Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/03/1996 08:05 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
May 3, 1996
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative William K. "Bill" Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative John Davies
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Don Long
Representative Irene Nicholia
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ramona Barnes
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Governor's appointment of David Norton to the Alaska Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 247(RLS) am(efd fld)(ct rule fld)
"An Act restricting the use of certain funds deposited in the fish
and game fund; and relating to the powers and duties of the
commissioner of fish and game."
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 247
SHORT TITLE: USE OF FISH & GAME FUND/COMM'R'S POWERS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR, Sharp, Miller
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/30/96 2251 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/30/96 2251 (S) RES, FIN
03/20/96 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/25/96 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/28/96 2941 (S) RES RPT CS 3DP 2NR NEW TITLE
04/03/96 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/03/96 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/04/96 3064 (S) FISCAL NOTES TO CS (F&G-3)
04/04/96 3064 (S) FIN RPT CS 2DP 2NR NEW TITLE
04/04/96 3064 (S) FISCAL NOTES TO CS (F&G-3)
04/04/96 3064 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO CS (DPS)
04/09/96 (S) RLS AT 12:20 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
04/09/96 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/10/96 3112 (S) RULES CS & 2CAL 1NR 4/10/96 NEW TITLE
04/10/96 3112 (S) FNS TO CS (F&G-3)
04/10/96 3112 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DPS)
04/10/96 3114 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/10/96 3114 (S) RLS CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/10/96 3114 (S) ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD Y12 N8
04/10/96 3114 (S) THIRD READING 4/11 CALENDAR
04/11/96 3166 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 247(RLS)
04/11/96 3166 (S) FAILED PASSAGE Y10 N10
04/11/96 3167 (S) TAYLOR NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/12/96 3206 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
04/12/96 3206 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1 UNAN CONSENT
04/12/96 3206 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/12/96 3207 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
04/12/96 3207 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y11 N8 E1
04/12/96 3208 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) FAILED Y13 N6 E1
04/12/96 3208 (S) COURT RULE(S) FAILED Y12 N7 E1
04/12/96 3220 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/15/96 3732 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/15/96 3733 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
04/26/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/26/96 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/29/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/29/96 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/01/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
05/01/96 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/02/96 (H) RES AT 0:00 AM CAPITOL 124
05/02/96 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/03/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID NORTON
1208 "S" Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-2530
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding his confirmation
to the AOGCC.
TERRY OTNESS, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Robin Taylor
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 30
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 3873
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave sponsor statement for CSSB 247(RLS)
am(efd fld)(ct rule fld).
ED GRASSER
Alaska Outdoor Council
P.O. Box 2193
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-3772
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed proposed amendments to CSSB 247(RLS)
am(efd fld)(ct rule fld).
WAYNE REGELIN, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on CSSB 247(RLS)
am(efd fld)(ct rule fld).
SARA HANNAN, Executive Director
Alaska Environmental Lobby
419 Sixth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against the SB 247(RLS)
am(efd fld)(ct rule fld).
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-76, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Resources Committee meeting
to order at 8:05 a.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Williams, Kott, Davies, Long and Green.
Number 072
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the first order of business would be
the confirmation hearing of David Norton to the Alaska Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission (AOGCC). He asked Mr. Norton to tell the
committee members a few things about himself.
DAVID NORTON came before the committee and read his statement into
the record:
"Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is David Norton.
Thank you for inviting me to address the committee. I appreciate
the committee holding this hearing to consider me for the
commissioner's seat.
"To refresh the committee on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission, I've attached a one page overview of the commission's
responsibilities and functions and I have also attached a one page
review of the history of the AOGCC and I believe it's in your
packet.
"The commission's role is to ensure the efficient depletion of the
state's hydrocarbon resources. This is accomplished in three ways:
Preventing waste of the resource; secondly, ensuring maximum
ultimate recovery of the resource; and protecting the correlative
rights of adjacent owners of oil and gas properties. These three
aspects of the AOGCC's mission are the basis of the term
`conservation' as used in oil and gas regulation and are typical of
the mission that all petroleum producing states provide through
conservation agencies just like AOGCC.
"I would like to address my qualifications as commissioner. The
commissioner's seat I stand for today is reserved for an Alaskan
`licensed engineer with an educational and professional background
in the field of petroleum engineering.' I believe you have my
resume and a letter to Chairman Green submitting additional detail
of my qualifications in your packet.
"After graduation from Rice University, I moved to Alaska in 1974,
to work on the trans-Alaska pipeline. For the past 22 years, the
majority of my career has been associated with design, construction
and operation of the pipeline, including facilities for gas
handling, refining and metering. I have significant experience in
managing development of complex oil and gas facilities in Alaska.
I have been a licensed professional engineer in the state of Alaska
since 1984.
"I believe a commissioner is best qualified by a range of
experience in the oil and gas industry that allows a broad
perspective while maintaining an understanding of the technical
challenges associated with public policy. There is a difference
between technical staff work and the judgement required of a
commissioner. The professional staff at the commission includes
two petroleum engineers and a petroleum geologist. As do most
commissioners and legislators, I will use my technical staff as is
appropriate.
"I believe I have a unique industry perspective because of my
Alyeska pipeline experience. At Alyeska, I was required to obtain
financial and technical approvals of the major owners, Arco, BP and
Exxon. As a result, I have intimate knowledge of the companies'
various cultures, biases and procedures. I am the only current
commissioner with direct industry experience.
"I would like to provide a response to criticism that I do not have
appropriate petroleum engineering background for this seat.
"Petroleum engineering is such a broad category that no one could
claim experience in all areas under the commission's purview.
Petroleum engineering can be viewed as encompassing three broad
areas: It covers reservoir characteristics and petrophysics;
secondly, it covers drilling and recovery techniques; and thirdly,
it covers surface equipment, processes and delivery. My background
is in the area of surface equipment, processes and delivery.
"The statute does not specifically require a licensed petroleum
engineer. If the intent of the statute was to reserve the seat for
licensed petroleum engineers, according to state records then only
a small pool of about 20 people would be qualified, some of whom
may have conflicts because of their employment. I am a licensed
civil engineer with significant background in the oil and gas
industry in Alaska.
"I believe I am a good fit with the current commissioners and
staff. We are working well together and I would like to apprise
you of some current initiatives that I believe we should and can
accomplish at the commission.
"Number 1, `Regulation Revision.' We are in the process of
completing the first comprehensive revision of our regulations
since 1986. The focus is on streamlining technical and procedural
requirements for drilling and reservoir management. AOGA is a key
industry partner in this effort. We are deleting obsolete
requirements and providing less prescriptive regulations to allow
more latitude to regulate rapidly changing oil field techniques.
We are also anticipating new requirements for abandoning offshore
platforms in Cook Inlet. The first phase of this work was
completed this quarter and we hope to adopt the finished set of
regulations this summer.
"Secondly, `The Alaska Energy Infobank.' The infobank is an
exciting joint industry/government initiative championed by Arco
and BP that puts non-proprietary private and public petrotechnical
data on a common shared database. The prize is significant cost
savings in not maintaining duplicate sets of data. Since the AOGCC
is the primary state archive of well and production data, there are
opportunities and challenges for the commission to be more
efficient at less cost. I am on the Infobank Steering Board, along
with representatives of Arco, BP, Exxon, Unocal and DNR. The
Infobank has a website and I've put the electronic address of the
website in your packet if you're interested for more information.
"Thirdly, `Budget Discipline.' The commission is committed to
efficient use of state funds, including the Oil and Gas
Conservation Tax, to monitor safe oil field practices and to
promote maximum recovery of the state's petroleum resources. To
gain the efficiencies to live within our means, we are evaluating
several options, including moving facilities to reduce cost and
share infrastructure, sharing resources with other agencies, and
upgrading technology to take advantage of opportunities to cut
costs.
"So in closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to use an analogy that
I picked up at the annual Petroleum Industry Alliance meeting last
January. Dick Oliver, who is John Morgan's boss at BP, had flown
in to give his assessment of the state of the industry in Alaska.
he spoke about a metaphorical bridge between today and tomorrow by
comparing it to a real bridge over the Gulkana River. The real
bridge was a critical link in the completion of the trans-Alaska
pipeline and required extraordinary innovation, teamwork and
cooperation to complete on time.
"Mr. Oliver said that the girders of the metaphorical bridge will
be marginal oil fields developed with new emerging technologies.
This bridge will require the same extraordinary efforts used on the
Gulkana bridge and will span today's gap between Prudhoe Bay and
future opportunities such as ANWR and a gas pipeline.
"Mr. Chairman, I worked on that Gulkana bridge 20 years ago as a
young engineer. Now, as a more seasoned bridge builder, I look
forward to working on today's bridge to tomorrow. Thank you."
Number 639
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked, "Do you have any idea how many BOP tests
are conducted each year? How many wells and then how many tests on
each of those?"
MR. NORTON explained that there is about 1,400 wells up there. He
said he didn't know exactly how many.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified he is talking about BOP on the drilling
wells.
MR. NORTON said every time they set up, the commission conducts one
and that's their goal. He noted last year they did about 200.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there are several conducted during each
well drilling.
MR. NORTON answered in the affirmative.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if those are all witnessed by the
commission.
MR. NORTON explained they have five inspectors on staff. They
cover the North Slope and Cook Inlet. The goal is to witness every
one of them; however, there isn't enough staff to do that. He said
he believes they are trying to get to 75 percent of them. Mr.
Norton explained the ones they can't physically witness, they
receive a report from the company man.
Number 737
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES questioned what the BOP test is.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN explained there is a series of protective
equipment - pieces equipment on a well, from the rams up to what is
called a bag. It is a hydraulic bag that will close off on
anything, either itself or anything that's in the hole drill pipe.
He said there are rams which are so powerful they can actually
shear the pipe and close against themselves. These are anchored to
the well head so that in case you get a gas bubble or something at
the well, you can shut it in instantly and keep it under control.
Unfortunately, in the early part of the well you can tie it down
and plug it off, but if all you've got is surface pipe it can move
the whole pipe out. So you have diverter on the surface pipe and
then as you get deeper where you've got an anchor then you put more
and more control because you get higher and higher pressure
potential. Co-Chairman Green said, "Each time you change into a
different size pipe then do you actually try and witness these or
do you take -- I think you said you'll actually use the company
records where they have actually tested it."
Number 820
MR. NORTON said the purpose of this is for well control. He
informed the committee that lately they have been noticing a
disturbing increase in the amount of bad cement jobs of surface
casing. The AOGCC started an investigation in the spring as to why
this is happening. Mr. Norton said the surface casing has to be
cemented in properly or else there is a conduit at the surface for
any kind of over pressure down below. It is not only required for
well control safety, it is also required for a relatively new
technique on the Slope for disposing of cutting waste and that's
down the annulus of a well. The annulus is the space between the
well bore and the casing. It is a very efficient way to dispose of
drilling waste. Mr. Norton said since the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has pressured the North Slope operators to dispense
with reserve pits, this has become probably the most efficient way
to dispose of waste up there. Mr. Norton informed the committee
that injecting waste down an annulus probably exceeds the leak off
test pressure at the casing shoe, so it is very important that the
cement job is adequate to preserve the integrity of the formation
and prevent fluids from returning to the surface. There have been
several instances of that happening lately so industry has been
invited in to explain what is going on. The inspectors are
scheduled to come in for a seminar on cementing techniques from
industry. He said Arco and BP, through their regulation process,
has been invited to suggest ways where commission can be more
efficient or the inspectors can be more precise with assessing
whether a cement job is good or bad. It is tough to do because it
is not something that can be visually seen, other than cement
returning to the surface, that would indicated whether the job is
good or bad.
Number 974
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there is something called a "cement bond
log."
MR. NORTON explained the have run cement bond logs, but the
commission has been told that a cement bond log can be interpreted
in many many ways and a bad job could look good on a cement bond
log.
Number 997
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to Mr. Norton saying that there is a
current rash of these that are not well done. He asked if there is
anything happening differently currently than there was in the past
such as the angles are higher.
MR. NORTON referred to when he says "current," and said he talking
about the last two or three years. There has been maybe 20 cases
in the last two to three years and two or three cases this spring.
He said they think it is because of a rush to try to economize on
the amount of cement used on a job. The current regulations
require cement to be returned to surface and in doing so, if every
job had to be that way then there would be a lot of excess cement
returned to the surface and that excess cement would have to be
hauled off, disposed of which would increase costs. They try to
cut the margin as close as they can and in trying to cut that
margin, he believes they sometimes have errored on the downside.
Mr. Norton said he thinks the initial impetus was when the reserve
pits disappeared from the Slope, waste handling on the Slope became
and is currently a major cost driver.
Number 1074
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Well the volumetric of determining the
annulus between the pipe and the location would be in your
province. I mean while it would be maybe not you specifically, but
you mentioned that you've got a staff of petroleum engineers that
would determine that. Now if they cut back so they wouldn't
surface, I mean they wouldn't come to the surface and actually
spill out, when you run these bonds or temperature surveys that
would show where the top of the cement is, is it because that upper
part of the hole is not cemented or I thought you indicated that
there was leakage at the shoe where you're gonna be using disposal
methods, and it seemed like the cement - whatever cement would be
there and then maybe run out as you came up the hole."
MR. NORTON explained the commission reviews drilling plans as a
part of the permit to drill. The commission reviews the cement
calculations; however, they don't do the calculations. Typically,
North Slope operators specifically will allow a fixed percentage
over. He noted for Prudhoe Bay he thinks it is 30 percent over the
theoretical estimate of annulus. Sometimes that isn't enough,
especially in a permafrost area as the hole becomes larger because
of permafrost degradation. The commission doesn't check their work
and tell them to increase it. It is just reviewed to make sure
there is an adequate amount of excess. It is always their
responsibility before drilling to ensure that the leak off test has
been done. That's primarily where you get your safety margin for
well control. He noted he is speaking of annular disposal problems
later. Mr. Norton explained the reason he brought it up is to use
it as an example of the way AOGCC has been able to detect a problem
and adjust their resources to focus on that as a problem rather
than going on with business as usual and letting it happen.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated, "Well that's why I'm asking you and
certainly we don't need to get into a lot of detail with the
committee. My concern though is you may recall a letter that was
sent to the Governor last year, and I'm not gonna pursue that, but
the concern is your division or your department is responsible for
the safety of the wells and if - and your particular part of that
of the triad of the commission would be down hole operations -
cementing, bottom hole safety valves, all those sorts of things
would fall into the purview of your potion of this triad. And the
concern I have is - is that there would be certainly the chance of
a blow out prevention equipment not functioning properly so you
watch that. And we haven't gotten into down hole safety valves in
case there is a rupture of the producing equipment once the well --
the rig is gone, and all that is still under your purview. My
concern now is that you mentioned this surface pipe and not being
able to meet the leak off test and, yes, there is down hole
injection later in the annulus, but which is now between the
production stream and that surface pipe and there is fluid injected
at whatever 4, 5, 6,000 feet. If there is not integrity at that
casing shoe that seems to me that's also a purview of the
Conservation Commission and particularly the job that you are
looking at."
Number 1309
MR. NORTON indicated that is correct. He said hopes he didn't
indicate that they were allowing operators to drill a head if the
leak off test failed. That's not the case. The leak off test has
to pass before they can drill a head. That demonstrates integrity
at the shoe. Mr. Norton said subsequent to that, if that specific
well became a candidate for annular injection, the injection
pressure at the shoe or down hole sometimes exceed the leak off
test pressure. He said he thinks it primarily exceeds it in order
to fracture (indisc.). Mr. Norton explained if you use that as
disposal well, you've got to be sure that the cement job above the
point of injection is competent. They look at cement bond logs and
other diagnostic techniques to ensure that and the companies bring
their information in and show it to the inspectors and staff. In
a limited number of cases, it has not been the case. It becomes an
area of concern for them to focus on.
Number 1384
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to the inspectors and petroleum
engineers and asked Mr. Norton if they report to him.
MR. NORTON explained the inspectors report to Dave Johnston. He
said there isn't an executive direct at the commission. The
commissioners have divided up the staff for purposes of supervision
and they perform evaluation and personnel action. Mr. Norton
informed the committee his area includes the statisticians for well
production. He noted that is the reason he is focusing on the info
bank as a great opportunity. Mr. Norton noted his area also
includes one petroleum engineer and petroleum geologist. The other
petroleum engineer supervises the inspectors and is under the
purview of David Johnston. The three commissioners deal with
issues such as surface cementing as a committee. He said he thinks
they all work fairly well together.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he is interested in the fact that there are
these various charges and safety is one that is of paramount
concern, not only to the employees that might be around it, but to
environmental degradation potential.
Number 1534
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said Mr. Norton indicated the three major
purviews of the AOGCC were preventing waste, ensuring maximum
recovery and the correlative rights. The inspections that have
been discussed seem to also have some impact on safety issues. He
asked if there is another agency that has primary responsibility
for the safety of these installations.
MR. NORTON explained for well safety, the AOGCC is the main state
agency. He said he believes state safety personnel gets involved
in some surface facilities, but as far as blow out prevention the
commission is the primary agency for that. He noted that follows
from preventing waste if there is a blow out. It is safety
primarily, but the genesis is in the preventing waste of the
resource.
Number 1618
REPRESENTATIVE DON LONG referred to the Northstar unit that has
been discussed. He said it appears they may be applying for a
permit for production very soon or sometime in the near future. He
asked Mr. Norton asked how he sees the role of the commission with
the Northstar unit, which is an off-shore unique type of operation.
MR. NORTON said the AOGCC hasn't gotten too deep in the Northstar
legislation because it is a leasing change. He said the Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) is the primary agency for that. When
and if Northstar becomes a developing field, the commission will
get involved in several ways. They will have to develop pool rules
to allocate the resource among the different leases. Mr. Norton
explained Northstar has some partial federal leases on it so they
will have to coordinate with MMS. He said AOGCC will be involved
in the details of issuing conservation orders to establish pool
rules for that reservoir. Mr. Norton explained the commission's
role in oil field development comes to play after the ground is
leased and exploration and development starts.
Number 1710
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to underground blowouts and asked Mr.
Norton if there has ever been one in Alaska.
MR. NORTON said he doesn't believe it has ever happened.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to the leak off test and said you stay
below the fractured radiant and when you're going to inject, you go
above it. He asked, "Now what does the Conservation Commission do
to ensure that some of that material isn't -- when you fracture
that you fracture horizontally instead of having it come up behind
the pipe, other from the fact that it shows up at the surface."
MR. NORTON said except for exploration wells, a great majority of
wells that are being drilled today are development wells in
reservoirs that have known characteristics. There has been quite
a bit of industry work on subsurface geology and they've done
fracture tests and fracture predictions and have set their casing
depths based on knowledge of the fields. Those casing depths are
deep enough to contain any surface fractures - fractures that would
allow conduit at the surface. He noted that several years ago they
had a well control problem at Endicott. As a result of that
problem, the operators deepened their surface casing for all
development wells in that area. Mr. Norton indicated it is a
different situation for exploration wells. There is more care
taken on setting those.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that the Santa Barbara spill of 1969
was because of a problem with inadequate surface pipe.
Number 1852
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked how far the AOGCC purview goes from the
well. He asked if it includes pipes to the gas handling
facilities. He also asked if it includes any of the pipeline
gathering systems.
MR. NORTON said their purview to prevent waste of the resource is
not only underground waste, but surface waste. Technically, their
purview goes up to the meters at pump station 1. He said they are
involved with all the gather lines and other surface equipment on
the North Slope up to a transportation system like the pipeline.
Number 1894
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said Mr. Norton indicated that one of the charges
is conservation of waste. He said that in Prudhoe Bay there was a
maximum efficient rate set at one and one half million barrels a
day and that was predicated primarily on shipping, but the major
function was rather than gut the reservoir in a few years was to
prevent waste by a little more orderly withdraw. He said, "My
concern again, if reservoir A is discovered or as Representative
Long talked about the Northstar. Now when you get involved in
Northstar and you've got enough wells that you feel you've got the
field delineated, you I would think would be very instrumental in
determining what the MER for that field is gonna be and how they go
about developing it to prevent waste. I know that you don't have
economic considerations, but you do have reservoir waste. Now
without being a petroleum engineer, how would you go about doing
that major issue?"
Number 1969
MR. NORTON said he doesn't have the background to set that rate.
He would rely on staff to advise him as to what the rate should be.
That is typically the way the commission has operated in the past.
Staff work is important as one person can't be all things to all
people. Mr. Norton said if he were a reservoir engineer, he'd
probably focus his entire effort on reservoirs and maybe not seed
a forest for the trees. He referred to the Northstar example and
said typically the operators would come in with their
recommendations and there would be a public hearing. The
information they provide would be analyzed by the commission's
staff and a recommendation would be made. The operators would have
a chance in a public setting to respond, object or acquiesce, then
the commission would issue the order of setting that MER.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN questioned whether the commission employs outside
expertise. He said they may roll you if your not very familiar
with the nuances of casing design and some of the petroleum
activities.
MR. NORTON said the state of Alaska is interesting as far as oil
development goes because the players up here are limited. For the
most part, there are responsible large multi-national companies
that have a standard of care that is exemplary. He said he agrees
that bringing in smaller to mid size independents is where the
future efficiencies are going to be. There is lots of development
that the big guys just don't want to deal with, but are very
attractive to the small and mid size independents. However, with
those independents could come some bad actors.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out they work on a very thin margin and
are going to try and cut costs wherever they can.
MR. NORTON explained the commission has the ability to go outside
for contract work, but noted they don't have any money in their
budget for outside consulting.
Number 2140
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN explained when Prudhoe Bay was being formed,
there was heavy air between the operators and the AOGCC having to
do with how that field was going to be operated. The expertise of
the AOGCC came into a lot of play because while they could contract
outside, they still needed some in-house people for reliance. They
actually made a lot of calls, changes and negotiations on the unit
agreement. Those things will continue to happen. Co-Chairman
Green asked Mr. Norton if he feels the commission has or will have
the expertise necessary to stand up to some of these companies. He
said it is a matter of opinion and the state looks to the
commission. He asked Mr. Norton if he feels the AOGCC could stand
up to some of the multi national companies and say, "Wait a minute
dudes, this is the way we're gonna do it in Alaska."
Number 2225
MR. NORTON pointed out he worked for Aleyska for a long time. He
said he dealt with the owners, Exxon, Arco and BP and is used to
the way to the way they operate. He continued to inform the
committee of a process they just went through regarding the planned
development of Prudhoe Bay.
Number 2336
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked Mr. Norton if he would describe his
professional background as being in the field of petroleum
engineering.
MR. NORTON said he is not a petroleum engineer. He noted he has a
background in the oil and gas industry in Alaska. Mr. Norton said
he is not a petroleum engineer and is not a licensed petroleum
engineer.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Norton if he is a mechanical
engineer.
MR. NORTON responded that he is a civil engineer.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Norton if he is aware of the statute
requirements for the position he is filling. He read from the
statute, "Licensed professional engineer with educational
professional background of petroleum engineering."
MR. NORTON indicate he is aware of the statute.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said Mr. Norton seems like a very sincere
gentlemen and has high integrity. He said he has some basic
problems with the selection in that by statute, he is required to
have background and he doesn't have it. Representative Ogan said
he isn't directing it at Mr. Norton, but it seems the Governor was
not reading the statute when he made the appointment.
MR. NORTON said if the statute wanted a licensed petroleum
engineer, it would say so directly. He said it seems that the way
it is written where it requires a licensed engineer with a
background, it gives some latitude. Mr. Norton said he personally
believes he qualifies as he is a licensed engineer in the state of
Alaska and he has a background.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said not in petroleum engineering.
MR. NORTON said he understands there is a disagreement.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said it isn't a reflection personally on Mr.
Norton at all.
MR. NORTON said if he felt he couldn't handle the job, he would
back out. He said he feels he could do a good job in the position.
Number 2427
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "I guess I base my concern that you made
a couple of references that you typically rely on staff to make
some decisions that I believe -- the reason the statute was
designed that way was because they were interested in having -- the
legislature, when we set up this commission, was interested in
having a person on that position that would not have to rely on
staff for those kinds of decisions so... Thank you Mr. Chairman."
Number 2464
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA said she thinks Mr. Norton is well
qualified as he does have a civil engineering degree and has a
background of oil and gas conservation. She said she believes he
could do a good job and is well qualified.
TAPE 96-76, SIDE B
Number 001
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA continued, "...I don't know the answer to
this so why don't you make some calls and call these people and
then come back and tell me what this is about. I mean nobody in
this world knows everything. So I'd just like to put that onto the
record too."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Well what I think what Representative Ogan
had referenced to is when you call a staffer or you call some
department, you expect the person in that department to have the
expertise. As an elected official you might not, but you would
have to some place to find it in state and that's what we'll be
calling the AOGCC for expertise."
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said, "And he won't know all the answers
and he'll have to do the research himself when they're dealing with
something. It's just like when we deal with something every day,
we always do our research ourselves too. So I mean, you know, it
goes with the job - it goes with every job."
Number 037
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said Mr. Norton is currently working on a 4 mil
tax from the industry per barrel and that's supplies the funding
for the Conservation Commission. He said he heard Mr. Norton say
something about not having the funding for perhaps hiring a
consultant. He asked Mr. Norton if he thinks the 4 mil tax should
be increased.
Number 053
MR. NORTON said there is such a thing called the oil and gas
conservation tax, 4 mils. It goes to the general fund and doesn't
come directly to them. He said they have get it reappropriated
back to them. Their budget, historically, has always been less
than the income from the tax. Mr. Norton said the tax is supposed
to support oil and gas activities. The Alaska Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission is not the only agency in state government
that deals with oil and gas issues as Department of Natural
Resources and Department of Revenue also does. Mr. Norton said the
tax used to be dedicated directly for the AOGCC. He said, "Our
budget this year - the Governor submitted a steady state budget
request. It was cut, I think now it stands at $50,000 under which
is probably about a 3 percent cut which is going to be difficult
for us. We have a -- I believe we still have $100,000 CIP line
item in there for reservoir studies and depending on how we
interpret that intent, we can use the $100,000 for contract if some
of the hypotheticals you were speaking of earlier came to pass, we
could make a stab at using that money for contracts."
Number 129
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified it is budget process maybe more than a
tax process.
MR. NORTON agreed. He said it would be great to have a dedicated
4 mil budget for the commission.
Number 141
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I just wanted to point out as required
by the Constitution."
Number 147
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "I introduced a bill, 381 which would
designate the -- to keep from having this overlap between DNR and
AOGCC. What's your opinion on that? Is that necessary? Or is
that gonna be resolved?"
MR. NORTON said his opinion is that the bill is premature at this
point in time because they've asked the Attorney General's Office
to analyze the entire relationship between the Department of
Natural Resources and AOGCC. He said absent their opinion, we
shouldn't try to fix something that may not need to be fixed right
now. He said he personally hasn't seen the Attorney General's
opinion on relationships.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said there is currently conflict. He asked Mr.
Norton if he thinks the Attorney General's Office is going to
resolve it.
MR. NORTON said there is conflict, but maybe it is conflict by
design. He said maybe the intent of the enabling legislation was
to create a check and balance. It would be interesting to know
what the intent is and then if legislation is indicated to fix
something, the we can focus on that.
Number 174
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said it is his understanding that DNR has one
position and AOGCC has another. He said if they come together
somebody is going to have to have the authority to say, "This is
the way it'll be." He asked Mr. Norton if he thinks that authority
will be resolved through the Attorney General's Office.
MR. NORTON said he hopes it will and if it doesn't, there may be a
need for legislation.
Number 216
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said Unicol has shut down some of the platforms
in the inlet and they have indicated that over the next few years
maybe another five would be shut down. He said if we don't
eventually use those for something else, they're going to have to
be removed. He asked Mr. Norton if he has a position on the proper
method if there has to be a removal.
MR. NORTON explained in their regulation revision they are trying
to anticipate abandonment of platforms. He said they are working
with AOGA to come up with a good plan for the state and industry.
In Cook Inlet they are looking at cutting off platforms he believes
at five feet below the mud line. If it is deep enough, they may
allow structures to be blown off and laid down on the mud floor.
He noted they haven't adopted any regulations yet.
Number 267
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN explained the reason he asked about keeping them
is because there has been this thought that DNR says that is a
mature exhausted province of oil and yet there have been two recent
discoveries there. He asked if there is any thought that by
removing a structure as expensive as they are, possibly
prematurely, the economics wouldn't support bring another platform
out there. Although the existing platform may not be in the proper
position, but it might be usable to help exploit a resource that
wouldn't otherwise be exploitable.
MR. NORTON said that's a good point. He noted he doesn't have a
position on it. Their regulations require plugging abandonment of
wells, including platforms, after a certain point of time where
there is no more economic activity. Mr. Norton said he believes
there is discretion in regulations to allow case-by-case
extensions.
Number 324
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said there was an audit conducted by the Budget
and Audit Committee in 1991. He read from it, "A significant
factor in reservoir management as well as in the financial health
of the state is the commission's oversight of oil and gas meters.
We believe this oversight to be inadequate." He asked Mr. Norton
he had a comment.
MR. NORTON said he isn't familiar with the audit. He said the
inspectors do witness meter proving weekly. He said he could look
into it.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he believes last year there was a contention
on metering between the Department of Revenue and the Conservation
Commission.
Number 375
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT made a motion to move Mr. Norton's name
forward to the floor for confirmation.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection. Hearing none,
it was so ordered.
Number 400
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced at 9:04 a.m. the House Resources
Committee would recess to the call of the chair.
Number 410
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN reconvened the House Resources Committee meeting
at 3:08 p.m.
CSSB 247(RLS) am(efd fld)(ct rule fld) - USE OF FISH & GAME
FUND/COMM'R'S POWERS
Number 420
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the committee would address CSSB
247(RLS) am(efd fld)(ct rule fld), "An Act restricting the use of
certain funds deposited in the fish and game fund; and relating to
the powers and duties of the commissioner of fish and game,"
sponsored by Senator Robin Taylor.
Number 440
TERRY OTNESS, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor,
Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee. He explained
Senator Taylor has reviewed the proposed amendments and finds them
acceptable.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said there is Amendment 1.
MR. OTNESS asked if Mr. Grasser could review the amendment as he
prepared it.
Number 483
ED GRASSER, Alaska Outdoor Council, came before the committee. He
said, "The ten of these amendments that the Alaska Outdoor Council
proposed was to delete some of the language that we thought was a
bit, I guess, controversial and to try and make the bill workable
from the department's standpoint, is to give them the discretion to
do some of the things that they seem to think they wouldn't be able
to do under the original bill. Anyway, the first amendment takes
out the requirement that the legislature would have to go through
and do appropriations basically on a -- what we viewed as a line
item deal. It still keeps in the language that says they have to
follow the intent of the legislature as to why the money -- or to
the programs the was appropriated for in the first part of that
section, in section (a) in Section 2. So the first amendment just
deletes the language that says the legislature shall make a
separate appropriation, which is -- probably end up being a rather
lengthy affair for the Finance Committee or the subcommittee."
CO-CHAIRMAN questioned whether the committee should review all the
amendments.
Number 548
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN said he thinks there are several
things that are all tied together in the amendment.
MR. GRASSER continued describing the proposed amendments. "Then in
the expenditure section of the bill starting on page 2, there was
considerable concern expressed by some of our member organizations
that are involved in sport fishing so we suggested taking out
`sport fish stocks' on page 2, line 2, so that they wouldn't
necessarily fall under the intensive management regime. On page 2,
line 8, we suggested deleting the word `increase' and inserting
`may enhance' in there so that there would be some discretionary
ability at the department level on whether or not they could
accomplish those goals. The original language that increased sport
fish stocks would basically tie the department's hand, in our view,
but by changing that to `may enhance' means that they may or may
not be able to accomplish that goal. And then line 9 or 8 to 9
deleting `increase' and inserting `for purposes of increasing'
that's basically the same purpose is to give the department some
discretionary leeway in making the decision there on enhancing fish
stocks or game populations. Page 2, lines 9 through 12, we just
suggested that that be deleted because we didn't want to get into,
I guess, the wolf control issue in this bill. I think from the
Outdoor Council's point of view, we were looking at this more as an
attempt to streamline or make more tight the requirements of the
department to utilize monies raised from the sale of fishing and
hunting licenses and big game tags. And that's kind of a
controversial thing and we thought that could be dealt with
elsewhere so we decided - suggested that be deleted. On page 2,
line 20, following `allowed' and this is I think a fairly
significant change, insert `except in cases where educational
efforts are evident that support sport fishing, hunting, trapping,
and related management'."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN questioned what that means.
MR. GRASSER said, "That might be something that the committee might
have to work on. That was our suggested language. The department
might have some problems with that, but the intent of that language
was to allow for programs to be funded, like Potters Marsh, through
the fish and game fund as long as there was things like
interpretative signs put up on the boardwalk saying where the money
came from for the management of the marsh, in other words fish and
game fund, and maybe some other information that denoted what kind
of contribution the PR fund and fish and game fund and hunters have
made, and in this case specifically Ducks Unlimited, as a group,
have made to the existence and management of places like Potters
Marsh or Kraemers Field or McNeil River or whatever. That's the
intent. I don't know if this language accomplishes that or not."
Number 701
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Would this -- am I - am I on the -- if you
put `for the benefit of the public' instead of `where there is
benefit to the public' or `where benefits to the public are
evident' something like that. Is that what your talking about or
am I misunderstanding what you mean?"
MR. GRASSER said that might help delineate what they are trying to
do. He said it is just a suggestion and the council is not tied to
this specific language. He said their intent was to allow for some
level of funding from the fish and game fund. Most sportsmen are
not opposed to funding these types of programs and they are
wildlife viewers also. One of the big arguments they have had in
the debate with the department is that when it comes to the support
of legitimate hunting, trapping and related management issues, they
have been rather quieter or neutral on the issue. He said the
council would feel much more comfortable with the department's
position if there were some guidelines in those areas like Potters
Marsh or Kraemers Field that demonstrated where the money was
coming from and what role related hunting, trapping and management
has played in restoration of wildlife and overall management
schemes for wildlife. He explained that is the intent of the
amendment and noted they would be willing to look at the wording
further.
Number 774
MR. GRASSER said, "From page 3, line 2, following `occur' this is
basically the same type of amendment as the previous one. The
intent there is to do the same thing - to allow the department
discretion to utilize some level of fish and game funds for
programs in nongame areas. And, again, if that doesn't accomplish
that goal, we'd be willing to work with the committee or... I
guess that we'd urge that, you know, the committee to come up with
language and pass this bill out today since time is short, but that
was our intent with this language. Then in line 3 (page 3),
beginning on line 26 you're gonna go through a series of amendments
that are basically the same as the ones we just went through
because there's two sections in the bill. One deals with fish and
game fund monies and one deals with PR monies. And so the
amendments are basically the same as what we've just went through
for those expenditure sections that deal with PR monies. And then
the other substantive amendment we have is on page 5, lines 9
through 25. Those are the definition -- that's the definition
section. We proposed an amendment to delete all the definition
section. And there again, it was our feeling that those
definitions, in our opinion, don't add to what we would like to see
happen with this bill, mainly a better view of how these funds
should be expended by the department as directed by the
legislature. And we didn't feel these definitions were necessary
to accomplish that and we thought they raised some red flags. And
besides I think some of these definitions were already put into law
to some degree or another with the previous intensive management
bill that was passed a couple of years ago. And I guess that's it
for the amendments."
Number 914
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said the only amendment he would like to work
on is the educational programs. He said he isn't sure exactly what
he would propose. He asked if the committee could exclude that
amendment and have an at ease to review the amendment.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated there are three. The first is toward
the bottom of the first page, line 16. The second is at the top of
page 2, line 3 and the third is at the bottom of page 2, line 22.
He said, "What you're suggesting is maybe we work on something
there, but accept the rest of them."
Number 951
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said that is correct. He moved to divide the
question.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said that seems reasonable to him. He asked if
there was an objection to dividing. Hearing none, he said they
will divide the question on that basis - those three areas where
educational efforts are included. He asked Representative Davies
if his amendment is to move everything excluding those three areas.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES indicated that is correct.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection. Hearing none,
it was so ordered. He said the committee would address the three
areas where they are trying to come up with educational programs or
educational efforts. He noted all the committee members were
present with the exception of Representative Barnes. He asked Mr.
Grasser to review what the council is looking for.
Number 1000
MR. GRASSER said what they're trying to do with those three
amendments is to provide a level of discretion for the department
to be able to solicit and use fish and game fund monies for
programs in traditional nongame areas like Potters Marsh as long as
there was also an effort by the department with an agreement or as
directed by the legislature that any of those fish and game funds
expended for the management of those nongame areas would include
and educational program that supported hunting and trapping and
related management by some means. He noted that might need to be
defined.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Grasser if he is familiar with what
is sort of a hunters day that is carried out at Kraemers Field each
year. He asked if that is the kind of thing he is talking about.
There must be 3,000 people that come by to talk about how this
supports management of game. There is a lot of discussion of
hunting and the safe use of weapons, etc.
Number 1053
MR. GRASSER said that is exactly what they are looking for. In
some cases, such as Potters Marsh, an interpretative sign put on
the boardwalk would accomplish this goal to some degree.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said it sounds like there are two things going.
There is an annual activity and then there is something at Potters
Marsh which is a viewing area for six months of the year.
MR. GRASSER said it might be helpful to define `educational
efforts' for the purpose of this language to include things like
interpretative signs that support related management to hunting,
trapping, etc. The department would know that they have the
ability solicit these funds and use them in these areas for nongame
as long as those types of other activities were included in the
program.
Number 1095
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES indicated Wayne Regelin was in attendance and
asked if he might have some comments or suggestions.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Regelin to come forward.
Number 1172
WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation
Department of Fish and Game, informed the committee he has seen the
proposed amendments. He said he believes the amendments really
improves the bill and takes away some of the department's concerns
such as removing the requirement for 360 separate budget
appropriations. Mr. Regelin noted he doesn't think that was the
intent, but that was the way it was worded. Section (C) adds some
flexibility so that the department can use other management schemes
other than maximum sustained yield. There are some concerns with
the bill and he thinks the amendments were an attempt to provide
the flexibility for the department in doing broader programs that
they think are beneficial to hunting, hunters and other people that
enjoy wildlife. Mr. Regelin said, "I didn't put amendments
together but I - or suggested amendments, but I don't know the way
it's written right now I don't think we could use the funds for
public service which is -- all the big program we have, all the
people that call the office and want to know where to go hunting
and walk in and do that, you know, cause it -- the way, you know,
I don't think that's -- again, it's not what was meant, but it's
very restrictive the way it's written still even though there is
more flexibility. It would allow us to do no work in hunter ed -
or I mean endangered species work or nongame conservation. And law
enforcement I think is a question. It might be - you could
interpret it as helping under that part (C), but I think that could
be debatable. The one thing that -- and all of those I think are
kind of open to question whether or not we could or couldn't and I
don't think it was the intent to stop those things and we can
probably fix that with wording. There is one big concern and
that's that right now on the federal aid dollars that we get, 6
percent of em go for indirect costs back to the Division of
Administration. Between us and Sport Fish, that gives them about
a million dollars a year. That has been done by the Finance
Committees, it started about three years ago in order to replace
general funds that as they got tighter and this bill would prohibit
that. And that's why there is such a (indisc.) would be a
substantial fiscal note because general -- you still have to pay
the vendors and that type of thing. So that would be, you know,
one and that's not addressed in any of the amendments.
Number 1299
MR. GRASSER pointed out there is wording that says, "the
administration of fish and game license function and payment of
license vendor compensation."
MR. REGELIN explained, "In the Division of Administration there is
a licensing section and there is -- and that's taken care of. We
brought that up before, but there also use the funds to -- and it's
appropriated based on the number of employees we have and the size
of the budgets. Some -- this federal aid funding and the rest of
it is general fund and it depends on whether it's commercial
fisheries and subsistence and habitat versus sport fish and
wildlife, so that it's a proportion there to keep us from getting
into problems with diversion of funds, but that's you know -- there
is more than licensing in the Division of Administration. It's the
payment - it's the personnel section -- the, you know, payment of
all the bills and that kind of thing - engineering."
Number 1350
MR. GRASSER said he doesn't necessarily disagree with Mr. Regelin.
He suggested asking counsel. He said, "It seems to me that the
expansion of - expenditure of funds for those types of programs
like -- I mean obviously you have to administer programs and have
some top level management in any type of organization, including
Department of Fish and Game, would in some way be tied to the on-
the-ground programs that field biologists or area biologists may be
carrying out. I guess what I'm hearing is that the department is
doing that section of the bill that has to do with expenditure of
funds for personnel or administration, a much more narrow aspect
than perhaps, and I'd have to defer to Terry on this, whether or
not that's what their intent was, but I don't think the intent of
the bill is to preclude them from administering programs."
Number 1499
MR. OTNESS indicated frustration as he hasn't heard anything about
this concern. He said every committee the bill has been in there
is another "but" added. Mr. Otness said his concern is that we're
running short of time. He said if there is an issue, it could be
brought up in the Finance Committee as it is a fiscal issue.
MR. REGELIN agreed and said Kevin Brooks, director of
Administration has been in attendance each time the bill was heard
and has brought it up.
Number 1459
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if the portion of the bill that causes
concern is on page 2, lines 23, 24 and 25, "(C) expended for costs
of personnel or administration, other than costs of personnel or
administration directly incurred in conjunction with projects
allowed under this subsection, except under a general indirect
recovery provision;"
MR. REGELIN said, "Mr. Chairman, that part allows for -- it says it
my not be used for personnel or administration, other than the
costs for personnel or administration directly incurred in
conjunction with projects under this section and we call it
indirect costs, that's -- I mean that's the title of how we...."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES explained he wants to be sure that is the
part of the bill that is being addressed. He said he would suggest
for consideration is that after the word "subsection," insert
"except under a general indirect recovery provision." In other
words, this would allow for the normal kinds of indirect recovery
but it wouldn't allow for direct expenditures for personnel who
weren't involved in this.
MR. REGELIN said he thinks that would take care of the problem.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Otness if he is agreeable to the
wording.
Number 1597
MR. OTNESS indicated he would have to speak to Senator Taylor.
Number 1622
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS said this is a financial area and he is
sure it would be addressed in the Finance Committee. He asked if
the Resources Committee can take care of the amendments that deal
with the resource issues.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated the amendment seems to cover the issue.
If the Finance Committee doesn't like it, they will change it.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said he doesn't want the bill to get bogged
down.
MR. OTNESS said Senator Taylor could state his objection in the
Finance Committee if he has a problem with the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he would offer the wording as an
amendment.
Number 1689
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said Amendment 2 would insert the wording "except
under a general indirect recovery provision" between the words
"subsection" and "or" on page 2, line 25. He asked if there was an
objection. Hearing none, it was so ordered.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said the committee would address the education
section of the bill. He asked if Mr. Grasser or Mr. Regelin had
any suggestions. He asked Mr. Regelin if he knows what they are
looking for with educational programs or educational efforts.
Number 1743
MR. REGELIN said the department could do educational projects.
CO-CHAIRMAN said, "There are three places that we're trying to find
a word or some words that would explain what they're after and --
because it look to me like I misread it. When I read the
amendments, I looked at that completely different than what Mr.
Grasser has told us so..."
MR. GRASSER explained the intent of that language was to allow for
funding, through the fish and game fund.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN pointed out the language was on page 2,
line 23.
MR. GRASSER said it would allow for the use of fish and funds in
nongame areas as long as there was some effort such as an
interpretative sign on the boardwalk at Potters Marsh, etc., to
show that the dollars that were help supporting the management of
that nongame area came from fish and game fund money or PR money
and that there was some effort to demonstrate that hunting,
trapping, sport fishing and related management had benefits to
wildlife. He said that was the intent. He noted if any members of
the committee had alternative language they would like to suggest
to make that more evident, it would be fine with him.
Number 1854
MR. REGELIN explained the part that would probably be left out
which is very important in their educational program is called
"project wild." He explained that project wild is where they train
teachers throughout the state to teach wildlife curriculum that the
department develops about hunting, fishing and wildlife management.
Unless that project is included somewhere else, they wouldn't be
able to do that under the bill.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said Mr. Regelin had indicated hunter's
education, so it is hunters as well as teachers.
MR. REGELIN explained they are separate programs.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that both of the programs are funded,
in part, from revenues that are brought in from licenses.
MR. REGELIN indicated they are.
Number 1906
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked how much money is expended on project
wild and where has it been taking place.
MR. REGELIN explained it is about $150,000 a year and they have
trained approximately 4,000 teachers all over Alaska. On weekends
the teachers come in and donate their time. He said they also have
a national curriculum put together for all the western states and
one specific to Alaska which is more oriented towards hunting.
Number 1972
MR. GRASSER informed the committee it wasn't the Alaska Outdoor
Council's intent to exclude funding of project wild. He said he
does see in the original bill the language does tie the
expenditure. He said they wrote their amendments based on that to
a specific areas. Project wild obviously isn't an area, it is a
program. He said if that could be fixed, it would be fine with
him.
Number 2003
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES suggested the change would be needed on page
4, after line 8, and on page 2, after line 17. He indicated there
is a wording, "shall be used for only projects that provide for,"
and then there is a list (A) through (F). On another page there is
(A) through (E). He suggested inserting another section (F) on
page 4 that says, "Educational programs in schools that support..."
Then use the same language "support sport fishing, hunting,
trapping and related management."
MR. GRASSER suggest that might be simplified by looking at page 2,
subsection (B) where it says "shall be used only for projects that
provide for..." He said subsection (B) adds a whole list of things
including hunter education. There might be a possibility of
putting "other educational efforts" or similar language. He said
there is an increment where money is allowed for hunter education.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated the wording should be "wildlife
education."
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA questioned if the word "hunter" would be
deleted and add "wildlife."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN questioned if the wording would be put in after
"hunter education."
MR. GRASSER indicated that is correct.
Number 1514
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved the amendment be adopted.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated a motion has been made to insert
"wildlife education" between the words "education" and "public" on
line 5, page 2. He asked if there was an objection. Hearing none,
the amendment was adopted.
Number 2218
MR. OTNESS suggested the committee might want to look at Section 4
of page 3 and add that wording to line 29 as well.
Number 2223
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved the amendment be adopted.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said it has been moved that those same two words
would be added between "education" and "public" on page 3, line 29.
He asked if there was an objection. Hearing none, the amendment
was adopted.
Number 2243
MR. OTNESS said the last issue is defining "educational efforts."
He said a section might be added to define educational efforts as
interpretative signs, public service, public service events and
educational programs.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if this would be in all three places.
MR. OTNESS indicated that is correct. He suggested the drafter of
the bill could come up with a definition for educational efforts.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked what wording Mr. Otness is suggesting for
page 1.
MR OTNESS said, "Educational efforts defined as interpretative
signs, public service, public service events and educational
programs."
Number 2360
MR. GRASSER said all the language in (h) on page 5 starting on line
9 was deleted. He suggested inserting a definition section and
define "educational efforts" there so it wouldn't have to be done
in three places.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted in two places the wording "educational
programs" was used and in another place the wording "educational
efforts" was used.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said they would be defining "educational."
TAPE 96-77, SIDE A
Number 001
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "...and I want to specify where, but what.
Representative Davies."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said has he understands, the committee is
talking about using these funds to support specific areas like
Potters Marsh and Kraemers Field. We're saying it's okay to use
these funds for those things so long as there is an interpretative
sign or there are public service events that support hunting, etc.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Grasser if that is what he had in mind.
He said notification or some sort of sign is not necessarily the
project the itself.
Number 083
MR. GRASSER said it could be just an interpretative sign at Potters
Marsh or it could be more than that. In the case of McNeil River
it could be that the biologist that conducts the activity there
could have a portion of his presentation to the tourists that visit
that area would include information about hunting and the benefit
to wildlife and related management, etc. He said it will be
different in some areas, just as long there is some evidence that
we're making an effort to let the public know what benefits
wildlife is getting from hunting.
Number 136
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he would move a conceptual amendment
which would be to add a definition section that defines the word
"educational" in the context of "educational efforts and
educational programs to include interpretative signs, public
service events, and wildlife educational events and things like
hunting days."
Number 278
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection to the conceptual
amendment. Hearing none, the conceptual amendment was adopted.
Number 324
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Now that brings us back to perhaps the
other half or the divided portion of this Amendment Number 1 where
we had those three places called educational. With this definition
now, is there a motion to accept those..."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES so moved.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Alright. Three places then in the
Amendment 1 where we referred to education that we left out is now
amendment to accept those as the completion of the amendment. Is
there objection? This amendment then, Number 1 as well as an
Amendment Number 2 that Representative Davies had are accepted into
this act. Is there any other amendment or any other comment about
this bill."
Number 393
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved on page 5, lines 5 through 8...
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN interrupted and stated that has been stricken.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved to strike subsection (g). He explained
the amendment the committee just adopted deleted a (indisc.)
definition, but above that is (g) and that is the subject of his
current amendment.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN apologized to Representative Davies and asked
what he was saying.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES explained his motion is to delete subsection
"(g)."
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS questioned Mr. Otness what his feeling is
about the amendment.
MR. OTNESS said he doesn't think the sponsor would be in agreement
to that amendment.
Number 491
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said if the statute law says one thing the
department is required to do and if they go and do something
totally the opposite, doesn't the citizen already have the ability
to take them to court. He said he believes they do.
Number 530
MR. OTNESS said he doesn't know the answer to that question.
MR. REGELIN said the department gets taken to court all the time.
He said the answer is yes, they have the right. He said he guesses
this just reiterates it.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he remembers a bill that went through the
House Resources Committee and then it was modified in the House
Judiciary Committee where there was immunity granted for some and
not others. That was deleted from the bill. Co-Chairman Green
asked Mr. Otness if he knows what Senator Taylor had in mind by
specifying that public officials are not immune from a lawsuit.
MR. OTNESS said, "I'm hoping that I might delay a little bit so he
might answer that himself. I'm not sure I care to speculate."
Number 609
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said there is a motion to strike lines 5 through
8. He asked if there was an objection.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS objected.
Number 628
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked for a five minute recess.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recessed the meeting.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN called the meeting back to order and said the
motion has been made to remove lines 5 through 8. He asked if
there was objection. Hearing none, it was so ordered.
Number 761
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said three amendments have been introduced and
adopted. He asked if there was any other discussion.
Number 806
SARA HANNAN, Executive Director, Alaska Environmental Lobby, came
forward to give her testimony on the proposed committee substitute
for SB 247. She said she applauds the committee for their
diligence to detail in modifying the bill. Ms. Hannan said the
amendments are vast improvements, but she doesn't think the bill
can be amended to be a good piece of legislation. She referred to
when the sponsor testified on the bill the previous week, he spoke
about paying the fiddler and asserted that he had hired the fiddler
by paying a small fee. Ms. Hannan said, "But I'm gonna say that
the state of Alaska is hosting a big wedding and you've been
invited to the wedding and you're fee to come to the wedding. What
is expected out of you by that invitation is that when you come you
bring a small gift or offering and the right of a hunter to hunt in
Alaska and the small fee that a Alaska hunter pays does not cover
the cost that the right to hunt bears along the rest of us. Most
the cost the Department of Fish and Game have in managing game are
cost for hunters and there are hundreds of thousands of dollars in
those costs, but to be a sport hunter in Alaska you pay your small
fee and you get to go hunt and to turn around and say, `That gives
me the right to tell them what they're gonna serve me at dinner and
what music the fiddler plays,' is an erroneous thought. There are
very very very few programs that institute taxes or fees that cover
and are a direct corollary between the user. The thing that comes
the closest is probably the federal gasoline tax where you are
actually are paying for how much you're driving or how big your car
is. But if you drive an electric car, you still get to drive on
federally funded highways and you don't get to go say, just because
you've got biggest gas guzzler out there, I get to determine the
speed limit because I pay more in gasoline taxes than you and your
neighbors driving those little cost efficient car do. Everyone
abides by the same laws and the cost of the highway patrol to
patrol those laws is not proportioned out. Our licensure of
hunters and fishers in this state is something we do because we
think that you need to regulate them and they need to be
responsible for it. They need to know the bag limits. They don't
get to come say when they get to hunt and where they get to hunt
through statute. They get to make those decisions by participating
in the Board of Game and the Board of Fish process. Those are
significant processes that are undermined by forcing the department
into a position where they don't get to make fair recommendations
and they don't get to distribute fees that they receive from the
federal government in a disproportionate share. If we were truly
gonna proportionalize this, the people who would most directly
benefit and who get to decide what we do with this are German
hunters who are coming on a guided hunt in Alaska and pay real
money to be hunting here. They would get to say what songs the
fiddler plays at the wedding we're hosting. That's not what we
want. That's not what we should do."
Number 989
MS. HANNAN continued, "I want to draw your attention to one other
section of the bill, Section 1 that puts into statute a directive.
And I don't have any problem with a directive for the Department of
Game - the Department of Fish and Game to cooperate with sportsmen
association, but the final phrase on that section, lines 7 and 8,
is that the department should work to introduce new populations
into suitable habitat. Siberian tigers into the Interior, elk on
to islands in Southeast, sturgeon into our rivers, work to
introduce new species. We don't have adequate money to manage the
resources we do and provide the baseline science to do accelerate
management, let alone to tell our department we want them working
on new species. That's something they can do at the directive of
the Board of Game and something we may want them to do. The reason
Sweden has a huge moose population is that area of the country - of
the planet has been inhabited for centuries in dense habitation.
And to quickly equalize the habitat parallel in Alaska, if we let
the entire Kenai Peninsula burn today, we'd have great moose
habitat there. Lets torch it. Should burn every 100 years by
nature, but we've controlled what it burns and as a result, the
moose population and the moose habitat has changed. Those are
socioeconomic decisions, not strictly biology and I don't think
that putting into statute a misbalance of it corrects some of those
very complex decisions. I think the bill stinks. I don't think it
can be improved to the point that it should be enacted into
statute. If you didn't take the time to read - I did distribute
last week a really eloquent description of how those federal monies
come to play and the thing to remember is our hunters and fishers
aren't paying for what we're using. We're getting a lot of money
out Manhattanites who are buying forty-fours and letting us get $9
out of every tax - nine to one ratio for what we're paying out in
federal taxes on ammo. I don't want Manhattan to get our money and
I don't think that we want German foreign hunters deciding our game
policies. I don't think that this bill does anything to serve the
hunters of Alaska. Thanks for your time."
Number 1194
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said Ms. Hannan brought up an interesting point
in Section 1 about the introduction of new species.
MR. OTNESS indicated that it is populations and not species.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Regelin, "Do you see, while even the
way this is written, that you would cooperate with? Does that
mandate to you any concern that the division - the Department of
Fish and Game would have if some sportsmen comes in and wants
Bangle tigers that this would -- and I don't -- I know that was a
facetious thing..."
MS. HANNAN clarified it is Siberian tigers as Bengals wouldn't
survive our winters, but Siberians would.
Number 1235
MR. REGELIN noted that when he first reviewed the bill, he had the
same concern Ms. Hannan had because he thought exotic species. He
noted it doesn't say "species," it says "populations" and because
of that he felt if we can take a population and move it within
Alaska, because if it's not biologically feasible he doesn't think
they would have to do it.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if there is a word they could use that
would modify populations.
MS. HANNAN suggested using the word "indigenous."
Number 1276
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved to insert the word "indigenous."
MS. HANNAN suggested the wording, "To expand indigenous populations
into suitable habitat."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Regelin what he would suggest.
Number 1297
MR. REGELIN suggested, "To expand indigenous populations into
suitable habitat."
Number 1328
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked if they should use the word
"relocate." She asked if it doesn't say "introduce" and
introducing would be relocating a species.
MR. REGELIN said he didn't write it down.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN explained that what he has is "introduced new"
would be changed to "expand indigenous population."
MR. REGELIN suggested using "relocate" or "trans locate" or
something similar rather than "expand" might be better.
Number 1362
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA referred to caribou in the Interior and
said if you wanted to move some of them to the Anchorage area, and
asked if that is what the bill means.
MR. REGELIN said that is the way he reads the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN suggested using the wording, "introduce
indigenous populations into suitable new habitat."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there are any other comments before he
offers the new amendment which would change the words "introduce
new" and insert "expand indigenous." He asked if there was an
objection. Hearing none, the amendment was adopted.
Number 1438
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a motion to move CSSB 247 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Austerman, Kott, Long,
Ogan, Williams and Green voted in favor of the motion.
Representatives Davies and Nicholia voted against the motion. So
HCSCSSB 247(RES) passed out of the House Resources Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1490
There being no further business to come before the House Resources
Standing Committee, CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN adjourned the meeting at 4:10
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|