm not sure— well, I won't say that.

So I think the people that have an interest and have heard from my constituents who are primarily not residents of Kachemak Bay but who do recreate there, they would like to see see the opportunity to use these public lands and public waters for their recreation and enjoyment, and this amendment would restore that to them. The bill, underlying bill, would deny that to them inappropriately, I think. So that's why I offer the amendment, encourage members to consider their vote, to vote yes. Thank you, Representative Zauder. Representative Josephson?

Yes, as sponsor, I oppose the amendment. I'd invite Mr. Meehan, who knows that part of Ketchum Bay better, to make a couple sentences testimony. Mr. Meehan. Yeah, Madam Chair, Joe Meehan again for the record. Fox River Flats is probably a particularly sensitive area in Ketchumac Bay.

It's at the head of the bay, very shallow water, mud flats, estuarine lagoons. And soon here with the bird migration, there'll be probably tens of thousands of waterfowl and shorebirds coming in and using that area. That's a particularly sensitive area for watercraft. That have very shallow draft, such as personal watercraft, and can move at high speeds and quick turns. So that's one of the particular concerns with those type of vessels operating in the Fox River Flats area.

And just a point of history here, when this regulation prohibiting personal watercraft was first in place, there have since been multiple requests to rescind that regulation, and I just want to point out that 5 Fishing Game Commissioners and 5 governors have denied that request over the intervening 20 years or so. Thank you, Mr. Meehan. Representative Kahlom. I have 2 questions and I apologize I don't have a copy of the amendment. I just wanted to ask the maker of the amendment, does your amendment remove Section 74, lines 6 through 14?

Shh. If you want to breathe at ease while I filter through. I can answer that question. And yes, it would. It would remove sections 74 and 77.

Okay, um, thank you. I, I have everything else. That one, I don't know, it's not here. Did you still want to verify, Representative Taller, or take a brief—. I saw a copy.

Okay, I saw a copy. Thank you. Sorry for that. That's a lot of pages, a lot of stuff. So the, the only reason why I asked that is because this isn't just personal watercraft.

This is pretty prescriptive. A person may not operate personal watercraft in the Fox River Flats. And then they have a definition of a personal watercraft: less than 16 feet, propelled by a water jet pump or machinery as its primary source of motor propulsion, designed to be operated by a person sitting, standing, kneeling on a vessel rather than a person sitting, standing inside the vessel. So it's pretty prescriptive. It's a It's a brand new section.

It's not just a jet ski. It has other implications, the restrictions. I guess I would ask Mr. Meehan, in the regulations that are here around Fox River now, is that what the regulation is, or does this section go further in describing exactly what watercraft is, if you know? Through the chair, Representative Kellom, of course there is no regulation currently prohibiting personal watercraft in Ketchumac Bay or Fox River Flats. That definition that we put in HB 321 was taken from the old regulation.

Oh, the old regulation? Yes. Okay, I just was trying to find out where the wordage is. So it hasn't been restrictive for a long time, I guess. Is there a reason why we need to restrict it an environmental way?

You just think it's going to be too disruptive to the wildlife? Mr. Meehan. Through the chair, Representative Calombe, the original reason for the adoption of the regulation prohibiting them was, I guess, threefold. One was environmental contaminants, the second was user conflicts, and the third was wildlife disturbance.

Now admittedly, the personal watercraft industry has come a long way since the late 1990s and early 2000s when this regulation was first put in place, and they've gone from two-stroke engines to four-strokes. Noise has been reduced, so some of the environmental impacts have been reduced greatly in that regard. But again, it remains the user conflicts and the disturbance to wildlife, mainly because of the way these vessels are designed to be used and the way they are used. In practicality, which is high speeds, quick maneuvers, shallow waters. And at this time, right now, it's a game refuge or critical habitat right now?

Critical habitat area for Fox River Flats. Okay, thank you. So just with that, I, I mean, obviously we're— we use that area all the time, so I'm not a fan of restricting Watercraft, I find people very responsible there. And Ketchumac Bay too. We know the importance of maintaining the environment.

And so I support the amendment. I don't think we need to be restricting access. Thank you, Representative Klum. Representative Sadler. I do have a question, Madam Chair, for Mr. Meehan.

Are inside the Fox River Flats Wildlife Refuge, are there any motorized boats or any motorized uses currently allowed?

Through the chair, Representative Sadler, there is an authorized off-road vehicle trail that goes through the Fox River Flats critical habitat area. I do know vessels going over to the Bradley Lake hydroelectric facility where there's a dock do take vessels into there. For the rest of the critical habitat area, I'm not aware of vessels going in there, but I haven't been down there at all times of the year. Again, it's a pretty shallow area, so if vessels do go in there, they'd have to exercise due caution not to go aground. I don't wish to debate the issue, but I would just say if there are currently watercraft of whatever kind available— available— looks like we're discriminating against one particular kind, but that's a debate and clearly where we stand.

So thank you. Thank you, Representative Satterly. Representative Prox. Well, thank you. Through the chair, I guess I am interested I'm not quite sure what you're trying to accomplish or what was trying to be accomplished in the first place.

But it sounds like you are just focusing on personal watercraft. And that would mean that a 20-foot boat with an outboard motor or an inboard motor or what else whatever would be allowed, or airboats would be allowed. And I'm not understanding the significance of restricting— well, I guess you could run oil tankers in there. I'm not sure why you're restricting the personal watercraft. What, what is trying to be accomplished with this?

I'm just not familiar with the area at all.

Mr. Meehan. Through the chair, Representative Prox, again, it beckons back to the way these type of vessels are designed to be used and are used in the field— fast speeds, quick maneuvers, oftentimes running in groups, access to shallow water.

That's where the legislature—. Thank you, Representative Prox. Mr. Mr. Meehan, with that, I mean, I'm not seeing further discussion. I maintain my objection. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Representative Mears? No. Representative Fields? No. Representative Sadler?

Yes. Representative Prox? Yes. Representative Colon? Yes.

Representative Elam?

Yes. Representative Hall? No. Co-chair Dibert? No.

Co-chair Freer? No. 4 Yeas, 5 nays. A vote of 4 yeas and 5 nays. Amendment number 3 is not adopted.

Next I have amendment number 4 by Representative Klobuchar. Representative Klobuchar, since this amendment's already been offered, I'll withdraw that. Okay.

And, uh, amendment number 5 by Representative Klobuchar. I move amendment number 5. Object for the purposes of discussion. So amendment 5 removes section 7 of the bill. It's on page 4.

Lines 13 through 23.

So this, you know, I've— these— the Section 7 is one— the thing that I've been asking a lot of questions about. It restricts the discharge of firearms when it includes target shooting. So in a way, you can say, well, it protects discharging firearms, but in this it only, it only protects it in the first line: discharge of firearms during lawful activities including hunting, trapping, and fishing. But then there's an important except in line 16: except that the department may, for purposes of public safety, close a designated area within a wildlife refuge to discharge of firearms for purposes other than hunting, trapping and fishing. And this is an issue for Rabbit Creek Shooting Park that's in the refuge.

This is giving authority to the department to restrict the discharge of weapons, and it also uses words— the department may by regulation prohibit public access to a refuge if it protects public health and safety and allows for safe operation. So this is— this was around an issue around Rabbit Creek Shooting Range and people walking downrange of it. This bill has gone way farther. This is not an ancillary topic. This is the use firearms within a refuge.

If I remember right, the sponsor was trying to narrow this definition, but because there was a legal issue, and I got a legal memo on one of my amendments, you can't do it narrow. You can't just protect a shooting range. And so what this does actually says the board— or I mean, the department can restrict the use of discharge of firearms firearms in the entire refuge. They can't just pick and choose. They— because they think there's a public safety threat, um, that they can, um, restrict that.

And I, I don't— first of all, I don't want the department having that kind of power. Second of all, I think that has unintended consequences to the Rabbit Creek shooting range or shooting park, which is really, um, a hub of hunter ed training. Kids— we have kids, teams of kids shooting clays. People go there of all ages to learn how to shoot all kinds of firearms, archery. They have classrooms there.

That has a major impact to that park, and I don't think this paragraph really should be in the bill at all. I think we need to— that's That's for another time. I know the intent of this was to stop target shooting at trailheads, but it's gotten much broader since then. They can't do that. I can't— and I can't just protect Rabbit Creek.

So now you have an authority within the entire refuge of not allowing shooting for target purposes. And so I think this is a little— the language is a little clunky. If you want to try to restrict target shooting at the trailheads, I think we should explore a different way to do that.

Thank you, Representative Klobuchar. Representative Josephson. Well, we object to the amendment. I think there are a couple things that I think, with great respect for Representative Klobuchar, may have incorrect. She talked about clay shooting and the other elements at the Rabbit Creek Range.

Those items are enhanced by this bill. They are enhanced because we're saying downrange, shooting due south toward the water, the department could issue restrictions so that no one gets hurt. And the primary person driving that— that is, let me rephrase, the person who would have the exclusive use at certain times would be the practice marksman or firearm user. They would be in first place. So, and I think the commissioner, not think, I know that the commissioner liked that provision of this bill.

He saw a potential problem identified by Mr. Meehan in the bill. I think, and Mr. Meehan can illuminate you further, but in terms of closures to certain areas for target practice. So this would not be the fire range target practice. This is a makeshift fire target shooting area within the refuge. The State Parks Division does something similar, and Mr. Meehan can give you the site for that.

But fundamentally, this amendment— or as not the amendment, as written, the bill is about safety for various users. Groups. It's about the cost of cleaning up contamination where you have a makeshift site that becomes sort of embedded within the refuge. And frankly, folks, instead of using the fire range, they say, forget the fire range, we're gonna just set up our own shop and we'll fire away. And that causes the need for cleanup.

So, and then in terms of what Representative Kahloum said about a legal challenge, originally In an abundance of precaution, Mr. Bullard, who I guess is online, talked about how there could be, if you restrict just certain parts of the area, you could have some issues about what are called special and local acts. So we have a constitutional framework that says you have to sort of broadly apply things. But I think that, um, I don't think, I know that in the CS, um, we, we've dealt with that, we think, responsibly. And there wouldn't be a closure for everything. There would be narrow places Department of Fish and Game could close in the interest of public safety and habitat protection.

Mr. Mann, do you want to add anything to what I said? Yeah, Madam Chair, Representative Calhoun, just to highlight a couple things in the bill in Section A for this section that we're talking about firearms. It says the discharge of firearms during during lawful activities, including hunting, trapping, fishing. That's not an exclusive list. The including could include any potential reason to legally discharge your firearm.

Um, and so again, like Representative Justesen said, it just has to do with non-hunting, non-fishing, non-trapping purposes at access sites and trailheads, i.e., target shooting. Um, the other thing to point out too is, uh, again, the department is going to adopt regulations through the public process and receive public comment on any proposals to close or restrict target shooting in any areas or to close any areas to access, i.e., the Rabbit Creek shooting range, for public safety reasons. And as far as the closure— access closure provision, the bill does say to close it potentially in designated areas, and it goes on to say if it reasonably necessary to, one, protect the public's health and safety, or two, allow for the safe operation of a facility within the refuge. So I think that gives the department and the public sideboards on exactly what could be done there to either restrict discharge of firearms for target shooting or for public access downrange of an active range. And as we heard the Commissioner testify, he liked the idea of a light or a flag flag indicating when the firing range is actually open, uh, and active so that people didn't go downrange.

And I will point out too that in Chapter 41, um, Title 41 in statute, it gives Alaska State Parks very similar authority to close state park areas to the discharge of firearms for public safety.

Thank you, Mr. Meehan. Representative Sadler. Thank you, Madam Chair. You're looking at the bill. It says— bill before the amendment says the department can restrict shooting throughout the entire refuge.

Understand there's a specific geographical coverage issues, but for any purpose, not just for hunting, fishing, or trapping, but for any reason, it gives the department discretion through regulatory decision to decide what public safety concerns might justify a ban on shooting. And again, it's not— this is not just any— I'm sorry, this is not just the Rabbit Creek Shooting Range. Language would apply to any wildlife refuge, so there's no delineation or differentiation. And as I recall, the commissioner said that a flag might work, and a flag at a range, you know, basically saying this is a hot range, would be a minimum necessary action to eliminate danger. But a blanket ban, or the authority to do a blanket ban, certainly gives you more safety.

But gosh, if you just banned all firearms, we could just enhance public safety immensely. I think we have an obligation in light of our constitutional right to keep and bear arms to limit any prescription on that authority to the minimum necessary to achieve a specific public purpose, not just a conditional or maybe a potential public purpose. This, this is overreach. This is not good. We should amend it out of here.

Thank you, Representative Sadler. Representative Prox, did I see Did you raise your hand up? No, you didn't. I did not. Might have been up, but you didn't see it.

Okay. Is there further discussion? I'm sorry? Can I do a wrap-up? Oh, sorry.

Yes. Representative Klobuchar, wrap-up. Yes, it's just to address a couple things. So this, this issue with downrange And people getting hurt. First of all, no one's gotten shot in 50 years, but not to say that, you know, it's still a safety concern.

My understanding, there's signs up there, okay? But this is a contested area in Anchorage. If you don't live in Anchorage or South Anchorage, you don't know the fights going on with the range and being able to hunt there. If they, if they do this, Under public safety, you are also limiting hunting down there too because of public safety. And again, the rain— most duck hunters go hunting at sunrise.

The range is not open. It's not an issue. This is not only overreach, but it's just overdoing what the perceived problem is. Also, if, you know, if there's so many In my opinion, there's so many in-between-the-lines meanings going on here. This is definitely a threat to Rabbit Creek Shooting Range, whether it stays open, whether activities are there, whether you can hunt on the coast.

This, this, this, all of this is basically saying the department can not only close down the range, which I don't anticipate them doing, but they could do. I mean, the commissioner may not be there. You may have a commissioner who doesn't like that. There's a lot of people that don't like the range there, and there's a lot of people that don't want people hunting there. And so this is just— this— the restrictions on discharge of firearms and public access, that is the title of the section.

The restrictions on the discharge of firearms and public access. I am not— I cannot support this bill ever if this— any part of this paragraph is in it. It's really, really important to take this out. This is not cleaning up boundaries. This is someone saying we need to restrict— this is— this has been a thing for a while around Rabbit Creek Rifle Range that we want to restrict the hunting around.

We want to restrict the range. And so that's why I put forward the amendment. I think it's a stronger bill without the paragraph. Thank you, Representative Kolum. That was wrap-up comments, but Representative—.

That's fine. Would you like to make your comments, Representative Prox? No, I was going to start a question. I— okay, yeah, that's fine. Uh, with that, I maintain my objection.

Will the clerk please call the roll? To clarify, which amendment was this? This is Amendment Number 5, H.6. Thank you.

Representative Elam.

No, I'm sorry, yes. Representative Hall. No. Representative Mears. No.

Representative Fields. No. Representative Sadler? Yes. Representative Prox?

Yes. Representative Klum? Yes. Co-chair Dybert? No.

Co-chair Freer? No. 4 Yeas, 5 nays. And with the vote of 4 yeas and 5 nays, Amendment Number 5H.6 is not adopted.

Madam Chair? Representative Elam.

Yes, I just wanted to make sure that my vote was recorded as a yes. Yes, your vote was recorded as a yes. Mm-hmm. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Representative Elam.

Next we have Amendment Number 6H.7 by Representative Colon. Yeah, I move Amendment 6. I object for the purposes of discussion. Discussion. So Amendment 6 is the same paragraph, but I leave the first sentence— the discharge of firearms during lawful activities including hunting, trapping, and fishing is permitted within the boundaries of the wildlife refuge— and then I delete the rest.

Same arguments. Representative Josephson. We oppose the amendment. Representative Sadler. At a certain point, I just want to say my comments are ditto comments based on Amendment 5, so I'll save some time and just say ditto.

Is there further discussion? Do you have any other wrap-up, Representative Klobuchar? No, I just retain the, you know, that lawful activities including hunting, trapping, and fishing are permitted. Keep that there, but take away the restriction on firearms and hunting— I mean firearms and the discharge of firearms within the Rabbit Creek Range and other ranges. It's important to know for anybody listening that this is a direct hit to your freedom to discharge a firearm and to target shoot in any refuge.

The department can take that away at any time. It's not a state park. State parks are very different than refuges. So that's all I have to say, I guess. Thank you, Representative Kahlom.

I maintain my objection. Will the clerk please call the roll on Amendment Number 6?

Representative Kahlom. Yes. Representative Elam.

Yes. Representative Hall. No. Representative Mears. No.

Representative Fields. No. Representative Sadler. Yes. Representative Prox.

Yes. Co-chair Dibert. No. Co-chair Freer. No.

4 Yeas, 5 nays. With a vote of 4 yeas and 5 nays, Amendment number 6 is not adopted.

Next, I've got amendment number 7, H.24, by Representative Colon. I move amendment number 7. I object for the purposes of discussion. Representative Colon. So amendment 7, same paragraph.

This time I'm just taking out 16 through 18, which is regarding the discharge of firearms. I'm leaving in the first sentence, which is the discharge of firearms during lawful activities including hunting, trapping, and fishing. And I also leave in B, that the department may regulate public access within a refuge. All I'm doing is taking out the, the the firearms part between 16 and 18 and leaving the rest of the section. Thank you, Representative Kuhlman.

Representative Josephson. Uh, I, I oppose this, uh, respectfully. The, as I understand it, the, um, target shooting issue, makeshift target shooting, would continue, uh, resulting in public safety issues and potential further contamination with lead, for example. Mr. Meehan testified that the department spent millions of dollars to clean up these sorts of sites, and so we oppose. Thank you, Representative Josephson.

Is there discussion?

Representative Sadler. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, you know, some of the, uh, observations and criticisms of the bill to date have been that it's too, too broad and far-reaching, but we were assured that this was not too broad and far-reaching, but the amendments that we're offering, including this one, to try and scope it down, I've received resistance. So it tends to increase my belief that this bill is indeed too far-reaching. So on that basis, I will support this amendment.

Thank you, Representative Sadler. Is there further discussion? We have a wrap-up. Wrap-up. Did you have something, Mike?

Okay. Uh, yeah, I just wanted to point out, so we keep hearing about the lead contaminant contamination. And I know that there's issues with people abandoning their cars and people shooting at them, whatever. But sometimes a dad will take his son out or his daughter out and, and take a couple of shots at a can. That is not the big problem that they're trying to solve, but that could be affected.

I think a lot of Alaskans do that. We're not going out I mean, if you go out, if you want to rope in every time an adult goes with a kid to shoot cans and do target practice once in a while, I think it's pretty unfair that that would be banned because in certain areas people take advantage of it and, you know, ruin the area. That's not going to solve that. And I don't think Alaskans would want that. So please support the amendment.

Thank you, Representative Colom. That's how I first learn how. Me too, and my kids. And, but I do maintain my objection. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Representative Prox. Yes. Representative Colon. Yes. Representative Elam.

Yes. Representative Hall. No. Representative Mears. No.

Representative Fields. No. Representative Sadler. Yes. Co-chair Dybert.

No. Co-chair Freer. No. 4 Yeas, 5 nays. Thank you.

With the vote of 4 yeas and 5 nays, Amendment Number 7 is not adopted.

Next, I've got Amendment Number 8H.25 by Representative Colon. Yeah, I'm gonna withdraw Number 8.

Next, I've got Amendment Number 9H.9 by Representative Colon.

Just give me a second.

Okay, this is page 38, line 17.

Do you move your—. Oh, sorry, I move Amendment Number 9. Thank you, Representative Kollum. I will object for the purposes of discussion.

The wrong page here.

So the amendment brings this language back to the original statute. The bill is proposing that the legislature make this decision, not the Board of Game. So this is in relation to McNeil. It has been closed by the Board of Game for a long time, and actually whether you agree that you should hunt there or not. Really, this is a policy decision.

We are removing the power from the Board of Game to close hunting and get— putting it in statute and having the legislature do it. And for me, I would rather have the Board of Game make those decisions and not the legislature. It's not a statement on whether this area should have hunting or not. It's, it's, it's putting in statute and having the legislature ban hunting. It has been done, but very rare, and I think this should— the power should stay with the Board of Game.

Thank you, Representative Klobuchar. Representative Josephson? Yes, we object to the amendment. I respect the power of the Board of Game, certainly. The argument made in the bill, or in committee at least, was that the Board of Game, I think, partly out of concern with blowback, but also in fairness, with, with respect and concern for the wildlife viewing opportunity within the sanctuary, has for decades banned the area to the north of the sanctuary and then also to the southwest of the sanctuary and to the east of the sanctuary in what's called the Kameshek Bay area.

And this would, um, essentially make those closures permanent. But as I said, given the opportunity multiple times to make them impermanent, the Board of Game has said no, we're not going to do that. And so this is fairly consistent with where the Board of Game traditionally has stood. It's actually completely consistent. I want to be clear about that.

Thank you, Representative Josephson. Mr. Meehan, did you want to add any? Yeah, Madam Chair, I just might point out that the legislature has taken action in the past to close areas to discharge firearms for hunting. And admittedly, these are 3 very unique situations. One is hunting with firearms is prohibited within 5 miles of of the haul road between the Yukon River and the Arctic Ocean, obviously to protect the pipeline.

The second one was to prohibit the taking of brown or grizzly bears within half a mile of a solid waste facility, obviously so people aren't taking dump garbage habituated bears. And then thirdly, the legislature closed the McNeil River Sanctuary to all hunting and trapping. Because of its unique status. And so this is just recognizing that same unique status from the sanctuary and the history of the area with the Board of Game keeping it closed for decades.

Thank you, Mr. Mahan. Representative Fields, then Representative Sadler. Yeah, I was just gonna note this is a unique area in terms of the amount of economic activity of bear viewing. And while I normally support Board of Game authority in this area, in this this case, I think it's appropriate to— for that predictability for the industry where there's a lot of visitation. Thank you, Representative Fields.

I've got Representative Sadler, Prox, then Hall. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I'm seeing a concerning theme running through the response to these proposed amendments to the bill. You know, I'll observe that we have a Commissioner of Fish and Game with responsibilities and powers to accomplish the mission. They have staff on board.

They have scientific budgets. We have the Board of Game with responsibilities and powers to manage game. They have their advisory committees. They have their own scientists. And but now we are substituting for these informed specific responsibilities of Fish and Game and the Commissioner of Fishing— Board of Game and Commissioner— the legislature.

We are generalists who are much more susceptible to interest groups, and we are making decisions, we're proposed to make policy decisions on some pretty highly emotional issues. The personal watercraft issue, bear hunting in this area. I just don't feel comfortable with us interposing ourselves and depriving the experts, in this case the Board of Games, ability to manage and to fulfill their continuing responsibility. It does not matter whether this would, you believe, comport with that decision or be consistent with it. The decision does not lie with us to be consistent.

The decision should be made of people that have that responsibility. So I'm going to vote yes. Thank you, Representative Sadler. Um, so, oh, Representative Prox, and just want to note the time, it's 2:57. There's another committee that'll be here in 15 minutes or, or so.

So we'll get through you to have some wrap-up and then try to get through the last amendment before we take a recess until this evening. Representative Prox. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, I just— I would agree with Representative Sadler. Okay, the board has done it 3 times previously.

I was not— or excuse me, the legislature has done it 3 times previously. I disagreed with those decisions back then as a member of the public. So I think this should remain within the Board of Game, and therefore I support the amendment. Thank you, Representative Prox. Representative Hall.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. I've had the good fortune of visiting McNeil River twice in my capacity as a videographer, and it's a quite unique and special place. And all the people who have the opportunity to be there know and feel it's, it's, it's an overwhelming sense of feeling to be in that at McNeil. And so for that, and similar to the reasons that Representative Fields mentioned, I am a no vote. Representative Sadler.

And Madam Chair, and that's exactly the point of my comments. We should not manage game and delegate authority based on feelings. I have also been to the McNeil River It's a great place, but the Board of Game has responsibility for that wonderful place, my feelings notwithstanding. So. Thank you, Representative Sadler.

Representative McCollum, do you have a wrap-up? Yeah. Just to clarify, this doesn't have anything to do with the actual McNeil Refuge. It's the areas around it. But I would say that if there's consistency and the Board of Game have been consistent, I'm not I'm not sure the legislature would actually provide that kind of consistency because politics go left and right all the time.

And I think it's more vulnerable to be open for hunting if it was left with the legislature. I don't know of anybody who's a biologist except for one in the legislature. I don't have the expertise to know when to close it, open it. And I, again, I'm just telling you, I, it has nothing to do with wanting it to have hunting on it or not. It's, it's a policy call.

Do you think the legislature is best to close this, or do you keep it with the Board of Game? And I would suggest that we keep it with the Board of Game. They've been doing a good job. Thank you, Representative Colon. With that, I'm going to maintain my objection.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Oh, and this is on Amendment Number 9H.9. Thank you. Representative Sadler? Yes. Representative Prox?

Yes. Representative Kulum? Yes. Representative Elam?

Yes. Representative Hall? No. Representative Mears? No.

Representative Fields? No. Vote Chair Dibert? No. Vote Chair Freer?

No. 4 Yeas, 5 nays. And with a vote of 4 yeas and 5 nays, Amendment Number 9 is not adopted at this time. It is 3 PM and we will go at— we'll take a recess for Labor and Commerce Committee. Come back for— 5:15?

No, let's say 5:30. Actually, we'll say 5:15 just in case. No, just kidding. 5:30. Yeah.

Yeah. There's 6 bills. Delayed to the call of the chair. Make it 7. Be smart.

Yeah. So we'll see you all back here shortly after 5 o'clock. Thank you very much. Thank you.