Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/15/1999 05:15 PM House FSH
Audio | Topic |
---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES March 15, 1999 5:15 p.m. COMMITTEE CALENDAR PRESENTATION: IMPLICATIONS OF FEDERAL MANAGEMENT OF SUBSISTENCE FISHERIES TAPE(S) 99-4, SIDE(S) A & B 99-5, SIDE A CALL TO ORDER Representative Hudson, Chairman, convened the House Special Committee on Fisheries meeting at 5:15 p.m. PRESENT Committee members present at the call to order were Representatives Whitaker, Harris, Morgan, Kapsner, Smalley. Representative Dyson was absent. Other legislators present were Senator Taylor, Representatives Green, Austerman and Ogan. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION TOM BOYD provided the committee with an overview of the federal program. The Office of Subsistence Management is lead agency coordinator for five different agencies: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service. His office oversees operation of the program and provides support to the ten regional councils and the Federal Subsistence Board. MR. BOYD stated that the Federal Government is honestly reluctant to be on the threshold of implementing federal management on October 1, 1999. There have been four congressional moratoria that have kept the Federal Government from taking over, but the final regulations were published on January 8, 1999, and will be implemented on October 1, 1999. He considers it a phase-in approach to give the state legislature the opportunity to act and prevent the takeover. MR. BOYD said they have not yet received money to implement the federal program, but Congress authorized $11 million in the 1999 appropriations. $1 million will be appropriated on June 1, 1999, and the remainder will be available at the end of September. He believes he can clearly state that "this is it". Secretary [of the Interior] Babbitt and Glickman will recommend a presidential veto if there is any attempt on the part of Congress to forestall a takeover or to significantly alter ANILCA. MR. BOYD said pursuant to the federal regulations, their jurisdiction extends to all areas on the map that are in red (refers to USFWS map), including conveyed but not yet selected lands. The regulations acknowledges the Secretaries' authority extends beyond federal public lands; allows the Federal Subsistence Board (FSB) to delegate in-season decisions to federal managers in the field; uses the State's subsistence regulations as a starting point much like they did with game. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked if they could define navigable waters in terms of how far does federal jurisdiction extend? For instance, if there is a shortage of fish up river on the Yukon, how far can the federal government go to find a solution? MR. BOYD responded that he can only answer tell the Committee what their jurisdiction is pursuant to the final regulations which is within the boundaries and adjacent to public lands. The Secretaries can extend their jurisdiction in order to provide for subsistence users. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER stated that her constituency is very much in favor of a federal takeover, mostly because the current federal administration is so favorable. What happens if the composition of the FSB changes? JIM CAPLAN and MR. BOYD responded that the program has been in place since 1990 and has gone through two administrations both Democrat and Republican. There has not been a significant shift under either. Different administrations may have a different emphasis, but they all have to follow the law, and ANILCA is quite clear. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that the 1953 Submerged Lands Act deeded under a fee-simple title ownership all submerged lands, all waters and all resources within. The question [the legislature] has asked the court is whether Title VIII of ANILCA undid the Submerged Lands Act. It might help to have you explain what is the difference between reserved water rights versus navigable waters. MR. CAPLAN responded that he would feel more comfortable having a panel of attorneys to answer that question. In one sense, it is not about submerged waters, it is about the management of fish for subsistence purposes. That is where the regulations and the Federal Subsistence Board and the Secretaries are focused. It is about bring wild foods to rural residents. Is there federal jurisdiction in marine waters? Of course. The Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Halibut Treaty are both areas where the federal government makes regulations and regulates use. This is a similar area. He suggested that requesting legal analysis would be appropriate. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that this is about fundamental rights of the state, which should be on equal footing with all the other states including the submerged lands. This is about one sovereign state undermining another. It's not about management of fish or subsistence. MR. CAPLAN replied that he wasn't there to pass judgment on what this committee's interests are, but he does know what the Secretary's interests are. It is true that there may be legal issues that the state or the legislature could pursue. He believes that the legislature has done it once and could do it again. But "our" interest is much more specific to the delivery of fish to folks who want to eat them. MR. BOYD added that regarding to the question of the Submerged Lands Act being in conflict with Title VIII of ANILCA, this action stems from a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision where they looked at the definition of public lands. It is defined as lands waters and interests therein. The court determined that there was an interest in those waters, not ownership, not title ownership, by virtue of the reserved water rights doctrine. If ones goes back to 1990, "we" took the position that our jurisdiction did not extend to navigable waters. The court kind of turned "us" around on that, essentially. So the focus is not so much the Submerged Lands Act as the definition of public lands in ANILCA, and the court interpreted public lands broadly and focused on the language "interest therein." REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that the Secretary of the Interior has a trust relationship with Alaska Natives. Why is the Secretary ignoring Natives with a spiritual or cultural need for subsistence that live in urban areas? Isn't that arbitrary discrimination? MR. CAPLAN responded that Title VIII serves rural Alaska. There are lots of different provisions of law. This is one case where a distinction is drawn between urban and rural. It doesn't limit other things the Secretary is required to do on behalf of Alaska Natives. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that the federal managers are using the state's format for the subsistence program. If the state program is good enough to be mimicked, why, then, does the Secretary not accept that program and allow the state to manage? MR. BOYD said his sense is that perhaps the Secretary felt that the proposal is in violation of a key element of ANILCA to provide a priority for rural residents. It may in some cases, but in some cases it may not. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked: You have been administrating the big game for several years. How much is expended on federal lands? MR. BOYD pointed out they have a budget about $7.5 million between five agencies. SENATOR TAYLOR asked what was the purpose of a federal reservation of water for the Tongass? In litigation in Colorado on 500 streams, the Forest Service had to provide one purpose for each stream. What is the purpose on the Tongass? Water to transport logs, help trees grow? MR. CAPLAN stated the original proclamation was not that specific but certainly it is intended to maintain favorable flows of water and high quality of water for fisheries and other things. Generally, when there are many purposes we do not just pick one. This is another instance when it would be well to have attorney's present to answer these questions. Certainly, the original framers had something in mind because they took the boundaries of the Tongass out to 60 miles around Prince of Wales Island and out to 15 miles around Yakutat. I would just have to conclude that they had more in mind than just providing waters for trees. SENATOR TAYLOR said obviously, you don't know, but I appreciate your comments. Is it your agency, state or federal, in implementation of this law, ANILCA - what part can you disregard? Do you have discretion to ignore parts of it? If you use this definition, which isn't sustained yield, if you choose to manage for sustained yield you would be in violation of the law. MR. BOYD explained that they strive to obey the statute. They manage for maintenance of healthy fish and wildlife populations. In practice, it is fairly similar to sustained yield. SENATOR TAYLOR said whether the state manages or the federal government manages, no one can change one dot of this. We have to make certain that no Native in Anchorage gets a chance at subsistence. We have to do that like you do. MR. BOYD said I don't think I read it the same way you do. The priority is for rural Alaska residents. It doesn't say others can't participate. As long as we are providing a priority for rural residents, other urban and even non-residents of the state can participate as long as there are enough of the resources to be allocated to those different users. To say that no one else can participate, that's the point I where I would disagree with you. SENATOR TAYLOR said if we had amended the constitution and rolled over to everything you people in the federal government have asked for, Mr. Rue would have no more to vary from or change these rules than you do. MR. BOYD indicated he thinks Section 805 of ANILCA allows the state to pass and implement laws of general applicability to Sections 802, 803, and 804. I think you're speaking to 802 that deals with the policy. It is the policy of the federal government that if the federal government is managing, the Secretaries have the responsibility to use the particular standard you spoke to. The State could, under its laws, if they provided a rural priority could implement the essence of Title VIII of ANILCA. The Secretaries have a responsibility outlined in sections 803, 804, 805, but section 805 allows room under the banner of general applicability for the state to implement its laws including sustained yield. REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY asked: The state has a priority to meet escapement goals; do you plan to use escapement goals set by the state? And how much cooperation do you anticipate between the state fish and game and federal agencies? MR. BOYD said as far as your first question, I don't know. As far as cooperation with state agencies, hopefully it will be good cooperation with the department and the Board of Fish[eries]. To date, we've had good cooperation and that's helped minimize conflict. There is a subsistence priority in statute and I think in have worked well so far I think in rural Alaska we serve same user. And, I think we have similar mandates in regard to conserving the resource. Obviously, we won't see every issue the same way, but to date we've been able to work very well. CHAIRMAN HUDSON said: Moving into this federal management, tell us where this is going and what your concerns are, and what types of questions should we be asking. COMMISSIONER RUE stated I don't think you'll see a huge difference on Oct. 1, 1999; it will take a while for the federal system to engage and start diverging from the state system. We're not going over the cliff on October 1. You will begin to see a change over time. The state will still be managing for subsistence on state lands and for commercial and sport on all lands. There really are more questions than answers. Are we going to be in court over every creek to determine whether its been reserved. It's hard to tell what success is under the federal system. We've suggested the Federal Board tell us how many fish is reasonable number for a federal-qualified area. That's not something they do now. So we're not sure when we'll be successful, when we've done enough. Customary trade will be defined by region, so there will be different definitions. "Customary and traditional use finding" is something our state boards already do and the federal board will do also. Mary Pete put together a flow chart showing an existing example under Game and an example for salmon on the Copper River. MARY PETE, Director, Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, explained the flow chart outlining the difference between state and federal subsistence implementation of subsistence regulations. While the federal agencies adopted the same Customary and Traditional use designation, they have made a determination of the number of salmon reasonably necessary for users. The state first determines whether there is a surplus for all users then there is regulations for all users. Since the federal board does not make a determination of the number necessary for federal users it's difficult to see how our current uses would have to be adjusted. The Copper River salmon stocks are fully utilized that increase use would have to come out of somewhere. There is a personal-use fishery that are mostly Fairbanks and Anchorage residents. and certainly the commercial fishery might have to give up some time. The state attempts to accommodate all sorts of uses on the Copper River; we may have to realize restrictions on our fisheries because these are fully utilized stocks. The sheep example is a good one because it shows how the state had to close or restrict the sport hunt to accommodate the Federal Subsistence hunt. In the federal program, their only mandate is to provide for subsistence uses. CHAIRMAN HUDSON pointed out we also provide a subsistence priority but not just to rural residents, in some cases we could have the federal managers providing for the priority. If you don't know exactly what areas they are responsible for and what we are responsible for, it's complex enough to manage for maximum use of all these different people, which is a constitutional requirement, SENATOR TAYLOR said looking through the federal regulations, they have different amounts of salmon that can be taken from the Copper River. Do you have a listing or the number of people, individuals, households, and communities? How many qualify for this type of permit? MS. PETE indicated she didn't know and would have to get back to the committee with this information. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked whether this would undermine limited entry? COMMISSIONER RUE replied that there are different definitions of customary trade. One of the things that [U.S. Senator] Stevens' amendment to ANILCA would do was to make the two definitions consistent. The difference in definitions could cause limited entry system to not work on the Yukon River where folks make a few thousand dollars and that can be consistent with customary trade. We don't really know what the federal definition will be since they are planning to do it on a regional basis. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN read the definition from the Federal Register. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN described a hypothetical situation. If we assume that we have a river that flows through blue and red (i.e., state and federal lands) areas and there's a difference of opinion of what needs to happen. With federal control on the upper end and state interests on the lower, where would we go to resolve this? MS. SWIDERSKI responded that we could only speculate and have to wait and see what the difference is and work from there. MR. MECUM added that the conservation burden will likely fall on the state. From the perspective of a commercial fisheries manager, I'm going to have to close down fisheries in order to achieve sustained yield or Fish Board allocations. CHAIRMAN HUDSON invited Mr. Boyd and Mr. Caplan up to the witness chairs to ask a few additional questions. What authority do field managers have? For instance, the state field mangers have broad authority to open and close fisheries on a real-time basis. How will the Federal managers handle that? MR. BOYD responded that they had not made a determination of who will get that authority as they are still putting together the organizational structure. CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked about our obligation under the Yukon River Salmon Treaty. Do the provisions of the treaty supersede the subsistence priority? MS. PETE responded that our obligation to meet the treaty is higher than our own state subsistence priority. And, Mr. Boyd stated he was unsure about how the treaty obligation fit in with the federal subsistence program. CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated that it is important for the public to know where federal public lands and waters are so they know who has jurisdiction and what regulations apply. MR. BOYD responded that he hoped he hadn't sounded overly optimistic about the difficulties of dual management. He is trying to make this work so he has to approach it from that perspective, but realistically, as the Chair has stated, it is very complicated; it is almost untenable. I hope we can resolve most of the conflicts and to the extent we can we will work to define where federal jurisdiction is in a more user- friendly manner than the federal register notice. CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if there was a conflict among user groups which court would handle it? MS. SWIDERSKI replied that it would be in federal court even if the conflict takes place on state waters. If the federal government is a party to the case, it will be heard in federal court. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the federal government planned to contract out their enforcement program. MR. CAPLAN responded that the federal agencies often have cooperative agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies but that they are not at the point yet with the subsistence program. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN requested that the Department of Interior allow the State of Alaska to have its day in court on this issue, and that this will not be settled until we have our day. REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY stated that it sounds as if the state may be in court a lot if there is a federal takeover. He asked the Department of Fish and Game whether their budget reflects this increase cost. COMMISSIONER RUE replied that the Department's budget does not include funding for that type of activity. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN presented another hypothetical situation. He asked if two people: one a federally qualified subsistence user and the other a state subsistence user were both fishing, is it conceivable that the federally qualified individual could actually end up with far more fish than the other. MS. PETE responded that yes that is possible. Mr. Boyd preferred not to respond to a hypothetical situation. CHAIRMAN HUDSON thanked the hearing participants. He also pointed out that there are some very serious problems with multi- agency management, particularly with salmon. Management decisions must be made in a timely manner otherwise entire livelihoods could be lost. COMMITTEE ACTION The committee took no action. ADJOURNMENT The House Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 7:03 p.m. NOTE: The meeting was recorded and handwritten log notes were taken. A copy of the tape(s) and log notes may be obtained by contacting the House Records Office at 130 Seward Street, Suite 211, Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182, (907) 465-2214, and after adjournment of the second session of the Twenty-first Alaska State Legislature, in the Legislative Reference Library.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|