Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/12/2003 06:30 PM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 12, 2003
6:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair
Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
EXECUTIVE ORDER 107 - TRANSFER OF HABITAT FUNCTIONS FROM ADFG TO
DNR
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
OWEN GRAHAM, Executive Director
Alaska Forest Association
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of EO 107, and
attempted to counter allegations that fish culverts were
improperly installed on forest service land.
GEORGE WOODBURY
Woodbury Enterprises
Wrangell, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of EO 107 as a means
to restore balance, develop resources, and boost the state's
economy.
DAVID PERSON, Ph.D.
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to rescind EO 107, and
provided the committee with comparisons between the permitting
processes of ADF&G and DNR.
JACK GUSTAFSON
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered six reasons to oppose EO 107.
MIKE SALLEE
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to EO 107.
JASON GRAHAM
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and asked the committee
to take action to reject EO 107.
CATHERINE SENUNGETUK
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to EO 107.
JAN KONIGSBERG
Trout Unlimited
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to EO 107 on behalf
of the Alaska field office of Trout Unlimited.
LEO KEELER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: His testimony opposing EO 107 was read by
Dorothy Keeler.
MEAGAN BOLTWOOD
Anchorage Waterways Council (AWC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to EO 107.
JIM STUBBS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to EO 107 and the
transfer of habitat functions to DNR.
BRUCE HARDING, Mayor
City of Wrangell
Wrangell, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of EO 107 and the
governor's efforts to improve the economy of the state.
SPENCER SEVERSON
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As a member of the Southeast Alaska Dive
Fisheries Association (SARDFA), objected to SARDFA's endorsement
of EO 107.
LON GARRISON
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and urged the committee
to prohibit EO 107 from proceeding.
KHRYS DUDDLESTON
Girdwood, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and asked that steps be
taken to reject EO 107.
STEVE ALBERT
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to EO 107 and asked
the committee to vote against it.
CEVIN GILLELAND
Chugiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of EO 107, provided
comments and a description of three projects he was involved
with as a habitat biologist in order to explain that EO 107 is
based on faulty information, and urged the committee to sign the
joint resolution and reject EO 107.
EDWARD W. WEISS
Chugiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of EO 107, provided
comments and asked the committee to vote down EO 107 and EO 106.
GEOFFREY Y. PARKER, Attorney at Law
Counsel, Alaska Sportfishing Association;
Vice President, State Council of Trout Unlimited
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of EO 107, provided
comments regarding its budget and personnel aspects.
JOHN NELSON TRENT
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to EO 107 and asked
the committee to prevent it from becoming law.
BOB ZACHEL
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of EO 107.
ARTHUR HUSSEY, Executive Director
Northern Alaska Environmental Center
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to EO 107 and asked
the committee to take action to oppose it.
RUSSELL DEFOREST
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments that EO 107 erodes the
public trust and asked the committee to not support EO 107.
DAVID P. JANKA, Owner/Operator
Auklet Charter Services
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to EO 107 and urged
the committee to reject it.
JOHN SISK
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that he did not support EO 107
and spoke on the issue of habitat management as it relates to
the fishing industry.
BEN KIRKPATRICK
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: After noting that he is habitat biologist,
relayed that there are several reasons for not approving EO 107.
CATHERINE POHL
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of EO 107, noted that she
is a habitat biologist with ADF&G but testifying on her own
behalf that among other things, EO 107 will not do what it is
intended but will instead result in a degradation of habitat and
loss of federal funds.
DALE KELLY, Executive Director
Alaska Trollers Association (ATA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to EO 107.
MIKE ROBBINS
Alaska State Employees Association (ASEA) Local 52
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to EO 107 and urged
the committee to take action to reject it.
CELIA ROZEN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of EO 107 and
asked the committee to support the special concurrent resolution
disapproving EO 107.
WADE WILLIS, Owner
Vision Quest Adventures
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to EO 107.
SCOTT THORSON
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of moving the habitat
division to DNR.
JOE MEEHAN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and suggested that the
committee should prevent EO 107 from being implemented.
JEANNE WALTER
Chugiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and asked the committee
to disapprove both EO 107 and EO 106.
AARON BENJAMIN
Talkeetna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of EO
107.
ERIC MUENCH
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments, testified in support of
EO 107 and in opposition to HSCR 1, and urged the committee to
support EO 107.
JILL JACOB
Ward Cove, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and requested that the
committee vote in joint session to disapprove EO 107.
SHELLY STALLINGS
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and asked the committee
to deny EO 107.
DAVID CARTER, Attorney at Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments, remarked that EO 107 is
not a good idea, and asked the committee to keep habitat issues
under the purview of the ADF&G.
JOSEPH R. SULLIVAN, Ph.D., Program Director
Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association (YRDFA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and requested that the
legislature block EO 107.
PAULA TERRELL
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of EO 107, testified on
her own behalf as a commercial fisherman that EO 107 ought to be
overturned.
GINNA PURRINGTON
Alaska Wildlife Alliance (AWA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of EO 107, provided
comments, spoke of the DNR's current backlog of over 700 water
rights applications, and asked the committee to disapprove of
the executive order switching permitting authority from the
ADF&G to the DNR.
JOSH PEIRCE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of EO 107, provided
comments, listed some specific applications that are currently
in DNR's backlog, and suggested that EO 107 will neither
streamline the process nor save the state money.
RUTH BAUMAN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and said she supports the
concept of EO 107.
DAMIAN WALTER
Chugiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that he disapproves of EO 107.
MARK FINK
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Comments and urged the committee
to disapprove EO 107.
WILLIAM H. DENNERLEIN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of EO 107, provided
comments, noted that the governor's habitat transition team
never met with the Division of Habitat and Restoration, and
urged the committee to oppose EO 107.
MARYELLEN OMAN, President
Anchorage Audubon Society
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of EO
107 and stated that the Anchorage Audubon Society is firmly
opposed to Executive Order 107 and supports SSCR 1 and HSCR 1.
VALANNE GLOOSCHENKO, MSc.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to EO 107 and asked
the committee to disapprove it.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-23, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting, which had been recessed on March 11, 2003,
back to order at 6:30 p.m. Representatives Holm, Seaton, Lynn,
and Weyhrauch were present at the call to order.
Representatives Dahlstrom, Berkowitz, and Gruenberg arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 107 - TRANSFER OF HABITAT FUNCTIONS FROM ADFG TO
DNR
Number 0033
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the only order of business would
be Executive Order (EO) 107, transferring habitat functions from
ADF&G to DNR.
Number 0080
OWEN GRAHAM, Executive Director, Alaska Forest Association,
testified in support of [EO 107]. He stated his belief that
having one agency acting to ensure that there is responsible
development will adequately protect the environment and reduce
the cost of government.
OWEN GRAHAM referred to recent allegations that some 70 percent
of the fish culverts on forest service land were improperly
installed and now block fish passage. He opined that the truth
is that most of the culverts in question were properly
installed, following the standards that were in place at the
time. He explained that the forest service had informed him
that the old standard was in conformance with a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) between the state and the forest service.
Then, when the current standard was adopted, the forest service
also adopted it and, at that time, estimated that some 70
percent of its existing culverts might need to be upgraded. He
told the committee that the forest service is currently spending
approximately $2 million a year examining and, where necessary,
upgrading the older culverts.
OWEN GRAHAM stated that he thinks it is unfair and dishonest to
use misinformation to try to block the proposed streamlining of
state government, and he encouraged the committee to contact the
forest service for confirmation what he'd just told them.
Number 0185
GEORGE WOODBURY, Woodbury Enterprises, indicated that he is a
forest consultant from Wrangell, Alaska. He stated his support
of [EO 107] and whatever else the governor thinks is necessary
to streamline and restore balance to the management of the
state's resources in order to once again see resource
development and the resulting economy.
Number 0253
DAVID PERSON, Ph.D., after noting that he is a research
biologist with the Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), told the committee that he is
testifying on his own behalf. He stated that he has not seen
any compelling evidence or information provided by the
governor's staff that justifies [EO 107], adding that all the
allegations and innuendo put forward by the governor and his
staff fall flat when investigated. Furthermore, examination of
the [Division of Habitat and Restoration ("Division of
Habitat")] reveals a dedicated, professional staff doing the job
expected of it.
DR. PERSON opined that the statements "blasting" the Division of
Habitat and Restoration say more about the mindset and character
of the governor's administration than they do about the
division. Furthermore, he relayed, [EO 107] appears to him to
be nothing more than a punitive effort to punish the division
and staff for doing their job.
DR. PERSON continued:
Last Friday, Commissioners [Kevin] Duffy and [Tom]
Irwin refused to discuss any of the charges made
against the division. They said that those issues
were in the past and ... [that] it's time to move
forward. That is the same dysfunctional behavior
displayed by a man who beats his wife and then tells
her the next day, "Honey, never mind the black eyes,
forget the past, it's time to move on."
DR. PERSON stated that every habitat biologist whom he knows has
been chronically overworked trying to protect Alaska's vital
fish and wildlife habitats. He said that there are not enough
habitat biologists now to do the job effectively; therefore,
scaling down staff and moving the division into another
department will not create greater efficiency or maintain
quality. He emphasized that quality, not efficiency, is what
matters, and suggested that EO 107 will result in a "rubber-
stamp proposal."
DR. PERSON said that many of the comments he has heard come from
those who do not understand the laws of protecting the state's
fish and wildlife resources, or who have no clue about the
process of getting permits. He suggested that the place to
start gaining efficiencies - rather than dismantling the
Division of Habitat - would be to educate the public regarding
its responsibilities and help it be prepared to enter the
process of getting permits. He added, "Of course, if the goal
is really to gut the laws and rubber stamp the projects, then
the administration doesn't need any habitat biologists - just
lawyers."
Number 0409
DR. PERSON relayed the following:
A few years ago, my colleagues and I needed to build a
cabin on a remote island, to create a base camp for a
research project. We selected unused state land for
the project and applied for a permit to build. [The
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)] informed us
that it would take three (indisc. - coughing) years to
process our application.
DR. PERSON also relayed that a few years ago, timber planters
for DNR drafted a project proposal for timberland on Prince of
Wales Island. They described populations of red squirrels,
porcupines, and snowshoe hare. Mr. Person stated that none of
those species live on the island. He added: "Apparently, DNR
staff writing the sections ... of the proposal never visited the
site or did their homework. It took a habitat biologist to
point out their mistake."
DR. PERSON, in conclusion, urged the committee to reject EO 107.
Number 0482
JACK GUSTAFSON told the committee that although he is a habitat
biologist employed by ADF&G, he is testifying on his own behalf.
He listed the following reasons for his opposition to EO 107:
First, the Division of Habitat is mostly federally funded. He
asked, "Why decrease their staff and eliminate federal funding
that currently (indisc.)?" Second, the executive order will not
streamline the process because most of the work [the division]
does requires coordination of other employees within ADF&G, not
DNR. He said that involving DNR in all that [the division] does
will complicate the process and compromise efficiency, and
provided an example.
MR. GUSTAFSON continued listing his reasons for opposing EO 107:
Third, valuable fish and wildlife habitat will be needlessly
damaged. He warned that the impacts on fish and wildlife as a
result of [EO 107] will be much greater than the average person
might imagine. Fourth, the plan may backfire because, as the
state backs out of resource protection, the federal government
will start playing a more authoritative role. He told the
committee that [the division] currently works with several
federal agencies, adding that everyone benefits from such a
cooperative approach. He said that there could be many
unintended consequences of eliminating the Division of Habitat,
and offered an example.
MR. GUSTAFSON stated his fifth point: EO 107 is being
implemented through intimidation and misinformation rather than
through fair and balanced dialogue. He told the committee that
habitat biologists were placed under a gag order in December;
when they received any calls from the media, they were
instructed to tell the reporters that they would get back to
them regarding their questions. Those questions, he said, were
then sent up to the governor's office for a response. He stated
that the gag order on political appointees has been lifted, but
the gag order on habitat biologists is still in effect.
MR. GUSTAFSON offered his final reason: The public has been
mislead as to why this action is being taken. He relayed that
in his state of the state address, the governor had said that
[EO 107] is necessary because the Division of Habitat delayed or
opposed certain developmental projects. Mr. Gustafson explained
that one of the examples given was a review that he'd handled,
and the division did not delay or oppose that project. He
stated that the governor's characterization, broadcast across
statewide television, was erroneous.
Number 0700
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH requested that Mr. Gustafson submit the
remainder of his testimony in writing and include copies of the
gag orders that were received.
Number 0775
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ remarked that he would like to see
whose gag order it was and why it was imposed. He opined that
someone from the administration should be present to listen to
the testimony regarding the executive order. He emphasized that
when the [administration] support bills or executive orders, it
ought to be present.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH relayed that he'd previously told DNR
representatives that they did not have to come. He said he
would make certain that Mr. Gustafson's comments would be
forwarded to them, and that he would get comments in response.
Number 0905
MIKE SALLEE testified that he was born in Ketchikan and has
resided there most of his life. He said that for the past two
decades, he has worked on boats up and down the coast of
Southeast Alaska as a longline fisherman. He noted that he is
represented by the Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association
(ALFA), which opposes EO 107.
MR. SALLEE told the committee that he has also been involved in
harvest diving for the past two decades. He indicated that
there is an organization of harvest divers and, while it has
come out in support of EO 107, the support is not unanimous -
many divers are incensed by the executive order.
MR. SALLEE said that he has also owned and operated a small
sawmill for the last 20 years, providing lumber for over 100
clients, including neighbors, people in other parts of Southeast
Alaska, and clients outside of the state. He continued:
The governor has surrounded himself with several
former timber industry lobbyists, timber industry
legal counsel, a former pulp mill manager, [and] a
former regional forester. In short, a corporate green
team heavily weighted toward the timber industry. In
noting the habitat biologists laid off, it appears the
Murkowski team did not like the message delivered by
those biologists and is responding by disposing of the
messengers.
Reducing habitat personnel, as the governor has done
in Ketchikan, Sitka, Anchorage, Juneau, and elsewhere,
will mean fewer hours in the field and, therefore,
less data upon which to base enforcement. From my
layman's perspective, there are two parts to law: the
written statute and, equally important, the
enforcement part. We can have great statutes, but
they're utterly useless if activities in [the] field
are not monitored and enforced.
Over the last several days, I've heard and read
numerous innuendos and complaints about [the Division
of Habitat]. Every complaint that has been
significant, or specifically identified, has been
thoroughly explained and rebutted by ADF&G personnel.
I can only conclude that [the] executive order is not
about streamlining, it's about rubber stamping.
Please bring to a floor vote a resolution to reject EO
107. Our fish and wildlife is too valuable to be
making a decision geared primarily toward tending
favors from those in power.
Number 0967
JASON GRAHAM asked that the committee take action to reject EO
107 and keep the authority and responsibility to protect fish
within the ADF&G. He opined that the ADF&G is the most
appropriate agency to manage the state's permit system that
protects the habitat which produces the fisheries resources that
benefit Alaskans. He noted that the ADF&G's statutory purpose
is to manage, protect, maintain, and, where possible, extend the
fish and game resources in the interest of the economy and
general well being of the state. He said that the value of the
state's commercial, sport, and subsistence fisheries exceed that
of all other industries except the oil industry.
JASON GRAHAM stated that fish habitat loss and migrational
blockages are the number one reason [that] anadromous fish
populations have declined to disastrous levels in the United
States. He said: "Habitat loss is forever. Habitat protection
is relatively inexpensive compared to restoration. Please don't
change a system that is efficient and works."
Number 1026
CATHERINE SENUNGETUK, testifying on behalf of herself, told the
committee that she has lived in Alaska for 27 years and works as
an elementary school nurse. She stated that she is testifying
because she cares about the state and its future beyond the
current generation. She asked the committee to accept a
resolution to disapprove EO 107, and that the executive order be
allowed onto the floor for a vote in joint session.
MS. SENUNGETUK said that one reason to override EO 107 is that
there is a high risk that it will negatively impact fishing in
Alaska, including sport, commercial, and subsistence fishing.
She stated that fish are Alaska's greatest and most sustainable
renewable resource. She asked, Why would the state risk this
renewable resource in an act which would undo the oversight that
has been in place since statehood and which was integral to
Alaska becoming a state? She said that if the Division of
Habitat is gutted, there will be no safeguards in place for fish
and fish habitat. She added that DNR's mission is to develop,
rather than manage, protect, and maintain.
MS. SENUNGETUK, noting that she has heard many promises and
assurances from DNR and those who support EO 107, said, "Just
because someone gives us careful verbal reassurances, once
authority is in place, anything can happen." To illustrate this
point, she noted that when Governor Frank Murkowski was
criticized recently regarding his proposed $10 tax on each new
studded tire, although he'd run for office "on no new taxes,"
his response was, "Well, you don't have to drive." She asked,
"Are we also going to say, 'You don't have to fish'?"
Number 1119
MS. SENUNGETUK proffered that another reason to override EO 107
is that loss of habitat will have a [negative] impact on tourism
too - another of Alaska's most renewable resources. She stated
that EO 107 will essentially take away the ability of ADF&G to
uphold its mission to protect, maintain, and improve the fish,
game, and aquatic plant resources of Alaska. She opined that
[EO 107] does not show good stewardship; if Alaska ever wants to
attempt to solve the subsistence issue, [EO 107] is not a good
first step, neither towards the state's example of leadership to
the federal government, nor in the actions of the state towards
the Alaska Native peoples and anyone who fishes in Alaska. She
reiterated her request that the committee accept the resolution
to disapprove EO 107, and that EO 107 be allowed to come to a
vote in joint session.
Number 1157
JAN KONIGSBERG said he was testifying on behalf of the Alaska
field office of Trout Unlimited, adding that Trout Unlimited is
the largest coldwater fish and watershed conservation group in
the country. He referred to a recent press conference when
Commissioners Duffy and Irwin were asked about habitat division
personnel refuting the governor's allegations. He noted that
Commissioner Duffy had said that those statements refuting the
governor's allegations were simply opinions, and that
Commissioner Irwin said something about, "Perception is
reality." Mr. Konigsberg suggested that such statements, as
were made by the commissioners, is "a very convenient way to run
a government."
MR. KONIGSBERG noted that yesterday, Commissioner Duffy, in
response to Representative Berkowitz's question about whose idea
this was, acted like he didn't know. Mr. Konigsberg remarked
that if EO 107 is really such a great idea, the person or
persons who thought it up should take credit; likewise, if it's
really a bad idea, they ought to accept the responsibility. He
posited that the Division of Habitat is not the only thing that
is being transferred out of the commissioner's office at ADF&G -
integrity is also being transferred out.
MR. KONIGSBERG turned to the subject of efficiency. He referred
to getting rid of half the positions in the Division of Habitat
and transferring them to DNR for the sake of efficiency. He
suggested that if efficiency in government is prized above all
else, wouldn't downsizing the legislature by one half and
consolidating it into a unicameral body be worth considering?
On the same note, he said he would like an explanation as to why
DNR has taken more than six months to decide what it will do
about Afognak Native Corporation loggers having cut trees all
the way down to the stream bank. He clarified that he is not
saying that DNR is shirking its duty or abusing its public
trust; rather, DNR is responding slowly, and perhaps there are
reasons for that. In other words, he explained, efficiency is
not necessarily the paramount value. He opined that the only
type of government that values efficiency above all else is a
Fascist government, adding that a representative government is
supposed to take its time and be deliberative.
MR. KONIGSBERG concluded by suggesting that everyone agrees with
former President Reagan when he said, "Trust, but verify." He
told the committee that if EO 107 is accepted, Trout Unlimited
has plans to set up a monitoring program to evaluate specific
projects to ascertain how well those projects conform to the
law. He stated that [Trout Unlimited] opposes EO 107 and hopes
that the legislature will turn it down.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH told Mr. Konigsberg that he will be particularly
interested in the results of Trout Unlimited's monitoring
efforts.
Number 1316
LEO KEELER had his testimony read by Dorothy Keeler, who said
that although Mr. Keeler's testimony is on behalf of himself,
she thinks it is important that the committee know that he is
the real estate specialist for the Chugach National Forest; has
served as the operations and logistics chief during the Exxon
Valdez Oil Spill and testified as an expert witness during the
trial; and has two decades of work experience as an expert in
federal permitting and easement.
MR. KEELER'S testimony read in part:
I am writing to oppose passage of the governor's
Executive Order 107, directing the combination of
"Habitat" and DNR. I've been in Alaska for over 20
years and, through my federal job dealing with land,
have had numerous opportunities to work with both the
habitat division of ADF&G and [with] DNR. I have
always found DNR extremely difficult to work with and
never responsive to problems. The long history of
DNR's budget being reduced has only made the problem
worse.
Recently, I was told if I wanted DNR to act on my
request for road access, ... I would need to provide
the funding to hire someone to do their paperwork.
With their attitude that "those that pay get service,"
only large companies will gain the attention of DNR's
staff and thus the permits they need. This process
will prevent diversification of our economy through
developing small business.
The logging of Native lands throughout Alaska is a
prime example of poor environmental oversight by DNR
staff. The DNR forester from Glennallen was
responsible for assuring the Iyak Corporation's
logging near Cordova was done improperly.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, noting that the committee had time restraints,
interrupted Mrs. Keeler to make certain she would send Mr.
Keeler's complete testimony to his office.
Number 1430
MEAGAN BOLTWOOD, Anchorage Waterways Council (AWC), said that
the AWC is opposed to EO 107 because it believes it is not in
the public's best interest. She noted that the full version of
her testimony had been submitted to the committee. She
continued:
[The] AWC has worked with both ADF&G and DNR to
initiate and complete several restoration projects
throughout Anchorage. In our experience, ADF&G has
taken a proactive approach to protecting fish and
wildlife, by working with us to restore Ship Creek.
[The] ADF&G's [Division of Habitat] has been helpful,
knowledgeable, and supportive of our efforts. The gag
order imposed by the Murkowski administration has hurt
our relationship with ADF&G's habitat biologists and
stalled several restoration projects.
[The] AWC has had difficulties working with DNR. When
we urged DNR to adjudicate decade-old water right
applications on Ship Creek, DNR responded that they
had neither the staff nor the funding to process these
applications. Thanks to the assistance of ADF&G,
these applications are now being processed. My
question is this: Why would the state give additional
responsibility to an agency that is unable to carry
out its existing mandate? Nowhere in its mission does
DNR adequately address fish and wildlife concerns and
the protection of the public's use of these resources.
Unless DNR changes its mission, it is unlikely that
fish and wildlife will receive the same protection
under EO 107.
Even with the promises of restructuring and commitment
to the environment, this transfer will create
disturbance, confusion, and unnecessary hostility.
The [Division of Habitat] has successfully worked with
industries, agencies, organizations, and citizens
within its existing permitting authority. [Executive
Order 107] is designed to fix a problem that doesn't
exist. This transfer is a waste of time and money.
This so-called agency streamlining led to habitat
destruction in the Lower 48. ... Support the existing
checks and balances that have established Alaska as
the model for fisheries management. Keep the
endangered species act out of Alaska by opposing EO
107.
Number 1553
JIM STUBBS told the committee that he is a 32-year resident of
Alaska and a constituent of Representative Bob Lynn, and that he
has worked from Prudhoe Bay to Ketchikan. He stated that his
reason for coming to Alaska was because of the state's rugged
beauty and hunting and fishing opportunities, adding that he
wanted to raise his family in this environment. He said that
the use of the state's hunting and fishing resources are
important to his family, as well as to "all the people of the
state of Alaska." He opined that habitat is the key to the
production of Alaska's salmon stock, adding that proof of this
is in the states of Washington and Oregon, where the loss of
habitat has taken away the wild fish, and fish (are now)
produced in plastic buckets.
MR. STUBBS told the committee that he is a member of the
Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Committee, which represents
nearly 50 percent of the population of Alaska. He relayed that
at the advisory committee's February meeting, it's members voted
unanimously against the transfer of the Division of Habitat to
the DNR, and sent a letter to the governor voicing its concern.
He emphasized that the advisory committee takes the issue
seriously, as well as do the members of the Anchorage community.
He also relayed that he has traveled to various job sites for
his work, where he has heard various members of the voting
public voice their concern and disbelief at the perceived attack
on the habitat of Alaska. Most of those people, he said, have
come to the state because of their love for the outdoors, and he
suggested that they don't want to see their enjoyment of hunting
and fishing diminished. He said, "This is the hottest topic
I've seen since the discussions of the Exxon Valdez fiasco."
MR. STUBBS noted that extensive research in the Pacific
Northwest has shown that the loss of habitat is disastrous. He
asked the committee to consider the value of fish and wildlife
to generations to come, as a resource that belongs to all
Alaskans, not just a chosen few. He stated his opposition to
the transfer [of the Division of Habitat to DNR] and said that
he hopes the committee will reject EO 107.
Number 1688
BRUCE HARDING, Mayor, City of Wrangell, testified that he
supports EO 107. He stated that it makes good sense to have
fish habitat, game protection, stream preservation, and forest
stewardship as part of DNR's Division of Forestry. He opined
that in the future, having these responsibilities in one
department will allow for improved planning and more efficient
and effective management of the state's natural and renewable
resources. In addition, he said, he supports Governor
Murkowski's willingness to look at the state's issues with fresh
eyes and bring new and creative solutions to [the] current state
of affairs. He said that these solutions will help reenergize
the state's economic engine, particularly in Southeast Alaska.
Noting that Wrangell is a resource-based community with a very
depressed economy, he said that he feels there is sufficient
opportunity to rebuild Wrangell's economy using the renewable
resources available in Southeast Alaska, without endangering
environmental habitat. In conclusion, he opined, "A sound
environment is impossible without a sound economy."
Number 1758
SPENCER SEVERSON testified that he has been a harvest diver in
Alaska since 1981. He reminded the committee that when ADF&G's
budget "began to slip in the mid-90s," a suggestion was made to
form the Southeast Alaska Regional [Dive Fisheries] Association
(SARDFA), so that the divers could tax themselves and finance
their own fishery. Since that time, he noted, the organization
seems to have come under the control of a few individuals who
seem intent on using the membership roll as a lobbying tool to
advance their own agenda. He stated his opinion that since
membership in the organization is not optional, it should not be
endorsing policies or candidates, adding that that no one he has
spoken to within the organization has been consulted concerning
his/her opinion on [EO 107].
MR. SPENCER opined that moving the Division of Habitat to DNR is
a huge mistake that will lead to chaos and habitat destruction.
He continued:
DNR's mission as an industry advocacy agency is
legitimate; [however,] putting habitat protection
under [DNR's] purview is anathema. To use my name and
the names of 600 others who ... were not consulted, to
advance the policy of three individuals who comprise
the executive committee is to blatantly misrepresent
our membership. I ask you to please disregard the so-
called SARDFA endorsement. And speaking as an
individual, I ask you to do everything in your power
to keep habitat viable and in the purview of
environmental professionals.
Number 1832
LON GARRISON noted that he has been employed as a fisheries
biologist for the past 15 years in the private, nonprofit
sector, working on salmon enhancement. Through his work, he
noted, he has dealt with ADF&G on a regular basis, and many of
the projects he is involved with require Title 16 permits. He
mentioned that he has never had difficulty obtaining the
necessary permits in a timely manner, nor been regulated to a
degree that seemed excessive. Furthermore, he said that the
system has worked well.
MR. GARRISON stated that he has had the opportunity to work with
habitat biologists on several projects, involving potentially
large impacts to anadromous [salmon] habitat. He said two
examples of this mitigation work were conducted when the Haines
airport was improved and expanded and, most recently, along the
realignment of the Haines highway. He continued:
Without the support and persistence of habitat
biologists in the Haines area, the extensive
mitigation work carried out along the Haines highway,
from mile 31 to mile 38, may not have taken place, and
certainly would not have been successful. We could
have lost nearly eight miles of complex and valuable
chum and coho salmon spawning habitat, with nothing to
show for it, except a bunch of gravel pits full of
water and [of] no use to ... any fish in the area.
MR. GARRISON said that he fortunately does not have to focus on
rehabilitation as many of his counterparts in the Pacific
Northwest do. He explained that this is because Alaska has been
"jealous" about its protection of fisheries habitat and
associated riparian areas. He said that EO 107 is an obvious
play by the governor and his administration that is designed to
forfeit the health of some of Alaska's natural resources for the
short-term monetary gain of a selected few. He said that while
he agrees that [the state] must do more to develop its natural
resources for the long-term health of its economy, he views EO
107 as a short-sighted maneuver, clearly aimed at those who
helped finance the governor's election to office. He continued:
This order removes a necessary set of checks and
balances that the founding legislature saw as an
important process to ensure the wide use and
development of our many natural resources and the
protection of our fish and wildlife.
In conclusion, at a time when this governor and his
administration should be working to legitimately
support, protect, and promote the sustainability of
Alaska's salmon fisheries, he is kowtowing to special
interests at the expense of the people of Alaska and
their resources. ... If we cannot trust this governor
to uphold his campaign pledges to ... fully fund
education and not impose new taxes, are we to believe
his administration will be any more honest than he?
Can we trust the new commissioner of the Department of
Natural Resources to be fully objective in developing
and regulating our natural resources widely? I have
serious doubts. I urge you to ... prohibit the
executive order from proceeding.
Number 1974
KHRYS DUDDLESTON told the committee that she is an Alaskan
resident and an assistant professor of biology in the Department
of Biological Sciences at the University of Alaska Anchorage.
She told the committee that she is testifying as a concerned
citizen in opposition to EO 107 and will be submitting longer
written testimony. She continued:
Our fish and wildlife resources are critical to sport,
commercial, and subsistence users, as well as
supporting many businesses based on tourism. In
addition, our salmon runs directly effect hundreds of
species of wildlife. Residents of Alaska depend on
fish and wildlife, either directly or indirectly, for
their livelihood and wellbeing. Consequently, the
protection of habitat that supports healthy
populations of fish and wildlife is not only
necessary, but should be a priority to the state.
The Alaska Department of Fish & Game has effectively
protected fish and wildlife habitat for over 40 years.
It is because of the dedication and scientific
expertise of its staff and its statutory authority
granted under Title 16 that our salmon runs have not
disappeared at the hands of development. Contrast
this to salmon runs in the Pacific Northwest, and it
is clear that our present system works well.
Yesterday I wrote a letter to my Senator, the
Honorable Con Bundy. He replied via email this
morning saying ..., "Alaska's fiscal gap is a primary
concern these days, and a large number of Alaskans are
demanding more efficiency from their government." He
also stated that: "As I did with the Knowles
administration, I prefer to allow the governor to
develop his own administration. Afterward, if there
are problems that arise, we can then work for a
legislative fix."
I take issue with these statements for two reasons.
First, time immemorial has proven that being proactive
costs less in the long run than being reactive.
Examining habitat and fish populations in Oregon and
Washington and those states' desperate and expensive
attempts to restore habitat and wild salmon runs is
[a] modern testament to this. Second, if
reorganization of government in this manner is
followed by the need for legislative fixes, then how
can that be viewed as streamlining and increasing the
efficiency of government?
If EO 107 is allowed to stand, it will haunt Alaska
forever. ... Please keep the future of our most
precious resource - fish, and those whose lives depend
on fish - foremost in your mind. Their future is at
stake ... and you have the power to save them by
keeping permitting authority under Title 16 where it
belongs - in the hands of the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game. Please request a joint session and vote
to reject EO 107.
Number 2096
STEVE ALBERT stated that he fully respects the Alaska State
Constitution and the ability it affords the governor to
reorganize the executive branch. However, he opined, EO 107 is
poor public policy and represents a punitive action initiated by
a segment of the timber industry and its friends in the
administration. He said that the implications of the
reorganization have many far-reaching impacts beyond those to
the Division of Habitat and Restoration ("Division of Habitat").
MR. ALBERT indicated that he is reminded of DNR's state timber
sale program on the Kenai Peninsula wherein the cost of bringing
a timber sale to bid exceeds the receipts to the general fund.
He predicted that the cost to the government, the public,
industry, developers both large and small, and landowners, will
be huge. He asked: Where are the benefits, and who will pay
for all the computers, field equipment, and extra office space
associated with this reorganization? Presently, habitat permits
are free and expedient, he noted, and asked, how project
proponents will view DNR's $200-$500 permit fees. How will
developers respond to absorbing the cost of having to wait even
longer for their permits? He pointed out that an individual
putting in a culvert will be paying the same for a permit as
would a large timber company.
Number 2169
MR. ALBERT opined that any reasonable manager would request
completion of a long-term, cost-benefit analysis before a
reorganization of this magnitude is implemented, and would
identify the standards by which to measure increased efficiency.
In addition, a rate comparison between DNR and ADF&G should be
done. The legislature and the public need in formation about
these elements in order to make an informed management decision.
MR. ALBERT pointed out that Section 45 of EO 107 includes
language that states that ADF&G employees with peace officer
status delegated before June 23, 1983, will continue to accrue
service credit as a peace officer under AS 39.35 after the
transfer, as long as employees remain in a position described in
that subsection. He relayed that he opposes the reorganization
[described in EO 107], and that he hopes that the committee will
bring a resolution to the floor and have the courage to vote
against [EO 107].
Number 2210
CEVIN GILLELAND told the committee that he is the area habitat
biologist for the Matanuska-Susitna ("Mat-Su") area, Prince
William Sound, and the Copper River Basin. He said he is not
testifying as a representative of the state. He added, "And
contrary to what some may want to believe, this is not about my
job, it's about the future of fish and wildlife in Alaska." He
stated that it is Alaska's fish and wildlife that are being put
in extreme danger and that will suffer as a direst result of EO
107.
MR. GILLELAND relayed that he has been involved in three of the
projects proffered by the governor as the reason why ADF&G's
permitting functions should be moved to DNR. He stated that the
effect of such a move will be to eliminate ADF&G's ability to
protect fish and game, not only because permitting will be
[removed from] ADF&G's expertise, but also because ADF&G will
have no mechanism by which to have input on projects that don't
require fish habitat permits but which may still affect fish and
game resources, such as requests from local government, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). He said that the previously mentioned projects "are real
projects, but the information presented to the press and the
public is not." He listed the projects as: The Tok cutoff
highway upgrade, the Glenn-Parks interchange, and the Power
Creek hydroelectric project in Cordova.
MR. GILLELAND went on to say that on the Tok cutoff, it was
alleged that ADF&G had at first no objection, but then changed
its comments, which resulted in project delays. However, when
the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
requested "scoping comments" on the highway upgrade, there was
no mention of stream diversion or wetlands impact.
Approximately a year later, the ADF&G was notified by the U.S.
Army Corp of Engineers that there was going to be a stream
diversion of a clearwater tributary to the Copper River, and 24
acres of wetlands next to the Copper River was going to be
filled. In light of those changes, if the ADF&G hadn't changed
its comment, it wouldn't have been doing its job.
MR. GILLELAND noted that with regard to the Glenn Parks
interchange, the governor said that the Alaska Coastal
Management Program (ACMP) consistency finding was issued in
March 2001, and that ADF&G didn't issue permits for 16 months.
However, this statement by the governor is simply incorrect, he
opined, pointing out that the first discussions of the Glenn-
Parks interchange project didn't take place until June 2001,
after DOT&PF hired its consultant. The consistency finding was
issued on March 27, 2002 - not 2001 - and it required that the
plans and specifications be submitted by the contractor at least
30 days before construction.
MR. GILLELAND, in response to a notice from the chair that his
time was up, summarized by urging the committee to sign the
joint resolution and reject EO 107.
Number 2312
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that although he appreciates
that there are many people who want to testify, because Mr.
Gilleland is apparently one of the individuals who's been
"singled out," he thinks it's only fair that Mr. Gilleland be
allowed to respond to the allegations against him by completing
his testimony regarding the three [projects].
Number 2370
MR. GILLELAND, referring to the previously mentioned Power Creek
hydroelectric project, indicated that the governor's press
[release] showing a picture of the contractor washing a rock,
and implying that ADF&G was responsible, was inaccurate. He
clarified that ADF&G had not required the contractor to wash the
rock; instead, a contract employee for Cordova Electric took it
upon himself to wash that rock.
MR. GILLELAND explained that ADF&G's permit prohibited
downstream pollution of important anadromous fish spawning
habitat in Power Creek, Hatchery Creek, and Iyak Lake. He
continued:
Despite assurances from the contractor that the
diversion channel would carry the flow - up to 4,000
[cubic feet per second (cfs)] - when they tried to
divert 300 cfs, the channel failed in an hour. It
polluted miles of spawning habitat where sockeye
salmon had just begun to spawn. I sent you photos of
that in my comments yesterday. Despite the assurances
of the contractor that if anything went wrong they
could immediately re-divert Power Creek into the
natural channel, it took them 16 days to do that.
They blamed us for slowing this project down.
MR. GILLELAND indicated that when [the contractor] redesigned
the diversion channel, he himself had talked to the southcentral
regional hydraulic engineer at DOT&PF.
TAPE 03-23, SIDE B
Number 2370
MR. GILLELAND indicated that plans were finally submitted for
"re-diversion" and the project went smoothly. He said:
"Despite what the governor and his press secretary have said, we
helped on all these projects; they would have gone nowhere
without us - and we saved the contractor on the Glenn-Parks
project over $1 million."
Number 2342
EDWARD W. WEISS remarked that there are numerous reasons to
reject EO 107, including: increased cost to the state, private
citizens, and industry; inefficiencies in government; and the
loss of fish and wildlife habitat. Most of these points have
been previously mentioned by other testifiers, he noted, and are
outlined in his written testimony. Mr. Weiss said that he would
like to reiterate some of the previously stated testimony of
former commissioners Carl Rosier and Frank Rue, as well as that
of Mr. Gilleland and Mr. Persons, and of Mr. Hannon from last
night. He said that [their testimony] contained all factual
information.
MR. WEISS continued:
From the start, this has been a campaign of
retribution and misinformation put forth by the
governor's chief of staff, the governor himself, and,
more silently, by industry representatives. This has
been fueled by misinformation from various sources,
including the DNR commissioner's misinterpretation of
"the Frasier (ph) report." It's also been fueled by
the apparent indifference on the part of the [ADF&G's]
commissioner, while his staff's credibility [is]
attacked and his responsibilities to protect fish and
wildlife are sold down the river. I am a habitat
biologist, and it's been a privilege and an honor to
work with the staff of the [Division of Habitat], as
well as the other divisions within the [ADF&G].
MR. WEISS said that the above-mentioned staff is made up of a
dedicated group of highly skilled Alaskans with a lot of
integrity, and with a belief in serving the people of Alaska.
He asked that the committee vote down not only EO 107, but also
EO 106, because they jointly [affect] fish and wildlife
protection for the state. He referred to the testimony of Mr.
Sturgeon on the previous night stating that he has to receive
two culvert permits for every culvert. Mr. Weiss said that that
is not true: Mr. Sturgeon receives one permit, and it comes
from ADF&G.
Number 2200
GEOFFREY Y. PARKER, Attorney at Law, Counsel, Alaska
Sportfishing Association; Vice President, State Council of Trout
Unlimited, offered the following:
One of the things that strikes all of us here ... is
that the facts are not on the side of this EO. The
facts have clearly demonstrated that the governor is
in error with every one of the examples he uses. When
the governor has his facts wrong, how can the public
trust the assertion that the protection of fish and
game will remain the same once it goes over to DNR?
Here's why it won't: Take a look at the budget -
ADF&G's habitat budget is $12.4 million of which $2.2
million is general funds [GF].
The governor's proposed operating budget will
eliminate the division totally and replace it with
only $3.5 million of [GF] in the habitat management
and permitting function in DNR. This difference is $9
million less, so DNR will not do the same job. Then
ask, "What will DNR use to do the job? [Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Division of Habitat] has
boats, computers, and other equipment all paid for
with "federal Dingle-Johnson, Wallop-Breaux, [and]
Pittman-Robertson funds." They can't go to DNR
because of the financial restrictions that go in those
statutes; they have to remain in [ADF&G].
So now start thinking about other costs. With vastly
less money and apparently no equipment, DNR will not
and cannot be in the field. The budget tells you also
that you can't trust the governor's assertions. We
hear about a lot about "efficiency." You all know by
now that it's an average 14 days to process a permit
in ADF&G, [and] 99 percent are granted. The report
from the mineral industry, to which Mr. Irwin refers,
actually ... says that Alaska is rated very high for
its present regulatory scheme. Then you hear again,
as the previous spokesman just said, [that] Mr.
Sturgeon misled you into believing that there are two
permits required, when in fact there's only one. ...
Please think also about the staff. You will not get
the same quality of staff in an agency that doesn't
manage fish and wildlife. These will be analogous to
biologists that you have in the [U.S. Army] Corp of
Engineers or the Federal Highway Administration. They
won't publish; there's no professional advancement for
biologists in that kind of field. Lastly, think about
the impact. It's going to be in Southcentral Alaska
because that's where most of the permitting occurs.
It doesn't occur from timber, mining, or oil and gas;
it occurs from ordinary activities. Finally, what you
should ask, as has been asked, "Whose idea is this?"
That's the person you should have in front of you.
Number 2073
JOHN NELSON TRENT relayed that he is testifying on his own
behalf, and went on to say:
I am a wildlife biologist in the Division of Wildlife
Conservation I have also been a continuous resident
of this state for 50 years. I am strongly opposed to
Executive Order 107 because it offers no reasonable
assurance that the quality of habitat protection that
we now have can be maintained under the proposed new
organizational structure. I know that Executive Order
107 is intended to "fix" certain communication and
coordination problems in terms of permitting
efficiency. However, what is not broken and does not
need to be fixed is the high standard of fish and
wildlife habitat protection that has been achieved in
Alaska for over the last four decades.
I am also concerned that it may take many years,
possibly decades, before we can fully assess the true
consequences of this administrative action. In my
experience, wildlife and fisheries habitat condition
is generally difficult to assess from the outset.
Human-caused habitat degradation can be equally
difficult to detect, let alone rectify or mitigate.
The permanent loss of anadromous fish habitat in
states like Washington and Oregon is the nightmare
example of what we do not want to have happen here in
Alaska.
In summary, I urge you to act in a manner that would
either prevent this executive order from becoming law
or to find a way to significantly re-craft it. If
neither of these options is feasible, then at the very
least, there need to be long-term, quantitative
evaluation measures, operated by a neutral party, to
evaluate the effects of this reorganization. Thank
you for this opportunity to speak before you.
Number 1996
BOB ZACHEL said he supports moving the Division of Habitat and
Restoration ("Division of Habitat") out of ADF&G. He
elaborated:
I think there is a good parallel between the Division
of Oil & Gas and the [Division of Mining, Land, and
Water] - who do permitting - [and] the [Division of
Geological & Geophysical Surveys] - who do the
research, the science. These three divisions are kept
separate so the politics of permitting do not take the
[place] of science. It is vitally important to have
good, clean information to which we as people add such
factors as economy, environment, and social
considerations to come up with a decision. ... Having
[the Division of] Habitat, the permitting branch, and
[the ADF&G], the research branch, all in the same
[department] allow for a relationship that in my
opinion presents many chances to skew the science.
Federal funding of the [Division of Habitat] has taken
away the legislature's, and therefore the people's,
ability to hold the division accountable. I encourage
you to put "Habitat" in its own division and appoint a
director who does not see resource development as a
threat to the environment, and [who] operates under
the philosophy that the environment is best protected
when the legitimate consumptive needs of society are
met in orderly fashion. It is my opinion that ... not
protecting the environment will likely cost [the
governor] a second term. Protecting the environment
and promoting development at the same time will likely
earn him a second term. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for a clarification.
MR. ZACHEL replied:
It's my understanding that [ADF&G] does primarily
scientific research. [With the Division of] Habitat,
one of their main responsibilities is permitting. I
think permitting gets political. I think having those
two organizations ... under the same umbrella ... --
I'd like to see those broken out into separate
divisions.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON remarked, however, that EO 107 puts the
research in the Division of Habitat under DNR, so everything
will still be under one organization.
Number 1937
ARTHUR HUSSEY, Executive Director, Northern Alaska Environmental
Center, said that his organization does not support EO 107. He
elaborated:
While we understand some of the (indisc.) for
permitting, we believe that EO 107 is an
insufficiently thought out policy and sets a poor
precedent for effectiveness and management of both
[DNR] and [ADF&G]. [The Alaska Department of Fish &
Game] and DNR serve different although complimentary
purposes, and blurring their roles will result, or may
result, in persistent legal and constitutional
difficulties. The proposal to transfer [the Division
of Habitat and Restoration] to DNR would seriously
weaken the state's ability to manage salmon and other
fish and wildlife on a sustained yield basis as
mandated in the [Alaska State Constitution].
[The Department of Natural Resources] has a mandate to
promote, develop, and permit development of Alaska's
natural resources. [The Alaska Department of Fish &
Game], on the other hand, has a mandate to manage,
protect, maintain, and preserve the fish and game and
aquatic plant resources of the state. We have a
system, currently, of checks and balances that places
fish and wildlife habitat protection on equal standing
with development interests, and allows an opportunity
to debate issues. [Executive Order 107] would
inappropriately alter this delicate balance. We also
agree with statements [regarding] the efficiency of
[ADF&G] in the permitting process, and urge you to
adopt measures to oppose EO 107.
Number 1807
RUSSELL DEFOREST said he is concerned that this proposal, when
passed as an executive order, will further erode public trust in
the public process. He elaborated:
I think that if this proposal were to accomplish the
goals that the governor claims they would - ...
streamlining permitting and increasing transparency
and accountability in the process - it should have
been submitted as a bill, where it would be subject to
the full process. The governor, in his campaign for
election, used a great deal of anti-environmentalist
rhetoric, and I think that this proposal is born out
of that kind of rhetoric, which places the environment
and economy on opposite sides of the spectrum. And I
think that passing this executive order furthers that
myth.
We really need to be working toward resolving
environment and resource development difficulties in a
more round-table and respectful manner, so people can
understand that environment and economy need to work
together in this state. ... We're all familiar with
the amount that this administration has already eroded
the public's trust through a number of proposals.
This is just one more brick in that wall, and it comes
across very easily to the public as nothing more than
political grandstanding, and I ask you to not support
it. Thank you.
Number 1733
DAVID P. JANKA, Owner/Operator, Auklet Charter Services, said
that he does not support EO 107, and urged the committee to
reject it. He elaborated:
This change does not come from the people, it doesn't
come from an agency, it doesn't come from the
legislature. It's an executive order, and this
executive is no friend to the environment and in turn
no friend to the protection of habitat. I can
understand that some streamlining can make things more
efficient, but this is a substantial change and it's
outrageous. With all the plans that Governor
Murkowski has spoken of for roads, and mining, and oil
development, to make a change like this is insulting
to Alaskans.
I, like so many of Alaskans, have taken offense with
the badmouthing of [ADF&G] that has taken place from
the governor's office and recently on a ... local
radio talk show by Representative John Harris of
Valdez in reference to a Power Creek project here in
Cordova. That project had tremendous cost overruns
and construction delays and even a tragic death of a
worker - none of that had anything to do with [ADF&G,
Division of Habitat and Restoration]. And another
thing: if it wasn't for [ADF&G], that project would
not be what it is today, which is a project that
everyone in this town is extremely proud of - an
incredible facility, and everything is taken care of
perfectly there - and [it's all] thanks to [ADF&G].
And what I worry about are projects now on the eastern
side of the Copper River delta - home of ... Alaska's
premier wild salmon, the Copper River Red - for oil
exploration. With this change, I'm really, really
concerned [with] how our fish and wildlife protection
will take place .... If we're looking at efficiencies
and streamlining things, why don't we keep the Senate
and eliminate the House, and we can get through with
this process quicker. I thank you very much for your
time and for your keeping us all on task. Good
evening.
Number 1632
JOHN SISK relayed that he has a background in fisheries and
wildlife biology, has a master's degree in forestry, and has
recently worked for the Knowles Administration as a special
assistant, both in ADF&G and in the governor's office. He said
he does not support EO 107. He then paraphrased from his
written testimony, which said in part [original punctuation
provided]:
Strong fish passage and habitat programs, combined
with abundance based harvest management, have an
economic dimension that helps us provide fishing
opportunities and explore & develop new markets. Fish
in the hold and money in the bank. Two examples in
which I have experience are the Pacific Salmon Treaty
(PST) and the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)
Sustainable Fishery label.
During the PST, our neighbors in the Pacific Northwest
and British Columbia attempted to misrepresent the
Southeast Alaska salmon fisheries as "pirates" who
were "over harvesting" the northern migrating salmon
that spawn in rivers in B.C., Washington and Oregon.
The real story, however, was that dams on the Columbia
and Snake Rivers, combined with lack of "buffer
strips" of timber along salmon streams, depleted some
of the northwest runs. Habitat and fish passage, not
fishing, are their challenges. One of their proposals
would have closed entire Alaska salmon fisheries, with
little or no benefit to the salmon runs listed as
"threatened" or endangered" in the Pacific Northwest.
Thanks to Alaska's history of commitment to fish
passage ("Title 16"), buffer strips on spawning and
rearing streams, and harvest management that assures
plenty of fish return to the rivers to spawn, we were
able to rebut the Outside misrepresentations of our
fisheries, and redefine the negotiations more to
Alaska's advantage. As a result in 1999 we achieved
10-year harvest sharing agreements that, while not
ideal, are much more favorable to Alaska fishermen
than many thought possible to achieve. Today our
fishermen - sport, commercial, subsistence and
recreational - enjoy an abundance of harvestable
salmon. Food on the table, fish on the line and in
the hold, and money in the bank.
MR. FISK went on to say that without the integrated program
currently in place, Alaska would not have the abundance of fish
for harvesters today. That same program allowed Alaska to get
certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council.
This certification is really paying off, he opined, in terms of
niche high-end markets, which a number of fishermen and
processors are taking advantage of. Although no panacea, this
certification helps members of the industry make money. He
suggested that EO 107 will weaken the current program, and urged
members to consider carefully the impact on working Alaskans the
current program has.
Number 1476
BEN KIRKPATRICK relayed that he has worked for "the department"
as a "fish tech" and a fish biologist, and is currently the
"Haines area habitat biologist." He said that with the current
departmental reorganization that is taking place, most of the
research aspects will stay in ADF&G rather than moving to DNR.
He said that there are a lot of good reasons for not going along
with EO 107 or EO 106, and he elaborated:
One of the main things that I've seen over my years
working for the department is, almost everybody -
whether it's a commercial fisherman, [a] sport
fisherman, a developer - ... really values our
resources. ... One of the things I have noticed is -
whether it's human nature, greed, "the American Way" -
... it does seem that we do need to keep on eye on
people, at least have the threat that that's going to
happen. And I think with the 30 percent cut, it least
in Southeast, of the permitting biologists, that that
is going to be a serious thing we're going lose if
this current structure is carried forth. And just one
last thing to wrap up is, I will be very glad to
provide ... a copy of the, quote unquote, "gag order"
that was passed on to us, in an e-mail version - I'd
be glad to send that to you.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether currently, a biologist goes
on site before a permit is issued.
MR. KIRKPATRICK estimated that such is done at least 90 percent
of the time, and remarked that that has been one of the
division's strengths and keys to its success, since its sister
agencies as well as federal agencies depend on the information
gathered.
Number 1337
CATHERINE POHL testified on her own behalf but noted that she is
a habitat biologist with ADF&G. She mentioned that she agrees
with everything that prior ADF&G personnel have said. She went
on to say:
One of the challenges you have, I think, in looking at
this is that the world of project review and the
language of the regulation involved is very complex,
and it's kind of hard to understand how the substance
of habitat protection happens. I mean, how do you
protect this habitat? You read the statutes and
they're extremely general, and [so] you don't really
know how you get from "A" to "B" - how do you get the
on-the-ground protection - and what assurance are you
going to have that ... a reasonable amount of
protection is what you're going have, or that anything
like our current protection is what you're going to
have.
And I guess I would say, from my knowledge of habitat
permitting and project review, I am confident in
saying that Executive Order 107 will not result in
streamlined permitting. It will gut habitat
protection and degrade habitat. It will discredit the
state; create chaos, inefficiency, and delays; and may
endanger emerging and economically important programs.
... [Executive Order 107] will result in a loss of
state credibility, perhaps handicapping subsistence
and development negotiations. Right now, we don't
have hydro review - the [Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC)] person was among the five of nine
habitat biologists laid off in Southeast.
... There will be other effects down the road
including liability to ADF&G for expanding wildlife
programs related to tourism and recreation; even the
"SWG/CARA" funds come with an umbrella goal of
conservation planning for non-game species. That
means looking at habitat. ... There are all kinds of
considerations that I have not heard brought up; there
are going to be regulatory confusions, there are going
to be [losses] of federal funding. It will just be a
disaster in addition to all the on-the-ground damage
that will occur because of loss of field review and
loss of site presence and loss of institutional
support for habitat protection. Thanks very much.
Number 1168
DALE KELLY, Executive Director, Alaska Trollers Association
(ATA), said that the ATA opposes EO 107 and agrees with many of
the previous comments. She went on to say:
I feel that my ... job here tonight is [to] try to
engage you in a conversation and persuade you to
discuss with the governor ... other options that may
exist to Executive Order 107. [The ATA] strongly
encourages streamlining government [and] cost savings
measures that will benefit the state and its
residents; we applaud the governor for looking for
options to do just that. But we also point out that
other governors have looked at these options in the
past and have turned away from them: Governor
Sheffield, Governor Hickel. Governor Hickel had a
review done of [the Division of Habitat] in 1992, and
decided that it really wasn't in the state's interest
to do this.
Former [Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC)] commissioner, John Sandor, recently submitted a
letter on HB 78 discussing the three commissioners'
permit authorities and how he strongly suggested those
remain intact. I think that there are a lot of folks,
including five commissioners of [ADF&G], that are
telling you that there are significant flaws with
Executive Order 107. That said, I've spend a lot of
time talking to ... past governors, division heads,
[and] commissioners of [ADF&G] about this matter, and
I do believe that there can be improvements made to
the system of permitting as we now know it.
And I think that we can accomplish the governor's
goals, and the goals of the people of the state to
protect our resources, by engaging in some sort of
forum that brings all the affected ... parties
together to come up with some ideas. And we have a
few for you. What I've found in talking to folks is,
number one, I think a lot of the charges made against
[ADF&G] are really better laid on other types of
permitting; many of the concerns that we've heard
raised here in the last three nights have involved the
Alaska Coastal Management Program [ACMP]. That is a
system that's been in place for 30 years and
definitely is in need of an overhaul, and you will
hear that from any number of sources, from the
governor's office to the environmental community - ...
everybody in between admits that the appeals process
in the ACMP is a nightmare and needs to be fixed.
Number 1013
MS. KELLEY continued:
There are no Title 16 implementing [regulations] in
place at this point in time, and a lot of time you'll
hear concerns about inconsistencies in permitting
processes. Well, it's true. But one of the reasons
the inconsistencies exist in the permitting process is
that it has allowed developers to negotiate with the
[ADF&G] to sometimes get a better process for
everybody. My understanding, from members of the oil
industry, is [that] in fact they've kind of veered
away from wanting implementing [regulations] because
they fear that they might be in position where they'll
have less flexibility with their permitting process.
And I don't want to speak on the oil industry's
behalf, certainly, but we're just hearing different
things from different people that perhaps there are
other ways of going about this. So we would suggest
... putting together a legislative package, working
with affected public; crucial elements would be
maintaining Title 16 authority and due deference
provisions for the [commissioner of ADF&G]. We truly
believe that that's an important process for checks
and balances.
MS. KELLEY, in response to a question, said she would be happy
to assist legislators with putting together the aforementioned
legislative package. In summary, she said:
This is of huge concern to our association. I
represent the only salmon fishery in the state of
Alaska that's presently managed under the Endangered
Species Act, directly relative to habitat destruction
in the Columbia River basin. We know what it means to
lose a resource that we rely on. It's a business
decision that's been made, in that state, that's
affected not only their own residents but our
residents.
We're proud of the system that we've established here
in our state, and ... we think the structure was very
well thought out by the makers of our [Alaska State]
Constitution and the original legislature. We think
there's always improvements that can be made, and we
want to be part of that; we would like to make Alaska
a friendly place to do business but also tough with
respect to maintaining the important habitat values
that we have. We think that's a business decision
that will pay off in the long run as it has to date.
Anything that we can do to further that and get the
different interest groups talking together to have a
better business climate, ... we stand willing to help.
Number 0765
MIKE ROBBINS, Alaska State Employees Association (ASEA) Local
52, after noting that he is an attorney with a master's degree
in ocean/marine affairs, stated that the union is opposed to EO
107 and urges the committee to take action to reject it. He
went on to say:
A couple of constitutional issues come to mind:
separation of powers doctrine. Article II ... of the
Alaska [State] Constitution says that the
legislature's empowered to enact the laws. The
executive branch is to carry out and implement those
laws according to Article III .... Forty-three years
ago, the legislature established the [ADF&G and the
DNR], each with a role designed to balance different
public interest objectives. In the 1970s, the
legislature passed statutes concerning public
employees and the retirement system. In 1983, [the
legislature] passed a statute giving [ADF&G] employees
a 20-year retirement package.
The executive order attempts to amend and repeal these
laws. This is an unconstitutional violation of the
separation of powers doctrine as well as the merit
principle, which is also recognized by the Alaska
[State] Constitution, and the right to have an
unimpaired retirement system, which is also recognized
by the Alaska [State] Constitution. Unfortunately,
the governor's state of the state speech made the
statement that, quote, "the habitat division was the
sole agency opposing and delaying legitimate projects
important to the state."
We already know from prior testimony here, from people
who were referred to in the governor's statements,
that only a very small percentage of applications are
actually denied, and none of those had to do with the
projects mentioned. At the governor's press
conference on February 3, other unfortunate remarks
were made alleging that [Division of Habitat and
Restoration] employees dragged their feet, they were
inflexible, and they made open, quote, "protection
input on the basis of personal viewpoints." Those
remarks [are] unfortunate in that apparently they're
not based on facts. ...
Number 0587
I'll summarize by pointing out that the merit
principle is also incorporated into the collective
bargaining agreement involving Article 14, and Article
12 suggests that reorganization cannot be used for the
purpose of eliminating jobs or constructively
discharging employees. Both of those articles have
been violated by Executive Order 107. The union would
urge you to do the right thing, which is to disapprove
Executive Order 107. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Robbins whether he or anyone
he knew is considering taking legal action.
MR. ROBBINS replied: "It depends on whether filing lawsuits and
grievances are legal actions."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ remarked, "Well, they're not illegal as
far as I'm concerned."
MR. ROBBINS stated that a grievance will definitely be filed,
and that the final decision on whether to file a lawsuit has not
been made though it is being strongly considered.
Number 0473
CELIA ROZEN, after noting that she works for ADF&G, said she is
speaking on her own behalf. She went on to say:
I'm here to speak as a private citizen who is very
interested in sustaining the legal and historical
precedents in this state. Reading through the Alaska
constitutional convention this weekend, I saw similar
arguments flying through College, Alaska, in 1956 that
I hear from Juneau in 2003 as to how to divvy up
natural resources management. These lawmakers were
equally concerned about growing the state and making
the most of our natural resources. In the end, these
lawmakers left the first legislature with all the
decisions regarding the structure of government to
oversee the natural riches of our state. Repeatedly
at the convention, the answer was: "Let's leave it up
to the legislature." Nowhere did it say: "Oh, let
the governor decide."
To put it simply, the first legislature decided to
have a separate department of fish and game to
conserve according to the principles of sustained
yield, and a department of natural resources to
oversee the common use of these resources. This
responsibility of sustained yield, which flows from
the constitution, was vested in the newly created
department of fish and game. The founders of this
state were especially concerned with the perpetuation
of fisheries. We all know that preservation of
habitat is integral to fishery management. I want to
make the argument that [ADF&G's] authority over
sustained yield flows from a constitutional mandate
that was sealed by legislative action. I see this as
a very vivid continuum of legal authority stemming
from the action of these founders.
Number 0345
MS. ROZEN continued:
How can one hastily-conceived and politically
motivated executive order trump the combined power of
constitutional law and legislative action in one fell
swoop? The executive branch does not have the muscle
to bulldoze down the state's legal foundations - an EO
is a midget among these legal giants. We are also
left with Article III, Section 22, which states that
state agencies and their functions must be according
to major purposes. Sustained yield in terms of
fisheries would be a major purpose of a fishery
agency, not a natural resource development agency.
The state's founders said, "Leave it to the
legislature." Now you are the lawmakers; now you have
[the] responsibility to create laws that can be
justified and make sense.
Remember the words of Bob Bartlett in his keynote
speech to the constitutional convention: "Fifty years
from now, the people of Alaska may very well judge the
product of this convention not by the decisions taken
upon issues like local government and apportionment,
but rather by the decisions taken upon the vital issue
of resources policy." Those 50 years have not run out
yet, but we're getting close. Let's not sacrifice the
hard work, careful thought, and sheer brilliance that
went into the forming of this state government,
(indisc.) by current political fancy. Please do
what's right for this state and leave the complete
power over sustained yield of fisheries with the
[ADF&G] and leave your own legacy of good lawmaking
for our future generations. Please get behind the
special concurrent resolution in your committee and
allow a floor debate of the entire legislature to
occur. Thank you [for] this opportunity to testify.
Number 0218
WADE WILLIS, Owner, Vision Quest Adventures, mentioned that he
is a current permit holder for activities governed by the
Division of Habitat and Restoration, and that he has permits
acquired under "the DNR system"; therefore, he has had
experience regarding the permitting process of both entities.
He also noted that he is a member of the Alaska Wilderness
Recreation & Tourism Association (AWRTA). He said he strongly
opposes EO 107. He went on to say:
The permitting process is obviously working. We have
43 years to evaluate how it has been working. It has
gone from a ... fisheries resource that was destitute
to one that now supports a huge tourism ... industry
and it also supports a commercial fishing and
subsistence industry. So, the current permitting
process has been proven to work. Why would the
legislature want to use an executive order to
dismantle such a successful, proven doctrine? An
executive order is not necessary to streamline the
permitting process.
Murkowski is boldly trying to force his pro-business
stance down the throat of Alaska residents by denying
public involvement and legislative oversight. Small
businesses have not been involved in his closed-door
meetings. We were not there. It was a closed door
decision by a small group of Murkowski "groupies" that
represent only big business interests at the expense
of the citizens of Alaska. ... It indeed only
represented the Department of Fish & Game and the
commissioner, [who] ... wouldn't even tell you whether
or not he supported it ... - he doesn't believe that
the legislature is important enough to be told that
....
Number 0055
SCOTT THORSON said he supports moving the habitat division over
to DNR. He went on to say:
The one group of people that we've been missing has
been industry. I think you really need to kind of ask
yourself why that is, and ... I think that there is a
fair amount of ... concern among industry that if they
really speak up, that ... they'll kind of have to pay
for it later if this ... move over to DNR doesn't
really take place.
TAPE 03-24, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. THORSON opined that the governor ought to be given an
opportunity to manage the executive branch the way that he sees
fit, and suggested that others should get behind the governor's
decision to move the Division of Habitat and Restoration to the
DNR.
Number 0059
JOE MEEHAN thanked the committee for the opportunity to testify
on EO 107. He went on to say:
I'm sure everyone here this evening recognizes the
importance of our natural resources. Alaska's fish
and wildlife are the lifeblood of our history, our
economy, our recreation, and our lives. As an
Alaskan, I expect my elected and appointed officials
to create and enforce laws that protect and conserve
fish and wildlife populations and their habitats.
When it comes to conserving and managing these
resources, we do not settle for anything but
perfection.
The governor has stated that this restructuring is in
an effort to streamline the state's permitting
process, but his repeated justification is that
certain habitat biologists in the [ADF&G] were
unreasonably blocking legitimate development projects.
If the governor thinks his staff is out of line, he
should simply address these concerns through his chain
of command, down to the offices or individuals of
concern. If he thinks the state permitting process
needs an evaluation and restructuring, he should start
an honest evaluation of the program, and allow for
ample public debate on the issue.
While these hearings provide for limited public input,
the timeline of the executive order and the propaganda
the governor has released to the media are not
adequate for a legitimate public debate on this issue.
The founders of our state government consciously
created two different natural resource agencies: one
for managing our fish and wildlife resources, the
other for managing resources such as land and water.
This structure allowed for the proper checks and
balances that our fish and wildlife deserve, and has
proven to be an efficient and effective method for
assuring the protection of our fish and wildlife
resources. The system isn't broken; it works just
fine and doesn't need fixing.
Number 0179
MR. MEEHAN continued:
The proper place for biologists to be making decisions
about potential impacts to fish and wildlife habitat
is in the agency that manages and studies these
resources. These permitters should be surrounded and
supervised by other professionals who posses the
knowledge and skills that they can draw from, in an
agency that has the administrative and political
support to make the tough decisions when it comes to
habitat conservation. This support will not exist
within the Department of Natural Resources, and we
will see a long-term chronic erosion of the safeguards
designed to conserve our resources.
Additionally, placing the permitting authority for
fish and game resources in DNR will not only make the
process less effective, it will make the entire
process less efficient. It not only physically
removes the permitters from the other fish and game
professionals, but it adds a buffer as they try to
communicate with other fish and game professionals
back over [agency lines]. ...
The Governor's proposal will simply diminish the
environmental safeguards that have protected our fish
and wildlife resources since statehood, and [do it] in
the interest of lowering [the] habitat protection bar
for industry interests. This proposal is bad for fish
and wildlife, [and] bad for Alaskans. It is not in
the best interest of the state. It is your
responsibility, as the representatives of the people
of this state, to assure the protection of our fish
and wildlife resources. You can do this now by
preventing Executive Order 107 from being implemented.
Thank you.
Number 0320
JEANNE WALTER thanked the committee for the opportunity to
comment on Executive Order 107. She went on to say:
I am speaking as a resident of Alaska and as a
registered voter. My background is toxicology and
biology and, as such, I have worked for the Department
of Interior, [the] State of Alaska, several
universities, and industry - in particular, the paper
industry. I am also a board member for the Pacific
Northwest International Erosion Control Association,
and [that] board is presently preparing a letter to
submit to the committee. I view this transfer as a
paramount issue in the compliance of state law for
fish and wildlife resources. The original intent of
Executive Order 107, as stated, was to streamline
permitting while protecting (indisc. - equipment
malfunction).
[Not on tape, but in the witness's written testimony,
was: This will not be possible under EO 107 for the
following reasons: Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G) Habitat and Restoration Division staff process
2000 permits a year averaging] a 14-day turnaround.
Only 0.5 percent of these permits [were denied in
2002]. I urge you to acquire these records and view
them for yourself. The turnaround time described
includes the time from when a complete application is
submitted, to when the permit is issued. This
turnaround time average includes all projects, not
just a select few as has been suggested. The Alaska
Department of Natural Resources [DNR] water permits
take much longer, with as many as 700 permits being
backlogged; the backlog is expected to be finished by
2007 at the earliest.
Number 0469
The [ADF&G] and DNR have different missions, and the
checks and balances of these two departments to
protect fish habitat will not occur under Executive
Order 107. Commissioner Irwin and acting Commissioner
Duffy stated that 22 habitat division staff received
pink slips on March 7, releasing them from state
employment as of May 1, 2003. Additionally, 12
currently vacant positions will be eliminated.
Decreasing the staff by 30 percent will decrease site
inspection, monitoring, restoration efforts, and
mitigation suggestions, and will slow down the
permitting process. The only way to speed up the
permitting process under these cuts will be to rubber
stamp permit acceptance ... without proper review.
MS. WALTER concluded:
... I would just like to point out that the ANWR
[Arctic National Wildlife Refuge] development vote is
presently very close in our nation's capital. Many
members have been swayed to vote in favor of ANWR
development due to the success and professional
integrity of the [ADF&G's] habitat and restoration
division's permitting responsiveness. I believe with
such a drastic change in permitting and the
dismantling in the [ADF&G] habitat division,
Representatives and Senators will vote against opening
ANWR to exploration drilling. If ... Executive Order
107 passes, I will spend all my time educating our
nation's Leaders on the effects of this executive
order. Is it worth risking ANWR development under a
new and questionable permitting section? I will
assure you, many people believe it is not, and these
people vote. Please note that I am for responsible
development, and I will finish by summarizing: Please
bring Executive Order 107 to the floor of a joint
session and vote to disapprove it and EO 106.
Number 0550
AARON BENJAMIN said he wished to speak about the ADF&G and what
he referred to as an abuse of the department's power. He
elaborated:
I have been accused of environmental crimes, and
threatened with fines and litigations for things that
I didn't even do, having to do with a permit that
[ADF&G's] sport fish access division had. And they
knew full well exactly everything that I was doing
there; I was dredging out a boat launch, and then a
habitat biologist came in and threatened me with all
this stuff. And then he had to find out later that
[ADF&G] was the ... permit holder, so the guy didn't
even do the homework there. But what really torqued
me was the idea that this man was going to use these
draconian efforts to turn me into a criminal on this
thing. And ... I wrote letters to Commissioner Rue
about it, ... which were not very well -- I think he
wrote some letters back that weren't really addressing
what I asked him about.
But anyway, this same habitat biologist pulled the
same stunt on Mark O'Brien (ph) with [the Department
of Transportation & Public Facilities] on a project up
here after the thing had already gone through the
public process and gone through all the permitting.
The job went out to bid with a contractor and was in
the middle of being constructed on the road, and this
same biologist pulled the same stunt with threats and
litigation and fines, and this man never even went to
any of the public meetings, which I went to for two
years here.
And ... this has just gotten out of hand that these
guys could just jump out and bypass all the public
stuff that everybody else has to abide by, and this
threatening with fines and litigation and strong-arm
tactics. ... To summarize it, these guys need a collar
put on them and to be held accountable for extreme
environmental viewpoints and for interpreting the law
as they see fit, ... and no American citizen should
ever have to put up with the kind of stuff that I went
through, and Mark O'Brien.
Number 0697
ERIC MUENCH said that he supports Executive Order 107. He went
on to say:
The charges that transferring habitat concerns to DNR
will leave fish and game unprotected and that DNR will
simply act as an advocate for development is simply
wrong. As a 40-year Alaska forest engineer, I have
been on a great many Forest [Resources and Practices]
Act inspections, some with DNR, Division of Forestry,
people, as well as [ADF&G] people and DEC people; some
with just the Division of Forestry and [ADF&G] when
DEC lost their personnel; and some simply with [the
Division of Forestry] people. And I have found that
[the] Division of Forestry personnel that I have
associated with on these projects have been every bit
as concerned and protective of water quality and
anadromous habitat as the people from other agencies.
[The] DNR is the state's land and permitting agency
for almost all purposes: water rights, land leases,
land sale, tideland permits. rights of way and other
similar actions are all under DNR administration.
Only habitat permits for stream crossings fall under
[ADF&G]. With qualified engineers, foresters, and
biologists on staff, DNR can do that job just as well
and a great deal more efficiently. So I would urge
you to support Executive Order 107. And by the way, I
oppose [HSCR 1]. Thank you.
Number 0822
JILL JACOB thanked the committee for the opportunity to comment.
She went to say:
How efficient is it to gut our state of the brains
behind the state's habitat division of the [ADF&G] -
its biologists? How efficient will it be to have
habitat review performed by [the] Department of
Natural Resources personnel, who have no foundation,
training, or background in wildlife science? [The
ADF&G] biologists are the people actively working in
the field. They are the ones who have the expertise
to gauge the effects, of a project, on habitat. If
you allow this administration to the cut the brains
out of our state agencies, you will be cutting out the
heart of Alaska. Our state is its wildlife -
something lost to the rest of our country [and],
indeed, to a great deal of the rest of the world.
[You can] streamline development anywhere, and end up
with irreversible loss of habitat and, consequently,
the wildlife it supports. Try fishing in one of
California's anadromous fish streams, or finding the
bear [portrayed] on its state flag. Joseph Krutch
(ph) once said, "If people destroy something
replaceable made by mankind, they are called vandals;
if they destroy something irreplaceable made by
nature, they are called developers." Why would anyone
agree to jeopardize the quality of life in Alaska:
our hunting, fishing, or subsistence gathering? Most
of us can't afford, nor do we choose, to do our
hunting and fishing in Scotland or Texas. Please vote
in joint session to disapprove this shortsighted
Executive Order 107. Thank you.
Number 0921
SHELLY STALLINGS, after remarking that he has lived in Alaska
for 26 years and has two children and three grandchildren that
were born in Alaska, went on to say:
I want our current generation to leave Alaska's
wildlife as healthy as it is now, for these future
generations. We live in Alaska, the largest state in
the union with the largest amount of wildlife habitat
and, unarguably, the largest numbers of wildlife:
fish, which swim in our ocean, lakes, and streams;
birds, which fly in our skies and roost in our trees;
and other animals, large and small, which depend upon
adequate habitat to live in our state. The governor
of this state proposes to dismantle the habitat
division of [the ADF&G]. This change does not make
sense. It is a poorly thought-out proposal. It is a
proposal which should be opposed by the state
legislature.
Mr. Murkowski was not forthright when he campaigned
for the office of governor of Alaska on a platform of
not taxing the people of Alaska to solve the state's
budget problems. Mr. Murkowski was not forthright
when he campaigned on a platform where he said
education would be his number one priority as governor
and that he would ensure education in this state would
be fully funded. It is my belief that Mr. Murkowski
is not being forthright when he claims that Executive
Order 107 is primarily to make government more
efficient. I believe he is attempting to gut the
protection of wildlife in Alaska provided by the
[ADF&G] habitat division. [The ADF&G] and, in
particular, the [Division of Habitat and Restoration]
is not broken; it does not need to be fixed. I ask you
to deny this executive order. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak.
Number 1053
DAVID CARTER, Attorney at Law, indicated that he would be
testifying on his own behalf. He remarked that although he's
heard a lot ADF&G employees testify in opposition to EO 107,
he's not heard any DNR employees testify at all, either in favor
or in opposition. He opined that placing habitat protection
under the purview of DNR would be as incongruous as placing
timber sales under the purview of ADF&G. He said that as an
attorney, he knows that checks and balances are important and it
is therefore important to leave the Division of Habitat and
Restoration under the ADF&G. If DNR doesn't do a proper job of
addressing the issues and thus winds up in litigation, he
remarked, since litigation is not synonymous with efficiency,
the legislature would be helping the governor out by overriding
EO 107. He added that EO 107 "is special interest tinkering by
forestry and timber interests," and that EO 107 is not a good
idea. He concluded by saying that as elected representatives,
the legislature should not allow EO 107 to stand, adding, "Put
habitat issues back where they have been and belong, with the
[ADF&G]."
Number 1130
JOSEPH R. SULLIVAN, Ph.D., Program Director, Yukon River
Drainage Fisheries Association (YRDFA), indicated that he would
be reading excerpts from a letter the YRDFA's executive director
recently sent to Governor Murkowski. He began:
Dear Governor Murkowski, commercial and subsistence
fishers, (indisc.) constitute the membership of the
Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association, depend
upon good returns of salmon to the Yukon River for
their livelihood, their lifestyle, and traditional
culture. We feel that your intent to move the
permitting functions of the [ADF&G's Division of
Habitat and Restoration] into the [DNR] threatens to
diminish this livelihood, lifestyle, and culture. The
past several years have seen seriously low salmon
returns that threaten these things if they continue in
to the future. Most recently, the primary cause
(indisc.) seems to have been poor ocean conditions,
but it is survival at all stages of the salmon's life
cycle that ultimately determines whether there will be
sustainable harvests in the future for us and for our
children.
DR. SULLIVAN went on to say:
The missions of the [ADF&G and the DNR] are
fundamentally different, as you can see from their
respective Internet web pages. The ADF&G mission
reads: "The Alaska Department of Fish and Game's
mission is to manage, protect, maintain, and improve
the fish, game and aquatic plant resources of Alaska.
The primary goals are to ensure that Alaska's
renewable fish and wildlife resources and their
habitats are conserved and managed on the sustained
yield principle, and the use and development of these
resources are in the best interest of the economy and
well-being of the people of the state."
DR. SULLIVAN pointed out that in contrast, the mission statement
of the DNR reads: "To develop, conserve and enhance natural
resources for present and future Alaskans." He said that the
YRDFA would like the governor to withdraw Executive Order 107.
In lieu of that, however, YRDFA requests that the legislature
block EO 107.
Number 1279
PAULA TERRELL indicated that she is testifying on her own behalf
as a commercial fisherman. She said:
My husband and I have been Alaska trollers for over 20
years; we're some of the small guys, and I'm asking
you to overturn Executive Order 107. It might look
good in the short term, but in the long term, I think
... this could have devastating effects on our
habitat. And the trollers, which we are one, really
rely on habitat protection, as do all fishermen. I
think the witness to that is when ... the Forest
[Resources and Practices] Act was first being
proposed, the fishermen, who generally do not weigh in
on things, ... came out in droves to help make that a
good Act with habitat protection. We rely on [ADF&G],
we have supported [ADF&G], we do not always like what
they do, but they are basically the bulwark for us.
And I fear that putting ... habitat permitting
functions over in DNR will really erode that, and it
will erode the trust.
I was very grateful to hear Commissioner Irwin say to
the United Fishermen of Alaska board that the habitat
division and their input ... with the Fort Knox
permitting was probably one of the major reasons that
that mine was permitted and there weren't lawsuits for
it. That was probably extremely true. ... I would ask
one question of the DNR commissioner ...: If indeed
this is going to be done, and there is going to be
separation, ... then would he consider - or would the
administration consider - having them do a mandate for
that office which would put fish and wildlife
protection as their top priority mandate for that
office? That is not the mandate [of] DNR, but would
they do that? Then I would feel a lot more
comfortable. And I would also support what Dale
Kelley said, that I think there is a lot that can be
done from a management and a regulatory basis, but I
would like it to be done after you voted down the ...
executive order ....
Number 1430
GINNA PURRINGTON, Alaska Wildlife Alliance (AWA), noted that she
was speaking on her own behalf as well as that of the AWA. She
said:
Alaska has [a] wealth of state and national parks and
preserves. It's obvious that we Alaskans realize the
value of unspoiled habitat and preserving our
priceless wildlife. Ultimately, Alaska may succeed in
wildlife and fishery conservation efforts where the
Lower 48 has failed. Executive Order 107, however,
has the potential to permanently undermine that goal.
There's a fundamental inconsistency in granting
habitat permitting authority to the Department of
Natural Resources - the department charged with the
responsibility to develop resources, not protect them.
The [ADF&G] has held permit issuing authority since
statehood for good reason. They provide an essential
system of checks and balances that result in
responsible development decisions.
Furthermore, Executive Order 107 is a solution for
which Governor Murkowski has failed to identify a
legitimate problem. The [ADF&G] has proven remarkably
efficient as a permitting process in comparison to the
[DNR]. Last year, the average time ADF&G took to
issue Title 16 permits was only 14 days. The DNR, on
the other hand, currently has a backlog of 700 water
rights applications, which are 20 years old or older.
Removing permitting authority from the capable hands
of the [ADF&G] to the [DNR] is a not a viable solution
to expedite habitat permits. It's likely to instead
only cause further delays and unforeseeable detriment
to critical fish and wildlife habitat. The Alaska
Wildlife Alliance, of course, is very concerned with
wildlife habitat.
I urge you, and the Alaska Wildlife Alliance urges
you, to vote in joint session to disapprove of the
executive order switching permitting authority from
the [ADF&G] to the [DNR]. That's the end of my
testimony, thank you.
MS. PURRINGTON, in response to a question, said that the AWA
considers the ADF&G's Title 16 permits to be comparable to the
DNR's water rights applications.
Number 1574
JOSH PEIRCE thanked the committee for the opportunity to
comment. He went on to say:
As we have heard over the last two nights, there is
overwhelming opposition to Executive order 107. ...
Commissioner Irwin has assured us that critical field
inspections will continue with this transfer. I am
curious how this will happen with the closing of two
district offices in Ketchikan and Sitka and a
reduction in staff of 22 people. Will the state
really save money flying habitat biologists from
Juneau to Ketchikan and Sitka? Of course not. There
is no money for this, and these field inspections will
simply not occur. ... We have heard over and over in
testimony how incredibly efficient the habitat
permitting process already is. The facts are
impressive with most permits currently being issued
within 2 weeks.
For comparison I conducted a very brief search of
DNR's public web site, and I found some very
interesting things. I'll give you five examples: ...
an application for a grazing permit dated 1993; ... an
application for a public easement permit dated 1980;
an application for a land disposal dated 1994; an
application for a water right dated 1998; and, most
impressively, ... ADL [Alaska Division of Lands]
68071, a 1974 application for a coal prospecting
permit - this application was filed 29 years ago. It
seems Commissioner Irwin should be busy addressing
this backlog and not worrying about how he is going to
take an already extremely efficient group of
permitters from ADF&G [Division of Habitat and
Restoration], reduce their staff by 22, and magically
make them more effective. ...
Commissioner Irwin and industry representatives assure
us habitat will be protected. I am curious what they
are basing these assurances on. What we have heard
the last two nights, from highly educated experts with
many years of experience in wildlife and fisheries
management, is a very different story. Governor
Murkowski speaks of making decisions based on sound
science, yet a move such as this flies in the face of
sound science. ...
The experts are here and have testified before you
that ... this move will have a detrimental effect on
salmon. In conclusion: if allowed to take effect, EO
107 would strip an extremely valuable management tool
from the ADF&G. This proposed move has been poorly
planned and we can expect [it] will be poorly
executed. There are no efficiencies to be gained in
such a move. The habitat division has a stellar
record of efficiency and we should not dismantle a
system which has served Alaskans so well. There are
no streamlining benefits in this (indisc - equipment
malfunction).
[Not on tape, but in the witness's written testimony,
was: I am here tonight to urge you to pass a joint
resolution rescinding EO 107.]
Number 1710
RUTH BAUMAN relayed that she and her husband own a home in
Anchorage and a remote parcel of land in the interior. She went
on to say:
We very much enjoy Alaska's pristine outdoors, and
would like to see the state remain this way now and
for future generations. I am not speaking for any
former or present employer; I am speaking on my own
behalf, and I would like to share with you some of my
direct experience on the issue of Executive Order 107.
I was staff to the Alaska Board of Forestry for six
years during the 1990s. The [Board of Forestry]
includes representatives from all of the interest
groups: commercial fisheries; ... organizations in
the environmental, mining, ... recreational, and ...
forest industry; natives; a fish or wildlife
biologist; and a professional forester.
These professionals took unpaid time off from their
regular jobs to travel to meetings to address the
issues covered under the Forest Resources and
Practices Act [FRPA]. Naturally, agency employees
were paid and their travel costs were covered by the
state. The primary agenda items included discussions
of issues concerning sound forest management and
established land use planning procedures. During that
period of time, the [Division of Habitat and
Restoration ("Division of Habitat")], among others,
presented their perspectives on proposed timber
harvests on private, federal, and state land.
[The Division of Habitat] issued a report that caused
an uproar in the media because they claimed FRPA was
not working. Consequently, the board was required to
hold public forums much more often than usually
considered under FRPA. It added more to the process
of planned timber sales. I have a sense of deja vu
here now in this meeting; it seems these discussions
have not gone very far. By the time the timber sales
were finally through that process, it often resulted
in the state offering smaller timber sales, and many
of the (indisc. - equipment malfunction).
Number 1813
KEN ADAMS thanked the committee for the opportunity to comment.
He went on to say:
I'm with a small group of concerned fishermen. I'm a
commercial [salmon] fisherman and I have been so for
about 30 years; I've lived in Cordova for more than 22
years. And we're adamantly opposed to [Executive
Order 107]. I think this is more than a permitting
issue. There is a flip side to this, and I think
equally important is the reduction [in] oversight
capability that the transfer of the habitat division
to DNR presents. We've read in the press: the
reduction of 22 positions, [which] would be lost in
the transfer, and some of these are field positions.
I recall speaking several years ago with the habitat
biologists; there were three habitat biologists within
the ADF&G who were responsible for the entire
Southcentral area, so we're looking at even [more]
reduced capabilities there with the loss of 22
positions. ...
I ... and my fellow fishermen ... are highly regulated
- I'm not looking for less regulation - this system we
have in place works fine. The result of the
regulation we have is resource and habitat protection.
... I've lived [in Cordova] prior to the EVOS - Exxon
Valdez oil spill - the spill event. I've lived here
during and afterwards, and I am well aware of the
laxity which preceded EVOS. ... There's a laxity here,
and I don't like what I'm seeing. This climate of
laxity that resulted in the EVOS event, I'm afraid
we're running a parallel because of [a] lack of
vigilance that this transfer may result in. So,
rather than lose our oversight capabilities, we need
to hold the line here. If Murkowski needs funds, he
better find other sources.
Number 1913
DAMIAN WALTER said that he disapproves of EO 107 on four points.
He elaborated:
One, on the basis of the basics of government: one,
that we have checks and balances, and by doing this
move or merger with DNR, you're removing that basic
standard of checks and balances. Second, every
differing interest has the right for representation;
each individual, organization, minority, majority,
race, creed, et cetera have the right to have an equal
voice. That's what [the Division of Habitat and
Restoration] helps provide. [Third], we the public
have not been provided all sides and all the facts on
these cases, accusations, and claims that the governor
has made that the Division of Habitat and [ADF&G] have
done.
Without this proof, this is only rumor, and this is
not what our government is based on and built on.
Proof of this is in these testimonies that I've heard
this evening and other evenings. Fourth, I challenge
our legislators to seek out the truth on this issue of
EO 107, and investigate to prove or disprove Governor
Murkowski's claims and rumors. You all have the power
to do this. And last, representatives, you are our
voice and are responsible for seeking the truth.
Thank you for your time, and I believe that you guys
can do this. Thank you.
MS. BAUMAN, after being reconnected, continued her testimony:
[From] what I've seen and experienced, moving the
Habitat permitting process under DNR's commission ...
would be more productive, more streamlined, more
efficient, and it would save the state money. For
these reasons, I support the intent contained in EO
107. I recognize the order is not altogether popular,
but I appreciate the strong, hard look that EO 107 has
forced [upon] Alaskans to find better ways of doing
business. Thank you for holding this hearing ....
Number 2015
MARK FINK relayed that he is employed as a habitat biologist for
the ADF&G but is speaking on his own behalf. He went on to say:
I urge you to disapprove Executive Order 107, thereby
retaining within [ADF&G] the function of conserving
fish and wildlife habitat. To save time, ... I will
not repeat many of the things that have already been
mentioned; I do concur with them. The governor [has]
stated a need to streamline permitting and has
suggested that the [Division of Habitat and
Restoration] is a bottleneck in this process. The
facts do not support this assertion. If, however, the
governor wants to shift [the] balance ... towards
resource development, the more reasonable approach
would be to appoint a like-minded ADF&G commissioner
and [Division of Habitat] director that will
vigorously pursue the administration's programs.
Dissecting out the habitat protection function from
[the ADF&G] would hamper efforts to manage fish and
wildlife under the sustained yield principle. Animals
need habitat. [Executive Order] 107 makes no better
sense than if someone proposed to move the Division of
Oil & Gas into [the ADF&G]; it doesn't make sense.
One quick thought. Often, [on issues such as these,]
I go to someone very near and dear to me ... - my
father, Tom Fink. I must admit we've had numerous,
spirited discussions on habitat and the effects of
development. But on this issue of EO 107, even my
father - the very conservative Republican, Tom Fink -
believes moving the permitting functions of the
habitat division to DNR is a bad idea. Ask him for
yourself. Again, I urge you to do the right thing for
the people who elected you and disapprove EO 107.
Thank you.
Number 2085
WILLIAM H. DENNERLEIN relayed that although he is the immediate
former director of the Division of Habitat and Restoration, he
would be speaking on his own behalf as a 30-year Alaskan with
more than 25 years in the field of resource management. He
mentioned that he has spent more time in the DNR than in the
ADF&G, and more time working outside government than inside. He
went on to say:
I would like to put six points on the record very
quickly. ... One, this is not about the habitat
division; EO 107 transfers the two core authorities of
the [ADF&G], and for the first time in Alaska's
history, the commissioner of [ADF&G] will have no
legal authority to protect fish habitat in Alaska.
Number two, the governor's characterization of
projects used [as] examples to justify this order are
so inaccurate as to be ludicrous. I do not recognize
projects that my signature is on the project
agreement.
Number three, EO 107 will not enhance good science in
decision making. It will weaken it. Habitat
permitters will be separated, by agency and
physically, from colleague biologists in ADF&G with
whom they work on a daily basis and from best-
practices ongoing research in which they participate
now. Point number four, the states used as examples
are apple/orange comparisons in law, staffing, and
resources. I just recently returned from Oregon; I
would be happy to discuss Oregon with the governor.
Point number five, if EO 107 produces efficiency, it
will be at the cost of effectiveness. But don't
expect efficiency. Reduced staff will not be able to
get out into the field and respond to project needs
that inevitably come up - unexpected challenges.
Secondly, no one has talked about the word "design
build," a major trend in project management in which
many important design and construction elements are
not known up front and the issues are worked [out] in
the field by biologists and project managers. Glenn-
Parks interchange is a "design build" project - that's
an example.
Number 2180
MR. DENNERLEIN concluded:
And finally, the federal agencies such as [U.S.] Fish
and Wildlife Services and the [U.S. Army] Corps [of
Engineers] are required by federal law to consult
directly with the recognized fish and wildlife
agencies of the state; they usually defer to us, but
we should expect them to become more active. And
every single project in the governor's EO example and
his "get Alaska moving" speech are federal aid
projects with federal requirements and federal
handles. In closing, I would just say, if the process
is terrible, the transition team never met with
[ADF&G] directors - the habitat transition team never
met with [the Division of Habitat and Restoration].
There's been no public consideration or discussion by
the administration [of] any other steps that could
improve [the] process. So I urge you to oppose [EO
107].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, turning to Mr. Dennerlein's second
point, asked him to clarify what he meant.
MR. DENNERLEIN replied:
I spent an enormous amount of time on the Glenn-Parks
highway project with my staff; it was elevated to
directors. It's a difficult project, it required
elevation, it required going to the commissioners, and
Joe Perkins would tell you today if he were here that
we did the right thing to push them and it had to go
to him - he was the only person who could commit
federal highway money to solve the fisheries problem.
... That's the way the system works. And my
signature's on letters and agreements, and the
description that has been given of that process by the
governor, I couldn't even recognize it.
Number 2268
MARYELLEN OMAN, President, Anchorage Audubon Society, said that
the Anchorage Audubon Society is firmly opposed to Executive
Order 107 because the society believes that the executive order
will seriously weaken protections for important fish and
wildlife habitats around the state. She went on to say:
Title 16 - Fish and Game - was promulgated at
statehood and, indeed, protection of fishery resources
was a driving force behind statehood. Responsibility
for fisheries was assigned to ADF&G for good reason:
We need to protect the vital fish and wildlife
resources of this state. [The] ADF&G and [the] DNR
have different and conflicting missions, and are both
necessary. [The] ADF&G's priority is fish, wildlife,
and their habitats. [The] DNR is the state's lead
development agency. Responsibility for fish and game
is not part of the DNR mission.
The commissioner of ADF&G is required to have
knowledge of the protection of fish and game
resources, and one of the functions of that office is
to protect fish and game resources and have the
necessary power to accomplish this. [Executive Order
107] strips the commissioner of this power. No
specific job qualifications for making habitat-
permitting determinations at DNR are specified in EO
107. As habitat biologists retired or took other
positions, these duties could be delegated to low-
level non-professionals with little or no biological
training.
At ADF&G, professional biologists are responsible for
evaluating permit applications and issuing habitat
permits. If EO 107 is allowed to stand, executive
branch checks and balances will no longer exist.
Habitat produces wealth for the state of Alaska, and
fish habitat loss will affect the currently lucrative
industries of tourism and fishing. There are many
more points I could make, but you've heard them all
before my testimony and I would simply say that
Anchorage Audubon [Society] supports the Senate and
House resolutions - SSCR 1 and HSCR 1 - which would
override the governor's unwise Executive Order 107.
Number 2353
VALANNE GLOOSCHENKO, MSc., thanked the committee for the
opportunity to address this topic. She went on to say:
As a biologist with a master's degree in aquatic
biology, I have worked for many years as a wetlands
specialist, and most recently in the (indisc.) federal
regulatory capacity. I strongly object to Governor
Murkowski's proposal to move habitat permitting from
the [ADF&G] to the [DNR]. I believe this would
seriously impair our habitat protection as it now
exists and cause grievous environmental impacts to
Alaska's fisheries and wildlife. My duties are
predominantly in Southeast Alaska, and I must say I
support Mr. Dennerlein supposition that the federal
regulatory handle absolutely depends on those [ADF&G]
biologists. I am extremely dependent on colleagues
from [ADF&G] who essentially are my eyes [and ears,
telling me where eelgrass is, telling me where
projects are likely to ground at low tide.] [The
previous bracketed portion was not on tape, but was
taken from the Gavel to Gavel recording on the
Internet.]
TAPE 03-24, SIDE B
Number 2373
MS. GLOOSCHENKO continued:
And I particularly work with biologists in Ketchikan,
Craig, Sitka, and Juneau. They are a bulwark in all
of our programs. I'm here tonight as a private
individual, but I also have a letter from another
colleague who works ... in the same area ... who could
not be here this evening. I would like to also make
the point, and you've heard this already this evening,
that the Governor has claimed [that the ADF&G Division
of Habitat and Restoration] permit biologists are
inefficient. However, the facts, as we have heard,
prove just the opposite: the average time for
processing is - at no direct cost to the applicant and
may likely be if it's moved to DNR, which charges for
permits - ... only 14 days. Our concern is, if DNR
takes over permitting, there'll be fewer personnel to
process permits and the workload will be greater.
This will significantly affect the state's ability to
protect fish and fish habitat. So we ask you, please
disapprove Governor Frank Murkowski's [Executive Order
107] for the benefit of now and future generations.
Thank you.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH closed public testimony on EO 107 for the
evening.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made note that a representative from
the administration, Mr. Phelps, had been present during
testimony. He asked Mr. Phelps to investigate a Wall Street
Journal article, which said the issue of state oversight of the
environment has become a part of the national debate over
whether congress should allow drilling in ANWR. Representative
Berkowitz said he would like to know whether there were any
discussions or anything written, prior to the promulgation of
EO 107, regarding the impact that moving the habitat division to
DNR would have on efforts to open ANWR - "whether this might
provide fodder for those opposed to opening ANWR." He also
relayed that he would like to know who the driving force behind
EO 107 is.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH indicated that information would be forthcoming.
[EO 107 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2289
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 8:56
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|