Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/25/1994 08:15 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 25, 1994
8:15 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Williams, Chairman
Representative Bill Hudson, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Pat Carney
Representative John Davies
Representative David Finkelstein
Representative Joe Green
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Eldon Mulder
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HB 498 "An Act providing for exploration incentive
credits for activities involving locatable and
leasable minerals and coal deposits on certain
land in the state; and providing for an effective
date."
ADOPTED AND MOVED CSHB 498(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS
*HB 443 "An Act relating to the confidentiality of certain
records relating to fish and wildlife; and
providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
HJR 61 Relating to the Western Alaska Community
Development Quota Program and the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council Comprehensive
Rationalization Program.
MOVED HJR 61 OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH INDIVIDUAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD FOSTER
State Capitol, Room 410
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-3789
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor of HB 498
JERRY GALLAGHER, Director
Division of Mining
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 107005
Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7005
Phone: 762-2692
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 498
DAVID ROGERS, Representative
Council of Alaska Producers
P.O. Box 33932
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Phone: 586-1107
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions
STEVE BORELL, Executive Director
Alaska Miners Association, Inc.
501 W. Northern Lights Blvd., Ste. 203
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Phone: 276-0347
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 498
CARL MEYER, Chief of Appeals
Income and Excise Audit Division
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110420
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0420
Phone: 465-2343
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions
WAYNE REGELIN, Deputy Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Phone: 465-4190
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 443
DR. GORDON HABER
P.O. Box 64
Denali Park, Alaska 99755
Phone: None Given
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 443
KAREN BRAND, Aide
Representative Carl Moses
State Capitol, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4451
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave sponsor statement on HJR 61
RICK LAUBER, Chairman
North Pacific Fisheries Management Council
321 Highland Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 586-6366
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 61
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 498
SHORT TITLE: MINERAL EXPLORATION INCENTIVE CREDITS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) FOSTER,MacLean
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/14/94 2381 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/14/94 2381 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
03/12/94 (H) MINUTE(ECO)
03/12/94 (H) MINUTE(ECO)
03/25/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 443
SHORT TITLE: FISH & WILDLIFE CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/04/94 2259 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/04/94 2259 (H) RESOURCES
02/04/94 2259 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G) 2/4/94
02/04/94 2259 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/23/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
03/23/94 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/25/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 61
SHORT TITLE: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FISHING QUOTAS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF HOUSE ECONOMIC TASK FORCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/09/94 2682 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/09/94 2682 (H) FSH, RESOURCES
03/16/94 2832 (H) FSH RPT 2DP 1NR
03/16/94 2833 (H) DP: MOSES, DAVIDSON
03/16/94 2833 (H) NR: OLBERG
03/16/94 2833 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (H.FSH/F&G)
3/16/94
03/16/94 (H) FSH AT 08:30 AM CAPITOL 17
03/16/94 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/25/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-41, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by
Chairman Bill Williams at 8:27 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Williams, Hudson, Bunde,
Carney, Finkelstein, and Green. Members absent were
Representatives Davies, James and Mulder.
CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS announced there is a quorum present.
HB 498 - Mineral Exploration Incentive Credits
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD FOSTER, PRIME SPONSOR, stated HB 498
provides for exploration credits up to 50 percent of the
qualified exploration expenditures to offset state royalty
payments. He said he introduced this bill because most of
the exploration moneys now within the United States (U.S.)
are going overseas and he felt without an incentive, the
state will not be able to provide the jobs and economies
within the state. He said HB 498 will help give an
incentive to larger companies to spend their money in the
state.
Number 031
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE asked if there are specific
projects which HB 498 might address.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER replied the bill is more for
preparation. He said many of the larger companies have
always been present throughout the state because of the
tremendous mineral resources present.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE wondered if HB 498 will encourage
development.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER responded it will. He pointed out the
state has the most massive untapped coal deposits left in
the U.S. He said there are many poverty stricken people
living in western Alaska and a development such as a coal
deposit, in conjunction with the Red Dog, will provide an
economy which will replace some of the state services
currently in demand.
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE
DAVIES joined the committee at 8:30 p.m.)
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 498(RES).
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
Number 064
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN recalled a constitutional
issue a few years ago regarding required lease payments,
where the state could not have a system which did not have
lease payments. He thought applying credits to lease
payments might result in a situation where the state is in
violation of the Constitution again.
JERRY GALLAGHER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MINING, DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR), responded that Representative
Finkelstein is referring to the 6(i) litigation. He said
the Supreme Court of Alaska found that the state was
required under Section 6(i) to produce a cash income from
the disposition of its minerals. The Supreme Court stated
specifically that the state is required to have a cash rent
and/or royalty. He stated DNR does not believe HB 498
conflicts with 6(i) because currently there is a cash rent
and royalty on minerals. HB 498 does not affect the
production of cash through rental. He said DNR supports HB
498.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN noted the fiscal note analysis says
HB 498 is retroactive to January 1, 1994, and asked if that
is still DNR's intent.
MR. GALLAGHER responded HB 498 is retroactive. DNR views HB
498 as looking forward for about 15 years. He said it is
important to recognize as stated on page 3, lines 4-6, the
credits are specific to an individual site. If a company or
individual explores a site and puts that site into
production, then during that 15 year period, there can be a
credit back against the royalty or taxes. He noted DNR does
not have a problem with the retroactive date.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there is a reason for the
retroactive date.
MR. GALLAGHER responded he did not know of a specific reason
or project.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referring to page 2, line 31 and page
3, lines 1-6, clarified that subsections (1) and (2) are
necessary because in one instance the credits are for taxes
incurred from production of a site and the other is if
nothing is found and money has been expended, there will be
an incentive for those dollars.
Number 126
MR. GALLAGHER stated the credit is received at the site if
it goes into production.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified subsection (1) applies to
production and (2)...
DAVID ROGERS, REPRESENTATIVE, COUNCIL OF ALASKA PRODUCERS,
stated the subsections being referred to say a company or
individual can take the lesser of 50 percent of exploration
costs as defined in HB 498 or 50 percent of the combined tax
royalty obligation, whichever is less.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern, in regard to page 4,
line 27, "When authorized by AS 27.30.010, the commissioner
shall allow...", about the word "shall".
MR. ROGERS said the intent is to say a company or individual
is entitled to the credit if the requirements of the law are
met. He stated this is a conforming amendment to the tax
and royalty law.
Number 159
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON clarified HB 498 is an option to
the explorer.
MR. ROGERS said that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON clarified if an explorer applies, the
commissioner must grant an incentive credit and HB 498 says
the lesser of, meaning the credit can be 50 percent to 100
percent.
MR. ROGERS responded the limit is 50 percent. He said the
credit is 50 percent of costs or 50 percent of taxes and
royalty payments, whichever is less.
Number 180
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked how HB 498 will apply to
nonstate land.
MR. ROGERS said HB 498 will apply the same way to nonstate
land.
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE
MULDER joined the committee at 8:35 a.m.)
Number 187
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he did not understand how HB
498 will apply to nonstate lands.
MR. ROGERS responded if a mining company explores nonstate
lands and pays taxes, the company can use the credit against
its taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked in situations where
nonstate land is involved, is there a problem in having
enough of a relationship to know whether or not the
exploration is actually being done.
MR. GALLAGHER responded it is not a problem because there is
a provision on page 2, beginning on line 13, which says data
needs to be provided to the department as one of the
requirements to grant the credits and added subsection (d),
says after 36 months, the department will make that data
available to the public. Therefore, the state is receiving
something of real value and the public eventually will also.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN clarified the credits can only be
applied to a mining company's successor and cannot be
transferred.
MR. ROGERS responded that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN clarified the applicant's
successor in interest is an entity who completely buys out
another entity.
MR. ROGERS said that is correct.
Number 221
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES clarified that land the state
grants to municipalities where the state reserves mineral
rights is considered state land for these purposes.
MR. GALLAGHER responded yes and stated those are still
state-owned minerals and a state royalty is still paid.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if HB 498 applies to any
exploration.
MR. ROGERS said the bill does.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if a mining company explores on
land next to their present claim, will the credits apply.
MR. ROGERS responded it has to be within the area. He said
on page 3, lines 2 and 3, and lines 5 and 6, it states "on
the parcel or site on which the exploration activity
occurred." If a large area is involved and the activity
occurred within that area and turned into a producing mine,
the credit can be taken against income from the producing
mine.
MR. ROGERS clarified Representative Green's concern is where
there is an existing mine in operation, the entity goes to
adjacent land, explores, and tries to take that credit
against the income stream from the adjacent mine.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that is correct.
MR. ROGERS said that is not the intent, but perhaps one
could read it that way.
MR. GALLAGHER said DNR recognizes that concern. He pointed
out in the mining license tax statute and regulations, there
is a provision which says new operations receive a 3 1/2
year exemption from the mining license tax. He stated there
is concern that as existing mines expand, a company might
say this is not an expansion of the old mine, but rather
this is a new mine enabling a 3 1/2 year exemption. He
pointed out there are a whole series of regulations in the
Department of Revenue's mining license tax provisions which
define old mines and new mines. When regulations are
established if and when HB 498 is implemented, that issue
will need to be addressed.
Number 278
STEVE BORELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION
(AMA), testified via teleconference and said AMA supports
CSHB 498(RES). He stated changes made in the CS will
provide clarification of terms and add restrictions to the
applicability of the bill. For example, the definition of
geochemical methods has been changed in the CS with the
replacement of the term ore samples, with the new phrase,
soil rock vegetation and similar samples. He stated the
term ore in the mining industry, by definition, refers to
material that cannot be mined and produced at a profit.
However, the geochemical sampling foreseen in HB 498 will
occur during the earliest phases of exploration--long before
it is known if there is a mineral deposit actually there.
MR. BORELL stated the CS also clarifies that credits are for
a specific site where the exploration occurs and can be
transferred to a successor in interest for that site. He
said the ability to transfer this credit to a future
potential owner is essential. Projects often transfer hands
before the ultimate mining operation takes place. The
change made in the CS is more restrictive than the original
bill but it appears to be a reasonable change. He pointed
out the CS clarifies that only direct costs for exploration
work qualify and overhead, depreciation, etc., do not.
MR. BORELL said AMA feels HB 498 is an important bill and
will help encourage both the small prospector and the large
international mining companies to vest in the state. He
noted that HB 498 comes at an important time because there
is a mass exodus of exploration funds away from federal
lands throughout the western U.S. due primarily to the
increasingly, oppressive regulatory climate in the U.S. for
all development and efforts to change the federal mining
law. He stressed Alaska cannot change many of those factors
but HB 498 can provide an incentive to encourage vestment in
the state.
MR. BORELL commented that HB 498 will send a positive
message to the mining industry that Alaska is seeking to
improve its investment climate and provide one more
indication the state is working to encourage mineral
development. He said HB 498 could not come at a more
important time and gave examples of other countries
encouraging mineral investments.
Number 362
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated he has an idea which perhaps
will enhance HB 498. He said on page 3, line 23, where it
indicates eligible costs "includes direct labor costs,
including the cost of benefits, for employees...",
specifically in regard to direct labor costs, he wondered if
another subsection could be added which would say "allowable
direct labor costs under (A) above may receive a 10 percent
credit factor for every Alaska resident employed and used in
the work described in AS 27.30.010(a)(1)". He inquired if
there would be any desire for an allowable deduction for
direct labor costs, as an incentive to hire more Alaska
residents.
MR. BORELL stated a deduction would provide an additional
incentive. He said there are two categories of people who
work for mining companies; the very highly technical
qualified people a company will either have in state or will
bring in from outside and the other work will be performed
by people who are hired locally. The idea which
Representative Hudson described will not change those
categories of people but will provide additional
encouragement to hire locally. He could think of no
downside to the suggestion.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated the idea is a good one, but
wondered about criteria proving Alaska residency and
possible constitutional problems.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the issue Representative
Bunde brought up is already addressed as the Department of
Labor has developed techniques to differentiate between
residents and nonresidents. He stated while it is true a
person can come up and become a resident, they have to give
up their residence in another state and state they are
taking up residency in Alaska. He pointed out that many of
the jobs being discussed are time on, time off type jobs.
He felt the suggested idea is a good one and noted someone
from the Department of Law will need to address the
constitutionality of it.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated the most important element is
that a person has to declare they are a resident of Alaska
and no other state; there is a minimum of 30 days residency;
and there is a requirement of other indicia of proof that
they are a resident of Alaska such as a drivers license,
voter registration, etc. He did not believe it will be
difficult for DNR, with the Department of Law's assistance,
to define in regulations what a resident is.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt the idea will not have a
constitutional problem because the constitutional problem
relates to restricting people's right to travel within the
country. He said what was attempted to impose on the oil
fields was the restriction that a person cannot work in
certain circumstances which limited someone's right. With
this idea, no one's rights are being limited.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON added that the state gives a five
percent credit for in-state purchases, etc. He felt the
idea might be quite constructive.
Number 473
MR. ROGERS felt the concept is good as long as it can be
done technically and is constitutional.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked what the bill sponsor thought of
the idea.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER responded he has no objection.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a MOTION to CONCEPTUALLY AMEND
CSHB 498(RES) adding the language, "allowable direct labor
costs under (A) above may receive a 10 percent credit for
every Alaska resident employed and used in the work
described in AS 27.30.010(a)(1).
MR. ROGERS asked how the 10 percent credit will work.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied the credit will be a factor on
all eligible employment costs. The credit will be elevated
by 10 percent if Alaskans are hired and will increase the
size of an entity's deduction.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said conceptually there is a
problem in what it is going to take to hire Alaskans and
what the threshold to get to 10 percent is. He said another
approach, which will give direct benefit, is to give the
credit for direct labor costs for the employment of
Alaskans.
Number 564
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he thought about a possible
threshold as to the numbers, but he would like to leave it
open. The company will get 10 percent on whatever the
particular labor is, get 10 percent inflation, and there is
an incentive for the companies to put 100 percent in.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN clarified if a company has a work
force of 100 people and 99 of them are not Alaskans, the
company still gets the credit.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied the credit would be received
for one person.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN clarified a portion of the work
force gets the 10 percent.
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE
JAMES joined the committee at 9:07 a.m.)
Number 590
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt the amendment should be even
more conceptual than just the language. When the amendment
is drafted, there may be a need to even change the language.
He felt the intent is clear.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated conceptual is conceptual. The
idea is to provide a 10 percent credit factor for mining
companies who use Alaska residents in this particular
process. How the attorneys decide to accomplish that is up
to them.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the
motion. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
Number 621
CARL MEYER, CHIEF OF APPEALS, INCOME AND EXCISE AUDIT
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (DOR), stated he is present
to answer questions.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted the revenue lost is
indicated to be a range of $0 to $186 million. He wondered
if the revenue lost will actually be somewhere between $0
and $93 million since it is only half.
MR. MEYER said that is correct. The amount of the fiscal
note will be up to $93 million. He thought the fiscal note
had been changed but perhaps not submitted yet.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON thought perhaps the revenue could
conceivably be a positive as opposed to a negative, because
the bill will help create revenue not existing if
exploration was not encouraged through some sort of
incentive.
MR. MEYER responded that is possible, but not likely.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON pointed out if a company does not do
anything, the state gets nothing but if a company puts money
into something through the incentives being provided and
something is found, the state gets half of what is found.
Number 680
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the potential for that type
of pay off is not reflected in the fiscal note because it is
way off in the future. He pointed out it is unlikely the
state will lose much money in the immediate future for the
same reason because exploration activities are involved. He
clarified that the Red Dog mine is only going to get credits
for new exploration they have done since the effective date
of HB 498 which is January 1, 1994, resulting in no
significant reduction in an entity which is already in
production.
MR. MEYER responded he was not sure. He said the credit is
determined by the Department of Natural Resources and DOR
will apply the credit once it is determined.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES recalled it was mentioned earlier
there are currently DOR regulations which distinguish
between new and old mines and asked Mr. Meyer to comment on
those regulations.
MR. MEYER said he is not familiar with those regulations.
He stated DOR does have a provision which provides that new
mining operations are exempt from tax for 2 1/2 years.
There are questions as to what is a new mining operations
and there have been cases before the DOR.
TAPE 94-41, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. MEYER did not feel those regulations will apply to HB
498.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES thought the concepts in DOR's
definitions of what is a new mine versus an old mine will be
taken by DNR and rewritten into DNR regulations. He asked
Mr. Meyer if the DOR concepts work.
MR. MEYER replied he cannot answer the question.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN clarified that a company in
existing production, the only effect on their royalty
payments is if they have started associated exploration
since January 1, 1994. Otherwise, there will be no
reduction.
Number 025
MR. GALLAGHER responded the mining business has three
fundamental phases: exploration, development, and
production. He stressed HB 498 applies to exploration. On
page 3, line 21, it says, "direct support of exploration
activities." He felt development drilling around existing
mines will not qualify as a deduction. He said HB 498 only
applies to new properties not currently in production.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said with the oil incentive credits,
the costs are approved by the commissioner as being
applicable under the exploration idea. He noted HB 498 does
not have that provision and asked if the bill did, would it
avoid any problems in the future or will DNR regulations
handle the problem adequately.
MR. GALLAGHER felt DNR's regulations will address the
problem. He pointed out there is a big difference between
the two programs.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to MOVE CSHB 498(RES) as
conceptually amended, with revised fiscal note, out of
committee with INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
Number 067
HB 443 - Fish & Wildlife Confidential Records
WAYNE REGELIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (ADF&G),
stated HB 443 addresses the confidentiality of radio
frequencies and a few other types of information ADF&G feels
should remain confidential. ADF&G has routinely radio
collared many different animals for research and management
purposes since the mid-1970s and this information has always
remained confidential. He said at the request of ADF&G, the
confidentiality requirement was put into regulation by the
Board of Game in 1986 because tourist companies were wanting
to use ADF&G's radio frequencies for flight seeing. In
1990, the legislature revised the confidentiality statutes
throughout most departments. At that time, ADF&G asked the
legislature to add an amendment to ensure the continued
confidentiality of radio frequency information and the
legislature did so.
MR. REGELIN stated when that change was made, wording was
added saying the department shall keep information
confidential when the knowledge may be detrimental to the
fish and wildlife population. ADF&G did not realize the
wording was a problem until the department was sued in the
summer of 1993 for refusing to release radio frequency
information to an individual wishing to track radio collared
wolves. ADF&G was required by a court order to release the
information because the department could not prove that the
information would be detrimental to the population. It
might have been detrimental to the individual animals, but
not to the population. He stressed it would be nearly
impossible to ever prove a population detriment because only
a few animals are collared at one time. He said even death
to those few animals would not hurt the population.
MR. REGELIN explained ADF&G is requesting, through HB 443,
that those words be removed so ADF&G will not have to
provide that proof. He said HB 443 will also add another
section allowing the department to keep specific locations
of animal capture sites for wildlife research or management
confidential. The department currently has a request, under
the Public Records Act, for all locations of traps and
snares used in ground based wolf control operation south of
Fairbanks. The request asks for the exact locations of
where the department sets each trap. He stressed the
department believes it is in the state's best interest and
essential for good wildlife management to keep the radio
frequencies and trap locations confidential.
Number 112
MR. REGELIN said ADF&G feels if the department is required
to release this information, it may compromise some of the
department's studies because animals might be removed or
displaced, altering their behavior. ADF&G feels the release
of information might lead to the disturbance of sensitive
locations such as den sites. ADF&G believes the information
could be used to facilitate harassment of the department's
research and management programs by individuals and
organizations who oppose them. ADF&G feels the information
could also lead to increased vulnerability of the animals
and associated animals for unethical people to get the radio
frequencies and use them for hunting.
MR. REGELIN stated another change which ADF&G recommends is
that words be added allowing the release of the information,
if the requestor is under contract with the state to conduct
research. This provision will allow the department to
cooperate on projects with researchers, private consultants,
etc., where the research is mutually beneficial to everyone
involved. He pointed out that in all other states he is
aware of, this kind of radio frequency information and
specific locations are kept confidential. He added that
federal agencies like the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Park Service also keep this information
confidential.
MR. REGELIN said the individual who received ADF&G's radio
frequencies under court order, also requested frequencies
from the National Park Service but was denied because
federal laws are more strict. He stated ADF&G is not saying
that no other agency, organization, or individual should be
allowed to conduct wildlife research on radio collared
animals. He noted federal agencies, such as the National
Park Service, routinely put on collars and often work
cooperatively with ADF&G and in doing this, they do so under
a permit from ADF&G. He explained consulting firms are also
allowed to put their own radio collars on under a permit
received from ADF&G. HB 443 will leave that decision up to
the discretion of the commissioner in entering for
cooperative agreement, if the agreement is in the best
interest of the state. He stated in most cases it is in the
best interest of the state to work with other groups and
organizations to share costs, funding, and work together.
ADF&G does that routinely with a wide number of people and
universities throughout the country. He said ADF&G does so
with almost anyone who has scientific credibility.
Number 159
MR. REGELIN stated HB 443 will not change the department's
obligation to provide information to the public about
ongoing activities. ADF&G routinely provides summary
information on almost all ongoing department activities and
also provides great detail of the department's information
when requested. For example, on the department's wolf
control program, ADF&G has provided the Alaska Wildlife
Alliance and other people, information on all of the costs,
biological information, etc. He stressed what ADF&G has not
given out is the exact locations of where every trap is set.
The department has given out maps indicating the traps are
within a certain zone, and informing them the exact
locations will be given once the trapping season has ended.
MR. REGELIN noted there had been discussions with several
people in the House and Senate asking ADF&G to offer an
amendment. He said the amendment will provide additional
flexibility for the commissioner. On page 2, line 2, of HB
443 the amendment will insert "if the requestor has been
authorized by the department to perform specific activities
and the requestor agrees to use this information only for
purposes as provided under the contractor agreement." He
explained the reason for the amendment is ADF&G does not
want to be, by law, not able to cooperate with someone, such
as people making a wildlife film, where it would be to the
state's advantage to produce a good wildlife film. This
amendment will allow that to be done.
Number 201
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he is confused about HB 443
because there is a court order contained in each member's
packet and the court decision stated the department was not
required to give any information to the plaintiff
organizations. He pointed out that one individual did get
the information, but that individual was ordered not to
release the information to any of the individuals and
organizations who were the plaintiffs. He felt it is clear
that the state succeeded, the current law has achieved the
balance the state wanted and the court went even further and
he explained the authority the state has. He thought the
court order has given the department the power already and
he did not understand what needs to be fixed.
MR. REGELIN responded the standard of proof used by the
judge was the department could not demonstrate a detriment
to the fish or wildlife population. At ADF&G's request, the
judge put in the confidential language. He said ADF&G
remains concerned that a precedent has been set and the
department will not be able to prove, if a flight seer wants
to fly 100 planes a day over wildlife wearing radio collars,
that it is detrimental to the population.
MR. REGELIN added ADF&G currently has two requests from
flight seers which the department has not acted on. He
stressed the issue is broader than just the one individual
who sued the department. ADF&G is concerned that a
precedent has been set and if the department has to release
the information, the next judge may not include the
confidentiality clause. HB 443 will solve the department's
problem. He stated if an individual is contracted with a
group of people who the department feels are beneficial to
cooperate with and work with, the department will try and
work with that individual.
Number 257
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN clarified Mr. Regelin had said
the court imposed a burden on the department to show
detriment to the fish and wildlife population. He asked
where that is indicated in the court order.
MR. REGELIN said he listened to the judge and when making
his decision, that was the standard. He thought the
Department of Law would need to explain the court order.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt there is no problem in
interpreting the court order. He thought ADF&G probably has
read the court order many times because it is the basis for
interpreting the current law.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON felt HB 443 is attempting to avoid
future court determinations and to clearly stipulate what
the department's needs are in law so as to preclude someone
from going to a judge to make a determination. He said
because there is a judge's decision outlining the parameters
in the bill, it makes it easier to have it in the statutes.
Number 395
DR. GORDON HABER, DENALI PARK, testified via teleconference
and stated HB 443 was written by the state directly and is
solely in response to an action he took. He clarified the
state has given internal memos and other materials directed
at him to committee members. He stated HB 443, even with
the proposed amendment, will make it impossible for any
valid scientific research to be conducted on radio collared
animals except by another agency or under ADF&G contract.
He noted that the person under contract will have to be
someone the department feels comfortable with, meaning any
project conducted will be under strict ADF&G control.
DR. HABER pointed out that in June, a Superior Court judge
listened to all ADF&G arguments and all of his, and did so
on a level playing field. After hearing testimony, the
judge awarded the ADF&G radio frequencies to him to allow
him to conduct research, which the judge considered would
contribute significantly to the issue of wolf control. He
said in the order, the judge pointed out that the state had
not challenged his credentials as a scientist and concluded
that the state's arguments to the effect that this decision
would set a precedent and open the flood gate for harm to
the wildlife populations were unfounded. The judge
determined the ADF&G commissioner already has adequate
regulatory permitting authority to preclude that
possibility. He pointed out there has been no indication
yet of any onrush of people seeking the radio collar
frequencies.
DR. HABER said the judge made it very clear in his order
that he or anybody else is forbidden to use the frequencies
for anything but scientific research. He felt there is no
additional protection for radio collared wildlife under HB
443 not already existing in present statute and the
commissioner's existing regulatory permitting authority.
Mr. Haber stressed the only effect HB 443 will have is to
suppress the kind of scientific research he is conducting as
an independent scientist, not under any ADF&G's direct
control; the kind of independent research he felt will be
welcomed by the legislature because the research ensures the
broadest possible information base and serves as a check
against biased, self-serving interpretations which might be
presented by either side in a complex controversial issue of
public policy.
Number 353
DR. HABER commented that ADF&G has already argued that
opponents to its wolf control programs do not have the data
to support their arguments. He pointed out that existing
statute allows opponents, through qualified scientists, to
gather information independently and go to the Board of Game
with the data to make their best arguments. Closing the
opportunity for independent information to be collected will
leave opponents of controversial programs, like wolf
control, with only one alternative and that is a boycott.
Mr. Haber said based on the research he has been doing in
and near the current and recently proposed wolf control
areas, with the aid of the frequencies, he has already been
able to generate several major technical reports.
DR. HABER noted that ADF&G has received several of his
reports and will be receiving more. The reports are
available to anyone who requests them. He said the reports
represent over $100,000 of research he has conducted since
April. He felt the information received from his research
is a bargain for the state as none of the money used to
conduct the research is state money. He stated the results
he has collected thus far represent a different
interpretation than what ADF&G has provided to Alaskans.
For example, his research indicates the moose population in
game management 20-A south of Fairbanks, is almost certainly
past its most productive size presently, where maximum
sustainable harvest for hunters could be derived.
(Indiscernible) wolves as the state is trying to do now
(indiscernible) will increase further through a range of
densities where recruitment and sustainable yields will
continue to decrease which is somewhat self-defeating since
the objective in 20-A is to increase hunting opportunities.
He gave other examples.
Number 399
DR. HABER stated the material which ADF&G has given to
committee members paints him as a wildlife greenie. He
reminded committee members that the judge in his court order
emphasized ADF&G did not challenge his scientific
credentials. He explained he has a Ph.D and Masters Degree
based on management oriented wolf/bear research which he has
been doing for 29 years. He has several technical
publications. He is a permanent resident of game management
area 20-A where wolf control is being carried out. Local
resident there strongly support his efforts.
DR. HABER said the People magazine article clearly defines
what he thinks about the current wolf control program,
although it does not say much about his technical arguments.
He pointed out that contrary to the picture which ADF&G is
trying to paint, he does not oppose wolf control across the
board which can be seen if his technical publications are
read. He stated back in the 1970s when the western Arctic
caribou herd crashed in Northwestern Alaska, he was one of
the strongest supporters and defenders of wolf control in
that case.
DR. HABER stated some of his support has come from
environmental organizations, but ADF&G has not mentioned he
has also received grants from the opposite side. He has
received grants in the past from the National Rifle
Association and the Boone and Crockett Club. He noted he is
currently a member of the National Rifle Association and a
member of the Alaska Outdoor Council.
Number 467
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated it appears Mr. Haber's
testimony is going to be lengthy and there will be
additional questions. He suggested to Chairman Williams
that HB 443 be moved to the bottom of the calendar and allow
the committee to hear HJR 61 which will be fairly
expeditious.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if there will be enough time for
Mr. Haber to complete his testimony.
MR. HABER said he only wants to comment on the memos which
ADF&G included in committee member's folders. He felt the
memos are relevant because they have implied he has created
major disturbances in the wolf population.
MR. HABER continued in regard to the memo from Mr. Regelin
to Mr. Kelleyhouse and the memo from Mr. Boertje to Mr.
Regelin, it is clear to him that the department is
attempting to imply that having been forced to release the
radio collar frequencies, there has been disruption to the
wolf populations where the radio collared wolves are
located. He stressed that is untrue. He said he has
conducted two major surveys in that area since the survey
Mr. Boertje is referring to in his January 24 memo and has
not seen what is described in that memo. Mr. Haber,
referring to a photograph which he took of one of the radio
collared packs, which was published in the Fairbanks Daily
News and is in committee member's folders, asked committee
members to look at the photograph and determine if there is
even the slightest hint those wolves in any manner were
responding to the aircraft. He gave other examples of
photographs taken which do not indicate any disturbance.
Number 537
MR. HABER stated since he has received the frequencies from
the state, he has been monitoring 21 radio collared wolf
packs. Upon thinking about how many of the wolves have
reacted to his airplane in any kind of significant way, he
can only recall about six cases where wolves responded. He
added the response is usually very brief. In four of those
six cases, the response was usually after the department had
flown over. He stressed if there is any evidence of
disturbance, the overwhelming evidence indicates that the
department is disturbing the wolves. He said there really
is no evidence of widespread disturbances as ADF&G is trying
to imply. Mr. Haber commented in the memo from Mr. Boertje
to Mr. Regelin, in regard to wolves being afraid of
helicopters, the last survey he flew was two months prior to
the mid-January survey.
MR. HABER concluded that by only seeing the People magazine
article, and being denied the opportunity to read the other
technical publications he has written, committee members are
being presented a slanted, inaccurate picture as to Mr.
Haber's effect on the wolves. He urged committee members to
not pass HB 443.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced HB 443 will be held. He said it
is his understanding that the department is trying to work
with Mr. Haber to get his questions and concerns taken care
of. He told committee members they will take up HB 443
again if there is time remaining after the next bill is
heard.
Number 611
HJR 61 - Community Development Fishing Quotas
KAREN BRAND, AIDE, REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES, stated
committee members have a copy of the January 1994 newsletter
from the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council in their
folders which contains background for HJR 61. She said HJR
61 first outlines some of the facts relative to the Western
Alaska Community Development Quotas (CDQ) groups and then
addressed the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council's
comprehensive rationalization plan for groundfish and crab.
HJR 61 requests the council to allocate groundfish and crab
to the Western Alaska CDQ groups under any comprehensive
plan which the council will develop in the future.
MS. BRAND pointed out HJR 61 asks that fairness and equity
be exercised by the council towards the CDQ groups. The CDQ
groups have already received sablefish and halibut shares
through the Individual Fishing Quota program currently being
administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service. She
stated the further addition of groundfish and crab will
complete the allocated procedure under current consideration
of the fishery resources for the CDQ groups. She noted that
Representative Moses respectfully requests the committee to
consider HJR 61.
Number 659
RICK LAUBER, CHAIRMAN, NORTH PACIFIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
COUNCIL (NPFMC), stated the council currently has under
consideration the comprehensive rationalization plan which
will include an individual fishing quota consideration as
well as vessel licensing and other means of rationalizing
the fishery. He said with the options under discussion,
CDQs are included as an alternative for consideration by the
council. He felt among the Alaska delegation, there is
strong support for the CDQ program, regardless of the type
of program put in place. He noted at the January meeting,
NPFMC decided to move ahead with a vessel licensing program.
The vessel licensing program has a provision which will set
aside various percentages for community development
programs. He felt HJR 61 is appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to MOVE HJR 61 with zero
fiscal note out of committee with INDIVIDUAL
RECOMMENDATIONS.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
TAPE 94-42, SIDE A
Number 000
HB 443 - Fish & Wildlife Confidential Records
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated he would like to amend HB 443 and
get suggestions from committee members.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to AMEND HB 443 on page
1, line 14: delete the word "or" and on page 2, line 2,
insert ", or if the requestor has been authorized by the
department to perform specific activities, and the requestor
agrees to use the information only for purposes as provided
under contract or agreement."
Number 020
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he cannot determine the
relationship of the amendment to the concerns being
expressed by Dr. Haber.
DR. HABER stated there is a problem because the amendment
still says that research will not happen if the department
decides not to give him a contract. He pointed out that he
made a request for the radio collar frequencies before he
went to court, laid out a research plan, and wrote a letter
to the ADF&G commissioner several months before and he was
flatly denied. He felt the amendment will still leave it
under the control of the department, precluding independent
research.
Number 040
MR. REGELIN stated ADF&G has some of the best experts in the
world on collecting biological data on wolf populations and
the department stands by what has been done and what has
been published. He said ADF&G did not challenge Mr. Haber's
credibility in court because the department did not feel it
was pertinent. He pointed out that for decades, standard
scientists have used the number and quality of peer review
publications in scientific journals to ascertain a
scientists credibility. He commented an examination of the
publications record of Mr. Haber will show he has not
published in any peer review journals.
MR. REGELIN stated Mr. Haber has an impressive list of
titles but close examination shows that his publications are
published by the Xerox machines of extreme animal rights
groups. He agreed the amendment will not solve the concerns
and problem which Mr. Haber has because the department will
not issue him a permit if they are not required to. He said
ADF&G wants to work with people they have confidence in and
ensure the people can distinguish between scientific fact
and personal opinion.
Number 068
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if there is any evidence
indicating that any of the information Dr. Haber collected
has been released to anyone the court order said it should
not go to.
MR. REGELIN responded none of the information has been
released. He stated HB 443 is much broader than what is
required for one person. HB 443 will keep the department
from having to provide the exact locations of traps and
snare sets to people during the trapping operation and
providing information in future court orders, making it
clear that the information is confidential and not to be
used for flight seeing, unethical guides, etc.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stressed nothing in the court
order precludes ADF&G from keeping the information out of
people's hands. He felt there is no issue.
MR. REGELIN stated ADF&G's concern is that a precedent has
been set and a certain standard has to be met. The court
order says ADF&G can keep the information confidential but
the next judge can change that order. ADF&G wants to have a
policy established like every other state has and like all
the federal agencies have to keep this type of information
confidential. He stressed ADF&G feels the information needs
to remain confidential for the best interest of the state.
When ADF&G feels it is in the best interest of the state to
release the information, they will do so.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE agreed. He said the more people who
have the information, the potential for the information no
longer being confidential goes up.
Number 075
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the
motion.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN OBJECTED.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a MOTION to AMEND the
AMENDMENT, on page 2, line 2, inserting after the word
"activities", the words "or is conducting scientific
research". He felt the amendment only addresses areas where
someone is working on the side of the department. The
amendment does not change what is already proposed in HB
443. He said whether or not a person is conducting valid
scientific research is the issue. He pointed out the
requestor will still have to agree in writing to whatever
terms the department requires about the information.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the
motion.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON OBJECTED. He clarified the proposed
amendment to the amendment will read, ", or if the requestor
has been authorized by the department to perform specific
activities or to conduct scientific research, and the
requestor..."
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated he wanted the amendment to
the amendment to read "specific activities or is conducting
scientific research, and the requestor..." He pointed out
HB 443 already covers situations where requestors are doing
research in agreement with the department. The issue is
someone who does not agree with the department but is still
an entity in the state conducting valid scientific research.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON clarified that the maker of the
amendment to the amendment is not precluding the conducting
of scientific research from the need to be authorized by the
department under contract or agreement.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he is because that is the
issue being discussed. The department decides they do not
agree with a requestors policies so they do not want to
authorize that particular research, but the department can
make the decision whether or not it is valid scientific
research.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON pointed out that specific activities
can include scientific research or any number of other
things.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN clarified that Representative
Hudson's suggestion is to change the words to "or to
conducting scientific research" and then it would be
authorized by the department.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON clarified the amendment to the
amendment will read, "perform specific activities, or to the
conduct of scientific research and the requestor agrees to
use..." He felt that amplifies scientific research as a
part of the provision but it still indicates the research
will have to be authorized by the department.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the language is becoming
very confusing. He stressed the issue he is trying to
address is somebody who the department does not want to
authorize because that person has a different viewpoint. He
felt the state should not be precluding people just because
they do not have the same viewpoint as the department.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced he will hold HB 443 until a
later date.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN WITHDREW his MOTION.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee will meet on
Monday, March 28 at 8:15 a.m. to hear HB 286 and HB 436.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House
Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting
at 10:12 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|