Register 82, July 1982

FISH AND GAME

ARTICLE 5.

ADOPTION OF FISH AND GAME REGULATIONS.

5 AAC 96.610(a),(b),(c), (d), (e), and (f) are amended to read:

5 AAC 96.610

5 AAC 96.610. PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPING, CONSIDERING, AND IMPLEMENTING FISH AND GAME REGULATIONS. (a) For the purpose of developing, considering, and implementing fish and game regulations, the boards will observe the procedures set forth in (b)--() of this section. The deadlines for each phase will be set by the boards for each reeting and will be announced to the local fish and game advisory committees, the regional councils, and the public.

(b) Phase 1. The boards will solicit proposed regulations. The boards will, in their discretion, limit those sections or portions of the existing regulations that will be open for change at each meeting to facilitate their deliberations. The boards will provide forms to be used in preparing proposals. Notices soliciting proposals will be distributed statewide. In order to be considered, a proposal must be received by the boards before the designated deadline.

(c) Phase 2. After the deadline for receiving proposals, all proposals received, including proposals from the department staff and other government agencies, must be compiled by the board staff and distributed to the public through departmental offices. Proposals must also be sent to local fish and game advisory committees and the regional councils for review and comment.

(d) Phase 3. Each local fish and game advisory committee shall review, at a public meeting, all proposals received, and shall forward its recommendations to the appropriate board, in accorcence with the following:

(1) each local fish and game advisory committee, to the extent possible within the time limitations, shall consult with user groups, other local fish and game advisory committees, and other interested organizations and individuals;

(2) each regional fish and game council shall explore areas of compromise where there are conflicting points of view among local fish and game advisory committees within its area, and shall attempt to reach a consensus before making its recommendation to the boards;

(3) each local fish and game advisory committee and regional fish and game council will, in its discretion, request technical and scientific support data and prepared testimony from the department staff; and

(4) each recommendation to the boards from regional fish and game councils and local fish and game advisory committees must include a justification or explanation for the request.

In

(e) Phase 4. The boards will give notice of timely received proposals, or of the proposed subject matter received from the local fish and game advisory committees and the regional fish and game councils accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (AS 44.52), the boards will hold a public hearing and will consider and vote on each proposal, or develop alternatives on the subject matter legally noticec, after reviewing the recommendations of the regional fish and game councils. The firel decision on all proposals remains the responsibility of the boards. However, if a recommendation or proposal from a regional fish and game council concerns the subsistence use of fish or wildlife within its region, a board may choose not to follow the recommendation only if the board determines it is not supported by substantial evidence presented during the course of the board's administrative proceedings, violates recognized principles of fish and wildlife conservation, or would be detrimental to the satisfaction of rural subsistence needs. If a recommendation regarding

Register 82, July 1982

FISH AND GAME

5 AAC 96.610

subsistence use is not adopted by a board, the board will set out in writing the factual basis and the reasons for its decision.

(f) Phase 5. After completion of procedures required by the Aċinistrative Procedure Act (AS 44.62), the boards will notify local fist and game advisory committees and regional fish and game council of the actions taken on their respective proposals and the reasons for those actions, including any decision made under (e) of this section regarding a recomendation from a regional council concerning the subsistence use of fish or wildlife within its region. (In effect before 1982; am 612182, Register$2

Authority: AS 16.05.260

Enclosed is a copy of the report, "A Study of United States Arctic Research
Policy and the Role of the Naval Arctic Research Laboratory," which was
previously transmitted to you by the Department of the Interior on March 17,
1982, and was prepared by the Departments of the Interior, Defense, and
Energy pursuant to Section 1007 of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act.

Upon completion of the report, the Secretaries were to make a number
of recommendations. The first two concern broad issues. These are:
(1) whether the United States should redirect its Arctic research policy;
and (2) the role the Naval Arctic Research Laboratory (NARL) should assume
in developing and implementing that policy.

In addition, the Secretaries were directed by Section 1007 to address
four specific issues and make recommendations concerning: changes in the
mission and management of NARL; the appropriate Federal agency or agencies
that should have primary responsibility for its management; changes in the
organizational structure to include non-Federal involvement; and the
appropriate level of Federal funding for scientific and technological
research on the Arctic environment and its uses.

The Department of Energy believes that a redirected Arctic research policy
would be desirable; however, such a policy is not essential as the Depart-
ment's mission in the Arctic is currently being accomplished without such
a policy.

The Department of Energy concurs with the Department of the Interior's
recommendation that the NARL laboratory facility at Barrow be closed,
because the DOE program will not make significant use of the laboratory;
however, we would recommend that the NARL satellite field stations be
retained for use in continuing research activities. The baseline func-
tion of the network field sites for comparing Arctic landscapes cannot
be duplicated by any expenditure of time and money.

As to the four specific issues which were to be addressed:

1. The Department recommends, consistent with the report, that if NARL
is retained, its primary mission should be provision of logistics
support to visiting scientists and engineers, particularly those
concerned with oceanographic and atmospheric investigations.

Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill

2

2.

3.

4.

If retained, and the primary mission of NARL is to be maritime and atmospheric-related research, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Department of Commerce) would be the appropriate agency to manage NARL. However, if NARL is to be a national laboratory and given a more general mission, a special Federal Arctic Research Commission should be established and given the responsibility for managing the laboratory.

In order to allow greater involvement by State and private organizations in the use, management, and/or funding of NARL, the Department of Energy proposes that the Arctic Research Commission should include representives from the Federal Government, the State of Alaska, the native people, industry, and academia with an Executive Director to develop and manage the program. In addition, an advisory committee on

Arctic research should also be established.

The Department can provide only a very general recommendation concerning the appropriate level of Federal funding for research on the Arctic environment, as great difficulty exists in even determining the total level of past or present funding of Arctic research.

It would appear that Federal expenditures in 1979 for research in the Arctic approached $47 million. Since the need for research information is expanding rapidly, this level--$47 million--should represent a minimal level of support.

Historically, the Department of Energy and its predecessor agencies have supported a very modest but continuing program in terrestrial ecology in the Alaskan Arctic.

The present DOE terrestrial research budget is approximately $1.25 million annually. Our research program will attempt to keep pace with the rapidly increasing need for environmental research information. Our principal concern is that, in the absence of research information, environmental guidelines could be overly restrictive and needlessly prevent development in energy-rich regions.

incerely,

R. Edwards

Jemen

James B. Edwards

Enclosure

11-903 0 - 83 - 37

TESTIMONY OF

THE HONORABLE JAY S. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR

STATE OF ALASKA
before the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND NATIONAL PARKS

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to share with the Subcommittee the State of Alaska's views relative to the implementation of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). In addition to the national significance of this historic legislation, I would like to underscore the importance and effect of the Act on Alaska and on our citizens.

It is difficult not to become somewhat retrospective as I recall the debate which, though exceedingly vociferous and demanding at times, brought focus to the multitude of issues addressed by ANILCA. As a public official, I am truly surprised at how rapidly both the decibel and emotional levels of debate decreased in Alaska with passage of the Act. There is little comparison to the level of dialogue that is now occurring as implementation takes place. With the dialogue has come what I perceive to be a significant improvement in the relationships between federal, State, and Native entities. I would like to publicly acknowledge the efforts and interest that Secretary Watt and the Department of the Interior have displayed in making every effort to work closely and cooperatively with the State of Alaska as implementation of ANILCA has been undertaken.