Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/30/1995 08:02 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
January 30, 1995
8:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Irene Nicholia
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Davies
Representative Eileen MacLean
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Overview by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
HJR 13Endorsing in principle, legislation authorizing oil and
gas leasing, exploration, and development on the coastal
plain within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
provided the legislation does not contain a provision
decreasing this state's royalty.
CSHJR 13 (O&G) PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
WITNESS REGISTER
KEVIN BROOKS, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99811
Phone: 465-4120
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of the division and
answered questions
FRANK RUE, Acting Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99811
Phone: 465-4100
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of the department and
answered questions
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE NAVARRE
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 521
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-3779
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HJR 13
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, Chairman
Oil and Gas Committee
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 110
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-4968
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HJR 13
DAVID VAN DEN BERG, Representative
Northern Alaska Environmental Center
218 Driveway Street
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Phone: 452-5821
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 13
SARA HANNAN, Representative
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Phone: 463-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 13
BEVERLY WARD, Representative
ARCO Alaska
134 N. Franklin
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 586-3680
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 13
GEORGE YASKA, Director of Wildlife
Tanana Chiefs Conference
122 First Avenue
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Phone: 452-8257
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 13
ROBERT BOSWORTH, Director
Division of Subsistence
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone: 465-4147
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on the division and
answered questions
JEFF KOENINGS, Director
Division of Commercial Fisheries Management and Development
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone: 465-4210
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on the division and
answered questions
WAYNE REGELIN, Acting Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone: 465-4190
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on the division and
answered questions
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 13
SHORT TITLE: ENDORSING ANWR LEASING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) NAVARRE, Rokeberg, Grussendorf,
Brown, Davies, Kubina, MacLean, Green, G.Davis
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/16/95 19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 19 (H) O&G, RES, FIN
01/18/95 74 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DAVIES
01/19/95 87 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KUBINA
01/19/95 87 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MACLEAN
01/24/95 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124
01/25/95 127 (H) O&G RPT CS(O&G) NEW TITLE 5DP 1NR
01/25/95 127 (H) DP: BRICE, WILLIAMS, G.DAVIS, B.DAVIS
01/25/95 127 (H) DP: ROKEBERG
01/25/95 127 (H) NR: FINKELSTEIN
01/25/95 127 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR) 1/25/95
01/25/95 127 (H) REFERRED TO RES
01/25/95 135 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
01/26/95 147 (H) COSPONSOR(S): G.DAVIS
01/30/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-5, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by Co-Chairman
Joe Green at 8:02 a.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Green, Austerman, Kott and Ogan. Members absent
were Representatives Williams, Barnes, Davies, MacLean and
Nicholia.
CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN announced since there was not a quorum
present, the order of business would be switched.
Overview by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
KEVIN BROOKS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, ADF&G,
stated the division provides accounting, budget, personnel,
payroll, procurement, etc. and helps other divisions of the
department attain their missions.
MR. BROOKS commented on the commissioner's office. He said the
commissioner of ADF&G is involved in numerous committees including
the Exxon Valdez trustees, the North Pacific Marine Fisheries, the
Pacific Salmon Commission, and a variety of international, internal
and external fishery related issues as well as wildlife issues. He
noted it is critical that the commissioner set management policy
direction for the entire department.
MR. BROOKS explained ADF&G is one of the last departments to still
have an acting commissioner. He said the board process is
currently ongoing to search for a new commissioner. Names will be
submitted to the Governor by the third week of February. He stated
the boards are now reviewing applicant resumes, there will be an
interview process around mid-February and the final list will be
forwarded to the Governor. He pointed out that once a commissioner
is named, it will be easier for the department to move forward in
a more definitive manner.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN felt since there are new members on the House
Resources Committee, the process of naming the ADF&G commissioner
should be explained since the process is somewhat different than
other departments.
Number 080
FRANK RUE, ACTING COMMISSIONER, ADF&G, said the process to select
the commissioner of ADF&G involves the joint boards of fisheries
and game reviewing applicants and then forwarding a list of names
to the Governor. The Governor then selects a permanent
commissioner. He hoped that process would be complete by the end
of February.
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN asked if that is the normal process
used every four years.
MR. RUE replied it is the normal process set up by statute.
MR. RUE explained that he would give a general overview of the
department and then have each of the directors give short overviews
of their division. He said when ADF&G is thought of, one should
think of people because what the department does is benefit people.
ADF&G manages fish and wildlife for people. If people were not
using fish and wildlife, a department would not be necessary. He
noted the state has a large economy based on fish and wildlife,
subsistence use, commercial fisheries, recreational fisheries,
tourism, and many other human uses of fish and wildlife. The ADF&G
is integral to managing those resources for people's benefit and
enjoyment.
MR. RUE stated the concept of what ADF&G does is fairly simple.
First, the department counts what is out there and inventories the
resources. Once it is determined what is out there and what is
available, the department gives the information to the boards of
fisheries and game and they then make allocation decisions. The
department then does in-season management and manages according to
the management plans and regulations passed by the boards. He
explained the third responsibility of the department is to maintain
habitat.
Number 128
MR. RUE said the department is fairly decentralized, with offices
located throughout the state. This tends to get the managers
closer to the people and resources, enabling them to better
understand people's needs and resource uses. He stated currently
there are six division directors and added that a couple of years
ago there were nine. He noted the department has been contracting
as a result of general fund dollars declining. The department has
tried to become more efficient by combining divisions.
MR. RUE told committee members the department has boards of
fisheries and game and another entity within the department which
is somewhat separate, the commercial fisheries entry commission.
He said there are several issues facing the department. One of the
basic issues is the department has to keep doing the job in the
face of declining revenue. He noted there will be some things
coming over the horizon which will be complicating the department's
job of managing the state's fisheries. He said the first issue is
the Endangered Species Act and he mentioned the difficulties they
are having in the Lower 48 with salmon in the Northwest which can
affect Alaska's fisheries. Another issue is the Pacific Salmon
Treaty.
MR. RUE stressed there are also opportunities facing the
department. The first is developing new fisheries, including the
sea urchin fishery. He felt there are also opportunities to
improve the state's shellfish management and provide additional
opportunities for people.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted for the record that Co-Chairman WILLIAMS
had joined the committee and a quorum was present. He said since
a quorum was now present, he would like to hear the resolution on
the committee calendar. After hearing the resolution, the
committee would then continue with the ADF&G overview.
HRES - 01/30/95
Number 210
HJR 13 - ENDORSING ANWR LEASING
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE NAVARRE, PRIME SPONSOR, HJR 13, stated HJR 13
is something which he and many Alaskans have been interested in for
a very long time. He said at no time in the state's history, and
probably never again, will the state have such a powerful
contingent at the federal level as the state does now and the
opportunity for having this legislation pushed through at the
national level is as good as it has ever been.
REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE stated the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR) holds the highest potential in the United States and the
entire North American continent for commercially producible oil
discovery. He said in terms of potential, it is almost a sure
thing in the oil industry. He noted there was a one in five chance
and that has been upgraded even more.
REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE pointed out that oil is being imported for
more than half of the oil use in the United States, the trade
deficit continues to grow, domestic oil production is declining and
at the national level, the economy, even though it is improving,
could use the type of boost that the entire 50 states would get
from the type of development that would take place in ANWR, if
there were commercial discoveries available.
REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE said Alaska has proven in all of its oil
production, the ability to execute production in an environmentally
sound way. He pointed out that oil production on the North Slope,
is state of the art production. He stressed that combined with the
advances in directional drilling and the fact that most of the
exploration wells would be built off ice pads, and ice roads would
be used in the middle of winter, the impact would be very small.
In addition, after the exploration wells delineate the field, there
will be the ability to map out the easiest way to put production
wells in place, assuring the smallest minimal impact to the
environment. He felt a minimal impact will bode well at the
national level, that the development of ANWR can be done right, and
there is the ability to convince the U.S. Congress and the people
of the United States of that fact.
REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE noted the development of ANWR, according to
several statewide polls, is popular with the vast majority of
Alaskans. He urged committee members to pass HJR 13.
Number 280
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN mentioned that HJR 13 is a bipartisan resolution
and pointed out that both sides of the majorities are in favor of
the resolution. He urged committee members to look at the two maps
contained in committee member folders. He said there is a
consistent misunderstanding in the public arena and some of the
legislative offices as to the size of the area being discussed. He
explained the area being discussed is the 1002 area, which is a
very small amount of the total ANWR. He stated this proposal is to
merely allow the industry to look at what might be there and
reiterated there is a great potential for discovery.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said the biggest question confronting the
industry is the fact there have been several wells drilled in the
perimeter around ANWR that have found hydrocarbons, but not in
economic quantities. He felt the major concern is whether or not
there is enough oil there worth fighting about. He stressed there
is a need to determine whether or not oil is present and if there
is, what is going to be best for both the state and the nation. He
pointed out to committee members that there are a couple of
Congressional white papers in their packets, as well as newspaper
clippings and letters of support.
Number 315
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT made a MOTION to MOVE CSHJR 13 (O&G) out
of committee with individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA clarified the area being discussed is
very small.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN responded that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE said the 1002 area was set aside originally
by Congress to enable them to go back and take another look at the
area and determine what the disposition of that land should be.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT WITHDREW his MOTION due to the fact that
several people were present to testify on the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked if there were any members present
from the Oil and Gas Committee. She wondered why the reference to
porcupine caribou was taken out of the original resolution.
Number 340
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG responded the committee substitute
was a total redraft. The specific references to the porcupine
caribou herds were removed because it was the feeling of the
committee that the elimination of that reference would help the
delegation in Washington move the legislation through Congress. He
reminded everyone HJR 13 is to assist the state's Congressional
delegation.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA felt the President would feel better about
a resolution containing language which recognizes animals important
to the people who live in the area, as well as any Canadians who
might also have an interest.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied there is no denying the importance
of the porcupine caribou herd. He said the intent of the
resolution is to assist the state's Congressional delegation, not
throw up red flags and signals which may generate some negativity.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA clarified the intent is to barrel the
resolution through at all costs and not protect the people or the
caribou herd.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS noted that the chairman of the Oil and
Gas Committee kept in close contact with Alaska's Congressional
delegation and asked for their assistance. He said the committee
felt the last FURTHER RESOLVED would address Representative
Nicholia's concern. He added that Representative MacLean had
indicated that there were safeguards in place with the borough in
regard to the issue.
Number 380
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated the wildlife director of the North
Slope Borough testified at the Oil and Gas Committee hearings and
spoke specifically about the wildlife and other areas of
environmental concerns on the North Slope. He said both the mayor
and the head of the wildlife protection portion of the borough
supported the committee substitute. He pointed out there are three
references within the committee substitute to acting in an
environmentally sound manner in terms of any development and
further exploration. The Oil and Gas Committee felt that was
adequate for the purposes of the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE noted the Oil and Gas committee also felt
that the value of the porcupine caribou herd had already been
recognized through a number of studies conducted. He felt that
whether or not there was a line in the resolution, the caribou
would be recognized and identified as something very important and
something that will be addressed in any plan to explore or develop
ANWR. He noted that the exploration stage would be done in the
middle of winter, mostly off of ice pads and roads, and the impact
would be very minimal. He explained it would first be determined
whether or not there is commercially developable oil there and then
it would be determined how best to lay out the production plans so
there is minimal impact to what is recognized by Congress and
others as something very important to the people and environment on
the North Slope.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN added that when the state was looking at
developing Prudhoe Bay, there were legitimate concerns about the
effect of that development on the caribou herds. Now, the success
of that area can be recognized. He said the caribou herd there has
increased sixfold since that development. He noted the state now
has a track record for oil development on the North Slope and felt
the oil companies have been very conscientious about environmental
protection. He stressed some of the environmental technology
developed on the North Slope has been exported to other areas of
the world.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA stressed there is always another side to
the story, especially from the people who live there. She has
talked to people living in the area and they have noticed a change.
Number 440
DAVID VAN DEN BERG, REPRESENTATIVE, NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL
CENTER (NAEC), testified via teleconference, and stated NAEC
opposes HJR 13. He said it was refreshing to see the cooperation
between the various legislators on this issue and he understands
the political necessity for elected individuals to support oil
companies, even in the most sensitive areas in Alaska. He stated
he also understands the economic realities facing the state.
MR. VAN DEN BERG wondered why this resolution is being considered,
particularly as currently worded. He felt it was within the power
of the legislature to stipulate things at the outset which would
benefit the state most. He noted that conspicuously absent in the
resolution is the mentioning of a 90/10 royalty split for the
state. He felt a similar resolution directed at ARCO Alaska
regarding (indiscernible) field would yield a better return for the
state.
MR. VAN DEN BERG said while the Coastal Plain is only eight percent
of the total ANWR, that Coastal Plain is the most biologically
productive area in the entire ANWR. The Coastal Plain is the
destination of polar bears, migrating porcupine caribou herd,
waterfowl and (indiscernible) from all over the world. He stressed
the estimated 5,000 -7,000 acre footprint in the resolution is not
a postage stamp but a potential web of industrial facilities which
will crisscross and dissect the Coastal Plain, interrupting animal
(indiscernible) coastal plain.
MR. VAN DEN BERG reminded committee members that in regard to
Prudhoe Bay, while the footprint is far less than the overall
industrial development there, it spans some 580 square miles. He
said if the results from Prudhoe Bay prove anything, it proves
those things about Prudhoe Bay only. The l002 area is a totally
different area because of its proximity to the mountains, because
of the size of the herd that goes there, and because there are musk
oxen populations living there throughout the year. He felt the
lessons from Prudhoe Bay are only guidelines, not a guarantee of
coexistence.
Number 507
MR. VAN DEN BERG said on the one hand the committee is pleading to
open the Coastal Plain, yet on the other hand the committee is
(indiscernible) the export ban. He felt of the two issues, the
export ban has a better chance of being lifted. That would mean if
oil is found and produced on the Coastal Plain, it would be
exported to the highest bidder which would probably be overseas.
He said there is language in the resolution which he recommends be
changed.
Number 530
SARA HANNAN, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY (AEL), said
AEL represents over 9,000 Alaskans. She stated the ANWR was set
aside originally in 1969 partly because of its unique biological
habitat. References to the science which has developed in the past
twenty years has let us know that what was known in 1969 is a very
limited scope of the science available today. She said populations
of caribou are higher in total count and part of that has to do
with the fact that caribou are cyclical animals, their populations
vary, and it is not known if those are 20 year cycles, 50 year
cycles, 100 year cycles or longer. Therefore, extrapolating from
a small window of science and saying that today caribou populations
are much higher than they were 20 years ago does not give the
complete conclusion about the health of the population.
MS. HANNAN stated the ANWR Coastal Plain is a small percentage of
the entire North Coastal Plain of Alaska. Less than eight percent
of the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Coast is set aside from
development of oil. Ninety percent of Alaska's Coastal Plain is
currently open and available for exploration and drilling. She
said a small area, the 1002 area in ANWR, is being debated. The
debate has raged because of the area's uniqueness not because oil
is not present. She stressed the reason the debate is ongoing is
because everyone believes there is oil there. She pointed out that
the most optimistic predictions say there might be 3.2 billion
barrels of recoverable oil. She noted that amount is only one-
third of the energy consumed in the U.S. on an annual basis.
MS. HANNAN felt opening up the ANWR for oil exploration is not
going to change the country's pattern of consumption and it is not
going to stabilize the economy of Alaska. The potential for
biologic disaster is present there. She said perception is a
substantial part of reality. She stated the original version of
HJR 13 acknowledged that the strictest standards in environmental
quality could be protected by technology available today and urged
the use of that technology. The Oil and Gas Committee eliminated
that language. She felt if the committee will not articulate in
the resolution that they are willing to adhere to the strictest
standards and best technology available, why do they think
companies would do it.
MS. HANNAN said the original version of HJR 13 acknowledged that
for centuries the Gwich'in people have been dependent on a
population herd which limited science is available on and
encouraged Congress to protect the Gwich'in people's use of it.
The Oil and Gas Committee eliminated that language. She stated
perception is nine-tenths of reality. By eliminating that
language, the committee is not acknowledging those people have
concerns and their concerns will be listened to. She urged
committee members not to pass the original version of HJR 13 nor
the committee substitute.
Number 651
BEVERLY WARD, REPRESENTATIVE, ARCO ALASKA, stated ARCO Alaska
supports CSHJR 13 (O&G). She said ARCO has been an operator of the
Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk oil fields since their initiation. Their
experience in operating Arctic oil fields has given them a thorough
understanding of the local environmental requirements and has
convinced them that the Coastal Plain can be explored and developed
without causing harm to the health and viability of the Refuge
ecosystem.
MS. WARD pointed out that ARCO's technologies have advanced
significantly since they pioneered the design and operation of oil
development in the Arctic. Using today's technology, ARCO's
presence is compatible with local fish, wildlife, and their
habitats. She said the existence of productive and abundant
populations of birds, caribou, and fish throughout all North Slope
oil fields is evidence of ARCO's ability to be good neighbors with
all current land users.
MS. WARD stressed that ARCO envisions technologies of the future
being even more advanced, further reducing their footprint, while
maximizing the benefits of continued resource development to the
state, the state's citizens, and to the nation. These benefits
range from the creation of exploration and development jobs for
Alaskans, to additional state tax revenues, to manufacturing jobs
in other states and national security issues. She pointed out that
opening ANWR will benefit not only Alaska, but the entire U.S.
ARCO believes it is time to move forward with exploring the most
potentially productive area in Alaska. She said ARCO supports and
encourages the committee to pass CSHJR 13 (O&G).
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said there has been concern expressed about
verbiage in the original resolution being eliminated regarding the
provision of strict standards for protection of land, water, and
wildlife resources. He wondered who ARCO would be accountable to
in regard to making environmental impact studies and the oversight
involved.
TAPE 95-5, SIDE B
Number 000
MS. WARD responded there will not be any less of a standard at ANWR
than there is at Prudhoe Bay. She said ARCO has all of the federal
and state laws to comply with and with all that ARCO has learned,
they expect their imprint in ANWR to be much smaller. She noted
she would be happy to provide a list of all the different laws and
agencies which ARCO would deal with.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered if the specific verbiage is left out,
would there be any less oversight by any agencies.
MS. WARD said leaving the statement out of the resolution does not
change any law or regulation but rather, it is a statement of
intent by this legislature.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted ARCO is being referred to in connection
with ANWR and he reminded everyone that ANWR would be opened to the
industry, not a particular company.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN wondered if the 90 percent mentioned in
the original version is an automatic given.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said yes. He stated that was part of the
original Alaska Statehood Act. He pointed out, however, the
federal government is now trying to renege, saying they want to do
something less than 90/10. If the Statehood Act is followed, it
would be a 90/10 split in favor of the state not the federal
government.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN wondered why the 90 percent verbiage was
removed from the original resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded the removal of the reference to
the royalty split was a result of a request from the Congressional
delegation in Washington. Both Congressman Young and the offices
of Senators Murkowski and Stevens indicated that reference to that
language would not be helpful because it is a controversial aspect.
He said there has been discussion among committee members and
testimony received recommending that the 90/10 royalty issue be
taken up under a separate resolution to avoid clouding the issue.
Number 059
GEORGE YASKA, DIRECTOR OF WILDLIFE, TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE (TCC),
testified via teleconference and stated TCC is opposed to HJR 13
and the committee substitute. He said the reason for their
opposition is due to their concern about the safety and
productivity of the porcupine caribou herd. He noted there are no
references to the porcupine caribou herd in the committee
substitute. The closest language he could find referring to the
porcupine caribou herd was "environmental safeguards" and he felt
that language was not strong enough.
MR. YASKA told committee members that the porcupine caribou herd
numbers between 150,000 and 180,000 caribou. The caribou calve
within the 1002 area of ANWR and calve principally within the same
area where the oil will probably be found. He pointed out that the
National Biological Service has been conducting research for eight
years and their field report will be completed in June. An early
draft of the report indicates a potential significant negative
impact to the herd. He stressed the people in the area depend
heavily on the porcupine caribou herd. He indicated that is the
reason TCC opposes CSHJR 13 (O&G) and HJR 13.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES clarified the caribou herd on the
North Slope has increased since Prudhoe Bay, especially those
caribou that wander along the pipeline.
MR. YASKA responded that Representative Barnes was referring to the
Central Arctic caribou herd which exists near the Prudhoe Bay
reserve. He explained there are two principal differences between
the porcupine caribou herd and the Central Arctic caribou herd.
First, the Prudhoe Bay field does not lie in the calving area of
the Central Arctic herd and the caribou primarily seen at Prudhoe
Bay are male caribou.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES clarified a very small footprint will be used
for drilling purposes.
MR. YASKA replied that is correct. However, that footprint is the
same size as the core calving ground for the caribou herd. He said
scientists have shown that the caribou would probably have to move
and all indications are that during calving, pre-calving, and post-
calving, caribou are very skittish and very leery of human
activity. He felt they would be especially leery of the heavy
industrial activity such as what would be found in ANWR for
exploration and drilling.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Yaska if he had visited the Kuparuk oil
field.
MR. YASKA stated he had been at Prudhoe Bay, but not Kuparuk.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested he try and be there during the
migratory cycle. He said while Prudhoe Bay does not lie within the
normal course of the calving cycle, the Kuparuk River does and he
felt it would be worthwhile to see the extent to which the industry
has gone to assist the caribou. He noted the caribou in that area
are far from skittish and added that the caribou have the right of
way. He stressed it is improper and subject to dismissal for
anyone to harass caribou if they cross the roads. He added that
when the caribou are calving, they are oblivious to anything around
them.
Number 128
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked Mr. Yaska if he had mentioned that
the caribou herd does not always take the same path when migrating.
She said it will not be known whether or not the caribou will be
going into the 1002 area because they change their route so often.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN assured Representative Nicholia that fact had
been mentioned.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT acknowledged the comments made by Ms. Hannan.
He felt many of her comments were very relevant. He noted that she
has her constituency, and legislators have theirs. He mentioned he
represents over 15,000 people in a very condensed area who are in
favor of opening ANWR. He felt that was indicative of
acknowledging that the oil companies in the past have been very
responsible in oil exploration and production. If that were not
the case, he said he would probably have concerns about opening
ANWR and perhaps would not support the resolution. He stressed he
has been in the area, understands what is going on there and
therefore, supports the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a MOTION to MOVE CSHJR 13 (O&G) out of
committee with accompanying zero fiscal note with INDIVIDUAL
RECOMMENDATIONS.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA OBJECTED.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of
CSHJR 13 (O&G) were Representatives Kott, Austerman, Williams,
Ogan, Barnes, and Green. Voting against the motion was
Representative Nicholia. The MOTION PASSED 6-1.
Overview by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (cont.)
ROB BOSWORTH, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SUBSISTENCE, ADF&G, said the
division is small with 40 employees. He stated the division's
offices are located throughout the state and those offices provide
full coverage for the state. He added the division is the
subsistence research division. The division provides information
to assist with policy decisions and provides information to the
boards of fisheries and game and to the public.
MR. BOSWORTH stated the fundamental purpose of the division is to
illuminate the topic of subsistence with reliable and objective
information. He explained that rural residents of Alaska harvest
an average of about 375 pounds of wild foods per person, per year.
He said that amount is higher for communities off the state's road
system. About 60 percent of the harvest is fish, most of which is
salmon and the remainder is wildlife, including marine mammals. He
said the total annual subsistence food harvest is about 44 million
pounds for rural areas, with another ten million pounds for urban
residents. Applying a range of $3 to $5 per pound, the overall
replacement value of the harvest amounts to between $165 million
and $275 million annually, which is a substantial contribution to
the economy of Alaska. He noted this is the type of data which the
division gathers and contributes to discussions on the topic.
Number 227
MR. BOSWORTH stated that information about the subsistence use of
fish and game is obtained in two different ways. The first method
uses the department's hunting and fishing permit systems. Harvests
are tabulated for each hunting and fishing permit issued and
returned to the department. He said for most subsistence fisheries
and hunting activity, no permits are required. Therefore, the
division also conducts systematic surveys from a random sample and
in some cases, a complete sample of hunting or fishing households
within a community. He added that these surveys may cover other
subsistence activities other than strictly hunting and fishing such
as trapping, gathering berries, digging shellfish, etc.
MR. BOSWORTH explained most of the department's subsistence harvest
information is obtained by the Division of Subsistence. The
division's staff has special training, expertise and experience in
conducting survey research in rural Alaska. In some areas of the
state, the subsistence fishing permit process is managed by the
Division of Commercial Fisheries. He said most subsistence
fisheries are in-river fisheries and accurate assessment of
subsistence can be vital for stock assessment. In some cases,
subsistence information provides the only reliable stock escapement
index. He stated in some areas, subsistence fishermen, who are
more numerous than the department's staff, regularly provide the
division with information on in-season run strength and timing,
which can have a direct bearing on the management of commercial and
sport fisheries in those areas.
MR. BOSWORTH said subsistence hunters also outnumber department
wildlife biologists. Local knowledge about wildlife populations
regularly contribute to the department's management programs. He
pointed out the boards of game and fisheries follow the state
subsistence law in implementing and developing subsistence
regulations. He stated subsistence law contains very specific
requirements for the boards to make certain findings about
subsistence and includes very specific requirements about the
information which should be provided to the boards to help them
make those decisions.
Number 278
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered what sampling sizes are used and if they
are representative.
MR. BOSWORTH replied the division does feel the information is
valid and reliable. He said combining the results of a number of
different studies, taken over a number of years in a number of
different communities, makes it increasingly difficult to identify
the margin of error in the final outcome. He stated within
specific studies for particular communities, the division does
provide margins of error.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN questioned if subsistence hunters help the
division know about or perhaps find and prosecute poachers.
MR. BOSWORTH said the best opportunity the department has to know
what is going on in a local area is to have staff in the area. The
department benefits greatly from having biologists living
throughout Alaska and in many rural communities, who have developed
the kind of rapport it takes in those communities to understand
what is going on locally. He stated in reply to Representative
Green's question, yes, that can happen and it happens best when
there is staff present in rural areas who are accepted in the
communities and have lived there long enough to be privy to that
sort of information.
Number 322
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the division surveys federal
subsistence or state.
MR. BOSWORTH said the division's budget is approximately one-half
federal money and one-half state money. The federal money comes
from a variety of unstable sources and are the funds which allow
the division to survey communities who use or are located on
federal lands. The division considers them to be Alaskans and the
information gathered is relevant to Alaska's management of
subsistence, regardless of the fact that the jurisdiction may be
federal.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES recalled that three or four years ago, the
legislature combined the two divisions of Commercial Fisheries and
Fisheries Rehabilitation Enhancement and Development (FRED). She
wondered why it took so long to accomplish that.
JEFF KOENINGS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES
MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, ADF&G, replied the merger of the two
divisions has been completed. Staffs have been combined to ensure
that resource management programs, as well as the fisheries
development programs can go forward in a logical and consistent
manner. He added the budgetary process of combining the divisions,
as well as the in the field process, has been completed.
MR. KOENINGS stated the Division of Commercial Fisheries Management
and Development is responsible for the sustained yield management
of the state's commercial, subsistence and personal use fisheries;
the development of new fisheries; and the programmatic support for
the state's private sector mariculture and salmon ranching
industries. The division also plays a major role in the management
of fisheries in the federal 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ),
in several international treaty negotiations such as in Southeast
Alaska and Yukon; and, more recently, in addressing concerns over
federal legislation affecting Alaska's fisheries such as the
Endangered Species Act.
MR. KOENINGS explained the divisional organization now represents
the completed merger between the old FRED and Commercial Fisheries
Divisions. The present division is organized into a headquarters
office and four regions: Southeastern, Central, Westward, and
Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim. The division operates with nearly 300
full-time and 555 permanent part-time positions; and a proposed
fiscal year 1996 general fund budget of $30 million with an overall
budget of $42 million. The fiscal year 1996 overall budget is $8
million less than the budget for the combined divisions in fiscal
year 1992.
Number 404
MR. KOENINGS said the direct and indirect economic benefits of the
commercial fishing industry is of major importance to the entire
state based on what information is available. For example, the
seafood industry is the state's largest private employer both in
terms of income and employment with roughly 33,000 to 36,000 jobs.
He stated the seafood harvesters are small businessmen that account
for 8,000 to 12,000 full-time job equivalents. Seventy-seven
percent of these commercial fishing permit holders are Alaskan
residents. He pointed out to committee members a new brochure on
the Alaska Seafood Industry which was developed by all segments of
the fishing community.
MR. KOENINGS stated the cultural and economic value of the
subsistence fishery is even harder to quantify, in direct economic
terms, than the commercial fisheries. He said to many it is beyond
value, which is understandable. He noted that recently,
subsistence fishers have repeatedly said that their subsistence
lifestyle, a combination of fishing, hunting, berry picking, etc.
is fueled, to varying degrees, by their incomes from commercial
fishing. He pointed out there is absolute value and real benefits
in having strong, well managed runs of fish to ensure that both the
subsistence users and commercial users are provided for.
MR. KOENINGS stressed the state's fisheries resources appear to be
vibrant and healthy, although problem areas do exist, especially in
Western and Interior Alaska. Last year, the commercial harvest of
196 million salmon was an all time record. Yet, because of
competition from high quality foreign farmed salmon, prices are
down and the economic value is declining. He stated the department
is responding by managing, within biological constraints, so
fishermen and processors can achieve the best product quality and
thus higher economic value. He noted that examples for 1994
include the harvest management of enhanced and wild pink salmon in
Prince William Sound, chum salmon in the Kuskokwim River, the
herring fishery in the Togiak district, and pink salmon harvests in
Norton Sound.
MR. KOENINGS stated that in developing new fisheries, the division
has pioneered new cooperative efforts with private industry to
assess the health of the sea urchin population in the Ketchikan
area prior to a commercial fishery. He said the project provides
for close cooperation between local divers and processors and is
funded entirely by private dollars and by the sea urchin resource
itself, not by the general fund. If successful, the fishery could
be worth $30 million annually to Southeast fishermen and may become
the third largest fishery in state waters. He pointed out that
reasonable and responsible development of the state's renewable
fishery resources will lead to increased numbers of jobs for
Alaskans.
Number 470
MR. KOENINGS said despite the general abundance of salmon, which
are now on the high end of their productive cycle, there are
localized resource problems. For example, the Chinook salmon in
the Mat-Su valley, the chum salmon in parts of Western and Interior
Alaska, Nushagak River coho salmon in Bristol Bay, and perhaps the
sockeye salmon of Chilkoot Lake. He added that the herring
populations in the Prince William Sound are in horrible shape and
are not fishable.
MR. KOENINGS advised that the biggest challenge throughout the
state is the management of the state's shellfish resources. He
said from Norton Sound in the north to Adak to the south, east to
Bristol Bay, Kodiak, Cook Inlet, and the Prince William Sound, the
crab populations are failing. He stressed some of the most
important crab fisheries are in the Bering Sea where state
involvement in resource assessment, necessary for proper state
management, is minimal at best. He stated that minimal effort
needs to change.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES wondered where Mr. Koenings got the
information that 77 percent of the people who are employed in the
commercial fishing industry are Alaskans.
MR. KOENINGS responded the information came from a report by the
Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of
Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES suggested that he check with the Department
of Labor and use their statistics. She felt those statistics would
be different. She recalled that a great number of the limited
entry permits are owned by people who live in the Seattle/Tacoma
area.
MR. KOENINGS said there are a number of Seattle area residents who
own Alaska limited entry permits.
MR. RUE added that Frank Homan from the Commercial Fisheries
Limited Entry Commission could give an exact breakdown of the
information.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES recalled that Mr. Koenings had mentioned the
management of fish for commercial and subsistence fisheries. She
wondered what happened to those who are hook and line fishermen.
She asked if they are also entitled to some of the resources.
MR. KOENINGS replied yes they are. He said his division's
responsibilities only include commercial, subsistence and personal
use fisheries. The responsibility for managing the primary
recreational fisheries belong to the sport fish division.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES felt there is a great conflict between hook
and line fishermen and commercial fisheries. She disagreed when it
is said they are recreational fishermen. She stated most of those
people do not catch those fish just for recreation, but rather do
it to feed their families, just like subsistence users.
MR. RUE said in his opening remarks he tried to recognize the
department's mission to do the management, science and research.
He felt the key is the role of the board of fisheries in allocating
the fish.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES felt the board of fisheries does not do a
very good job.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT recalled a couple of years ago the legislature
appropriated $250,000 to conduct an impact study regarding salmon
in the Cook Inlet area. He wondered what the status is of the
study.
MR. KOENINGS responded that the panel involved with that study was
chaired by Rob Bosworth.
MR. BOSWORTH stated the study was intended to address both sport
and commercial economics of the fisheries at the Kenai River. The
study was contracted out to the Institute of Social and Economic
Research. He explained the study is on schedule and on budget at
this time. The sport and commercial surveys have been completed
and are now in the data analysis stage. He said the department
does get quarterly reports on the progress of the study and he
would be happy to make them available. He added that an interim
report is expected in April and a final report in August. The
information will then be available for the board of fisheries when
they meet next fall.
Number 610
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered what steps are being taken to spread
the burden to all user groups including commercial fishermen in
regard to the decline in the king salmon runs, specifically in the
Susitna Drainage.
MR. KOENINGS responded the allocation of harvestable surpluses of
fish is the purview of the board of fisheries. He thought other
issues were also being looked at in Cook Inlet such as the sockeye
salmon issue. He said the division is specifically looking into
where and how king salmon are caught to enable the division to
participate in any conservation actions, if necessary, to protect
those stocks.
Number 635
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said there is a perception in his constituent
group that the burden is being bore by the sport fishermen. He
asked Mr. Koenings to get him information on more specific steps
being taken.
MR. KOENINGS indicated the division is in the process of developing
a brief summary of what gear groups are involved when and if they
do intercept Chinook salmon and what ability is available in terms
of identifying where those fish are bound for.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked if bycatch in the Gulf of Alaska is
being addressed in connection with shellfish.
MR. KOENINGS thought that information is available and said he
would be happy to get it for Representative Austerman.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered if those types of problems are being
created by fishermen within the state of Alaska, registered in the
state, as opposed to those who may be from out of state.
MR. KOENINGS said the trawl fleet consists of a large number of
boats which are home ported in the Seattle area, but also includes
smaller boats which are home ported in Alaskan waters. Therefore,
the crab bycatch issue is the responsibility of both parties. He
stressed there is a considerable bycatch involved in the catches of
the large catcher/processors who operate both in the Gulf of Alaska
and in the Bering Sea.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered if Mr. Koenings had total amounts and
percentages.
MR. KOENINGS replied he has the information and would make it
available to Representative Green.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said when the sea cucumber fishing in
Southeast Alaska began, it was not managed properly but added that
changing the fishing time has helped. At the beginning, many of
the sea cucumbers were being wasted because there was not enough
time to process. He hoped the same thing would be done with the
sea urchin. He felt when the time periods are staggered and spread
out, the out-of-state fishermen think hard about whether or not
they want to come to Southeast to fish.
TAPE 95-6, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said in Ketchikan, there has been a lot of
discussion about the Cat Island fishery. He stated during the last
fishery opening in that area, the quota was never reached and many
of the fishermen quit long before the end because there were not
any herring. He wondered if the same thing is happening in the
Prince William Sound area. He recalled when this question came up
last year, the commissioner indicated the herring fishery was the
best managed fishery.
MR. KOENINGS stated the herring biomass is very strong in Alaska.
However, there are problem areas such as the Prince William Sound
area. He said those problems are not attributable to the
management practices, but rather there are extraneous environmental
and other affects in the Sound which hypothetically could be
derived from the oil spill and various environmental ecological
changes going on. These factors have also affected the pink salmon
resources there. He noted the pink salmon have recovered but the
herring population has not recovered. He felt that will happen in
a matter of time.
Number 040
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS wondered about the Cat Island fisheries.
MR. KOENINGS responded the Cat Island (indiscernible) fish will be
prosecuted in the same manner as it was last year. Much has been
learned from the management changes which will be put in place this
year. He felt the full quota will be harvested.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS clarified the biomass has not decreased in
that area.
MR. KOENINGS said the biomass is strong in that area.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN recalled that the majority of tanner
fishing is closed in the Gulf of Alaska currently, yet at the same
point in time, the bycatch of the trawl fleet is ongoing without
any cap.
Number 060
WAYNE REGELIN, ACTING DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION,
ADF&G, said the division's job is to manage Alaska's wildlife and
to provide a wide range of uses for the public. He explained that
the division has three basic programs. The first is management
programs. The division does numerous population surveys and
censuses of populations, determines trends of populations and
determines the sustained yield. He stated this information is
provided to the board of game so they can set the seasons and bag
limits.
MR. REGELIN noted the second effort of the division is research.
The division spends much effort developing new techniques for
wildlife management and collecting ecological information on
species habitat relationships and predator/prey relationships. He
said the third area in which the division is involved is public
service. The division has a large hunter education program, a new
hunters' services program, a watchful wildlife program for the
nonconsumptive users and a general wildlife education program in
the schools called "Project Wild".
MR. REGELIN told committee members that the division has three
sources of funding. Three percent of the division's funding is
from the general fund; 50 percent comes from federal aid which is
a tax on arms and ammunition; and 47 percent is from license fees
and tags which the hunters pay. The division's total budget
request for next year is $16 million. He stated there are 165
employees in the division, including 130 who are permanent full-
time and 35 who are seasonal.
MR. REGELIN stated there are several major issues facing the
division currently. The two most important issues are wolf
management and the dual federal/state management. He said overall
the wildlife populations in Alaska are healthy. He added there are
just a couple of areas where there are some concerns.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he presumed one of the problem areas is the
Kenai River.
MR. REGELIN stated the Division of Wildlife Conservation does not
get involved in fishery issues.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Regelin to comment on the two problem
areas.
MR. REGELIN said the division has concerns in Unit 13. He stated
it is not a matter of too few animals, but rather a tremendous
number of people who want to hunt there and a very confused dual
federal/state management system. He noted the populations are as
high as what the division desires. The problem is that adequate
resources cannot be provided there. He added the moose population
there is high but has been very unproductive. There has been no
recruitment and very few of the animals survive.
MR. REGELIN explained the other problem is in the McGrath area.
The division is observing a decline in the moose population. He
noted the area has experienced an extreme winter and a high
predation level from wolves.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked where Unit 13 is located.
MR. REGELIN responded Unit 13 is around Glennallen and the Copper
River Basin. He said it is the hunting ground for Anchorage
people.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES wondered how the moose population in the Mat-
Su borough along the railroad tracks is holding up this winter.
MR. REGELIN stated there has been a lot of snow there and there has
been quite a bit of highway kills. He noted there has not been
nearly the problem with the railroad which was experienced in the
past. He said the railroad is going to a great extent and working
with the division to reduce the kill along the railroad.
Number 133
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated he had read an article about sprinkling
wolf urine along the side of roads to keep moose from crossing the
road. He wondered if the department had ever experimented with a
process such as that.
MR. REGELIN responded the work being referred to was done in
Sweden. He said the division has not tried that process. However,
the division has tried to remove vegetation back away from the
roads and along the railroad. He said the division has also tried
different kinds of reflectors to reflect headlights into the woods.
He stressed what works best is people slowing down on the road.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT felt if a couple of volunteer wolves could be
found, it might be something to pursue. He wondered if the
division has ever considered going to a bounty system or somehow
encouraging the private sector to take part in wolf control.
MR. REGELIN stated the division does work often with trappers by
teaching trapper education courses and encourages them to trap
wolves. He said a bounty system would take legislation. He noted
that approximately 1,000 wolves are legally harvested every winter
and a bounty would have to be paid on those also. Therefore, with
a $100 bounty, $100,000 would be paid before the harvest is
increased. The division is not sure a bounty system would be cost
effective and feels it would probably be very unpopular.
Number 172
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES clarified wolves are classified as big game
animals.
MR. REGELIN stated wolves are classified as both big game and fur
bear animals.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES wondered if the classification of wolves is
changed, would that change the way they could be harvested.
MR. REGELIN replied it really does not make any difference.
Currently, under trapping licenses, the season begins in November
and goes late in the year with no limit. He said the board of game
can set any season and bag limit desired for big game animals. He
noted there is a very long season for hunting with a bag limit of
two in most places.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked if the division has ever thought about
dropping hay for moose in the winter.
MR. REGELIN responded currently the division is not dropping hay or
any other kinds of feed, but is working with private individuals to
go out on weekends in the Kenai and Mat-Su Valley to cut willow and
aspen trees away from the road to draw moose back. He stressed it
becomes a big logistical problem to distribute feed to moose
because they are not in large herds, but rather small groups.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES clarified that moose congregate in the path
of least resistance.
MR. REGELIN said moose do congregate more and usually there are
groups of eight to ten moose but they are well scattered.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked what it would take to get an aerial wolf
hunt program going again.
MR. REGELIN said it would take two actions. First, the Governor
would want a policy allowing that type of program and second, the
program would have to be authorized by the board of game.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN clarified the legislature could not do
anything.
MR. REGELIN replied the board of game provides the authorization.
Last year, the legislature did pass legislation on intensive
management which provides much more direction to the board. The
legislation provides that in certain areas where human use of
wildlife is the primary use, if the populations are not providing
an adequate opportunity for hunters, before the board can reduce
seasons, the board is required to do intensive management. That
intensive management could involve wolf control, predator
management or habitat improvement.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN recalled Mr. Regelin had stated three percent
of the division's funding comes from general funds and the
division's budget request for this year is going to be $16 million.
He clarified that $16 million is three percent of the division's
budget.
MR. REGELIN stated that is incorrect. The division's total budget
is $16 million and the general fund request is $667,000.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House Resources
Committee, Co-Chairman Green adjourned the meeting at 9:50 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|