Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/26/1997 03:42 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
JOINT SENATE/HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
February 26, 1997
3:42 P.M.
SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Rick Halford, Chairman
Senator Lyda Green, Vice Chairman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Bert Sharp
Senator Robin Taylor
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
SENATE MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator John Torgerson
HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Bill Williams
HOUSE MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman
Representative Joe Green
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative Reggie Joule
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Briefing: Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas
Ms. Thyes Shaub, Chairman
Mr. Steven Porter, past Chairman
Mr. Stan Leaphart, Executive Director
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 13
Relating to RS 2477 rights-of-way.
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SJR 13 - No previous action to consider.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-14, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Joint Senate/House Resources Committee
meeting to order at 3:42 and announced the briefing from the
Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas. He noted that Stan
Leaphart, Executive Director, has for years been the spark plug
behind a great deal of defense of a great deal of different
interests.
THYES SHAUB, Chairman, introduced the members of the Commission in
attendance: Mr. Steve Porter, Mr. Stan Leaphart, Mr. Del Ackels,
Mr. Charlie Bussell, Mr. Grant Doyle, Mr. Don Finney, Mr. Clarence
Furbush, Senator Sharp, and Senator Halford.
MS. SHAUB said the Commission was formed in 1981 shortly after the
passage of ANILCA which put 104 million acres of land into federal
conservation units and established specific requirements and
restrictions on land use. The Commission was formed to watch out
for the interests of Alaskans and access to land in the
implementation of ANILCA.
She noted that they had developed a good working relationship with
agencies within the Department of Interior and the Department of
Agriculture. One of the things the Commission did was initiate a
cooperative effort with agencies to simplify reporting requirements
for air carriers operating on federal conservation system units so
they can file one report instead of several reports to a number of
federal agencies. This is an example of the streamlining
activities they do. They have assisted guides, hunters, private
land owners, miners, loggers, commercial fishermen, and native
organizations on public access and regulatory issues. They have
submitted comments on numerous land plans and proposed federal
regulations such as the Tongass Land Management Plan, Endangered
Species Act, proposed listings, RS2477 regulations, and other
regulatory issues regarding management of federal lands.
When the Commission was first established there were five full-time
staff people in addition to the 16 members. They reviewed and
commented on all the major land management documents for federal
conservation units and assisted numerous groups and individuals
with their problems in dealing with the federal government on
management issues. The Commission is now down to one staff person.
She noted that Mr. Leaphart is the only person in State government
who checks the federal register every day and flags important
issues that come up. He has a wide network of organizations and
individuals who he gives this information to on a regular basis.
MS. SHAUB said their annual report details the activities they have
been involved in over the last year.
Number 139
MR. STEVE PORTER said he has noticed some trends in relation to the
State and federal government. He said the federal government has
influence over the State through the administration in negotiating
international treaties and agreements. One example is the
International Treaty on Polar Bears which was used last year by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as the authority for their
regulatory authority over specific oil and gas operations on the
North Slope. Therefore, we need to be aware that even
international treaties have an impact on Alaskans.
An important item is that international agreements are generally
negotiated in Washington D.C, like the Alaska Arctic Off-Shore Oil
and Gas Guidelines presently being negotiated between the various
countries of the Arctic. This is being done with very little or no
input from the State of Alaska and we have the only arctic waters
in the United States. He thought if they are meeting on U.S. soil,
they should meet in Alaska.
Another area that affects Alaska is the regulatory arena. He said
that Mr. Leaphart functions as a coordinator also, because he gets
information and sends it out to people who understand it. A lot of
the regulatory changes are being called "housekeeping" changes
which suggests that this is nothing important. What is happening,
though, is the federal government is actually stepping forward and
increasing their regulatory authority. One of the most recent
changes that has substantially impacted the people of the State is
the RS2477 interim policy that the Secretary of Interior just
changed. Another thing the federal government does is
clarification of policy which they track also, like the National
Park Service Navigability Water Regulations.
MR. PORTER said another area they have to watch is "studies" which
are seldom truly studies. Very few studies are conducted for
research and understanding; most of the time there is a
predetermined goal set out in advance of the study and the study
does nothing more than come to the intended conclusion. In the
past they have examined some of the studies and occasionally have
seen the intent of the study and refuted it. He gave an example of
study done by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the Colville
Delta. The concern was helicopter impacts on birds and the thesis
was if there was oil and gas development on the Colville Delta,
helicopter overflights might have the birds run around so much that
they would lose sufficient weight that they couldn't fly south for
the winter and they would therefore die. But they killed over 500
birds and weighed their muscles to make this determination and they
actually herded thousands of birds over 2 kilometers to capture
them. So the study's impact was substantially greater than 20
years of Prudhoe Bay type of activity. Their formulas also
randomly doubled a couple of factors. However, once the Commission
submitted their response to that, the study disappeared.
MR. PORTER said we need to make it a priority to review all federal
regulations whether they are couched in housekeeping terms or new
regulatory action. Alaskans can comment on the policy shifts and
the State can sometimes act on policy.
Number 269
MR. STAN LEAPHART said he has noticed over the last few months a
change in the posture of the federal government towards navigable
waters. In July of last year the National Park Service adopted
some clarification or housekeeping regulations that specifically
stated that their management authority extends to all waters within
national parks including navigable waters. In their assessment,
working with the AG's Office this flies in the face of the major
piece of enabling legislation for most of the park units which is
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
ANILCA says that State lands are not included; they are not subject
to federal jurisdiction on a lot of issues. In the fall of last
year the BLM proposed similar regulations that have to do with the
management of wild and scenic rivers and wild and scenic study
rivers.
There are six wild and scenic rivers in Alaska that are under BLM
management and interestingly enough about four or five of those are
some of the largest mining areas in the whole State. Once again,
the BLM has authority under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to
approve or disapprove of any resource project that affected a
segment. He noted that fisheries enhancement projects on this
river would be subject to approval or disapproval by the BLM.
MR. LEAPHART said another set of "housekeeping" regulations are the
BLM law enforcement regulations which are still under review.
These do not affect just Alaska, but there are some particular
concerns for Alaska because they tend to ignore some of the special
provisions Alaska was granted under the Alaska Lands Act.
Number 354
The Endangered Species Act is frequently used as a political tool
rather than a biological or management tool.
There is a whole other area of international area designations,
like Man in the Biosphere Reserve Program (there are 4) under the
United Nations and World Heritage Site Designations (there are 2).
There are an additional seven areas in Alaska that have been
nominated to be included on the World Heritage Site list. He
didn't know enough about them to know how they affected management
one way or the other.
MR. LEAPHART pointed out other concerns are the management plans
the federal agencies started writing since ANILCA in the early
1980s. He said we are about to see in the next four or five years
a whole new round of planning activity for the National Parks and
National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska.
Number 443
CHAIRMAN HALFORD commented that the federal bureaucrats at Glacier
Bay are attacking the 25 or 30 fishing vessels that traditionally
fish in Glacier Bay on behalf of increasing the number of 800 and
900 ft. cruise ships. He thinks it is an environmental issue and
doesn't make any sense.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES commented that committee members should learn
about bioshperic reserves because that everywhere you have one,
it's not just the designation of that park, but the 250 miles
around it.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if all the existing biosphere reserves
exist in federal parks. MR. LEAPHART replied that they do not. He
said he wasn't sure of the difference between the heritage sites
and biospheric reserves.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that the Commission is traditionally deleted
from the budget by the Governor's office and reinserted by the
legislature.
Number 490
SENATOR LINCOLN said she appreciated the information they have
supplied to the committee. She asked if they had requested the
Attorney General to file any lawsuits in 1996. MR. PORTER answered
that they hadn't recently, but the State filed one against the
National Park Service over its cabin regulations and lost.
SENATOR LINCOLN said that the Commission is no longer able to
sponsor public meetings solely for gathering public input on
specific issues and it bothers her that the general public can't
have access to their meetings, especially in the rural areas. MR.
PORTER replied that one thing they try to do as a commission is
influence the regulators by asking them why they didn't have a
public meeting and basically intimidate them into allowing the
public to speak.
MS. SHAUB said that every time they have a meeting it is public and
their budget doesn't allow them to travel as much as they used to.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she understood that, but it was her concern
that only the folks in Anchorage and Fairbanks could testify at
most meetings leaving out the rural people.
SENATOR LINCOLN referenced a letter dated December 4 and said she
would be interested in the response. MR. LEAPHART replied that
there was no response, but what typically happens is in the final
regulations they list the organizations that have commented on them
and summarize the comments. It's not normal to get a direct
response to a particular letter.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if they had looked into proposed
regulations on trapping on federal wildlife preserves. MR.
LEAPHART said this is one of the areas where he got copies and sent
it to the world. On this issue his concern was that there was
supposed to be a task force, but they "fooled around" for 90 days
then issued another letter saying they didn't have time to do it in
the time given so just threw it out for public comment. This
action does not meet the requirement of the appropriation which was
to put together a task force.
He said that an argument supported by statute is that all
activities on a wildlife refuge are subject to compatibility
determinations. ANILCA which established most of the refuges up
here, while it doesn't specifically authorize trapping, makes it
very clear in the intent language and the general authority
language that it is a traditional activity and will be allowed.
MR. PORTER said their concern was that there was an appropriation
for a study of leg hold traps. So they contacted all the trapper's
associations here and in the lower 48 to let them know what was
going on. What they expect to see are regulations and a
determination saying that this is not proper.
MS. SHAUB said they are considering attending meetings in the other
Western States to talk about areas of common interest.
TAPE 97-14, SIDE B
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if FLPMA had become law. MR. LEAPHART replied
yes and explained that it is sort of the organic act of BLM. It's
a general authority. SENATOR TAYLOR said the part that alarms him
is where they proposed for the federal government to contract with
local enforcement officials in the performance of their duties.
Another part that concerns him is, "...search, without warrant or
process, any person, place, or conveyance according to any federal
law or rule of law and seize, without warrant or process, any
evidentiary item as provided by federal law." It goes on to
provide extensive penalties should one resist. He found it very
frightening. MR. LEAPHART reiterated that these regulations have
not been enacted and they are under public review; the comment
period ends a week from tomorrow.
Number 534
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if discharging a firearm was creating a
disturbance. SENATOR GREEN said yes it was and the wording was on
page seven. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he shared Senator Taylor's
concerns especially regarding our due process rights.
MR. GRANT DOYLE, Commission member, said one of the things that
concerns him is a provision in the new statutes allowing the BLM to
commandeer local law enforcement to fulfill the regulations. They
understand there will be a lot of resistance so they make us use
our own police to enforce the laws.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked where the commission would suggest they
prioritize financial allocations. He asked them for a proposal
that is specific enough to be budget items.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked regarding page 9, section 92.65.43 if
subsistence use resources are regulated by BLM and other federal
land management agencies referenced as 50CFRpart100. He asked if
they encompassed enforcement concepts similar to those which Mr.
Doyle mentioned or that he referenced in the proposed regulations.
MR. LEAPHART answered that those were Department of Interior
regulations, their part of the federal subsistence regulations.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if BLM became the police officers for
enforcing subsistence regulations on BLM land. MR. LEAPHART
replied yes. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the Forest Service was the
enforcement on U.S. Forest Service lands. MR. LEAPHART said that
is correct. SENATOR TAYLOR said he thought there was significant
duality in the manner in which those regulations are currently
being enforced. He said they are being stringently enforced on the
Stikine River which is in his back yard, but he was also aware that
BLM was not enforcing their regulations in a similar fashion up
north. He said this because he had watched people from Anchorage
and Fairbanks participate in subsistence activities in those
communities, particularly caribou hunts, which they would literally
be poachers on if they were enforcing the law as it is written. He
is very concerned about that, especially because in his district
right now the new proposed subsistence regulations say that no one
from Ketchikan will be allowed to hunt on Prince of Wales Island
for deer. He thought they chose to discriminate in the manner in
which they enforce their own regulations.
Number 445
SENATOR LEMAN asked regarding page 11 what BLM rules must he follow
if he's in an outstanding natural area if the term "outstanding
natural area" is not found in existing regulations. MR. LEAPHART
answered that was an excellent question. He said it wasn't in the
proposed regulations' definition of terms section.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD thanked them for their presentation, their past
efforts, and their on-going efforts. He said that concluded the
subject matter for their joint hearing and asked the Senate members
to remain to address a resolution.
SJR 13 OPPOSE DEPT. OF INTERIOR RS 2477 POLICY
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SJR 13 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR GREEN moved to adopt SJR 13 with individual
recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD adjourned the meeting at 4:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|