Alaska Legislature: House Resources, 4/17/26, 5:30pm

This meeting of the House Resources Committee will come back to order. The time now is 5:33 PM, Friday, April 17, 2026, in Capitol Room 124. Members present are Representative Fields, Representative Colon, Representative Hall, Representative Mears, Representative Prox, Representative Elam is on Teams, and Representative Sadler, as well as co-chair Representative Dybert and myself, co-chair Representative Korea. Let the record reflect that we once again have a quorum to conduct business. Please take this time to silence your cell phones for the duration of the meeting.

I'd like to thank Andrew Magnuson from Records and Renzo Moises from the Juneau LIO for staffing the committee today. We left off earlier this afternoon on Amendment Number 10 by Representative Colon. We've got Representative Josephson as well as his staff Joe Meehan here with us. I will—. We'll just get straight back into amendments.

And start off with Amendment Number 10, H.10, by Representative Kolumbe. I move Amendment 10. And I object for the purposes of discussion. So Amendment 10 addresses an issue from before. It's a section prohibiting the hunting of brown bear in Kameshek Bay.

I just, again, feel like the Board of Game should have that decision, not the legislature. So this removes this. And just to be clear, this doesn't have anything to do anything to do with the McNeil area. This is the area south of McNeil that has been closed for bear hunting for a long time from the decision of the Board of Game. And again, just, I, I don't think the legislature is the best one to make those decisions.

We have the Board of Game to do that. And so I'm remove— I'm— the amendment is to remove that section. Thank you, Representative Colon. Representative Josephson. Um, yes, we, we oppose Amendment 10.

The, uh, the maker of the amendment said that this doesn't concern McNeil, but it does concern McNeil. It's essentially the same vote you've cast on Amendment 9. It has basically the same effect. Amendment 9 reverted the decision of Board of Game. Amendment 10 would effectively revert the decision of the Board of Game as well.

As I understand it.

I, I can't tell what the difference is. Thank you, Representative Josephson. Did I see your hand, Representative Sadler? Yes, Madam Chair. Uh, yes, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of Representative Kahlom.

I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Representative Sadler. Representative Prox? Yes, the same. I would like to agree, uh, we should pass this amendment.

The board of game is the appropriate group. There is some possibility, for instance, that the population— bear population could increase to the point, if you will, that they're eating themselves out of house and home, and then that results in a collapse. We don't know the future, but the board of game is supposed to pay attention to that. We should let that up to the board of game.

Thank you, Representative Prox. Do you have any wrap-up comments, Representative Kohn? Nope. Okay, with that, I maintain my objection. Will the clerk please call the roll on Amendment Number 10, H.10?

Representative Hall? No. Representative Mears? No. Representative Fields?

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

Representative Colombe? Yes. Representative Elam?

Yes.

Co-chair Dibert? No. Co-chair Freer? No.

5 Nays. 4 Nays. Yays.

Mr. Magnuson, can you please state the count or the vote again? 5 Nays, 4 yays. With a vote of 4 yays and 5 nays, Amendment Number 10 is not adopted.

Next we have represent— er, sorry, Amendment Number 11. H.29 by Representative Colon. I move Amendment 11. And I object for the purposes of discussion, Representative Colon.

Sorry.

So this amendment is on page 39, line 21. It removes the words private ownership or. So this Section 50 is a brand new section statute. It's not amending current statute. But it's saying before the use, lease, or disposal of land under private ownership or state jurisdiction within the refuge, they have to notify the commissioner, and the commissioner can— shall acknowledge the receipt notice of return mail.

So if there is private ownership within a refuge and you want to sell it, you want to improve it, you want to develop it, you're being required to go through the commissioner to get that approval. It does retain the state jurisdiction and control. So if the state wants to do it, a state department or agency wants to do something on a piece of land, they have to notify the commissioner. But the, the amendment just removes private ownership and on line 23, the person.

Representative Josephson. Madam Chair, I object to the amendment. I'd ask Mr. Meehan to describe his or our concerns with it. Mr. Meehan. Yes, Madam Chair.

This is not a new statute. This is simply being renumbered and moved due to the combining of critical habitat areas and refuges. And I also will point out that this in all likelihood is a moot issue because we are proposing to redefine all critical habitat areas to encompass only state-owned lands. So by default, that would exclude private lands. Thank you, Mr. Meehan.

Representative Sadler, did you have your hand up? Thank you. Yes, I did. Thank you, Mr. You know, the terminology— Mr. Meehan, you certainly know better than I do, but it seems that the bill does collapse the critical habitat and game refuge terminologies, and I'm not I'm not exactly sure in all cases what that means. I'm going to use the term inholders to describe the private landholders inside of a refuge, sanctuary, I'm not sure the term.

But my concern is with private property rights. If the person who owns private property has to go to the commissioner for a mother may I, then that's just one more example of how the bill does so much more than just, you know, true up some map boundaries. And so I support this amendment. Thank you, Representative Sadler. Madam Chair, Representative Elam.

Thank you. If I understand this amendment correctly, this is specifically with private landholders around wildlife refuges. Does that include federal wildlife refuges? I'm just curious because here on the Kenai Peninsula we have significant amount of private land that is held through Native corporations. SIRI actually owns a lot of land around our wildlife refuges, and I'm just wondering what kind of— how that relationship dynamic works there between the private holders that are corporations versus what we traditionally think of as private holders like myself as a, you know, a owner of a small lot of land.

So I'm just curious what the dynamic difference would be and if it would apply in those situations too. Thank you, Representative Elam. Represent— er, sorry, Mr. Meehan. Yeah, Madam Co-chair, this would have no effect whatsoever on the federal Kenai National Wildlife Refuge lands. Since there are no state lands being managed within that refuge, this would have no bearing on that whatsoever.

Thank you, Mr. Meehan. But follow up, please. Follow up.

Yes, please. Um, the, the situation is that there's usually state lands that are state-owned, but then not necessarily with any kind of a designation. Sometimes they have designations, but they usually butt up next to Federal Wildlife Refuge, and then they're partnered in it, and they're kind of commingled between Native Corporation lands and state lands. And then we also have— well, so we don't have state forests, but there's just a very widespread of lands, and so it's kind of a mixed checkerboard. Would it— but yet the large private Sections of land are continuous and usually in nature.

So if a chunk of wildlife refuge that is state refuge-based down in, say, Homer, is butted up next to Native corporation land, and then that would— would it apply in that situation to that large continuous tract that may run for miles?

Mr. Meehan. Um, Co-chair, I'll try to answer the question.

Again, this statute is simply moving it, renumbering it from its current numbering system, and again, it's only applicable to state wildlife refuges created under Alaska Statutes 16-2550 through 690. As far as I know, there are very little or no Native corporation lands in the refuges on the southern Kenai such as the Anchor River, Fritz Creek critical habitat area. So without seeing a map or looking further, I'm not sure I totally understand the question.

Does that answer your question? I don't know that it—. Oh, sorry. Follow-up, Representative Elam. Thank you.

Um, I guess it's, it's just something that I was pondering, and I'll, I'll have to review it maybe a little bit more offline. But I think, and it's just because of the sort of the checkerboarding of, of the land allocations of how, how things are done. So I'll follow up offline or maybe check with, uh, um, one of our, one of our department heads to see if they have any kind of input on that. Um, and so, uh, thank you for your, your insight. Thank you, Representative Elam.

Representative Josephson? Yes, as I understand it, um, Madam Chair, the, the, uh, provision that Mr. Meehan was talking about is actually, as drafted in the bill, not in current law, is actually of benefit to private landowners because now the focus is exclusively on state-owned lands. It would not include, uh, any private ownership within a greater, uh, system, if you will. And so the mother may I concern that Representative Sadler has is actually, I think, satisfied and improved by this, by the bill as drafted.

Because, because that was a provision in critical habitat areas that's not moved into the refuge language. Thank you, Representative Josephson. Representative Kollom, do you have any—. Yeah, so it's my understanding the private ownership, private ownership does include native corporation lands, correct? Yeah.

Yes, that is correct. Yeah, so this— so in those refuges that you're trying to switch from Fish and Game to Native corporations, that releases them of getting permits, but this does not release them from getting permission from the commissioner to develop their land or change— have a change on their lands?

Madam Chair, Representative Colon, I think to get into the level of detail that perhaps legalegal is is the best one to ask that of.

Again, the jurisdictions for the refuges that we're proposing in the bill only include state-owned lands. I think it's a pretty fair assumption to say that this would mostly not be applicable. But again, I don't want to speak for legalese. That might be a question for attorneys. Yeah, I guess— Well, we're going to pass a bill.

We should understand what it's saying. But it says before the use, lease, or other disposal of land under private ownership shall notify the commissioner. So I'm just saying, you know, whether it's Native Corporation land within a refuge or state-owned land within a refuge, there is— you're not removing that contingency. You still They still have to go through the commissioner. I, I don't have anything else to say.

Okay, thank you, Representative Colon. I am going to maintain my objection. Will the secretary please call the roll? Representative Elam?

Pass. Representative Hall? No. Representative Mears? No.

Representative Sadler? Yes. Representative Prox? Yes.

Representative Fields? No.

Representative Colombe? Yes. Representative Elam?

Yes.

Chair Dibert? No.

Co-chair Freer? No.

4 Yeas, 5 nays. With the vote of 4 yeas and 5 nays, Amendment Number 11 is not adopted. Uh, okay, uh, next up in amendments, I have Amendment Number 12, H.15, by Representative Klonk. Um, I move Amendment 12. I object for the purposes of discussion.

So Amendment 12 is on page 20, line 29, and, um, I spoke with the sponsor about this. So my amendment, um, right now the bill is taking out and excluding privately owned land, and my amendment is putting that back in. I understand at the beginning of the sentence it says state-owned land, that the land acquired, the land in the section, there is a directed to state-owned land. But I would like the clarification. I don't want it to be vague in any way.

I would prefer that that just stay in the statute as it is, just to be sure that it does exclude privately owned land in the Mendenthal Wetlands Wildlife. Representative Josephson. Well, to expedite this, um, We don't think that this, this language impacts anything because it's redundant, um, and we'll leave it to the committee. I mean, the, the, the Menonholtwood Refuge is state-owned land, and so the language is about state-owned land and by definition not privately owned land. Um, if it said excluding privately owned land, if anything, that might create a little curiosity in the reader, um, because they might think, well, you said that.

But, um, that's— I guess I'm sort of indifferent and would leave it up to the committee. Representative Sather. Thank you. I'm going to ask a question, Mr. Meehan. Um, if you could, Mr. Meehan, please describe for me, uh, how much land of what land were you describing in the page 20, lines 27 to, uh, Boy, I'll just say as far as 31, the Mendon Hall Wetlands State Game Refuge is currently identified.

How much land is that? How much privately owned land is in there?

I'd go to the maps, but I don't know if I could find it. Through the Chair, Representative Sadler, there is quite a bit of privately owned land in the Mendenhall Wetlands State Game Refuge, primarily due to accretion and subsidence. And when that happens, the original refuge boundary was defined as mean high tide. And as that land actually rebounds— I correct myself— as this land is rebounding from glacier melt, the private uplands property owner can claim those wetlands that used to be below mean high tide and an hour above it. And landowners are doing that and are in private ownership.

There's also the Southeast Alaska Land Trust that is working with a lot of those landowners to purchase— to subdivide and purchase those lands from the rebound. Some of which have been donated back to the state. And that's the subject of the land addition for that provision in the bill. I don't have a number of parcels or acreage for you, but I can say just based on the maps It's quite a few.

Okay. With that, I remove my objection. Actually, can I ask a follow-up question? Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Mann.

You said that— I think— I'm not sure which land trust it is. You said is buying that accreted land and is it giving it to the state or selling it to the state? I just wanted to probe that. It was kind of an interesting dynamic or interesting transaction. Through the Chair, Representative Sadler.

At least one parcel, the one that's subject to this bill, has been transferred from the land trust to the state. They currently do hold a number of parcels that they've purchased. I can't say what their ultimate goal is for those, but I know they've been in discussions over the years to transfer those to state ownership. I mean, it's transfer implies sale or gift.

Uh, through the chair, Representative Sadler, I can't comment on that. I'm not sure. Okay, okay, my objection was removed. Uh, amendment— wait, hold on a second. Amendment 12.

Yeah, has passed.

Next we are on Amendment 13, H.28 by Representative Kolumb. I move Amendment 13. Object for the purposes of discussion. So Amendment 13 is on page 1 at the beginning of the bill. It's a legislative intent.

I know that there was a lot of discussions around another bill that had legislative intent and it was said many times that this was not best practice. Legal doesn't like it. I believe we kept that in the other bill. But besides that, my pause for concern in the legislative intent is the uniformly managed part. So it's the intent of the legislature that the state's existing game refuges, sanctuaries, Fish and Game critical habitat areas be uniformly managed as wildlife refuges and sanctuaries.

I'm not really sure what that implies. I don't think that all areas should be managed uniformly, and so I think it's an unnecessary section of the bill, and I don't really think the wording of the intent is very clear either. So the amendment removes the legislative intent. Thank you, Representative Kollom. Representative Josephson.

We, we oppose this amendment. I think Mr. Meehan is best positioned to describe. Mr. Meehan. Yeah, Madam Co-Chair, this might be a question for legalegal, but in my reading and interpretation of that is that the refuges and critical habitat areas managed as wildlife refuges and the sanctuaries managed as sanctuaries, not that refuges are managed as sanctuaries.

I can see there is a little confusion in that statement, but it might be a legal interpretation on what exactly that means. I'd also like to point out that if that— if this amendment was adopted, it could add confusion to the rest of the bill and, and re— naming the critical habitat areas and game refuges as wildlife refuges. So I think in context with the intent and the rest of the bill, it's clear what is being proposed. Thank you, Mr. Meehan. We unfortunately do not have Ledge Legal on the line for questions, but Representative Sadler.

Thank you. Yeah, with a bill of this length and scope and breadth, I'm a little concerned about having broadly applying intent language. I got to say, it's not my— it's not this legislator's intent that the state's existing refuges, sanctuaries, and critical habitat areas be uniformly managed as refuges and sanctuaries. So, you know, I think we've heard clearly that intent language does not really bind anyone to do anything. It's kind of spin.

I don't mean spin in a bad sense. It's like spin on a pool board or body English. So I do not feel comfortable having this intent language making such a broad intent. So I like the amendment. Madam Chair, if I might, this language— and I know you all know that— would not appear if the bill passed in the blue books.

It would appear in the beige books, which are the acts or session laws of Alaska, they're called. So in a legal dispute, someone could say, oh, let's look at the entire act as passed And, and that's where it would have relevancy. It would help explain why this reform was made. Thank you, Representative Josephson. Is there further discussion?

Seeing none, do you have wrap-up, Representative Kolumb? Um, no, I think I said what I need to. Okay, I maintain my objection. Uh, will the clerk please call the roll?

Representative Prox? Yes.

Representative Hall? No. Representative Colombe? Yes.

Representative Mears? No. Representative Elam?

Yes. Representative Fields? No.

Representative Sadler? Yes. Co-chair Dibert? No. Co-chair Freer?

No. 4 Yeas, 5 nays. With a vote of 4 yeas and 5 nays, Amendment 13 is not adopted.

And next I've got Amendment Number 14, H.27, by Representative Kolumb. Yes, Chair, I'm going to withdraw Amendment 14, 15, and 16.

Okay, that leaves us at Amendment Number 17, H.22, by Representative Gloom. Did you say 22? H.22? Okay, I move, uh, number 7— Amendment 17. I object for the purposes of discussion.

All right, so Amendment 17 is, um, on page 4. I would say, um, Section 6 is the most important part of the bill. It's defining what a wildlife refuge is. And so in the bill, the definition of game refuge and critical habitat has been combined. And so through the hearings and what's been said, we know that critical habitat areas have a stricter use on usage— or stricter— sorry, it's late— stricter guidelines on use in their areas than a game refuge does.

And so When you combine the two, if it's a game refuge now, it's getting stricter on use. If it's a critical habitat now, technically it could be getting a little looser on use. Combining the two and making it a wildlife refuge, I didn't feel like just combining the two gave a good balance between conserving the habitat and keeping access to these lands. And so what my amendment does is it takes the words protect and preserve and use conserve instead, and it deletes the last part of the sentence to restrict all other uses not compatible with that— with the purposes.

I know there's a disagreement here. I'm looking for more of a balance. Making sure access is there. They're still conserving natural habitat, fish and wildlife populations, but it kind of mitigates, kind of, to me, brings it down a little bit more into the middle where we're not seeing a lot of restriction on access to some of these lands. If you're taking game refuge and you're putting the definition of a critical habitat, that does have effect on use and access.

And so this is my attempt to try to kind of mitigate the two. Thank you, Representative Klobuchar. Representative Josephson. We oppose the amendment. I'd ask Mr. Meehan to speak to it, but I will say that the main concern, the more I've thought about this and talked to Mr. Meehan about it and reviewed this, is to put use on equal footing with habitat, for example.

And that's one of the, I think, impacts of this amendment— could impact the habitat such that the use wouldn't have much value anymore. So the concern is that we want people to access fish and wildlife and game and to hunt and fish, but you got to protect the habitat to do it. And so I think in melding these together, the goal wasn't to add or subtract, it was to refine. And so those are, those are the main concerns.

I'd ask Mr. Meehan to otherwise elaborate on that. Mr. Meehan? Yeah, Madam Co-Chair. I would agree the two provisions of this amendment changing protect and preserve to conserve does lower the intent of protecting, maintaining habitats, as opposed to, uh, conserve, which is a slightly lower bar for protecting habitats. And that's the main purpose of setting these areas aside in the first place, is to maintain their habitats.

Uh, the second part of this amendment would add the use of fish and wildlife as one of the primary purposes of the area, and it's basically putting maintaining, protecting, preserving the habitat on equal footing with uses, which uses could damage that habitat. But if they're on equal footing, then in the end, the habitat could potentially be degraded. Thank you, Mr. Meehan. Uh, Representative Sadler. Thank you, and I appreciate that Mr. Meehan acknowledges the importance of the language we have here.

You know, for one thing, we have hundreds of millions of acres of federal wilderness in the state of Alaska where the animals, birds, fish, wildlife can prosper, can have their lives and so forth. Interestingly enough, I had a meeting, about an hour-long meeting with Co-Chair Diebert's intern about legislative policy and how it affects conservation and protection and so forth. One of the things I told Nisema is that there's a difference between conservation conservation and preservation. I think that preservation, the preservationist wants to keep things as they are, and a conservationist wants to use them while protecting them as well. And I think that given the balance between wilderness protection at the federal level and the state's mandate to develop and use our resources for the benefit of the people, the word conserve is much more appropriate when it comes to the underlying purpose of these refuges and sanctuaries.

So I really think that this is a very important philosophical and effective amendment that's going to respect the desire and need of Alaskans to use their resources while protecting them, while conserving them, without locking them up unnecessarily. So I really think this is a good amendment, and I really hope the amendment passes. Madam Chair, if I could, just to clarify, um, so Representative Sadler, with respect, said that, that, um, to use protect and preserve would lock up, could lock up resources. My understanding, and Mr. Meehan can clarify, is that in refuges right now those words are used. So we're not, we're not trying to move that goalpost.

It is in existence now.

Representative Sadler. But we are conflating in this bill refuges and game sanctuaries. We're collapsing into stuff. So that very well may be true. Absolutely.

But the intent of the collapse and the imposition of protect and preserve over the combined definitions has an effect which I do not agree with. Thank you, Representative Sather. Representative, just respond to that too. Yeah, it's already in statute. That is the definition of the refuge.

But you've added the critical habitat restricting all other uses not compatible with the purpose. That's important. So that's why conserving doesn't mean you get to just kill the habitat. It means you allow uses to the point where you can still conserve the habitat. Protect and preserve means keep— basically what Sadler was saying, keeping everything as is.

It's, it's a, uh, it doesn't feel like a big difference, but it's actually a big difference. Yeah. Representative Sadler. Yeah, Madam Chair, at the risk of, uh, at some risk I've seen a lot of amendments come up and go down, and we may see more of those, but I really sincerely think this is a very important distinction. I think this is a critical amendment that really needs to pass.

I really do. Thank you, Representative Sadler. Do you have any wrap-up comments, Representative Klobuchar? Um, just one. I don't think I described part of it.

I think, um, Mr. Meehan mentioned it. Um, one of the other things I add is, and their uses. So My amendment would say are to conserve natural habitats, fish and wildlife populations, and areas crucial to the perpetuation of fish and wildlife and their uses. And then it drops the, the restricting all other uses not compatible. So I just wanted to clarify that.

Thank you, Representative Kolumb. I maintain my objection. Will the clerk please call the roll on Amendment Number 17?

Representative Sadler? Yes.

Representative Prox? Yes. Representative Hall? No. Representative Fields?

No. Representative Colombe? Yes.

Representative Mears? No. Representative Elam.

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

4 Yeas, 5 nays. With a vote of 4 yeas and 5 nays, Amendment Number 17 will not be adopted. Next we have Amendment Number 18, H.23, by Representative Colon. I move amendment 18. I object for the purposes of discussion.

Amendment 18 is on the same page, actually the line below, on line 6. So in the CS, um, there was a small change, seemed like a small change, from, um, shall to may. And so this reverses that change. So this is in the sentence and context, it says the department may allow hunting hunting, trapping, fishing, subsistence, and it lists the photography recreation. In my view, when you move shall to may, that gives a lot of discretion for the department, and I want the department to— it should be shall allow to make sure we have that balance of hunting, trapping, fishing, subsistence activities, photography, I thought the original language was better, and so this is to revert it back to shall for me.

Thank you, Representative Klobuchar. Representative Josephson. We maintain our objection, and I would note that as I understand it, this amendment is— is— I hate to use the word, but it's more extreme than the previous amendment because it would put a protection of habitat and fish and wildlife populations secondary to public use. So public use would always come first, um, and protection of habitat second. And that's a real reform not intended by the bill at all.

It's germane to the bill, it's just not where the bill is headed, and we oppose it. Thank you, Representative Josephson. Representative Sadler. Thank you. Um, the bill as written conditions permission to use hunting, trapping, fishing, subsistence activities, photography, et cetera, et cetera, to uses that are, let's say, subject to A, uses not compatible with these purposes.

So if you interpret any of those activities, fishing, hunting, subsistence, as not compatible with preservation of natural habitats, that is a loophole. It just says they can shut it all down if they want to. I'm also concerned about the change in strength of this language to go from shall, the department shall allow these things to, ah, they may as long as it doesn't— I don't like that. It's yet another way when this bill is making substantive policy changes. Thank you, Representative Sadler.

Can I respond to Representative Kollon? Yes, so as far as saying it's restrict— well, it was in the original bill, but we did not change the purpose statement. It's already restrictive. We're already trying to restrict usage. So this isn't— this isn't going to change.

All this is, is trying to balance the first section of it. If you don't want— if you want to create wildlife refuges where people can't hunt and fish and you're going to make it really hard for them to do that, I guess you can do that. But this is like— there's no change above. It's already restricting everything. So changing it from "may" to "shall" isn't— it's like one last-ditch effort to try to protect our access to the environment.

Thank you, Representative Klobuchar. Mr. Meehan? Yeah, Madam Co-Chair. Just to add a couple more points. First of all, this Section B is new.

It's not currently in statute. And we wanted to add something into the purpose statement that clearly stated that these activities, the intent is to maintain them in these areas. And again, this is new. This is not in existing statute. We did originally put "shall" in there, but then some of the feedback we had gotten was that we don't want to be telling the department necessarily that they have to allow all these things.

You know, hunting, trapping, fishing is at the discretion of the boards. And so the department can't necessarily allow those activities if the board has prohibited them or otherwise regulated them. And in some areas, some of these activities may not be appropriate, and it— by using the word "may," it gives the department the discretion to regulate it where they deem appropriate. Thank you, Mr. Meehan. Representative Sadler.

In amendment after amendment, we are We are eliminating the department's ability to practice discretion by imposing a legislative mandate. So now suddenly we want to give the department discretion? My head's spinning just a little bit. Thank you, Representative Sather. Representative— er, sorry, Mr. Meehan.

Yes, Madam Co-Chair. One other point I meant to make, and Representative Josephson hit upon this, is this amendment would make public use a higher priority in these areas than protecting of habitat. My analogy would be as if my public use was to go hunt on a hillside and the best way to get there was to run up a salmon stream with my ATV through spawning beds. That use would have priority over protecting those spawning beds. So we set aside these areas for the protection of the habitat.

Public use should maintain that habitat, not take priority. Thank you, Mr. Egan. Further discussion? Madam Chair. Representative Elam.

Thank you. I appreciate the dialogue and the conversation. One of the things that's really important to many of the people here on the Kenai Peninsula is access. And oftentimes we have very limited abilities to be able to get in and out of places. And with Alaska being a state the size that it is, we have concerns with You know, hiking trails being designated as no motor vehicle access, or ATVs, or snow machines, and everything seems to kind of conflict with everything.

And so anything that allows greater access to our area in a way that would be responsible, and I think that the department would be able to help maintain some of that responsibility of access, I'm— I do have to support. Support those, those areas because access is so incredibly difficult here in Alaska. And so, uh, for those purposes, I'll be supporting this amendment. Thank you, Representative Elam. Representative Colom, do you have wrap-up?

Yeah, um, so I will, um, highly disagree that this puts a higher priority to uses. In the sentence above it, they— it says to restrict all other uses not compatible with this purpose. There's no— there's nothing in this section prioritizing use. We are prioritizing protecting and preserving habitats. Even if you move that, even if you put from A to Shell, it's still an uphill climb to keep access.

Thank you. With that, I maintain my objection. Will the clerk please call the roll on Amendment Number 18?

Representative Fields? No.

Representative Sadler? Yes.

Representative Hall? No.

Representative Elam?

Yes. Representative Prox? Yes.

Representative Colon? Yes.

Representative Mears. No.

Co-chair Dibert. No. Co-chair Freer. No. 4 Yeas, 5 nays.

With a vote of 4 yeas and 5 nays, Amendment Number 18 is not adopted. Next we have Amendment Number 19, H.12 By Representative Klobuchar. I move Amendment 19. I object for the purposes of discussion. So Amendment 19 is really long, but it's a pretty simple amendment.

So throughout the bill, it deletes— throughout the bill, it has a sentence says, and land and water acquired in the future by the state within the described area. And so what this is saying is if the state acquires some some land within a refuge, they don't have to come back to us and try to get it in the refuge. It automatically— they can put it in the refuge. I know that there is current statute with this language. I didn't change what was already there.

What I'm trying to stop is the creep. I think it's important that we know what's in the refuge and the land because of all the discussions we're having today about access and status of these lands. I don't want to bind future biologists and future legislators and to just incorporate land as it comes to us. I think it's important that it comes to the legislature, we look at it, and if we want to approve the land into the refuge, great. But I have a real problem, say, you know, putting into the future everything and anything we could acquire, it would just automatically go into the refuge.

It basically grows refuges without any legislative oversight. Thank you, Representative Kollum. Representative Josephson. We object to this, and as I understand it, and this refers to the maps that we had prepared for you, the, the boundaries or borders of these Conservation units are not expanding. Instead, there are gaps in them where there are new additions that have been folded in and are currently being managed by Fish and Game as if they were officially part of that refuge or sanctuary, but they're not going beyond the borders of those.

They're just additions to those borders. Um, and so what, what we're asking for in the bill is to not have to come back, um, every year for this, as if this was a royalty-in-kind bill, for example, where you've got one of these things every year. Um, there are— I— Mr. Meehan would know how many additions there there are, and we just think that they're being folded in according to the bill, like Creamer's Field, for example, where the university turned over lands to, I assume, DNR for DfNG to manage. And so that's what this is, is one could be comforted that the borders themselves are not expanded. It's land within the borders.

And if Mr. Meehan wants to clarify anything on that. Mr. Meehan? Madam Co-Chair, I don't really have anything more to add to it, but it is just adding lands within the external boundary, not lands external to the boundary. Thank you, Mr. Meehan. Representative Sadler?

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, if— assume a checkerboard pattern of land. Whether you're expanding the outside boundary of that checkerboard land is not really as important as whether you're expanding the actual total number of acreage. And we as the legislature are collectively the stewards of our common land and water resources. It is our responsibility to decide whether increasing total acreage of a refuge or a sanctuary is good public policy or not.

The parallel was drawn about the royalty in kind, royalty in value. That is not automatically done under any assumption that one policy direction or not is the best for the state. It comes back to us to make that decision. Sometimes it's pro forma, sometimes it picks up riders, but that's our decision. So this bill setting up an automatic expansion of the total number of acreage in refuges is abrogation of our legislative stewardship responsibility.

And on that grounds, I oppose it. So therefore, I support the amendment. Thank you, Representative Sather. Representative Mears. Thank you.

Through the chair to Representative Josephson, I just want to clarify. So we're talking about here boundaries are set. This would just be acquisition of any inholdings that are currently private acquired by the state. Anything that is outside of those existing boundaries, either acquired land, rebounded land, accreted land, anything like that, including a number of the cleanups that are looking at expansions in this today still do come back to the legislature. So there is still quite a number of circumstances that are in front of us today that we will continue to need to address as a legislature.

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

Thank you. Representative Kollum, do you have any wrap-up? Um, yeah, so I'm not sure I agree with the— it's just all the boundaries are just set and then we're just filling in a checkerboard. But let's say that's true. I still say, as I guess I'll just repeat what Sadler says, is that I think we have a responsibility to look at that.

This does affect how the land is managed and used, and I think it's important for us to see that and see how it affects the local— I think the local people should have a say in it. I don't think it should just automatically get enfolded into the refuge. Thank you, Representative Kollom. With that, I maintain my objection. Will the clerk please call the roll on Amendment Number 19?

Representative Mears? No.

Representative Sadler? Yes.

Representative Elam.

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

Representative Colombe. Yes.

Representative Hall. No.

Co-chair Dibert. Co-chair Freer. No. 4 Yeas, 5 nays. With a vote of 4 yeas and 5 nays, Amendment Number 19 is not adopted.

Amendment Number 20, H.18, by Representative Kwon. I move Amendment 20. Object for the purposes of discussion. So this removes Section 51 of the bill. It's on page 39, bottom of page 39.

So this is a new section. It's not a new subsection. This is requiring— this is a lot of red tape that is not currently in statute that I'm aware of.

It's so when a board determines that the following information is required for particular use of land and water within a refuge, the board shall instruct the commissioner in a letter of acknowledgment to require the person or governmental agency to submit full plans for the use, full plans and specifications for construction work, complete plans and specifications for proper protection of fish and game, the approximate date, and shall require the person or agency to obtain written approval of the commissioner as to the sufficiency of the plans. I, you know, I guess if you have land within the refuge, this would require you going to the state and getting approval for that. If the department, let's say, you know, Fish and Game wants to build a cabin or I think there's cabins in McNeil. They want to build a park bench, whatever they want to do in there, they're going to have to go through this scenario every time now. I don't think that's necessary, and I don't— I, I think it's a bunch of— it's a lot of red tape.

It's also pulling the board maybe into areas that maybe they wouldn't be involved in before. Um, so the amendment just removes that section, 51. From the bill. Thank you, Representative Kahlom. Representative Josephson?

We oppose this, and I think it's important, um, that the committee understand that, that currently in law there's AS 16-20.530 on submission of plans and specifications in the critical habitat area statute. Well, since we're getting— we're changing the name of critical habitat areas and we're sort of ending them, not, not their values, not their principles, but ending the designation called a critical habitat area. We are effectively cutting and pasting this into the bill, so there would still be submission of plans and specifications. Now, that's what Representative Colom objects to, um, and, and I understand that she wants to make the reform here, but we're actually not making the reform. We're keeping the status quo.

The concern I would have is if you don't authorize the Department of Fish and Game to issue permits for items listed there in 16-25-30, then they may not be able to issue any permits at all. So you could actually tie their hands and they'd say, well, you can't do anything, Mr. Landowner, because, you know, we just don't have any permit power. And so I don't think you really want that repealed. Can I respond to that? Representative Kloom.

This— so this illustrates the problem with combining game refuge with critical wetlands. So now if you— now they're all, whether a game refuge or critical habitat, now you're going to have to go through the scenario that a game refuge wouldn't have to go before. Now they do. That's, that's the problem. And he's not wrong, this is in there, but it was only with this designated area.

Now we got all these areas that are going to have to do that, which again is why I have a problem with the definition of a wildlife refuge. I think Mr. Meehan. Yeah, Madam Co-Chair, to clarify further, so again, as Representative Jostensen said, this is simply renumbering an existing statute because of the combining of the refuges and critical habitat areas. And there's an almost identical statute already on the books that deals with refuges. So it's all in there.

This is really nothing new, uh, either for refuges or critical habitat areas. And it is what gives the department the permitting authority for special area permits regardless of whether— what the activity, uh, in the refuge might be. It gives them the authority to regulate that. And actually, I should correct something. It gives the boards the direction, but the boards have delegated that authority back to the commissioner.

And so that's why the boards don't get involved with permitting land use activities in refuges or critical habitat areas. Thank you, Mr. Meehan. Representative Sadler. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have not spent my career in this area, Mr. Meehan has, so I cannot speak with the alacrity and precision that he does.

But my concern is— I'm going to call this kind of person an inholder, a person who has private property inside a wildlife refuge. So my point is that combining two different categories of land into one and then applying the conditions that apply to one to both and implying that that is no change, I don't know what that is, but it doesn't quite rock with me. This is the requirement for a private landholder to receive permission and provide notice to the commissioner is a mother may I in the vernacular here. I understand that inholdings, private inholdings, are a challenge for land managers. It would be easier for the government managers that they would simply go away.

I understand that's difficult, but requiring notice to the commissioner and getting commissioner's approval represents a kind of taking. It just makes enjoyment and use of that private land more difficult. I don't see any provisions for compensation for the taking. And if you think I'm using taking inappropriately, remember the The Marine Mammal Protection Act says getting within X number of feet of a whale is taking of that marine mammal. So this, this represents a taking of the usufruct, the use of that land, and again represents one more area in which this bill is an incremental lean towards government control of land in Alaska, including private property.

And I can't support that, so therefore I support the amendment. Thank you. Representative Sadler. Madam Chair. Representative Elam.

Thank you. I, I think that this amendment, along with a series of other amendments, have kind of highlighted sort of that I think we might need to have some further conversations potentially around private land versus, you know, sort of some of the intent of some of the original statute that's here. Because I think that a lot of this is actually— we have some really large private landholders throughout the state, and I think this might have some impacts on some of those. The bill itself, I support the amendment, and I think the amendment might be highlighting some of that. Just as we're having this conversation, we just have a lot of lands that are privately held, and it does seem kind of interesting that here in Alaska, where very few private individuals like myself or even any of us on the committee, we only own just small pieces of land.

I mean, I don't know everybody's landholdings and stuff, but by comparison to some of these really large areas of private land, um, and so I think some of these laws that are currently in statute, when we start tweaking these laws, it's going to have some impacts in some of those other areas. And I guess I would just say to the bill sponsor, have you, have you looked at what the larger ramifications might be to some of these larger landholders.

Mr. Meehan? Yeah, Madam Chair, to add some more clarity to this, our bill again defines existing refuges and existing critical habitat areas that we're renaming refuges to include state-owned lands only. So the two statutes the one for existing refuges and this particular one, which is moving over from critical habitat areas, are only applicable on state-owned lands within the boundaries of what we're now calling refuges. And we purposely did that to exclude the authority— excuse me— of Fish and Game land management authority over private lands in both existing refuges and critical habitat areas that we're now proposing to call refuges. And that's especially important with 4 of the Bristol Bay area critical habitat areas that have large tracts of Native corporation lands and Native allotment lands in them.

We didn't think it was appropriate, and I know that Fish and Game over history has not wanted to permit activities, particularly on those Native corporation lands. So that avoids this very issue that we're talking about, private lands. Thank you, Mr. Meehan. Follow-up, please. Follow-up, Representative Elam.

So is there anybody available who can tell me what kind of impacts the proposed changes would be versus what the impacts might be to those private lands with the proposal from the the amendment here.

Thank you, Representative Elam. Unfortunately, with this late hour, we lost the Department of Fish and Game, Department of Law, and Ledge Legal. So you've got, you've got Mr. Meehan.

Thank you, Mr. Meehan. And if I don't mean, I don't mean to put you on the spot here, you know, I can do some more more digging into it afterwards. I suspect I know how these, uh, this amendment's gonna go, but, um, if you, if you would take a shake at it, maybe just— well, you've already told— you've explained me. Thank you, I appreciate the insight. Thank you, Representative Elam.

Did you have— Representative Prox? Yeah, thank you. This one I have to ask, um, at net, I just I don't know the status of these lands well enough, but in, uh, the Minto Flats is a game refuge, I believe. And then I guess I wouldn't be surprised if Doyon or Minto Village Corporation or somebody had inholdings within that. And then also in the Yukon Flats area Same thing, there's a lot of Native Corporation land up there.

Will this, what you're proposing initially, affect those lands? Because this seems to predict some situations like that. Through the co-chair, Representative Prox, first of all, Yukon Flats is a federal refuge, so this would not influence that refuge and those lands whatsoever. For Minto Flats, which, yes, is a current state game refuge, I can't say from recollection if there are large tracts of Native Corporation surface. They may very well have lots of subsurface rights there.

And I do believe there are a number of Native allotments in Minto Flats. And currently with refuges, Refuges only include state-owned land, so even those Native allotments currently are not managed or have any oversight by Fish and Game because they're privately held.

Does that answer your question, Representative Brooks? I think as good as we can. Thank you. I might need to make a phone call. Representative Colon, do you have any wrap-up?

Yeah, just I just have one wrap-up. So I'm aware that it only affects state-owned land, but we've heard several times where a conservation group can buy some land and donate it to the state. The university has some land, gives it to the state. You can get around the privately owned land if you have enough money. You can buy it, and then this says in the future, you don't even have to tell the legislature.

They can just start buying up land around the refuges. And this says it can be incorporated, um, any little piece that maybe a private owner has, you just get somebody to go buy that and give it to the state. So yes, it does right now says only state-owned land, but that can easily been— be— get around, especially with the future statements in here. So that's all I had to say. Thank you, Representative Representative Colombe, I maintain my objection.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Representative Hall, no.

Representative Mears, no. Representative Fields, no. Representative Sadler, yes. Representative Prox, yes. Representative Kahlom.

Yes. Representative Elam.

Yes.

Co-chair Dibert. No. Co-chair Freer. No. 4 Yeas, 5 nays.

With a vote of 4 yeas and 5 nays, Amendment Number 20 is not adopted. Next we have Amendment Number 21, H.14, by Representative Ms. Colon. I move amendment number 21. Object for the purposes of discussion. So amendment 21, actually putting forward for some of my colleagues around Palmer in the valley, it removes the Palmer Hay Flats totally from the bill.

Their issue is that if you wanted to incorporate those few sections in the Palmer Hay Flats to complete your checkerboard, They would be okay if it was still a game refuge. They don't want to do that under the definition of a wildlife refuge. It is a very— it's a big waterfowl and moose hunting area. And so I told them I would put this forward to remove the Palmer Hay Flats change and it would remain as it is now.

Representative Josephson.

Yes, we, we oppose the amendment. You know, I think that the net benefit to users, both duck hunters, other hunters, would be greater by including these segments. In other words, you would have fewer competitive, competitive uses and development that would impact the those recreational interests. And I know that the Friends of Palmer Hay Flats is supportive of this. There's a letter that you may, I hope, have in your stack.

And these are— these have come into possession of DNR and should be included.

Thank you, Representative Josephson. Is there any further discussion? Can I do a wrap-up? Wrap-up, Representative? Well, since we haven't changed the definition of a wildlife refuge, it would not help increase the usage.

It will restrict the usage. We've already defined that. It puts the habitat protect and preserve clause on top of that, so it's clearly the use is very secondary. This is used by a lot of hunters. And to the Palmer Hay Flats and the people that called in, the few people that did call in, I would say this is a pretty complicated bill.

I've talked to the Waterfowl Association. They did not realize or understand the impact of the bill. They read it, but there's, there's a lot. It's almost an 80-page bill. And so it's sometimes they don't understand the impact to the usage of the areas.

And so if the hay flats stay in there, it will go under the definition of a wildlife refuge, which will restrict some access and usage.

Thank you, Representative Kellom. I'm going to maintain my objection on Amendment Number 21. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Representative Veland.

Yes. Representative Hall? No. Representative Fields? No.

Representative Prox? Yes. Representative Sadler? Yes. Representative Mears?

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

Co-chair Freer. No. 4 Yeas, 5 nays. The vote of 4 yeas and 5 nays, Amendment Number 21 is not adopted.

I've got Amendment Number 22, H.16, by Representative Kulum. I move Amendment Number 22. Object for the purposes of discussion. So 22, uh, similar to the prior amendment, I had a colleague that was concerned about Kramer's Field going under this definition of wildlife refuge. If they wanted to, to put it into a game refuge, they were okay.

They do not like the new definition of the wildlife refuge. They have concerns around access and use. And so this amendment just takes the proposal on Kramer's Field out of the bill and keeps it the way it is.

Thank you, Representative Kollum. Representative Josephson. Uh, we oppose the amendment. Um, you know, uh, under Governor Parnell, one of the first bills, uh, involving Premier's Field that I saw— there's been another one since because due to an error in the bill, a technical error, the governor, then Governor Parnell, had to veto it.

But Governor Parnell was— it was his— well, it was actually Representative Wohl's bill, but there was bipartisan support for expanding Creamer's Field. And looking at this map now, it's— okay, yeah, it's, um, you know, this is land that that has been given to the state or sold to the state for purposes of the Fields Migratory Waterfowl Protection. There is other recreational interest there that no doubt would like to see it maintained as a refuge because they enjoy that, and they include snow machiners and dog mushers, I'm told. And so— We oppose the amendment. Thank you, Representative Josephson.

Representative Sadler. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to say this with a smile. I mean, there's a little bit of lightheartedness. So I'm not sure if the Masons' prohibition from us to us on referring to the governor to seek to influence a vote extends to past governors or not.

So I would ask the attorney in the room to give ruling on that. But that's—. Bang! Representative Josephson. No, no, I'm not going in those waters.

His ruling is no. Mr. Meehan. Yeah, Madam Co-Chair, I just have one more thing to add, is that this parcel was actually purchased using Department of Fish and Game funds, Pittman-Robertson funds, and then community donations. Thank you, Mr. Meehan. Seeing no further discussion, do you have any— oh, sorry, Representative Prox.

Well, this is kind of a specific case that I'm familiar with, and I guess it was just my opinion that the refuge and laws and confusion surrounding that was used inappropriately to prohibit somebody that was making an effort to develop that in a way for commercial purpose. And that was the objection, but something that would have benefited the community. And it's kind of a case in point where you got to be careful about locking down state land or even owning state land. I guess. So anyway, support the amendment.

Thank you, Representative Prox. Do you have any wrap-up comments, Representative Klobuchar? Just to say that the comments about everybody supporting it is so great. The problem is you're changing the definition. It's going to be a wildlife refuge.

It's going to have different implications than what it is now. Thank you, Representative Kulum. With that, I do maintain my objection. So the clerk, please call the roll.

Representative Hall? No.

Representative Prox? Yes. Representative Sadler? Yes. Representative Mears?

No. Representative Fields? No. Representative Colon. Yes.

Representative Elam.

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

4 Yeas, 5 nays.

With a vote of 4 yeas and 5 nays, Amendment Number 22 is not adopted. Chair What I'm doing now is, uh, preview these.

Back on record in House Resources. Representative Colon, we have Amendment Number 24 in front of us. I will not be offering Amendment 24. Okay, and we just had, uh, copied and distributed Amendment number— what we're calling Amendment number 25, H.32, by Representative Colon. I move Amendment 25.

And I object for the purposes of discussion. So I'll read it just because it was, um, it's on basis right now, but basically on page 4 it adds, um, the sentence: nothing in this section prohibits the operation of a shooting range, shooting park or similar facility operated or sanctioned by the department. The amendment, the wording actually, I appreciate Mr. Meehan putting this forward. I had tried to figure out a way to protect the shooting park and it was too narrow, and so I'm using his language and hoping to just put an extra layer of protection over shooting park, the shooting park. And they, uh, refuge.

Thank you, Representative Klobuchar. Representative Josephson? No objection. Okay, with that, I remove my objection, and Amendment Number 25, H.32, is adopted. And that brings us— that, that we are done with amendments.

Are there— is there further Discussion on House Bill 321 as amended. No. What countries heard from? Let me go through my notes too. Uh, yeah, let me go through.

Hearing no further discussion, I would like to, uh, entertain a motion to move this bill from committee. Representative Kuchar-Dibert, do you have a motion?

I move House Bill 321, Work Order 34-LS1257/n, as amended with technical and conforming changes from committee, with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Is there any objection? Objection. Would you like to speak? Speak to your objection?

I think I've spoke to the objection for about 4 hours. I'm not going to tell anybody about that. I have serious concerns with the bill. I appreciate the work that's been put into it, but it has a lot of serious policy implications, so I will not be removing my objection. Thank you, Representative Kollum.

Representative Prox? Yes, I— not that we haven't thoroughly considered, but, uh, same Same objection. There, there is going to be many more objections. This is going to burn up a considerable amount of time, and I think, um, that's going to make it difficult to get through the other body and more than likely make it very difficult to get through the third floor. Um, and I hate to put more committees and the whole House of Representatives through this agony.

So we think—. I think we should just hang on to it. Thank you, Representative Prox. Representative Sadler. Thank you.

I'm going to echo the concerns voiced by my two preceding speakers. You know, I think there is a couple good elements of legislation buried inside this 79 pages and 117 sections of law. Um, there's a movie that I watched a lot of years ago called A Bridge Too Far, and I think There's just— this is just too much. And as I say, there might be some good parts in here, but I need to resist this and will vote against passage of this and anticipate voting against it should it come before us in any form in the next couple or 4 weeks. Yeah, I'm also concerned about the amount of time and effort and resources we've burned doing this when the prospects for final passage are possibly not that great.

So yeah, I look forward to voting no on this one. Thank you, Representative Sadler. And with Representative Elam being on the phone, he will not be permitted to vote on the actual passage of the— moving the bill out of committee. Um, and Madam Chair, oh, you can talk. Oh, actually, um, We need— no, he's not able to, but we have to restate the motion because we're on a different version.

Apologies. So, co-chair, you can also talk if you want. We're going to restate the motion. Represent— or co-chair Dybert? Yes, I move House Bill 321, Work Order 34-LS125 17/H as amended with technical and conforming changes from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes.

I object. Thank you, uh, Kucher-Dibert. Thank you for your objection. Representative Elam, did you want to speak?

Yes, uh, thank you. I I appreciate being able to talk about it. You know, even though I can't vote there in person, I would be a no vote on this as well. Much like some of the concerns that were expressed earlier, I appreciate the work and the diligence on the mapping and sort of the intent of some of the work here that's needing to be done, which which is why I offered my amendment for trying to preserve the work there specifically in the mapping. But there are a lot of policy nuances that I have concerns with.

I have some concerns that it will limit access to areas that are already hard to access or even nearly impossible to access at this point. And so for those reasons, I would be objecting to this. And so again, I appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak on the bill as amended.

Thank you, Representative Elam. With that, I will ask the clerk to call the roll.

Representative Prox. No. Representative Colombe? No. Representative Hall?

Yes. Representative Mears? Yes. Representative Fields? Yes.

Representative Sadler? No. Co-chair Dibert? Yes. Co-chair Freer?

Yes.

5 Yeas, 3 nays. And with a vote of 5 yeas and 3 nays, House Bill 321 passes from committee as amended and with technical and conforming changes. Please stick around after we adjourn to sign the committee report. And that finally completes the agenda for—. Good, it's a good one.

Representative Sadler, I just want to say thank the chair and the sponsor here for sticking with us and for the respectful way you allowed respectful debate in this bill. It's a big one, a lot of issues, but I really appreciate the good conduct of this committee. Just want to say for the record, thank you, Representative Sadler. I really appreciate that. And I guess I should say the same.

I do appreciate the diligence that went into this bill, and I'm sure it was all in good faith. We will see what happens from here. Thank you, Representative Prox. That completes the agenda for our House Resources Committee meeting today. Our next House Resources Committee meeting will be on Monday, April 20th at 1 PM.

Where we will take up confirmations for Julie Vogler to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, followed by the first hearing on Senate Bill 230 related to the Jonesville Public Use Area from Senator Raucher. The time now is 6:56 PM, and this hearing of the House Resources Committee is now adjourned.