Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/17/1997 01:10 PM 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
April 17, 1997
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Joe Green
Representative William K. ("Bill") Williams
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 19 am
"An Act relating to enforcement of federal laws relating to fish
and game; and repealing the power and duty of the commissioner of
fish and game to assist in the enforcement of federal laws relating
to fish and game."
- MOVED HCS SB 19(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 238
"An Act amending the program of exploration incentive credits for
activities involving locatable or leasable minerals or coal
deposits on certain land in the state; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 109
"An Act relating to the management and disposal of state land and
resources; relating to certain remote parcel and homestead entry
land purchase contracts and patents; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
BRIEFING: Board of Game
- HEARD
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS:
Board of Fisheries
Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
- POSTPONED TO APRIL 19, 1997
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 19
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL FED ENFORCEMENT DUTIES/F&G COMSNR
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SHARP, Taylor, Donley
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/03/97 19 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 19 (S) RES, JUD
02/05/97 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/05/97 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/06/97 247 (S) RES RPT 6DP 1NR
02/06/97 247 (S) DP:HALFORD, TAYLOR, TORGERSON,
LEMAN,
02/06/97 247 (S) GREEN, SHARP; NR: LINCOLN
02/06/97 247 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS)
02/19/97 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/19/97 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/20/97 428 (S) JUD RPT 3DP
02/20/97 428 (S) DP: TAYLOR, PARNELL, PEARCE
02/20/97 428 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DPS)
02/21/97 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
02/21/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/24/97 469 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR & 1NR 2/24/97
02/24/97 473 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/24/97 473 (S) AM NO 1 OFFERED BY SHARP
02/24/97 473 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED Y14 N5 A1
02/24/97 474 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
02/24/97 474 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 19 AM
02/24/97 474 (S) COSPONSOR(S): DONLEY
02/24/97 475 (S) PASSED Y15 N4 A1
02/24/97 475 (S) ADAMS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
02/25/97 502 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
02/25/97 502 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/26/97 478 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/26/97 478 (H) RESOURCES, JUDICIARY
04/10/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/10/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
BILL: HB 238
SHORT TITLE: MINING EXPLORATION INCENTIVE CREDITS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/08/97 1025 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/08/97 1025 (H) RESOURCES
04/17/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 109
SHORT TITLE: MANAGEMENT OF STATE LAND AND RESOURCES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) THERRIAULT
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/03/97 219 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/03/97 219 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
04/17/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JOSEPHINE HARDY, Legislative Secretary
to Senator Bert Sharp
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 516
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3004
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor's position on HCS SB
19(RES).
JOHN GLASS, Colonel, Director
Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection
Department of Public Safety
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507-1225
Telephone: (907) 269-5509
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HCS SB 19(RES).
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 13
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3719
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 238.
JULES TILESTON, Director
Division of Mining and Water Management
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Suite 800
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5935
Telephone: (907) 269-8600
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 238.
MILTON WILTSE, Director
Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys
Department of Natural Resources
794 University Avenue, Suite 200
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707-3645
Telephone: (907) 451-5005
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 238.
BOB BARTHOLOMEW, Deputy Director
Income and Excise Audit Division
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110420
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0420
Telephone: (907) 465-2320
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 238.
DAVID ROGERS, Attorney/Lobbyist
for Council of Alaska Producers
P.O. Box 33932
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Telephone: (907) 586-1107
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 238.
SARA FISHER, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Gene Therriault
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 511
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4797
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 109.
RICHARD LeFEBVRE, Deputy Director
Division of Land
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Suite 1122
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5947
Telephone: (907) 269-8503
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 109.
MARY KAYE HESSION, Program Support
Central Office
Division of Land
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Suite 1122
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5947
Telephone: (907) 269-8511
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 109.
LARRY HOLMES, JR., Chairman
Board of Game
P.O. Box 454
Girdwood, Alaska 99587
Telephone: (907) 783-2756
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented briefing on Board of Game.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-44, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN SCOTT OGAN called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Hudson, Ogan, Dyson, Green and
Williams. Representatives Masek, Joule, Nicholia and Barnes
arrived at 1:16 p.m., 1:37 p.m., 1:39 p.m. and 1:52 p.m.,
respectively.
SB 19 am - REPEAL FED ENFORCEMENT DUTIES/F&G COMSNR
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the first order of business was Senate
Bill No. 19 am, "An Act relating to enforcement of federal laws
relating to fish and game; and repealing the power and duty of the
commissioner of fish and game to assist in the enforcement of
federal laws relating to fish and game."
Number 0059
JOSEPHINE HARDY, Legislative Secretary to Senator Bert Sharp, came
forward on behalf of the sponsor.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether Ms. Hardy was aware of the proposed
committee substitute.
Number 0116
MS. HARDY explained that the committee substitute is the original
version of the bill. It no longer adds new section AS 16.05.145
but simply repeals AS 16.05.050(1). She said in light of
aggressive federal actions to assume management of fish and game
over large areas of Alaska, in violation of the statehood compact,
the sponsor believes repealing AS 16.05.050(1) is prudent and in
the best interests of Alaskans. She advised that Senator Sharp
fully supports the committee substitute and believes it should
satisfy concerns of the Department of Public Safety.
Number 0252
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked whether there are contractual, or at
least understood, obligations for the state and federal governments
to mutually enforce regulations.
MS. HARDY responded that taking away the mandate will not do any
harm as far as working together in federal areas, and that it would
be beneficial to enforcing state regulation or laws. She said
eliminating this mandate does not mean there will be no assistance
to the federal government in enforcing their laws. This only
pertains to when state and federal laws are in conflict.
Number 0347
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON discussed AS 16.05.050, which states in
part: "The commissioner has, but not by way of limitation, the
following powers and duties: (1) to assist the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service in the enforcement of federal laws and
regulations pertaining to fish and game." He noted that the only
thing the bill would now do is eliminate subsection (1). He asked
whether it is the sponsor's view that by removing the powers and
duties under subsection (1), the commissioner of the Department of
Fish and Game would be able to cooperate or work with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service in other matters.
Number 0426
MS. HARDY replied that the bill repeals a mandated duty, not a
power. She said it simply gives discretion to the commissioner in
allowing the department to enter into agreements and enforcement
protocols they wish to enter into. By repealing the mandate, it
removes the "hammer" if the department does not feel comfortable or
appropriate in going out and assisting.
Number 0481
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that Colonel Glass was now on
teleconference and asked him to address the proposed committee
substitute.
JOHN GLASS, Colonel, Director, Division of Fish and Wildlife
Protection, Department of Public Safety, testified via
teleconference. He said the proposed committee substitute removes
concerns he voiced at the earlier hearing. Repeal of AS
16.05.050(1) will have no effect on his division, which obtains
enforcement authority under Title 18, not Title 16. Therefore, his
division will be able to continue the cooperative efforts they
currently enjoy with federal agencies.
Number 0591
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether enforcement is done by the
Department of Public Safety rather than by the Department of Fish
and Game (ADF&G).
COLONEL GLASS replied for the most part, yes. His division is the
enforcement arm for fish and game regulations. Although some
people within the ADF&G do enforcement, it is extremely limited in
scope.
Number 0624
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested by enacting this, nothing is really
being accomplished. It removes a duty, but the duty is being done
by the Department of Public Safety rather than the ADF&G.
COLONEL GLASS agreed for the most part. However, he could not
speak for the ADF&G as to the exact numbers.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that would certainly relieve one of his
big concerns. The way the bill was written previously was
unacceptable. He had been concerned that if the state openly does
not do enforcement as agreed, the federal government could do
likewise.
Number 0773
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK made a motion to adopt the committee
substitute, version 0-LS0173\E, Utermohle, 4/15/97, and to move it
from committee with individual recommendations and attached zero
fiscal note.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked if there was any objection. There being
none, the committee substitute, 0-LS0173\E, was adopted and moved
as HCS SB 19(RES) from the House Resources Standing Committee.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN turned the gavel over to Co-Chairman Hudson.
HB 238 - MINING EXPLORATION INCENTIVE CREDITS
Number 0819
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced the next item of business was House
Bill No. 238, "An Act amending the program of exploration incentive
credits for activities involving locatable or leasable minerals or
coal deposits on certain land in the state; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 0844
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY, sponsor, explained that HB 238 resulted
from trying to come up with a method or means to expand the
airborne geomagnetic survey program that the state has been
conducting on a small scale. It is one of several things the state
has done over the last few years that resulted in an economic boom
in Alaska. Despite its small scale, it has generated a tremendous
amount of excitement and economic activity.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY advised that in 1995, the Mineral Exploration
Incentive Program, a tax credit program, was enacted. He noted
that airborne geomagnetic mapping is a form of geophysical
research. Geophysical surveying, geochemical surveying and
geological mapping, which provide valuable data in cataloging the
state's resources, have clearly resulted in an economic boom.
Number 0988
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said in today's environment, he does not
believe it is feasible for the legislature to appropriate more
money to conduct surveys, catalog information and release it after
compilation. That is where HB 238 comes in. There has been
tremendous success with the mineral exploration tax credit. Now
they want a tax credit for companies that do this type of work and
release information to the public.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that right now, such information is
considered proprietary and not released to the public. In essence,
vast amounts of geological data about the state are hidden in
vaults of various companies. Giving companies an incentive for
releasing data would allow great expansion of the library of
geological information available to the public.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said frequently when one party sees no value
in certain data, others looking from a different perspective will
see great value. He cited an example in Fairbanks and said it is
common throughout the mineral exploration industry. This bill
places an incentive to get the private sector to use private sector
dollars and then put information into the public domain, at minimum
cost to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said the state will benefit in several ways.
If a tax credit is used, there is a tremendous time lag between
when the information is obtained, when it is made available to the
public, and when the tax credit can actually be used. It expires
after 15 years. Representative Vezey said he suspects only a small
fraction of exploration tax credits will actually ever be utilized,
even for those that are filed. There is a tremendous amount of
leverage for the state without any direct appropriation.
Number 1127
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY acknowledged that the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) had raised questions. However, he believes those
have been answered in the bill. It is not intended to create an
additional state function. In fact, information can be released by
the private sector directly to the public for a tax credit.
Representative Vezey concluded by saying the bill is complex
because it puts this fairly simple idea into the same statute as
the existing tax incentive tax credit, and the two are radically
different from each other.
Number 1217
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked whether this is a one-time tax
application.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said no, although a company could use any
given tax credit one time. The program would be ongoing. He does
not believe there would be many tax credits; he believes that is
the smallest part of the bill. He stated, "The major part of the
bill is that hopefully it will be a shot that's heard around the
world." He advised that because of the mineral exploration
incentive tax credit, the whole mineral exploration industry knows
that Alaska wants to work with them.
Number 1268
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to HB 200 from the Eighteenth Alaska
State Legislature, a similar tax incentive bill for the oil
industry. He said larger exploration companies had been a little
reticent to share information; when they had agreed to share it,
they experienced "all kinds of trouble" with the DNR. He asked
whether Representative Vezey had checked with the mining industry
and the DNR to see whether they would honor something like this.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied that he expects most exploration
entities to consider the information proprietary and not release it
in a manner that would make it acceptable. They would probably sit
on it so long that the industry format for data would change by the
time they were ready to release it, and it probably never would
become a tax credit. He stated, "It's really the message that
we're sending."
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY noted there is an airborne geomagnetic program
in place, with regulations as to data format. He suggested a small
portion of the data collected could fall in this domain, and he
expects that the DNR would work with those providing it.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that he wishes the mining industry
better luck with the DNR than the oil industry has had.
Number 1463
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON suggested as these incentives are put in the
hands of public officials regulating these industries, that there
should be a responsibility to report to the legislature annually
about applications and justifications for turning them down, for
example.
Number 1515
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked what kinds of parameters there are. For
example, what prevents a company from trying to obtain tax credits
for unloading data?
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said there are several parameters. He does
not believe it is possible for the legislature to write a law that
defines the quality of professional data. The intent under the
bill is to give the DNR "total edit authority" over what they
accept. Unacceptable, for example, would be duplicative data or
data in a format the industry cannot use. The other control is
that the credit is only good for up to 50 percent of the taxes
owed, within a 15-year period.
Number 1591
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether this is retroactive.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said it has an effective date of January 1,
1997. He advised that there is a whole set of problems in trying
to collect old data.
Number 1619
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether it would apply to geological surveys
conducted from the effective date forward.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied that the intention is really not to
give away tax dollars but to provide an incentive. "And you can't
give people an incentive to do something last year," he said.
Number 1640
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to page 6, line 10, and pointed out it
says the act is retroactive to January 1, 1997, and applies to
activities that qualify for this incentive credit that are
undertaken after December 1, 1996.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "We have to remember that if this
property goes into production, those expenses related to the
production site, as defined in our original bill, are a tax-
creditable item. What we're doing here is bringing in the data
that is outside that zone. So in all likelihood - I would say in
most cases - there would probably be a ten-year lag between the
information being collected and the company saying that `we see no
value here; we want to let it go.'"
Number 1697
JULES TILESTON, Director, Division of Mining and Water Management,
Department of Natural Resources, testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. He reported that the "three entities that are directly
involved" had met a couple of times, and they had recently held
informal, preliminary discussions with the Alaska Miners
Association relating to HB 238.
MR. TILESTON said the overall concept of increasing the
availability of basic geologic survey data in Alaska, regardless of
land ownership, is definitely meritorious and deserving of serious
consideration. However, he agrees it is radically different from
the exploration incentive credits now in place. Given that, he
believes it is important to proceed carefully, so they do not
inadvertently disrupt a program now recognized worldwide for its
importance to Alaska.
MR. TILESTON said there are areas of uncertainty. Although he
believes those can be resolved, when he reads the bill and the
sponsor's intent, he does not know the answers but must make
assumptions. "And if you have to assume on legislation, that's
probably not good," he commented.
MR. TILESTON listed areas of uncertainty. When does data for a
mineral property or area that does not otherwise qualify for an
exploration incentive become stale? Is it 5, 15 or 30 years? How
is data that partially or fully duplicates information already
available in the public arena to be credited? How is the new
credit to be considered when it involves a mineral property that
subsequently qualifies for the existing program because it went to
production with a history of a series of companies taking action?
For example, what if the fifth company actually developed the
mineral property but the second company took the credit? How can
that be taken into account, and is it part of the $20 million cap?
Number 1837
MR. TILESTON suggested there are reasonable answers and that these
questions should be discussed to ensure everyone is on the same
wavelength. He continued: What is the standard of public
availability? A professional publication? A draft report on file
in a company office in Alaska or elsewhere? A report on file with
the Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys? How are new
credits that are totally or partially developed with federal, state
or other public funding to be treated? He advised there are
programs that provide federal funding; for example "small operators
on coal" can get 100 percent federal funding to develop this type
of information. He then asked what the standard is for determining
whether eligible costs for a new credit are reasonable.
MR. TILESTON advised that applications for the existing exploration
incentive program over the past two years involve 139 individual
mineral properties, for a total of about $50 million. Supporting
information suggests that up to $37 million might be eligible costs
under HB 238 if none ever resulted in a producing mine. He
questioned whether that is the intent of the legislature.
Number 1909
MR. TILESTON stated, "Another minor thing is the existing bill has
a three-year confidentiality on data that is provided to the
department. Is that to be provided to this one?" He emphasized
that a close working relationship has resulted among the
legislature, the mining industry, the Office of the Attorney
General, the Department of Revenue and the DNR during development
of the basic program that this would amend, which is under AS
27.30.
MR. TILESTON discussed the bottom line, stating, "It is our
recommendation that we use the existing stakeholders' relationships
to 1) respond to the variety of questions that I've just asked and
some of the questions that the committee itself asked and 2) as
appropriate, develop specific amendments to HB 238 to make sure
that we're all on the same page. This could take place over this
summer, with amendments developed with the sponsor prior to next
session. At that time, the Administration, the sponsor and the
mining industry can be in a position to develop consensus to the
maximum extent possible, and for all to understand any rationale
for any differences, because there might be some."
MR. TILESTON concluded that they support the concept. They believe
it merits consideration. They also believe there are reasonable
answers to the questions. However, these questions need to be
addressed.
Number 2006
MR. TILESTON responded to an earlier question by Representative
Green, saying he was not personally familiar with the DNR's actions
relating to oil and gas. "But I can tell you for a fact that there
have been no appeals, so far, over the way we have been handling
the mining side of the exploration incentive credit," he said.
"And again, I think that's in part because we had a complete and
full understanding of how we were going to proceed, and we've had
the direct involvement of all of the players." He stated that the
Administration is not, when it comes to the mining side, setting up
road blocks; at least he has heard no adverse feedback relating to
that.
Number 2050
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commended Mr. Tileston and stated his belief
that the attitude of the director involved has a major impact on
cooperation between industry and the state. He suggested there
might be answers to Mr. Tileston's questions that could be taken
from the "oil and gas arena" and applied as a starting point for
the mining industry. He said Mr. Tileston's questions are "very,
very valid."
Number 2125
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON encouraged Mr. Tileston and others in this
professional field to look for recommendations on actions the
legislature could take to try to expand access to critical
information, for example.
Number 2187
MILTON WILTSE, Director, Division of Geological and Geophysical
Surveys, Department of Natural Resources, testified via
teleconference from Fairbanks. He said as the scientific arm of
the DNR, for years they had known this type of information existed.
However, there had been no way to tap into it. Mr. Wiltse said
this is intriguing to them. He stated his hope that if the
glitches or questions, such as those pointed out by Mr. Tileston,
could be worked out, that this would not simply result in sending
a message to the mining companies encouraging them to invest in
Alaska; he also hoped they could acquire a great deal of
information.
MR. WILTSE discussed a similar program begun in British Columbia in
1947. He had contacted the director of the geological survey there
to find out how their program functions. The minimum requirement
is a property report of 10 to 15 pages in length. In addition,
there is a voluntary contribution in some cases of geological drill
hole, geochemical and geologic mapping information.
MR. WILTSE reported that the down-side of maintaining that data
base has amounted to one full-time professional geologist to audit
the reports to ensure they pass the threshold of acceptance; two
full-time professional geologists dedicated to organizing and
archiving the reports and information; a systems analyst who works
one-quarter- to one-half-time; and a contractor who microfilms the
data and puts it out for public consumption.
Number 2321
MR. WILTSE advised that microfilming is not a technology the state
would want to pursue. Furthermore, there are more mineral
properties in British Columbia than in Alaska. However, he
believes if HB 238 is successful in getting companies to generate
data, potentially there would be a multimillion-dollar volume of
data coming to the DNR annually. That data would only be valuable
if organized and readily accessible.
MR. WILTSE emphasized that this is not a pitch for immediate
addition of three more geologists, a program analyst and
contractual money. "But I am saying that somewhere we have to pull
together that type of roster of resources," he stated. "Because I
don't believe allowing the data to stay in the hands of the
individual companies, to be doled out, would be a long-term
workable model for the state. Companies are ephemeral in Alaska.
They come and they go. They form, they merge, they go out of
business. And this data is valuable. And it becomes more valuable
as it is accumulated and organized and made accessible easily to
various people."
MR. WILTSE said if details can be worked out, he would work hard to
ensure data is available statewide via the Internet and in physical
form. He agreed there are questions that need worked out.
However, they find the idea intriguing and would willingly go to
work to find solutions.
Number 2402
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said this gave him food for thought. They had
tried with HB 238 to recognize the DNR's limited resources. For
$10 million a year, there could be an aggressive geophysical
exploration program in Alaska. But lacking that, HB 238 gives the
DNR edit authority over accepting the data. He acknowledged that
still takes time and effort.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY suggested, "I'm not sure that it's necessary
that we put it in the bill, but we could put it in the bill
authorizing the DNR to designate certain professional consulting
geologists in the state of Alaska to be authorized to do this
review at the expense of the applying party. They would have to
contract as independent consultants to give the DNR assurance that
the data was of use."
Number 2447
MR. WILTSE replied that these innovative ideas are the same types
of things he himself would be trying to come up with. He stated
his belief that if they sat down and worked together, they could
find a way to make this work.
Number 2457
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked, "Do we do any proactive marketing of
minerals possibilities up in here?"
MR. WILTSE said yes, and that a lot of that is done by Richard
Swainbank and Al Clough of the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development.
TAPE 97-44, SIDE B
Number 0006
MR. WILTSE commended those two men for spreading the word through
the industry, including articles in international journals. He
said there is vigorous marketing done by just a few people. He
said it was creative and has obviously been effective.
Number 0062
BOB BARTHOLOMEW, Deputy Director, Income and Excise Audit Division,
Department of Revenue, came forward to testify. He addressed the
technicalities of how HB 238 would work regarding tax credits and
changes from the current program. He advised that they had
provided a list of issues and questions to the sponsor.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW explained that the impetus of the current mining
credit on the books was the hope that once the state began
receiving tax revenues from the mining industry, they could give
the industry some sort of credit or pay-back for the heavy
investment for exploration. At the time they would start paying
revenues, companies would get a tax break to help recover prior
exploration costs so that they might do more exploration.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW said the main difference with HB 238 is that some
mines that do not go into production and produce tax revenues for
the state may still receive credits if they have other productive
mines. He said the trade-off is that the state will receive
geological data that may end up in a public library.
Number 0122
MR. BARTHOLOMEW stated that the fiscal impact would be small. The
two tax programs that the Department of Revenue has with the
industry are the mining license tax, from which they currently
collect only about $400,000, and the corporate income tax, from
which they collect somewhere between $300,000 and $400,000 a year.
These are relatively small numbers. They hope that as the industry
matures and the recent growth in exploration leads to production,
that will lead to profitability for the companies and revenues for
the state. "And if that happens, then you might be able to take
advantage of the tax credit programs," Mr. Bartholomew stated.
"And that would be part of the work you'd go through in estimating
the fiscal impact of the bill."
MR. BARTHOLOMEW said in addition, there are questions about whether
the credit would be towards one or both taxes. That needs to be
clarified. He restated that the other big change is that the prior
credit only was allowed when mines became successful and went into
production. This would open up to all companies and to all
exploration that meets the definition of mapping and surveying.
Those costs would, upon approval of the DNR, be eligible for tax
credits. Mr. Bartholomew said the Department of Revenue had not
yet come up with a fiscal estimate.
Number 0192
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON advised that there are no fiscal notes in the
packet because they are trying to understand the bill and will not
know the fiscal impact until a final version and understanding are
reached.
Number 0220
DAVID ROGERS, Attorney/Lobbyist for Council of Alaska Producers,
came forward to testify, saying the council is a nonprofit
corporation that consists of most of the major mining companies
doing business in Alaska today. He said they really like the idea.
They believe it is an innovative approach that makes a lot of
sense. However, they are not ready to sign off on details; the
bill is complicated and he is still reviewing it. Mr. Rogers said
they would like to sit down with the DNR, the Department of
Revenue, the sponsor, the committee and anyone else who is
interested, as they have in the past, to try to work out remaining
issues. He concluded by commending Jules Tileston.
Number 0294
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON advised that the committee would hold HB 238
over.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON turned the gavel over to Co-Chairman Ogan.
HB 109 - MANAGEMENT OF STATE LAND AND RESOURCES
Number 0319
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the next order of business was House
Bill No. 109, "An Act relating to the management and disposal of
state land and resources; relating to certain remote parcel and
homestead entry land purchase contracts and patents; and providing
for an effective date."
Number 0330
SARA FISHER, Legislative Assistant to Representative Gene
Therriault, came forward to present the sponsor statement. She
advised that she had received a copy of the fiscal note 15 minutes
before the meeting.
MS. FISHER stated that HB 109 is meant to be a housekeeping measure
and is intended primarily to clarify certain Title 38 statutes
governing the Department of Natural Resources' management of state
land and resources. It is intended to bring greater efficiency to
the management of state lands by simplifying programs and reducing
costs to the DNR.
MS. FISHER noted that the sponsor statement outlines highlights of
HB 109. The bill is not intended to be a complete rewrite of Title
38 but is a step in the effort to streamline state government. She
advised that an extensive sectional analysis was included in
committee packets. She further advised that Mr. LeFebvre of the
Division of Land could answer technical questions.
Number 0401
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted that this "housekeeping bill" is 20 pages
long.
MS. FISHER said the previous year's HB 46 contained more sections,
including sections on mining that were removed and introduced as a
separate bill; she believes that bill has made it completely
through the system. This one is related strictly to the Division
of Land statutes.
Number 0457
RICHARD LeFEBVRE, Deputy Director, Division of Land, Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. He advised that Mary Kaye Hession was also on
teleconference; they were there primarily to answer questions.
MR. LeFEBVRE agreed this is primarily a housekeeping bill, although
there are a couple of items such as the "remote recreational sale
or lease program" being included. The bill will make operations a
little more efficient. Over the years, Title 38 has been amended,
and many of these are "clean-up" issues that need addressed. Most
had been discussed in more detail the previous year. Everything
controversial that he is aware of had been removed from the bill.
Number 0513
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that he had just received a copy of the
fiscal note. He asked whether $93,000 would be saved by this bill.
MR. LeFEBVRE said that was what was proposed. He pointed out that
there is further explanation in the bill analysis. He explained,
"Our zero fiscal impact assumes that the bill's improvement to the
land management and disposal laws will partially offset the
division's recent proposed budget cuts or past budget cuts,
allowing us to do a lot of the processing more efficiently. So
that's where we've added the $93,000, that that would be money,
then, that would be able to be deposited in the general fund for
appropriation, however you feel is necessary."
Number 0558
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked what the changes are in the homestead and
home site programs. He further asked whether it will cost Alaskans
more money to obtain those.
MR. LeFEBVRE said he does not see that it would cost Alaskans any
more than it probably would today. It clarifies language and
provides for a purchase option. He deferred to Ms. Hession for
details.
Number 0595
MARY KAYE HESSION, Program Support, Central Office, Division of
Land, Department of Natural Resources, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage. She explained that changes to the homestead law
would increase one initial fee. There would be a $20-per-acre, up-
front payment instead of the current $5-per-acre payment.
Essentially, this is a one-time rental fee that lasts for the
duration of a homestead entry permit, which is five years. The
homesteader during that time could either live on the parcel and
then get title to it, paying only the survey costs that the state
paid up-front to offer it as a surveyed parcel, or within the five
years, the person could buy it at fair market value.
MS. HESSION said currently, there is another way to purchase
homesteads. However, it is quite complicated and confusing to some
applicants. At present, in order to buy it at fair market value at
the end of the five years, the person needs to have built a
permanent, habitable dwelling. Similarly, to prove up on the
parcel and obtain it by just paying survey costs, without paying
fair market value of the land, the person also has to have built a
permanent, habitable dwelling.
MS. HESSION said this housekeeping measure would remove the
requirement of constructing a permanent, habitable dwelling. They
expect that people who want to prove up on a parcel would go ahead
and build a house, but they would not be forced to do so. They see
this as a savings for the agency because it is expensive to travel
repeatedly to homesteads to check whether a house has been built
and if so, whether it satisfies the standard of being a permanent,
habitable dwelling. Furthermore, it has resulted in a number of
appeals. Ms. Hession believes it is simpler to provide two
options: either live there and acquire it for the survey costs or
simply buy it.
Number 0680
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked which section of the bill Ms. Hession was
addressing.
MS. HESSION said the changes in the homestead law are in Sections
36 and 37. However, there are "associated repealers" in Section
41.
Number 0709
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked whether there are any major new land
programs indicated in the rewrite; whether any opportunity
currently enjoyed by the public through one or more programs is
being eliminated; and whether this simply brings Title 38 into line
with what the DNR already does.
MS. HESSION replied that this bill would repeal what is currently
called "remote cabin permits." That has been on the books for a
number of years but never used. However, it replaces that with a
program similar to the original "open to entry program" or the
"remote parcel program," where people would acquire a cabin site
for recreational purposes, obtaining a five-year lease that was
renewable for an additional five years. At any time during the
ten-year period of the two leases, if they wanted to survey the
parcel and buy it, they had that option. Both of those programs
were quite attractive to people to get cabin sites outside of
subdivisions.
Number 0786
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated his understanding that this is
essentially the same as a bill unanimously passed two years ago by
the House. Language relating to set-net sites, controversial in
the Senate, had been removed.
Number 0837
MS. FISHER affirmed that. She said the only difference between HB
46 last year and this bill is they pulled out the mining sections.
Number 0856
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether this bill would help facilitate more
land disposal.
MR. LeFEBVRE replied that it provides the DNR with the means to
make additional offerings but not the funding to prepare the land,
where necessary, prior to making an offering.
Number 0907
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether that requires a capital
appropriation.
MR. LeFEBVRE said yes, the department would propose it through the
capital program requests.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked, assuming the legislature received a capital
request for that, whether the quadrupling of the per-acre fee until
a homestead was proved up on would entirely offset the DNR's
operating costs.
MR. LeFEBVRE asked whether Co-Chairman Ogan was talking
specifically about homesteads.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN mentioned the fee going up from $5 to $20 per acre
until the person proved up on the land.
MR. LeFEBVRE said that is correct; it is a one-time fee.
Number 0953
MS. HESSION clarified that what she was explaining earlier was just
for homesteads. However, the division has quite a few different
ways to offer land. For example, they can offer subdivision lots
either through a lottery or an auction. In addition, they can
offer homesteads, which are usually larger parcels, or home sites,
which generally are not larger than five acres. The $20-per-acre
fee only applies to homesteads. It is a one-time fee that lasts
for the duration of a homestead entry permit, which is five years.
Number 0987
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked what size a typical homestead is.
MS. HESSION said homesteads of nonagricultural land are limited by
law to 40 acres, and usually they are that size. However,
sometimes the division had offered 20-acre parcels. Agricultural
homesteads can be up to 160 acres; they are usually between 80 and
160 acres.
Number 1010
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said a person could then get a 40-acre homestead
for $800 until proved up on; for a 160-acre site, that would be
$3,200.
MS. HESSION said she believed his math was correct. However, a
person who proves up on a homestead would also be required to
reimburse the state for the cost of surveying that parcel. The
state must survey it before it is offered. Costs run in the $3,000
range for a "good-size parcel."
Number 1052
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to another, unspecified piece of
legislation and advised there was an exemption relating to
cadastral surveys on whole sections. He asked whether it would be
worthwhile to possibly amend this to not require those on the
larger home site parcels.
MS. HESSION said that other legislation exempts the state from one
survey requirement but not others. Usually, before a section can
be further subdivided, to break it down into individual homesteads,
home sites or subdivision lots, for example, the cadastral
surveyors set monuments on the township corners. In addition, they
usually set them at two-mile intervals between the township corners
and at the section corners. This way, the property buyer has a
much better chance of locating his or her lot.
MS. HESSION explained that although it is common for private land
owners to do further subdivision of their parcels by aliquot parts,
meaning they do not do any additional field surveys or place
monuments on each subdivision parcel being offered, they have
corners to start with. However, the state starts with nothing.
They must put in some corners initially, before they can break it
down into more manageable parcels to be offered for sale or for
homesteads, for example.
Number 1164
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said there was "some sentiment about offering
land to Alaskans before they were offered outside the state of
Alaska." He asked if that would be in any of these provisions.
MS. HESSION said that is an existing law. Before the department
offers land at auction, the first offering must be to Alaska
residents. However, if no Alaskan bids on the parcel or expresses
interest in buying it, the department can make it available for
sale on a first-come, first-served basis to anybody. The only
exception is when the department offers agricultural, commercial or
industrial land, which can be offered to anyone.
Number 1231
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON noted there is a provision that a person does
not have to personally appear in land lottery proceedings. He
asked the reason for that and what credentials an Alaskan resident
must show.
MS. HESSION said dropping the requirement to appear in person was
in response to a court decision ruling it unconstitutional to, in
effect, limit participation to people who lived closest to the
parcels being offered. She said that needs to be cleaned up in the
statute. However, to apply for a lottery sale of land, people must
be Alaskan residents. They must submit "satisfactory evidence" of
residency. Normally, their names can be looked up in the rolls of
the permanent fund dividend program. Other evidence such as voter
registration information can be used as well.
Number 1334
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said he understands that remote cabin sites and
other disposals can only be done if the land has been classified
for the appropriate purpose. He asked whether all state lands, or
substantial parts, are suitably classified to make these disposals,
or whether there is a realistic possibility of that in the near
future.
MS. HESSION advised that although she could obtain figures from the
department's current land use plans, she did not have them in her
head. She said a substantial portion of the state has gone through
the planning process, through various area plans. A lot of acreage
has been classified for either settlement purposes, which are
unrestricted sales, or for agricultural purposes, which under
previous law had to be sold in a special way. She indicated the
latter would probably change shortly. She said a substantial
inventory of land could be made available.
Number 1414
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced that he would hold HB 109 over until the
following week.
BRIEFING: Board of Game
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the final item of business was a
briefing on the Board of Game. He had asked Mr. Holmes to present
a basic overview and answer questions.
Number 1451
LARRY HOLMES, JR., Chairman, Board of Game, explained that the
board has seven members. Presently, three members are confirmed:
Mr. Holmes; Walter Sampson, vice-chair; and Greg Roczicka from
Bethel. There are four unconfirmed members: Greg Streveler from
Gustavus, Mike Fleagle from McGrath, Lori Quakenbush from Fairbanks
and Nicole Evans from Palmer.
MR. HOLMES stated, "Our authorities, duties and responsibilities
are described under Title 16, Section 16.05.221 and .255. For the
record, some of our major authorities under 16.05.255 are
establishing open and closed seasons and areas for the taking of
game; establishing the means and methods employed in the pursuit,
capture and transport of game, including regulations consistent
with resource conservation and development goals; establishing
means and methods that may be employed by persons with physical
disabilities; setting quotas, bag limits, harvest levels and sex,
age and size limitations on the taking of game; methods, means and
harvest levels necessary to control predation and competition among
game; watershed and habitat improvement and management;
conservation, protection, use, disposal, propagation and stocking
of game; and also, the implementation for the most recently enacted
intensive management law that was enacted in 1994."
MR. HOLMES said in fiscal year 1997, the board will have had three
regulatory meetings, one in Sitka, one in Anchorage and the
upcoming one in Juneau. The current board typically makes
extensive use of the committee system to incorporate the public
into the decision-making process. Mr. Holmes advised that as of
mid-March, the seven-person board had six years' collective
experience.
Number 1630
MR. HOLMES discussed evolution of the board's process. He stated,
"In 1959, we went from territory to statehood. And at that point
in time, the first legislature had the task of organizing the
government. And they did it under House Bill 114, which was the
governmental organizational bill." He said within the confines of
that bill, an eight-person board of game and fish was provided,
which served at the pleasure of the governor and did not work under
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requirements. He said it also
provided for the Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), and basically
the commissioner ran the boards.
MR. HOLMES said, "Somewhere in the middle of the evolution of the
governmental reorganization process, another bill surfaced,
submitted by a commercial fisherman, a Republican from Southeast
Alaska, that in fact ... would have required the Board of Game to
work under the Alaska Administrative Procedure Act. It would allow
the governor to only fire for cause, and at that point, also
require charges to be specified and provide for counsel for those
particular individuals that were charged. It also provided for a
significant public process and for the boards to establish a local
fish and game advisory committee process."
MR. HOLMES continued, "The justification behind the change was
primarily because prior to statehood, the federal government had
managed our fish and wildlife though the Fish and Wildlife Service.
There were significant abuses with fisheries. The fisheries were
primarily managed from outside the state, through the Washington-
based fisheries. They typically allocated most of the fish through
fish trap processes to Washington state fishermen, and very few
Alaskans actually received any benefit from those particular
management practices."
MR. HOLMES continued, "The game suffered significantly because of
commercial hunting and unregulated sport hunting. Commercial
hunting basically was to benefit the development of mines and
timber interests in the state and to provide meat for developing
urban areas." He emphasizsed that the reorganization bill
eventually adopted by the first legislature provided for
significant public opportunity to participate and required a
citizen-based process to direct management of fish and game in
Alaska.
MR. HOLMES stated, "And the point I would make is: The drive to
statehood in the mid-to-late 50s was primarily because of the
abuses of federal managers regarding fish and game management. And
we are, in my opinion, headed in that direction again. We are not
funding our management processes. Clearly, the public does not
have an interest in the boards' processes. And again we have
special interests and political interests that dominate in the
management of fish and game in the state of Alaska. And I would
suggest that it would be helpful for the Board of Game and [Board
of] Fisheries, the legislature, the Governor, as well as other
interests in the public, to sit down and try to work out some
resolution to budgeting and to the management of fish and game in
the state of Alaska." Mr. Holmes concluded by saying that is an
abstract of the presentation he wished he had more time to present.
Number 1892
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked how the advisory councils make
recommendations to the Board of Game.
Number 1939
MR. HOLMES said advisory committees are established under statute.
A set of policies adopted by the joint boards guides their actions.
Although they may meet on an irregular schedule, they must meet at
least twice a year to remain active. If they meet, they are
required to forward their minutes to the Board of Game, Board of
Fisheries or the joint boards; the appropriate board is required to
consider their recommendations.
Number 2001
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Holmes how often the boards accept those
recommendations.
MR. HOLMES replied, "I think it would be very difficult to
speculate on how often the boards adopted recommendations from the
advisory committee. I would think it's safe to say, with this
board that's seated at this point in time, that we, in fact I, in
putting together the road map at our most recent meeting, in
several instances put advisory committee proposals in front of
other proposals on the same subject matter. And I would say that
we weigh what they present to us quite heavily."
Number 2065
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said he interprets the role of the ADF&G as
advising about biological justifications, for example. He asked
whether the ADF&G had made recommendations on allocations.
MR. HOLMES said he was unsure he understood the question. He
explained that the Division of Wildlife Conservation is the one the
board primarily works with, although they also work with the
Division of Subsistence. The Division of Wildlife Conservation
typically provides information for the board to make decisions. He
said, "They are not permitted to enter into deliberations with the
board when the board is deliberating a proposal. They are not
allowed to communicate with board members during deliberations,
either physically or orally."
Number 2165
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated, "Recent actions by the board seem to
indicate maybe a little bit of misunderstanding in relation to
allocation decisions. Do you view actions which close hunting or
trapping opportunities as allocative, and especially those actions
that are based on other than biological concerns?" He referred to
the Paint River as an example where he believed decisions were made
on other than biological concerns.
MR. HOLMES asked for clarification. He said he was on the board
when they dealt with the McNeil River.
Number 2257
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN responded, "Well, Paint River is a good thing to
be specific about. I believe the department testified that there
was no biological reason to close that because there was more than
adequate bear populations and the fact that, you know, that the
experts tell me that it might even overall hurt the populations
because the big boars are not going to be taken out, and the big
boars prey on the cubs. And yet that area was closed, which could
ultimately, in theory, hurt the bear population."
MR. HOLMES asked whether the question applied to the board's
collective action regarding the McNeil refuge or to him personally.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said the board.
MR. HOLMES stated, "Several years ago, if my memory serves me, the
justification for the board's action, I believe on a 4-to-3 vote,
was that it was not a biological issue of whether to close the
McNeil refuge to the hunting of brown bears. The area is a world-
renowned viewing area for brown bears. It had been in place for
quite awhile. There were those of us on the board, and myself
included, that felt there are other places to provide opportunities
for hunting brown bears. And we, at that same meeting that we took
action on that, we provided opportunities for hunting brown bears
all across the North Slope; we liberalized brown bear hunting in
unit 20D as well as in unit 13."
MR. HOLMES continued, "And we felt that the battle over three bears
in a two-year period just wasn't worth the political and/or the
fiscal costs. And so our alternative was to look at providing
opportunities elsewhere. And I would like to point out that the
board goes well beyond biological concerns. This is a political
process, as evidenced by the policies generated by the legislature
and the board in the most recent past." He said in addition to
biology, there are sociological and cultural aspects to consider.
"And we do accommodate situations where we fear there may be a
serious conflict between users," he said, adding that they have a
variety of statutory tools.
TAPE 97-45, SIDE A
Number 0006
MR. HOLMES said looking back, it was not a difficult situation for
him. "I didn't see the point in getting in a fight over several
bears in a two-year period to be harvested, when there were
adequate opportunities elsewhere," he concluded.
Number 0038
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA said having been a former advisory
council member, she fully understood what Mr. Holmes was talking
about in terms of proposals submitted to the boards. She said
while advisory members are required to have two meetings, with the
budget her council had, they held one meeting plus one trip to
either the Board of Game or Board of Fisheries meeting. She
referred to cuts of over $400,000 on the Senate side, which would
have a negative impact on advisory councils across the state. She
asked Mr. Holmes' interpretation of that cut and how it would
affect the board process.
MR. HOLMES replied, "Personally, I think they are going to be
devastating. I can give you examples as we speak of advisory
committees that have become inactive because the residents reside
on federal land or adjacent land, and they are being provided for
under federal law. I can name one here in Southeast, in Angoon.
It's not in the best interests of this state to push their
residents into federal management. And if we cut the advisory
committee process by $400,000 plus, that's exactly what we're going
to do."
MR. HOLMES explained there are a number of communities and regions
around the state in which state fish and game advisory committee
members also serve on federal advisory committees. He cautioned,
"And if we cut the funding for those state advisory committees,
they're going to be working in a federal advisory process. And
we're going to lose our management abilities. The public part of
this process is critical to management. It has been since
statehood. Our first legislature recognized how important it was.
They established the local advisory committees and the first
organizational act for the state of Alaska, and they funded it."
Number 0227
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES asked for clarification.
MR. HOLMES stated, "What I said was, there are folks that work in
both arenas. They work in the federal advisory committee system
and the local advisory committee system. If we fail to fund the
state advisory committee system, they are going to be working in
the federal system. And I think what's important here is to
encourage state residents to work in the state system."
MR. HOLMES explained, "Most recently, the Board of Game took up an
issue when a community asked for a moose hunt in Southwest Alaska.
And we had information initially that led the board to vote to deny
those people a moose hunt on state lands, because we were given
information that there may be a conflict or conservation problem
caused by a potential federal hunt. The very next day, the Board
of Game came back in session, and we provided those people in
Southwest Alaska a moose hunt. And we did the right thing, because
they were a state advisory committee coming to the state board for
hunts on state land for, in my opinion, what are state moose. And
... if the Board of Game and the Board of Fisheries and the
resource management agencies don't act on behalf of their own
residents, there are folks out there, in the federal arena, that
are willing to do it. And that's the point I was trying to make."
Number 0368
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked, "Mr. Holmes, would you say that given the
constitution and the statutes, that the principal responsibility of
the board is to address sustained yield and consumptive uses
through regulation?"
MR. HOLMES replied that the Board of Game works under Title 16;
that direction comes from the legislature, through the
constitution. He said, "So we do work under the sustained yield
principle, yes."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked, "And that its principal responsibility is
to not only sustained yield but consumptive use?"
MR. HOLMES replied, "Absolutely -- in certain situations, depending
on the situation."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked for clarification.
Number 0424
MR. HOLMES said in the past, they have set aside areas and closed
them to certain types of hunting for conservation reasons. He
cited the McNeil refuge as an example. There, the board
collectively felt that because of conflicts that would occur from
having a hunt adjacent to the sanctuary, the benefits of providing
opportunities elsewhere far outweighed the problems that would
evolve from having a hunt there. He noted that bear hunting
parallels consumptive use but is not quite the same thing.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN suggested the area in question was adjacent to the
refuge.
MR. HOLMES specified, "The sanctuary is the area that's closed to
hunting. And the board voted to close bear hunting in the refuge,
which is adjacent to the sanctuary."
Number 0518
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES recalled when the legislature established the
Paint River fish ladder, that caused bears to congregate. She
stated, "And it caused people that oppose bear hunting, I think, a
lot of problems, because you were causing those bears to congregate
near an area that could be easily hunted." Noting that her
daughter is a wildlife photographer, she said, "And I think that if
you'd let anybody hunt those bears, that she would come hunting for
you."
MR. HOLMES indicated she would not have been the only one.
Number 0583
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked what kind of communications and
interrelations the board has with the Administration with regard to
policy, as far as Mr. Holmes has seen.
MR. HOLMES replied, "Absolutely none. I'm not sure exactly what
occurs between, for example, the Administration and the Department
of Fish and Game, the cabinet. But as far as the Board of Game
goes, I have on several occasions met with the Governor on
different issues that aren't related to fish and game management,
that may be involved with internal issues. I've not once had the
Governor or any of his staff suggest a direction for the board.
I'm not aware of any other board member communicating with anyone
in that regard. My suspicions are that any governor would be very
careful in that regard."
Number 0680
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said over the years, he had seen different
philosophies emanating from various board combinations. He said he
presumes the reason for rotating members is to provide fresh
concepts and ideas, as well as different dynamics. He said on the
boards on which he has served, there was a tendency, once people
got acquainted, to develop a philosophy of sorts, which all members
agreed to. He asked whether four new members were coming on board.
MR. HOLMES said yes.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked how, as chairman, Mr. Holmes tries to
maintain impartiality, a broad-based view and balance in the
public's interest.
Number 0774
MR. HOLMES responded, "I think it's very difficult when you have a
seven-person board that has a collective experience level of six
years. And given the level of interest in the board process at
this time, and the confirmation process, it's very distracting.
And I'd love to have the opportunity to sit down off and on with a
couple of board members and kind of get a feel for fixing a
direction."
MR. HOLMES stated, "My personal feeling is, I go into these
processes looking at every issue on its merit. But in general, I
try to follow the statute, which says we should ... conserve and
develop the resource. And I look at a meeting like we just came
out of, with 250 proposals, and I don't see any reason why we can't
come out of it doing good conservation and good development. And
I would hope that ... the other board members do that, and I think
for the most part that they do. But we just don't have the luxury
of those kinds of discussions and relationships when we just
haven't been together very long."
Number 0839
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said it had been suggested to him that the Board
of Fisheries receives too many proposals and that there needs to be
some way to cull them. He asked for comments or suggestions.
MR. HOLMES indicated there has been much discussion about that. He
said under the Administrative Procedure Act, all of the public has
equal standing. "As I understand it, we are required to publish
every single proposal, even if they are identical," he said, citing
an example where they had 20 nearly identical proposals to close an
area to hunting. He said the Board of Game responds to that by
picking out the most representative proposal to work off of; they
take no action on the others.
Number 0919
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked whether that is decided by a majority of
board members.
MR. HOLMES replied that typically, after taking action on initial
proposal, the chair will ask other board members whether there is
any objection to taking no action on a block of proposals.
Number 0951
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN thanked Mr. Holmes. He concurred with Mr. Holmes'
concern about only having six years' collective experience on the
board. He read a passage from a book by Wallace Kaufman, an
environmental lobbyist for a number of years, who likened
environmental meetings to religious gatherings. He expressed
concern over members who were appointed to the board having past
professional affiliations with environmental groups, which he views
as an inherent conflict. He asked Mr. Holmes to comment.
Number 1076
MR. HOLMES replied, "I think it's safe for me to comment as chair
of the Board of Game that your concerns are covered under the
Ethics Act, in my opinion." He said he had served on an advisory
committee for over a decade and was chair for six years; he had
spent a lot of time attending Board of Game and Board of Fisheries
meetings. In fisheries in particular, individuals with significant
investments and interests participate in regulatory activities.
Sometimes they must step down or are conflicted out. But in many
instances, they go ahead and participate.
MR. HOLMES stated, "And in regards to the Board of Game, we have
members that also hold membership in all sorts of groups: sport
hunting groups; conservation groups; to a greater or lesser extent,
environmental groups." He said in the past, at least four members
of the Board of Game were members of the largest sport hunting
group in the state; some felt that was a significant conflict. He
stated, "So I don't see that as really an issue or a concern for
membership on the board. I think the relationship to the group is
important when it comes down to the issue, when we're in
deliberating. And at that point in time, the chair and/or the
board itself will have to make a decision as to whether that
individual will serve or not on that particular issue."
Number 1180
MR. HOLMES stated his personal belief that the most important
aspect to look at is the board's ability to be autonomous between
an administration and the legislature, divorced from significant
special public interests. He had served with many people from
different arenas on advisory committees and boards. There was no
one in the past who he felt should not be on the board. And in his
opinion, everyone on the current board is both qualified and
competent to serve. "And I'm not suggesting directions for the
legislature to take," he said. "But I think that you should weigh
carefully the value of having a board that's seated and
experienced, an ability to function, or a board that's continually
off-balance because of lack of experience."
Number 1247
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether Mr. Holmes agrees that wildlife
managed for sustained yield and optimum utilization by human
consumption is also wildlife managed for other uses such as
viewing.
MR. HOLMES said yes, for the most part he agrees. He cited Chugach
State Park as an example. A heavily used multiple-use area, it has
one of the most productive Dall sheep areas in the state and many
people both hunt and view the animals.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN commented on the controversy over whether wildlife
viewers should be on the board for balance. He said for years, it
was a hunting-only board and did such a good job that people
flocked to Alaska to see the wildlife.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 3:07 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|