Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
04/18/2005 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing: || Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (aogcc) - Cathy Forester | |
| SB96 | |
| SB113 | |
| HB197 | |
| SB170 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 96 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 113 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 170 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 197 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 18, 2005
3:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Thomas Wagoner, Chair
Senator Ralph Seekins, Vice Chair
Senator Ben Stevens
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Kim Elton
Senator Gretchen Guess
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING:
Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) - Cathy
Forester
SENATE BILL NO. 96
"An Act granting certain state land to the University of Alaska
and establishing the university research forest; and providing
for an effective date."
MOVED CSSB 96(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 113
"An Act relating to entry into and management of Gulf of Alaska
groundfish fisheries."
HEARD AND HELD
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 197(RLS)
"An Act exempting certain natural gas exploration and production
facilities from oil discharge prevention and contingency plans
and proof of financial responsibility, and amending the powers
and duties of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
with respect to those plans; and providing for an effective
date."
MOVED CSHB 197(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 170
"An Act relating to the Department of Fish and Game, the Board
of Fisheries, and the Board of Game; relating to the taking of
big game and to the disposition of a mount, trophy, or part of a
fish or game animal; setting fees for certain trapping licenses
and certain hunting licenses, permits, and tags; setting fees
for the resident combined hunting, trapping, and sport fishing
license and the resident combined hunting and sport fishing
license; relating to the resident small game hunting license;
setting application fees for certain hunting permits and stamps;
establishing a surcharge on hunting, trapping, and sport fishing
licenses; relating to certain hunting, trapping, and sport
fishing licenses, tags, permits, and stamps; relating to the
fish and game fund; relating to violations of fish and game
laws; relating to state management of wildlife; relating to
endangered fish and wildlife; and providing for an effective
date."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 96
SHORT TITLE: UNIVERSITY LAND GRANT/STATE FOREST
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/07/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/07/05 (S) RES, FIN
04/08/05 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/08/05 (S) Heard & Held
04/08/05 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/11/05 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/11/05 (S) Heard & Held
04/11/05 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/18/05 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/18/05 (S) Moved CSSB 96(RES) Out of Committee
04/18/05 (S) MINUTE(RES)
BILL: SB 113
SHORT TITLE: GULF OF ALASKA GROUNDFISH FISHERY
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) STEVENS B BY REQUEST
02/23/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/23/05 (S) RES, FIN
03/09/05 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/09/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/09/05 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/16/05 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/16/05 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/23/05 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/23/05 (S) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/01/05 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/01/05 (S) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/18/05 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/18/05 (S) Heard & Held
04/18/05 (S) MINUTE(RES)
BILL: HB 197
SHORT TITLE: OIL SPILL EXEMPTIONS FOR GAS WELLS
SPONSOR(s): OIL & GAS
03/03/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/03/05 (H) O&G, RES
03/15/05 (H) O&G AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/15/05 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/15/05 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
03/16/05 (H) O&G RPT 5DP 1NR
03/16/05 (H) DP: SAMUELS, GARDNER, DAHLSTROM,
ROKEBERG, KOHRING;
03/16/05 (H) NR: KERTTULA
03/21/05 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/21/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/21/05 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/23/05 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/23/05 (H) Moved CSHB 197(RES) Out of Committee
03/23/05 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/29/05 (H) RES RPT CS(RES) 2DP 3NR 2AM
03/29/05 (H) DP: ELKINS, SEATON;
03/29/05 (H) NR: OLSON, KAPSNER, LEDOUX;
03/29/05 (H) AM: GATTO, SAMUELS
04/06/05 (H) RLS RPT CS(RLS) 4DP 1NR
04/06/05 (H) DP: KOHRING, HARRIS, COGHILL, ROKEBERG;
04/06/05 (H) NR: MCGUIRE
04/06/05 (H) RETURNED TO RULES COMMITTEE
04/06/05 (H) RLS AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 106
04/06/05 (H) Moved CSHB 197(RLS) Out of Committee
04/06/05 (H) MINUTE(RLS)
04/07/05 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/07/05 (H) VERSION: CSHB 197(RLS)
04/08/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/08/05 (S) RES, FIN
04/18/05 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/18/05 (S) Moved CSHB 197(RLS) Out of Committee
04/18/05 (S) MINUTE(RES)
BILL: SB 170
SHORT TITLE: BD/DEPT OF FISH & GAME POWERS & DUTIES
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) SEEKINS
04/12/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/12/05 (S) RES, FIN
04/18/05 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/18/05 (S) Heard & Held
04/18/05 (S) MINUTE(RES)
WITNESS REGISTER
CATHY FORESTER
Nominee to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
Anchorage AK
TIM BARRY
Staff to Senator Stedman
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 96 for the sponsor.
ART NELSON, Chairman
Board of Fisheries
Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5226
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 113.
BRUCE TWOMLEY, Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)
Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5226
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 113.
ED DERSHAM, Vice Chairman
Board of Fisheries
Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5226
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 113.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 197.
DAN SEAMOUNT
Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC)
333 W. 7th Ave., Ste. 100
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 197.
LARRY DIETRICH, Director
Division of Spill Prevention and Response
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby
Juneau, AK 99801-1795
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 197.
MATT ROBUS, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5226
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 170.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR THOMAS WAGONER called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:34:55 PM. Present were Senators
Stedman, Guess, Dyson, Elton and Chair Wagoner.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING:
^Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) - Cathy
Forester
CHAIR THOMAS WAGONER announced the first order of business to
come before the committee was the confirmation hearing for the
Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
MS. FORESTER, nominee for the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission (AOGCC), said her family taught her to give more than
she took and she is excited to have this opportunity to give
something back to the state that has been so wonderful to her.
"When I think of my experiences and training as a petroleum
engineer, I can't think of a better place that I could serve the
state of Alaska than in the Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission."
She said that she has had a variety of assignments from
reservoir development to facilities design and has supervised
and managed from small highly technical groups of engineers and
scientists to really large operations. She highlighted some of
her Alaskan experiences contained in her resume'.
3:40:00 PM
SENATOR DYSON moved to pass Ms. Forester's name to the full
body. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
3:40:38 PM Senator Seekins joined the committee.
3:40:48 PM At ease 3:41:59 PM
SB 96-UNIVERSITY LAND GRANT/STATE FOREST
CHAIR THOMAS WAGONER announced SB 96 to be up for consideration
again.
SENATOR SEEKINS moved to adopt CSSB 96(RES), version G, as the
working draft. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR SEEKINS moved to adopt the letter of intent.
3:43:28 PM
SENATOR GUESS objected for discussion purposes. She asked what
would happen if a not-for-profit wants to buy the land to
develop it, because it seems like the letter of intent is for
them to not receive the land.
SENATOR SEEKINS replied that the intent is that the land is not
for conservation purposes; it's for development.
SENATOR GUESS asked if that means if the university can get more
money for the land, but it's for conservation, it still has to
sell it for development.
SENATOR SEEKINS replied that would be the practical result and
he thought that would be a reasonable handicap.
SENATOR GUESS asked what if the land in question couldn't be
developed for some reason.
SENATOR SEEKINS replied that he didn't think the lands were
selected because they are useless. Therefore, they should be
used for development.
3:49:23 PM
CHAIR WAGONER added that the real meat of the letter of intent
is in the next to the last paragraph where the university agrees
that the parcel at Coldfoot will not be used to establish a
business in direct competition with the one already there.
3:50:56 PM
SENATOR ELTON said that some people have testified that land
held for conservation purposes does have a strong economic
component; it attracts people to lodges in the area. He is
worried that this language would preclude that kind of
consideration to be made by the university.
SENATOR SEEKINS said he understands that concern, but if the
land is put into conservation, that lodge owner is precluding
anyone else from ever coming in to compete in what could be a
two-lodge area. He didn't think that type of situation should be
precluded.
3:52:44 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN said that remote cabin sites are the highest and
best use for a majority of the Southeast parcels, not large
scale industrialized logging that might be conducive on other
parcels. Most of the land has been held in private hands
previous to statehood. He wanted it made clear to the University
that the intent is to have land go to individuals.
3:54:10 PM
SENATOR ELTON responded that he appreciates the discussion, but
again pointed out that there could be an economic benefit to an
existing landowner or a new business owner for not developing
the land. Not allowing transferred land to be used for
conservation purposes could preclude a neighboring lodge owner
from purchasing it to keep it in its natural state to enhance or
protect his business.
3:54:54 PM
CHAIR WAGONER replied that's the reason he favors this letter.
If we start taking lands that are meant to be
transferred to the University of Alaska or any other
area to be developed and all of a sudden we not only
take them out of the realm of developable land, but if
we put them into 501(c)(3)s or some other tax exempt
organization, we then take the ability - if there's
boroughs organized - we take the ability of the
borough to have that land on the local tax roles to be
part of their tax base, too.
That's one of the things that I'm more concerned about
- especially in some of the areas in Southeastern than
any other area. Because that land should always remain
on the borough tax roles. I think we've taken enough
land out of the private sector and put it in the
public sector. I happen to have a lot of land in the
Kenai Peninsula Borough that that has happened to just
recently and they wanted to have a lot more....
3:56:16 PM
SENATOR ELTON said he understands that argument, but an existing
lodge would pay taxes on the land even if it is being held in a
conservation state.
3:56:52 PM
SENATOR GUESS asked if the university pays taxes on the land it
owns.
CHAIR WAGONER answered no, but he's concerned about who it
transfers its lands to.
SENATOR GUESS maintained her objection to adopting the letter of
intent. A roll call vote was taken. Senators Elton and Guess
voted nay; Senators Seekins, Dyson, Stedman and Chair Wagoner
voted yea; and the letter of intent was adopted.
3:58:11 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN offered Amendment 1.
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR STEDMAN
TO: CSSB 96(RES), version "G"
Page 7, line 30:
Delete "JU.LM.1001, Lena Creek", and insert "HA.CH.1001,
Haines-Chilkoot"
Page 8, following line 9:
Insert:
(p) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, the state land
identified in this subsection and described in the document
entitled "University of Alaska Land Grant List 2005," dated
January 12, 2005, may not be conveyed to the University of
Alaska under this section if the land is included in a borough
formed before July 1, 2009, that includes Wrangell or
Petersburg. If such a borough is not formed before July 1,
2009, the following land shall be conveyed to the University of
Alaska on July 1, 2009; or if land within the following parcels
is not selected by a borough before January 1, 2013, the
following land shall be conveyed to the University of Alaska on
June 30, 2013:
(1) Parcel Number SD.1001, Beecher Pass;
(2) Parcel Number SD.1001, Favor Peak;
(3) Parcel Number CS.TL.1001, Three Lake Road;
(4) Parcel Number SD.1001, Read Island;
(5) Parcel Number SD.1001, Whitney Island;
(6) Parcel Number CS.EW.1001, Earl West Cove;
(7) Parcel Number CS.OV.1001, Olive Cove;
(8) Parcel Number SD.1001, Thoms Place;
SENATOR STEDMAN said there is very little private or state
property in Southeast Alaska; it's mostly in the middle of a
federal forest. This amendment gives the communities an
opportunity to possibly pick up the parcels if they organize. It
is not as far-reaching as he would like as far as the amount of
parcels are concerned and he is concerned over the public
process, which he thought needed work with the university. It's
nice to go to the communities that are affected and hold public
hearings.
4:01:34 PM
SENATOR ELTON proposed Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 on page 8,
line 3, under subsection (n) to add "(8) MF1002, Idaho Inlet;
(9) MF1001 Mite Cove; and (10) Pelican."
SENATOR SEEKINS objected for discussion.
SENATOR STEDMAN said he wanted to know if it was permanent
removal or removal of a time certain to be included into a
borough. He would accept it as a friendly amendment if it was
similar to the purpose of the original amendment.
SENATOR SEEKINS said his objection is based on his reading of
the bill; that the amendment would accomplish a permanent
withdrawal of those lands.
SENATOR ELTON said that Senator Seekins' statement is correct.
It adds it to the previously excluded list and does not include
language under subsection (p), which is specific to the Wrangell
Petersburg area. He said there has been discussion of borough
formation in this area and those parcels equal more than 99
percent of the state land that would be available to that
borough. He had no idea where borough boundaries would be.
SENATOR SEEKINS recalled that Mr. Johnson's (SRES 4/11/05)
testimony emphasized that he wanted a specific date for boroughs
to be formed so that lands could be left for them to choose
from.
I am very much in favor of allowing that land
selection process to be there, but I think there needs
to be some kind of a date in time where either they're
faced with those lands being transferred because they
don't want to form a borough or they come back to the
legislature to extend that period of time to be able
to protect those lands if they do intend on forming a
borough of some kind.
4:06:12 PM
SENATOR ELTON commented that lands can remain available for
borough selection only if they remain with DNR. The difficulty
in this instance is that you have several different entities
like Elfin Cove, Pelican, Gustavus and Hoonah. He suggested that
any deadline would guarantee that they will come back at a later
date because, "I think that between now and then, it's going to
be very, very difficult to get these entities together to try
and figure out the governance systems that they might want."
SENATOR SEEKINS said he wouldn't mind them coming back at a
later date and if there had been some movement toward creating a
borough, he would be very sympathetic to extending those
deadlines.
4:08:17 PM
SENATOR GUESS asked what happens if someone wants to form a
borough with this land without Wrangell or Petersburg.
Are we giving leverage to Wrangell and Petersburg in
discussing borough formation by saying that the land
has to be in a borough form that includes Wrangell or
Petersburg?
SENATOR STEDMAN replied that they are included in one borough
under the planned boroughs, but they may decide to create two
separate boroughs. Earl West Cove, Olive Cove and Thoms Place
would be in the Wrangell area and Favor Peak, Beecher Pass and
Three Lake Road would be in the other. The amendment language
intends to clarify that those properties can be selected if one
or two boroughs are created. If none are created, that's fine,
too.
4:10:31 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS said he thought Amendment 1 to Amendment 1
permanently removes Mite Cove, Idaho Inlet and Pelican from the
list to transfer to the University of Alaska.
4:11:38 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN said he opposed Amendment 1 to Amendment 1,
"Because if the amendment to the amendment goes forward, I've
got a whole list I'd like to add to it." He thought adding a new
paragraph, (q), that would address those parcels would be a
better way of dealing with it.
4:12:34 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS called the question on Amendment 1 to Amendment
1. A roll call vote was taken. Senators Stedman, Seekins, Dyson,
and Chair Wagoner voted nay; Senators Elton and Guess voted yea;
and Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 failed.
4:13:20 PM
SENATOR ELTON moved conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 1 that
would provide that those three parcels be protected with the
same deadlines and in the same way as the parcels listed in (p).
4:14:08 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if the conceptual amendment would give
Pelican, Idaho Inlet and Mite Cove the same opportunity to form
a borough before January 1, 2013.
4:14:58 PM
SENATOR BEN STEVENS joined the committee.
4:14:44 PM
SENATOR ELTON replied that such a borough would have to be
formed before July 1, 2009. If not, those parcels would then be
transferred to the university prior to June 30, 2013.
4:15:19 PM
There were no objections to conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment
1 and it was adopted.
SENATOR GUESS clarified that in the new section (q) the borough
does not have to include Petersburg and Wrangell.
SENATOR STEDMAN replied that was correct.
CHAIR WAGONER announced that the committee had Amendment 1
amended in front of it.
4:16:22 PM
SENATOR GUESS asked what parcel was replacing Lena Creek.
CHAIR WAGONER replied Haines-Chilkoot.
SENATOR GUESS asked if that had been on the list before or is it
a new parcel.
SENATOR STEDMAN answered that it was on the list before and was
removed.
TIM BARRY, staff to Senator Stedman, added that Representative
Thomas requested that the parcel be put back. It's in his
district.
4:16:55 PM
CHAIR WAGONER asked what the difference in acreage is between
the two parcels.
MR. BARRY replied the Lena Creek parcel is 610 acres and the
Haines-Chilkoot parcel is 60 acres.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked what the amendment does.
MR. BARRY replied that the Lena Creek parcel had been excluded
from the transfer list, but it will now be included. The Haines
parcel will be excluded.
4:18:06 PM
CHAIR WAGONER announced that there were no further objections or
questions on Amendment 1 amended; and it was therefore adopted.
4:18:41 PM
SENATOR ELTON said he had another amendment, but wouldn't offer
it at this time.
4:19:00 PM
CHAIR WAGONER asked if the University or DNR had any further
discussion. There was none offered.
4:19:13 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS moved CSSB 96(RES), version G, from committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.
SENATOR ELTON objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Senators Dyson, Guess, Seekins,
Stedman and Chair Wagoner voted yea; Senator Elton voted nay;
and CSSB 96(RES) moved from committee.
4:20:04 PM Recess 4:24:37 PM
SB 113-GULF OF ALASKA GROUNDFISH FISHERY
CHAIR WAGONER announced SB 113 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS moved to adopt CSSB 113(RES), version S.
There were no objections and it was so ordered.
CHAIR WAGONER objected for an explanation.
SENATOR STEVENS briefed the committee on the changes in the CS
as follows:
1. On page 2, lines 24 and 25, "except for mechanical jigging
machine fisheries" is added. This would remove mechanical
jigging fisheries within state waters from consideration of
a direct access privilege (DAP) program.
2. On page 6, lines 3 - 7, "(2)"Gulf of Alaska groundfish
fishery" is added and regards a fishery in which groundfish
are taken in a specified administrative or registration
area using a specific type of fishing gear that is either
pelagic trawl, non-pelagic trawl, pot, or longline gear.
"Gulf of Alaska groundfish fishery" does not include
mechanical jigging machine fisheries. This clarified what
fisheries would be available for consideration of a DAP
program.
3. Page 6, lines 17 - 20, adds: "(d) Notwithstanding AS
16.05.815 and AS 16.43.975, the commission or the
Department of Fish and Game may release to the owner of a
vessel information on the vessel's history of harvests in a
fishery that is necessary to apply for a dedicated access
privilege issued under AS 16.43.530."
SENATOR STEVENS explained that this provision was added so that
managers have access to the history of a vessel when a plan is
being developed. The information would not be disseminated; it's
only in the event that a direct access privileged program is
being considered. The Board of Fisheries and the Alaska
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission have a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with respect to the Gulf of Alaska
groundfish fisheries.
ART NELSON, Chairman, Board of Fisheries, said the MOU is a
strong statement about how the public process is going to work.
BRUCE TWOMLEY, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC), emphasized that the joint public hearings the
MOU calls for provide an opportunity to sort through the
proposal before it becomes a public proposal. It ties the board
together with CFEC during the process so that they can consider
testimony together.
ED DERSHAM, Vice Chairman, Board of Fisheries, added that the
MOU is the end result of a year and a half of work and nine days
of public meetings at the Board of Fisheries.
4:34:31 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked if he could elaborate on paragraph 2 and
how the process for direct access privilege begins.
4:35:18 PM
MR. TWOMLEY explained that limited entry has never been
implemented without being asked for by the fishermen in the
fishery and that language is intended to reassure the public.
4:36:17 PM
CHAIR WAGONER asked what percentage of fishermen would be
required for them to consider implementing limited entry.
MR. TWOMLEY replied that a statutory duty is set out in the
Administrative Procedures Act stating that any time a petition
(of one or more people) is submitted, the agency has a duty to
respond to it within 30 days. There is no quantitative
requirement. The initial step outlined in the MOU will be the
Board of Fisheries pointing out fisheries it regards as critical
to the CFEC and that will trigger CFEC into doing the basic
research to get a good sense of what the fishery looks like and
whether or not it would be a likely candidate for a dedicated
access privilege program.
SENATOR STEVENS asked him to highlight the public comment period
and the process for a normal application under existing
regulations.
4:39:01 PM
MR. TWOMLEY replied in the existing system, the CFEC would
receive a petition. In most instances to comply with the statute
they say no, but continue to look at the fishery. If the
commission can satisfy the constitutional requirements and if a
proposal would promote conservation and economic health of the
fishery, it has a duty to go forward with it at that point. That
proposal has to be reviewed by the Attorney General's office.
Then it goes out to the public for comment and that time is
often quite generous because you must work around fishing
seasons. At the end of the process there is an opportunity to
make a decision and that, again, has to be reviewed by the AG's
office.
4:40:21 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked how long that takes.
MR. TWOMLEY replied a minimum of 90 days, but longer usually.
4:41:42 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked Mr. Dersham how long the public comment
period on the Chignik fishery took.
MR. DERSHAM replied that the people pursuing the co-op came
forward about eight months before the regulatory meeting and
informal discussion took place over that period. When the board
actually took up the Chignik Co-op for regulatory action, that
happened within a nine-day period. The proposal had actually
th
been on the books from the prior April 10.
SENATOR STEVENS asked how the inclusion of a joint hearing
process would change their normal hearing process.
4:44:32 PM
ART NELSON, Chairman, Board of Fisheries, answered that it could
lengthen the hearing process. If the CFEC comes out with
preliminary regulations, the board could take exception to them,
for instance. Although, he hoped there wouldn't be disagreements
between the two bodies. They didn't want to give one agency the
power to trump the other in terms of statutory authorities.
4:45:09 PM
SENATOR ELTON said that paragraph (5) mandates communication
between CFEC and the board on written comments that may be given
to CFEC. He anticipated the board would also receive written
comments, but nothing mandates that the board's comments need to
be shared with CFEC. He asked if that is a structural issue.
4:46:13 PM
MR. DERSHAM replied that it is their intent to go back to the
work group that had been working for the past year and a half
and make additions to that membership for more inclusive public
participation in the affected areas.
4:47:17 PM
MR. TWOMLEY explained the point is that when the two groups are
together, they will be getting all the information at the same
time, but because the proposal and notice will come from CFEC,
it will have to share its information with the board.
4:47:47 PM
SENATOR ELTON said that CFEC commissioners would understand
that, but the public might not.
4:48:13 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked Mr. Dersham how efforts on the federal
level would impact existing participants on the state level and
which fisheries would apply for a direct access program.
MR. DERSHAM replied that the board and the department haven't
yet defined what a separate fishery is, but the cod fisheries on
the south peninsula in Kodiak, and more recently Cook Inlet, and
the pollock fisheries from Prince William Sound out through the
Aleutians came to his mind first as candidates.
4:51:23 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked how a DAP would the impact the Shumigan
Islands pot cod fishery and parallel pollock pelagic trawl
fishery.
4:52:00 PM
MR. DERSHAM replied:
Under current regulations in state waters, if we had a
rationalized federal Gulf groundfish fishery next door
to those, it would greatly increase the potential for
additional pressure during the times when the state
waters were opened. So, people's past practices and
their past history would be very much at risk with the
same set of regulations, because the freed up effort
from the federal side could encroach on what's been
taking place in the state waters in the past.
4:54:51 PM
MR. TWOMLEY agreed, and said the function of DAPs should be to
help secure the place of Alaskan fishermen in their fishery.
It should also aid enforcement by putting individual
limits on their ability to take resources from the
fishery. It should also enhance their economic
opportunities by excusing them from what would
otherwise be a race for the fish. There is more of an
opportunity to be rational and to plan. In the absence
of that, the fishery would be just as vulnerable as Ed
has indicated.
4:55:34 PM
CHAIR WAGONER asked him to compare the DAP process to halibut
IFQs in terms of its affect on processors in the marketplace.
MR. TWOMLEY replied that there are sound opportunities to
increase the value of the product simply by being able to fish
when it's opportune to do so - when the markets are right, when
prices are right and along with the safety benefits of avoiding
bad weather. With more marketable fish, it is an opportunity for
processors as well.
4:56:20 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS asked why the department and the board need to
have an MOU.
MR. DERSHAM replied that the public needs definitions and a
clear understanding of how the process will work.
SENATOR SEEKINS said they are not trying to set up an
exclusionary process, but to just manage the real resource.
MR. DERSHAM replied that is correct.
4:59:38 PM
SENATOR STEVENS directed members to page 5, line 5, of the CS
that lists the nine key elements that the developers of a
program must address. He asked anyone to comment if they saw
omissions from the guidelines for development of regulations to
implement a program.
5:01:14 PM
MR. TWOMLEY commented that these are basic and essential
elements of a DAPS program as advised by Lance Nelson, Attorney
General's Office.
5:01:57 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked if this list is a product of the hearings
held over the last several years.
5:02:21 PM
MR. DERSHAM replied yes, definitely.
SENATOR STEVENS said that he was trying to highlight that this
list is a product of public hearings that have been conducted by
the Board of Fisheries and the North Pacific Fisheries
Management Council as a joint planning team.
5:02:34 PM
MR. DERSHAM added that it was part of the nine days of public
hearings the Board of Fisheries conducted over a period of a
year and a half with a work group of public panel advisors and
input from the general public and participation from
representation from the CFEC and the Department of Law.
5:02:59 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked if their work was posted and reviewed.
MR. DERSHAM replied yes.
5:04:36 PM
SENATOR STEVENS highlighted that the material in this bill is
the evolution of an extensive public process among fishing
participants and the fisheries managers. He thought there had
been adequate public review.
5:05:28 PM
SENATOR STEVENS moved to adopt the MOU to be included as a
letter of intent with SB 113. There were no objections and it
was so ordered.
CHAIR WAGONER noted there were no further questions and stated
that he would have another hearing on this bill on Saturday.
CSHB 197(RLS)-OIL SPILL EXEMPTIONS FOR GAS WELLS
CHAIR WAGONER announced CSHB 197(RLS) to be up for
consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING, sponsor of HB 197, explained that its
sole purpose is to clarify for Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) that discharge contingency plans (C-plans)
and financial responsibility are not required for natural gas
wells. Legislation was passed last year, HB 531, which dealt
with coalbed methane that inadvertently placed language in
statute that required C-plans for any kind of drilling or
exploration activity. That was not the intent. "There should not
be an oil spill plan if there is no oil involved in drilling or
exploring for natural gas."
He said the AOGCC is the entity that would make the
determination as to whether or not oil could be encountered
before an exemption is given.
5:09:59 PM
DAN SEAMOUNT, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
(AOGCC), supported HB 197. "It allows for better use of geologic
information and understanding in determining the needs for such
plans...."
He explained that the current scope of C-plan exemptions
mismatched with the facts of Alaska's geology. Drilling for gas
in many areas has no risk of an oil spill at all, because they
have no oil-bearing zones. HB 197 provides for a case-by-case
geologic evaluation of wells drilled to explore for gas. This
would reasonably include shallow and deep non-conventional and
conventional gas plays and prospects. It adds no additional cost
to the commission's budget since it has basically been doing
this for years, and simply corrects the problem with last year's
bill.
5:12:40 PM
SENATOR GUESS asked what would happen if someone were drilling
for gas and encountered oil.
MR. SEAMOUNT replied that the AOGCC would order them to
immediately stop drilling and would then evaluate the potential
for flow.
5:13:11 PM
SENATOR GUESS asked if natural gas is liquid at any time and do
they have worry about temperatures when it would become liquid
and, therefore, be possible to spill.
MR. SEAMOUNT replied that that could happen in retrograde
condensate reservoirs and those would not get the exemption.
5:13:54 PM
LARRY DIETRICH, Director, Division of Spill Prevention and
Response, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
supported HB 197.
5:15:07 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS moved to pass CSHB 197(RLS) from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There were
no objections and it was so ordered.
5:16:18 PM At ease 5:17:36 PM
SB 170-BD/DEPT OF FISH & GAME POWERS & DUTIES
CHAIR WAGONER announced SB 170 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR SEEKINS, sponsor, said SB 170 addresses some
housekeeping issues and then some substantive ones. It provides
for sale of legally taken trophy mounts and certain parts of
legally taken game animals and solves the current situation
where a person cannot buy a trophy mount in Alaska, but the
seller can take the mount to Seattle and conduct the transaction
with the buyer there. He said there is no real good reason to
prohibit their sale here and allowing it would raise revenues
for the fish and game fund.
It also provides for a small game-hunting license as
differentiated from a general hunting license, which would be
sold for $25. Some people don't want to hunt big game, but would
like small game - particularly non-residents. It provides for
some uniform application fees ($7.50 across the board) for
certain hunting permits, drawings and stamps. Right now there
are different fees for a musk ox than there are for a caribou.
The fees are meant to defer 100 percent of the cost of
processing the fees. If the department needed additional fees to
do that, he would be willing to look at that number.
SENATOR SEEKINS said that SB 170 also establishes a higher
degree of accountability for the use of monies within the fish
and game fund. This fund is dedicated to uses that directly
benefit those who purchase hunting and fishing licenses. The
fund currently has only loose internal guidelines as to how it
is spent. SB 170 provides for new fees for hunting and trapping
licenses and tags and requires that the increases in those fees
be used to maximize management for an abundance of animals for
human consumption. Hunters have said they are not willing to pay
more to harvest less.
It provides for certain predator control for bears in areas
under intensive management where the Board of Game has
determined first that bear predation is a cause of the problem
and a reduction in bears would reasonably help cure that
problem.
5:24:38 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS said the next provision is a brand new concept.
It provides for a new deferral fee that is limited to certain
areas that are adjacent to or very near state wildlife
sanctuaries or national parks. When the board authorizes permits
to hunt bear or wolf in these areas, a person could take a
permit off the table by paying into the fish and game fund the
maximum market value the hunt would otherwise have contributed
to the state economy. As an example, he used the McNeil River
Sanctuary that has the McNeil River preserve next to it. Part of
the reason for the preserve has always been to allow hunting.
Because it is next to the McNeil River Sanctuary, people always
try to make the preserve part of the sanctuary. This will allow
people who don't want bears to be hunted to be able to
contribute to the management of the sanctuaries, which are all
managed from the fish and game fund, by buying a permit and
taking it off the table for the year.
5:27:12 PM
CHAIR WAGONER asked how many areas are similar to McNeil River.
MATT ROBUS, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), answered Pack Creek on
Admiralty Island, the Katmai National Park and Denali National
Park.
SENATOR SEEKINS said this provision would apply to areas where
the bears have been habituated.
5:28:29 PM
SENATOR ELTON asked what the definition of animal parts is as
used in section 52.
SENATOR SEEKINS replied that its not meant for sale of meat and
he wanted to put an amendment in the bill saying that. But he
has no objection to saying that a person could sell a gall
bladder of a legally taken bear. An affirmative defense would be
to show that a bear had been consumed by the same person who
took it and sold the gall bladder.
CHAIR WAGONER said that he read that the bottom has fallen out
of the bear gall bladder market because of Viagra and drugs like
it.
MR. ROBUS replied that sale of bear gall bladders is legal in
some states, but not most. He did not think there was a direct
link between sale of Viagra and bear gall bladders, because the
bladders have medicinal uses in addition to that.
5:31:11 PM
SENATOR ELTON said it is a common practice to trade King salmon,
for instance, for a roast of moose. It would be a barter.
5:31:43 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS said there is nothing that he knows of that
would preclude a barter of that sort.
5:31:48 PM
MR. ROBUS responded that he wanted to read the regulations, but
he knows that it is a common practice.
SENATOR SEEKINS explained that he understands the title to the
fish or game animal transfers to the owner at the time of
harvest and he would have the right to share it with anyone he
wanted to. The law could preclude its sale.
5:32:22 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN asked him to talk about the proposed fees.
5:32:41 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS responded that the fees were proposed to him by
the department, although he may have increased a couple.
5:33:45 PM
MR. ROBUS replied that is correct.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked him to explain why the amounts were
requested.
MR. ROBUS explained that his division relies on the one source
of non-federal funding that it gets to do all of its work - the
fish and game fund, which is pretty much composed of hunting and
trapping license fees and hunter tag fees. It has had no
increase in the last 13 years. The division's expenses are going
up and revenues are static or slightly declining. He can still
get federal matching funds, but has run short to be able to do
the additional wildlife management work to the extent that the
division is running $2 million less this year. He has the
increased demands of predator control and intensive management
programs.
We do have some serious fiscal issues in the division
and we put forward a straw man proposal containing a
fee increase that we've taken around to advisory
committees, the Board of Game, various public groups,
individual legislators - tried to put together a
package that would once again bring back enough of
that state license money to properly fund the wildlife
management activities we need to do. That straw man
package was the beginning of the evolution for the
structure that you see in that portion of this bill
today.
5:35:46 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN said sheep are highly prized for hunters and
Alaska shouldn't be the low-cost producer for out-of-state
hunters. He wanted an explanation of why the fees mostly
doubled.
MR. ROBUS explained that the fees were based on the need to make
up at least the $2 million annual shortfall at present plus the
desired capability to be able to do more active wildlife
management related to the intensive management law and the
predator management programs he has going. In terms of the value
of their dollars, state residents pay one half of what they paid
for a hunting license at statehood. The sustained yield programs
must be continued for multiple years to be effective and the
department needs to be able to measure the situation before,
during and after those predator programs in order to sustain
them. The fees were structured to bring in $3.5 million that
would restore the division's capabilities to manage wildlife.
SENATOR STEDMAN said that some people don't buy licenses anyhow
and doubling the fee doesn't encourage them. He asked how the
department planned to handle enforcement.
MR. ROBUS agreed with his comment, but said adamantly that he
needs money for his programs. He explained that enforcement is a
split effort between his division and the Department of Public
Safety with DPS being the primary enforcers.
SENATOR STEDMAN wanted a breakdown of who purchases licenses
around the state.
5:42:00 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if other areas have asked for increased
predator control.
MR. ROBUS replied yes; the division has implemented five
programs and it's challenging to keep them going. There are
numerous desires for intensive management programs elsewhere.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if he agreed that certain predators have
been allowed to over-harvest in many areas of the state and
needs significant attention paid to it if they want to put moose
and caribou on the tables of people in the State of Alaska.
MR. ROBUS responded:
I might state it slightly differently. I'm not sure
that predators over harvest, but the situation we have
now is that predators in many places are taking enough
prey animals to prevent those prey populations from
increasing to levels that can be supported by the
habitat, which would provide more animals, more
hunting opportunity, more meat in the freezer around
the state.
SENATOR SEEKINS noted that the section requiring a conservation
tag from people who hunt waterfowl on page 14 will be deleted.
It will require anyone who fishes who is of legal age or of
capability to have a fishing license for the first time. Right
now only a hunting license is required.
5:45:12 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN asked if this changes the age requirement for
having a license from anyone who is over 16 years of age.
SENATOR SEEKINS replied that it doesn't change that.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked if that isn't the law of the land today.
SENATOR SEEKINS replied, "Not for subsistence purposes for
fishing."
5:46:06 PM
SENATOR ELTON asked if the first section, which is legislative
intent, and the last couple of sections plus the sections that
change 60 substantive operations in the Department of Fish and
Game, could be taken out until they can get the department's
take on what it really needs.
5:47:14 PM
MR. ROBUS said that would lead into what he has to say. The
department has identified the fee increase as a big need. He has
talked to advisory committees and the Board of
Game about it. "The license fee is a tremendously important
aspect of this bill from the perspective of my division and the
department."
The size and complexity of the bill means that the department is
still doing the analysis to figure out what the parts mean.
It's clear that it had concerns over two-dozen significant
changes to fish and game statutes. The relationship between the
Board of Game, the Board of Fisheries and the department has
been changed markedly in terms of who has the authority to do
what. There is a change in the way wild animals are defined and
some animals would not even be under his management jurisdiction
until or unless the Board of Game took action to make them part
of his business.
The fiscal responsibility part of the bill would impose some
pretty stringent constraints on both the division and the
department and those need to be worked through, although he
understands that accountability is something the public and the
legislature want and deserve.
KEVIN SAXBY, Department of Law (DOL), echoed Mr. Robus' comments
saying he hadn't had that much time to look at the bill, but has
identified a number of constitutional and statutory concerns
that would have to be thought through.
SENATOR SEEKINS said he appreciates the fact that the
departments have not had a lot of time to look at this, but he
wants an accounting of money the Department has spent. When the
ADF&G budget was looked at in Finance Committee, the question
was asked where the money goes. A statute says that the
legislature is to receive a project-by-project analysis of how
it was spent. But they were told "project" is not defined in
statute. Alaska's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy
was put together with $600,000 or $800,000 worth of matching
funds from the state to obtain $3 million worth of federal money
to put into implementing a conservation plan.
In this whole plan, there is not a single plan on how
to develop a conservation plan for prey animals. There
are conservation plans for voles and birds and even
eel grass invertebrates.
None of the 74 species were nominated by a single consumptive
user group; they were nominated by the Audubon Society, Cook
Inlet Keeper and other groups across the state. His folks would
go along with some increase in fees, but they want some
accountability there. "We don't want somebody to establish a
conservation strategy for the State of Alaska that hasn't gone
through the public hearing process that the Board of Game does."
CHAIR WAGONER said he would hold the bill for further work and
adjourned the meeting at 5:58:37 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|