Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/21/1995 08:10 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
April 21, 1995
8:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative John Davies
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Irene Nicholia
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Eileen MacLean
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Confirmation Hearing: Frank Rue, Commissioner, Alaska Department
of Fish and Game
NO ACTION TAKEN
WITNESS REGISTER
FRANK RUE, Commissioner Designee
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone: 465-6141
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding his confirmation
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-52, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by Co-Chairman
Bill Williams at 8:10 a.m. Members present at the call to order
were Williams, Green, Ogan, Austerman, and Kott. Members absent
were Representatives Barnes, Davies, MacLean, and Nicholia.
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS announced the committee would hear from
Frank Rue, Commissioner Designee, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G).
FRANK RUE, COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE, ADF&G, stated he believes
strongly in the mission of the department which is to manage,
protect, maintain, and improve fish and wildlife and their habitats
on a sustained yield principle for the benefit of people. He said
he will gauge his own actions and the actions of the staff on that
principle. His experience includes being Director of the Division
of Habitat with the ADF&G for the past seven years. He told
committee members the management principle he brought to that
division and one he will bring to the department is one of
respecting employees and giving them a lot of responsibility. He
felt the department has a strong group of professionals who know
their business and do a good job, if given the responsibility and
tools to do that job. He added that the best decisions on the
various fish and wildlife resource issues are made in the field.
MR. RUE stated the other critical issue for the department is
communication, not only with the public but also between divisions,
and within divisions, and between areas. He felt everyone will do
their job better as they manage stocks for example, where fish move
through the state up rivers between regional jurisdictions, if
people are communicating between regions and between staff.
Number 088
MR. RUE said the department needs to work with a tremendous number
of interests including subsistence users, sportsmen, commercial
users, etc., to find solutions. He stated the department is at a
crossroads on a number of issues and is at a time when it could
become quite polarized on issues such as predator control,
subsistence, fish allocations, etc. He felt the department can
avoid having those issues become so polarized that the state finds
itself in a very difficult, long period of poor management and
confusion which will damage both the resources and the people. He
pointed out there is a need to find solutions, and communicate with
people and different interest groups to find a common ground where
Alaskans can live together.
MR. RUE stated the other fundamental philosophy he will bring is
one of a willingness to work with the legislature and public and to
be very open. He felt it was important for him to give the
legislature, the Governor, and the Administration the best possible
information about the resources and department, so the public and
legislature knows what the department is doing, how the department
is doing it, and what it costs to do it. He reiterated how
important the fish and wildlife resources are to the state. He
stressed he would take on the commissioner's job with a great sense
of humility. He noted the commissioner's position is a huge job
and is important to many people. He asked that the legislature and
he develop a relationship over the next four years, which allows
both to do the very best job for the resources and people, given
the fiscal situation the state will be in and the political
situation the state will be in with federal management.
Number 149
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked Mr. Rue what his role and the plan
for his role will be in regard to the subsistence issue.
MR. RUE replied the Governor announced he will try to determine if
the different interests are willing to get together and determine
if they can find a solution they can live with. He shares the
Governor's belief that Alaskans can solve the problem better than
people from outside the state. He hoped everyone can see their way
in finding a compromise and agreement on the issue. He said his
role will be primarily of one supporting the effort. If people get
hung up because of a lack of information, he can provide
information. He stated he can also help by reacting to different
management schemes in terms of their practicality. He added if he
can help mediate as the process moves on, he will want to do that.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN questioned Mr. Rue if he has any opinions about
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rendering the day before. He
wondered if that decision clouds the issue of trying to solve the
subsistence problem within the state.
MR. RUE recalled that the Governor said it is both a state and
federal law and solutions are needed for both. Therefore, Alaska's
Congressional delegation will have to be involved also.
(Representative DAVIES and NICHOLIA joined the committee.)
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said normally state ownership exists in navigable
waterways and now the federal government, in this case, is saying
that is correct but not in Alaska.
MR. RUE said he was not sure whether the reserve water rights gives
the federal government jurisdiction over fish. He thought the
concept of reserve water rights has been there for any reserve,
whether it is a park or wildlife refuge. He said that principle
was established to ensure there was enough water to support the
refuge. He did not think the principle was ever intended to change
the state's rights as owners of the beds of navigable water bodies.
He thought the Ninth Circuit said the federal government has
jurisdiction over fish but he is not sure it said the federal
government has jurisdiction over the beds of a river.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said his concern is that if the state is trying
to resolve the issue among Alaskans and the federal government
keeps saying they are going to do something different regardless
what Alaskans do to resolve the issue, the federal government's
possible actions may cloud the issue and possibly handcuff the
commissioner.
Number 235
MR. RUE stated the Governor has said he will appeal the decision.
He pointed out the Congressional delegation has said if Alaskans
come to them with a solution they can live with and can support,
the delegation will make sure the federal laws track with that
solution. He felt the subsistence issue is still in the state's
hands. He said the state has a delegation in Washington that has
the ability to achieve anything Alaskans agree to. He thought the
court case will make the system of managing fish very difficult, if
it is carried out, because there will be a very confused management
system, as well as litigation constantly because reserve water
rights will have to be exerted on a case-by-case basis around the
state. Each of those reservations will be litigated if there is
another interested party feeling they are not being served by it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES asked Mr. Rue's views on how the state
might resolve the controversy over intensive game management issues
and what role he plans to take.
MR. RUE responded his belief is there is a place for predator
control as a management tool. The question is where, at what cost,
and for what benefit. He noted the Governor has outlined three
good principles on when he would support predator control: Where
it is scientifically defensible; where there is broad public
acceptance; and where it is cost effective. He felt this issue is
helped with information. He thought the ADF&G, as a wildlife
management agency, needs to begin educating the public and working
with the public to explain where predator control and intensive
management makes sense and listen to them to determine where they
believe it is needed.
MR. RUE also felt intensive management is an issue bigger than just
one small region. He did not think the issue could be resolved
satisfactorily if intensive management is discussed for just a
small part of the state. Intensive management is something too
many Alaskans care about. Therefore, a dialogue and education
process with Alaskans is needed. He noted the department has done
polls in the past which show very strong opinions on both sides of
the issue. Close to a majority of Alaskans think predator control
or intensive management may be a good idea. However, it is not a
strongly held belief. He said there is a large segment of Alaskans
who think intensive management may be a good idea but they would
only support it if they felt it was worth doing and was cost
effective.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Rue if he sees the department
fostering that discussion.
MR. RUE said he did not see an alternative. He stated the ADF&G is
the wildlife management agency for the state and it is the
department's responsibility, as professional wildlife managers, to
work with the Board of Game to determine when predator control
should or should not happen. He noted the legislature has set a
broad policy through the intensive management bill but added that
the bill is not real specific. In terms of how that policy is
implemented, he feels the Board of Game and the department need to
be the focus of that debate.
Number 338
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN thought perhaps the department was thinking about
doing a statewide, expensive survey. He recalled Mr. Rue said
there is a need to get a consensus but also heard him say the
department is the management group. He wondered if the department
is going to take a consensus view through the poll to see what is
desirable or is the department going to manage by technical
statistics.
MR. RUE responded as the professional wildlife management agency
that has to implement the programs, the department, along with the
Board of Game ought to be initiating the debate about the specifics
about how, where, and when to do intensive management. He said no
decision has been made as to how to accomplish that. The
department has discussed doing a deliberative poll, which is a poll
where information is given to people so they learn about the issue
and then they are asked questions. He noted anything the
department might do will be expensive but doing nothing will also
be expensive.
MR. RUE stated he would rather spend money up-front, educating the
public about the science of predator control, listening to the
public who have heard from various people on the issue and have an
opinion about the issue, and then have them help guide the
department on when, where, and how to do predator control. He felt
that was a more durable solution, and will allow the department to
carry out a policy over time which will last.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN observed most polls can be skewed depending on
the survey group. He wondered who would be surveyed. He expressed
concern about who the survey is sent to, who responds, and what
those responding represent.
MR. RUE stated a survey is not something the department has decided
to do. He agreed a poll can be manipulated. If the department
does something like a poll, the poll would need to be done in
cooperation with the Board of Game and involve lots of people and
a broad set of interest groups. He said the survey would have to
involve a fair set of questions.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified a survey would involve a broad spectrum
of people and would not involve only special interest groups.
MR. RUE said that is correct.
Number 406
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT recalled when Mr. Rue was appointed
commissioner of the ADF&G, there was at least one group that came
out in opposition to his appointment. He asked Mr. Rue if he is
aware of any interest groups opposed to his appointment.
MR. RUE replied he did not know of any.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT noted he had a bill on the Senate floor the day
before--HB 169, a mining bill. He said the bill had gone through
its last committee of referral on April 10. He stated the bill was
pulled from the Senate floor because the fiscal note was not
submitted until late in the day. The minority leader in the Senate
had a copy of the fiscal note yet he, as prime sponsor, did not
have a copy of it. He pointed out that is in violation of AS
24.08. He wondered what Mr. Rue's policy is within the department
on the timely preparation of fiscal notes.
MR. RUE stated the general policy is to get fiscal notes completed
within the limits of the law. He said it is to everyone's benefit
to get the fiscal notes in front of everyone throughout the
process.
MR. KOTT said the limit is five days and one of the requirements is
to provide the prime sponsor a copy of the fiscal note. He
wondered why someone on the Senate floor had a copy of the fiscal
note and he did not.
MR. RUE replied he would have to look into what happened.
Number 441
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA stated there have been many fishery
problems on the Yukon River. She said at one time, the fishermen
on the upper Yukon were fighting with the fishermen on the lower
Yukon. She pointed out that the most recent administration in
fisheries was able to bring those groups together and they were
able to build a consensus on fishery issues. She asked Mr. Rue if
he plans to carry on that process. She also questioned if those
groups will still have a voice in the ADF&G issues.
MR. RUE responded he does plan to continue that process as it is a
good idea which has worked well. He said he will encourage
department employees to work with them as the resource moves up the
river. He noted another change made was to have a manager manage
the fishery from the bottom of the river to the top, so the
resource is not handed off between regions. He stated he also
wants to make sure that the department uses all the good and
helpful information when managing the fisheries. There have been
complaints the department often uses technology instead of talking
to the people who may be fishing.
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN noted that all departments are going
to be in a tight budget crunch. He said given the current scenario
on the budget, the ADF&G will be looking at a $1.5 million to $2
million cut to its budget. He asked Mr. Rue how he will handle
that cut in regard to the overall management of the resources. He
stated one of the concerns always talked about is that most
agencies are top heavy in management and the cuts usually are made
down in research, and the lower echelon of the crew.
MR. RUE noted the ADF&G has gone from nine divisions to six, one
division has no deputy director and another division has two
professionals at headquarters with no support staff. He felt the
department has a lean operation. He said his priority as the
habitat director was to keep money in the field. If the habitat
division headquarters office is looked at, there is a director, a
deputy director, some clerical help, an administrative assistant
and a part-time biologist. He noted the division has taken a 23
percent budget cut.
MR. RUE said as those cuts were taken over the past four years, his
priority was to keep the headquarters office as lean as possible
and keep the money at the biologists level. He stressed that would
be his general philosophy now. He stated he cannot tell the
committee how the department will specifically take a particular
level of budget cut. He pointed out a general fund cut will fall
heavily on the commercial fisheries division because that division
has 75 percent of the department's general funds. He noted a RIP
(retirement incentive program) bill would help in that area because
as the department consolidated two divisions into one, there are a
number of employees who have been there a long time who have a long
tenure and might retire with an incentive, allowing the department
to reconfigure that division more efficiently.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said the Forest Practices Act (FPA) requires
a 66-foot buffer zone on private land. He noted some ADF&G
biologists have suggested increasing this requirement to 100 feet
or even 300 feet. He asked Mr. Rue if he believes that would be
appropriate and if so, is his opinion based on verifiable data
indicating a significant gain in salmon habitat protection.
MR. RUE responded he does not know where the department has
proposed changing the law to 100 feet or 300 feet, as that is the
standard on public lands. He noted he was involved heavily in
negotiating the riparian standard and developing the standard of 66
feet for private land. He said 66 feet was a compromise between
the protection of the public resource (fish) and private land.
Science would show that the 66-foot buffer zone will not give all
the fish protection needed. On private lands, the philosophy
behind the 66 feet was that it is private land and therefore, it is
the responsibility of the private landowner to protect a public
resource and was perhaps lower than public lands, where there is a
higher standard of protecting the public resources.
MR. RUE stated the U.S. Forest Service just finished a study of the
Tongass National Forest which basically says on forest lands, not
enough is being done to protect the fish resources, particularly in
the headwater streams, and that 100 feet is not enough on public
lands if there is a desire to maintain full productivity of those
fish streams. He said science would say that if the overwhelming
interest is to protect fish, the buffer zone would be larger on
private lands.
MR. RUE noted that was not the overwhelming interest of private
lands. Rather, the desire was to determine a compromise,
acceptable to private landowners which still gave significant
protection to fish. He explained research shows that 95 percent of
the large woody debris, which is one of the main components for
fish habitat protection, comes from 66 feet. Therefore, a lot of
protection is coming from the 66 feet, particularly on average
streams.
Number 568
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS clarified Mr. Rue has scientific data to
backup the fact that the 66-foot zone will protect habitat.
MR. RUE replied yes.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said in a letter from the Habitat Division to
the Kodiak Island Borough dated January 25, 1995, Mr. Rue's
department suggested a minimum buffer of 100 feet, with larger
buffers where appropriate. He stated that is nothing new but
expressed concern that the letter also suggested that standard
should be applied to waters containing resident fish populations,
as well as anadromous fish streams. He felt that would seem to
greatly expand the application of buffer zones and result in what
could be a significant impact on property use and value. He asked
Mr. Rue to comment on his views in that regard, including how he
sees such a move affecting economic development and the personal
use of private property.
MR. RUE asked if the recommendation was for private land or the
borough.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS replied private land...the borough.
MR. RUE stated the reason for the larger buffer on public lands was
because wildlife was also being dealt with. He said on private
lands, the FPA made no provision, except voluntary, for wildlife.
Therefore, there is no requirement for private landowners to
protect wildlife habitat on private lands. On public lands, there
is a higher standard because wildlife is a publicly owned resource
and it was felt that wildlife is important to the public.
Therefore, there is a 100 foot to 300 foot management zone on state
lands south of the Alaska range.
MR. RUE felt that maintaining the quality of the state's fish
habitat is essential to the continued health of the state's
commercial, sport and subsistence fisheries and wildlife use. He
said those are tremendous economic endeavors for people. He noted
a Japanese mariculturist once said if his country had a natural
factory producing fish like Alaska does, the country would make
sure the factory lasted forever. He said many Alaskans take it for
granted that the state has a tremendous factory pumping out fish
for people. He stressed it has been very hard to protect that.
The department has been criticized heavily for trying to maintain
the health of the streams. He pointed out that maintenance has a
strong economic benefit.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Rue to respond to the concern
regarding the resident fish populations.
MR. RUE said he was not sure the letter referred to private land.
If it did, on private lands there is no requirement for buffers on
resident fish habitat.
Number 617
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted the committee recently had the larger
mining operations in Alaska give an overview of their operations in
the state. He said one of the people testifying, quoting from the
minutes, said in regard to the Red Dog Mine, "in regard to state
issues with the mixing zone, a better response is received from the
northern office than the Juneau office. The Juneau office is
reluctant to move on reclassification of stream issues." He
wondered why there would be different response times in different
offices and why the Juneau office would be so much more reluctant
than the Northern office. He also wondered why the permits are
taking three to five years to get.
MR. RUE said he could not recall when an ADF&G permit has taken
three to five years. He stated in the case of the Red Dog Mine, he
is not sure what classification question would have taken a long
time in Juneau.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN observed the comment was that the responses in
general from the northern office were much more timely than those
from the Juneau office.
MR. RUE stated the department tracked 1,600 Title 16 permits issued
in a year and the average response time was two weeks.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said when the chum crash occurred a few years
ago on the Yukon River, he called the ADF&G to ask what happened
and their response was they did not know, as they did not have
enough data or research. He wondered if that was a fair
characterization of that situation and if it is, has the department
done anything to improve it.
MR. RUE felt that was a fair response back then. He said in
response to that particular situation, the department spent
$500,000 to get better information on the Yukon/Kuskokwim stocks
and also began the genetic stock verification program to determine
where those fish were being caught and what kind of fish were being
caught--Japanese, Russian, West Coast fish, etc. He stated the
department plans to continue gathering that information, so there
is better data on the Yukon/Kuskokwim fish. However, the
department is still a few years away from feeling as confident as
desired on its predictions on run strength. He stressed more
information is always desired.
TAPE 95-52, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN told Mr. Rue he had inherited a mess with
the sport fisheries in the Mat-Su Valley. He said the sport
fisheries is an important part of the economy and basically the
fishery has been cancelled. As a result, there will be an
increased amount of pressure on the Kenai River. He asked Mr. Rue
to name five things he might do to correct the problems.
MR. RUE thought there was still a small king season in the Valley.
He said getting a better handle on where the Susitna fish are
going, where they are being caught, and determining who is catching
them will help the issue. He felt there is a need to determine how
to have more people enjoy a sport fishery without killing more
fish. He said ensuring there is access to areas so people are more
spread out would be helpful. Finally, he said where possible,
enhance fishing opportunities and alternate fishing opportunities,
such as trout fishing.
Number 073
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said people have accused the department,
especially the habitat division, of being adversarial with
industry, specifically the timber and mining industries. He noted
that attitude is not universal as the committee has heard testimony
indicating the department has been very helpful. He asked if the
department, under Mr. Rue's leadership role, will work to help
solve industry problems, enabling timber harvests, mining, and
community development activities to move forward.
MR. RUE stated several years ago, a review of the habitat division
was conducted and 46 different people were interviewed including
people from mining, timber, and oil industries. He found that two
things tended to guide whether or not the division was successful
and whether or not things became controversial--the department's
attitude and the applicant's attitude. He said permitting and
working out development projects while also maintaining fish and
wildlife depends on two people having the right attitude.
MR. RUE noted he can control the attitude of the department to some
extent. He said the principles he set out for the employees
include three things: The department should know its business; the
department should know industry's business; and the department
needs to be flexible. He pointed out in the seven years he was
habitat director, the division reviewed 21,000 permit applications.
He felt the division did well, although there were problems,
including employees being overzealous or not having time to deal
with people.
MR. RUE noticed that in his tenure at habitat, the load kept going
up and the budget kept going down, which means stressed people who
do not have time to get out into the field and work with
individuals trying to get something done. He gave a specific
example. He expressed concern that as the department's budget is
reduced, employees will have too much to do, they will become
unable to deal with people well, and there will be more and more
confrontation and less ability to deal with things in the field
where it makes most sense to work things out.
Number 199
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted the ADF&G's staff has a good reputation
with industry people in evaluating variance tree requests. Most
variance tree requests, since the FPA went into effect, have been
granted. He said the system has worked well in the field, to the
satisfaction of the affected private landowners. He noted
unfortunately, last year's media flap gave the general public a
different impression. He felt it appears that event was triggered
by the belief, above the field staff level, that too many variance
tree requests were being granted.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS pointed out it seems that the state's only
interest in whether or not a particular variance tree is cut is
whether it will have an adverse effect on fish habitat. He noted
that is what field staff are required to help determine. He stated
the appearance is that philosophical opposition to timber harvest
plays a role in the department's position on variance trees. He
asked Mr. Rue if he believed that is the case, and if so, is it
appropriate and what will he do about it.
MR. RUE stated the differences have been heightened in the media.
He said he is aware of a number of instances where the department
felt too many trees were harvested in an area, where the department
and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) or the department and
the landowner did not agree but those were particular incidents.
There were a number of other places where there was agreement. He
felt the process on private lands is the most workable compromise,
where there can be a balance of the private land rights, while
protecting the public resource, both water quality as well as fish.
MR. RUE said when the FPA was passed, everyone agreed it was going
to be staff intensive, as well as field intensive--requiring
getting on the ground and looking at trees. It was also known that
it would be contentious--there were going to be debates over trees.
He noted there will be strong disagreements on some of the
decisions made, which he feels is part of that kind of approach,
where one is trying to squeeze the most for the private landowner
out of a buffer that is intended to protect public resources. He
felt it would continue to work as long as the department has people
to work with companies. He noted the right attitude is important.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS clarified it is Mr. Rue's position the
department supports the timber industry to a certain extent.
MR. RUE replied that is correct. He said the department is trying
to work with the timber industry within the confines of the law.
He noted the department's job is to ensure that when trees are cut
out of the buffers, it is not causing a significant problem. He
stated every tree and situation is different--you are trying to
predict something which is very difficult to predict and also
looking at a situation where the unit has not been cut. He noted
staff and industry has said if they started at the top of the
stream and walked down, they might have made different decisions
than if they had started at the bottom of the stream and walked up.
Number 282
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT noted over the past several years, there have
been regional meetings between ADF&G personnel and the public.
There have also been meetings of the fish/forestry working group.
He wondered if Mr. Rue, as head of the habitat division, had
participated in any of those groups and if so, how did that
participation play in his decision making process. He also
questioned as commissioner, how Mr. Rue views these working groups
and the recommendations they generate.
MR. RUE replied he did not personally sit on the Southeast
fish/forestry working group. He said that group looked primarily
at research and coordination between industry and state/federal
agencies on what kinds of research are needed on fish and timber
issues. He stated he has gone to the Board of Forestry meetings.
He felt those meetings are a good forum and should be used more.
The Board of Forestry is one of the few forums in the state where
there are broad resource interests sitting at the same table. He
noted the board was designed based on the same philosophy as the
FPA, where different interests came up with a solution they all
could live with. That process gives him hope in regard to the
subsistence issue where fishermen, environmental groups, the timber
industry, tourism people, etc., could talk to each other, get to
like each other, and understand each other.
MR. RUE said one of the results of the FPA effort was fishermen
concerned with timber harvest destroying their lifestyle,
understanding that the people in the forest industry had a
legitimate basis. The timber industry understood the fishermen
were not trying to put them out of business. Once they came to the
understanding they were not trying to get rid of each other but
rather coexist, they began to come up with a compromise which
allowed both interests to survive. He encouraged the continuance
of those type of forums.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated last year the habitat division, under
Mr. Rue's leadership, took part in a Kenai River bank stabilization
project. He noted the project developed several problems involving
significant cost overruns. The public notion is that the majority
of the problems were the result of some internal decisions made by
the department which circumvented the whole process being proposed
by the designer of the project. He asked if that was the case, how
can the internal attitude be changed and if that was not the case,
how can that message be sent to the public.
MR. RUE replied he is aware of the project and noted the people who
worked on that project, also worked on a project upstream with a
different applicant. The project upstream was extremely successful
and cost about one-third of the Soldotna Creek project. He did not
feel it was the attitude of the division but the design developed
for the project was more of a bulkhead, not to help habitat. He
noted the reason for designing bank stabilization projects is to
not only allow for intensive use by people but also to create
useful habitat for fish. He felt the department ran into the
problem of a difficult contractor on the project and his
unwillingness to look at documented successful methods of
rehabilitating fish habitat, as opposed to creating walls that do
not provide much habitat. He added the problem is being worked out
with the city of Soldotna, the project will be finished and it will
be a good project.
Number 400
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT wondered if there is a public misconception,
how does the department change that misconception.
MR. RUE replied the department does not have a good press office
and that is not something the department has money or time to spend
on. He said if the department is professional and does its job
well, the rest will take care of itself. He noted the department
will get blamed for things, some of which will be fair, but the
department will also get blamed for things it did not do. He added
in the instance just mentioned, the contractor got paid $20,000 to
blast the ADF&G.
MR. RUE felt the department needs to be accessible to the public
and have offices in areas where staff can get to know people, where
people get to know staff and where each can understand what each
other's jobs are. If that is done, the department will have a
better relationship with the public and be better able to respond
to the public. He noted if the department moves away from that and
is unable to do that, there will be more opportunities for
misunderstanding--the department will make more mistakes, there
will be less ability to communicate and things will get worse.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA recalled the representative from the Red
Dog Mine had said their relationship with the habitat division was
good. She also recalled the Executive Director of the Alaska
Miners Association said their relationship was also good with the
habitat division and he did not want to see the Fairbanks office
closed due to budget cuts. She stated Del Ackels of the Alaska
Minerals Commission indicated he did not appreciate the projected
budget cuts because they will slow down the permit process for the
mineral industry. Mr. Ackels is also opposed to the closing of the
Fairbanks habitat office. She asked Mr. Rue what the future of the
Fairbanks office is with these projected budget cuts.
MR. RUE replied it will depend on the level of the cut. The
department looked at three things in setting priorities for cuts in
the habitat division. The department looked at its legal
responsibilities, which include mainly anadromous fish streams
where the department has the primary responsibility to maintain
those streams. The second priority was where the department has a
heightened legislative responsibility. The third priority was
where the department participates to maintain fish and wildlife but
has no responsibility or there is someone else who could
potentially do it.
MR. RUE said the department then looked at where the most
development pressure is and where the most valuable fish resources
are. He stated as the habitat division gets smaller and smaller,
it will focus on those things where the department has direct legal
responsibility, where the most valuable fisheries are used by the
most people and where the most development is going on, such as the
Mat-Su, Kenai and Anchorage areas. He stressed as the division
gets squeezed down, some things will have to be forgotten. He
noted that currently there are 14 permitters for approximately
13,000 anadromous streams. He added that will probably mean
closing the Fairbanks office.
Number 470
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Rue what he means by forgetting the
rest. He wondered if that means someone will be exempted from
getting a permit or will they not get a permit.
MR. RUE stated what it means is the law will be there but the
department will not be enforcing it or will not be issuing permits.
He said that puts everyone in a very difficult situation because
people will be operating in streams without a permit. He noted if
protection went out and found someone with a bulldozer in a fish
stream where a permit had not been issued because the department
was not there, he did not know how someone could successfully
prosecute someone. He pointed out the other option is to rubber
stamp permits, which is not satisfactory either.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said in a recent budget memo to the Office of
Management and Budget, Mr. Rue offered his response to proposed
budget cuts. Mr. Rue had indicated he would have to cut FPA
inspections in half, but would continue to comment on both state
and federal land use plans. He noted FPA inspections are mandated
by state law. He wondered if Mr. Rue considers comments on federal
land use plans to be more important to his mission than activities
required by state law. He also asked Mr. Rue what should determine
the priorities of a state agency.
MR. RUE stated the inspections are required by the DNR. The ADF&G
plays a role in advising whether there is a significant effect of
the riparian variation but the DNR makes the final decision. He
said the ADF&G cannot eliminate that function but will just cut it
in half. He explained in regard to the state land use plans, he
has the responsibility under general authorities of the
commissioner, to maintain, extend and protect fish and wildlife
resources. He felt there is a tremendous benefit to his
participating in those plans. Many permit problems can be avoided
if a land use structure can be developed on public lands where the
most important fish and wildlife areas are avoided.
MR. RUE noted he has less of a chore trying to come up with a
forest plan that maintains wildlife. Therefore, it may be to his
benefit to put limited resources toward solving problems in the
larger context than dealing with them piecemeal. He may need to
reduce some effort on individual inspections on forest practices
where he has no final responsibility, only a role, and put that
effort toward participating in a land use effort where he has a
responsibility but no final decision, which may bring a larger
benefit per hour spent. He stated those are the kinds of trade-
offs he will need to make.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated there have been questions regarding
restoration as to when enough is enough and at what point the
environment is restored. He asked for a definition of restoration.
MR. RUE replied restoration is when an area becomes useful and is
not causing a significant negative effect. He said the department
has had debates over gravel pits on the North Slope and how those
should be restored. He stated some agencies want a gravel pit
restored to the point where it was before. He does not believe
that is necessarily reasonable. However, a gravel pit can be
restored to a very useful state. He stressed when something is
restored, it is useful. In mining restoration, he personally does
not agree with the way the Bureau of Land Management is doing their
business. Their focus is making the area look like a golf course
as opposed to making sure the water, the drainage system, the
waterway is in a stable and functional condition.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted there was an incident several years ago and
the state is still purchasing additional land with the damages
which ensued. He asked if that was a special case or was part of
the restoration buying additional lands. He wondered in the
future, under normal operations, does buying additional land
contribute to the restoration of a particular parcel.
MR. RUE replied that incident was an unusual circumstance. He felt
there may be situations that could be big enough issues, such as
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), where part of the
revenues might be put towards a fund which restores wetlands or
some other valuable habitat, as a way to compensate for the loss
values. He said most often, restoration is thought of in much
smaller terms and is on site.
Number 575
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said the concern is that in some places there is
no net loss.
MR. RUE stated there is a need to distinguish between what is
important and what is not. He noted there are some things that do
not really matter if they are changed, as long as an off site
problem is not being created. He said a very high value site may
be found where restoration could include some more significant
efforts to recreate a system. He reiterated the first step is to
determine what is important. Many times, it will not be worth
doing more than just stabilizing the site or doing minor things.
He added when there is a situation of a possible significant impact
to a significant resource, the question needs to be asked if it is
worth doing more.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified the merits would stand on the
individual cases rather than an overall policy.
MR. RUE stated there may be a general policy but it would be one at
the level he just mentioned.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Rue his views on accelerated
restoration.
MR. RUE replied it depends on how accelerated restoration is
packaged with other things. He said the acceleration of
restoration on the North Slope may have some benefits. He stated
oil and gas development goes on in the refuges and he may have a
higher standard of restoration in a wildlife refuge than the
uplands three miles away. He noted his department has been able to
work with the oil industry on that issue and has come to an
agreement on what is reasonable and appropriate.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said his question did not have to do so much with
the quality but rather with the timing.
MR. RUE replied accelerated restoration is a great idea but the
question remains, what else is it tied to. Normally, it is tied to
changing the wetland permitting program. Therefore, it might make
sense but the specifics should be known on what changes would be
seen in the wetlands permitting on the North Slope. He stated he
can see benefits of accelerated restoration.
Number 618
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES recalled the discussion about the possible
closing of the Fairbanks office and concentrating where the most
development pressure is. He wondered if Mr. Rue meant he would
ignore a permit application coming from other regions of the state.
MR. RUE stated he did not know what will happen if the department
has that fewer people. He said they may have to ignore the
applications or rubber stamp them. He noted if the department
approves an activity causing significant damage to a fish stream
because they have not gone and looked at it, there will be
problems. The choices are rubber stamping an application, not
knowing what is going on, or just ignoring the application. He
pointed out that other divisions may see some of these activities
going on and the department may decide they will have to start
dealing with them.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES felt there were other options. He understood
the financial imperative to close an office for efficiencies of
scale. He thought to ignore permits coming in is a violation of
equal protection under the law. He felt the other options include
dealing with permits in the order received, resulting in the whole
process slowing down. That would build pressure to restore the
budget. He said another option is to seek industry's support in
increased permit fees.
TAPE 95-53, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he would object strenuously if permits
required by law for a mining or timber operator to proceed are
ignored. He stressed that is not acceptable.
MR. RUE replied the options discussed are good ideas and are the
kinds of things the department will need to look at.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES clarified the approval rate on variance tree
requests is 80 percent. He said he has heard the comment during
budget deliberations that perhaps one of the consolidations which
could be made would involve instead of sending a person out from
the DNR and one person from the ADF&G, one person could perform the
role. He wondered if that was possible.
MR. RUE felt that would weaken the public's and fishermen's
confidence in how the FPA is being carried out. He said part of
the compromise is that the DNR, the ADF&G and the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) would all look at the buffers. He
added that greater flexibility was given to private lands because
of the economics and private rights. Counter to that, to protect
the public resource was to make sure that the ADF&G in particular
was still involved in the decision of what additional trees go. He
noted legally it could be done without the ADF&G's presence. He
felt it would weaken the public's confidence and the level of
protection of the public resources would be eroded. He stated the
ADF&G does not always agree 100 percent with the decisions made by
the DNR.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS felt those in leadership roles have to be
strong and say what is being done and is being done correctly to
build confidence. He said what is happening now is that other
people are being listened to and the leaders are not standing up to
say that what is being done is correct.
Number 099
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN commented when funding keeps getting cut
back for an agency that is enhancing and protecting a state
resource whether it be timber, mining or fish, the agency is cut
back to the degree where they are not able to function. In the
commercial fishing industry, when there is no research available to
determine if too many fish or too little fish are being taken, the
response from the department is to cut the season off before it
should be. He said if the legislature continues to bring the
budgets back to the level where the agencies are not able to
function, eventually there will not only be problems with fisheries
but also with mining and timber. He hoped that message was getting
sent to the committee and the committee would take it forward to
the legislature. He stressed only so much can be cut before more
damage is done than good is done by saving a few dollars.
Number 152
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN clarified the Governor is willing to look at
reevaluating the priorities for Cook Inlet since he appointed a
facilitator to work with the user groups and also recognizes that
the demographics and demands on the resource are changing.
MR. RUE stated the Governor believes the Board of Fisheries needs
to look at the issue again. The board wants to have a process that
allows the user groups to come up with some recommendations for the
board which will address the pressure building because of the
demographics. He felt different interest groups can together look
at the science and data, and determine how they can coexist and
what is the most surgical way to do that, have groups agree and
then go to the board with a recommendation. He noted the board is
the final arbiter on any final allocation decision.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said his constituents perception is the fish in
Cook Inlet are managed with an emphasis on commercial fishing and
the Kenai River. He stated there is a system in place currently
that if so many fish come in, this happens and if less fish come
in, something else happens. He noted there is not a similar plan
in place for the Susitna drainage. He pointed out the perception
is that the fisheries in the Susitna area are managed by default--
it gets what is left over from the Kenai. He wondered if the
department is willing to begin managing for sustained yield in the
Mat-Su area and is the department tough enough to take the measures
necessary to protect the resource if the resource is threatened.
Number 231
MR. RUE replied the department will manage for sustained yield and
is already taking the steps necessary to rebuild the Chinook
stocks. He felt the process he mentioned earlier, involving the
different interest groups in the Cook Inlet, will help them
understand what is going on and influence a change if it is needed.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "I was taken aback with the strong
statement that this was going to become the sport fishing capital
of the world when in fact we were in the throes of trying to
resolve the issue between whether there should be a priority given
to commercial fishing, sport fishing, or subsistence. At any rate,
what I mentioned to the Governor's task force that he had a review
with both bodies before he made the announcement on that Monday was
that it might be a good idea during the interim to have input from
both sides to show that the legislature was not opinionated but is
trying to come to grips with a very critical issue."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN continued, "I think it is possible because there
is a plethora of studies that can say anything you want...there is
either too much escapement or there is too little escapement. If
you have too much escapement, the river cannot stand it and you
will have an adverse effect on the yield. There are other studies
that say that is hogwash and is not true. You have all this
technical information by people that are far more knowledgeable
than I. I think the Governor's task force with the funding that is
apparently going with that is a great idea. The thing I am
mentioning is that group felt there would be an enhancement...it
would not only inhibit their collection of data but might help it,
for a committee like the House Resources Committee to hold some
interim hearings. What is your feeling about that?"
MR. RUE replied it might be helpful, particularly because it might
update the committee on what is going on. He said the only reason
he would hesitate at all is if it became a debating forum where
people were posturing for a position. He stated if user groups
were being put together to discuss real sensitive issues and then
they had to go to a hearing and posture for effect, he was not sure
how that would play. He felt a forum where people were not making
statements on the record would be helpful.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated the press was given information that
insinuated a possible connection between the Gold Creek fish kill
and activities at the Echo Bay mine and the public believed that
for quite some time. It later became obvious that Echo Bay had
nothing to do with the fish kill. He did not recall any kind of
effort made by the state to rectify that issue in the public's
minds. He wondered if the state needs to say the fish kill was not
an Echo Bay mine problem. He asked what is the state's position
officially about those fish killed in Gold Greek.
MR. RUE responded the DEC had the lead on that issue. The ADF&G's
fish pathologist worked with the DEC to determine the cause of
death. He said a determination could not be made on the first fish
kill. He thought the pathologist had determined that the cause of
death in the latest incident was suffocation and dewatering and
that probably was the cause earlier. He felt the department's
responsibility is to tell the public honestly what it knows and
does not know and not exaggerate those claims. He added if the
department does not know, it should tell the public it does not
know.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated he did not feel any of the major
industries, whether it is fishing, timber, mining, oil, etc., want
the department to cover up a problem they might have caused but the
industry would also appreciate not being accused of something they
are not guilty of. He clarified the department just wants to be
factual.
MR. RUE replied that is the department's goal.
Number 406
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee would hear from Mr.
Rue again on Monday morning.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said No Name Bay on Kuiu Island was selected
by the state under the Statehood Act for a remote subdivision. The
selection has now been designated as wildlife habitat despite
studies showing the land has no special significance for wildlife
health and viability. The parcel lies adjacent to more than
100,000 acres of wilderness area. He stated as it turns out, the
state parcel at No Name Bay is now an impediment to the harvest of
U.S. Forest Service timber already approved for harvest under an
environmental impact statement which took more than a decade to
develop. He asked Mr. Rue what he will do to reduce those kinds of
administrative barriers to responsible use of timber resources in
Southeast Alaska. He wondered if he should expect the state to
block timber harvests under the guise of wildlife protection
without good scientific reason.
MR. RUE stated as part of the mental health trust land negotiated
settlement, No Name Bay was to be classified by the DNR for
wildlife habitat. He said that was something the DNR negotiated,
not with the ADF&G but with the various parties involved in the
mental health land resolutions. The status of No Name Bay was
elevated during that settlement issue. He noted he is going to
meet with the commissioner of the DNR and resolve the final issues
around that issue including road location, not necessarily no
timber development. He felt those are the kind of things that
might be worked out.
MR. RUE said he has tried in the past seven years to accommodate
different uses in a way that allows the use to go ahead, while
still sustaining sufficient wildlife resources as best as possible.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS clarified that is what was done with No Name
Bay--the ADF&G looked at it and decided wildlife habitat protection
was needed.
MR. RUE replied the DNR did that in negotiating with the litigants
of the mental health trust settlement. He stated there are
wildlife values on No Name Bay.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated he will not be at the meeting on
Monday. He noted for the record he found Mr. Rue's testimony to be
knowledgeable, professional and responsive. He found nothing in
the discussion which would cause him to oppose Mr. Rue's nomination
and therefore, will support it.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House Resources
Committee, Co-Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 10:05 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|