04/10/2015 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB38 | |
| HJR20 | |
| HJR24 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 38 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 179 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 10, 2015
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Hawker, Vice Chair
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Geran Tarr
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Benjamin Nageak, Co-Chair
Representative David Talerico, Co-Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 38
"An Act relating to the rapid response to, and control of,
aquatic invasive species and establishing the aquatic invasive
species response fund."
- MOVED CSHB 38(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 20
Urging the United States Congress to enact legislation to
clarify and recognize each individual state's authority to
manage the fish and wildlife within its borders.
- MOVED CSHJR 20(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 24
Urging the federal government to honor its commitments to
transfer land to the state; and urging the United States
Secretary of the Interior and the United States Congress to
adhere to the recommendations of the United States Department of
the Interior in its 2006 report under the Alaska Land Transfer
Acceleration Act, including lifting withdrawals.
- MOVED HJR 24 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 179
"An Act relating to donations of fish and game to food service
programs."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 38
SHORT TITLE: AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SEATON
01/21/15 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/15
01/21/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/15 (H) RES, FIN
04/08/15 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/08/15 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/10/15 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HJR 20
SHORT TITLE: FISH & WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BY STATES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) NEUMAN
04/01/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/01/15 (H) RES
04/08/15 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/08/15 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
04/10/15 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HJR 24
SHORT TITLE: LIFT FEDERAL LAND WITHDRAWALS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KELLER
04/07/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/07/15 (H) RES
04/10/15 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JONI SCHARFENBERG, District Coordinator
Fairbanks Soil & Water Conservation District
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 38.
ELAINE BUSSE FLOYD, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 38 and
suggested an addition to the bill.
TOM BROOKOVER, Acting Director
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 38.
FRANCI HAVEMEISTER, Director
Division of Agriculture
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 38.
BEN MULLIGAN, Legislative Liaison
Special Assistant to the Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 38.
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the sponsor, introduced HJR 24.
SARA TAYLOR, Executive Director
Citizens Advisory Commission on Federal Areas (CACFA)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HJR 24.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:56 PM
VICE CHAIR MIKE HAWKER called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Representatives Seaton,
Olson, Josephson, Johnson, Tarr, and Hawker were present at the
call to order. Representative Herron arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
VICE CHAIR HAWKER noted HB 179 will not be heard.
HB 38-AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
1:05:23 PM
VICE CHAIR HAWKER announced that the first order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 38, "An Act relating to the rapid response to,
and control of, aquatic invasive species and establishing the
aquatic invasive species response fund."
1:05:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), labeled 29-LS0226\H, Bullard, 4/2/15, as the
working document. There being no objection, Version H was
before committee.
1:06:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, sponsor, introduced HB 38, explaining
that the bill addresses aquatic invasive species and trying to
alleviate the problems being seen in Alaska. Aquatic invasive
species are non-native animals and plants whose introduction
causes economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.
Invasive species can spread very rapidly, becoming impossible or
costly to control. Alaska spends about $6 million annually on
fighting invasives and nationwide $120 billion is spent
annually.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON began a PowerPoint presentation, defining
invasive organisms as non-native, aggressive, and likely to
cause harm (slide 1). An invasive currently in Alaska (slide 2)
is Didemnum vexillum (Dvex), also known as sea vomit. It is
near Sitka and is actually an animal, a colonial tunicate, but
looks like a plant that grows over everything. Elodea, often
seen in aquariums, is another invasive in Alaska. Another is
northern pike in Southcentral Alaska. Pike are causing massive
losses of salmon in the Matanuska-Susitna and Kenai Peninsula
areas. Turning to slide 3, he said invasive species that could
come to Alaska in the future and cause problems include the
European green crab, which is currently 200 miles south of
Ketchikan, zebra mussels, mud snails, Atlantic salmon, and a
number of tunicates.
1:08:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON addressed the rapid growth of Dvex in
Whiting Harbor near Sitka (slide 4). He displayed photographs
taken 10 weeks apart to show how quickly the tunicate grew
during that length of time. He projected an aerial photograph
of Whiting Harbor (slide 5) then moved to a photograph of the
sac roe herring fishery (slide 6) to depict why Dvex in Whiting
Harbor is so detrimental. Boats pulling in the herring roe on
seaweed could pull in Dvex if it is there, he explained, which
would then be pumped into tenders and because the tenders do
their processing in many ports around Alaska the Dvex could be
widely spread (slide 7). This is why these invasives must be
stopped when they first start, he stressed. Moving to slide 8
he pointed out that other methods of spreading invasives include
fishing boats, ballast water, sport boats, and tsunami debris.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that northern pike (slide 9) are
actually native in most of Alaska, but not Southcentral Alaska.
When introduced the pike cause a big problem by eating salmon.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reviewed how fast zebra mussels have
spread (slides 10-16) between the years 1986 and 2011. In 1986
zebra mussels were found in two small spots, but by 2011 they
had gone all the way down the Mississippi River and spread to
the West Coast. Zebra mussels cost billions of dollars because
they clog up water intakes for industrial plants. So far Alaska
is the only state not affected by zebra mussels.
1:11:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON turned to the graph on slide 17 depicting
a typical species invasion curve, explaining that what the
sponsors are trying to do with HB 38 is seen at the bottom left
of the curve. When an invasive species is first found it takes
very little money and effort, relatively, to control it, but
once the species begins its steep spread it is almost impossible
to get stopped. After it has spread it will cost lots of money
to control and will never be eradicated.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said HB 38 would prioritize the invasive
species action over other department-controlled activities. For
example, if the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) has a
fishery such as sea urchins or sea cucumbers, it means that if
ADF&G is going to eradicate the species in this much localized
area, then that will have priority. The bill authorizes
utilization of a variety of tools, including biological chemical
means. It would coordinate among other state departments. For
mariculture leases the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
would be required to include [hold harmless] language for the
control of any invasives brought in by the mariculture
operation. The bill would also require notice to consumers and
to private property owners that this is an issue to be aware of.
The bill would also create a response fund, but that fund is not
created here.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON specified that the difference between
Version H and the bill as introduced is the original bill had a
requirement that the plans be put in place, which is a fiscal
note issue. Version H requires the departments to coordinate,
control, and make plans, but it doesn't require them to do that
on any certain timetable and there won't be anything separate to
fund.
1:14:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON noted he likes this bill which he has
cosponsored, but asked whether Representative Seaton is
comfortable with the guidelines on page 1, subsection (b), in
that the agency would know when to back off the suspension of
the laws.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied he believes so and said the
emergency orders only last for a short period of time. The
quarantine ability is currently with DNR and previous efforts
stimulated DNR to quarantine Elodea, disallowing the sale or
distribution of Elodea. The environmental law section will have
public contact and will ensure coordination of these pre-plans
with the public.
1:15:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON drew attention to page 2, subsection
(e), and asked whether this provision is overly broad and should
there be some remedy for private property owners who feel they
have been harmed in some way.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded this issue came up with the Dvex
in Sitka when a mariculture farm brought up the Dvex in some of
its facilities. The response was delayed two years while the
department tried to determine whether in doing anything with
this farm that it authorized through a permit and mariculture
lease, the department would be "liable for what they've done."
This provision is really appropriate, he said. For example,
"what happens in the Department of Agriculture is if you have an
invasive weed and you're a farmer, they do the plan and you as
the farmer are responsible for carrying out the plan, paying for
the getting rid of that invasive weed." He said he thinks it is
a much more contained situation here. The bill is just saying
that when someone asks for a state mariculture lease or tideland
lease, if an invasive species occurs there [the state] can come
in and control that without having to wait years going through
court. He said he is comfortable with this provision.
1:18:23 PM
VICE CHAIR HAWKER opened public testimony on HB 38. He noted
that any written testimony will be entered into the record.
1:19:43 PM
JONI SCHARFENBERG, District Coordinator, Fairbanks Soil & Water
Conservation District, supported HB 38, stating that a goal of
the Fairbanks Soil & Water Conservation District is to control
and eradicate invasive species. A local example for which the
bill would be helpful is Elodea. In 2010 this highly
aggressive, aquatic invasive plant was found in the North
Pole/Fairbanks area. Elodea destroys natural habitat for fish,
displaces native vegetation, and impacts recreational use. But,
not until this spring was there a draft state management plan in
place for Elodea. Meanwhile, despite efforts by the district
and its partners to stop the spread of Elodea, it has traveled
to the Chena River, has been found in Chena lakes, and all of
that leads on into important fish habitat in the Yukon and
Tanana drainages. Elodea is now found across the state. She
urged that HB 38 [be passed] for the immediate eradication or
stopping the spread of Elodea. Cordova's waterways are
overflowing with Elodea and have been for some years, but
nothing is happening. She posed a scenario of two dandelions in
a lawn, noting that the eradication program would be to pluck
them. However, a lawn filled with dandelions will require much
more time and expense for eradication. This is also the way it
works with invasives, she pointed out. Getting a handle on
Elodea requires the state's authority and backing.
1:21:48 PM
VICE CHAIR HAWKER closed public testimony after ascertaining
that no one else wished to testify.
1:22:11 PM
VICE CHAIR HAWKER opened committee discussion on HB 38. He
noted that the bill as introduced had three fiscal notes, two of
which were zero. He requested confirmation that the fiscal
notes will continue to be zero.
ELAINE BUSSE FLOYD, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), confirmed
Version H would still have a zero fiscal note from her division.
VICE CHAIR HAWKER stated the bill as introduced included one
fiscal note for the Division of Sport Fish that would have spent
money. He requested the division to comment on the Version H
fiscal note.
TOM BROOKOVER, Acting Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), replied he anticipates his
division's fiscal note is now zero for Version H and that it
would be covered under the division's normal budget.
VICE CHAIR HAWKER specified that if the bill passes out of the
House Resources Standing Committee it will have two attached
zero fiscal notes and one forthcoming zero fiscal note.
1:25:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said there is a fine balance with this
kind of bill. He noted his district has a float plane lake and
his concern is that planes will be able to continue using that
lake without having to do a secondary landing to clean off their
floats. Saying he doesn't want any impingement on the ability
of people flying around the state, he inquired whether anything
in HB 38 would prohibit or cause grief for those people flying
around the state and maybe unknowingly transporting an invasive
species.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he worries much more about that kind
of thing where there is a quarantined plant and someone with a
float plane spreading that around the state, which possibly
could be a liability to that person. The purpose of HB 38 is to
get rid of that invasive species as it occurs, when it is an
incipient population. Nothing in the bill would do what is
being mentioned by Representative Johnson on any kind of a
permanent basis. Right now there are controls for Elodea at
Stormy Lake and Daniels Lake on the Kenai Peninsula and his
understanding is that it has not interfered with any of the
property owners or plane operators; it is being done over the
winter. Without some kind of control, he said he could
anticipate that something would happen where a lake might not be
able to be used if it gets highly infected with Elodea. The
purpose of the bill is to have plans in place so that invasives
are tackled when they first occur because nothing can be done
after an invasive has become endemic.
1:28:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled that in a Matanuska-Susitna lake
there was use of a fertilizer that enriched the water and
doubled the proliferation of [Elodea]. He asked whether
anything in HB 38 would prevent people from fertilizing their
yards.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered he is not aware of anything, but
allowed he hasn't had any discussion on somebody using
fertilizer. He explained that the bill addresses an incipient
population and establishing a plan to control it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noted he has spent quite a bit of time on
invasive species and has heard most of the arguments for many
years. He said he wants to ensure, with each bill, that it is
clear what a bill does and doesn't do, and he wants to make
certain nothing is being done that he would find objectionable.
1:29:27 PM
VICE CHAIR HAWKER requested additional clarity from department
representatives regarding Representative Johnson's concerns.
FRANCI HAVEMEISTER, Director, Division of Agriculture,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), replied she is not
concerned that HB 38 will put any additional requirements on
landowners and users of lakes or will ban the use of fertilizer
in lakes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON requested Ms. Havemeister to address the
float plane issue.
MS. HAVEMEISTER responded that the Division of Agriculture did
put a quarantine in place last spring for Elodea, but in no
means does the quarantine impact a float plane owner's use and
ability to fly around a lake. It quarantines the sale and the
transfer of Elodea, the division intentionally did not include
float plane use. The division did extensive outreach to the
float plane community to let them know of Elodea in the area and
ways that they can potentially mitigate that risk from
transferring.
MR. BROOKOVER said his response is similar to Ms. Havemeister's.
He specified he doesn't foresee effects from the bill, for
example, on a landowner's use of fertilizer. He said he looks
at, primarily, provision (a) and directing the activity on
controlling the occurrence of, or eradication of, a particular
species directly and he therefore does not see that type of
unintended consequence. He said he defers to the Division of
Agriculture in regard to the float plane issue.
1:32:13 PM
VICE CHAIR HAWKER requested Ms. Floyd to respond to the concerns
of Representative Johnson.
MS. FLOYD answered that her division doesn't see any unintended
consequences either. She said her division would suggest that
the bill be amended to address terrestrial invasive species as
well as aquatic invasives. As currently written, she explained,
the statute requires a permit if an agency is going to apply
pesticide on two or more private properties. That ties the
hands of the soil and water conservation districts, other
community organizations, and local governments from addressing
terrestrial invasives in a timely manner in their area. The
division therefore suggests a statute change to also allow for
terrestrials.
VICE CHAIR HAWKER noted bills are often written to be limited in
scope. He requested a response to Ms. Floyd's suggestion that
the bill be expanded to include terrestrial invasives.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied it is a broader topic that he
hasn't considered and therefore is leery at this time to jump in
and apply it to land invasives. While HB 38 requires other
departments to cooperate with ADF&G, and ADF&G to cooperate with
DNR, adding terrestrial species would suddenly become a lot more
related to DNR than the bill was targeted at. So, he is
uncomfortable with expanding the bill right now.
VICE CHAIR HAWKER said he is personally comfortable with a bill
that is targeted to, and limited to, aquatic species.
1:34:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON drew attention to page 2, subsection (g),
of the bill, saying it gives him comfort for what Representative
Johnson is talking about. Subsection (g) instructs that there
be public outreach to private property owners and that a method
be selected that will have the most minimal effect on private
property while accomplishing the goal of eradication or control.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he doesn't disagree that land-based
invasive species should be addressed, but he is not prepared to
sacrifice the perfect for the good in this case. It is a
totally different issue when getting into land based due to
there being federal lands as well as Canada. He said he is
comfortable moving the bill as it is.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR supported HB 38, noting she is a botanist.
In regard to adding terrestrial species, she pointed out that
the private property issues would be a lot more significant.
Due to the nature of invasive species, she said a much better
job must be done of responding more quickly and she is therefore
supportive of the bill and moving it from committee today.
1:37:34 PM
VICE CHAIR HAWKER requested the ADF&G legislative liaison to
address the 2/5/15 fiscal note attached to the original bill
that involved some spending by the Division of Sport Fish and
its change to a zero fiscal note under Version H.
BEN MULLIGAN, Legislative Liaison, Special Assistant to the
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Alaska Department of
Fish & Game (ADF&G), confirmed that in working with the sponsor,
ADF&G identified the provisions that would have required the
fiscal impact, which was the rapid response management plans.
Those were taken away, leaving the action and direction
portions, and resulting in a zero fiscal note.
1:38:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to report the proposed CS, Version
29-LS0226\H, Bullard, 4/2/15, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal notes. There
being no objection, CSHB 38(RES) was reported from the House
Resources Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:39 p.m. to 1:41 p.m.
HJR 20-FISH & WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BY STATES
1:41:29 PM
VICE CHAIR HAWKER announced that the next order of business is
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 20, Urging the United States Congress
to enact legislation to clarify and recognize each individual
state's authority to manage the fish and wildlife within its
borders.
1:41:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN, sponsor, introduced HJR 20, saying it
encourages Congress to pass legislation that would clarify each
individual state's authority to manage the fish and game
resources within its boundary. Alaska has a history of
successfully managing its fish and game resources and their
habitats. Alaska has even restored the depleted fishery stocks
that were received from the federal government at the time of
statehood. Alaska has used its resources wisely calling on the
different experiences of its people, from using professional
scientists to the wisdom of Native elders to manage fish and
game resources and the lands they inhabit. Doing so maintains
yields for the benefit of the state's people, which is a
requirement of the state's constitution. However, intrusions by
the federal government have increased on a number of fronts,
challenging Alaska's sovereign authority and responsibility to
manage its fish and game resources. Those actions may forever
impact the state's ability to determine both its sovereignty and
management of resources as promised in the statehood compact and
in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
The resolution urges Congress to enact legislation reserving the
authority to enforce state fish and wildlife laws and manage
fish and wildlife on public land to the individual states in
which the land is found.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN added that the resolution grew out of
discussions amongst [legislators]. For example, Representative
Johnson is an active member of the National Assembly of
Sportsmen's Caucuses, an organization of 42 states and over
2,500 legislators. Its main mission is to ensure continued
protection of the outdoor heritage of hunting, fishing, and
trapping, and the ability to manage that. There has been
discussion on how important it is for the states to manage their
own resources. He said he would like to use this model
legislation to bring back to the National Assembly of
Sportsmen's Caucuses in hopes of getting 30 plus states in order
to show Congress that locals know what is best for their states.
1:45:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON drew attention to the clause on page 2,
lines 7-8, and asked where the National Park Service has
restricted access of state employees to state land and water.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN replied he believes this is happening more
recently on the Kenai Peninsula for hunting and fishing and
intensive management for brown bears. It is also happening with
the Unimak Island caribou herd. The island is half federal land
and half state land. The people of Cold Bay depend on those
caribou for survival, but there are also wolves on that island
and it has gotten to the point where the state wants to do some
intensive management to reduce the number of wolves. The whole
herd is close to being lost and the people of Unimak will not
have that valuable resource to feed their families.
VICE CHAIR HAWKER recalled the case where the National Park
Service overstepped its bounds on the Yukon-Charley Rivers
National Preserve. Armed National Park Service officers
literally commandeered Alaska citizens who were utilizing their
right to progress over state navigable waters.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN added that that was probably one of the
most highlighted issues within the state when it happened.
1:47:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that for fisheries there is the
federal Magnuson-Stevens Act and the councils that have been set
up through the Act. She inquired whether there is an existing
federal wildlife law that is similar to the Magnuson-Stevens Act
that would be amended if Congress were to take action as urged
by HJR 20.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN drew attention to a paper in the committee
packet entitled, "Wildlife Management Authority: The State
Agencies' Perspective," written by the Association of Fish &
Wildlife Agencies. He noted that the fourth paragraph on page 2
talks about how the directors have identified that the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is a hindrance. The
paper discusses the relationship between the federal government,
not specific laws, and the ability for the states and the
federal government to sit down and talk out these issues. It is
not so much that federal laws are bad laws but rather the
ability to work with the federal government in the management of
those laws in regard to fish and wildlife management and
resource development at the same.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR brought attention to page 1, lines 4-6, of
the resolution and offered her understanding that the North
American Model of Wildlife Conservation is not something that is
in federal statute.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN answered that the North America Model of
Wildlife Conservation was adopted about 78 years ago and is what
is now known as the Pittman-Robertson Act. The purchasers of
outdoor sporting goods - hunters and fishermen - provide the
funding for [state] fish and wildlife departments.
VICE CHAIR HAWKER added it is a federal excise tax of 11 percent
on all sporting goods, ammunition, and archery supplies.
1:50:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he supports HJR 20 and asked whether
the sponsor would be amenable to adding additional names to the
resolution's distribution list. For example, the National
Assembly of Sportsmen's Caucuses could be added to the list as
well as The Council of State Governments West. He posited that
an official document coming from the state would be better than
him handing out a copy of the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN agreed, further suggesting that the
National Conference of State Legislators would be another
organization that could be added.
1:52:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR understood that the Upper Cook Inlet Drift
Association (UCIDA) was about fishing in the Kenai National
Wildlife Refuge and about where federal management ended and
state management began. She further understood that the lawsuit
asserted it is the state's right to manage for anadromous fish.
She inquired whether that is an example of what the sponsor is
hoping will come out of the resolution - that in situations like
this the default would be that the state manages the resource.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered his belief that the UCIDA lawsuit
is asking for federal oversight. Currently there is shared
management within Cook Inlet with the three-mile boundary that
the state has and Cook Inlet is wider than six miles at points
and so the federal government has said the state has the right
to manage that on both sides. He said he therefore thinks that
lawsuit is a separate issue. However, earlier this year a
federal action was taken in regard to nets on the Kenai and
perhaps, he suggested, this is what Representative Tarr is
referring to. Nets catch everything and could have a very
detrimental effect on the world class fisheries there, as well
as the non-targeted species in the river. State managers are
there to closely watch that every day and their ability to
manage that fishery is much better than federal managers.
Responding further to Representative Tarr, he said this is a
very good example of something that has happened recently.
1:55:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON inquired whether the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is a supporter of, or signer on, the North
American Model of Wildlife Conservation or whether the service
considers that foreign to its mission.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered his belief that the federal
government is very supportive of the North American Model of
Wildlife Conservation; it was federal law that enacted it.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON concluded that what is being said between
the lines of the resolution is that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is not following the North American Model of Wildlife
Conservation.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN answered he suspects that in essence the
North American Model of Wildlife Conservation has to do with the
federal excise tax and passing that over to the states. He
reported that last year there were conversations between the
federal government and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission
that the federal government may take over the funds that now go
to states through Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson to fund
fish and wildlife agencies at the federal level as opposed to
bringing those funds over to the states. That, he added, would
be opposing the objective of that model.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON remarked that Congress has a difficult
time passing and enforcing laws and so bureaucrats make their
own rules.
1:57:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his hope that federal subsistence
management not be mixed into this, saying that is what is being
done when talking about the nets on the Kenai River, which was
the federal subsistence board. Mixing this with subsistence
would divide Alaskans rather than unite them, he warned.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN replied that in no way does HJR 20 have
any implications to subsistence within Alaska. Rather, it helps
clarify the discussions and allow the state's wildlife
biologists, citizens, and Native leaders to assist by having
those discussions before decisions are made on the management of
fish and wildlife, whether it is federal or state management.
VICE CHAIR HAWKER thanked Representative Neuman for making this
clear on the record.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON said the resolution has a nice title.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN thanked Representative Olson.
2:00:01 PM
VICE CHAIR HAWKER opened public testimony on HJR 20, then closed
it after ascertaining that no one wished to testify.
2:01:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
add on page 3, line 9: the National Assembly of Sportsmen's
Caucuses, The Council of State Governments, The Council of State
Governments West, and the National [Conference] of State
[Legislatures].
VICE CHAIR HAWKER objected for discussion purposes and inquired
whether the conceptual amendment applies to the appropriate
division or committee of those entities.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON responded he thinks that if the
resolution is sent to the organizations it will get to the
appropriate place within each entity.
VICE CHAIR HAWKER noted that these additional entities would be
added under the section of the resolution pertaining to whom
copies of the resolution shall be sent.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN thanked Representative Johnson for the
conceptual amendment, saying it would be sent to the presiding
officers of the entities, of which Representative Johnson is
one.
2:02:45 PM
VICE CHAIR HAWKER removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:03:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated he doesn't believe he has ever
seen a resolution he disagrees with more and he believes there
are hundreds of thousands of Alaskans who would also disagree
with it if it was put before them. He said he couldn't be more
pleased that the federal lands in Alaska are managed by federal
officials who are managing the land the way they are supposed to
for protecting subsistence rights, protecting non-consumptive
rights, and protecting the mission of the federal law. He said
he has spent a lot of time studying, writing, and testifying on
this issue. The idea that the state gets to manage all of it is
wrong and has to be wrong because everyone knows that within the
national parks, not the preserves, he has seen people stopped
from removing a bone off the road, which is consistent with the
fact that everyone knows hunting is not allowed in a national
park. It is the federal government that says that. The idea
that there is a universal rule that in all parts of the state
the state alone manages wildlife is incorrect factually and
legally. Then the question becomes, Where can the state manage?
He said he has spoken before the visitor industry and he thinks
that, quietly, the visitor industry shares his concern about
Alaska's practices. This came up in the committee's
confirmation hearing with Ms. Sager Albaugh who basically said
if a person wants to walk a dog on a trail on the Kenai
Peninsula it is that person's problem if he/she wants to walk
the dog off leash. In other words, Ms. Sager Albaugh's view as
a Board of Game member is that the Board will control everything
adjacent to that trail and phooey on the dog walker; that is the
policy of the State of Alaska. He said he could sit back and
say, "Geez, I can't stop this." But when these times happen he
thinks he is morally obligated to say "wait a minute" even
though it shines a light on him that he doesn't want, although
it may be better than an artificial light in a den. He
maintained that the be-it-resolved clause that says the state is
supposed to control federal land and federal reserve waters is
wrong; that was the Katie John decision where the court said the
state could lose that if the state doesn't do it properly. The
resolution maligns natural diversity, he said, but the state's
viewing industry wants natural diversity and it's a $2 billion a
year industry. Tourists don't want to take a yellow bus 80
miles to Wonder Lake and watch things getting blasted away.
Fundamentally, he asks whether this can be explained to
elementary kids and tourists. The answer is no. Regarding the
whereas clause on page 1 about the Kenai National Wildlife
Refuge, he said he testified in that hearing and the federal
biologist proved, and the state biologist Mr. Vincent Lang could
not contend with those arguments, that the brown bears on the
Kenai Peninsula are threatened. The idea that that is
conservation based, that the state's threatening them when the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says it is unsustainable and
isn't going to allow any more hunting on federal land, the land
of the American people ... The idea that there is increasing
inconsistency - of course there is because they are different
conservation system units with different rules depending on
whether it is the Bureau of Land Management or the National Park
Service. Regarding the Unimak caribou herd, he pointed out that
that intensive game management was supported by him and groups
he worked with and it went forward to stop the demise of that
herd, which was years ago and therefore not a recent phenomenon.
So he looks at some of this and asks, "Wow, are we going to use
this kind of management in Yellowstone?" Regarding the hot
button subject about the armed officers, he said he doesn't know
what happened there but guesses someone does. [The U.S.] is a
very armed society, he said, and he would expect federal
officers to occasionally carry a sidearm because they are at
great risk if they don't. The state is out of compliance with
ANILCA, which is federal law. It is the Indian Commerce Clause,
it is [the nation's] founding fathers, 1789, which way pre-dates
the Alaska Statehood Act. Testimony was heard last year in this
committee about how the big game concessions on federal land
work better than the state's system. Big game guide hunters
testified that the federal system was a better system. He said
he understands where HJR 20 is coming from, but couldn't
disagree more with it.
2:09:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to report HJR 20, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHJR 20(RES) was
reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:10 p.m. to 2:12 p.m.
HJR 24-LIFT FEDERAL LAND WITHDRAWALS
2:12:57 PM
VICE CHAIR HAWKER announced that the final order of business is
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 24, Urging the federal government to
honor its commitments to transfer land to the state; and urging
the United States Secretary of the Interior and the United
States Congress to adhere to the recommendations of the United
States Department of the Interior in its 2006 report under the
Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act, including lifting
withdrawals.
2:13:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
introduced HJR 24, explaining the resolution is talking about
lands that are due the state as a result of the laws, policies,
transactions, and negotiations that have gone on for decades.
He pointed out that page 2, line 29, lists the things that drive
this discussion of what land is still due the state. These
include the Alaska Statehood Act, Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA), Cook Inlet Land Exchange, Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), and the
Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act. He said the western
states have more federal land than the eastern states and he is
convinced that this is a valid issue, but it is not an issue
that is included in HJR 24. The resolution lays out a summary
of the laws, the promises, regarding Alaska's lands since
statehood. He has never met anyone who has disputed that Alaska
is due land, but there are many disputes related to it and that
is what HJR 24 is aiming at. The resolution is merely a summary
of the arguments, issues, and laws that can be looked at in a
summary format. He noted that [Ms. Sara Taylor] of the Citizens
Advisory Commission on Federal Areas (CACFA) is on line to help
with answering questions. He further noted he has not received
any negative comment or concern about the resolution from the
Department of Law. The point of the resolution is for the state
to get the land that it is due. The Alaska Land Transfer
Acceleration Act says that the value of the land has already
been determined and there is no sense keeping these withdrawals
levied on these huge chunks of land and they should be released
so transfer can be done. According to Ms. Taylor, the federal
people she deals with firsthand always presume that transfers
are going to happen, but it has been going on and on.
Therefore, HJR 24 says to get the transfers done.
2:19:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she likes the resolution, but noted
that sometimes there are fiscal constraints in terms of land
surveying or having enough money to get the final work done.
She asked whether there is anything the state can do to speed up
the land transfer process, such as a partnership when a federal
agency doesn't have the funds to get that kind of work done.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied the Secretary of Interior was
allowed to withdraw this land until it was evaluated for value
and it is still withdrawn. The state's top-filings cannot go
any further until the withdrawals are removed.
SARA TAYLOR, Executive Director, Citizens Advisory Commission on
Federal Areas (CACFA), responded HJR 24 is about the state
having 5 million acres that are due it and not so much that the
interference is a lack of money or a lack of cooperation. There
is significant cooperation between the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
This is about the things that are preventing the state from
selecting high quality land. The BLM has these withdrawals, all
of which are from the 1970s, and the state has certain areas it
would like to be able to select but those withdrawals prevent
this selection. Of the state's remaining 5 million acres, or
whatever is the amount the state has left, the state would
really like some of these lands and so the withdrawals need to
be lifted for the state to be able to acquire them.
2:22:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR related that she has received communication
from DNR talking about lifting the Public Land Orders (PLOs) and
that the legislature can voice its support for making that
happen more quickly. The department explained, for example,
that there needs to be a full survey of any area that the state
is interested in because there could be such things as
contamination. It is this type of circumstance that she is
asking whether the state could provide additional expediency.
MS. TAYLOR answered she would love to get to the point of
whether any of the land is contaminated because right now the
withdrawals prevent the state from even looking at the lands.
Some of these withdrawals were in contemplation of ANILCA, but
when ANILCA passed and all of the conservation system unit (CSU)
boundary lines were drawn, the withdrawals to facilitate ANILCA
remained and so the state is prevented from selecting lands that
weren't eventually put into a refuge, park, forest, or
wilderness area. The state is just waiting for the withdrawal
to be able to see whether it wants the land that it has top-
filed on. The very first step before the surveys, before
analyzing how much acreage, or whether the state wants the land,
is getting the withdrawal lifted.
2:24:58 PM
VICE CHAIR HAWKER opened public testimony on HJR 24, then closed
it after ascertaining that no one wished to testify.
2:25:40 PM
VICE CHAIR HAWKER continued committee discussion on HJR 24.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood the state has 5-5.5 million
acres of selection left and has filed on 10-11 million acres.
He inquired whether HJR 24 is asking to have 152 million acres
of withdrawals gotten rid of so that the state can make
selections other than the 10 million the state has currently
said it would like that 5 million acres to come out of.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied the way it worked is that the
Secretary of Interior was allowed to withdraw this land because
the value of the resources and value of the land was unclear.
Instead of dispersing the land at ANILCA it was withdrawn. The
state was then allowed to top-file over those and he doesn't
know the number of acres that the state has top-filed over.
Top-filing let the state express an interest in the land that
had been withdrawn. The report in 2006 was that 95 percent of
the withdrawals were no longer needed. If the withdrawals are
removed, then the state can select among its top-filing
interests, although he is unclear whether the state can add to
that. The real question is that the state has expressed an
interest but it cannot go to adjudication and the deal finished
because it is all on land that is withdrawn. He deferred to Ms.
Taylor for further explanation.
MS. TAYLOR explained there are about 159 million acres of [ANCSA
Section 17(d)(1)] withdrawals in Alaska. There are a lot of
overlapping withdrawals also that kind of go on top of a great
many of those. If all 159 million acres of withdrawals were
lifted, which BLM itself recommended in 2006, about 21.5 million
acres would have no further encumbrances. Although she doesn't
know the extent that Alaska has top-filed on those 21.5 million
acres, she said Alaska would immediately jump on its selections
if any of those lands were freed up. This isn't a re-opening of
an opportunity to select land, this is land the state has
already identified it wants and the land just needs to be moved
from the back storeroom to the actual store so the state can
finally buy it.
2:29:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that is what is difficult to read in
the resolution: if the state is asking for all of the land to
be done on which it has top-filed, that is probably a smaller
subset of this entire amount. He suggested the legislature
might have more success if it says it wants 15-20 million acres
of withdrawals cancelled instead of saying 152 million acres.
He added, however, he is not opposed to the resolution.
VICE CHAIR HAWKER responded that a key in the resolution is that
the legislature is not initiating something, it is asking the
Secretary of Interior to honor the recommendations made in the
2006 report to Congress to lift the [152,181,400 acres] of land
withdrawals specified in that report. The legislature is
endorsing the recommendations made in this report as opposed to
initiating the state's own analysis.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER concurred with Vice Chair Hawker, saying
he cannot imagine why the legislature would want to recommend
less than what has already been recommended to be released.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated he is not opposed to the
resolution, but trying to figure out something given there has
been no momentum since 2006. It would appear something is
holding up the federal government from accepting that 2006
report. It was therefore a suggestion if all the state really
wants is the release of those lands that it has top-filed on.
2:33:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR related that in its letter, DNR also said
that some of the PLOs are related to ANCSA, which is discussed
in the resolution. She understood that not all of those land
selections have been completed and asked whether that could be,
in part, what's slowing down the process for the state's
selections.
MS. TAYLOR qualified this might be better answered by DNR, but
replied that for purposes of this resolution members want to
think about whether [the state] wants to take what's currently
on offer or would like to take real high quality lands that
could be available if the Section 17(d)(1) withdrawals are
lifted. If those withdrawals are lifted, they also become
available for selection by Native corporations. Native
corporations have their own top-filings throughout the state, so
the state and corporations would all be put back into the queue
of figuring out who would get the selections. Thus, it won't
necessarily speed things up or slow things down at that point.
2:35:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired whether there are tribal partners
or others in this effort that should receive copies of the
resolution and suggested that these names could be added if the
sponsor so chooses.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied he will consider this great
suggestion as the resolution goes through the process.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, responding to Vice Chair Hawker about
making a conceptual amendment at this time, said she is trying
to think who it would be best to include.
VICE CHAIR HAWKER pointed out that this resolution is being sent
to those people who can act on the request and so the question
is whether it is necessary to send the resolution directly to
Native corporations as if it is an appeal to them. He noted
that courtesy copies of resolutions are not usually sent, rather
the resolutions are sent to the people whom the legislature
wants to act on the resolutions.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR agreed and commented that everyone could
benefit by trying to move all of the processes forward and
resolve all of these issues since it has been decades. She said
more time doesn't need to be spent on this today, but perhaps
Ms. Taylor would have a suggestion for who could be added now or
at a later date.
MS. TAYLOR answered the appropriate person to contact in that
respect is Sally Jewell, Secretary of Interior, and she is
included in the copies.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:39 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.
2:40:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to report HJR 24 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note.
2:40:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON objected for discussion purposes,
saying he applauds the resolution but takes note of
Representative Seaton's comment about how much really needs to
be withdrawn. He likes the resolution, he said, because it is
pragmatic in just saying to get this done, no one is the devil
or the angel, and there is no vitriol or boogeyman. Offering
his appreciation to the sponsor, he removed his objection.
There being no further objection, HJR 24 was reported from the
House Resources Standing Committee.
2:42:14 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:42 p.m.