SENATE BILL NO. 68 "An Act relating to cooperation with federal programs relating to management of fish and game." CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 68(RES) "An Act relating to cooperation with federal programs relating to management of fish and game." BRETT HUBER, Staff, Senator Rick Halford, testified that the intent of the proposed legislation is that the State should not be left with the burden of unfunded federal mandates. He pointed out that the Court system has agreed with this. Alaska became a state in 1959. In accordance with the Statehood Act, Secretary Fred Seaton transferred the fish and wildlife management responsibilities to the new State in 1960. Since then, Alaskans have witnessed the continued erosion of their fish and wildlife management authorities. Mr. Huber pointed out that passage of federal legislation such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act have all contributed directly or indirectly to the loss of jurisdiction. Mr. Huber continued, equally important are the administrative actions and legislative interpretations developed by the various federal agencies. In a recent transmittal to the Superintendent of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Governor Knowles clearly indicated the growing conflict with the federal agencies. Mr. Huber commented that the Governor has commented on the proposed rule to phase out commercial fishing in Glacier Bay proper and to develop a cooperative management and planning system for the remainder of the marine waters. The 1998 Congressional amendments to Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve (NPP) did require cooperation in the development of a management plan. Mr. Huber pointed out that it was obvious from the environmental assessment that the agency would attempt to exercise its prerogative of overriding State management when the agency decides the necessity to protect the park "resources and values." Mr. Huber noted that Alaska's fisheries management has been more successful than the Federal management it succeeded. Although most resources are transient to the Park, it is believed that Alaska will now be required to establish a much expanded and expensive research and management program just to satisfy the demands of the National Park Service, which has taken the form of an unnecessary and unfunded mandate. Mr. Huber stressed that there are a growing number of unfunded mandates associated with the preempted actions of the federal agencies. On June 6 and 7, 1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released material related to the implications of Federal Management of Subsistence Fisheries in Alaska. The document states that two scenarios could occur for Federal subsistence management. The first scenario would assume that the State of Alaska would cooperate with the federal managers, allowing federal management activities to supplement State management in a partnership effort. The second scenario assumes that the State would not cooperate, requiring a complete duplication of the State system with federal staff to perform all management. He warned that would be more expensive. Mr. Huber continued, Congress and the Federal Courts have made it clear that states should not be faced with unfunded Federal mandates. During this period of severe State budget deficits, Mr. Huber noted that it is important that the Federal government pay its share, especially when it is the intent to preempt traditional State management of resources. Mr. Huber advised that the bill would not prohibit the cooperation of the Federal agencies. It would require that when Federal actions restrict State management of fish and game resources, the State would be fully reimbursed for any action taken in that cooperative effort. Mr. Huber listed the points of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) unfunded federal mandate. ? To date, the federal preemption under ANILCA of State fish and game management has been mostly applied to wildlife. ? State management costs have increased significantly in an attempt to comply with federal law. ? ANILCA provided for reimbursement of up to $5 million for 50% of the State's effort to implement subsistence provisions in law. ? The federal government has never provided over $1 million, despite the fact that the State has consistently submitted $2.0 to $3.5 million in reimbursable expenses. ? The reimbursable expenses submitted to the federal agencies should have been much higher, as expenses associated with data gathering required by the Advisory Committees and Regional Boards, although, they qualified for federal reimbursement and were never submitted. ? The federal agencies used the State technical staff as management instructors until they reached a point of self-sufficiency and technical independence. This is clearly illustrated by the areas where State wildlife management decisions have been preempted by the federal process. ? The federal agencies are now proposing to duplicate the same process for fisheries. ? To illustrate how much the State is spending to facilitate federal management, the "Implications of Federal Management" booklet indicates that it would cost $9 million dollars to implement with State cooperation and $31 million dollars to implement without State cooperation. In other words, the State is subsidizing the federal program to the tune of almost $22 million per year. Senator Adams questioned if Senator Halford would support cooperation between the State and the federal government in the management of the State's fish and game resource. Mr. Huber believed that Senator Halford did not favor duel management. Senator Al Adams questioned if the bill would send a message to the public that the Legislature has given up on the possibility of a resolution. Mr. Huber advised that there are other bills that recognize these issues. MIKE SALLEE, Commercial Fisherman, Ketchikan, (Testified via Teleconference), spoke in support of the proposed legislation. He stated that if there was a federal takeover that the State should not be required to pay the costs of operation. Mr. Sallee voiced concern with Section 1(a) and the viability of the fish and game population. LANCE NELSON, Assistance Attorney General, Natural Resources Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, Anchorage, (Testified via Teleconference), stated that there were several legal concerns with the proposed legislation. Mr. Nelson noted that the restriction of cooperation with the federal government could be unconstitutional and that the Legislature can not restrict the Executive Branch. He felt that the Court system would rule the law unconstitutional in relationship to the separation of power rules. Mr. Nelson was concerned that the restrictions would prohibit the State's ability to take legal action against the federal government for regulations on the management of fish and game. DICK BISHOP, Vice-President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), Juneau, testified that the Council supported the bill. He stated that a stronger incentive or requirement for compensation for the State for costs associated with federal fish and wildlife management agencies is essential. Mr. Bishop added that even when the State was in compliance with ANILCA, the federal support that had been authorized by Congress was not fulfilled. He emphasized that fair compensation for services rendered are important in this concern. GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game, testified against the proposed legislation. He emphasized that it is a "sad day" when the Department of Fish and Game must testify before the Legislature on such a bill under consideration. He qualified that statement, noting that the preference would be to testify on a solution to prevent such a law. Mr. Bruce suggested that the way to accomplish that would be to put the vote before the people. Mr. Bruce reviewed the intention of the bill. Under SB68, the federal manager would be prohibited from speaking with the State manager, unless the agency from which that federal manager worked, had entered into an agreement to pay the State judicial costs to cooperate with the federal program. TAPE SFC-99 #109 Side B Mr. Bruce voiced concern that the information gathered by the Department would then be used against it. The obligation of the Department's activities is a function to fulfill the constitution mandate for sustained yield management. He questioned if the State assumes that the federal managers are going to assume the costs of a significant portion of the basic State responsibility. Mr. Bruce stressed that the Department does not believe that will occur. Under that situation, there are several possibilities which could happen and that none of them are good. Senator Lyda Green voiced her offense with the reference to the constitutional amendments and the issue of subsistence. Co-Chair John Torgerson requested Mr. Bruce to direct his testimony to the proposed legislation. Mr. Bruce stressed that SB 68 is about subsistence. He noted that the Department of Fish and Game has urged the Senate Finance members not to move the bill from Committee. He advised that such a move would not be of benefit to the Alaska fishery, resources or the people of the State. Co-Chair John Torgerson advised that the "sad day" was when Governor Knowles failed to defend the State of Alaska's rights issue through the Court System. He believed that was the "problem". Co-Chair John Torgerson ordered the bill to be HELD in Committee. SB 64 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further consideration. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:50 A.M. SFC-99 (18) 4/23/99