04/28/2023 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB82 | |
| Area M Overview | |
| SB48 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 48 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 82 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 28, 2023
3:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator Cathy Giessel, Co-Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Scott Kawasaki
Senator James Kaufman
Senator Forrest Dunbar
Senator Matt Claman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 82
"An Act relating to the powers of the Alaska Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission; relating to administrative areas for
regulation of certain commercial set net entry permits;
establishing a buy-back program for certain set net entry
permits; providing for the termination of state set net tract
leases under the buy-back program; closing certain water to
commercial fishing; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED SB 82 OUT OF COMMITTEE
AREA M OVERVIEW PRESENTATION
- HEARD
SENATE BILL NO. 48
"An Act authorizing the Department of Natural Resources to lease
land for carbon management purposes; establishing a carbon
offset program for state land; authorizing the sale of carbon
offset credits; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 82
SHORT TITLE: COOK INLET: NEW ADMIN AREA;PERMIT BUYBACK
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) BJORKMAN
02/24/23 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/24/23 (S) RES, FIN
04/17/23 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/17/23 (S) Heard & Held
04/17/23 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/21/23 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/21/23 (S) Heard & Held
04/21/23 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/28/23 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 48
SHORT TITLE: CARBON OFFSET PROGRAM ON STATE LAND
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/27/23 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/27/23 (S) RES, FIN
02/24/23 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/24/23 (S) Heard & Held
02/24/23 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/21/23 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/21/23 (S) Heard & Held
04/21/23 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/26/23 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/26/23 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/28/23 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the Area M Overview.
JULIA O'CONNOR, Staff
Senator Cathy Giessel
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the explanation of changes between
version A and version B for SB 48.
RENA MILLER, Special Assistant to the Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed Amendment 1 for SB 48 on behalf of
the administration.
HELGE ENG, State Forester and Director
Division of Forestry and Fire Protection
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing on
SB 48.
CHRISTOPHER ORMAN, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Natural Resources Section
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing on
SB 48.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:30:28 PM
CO-CHAIR CLICK BISHOP called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Kaufman, Kawasaki, Dunbar, Wielechowski (via
teleconference), Co-Chair Giessel, and Co-Chair Bishop. Senator
Claman arrived soon thereafter.
SB 82-COOK INLET: NEW ADMIN AREA;PERMIT BUYBACK
3:31:39 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO.
82 "An Act relating to the powers of the Alaska Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission; relating to administrative areas for
regulation of certain commercial set net entry permits;
establishing a buy-back program for certain set net entry
permits; providing for the termination of state set net tract
leases under the buy-back program; closing certain water to
commercial fishing; and providing for an effective date."
3:31:52 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL moved to report SB 82, work order 33-LS0409\A,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s).
3:32:10 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP found no objection and SB 82 was reported from
the Senate Resources Standing Committee.
3:32:12 PM
At ease
^Area M Overview
AREA M OVERVIEW
3:33:49 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP reconvened the meeting and announced an Area M
Overview.
3:34:17 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game,
Juneau, Alaska, provided the Area M overview, reading from the
following prepared testimony.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today
regarding coastal western Alaska fisheries and the
impact that Area M salmon fisheries may have on them.
For the record, my name is Doug Vincent-Lang, and I am
the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game.
Let me begin by saying the Department is deeply
concerned about the poor returns of chinook, summer
chum, fall chum and coho salmon to coastal western
Alaska systems. The poor returns have resulted in
fishery restrictions and closures that impact food
security, and subsistence and cultural activities.
I have visited the region numerous times and listened
to testimony about the impact this is having. The
words spoken are heartfelt and the impact understood.
Let me be clear, we understand and are sympathetic to
the hardship that the restrictions and closures are
creating for people living in western Alaska.
As fishing is restricted or closed in rivers, people
are asking what is being done in fisheries that
intercept fish destined for these rivers. They are
asking for these mixed stock fisheries to be
restricted, or in the case of the legislation being
discussed today, closed entirely.
It is important to note that nearly all salmon
fisheries are mixed stock fisheries. They all harvest,
to varying degrees, stocks of mixed origins. For
example, the salmon fisheries that occur in the lower
Yukon River are mixed stock fisheries in that they
harvest a range of discrete stocks that occur upriver
of the fishery, including some of Canadian origin. It
is not until a fishery is prosecuted on the spawning
beds that it is not a mixed stock fishery.
3:36:01 PM
Slide 2, "Coastal Western Alaska Chum Salmon Marine Life
History."
In the case of coastal western Alaska chum salmon,
these fish are intercepted in various mixed stock
marine fisheries, including as bycatch in marine trawl
fisheries targeting pollock and cod as well various
directed salmon fisheries, including the South Alaska
Peninsula seine and gillnet fisheries.
3:36:36 PM
Slide 3, "Coastal Western Alaska Chum Salmon Marine Life
History."
While there are many similarities, there are also
differences in the migratory patterns of Asian versus
coastal western Alaska chum. As can be seen in this
slide both grouping move through the passes in the
Aleutian chain. However, North American chum stock
spend more of their time in the east Gulf of Alaska
whereas there is overlap in the central and western
Gulf.
3:37:15 PM
Slide 4, "Bristol Bay Chum Salmon Harvests."
It is important to note that coastal western Alaska
stocks are also harvested in other fisheries, such as
the Bristol Bay sockeye salmon fishery, as they move
through that fishery on their way to the Kuskokwim and
Yukon Rivers and Norton Sound Area. Bristol Bay
fisheries harvested on average more than 1.1 million
chum salmon during a fishery that targets sockeye
salmon. While it is impossible to know how many of
these are not of local Bristol Bay origin using
current genetics technology, it is suspected that at
least some are of Kuskokwim and Yukon Rivers origin.
3:37:39 PM
Slide 5, "Every Salmon Counts."
So, the question is: What is the acceptable level of
intercept in these fisheries when subsistence is
restricted or closed? Should all fisheries be closed
if they harvest even a single chum salmon that is
destined to coastal western Alaska when these
fisheries are closed or restricted?
To get a handle on this question, it is important to
understand the stock compositions of the salmon
harvested in these mixed stock fisheries that intercept
coastal western Alaska chum salmon. This will give us
an idea of the impact the harvest may be having.
I will not talk about bycatch in this presentation as
it is being addressed by the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council. Instead, I will focus on the
fisheries that occur along the South Alaska Peninsula,
as this is the fishery that was the focus of the
recent Board of Fisheries deliberations and action.
In response to the poor returns of chum salmon to
coastal western Alaska, the Department initiated an
evaluation of the genetic compositions of chum salmon
harvested in the South Peninsula mixed stock salmon
fisheries last year. This is one of numerous marine
mixed stock fisheries that are known to intercept fish
of the Bering Sea coastal origin.
SENATOR CLAMAN joined the committee.
3:38:52 PM
Slide 6," Area M Geography."
Slide 7, "South Alaska Peninsula Geography."
Before I go any further, it is important to note that
the geographic scope of the South Alaska Peninsula
fisheries differ significantly from Area M fisheries.
Area M covers a large geography that includes the South
Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands, the North
Alaska Peninsula, and the Pribilof Islands. Many of
these fisheries do not harvest significant numbers of
chum of coastal western Alaska origin.
3:39:19 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP mentioned an earlier conversation they had about
Port Moller genetics. He asked if that area was shown on slide
6.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG explained that the Port Moller line
refers to a genetics line that gives genetics on sockeye salmon
entering Bristol Bay. The department is not collecting genetic
information on chum salmon in that area.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked if the Port Moller genetics testing area
shows on the Area M map on slide 6.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG pointed to where the map identifies
the Northern District and said it runs north of that line to the
mainland of Alaska.
3:40:26 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG continued.
Slide 8, "South Alaska Peninsula Fishing Districts."
Instead, based on result of the WASSIP study, the main
area of harvest of these coastal western Alaska stocks
occurs along the South Alaska Peninsula. This includes
is in the Unimak, Southwestern, Southeastern, and
Southcentral Districts of Area M. It is these
districts that I will focus on since they were the
focus of the Board deliberations.
3:41:02 PM
Slide 9, "South Alaska Peninsula June Fishery Chum Harvests."
Our study was designed to assess whether stock
compositions in this fishery changed from when we
previously evaluated this as part of the WASSIP study
conducted over a decade ago.
Slide 10, "South Alaska Peninsula Chum Harvests."
So, what did we learn? From fish ticket information we
know that 817,279 chum salmon were harvested in the
South Peninsula fisheries in 2022. This is 78% of the
recent 10-year average.
Of these, 544,137 were harvested during June, which
from previous studies is known when chum of coastal
western Alaska origin are harvested in this fishery.
3:41:30 PM
Slide 11, "2022 Chum Harvests by Stock Group."
For the June fishery, about 58 percent of the chum
salmon harvested were of Asian origin and about 18%
were of coastal Alaska origin. That is about 6 out of
every 10 chum salmon harvested were of Asian hatchery
origin. In contrast, less than 2 out of 10 were of
coastal western Alaska origin. Coastal western Alaska
represents a grouping of Bristol Bay, Kuskokwim River,
Yukon River, and Norton Sound summer chum salmon.
Unfortunately, we cannot detect subcategories within
this grouping with current technology.
3:42:07 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked what has to be done to hone in on the
genetic testing.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that both the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) laboratory and the ADF&G
laboratory are looking at different genetic sequences within the
genome to find out which sequence gives better discrimination
between those stocks. So far they haven't found the right
sequence within the genetics.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked what the next step will be in Area M once
the genetics are isolated.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that if a cap were in place
on coastal western Alaska chum salmon in the Area M fishery, it
would probably take four days to know the genetic composition of
non-Asian versus southwest coastal western Alaska chum. However,
it's not feasible right now because the fleet delivers every
two-three days after their harvest occurs and they have probably
fished several different areas within the South Peninsula
fishery in that time. Managing for total chum catches would be
more appropriate in this circumstance.
3:44:21 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR expressed surprise that the chum salmon data on
slide 9 goes back to 1960. He asked the commissioner how
confident he was in the accuracy of that data. His assumption
was that it comes from the processors.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied it comes from information on
fish tickets.
SENATOR DUNBAR asked about his level of confidence that the
harvest numbers were accurate for each of those years.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that he was very confident in
the fish ticket data.
SENATOR DUNBAR reiterated that he was surprised that the
department had 50-year-old data. He asked for an explanation of
the cause for the large spike in 2021.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that there were two issues in
2021, the first of which was confidentiality. When there are
fewer than three processors, the data can't be released until
after the season ends. The second issue was that there was a
large sockeye return to Bristol Bay. The combination of factors
prevented the department from doing a good job of tracking what
was happening in that fishery. After 2021 the department entered
into an agreement with the fishing community to waive
confidentiality. The department said they wanted to return to a
more normal harvest in that fishery of 500-550 thousand. The
department also implemented the new genetic study. Those changes
combined with an agreement with the processors to test fishing
by moving the fleet around, resulted in June harvest numbers
that dropped in one year from 1.1 million to about 550 thousand
last year.
3:46:35 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP referenced the chum salmon data on slide 9 and
asked the commissioner to get back to the committee with
information about the returns on the Yukon and Kuskokwim rivers
in the years 1985 through 2000.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG agreed to follow up with the data.
3:47:11 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG returned to the overview.
Slide 12, "Historic Chum Harvests by Stock Group."
This slide shows a comparison between the results from
WASSIP and our study last year. They are similar. From
the bottom panel you can see that both studies show
that few salmon of coastal western Alaska origin are
harvested in this fishery after June, when the harvest
shifts primarily to local stocks. [The July fisheries
have become much more localized chum salmon fisheries
than they are in terms of harvesting coastal western
Alaskan stocks.]
Bottom line, our study showed that about 96,000 summer
chum of coastal western Alaska origin were harvested
in the South Peninsula fisheries last year during
June. Based on preliminary run reconstruction data,
this represents about a 6% harvest rate on these
stocks. Again, this number represents the total number
of chum of coastal western origin that were harvested.
That is, these are not all of Yukon and Kuskokwim
origin. They are also of Bristol Bay and Norton Sound
origin.
This is the information that we presented to the Board
of Fisheries at their recent meeting to inform their
discussions.
The two primary questions the Board faced at their
meeting were: What was an acceptable level of
intercept and how could harvest of coastal western
Alaska chum salmon be reduced?
3:49:23 PM
Slides 13-14, "South Alaska Peninsula June Fishery Regulatory
History."
The South Alaska Peninsula fishery has a long and
varied history.
• From the 1960s to the mid-1970s, fishing periods
varied from 4.5 to 7 per week.
• From the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, fishing
depended on the forecasted strength of the
Bristol Bay sockeye salmon run.
• From 1984-1986 fishing time was limited to 96
hours per week and no more than 72 consecutive
hours to allow for escapement windows.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP said that information is important to show in
correlation with slide 9 and the returns on the Yukon and
Kuskokwim rivers.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG continued to slide 14.
• From 1986-2001 the fishery was managed based on
Bristol Bay Guideline Harvest Levels and chum
salmon caps.
• From 2004 to 2022 the fishery had set fishing
periods with fishing windows.
3:50:30 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked him to talk about what happened when the
seine boats showed up on the fishing grounds.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said there's been a seine fishery for
a long time, but the boats were much less powerful 15-20 years
ago than they are now. Boats in that fleet now are probably
twice the size, the engines are probably 2-3 times more
powerful, and the nets are more efficient.
Slide 15, "South Alaska Peninsula June Fishery Economic
Importance."
Economically, the South Alaska Peninsula Salmon June
salmon fishery is important to the local area.
• It has a total ex-vessel average value of almost
$10 million.
• It raises over $600,000 of fishery business tax,
of which half is shared with local communities.
• It raises nearly $100,000 in assessment for the
Seafood Marketing program.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG advised that he provided the foregoing
information because there's a fiscal note associated with the
bill related to this presentation. He clarified that it is not
to belittle the economic impact that's occurring in the coastal
western Alaska systems.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP clarified that the committee was not hearing SB
128 today; this was an informational hearing on Area M.
3:52:12 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG continued.
Slide 16, "Proposal 140 Calendar."
Proposal 140, which was submitted by the Fairbanks
Advisory Committee and supported by TCC and others,
called for adoption of a previous management approach
that restricted time fished. Intended to only target
South Unimak and Shumagin Islands June fishery (A.K.A.
False Pass Fishery), and not the fisheries in the
Northern, Northwestern, or Unalaska Districts, of Area
M.
They postulated that chum salmon harvest could be
reduced based solely on reduction of time alone. The
proposal reduced the current four 88-hour fishing
periods with no more than three days in any seven-day
period, no more than 16 hours per day; and no more than
two consecutive 16- hour fishing periods within a
seven-day period.
3:53:14 PM
Slide 17, "South Alaska Peninsula June Fishery Chum & Sockeye
Harvests."
However, when this management plan was utilized in the
early 2000s it did not significantly reduce the harvest
of chum salmon and given the improved fishing power of
the modern Purse Seine fleet, the Department could not
guarantee that chum salmon harvest would be reduced
based solely on time restrictions. Based on this and
other information, the Board chose to not pass
proposal 140. It failed on a 3-4 vote.
3:53:39 PM
Slide 18, "Adopted Fishing Calendar."
Instead, they adopted a hybrid approach, specifically
intended to reduce the harvest of chum salmon in June,
that:
• Closed a known area of high chum harvests (Sanak
Islands) to commercial fishing for salmon during
June.
• Reduced commercial salmon fishing salmon time with
purse seine gear in June by 13%
• Increased the length of closure window during the
second week of June to allow chum salmon passage
through the fishery.
• Created chum salmon harvest triggers that restrict
and potentially close the commercial purse seine
fishery in June, if they are met or exceeded. A
trigger of 300,000 chum was set that if exceeded
after the second opening would reduce fishing time
by 44 hours for the third period. This would
provide a passage window in the third week. A
second trigger of 450,000 was set that if exceeded
after the third period would close the fourth
period, a reduction of 88 hours. This would
establish a passage window in the fourth week, as
the fishery would be closed.
• Expressed an expectation, and received commitment
from the fishing industry, that the industry
coordinate efforts to reduce chum salmon harvest
based on a signed agreement that reduced harvest
last year. This included waiving confidentiality
and forming voluntary cooperatives. The
cooperatives were formed last year and were
successful in reducing chum salmon harvests from
1.1 million chum in 2021 to 544,000 chum last year
in June.
3:55:52 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP requested he recreate slide 18 and add the
closures and reduction in hours.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said he'd provide the information, but
what it would show is that in the week June 18-24 there would be
a loss of 44 hours, which would create a 72-hour passage window
that week. If the 450,000 trigger was met, there would be no
seine fishing in the last week of June.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP said it would be a good visual to post on BASIS
for the people listening and watching from home.
3:56:59 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked Commissioner Vincent-Lang to describe
voluntary cooperatives and whether they reduce intercept.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG explained that the volunteer
cooperatives followed the rationalized fishery model. Last year
a few vessels did test fishing to find out whether there were
high chum salmon to sockeye salmon ratios. The fishing areas
where high ratios were found were avoided and the fleet fished
in the areas where the ratios were lower. This works by giving
the fishermen more area to test fish and go fishing, and they
move around to avoid chum salmon, he said.
SENATOR DUNBAR asked how the cooperatives are structured.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied they're formed by the
industry, but they've also signed an agreement with the
department to operate like they did last year.
SENATOR DUNBAR asked for confirmation that no administrative
staff was involved and no nonprofit was formed.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG confirmed that the fishermen did this
on their own.
3:58:30 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG continued to slide 19, "Compromise
Solutions."
I want to note that many people were involved in this
outcome which occurred over a 7-day period during
which public comment was taken, a committee of the
whole discussion occurred and numerous after hour
discussions occurred.
As with all compromise solutions, people on both sides
of the issue were not happy with the outcome. Inriver
users felt the Board let them down by not adopting
their preferred solution. South Peninsula fishermen
felt they lost their traditional rights to harvest.
This season will tell the tale of the outcome. If the
fishery is prosecuted, we will closely monitor it in
season. We will also, assuming a fishery is
prosecuted, conduct a second year of genetic sampling.
If the fishery is cancelled, we will not be able to
conduct this study this summer. We have also spoken
with public safety to beef up enforcement to address
the perceived issue of chum chucking. Finally, we will
monitor the cooperatives to ensure they are operating
as agreed to and envisioned.
In closing, as with many Board of Fisheries decisions,
and also the legislative process, not everyone is
always happy with the outcomes. But in both cases,
it's not for a lack of caring or deliberation.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP articulated his intent to reach out to the
Department of Public Safety (DPS) to understand the scope of
their enforcement to eliminate chum chucking because those fish
represent protein that people along the Yukon and Kuskokwim
rivers could use.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked the commissioner to talk about chum
retention in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and whether Area
M was an EZZ fishery that requires the retention of bycatch.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said there's some EZZ fishing along
the South Alaska Peninsula outside three miles. The federal
government delegated the state to manage that area, so it's
under state regulations which require the full retention of
salmon.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked whether the Asian fish are sold on the
market or required to go to a SeaShare program.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that the south peninsula
fishery is really a sockeye fishery; chum salmon are not
targeted and the fishermen would prefer to catch fewer of them.
They're delivered to the processor for processing but they're
not purchased; the processor has to report them and his
understanding is that the processors have agreed to turn them
over to SeaShare.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP said he'd ask the Area M fishermen about that
when they come before the committee next week. He asked the
commissioner if he'd be out on the grounds this summer to
monitor the fishery more closely so it's shut down if a trigger
point is reached.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG mentioned the triggers and said he
wouldn't hesitate to take action to ensure the harvest is
limited to about .5 million chum salmon, knowing that a large
percentage are Asian chum. He added that it worked last year
when the department informed the fleet that another 1.1 million
chum salmon harvest wasn't acceptable. That's when the industry
initiated the voluntary cooperatives, and it worked.
4:04:05 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked the commissioner to talk about the Asian
chums that go to the SeaShare program.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that last year they were
distributed to communities in the coastal western Alaska system.
He added that the department understands that it's not the same
as catching and processing your own fish, but it was a way to
return some of the fish. He restated that 6 of 10 of those
salmon were probably Asian chums.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG thanked the legislature for the money
for the genetic studies, which will help the department
understand the composition of the stocks and what can be done to
minimize the harvests going forward. He committed to continue
looking at the genetics to parse the Yukon, Kuskokwim, and
Norton Sound stocks from the coastal western Alaska group.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP thanked Commissioner Vincent-Lang for the
overview.
4:06:04 PM
At ease
SB 48-CARBON OFFSET PROGRAM ON STATE LAND
4:06:12 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 48 "An Act authorizing the
Department of Natural Resources to lease land for carbon
management purposes; establishing a carbon offset program for
state land; authorizing the sale of carbon offset credits; and
providing for an effective date."
She noted there was a committee substitute for the committee to
consider.
4:06:34 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for
SB 48, work order 33-GS1372\B, as the working document.
4:06:45 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL objected for an explanation of the changes.
4:06:52 PM
JULIA O'CONNOR, Staff, Senator Cathy Giessel, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the explanation of
changes between version A and version B for SB 48.
The Committee Substitute adopts the following changes:
1. Technical drafting changes were made throughout
the bill to conform to the Legislative Drafting
Manual.
2. The effective date was expanded to cover the
entire bill (page 9, line 17).
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL explained that the CS does not change the
content of the governor's bill; it was redrafted to comport to
Legislative Legal Services' drafting format.
4:07:42 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL removed her objection and the CS was adopted.
4:08:02 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL moved to adopt Amendment 1, work order 33-
GS1372\B.10.
33-GS1372\B.10
Dunmire
4/27/23
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR GIESSEL
TO: CSSB 48(RES), Draft Version "B"
Page 3, line 30, through page 4, line 1:
Delete all material and insert:
"(f) Compensation for a lease under this section
(1) shall be designed to maximize the return to
the state and be a form of compensation provided under
AS 38.05.073(m);
(2) shall be separately accounted for under
AS 37.05.142; and
(3) may be used by the legislature to make
appropriations to the department to carry out the purposes
of this section."
Page 4, line 6, following "state.":
Insert "The findings must include
(1) reasonably foreseeable effects that a
project may have on the state or local economy; and
(2) anticipated annual revenue that the lease
will yield to the state.
(i) State land used for carbon management purposes
must, to the extent practicable, remain open to the public
for access, hunting, fishing, and other generally allowed
uses as determined by the department."
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
Page 8, line 22, following "(4)":
Insert "if applicable,"
Page 9, line 2:
Delete "nontimber"
Insert "other [NONTIMBER]"
4:08:11 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP objected for purposes of discussion.
4:08:17 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL explained that Amendment 1 combines four
amendments the House Resources Committee added to the House
companion bill. She deferred to Rena Miller to explain the
amendment.
4:08:48 PM
RENA MILLER, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Department
of Natural Resources (DNR), Anchorage, Alaska, reviewed
Amendment 1 for SB 48 on behalf of the administration. She
highlighted the following.
Page 3, line 30 of version B - The Division of Mining Land and
Water is given receipt authority for the carbon leasing program.
The revenue generated from the leases will be used to supplant
general funds to pay for the new position.
Page 1, line 10 of the amendment - Two findings are added to the
Best Interest Finding required for a leasing program under the
carbon offset bill.
Page 4, line [4] of version B- The findings must consider
reasonably foreseeable effects that the project will have on the
state and local economy and the anticipated revenue that the
annual lease would provide to the state. State land under lease
for carbon management purposes must, to the extent practicable,
allow public access for general uses as determined by the
department.
4:11:17 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked what the term "to the extent practicable"
means in the current draft of the bill.
MS. MILLER explained that there's a policy statement that the
land will remain open to public access, but the phrase gives the
division some leeway so the leasing activity can actually occur.
4:11:51 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP commented that "to the extent practicable" is a
favorite term in the department.
4:12:04 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR commented that it had been a challenge when the
committee asked DNR a question only to receive the response that
it's a Department of Revenue (DOR) question. He asked which
department would determine the anticipated revenue to the state
from the leases. His reading is that some oil companies could
write down some of their oil production tax expenses. He asked
if it was the net yield to the state. He also asked if the focus
was on the lease and that the revenues lost elsewhere were being
ignored.
MS. MILLER replied that DNR will determine the lease revenue to
the state. To the second question, she offered her understanding
that an amendment was forthcoming to address lease expenditures
to offset other tax liabilities.
SENATOR DUNBAR said he'd repeat the question if and when the
amendment is offered.
MS. MILLER added that AS 43.55 is the oil and gas production
tax, which is administered by the Department of Revenue (DOR).
SENATOR DUNBAR commented that the short answer is that DNR will
focus on administering the leases and the impacts to DOR won't
be part of DNR's calculation.
MS. MILLER said that's correct; the compensation received for a
lease related to carbon management is under DNR's jurisdiction.
All oil and gas production taxes an entity owes is under DOR's
jurisdiction.
4:15:17 PM
MS. MILLER continued to discuss Amendment 1.
Page 8, line [22-23] of the bill - Adds a carbon offset project
undertaken by DNR to Sec. 41.17.210 Management of state forests.
The House Resources Committee felt this was important, so the
amendment adds the term "if applicable,".
Page 9, line 2 of the bill - The term "nontimber" is removed
from Sec. 12. AS 41.17.230(a) relating to a forest management
plan in recognition that a carbon offset project is timber
related.
4:17:11 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN referenced the four criteria under AS 41.17.220.
Management of state forests. He asked how those four factors
were weighted.
MS. MILLER deferred the question to the state forester, Helge
Eng.
4:17:53 PM
HELGE ENG, Ph.D., State Forester and Director, Division of
Forestry and Fire Protection, Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), Anchorage, Alaska, said the four criteria are equal in
priority.
SENATOR CLAMAN commented that he found it interesting that the
sustained yield principle is given equal weight as the other
three factors.
MS. MILLER clarified that they're given equal weight when
undertaking management activities, but each criterion is based
on the others to a certain degree. Sustained yield is discussed
in the constitution, the statutes reflect what's in the
constitution, and the management plan is formed under statute.
SENATOR CLAMAN opined that if the constitution requires
sustained yield, then that should be given the greatest weight
if there's ever a conflict among the criteria.
MS. MILLER said there's interaction between them but she
believes that Chris Orman would confirm that in any situation
the constitution is the overriding law of the land.
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL asked Mr. Orman to respond to Senator Claman's
question.
4:19:55 PM
CHRISTOPHER ORMAN, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Natural Resources Section, Department of Law, Juneau, Alaska,
said yes, the sustained yield principle is a constitutional
requirement, but this chapter, which is referring to the
provisions in AS 41.17 pursuant to state forests, will be driven
by the constitutional and statutory provisions. A forest
management plan will be similarly driven. How a carbon project
would be undertaken by DNR in that context, would also need to
comply with those provisions. He continued that the sustained
yield principle will carry a lot of weight in the analysis
because it's part of provisions 2, 3, and 4. He agreed with
Senator Claman that the sustained yield principle carries weight
because it's addressed in the constitution. The way it's infused
into the other provisions bolsters the weight of the sustained
yield principle in that context.
4:22:03 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN asked Ms. Miller to go through the requirements
to adequately survey to ensure a more valuable resource isn't
trapped.
MS. MILLER stated that mining has a primacy so DNR is not able
to choose anything above that mineral estate. If there is a
highly prospective mineral resource that could be of potential
interest in the future, that area wouldn't be enrolled in a
carbon offset project. The provision that provides the
opportunity to allow for some surface disturbance accommodates
something that might come up during the course of a 40 year
commitment for a state project. The key is to ensure there's no
dipping below the baseline stock of the carbon project and that
more is always growing than is harvested or removed for some
purpose. She noted that the larger the project the easier it
becomes to accommodate the removal of carbon from the landscape,
but there are also ways to do that within a smaller project
without looking to DNR's mandate to develop all resources for
that benefit.
4:25:54 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP removed his objection.
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL found no further objection and Amendment 1 was
adopted.
4:26:31 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL held SB 48 in committee for future
consideration.
4:26:55 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Co-Chair Giessel adjourned the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting at 4:26 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 48 CS WORKDRAFT Version B 04.26.23.pdf |
SRES 4/28/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 48 |
| SB 82 Public Testimony through 04.27.23.pdf |
SRES 4/28/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 82 |
| Presentation Dept. of Fish and Game Area M Overview 04.28.23.pdf |
SRES 4/28/2023 3:30:00 PM |
|
| SB 48 Explanation of Changes Ver. A to Ver. B 04.28.23.pdf |
SRES 4/28/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 48 |
| SB 48 Public Testimony 4.21.23 thru 4.27.23.pdf |
SRES 4/28/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 48 |
| SB 48 Amendment #1.pdf |
SRES 4/28/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 48 |
| ADFG Response to SRES Area M Overview on 04.28.23.pdf |
SRES 4/28/2023 3:30:00 PM |