05/04/2007 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB128 | |
| HB94 | |
| HJR21 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 241 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 94 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 128 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
May 4, 2007
1:11 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Co-Chair
Representative Craig Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Bob Roses
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Vic Kohring
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 128
"An Act relating to allowable lease expenditures for the purpose
of determining the production tax value of oil and gas for the
purposes of the oil and gas production tax; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 128(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 94
"An Act relating to fishing, hunting, and trapping in marine
park units of the Alaska state park system, amending the area
within designated marine park units of the Alaska state park
system, and adding marine park units to the Alaska state park
system."
- MOVED CSHB 94(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 21
Opposing the designation of any area in the state as a world
heritage site, biosphere reserve, or any other type of
international designation without the consent of the Alaska
State Legislature and affected local governments; and urging the
United States Congress to enact legislation to require
congressional approval before an area in the United States may
be considered for an international designation.
- MOVED CSHJR 21(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 241
"An Act creating the Stampede State Recreation Area."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 128
SHORT TITLE: OIL & GAS PRODUCTION TAX: EXPENDITURES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) OLSON
02/12/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/12/07 (H) O&G, RES, FIN
02/22/07 (H) O&G AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/22/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/22/07 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
03/01/07 (H) O&G AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/01/07 (H) Moved CSHB 128(O&G) Out of Committee
03/01/07 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
03/05/07 (H) O&G RPT CS(O&G) 3DP 1NR
03/05/07 (H) DP: DOOGAN, RAMRAS, OLSON
03/05/07 (H) NR: SAMUELS
03/19/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/19/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/19/07 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/21/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/21/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/21/07 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/23/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/23/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/23/07 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/26/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/26/07 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/28/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/28/07 (H) Heard & Held; Assigned to Subcommittee
03/28/07 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/01/07 (H) RES AT 9:00 AM BARNES 124
05/02/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
05/02/07 (H) Failed To Move Out Of Committee
05/02/07 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/04/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 94
SHORT TITLE: MARINE PARKS ADDITIONS/HUNTING ALLOWED
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KERTTULA, CISSNA
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/12/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) RES, FIN
04/30/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/30/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/04/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HJR 21
SHORT TITLE: OPPOSE UN LAND DESIGNATIONS IN ALASKA
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) THOMAS
04/26/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/26/07 (H) RES
05/04/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KEVIN BANKS, Acting Director
Central Office
Division of Oil & Gas
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 128, answered
questions.
JONATHAN IVERSEN, Director
Anchorage Office
Tax Division
Department of Revenue
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 128, answered
questions.
AURORA HAUKE, Staff
to Representative Beth Kerttula
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 94 on behalf of Representative
Kerttula, one of the joint prime sponsors.
MIKE EBERHARDT, Superintendent
Southeast Area
Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 94, answered
questions.
IAN FISK, Staff
to Representative Bill Thomas
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 21 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Thomas.
STEVE BORELL, P.E., Executive Director
Alaska Miners Association, Inc.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 21.
BOBBY FITHIAN, Executive Director
Alaska Professional Hunters Association Inc. (APHA)
Copper Center, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 21.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR CARL GATTO called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:11:45 PM. Representatives
Gatto, Kawasaki, Wilson, Seaton, Roses, Guttenberg, and Edgmon
were present at the call to order. Representative Johnson
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 128-OIL & GAS PRODUCTION TAX: EXPENDITURES
1:11:53 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 128, "An Act relating to allowable lease
expenditures for the purpose of determining the production tax
value of oil and gas for the purposes of the oil and gas
production tax; and providing for an effective date." [Before
the committee is CSHB 128(O&G), as amended at previous
hearings.]
1:12:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to an amendment labeled 25-
LS0561\K.4, Bullock, 5/3/07, which read:
Page 4, line 1, following "equipment":
Insert ";
(20) costs related to the maintenance of
oil and gas facilities, equipment, and infrastructure
that are incurred as a result of a violation of a
regulation adopted by the person in the Department of
Natural Resources who is the lead person for
exercising oversight over the maintenance of oil and
gas facilities, equipment, and infrastructure in the
state"
Page 4, lines 4 - 5:
Delete all material and insert:
"APPLICABILITY. (a) AS 43.55.165(e)(19), as
enacted in sec. 1 of this Act, applies to oil and gas
produced after March 31, 2006.
(b) AS 43.55.165(e)(20), as enacted in sec. 1 of
this Act, applies to oil and gas produced after the
effective date of the regulations described in sec. 5
of this Act."
Page 4, line 20:
Delete "Section 1 of this Act"
Insert "AS 43.55.165(e)(19), as enacted in sec. 1
of this Act,"
Page 4, line 21:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 5. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
CONDITIONAL EFFECT; NOTICE. (a)
AS 43.55.165(e)(20), as enacted in sec. 1 of this Act,
takes effect only if the person in the Department of
Natural Resources who is the lead person for
exercising oversight over the maintenance of oil and
gas facilities, equipment, and infrastructure in the
state adopts regulations related to the maintenance of
oil and gas facilities, equipment, and infrastructure
in the state.
(b) The commissioner of natural resources shall
notify the revisor of statutes of the effective date
of the regulations described in (a) of this section.
* Sec. 6. If AS 43.55.165(e)(20), as enacted in
sec. 1 of this Act, takes effect, it takes effect on
the effective date of the regulations described in
sec. 5 of this Act.
* Sec. 7. Except as provided in sec. 6 of this Act,
this Act takes effect immediately under
AS 01.10.070(c)."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that the aforementioned
amendment is Don Bullock's [version of] Conceptual Amendment 4,
which was adopted unanimously [at the May 2, 2007 hearing].
Therefore, K.4 has already been incorporated into the
legislation. He explained that Conceptual Amendment 4 added a
new subsection, which read:
costs incurred as a result of an action or inaction in
violation of regulation or procedures adopted by the
pipeline safety integrity organization (PSIO) or other
appropriate agency.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that the PSIO isn't included
because it is to be under the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR). "So, they identified the agency or any subsidiary agency
such as PSIO that would be adopting these regulations," he said.
1:14:03 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO then turned attention to page 3, paragraph (19),
which he said is the only issue keeping CSHB 128(O&G) from being
forwarded to the next committee of referral. He related his
understanding that if paragraph (19) is maintained, then the
next committee of referral is the House Judiciary Standing
Committee. However, if paragraph (19) is deleted, no referral
to House Judiciary Standing Committee is necessary and it could
be forwarded to the House Finance Committee. He acknowledged
that the administration says paragraph (19) needs to be included
in the legislation.
1:15:13 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON noted his agreement that with the inclusion of
paragraph (19) a House Judiciary Standing Committee referral is
necessary.
1:15:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related that in conversations with the
administration he has come to understand that it's uncomfortable
with the language of paragraph (19). Therefore, he expressed
the need for some better definitions if the will of the
committee is to "do something retroactively."
1:16:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG pointed out that HB 128 originally
included paragraph (19) and didn't receive a House Judiciary
Standing Committee referral. He opined that if the House
Finance Committee, the next committee of referral, believes a
House Judiciary Standing Committee referral is appropriate, then
it can be referred to that committee at that point. He related
his desire to leave the legislation on its current path.
1:17:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI clarified that paragraph (19) was
changed a lot in the House Special Committee on Oil and Gas.
Therefore, he opined that a referral to the House Judiciary
Standing Committee is probably appropriate if paragraph (19)
remains.
1:17:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved that the committee delete paragraph
(19) on page 3, lines 19-23.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG stated a point of order. He then
related his understanding that in order to take action on HB
128, the committee would need to vote to bring the legislation
back before it.
1:18:16 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO related his understanding that when the motion to
report legislation from committee fails, the legislation remains
with the chair.
1:18:37 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO moved to bring HB 128 back before the committee.
There being no objection, HB 128 was before the committee.
[Representative Seaton's earlier motion to delete paragraph (19)
was treated as withdrawn.]
1:19:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved that the committee adopt Amendment
6, as follows:
Page 3, lines 19-23 through page 4, line 2:
Delete all material
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected. He then asked if there is a
representative from the administration who could shed some light
as to why the administration has some problems with the language
of paragraph (19).
1:20:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related his understanding that the
commissioner of the Department of Revenue agrees with the
language in the amendment [labeled 25-LS0561\K.4, Bullock,
5/3/07] regarding going forward with regulations. If the
legislature wants to go back and try to put in standards, the
[department] needs something for standards if the desire is to
go back to 2006 and have a standard other than the standards
included in the legislation. He said that paragraph (20) in the
amendment [labeled 25-LS0561\K.4, Bullock, 5/3/07] doesn't cover
retroactively a standard lower than gross negligence, other than
the other partners in the oil field rejecting the bill.
1:21:40 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO furthered that the [commissioner of DOR] said
that he couldn't write regulations without the authority in
statute to write the regulations that allow the refusal of the
deduction that's submitted.
1:22:07 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired as to the problems the [department]
had with the language.
1:22:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that the amendment the committee
adopted was the statutory portion necessary for [creating]
regulations. He further clarified that the regulations wouldn't
be writing retroactive regulations, but rather [the regulations]
would provide a standard to sue against. [The department] did
have problems, he related, with regard to the effect this might
have throughout the current language on the incentives in the
petroleum production profits tax (PPT).
1:23:17 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO reminded the committee that the amendment labeled
25-LS0561\K.4, Bullock, 5/3/07, has been adopted and will be in
the forthcoming committee substitute (CS).
1:23:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG related his understanding that the
retroactivity remains, although it looks different than in
previous legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related his agreement. He the pointed out
that two applicability subsections were necessary because the
regulation section would begin at the effective date of the
regulations, which is different than the March 31, 2006,
effective date in paragraph (19).
1:25:06 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO, referring to paragraph (19), related his
understanding that there was a reduction in corrosion inhibitor
as a way to save money. Although it saved money in 2006, it
cost money in 2007. The aforementioned is the reason for
allowing the commissioner to go back and say that the state
doesn't want to pay for expenses related to negligence.
1:26:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES, referring to paragraph (20) in the
amendment labeled 25-LS0561\K.4, Bullock, 5/3/07], asked if
regulations that govern how the producers are supposed to
maintain oil and gas facilities, equipment, and infrastructure
are currently in place.
1:27:22 PM
KEVIN BANKS, Acting Director, Central Office, Division of Oil &
Gas, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), related his belief
that there are regulations that govern how DEC reviews the
facilities. The intention was to have a gap analysis over the
next several months in order to determine whether new
regulations need to be added. There could also be regulations
from the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
(DOT&PF) and other agencies.
1:27:49 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO questioned then if the legislation is necessary
to go back and deny maintenance costs, if their regulations
exist.
MR. BANKS explained that the regulations DNR would be reviewing
aren't focused on whether it relates to an exception for the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). The intent of this
language seems to address a situation in which a regulation in
place that addresses maintenance or proper care of the
facilities is violated, then costs related to that are subject
to a disapproved allowance. Mr. Banks opined that the amendment
is trying to disallow those costs incurred as a consequence of
violating some regulation related to maintenance.
1:29:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES surmised that paragraph (20) captures most
of what is specified in paragraph (19), and therefore he
questioned whether paragraph (20) is redundant. He then asked
if the deletion of paragraph (19) would eliminate the
redundancy.
MR. BANKS said that when paragraph (19) was first proposed, he
read it as creating a setting in which DOR begins to question
whether a cost is related to improper maintenance and could then
turn to DNR for advice as to whether that was true or not. Then
language was developed to guide that kind of advice. Therefore,
it seems that by including [paragraph (20)], a circumstance in
which a regulatory violation constitutes an improper cost is
being selected. Paragraph (20), he opined, seems to be slightly
more specific than paragraph (19).
1:31:59 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO related his understanding from the commissioner
that paragraph (19) allows [the retroactivity].
1:32:13 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked if yet to be written regulations can be
applied retroactively.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES remarked that was his question.
1:32:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if DNR has regulations that would
cover [what is referred to in paragraph (20)].
MR. BANKS said that he doesn't believe that DNR, at the moment,
has articulated maintenance and requirements in regulation. The
department relies on the lease contract and the general scope of
the lease stipulations to govern whether activities conducted on
the lease are appropriate. [This legislation] seems to expand
those concepts into a more regulatory framework.
1:34:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related his understanding from
conversations with the administration that going forward the
amendment is vital. Although the [department] can go back now,
it would have to do so for one of the existing standards: gross
negligence, wilful misconduct, or because the partners rejected
the bill because it wasn't performed as a prudent operator would
do. He related his further understanding that the lease
agreements at Prudhoe Bay include clauses regarding items for
which they don't pay. As of today, the other partners have not
been billed for the BP spill, shutdown, and pipe replacement.
The purpose of paragraph (19) is to have a different standard
that's lower than gross negligence and will only apply if the
other partners accept the bills. He noted that improper
maintenance is not necessarily the negligence standard, and in
fact it may be lower than that in some cases. "If you want them
to go back and look at a standard that's lower than those that
are incorporated in here ... then [paragraph] (19) is needed,"
Representative Seaton opined.
1:36:44 PM
JONATHAN IVERSEN, Director, Anchorage Office, Tax Division,
Department of Revenue, characterized Representative Seaton's
comments as an accurate summary. He then said that he didn't
know whether BP has billed the aforementioned costs to the other
working interest owners in the unit or if any requests for
payment have been approved or denied. Paragraph (19) fills the
gap between where gross negligence stops and the costs denied
between the working interest owners, he opined.
1:37:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked if the state has the ability to
exempt those costs under the gross negligence definition. If
the answer is no and the desire is to reduce the standard to
simple negligence, then it's probably important to understand
the difference between gross negligence and simple negligence.
Black's Law Dictionary specifies that "gross negligence is a
lack of slight diligence or care; a conscience voluntary act or
omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and of the
consequences to another party who may typically recover
exemplary damages." Representative Roses opined that the gross
negligence standard isn't going to be that difficult to prove.
1:39:09 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired as to the definition of the term "legal
duty." He further inquired as to whether the injection of a
corrosion inhibitor is smart or a legal duty.
1:39:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON opined that Alaska statutes include
definitions for gross negligence and negligence, which she
surmised would be followed over what is specified in a
dictionary.
1:39:48 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO suggested that since Representative Roses was
reading from Black's Law Dictionary that would be the
[definition] to which to refer.
1:40:03 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON remarked that the aforementioned discussion
exemplifies why HB 128 should receive a referral to the House
Judiciary Standing Committee. He said that although he agrees
that [paragraph (19)] should be included, it needs to be
appropriate language and language with which the administration
can "live with."
1:41:12 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON maintained his objection.
1:42:43 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Wilson, Roses, and
Seaton voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 6.
Representatives Edgmon, Kawasaki, Guttenberg, Johnson, and Gatto
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 6 failed to be adopted
by a vote of 3-5.
1:43:52 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO informed the committee that the next committee of
referral for HB 128 is the House Finance Committee. He reminded
the committee that on a previous motion to report this
legislation from committee, it failed on a 4-4 vote. Unless
someone is willing to change from that previous vote, the result
is unlikely to change. Therefore, he said, "So what I'm going
to do is say, 'Let it go to Judiciary; I hope that will change
one vote.'"
1:44:21 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON interjected that he believes HB 128 is good
legislation that needs to pass [out of this committee] and go to
the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
1:44:29 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved to report CSHB 128(O&G), as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes as well as a recommendation that the
legislation receive a referral to the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
1:45:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG suggested dividing the motion such
that there is a motion to report CSHB 128(O&G) from committee
and a second motion to refer the legislation to the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
1:45:43 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved to rescind his prior motion.
1:45:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined that if the question is divided as
stated, then whether there's a House Judiciary Standing
Committee referral will influence whether the legislation is
reported from committee. Therefore, he suggested first taking a
vote as to whether the committee wants to recommend a referral
to the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
1:46:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG noted that although everyone has the
ability to go to the speaker and offer recommendations regarding
referrals, the speaker isn't required to follow the
recommendations.
CO-CHAIR GATTO related that he would take the message from the
committee to the speaker.
1:47:17 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved that the committee take a sense of the
body as to whether the committee would recommend that HB 128
receive a House Judiciary Standing Committee.
CO-CHAIR GATTO objected.
1:47:57 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton, Roses,
Edgmon, Kawasaki, Wilson, Gatto, and Johnson voted in favor of
recommending that HB 128 be referred to the House Judiciary
Standing Committee. Representative Guttenberg voted against it.
Therefore, the sense of the committee regarding whether to
recommend that HB 128 receive a House Judiciary Standing
Committee passed by a vote of 7-1.
1:48:51 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved to report CSHB 128(O&G), as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected. He then clarified that he isn't
opposed to having a standard, but he expressed concern that the
standard in paragraph (19) inserts uncertainty and risk into the
PPT and could result in not sanctioning projects in Alaska by
the oil companies. He then removed his objection.
1:50:10 PM
There being no further objection, CSHB 128(RES) was reported
from the House Resources Standing Committee.
HB 94-MARINE PARKS ADDITIONS/HUNTING ALLOWED
1:50:35 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 94, "An Act relating to fishing, hunting, and
trapping in marine park units of the Alaska state park system,
amending the area within designated marine park units of the
Alaska state park system, and adding marine park units to the
Alaska state park system."
1:50:53 PM
AURORA HAUKE, Staff, to Representative Beth Kerttula, Alaska
State Legislature, paraphrased from the following sponsor
statement:
House Bill 94 adds 13 islands in Lynn Canal and
additional land on Shelter Island to the state's
marine park units of the Alaska state park system. HB
94 would protect recreational and economic
opportunities for Alaskans and visitors alike.
The islands are popular locations for fishing,
hunting, trapping, kayaking, camping, and picnicking.
Transferring these state-owned lands to the marine
park system will ensure they are kept open to the
public. Additionally, House Bill 94 ensures that
hunting and fishing will not be prohibited within the
marine park.
The islands included in HB 94 are important to
Southeast Alaska's economy. The incredible scenic
beauty and abundant wildlife viewing opportunities
make the waters around the islands a popular
passageway for whale watching tour boats. In
addition, the waters around these islands are a
vibrant fishing ground for our important commercial
fisheries. Adding the islands to the marine parks
will ensure that they remain the natural gems that
make them so important to local industry.
I urge your support of House Bill 94.
MS. HAUKE informed the committee that HB 94 has received support
from the Alaska Outdoor Council, Territorial Sportsmen, Inc.,
Southeast Alaska Land Trust, Juneau Audubon Society, Southeast
Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC), Goldbelt Incorporated,
private inholders on one of the islands, Juneau State Parks
Advisory Board, and the City & Borough of Juneau. Ms. Hauke
submitted the written testimony of Gary Miller, Juneau State
Parks Advisory Board, to the committee.
1:52:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt CSHB 94, Version 25-
LS0377\E, Kane, 4/30/07, as the working document. There being
no objection, Version E was before the committee.
1:52:51 PM
MS. HAUKE explained that the two changes encompassed in Version
E can be found in the intent language. Page 2, lines 1-3, adds
language stressing the importance of fishing in the Lynn Canal
area. On page 2, lines 16 and 30, the 20 fathom bathymetric
line apron around the islands is changed to the 10 fathom
bathymetric line. The 10 fathom bathymetric line is clearly
delineated on charts and allows the space necessary to make
improvements, should they choose to do so.
1:53:39 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked if "marine parks" are designated by the
state, including federal designations. He opined that the word
"park" usually has a fairly significant definition.
1:54:12 PM
MS. HAUKE deferred to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
However, she pointed out that HB 94 includes protections for
hunting and fishing so that those activities can continue in
marine parks.
1:54:43 PM
MIKE EBERHARDT, Superintendent, Southeast Area, Division of
Parks & Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources,
began by informing the committee that he is in charge of all the
parks within Southeast Alaska. There are approximately 32
marine parks, which is a bit different designation due to the
statutory designation. [The division] is very different from
the National Park Service in that a park designation doesn't
mean hunting, fishing, or use are prohibited. The division's
mission statement is for the use and enjoyment of the land by
the people of the state. He related that there is the desire by
the user groups that some active management take place within
these islands.
1:56:00 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked if scuba divers with compressed air and a
scuba gun can hunt within the marine park waters.
MR. EBERHARDT replied yes, adding that the restrictions
basically only apply to resource damage. [The division], he
related, is to prevent resource damage for the purposes set
forth in statute.
1:56:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES related his experience with Kachemak Bay
State Park, which has never been closed to fishing or hunting
prior to or following its designation as a state park.
1:57:40 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked if the harvesting of kelp to obtain herring
eggs would be considered a destructive behavior.
MR. EBERHARDT said that in such instances [in which the issue is
harvesting] the division would defer to the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game (ADF&G) to determine whether it's destructive
behavior. However, he noted that within all of the [marine
park] units in Sitka the harvest of herring roe is allowed.
1:59:23 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked if this legislation actually expands the
size of this park.
MR. EBERHARDT replied yes, the legislation adds islands to the
marine parks system. In further response to Co-Chair Johnson,
Mr. Eberhardt specified that the actual expansion in acreage is
12.1 square miles of land and 11.5 square miles of water.
MS. HAUKE clarified that the 11.5 square miles of water refers
to the 10 fathom bathymetric line rather than the 20 fathom
bathymetric line.
2:00:52 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired as to how many miles of beachfront is
being added.
MR. EBERHARDT answered that although it's an addition of a lot
of beachfront, it isn't substantial in comparison to what is
currently held. In further response to Co-Chair Gatto, Mr.
Eberhardt confirmed that there are some inholdings within the
park units. However, the vast majority are only uplands to
which the marine park system would receive the tidelands. For
instance, there is a small private inholding on Shelter Island
for which the tidelands in front of that private inholding
weren't exempted. Therefore, the tidelands in front of those
inholdings would be transferred to park management.
2:03:07 PM
MS. HAUKE, in response to Co-Chair Gatto, said that she hasn't
heard any objections to doing what's proposed in HB 94. She
noted that she has a letter from a private inholder who supports
HB 94.
2:03:27 PM
MR. EBERHARDT interjected that the important thing to know about
that inholder is that he is currently developing that parcel for
commercial recreation. The division has worked with that
inholder to establish that parcel for that use.
2:03:46 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON recalled that there are several private
inholdings within the marine park, and asked if those are in the
expanded park or in the entire park.
MR. EBERHARDT specified that within the units that the division
is asking to expand he knows of three, possibly four,
inholdings. He noted that they are small inholdings. In
further response to Co-Chair Johnson, Mr. Eberhardt said that
[the division] hasn't received objections from the other
inholders who have been notified of this.
2:04:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON related her understanding that this
legislation merely ensures that all the existing designations
that allow hunting, fishing, and etcetera to continue.
MR. EBERHARDT replied yes, adding that once it's a statutory
mandate the division no longer has the opportunity to do a lease
or other things that could restrict hunting and fishing.
2:05:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked if the individuals who currently have
sites within the park own the land.
MR. EBERHARDT replied yes. In further response to
Representative Roses, Mr. Eberhardt confirmed that the
designation of the land only goes to the mean mean high water
mark and thus any land outside of that would be a state park,
regardless. Mr. Eberhardt further confirmed that this
legislation doesn't really impact any land but rather the land
underneath the high tide mark.
2:06:08 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired as to the type of public notice
required before this is enacted. He further inquired as to
whether the inholders have been notified and if there's an
opportunity for the inholders to respond to this proposal.
MR. EBERHARDT informed the committee that this has been proposed
since 1991 and he has been in personal contact with all of the
landholders. He indicated that the only [difficulty] could be
if the land has changed hands within the last 15 years.
2:06:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG reviewed the various letters of
support in the committee packet.
2:07:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to report CSHB 94, Version 25-
LS0377\E, Kane, 4/30/07, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There
being no objection, CSHB 94(RES) was reported from the House
Resources Standing Committee.
HJR 21-OPPOSE UN LAND DESIGNATIONS IN ALASKA
2:07:41 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 21, Opposing the designation of
any area in the state as a world heritage site, biosphere
reserve, or any other type of international designation without
the consent of the Alaska State Legislature and affected local
governments; and urging the United States Congress to enact
legislation to require congressional approval before an area in
the United States may be considered for an international
designation.
2:07:59 PM
IAN FISK, Staff, to Representative Bill Thomas, Alaska State
Legislature, began by informing the committee that HJR 21 is a
resolution that was sponsored by the late Representative Elkins
in the Twenty-Fourth Alaska State Legislature. That original
resolution passed the House and Senate unanimously, but
unfortunately it was caught in the end of session chaos. Mr.
Fisk explained that HJR 21 is about local, state, and federal
sovereignty over land use designations, particularly as related
to United Nations (UN) designations known as World Heritage
sites and Biosphere Reserves. World Heritage sites are intended
to protect and preserve places of cultural and natural
significance around the world that are considered to be of
outstanding value to humanity. Included in World Heritage sites
are the Great Wall of China, Independence Hall, and the Statute
of Liberty as well as national parks. Mr. Fisk related from UN
materials the following: "What makes the concept of World
Heritage exceptional is its universal application. World
Heritage sites belong to all the peoples of the world
irrespective of the territory on which they are located."
2:09:59 PM
MR. FISK explained that part of the problem with these
designations is that they can be made without any congressional
oversight. Therefore, the critical resolve in this resolution
is the clause requesting that Congress pass and the president
sign legislation that would mandate congressional approval of
any sites nominated by the U.S. Secretary of Interior prior to
the sites being approved by the UN. Part of the difficulty with
these land use designations is that they can be used in land use
conflicts for the purposes of preventing development. In
summary, Mr. Fisk said that HJR 21 doesn't seek to dispute the
value of these programs in some areas of the world where nations
may need more UN support to do basic conservation of parks. The
resolution, he specified, in no way seeks to end the World
Heritage or Biosphere Reserve programs as it merely says that
congressional approval of such designations should be required.
The resolution further states that Alaska's local and state
governments should be consulted in these matters.
2:11:57 PM
MR. FISK then pointed out that the committee packet should
include an amendment that clarifies the locations in Alaska of
the World Heritage and Biosphere Reserve sites.
2:12:47 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1, as
follows:
Page 2, lines 25-30:
Delete all material
Insert "WHEREAS the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), with
the collaboration of the U.S. Department of Interior,
has recognized the Wrangell-St. Elias/Glacier
Bay/Kluane/Tatshenshini-Alsek World Heritage Site in
Alaska, and has listed the Aleutian Islands Unit of
the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Denali National Park,
Gates of the Arctic National Park, and Katmai National
Park on the Tentative List of areas nominated for full
status; and
WHEREAS the United Nations Man and the Biosphere
Program has identified the Glacier Bay - Admiralty
Island, Noatak, Denali and Aleutian Islands Biosphere
Reserves in Alaska; and"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:13:31 PM
STEVE BORELL, P.E., Executive Director, Alaska Miners
Association, Inc., noted that the committee packet should
include a letter of support from the Alaska Miners Association,
Inc. Mr. Borell said that most of the sites that he is aware of
are ones in which World Heritage sites were used to block and
harass mining projects. However, there are other areas of
concern such as the impact a World Heritage or Biosphere Reserve
site would have on drilling in the Chukchi Sea or subsequent sea
floor oil or gas pipeline. Another concern is the impact such
designations would have on commercial fishing, whaling, or the
harvesting of other marine mammals. These aren't abstract fears
as around the world such designations have been used against
projects, he related. Therefore, he urged the passage of HJR
21.
2:14:57 PM
BOBBY FITHIAN, Executive Director, Alaska Professional Hunters
Association Inc. (APHA), said APHA agrees with Mr. Borell's
comments. This resolution represents a long-needed sideboard
for international designations of Alaska's lands. He questioned
how many Alaskans knew in [1978] when the Wrangell-St. Elias
National Monument was created that in less than a year it would
be submitted and accepted to the UN World Heritage Committee in
Cairo, Egypt. Other areas of Alaska, including the Denali
National Park and Preserve and the Glacier Bay National
Monument, were similarly impacted under the World Heritage and
Biosphere Reserves programs. Mr. Fithian informed the committee
that the mission statement of this UN subcommittee is to protect
natural and cultural properties of outstanding universal value
against the threat of damage in a rapidly developing world. He
pointed out that worldwide several of these World Heritage and
Biosphere Reserves sites are being actively managed by UNESCO.
Some of those management activities include controlling human
population densities, access to sites, and water shed and
ecological concerns as well as agricultural and industrial
guidelines.
MR. FITHIAN related that there are 22 World Heritage sites in
the U.S. Additionally, World Heritage nominated sites in Alaska
includes areas in the Aleutian Islands, the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, Denali National Park, and Katmai National Park.
At all of the 26 sessions of the World Heritage Committee, the
U.S. Department of Interior has had a full contingent of
representatives. He said that those who have followed Alaska
Board of Game issues and concerns for the past decade and a half
know how much the U.S. Department of Interior's management
values differ from the [state's] constitutional mandates. Mr.
Fithian related that APHA would like to be involved and have a
say with the decisions creating these designations of public
lands upon which the [professional hunting] industry is
dependent. He furthered that the way of life of APHA members
and a substantial part of the $200 million annual revenue APHA
members generate for Alaska within these areas could be
jeopardized by these designations. In conclusion, Mr. Fithian
opined that HJR 21 addresses the oversight that Alaska and its
residents need with regard to these types of designations.
Therefore, APHA encourages the committee's support of HJR 21, he
said.
2:18:25 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
2:18:41 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved to report HJR 21, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR 21(RES) was
reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
2:19:05 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:19 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|