HB 41-TRANSFER HABITAT DIV FROM DNR TO F&G 9:54:18 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 41, "An Act returning certain duties regarding habitat management from the Department of Natural Resources to the Department of Fish and Game; and providing for an effective date." 9:54:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 41 as prime sponsor, paraphrasing from the sponsor statement, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: In 2003, former Governor Frank Murkowski made a change to fisheries protection policy that has been controversial ever since. By Executive Order [EO], he transferred the Department of Fish and Game's Habitat Division to the Department of Natural Resources. At the time, every former Commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) objected to the move. They contended, as many still do, that the move created a conflict that would prevent the Division from performing its duty to make sure Alaska's fishing waters and other wildlife resources are protected, and that development projects be designed in a manner that doesn't compromise that goal. The goal of protecting fish and game habitat is consistent with the goals of the ADF&G. The Department of Natural Resources is charged with many functions, including that of resource development. In theory the Habitat Division could serve its function equally within either Department. However, the transfer occurred because certain businesses felt the move would make the agency more compliant with private developer interests and consequently less protective of the fisheries and other resources it was charged with protecting. With significant projects on the horizon, like the Pebble open pit mine, the public should be confident that the Habitat Division's functions remain independent and uncompromised. For the reasons stated by the Board of Fisheries, and the former commissioners of ADF&G, we believe this division should be moved back to the ADF&G. 10:02:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARA named various testifiers who have provided written testimony, or will appear as witnesses, during the public hearing on the bill. He directed attention to the committee packet and Governor Palin's letter, of February 8, 2007, to the chairman of the Board of Fisheries. Although it states that she is not inclined to exercise EO privilege, he opined that she does show concern for the issue. He read: While the habitat functions, perhaps, should never have been moved from ADF&G to DNR, that reorganization has already occurred. REPRESENTATIVE GARA speculated that the governor understands the ramifications of moving OHM&P back to ADF&G. Further, he expressed concern for how future developments, with major environmental impacts, will be addressed. The issue of fishing stream protection is in the forefront. 10:03:56 AM CHAIR SEATON asked if there are any examples of OHM&P providing inadequate habitat protection, within the permitting process, due to the office's relocation to DNR. REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded that a definite change in the "view," which habitat assumes on issues, has been reported to him. There are reasons, he offered, why lower level employees may not choose to come forward and "criticize the decisions of their superiors," although this may be what is needed to adequately address the issue. He offered the current memorandum of understanding (MOU), between DNR and ADF&G for the permitting of the proposed Pebble Mine, as an example. The MOU effectively calls for ADF&G to assume a "junior role." 10:07:20 AM CHAIR SEATON pointed out that a revision of the MOU is being considered, according to the governor's letter. Prior to further discussion on HB 41, he asked that the sponsor provide specific examples of how OHM&P has failed to fulfill its function, due to the current configuration. REPRESENTATIVE GARA reiterated the difficulty in obtaining examples, however, he stressed that the sentiment does exists. [HB 41 was held over.]