Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/13/1996 03:50 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
March 13, 1996
3:50 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Drue Pearce, Vice Chairman
Senator Steve Frank
Senator Rick Halford
Senator Robin Taylor
Senator Lyman Hoffman
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Loren Leman, Chairman
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 283
"An Act relating to filing, recording, and indexing of documents
with or by the Department of Natural Resources; repealing certain
filing requirements concerning property involving nonresident
aliens; and providing for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 198
"An Act establishing the Homer Airport Critical Habitat Area."
SENATE BILL NO. 285
"An Act relating to management of discrete salmon stocks and to a
salmon management assessment; and providing for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 230
"An Act providing that state land, water, and land and water may
not be classified so as to preclude or restrict traditional means
of access for traditional recreational uses."
SENATE BILL NO. 112
"An Act establishing a discovery royalty credit for the lessees of
state land drilling exploratory wells and making the first
discovery of oil or gas in commercial quantities."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 283 - See Resources minutes dated 3/8/96 and 3/11/96.
SB 198 - See Resources minutes dated 2/21/96 and 3/1/96.
SB 285 - No previous action to be considered.
SB 230 - See Resources minutes dated 2/12/96.
SB 112 - See Resources minutes dated 3/08/95 and 3/11/95.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator John Torgerson
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 198.
Geron Bruce, Special Assistant
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99811-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 198.
Bob Clasby, Director
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: No position on SB 285.
Joe Makinko
7625 Spruce Cape Road
Kodiak, AK 99615
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 285.
Chris Berns
P.O. Box 26
Kodiak, AK 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 285.
Bruce Schactler
P.O. Box 2254
Kodiak, AK 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 285.
Bob Penny
Cook Inlet Sportfishing Caucus
Kenai, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 285.
Robert Hall
Houston Chamber of Commerce
P.O. Box 871906
Wasilla, AK 99687
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 285.
Jude Hinzler
Bering Sea Fishing Association
725 Christen Dr.
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 285.
Dean Paddock
Bristol Bay Driftnetter's Association
P.O. Box 21951
Juneau, AK 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 285.
Robin Samuelson
P.O. Box 412
Dillingham, AK 99576
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 285.
Joe McGill
Bristol Bay Herring Marketing Coop
P.O. Box 1710
Dillingham, AK 99576
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 285.
James Evenson
P.O. Box 324
Kenai, AK 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 285.
Ben Ellis, Executive Director
Kenai River Sport Fishing
P.O. Box 1228
Soldotna, AK 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 285.
Dale Bondurant
HC1, Box 1197
Soldotna, AK 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 285.
Dennis Randa
Trout Unlimited
P.O. Box 3055
Soldotna, AK 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 285.
Theo Matthews, Executive Director
United Cook Inlet Drift Association
P.O. Box 389
Kenai, AK 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 285.
Karl Kircher, President
Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association
Kasilof, AK 99610
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 285.
Mel Erickson, Vice President
Kenai River Guides Association
P.O. Box 1127
Soldotna, AK 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 285.
Melanie Gunderson, President
Peninsula Marketing Association
General Delivery
Sand Point, AK 99661
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 285.
Gerald McCune
United Fishermen of Alaska
211 Fourth Street, #112
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 285.
Jim Stratton, Director
Division of Parks
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Ste. 1200
Anchorage, AK 99503-5921
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 230.
Leif Peterson
P.O. Box 168
Anchor Point, AK 99556
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 230.
Ingrid Peterson
P.O. Box 168
Anchor Point, AK 99556
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 230.
Sarah Hannon
Alaska Environmental Lobby
419 6th Ave.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed Section 4 of SB 230.
Ed Grasser
Alaska Outdoor Council
Fairbanks, AK 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 230.
Jim Dodson, Board Member
Alaska Airmen's Association
1515 E. 13th
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 230.
Cliff Eames
Alaska Center for the Environment
519 W 8th, #201
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 230.
Ken Boyd,Director
Division of Oil and Gas
3601 C Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 112.
Paul Richards
Stewart Petroleum
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 112.
Patrick Coughlin, Deputy Director
Division of Oil and Gas
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, 1380
Anchorage, AK 99503-1380
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 112.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-28, SIDE A
Number 001
SB 283 DOCUMENT FILING, INDEXING, & RECORDING
VICE CHAIRMAN PEARCE called the Senate Resources Committee meeting
to order at 3:50 p.m. and announced SB 283 to be up for
consideration.
SENATOR PEARCE asked Senator Taylor if his questions had been
answered. SENATOR TAYLOR replied yes and he didn't have any
further questions.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved SB 283 from committee with individual
recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR PEARCE announced an at ease at 4:51 p.m. and called the
meeting back to order at 4:53.
SB 198 HOMER AIRPORT CRITICAL HAB. AREA
SENATOR PEARCE announced SB 198 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR FRANK moved to adopt the K version CS to SB 198. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR TORGERSON, sponsor, explained that there were three
changes. One was a new purpose section for moose habitat and for
guaranteed public access, revisions of boundaries, and new language
in section 2 reflecting the stated purpose, inserting on page 6,
line 26. The plan is to guarantee access and continued public
fishing, hunting, and trapping activities and opportunities in the
area. He said these changes are a direct result of the public
hearing he and Senator Leman had in Homer.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if this would comport with Senator Miller's
bill on no net loss. SENATOR TORGERSON replied no.
Number 100
SENATOR PEARCE asked what the FAA restrictions were in terms of
hunting. SENATOR TORGERSON explained this was within the city
limits of Homer and discharge of firearms is prohibited, but bow
hunting is not.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked why they can't manage the habitat for the
benefit of the moose today. SENATOR TORGERSON answered he thought
it was because they don't have access to the airport given to them
by DOT or FAA.
SENATOR FRANK asked about the critical habitat designation. He
asked if they had to have the word critical in there. SENATOR
TORGERSON replied that he wasn't sure.
GERON BRUCE, ADF&G, said there is a definition of critical habitat.
The basic idea is that these areas are managed for multiple use,
but by declaring them a critical habitat area, other activities in
that area must be compatible with the protection of fish and
wildlife habitat and other human uses. This does not exclude
development.
SENATOR FRANK asked if the words critical habitat area are defined
in law and require a certain management regime. MR. BRUCE replied
that the purposes for the habitat areas are defined in law and then
there is a regulatory framework that defines the general procedures
for how to get a permit to do things in a critical habitat area.
Some of the areas have specific management plans that have been
adopted.
Number 169
SENATOR TAYLOR asked why the purpose section talks about providing
an area for enhancing winter browse for the moose herd on the lower
Kenai. MR. BRUCE said he didn't know for sure, but he thought that
was from input from people in Homer who are interested in doing
some volunteer work in that area to improve the browse for the
moose who spend their winters there.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if there was something preventing the people
from enhancing the winter browse for moose in that area today. MR.
BRUCE said no fish and game statute would prohibit that, but once
this is declared a critical habitat area, those kinds of activities
are encouraged and might result in some changes in cooperative
agreements.
SENATOR TAYLOR commented that he didn't want declaring it a
critical habitat area to prevent them from enhancing the area
because it would require a permit and a hearing. He didn't want to
prevent them from doing what they are free to do right now.
SENATOR TORGERSON said this was discussed and the feeling is that
permits are required now and access is required from DOT. Once
they do that, though, they want continual use of that land and this
sets it aside for that purpose. DOT might be more of a yearly
thing.
Number 200
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if DOT was going to invest funds in
enhancement. MR. BRUCE replied no that the local folks are
interested in doing enhancement on a volunteer basis.
Number 234
SENATOR HALFORD asked the reason for the outholdings. SENATOR
TORGERSON explained that the two triangles are where the Aleutian
Tern nesting area is. The residents wanted this area set aside
because this is kind of a rare species of tern.
Number 256
SENATOR FRANK moved to pass CS for SB 198 (RES) with individual
recommendations along with the accompanying fiscal note. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
SB 285 DISCRETE SALMON STOCK MANAGMNT & ASSESSMT
SENATOR HALFORD, sponsor, explained that the fish initiative is on
the ballot and there are continuous allocation battles that often
center in Cook Inlet. It seems like it's been managed based on
someone trying to find moral high ground in allocation arguments
that are mostly economic between commercial fishing and commercial
fishing with a hook and a line and a tourist.
He said that over the past decade or so is that some of the minor
streams, particularly in the Upper Susitna Drainages, have lost
their basic stocks. If you look at the overall escapement even by
major drainages, the goals have only been met in only three or four
out of the last 10 years. He thought the arguments over allocation
have been detrimental to the constitutional obligation to maintain
sustained yield.
He said he felt that if we are going to harvest mixed stocks, we
absolutely have to know where the stocks are going. He thought it
was the obligation of those who advocate the harvest of mixed
stocks to at some point participate in a real identification that
gets us to discrete stock management.
If there's any logical solution, any long term goal, it's to meet
our constitutional obligation for sustained yield by specific
stock, by specific drainage, by every component of the run, etc.
We can't do that unless we are willing to spend the money and know
where the fish are going. The bill sets out discrete stock
management as the long term goal and applies a 15-year phase in by
species and by drainage to get from here to there. He said that
unless we get to this kind of management, we'll continue to destroy
subspecies in some areas and will possibly use court cases on the
mandate of sustained yield going into a season shut down fisheries
that are unnecessary.
Number 340
SENATOR HOFFMAN noted that three years ago they passed legislation
directing the Board to develop mixed stock policies. He knew they
hadn't done that, but he asked what would be the difference between
mixed stocks and discrete stocks. SENATOR HALFORD explained that
the legislation they passed three years ago was just putting into
statute what their own policy and regulations said and the Board
wasn't following it then. He explained he didn't intend this to be
an attack on any side of the allocation battle.
Number 353
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if many sports fishermen benefit from this
and why does the burden fall on the commercial fisherman. SENATOR
HALFORD answered that the majority of the mixed stock users are in
the commercial fisheries. He didn't think any of the users would
necessarily object to the kind of surcharge it would take to get
the kind of management necessary to have truly discrete stock
understanding.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked how effective this would be if the subsistence
management protocols currently being developed by the federal
departments of agriculture and interior are implemented this
spring. SENATOR HALFORD replied that somewhere along the line they
have to use some kind of biological data and information as a
weapon in the first battle which is defense of the sustained yield
of the resource.
Number 373
BOB CLASBY, Director, Commercial Fisheries, said the administration
had not developed a position on this bill. It is complex and needs
clarification of some terms and issues.
On page 1, line 14 he asked if they are to target only those
defined as discrete stocks in D (1) or are they being asked to
identify every possible sockeye salmon stock that might be found in
a mixed stock fishery.
SENATOR HALFORD replied that it would be nice to have every segment
of every stock and every substock in every drainage, but there is
enough work to do with the 24.
MR. CLASBY said they want the division to determine the stock
composition by river of origin of each existing mixed stock salmon
fishery. He assumed the mixed stock salmon fisheries are those
that are listed in sections 1 - 3.
SENATOR HALFORD asked if he had any further refinements of the
lists they have missed on how the stocks actually break up, the
committee would like their recommendations on those as well.
MR. CLASBY asked if the sponsor wants escapement objectives
developed, would he want systems in place to annually measure
those? SENATOR HALFORD answered yes.
MR. CLASBY noted the second line of subparagraph 18 said the
objectives were to be based on spawning and rearing habitat and
average production and he recommended instead of limiting
themselves, that phrase be deleted and insert something like best
available information. SENATOR HALFORD said he would like to leave
the language there, but add something that allows the expansion
beyond that.
Number 459
MR. CLASBY said he assumed the sponsor wants escapements accurately
measured. There was also a question in paragraph C, computing the
cost. It was the division's assumption that the cost of the
projects that are conducted in the area would be born by that
area's fisheries. All the stocks that make up the composite would
have to be known so the cost would be spread over a number of
fisheries.
SENATOR HALFORD said that sounded like it was too complicated and
he didn't intend it to be that complex.
Number 534
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the division is now doing some discrete
stock inventory. MR. CLASBY said they are definitely doing that -
particularly on sockeyes.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he was concerned that a study like this would
show that there are non-Alaskan fish in our fisheries. MR. CLASBY
agreed.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if it was intended to have Canadians
participate in this study. SENATOR HALFORD said there was no
intention to manage for the benefit of Canada, but if we're going
to win in the argument right now, having information about where
they really are going could be used.
TAPE 96-28, SIDE B
SENATOR TAYLOR said it didn't do any good to study the heck out of
an area if it's locked up as a wilderness area. He was concerned
that not only would we be able to use the information, but it might
be used against us.
SENATOR HALFORD said the information could be used for escapement
and propagation. He thought if we had enough data we would
probably be able to get more timber and more fish, but it's blanket
rules because you don't have data that costs us both timber and
fish.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he hated to see our adversaries saying we're
taking too many fish. When they actually look at their own
streams, it isn't because Alaskans are taking their fish. The
problem is that they have just about destroyed the habitat, damned
every river that fish wanted to run up. Now that they've destroyed
the runs, they want to come back and say well, you're taking too
much of a limited amount of stock that's returning.
SENATOR HALFORD said he agreed with most of what Senator Taylor
said, but he concluded that that's why we need to do the study.
JOE MAKINKO, Kodiak fisherman, said he didn't think anyone had any
idea of the cost of this. He thought the questions they were
asking were only politically correct and not biologically correct
ones. He thought the proposal was physically impossible to do.
CHRIS BERNS, Kodiak fisherman, said he agreed that this was a set
up and biologically was "goofy stuff." He thought Republicans were
supposed to be unburdening an industry from goofy regulations.
Number 511
BRUCE SCHACTLER said this has all been said before, but this bill
has a different agenda than what is really being said. It's
advocating terminal fisheries which can cause real damage to a
fishery. He said this is cost prohibitive; it's absolutely absurd.
What the Department is doing now is just fantastic.
Bob Penny, Cook Inlet Sportfishing Caucus, said he represents sport
fishing associations in Kenai, Southcentral, and Mat-Su. They
support SB 285 because they didn't see how fishing was going to
last into the future without something like it. He thought there
would be a shut down of certain species in the Upper Susitna
because legislation like this isn't in place.
ROBERT HALL, Houston Chamber of Commerce, said they strongly
support this bill. He said there is a growing concern about the
health of our salmon catch. There are a lot of stories about large
and small streams where there used to be salmon runs, but they are
now weak or no longer there.
He said the mixed stock fishery clearly has the most potential
problems since fishing technology has become much more efficient.
Number 420
JUDE HINZLER, Bering Sea Fishing Association, said they wanted chum
salmon to be included in the waters north of the Kuskokwim River.
Existing fishery management areas are often superficial and are not
comprehensive because they don't include the Northern Interior
spawners as part of the management area. He said the formula for
how the study gets paid for bothers them because it is hard to
understand.
DEAN PADDOCK, Bristol Bay Driftnetters Association, supported SB
285. He said it would supply much needed direction and intent to
management of our salmon fisheries. He said he was a salmon
biologist before he was a salmon fisherman and he didn't think this
would cost as much as Senator Halford thinks and the technology is
there. It doesn't need to take 15 years if the staff is committed
to it.
Number 345
ROBIN SAMUELSEN said he is a past member of the Board of Fisheries
and a commercial fisherman all his life and he supported SB 285
conceptually.
JOE MCGILL, Bristol Bay Herring Marketing Coop., said he has
questions about the bill. He knows that work has to be done not
only in the streams, but out on the high seas which he thinks is
most important. He said fishermen are already paying taxes for
enhancement and he wanted to know how much money this would take
and how would the assessment work.
Number 330
JAMES EVENSON, commercial fisherman in Cook Inlet, opposed SB 285
because it's unnecessary and misguided. Alaska has the most
successful wild salmon management in the world and our runs are
basically in good shape. He speaks from the perspective of a Cook
Inlet Drifter. In Cook Inlet the rivers are managed for the
specific stocks that are in them. A great deal of effort has been
put into identifying and protecting the separate stocks. All the
stocks seems to be healthy and meeting their escapement goals.
He noted that this bill was not motivated by ADF&G or on any
biological basis. It's for a reallocation of salmon away from the
commercial fisheries.
BEN ELLIS, Executive Director, Kenai River Sportfishing
Association, supported SB 285. It will give the direction and
funding needed to uphold our constitutional mandate to provide for
sustained yield of wild salmon.
This bill provides the framework where science may be gathered in
an organized manner so we can move toward management of genetic
diversity of discrete stocks in a timely fashion with a minimum
amount of disruption to commercial fisheries.
DALE BONDURANT supported SB 285 and said this bill is vital to the
integrity of the survival of Alaskan salmon fisheries. He read
from a 1988 ADF&G memo that said the commercial fisheries are
currently managed only for the sockeye escapement goals with coho
and chinook harvest incidental to sockeye. He just sat for 15 days
at a Board of Fisheries meeting and he is convinced they will fail
to address discrete salmon stock management that is absolutely
necessary.
DENNIS RANDA, Trout Unlimited, said that the national organization
of Trout Unlimited opposes mixed stock fisheries because they
result in decline of weak stocks all across the West Coast. In the
face of increasing public demand when the Board drafted their mixed
stock policy they admitted that the burden of conservation of the
resource was disproportionately shared and he agreed with them. He
sees an ulterior motive in terms of reallocation.
Number 154
MR. RANDA read an article by a biologist named Hilburn that said
that few salmon fisheries operate on single stocks. Stock
recruitment analysis will usually underestimate the optimum
escapement and overestimate the optimum harvest rate when mixed
stocks are stated as a single stock. These conclusions will be
true for any mixed stock fishery with different productivities of
the stocks. They support SB 285.
THEO MATTHEWS, United Cook Inlet Drift Association, said the first
part of the bill makes the assertion the discrete stock management
is necessary to preserve our salmon runs or we will lose them. The
second part talks about the need for more information. UCIDA is
absolutely opposed to the concept that mixed stock fisheries are
going to lead to the loss of our fisheries. They do not agree with
the sponsor statement that current management centers around heavy
exploitation of mixed stock fisheries and disregards the negative
effects of this policy on discrete stocks of all salmon species.
He said that sound State management has rebuilt salmon runs from
the dismal runs inherited with statehood. Existing data does not
support the fact that the world's fisheries are in trouble.
MR. MATTHEWS commended Lieutenant Governor Ulmer and ASMI for their
educational efforts to promote Alaska's plentiful salmon. Finally,
we need to get to the real issue, he said, that recreational
advocates will not seriously address. The problem is not with the
commercial fisheries; the problem as noted in an article he read is
that overfishing, entering new species, and dams have devastated
native fish populations. He said there is overfishing in rivers by
recreational anglers.
Number 75
KARL KIRCHER, President, Kenai Peninsula Fisherman's Association,
opposed SB 285 and agreed with most of the opposition to the bill.
He thought this bill represented taxation without understanding.
He asked if we were after better data from mixed stock management
or are we after weak stock management which could lead us to a
spotted owl type situation or some type of abuse in river which
makes the stock diminish. Do we put the burden of conservation on
the mixed stock fisheries, he asked. The terms, like genetic
diversity, are being unevenly applied in mixed stock commercial
fisheries. Genetic diversity of fish stocks is being destroyed in
river sport fisheries.
MEL ERICKSON, Vice President, Kenai River Guides Association, said
they have 150 members who are sportfish guides in the Deep Creek
Marine Waters and the Kasilof and Kenai Rivers. They support SB
285. He said there is a lot of enhancement going on and they are
wiping out the wild runs.
SENATOR HALFORD commented that he didn't think there was any moral
evil in mixed stock fisheries and he didn't think the bill intended
to say that. The question is one of management difficulty because
when you harvest commingled stocks, you affect the weaker stock.
TAPE 96-29, SIDE A
Number 001
His intent is to ensure that wherever we fish stocks that are mixed
we can prove and manage where they are going.
MELANIE GUNDERSON, President, Peninsula Marketing Association,
opposed SB 285 because she was sure this bill targets some of the
conflicts going on in Area M. She noted that there are no river
systems from her area listed in the bill and they at least have
some major red streams.
SENATOR TAYLOR commented that allocation seems to be at least a
fear - commercial on one side and recreational on the other. If
you look at the legislation without that thought, it appears to be
an information collection and management tool. He asked if
allocation was part of the process and how did it fit in.
SENATOR HALFORD answered that it was not his intent to get into the
allocation fights. He believes that the propagation, escapement,
and maintaining sustained yield is moral high ground. The area he
represents in Upper Cook Inlet has not been meeting escapement
goals and they have endangered at least some subspecies in
drainages to the point that you can't find them anymore.
He said that interception questions come up in all fisheries where
there are mixed stocks. He said he thought everyone looked at
every management structure for its potential advantage and often
that applies to the allocative affects.
GERALD MCCUNE, United Fishermen of Alaska, said the reason there is
a lot of problems with this bill is because it is very allocative.
He said he didn't want to see them get into weak stock management.
He said he wanted the true picture. He wanted to know how much it
would cost.
Number 195
SENATOR HALFORD responded that he hoped both commercial and sport
interests would keep an open mind because he thought we would
eventually have to go to this kind of database for management.
SENATOR PEARCE said they would set SB 285 aside for further work.
SB 230 MANAGEMENT OF PARKS & RECREATIONAL AREAS
SENATOR PEARCE announced SB 230 to be up for consideration and that
they will consider a proposed CS, Luckhaupt/K/3/11/96.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt the CS to SB 230. There were no
objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR PEARCE explained that the changes were substantial and
narrowed the focus of the effort to Title 41. It adds a section
requiring the Department to give the legislature a list on an
annual basis that tells them what designations of incompatible uses
that would either prohibit or restrict the traditional means of
access, what of those they have done and what their reasons were.
It also further defines traditional means of access and
recreational activity.
Section 2 has a new subsection saying the Department may not manage
as special purpose park land those areas not inside park boundaries
as designated by the legislature. She explained that one of the
reasons she introduced this bill is because Blair Lake is outside
the boundaries of Denali Park. However, because Division of Lands
transferred that Lake to the Division of Parks through an ILMA,
Division of Parks closed that lake to traditional access (by
airplane). This subsection keeps the Department from being able to
take lands that have not been designated parks by the legislature
and manage them as parks.
Section 3 sets new boundaries for Denali Park.
Number 264
JIM STRATTON, Division of Parks, asked when they were to start
doing the reporting. SENATOR PEARCE indicated it would start from
this point and go forward.
MR. STRATTON said they have no problem with the reporting
requirement. He asked if they are to report on all the parks or
just on ones that were administratively created. SENATOR PEARCE
answered all of the park lands assuming there are new restrictions.
MR. STRATTON noted that there was a conflict between the intent of
section 2 and existing statutes for Chugach, Point Bridgette, and
Kenai which do give them direction to add lands outside of the
park. He said there are no guidelines for Woodtikchik and Denali
so they assumed they have the authority to do that.
SENATOR PEARCE responded that the three parks he mentioned there is
within the legislation which established the parks the ability for
the Division to add areas or change uses. When SB 230 passes, the
revisor would go through and change language in those areas they
have legislatively designated that authority.
MR. STRATTON said this is a management tool that is important for
them to have in areas outside of the three that are listed. In
addition to ILMA's they secure land that could be made available to
expand the boundaries of the parks through management agreements
with other government agencies, through gifts from people, and
through purchases from cash court settlements, to name a few.
SENATE PEARCE said that something like a land exchange the
legislature would look favorably upon as they have a number of
times in the past. The legislature should designate parks lands;
it should not be done administratively.
MR. STRATTON suggested that if the target is ILMA's, to rewrite
section 2 to target them. He said they would like to retain the
power to add acreage to a park that doesn't restrict anyone's
traditional access. SENATOR FRANK commented that they haven't
turned any of those down to date.
MR. STRATTON asked if the intent of this bill was to disallow stand
alone ILMA's from being managed as part of the park. SENATOR
PEARCE said that was the intent.
MR. STRATTON explained that the ILMA's they create they manage as
though they are part of the park system so their park regulations
can operate. He said the reason they seek ILMA's is to develop and
create recreational opportunities like trail heads, camp grounds,
boat launch ramps, etc. They feel they need to manage those under
Title 41 as part of the park system.
SENATOR PEARCE responded that if he gets legislative approval to
add that land to a park, then he'll get to do it. MR. STRATTON
said they are not added to parks right now; they are stand alone.
They are called State recreation sites and they have been creating
them administratively for 25 years. They are under 640 acres and
they have not been getting legislative approval. He asked if he
needed to get legislative approval now. If he does, he has very
serious reservations about this bill.
SENATOR PEARCE said the intent is to go forward from now, but they
need legislative approval for creation of all parks.
Number 406
MR. STRATTON said AS41.21.022 already allows for hunting and the
use of firearms in all of the State parks so he thought section 3
was redundant. However, if the intent is to allow target practice,
he would oppose that.
MR. STRATTON said the language identifying incompatible uses
changes the direction Denali State Park will be managed. For 26-
years it has been managed to balance different uses and user groups
from conflicting with one another. There is nothing that gives one
use access over another use. He said there is a lot of public
ownership of the Denali State Park master plan and it was that plan
that set forth the aircraft closures that are behind this whole
bill. He is concerned that they are changing the management mode
for Denali State Park that a lot of people have bought into.
Regulations under review right now in the Department of Law opens
the park to recreational gold panning and they want that language
reflected in the bill. Their intent is to let people pan for gold,
but they don't want recreational suction dredges being used in the
park and he thought that might be interpreted under recreational
mining.
SENATOR PEARCE said it is her intent after 26 years to put sidebars
on the management of Denali State Park because some difficulties in
other parks have arisen from overutilization. She said they will
be getting more requests for restricting access and she thought the
legislature should be able to make changes if it's desirable.
Number 470
LEIF PETERSON said he is a bush resident and he objects to more use
in Denali State Park because it will destroy habitat. He said dog
mushing doesn't make much of an impact.
INGRID PETERSON asked if this is a companion bill to HB 447.
SENATOR PEARCE replied the two bills were introduced at the same
time, but they are different now. Peterson said she thought if SB
230 was anything like HB 447 that it was just a Republican industry
profit give away to big business at the expense of all Alaskans.
She said a lot of public input has gone into deciding the uses of
Denali. She didn't think the industry controlled legislature
needed to be dabbling in that.
She understood that Alaska Air Carrier Pilots/Big Game Guides are
supporting this bill. She said that the only traditional access is
mother nature. The way they define traditional access as motor use
just destroys the natural environment. She said the Attorney
General's office is reviewing the State Park Management Regulations
right now and that should be sufficient.
Number 507
Sarah Hannan, Alaska Environmental Lobby, said she wanted to talk
about the Blair Lake controversy. She said that both the
conservation community and the air carrier community were concerned
about that ILMA addition to State parks and the closure to air
traffic. She said she thought it was a good intention by State
Parks at the encouragement of the legislature to be more
cooperative with commercial development. She thought it was a
special interest effort to accommodate Princess Hotel's interest in
having a monopoly on the air traffic on that lake to accommodate
their new hotel. She thought they did a bad job of it. She said
they should follow what the statutes tell them to do because the
policy is already decided at the legislative level.
In an attempt to appease a commercial user there is a bad situation
where no one is happy. Any time you limit an Alaskan to do
anything, they are going to be upset.
MS. HANNAN asked the committee to think about the extensive process
State Parks needs to go through to come with a management plan that
promulgates regulations that close things. To close some portions
of Denali State Park to commercial air traffic and recreational
aircraft landings while keeping open others. She said in the
future we are going to need to regulate commercial uses in our
State parks. Air traffic is going to be one of the great
industries tourism will grow in.
SENATOR PEARCE said for 26 years people had been flying into the
Blair Lake area and it doesn't make sense for the Parks Division to
close it to everybody.
MS. HANNAN said her only criticism of CSSB 230(RES) is Section 4.
She thinks the extensive public process that has gone into
developing the current regulations that are out there for the new
management plan of Denali State Park should go forward. There has
been a nearly two year process with three task forces, with 50-odd
people serving on those and hundreds of hours of public testimony
taken. At this point, to repeal those regulations discredits the
public process. She thought the legislature could encourage State
Parks to immediately revisit those regulations if they view them as
inappropriate. She said the controversy will not go away because
we have put prime real estate into parks for the purpose of it
being prime real estate. With increased use there is going to be
competition for that air space and land. It will burden the
legislature extensively to take those kinds of public planning
processes away from State Parks.
SENATOR FRANK said he appreciated the tenor of her remarks.
ED GRASSER, Alaska Outdoor Council, supported SB 230 and had
concerns with access being restricted by administrative orders.
His organization is becoming increasingly concerned about the
restrictions that are being placed on Alaskans and their
traditional life style pursuits.
TAPE 96-29, SIDE B
Number 580
MR. GRASSER said the public process doesn't always work as well as
some people believe. He said the advisory committee for Mat-Su
Parks is made up mostly of people who are opposed to motorized
access and, in many instances, hunting and trapping. They make
sure the membership against motorized access are notified of
meetings, but their organization is left to find it in the
newspaper somewhere.
SENATOR PEARCE asked which statute allows for gold panning in
parks. MR. STRATTON said he would get that for her and he
understands that most of the park system is open for recreational
gold panning. They just haven't gotten around to doing Denali.
JIM DODSON, board member of Alaska Airmen's Association, said they
are not confused as to the intent of this legislation and they
support it wholeheartedly.
CLIFF EAMES, Alaska Center for the Environment, opposed SB 230. He
said they felt that the real problem is not that there aren't
adequate opportunities for use of motorized recreational vehicles,
but that there are inadequate opportunities for quiet recreation
which is an activity that is important to Alaskans and visitors.
SENATOR HALFORD moved to pass CSSB 230(RES) out of committee with
individual recommendation and the accompanying fiscal notes. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
SB 112 DISCOVERY ROYALTY CREDIT
SENATOR PEARCE announced SB 112 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR HALFORD moved to adopt CSSB 112(RES), version G, as the
working draft. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
ANNETTE KREITZER, Staff, Senate Resources Committee, explained that
she worked with Ken Boyd, Director, Division of Oil and Gas, to
come to some agreement about the applicability section. She said
this version deleted the "commercial quantities" language in all
sections because administration felt it was more to the point
without it. It also adds applicability language.
KEN BOYD, Director, Division of Oil and Gas, commented that they
had come a long way in getting the language straightened out. They
took the commerciality standard out because the same arguments that
have existed in past languages don't exist any longer.
MR. BOYD thought the committee needed to consider in the
applicability section to exclude things in existing units because
a unit is formed to produce all the oil and gas within the unit.
If it's already in a unit, it's already been discovered.
SENATOR PEARCE asked if the unitization agreement is for a discrete
pool. MR. BOYD answered a unitization agreement generally covers
the field and all the pools within the field. He explained that
sometimes there is more than one participating area within one
unit. The participating area being that area of the unit that
actually contributes production.
SENATOR PEARCE asked if there could be a discovery royalty on a
well in an overlapping unit. MR. BOYD answered that he thought the
answer would be no because sometimes there is more than one
participating area within a unit. He said they would not want to
make this applicable to leases that already were eligible for the
old provisions of discovery royalties because of the conflict it
would recreate and he said that should be put in statute.
Number 390
SENATOR FRANK asked if there were leases from before 1969 that
don't have production on them. MR. BOYD answered yes. SENATOR
FRANK said he thought there had to be some kind of production to
extend a lease beyond 10-years. MR. BOYD explained that some of
the old leases are DL 1 leases and are still not producing, but
have provisions of the earlier law.
SENATOR FRANK asked why they would be extended if they didn't have
any production on them. MR. BOYD replied that he would have to
check that out.
MR. BOYD asked if it was the committee's intention to have multiple
discovery royalties on one lease or should there be one per lease.
In other words would you want the discovery well to discover all
the pools that might be discovered from a single well or would it
be possible to have two discovery royalties if two pools were
discovered. SENATOR FRANK said he would not allow that.
MR. BOYD thought the place that need clarifying was on page 3, line
31. He was also concerned with the retroactivity of the bill. He
opposed making something retroactive that is a discovery royalty
activity. He explained that when we became a state we adopted
federal law about discovery royalties which was there for years.
People knew nothing about the North Slope or Cook Inlet. He
questioned whether the discovery royalty provision ever helped
discover any oil.
MR. BOYD pointed out that coal bed methane under discovery
royalties would create something unusual because coal is difficult
to define. It occurs differently than normal sediments.
Number 297
MR. PAUL RICHARDS, Stewart Petroleum, said he felt the purpose of
the bill seems to have gotten lost in the discussion. He
appreciates the way the bill is drafted now. Speaking on behalf of
independents who could possibly come into marginal fields within
the Cook Inlet, the intent of the bill is to help those companies
who do not have the financial weight to invest millions of dollars,
but look for assistance through royalty credit. If this bill gets
passed, more independents would go into Cook Inlet which would
create good paying jobs for an industry that is being flattened
out.
One question he has is on page 4, line 3 - undiscovered oil or gas
pool within five years of the effective date of the lease. He
thought there was a collective agreement on Senator Taylor's
amendment to delete "within five years of the effective date of the
lease" which would apply the royalty for future leases and to
leases that are active now.
SENATOR PEARCE explained that Senator Taylor's amendment was
divided into two parts and the committee didn't actually take
action on that part.
MR. RICHARDS said his second concern was with applicability of the
effective date and whether it referred to the date of the
regulations or the effective date of this particular bill.
Number 192
SENATOR TAYLOR said that the primary concern he had was that they
provide the discovery opportunity for existing leases and the
initial amendment he offered went back too far. The intent of the
effective date is to have it start with the bill so that when it's
signed into law in July any discoveries made after that on existing
leases would receive that benefit.
SENATOR HALFORD said he thought they had to delete the "within five
years of the effective date of the lease" and then the
applicability section would work if they changed the effective date
of the regulations to the effective date of this law. SENATOR
TAYLOR agreed.
Number 168
MR. BOYD commented that however they adopt the effective date, if
there are no regulations that means there are no definitions which
means there are no tools at all to define anything. He said that
none of the terms the committee wants defined are in law and
regulations take time. If they want the law applicable now, then
there will be a period of time when there will be nothing.
SENATOR HALFORD moved to delete on page 4, line 3 "within five
years of the effective date of the lease." There were no
objections and it was so ordered.
There was general discussion on how to deal with the regulations.
SENATOR PEARCE asked what the drilling season in Cook Inlet was.
MR. BOYD answered that it ran from April to November.
SENATOR FRANK suggested saying "were entered into before May 1,
1996" or something like that. MR. BOYD said there would be no way
of knowing it was a valid credit because the Commissioner would
have to certify with no rules. He thought that they would have to
have regulations prior to certifying anything, awarding any
credits, or giving anybody a hint that you might do so.
SENATOR FRANK asked if it didn't take a long time to actually start
drilling. MR. BOYD replied that it did.
PATRICK COUGHLIN, Division of Oil and Gas, explained that the old
regulations define what is "first encounter" and further define
what evidence you have to submit in order to prove it. If someone
was unable to produce that evidence, then under the old
regulations, they couldn't qualify.
MR. BOYD added that if companies wanted certainty, they would have
to have a clear definition of what they would be expected to do.
The State would be at risk to certify something it shouldn't be
certifying. He thought we would be subject to a potential lawsuit.
SENATOR HALFORD said to get any incentive that has an effect this
year, the accrual has to start based on events and investments and
spending that maybe occurs in May or June of this year. He wanted
language saying the credit would be available pursuant to
regulations and definitions, etc, being promulgated. If there's
royalty paid in the meantime, it's paid at the rate and credited
back and there probably wouldn't be any anyhow, he said.
SENATOR PEARCE asked Mr. Boyd if he thought there could
realistically be any wells drilled this season that hadn't already
been permitted. MR. BOYD replied in general no, but given the
extent of the bill not necessarily no. He thought that coal bed
methane or shallow gas wells in the Northern part of Cook Inlet
could be drilled.
TAPE 96-30, SIDE A
Number 001
SENATOR PEARCE commented that she thought the bill should be moved
to the Finance Committee where Senator Frank and Senator Halford
could work on it.
SENATOR FRANK asked if they could do a temporary regulation that
was broad enough to capture all new wells. MR. BOYD replied that
there have been many lawsuits going on for so many years on
virtually every one of the applications. The lawsuits are over the
definition of words - who was the first person who discovered it.
MR. COUGHLIN added that there is the question of whether you want
to use an objective or a subjective test. He said the committee
could make an effective date, then they could adopt regulations,
but a person who drilled in the interim would run the risk of not
complying with the regulations.
SENATOR FRANK added that the State would be at risk for losing a
lawsuit, too.
SENATOR TAYLOR said that he thought the risk was that the
regulations might be found to be inappropriate relative to the law.
The only thing we would lose would be the incentive credit which we
were going to give up in the first place.
MR. BOYD said he understands what reasonable people would like to
do, but there are thousands of pages of lawsuits that argue against
what he's saying. Big money is involved.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if the June 1 date suggested by Senator
Halford would be enough time for the Department to promulgate
regulations. SENATOR PEARCE responded that that wouldn't work
because the bill doesn't have an effective date and it becomes a
law 90 days after the Governor signs it and they don't know when he
would sign it. So it could be the first of October before it goes
into effect. Unfortunately putting in a date before it becomes law
or they have a chance to write regulations is not appropriate.
Number 197
MR. RICHARDS said he realized there needs to be some negotiation
and regulatory development of this bill. He said no one was going
to make a decision to drill this year. The bill tells investors
that it's marketable to invest in a company that will do it. He
thought passing the bill would be a good indication to investors
getting the financing part going and also give the Department
enough time to write regulations.
SENATOR FRANK asked if it was reasonable for the Department to
start immediately on regulations when the bill is signed. MR. BOYD
replied absolutely.
SENATOR TAYLOR commented that they had already done all the
research and he didn't see why regulations would take so long. MR.
BOYD responded that every one of the "warts" was still being
litigated. Adopting what's already there is not the right answer.
He has been told it takes a year to promulgate regulations because
of all the reviews it takes. When he developed exploration
incentive credit regulations, it took two years, for example.
MR. BOYD said the problem with the discovery royalty process is
that it has been a lawsuit generator.
MS. KREITZER reviewed the issues in the first proposed amendment
for the committee. Does the committee intend to allow more than
one discovery royalty per lease or do they want DNR to define it in
regulation.
Number 300
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to amend line 13 to delete "are" and insert
"were nonproducing leases on the effective date of the act."
SENATOR PEARCE noted that was on another topic and they were
considering the issue of allowing one or more discovery royalties
per lease.
SENATOR FRANK moved to adopt an amendment limiting it to one.
There were no objections and it was so ordered.
MS. KREITZER then reviewed the second issue of applicability and
whether to include "nonunitized" wherever "nonproducing" is used.
MR. BOYD interjected that if leases are determined not to be
producible, they are removed from the unit. So he recommended that
things in units should be excluded.
SENATOR FRANK asked if you could get out of a unit without the
approval of the State. MR. COUGHLIN answered that you couldn't and
the reason you would want to stay in the unit if you're not
producing is because you would expect to eventually drill a well.
MR. RICHARDS asked if the bill intends to reference unitization you
have done before the bill. The committee answered no. MR. BOYD
explained the credit would apply to future unitization.
SENATOR FRANK moved to add "nonunitized" wherever "nonproducing"
leases were mentioned. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
Number 495
MS. KREITZER said the final issue was whether the committee wanted
to make a policy decision regarding the nonapplicability of the old
discovery royalty where the new one applies because of the
conflicting nature of the two.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to disallow usage of the old program in areas
where the new program would apply once it goes into effect. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
Number 523
There was more discussion on the effective date issue.
TAPE 96-30, SIDE B
Number 554
SENATOR TAYLOR and SENATOR FRANK moved to adopt a conceptual
amendment to make the act effective on all leases now and in the
future on nonproducing and nonunitized leases after the certifiable
discovery six months after the effective date.
SENATOR PEARCE objected to the amendment and asked for a roll call
vote. SENATOR FRANK, SENATOR TAYLOR, and SENATOR HOFFMAN voted
"Yes" and SENATOR PEARCE voted "Nay;" and so, the amendment was
adopted.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass CSSB 112(RES), as amended, from
committee with individual recommendations. There were no
objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR PEARCE adjourned the meeting at 7:48 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|