Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
03/29/2021 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Congressman Don Young's Seward's Day Address on Alaska Resources | |
| Presentation: 30 by 30 Initiative | |
| SB101 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 101 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 29, 2021
3:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Joshua Revak, Chair
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Senator Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Natasha von Imhof
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Mike Cronk
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONGRESSMAN DON YOUNG'S SEWARD'S DAY ADDRESS ON ALASKA RESOURCES
- HEARD
PRESENTATION: 30 BY 30 INITIATIVE
- HEARD
SENATE BILL NO. 101
"An Act extending the termination date of the Citizens' Advisory
Commission on Federal Management Areas in Alaska; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 101
SHORT TITLE: ADVISORY COMMISSION ON FEDERAL MGT AREAS
SPONSOR(s): RESOURCES
03/05/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/05/21 (S) RES
03/29/21 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
CONGRESSMAN DON YOUNG
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an update and his perspective of
Alaska resources.
DICK MYLIUS, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the 30 by 30
Initiative.
DOUGLAS VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed the Biden Administration's
Executive Order on climate change and the 30 by 30 Initiative.
BETTY TANGEMAN, Staff and Committee Aide
Senator Joshua Revak
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 101 on behalf of the Senate
Resources Standing Committee.
KRIS CURTIS, Legislative Auditor
Division of Legislative Audit
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on SB 101, presented the
sunset audit report for the Citizens' Advisory Commission on
Federal Areas (CACFA).
DANIEL MORSE, Auditor
Division of Legislative Audit
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
101.
SUSAN SMITH, Commission Member
Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas (CACFA)
Chokosna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions and provided information
during the hearing on SB 101.
TINA CUNNING, ANILCA Specialist
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided background on ANILCA during the
hearing on SB 101.
STAN LEAPHART, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 101.
JOHN STURGEON, representative
Safari Club International Alaska Chapter
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 101.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:32:16 PM
CHAIR JOSHUA REVAK called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:32 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Bishop, Kawasaki, Micciche, Kiehl, and Chair
Revak. Senator Stevens joined the meeting shortly thereafter.
^Congressman Don Young's Seward's Day Address on Alaska
Resources
CONGRESSMAN DON YOUNG'S SEWARD'S DAY ADDRESS ON ALASKA RESOURCES
3:33:13 PM
CHAIR REVAK introduced and welcomed Congressman Don Young to
give an update and his perspective of Alaska resources.
3:33:59 PM
CONGRESSMAN DON YOUNG, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C. began his address by highlighting that Mr.
Seward's purchase of Alaska for the U.S. was probably the best
buy of public lands from another country in the history of the
world. Alaska has had a tremendous advantage because of the
natural resources, but it became overly dependent on one source
of income. He urged the legislature to address this imbalance by
looking at the diversification of natural resources on state
lands. He acknowledged that this could be challenging because
some people do not want any resources developed in the state and
others claim the state constitution prohibits resource
development.
CONGRESSMAN YOUNG suggested developing a program and plan that
looks at available mineral, fossil fuel, timber and other
resources on state land that could provide an economic base. He
offered his perspective that the state has always been a
resource oriented state and that there will be no other large
industry until hydroelectric and geothermal sites are developed
to produce surplus energy. "Once we do that we marry that with
the minerals and the other products that God's given us, and we
can have a real sound, long-term economic base in the state of
Alaska," he said.
CONGRESSMAN YOUNG offered his perspective of the suggestion that
tourism could be the state's economic base instead of natural
resource development:
Some people are saying we don't need that, we'll live
on tourism. You've seen what's happened to the tourist
industry. It's been a disaster - quite simply because
of government interference. I'm trying to get the
boats sailing this year; it's going to be real close.
I'm not sure it can happen in time. But the whole
state has to have more than just one source of income.
We have to have all the diversification as possible.
3:36:36 PM
CONGRESSMAN YOUNG restated that he would like the legislature to
look at the natural resources the state has and whether they can
be developed. He continued:
Why can't we if we can't? Is it government
interference? And that's where I come in. I believe we
can do it through the courts, I believe we can do it
through legislation. It's interesting times back here
in Washington, D.C. I'll tell you that right now. We
have some strange squirrels in this Congress that
don't believe we need to anything. We're going to live
off of I might say hot air - we probably get most of
it out of Washington, D.C. but their theory will not
work.
CONGRESSMAN YOUNG concluded his comments by again urging the
legislature to diversify and develop the natural resources in
the state.
3:37:48 PM
SENATOR BISHOP asked if there would be any money in the federal
infrastructure bill for hydroelectric power and if any of it
might come to Alaska.
CONGRESSMAN YOUNG answered that he did not know if states would
receive a capped amount or if money would be allocated by
project, but his intention was to spread it around. He added
that the delegation needed specific information about the small
hydro sites throughout the state so he could argue for those in
committee. He expressed doubt that the Susitna hydro project
would be included.
3:39:49 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE commented that the rise in oil prices after the
container vessel became stuck in the Suez Canal helped the
fiscal situation in Alaska.
CONGRESSMAN YOUNG offered his view that somebody was not paying
attention.
3:41:05 PM
SENATOR STEVENS observed that all the squirrels are not in D.C.
CONGRESSMAN YOUNG responded and emphasized the need to develop
the natural resources in Alaska and other states as opposed to
importing from other countries.
3:42:11 PM
SENATOR KIEHL thanked him for the bill he introduced to return
cruise ships to Alaska waters this season. "It was probably one
of the cleverest pieces of legislative drafting I have seen in a
very long time of watching this work," he said.
CONGRESSMAN YOUNG replied he had high hopes, but it was not
clear that it would be in time for the upcoming season.
CHAIR REVAK thanked him for making the time to address the
committee on Seward's Day and expressed appreciation for what he
does on behalf of Alaskans.
3:44:34 PM
CONGRESSMAN YOUNG concluded his comments with a recollection of
lighting a cannon in celebration of Seward's Day many years ago
when he was visiting Sitka.
3:45:12 PM
CHAIR REVAK recognized that Senator Stevens had joined the
committee and Representative Cronk was in the audience.
^PRESENTATION: 30 by 30 Initiative
PRESENTATION: 30 by 30 Initiative
3:45:30 PM
CHAIR REVAK announced an overview by Dick Mylius on the Biden
Administration's 30 by 30 Initiative and what it means in
Alaska.
3:46:55 PM
DICK MYLIUS, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, introduced
himself and informed the committee that he worked on land
management issues at the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
for 29 years and since he retired he has been working part time
as a consultant and trainer on Alaska lands issues.
MR. MYLIUS reviewed the 30 by 30 goal on slide 1, which is to
conserve 30 percent of the nation's land and waters by 2030.
This is an international effort to address loss of habitat,
species extinction, and climate change. He highlighted that this
goal considers 30 percent of all lands, not just federal lands,
and it applies to protection of waters. He offered his
understanding that neither the U.S. House nor the U.S. Senate
resolution that set the goal had passed.
He stated that the President Biden's Executive Order charged the
secretaries of Interior, Agriculture and Commerce, and the Chair
of the Council on Environmental Quality to submit a report by
April 27 outlining the next steps. The Department of Interior
indicated that 12 percent of the lands nationwide are
permanently protected. However, neither the Biden
Administration, Congress nor federal land and water managers
have defined what constitutes conserved or protected lands or
waters. That needs to be done to determine whether or not the
goal is being met. He said that based on his search of websites,
advocacy groups have widely differing opinions. Some advocate
that the only protected lands are federally designated
wilderness while others say lands such as U.S. Forest Service,
BLM, and state of Alaska multiple use lands could be considered
protected lands.
3:49:51 PM
MR. MYLIUS displayed the list on slide 3 that shows that
according to the Department of Interior definition of protected
lands, more than 40 percent or 149 million acres of Alaska's 365
million acres are protected. This includes national wildlife
refuges, national parks, the Tongass National Forest Wilderness,
the Chugach Wilderness Study Area, BLM national conservation
system lands, the White Mountains National Recreation Area,
state parks, and state wildlife areas. He highlighted that the
only areas in the Tongass and Chugach national forests that are
identified as protected are those that are designated as
wilderness or wilderness study areas.
He reviewed the waters in Alaska currently under protection.
This includes 60-65 million acres in state waters and the
federal waters that extend from three to 200 miles offshore. He
noted that Commissioner Vincent-Lang will discuss federal
waters. He reviewed the following sample of state water
designations:
• 17 Critical Habitat Areas established in AS
16.20, examples 1.5 million acres (land and
water):
• Copper River Delta (550,000 acres)
• Kachemak Bay (229,620 acres)
• Susitna Flats State Game Refuge (497,698 acres)
• 34 State Marine Parks (77,000 acres)
• Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve
MR. MYLIUS advised that the state is responsible for placing any
more tidelands and submerged lands into protected status, not
Congress.
3:52:05 PM
MR. MYLIUS outlined the national issues associated with the 30
by 30 Initiative. He paraphrased the following from slide 5:
[Original punctuation provided.]
What constitutes "protected" or "conserved" lands?
Department of Interior refers to 2016 USGS report:
"Completing America's Inventory of Public Park and
Protected Areas" data base recently updated
Emphasis on acreage versus high value lands emphasis
on acreage has a greater impact federal lands in West
Executive order and Congressional resolutions direct
federal agencies to work with state, local, private
landowners to voluntarily conserve and protect lands
Examples of actions state and private owners could
take:
• sell land to federal government for Conservation
• establish conservation easements
• sell carbon credits
MR. MYLIUS turned to slide 6 and reviewed the Alaska specific
issues associated with the 30 by 30 initiative that officials in
Washington D.C. may not be aware of. He made the following
points:
It is no surprise that some non-governmental organizations (NGO)
are already advocating for more protected lands in Alaska.
• Outside of Alaska there is a lack of awareness about how
much state and federal land in Alaska is already protected.
That is why it is important to broadcast that it is 40
percent.
• Many NGOs and federal officials in Washington D.C. have no
knowledge about the compromises and balance struck in the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
• There is also a lack of awareness that ANILCA includes
unique Alaska-specific provisions such as access rights and
exceptions to prohibitions in the Wilderness Act.
• The "no more clause" or sections 1326(a) and (b) of ANILCA
is particularly important. Section 1326(a) imposes a 5,000-
acre restriction on the administration on withdrawals in
Alaska unless Congress approves within a year. Any
Antiquities Act withdrawals by the president or secretaries
of Interior or Agriculture are subject to that limit. He
noted that Congress can ignore this but the administration
cannot.
• Section 1326 (b) of ANILCA states that unless directed to
do so by Congress, federal agencies are prevented from
studying Alaska lands specifically for the purpose of
establishing new conservation areas.
MR. MYLIUS concluded his testimony and offered to answer
questions.
3:56:14 PM
CHAIR REVAK asked if he had any advice for the state to defend
itself against what he imagines will be efforts to expand
protections under ANILCA.
MR. MYLIUS said he believes it is important to 1) emphasize to
the administration that it is limited in what it can do under
ANILCA; 2) educate people in D.C. about what ANILCA is and what
it contains; and 3) stay in touch with the Alaska delegation to
see if the state needs to take any action in this regard.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if he agrees that the 30 by 30 Initiative
passed during a Republican administration.
MR. MYLIUS replied he was not aware of any legislation, but it
is an international effort that predates the Biden
administration.
3:59:24 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE expressed hope that Alaska could get 35 million
acres removed from protection since the state is well above the
30 percent target. He said he was more concerned about federal
waters where a lot of Alaska family and larger corporate fishing
takes place. He asked if there was any indication of what that
might look like.
MR. MYLIUS deferred the question to Commissioner Vincent-Lang.
4:00:32 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if he expected western states to band
together to offer an offense to the 30 by 30 measure since those
states have an abundance of federal land compared to eastern
states. He reported that just 1.62 percent of the land in
Massachusetts is federal and 0.27 percent or just under 9,000
acres in Connecticut is federal, whereas Nevada has 81 percent
in federal hands and Alaska has a lot in federal hands as well.
MR. MYLIUS replied he would think it would be in the interest of
those western states to band together because that is where the
easy acres of federal lands are located. It's more difficult in
the east, some of which really needs protection, and in places
like Kansas and Nebraska that have very little protected land.
4:02:08 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked if he expects Congress to pass the
resolutions with just the goals but no process.
MR. MYLIUS replied Congress would have to establish process at
some point if it wanted to set aside federal lands to the level
that is being discussed.
4:02:58 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE commented that the 30 by 30 Initiative is an
international effort that has some states and industries living
in fear even though the U.S. has not acted on it. He expressed
hope that it does not come to reality without some sort of
process because states like Nevada and Alaska are already at a
disadvantage. He asked if he agrees that it is a little
disturbing.
MR. MYLIUS clarified that there would be a process, but at this
point neither the administration nor Congress has figured out
how to proceed. The report that is due at the end of April may
shed light on the next steps.
4:04:54 PM
CHAIR REVAK thanked him for the presentation and his work on
behalf of the state.
4:05:10 PM
CHAIR REVAK welcomed Commissioner Vincent-Lang.
4:05:24 PM
DOUGLAS VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, Juneau, Alaska, stated that ADF&G is and will remain
the principal manager of Alaska's fish and game resources. He
thanked the committee for the invitation to provide comments on
the Biden Administration's executive orders on climate change
and the 30 by 30 Initiative. He advised that his staff had been
reviewing the EOs and would provide detailed written comments by
the deadlines established in the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's requests for information. He said his comments were
based on testimony he provided on the two issues during the NOAA
hearing last week.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG stated that Alaskans are very proud of
the rich on- and off-shore resources of the state that are
sustainably managed to be used, developed, and conserved in the
best interests of the economy and wellbeing of Alaskans now and
in the future, as required in the state constitution. He said
Alaska's fish and game management programs are lauded worldwide
for maintaining healthy populations of fish and wildlife species
that provide food, recreation, and economic benefit. The right
balance between conservation and responsible resource
development is evidenced by the fact that Alaska produces most
of the fish caught in waters off the coast of the U.S. The
average wholesale value is approximately $4.5 billion a year.
Alaska's resources provide jobs and a stable food supply for the
nation while supporting a traditional way of life for Alaska
Natives.
4:07:22 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG highlighted that Section 2(a) of the
executive order on the 30 by 30 Initiative has a goal of
conserving 30 percent of lands and 30 percent of waters by 2030.
He emphasized that when this directive is implemented, it is
important to recognize that conservation includes the human use
of natural resources for public benefit and sustainable social
and economic utilization. He said this is a key point that must
be established at the beginning of the process because
conservation simply is not preservation. The methods used for
conservation in Alaska should be the model for establishing
guidelines for determining whether lands and water qualify for
conservation under this executive order. As Mr. Mylius said,
national parks, preserves, forests, monuments, and wildlife
refuges currently cover about 40 percent of Alaska and much of
the remaining area outside of these is well-conserved already.
He emphasized that Alaska clearly does not need more lands set
aside. The goal has already been exceeded. He suggested looking
at at the provisions Congress included in ANILCA over 40 years
ago to see that it not only addressed conservation designation
in the state but also amended the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA) and the Alaska Statehood Act to ensure
that conservation designations would not interfere with state or
Native corporation land entitlements or the ability to have
access to and use of lands and waters for a variety of purposes
such as rural community access, infrastructure needs, and
opportunities for responsible resource development.
He stated that ANILCA Section 101(d) is clear in congressional
intent that no further legislation or regulation designating new
conservation system units, national recreation areas, or
national conservation areas are warranted because ANILCA struck
a proper balance between protection of the national interest in
public lands in Alaska and future economic and social needs of
the state and its citizens. Congress confirmed this by taking
additional steps in ANILCA Section 1326 to limit the power of
the executive branch to use its authority to upset that proper
balance. That section provides clear and unambiguous
restrictions on future executive branch actions with respect to
future withdrawals and future studies or reviews without
congressional approval. Including this language was intentional
and done with considerable effort. The no more clauses in ANILCA
were critical in striking the necessary balance for ANILCA's
successful passage.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG emphasized that with the passage of
ANILCA 40 years ago, Alaska surpassed the intent of the 30 by 30
goal. Nearly 40 percent or 137 million acres of Alaska is
already designated for conservation purposes. ANILCA was and
remains today the single largest expansion of protected lands in
U.S. history; it nearly doubled the size of the national park
system. Nevertheless, he said the federal government continues
to create new terms of art such as wilderness study areas, areas
of critical environmental concern, or aquatic resources of
national importance, all of which furthers diminishing access to
state resources by Alaska citizens.
4:10:45 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG stated that, as with land, Alaska does
not need more water set aside. He pointed out that over 60
percent of Alaska's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is closed to
some or all fisheries to conserve habitat, sustain fisheries in
coastal communities, and protect marine mammals. Furthermore,
over 1 million square miles of Alaska's coast has been selected
as proposed and dedicated critical habitat for a variety of
listed endangered species. This area is the size of the seven
largest Lower-48 states combined, whereas there is less 0.5
million miles of proposed and designated critical habitat off
the coast of the entire Lower-48 states.
He said management programs for Alaska's lands and waters are
developed through well-established processes that provide for
healthy and intact ecosystems and ensure conservation. He
emphasized that setting aside additional lands and waters in
Alaska solely to achieve a numeric goal would be a disservice to
other parts of the country where restoration and conservation is
sorely needed. He said not conserving those areas would set up a
30 by 30 approach as a failure for conserving nature.
4:11:54 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG restated that there is no need to
conserve more of Alaska. In fact, the rest of the nation and the
world should work to look more like Alaska. He suggested the
Biden Administration look beyond the U.S. and encourage land and
water set asides in countries that have weaker environmental
regulation on their lands and waters compared to Alaska and the
U.S.
4:12:21 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG turned his attention to the climate
initiative that is rooted in the 30 by 30 Initiative. He said
Section 216(c) of the executive order directs NOAA to gather
input on ways to make management of fish and game habitat more
resilient to climate change. However, this should not be at the
expense of other biological, social, and economic factors that
directly impact fish and wildlife and may be more immediately
pressing. For example, climate change driven Endangered Species
Act listings in Alaska for species like ringed seals and bearded
seals that number in the hundreds of thousands to millions is
prioritizing resources away from species with higher
conservation needs such as the North Pacific right whale that
has a population of about 30.
4:13:38 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG stated that based on experience in
Alaska, existing management processes are best suited to ensure
that fish and wildlife resources are resilient to changes in
climate and other environmental factors. Through the Alaska
boards of fisheries and game, the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council, and other bodies Alaska's fish and wildlife
management programs use a variety of conservation tools to adapt
to environmental, social, and economic changes, including
climate-related variables. In addition, the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council has already begun the process of
evaluating how to make fisheries more resilient to climate
change through an action module for climate change within the
Bering Sea fishery ecosystem plan. He said these well-
established management processes are science-based, flexible,
and stakeholder driven. They provide a successful model to
address climate change impacts on the marine ecosystems that
support fisheries.
4:14:30 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said a critical aspect of resilience
of protected areas to climate change is ensuring connectivity
and low levels of other stressors. When an area is closed,
effort intensifies elsewhere. What is less certain is what
happens to fish and wildlife stock outside of the protected
area. He said unlike other states, Alaska already has 40 percent
of its lands and waters set aside and this provides considerable
resilience to climate change impacts. He suggested that federal
agencies should recognize the success of current conservation
and management processes and ensure additional conservation
efforts are not simply additional regulatory and administrative
hurtles and burdens that do nothing or little to make fisheries
and protected resources more resilient to climate change.
4:15:22 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG stated that ongoing science and
monitoring are critical to Alaska's conservation and management
programs. NOAA should continue to support fishery and ecosystem
surveys to provide the best available information to assess and
manage fisheries and other species. He said he cannot overstate
the importance of maintaining baseline data collections in the
face of changing environmental conditions. Although science and
research needs to evolve over time, it is crucial to maintain
support for existing surveys and monitoring programs rather than
shift substantial resources to new climate science efforts.
He offered his view that states should have access to robust
grant opportunities to address federal initiatives that affect
the ability to prosecute fisheries and permit activities.
Adequate funding for states to improve science monitoring and
climate change impacts to fisheries and marine mammals is
critical for robust management of these shared resources. He
said it is too oft that federal agencies decrease external
funding opportunities as a way to pay for new federal
initiatives. In such cases the new initiatives tend to fail
because states are not viewed as true partners.
4:16:28 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG concluded that any 30 by 30 effort
should be focused on conservation, not preservation. It needs to
be linked to human use on the landscape. Unlike other states and
nations, Alaska should be recognized for the vast amount of
habitat that is already in some type of conservation status. It
is far more than the 30 percent specified in this initiative. He
again stated that Alaska does not need additional set asides;
efforts should be focused elsewhere. Regarding climate change,
any effort needs to recognize that while climate is an important
factor, it should not become the most important management
consideration because other factors can affect fish and wildlife
and the habitats they occupy may be spatially and/or temporally
more important. He said biological systems are indefinitely
complex so it is imperative to not become myopic in the quest to
address climate impacts.
4:17:30 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked for his long term view of the conservation
of resources as the population of the state increases.
4:18:13 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied the demand on resources will
increase as the population grows and he believes that the key to
conservation is sustainable management. He opined that a
sustainable goal should be embedded into any federal plan to
initiate 30 by 30 because conservation keeps people in touch
with the land more than if it is simply set aside. In fact, the
North American model has proven that the more people are
connected to resources, the more they will be willing to pay for
them over the long term.
SENATOR STEVENS commented that the growing population in the
MatSu accompanied by shrinking habitat illustrates that long
view.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that he understands and
applauds the goal of 30 by 30 to maintain biodiversity across
the landscape, but he does not believe that land needs to be
preserved to do so. It is possible to maintain biodiversity by
conserving land.
4:19:39 PM
CHAIR REVAK asked him to talk about the difference between
conservation and preservation because ANILCA has special
provisions for Alaska that are based on conservation so Alaskans
can use these lands for their benefit. He questioned how this
might relate to the no more clause
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that conservation is the
wise use of the land to ensure sustainability of resources and
the long term connection of humankind to the resources and the
benefit it provides. By contrast, preservation sets the land
aside to become a biodiversity area. He restated that it is
early in the process so there is an opportunity to help the
federal agencies define how to implement the metric of what is
conserved versus protected and what qualifies under 30 by 30.
4:21:22 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE commented that since the 1970s the U.S. has
moved from doing a relatively good job of protecting the
environment to a state of the art job, yet it turns a blind eye
to countries that, at this point, have no intention of changing
the way they operate with regard to conservation or preservation
of the environment. He asked how that paradigm can be reversed.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied he tends to agree and that is
why his opening comments included that more jurisdictions should
be like Alaska as they develop their resources. He opined that
rather than setting aside more land in the U.S. to maintain
biodiversity worldwide, a better approach would be to encourage
better environmental regulations in other jurisdictions.
4:23:26 PM
SENATOR BISHOP offered his belief that the initiative should
include a metric to determine how much coastline and land is
needed to be able to feed the country. He described the notion
that Alaska could lose 30 percent of its fishing grounds as
alarming.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that some of what he fears
is that the initiative will provide an opportunity to set aside
marine sanctuaries in the waters off the coast of Alaska. He
said those are no fishing zones and ADF&G does not believe that
is necessary to have conservation. "You can have conservation
and fishing at the same time."
SENATOR STEVENS commented that Alaska is the "low hanging fruit"
or obvious target because other states have overdeveloped their
resources.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG emphasized the importance of Alaska
taking a hard stance and highlight how much of its land is
already in conservation status and that the metric is
conservation, not preservation.
4:25:40 PM
CHAIR REVAK noted that the Dunleavy administration had taken
assertive steps to maintain Alaska's rights by joining other
states to sue the Biden administration over the oil and gas
moratorium and last Friday announcing the state sovereignty
initiative. He expressed hope that both the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) and the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G) were prepared for federal encroachments on ANILCA
and other federal laws that have promised things to the State of
Alaska.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied the potential of having to
defend over wilderness status and ANILCA is why the governor
proposed $4 million in the capital budget for the Department of
Law.
4:26:59 PM
SENATOR KIEHL noted that the state had an opportunity to comment
on the initiative, and asked if he could give a preview into the
sorts of metrics or approaches the Dunleavy administration will
propose if the 30 by 30 Initiative were to move forward.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG offered his belief that the federal
agencies were just as confused as the state about the 30 by 30
Initiative. He advised that the department is taking the
opportunity to educate those agencies about ANILCA, the amount
of land in Alaska that is already in conservation status, and
that any metric established at this point should be based on
conservation, not preservation.
SENATOR KIEHL said he hopes the state's comments will also
encourage the federal government to pursue the needs of
Connecticut and Massachusetts for conservation because there are
ecosystem services missing there that Alaska has.
4:28:30 PM
CHAIR REVAK said he agrees with Senator Stevens that the federal
government will likely look at a map and identify Alaska as the
low hanging fruit so the state should be prepared for that.
4:29:14 PM
CHAIR REVAK thanked Commissioner Vincent-Lang for his comments
and perspective.
SB 101-ADVISORY COMMISSION ON FEDERAL MGT AREAS
4:29:23 PM
CHAIR REVAK announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 101
"An Act extending the termination date of the Citizens' Advisory
Commission on Federal Management Areas in Alaska; and providing
for an effective date."
He described the legislation as an important affirmation of the
compelling need to maintain the vital efforts of the Citizen's
Advisory Commission on Federal Areas (CACFA). The bill extends
the sunset date of the commission eight years, from June 30,
2021 to June 30, 2029, as recommended by the [Division of
Legislative Audit] Report that was completed in 2020.
4:29:57 PM
BETTY TANGEMAN, Staff, Senator Joshua Revak, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, introduced SB 101, a committee
bill, on behalf of the Senate Resources Standing Committee. She
paraphrased the following sponsor statement:
[Original punctuation provided.]
SB 101 is an important affirmation by the Alaska
Legislature of the compelling need to maintain the
vital efforts of the Citizens' Advisory Commission on
Federal Management Areas in Alaska (CACFA). This bill
extends this commission's sunset date from June 30,
2021 to June 30, 2029.
CACFA was first established in 1981, shortly after
Congress passed comprehensive legislation governing
all federal public lands in the state, the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
Under the balanced compromise Congress crafted in
ANILCA, 104+million acres were set-aside in permanent
federal ownership as conservation system units,-(e.g.,
parks, preserves, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas)
with many unique provisions enabling Alaskan's to
maintain their traditions and livelihoods,
accommodating the States and ANCSA corporations'
social and economic needs, safeguarding opportunities
for responsible resource development, and facilitating
improvements in transportation and utility
infrastructure. Those provisions included
opportunities for the State, its communities, and
rural populations to access and develop inholdings,
allotments, and adjacent lands; construct and maintain
transportation and utility systems; access, manage,
and use State lands and waterways; retain state
management of fish and wildlife; and provide for
access and necessary facilities on federal lands.
Adding in the Alaska Statehood Act and Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act, most Alaskans and most of
Alaska are regulated under an extremely unique and
complex legislative web.
CACFA's mission is helping Alaskans navigate these
complex rules and regulations and work with federal
agencies to ensure Congressional intent is implemented
with respect to their interests. As nationwide
directives frequently ignore the Alaska context and
balanced requirements in ANILCA, CACFA serves as a
vigilant and knowledgeable resource for Alaskans to
defend the rights and protections they were promised
as stakeholders. While the State's ANILCA program and
CACFA both monitor federal actions, the State cannot
represent individuals/businesses and CACFA cannot
defend State agencies' authorities. As institutional
memory and expertise is lost, and as agency decisions
that revise our history and upend our reasonable
expectations are deferred to by the courts, federal
managers have little incentive to uphold Congress's
promises to Alaskans. The Sturgeon v Frost, U.S.
Supreme Court case, is an example of a private
citizen's $1.5 million battle against federal laws
being enforced on state land. More recently, President
Biden issued an Executive Order directing that at
least 30% of our lands and waters be placed in
permanent protection status by 2030 (30 by 30), placed
a moratorium on new oil and gas leases and halted
leasing in ANWR's 1002 area. These examples emphasize
the need for vigilance to fight against the erosion of
ANILCA protections by uninformed federal managers and
politicians.
With federal land management policies increasingly at
odds with Alaska's desire to access, manage, and
sustainably develop its natural resources, CACFA is an
essential tool in ensuring Alaskans have a strong and
powerful voice. Over the 62 years since statehood, the
federal government has consistently failed to keep its
promises to honor the Alaska way of life. Now is not
the time to allow CACFA to sunset. I urge you to join
me in allowing CACFA to continue its important mission
by passing SB 101.
4:33:42 PM
CHAIR REVAK asked Kris Curtis to go through the sunset audit.
4:33:59 PM
KRIS CURTIS, Legislative Auditor, Division of Legislative Audit,
Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, stated that the
division conducted a sunset audit of the Citizens' Advisory
Commission on Federal Areas (CACFA). She advised that the
purpose of a sunset audit is to determine whether a board or
commission is serving the public's interest and whether its
termination date should be extended.
MS. CURTIS directed attention to the April 2020 audit report in
the bill packets. Starting on page one, she read the following:
CACFA is responsible for identifying and reducing
potential negative impacts on Alaska and its citizens
from federal actions on any of the over 200 million
acres of federal land in the state. Per AS
41.37.220(a), the commission shall consider, research,
and hold hearings on the consistency with federal law
and congressional intent on management, operation,
planning, development, and additions to federal
management areas in the state. The commission may
request the attorney general file suit against a
federal official or agency if the commission
determines that the federal official or agency is
acting in violation of an Act of Congress,
congressional intent, or the best interest of the
state.
4:35:10 PM
MS. CURTIS reported that CACFA was active from 1981 until 1999
when its funding was eliminated. It was reestablished in 2007
and operated through FY 2017 when its funding was again
eliminated. She said concerns over federal overreach and
unfulfilled commitments led to CACFA being reestablished to
advocate on behalf of Alaskans on issues related to federal
management of Alaska lands.
MS. CURTIS turned to the report conclusions that start on page
seven, and noted that the audit looks at the period of February
2015 through June 2017 when CACFA was defunded. She read the
following finding:
Beginning in FY 17, funding CACFA has not been a
priority. While not a consistent priority for either
the governor or the legislature, both entities
supported the commission at separate times. The
legislature approved funding for the commission in FY
17; however, the governor vetoed the appropriation.
Funding for the commission in FY 18 and FY 19 was not
included in the governor's request, nor the final
operating bills passed by the legislature. The
legislature approved funding in FY 20, but the
governor vetoed the appropriation. The governor's
amended FY 21 budget included funds to restore CACFA
in recognition of the continued need for the
commission. The proposed funding was not included in
the legislature's approved budget.
MS. CURTIS paraphrased the report conclusions that read as
follows:
The audit concluded that, from the date of the prior
audit in February 2015 through the time CACFA was
defunded in June 2017, the commission operated
effectively and did not significantly duplicate the
efforts of other entities. During this period, the
commission actively monitored the effects of federal
regulation and management decisions in accordance with
statutory duties. The audit also concluded that there
is a continuing public need for the commission.
In accordance with AS 44.66.010(a)(10), the commission
is scheduled to terminate June 30, 2021. We recommend
the legislature extend the commission's termination
date eight years, to June 30, 2029
MS. CURTIS stated that the division found that during the time
that CACFA was active, the executive director monitored the
Federal Register for new information related to CACFA's mission,
provided comments on proposed changes, and brought relevant
information to the commission's attention. If it was determined
necessary, CACFA would send a formal comment letter to the
appropriate federal agency to summarize their concerns with
proposed management plans and changes to regulations and laws.
CAFCA sent 14 comment letters and testified four times from
February 2015 through August 2016. When this commission was
funded, it was very active.
4:38:07 PM
MS. CURTIS paraphrased the following to demonstrate that the
commission was very active when it was funded:
According to a prior CACFA member, CACFA invited
federal agencies to present information and discuss
federal plans and policies via panel discussions to
help facilitate communication between the public and
state and federal agencies. Meetings generally lasted
for one or two days and included multiple
presentations from individuals representing federal
agencies such as the U.S. National Park Service, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management,
and State agencies such as Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) and Department of Fish and Game
Per the prior CACFA executive director, the director
and staff assisted between 15 and 20 Alaska citizens
at a time with issues related to federal land
management by helping write complaints and requests
for information, and guiding citizens to the
appropriate agencies. In addition, staff accompanied
citizens to permit and informational meetings to
provide support and expertise.
4:39:20 PM
MS. CURTIS directed attention to the agency response on page 21.
In that letter the commissioner of the Department of Natural
Resources concurred with the recommendation to extend the
commission's termination date eight years to June 30, 2029.
SENATOR KIEHL asked about the nature of the comments and
testimony the commission submitted and whether it was on behalf
of the State of Alaska.
MS. CURTIS replied the commission represents Alaska citizens so
their efforts were generally to hold federal agencies
accountable to the provisions and intent in ANILCA, ANCSA, and
the Statehood Act.
SENATOR KIEHL asked if the commission was commenting on behalf
of individual Alaskan applicants.
MS. CURTIS replied the commission is essentially a watchdog to
ensure that federal actions comply with those Acts. She deferred
further explanation to Legislative Auditor Danny Morse.
4:40:47 PM
DANIEL MORSE, Auditor, Division of Legislative Audit, Alaska
State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said he would continue to
look, but he had not identified any specific comment letters.
CHAIR REVAK asked Senator Kiehl to restate the question for
CACFA commissioner Susan Smith.
SENATOR KIEHL asked if CACFA is speaking on behalf of individual
permit applicants or the State of Alaska when it provides
commentary to the federal government.
4:41:53 PM
SUSAN SMITH, Commission Member, Citizens' Advisory Commission on
Federal Areas (CACFA), Chokosna, Alaska, explained that when
CACFA received word that an individual had an issue with the
federal government, they would research the law and regulations
to determine whether or not the individual was being treated
properly. If the treatment was unfair, the commission would
speak to the agency about the law or regulation that was being
interpreted incorrectly.
4:42:44 PM
SENATOR BISHOP stated that the commission's primary mission is
to help individual Alaskans navigate the complexities of federal
bureaucracy and he could think of no more prominent example of
that than the Sturgeon case.
CHAIR REVAK asked Tina Cunning to address some of the purposes
of CACFA.
4:43:39 PM
TINA CUNNING, ANILCA Specialist, Anchorage, Alaska, suggested
her brief testimony might clarify the question.
CHAIR REVAK asked her to proceed.
MS. CUNNING informed the committee that the legislature and the
governor adopted the Alaska Position during the ANILCA debates
in 1979, and one of the seven consensus points was the
importance of retaining Alaskans' traditional way of life and
uses on the lands. She said the legislation that originally
created the Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas
(CACFA) in 1981 was the brainchild of Senator Bettye Fahrenkamp.
She had grown up around mining and was a staunch supporter of
the miners and other Alaskans involved in resource development.
MS. CUNNING continued to provide the following background on
ANILCA and the Citizen's Advisory Committee on Federal Areas:
Prior to being elected to the Senate in 1979, Bettye
had served on the staff of U.S. Senator Mike Gravel in
the previous two years in the negotiations leading up
to the passage of ANILCA. She was convinced that
Alaskans would, over time, lose their rights to access
and uses of the lands and resources that were promised
in ANILCA's compromise if a mechanism wasn't in place
to involve and educate the public and represent the
public in monitoring ANILCA's implementation by
federal agencies. Her legislation to establish the
citizen's advisory commission was landmark in its
structural simplicity and its effectiveness at a
relatively low cost.
Half the commission members are appointed by the
governor and half are appointed by the legislature. In
this way, bipartisanship was assured. The commission
operated independently of the state agencies who were
involved in implementation of ANILCA, whose primary
responsibilities were to defend the state's
responsibilities and authorities in some of those key
provisions for state social and economic benefits.
I served as the first state ANILCA coordinator,
setting up the ANILCA team in 1981. Then went on to
represent ADF&G in that ANILCA program for nearly 30
years. More than once I was told by a political
appointee in the administration that the state would
not defend specific methods of access or other rights
under ANILCA because the administration did not
support those provisions in law.
4:46:49 PM
MS. CUNNING continued:
So thank heavens there was an independent commission
that could operate independently, was not interfered
by administration politics and able to defend
individual all-Alaskans' rights as passed by Congress
in ANILCA.
CACFA helps individual Alaskans deal with filling out
their guide permit applications, for fulfilling their
mining rights that they had prior to ANILCA, their
property rights, access to their inholdings, and
development of those individual inholdings.
One of the things that we in the state's ANILCA
program learned early on, was that CACFA had their ear
to the ground all over the state. They worked where
individual federal managers were, for example,
withholding permits for guiding because they were
inappropriately granting more points to guides who
practiced catch and release than those guides that
allowed their clients to legally keep fish caught.
So while the state's ANILCA program vigorously defends
the state's fisheries management authorities in
federal plans and regulations, federal managers were
applying their own values on individual Alaskans and
their individual business opportunities that CACFA
could then step in and help resolve. CACFA pursued use
of cabins for trapping, which is expressly authorized
in ANILCA. But federal managers were destroying
cabins. CACFA brought to light where federal managers
were not allowing subsistence users to use traditional
methods of access for subsistence. CACFA was able to
enquire and resolve so that federal managers could not
hold a vendetta against the individuals who had a
complaint. The agency staffs couldn't and didn't have
the resources to help individual Alaskans navigate the
red tape of federal permitting or to hold hearings in
rural areas where an agency was proposing to limit
activities, whereas CACFA was authorized and had
volunteers from around Alaska that served as those
individual commissioners to pursue resolving those
conflicts on behalf of individual Alaskans.
4:48:52 PM
MS. CUNNING continued:
It is only fitting that CACFA be reauthorized again to
continue this valuable job 30 years after Bettye died.
Her vision for a public forum to protect individual
public rights to use the lands and resources that were
legislated in ANILCA is needed as much today as
perhaps ever.
4:49:12 PM
Let me share one last example. Last week the public
comment period ended on national draft regulations
proposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding
rights-of-way for inholdings and for developing
transportation and utility infrastructure between
communities. The regulations completely ignored
ANILCA's provisions for a process to permit such
infrastructure. Not one word. The complete ignoring of
that right will have serious impacts on communities in
rural Alaska, for development of the ANCSA corporation
lands, as well as the state lands. And I'm a person
who monitors this stuff fairly closely and I didn't
even hear these regulations were out till the last
minute. Without CACFA, there was no information or
effort to educate the affected Native corporations,
the communities, or other interests. The state wrote
an excellent letter, but no one else even begins to
understand the impacts in Alaska if those regulations
are allowed to be finalized as written, particularly
the impacts on individuals.
4:50:19 PM
CHAIR REVAK described ANILCA as a very complicated law. He
commented that it has been 41 years and the federal government
has yet to figure out the locations of navigable waters. He
expressed appreciation for her comments and said he understands
the value of CACFA.
4:50:38 PM
CHAIR REVAK opened public testimony on SB 101.
4:50:52 PM
STAN LEAPHART, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska, disclosed
that he worked for the Citizen's Advisory Committee on Federal
Areas from August 1982 until July 1999 and 2007 to 2014. He was
also a member of the Alaska State Lands Advisory Group that
advised the commission on issues important to the public.
MR. LEAPHART said Senator Fahrenkamp's thinking in creating the
commission was how would ANILCA be implemented in a way that
protects Alaskans' traditional use of the federal lands because
they are essential to Alaskans to use for hunting, fishing, and
resource development. For ten years after passage of this
unprecedented piece of legislation there were management plans
were being written by various federal agencies and regulations
promulgated. The public was overwhelmed because most people had
never looked at either proposed federal regulations for
implementing a statute or an environmental impact statement
(EIS). CACFA saw its job as trying to help the public do this.
In addition to the regularly scheduled commission meetings where
CACFA took testimony from the public, they sponsored public
meetings around the state. For example, the National Park
Service in the late '80s held three public meetings in urban
areas on proposed regulations to regulate the use and
construction of cabins in national parks. CASFCA thought that
was inadequate so it held additional public meetings.
CHAIR REVAK asked, in the interest of time, if he would conclude
his comments.
MR. LEAPHART urged the committee to support and pass SB 101
because CACFA serves a purpose that no other state agency
fulfills. It is a useful tool for the citizens and the State of
Alaska itself.
4:55:13 PM
JOHN STURGEON, representative, Safari Club International Alaska
Chapter (AK SCI), Anchorage, Alaska, related that this club
advocates for hunters, promotes conservation based on science,
promotes hunting and conservation education, and sponsors
humanitarian programs such as Wounded Warriors on Safari. He
stated that AK SCI adamantly supports SB 101 to reauthorize
CACFA; it does what the average citizen is unable to do. The
federal government promulgates a large variety of land use plans
and regulations and CACFA does a very good job of tracking these
where it is nearly impossible for a private citizen to do so. He
concluded his comments by restating that Safari Club
International Alaska Chapter supports passage of SB 101.
4:56:41 PM
CHAIR REVAK closed public testimony on SB 101, and asked if
there were questions or comments.
4:56:50 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI commented that it was unusual to see a zero
fiscal note for an extension of a board or commission. He
questioned whether authorizing the extension without the money
to do the job might be setting CACFA up for failure.
CHAIR REVAK noted that a member of the finance committee was on
this committee.
4:57:37 PM
At ease
4:58:23 PM
CHAIR REVAK reconvened the meeting and stated that Senator
Kawasaki brought up an important point and he would hold SB 101
so the committee could look into the lack of funding for this
commission.
4:59:01 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Revak adjourned the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 4:59 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 101 Sponsor Statement-CACFA 3.26.21.pdf |
SFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM SRES 3/29/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 101 |
| SB 101 Support DOC Newsminer Editorial 11.15.2020.pdf |
HRES 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM SFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM SRES 3/29/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 101 |
| SB 101 White Paper Differneces ANILCA Program & CACFA.pdf |
HRES 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM SFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM SRES 3/29/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 101 |
| SB 101 Letter of Support Stan Leaphart 3.28.21.pdf |
HRES 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM SFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM SRES 3/29/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 101 |
| SB 101 Letter of Support SCI AK 3.28.21.pdf |
HRES 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM SFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM SRES 3/29/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 101 |
| SB 101 Letter of Support Charlie Lean 3.28.21.pdf |
HRES 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM SFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM SRES 3/29/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 101 |
| SB 101 DNR OPMP Fiscal Note 3.26.2021.pdf |
SRES 3/29/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 101 |
| SB 101 LB&A CACFA Audit Report 4.8.2020.pdf |
HRES 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM SFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM SRES 3/29/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 101 |
| SB 101 AOC Letter of Support 3.26.21.pdf |
HRES 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM SFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM SRES 3/29/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 101 |
| SB 101 30x30 Presentation by Mylius 3.29.21 final.pdf |
SRES 3/29/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 101 |
| SB101 Letter of Support CAP 4.2.21.pdf |
HRES 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM SFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM SRES 3/29/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 101 |
| SB 101 Support Leeter Mary Bishop 4.28.21.pdf |
HRES 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/29/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 101 |