Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
04/06/2011 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): | |
| HB186 | |
| HJR20 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 186 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 6, 2011
1:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Alan Dick
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S): Board of Game; Board of Fisheries
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 186
"An Act relating to the authority of the commissioner of fish
and game with regard to the importation or relocation of wood
bison in the state."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 20
Urging the President of the United States, the United States
Congress, and the Secretary of the United States Department of
Agriculture not to implement protection of inventoried roadless
areas under the "roadless rule" or otherwise restrict the
development of necessary hydroelectric projects in the Tongass
National Forest and the Chugach National Forest.
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 195
"An Act relating to the regulation and use of pesticides and
broadcast chemicals."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 186
SHORT TITLE: WOOD BISON
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) DICK
03/10/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/10/11 (H) RES
04/04/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/04/11 (H) Heard & Held
04/04/11 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/06/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HJR 20
SHORT TITLE: ROADLESS RULE & CHUGACH AND TONGASS HYDRO
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOHANSEN
03/09/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/09/11 (H) ENE, RES
03/17/11 (H) ENE AT 3:00 PM BARNES 124
03/17/11 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/22/11 (H) ENE AT 3:00 PM BARNES 124
03/22/11 (H) Moved CSHJR 20(ENE) Out of Committee
03/22/11 (H) MINUTE(ENE)
03/23/11 (H) ENE RPT CS(ENE) 6DP
03/23/11 (H) DP: LYNN, TUCK, PETERSEN, SADDLER,
PRUITT, FOSTER
04/06/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
NICK YURKO, Appointee
Alaska Board of Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Game.
WILLIAM S. BROWN, PhD, Appointee
Alaska Board of Fisheries
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Fisheries.
RICKY GEASE, Executive Director
Kenai River Sportfishing Association (KRSA)
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Dr. Bill Brown
during the confirmation hearing to the Board of Fisheries.
REUBEN HANKE
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the appointment of
Dr. Bill Brown to the Board of Fisheries.
ANDY SZCESNY
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the appointment of
Dr. Bill Brown to the Alaska Board of Fisheries.
JOHN E. JENSEN, Appointee
Board of Fisheries
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Fisheries.
JERRY MCCUNE, Lobbyist
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the appointment of
John E. Jensen to the Board of Fisheries.
RICKY GEASE, Executive Director
Kenai River Sportfishing Association (KRSA)
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the reappointment
of John E. Jensen to the Board of Fisheries.
REUBEN HANKE
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the reappointment
of John E. Jensen to the Board of Fisheries.
ANDY SZCESNY
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the reappointment
of John E. Jensen to the Board of Fisheries.
SUSAN JEFFREY, Appointee
Alaska Board of Fisheries
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Alaska Board
of Fisheries.
DON FOX
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the confirmation hearing
for the Board of Game.
LINDA KOZAK
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of appointee Susan
Jeffrey to the Alaska Board of Fisheries.
PAUL VERHAGEN, Staff
Representative Alan Dick
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed the background documents during
the hearing on HB 186.
EDWARD GRASSER, Lobbyist
Safari Club International
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 186.
MIKE SATRE, Executive Director
Council of Alaska Producers
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 186.
BRYCE WRIGLEY
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 186.
DON QUARBERG
Delta Junction
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 186.
STEVE BORELL, Executive Director
Alaska Miners Association (AMA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 186.
EUGENE PAUL
Holy Cross Tribal Council
Holy Cross, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 186.
STEVEN MENDIVE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 186.
REPRESENTATIVE KYLE JOHANSEN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the prime sponsor of HJR 20.
FLOYD KOOKESH
Angoon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 20.
JIM STRANDBERG, Project Manager
Alaska Industrial Development & export Authority (AIDEA) and
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 20.
JOHN SANDOR, Board Member
Alaska-Canada Energy Coalition
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 20.
FRED MORINO
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 20.
DUFF MITCHELL, Business Manager
Juneau Hydropower, Inc.
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 20.
SHELLY WRIGHT, Executive Director
Southeast Conference
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 20.
PETER NAOROZ, General Manager and President
Kootznoowoo, Inc.
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 20.
MIKE SATRE, Executive Director
Council of Alaska Producers (CAP)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 20.
ERIC LEE
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 20.
MARILYN LELAND
Executive Director
Alaska Power Association (APA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 20.
JOSEPH SEBASTIAN
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 20.
TIM ROONEY, Borough Manager
City & Borough of Wrangell (CBW)
Wrangell, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 20.
DAVE CARLSON, Chief Executive Officer
Southeast Alaska Power Association (SEAPA)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 20.
STEVE BORELL, Executive Director
Alaska Miners Association (AMA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 20.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:06:26 PM
CO-CHAIR ERIC FEIGE called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:06 p.m. Representatives Feige,
Seaton, Dick, Gardner, Herron, and Munoz were present at the
call to order. Representatives Kawasaki and Foster arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S): Alaska Board of Game
1:07:20 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the first order of business would
be the Confirmation Hearing of Nick Yurko to the Board of Game.
1:07:39 PM
NICK YURKO, Appointee, Alaska Board of Game, provided his
background, including that he is a 40-year Alaskan resident,
worked for the school district, and did a wide-range of
volunteer work in the community. He related he has served on
the Juneau/Douglas Advisory Committee for over 30 years, on the
Territorial Sportsmen's Golden North Salmon Derby organization
as a member and as fish chair. Additionally, he stated that
serves as chair of a non-profit organization in Juneau, "Helping
Hands." He was one of the original founders of the Juneau
Archery Club and is still involved including teaching archery to
boys and girls. He concluded by commenting he and his family
reside in Juneau and he really likes Juneau.
1:09:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK related that Interior Alaska was devastated
by the predator issue in the late 1990s, in particular, with
respect to moose and caribou by wolves and bears. He asked for
Mr. Yurko's position on predator control.
MR. YURKO responded that he has not taken currently taken a
stand since he has not seen all the data on the program. He
acknowledged that he has been involved primarily in Southeast
Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK referred Mr. Yurko to the Alaska Department
of Fish & Game's (ADF&G) website as a source of neutral and
scientific information. He urged Mr. Yurko to review it.
MR. YURKO offered his willingness to work with ADF&G on the
matter.
1:11:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked why he is interested in serving on
the Alaska Board of Game.
MR. YURKO responded that he is retired and thinks some of the
resource issues need to be addressed. He explained that his
background, having served 30 years with the Juneau/Douglas Fish
and Game Advisory Committee, places him in the position to
provide assistance with some of the ADF&G's programs.
1:12:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON inquired as to whether the Governor's
staff interviewed him and if so, what question surprised him the
most.
MR. YURKO answered that he felt overwhelmed and honored to be
chosen as a representative to serve on the Board of Game.
1:12:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON pointed out that he has a reputation of
being one of the best trappers in Southeast Alaska.
MR. YURKO said, "I've been noted for that over the years."
1:13:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said he is also noted for being one of the
oldest trappers.
MR. YURKO answered that he is 69 years old, but still loves the
outdoors and still traps alone.
1:13:34 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE noted Mr. Yurko is part owner of Wings of Alaska
air service. He inquired as to whether the company is involved
in transporting game and hunters. He related his understanding
that Mr. Yurko was not a pilot.
MR. YURKO agreed he is not a pilot. He elaborated on the air
services that Wings of Alaska provides, primarily to transport
tourists to Taku Lodge and on glacier flightseeing trips.
1:15:07 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON stated that the House Resources Standing
Committee has reviewed the qualifications of Nick Yurko to the
Board of Game.
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to advance the confirmation for the
appointee referred to the House Resources Standing Committee,
Nick Yurko, and to refer his name for consideration to the joint
session of the House and Senate for consideration. Each
member's signature on the committee's report in no way reflects
the member's vote during the joint floor session. There being
no objection, the confirmation was advanced.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S): Alaska Board of Fisheries
1:15:25 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that next order of business would be
confirmation hearing of William S. Brown to the Alaska Board of
Fisheries.
1:15:28 PM
WILLIAM S. BROWN, PhD, Appointee, Alaska Board of Fisheries,
introduced himself. He stated that he has lived in Alaska for
the past 20 years, is single and has no children. He referenced
his resume in members' packets and read from a written
statement, as follows:
I have served on the Board of Fish for one three-year
term. The main reason I'd like to be confirmed for a
second term is the same reason I applied in the first
place. I want to help preserve our fishery resources
for our children, our grandchildren, and their
children. Managed correctly our fish will last
forever but only if they're managed correctly.
I think I bring two things to the Board of Fish.
First, my degree in economics: I hold a doctorate in
economics and spent over twenty years teaching college
before I retired in 2000, provided training and
statistical methods, population dynamics, and the
economic rationale for fishing regulation. My
background in statistics proved especially valuable my
first term on the board because it enabled me to
understand and analyze the models used to estimate the
optimal sustained yield and other key parameters
important in designing regulations. Second, my
training in economics also helps me understand and
calculate the economic impact of fisheries around the
state. Biology matters and social issues matter, but
so does economic impact, especially to our coastal
communities.
My first term on the board was not uneventful, not by
a long shot. I didn't have a clue as to how much work
was involved. For example, we had over 8,000 pages on
[indiscernible], 8,000 of reading material for the
upper Cook Inlet meeting. As a member of the board I
had to make tough decisions, many of which were
unpopular in some circles. And while few were bashful
in telling me how much they liked a particular
decision, I note that my votes were the product of
careful and logical consideration.
I take the board seriously. I recognize its
importance, and I want to improve our fisheries, Mr.
Chair.
1:17:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON noted that during Mr. Brown's testimony
before the House Special Committee on Fisheries a comment had
been made that his background in economics sometimes gets in the
way of making decisions about fish.
DR. BROWN answered he would reject that comment out of hand. He
stated that his background in economics includes mathematics and
statistics, but also population dynamics. He also has taught a
course for Resource Economics, which included one topic on
fishing regulations in Bristol Bay. The class discussed the
previous unlimited catch using sailboats. Currently, a 32-foot
boat requirement is in place. He affirmed there are economic
reasons for having these types of regulations. He offered his
belief that economics is vital to understanding fisheries. He
remarked that he does not think his background in economics
clouds his judgment.
1:19:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON recalled a newspaper column Dr. Brown
wrote in response to a comment that his economics were "creepy"
economics. He further recalled Dr. Brown's response included
the remark that economics does have "creepy" moments. He asked
what was meant by his response.
DR. BROWN said he did not recall the particular column in
question, but thought he knew what he had meant. In 1995, he
wrote a textbook on economics which sold quite well and allowed
him to retire. He explained that the last section of the
textbook addressed what a person could do with an economics
degree. He recalled a university survey by Purdue University.
The survey was given to incoming freshmen and asked students,
half of which had taken economics courses, to respond to a
variety of views on society. Two years later these same
students were again surveyed and the results showed that the
students who studied economics became more profit oriented with
many entering into private business. The people who did not
study economics gravitated to social work or the arts. He
remarked that economics is a way to think and affects how people
behave.
1:20:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised the more mathematically minded
students may have been the ones that took economics classes.
DR. BROWN agreed it might be true and was a comment he also
made. He recalled that an introductory economics course is the
most commonly taught course in many colleges since the course is
required for so many majors. He further recalled that although
the students could take an introductory English literature
course could to meet the English academic requirements, but the
social sciences, business, or physics majors were required to
take an economics course. He pointed out that students who
choose to take additional economics classes must be prepared to
do mathematics.
1:22:12 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:22 p.m. to 1:23 p.m.
1:23:19 PM
RICKY GEASE, Executive Director, Kenai River Sportfishing
Association (KRSA), stated that he regularly attends the Board
of Fisheries meetings and has observed Dr. Brown during his
first term serving on the Board of Fisheries. He reported that
the KRSA finds Dr. Brown to be very well qualified for his
reappointment to the Board of Fisheries. Dr. Brown has been
well prepared at the meetings, has participated by asking
questions of stakeholders and the department during
presentations, and listened to all user groups. He has found
Dr. Brown's background in economics and statistics provides a
good tool for the Board of Fisheries during deliberations. Dr.
Brown has frequently built the record for the board in positive
ways in terms of explaining economic information. Much of
fisheries conservation has been based on fisheries models and
Dr. Brown has demonstrated an excellent grasp on how modeling
and statistics work. He reiterated Dr. Brown has worked to
ensure that board members have a good understanding of modeling
during board discussions. He concluded that the KRSA fully
supports Dr. Brown's reappointment to the Alaska Board of
Fisheries.
1:25:30 PM
REUBEN HANKE stated that he has attended Board of Fisheries
meetings statewide and has worked with Dr. Brown. He has found
Dr. Brown approachable, inclusive, and observed that Dr. Brown
comes very well prepared to the meetings. He highlighted one of
Dr. Brown's strengths is the ability to assist other board
members in understanding the complex modeling. He said he looks
forward to Dr. Brown continuing to serve on the Board of
Fisheries.
1:26:33 PM
ANDY SZCESNY stated he has been a fly fishing guide for 25 years
and has participated in the Board of Fisheries hearings for over
20 years. He said he is in favor of Dr. Brown's confirmation to
the Board of Fisheries. He remarked that he has never seen
anyone more prepared for Board of Fisheries meetings than Dr.
Brown. He urged members to "push him forward."
1:27:31 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related that the House Resources Standing
Committee has reviewed the qualifications of William S. Brown,
PhD to the Board of Fisheries.
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to advance the confirmation for the
appointee referred to the House Resources Standing Committee,
William S. Brown, and to refer his name for consideration to the
joint session of the House and Senate for consideration. Each
member's signature on the committee's report in no way reflects
the member's vote during the joint floor session. There being
no objection, the confirmation was advanced.
1:28:09 PM
JOHN E. JENSEN, Appointee, Board of Fisheries, stated that he is
a lifelong resident of Petersburg. He graduated from Petersburg
High School and attended college prior to purchasing his first
fishing vessel and beginning his commercial fishing career. He
said he is a third-generation Alaskan and has commercially
fished since 1965. He has owned and operated six fishing
vessels from 1972 to the present, has participated in fisheries
in Southeast Alaska, Bristol Bay, Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea,
Aleutian Islands, Alaska Peninsula, Cook Inlet, Prince William
Sound, and Western Alaska. He has obtained a 100-ton Master's
license and holds an assistant towing license. He highlighted
his interests as hunting, sport fishing, camping, woodworking,
reading, and Alaska history. He remarked on his family, stating
that he has been married since 1972 and has two sons. He
detailed his professional memberships, including his current
membership with the United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) and the
Petersburg Vessel Owners Association. He said he also serves on
the Petersburg Planning and Zoning Commission and chairs the
Halibut and Sablefish Committee for the Alaska Seafood Marketing
Institute (ASMI). Additionally, he has served on the Petersburg
Advisory Board for the past ten years. He expressed interest in
continuing service on the Board of Fisheries. He characterized
the Board of Fisheries' goal to ensure sustainable fisheries as
a difficult one. He concluded by saying his job has been
rewarding but one that requires effort.
1:30:28 PM
JERRY MCCUNE, Lobbyist, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) on
behalf of the UFA, expressed support for the confirmation of
John E. Jensen for the Board of Fisheries. He offered that Mr.
Jensen has served three terms and has substantial knowledge
about fisheries. He said, "We support him wholeheartedly, Mr.
Chairman."
1:31:53 PM
RICKY GEASE, Executive Director, Kenai River Sportfishing
Association (KRSA), stated that Mr. Jensen is a great member of
the Board of Fisheries. He has been approachable to all
stakeholders and user groups, he said. He holds extensive
knowledge of commercial fisheries in Alaska, as well as sport,
personal, and subsistence fisheries. He understands the
importance of commercial fishing and other fishing to the
coastal communities and Interior river systems. He has
performed well as a Board of Fisheries committee chair and vice-
chair and has the KRSA's full support for reappointment to the
Board of Fisheries.
1:32:49 PM
REUBEN HANKE stated that Mr. Jensen has served on the Board of
Fisheries for many years and has done a great job. He said,
"You can search high and low in Alaska for somebody that has as
much experience as John does in most of the fisheries around the
state and that brings an unbelievable wealth of knowledge to the
board." He related that Mr. Jensen helps other board members
understand how specific fisheries work. He hoped the committee
will support Mr. Jensen and offered his full support for Mr.
Jensen's reappointment to the Board of Fisheries.
ANDY SZCESNY testified in favor of John Jensen's reappointment.
He has more substantial experience on the aspects of the
commercial fisheries than anyone else serving on the board, he
said.
1:33:49 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON stated that the House Resources Standing
Committee has reviewed the qualifications of John E. Jensen, to
the Board of Fisheries.
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to advance the confirmation for the
appointee referred to the House Resources Standing Committee,
John E. Jensen, and to refer his name for consideration to the
joint session of the House and Senate for consideration. Each
member's signature on the committee's report in no way reflects
the member's vote during the joint floor session. There being
no objection, the confirmation was advanced
1:34:23 PM
SUSAN JEFFREY, Appointee, Alaska Board of Fisheries, stated that
she has benefitted from Alaska's well-managed fisheries. She
said she moved to Kodiak in 1972 and her children and
grandchildren live in Alaska. She has directly participated in
Alaska's fisheries as a subsistence fisherman, sports fisherman,
and commercial fisherman. She worked as a fisheries writer and
editor for many publications which has helped her develop an
understanding of the complexities involved in managing Alaska's
renewable fisheries resources. Since 2005, she has served on
the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly which has given her an
understanding of the public process and the importance of
carefully studying issues before entering into open
deliberations. She understands the concept that it is
impossible to please everyone especially pertaining to fisheries
issues. She would like to serve on the board because she also
understands that Alaska's fisheries are vital to the state and
its people. She emphasized Alaska's fisheries are so important
to Alaska that the state's constitution wisely mandates its
natural resources be managed for sustainability and for maximum
benefit for Alaskans. She further understood the board is
charged with conserving and developing Alaska's fishery
resources for all users in commercial, commercial sport,
subsistence, sport, and personal use fisheries. She pointed out
that making decisions on any allocation matter requires careful
analysis of scientific and socio-economic information presented
to the board and during public testimony. The board meetings
often involve earnest, passionate, and sometimes contentious
deliberative processes. She concluded that she is prepared for
this charge and challenge. She offered her belief that only
with a fair, well-informed process can the state continue to
conserve and develop its world-class fisheries resources for the
benefit of our children, our grandchildren, and their
grandchildren.
1:37:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON remarked that Ms. Jeffrey's resume is
outstanding and he commended her fisheries knowledge. He
recalled during a television interview in Anchorage that she did
said she did not seek out service but had been asked to submit
her name to Boards and Commissions. He then asked which
questions posed by Boards and Commission's staff surprised her.
MS. JEFFREY responded the question that stood out for her was
which particular user group the other commissioners would think
she represented. She said she answered that she did not think
it was her duty to represent a particular user group but rather
she should represent all user groups.
1:39:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER commented she enjoyed Ms. Jeffrey's final
personal statement, which read:
It's not for the faint of heart but I'm willing to
serve because I believe only through a fair, well-
informed public process can the state wisely conserve
and develop its world-class fishery resources.
1:39:58 PM
DON FOX said he is a 40-year resident of Kodiak and a retired
commercial fisherman. He has also served on the Kodiak Fish and
Game Advisory Committee for over twenty years so he has observed
Mr. Brown and Mr. Jensen on numerous occasions. Both men fully
explain the rationale they used on issues, which he appreciated
and while he has not always agreed with their votes, he
understood their positions. He urged members to confirm them
as appointees to the Board of Fisheries. He then turned to Ms.
Jeffrey's appointment to the Board of Fisheries. He related
that he has known her for over 30 years. He characterized her
as a hard worker and a person who tries to see both sides of
issues. He offered his belief she does not have an agenda and
is open to listen to the public. He remarked that she is
probably the best fisheries reporter he has ever seen. He said,
"You can see in her articles her knowledge and grasp of
fisheries. I would urge you to confirm her."
1:41:23 PM
LINDA KOZAK stated she grew up in Bristol Bay and that her
family has a salmon set net operation. She has lived in Kodiak
for 35 years and first met Susan Jeffrey when she was a reporter
for the Kodiak Daily Mirror. She had many experiences with her
during her service on the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly. She
characterized Ms. Jeffrey as careful to review both sides of an
issue prior to making any recommendation or decision. She
reported that she is happy to have recommended Ms. Jeffrey for
appointment to the Board of Fisheries. She remarked that she
also supports Mr. Brown and Mr. Jensen for reappointment to the
Board of Fisheries.
1:42:39 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to advance the confirmation for the
appointee referred to the House Resources Standing Committee,
Susan Jeffrey, and to refer her name for consideration to the
joint session of the House and Senate for consideration. Each
member's signature on the committee's report in no way reflects
the member's vote during the joint floor session. There being
no objection, the confirmation was advanced.
1:43:00 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:43 p.m. to 1:46 p.m.
HB 186-WOOD BISON
1:46:08 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 186, "An Act relating to the authority of the
commissioner of fish and game with regard to the importation or
relocation of wood bison in the state."
1:46:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK, speaking as prime sponsor of HB 186, stated
has lived for 44 years in the area that the bison would be re-
introduced. He advised that he is specifically familiar with
the villages of Holy Cross, Anvik, Shageluk, and Grayling. He
explained HB 186 does not prohibit the reintroduction of bison
but restricts re-locating bison until more information and
understanding of the impact in doing so is considered. He
affirmed his trust in the current governor, but remarked that in
the past some administrations have promoted policies which have
been devastating to the country.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK recalled opposition to the bill cautioning
that anyone should make the decision except for the legislature.
He remarked that a legislator will represent and have extensive
knowledge of any specific area of proposed relocation of bison.
Thus, the legislator is the one who would have a familiarity of
the situation at hand. He reiterated that his bill, HB 186 does
not oppose relocating bison, but the department must only do so
with appropriate knowledge. He remarked on the range of wood
bison, noting that two wood bison wandered from Canada about
1,000 miles to the border between Alaska and Canada so the
animals have an extensive range. Further, the proposed
relocation of bison would occur within 50 miles of Donlin Creek,
which provides the source of the only major resource available
to the Calista Corporation. The proposed location also lies
within 50 miles of the inactive Kako gold mine. He further
advised members that numerous pilot projects exist to consider
peat as a resource, and one place in particular lies near
McGrath. He expressed further concern over re-introduction of
bison in the area along the Yukon River since substantial peat
exists in the area. Since fuel prices are astronomical,
villages have been looking for alternative fuel sources, he
said. He cautioned members that changing the bison status could
"lock up" the peat resources in his district. He reported that
he has received numerous e-mails and while some resources might
not be located in his legislative district, the Roads to
Resources program could be affected since the bison have the
ability to roam so far.
1:49:37 PM
PAUL VERHAGEN, Staff, Representative Alan Dick, reviewed some
documents in members' packets. He referred to the first
document titled, "Endangered Species law and Policy," which
details the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services consideration of
lowering or "down listing" the wood bison from an endangered to
a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). He
next referred to a copy of the Federal Register dated February
8, 2011, which substantiates the potential to reclassify or
downlist the wood bison from endangered to threatened species.
He highlighted a quote from the Wood Bison News which noted one
rumor was that the wood bison would be removed from the
threatened species status. Instead, the ruling was reversed and
wood bison was added to the Endangered Species Act list, he
said.
MR. VERHAGEN then referred to a constituent blog dated 3/28/2011
that points out, in terms of federal categories of threatened or
endangered species, the similarity between wood bison and polar
bears. The polar bear has been designated as being on the
threatened species list by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
which has had the effect of "locking up" 120 million acres in
Alaska. He expressed concern that this type of action could
occur in Interior Alaska if wood bison are re-introduced and if
a federal judge issued a ruling under the "10(j)" provision of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
1:51:52 PM
MR. VERHAGEN referenced a blog titled, "FWS Reclassifies Wood
Bison as Threatened Not Endangered, Species." He said the blog
demonstrates that this is an emotional issue, noting the title
misleads readers from what actually happened. The second page
of the blog provides a five-factor analysis that shows threats
to wood bison are still present. The information also indicates
that tougher regulations may be employed against existing
business in areas near threatened species. He turned to
information on the Endangered Species Law and Policy website
which indicates a Section 4(f) recovery plan under the ESA has
not been issued because a wild population does not currently
exists in the U.S. He expressed concern that once wood bison
were re-introduced in the U.S. the 4 (f) recovery plan could be
developed and issued. He surmised any restrictions would be
imposed at the time the 4 (f) recovery plan is issued.
1:53:19 PM
MR. VERHAGEN referred to the Delta Bison Working Group
recommendations following its January 11, 2011 meeting. He
commented that the Delta bison are not designated as threatened
or endangered by the ESA, but the report demonstrates the amount
of effort necessary to try to resolve the conflicts in Delta
Junction. He suggested the conflicts have been ongoing for 30
years. Still, the state has not found any solution to the
issues. He referred to the "fallout" of introducing Delta Bison
resulted in unintended consequences, which he thought could have
been avoided if the legislature had considered the issues.
MR. VERHAGEN pointed to a report in members' packets titled
"Estimated Bison Damage to Delta Agricultural Fields - 2010
Charles Knight." This report details the 2010 estimated costs.
He suggested similar unintended consequences could occur from
the release of wood bison. He predicted the potential years it
might take perhaps without resolution.
1:54:29 PM
MR. VERHAGEN turned to a document titled "Intentional or
Unintended Consequences?" He stated that the bill sponsor
presented this information to his constituents to give them
additional commentary on intentional or unintended consequences.
The next document titled "Wood Bison" provides information to
constituents specifically on wood bison. The last articles in
members' packets are copies of Wood Bison News which are
informative articles that detail the efforts made to re-
introduce wood bison into the wild in Alaska. He concluded that
the sponsor supports introduction of wood bison, but only in the
event that wood bison are removed from the ESA and are not just
reclassified from an endangered to a threatened species.
1:55:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether other areas are also being
considered for the wood bison relocation.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK answered first encountered the plan for
relocating bison in the Minto Flats area. He related that when
he heard the phrase "Trojan Bison" used since the Minto Flats
residents warned him of resource development issues that could
result from the relocation of bison. He was not aware of any
third location under consideration.
1:56:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ requested an explanation of the difference
between wood and plains bison.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK explained that these wood bison are the only
wood bison in North America except for the herds located in
Canada. The plains bison are not endangered and a number of
herds exist in the Lower 48. He advised that these are the only
bison in all of the U.S. He reiterated his belief it would be
unwise to introduce wood bison in the communities of Holy Cross,
Anvik, Shageluk, and Grayling.
1:57:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the wood bison are native to
the U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK responded that historically, between 100 to
500 years ago wood bison existed in the area. He reiterated the
DNR is limited to relocating the animals to an area in which
they previously existed.
1:57:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether the wood and plains bison
in the Delta area could interbreed given that both are capable
of traveling thousands of miles.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK answered he did not have scientific data to
base his answer, but offered his belief that mobility provides
yet another reason why this needs to be "brought to light" and
should be scrutinized.
1:58:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI said he appreciated Representative
Dick's sounding of the alarm given the possibility of unintended
consequences. He offered his belief HB 186 would delay the
relocation for at least a year. He asked what the sponsor
envisioned would occur during that time, such as whether any
hearings would be held.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK predicted that as soon as the people of Holy
Cross, Anvik, Shageluk, and Grayling heard both sides of the
issue, the entire matter may come to a "screeching halt." He
further stated that if his constituents were made fully aware of
all of the issues and still decided to move forward with re-
introduction of wood bison he would support the relocation of
wood bison.
2:00:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ said it appeared that the state Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has been working on this
issue. She inquired as to whether the department has acquired a
"10(j)" exemption from the ESA.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK understood that the "10(j)" exemption is
being crafted in a way that might speak specifically to the wood
bison. He still questioned what "piece of paper" could be
signed in Washington D.C. that could be trusted in Alaska.
2:01:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to the timeline for this
project.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK answered that the anticipated date for re-
introduction of wood bison has been scheduled for the spring
2012. This bill might delay that action by a year, he said. He
offered the possibility that HB 186 would not delay the re-
introduction of wood bison. He suggested that people may wish
to re-introduce bison due to moose or caribou herd reductions
and just suffer the unintended consequences.
2:02:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked for clarification with respect to
regard the "10(j)."
REPRESENTATIVE DICK responded that because the proposed re-
location of the wood bison is experimental the bison would be
exempt from the ESA under the "10(j)" provision of the act. In
further response to Representative Herron, he agreed that
experimental equates to non-essential, which is the reason for
the proposed exemption.
2:03:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON related his understanding that currently
the department could stock game in other areas of the state. He
asked whether the department has followed its priorities based
upon habitat requirements, population of native game, animal
presence and other factors that would affect the successful
establishment of this species.
MR. VERHAGEN acknowledged those answers are yet unknown and is
one reason the sponsor introduced the bill.
2:04:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked whether he has asked ADF&G to
specifically address the statutes that pertain to re-
introduction.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK answered he has held conversations with
ADF&G, but has not written any letters the department.
2:05:07 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON recalled a similar situation arose with musk
oxen. He asked for the availability of any correspondence that
relates to introducing musk oxen.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK said he did not know.
CO-CHAIR SEATON offered his view that reviewing what happened
with respect to musk oxen might lead the committee to
discussions of what might be applicable since an extinct
population was studied prior to being re-introduced.
2:06:10 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired as to whether anything would prevent an
entity from suing once the wood bison were in place.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK recalled prior testimony that some
environmental groups said they did not intend to file against
the "10(j)" exemption due to the absence of potential resources
for resource development in the area. He acknowledged lawsuits
could happen but he was unsure if any would. He further
recalled correspondence in opposition to the bill that suggested
the bill was based on paranoia. He said, "Just because you're
paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you." He
acknowledged that even if the federal government does not renege
on the "10(j)" exemption, the subsistence residents could
potentially end up being the litigants rather than hunters. He
concluded, "It's hard enough to live in that country."
2:07:58 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON recalled that the musk oxen had been classified
as domestic animals before their re-introduction in Alaska. He
inquired as to whether the sponsor could investigate that matter
to perhaps find solutions to the issues with re-introducing wood
bison.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK acknowledged that was a brilliant
observation.
2:09:15 PM
EDWARD GRASSER, Lobbyist, Safari Club International, pointed out
the distinction that the Safari Club International (SCI) is a
conservation group and not a preservation group. Both chapters
of the SCI support the re-introduction of the wood buffalo. He
offered one tenet of the SCI is to recognize the North American
model for wildlife management. The SCI believes that this
project fits under the model, he said. He referred to
[President] Roosevelt's idea that hunters and fishermen would
pay a fee to support the conservation of species. He offered
his belief this approach has been much more effective than has
been the ESA's restrictions.
MR. GRASSER offered his view that this is not an "us versus
them" issue. As conservationists, the SCI believes the
introduction of wood bison would be an economic boon to the
villages in the area and would enhance their subsistence
economies. The SCI believes multiple activities can occur and
should not negate one in favor of another.
2:11:48 PM
MR. GRASSER referred to questions about the ESA's "10(j)" rule.
He reported that the SCI's attorneys in Washington, D.C. have
been in court for 10 years with respect to the wolf de-listing
process and re-introduction of wolves in the Lower 48 in the
Northern Rocky Mountains and along the Great Lakes. He
explained the "10(j)" rule, which is a process under the ESA
that allows for an exemption of that status involving
introduction of a species. The "10(j)" process represents a
rulemaking process that includes non-government entities (NGOs)
as well as state agencies. He characterized the process as a
very involved process. He offered his belief that once
established under the "10(j)" rule the wood bison would not
impact any other activity. He acknowledged questions exist on
whether the federal government could unilaterally rescind the
"10(j)" rule. He said, "It's never happened and it's never been
overturned in court as far as our researchers can find." He
reiterated that the SCI has available some of the best
litigators in the world in its Washington D.C. office yet has
not discovered any instance in which the court ruling has been
overturned. He related that if the federal government wanted to
rescind the rule after the wood bison were re-introduced, the
agency must use the same rulemaking process to overturn the rule
as it used to establish the rule. He reiterated the federal
government could not unilaterally make the decision to rescind
the "10(j)" rule. He said he thought that represented a
significant point in this equation.
2:13:34 PM
MR. GRASSER recalled a similar instance in which the SCI was
approached seven years ago by some of the principals in the
movement to ban the Pebble Mine. He provided his involvement as
serving on the national Board of Directors of the national SCI.
He also served as the field representative of the National Rifle
Association (NRA) at the time. He held extensive conversations
with these groups, but neither one has opposed the Pebble Mine.
He affirmed the SCI's view that the Pebble Mine process should
go forward and the same should hold true for the wood bison
project. The SCI has been involved in the wood bison issue
since the 1980s. He explained that the SCI has worked with the
ADF&G and has invested a significant amount of money into the
project. Thus, the SCI has had a stake in this and has wanted
the project to move forward. He acknowledged problems that the
ESA has caused for Alaska on issues. Therefore, the SCI has
laid groundwork to reform the ESA. He offered his belief that
some structural portions of the act could be amended.
2:15:18 PM
MR. GRASSER provided some historical information on introduction
of the musk oxen into Alaska, which happened prior to enactment
of the ESA. He reported that re-introduction of wood bison has
been put off until the spring 2013 due to some state actions.
MR. GRASSER concluded that the SCI does not believe HB 186 is
necessary and is simply reactionary. The SCI also does not
support inclusion of legislative approval as part of the wood
bison re-introduction since it would make it much harder to move
forward. He offered his belief that some people would use the
bill to block re-introduction of the wood bison, whether the
rationale was based on fact or not. The SCI opposes the bill
since the SCI does not support the wood bison project being tied
to the Delta bison project, he said. He offered his belief that
the SCI has invested over $300,000 thus far on the wood bison
project.
2:17:26 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, with respect to his research on "10(j)" waivers,
asked whether an injunction has ever been granted to temporarily
stop a project while the lawsuit was evaluated.
MR. GRASSER was unsure but offered to research this and get back
to the committee.
2:17:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON inquired as to whether he was a member of
the Alaska Bar Association.
MR. GRASSER answered no.
2:18:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, based on Mr. Grasser's expertise, asked
whether the wood bison could survive wolves in the wild.
MR. GRASSER said he was unsure they would be able to survive
wolves. He reported that in his experience wolves are very
efficient predators and can take down any animal they want. He
deferred to the ADF&G to more definitively answer the question.
2:18:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked him to elaborate on the factors
slowing down the "10(j)" exemption.
MR. GRASSER related his understanding of the original agreement
which included that once the wood bison population was restored
general hunting would be allowed. The SCI has stated it would
not support a "10(j)" rule that did not contain a specific
provision to allow hunting. He said that the current version of
the "10(j)" rule does not address hunting so the SCI and ADF&G
do not support the proposed changes.
2:19:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if the "10(j)" exemption were granted
it is possible that hunting would not be allowed.
MR. GRASSER answered that if the "10(j)" rule passed with an
allowable hunting provision, then hunting definitely would be
allowed.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled his earlier testimony that the
federal government has been considering not allowing hunting.
MR. GRASSER responded that the USFWS did not add in the hunting
provision. He clarified that the federal government cannot just
"willy-nilly" rescind the "10(j)" rule, but must adhere to the
process.
2:20:55 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON, with respect to general hunting, asked whether
the "10(j)" rule would need to include specific language to
allow general hunting and not just subsistence hunting.
MR. GRASSER agreed. He reiterated that currently the "10(j)"
rule does not include specific language to allow hunting which
is why the SCI opposes the current rule-making process.
2:21:49 PM
MIKE SATRE, Executive Director, Council of Alaska Producers
(CAP), on behalf of the CAP, explained the CAP is a non-profit
trade association representing the producing large metal mines
and major resource development in Alaska. He spoke in support
of HB 186, which would require the legislature to approve the
importation or relocation of wood bison in the State of Alaska.
He pointed out several things the bill does not do, including
that it does not prevent the introduction of wood bison in what
appears to be its natural habitat. This bill would not
interfere with the management of the wood bison into a
sustainable herd that may provide meat or hunting revenues into
rural Alaska. He acknowledged that HB 186 would require the
legislature to approve of the actions of the commissioner with
respect to the importation or relocation of wood bison in the
state. The CAP does not have any project in the vicinity of the
proposed wood bison project, but would like to be certain the
full ramifications of such a re-introduction will be considered.
He understood a detailed process has ensued. He hoped that
passing this bill would only be limited to adding time to the
approval process and would allow the legislature time to
consider any potential negative effects it may have on rural
Alaska with respect to application of the federal ESA. He
pointed to similar issues with respect to polar bears, Beluga
whales, and Steller sea lions.
2:23:53 PM
MR. SATRE answered that the currently proposal may be covered by
exemption to the ESA as mentioned in earlier testimony.
However, that may not always be the case as the herd gets bigger
and broadens its range. A petition exists to remove the "10(j)"
exemption and cover the herd as a threatened or endangered
species in the future. He acknowledged the possibility possible
that type of listing could limit developmental activity. He
expressed the CAP's concern about any action that would limit
access activities in rural Alaska for development. He supported
passage of HB 186 to allow legislature time to ensure that
"10(j)" exemption is in place to protect Alaskans ability to
live and recreate in rural Alaska and to consider any impacts
the ESA may have, with respect to the wood bison. He said,
"Rural Alaskans and their way of life is a truly endangered or
threatened species and we want to make sure we aren't doing
anything to affect them," he said. In response to Co-Chair
Seaton, he offered to compile and submit written testimony.
2:26:39 PM
BRYCE WRIGLEY stated while he is unconcerned with wood bison
being re-introduced, but expressed concern that the re-
introduction of wood bison could limit other development. He
related he has held numerous conversations with ADF&G. He also
expressed concern with regard to the 133,000 acres in Minto
Flats area since it lies within traveling distance for the wood
buffalo in the Nenana-Tochaket area. He reiterated his concern
that re-introduction of wood bison could potentially jeopardize
development of the Minto Flats area. He recalled, under the
"10(j)" rule, that in the event the wood bison population
diminished it would not affect game management. However, he
said he was not convinced the ADF&G would exert effort to remove
any obstacles that could impact the herd. He feared that if
ADF&G did not take action the federal government would do so.
He recalled when wolves were re-introduced in the Lower 48 in
the Yellowstone Park area. He indicated Montana and Idaho took
game management actions with respect to wolves but had been
overruled by the federal government. He felt similar actions
could ensue with respect to the wood bison even with the "10(j)"
rule.
2:29:18 PM
MR. WRIGLEY reported that almost all legal challenges to the
"10(j)" rules tended to be taken up on more obscure species. He
thought anything as iconic and American as a bison would
generate emotional support and efforts would be taken to ensure
the wood bison's' survival. He suggested in his research the
only challenges that approximate the wood bison were challenges
to the whooping crane and the California condor.
MR. WRIGLEY referred to the belief that the federal agencies
would not exert any pressure since the federal rule under the
ESA only requires consultation on endangered species. He
offered his belief that view represents a naïve assumption by
ADF&G. He suggested a number of ways exist for the federal
government to exert pressure on state agencies, including
withholding matching funds or by "bullying."
2:31:12 PM
Mr. WRIGLEY summarized three challenges to re-introduction of
the wood bison: the legal challenges to the "10(j)" rule and
whether the rule could be upheld; the federal interference in
the management of the wood bison herd, which could "lock up"
resources; and the amount of land necessary for agriculture,
which could limit other uses.
2:32:16 PM
DON QUARBERG stated he has resided in Delta Junction for 35
years. He has served on the Delta Working Group since its
inception. He related that the DWG is a management group for
the Delta bison. Additionally, he has served on the local Fish
and Game Advisory Committee but is representing himself today.
He took exception with Representative Dick's statement that
ADF&G has done nothing to resolve the Delta bison herd
conflicts. He related that ADF&G has done the following:
cleared and developed several thousand acres of bison range,
planted grasses and small grains as forage for the bison,
developed a supply of fresh water, placed salt blocks to attract
bison to the range, conducted forage trials to improve forage
quality and to identify new and better forages. Additionally,
the ADF&G has worked with the University of Alaska to develop
native grasses on the range, worked with the U.S. Army to create
additional forage on military land. Further, the ADF&G has
developed hunting regulations to improve hunter success of in
harvesting bison. He commented that hunters supported doubling
their fees to provide additional funding to enhance the bison
range. He remarked that regulations changes have changed
hunting seasons to better manage the bison hunts, established an
early hunt on private lands to better manage the bison movement
off private lands, and have allowed the use of ground-based
communication such as cell phones and satellite phones to
enhance the harvest.
2:34:33 PM
MR. QUARBERG related that ADF&G has unsuccessfully attempted to
work with land owners to allow bison hunting on all farm land.
Thus, some farms essentially have essentially become bison
sanctuaries and that makes game management difficult.
Additionally, the ADF&G has been unsuccessful in creating a
share-cropping program to increase forage production on bison
range. He recalled criticism on the location of the Delta bison
range in close proximity to farms. He suggested that when the
land was designated as the bison range it was land considered
unsuitable for farming by the Agriculture Action Council during
Governor Hammond's administration. He further recalled the
legislature passed the proposal which became the bison range.
2:35:36 PM
MR. QUARBERG spoke to his written comments on HB 186, which had
been forwarded to the committee. Many people believe that
wildlife should be allowed to be re-introduced and re-
introducing wood bison would create a wildlife asset for the
State of Alaska, he said. He related his understanding that
commissioners must undergo confirmation by the legislature and
are charged with managing wildlife for Alaskans. He supported
the sponsor's concern on the court action on the "10(j)" ruling
as a valid concern. He remarked that everything Alaska does is
ultimately subject to a judge's ruling. He expressed his view
that HB 186 is unnecessary. He encouraged members to oppose the
bill.
2:37:33 PM
STEVE BORELL, Executive Director, Alaska Miners Association
(AMA), on behalf of the AMA, referred to a letter in members'
packets, which read [original punctuation provided]:
My name is Steve Borell, I am Executive Director of
the Alaska Miners Association and I am testifying on
behalf of the Association.
I believe you have our letter to Rep Dick in your
packets so I will not read that but will make a few
additional comments. We applaud the ongoing efforts
of ADF&G to find a way to make this work while still
protecting the State from the untended consequences of
a listing under the Endangered Species Act.
If the Wood Bison can be excluded from being listed as
"Endangered" or "Threatened" by use of ESA Sec. 10(j)
as "non-essential experimental population" would be a
good step but we feel that the requirement for the
Alaska State Legislature to approve this is important,
at a minimum.
We are aware that some officials within the US Fish &
Wildlife Service have stated that the Wood Bison would
not be listed as "endangered", but as "threatened" and
that they can provide a promise under Sec. 10(j). We
appreciate that if Sec. 10(j) was changed to exempt
the Wood Bison, a second rulemaking would be required
to later change Sec. 10(j) and eliminate that
exemption.
However, we would point out that this is the same
agency that listed the Beluga Whale based on bad
science and the Polar Bear based on political science.
These examples have shown that the USF&WS can no
longer be considered a credible independent science-
based voice. Also, the USF&WS cannot ensure the
outcome of a suit that will inevitably come from some
environmental NGO.
Regarding the bill, we recommend that the Legislature
consider amending the bill to state that re-
introduction of Wood Bison not be allowed until the
U.S. Congress passes legislation that makes it certain
that the Wood Bison cannot be listed as "endangered"
or "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, and
that such re-introduction must then subsequently be
authorized by passage of an act by the Alaska State
Legislature.
It would be wonderful if Wood Bison could be released
but danger of ESA listing is just too great.
MR. BORELL asked to make a few additional comments. He
applauded the ongoing efforts taken by ADF&G to try to make this
work given the possible unintended consequences of the ESA
listing. The AMA views excluding the wood bison from the
endangered or threatened by using the ESA's exemption under
"10(j)" as non-essential experimental population as a step in
the right direction. However, the AMA believes the legislature
should also be a part of the approval process. He recalled some
officials within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have
indicated that the wood bison would be listed as a threatened
species. Additionally, the USFWS indicated that promise could
be issued under the ESA's "10(j)" rule. However, the AMA has
seen recent rule-making processes in which the agency has simply
decided it will do something and then takes action. He pointed
out that the USFWS is the same agency which listed the Beluga
whale and the polar bear using incorrect science and politics to
do so. Thus, the AMA does not believe the USFWS can be
considered an independent science-based voice, he said.
2:39:59 PM
MR. BORELL suggested that HB 186 should be amended to include
approval from the U.S. Congress prior to re-introduction of the
wood bison to ensure the wood bison could not be listed as
endangered or threatened under the ESA. He offered his belief
that the danger of an ESA listing is too great to allow re-
introduction of the wood bison until all the necessary pieces
are in place.
2:40:45 PM
EUGENE PAUL, Holy Cross Tribal Council (HCTC), stated that he is
a member of the HCTC and has been a tribal chief for over ten
years. He has participated in numerous meeting with ADF&G and
locally in Grayling and Holy Cross. He recalled the ADF&G has
plans to build a corral in Shageluk to hold the wood bison for
at least six months to acclimate the bison to the habitat. He
spoke in opposition to HB 186 because of fear that the delay
could devastate the communities. He understood that it could
take years for the herd to build up. He did not believe than
any roaming by the wood bison would impact any of the
subsistence species that the villages harvest, such as moose.
Additionally, the ADF&G has advised the communities that the
wood bison would not be competing with other game resources. He
understood that the regional corporation, Doyon, Limited, fully
supports the re-introduction of the wood bison. He pointed out
the regional corporation has already studied the matter and
supports it. He related that ADF&G has actively kept the
villages informed. He reported that the four villages fully
support the re-introduction of the wood bison. In response to
Representative Dick, he answered that he has not seen the video.
2:43:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK urged Mr. Paul to watch the video which
would illustrate what he is attempting to do. He highlighted
his concern that residents have only heard one viewpoint. He
cautioned that viewpoint was made by people who will benefit the
most from the wood bison's re-introduction. He simply would
like the people to be aware of all implications, including the
possibility that the ESA could be invoked. He said, "My concern
is the bison are going to be free roaming and the people are
going to get penned up." He urged Mr. Paul and other residents
to view the video. He reiterated his earlier commitment that if
people still want the bison after hearing the other side of the
argument, he will support their decision.
2:46:05 PM
STEVEN MENDIVE stated that he has been affiliated with the
Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center, but is speaking today on
his own behalf. He explained that the U.S. has been involved in
bison restoration for over 100 years. He related that the wood
bison was discovered in Canada approximately 60 years ago. He
offered his belief that science and sound biological review has
helped to ensure a sustainable wood bison resource. Over the
course of time several areas demonstrate strong success in re-
introduction of wood bison. He noted how fortunate it is that
Alaska has habitat distinctly needed for wood bison. He
applauded the extent that ADF&G has undergone to ensure a
disease-free herd could be imported into the state from Elk
Island, Canada, in particular, into Alaska's habitat. He also
noted the tremendous challenges a restoration process takes,
especially given the number of concerns. He offered his view
that this process has been well orchestrated and does not need
further oversight. He said that he appreciates the sponsor's
concern, but the oversight is already in place with the
commissioner's supervision, as well as seasoned staff who have
been on this project for over 20 years. He also said he was
surprised such strong opposition would arise amongst Alaskans
when the resource is poised to serve all of Alaska's residents,
not just certain areas.
2:49:16 PM
MR. MENDIVE reported that Canada currently has six different
herds exceeding well over 6,000 animals in the wild. He
acknowledged that some pocketed areas have experienced
challenges, but the herd on the western edge of Canada has an
over-the-counter purchase of hunting permits for bison so it has
worked well. He concluded this demonstrates the biodiversity
and ability to expand and remain predator resistant. He
suggested that so long as the herds remain under 100 animals the
species would be considered sustainable and would not be subject
to bear and wolf predation. He related the ADF&G has extended
itself to rural Alaskans in an open process that demonstrates
both sides and defines the advantages of re-introduction of wood
bison. He remarked on the need to move forward without adding
another layer of oversight that could delay the process.
2:50:05 PM
[HB 186 was held over.]
HJR 20-ROADLESS RULE & CHUGACH AND TONGASS HYDRO
2:50:17 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 20, Urging the President of the
United States, the United States Congress, and the Secretary of
the United States Department of Agriculture not to implement
protection of inventoried roadless areas under the "roadless
rule" or otherwise restrict the development of necessary
hydroelectric projects in the Tongass National Forest and the
Chugach National Forest. [Before the committee was HJR
20(ENE).]
2:50:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KYLE JOHANSEN, Alaska State Legislature, stated
that HJR 20 would urge the U.S. President and the U.S. Secretary
of Agriculture not to implement protection of inventoried
roadless areas. He said he has had firsthand experience with a
project to fund two dams, the Swan Lake and Tyee Hydroelectric
Project. The district would like to connect the two dams to
make an electrical grid. The initial plan was to build a road
alongside for long-term maintenance and operation to make it
cheaper to construct and maintain. However, since the road was
negotiated outside the plan, materials had to be brought in by
helicopter. Additionally, all maintenance and operations must
be performed by helicopter. He pointed out that the communities
are even having difficulty obtaining permission for helicopter
landings. Thus, his district has had first-hand experience with
the difficulties of building a project without a road and
suffering the additional project costs. He expressed concern
about the issuance of "roadless rule."
2:52:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN reported testimony given before the
House Energy Committee with respect to the Blue Lake project in
Sitka. The community would like to increase the height of its
dam and the "roadless rule" puts into question whether that can
be accomplished. He noted a logical progression of events needs
to happen. This rule could be used to slow down or stop the
project. He pointed out one challenge is that the "roadless
rule" designates just one person - a federal employee back East
- to rule whether a road can be built. He predicted a "scary
future" unless the "roadless rule is addressed. He noted that
Alaska's Congressional delegation comprised of U.S. Senators
Begich and L. Murkowski and Congressman Young support
challenging the "roadless rule." In response to Co-Chair Feige,
he explained the difference between the original resolution and
the committee substitute (CS). He remarked that the House
Energy Committee overlooked the fact that U.S. President Obama
has set a goal of having 25 percent of the energy generated in
the U.S. come from renewable "green" resources by 2025. That
language was added to the resolution, he said.
2:55:08 PM
FLOYD KOOKESH noted that he is a former mayor of Angoon and is
testifying on behalf of the current mayor of Angoon, Albert H.
Howard. He read the following written statement from Mayor
Howard, as follows [original punctuation provided]:
First of all thank you for the opportunity to speak on
such an important matter, that impacts the future of
the community of Angoon as well as our community's of
southeast and the State of Alaska for that matter. I
would like to thank my Representative Bill Thomas and
all the other representatives that have co-sponsored
this important House Joint Resolution.
I am a firm believer in the public process, having
said that to me the road less rule is a good example
of leaving the public out of the process.
Alaska is a young infrastructure state compared to the
rest of our country. The Roadless Rule has a negative
impact in so many ways as far as getting much needed
projects built that serve for the betterment of our
communities and citizens of our state.
I am sure in some ways the Roadless Rule serves a good
purpose for some, but as a blanket rule it hurts more
then it helps.
I am testifying in favor of and asking this government
body to support and pass House Joint Resolution No. 20
as it will send a unified message that this type of
Rule does not work for all and that we, as a state,
can implement our own rules as needed, thus allowing
our state the right to self-determination.
2:58:21 PM
JIM STRANDBERG, Project Manager, Alaska Industrial Development &
export Authority (AIDEA) and Alaska Energy Authority (AEA),
stated he is currently a project manager for the AEA on
Southeast Alaska projects. Thus, his comments on behalf of the
AEA are being presented from the perspective of the AEA's
position as a funder and developer of hydroelectric power
projects in the Tongass National Forest roadless inventoried
areas. He offered his view that the HJR 20 focused on a
difficult and time consuming decision-making process that
elevates local and regional decisions to the U.S. Secretary of
Agriculture level. The AEA has concerns with this approach and
the effect on its ability to economically pursue projects, he
said.
2:59:29 PM
MR. STRANDBERG reported on energy projects, such that AEA, as an
independent state agency receives capital appropriations for
construction the construction of hydro and transmission lines -
a number of which are in the inventoried roadless rule areas of
the Tongass National Forest. He pointed out that the AEA was
the granting agency for the $46 million completion of the Swan-
Tyee Intertie that Representative Johansen spoke of earlier. He
indicated that the AEA worked closely with the Southeast Alaska
Power Agency (SEAPA) in accomplishing the project. He
emphasized that the project was a significantly more expensive
process because of the "roadless rule" requirements and
conditions placed on the project. He reported the AEA has
expertise in alternative and renewable energy technologies and
manages the Renewable Grant Program. A number of hydro projects
in the roadless areas are partially funded by the AEA's grant
program, he said.
3:00:37 PM
MR. STRANDBERG related the recent "roadless rule" decision could
have an impact on the AEA's effectiveness on our projects. He
characterized the situation as being an emergency situation.
The AEA has concerns about the approval processes which must be
employed under the current rules to allow the AEA to proceed
timely and complete the projects.
MR. STRANDBERG noted that while some mention was made in the
recent court decision of the ability to construct energy
infrastructure within roadless inventoried areas, economic
access has not yet been defined. He inquired as to what
constitutes economic access. He used the Petersburg to Kake
Intertie project, which is currently in the permitting and
design phases as an example. The economic life of this project
depends on the ability of the project team to use logging roads
for construction access and long-term maintenance of the line.
These economic access conditions must also be known and
measureable during the time of permitting, since funding
decisions are based on the viability of the projects and the
ultimate construction costs of the projects. He stressed the
importance of clarity of rules and access priority in order for
the AEA to pursue projects for its Southeast partners. He
expressed concern with the hydro power generation projects, as
well. He explained that in order to build these important
projects the AEA must have on the ground access to place heavy
construction components, turbines, penstocks, and diversion
dams.
MR. STRANDBERG reiterated that clarity for practical
construction and long-term maintenance are a must for the
economic life of the projects. Clear and reasonable rules and
time-defined decision-making processes will lower the cost of
power for Southeast Alaskans are fundamental to the economic
recovery of the region, he said. He predicted that unreasonable
rules will cost money and will directly affect the all Southeast
Alaskans.
3:03:43 PM
JOHN SANDOR, Board Member, Alaska-Canada Energy Coalition, noted
he first came to Alaska in 1953 to conduct forest surveys in
Southeast Alaska. He related he is a certified forester and
served as the U.S. Forest Service's Regional Forester from 1976-
1984, and as the commissioner of the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation from 1990-1994. He stated he is
speaking on behalf of the Alaska-Canada Energy Coalition. He
read from the following written statement [original punctuation
provided]:
I am a Board Member of the Alaska-Canada Energy
Coalition and want to report for your Hearing Record
that Coalition President Ernie Christian and Executive
Director Paul Southland have approved a Coalition
Resolution Opposing Reinstatement of the Roadless Rule
on the Tongass National Forest.
In summary, the Alaska-Canada Energy Coalition
Resolution determined that the Roadless Rule will
limit or preclude resource development projects on the
Tongass National forest Roadless areas including
development of eighteen of twenty seven U.S. Forest
Service Energy Program projects currently under
application and review on the Tongass National Forest.
A listing of these projects is attached to this
testimony.
The Alaska Canada Energy Coalition Resolution supports
Alaska's appeal of the March 4, 2011 District Court
ruling reinstating the 2001 Clinton Administration's
Roadless Rule on the Tongass National Forest. The
Coalition Resolution also supports efforts urging USDA
Secretary Vilsack finalize the 2003 interim rule
exempting the Tongass National Forest from the 2001
Roadless Rule.
Thank you again, for the opportunity to testify.
Alaska House of Representatives Joint Resolution No.
20 will help assure Alaska's National Forest-dependent
communities have access to the development of
resources that can strengthen their economics and
quality of life values.
3:06:38 PM
FRED MORINO referred to a handout in members' packets titled
Alaska's Scenic Byways that highlights the scenic byways, which
represent 1,200 miles of roadways. He said he supports the
resolution, HJR 20, for many of the same reasons given by Mr.
Sandor, such as hydro, but also for tourism and access to
resources. He said he is a lifelong Alaskan and believes that
Alaska should develop its resources to have control over its
destiny and to take over responsibilities from the federal
government.
3:07:47 PM
DUFF MITCHELL, Business Manager, Juneau Hydropower, Inc. related
that he grew up in Alaska and has lived most of his life here.
He stated that he currently serves as the business manager
Juneau Hydropower, Inc. He read from a prepared statement as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
I am Duff Mitchell, Business Manager for Juneau
Hydropower Inc. Our company has the FERC preliminary
permit for the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project
which is located about 35 miles south of Juneau. The
project is a 30 Megawatt (MW) capacity project that
could contribute up to 136,000 Megawatt Hours (MWh) of
electricity for Southeast Alaska. We are currently on
track to develop this project.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak
on favor of passing this resolution. I would
personally like to thank Rep. Kyle Johansen for
sponsoring this resolution. I would also like to thank
Rep. Bill Thomas, Rep. Peggy Wilson and Rep Bill
Stoltze for co-sponsoring this important House Joint
Resolution that sends a message to federal decision
makers that Alaska is serious about responsibly
developing our resources in an environmentally
sensitive manner.
My testimony is to favor expeditious passage on HJR
20. It has become apparent that if the Tongass
National Forest is not exempt from the administrative
Roadless Rule, and its subsequent implementation that
this rule could have a chilling effect on hydropower
development and transmission line infrastructure
within Southeast Alaska that encompasses the Tongass
National Forest. If not timely resolved, the impact of
the Roadless Rule implementation will decelerate
current Alaska hydropower investment, hold up our
region's economic development, hasten our regional
population decline, and block regional energy security
by depriving Alaska citizens and developers the
opportunity and their federal right under the Federal
Power Act to develop renewable hydropower energy in
the Tongass and Chugach National Forests.
Ironically, it is our federal government that has
investigated over 200 hydropower sites in Alaska. From
1900 to 1950 our federal government has spent millions
in today's dollars for hydropower investigations and
development in what was then the Alaska Territory for
stream gaging, engineering and conducting geological
reconnaissance on potential Alaska hydropower sites.
Further because we were a territory with vast amounts
of public land, Alaska has dozens of federal Public
Land Orders, Power Site Classification sites and
federal power withdrawals in the existing Tongass and
Chugach National Forest signed by the Secretary of
Interior with authority delegated from the President
of the United States expressly reserving these Tongass
and Chugach lands specifically for the hydropower
energy benefit of the citizens of the United States.
Some of these orders are over 90 years old and are
valid Public Land Orders today that predate the
Tongass Land Management Plan and the Roadless Rule.
Further, the State of Alaska already has established
and recorded rights of way for roads and transmission
line corridors within the Tongass for the Southeast
Intertie transmission system. We ask that Alaska
should assert itself that the Roadless Rule should not
pre-empt these and other existing road and
transmission and utility corridor rights provided to
the State of Alaska.
3:11:40 PM
MR. MITCHELL continued:
I would also like to point out that the US Department
of Energy, US Department of Interior, and the
Department of the Army all signed a 2010 Federal
Memorandum of Understanding on the promotion of
hydropower development to "help meet the Nation's
needs for reliable, affordable, and environmentally
sustainable hydropower…" The Secretary of Agriculture
was not a signatory of this document. Now that the
Roadless Rule exemption for Alaska has been overturned
by Judge Sedwick, I would suggest that it is timely
that the President and Congress hasten to have the
Secretary of Agriculture become a signatory on the
2010 Federal Hydropower Memorandum of Understanding
and execute a new Alaska Roadless Rule exempting
Alaska hydropower and associated hydropower
transmission lines.
HJR 20 provides a means for Alaskans under the
leadership of this body to send a clear and
unequivocal message to our President and Congress that
our federal government should be consistent and
unified in renewable hydropower energy development and
demonstrate sensitivity to Alaskan needs in this
matter. Exempting Alaska from the administratively
created Roadless Rule will allow Alaskan citizens,
developers and utilities the opportunity to assist our
Nation in lessening our Nation's dependence on foreign
fuel sources, improve our Nation's energy security,
and lessen our Nation's trade deficit imbalance.
Exempting Alaska from the Roadless Rule provides the
opportunity for Alaskans to develop our Nation's
hydropower resources in the Tongass and Chugach
National Forests in an environmentally sound manner
for the betterment of our Nation which these pre-
existing public land orders and power withdrawal sites
were originally intended.
I urge the Resources Committee to pass this resolution
and request that House and Senate members
expeditiously pass HJR 20. Again, I thank the
Resources Committee Chairmen and members for the honor
and privilege in allowing me to speak on this matter.
3:14:00 PM
SHELLY WRIGHT, Executive Director, Southeast Conference, on
behalf of the Southeast Conference reading from a proclamation
by President Roosevelt, read, as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
And now, first and foremost, you can never afford to
forget for a moment what is the object of our forest
policy. That object is not to preserve forests because
they beautiful, though that is good in itself; nor
because they are refuges for the wild creatures of the
wilderness, though that, too, is good in itself; but
the primary object of our forest policy, as of the
land policy of the Unites States, is the making of
prosperous homes. It is part of the traditional policy
of home making in our country. Every other
consideration comes as secondary. You yourselves have
got to keep this practical object before your minds:
to remember that a forest which contributes nothing to
the wealth, progress, or safety of the country is of
no interest to the Government, and should be of little
interest to the forester. Your attention must be
directed to the preservation of forests, not as an end
in itself, but as the means of preserving and
increasing the prosperity of the nation.
3:15:27 PM
MS. WRIGHT explained the value of HJR 20 as two-fold. First and
foremost, the people who have been living in the Tongass
National Forest have been fighting this resolution for years,
she said. She characterized the people as scratching and
clawing over the "roadless rule" for years. She related the
beauty of HJR 20 is that the state would be standing behind the
people saying it has had enough. She urged members to pass this
resolution and stand behind the people of Southeast Alaska to
tell the government that Alaska needs to have some use of its
lands, assert the necessity of the hydro projects, and be able
to live on its land and survive.
3:16:41 PM
PETER NAOROZ, General Manager and President, Kootznoowoo, Inc.,
on behalf of Kootznoowoo, Inc. stated that his corporation is a
village corporation for the community of Angoon located in the
center of Admiralty Island. The corporation consists of 1,065
shareholders, with about 25 percent residing in Angoon and the
remaining shareholders residing in Juneau and Sitka.
Additionally, the corporation has interests in this "roadless
rule" because Admiralty Island is a national monument
wilderness. As part of the Alaska Native Settlement Claims Act
(ANSCA) settlement, the corporation negotiated the ability to
build a hydroelectric project on the island. The "roadless
rule" does not specifically impact Kootznoowoo, Inc. since it
lies in a wilderness. He explained the corporation requested
this specific provision from the Congress because it did not
trust the powers to be in the future. However, Kootznoowoo,
Inc. selected lands on Prince of Wales Island close to where
Representative Johansen lives. The corporation would desires to
have roads in its 23,000 acres connected to the system but it's
not likely due to this "roadless rule." He pointed out
resources that belong to Alaska that are inaccessible, that some
communities want to be part of economic development, or have the
opportunity to drive to work. He exclaimed that Alaska is in
the 21st century. In 1952, the blue book described the
potential of energy in Alaska as $200 million. He was unsure of
the value in today's dollars. He offered support for HJR 20
because "it shines a light" on a very dark spot and a problem
that this state has."
3:19:30 PM
MR. NAOROZ stated that even before the exemption was overturned
by federal Judge Sedwick, the corporation had a difficult time
getting permission to do things on the Tongass National Forest.
He stated that his company provided 25 pages of comments on the
Tongass Land Use Management Plan (TLUMP). He related that the
Kootznoowoo, Inc. asked for two corridor sections, which were
completely ignored. The Kootznoowoo, Inc. has an appeal sitting
here. One corridor would provide a reliable back door for
Juneau's power and the other one would take power across its
Prince of Wales land to the Niblack Mine. He further related
that while the corridors were to be discussed later, the
exemption is gone and we have "death by a thousand paper cuts."
He hoped the light is bright enough with passage of HJR 20 for
President Obama to wake up and realize that this is the means to
achieve renewable energy goals. He offered Kootznoowoo, Inc.'s
support to the committee, with respect to HJR 20.
3:21:16 PM
MIKE SATRE, Executive Director, Council of Alaska Producers
(CAP), on behalf of the CAP, related that the removal of
exemption from the Tongass National Forest from the "roadless
rule" is a "slap in the face, a kick in the gut, and a spit in
the eye" to any resident of Southeast Alaska who wants to ensure
that we have an economically viable population into the future.
This resolution particularly addresses the electric projects in
the region which are critically important for potential mining
projects but for the sustainability of existing mining projects.
He emphasized the importance of HJR 20 in terms of diesel prices
and the need to develop hydro sources to ensure sustainable
energy. He urged members to pass this resolution from committee
with their full support.
3:22:55 PM
ERIC LEE stated he is a commercial fisherman who has lived in
Petersburg his entire life. He said that Petersburg is located
on Mitkof Island, a small island in the middle of the Tongass
National Forest. He has seen the damage done by the extensive
roads for logging on Mitkof Island. He has observed the damage
to habitat and fish streams caused by logging roads. He related
that Mitkof Island is 24 miles long but has over 150 miles of
road. Many other islands have also seen numerous roads built.
He offered his belief that the roads have resulted in a serious
decline in deer populations and damage to salmon stream spawning
habitat due to silt and blockage due to improperly installed
culverts. He said he believed the problems will only be made
worse if additional roads are allowed and that residents would
be far better off by properly maintaining the currently road
system, protecting the last roadless areas in the Tongass
National Forest for future generations. He remarked that any
perceived concerns regarding hydro projects can and will be
dealt with through specific adjustments to the "roadless rule."
He concluded that the concerns addressed today will prove not to
be valid. He offered his support for the "roadless rule." He
said he thought it would protect what is left of the Tongass for
the future.
3:25:24 PM
MARILYN LELAND, Executive Director, Alaska Power Association
(APA), on behalf of the APA, related that the APA is a statewide
association that provides power to more than a half million
Alaskans from Barrow to Southwestern Alaska, through the
Interior, and Southcentral Alaska to Southeast Alaska. She said
that the APA strongly supports HJR 20 opposing the federal
administration's unreasonable efforts with respect to the
implementation of the "roadless rule" regulations for the
Tongass and Chugach National Forests.
MS. LELAND stated that Alaska is blessed with an abundance of
hydro resources from its lakes and streams that can be built
with minimal impact. Most new hydro development in Alaska
replaces costly, finite, and less environmental benign fossil
generation fuels, typically diesel, coal, and natural gas.
Hydro development has been encouraged and projects are being
pursued from Southeast Alaska, the Railbelt, Western Alaska and
the Aleutians. Special use permits necessary in "roadless rule"
areas of national forests must now be individually signed by the
U.S. Secretary of the Department of Agriculture. Additionally,
to the "roadless rule" permits, forest land use plans must be
amended to accommodate hydro projects located in designated back
country areas of our national forests. These federal actions
could add a year or longer to the hydro project approval process
seriously jeopardizing the three year time frame in which
applicants are bound to perfect their permits. The "roadless
rule" creates an unnecessary impediment to the FERC process.
She predicted that it is possible some hydro projects could be
killed by this rule. She urged members to move HJR 20 and for
the legislature approve this resolution.
3:27:54 PM
JOSEPH SEBASTIAN stated that he is a 33-year Alaska resident and
has worked as a commercial fisherman and a homesteader. He said
the Prince of Wales Island's history was highlighted in earlier
testimony. In 1952, the Prince of Wales Island had less than 50
miles of road on the entire island. However, by 1997, when the
pulp mill contract expired the island had expanded its road
system to 4,500 miles of road. He stated this trend happened
across the entire U.S. He characterized it as public lands
facing maximum exploitation and without any action public lands
would disappear. He heard previous speakers stating they were
not done "exploiting" the Tongass yet, but that type of thinking
never ends. He related that the current "roadless rule"
decision is in a state of flux between the court, the
plaintiffs, and the U.S. Forest Service. He related his
understanding that the parties involved have been working to
remove any impediments to hydro projects since all parties
recognize the importance of hydro to Southeast Alaska, in
particular, not salmon-impacting hydro projects. He remarked
that the parties overwhelmingly support the hydro projects. He
thought this current ruling is a glitch and he anticipated that
all parties would work out an agreeable solution within the next
month or two.
3:30:17 PM
MR. SEBASTIAN offered his belief that the "roadless rule"
protects the Alaskan way of life and the reason many people
initially came to Alaska. Roads cause the greatest damage in
the Tongass National Forest through erosion. He reported the
U.S. Forest Service's data estimates 2,400 blocked culverts in
the Tongass National Forest alone. These blocked culverts no
longer allow fish or smolts to pass and are considered damaging
to salmon fish or production. He related that the "roadless
rule" protects the headwaters of streams. He characterized
these streams as class II and class III streams that flow into
class I streams. Many of the larger blocks of roadless
landscape in the forest, such as the Cleveland Peninsula, Port
Houghton on the mainland north of Petersburg, and East Kuiu
areas are on ADF&G's 19 top-producing watersheds in Southeast
Alaska. He characterized these areas as "treasure troves" of
salmon, bear, deer, bear, moose, and mountain goats. He stated
that these areas represent valuable habitat and resources. He
said, "These aren't just places that, you know, are willy-nilly
being removed from the public trust. They remain in the public
trust for the use of the public. They're just removed from a
level of "exploitation"." He remarked that it's done so much
damage in the Tongass National Forest.
3:32:17 PM
MR. SEBASTIAN said he views the "roadless rule" in the same way
he that he views the Alaska Permanent Fund, which is that this
area has been land set aside for the future. He pointed out the
currently climate changes in northern and western Alaska
demonstrate the natural circumstances beyond our control.
Alaska has been losing its icepack, which has caused villages to
be washed away. These roadless areas and the protection they
enjoy could be preserved for the future. He surmised that the
state may be able to charge money for the lands as a carbon
bank. He stated that these lands represent a national reserve
for our children and future residents of this state. He urged
members to take a long-term view to consider the resources,
including the fragile nature and exploitation of the resources
changes the very nature of them. He offered his support for the
"roadless rule" and urged the committee to do the same.
3:33:58 PM
TIM ROONEY, Borough Manager, City & Borough of Wrangell, on
behalf of the City & Borough of Wrangell (CBW), spoke in support
of HJR 20. He said he also serves as second vice president of
Southeast Conference and the Wrangell alternate on the Southeast
Alaska Power Association (SEAPA) board. He related that
protection of the inventoried roadless areas will have a
detrimental impact on the ability to expand hydroelectric power
generation and transmission in Southeast Alaska. He stated that
Wrangell has affordable electric rates, but it is one of only a
handful of communities with affordable energy rates in Alaska.
He offered his belief that if federal approval of hydro projects
doesn't happen that other communities will never get to
experience the affordable rates that his community offers. He
offered his view that the continued burning of diesel fuel is
more harmful to the environment than the development of any
hydro project. He referred to the governor's goal of generating
50 percent of energy in the state from renewable resources,
which is in addition to President Barack Obama's
administration's goals. He was unsure of how the goals would be
met if the "roadless rule" were applied in this region. He
reported that the CBW adopted a nearly identical version of the
resolution before committee members today. He encouraged
members and the legislature to do the same.
3:35:46 PM
DAVE CARLSON, Chief Executive Officer, on behalf of the
Southeast Alaska Power Association (SEAPA), stated that the
SEAPA owns two hydro projects in southern Southeast Alaska,
along with approximately 170 miles of transmission lines between
Ketchikan, Wrangell and Petersburg. He related that SEAPA
provides 100 percent of Wrangell's electrical generation needs
and half of Ketchikan's needs with hydro power. He stated that
SEAPA strongly supports HJR 20. He offered his belief that the
"roadless rule" rule is a killer to the economy, to new
transmission lines, and to new hydro projects. He explained
that 35 percent of the Tongass National Forest has been set
aside as monuments and wilderness and is off limits. The area
affected by the "roadless rule" encompasses about 57 percent
that would be off limits. Added together, this would represent
92 percent of the national forest, he said. He reiterated it
would be very difficult to build new hydro projects under the
"roadless rule." He pointed out that he works "on the ground"
to maintain transmission lines using helicopters. He affirmed
earlier testimony, that helicopters cost approximately $1,000
per hour. He remarked that the total ratepayer costs per KW
hour increase when utilities must use helicopters rather than
roads to build and maintain transmission lines and hydro
projects. He reiterated SEAPA's strong support for HJR 20.
3:37:26 PM
STEVE BORELL, Executive Director, Alaska Miners Association
(AMA), offered the AMA's support of HJR 20. He paraphrased from
his written testimony, as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
My name is Steve Borell, I am Executive Director of
the Alaska Miners Association and am testifying on
behalf of the Association.
We support House Joint Resolution 20 opposing
implementation of the roadless rule.
The roadless rule has been a moving target since it
was first introduced. The Clinton Administration
changed its mind two times during rulemaking regarding
whether or not the nationwide Roadless Rule should
apply to the Tongass National Forest before making a
third change by extending the Rule to the Tongass
National Forest on January 12, 2001.
In 2001 the State of Alaska litigated the Final
Roadless Rule on the ground, among others, that it
violated § 1326 (a), the "no more" clause of the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA). In 2003 the Federal Government settled the
State's lawsuit by promulgating an interim rule that
exempted the Tongass National Forest from the Roadless
Rule and Alaska remained exempt under the "State
Petition Rule" promulgated in 2005. The Tongass
remained exempt under the interim rule even after the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the State
Petition Rule in 2009.
However, on March 4, 2011 the District Court for the
District of Alaska determined that the interim rule
exempting the Tongass had been promulgated in an
arbitrary and capricious manner and thus vacated the
exemption and reinstated application of the Roadless
Rule.
The Roadless Rule will adversely impact potential new
hydro-electric projects and the infrastructure
required to support these projects, and it will
adversely impact exploration and mining activities
within inventoried Roadless Areas as well.
It is also important to know that the phrase
"inventoried roadless areas" does not necessarily mean
"Roadless Areas". Many of the "inventoried roadless
areas" have an extensive road system and one of the
previous speakers stated that there may be as many as
4500 miles of logging roads in the Tongass. These are
roads that you can drive on with your car but many of
these have none the less been included in the
"inventoried roadless areas" and cannot be used by the
public.
The same thing has occurred in the Chugach National
Forest and one example is the Palmer Creek road which
built in the early 1900s. This road was included in
the "inventoried roadless areas" but it was included
and today use by the public is not allowed due to the
Roadless Rule.
MR. BORELL concluded by reiterating the Alaska Miners
Association's support for HJR 20.
[HJR 20 was held over.]
3:40:33 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m.