Legislature(2015 - 2016)BUTROVICH 205
03/18/2016 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Update: Bureau of Land Management Land Use Planning | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 18, 2016
3:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel, Chair
Senator Mia Costello, Vice Chair
Senator John Coghill
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Bill Stoltze
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Bill Wielechowski
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative David Talerico
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
UPDATE: BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LAND USE PLANNING
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
BUD CRIBLEY, State Director
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
U.S. Department of the Interior
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on current BLM planning efforts in
Alaska.
JORJENA BARRINGER, Project Manager
Bering Sea-Western Interior Resource Management Plan (RMP)
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
U.S. Department of the Interior
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided presentation on BLM planning
efforts in Alaska.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:34:01 PM
CHAIR CATHY GIESSEL called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:34 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Costello, Coghill, Stoltze, and Chair
Giessel. Representative Talerico, Co-Chair House Resources
Committee, joined the committee. Senator Micciche soon
thereafter.
^Update: Bureau of Land Management Land Use Planning
Update: Bureau of Land Management Land Use Planning
3:35:07 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced the Bureau of Land Management Land Use
Planning Update and welcomed Mr. Cribley and Ms. Barringer to
give the BLM update on its planning efforts in Alaska.
3:35:26 PM
BUD CRIBLEY, State Director, Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
U.S. Department of the Interior, Anchorage, Alaska, thanked the
committee for the opportunity to present current BLM planning
efforts in Alaska. He said he would also identify concerns the
public wanted addressed in the Land Use Plans. He said Ms.
Barringer is the planning lead for the Bering Sea-Western
Interior Land Use Plan and gives the presentations at the public
meetings and would provide most of the comments.
3:36:57 PM
JORJENA BARRINGER, Project Manager, Bering Sea-Western Interior
Resource Management Plan (RMP), Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
U.S. Department of the Interior, Anchorage, Alaska, introduced
herself and began the presentation. She said she would also
discuss how decisions in these plans will affect residents and
other users that live in proximity to BLM land. They were asked
[by the Resources Committee] to specifically cover hunters,
fishermen, hikers, mushers, developers, and more. Additionally,
they were asked to explain the role of public comment, how it is
incorporated into the plans, and future opportunities for
stakeholders to engage. Finally, she said, this presentation is
a compilation of three to four individual presentations.
3:38:27 PM
Slide 2 was related to the request to cover the Land Use
Planning process overview, stakeholder involvement, the three
ongoing RMPs in the state: Eastern Interior RMP, Central Yukon
RMP, and Bering Sea-Western Interior.
She said the BLM's mission is to sustain the health, diversity,
and productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment of
present and future generations (Slide 3). The 1976 Federal Land
Policy Management Act requires the BLM to develop RMPs for
public lands and they are similar to the Fish and Wildlife
Service's Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCP), the Park
Service's General Management Plans (GMP), and what the Forest
Service terms their Forest Plans.
MS. BARRINGER said BLM RMPs are a preliminary step in the
overall process of managing public lands and are designed to
guide and control future management actions for up to 20 years,
with the intent of helping achievement of their mission.
The types of decisions they make in their RMPs are desired
future resource conditions and include: management actions that
are needed to achieve those desired conditions, allowable uses
which describe how and where to manage uses and activities on
the land, and where uses and activities should be excluded. Some
key issues in all of BLM Alaska planning efforts include Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals, Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) provisions,
locatable and leasable minerals, travel management, subsistence
use, fish and wildlife habitat management, wilderness
characteristics, wild and scenic rivers, special management
areas (such as areas of critical environmental concern),
withdrawals, and land status.
3:40:43 PM
Even though land use plans are comprehensive planning documents,
they do not address some actions (Slide 4).
Land Use Plans do not:
• Lift existing withdrawals (makes recommendations
only to the Secretary of the Interior: whether to
revoke, retain or modify existing withdrawals)
• Affect land conveyances
• Change hunting and fishing regulations
• Resolve R.S. 2477 rights-of-way
• Designate ANCSA 17(b) easements
• Increase or fund law enforcement efforts
• Affect predator control on BLM-managed lands
• Make site-specific project decisions:
• BSWI will not make decisions related to Donlin
• CY will not make decisions related to Ambler Road
• EI will not make decisions on Victoria Creek Road
3:41:29 PM
MS. BARRINGER explained that the current BLM planning process
(Slide 5) is linear and complex. The BLM will take public
comment at any point in time during the land use planning
process, but there are three required stages where official
comments are offered to encourage comment by a deadline so that
it may be analyzed and organized in a helpful way for BLM
reference. The first one is scoping, then the draft RMP, and
then the final RMP that has a 30-day window.
3:42:29 PM
MS. BARRINGER said that BLM Alaska recently pilot-tested a new
public involvement step that is not required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (Slide 6). The BLM might require this
future step through proposed changes to their planning
regulations that the BLM refers to as the "Planning 2.0 Effort."
The proposed rule to change the BLM's planning regulations was
just published February 25 in the Federal Register with a 60-day
comment period that closes on April 25.
She said that the BSWI RMP was the first to conduct preliminary
alternative outreach nationwide last spring. The RMPs for
Western Oregon held some public listening sessions following
really severe planning criteria, but it did not involve
preliminary alternatives. Eastern Colorado and Alaska's Central
Yukon RMPs will incorporate this step next.
MS. BARRINGER said she recently shared their effort in lessons
learned on a national call that included BLM planners
nationwide. They felt it was an important step in getting
stakeholder input on preliminary alternative concepts prior to
creating a full range of alternatives for the draft RMP. This
step also serves to break up the stretch of time between when
they go to the public first for the scoping outreach period and
then when they go to the public for the release of the draft
RMP, which helps them keep their stakeholders informed.
3:43:57 PM
MS. BARRINGER said slide 7 was a map showing the three BLM land
use planning efforts that are currently under way in Alaska that
include Eastern Interior RMP with 6.5 million acres of BLM
managed public lands, Central Yukon with 13 million acres, and
Bering Sea-Western Interior with 13.4 million acres. The RMP
decisions made for each of these planning areas will only apply
to the BLM-managed lands within the planning area.
Slide 8 mapped the Eastern Interior RMP that began in 2008. The
draft came out and revisions are being worked on. The proposed
plan is anticipated in 2016. Within this planning area there are
four subunits: the White Mountain subunit which contains the
White Mountains National Recreation Area, Beaver Creek Wild and
Scenic River, the Steese subunit which contains the Steese
National Conservation Area (NCA), and the Birch Creek Wild and
Scenic River. There is also the Upper Black River subunit and
the 40-Mile Subunit.
MS. BARRINGER reported that the BLM is currently going through
final BLM and cooperating agency document reviews of the
proposed RMP and final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
There will be one more opportunity to look at the plan before it
is published. Additionally, the Governor's office will have a
60-day consistency review period prior to the record of
decision. The BLM plans to meet one more time with the other
agencies before publishing the proposed RMP final EIS. It held
two subsistence hearings earlier on the draft EIS and supplement
to the draft EIS during the planning process.
3:46:23 PM
Slide 9 focused on the Eastern Interior RMP. Historically, there
have been few permitted guides in the planning area and due to
that, this RMP made no hunting guide permit allocation
decisions. Over the past five years, however, user demographics
have changed, as has the increased interest from guides and
outfitters of all types, Ms. Barringer reported. In the fall of
2015, this field office received numerous applications for
commercial hunting guides.
So, the Eastern Interior field office now intends to begin a
separate recreation focus on the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) analysis in 2016 to determine special recreation
permit allocation numbers in high use areas during high use
periods. Further steps for stakeholder engagement were also
outlined on the slide.
Next Ms. Barringer covered the Central Yukon RMP and said the
yellow land represents 13 million acres of BLM-managed public
land and reminded them that RMP decisions only apply to the BLM
land. The planning area includes the Dalton Highway, the
TransAlaska Pipeline System (TAPS) and the designated utility
corridor surrounding the highway and the pipeline. There are
many other land ownerships within and adjacent to the planning
area including the Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service,
the State of Alaska, Native Corporation lands, and military
lands. Additionally, there are 24 remote communities in or near
this planning area and 19 federally recognized tribes. It has
two formal cooperating agencies: the Fish and Wildlife Service
and the State of Alaska. Currently, no tribes are formal
cooperators; however, BLM is required to consult with tribes.
At the beginning of all RMP efforts, Ms. Barringer said the BLM
notifies all tribes within the planning area about the process
and holds meetings in many communities and continues to keep
tribes informed with updates and newsletters. They are available
to call into tribal council meetings or visit communities for
additional consultation.
3:49:19 PM
Slide 11 was a timeline and a status update for the CY RMP, Ms.
Barringer said. Currently, they are developing preliminary
alternatives. Once those concepts are drafted, the CY field
office will have a preliminary alternatives outreach period,
likely this fall. They will hold public meetings in interested
communities and government-to-government meetings with
interested tribes. Preliminary alternatives will be available on
the website and mailed out to communities.
3:50:08 PM
Slide 12 identifies the following planning issues that came up
during the scoping process:
•Utility Corridor Withdrawal - Public Land Order 5150
(along the Dalton Highway)
•Access and Travel Management
•Invasive Species (along the Dalton Highway)
•Minerals Management and Withdrawals (old withdrawals
from the 1970s that are still in place). There is both
demand to remove these and to keep them.
•Sand and Gravel (high demand on the Dalton Highway)
•Recreation and Visitor Services on Dalton Highway
•Subsistence
•Management of Wildlife Habitat
3:51:06 PM
MS. BARRINGER went into more detail on the special recreation
permit (SRP) issues. The CY field office has nine commercial
hunting guides operating under SRPs (Slide 13). Five of these
guides operate in or near the Dalton Highway corridor with sheep
or brown bear hunting being their primary focus. Generally, SRP
holders are small-scale operators taking less than five animals,
frequently only one or two, on BLM lands.
The Dalton Highway corridor Dall sheep guide SRP holders are
operating under a programmatic environmental analysis (EA) that
was completed in 2012. It sought to address two issues: the
conflict between the operators and improving hunt quality for
guided conflicts and second, perceived conflicts between
subsistence users and guides in the vicinity of Wiseman. She
said the BLM tried to mitigate these issues by permitting guide
operations in discreet areas and only authorizing sheep guiding
on BLM lands east of the Dalton Highway as a means of distancing
guided hunting activities from subsistence hunting. In
partnering with commercial hunting guides who operate on BLM
managed lands, the BLM monitors public land user experience,
impacts to subsistence, the wildlife resource and wants to
ensure that these authorized activities will not result in undue
and unnecessary degradation of resources on public lands. They
will continue to cooperate with the State of Alaska in
development of this RMP.
3:52:44 PM
Slide 14 was about the utility corridor withdrawal, Public Land
Order (PLO) 5150. This topic is one of the bigger issues for the
CY RMP. The utility corridor withdrawal prohibits conveyance of
these lands to the State of Alaska (SOA). The SOA has top-filed
the lands within the corridor and wants BLM to modify PLO 5150
to allow conveyance of the lands in the corridor to the state.
To do that this withdrawal would need to be modified so the
state top-files can attach, and if the state prioritized their
top-filings the BLM would convey to the state. If this were to
occur, it would reduce federal public lands available for
subsistence hunting and substantially reduce BLM presence along
the Dalton Highway. BLM will be looking for additional input
from stakeholders regarding this issue and will consider an
alternative in the draft RMP that allows for conveyance of these
lands to the state.
3:53:49 PM
Slide 15 related to the Bering Sea-Western Interior RMP and its
mission statement, which is: "The Anchorage Field Office vision
for the Bering Sea-Western Interior (BSWI) planning area is to
sustain the diverse and intact ecosystems that support
traditional subsistence lifestyles while recognizing the
importance of BLM lands to rural economies."
3:54:18 PM
MS. BARRINGER said the gold colored lands on slide 16 depict the
BLM-managed lands of the BSWI region where RMP decisions will
apply. The light blue color is also BLM managed land, but it has
been selected by the state. The brown color represents Native
Corporation-owned lands, the blue colored lands are owned by the
SOA, and the green colored lands are with the Fish and Wildlife
Service. She said the planning area includes many communities
located close to BLM land along the middle and upper Kuskokwim
and the lower Yukon. There are 69 federally recognized tribes,
and the BLM continues to provide updates and notifications to
all of them. The tribes located close to BLM land tend to engage
a bit more she added.
This plan has three cooperating agencies: the State of Alaska,
the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Native Village of
Chuathbaluk. They attended many meetings and were present while
the BLM drafted preliminary alternative in 2014 and 2015. They
will also be present as they begin to refine a full range of
alternatives for the draft RMP.
3:55:28 PM
Slide 17 outlined the planning process stages and public
participation windows, she said. Steps two and three are not
required, but they followed the lead of other offices who held a
similar area of critical environmental concern focused comment
period. Step two was included for two reasons: one reason is
because they did not receive enough helpful input during the
scoping period and the other reason is to ideally prevent
getting input very late in the process that has resulted in
significant delays in other efforts.
Step three is the new proposed land use planning regulation
changes referred to as "Planning 2.0." It calls for a new
preliminary alternatives outreach public involvement phase prior
to working on the draft RMP.
In order to increase their ability to catch mistakes and make
clarifications before writing the draft and decrease the
likelihood of a supplement to keep these phases distinctly
separate she has used the following terminology:
-Preliminary alternatives development: in-house RMP
team's first attempt to draft preliminary
alternatives, which began in 2014/15.
-Preliminary alternative concepts: term used when
referencing conceptual ideas for alternatives at this
stage.
-Alternatives refinement will be the second in-house
RMP team effort to revise those preliminary
alternatives with the benefit of stakeholder input
from last spring's outreach period. This is what they
will actually begin next month in developing their
full range of alternatives for the draft RMP.
MS. BARRINGER called the committee's attention to the on-line
open houses under public participation. Those are held
simultaneously on the RMP websites where the same maps,
presentations, and materials are offered as at the community
meetings.
3:58:10 PM
Slide 18 contains a brief overview of public or stakeholder
involvement steps, she said. The BLM began scoping in 2013 and
extended it to 2014 due to the government shut down. They held
10 community meetings, offered about 12 presentations to groups
who requested it, and released the scoping comment summary
report in May 2014. The areas of critical environmental concern
comment and nomination period was over a 120-day period. The
ACEC report on relevance and importance criteria was released in
April 2015.
MS. BARRINGER said the preliminary alternatives concepts were
developed based on the issues identified during the scoping
process. Then they held a public outreach period last February
through June, 2015; they had 14 community meetings, government-
to-government meetings and offered about three presentations. In
addition to requesting input on the preliminary alternative
concepts, the BLM asked stakeholders for input on the next steps
for each of the five reports listed on the slide. Those next
steps are:
-to determine visual resource management classes
across BLM lands,
-to determine lands to propose for protection of
wilderness characteristics,
-to determine riparian conservation areas and
restoration watersheds, to determine suitable river
segments,
-to determine whether special management is required
to protect relevant and important ACEC resource
values.
She said their preliminary alternatives comment summary report
was release in August, 2015. It nicely summarizes and sorts
public comment into 33 issues and presents the issues organized
by community as well as issues.
4:00:34 PM
Slide 19 demonstrates the amount of comments the BLM receives by
visiting communities such as the one in Aniak. When they hold
community meetings Ms. Barringer said she has found what works
best is to summarize the issues and concerns raised during the
meeting and organize them by resource topics: fisheries,
forestry, wildlife, and so on. Those summaries are sent back to
communities for review, and eventually they get posted to their
website as community comment summaries. Theses become very
helpful references as they continue their dialogue with
communities, and would be great references for legislators, as
well, to understand the views of their constituents.
MS. BARRINGER said she likes to begin community meetings by
reviewing the summary of what they shared with them the last
time they visited.
4:01:54 PM
The other category and the graph on slide 20 refers to comments
received outside of community meetings: those submitted via
email, comment letters, phone calls, and other means. They
received 32 submissions and each one consisted of numerous
individual comments. All comments together yielded 893 total
substantive comments for the preliminary alternatives outreach
period last spring. Slide 22 listed the 33 most frequent issue
categories in descending order.
4:02:41 PM
MS. BARRINGER said BLM uses special recreation permits to
authorize and manage activities of state-approved commercial
hunting guide operators on BLM managed public land. There are 13
big game hunting permit holders in the BSWI planning area. These
guides had 120 visits in 2013. Currently, there is no maximum
number of permits for hunting guides who operate on BLM-managed
lands within guide use areas. The recreation staff who manage
these permits have received guide-on-guide conflict complaints
for a number of years. These complaints tend to be in certain
hot spot areas.
In partnering with hunting guide outfitters, she said the BLM
cares about the public land users' experience, impacts to
subsistence, the condition of wildlife habitat, the quality of
recreation opportunities available, and perceived conflict with
other users. The BLM's land use planning process is their time
to make allocation decisions or, what they attempted to do in
this case, propose a maximum number of commercial hunting
special recreation permits on BLM managed public lands per guide
use area.
4:04:01 PM
The 2015 alternative concepts on slide 24 related to BLM-
authorized commercial hunting opportunities on public lands and
included two goals and objectives to address both public input
received during the scoping and some internal BLM input
regarding the guide conflicts.
They proposed a maximum number of hunting permits by guide use
area. The permit numbers considered the 10-year average number
of permits and the proposed permit numbers are higher than the
existing number of permits within each guide-use area. In order
to address the stakeholder input from scoping, they propose to
not issue commercial hunting SRPs on BLM lands within a 25-mile
radius of communities.
4:05:03 PM
Three alternative concepts address different ways to handle
transporters (Slide 25), that are defined as someone who moves
people and gear onto BLM managed land, be it plane, boat, pack
animal, etc. Currently, the only transporters under permit are
those who are also state-licensed guides that provide guiding
services.
MS. BARRINGER explained that when they went through their
preliminary alternative concept development with the RMP team,
they didn't come up with the traditional full range of
alternatives that one would see in the eventual draft resource
management plans. She tried to structure the document that went
out to stakeholders in communities in a way that would be easy
for them to provide helpful feedback and had three columns;
alternative one had an example and possible management
decisions, alternative three had an example decision that
differed from alternative one, and alternative two was left
blank. The idea was for communities to tell them what they liked
about alternative one, if anything, and what they liked about
alternative three, if anything. Then plug those likes into
alternative two and make it what they would like to see. If you
don't like anything the BLM proposed, tell them what you like
and imagine that is alternative two.
4:07:12 PM
Slide 26 depicted alternative one for the proposed number of
SRPs per guide use area (GUA). So, within one year of approving
the plan the concept is to establish the following allocation
limits for big game guide operators operating within each GUA of
the BSWI area:
18-02 (1), 18-03 (1), 19-01 (1), 19-02 (1), 19-03 (1),
19-04 (1), 19-05 (1), 19-06 (1), 19-07 (2), 19-08 (2),
19-09 (2), 19-11 (1), 19-12 (5), 19-13 (1), 20-02 (1),
21-01 (4), 21-02 (1), 21-03 (1), 22-07 (4), 23-05 (1).
She explained that "18-02" is the GUA number and "(1)" is the
number of commercial hunting guide SRP permits for that area and
that:
•Maximum of 33 G-Os within the planning area
(allocated by GUA identified above)
•G-Os may not operate in more than 2 GUAs on BLM land
within the planning area
•No SRPs authorized within 25-mile radius of
established community
•Continue to evaluate G-Os and transporter activities
on a case-by-case basis
•For new SRP holders, permits would be issued for one
year and may be extended for up to 10-years total,
with annual validation requirements
Alternatives two and three were outlined on slide 27 as follows:
Hunting Guide-Outfitters
Alternative #2: YOU suggest feedback and submit
written comment (Spring 2015)
Alternative #3:
•Special Recreation Permits for G-Os may be authorized
near established communities in the planning area
•Maximum of 40 G-Os within planning area (allocated by
GUA)
•Each G-O may operate in up to 3 GUAs
•New SRP holders may be given an initial multi-year
permit for a period up to 10-years, with annual
validation requirements.
•Allocation limits on G-Os would be established on a
case-by-case basis at the time of permit granting or
renewal. These allocation limits would be determined,
in part, based on observed conflict with other uses.
4:09:40 PM
MS. BARRINGER updated the committee on the most recent RMP for
the BSWI area (slide 28) as follows:
UPDATE DEC 2015: BLM presented agency updates
•Big Game Commercial Services Board
•Alaska Professional Hunters Association Annual
Meetings
RESULTED IN
•Multiple inquiries and questions
•Field Office - targeted outreach to APHA and all
hunting permittees in the BSWI RMP planning area (18)
1. Provided information
2. Requested comments
3. Participated on conference call to answer questions
PUBLIC COMMENT
•4 comments received and will be considered as the BLM
develops a full range of alternatives for the Draft
RMP
4:10:33 PM
MS. BARRINGER offered to demonstrate how the reports and maps
could be accessed on their website.
4:11:06 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL thanked Ms. Barringer and asked for committee
questions.
SENATOR COGHILL said they are trying to figure out how to manage
game better, in particular, but needed some context for her
comment about "high use periods." Did she mean specific hunting
seasons or people usage, commercial uses, or hunting mostly?
MS. BARRINGER responded that high use periods was in reference
to the Eastern Interior RMP that has some pretty popular
recreation areas: the White Mountains National Recreation area,
Beaver Creek Wild and Scenic River, the Steese National
Conservation Area, Birch Creek Wild and Scenic River, and the
Forty-Mile Wild and Scenic River. Use is really high at certain
times of the year and their goal is to limit the amount of
conflict that occurs in those areas and provide a quality
recreation experience. They look beyond just hunting and guide
special recreation permits to people who are running river trips
and that sort of thing.
SENATOR COGHILL asked her to explain how resource management
planning is done. Is it done in cycles or "is it once in a life
time deal?"
MS. BARRINGER replied that generally it's a 20-year cycle; the
RMPs are supposed to last 20 years.
4:13:58 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if they were truly going to implement a 25-
mile radius around an established community (page 26), because
that seems pretty large.
MS. BARRINGER replied that it is still under discussion. It's a
conceptual idea to address issues raised during scoping from
communities along the Kuskokwim in the Lower Yukon about
conflicts between subsistence and recreational hunters or guided
hunters.
4:14:47 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO asked the role of the State of Alaska, because
Ms. Barringer had mentioned that certain tribes are "formal
cooperators" and also used the term "stakeholder." She also
asked how they would use the state's expertise in developing the
plans.
MS. BARRINGER replied that the state is a formal cooperator for
the BSWI, CY and the EI. That means the state has cooperating
agency status. Many times the state is engaged in internal
discussions and meetings; the OPUMP office with Samantha
Carlisle is the point of contact. The ADF&G representative is
also very engaged internally at a lot of their meetings.
SENATOR COSTELLO said she used the phrase "protection of
wilderness characteristics" and asked if there are new terms for
new characteristics that weren't used 20 years ago when the
current plan was created.
MS. BARRINGER replied yes; "lands with wilderness
characteristics" is a new direction their planning process is
following now. The plans in place for the area that she manages,
the BSWI, are actually management framework plans which preceded
resource management plans. A portion of the BSWI planning area
is under the 1986 CY RMP. However, the BSWI RMP will replace
both of those plans. The management framework plan for the BSWI
is called the Southwest Management Framework Plan, 1981. A lot
of terminology exists now that didn't then.
4:18:38 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO asked where the BLM gets its authority for
preparing management plans on federal lands in Alaska.
MS. BARRINGER answered their authority comes from land use
planning regulations as well as the 1976 forest Land Policy
Management Act (FLIPMA), Title 43 and U.S. Code.
4:19:13 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL referred to the map on page 16 (BSWI) and asked if
the yellow patches are BLM land.
MS. BARRINGER said yes.
CHAIR GIESSEL noted that it was very fragmented and that the BLM
is considering 25-mile radiuses with hunter-concession type
provisions. This creates quite a bit of discord with the state
which doesn't have a guide concession program. She said, "We
should sure like to work more collaboratively on that just so
that there is more continuity of regulations and land management
for hunting."
MS. BARRINGER responded that the state uses the term "concession
program" and selecting guides for that program is a lengthy
process. The BLM uses the term "allocation" and they propose two
different things. A guide use area has a maximum number of
permits that is higher than the number of permits that exist in
the GUAs. The BLM wasn't proposing a process by which to choose
one guide over another, just a maximum number of permits per
GUA. Where those hot spots are in the future, the recreation
staff had in mind that those areas would get more attention,
similar to what is going on with the Squirrel River area now,
where a process would actually be developed for how to choose
amongst multiple guides that want to operate in the same area.
The 25-mile zone is a separate issue. The BLM proposed no
authorization of commercial hunting SRPs on BLM lands if there
are any BLM lands within the 25-mile radius around a community,
and a lot of communities tend to be surrounded by Native
corporation-owned lands. What they were looking for in the more
recent round of feedback is if another radius might make more
sense to address the conflict between subsistence and
recreational hunting or if no radius is better, and they did get
feedback on that.
CHAIR GIESSEL said in terms of the "allocation areas," if BLM
were to implement that, it would be quite confusing since the
state doesn't have a guide concession program now. And the state
has a goal of more continuity between BLM and state management.
4:23:55 PM
SENATOR STOLTZE asked how they approach a situation where there
is a large state area that has a multiple use designation (for
instance) and there is a contiguous federal area. Do they try to
keep compatible uses together and how much cooperation is there
between the state and the federal government? How much does an
existing use area and its management philosophy influence how
BLM determines it should be managed?
MS. BARRINGER answered the state has "area plans" and the Fish
and Wildlife Service have CCPs. Those are the two other plans
the BLM is required to be consistent with to the extent
possible. Since the Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of
Alaska are cooperators on this plan and attend the meetings when
ideas are being discussed for how to address issues, they do a
really good job of being consistent with their neighbors. There
are plenty of opportunities along the way for reviews that
occur. As a cooperating agency, the state would get to review
documents before they go public; it is something Samantha would
coordinate with all the departments.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO asked if BLM looks at the utility
corridor withdrawal within Central Yukon plan as favorable.
4:26:28 PM
MR. CRIBLEY answered that the BLM is neutral on that issue. The
state requested lifting that withdrawal to allow that selection
to fall into place so that the lands can be conveyed to the
state. They are not able to lift that withdrawal without going
through a land use planning process. That is one of the
principle drivers of the need for the CY RMP. Their intent is to
allow the land use planning process to drive that by providing
the opportunities for public input.
4:28:25 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO said as a cooperator the state has the ability
to review plans before they go public and asked if the state is
looking for consistency with comments or can it say it doesn't
agree with the direction this plan is taking.
MS. BARRINGER replied a little bit of all the above.
CHAIR GIESSEL noted that page 19 shows the number of community
comment and asked how she decides if a comment in "substantive."
MS. BARRINGER replied substantive comments suggest specific
changes in a BLM inventory report or alternative concept, or
clearly identify where an issue or an error is located, or why
someone believes there is an error in something the BLM has
proposed or done, or offers alternative ideas about how to
address issues or errors. A substantive comment would be one
that provides constructive solutions with documentation,
resources or research to support the recommendations or the
comment that is being brought forth.
A substantive comment is not a vague statement or concern that
lacks suggested changes or doesn't give any direction in which
to act. It's not a vote for or against a proposed decision or
alternative. The BLM must rely on supporting information, not
the number of comments received. Numerous comments expressing
the same concern or issue are considered to be just one comment.
An example of that is form letters from an interest group.
4:31:12 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if those who are available to comment get
the BLM criteria for substantive comments.
MS. BARRINGER replied that she goes over that with the
communities she visits. Comments come in many forms including
over the phone. When she has the opportunity to explain such as
in the form of a community meeting, she tries to describe what
is helpful to them. She has a BLM staff take detailed notes at
these community meetings; this is where they get the best
feedback.
MS. BARRINGER said the process she has found most helpful is to
take whatever comments people have written and organize them by
category. Then she types it up at her Anchorage office and mails
it back to the community asking them if their comments were
reflected correctly. That gets posted on their website.
In addition to the scoping summary report where all the comments
are organized in an appendices, she also prepares summaries of
community comments for both the scoping and preliminary
alternatives.
4:34:06 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said the reason he brought that up is because
the state has tried to stay up with BLM's management planning.
He explained that they first look at state law, and in dealing
with the BLM they look through the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (ANCSA), and the Statehood Compact. The BLM has to look
through the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) and ANCSA
for what the state is doing, and sometimes they miss each other
and have "to wrangle over some very, very, different opinions."
MS. BARRINGER agreed that that was an accurate presentation of
the situation.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked how the BLM attributes the huge quantity
of comments coming from Anchorage that aren't directly related
to the community where the planning is taking place.
MS. BARRINGER answered the way they hold meetings in some of the
Native communities they use more of a discussion style. Within
those communities the Elders speak up first and maybe on behalf
of some of the others who might not speak up and share quite as
much, or SLM staff might not capture everything at the meeting.
In the urban meetings in Anchorage, pretty much everyone is not
shy about commenting.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if there is a cultural difference where
perhaps the urban comments may carry the day, because they are
more used to a formal communication style. How do they adjust
for the difference in cultural communication that is more subtle
in rural communities?
MS. BARRINGER answered that when substantive comments are
received, they don't count them as "votes." Whoever looks at the
comments determines the issue that was raised and tries to
capture it. The 33 issues in the preliminary alternatives
outreach were the ones that were parsed out of everything that
they heard. The number of times an issue is raised isn't a
factor.
SENATOR MICCICHE commented that it seems like, particularly in
land use areas they are describing, the rural communities are
more likely to intimately know the land and he would think that
more of the urban comments would be philosophical versus hands-
on experience or cultural.
4:38:54 PM
MR. CRIBLEY added that he had been working in Alaska for 5.5
years and that issue has become "very evident and very important
to the BLM." They are going through a process on the North Slope
working with the Native communities developing a regional
mitigation strategy to implement the use of mitigation funds.
They hear those types of concerns from the standpoint of outside
influence overwhelming the voice of the local communities. That
is why they do such extensive outreach going to the specific
villages and figure out ways to pull that information out and
make folks comfortable sharing it. They try to make it very
clear that the playing field is level and transparent. Their
comment periods are 120-days; typically the BLM conducts 60-90
day comment periods in the Lower 48. The reason they are much
longer here is they are trying to facilitate enough time to fly
to all of the villages and schedule meetings when people are
actually in the villages and not out doing subsistence fishing
or hunting.
4:42:17 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said that Alaskans worry that federal folks
arrive in Alaska with assumptions about wilderness opportunities
because they have likely been assigned to other areas that don't
have the same expansive land and wilderness opportunity
characteristics, and some federal employees have become
"conditioned" about the importance of those few remaining
wilderness areas in the Lower 48. How do they make that
adjustment as a federal employee in Alaska?
MR. CRIBLEY answered that anybody coming from the Lower 48 and
the BLM who hasn't worked in Alaska can't hit the ground
running. They must get educated about Alaska, because it is so
much different in a lot of different ways. A lot of it has to do
with the additional laws they manage for under ANCSA and ANILCA
and the fact that so much of Alaska's lands are undeveloped.
He said they have a difficult time communicating with the
specialists in their Washington, D.C., office in reviewing the
plans and trying to explain to them, especially about lands with
wilderness characteristics. In the western states that is a very
sensitive issue from the standpoint of properly identifying
them. They have to remind everybody that in most cases, 95
percent of Alaska lands that BLM manages (sometimes 99 percent
like the National Petroleum Resource Alaska NPR-A) are lands
with wilderness characteristics. So they need a different
perspective on those. But they also have opportunities in Alaska
from the standpoint that the lands are still undisturbed and
making sure that they don't make the same mistakes they made in
the western states down south. Their objective is not to lock up
lands, but to best manage them to meet all of their objectives
of development and conservation. It takes time for their people
to become reoriented, but all new people go through an
orientation process.
4:47:48 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL said she appreciated his reference to development
of some resources. She saw that most of the commenters were
Alaskans, except for the Center for Water Advocacy, the Pugh
Charitable Trusts, and other interest groups. These are groups
that typically are not Alaskans and often have a very different
view from Alaskans in wanting to make our state into a park. She
asked if they give more credibility to the commenters who are
Alaskans or do the interest groups carry the same weight in
their comments.
MR. CRIBLEY replied that all comments carry the same weight, but
it is also a matter of their perspective and how it fits into
what their objectives are. It must be put in the context of
their legal mandates, which are multiple use and sustained
yield. Many peoples' lifestyles and their very lives are
affected by BLM decisions. Some whole communities' economies are
based on subsistence activities, and they have to have a say in
what the BLM is doing. He said in some instances the communities
- in Fairbanks on regional mitigation strategy for the NPR-A -
have the loud voice and the conservation groups were actually
not participating just because of that.
CHAIR GIESSEL expressed appreciation for remediation of the
legacy wells.
SENATOR COGHILL thanked the BLM for the significant role it has
played in fire suppression. He also remarked that this committee
would encourage the state to participate in whatever level it
can to figure out a better way of doing guide concession areas
and management of land use planning.
4:53:30 PM
MR. CRIBLEY said he fully agrees and added that he doesn't think
it would be successful unless the state and BLM work together on
managing guide outfitter and transporter use on BLM and state
lands. Otherwise they will play a shell game of pushing people
from one land base to another, particularly if BLM goes into a
more restrictive use of its public lands, which doesn't benefit
the public as a whole.
4:54:39 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL adjourned the Senate Resource Committee at 4:54
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Briefing Paper-BLM-3-18-16.pdf |
SRES 3/18/2016 3:30:00 PM |
Federal Issues-BLM |
| PowerPoint-BLM-3-18-16.pdf |
SRES 3/18/2016 3:30:00 PM |
Federal Issues-BLM |