Alaska is the world's greatest reservoir of salmonid biodiversity. Alaska has plenty of pristine habitats, which is why Alaska still has plenty of salmon, steelhead, and trout. The major reason there is so much good habitat is that most of Alaska has been free of the sort of heavy human use that has proven inimical to fish. In those areas where people have settled in large numbers, where major industries operate, or where roads wind, fish habitat in Alaska has not fared much better than elsewhere. Things are about to get worse under Alaska's new Governor Frank Murkowski.

By executive order, the governor has recently transferred the Department of Fish and Game's (ADF&G) permitting authority to ensure fish passage to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the lead development agency. Other ADF&G habitat oversight functions are also moved to DNR or dropped: Forest Practices activities, oversight of oil and gas leasing projects, oil spill planning and oil spill damage assessment, and review of state and federal land-use plans and disposals. The governor has also transferred the coastal zone management program to DNR.

Five former ADF&G commissioners, whose appointments ran consecutively from 1972 to 2002, sent the governor a letter decrying the proposed consolidation. In a nutshell, the governor's plan is out-of-step with modern fish and wildlife management, bad for habitat, bad for the public. Unfortunately the governor was not swayed by expert advice or public comment. If the Alaska Legislature does not act, the governor's order will become law on April 15, 2003.

Even during the territorial days, when government regulation was virtually nonexistent and the salmon-packing industry pretty much did what it wanted, the federal overseers were smart enough to understand that salmon should be managed by fisheries biologists not cannery men, miners, nor foresters. Alaska's territorial government, however, became increasingly upset with the inability of the federal managers to protect salmon and in 1949 established its own Department of Fisheries. The department was established to assist in the conservation of Alaska's fish and fisheries and to develop fisheries management capacity in anticipation of statehood. The impetus for statehood--control and conservation of the salmon resource--was enshrined in the Alaska constitution Article VIII, Section 1 and Section 4. Section 1 states that it is the policy of the State of Alaska "to encourage the settlement of its land and the development of its resources by making them available for maximum use consistent with the public interest." Section 4 states that renewable resources "shall be utilized, developed and maintained on the sustained yield principle." This maxim is the basis for subsequent statutory authority to the executive branch agencies.

As the five commissioners chided the Governor, " when the first Alaska Legislature passed statutes that define the basic responsibilities of state agencies, it agreed that habitat protection was best served as part of ADF&G's mandate to protect and manage fish and wildlife. This issue was debated again in 1989 when Alaska revised its Forest Practices Act. Again, the Legislature saw the wisdom in retaining ADF&G's authority to protect fish streams under the Anadromous Fish Act and the Alaska Fishways Act."

Apparently, Governor Murkowski is not persuaded by the logic and experience of the past 50 years. Instead, the governor listens to industry, particularly the timber industry, decreeing that Fish and Game habitat authority is the major impediment to doing business in Alaska. Indeed, habitat authority consolidation and permit streamlining was the timber industry' idea in the first place. Siding with industry, the governor cites several "legitimate" projects--a hydro electric plant, a high-voltage transmission line, a highway interchange, a golf course--that have been unnecessarily delayed by what he considers the vagaries endemic to the ADF&G habitat-permitting process.

Murkowski not only finds fault in the permitting process itself, but also accuses habitat biologists of doing the bidding of obstructionist environmentalists. Yet, aside from his anecdotes and accusations, the governor has provided no other information and analysis to justify his decision. Nonetheless, the Governor assures everyone that merely transferring Fish and Game permitting and habitat functions to DNR will streamline the permitting process, ostensibly eliminating all project delays. He is certain that this will spur economic development without reducing environmental protections for fish and wildlife. Can this be so? Will the transfer to DNR really streamline permitting, protect the environment, and speed economic development?

Permitting Streamlined? If a permit-processing competition were held today between ADF&G and DNR, DNR would lose hands down. In 2002, ADF&G permitters processed about 2000 fish-passage permits; each permit averaging 14 days; with only 9 permits were denied. (This doesn't include scores of other habitat appraisals by ADF&G for the coastal zone management program, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Forest Practices Act, etc.). Meanwhile, DNR had a backlog of about 700 water rights applications - some having been in the queue for 20 years - and another 2000 miscellaneous applications yet to be processed. Moreover, in an attempt to deal with the backlog DNR had adopted a permitting scheme that the state court found to be illegal. Then, on top of this backlog, DNR will be required do ADF&G's job with less staff because the Governor has promised to reduce costs. This is a recipe for failure. This is permit-gutting not streamlining.

Environment Protected? Even under Department of Fish and Game management, habitat permitting has not always prevented harm to fish and habitat, particularly from bad roads and culverts. For instance, one timber company claims to have installed up to 3,000 culverts without a permit, and there are undoubtedly a number of illegal culverts on other private roads. Moreover, even those culverts and other structures that have been permitted are often not inspected for compliance with permit stipulations, and where violations have been found, enforcement is rare. Under DNR's watch, permitting is sure to be more form than substance. Streamlined permitting does not bode well. For instance, in the Tongass National Forest, where logging roads have been permitted under a streamlined, federal process, roads slough into streams and nearly 70% of all culverts impede or block fish passage.

Economy Spurred? Ostensibly the Governor's plan would improve the profitability of industry, especially that of the timber industry. Yet, if this profitability were to come at the expense of fish and long-term habitat productivity, it would be an affront to Alaskans. Presumably, the constitutional mandate for sustained yield means it is not permissible to maximize the yield of one resource (such as trees) by reducing the yield of another resource (such as fish)--robbing Peter to pay Paul. Such a parasitic transaction, where a few benefit at the expense of many, is not economic development. Economic development means many gain and society suffers no net losses. Why risk a future where an even higher percentage of salmon will be conceived in plastic hatchery buckets to compensate for lost habitat (now 30% of Alaska's salmon are hatchery-produced)? Why risk Alaska's fishery and habitat management reputation, further undermining the case for developing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and jeopardizing certification of the Alaska salmon fishery by the Marine Stewardship Council?

In other states where permitting has been consolidated into one agency, environmental protection has suffered because the process makes it easier for business interests to exercise influence and prevail. Hence, the head of the Alaska Forest Association is thrilled with the governor's decision to give DNR unprecedented power saying "the governor's plan to streamline can only make things better for the timber industry." The truth is that good habitat makes good business sense and taking biologists out of the habitat protection decisions is like health care managers taking doctors out of medical decisions.

The truth further is that the role of Habitat and Restoration Division has been to find ways to mitigate impacts to fish and wildlife, not to block legitimate projects. Even at that, the Habitat and Restoration Division has always lacked the authority and funding to ensure comprehensive watershed protection, because habitat biologists have no control over activities outside of the stream and riparian zone. Moreover, there has never been adequate funding for compliance monitoring and enforcement to protect wild fish populations. In practice, in its day-to-day work Alaska's Board of Fisheries and Department of Fish and Game have emphasized harvest and allocation among users over habitat and wild salmon biodiversity. This emphasis is exemplified by Alaska's salmon-ranching, hatchery program--the largest in North America--supplying the commercial fisheries. Alaska has been heading down the same debilitating path as the Pacific Northwest. Now, unless the legislature acts, it will be just going down that path even faster.

The legislature ought not approve the executive order, and should instead authorize a comprehensive audit of the strengths and weaknesses of all state environmental permitting and oversight functions. At a minimum, this would ensure the public an opportunity to comment. Because Alaska's wild fish and pristine habitats are a national treasure, anglers all over America, indeed from all over the world, have much at stake in the policies and programs of Alaska state government. The State of Alaska always welcomes business from out-of-state anglers; comments about how the State can best serve anglers should also be welcome! So please urge the legislature to vote to disapprove Executive Order No. 107 as bad for fish, bad for wildlife, bad for habitat.

Send comments as soon as possible to:

Governor Frank Murkowski, P.O. Box 11001, Juneau, AK 99811-0001. (Governor Murkowski does not make his email address available to the public. Please write him at the physical address provided, or better yet, call his office at 907-465-3500)

Senator Scott Ogan, Chair, Resources Committee, State Capitol, Room 103, Juneau, AK 99801-1182.

Senator Kim Elton, Resources Committee, State Capitol, Room 115, Juneau, AK 99801-1182.

Representative Hugh Fate, Chair, Resources Committee, State Capitol, Room 128, Juneau, AK 99801-1182.

Representative Paul Seaton, Chair Fisheries Committee, State Capitol, Room 428, Juneau, AK 99801-1182.