Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/15/1997 01:07 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 15, 1997
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Joe Green
Representative William K. ("Bill") Williams
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ramona Barnes
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 24(RES)
Relating to the Tongass Land Management Plan and to continued
Congressional oversight of that plan.
- MOVED CSSJR 24(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 35
Encouraging federal legislation to improve federal fiscal terms for
a trans-Alaska gas pipeline.
- MOVED HJR 35 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 35(FIN)
"An Act relating to management of state land, water, and land and
water as part of a state park, recreational or special management
area, or preserve; relating to reports to the legislature
concerning prohibitions or restrictions of traditional means of
access for traditional recreational uses within a park,
recreational or special management area, or preserve; requiring
legislative approval before certain land managed under AS 41.21 may
be closed or have access restricted; relating to Chilkat State
Park."
- MOVED CSSB 35(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 204
"An Act revising the procedures and authority of the Alaska
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, the Board of Fisheries, and
the Department of Fish and Game to establish a moratorium on
participants or vessels, or both, participating in certain
fisheries; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 204(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SJR 24
SHORT TITLE: TONGASS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) MACKIE, Leman
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/18/97 767 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/18/97 767 (S) RESOURCES
03/26/97 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/26/97 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/27/97 891 (S) RES RPT CS 5DP 1AM
03/27/97 891 (S) DP: HALFORD, TAYLOR, TORGERSON, GREEN
03/27/97 891 (S) DP: LEMAN, AM: LINCOLN
03/27/97 891 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO CS (S.RES)
04/03/97 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
04/03/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/03/97 957 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/3/97
04/03/97 961 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/03/97 961 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/03/97 961 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
04/03/97 961 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSJR 24(RES)
04/03/97 961 (S) COSPONSOR(S): LEMAN
04/03/97 962 (S) PASSED Y19 N1
04/03/97 966 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/04/97 983 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/04/97 983 (H) RESOURCES
04/15/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 35
SHORT TITLE: ENCOURAGE FED TAX CHANGE FOR GAS PIPELINE
SPONSOR(S): SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON OIL & GAS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/10/97 1059 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/10/97 1060 (H) RESOURCES
04/15/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 35
SHORT TITLE: MANAGEMENT OF PARKS & RECREATIONAL AREAS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) GREEN, Pearce, Taylor
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/03/97 23 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 23 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 23 (S) STA, RES, FIN
01/23/97 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
01/23/97 (S) MINUTE(STA)
01/24/97 124 (S) STA RPT CS 4DP 1NR NEW TITLE
01/24/97 125 (S) DP:GREEN, MILLER, WARD,MACKIE/
NR:DUNCAN
01/24/97 125 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB (DNR)
01/28/97 146 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO CS (F&G)
01/31/97 190 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO CS (DNR)
02/05/97 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/05/97 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/12/97 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
02/19/97 410 (S) RES RPT CS 6DP 1NR NEW TITLE
02/19/97 410 (S) DP: HALFORD, TAYLOR, TORGERSON, LEMAN
02/19/97 410 (S) GREEN, SHARP; NR: LINCOLN
02/19/97 410 (S) ZERO FNS TO CS (F&G-2)
02/19/97 411 (S) FORTHCOMING FISCAL NOTES
02/19/97 410 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES TO CS (F&G)
02/21/97 447 (S) FNS TO CS (DNR-2)
02/21/97 447 (S) ZERO FN TO CS (DNR)
03/12/97 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/14/97 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/19/97 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/19/97 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/19/97 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/21/97 800 (S) FIN RPT CS 2DP 4NR NEW TITLE
03/21/97 801 (S) DP: PEARCE, SHARP
03/21/97 801 (S) NR: PHILLIPS, PARNELL, DONLEY,
TORGERSON
03/21/97 801 (S) ZERO FN TO CS (S.FIN/DNR)
03/21/97 801 (S) PREVIOUS FN APPLIES (DNR)
03/21/97 801 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS APPLY (DNR, F&G-2)
03/24/97 (S) RLS AT 11:31 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/24/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/01/97 916 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/1/97
04/01/97 920 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/01/97 920 (S) HELD IN SECOND READING TO 4/2/97 CAL
04/02/97 938 (S) BEFORE THE (S) IN SECOND READING
04/02/97 939 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED Y17 N2 A1
04/02/97 939 (S) AM NO 1 OFFERED BY DUNCAN
04/02/97 939 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y7 N12 A1
04/02/97 940 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
04/02/97 940 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 35(FIN)
04/02/97 941 (S) PASSED Y14 N5 A1
04/02/97 943 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/03/97 919 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/03/97 919 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
04/15/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 204
SHORT TITLE: MORATORIA ON COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY
SPONSOR(S): SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/19/97 756 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/19/97 756 (H) FSH, RESOURCES
03/24/97 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/24/97 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/25/97 825 (H) FSH RPT 3DP 1AM
03/25/97 825 (H) DP: IVAN, HODGINS, AUSTERMAN
03/25/97 825 (H) AM: OGAN
03/25/97 825 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G)
04/15/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR JERRY MACKIE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 427
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4925
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented Sponsor Statement on CSSJR 24(RES).
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 110
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2283
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented Sponsor Statement on HJR 35.
PAUL FUHS, Lobbyist for
Yukon Pacific Corporation
10652 Porter Lane
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907)790-3030
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 35.
SENATOR LYDA GREEN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 125
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6600
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented Sponsor Statement on CSSB 35(FIN).
JIM STRATTON, Director
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resource
3601 C Street, Suite 1200
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 269-8700
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented department's concerns with CSSB
35(FIN).
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Attorney
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street, Suite 409
Juneau, Alaska 999801
Telephone: (907) 465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 35(FIN).
TUCKERMAN BABCOCK, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Lyda Green
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 125
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6600
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of sponsor on CSSB
35(FIN).
SUSAN SCHRADER, Executive Director
Alaskan Environmental Lobby
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 463-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against CSSB 35(FIN).
SUSAN OLSEN
Alaska Quiet Rights Coalition
1119 G Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 277-9968
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against CSSB 35(FIN).
RANDY CROSBY
3300 Wesleyan Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 333-3665
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 35(FIN).
TOM MEACHAM
9500 Prospect Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Telephone: (907) 346-1077
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 35(FIN).
CLIFF EAMES
Alaska Center for the Environment
519 West 8th Street, Suite 201
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 278-5657
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 35(FIN).
KEN ROBERTSON, Member
Chugach State Park Advisory Board
733 West 4th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 278-5657
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 35(FIN).
PAM BARNES
Llama Buddies Expeditions (ph)
P.O. Box 874995
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 376-8472
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against CSSB 35(FIN).
RALPH FELTS
4053 Fahrenkamp Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-0252
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 35(FIN).
JUNE BURKHART, Legislative Affairs Officer
Alaska Boating Association
P.O. Box 204
Willow, Alaska 99688
Telephone: (907) 495-6337
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 35(FIN).
DAN ELLIOTT, Chair
Mat-Su State Park Citizen Advisory Board
HC 31, Box 5196
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
Telephone: (907) 376-5196
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against CSSB 35(FIN).
AMY DAUGHERTY, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Representative Alan Austerman
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 434
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4230
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor testimony on HB 204.
DALE ANDERSON, Chairman
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
8800 Glacier Highway, Suite 109
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-6160
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 204.
BRAD JOHNSON
P.O. Box 7743
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-1424
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 204.
KRAIG NORHEIM
P.O. Box 878
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: (907) 772-3995
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 204.
BRUCE SIEMINSKI
P.O. Box 1302
Seward, Alaska 99664
Telephone: (907) 224-3636
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 204.
BRENNON EAGLE
P.O. Box 576
Wrangell, Alaska 99929
Telephone: (907) 874-2162
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 204.
BILL KNECHT
P.O. Box 259
Wrangell, Alaska 99929
Telephone: (907) 874-3795
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 204.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-42, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON called the House Resources Standing
Committee to order at 1:07 p.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Dyson, Green, Ogan, Masek, Williams and
Hudson; there was a quorum. Representative Barnes was absent.
Representative Nicholia arrived at 1:08 p.m. and Representative
Joule arrived at 1:15 p.m.
CSSJR 24(RES) - TONGASS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated that the committee would hear CS for
Senate Joint Resolution 24(RES), "Relating to the Tongass Land
Management Plan and to continued Congressional oversight of that
plan. He said this resolution is identical to one introduced by
this committee and passed from committee on a 4-to-2 vote the
previous week. He called upon Senator Mackie to present the
resolution.
Number 0096
SENATOR JERRY MACKIE read the sponsor statement into the record:
"The purpose of SJR 24 is two-fold. First, it encourages the U.S.
Forest Service to bring the decade-long development of the Tongass
Land Management Plan (TLMP) to a conclusion so that the people and
communities of Southeast Alaska can move forward with their
economic and personal lives with some degree of certainty. The
resolution supports a level of harvest from the Tongass National
Forest sufficient to sustain a forest product industry and prevent
further job loss and economic disruption in Southeast Alaska.
"Secondly, the resolution endorses continued oversight by Congress
and the Alaska congressional delegation of Forest Service
management activities relating to the Tongass. This endorsement
urges review of the analyses and procedures employed by the Forest
Service to ensure that decisions affecting the social and economic
well-being of Southeast communities are appropriate and
scientifically credible.
"After a decade of false starts, intervening federal legislation,
court decisions and several public review drafts, the Forest
Service appears poised to adopt a final version of the land use
management plan for the Tongass. During this time period, the
Southeast economy has lost $60 million in forest products payroll
and half of its timber jobs. The continuing decline in available
timber supply had closed two pulp mills and one saw mill. Without
a plan that ensures some level of harvesting, the existence of any
forest product industry in Southeast is improbable.
"On December 20, 1996, the Southeast Regional Timber Task Force
passed a resolution urging the federal government to finalize a
plan for timber harvest in the Tongass. The task force determined
that a minimum annual harvest level of 300 million board feet
(MMBF) was necessary to re-establish a viable, integrated timber
industry. This volume has been selected by several Forest
Supervisors of the Tongass as the preferred alternative in previous
drafts of the TLMP.
"Any delay in the finalization of the TLMP plan is detrimental to
the social and economic stability of Southeast Alaska. A plan that
adopts a minimum 300 million board feet timber supply will stem the
current decline and the associated economic depression of Southeast
communities dependent on the forest industry. SJR 24 requests the
completion of the long-delayed plan and that it include a 300
million board foot harvest level."
¶
SENATOR MACKIE emphasized that this resolution mirrors HJR 32,
moved by this committee. Although the 300 MMBF figure has been
criticized, it is not arbitrary. It was recommended by the
Governor's task force, which was made up of people that represented
communities, different organizations, and environmental and
resource developmental agencies around Southeast. This resolution
adopts and recommends their findings. He believes the task force's
results should not be ignored, and he urged support.
Number 0356
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced it was not his intention to have
additional testimony, as the committee had heard it before.
Number 0380
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN made a motion to move CSSJR 24(RES), 0-
LS0805\B, with individual recommendations.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked whether there was an objection. There
being none, CSSJR 24(RES) was moved out of the House Resources
Standing Committee.
Co-Chairman Hudson turned the gavel over to Co-Chairman Ogan.
HJR 35 - ENCOURAGE FED TAX CHANGE FOR GAS PIPELINE
Number 0410
CO-CHAIRMAN SCOTT OGAN announced the committee would take up House
Joint Resolution 35, "Encouraging federal legislation to improve
federal fiscal terms for a trans-Alaska gas pipeline."
Number 0430
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS, sponsor, stated that the resolution
encourages federal legislation to improve federal fiscal terms for
the trans-Alaska gas line. He explained that the report by Pedro
van Meurs was commissioned by the state on the economic viability
of a trans-Alaska gas line. Pedro van Meurs found that the project
would need state and federal fiscal adjustments in order to
stimulate the project's investment structure. It would be a $12
billion to $15 billion project to put the capitalization in place.
Right now, at $15 billion, the project would not be economically
viable. He stated that producers, as well as the state and federal
governments, should be encouraged to look at the project with the
idea that if it is not economically feasible, it will not go.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said there needs to be a fiscal regime that
will allow this project to be produced. There is about $150
billion worth of gas going through the pipeline, according to
figures of Pedro van Meurs. Out of that $150 billion, the federal
government would get $26 to $27 billion in taxation. This pipeline
is site-specific to Alaska. The resolution urges the federal
delegation to come forward with tax incentives, as state and
municipal governments will also have to do in order to see this
pipeline built.
Number 0601
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK asked how the congressional delegation
feels about the resolution.
Number 0617
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS replied that he has not talked with them.
However, it is apparent that without some sort of tax incentive,
there probably will not be a gas line. He believes they would
encourage this because it would create about 10,000 jobs in the
state, plus revenue that will enhance the state for many years and
provide an energy base to allow industry to grow for the next 50 to
70 years.
Number 0662
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked how this would be accepted at the
congressional level.
Number 0681
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS replied that basically if this project does
not go, the federal government will receive zero in taxation on it.
They have $26 billion that will be generated. If they can come up
with a 10 percent or a 15 percent reduction, that would certainly
help, over the course of the life of the pipeline, to initiate
building of the pipeline. He indicated both the state and federal
government need to give a little, and the producers must come up
with a more efficient way of building the pipeline.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN reported that he had recently spoken with
Congressman Young's office to let them know about the resolution;
while they had not read it, they were aware of the problem. They
had discussed getting some breaks on the front end of the project,
and Co-Chairman Ogan believes they are receptive to looking at the
project.
Number 0789
PAUL FUHS, Lobbyist for Yukon Pacific Corporation (YPC), came
forward to testify. He stated that YPC supports the resolution.
They feel Pedro van Meurs' study is more pessimistic than their own
economic projections, primarily due to the difference in how soon
the project will come to full production. The YPC believes the
economics of the project could be improved by these federal taxes.
MR. FUHS referred to a one-page handout, page 115, which shows that
the federal government would get 28 percent in taxes from this
project, more than twice what the state would receive. The Pedro
van Meurs report also points out that if there are reductions in
federal taxes, there will be increases in Alaska state taxes on the
project. He stated that there is the issue of balancing the trade
deficit with Japan and other Asian countries, as well as the issue
of United States jobs.
MR. FUHS advised that YPC has spoken to Senator Murkowski's office,
and they welcome this. He suggested the Senate Energy Committee
would probably be the place where this bill would originate; one
reason they really favor this is it will be easier for them if the
initiative comes from the state rather than from private companies
going for the tax breaks. Mr. Fuhs said the resolution is generic;
it does not state specific tax advantages. He believes that is
good because there are things they could do in addition to those
pointed out in the Pedro van Meurs report.
Number 0940
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK suggested including at the bottom of this
resolution, where it says "Copies of this resolution shall be sent
to", the energy council or whatever congressional committee would
be dealing with the issue. She said if the sponsor does not
object, she would offer that as an amendment.
Number 0990
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that he did not object. However,
whatever comes from the energy council must be unanimously approved
by all states that are members. He said there may be, by
implication, some members of the federal legislature that look at
this as a tie between the state of Alaska and the energy council.
He expressed concern over unilaterally tying that body with this
resolution until they had a chance to look at it.
Number 1051
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK replied that maybe it can be rephrased and
sent to a committee that deals with the energy council on the
congressional level.
Number 1072
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked whether Representative Green is on the
energy council and when they meet.
Number 1079
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied he is on the council, and they meet
four times a year. They will be meeting in June.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked whether this resolution could be brought
before them and whether the council could be asked to put their own
resolution together.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied that they could; however, it probably
would not be approved before their December meeting.
Number 1112
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK withdrew her amendment.
Number 1140
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON made a motion to move HJR 35, 0-LSO904\E, with
individual recommendations and zero fiscal note. He asked
unanimous consent.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether there was an objection. There being
none, HJR 35 was moved out of the House Resources Standing
Committee.
CSSB 35(FIN) - MANAGEMENT OF PARKS & RECREATIONAL AREAS
Number 1170
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the committee would take up CSSB
35(FIN), "An Act relating to management of state land, water, and
land and water as part of a state park, recreational or special
management area, or preserve; relating to reports to the
legislature concerning prohibitions or restrictions of traditional
means of access for traditional recreational uses within a park,
recreational or special management area, or preserve; requiring
legislative approval before certain land managed under AS 41.21 may
be closed or have access restricted; relating to Chilkat State
Park."
Number 1180
SENATOR LYDA GREEN, sponsor, explained that two years ago, there
was an attempt to close Blair Lake. This involved the Division of
Parks and Outdoor Recreation including Blair Lake to be managed as
a state park. This caused concern; SB 230 followed, which was
vetoed. Following this, there was an announced closure by the
division involving South Denali; the Curry-Kesugi Ridge; an area in
Fairbanks; and potential partial closure of a marine park in
Southeast Alaska. She believed the closures were not occurring for
the right reasons. Therefore, she again introduced a version of
last year's bill.
SENATOR GREEN said CSSB 35(FIN) is essentially the same as the
previous year's bill, except for page 3, line 5. However, the
current bill requires that each legislative session, the Division
of Parks and Outdoor Recreation would come to the legislature with
a report on parks managed by the division but not part of the major
state park system. They would explain reasons for closures. And
if a closure is for over 90 days, the legislature would assess
whether the closure was legitimate or request that the division
find another way to achieve the same purpose.
SENATOR GREEN said there is an inclusion relating the authority to
designate Chilkat State park. This language was included because
that park is being treated as a state park. Without final
"adoption" by the state, the state will end up paying a fee for
that transfer. She maintains that the legislature has the mandate
to conserve, develop and watch over the resources, including land
and water. Although most of the larger parks have, in statute,
been turned over to the division for management and closure where
necessary, she believes these smaller parcels, being managed as
state parks, need to be carefully kept open. She said park land is
for the use of the people, and that policy should be maintained.
Number 1413
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether anyone from the Department of
Law would be testifying.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied no one was scheduled.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN explained he was asking because of a letter
claiming problems. He wanted someone to address that.
Number 1448
SENATOR GREEN referred to that memo of April 15, 1997, from John T.
Baker, Assistant Attorney General, to Jim Stratton, Director of the
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. She indicated the
contents should be taken as suggestions and not legal mandates.
SENATOR GREEN referred to the second paragraph of the memo, which
says, "may not manage as part of a park, area or preserve
established under AS 41.21.110" and "This language would likely be
interpreted to prohibit the Division of Parks from continuing to
manage more than 90 administratively acquired parcels of land as
part of the state park system." She said that is not the case.
This bill amends AS 41.21.020 only to prohibit land not
legislatively designated as "parks" from being managed as part of
a legislatively designated park. Therefore, anything already
legislatively designated, such as Denali and Chugach, is not
impacted by this bill.
SENATOR GREEN said this bill basically impacts the Interagency Land
Management Agreement (ILMA) parcels that abut state parks or are
being managed as state parks. She stated that there needs to be
good reasons for closures. It is not to say there will never be a
good reason for a closure; the bill is stating that the legislature
would like to look at the reasons.
Number 1539
SENATOR GREEN noted that this letter is dated April 15, 1997, while
this bill was introduced in February. She suggested it should have
been sent earlier.
Number 1573
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed with Senator Green about Section 2.
However, his concern was with the last paragraph of the letter. He
asked whether the legislature is subjecting itself to possible
litigation because the parks are open but no one is there to
regulate activities.
Number 1608
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN suggested if it were big concern, the staff of the
Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Law would
have picked this issue up before today.
Number 1630
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said his concern is that legislators look to
the Department of Law on law issues. That department has raised a
flag; he believes it would be a mistake for the committee to ignore
it. If it is exposing them to litigation, they ought to know that
going in.
Number 1678
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that the committee aide was calling the
legislative drafter to testify.
Number 1687
SENATOR GREEN said this bill does not prohibit a warning sign at a
park advising not to go on a trail. In national parks, there is
the inherent risk of bears but the entire park is not closed. With
regard to campgrounds, she does not expect a summer site to be
maintained through the winter if it is a financial burden. She
said it is the intent to send the message to the division to very
carefully make closures on parks, report and get approval for
legitimate reasons. She stated that any 90-day closure is
acceptable, but anything over 90 days would come to the legislature
to be discussed.
Number 1844
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked: If there was an extreme situation and a
park needed to be closed for six months, could it be closed for 90
days, opened for a day, and then closed for another 90 days?
Number 1860
SENATOR GREEN replied that under the bill, a park can still be
closed for more than 90 days. All that is required is that it come
back the next legislative session and be reported on. Once
approved, the closure could be continued. If denied, it could not
be closed for the same reason the following year.
Number 1924
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN called a brief at-ease at 1:40 p.m. He called the
meeting back to order at 1:41 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that the committee had just passed
Representative Masek's bill allowing traditional access over
private land. He said it seems only reasonable to allow public
access over park land as well.
Number 1951
JIM STRATTON, Director, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation,
Department of Natural Resources, pointed out that the
"discretionary function" immunity question had been raised in a
letter dated March 24, 1997, sent to Chairman Sharp of the Senate
Finance Committee. He offered to make copies of that letter for
the committee. He emphasized this is not a new issue; they had
raised it earlier, and their legal council believes it is an issue
of concern that should be looked at.
Number 2002
MR. STRATTON said there are two kinds of parks, those legislatively
designated by vote of the legislature and those that are less than
640 acres, which are administratively created and called ILMAs.
The latter are primarily campgrounds, boat launch ramps and trail
heads. Although Blair Lake was a proposed closure, that was not
enacted because the public did not want it.
MR. STRATTON referred to Section 1. He said he understands the
legislature's desire to get an annual report of the proposed
closures; therefore, the department has no problem with Section 1.
By providing the legislature with the yearly list, the legislature
would get what they are looking for, an opportunity to look at
actions taken by the division, review proposed closures and be able
to take further action if the legislature disagrees.
Number 2108
MR. STRATTON referred to Section 2, subsection (d). He said the
division agrees with the intent of this section, as described by
Senator Green; they understand the intent to be that the division
will not be able to expand legislatively designated parks through
administrative action. That was what occurred at Blair Lake, and
they understand the concern people had about that action.
MR. STRATTON said they are a little concerned, however, with the
way subsection (d) is written. He proposed rewriting it to be less
ambiguous. He noted that the ambiguity issue was raised by the
division's legal counsel the previous session when SB 230 was
vetoed, and they brought it up again in Senate hearings.
MR. STRATTON referred to the top of page 4, subsection (e). A new
section not in SB 230 the previous year, it was added on the Senate
side. This is the section the division has the most concern with.
It puts the legislature first in line to work with the public on
all closures, of all types, in all park units, for public safety
reasons, for resource protection reasons and aesthetic reasons.
MR. STRATTON said his understanding is that the intent is to have
this section only focus on ILMA parks, which are 640 acres or
smaller. However, the first line of this section states, "Except
as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter". There is
nothing in the enabling language of the legislatively designated
parks that makes a specific reference to traditional access. Legal
counsel has told the division that without that specific reference
to traditional access in the enabling language of the legislatively
designated parks, this clause does not exempt any of these
legislatively designated parks. Therefore, this section applies to
all of the park units, regardless of size.
Number 2284
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether the legislature would have to issue
legislation and approve every action.
Number 2301
MR. STRATTON replied that is his understanding. One approach
would be listing all actions; another would be clustering parks by
types of closures. The division has been implementing closures on
state park land for 25 years, taking direction from the legislature
and creating the closures.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked for an example.
Number 2328
MR. STRATTON cited examples of the kinds of things the division has
been doing that would, under this bill, have to be brought before
the legislature for closure. First are wildlife-human conflicts.
These are generally for less than 90 days and therefore would be
exempt. However, there is a clause added by the Senate that states
a closure made in a subsequent year of less than 90 days will also
have to be brought to the legislature for approval.
MR. STRATTON said occasionally, a campground must be closed for an
entire season, as was the case in the Captain Cook Recreation Area,
when a bear was in the area for the entire summer. In addition,
there are construction closures for refurbishment of a facility,
for example. Those restrict traditional access, typically for
longer than 90 days, and are for safety reasons. Furthermore,
facilities damaged by natural disasters, such as the Perseverance
Trail, have been closed for longer than 90 days and would have to
be brought back to the legislature for approval. Also, in areas
with teenage party sites, where vandalism has become a problem, the
hours are modified or sites are permanently closed, which would
require legislative approval. Mr. Stratton noted that all the
parks in Sitka are closed at 10:00 p.m. for public safety reasons.
MR. STRATTON said it is these kinds of closures, which they have
traditionally done for public safety, that the division will no
longer have discretion to make, or to make permanent, because
everything would need to be brought to the legislature for
approval. This is where discretionary immunity enters into it. If
the division does not have discretion to close facilities or if
closures were lifted, the division is concerned about being open to
tort litigation.
Number 2449
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE asked whether these smaller parks are
generally located around communities.
MR. STRATTON said most state park units are on the road system.
TAPE 97-42, SIDE B
Number 0006
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked: In regard to the length of the
closure, when it is somehow tied to budgetary constraints, what is
the legislature's obligation? He further asked what that would
mean for the general public in terms of the legislature perhaps not
meeting its obligation to keep parks open.
Number 0040
MR. STRATTON replied that when the division needs to close a
facility due to budget constraints, it restricts traditional
recreational access; they would need to bring that back to the
legislature for approval. Those closures would be dealt with
twice, first at the budget level and then when the division made a
decision based on the budget it received, if that resulted in
closures.
Number 0061
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated that as he interprets it, when the
legislature gets the list of closures and a good case is made, the
legislature approves it. If there is a problem, the legislature
will not include that in the bill listing approved closures. He
stated that he did not see the problem.
Number 0089
MR. STRATTON replied that the concern is if for some reason the
bill does not pass or gets caught up in politics, for example, the
division would be hampered from protecting the public in the park
system. The division is asking, under the reporting requirements
of Section 1, that the legislature pick from that report the
actions it does not like, and then pass a bill addressing those.
Otherwise, everything will need to pass the legislature or "go
away." The way subsection (e) is written, there is an uncertainty
factor.
Number 0139
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN suggested if the governor does not like something,
he can veto it.
Number 0142
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON expressed concern over the timeliness of the
passage of bills in the legislature. He further asked why the
Administration had not stepped forward earlier to discuss this
issue.
MR. STRATTON replied that subsection (e) was not in the original
bill. The division had no problem with the original bill.
Subsection (e) is the problem.
Number 0222
MR. STRATTON stated that Section 3 was put into the bill at the
division's request for the "land and water conservation fund
problem."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that Mr. Luckhaupt was present from the
Department of Law to answer Representative Green's earlier
questions.
Number 0261
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN explained that his question was on the third
paragraph of the memo from John Baker to Jim Stratton, dated April
15, 1997, relating to "discretionary function" immunity. He was
unsure how a statement like this from the Department of Law may
cast a shadow over legislators who would approve the language in
the bill, after having been notified by the Department of Law of a
potential problem. He asked whether this increases the
legislature's potential liability or whether the legislature is
ignoring a warning from counsel.
Number 0306
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, explained that the letter says there is
the possibility that it could increase the state's liability.
However, it is not clear whether it will do so. The discretionary
function immunity exists as part of the state's sovereign immunity,
which the state has waived except in cases where state officials
are exercising their discretion.
MR. LUCKHAUPT said the courts have made a distinction between
whether that discretion is being utilized in the policy making area
or as a matter of operations. Decisions by the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF), for example, to
close or not close roads due to conditions have been held to be
discretionary; therefore, the state is not liable if someone has an
accident on a road when the state has refused to close it. He said
the Alaska Supreme Court has also rejected the argument of
liability if the reason the road was unsafe and kept open was due
to inadequate budgetary resources. The decision whether to provide
budgetary resources is something the court said was part of that
policy making discretion area for which the state is not liable.
MR. LUCKHAUPT said it could be argued that a decision by the
legislature that the Department of Natural Resources cannot close
various trails or campgrounds in the state park system removes
discretion to do that; therefore, the state may be liable for that.
One could also say that knowing they cannot close a trail or
campground, their decisions to post notice of dangerous conditions,
for example, is where discretion will be utilized. Therefore, how
well they inform the public of existing dangers in an area they
cannot close would still be a discretionary function, and there
would be no greater liability to the state.
MR. LUCKHAUPT said there is no easy answer as to automatic
liability. The decision to close a park for 90 days and then get
legislative approval would be discretionary, as part of the
division's policy making powers; therefore, there would be no
liability. That seems to fit in with decisions of the DOT/PF to
close or not close roads. If, in response to a closure, the
legislature refuses to accept that closure, it could be argued that
the legislature is exercising their policy making power and there
would be no increase in liability. There are many possibilities
and no easy answers. He does not know whether this would increase
the state's liability, and it is unclear what would happen. "We
won't necessarily know these answers until someone presents them to
a court and the court decides," he said.
Number 0558
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked for verification that there was a small
possibility that the state could incur some liability by not
keeping a park closed. He understood that Mr. Luckhaupt felt that
through discretionary authority, the state was not taking a big
chance in leaving the parks open.
MR. LUCKHAUPT responded that he was trying to give an opinion that
went both ways. He expounded on this.
Number 0745
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked whether Mr. Luckhaupt knew of anyplace in
statute where the legislature forces a road open at the expense of
safety.
MR. LUCKHAUPT replied that Title 19 states that the DOT/PF can
restrict traffic and close roads. It operates from the assumption
that the roads are open to begin with.
Number 0773
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said if a trail was directed open by a law
passed by the legislature, he believes the state is assuming some
greater liability by this legislation.
Number 0845
MR. LUCKHAUPT responded that is a conclusion one could draw. He
cited examples and said it is not clear what removes state
liability. For instance, it is not clear that the state has no
liability on the Perseverance Trail just because it is posted as
"closed," as people continue to use the trail.
Number 0981
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked what level of effort is needed to warn
people of trail closures. For example, there is a question of
where signs should be posted, as there can be access at places
other than the head of the trail.
Number 1042
MR. LUCKHAUPT replied that all factors enter into the liability
issue. If it is a discretionary policy making area, the state is
not liable, no matter how reasonable or unreasonable they were. If
it is in the operational area, it is a jury question of whether the
state was reasonable. In operational areas, the state's actions
must be unreasonable before there is liability.
Number 1206
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether there is a difference in
liability if the park is open, versus closed, and someone is
attacked by a bear.
MR. LUCKHAUPT replied he did not know. He cited the example of the
federal government being held responsible in Yellowstone National
Park even though they hand out warnings to park guests. He
expounded on it, then emphasized that there are no clear answers in
this area.
Number 1488
TUCKERMAN BABCOCK, Legislative Assistant to Senator Lyda Green,
said the bill states that the Division of Parks and Outdoor
Recreation does not have the ability to restrict access unless the
legislature gives them authority to do so. The legislature has
specifically given the division authority to restrict incompatible
uses and to decide what are incompatible on every established park
area or preserve. However, there is a loophole for land managed as
a park or tiny parks that the legislature has not given the
bureaucracy authority to close.
MR. BABCOCK said one approach is to leave it to the bureaucracy to
restrict public access, and the legislature will not do anything
about it unless it passes a bill. This bill says the bureaucracy
cannot make permanent closures to public access unless there is
specific legislative authority to do so. Mr. Babcock said he
anticipates that during the interim, the division will give a great
deal of thought to what kind of authority they wish to seek from
the legislature to close parks due to threats to public safety, for
example. He specified that SB 35 does not require an annual review
of every park and little closure.
MR. BABCOCK referred to discussion of Section 2 in the memo of
April 15, 1997, and said he does not read the statute as they do.
He said, "The specific exemptions for the land already designated
as parks, they do maintain their ability to close. The McHugh
Creek, the Cook Inlet, Captain Cook examples are all already in
state parks that are established by the legislature, for which
specific authority to close has been given. And this would only
apply to the smaller parks for which there's no legislative
authority."
Number 1699
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked whether Mr. Babcock thinks legislative
approval authority should be delegated to an interim approval
agency such as the Office of Budget and Management under certain
circumstances. He expressed concern about public safety issues.
Number 1770
MR. BABCOCK replied that he thinks the Division of Parks and
Outdoor Recreation, working with the legislature, would come up
with a bill that comprehensively addresses what restrictions would
be par for the course on small parks. He said nothing prevents the
division, on every small park, from posting warning signs for
bears, washed-out trails, and so forth, without actually posting
"closed" signs.
Number 1855
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked how this bill would help out areas such
as Blair Lake.
Number 1880
MR. BABCOCK replied it would address Blair Lake because that is
land managed as land designated as part of the park; it would
prohibit the division from closures there. But for land already
within the park, they would have authority to restrict access.
Number 1908
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said there is a difference between the
previous year's bill and this one. The current bill deletes the
Denali Park section and there are parts of last year's bill not
included in this legislation.
Number 1956
MR. BABCOCK concurred.
Number 1991
SUSAN SCHRADER, Executive Director, Alaskan Environmental Lobby
(AEL), said the bill has taken on many permutations since first
introduced. The AEL feels that in its current form, it severely
cripples the ability of the Division of Parks and Outdoor
Recreation to protect the safety of citizens and to provide
recreational opportunity for all users in a balanced manner.
MS. SCHRADER said there are a number of issues of ambiguity in the
bill. The fact that it can be read that areas cannot be closed
longer than 90 days for public safety is a great concern, not only
for public safety but for habitat protection. The AEL is also
concerned about the increased litigation possibility.
MS. SCHRADER said the AEL's greatest concern is it will prohibit
the division from protecting the serenity and quite enjoyment of
the land it manages from intrusion by motorized activities. She
acknowledged this is a contentious and difficult issue. She said
unfortunately, she does not believe this type of legislation will
be of any help in dealing with user conflict problems. The AEL
encouraged the legislature to work a little more constructively
with the various interests involved, to try to get a little better
balance between motorized and nonmotorized users. She stated that
the AEL is opposed to the bill.
The gavel was turned over to Co-Chairman Bill Hudson.
Number 2221
SUSAN OLSEN, Alaska Quiet Rights Coalition, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. She said if the interpretation is
correct that Section 2 does not affect Denali State Park, then she
does not have many concerns. However, she noted that Chapter 21
includes all these parks; therefore, she does not understand the
assertion that the language only affects the little parks.
MS. OLSEN said on the assumption this does affect big parks, the
coalition believes the legislation prevents the division from doing
its job of managing the park for present users, as well as
preserving them for future generations. The constitution requires
that all resources, which she believes includes state parks, are to
be available for all users. However, the purpose behind the
legislation is to give special privileges to those who enjoy
motorized recreation. This legislation would prevent parks from
dealing with the growing conflict between persons wanting quite
recreation and those wanting motorized activities. She stated that
public policy should be for fair allocation of the state's
resources. This precludes that.
Number 2411
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated that he would find out whether this
applies to Denali State Park.
Number 2460
RANDY CROSBY testified via teleconference, saying he is a
commercial use permit holder in Denali State Park and Chugach State
Park. He conducts snow cat tours and recreates in both a motorized
and nonmotorized manner in the state park system. He fully
supports the bill.
TAPE 97-43, SIDE A
Number 0006
MR. CROSBY said one stipulation in his Denali State Park permit
requires him to block access of other recreational users from using
his trail on state park land. He said park staff say this is
necessary for public safety reasons.
MR. CROSBY advised that, on the other hand, his Chugach State Park
permit requires that he groom and share the trail with other
recreational users. He believes Denali State Park staff do not
want certain citizens of Alaska to have an easy, high-quality,
accessible route to the area of Curry Ridge. He believes this bill
will address restrictions and closures of state parks to motorized
users.
The gavel was turned over to Co-Chairman Ogan.
Number 0152
TOM MEACHAM testified via teleconference from Anchorage, saying he
lives adjacent to Chugach State Park and is concerned about the
effect this bill would have on that park. He stated that he was
surprised to hear the sponsor say the bill covers only small parks,
because the bill talks about park areas or preserves established
under Chapter 21, under which both legislatively designated parks
and other parks were established. He believes that must be
clarified if the intent of the legislation is to be much narrower
than it appears.
MR. MEACHAM believes Chugach State Park should be managed for all
users. He said many conflicting potential incompatible users and
user groups have been accommodated. Any necessary zonings or
closures have only been adopted after extensive public hearings,
with broad public support. Not everyone is happy, but he believes
everyone is happy there are areas where they can pursue their own
recreational interests without hazard and conflict from other
groups. He believes this bill would lead to anarchy in the state
parks, where the loudest, fastest, most expensive means of access
would dominate over all other uses. All user groups need to be
considered by wise management techniques. He does not believe the
legislature has either the time or the inclination to deal with
specific situations that develop in state parks that cry out for
management solutions, either for public safety or for equitable use
by the general public.
Number 0331
CLIFF EAMES, Alaska Center for the Environment, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage, saying his organization has
approximately 4,000 members. They do not object to the reporting
requirement imposed by the bill. However, they object to stripping
the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation of its authority to
manage motorized recreation. He believes this authority is needed
for the small parks, which frequently are campgrounds, and he
believes many people in these campgrounds would like motorized use
to be managed so they can enjoy their stay there. He asked: By
stripping the division of authority, would parks be available for
the enjoyment of all Alaskans or just the motorized recreation
users? The center advocates a balance between areas available for
motorized recreation users and those available for other Alaskans
and their visitors.
Number 0492
KEN ROBERTSON, Member, Chugach State Park Advisory Board, testified
via teleconference from Anchorage, indicating Chugach State Park
has been sensitive to the public's needs. Whenever there is a
contentious issue, public hearings are held and everyone's views
are considered. He said he is concerned for reasons raised by Mr.
Stratton, Mr. Eames and Mr. Meacham, and he believes this is a
cumbersome way to target a small problem.
MR. ROBERTSON endorsed Mr. Stratton's suggestion of dealing with
only those closures with which the legislature disagrees. He
believes the bill should be tailored to achieve its objective, at
a minimum. He also believes it fixes a problem that does not
exist. Things are run well now, and he believes the legislature
should deal with issues as they arise, rather than implement a
cumbersome procedure to essentially strip people who have knowledge
and expertise from doing their job.
Number 0629
PAM BARNES, Llama Buddies Expeditions (ph), testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. Both a commercial and personal user
of state parks, she opposes the bill. She said the division works
for public safety reasons or for resource protection; she is
satisfied with the balance of management. This bill would take
away the ability to respond to changing conditions in a timely
manner. She would like the division to remain responsible for
management and decision making of closures, without requiring
legislature approval for those types of decisions.
Number 0696
RALPH FELTS testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, concurring
with Mr. Stratton that this is a bit of overkill to address a
couple of issues. He stated that overall, the division is doing a
good job. A park user, he is sympathetic when a park closure
arises. Although he has no problem with the legislature getting
involved when there is a problem such as Curry Ridge or Blair lake,
he believes the legislature should not try to micromanage just to
solve those situations. "Let Parks do their job; they're doing a
pretty good job of it," he concluded.
Number 0768
JUNE BURKHART, Legislative Affairs Officer, Alaska Boating
Association, testified via teleconference, saying she was
presenting her own views as well as those of the association, which
has several hundred members across the state operating "every kind
of motorized vehicle you imagine." She said public waterways are
owned collectively by all residents, and restrictions should be
implemented only when necessary to ensure safety and environmental
protection. She stated that when these are the reasons for a
closure, the association has asked for objective data supporting
the risks; in most cases, they had not received it.
MS. BURKHART said the previous week there was a public hearing in
Anchorage on the draft management plan for Kenai Lake and Kenai
River, which specifically recommended prohibition of jet skis,
hydro-planes, hovercraft and similar motorized craft on Kenai Lake.
Several members of the association asked for data supporting the
prohibition. She said they were told, "There is no real problem,
there are very few users, we are just trying to drop a problem
before it starts." They do not feel that is a just reason, and
they support this legislation.
Number 0920
DAN ELLIOTT, Chair, Mat-Su State Park Citizen Advisory Board,
testified via teleconference, saying the system works. This bill
does not allow for changing circumstances; public safety is only
one issue. He is afraid of having to rely on the legislature to
manage due to the constraints of time, budget and politics that
affect it. He stated that the Division of Parks and Outdoor
Recreation was intended to manage the parks, and they should. He
said helicopters are a traditional means of access to Denali State
Park, and hunting is a traditional recreational activity; he
wondered whether hunting by helicopter would now become legal. He
stated that in general, the division should be allowed to use its
own discretion, and the legislature should only be involved in
cases where they disagree.
Number 1045
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked if anyone else wished to testify and then
closed public testimony.
Number 1068
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE offered an amendment, which read:
Page 4, lines 1 - 10
Delete all of (e)
Number 1079
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN objected and stated that there is a 24-hour rule
on substantive amendments. He then indicated he would allow it.
Number 1108
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN called an at-ease at 2:58 p.m. and called the
committee back to order at 2:59 p.m. He asked whether the sponsor
objected to the amendment.
SENATOR GREEN said yes.
Number 1150
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE explained that subsection (e) is the
contentious area. The amendment removes the section of the bill
that is bringing all the concern.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated his objection to the amendment, saying the
legislature would like to take back this portion of authority that
it has delegated.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE noted that the committee had heard a lot about
this issue regarding public safety as well.
Number 1218
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked whether there was a response
from the department.
Number 1227
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said there would be no response.
Number 1238
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN called for a brief at-ease at 3:02 p.m. and called
the meeting back to order at 3:03 p.m.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN requested a roll call vote. Representatives
Masek, Dyson, Green, Williams, Hudson and Ogan voted against the
amendment. Representatives Nicholia and Joule voted in favor of
the amendment. Representative Barnes was absent. So the amendment
failed.
Number 1280
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON made a motion to move CSSB 35(FIN), 0-
LSO274\L, with individual recommendations and zero fiscal note.
Number 1298
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether there was an objection. There being
none, CSSB 35(FIN) was moved out of the House Resources Standing
Committee.
The gavel was turned over to Co-Chairman Hudson.
HB 204 - MORATORIA ON COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY
Number 1312
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated that the next order of business was House
Bill No. 204, "An Act revising the procedures and authority of the
Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, the Board of
Fisheries, and the Department of Fish and Game to establish a
moratorium on participants or vessels, or both, participating in
certain fisheries; and providing for an effective date."
Number 1330
AMY DAUGHERTY, Legislative Administrative Assistant to
Representative Alan Austerman, read the following sponsor statement
into the record:
"House Bill 204 amends the existing moratorium law to provide for
workable and effective moratorium law as part of Alaska's existing
fisheries management process. The current moratorium statute has
proved unworkable and confusing. The current process involves
multi-steps where a fisher seeking a moratorium must first go to
the Commissioner of Fish and Game, who in turn must seek
authorization from the Board of Fisheries. Once authorization is
granted from the Board of Fisheries, the commissioner may then
petition the CFEC to provide a moratorium.
"The commission is then authorized to go forward if it can make
findings required by the current statute, which are difficult to
understand and mutually inconsistent.
"This cumbersome and confusing process prevents a quick response in
fisheries that are growing too rapidly to ensure effective
management. As a result, the resource and the economic livelihood
of fishers could be jeopardized. In some situations, ADF&G's only
recourse is to close the fishery or refuse to open a new fishery if
effort cannot be controlled.
"HB 204 would allow fishers seeking a moratorium to petition the
commission directly. This legislation also gives the commission
the authority to place a moratorium on vessels and gear as well as
individuals. This is important in a fishery like the Bering Sea
[Korean] hair crab fishery and scallops, where large vessels may
use a number of different skippers in a season.
"Under the current statute, eligibility to participate during the
moratorium is based on past participation. This requirement
precludes the use of a moratorium in new fisheries or in fisheries
that have remained closed for years. In these two situations,
participation levels in an open access fishery may be initially too
great to promote resource conservation and sustainable fisheries.
HB 204 would allow the commission to implement a moratorium in such
fisheries and base eligibility on other reasonable standards such
as participation in similar fisheries.
"Additionally, HB 204 would allow the state to extend its
moratorium authority to offshore fisheries adjacent to state waters
when consistent with federal law.
"Improving the moratorium law is consistent with our concern for
developing and protecting jobs, as well as streamlining government
and resource protection."
MS. DAUGHERTY advised that there was one amendment.
Number 1464
DALE ANDERSON, Chairman, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC), stated support for the bill. He said there is a
dysfunctional statute that creates an undue burden on fishermen.
The CFEC would like to streamline access to be able to request a
moratorium, rather than going through the convoluted process in
place right now.
Number 1505
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked whether anyone has petitioned the CFEC
against this change in the statutes.
Number 1513
MR. ANDERSON replied that the CFEC received a letter from the
Petersburg Vessel Owners Association asking for some
clarifications. The CFEC met with the director, who expressed
concern with the elimination of the board's participation in the
moratorium process.
Number 1550
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked whether Mr. Anderson had seen the
proposed amendment and whether he supports it.
MR. ANDERSON said he had seen it and supports it. There is no real
substantive change; it makes the bill easier to read.
Number 1577
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked whether the amendment is being offered
by the prime sponsor.
MS. DAUGHERTY said yes.
Number 1645
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to adopt the amendment, 0-
LSO802\A.1, Utermohle, 4/14/97, which read:
Page 3, lines 25 - 26:
Delete all material.
Insert "vessel permit to another vessel if the original
permitted vessel is sunk, destroyed, or damaged to the extent
that the vessel is inoperable for the fishery for which the
permit is issued."
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if there was any objection. There
being none, the amendment was adopted.
Number 1683
BRAD JOHNSON testified via teleconference from Ketchikan, saying he
is strongly in favor of the bill. He said it is important to
understand that in the time it takes to declare a moratorium on a
fishery, the number of participants in the fishery can snowball
overnight. For example, in one fishery, the hint of impending
limited entry caused the number of permits to go from 186 to 332 in
one month. With this bill in place, that would not happen.
Number 1741
KRAIG NORHEIM testified via teleconference from Petersburg in
support of the bill. He participates in the shrimp fishery, which
is going into a limited entry process; 150 additional boats have
been let into the fishery. Although the fishermen can take it, the
resource cannot handle this increased pressure. He believes the
date of the limited entry should have been moved back to January
1st of the year when they decided to adopt limited entry. He
believes this bill will eliminate rushes into soon-to-be-limited
fisheries.
Number 1817
BRUCE SIEMINSKI testified via teleconference from Seward. He
suggested when an impacted species gets "back on line," there
should be provisions increasing the number of permits. He stated
that he favors the bill.
Number 1904
BRENNON EAGLE testified via teleconference from Wrangell in favor
of the bill. The CFEC would have much more flexibility when
deciding to limit a fishery. He gave the example of the pot shrimp
fishery, which had a cut-off date to apply for a permit seven weeks
following announcement of limited entry. With a moratorium, an
extra 150 people could have been kept out of the fishery.
Number 1848
BILL KNECHT testified via teleconference from Wrangell in favor of
the bill. He stated that this legislation is a necessary tool to
help regulate fisheries "so they don't explode out of the viable
realm." He said he represents an association of about 25 members.
They are 95 percent in support of this; the other 5 percent are
undecided. He also sits on the Wrangell Fish and Game Advisory
Board. With this tool in place, they will not have to spend
numerous hours trying to figure out how to slow down the Southeast
pot shrimp fishery.
Number 2029
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA made a motion to move HB 204, as amended,
with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note.
Number 2040
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if there were any objections. There
being none, CSHB 204(RES) was moved out of the House Resources
Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2072
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON adjourned the House Resources Standing
Committee at 3:21 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|