SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

Joint Travel, Recreation, Wildlife & Cultural Resources Interim Committee

Star Valley High School                                                                                      June 9 and 10, 2003

Afton, Wyoming

PRESENT:     Senator Delaine Roberts, Cochairman

                        Representative Mike Baker, Cochairman

                        Senator Tex Boggs

                        Senator Bruce Burns

                        Senator Keith Goodenough

                        Senator John Hanes

                        Representative Dave Edwards

                        Representative Jerry Iekel

                        Representative Layton Morgan

                        Representative Mick Powers

                        Representative Jim Slater

                        Representative Bill Thompson

Legislative Service Office:  Dave Gruver

Others Present:  See Appendix 1(a) and (b).

ABSENT:        Representative Steve Harshman

                        Representative George McMurtrey

AGENDA:        See Appendix 2.

*  *  *  *  *

Cochairman Roberts called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.  Chad Jensen, Afton Mayor, welcomed the Committee.

Endangered species

Bill Wichers, deputy director Game and Fish Department, provided background on the number of endangered or threatened species in Wyoming and provided a listing of all species in Wyoming which have been placed or petitioned to be on the endangered species list.  (Appendix 3)  Of the roughly 1,200 species which have been listed only 26 have been removed.  Mr. Wichers provided information on specific species listed in Wyoming, including the grizzly bear.  That species was proposed for delisting in 1994.  A management plan has been adopted by the Game and Fish Commission and the Commission is hopeful the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will start the delisting process for that species in 2004.  Mr. Wichers addressed current petitions for listing certain species and the status of those petitions.  Public comment was taken regarding endangered species in Wyoming generally.

Mr. Wichers then provided information regarding the gray wolf.  That species is designated as an experimental/nonessential species in Wyoming.  Recovery goals require 30 or more breeding pairs in the states of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana.  As of February 2003, there were 280 wolves in the Greater Yellowstone area in the three states.  The Game and Fish Department has developed a management plan and expects the Commission will finalize the plan in July.  The USFWS must approve Wyoming's plan as well as Montana's and Idaho's before wolves may be proposed for delisting.  The Idaho plan appears to be acceptable, the Montana plan is still being developed.  The Committee requested copies of the Idaho and Montana plans be provided to the Committee.

Regarding approval of the Wyoming plan, Mr. Wichers provided appendices 4 and 5, which are letters from the USFWS and a memorandum from the Wyoming Attorney General regarding recently passed legislation providing a statutory framework for a management plan for gray wolves.  The primary issue raised is whether Wyoming is committed under the legislation to maintain 7 packs outside of the designated areas around Yellowstone regardless of the number of packs within the designated areas.  Cochairman Baker explained the legislative history and the amendment addressing the number of packs the State agreed to maintain.  While acknowledging the Attorney General's position and the stated intent to have wolves delisted, he questioned whether the legislation was ambiguous and flexible enough to comply with the USFWS requirements or whether the legislation clearly stated that the state would commit to 15 total packs with a commitment to 7 packs outside of the designated area only if needed to maintain the overall goal of 15 packs.  Brent Manning, director of the G&F Department, noted that the important issue is getting the wolves delisted and to keep the process on as quick of a time line as possible.

Members of the public raised concerns on both sides of the issue.  Outfitters and the Wyoming Stock Growers Association representative stated the legislation was not ambiguous.  It appeared to them that the USFWS was asking for additional state commitments.  Other members of the public raised concerns that the state's goal was simply to maintain the minimum number of packs necessary to get wolves delisted.

The Committee discussed whether the law needed to be amended.  The Committee asked that legislation be drafted for the next meeting, with two variations, one simply providing for 15 packs statewide, the second providing for 15 overall and 7 outside of the designated areas (discussed as effectively changing the "or" to "and" in the current law).

Discussion turned to the impact of wolves on elk and moose in the Yellowstone area.  Mr. Wichers noted that wolf predation is occurring, but the Department does not know the complete impact of that activity. 

Residency requirements

Steve DeCecco, G&F Department provided a history of residency requirements for hunting and fishing purposes.  (Appendix 6)  He also reviewed other information on residency, including a briefing statement by the Department, other states' residency requirements, a brochure published by the Department and proposed legislation drafted by the Department.  (Appendices 7 through 10).

Jim Sanderson, deputy prosecutor in Lincoln County, explained a case he began prosecuting that raised questions regarding the current residency statutes.  A person from Georgia had a house in Wyoming, moved to Georgia to work and claimed to remain a Wyoming resident.  He returned each summer to Wyoming and left to work outside of the state at other times.  Mr. Sanderson believed the statute is unclear as to whether the move to another state is a loss of residency.  He suggested the statute should be clarified in whichever manner the Legislature decides.  He noted that perhaps a specified length of time outside of the state or a percentage of time spent in the state should be a hard and fast determining factor.

Mr. DeCecco continued to develop the issues that are presented with the residency requirement.  Wyoming is one of two states with a one year residency requirement.  He was not suggesting to change the one year period but noted that it is longer than most states and that it often requires a person to skip a season.  In his view there are a number of difficulties in the statute.  Mr. Gary Davis, the person referred to by Mr. Sanderson, addressed the Committee.  He explained his situation and stated that the important point in his view was to get a resolution to the questions his situation raised.

The Committee discussed various solutions ranging from a hard and fast time in or out of the state to qualify as a resident or nonresident, to a listing of various factors to consider.  Cochairman Roberts asked that Senator Hanes and Boggs and Representatives Edwards, Morgan and Thompson work with the Department to address the concerns raised.  He noted that the one year requirement should not be changed in his view.  Senator Hanes asked the Department to work with the LSO to develop legislation, then the working group would make suggestions for changes.

Preference points

Mr. Wichers addressed preference point provisions.  Last session, the Committee sponsored a bill authorizing the establishment of a preference point system for nonresident deer, elk and antelope.  The Department's position is that with a  preference point system a nonresident could receive an elk license every third year, whereas, the current system depends purely on the luck of the draw.  The predictability is appealable to most nonresidents and to outfitters.  The preference point system being discussed has no effect on resident licenses.

Mr. Wichers provided appendix 11, addressing preference point issues.  The proposed system would generate additional funds to the Department without a license fee increase.  It would cost an estimated one million dollars to develop the system.  This cost would be recouped in a few years with the imposition of an application fee.  While the system probably would be much like the current preference point system for moose and bighorn sheep, whereby a limited number of licenses are not within the preference point pool, thus allowing at least some chance of drawing a license without having the maximum number of points; the Department does not want the statute to state a specified percentage of nonresident licenses in the preference point pool.  The Department would prefer the flexibility to specify by rule percentages of licenses available in the pool.

Mr. Wichers suggested that perhaps there was some confusion as to what the bill last session did.  He noted it might be difficult to believe most nonresidents are in favor of paying additional fees for the certainty of drawing a license.  Mr. Manning noted that while Wyoming is a highly desirable state to draw an elk license, some nonresidents have quit applying since it has no preference point system.

A number of outfitters spoke in favor of the proposal.  They noted the bill would help both outfitters and nonresident hunters, while hurting no group.  A lower application amount for youth was suggested.  Committee members suggested that specifying a certain percentage be outside the pool could address concerns that the preference points make hunting a "rich man's sport".

The Committee discussed the proposal and asked that the bill from last session be drafted as amended before failure for consideration at the next meeting.

Critical habitat

Senator Goodenough stated that it was important to discuss the issue of critical habitat, pulling together information that exists to determine if there is anything to be done.  Mr. Wichers noted that critical winter ranges are on GIS maps.  He does not believe the Department has looked at the ranges for long range purposes, rather they have been used for short term projects.  Mr. Wichers asked whether the Committee was looking for the development of a long term planning document or making information available to the Legislature that currently exists.  Senator Goodenough, asked that existing information be pulled together, specifying the percentages of critical habitat on federal, state and private land.  The point is to see what simple things, such as limiting fencing, might be done to address future problems.  Mr. Wichers suggested that the Department might be able to put the information together by herd unit although he did not know how much time the compilation would take.

Committee members noted the discussion should avoid the use of the terms land use planning and zoning.  The implications of the issue were noted by members of the public commenting on the need for more affordable houses and the effect critical habitat designations can have.  Representative Cooper stated the issue involves numerous problems, including that a broad brush approach had been used to list much of the area designated as critical habitat.  Committee members expressed concern with implications and the costs associated with compiling information.

Some members of the audience suggested the Committee has a chance to be visionary in addressing future development. and that an educational undertaking might be appropriate after the information has been compiled.  Agriculture interests commented that they have seen critical habitat used as a tool to stifle development.

Cochairman Roberts noted that the issue does consist of and will expand into other issues, including subdivisions, zoning and land use planning.  Cochairman Baker noted that what destroys one species habitat does not necessarily hurt other species.  Overall he noted the issue was very broad and if the point was to use the effort to stop development, the effort should not be undertaken.  He thought the discussion should be how to maintain the essential and still accommodate development.  Cochairman Roberts suggested the Department could review the issue.  Mr. Wichers suggested that he gather information that could be useful and not too laborious nor voluminous.  He would return with information at the next meeting.

The Committee questioned how the designations were developed for critical habitat and whether there could be additional opportunity for public input.  Mr. Wichers discussed how the designations were developed and how they will change based upon conditions, even year by year.  He acknowledged that in many areas the mapping is inaccurate and based upon best guess.  Critical winter range is best judged by a critical winter and Wyoming has not had one lately.  Mr. Manning suggested that perhaps some priority habitat designation needs to be developed, noting that the "critical habitat" designation often concerns persons owning the "critical habitat".

Wildlife consumption/reimbursement

Gary Brown, G&F Department, made a presentation which had earlier been made to the Agriculture Committee.  A summary of his presentation is found in appendix 12.  The presentation consisted of documents provided to the Committee earlier, including an explanation of the state's responsibility for damages caused by wildlife, the history of the statutes and rules addressing those damages and the source of funding.  The definition of damage as adopted by Commission rule was explained, including the concept of extraordinary damage to grass.  The latest actions of the Department include the appointment of a task force and the development of a plan to address extraordinary damage to grass.  The department is currently taking the proposal to public comment.  The second issue the task force addressed was landowner licenses.  The final issue reviewed was forage compensation.  The task force recommendations were to determine elk numbers and convert to those to an animal unit month for compensation payments.  The second recommendation was to increase the payments for private land use.  A third alternative recommendation was to keep the status quo.

Mr. Brown noted that the department currently lacks the resources to pay for the recommendations.  To address that issue, the task force recommendation was to have a funding source beyond hunters.  Estimated costs are $750,000 to one million per year.  Other issues to be addressed are administration and logistics since the animals are mobile.  Legislation would be needed for grass damages.  Mr. Brown noted the program is not applicable to state lands.

Cochairman Baker explained the need to appoint a subcommittee to meet with the Agriculture subcommittee.  Senators Goodenough and Burns were appointed along with Representative Baker from the Travel Committee to the joint subcommittee.  Cochairman Roberts stated that at least one of the subcommittee meetings should be a public meeting.

License selling agents

There are over 200 licensed selling agents in Wyoming and the fees have not been increased for 20 years.  Last session a Committee sponsored bill increasing the cost of selling agent commissions passed but was vetoed by the Governor.  The bill would have raised the commissions; a senate amendment would have taken the fees from the cost of the license rather than an added cost of the license.  The Department supported the original bill, but opposed the bill as amended as it would have cost the Department about $900,000.  Since the session, the Department and a task force of selling agents have met and developed legislation.  It would increase the commission for licenses to $1.50 and to $.50 for stamps.  The Department would also receive a $1.00 commission for licenses sold directly by the Department.  A number of selling agents spoke in favor of the proposal.  Mr. Wichers requested permission to work with the LSO on a bill.  Senator Hanes moved that a bill be drafted for the next meeting, raising the commissions as discussed, but excluding youth licenses from the increase.  The motion was seconded and passed.

The committee adjourned for the day at 4:15 p.m.

June 10, 2003

Master plan for state parks

Phil Noble, Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources Director, addressed the Committee.  Pat Green, Director of the Division of State Parks, stated that generally a master plan addresses a specific site, but noted the context of the budget bill footnote requiring this review appeared to contemplate a master plan for the system of parks.  No master plan currently exists.  Mr. Noble, suggested that what is needed is a set of guidelines, rather than a master plan.  A summary of his comments and a set of proposed guidelines are found in appendix 13.  Mr. Noble stated that the department could develop a plan without using an outside consultant.  He suggested the first step might be to conduct a survey of potential users of state parks.  The department conducts surveys only of current users of state parks.  Such a survey would, however, cost money not currently budgeted by the department.

Cochairman Roberts noted there are a number of potential candidates for state parks.  Mr. Green stated that the addition of a state park to the system means additional costs and personnel or the reallocation of current funding from an existing park.  The point of the guidelines is to determine which proposals to add a state park should be accepted.

Committee members noted the difference in state parks, historic sites, archeological site and recreation sites and asked whether the proposal is to address all of those or only the state parks.  Mr. Noble stated that his predecessor envisioned only state parks as far as he knew, but that could be expanded.  Discussion turned to the distinction between state parks and historic sites and the criteria for each.  Mr. Green, noted that in his view the master plan would include whatever is added to the system, historic sites as well as state parks.  The Committee discussed the possible evolution of historic sites to state parks.  Mr. Noble noted that it would depend on the criteria established for state parks.  He also stated that the development of state parks raises the conflict between private campgrounds and state parks.

Discussion continued regarding tourism and chamber of commerce relationships.  Gene Bryan addressed the relationship of the tourism board and the Department and between tourism and the park system generally.

In response to Committee questions, Mr. Noble stated the current budget is stretched very thin and could not take additional parks without additional funding.  There is within the existing system a need for additional funding, even with the fee system authorized a few years ago.  The Committee discussed the ability to estimate the additional cost of new parks being added.  Mr. Noble stated that based upon similarities to existing parks and current expenditures at the site, an estimate could be developed.  The Committee asked for the expenditures on each park, the number of visitors and income.  The income column should include concessionaire income as a separate category.  The listing should include the territorial prison state park.  Mr. Noble agreed to provide that information.

Representative Randall Luthi addressed the issue of how to add state parks to the system.  Currently state parks are added based solely upon a legislative vote.  He noted the proposals during the last session for new parks, suggested criteria the Committee might consider and thanked the Committee for taking on the project. 

Former Representative Louie Tomassi addressed the territorial prison park.  He believed the funding should be on a permanent basis, rather yearly appropriations.  Too much has been expended on the Park in terms of funding and volunteer efforts to allow funding to be a year to year proposition in his view.

Committee members inquired about the fossil resources of the State and whether there was an arm of state government in charge of that issue.  Mr. Noble noted the state archeological office is within the Division and generally handles those issues.  Wendy Bredehoft, with the Department of State Parks, noted that the paleontological issues are different than archeological issues.  The paleontological issues are not truly within the purview of the division.  There are no state laws in place to prevent a person from collecting a fossil from state lands to her knowledge.

Cochairman Baker asked for a map that included all state parks and historic and other sites.  Mr. Noble asked for direction as to whether the Committee would want an internal development of a master plan.  Cochairman Roberts suggested the department proceed with developing a plan internally and Cochairman Baker suggested that the developed plan be distributed to the full Committee through the LSO.

Lake Desmet

Senator Goodenough and Representative Iekel addressed the issue of Lake Desmet being proposed as a potential state park.  Chevron Texaco owns the land around the Lake, a three county coalition owns part of the water rights.  Lake Desmet energy corporation owns a number of acre feet of water.  A recreation district leases a portion of the Lake, which includes the only portion on which a boat may be launched.  Representative Iekel provided appendix 14, a schematic diagram of water rights to the Lake.  Sheridan County's position is that they would like to divest themselves of their ownership.  Johnson County's position is unknown.  Campbell County has discussed their participation in the current coalition. 

Senator Burns noted the counties' interests are in the water rights not the land.  The intent was to develop the Lake for energy development, but that has not been productive and the current owner, Texaco, is considering selling the site.  The county commissioners are concerned that a new landowner might cut off public access to the Lake.  The other issue is a safety concern if access is lost to certain shores of the lake.  Senator Burns suggested that the local delegation should be tasked with developing a more concrete proposal.  Cochairman Roberts asked that the local delegation proceed and perhaps report to the Committee at a later meeting.  Senator Burns noted that the proposal would first be presented to the Department of State Parks. 

Kemmerer-Hams Fork equestrian park

Representative Cooper, Teri Picerno and Kemmerer Mayor Jim Carroll addressed the Hams Fork equestrian state park proposal.  They provided appendices 15 through 18 (and overview of the proposal, a summary of their presentation, a map of the area and preliminary cost estimates).  Representative Cooper emphasized the amount of planning for the project and that the proposal was presented as a House Bill last session.  The failed bill only asked for designation of the site as a state park, it carried no appropriation.

Mayor Carroll presented a background of the proposal and history of the area.  A projected expansion of the city's population did not occur even though they developed infrastructure for the projected population.  Overall the town's attention has shifted to the potential of the tourist economy.  The proposed equestrian center is part of that potential.  A regional view of the tourist potential, including Fossil Butte National Monument was presented.  The equestrian park portion of the proposal was generated by the involvement of the Fossil Butte managers.  Ms. Picerno, Kemmerer Chamber of Commerce, addressed the convergence of a number of historic trails in the area and how the proposal can make use of that convergence.  The park might be developed at the local level, but the signage and other attributes that people associate with a state park is what is most needed in her view.

Cochairman Roberts asked whether the city of Kemmerer would accept financial responsibility to run the proposal.  Mayor Carroll indicated that the city of Kemmerer was willing to partner with the State to develop and run the proposed site as a state park.  Former Representative Tomassi asked for Committee consideration of the proposal.  He noted the general depressed economic conditions in the city of Kemmerer and Lincoln County.  He suggested it be a joint venture with the state, county and city.  Commissioner Wolfley of Lincoln County, expressed the County's support for the project.

In response to Committee questions, it was noted that the proposed park is not on the route from Kemmerer to Fossil Butte, but would be on a proposed additional "back road" to the monument area.  The Committee inquired as to whether the proposal was for state park designation only or for funding also.  Mr. Noble noted that Hawks Springs recreation area would be the only comparable proposal to designate an area as a state park but without state funding.  Representative Cooper stated at this time the proposal is to only designate the area as a state park.  The Committee discussed the ramifications of the property being owned by the BLM.  Mr. Green stated that a number of state parks are on bureau of reclamation land (notably water areas).  Cochairman Roberts noted the lack of state parks in this area of the state.  He also noted the number of current proposals and the need to develop criteria to evaluate the proposals.

Cochairman Baker asked for information as to the county's ability to support a proposed $4 million project.  Commissioner Wolfley could not commit to the exact dollars that the county would be willing to expend.  He noted there is anticipated to be a drop in assessed valuation for the county.

The Committee discussed the State commitment to areas designated as state parks.  Mr. Noble stated that it is not completely defined, but currently, the state provides infrastructure and law enforcement.  He believed this could be a unique situation and might be addressed in a unique fashion.  Committee members noted the title "equestrian park" might limit marketability.  Cochairman Roberts opined that the Committee is not at a point to make any commitments at this time.  It will be reviewing other proposals and the development of the criteria generally.

Afton intermittent springs

Afton Mayor Jensen, Scott Darington city administrator and Tom Johnson, councilman, addressed the Committee.  The town of Afton is not seeking money for the proposed intermittent springs state park; its interest is in getting signage, being designated on state maps and promoting tourism.  Mayor Jensen presented a history of the intermittent springs and the Afton area generally and provided appendix 19.  The Committee toured the intermittent springs over the lunch period.

Archives collection

Wendy Bredehoft, Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources addressed issues regarding the state's collections.  In the last few years a number of situations have occurred which have raised questions as to how collections should be handled by the Department.  She inquired as to what the state policymakers desires regarding historic sites and archeological collections, noting that the uniformity sought (but not achieved) in the past cannot be applied completely across the system, e.g. the same standards can't be placed on Fort Fred Steele as placed on the state museum.  She also raised questions regarding storage of records.  A summary of issues raised was provided in appendix 20.

Cochairman Roberts asked for a prioritization of concerns.  The number one concern was accessibility to the various collections.  Access was defined as better ways for people to know about the collections, including people in the local communities where many of the collections are.  Currently very little access is being provided on-line.  There is a trails program that is available on the web which is currently being used.  A digitized database is being developed.  Committee members suggested sharing collections throughout the State and using internet communications to allow more access to the collections.  The Committee asked for a cost estimate of priority concerns and questioned whether there exist a current inventory of collections, what is stored, what is displayed, what was received as a gift, etc.  That is being done, but has not been done historically according to Ms. Bredehoft.  Cochairman Roberts summarized the Committee's priorities were to make additional items available on the website, to catalogue collections and make that catalogue available on the web.

Discussion turned to current inventory and the manner of accounting for gifts and loans.  Cochairman Baker noted that there should be some uniform parameters developed when a gift or loan is made, i.e., what is expected of the State and what will be provided by the State.  He raised questions of whether items are expected to be returned and whether those expectations are made clear.  Ms. Bredehoft replied that there are standards for accessioning and deaccessioning parts of collections.  She believes there can be agreements with the local communities and the State.  There are policies in place adopted by the museum board.  Committee members questioned how long those policies have been in place, noting there have been a number of problems in recent years with the loss or misplacement of artifacts.  That has, in their view, caused a loss of trust and reluctance to make loans and donations to the State collections.  It was suggested that the policies be made known, be uniform and publicized.  Ms. Bredehoft agreed, but noted that the adoption of the policies alone will not  solve the issue, the Department needs to get in the communities and rebuild the trust.  In response to specific situations, she stated that personal visits had been made to address situations.  Mr. Green noted there also has been a broad overview of the department to address the problems identified.  Part of the solution being implemented is to now handle all historic sites statewide by a person with knowledge of historic sites, rather than by supervisors who are recreation based.  Ms. Bredehoft agreed to provide further information at the next Committee meeting on how the issues raised are being addressed.

Reciprocity for ATVs and snowmobiles

Mr. Green provided appendix 21 addressing the reciprocity issue.  The appendix specifies the history of reciprocity and the payment for snowmobile and ATV trails programs.  Registration fees are used for upkeep of snowmobile and ATV trails, if reciprocity were reinstituted for snowmobiles and ATVs, then the fees for grooming trails would need to come from general fund or other sources.

Cochairman Roberts stated that reciprocity would help the state more than other states since more tourists come to Wyoming than vice versa.  Other Committee members felt the $15 registration fee for a year was inexpensive in the overall cost of snowmobiling activities.  Committee members questioned the availability of permits.  Mr. Green noted there are selling agents in the state and other states and permits are also available on-line.  The Committee asked for information as to the total amount of trails fees collected, the amount from the sale of out-of-state permits, costs of grooming trails, and how much is spent by nonresident snowmobilers in tourist activities.  Mr. Green noted that his instant reaction is that snowmobiling is not an inexpensive activity and thus few are discouraged by the $15 fee.  The Committee asked if statistics could be provided on that issue.  Mr. Green noted that he would provide the information requested to the extent it is available.  Committee members stated that it should be made as easy as possible to purchase a permit.  Committee members also noted that information as to how many snowmobilers come into the state and how many go out of state would be helpful.  The Committee agreed that additional information was needed before a decision could be made as to whether the fee should be maintained.

The Committee discussed setting the next meeting.  Cochairman Baker suggested the third week in September (22-26), likely in Thermopolis.  Mr. Noble noted the Parks and Cultural Resources Commission would be meeting during that week and that a meeting coinciding with the Commission meeting might be useful.  No firm date was established.  Committee members thanked Cochairman Roberts for the various arrangements he had made.  The Committee adjourned at 3:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

                                                                        ________________________

                                                                        Cochairman Delaine Roberts